The Day After Tomorrow WOW!!!!! [Archive]

Sir Terrence the Terrible

10-13-2004, 11:30 AM

I am a HUGE fan of Roland Emmerich movies. As over the top as they are, they never fail to entertain me. Since I love disaster movies, I was very anxious to see this one since I missed it in the theater. I am sure many of you are familar with the story line.

Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) is a meteorological scientist who makes a disturbing discovery. The climates around the globe are changing and he can see the shift toward a new ice age. He tries to warn the US government of the problems which, according to his calculations, would take effect over the course of the next one or two generations when suddenly things seem to accelerate. Within days, strange weather patterns appear and gigantic storms begin wiping out parts of the northern hemisphere. It soon becomes evident that nature has taken matters in her own hands and that within days mankind will be faced with a new ice age.

Video wise this movie has no faults. The picture in clean, razor sharp, with vibrant colors. There is no bleeding of colors, and dynamic contrast between the sheet white snow, and deep blacks is nothing short of amazing. Skin tones are on the money, and the visual depth is terrific. I saw no compression errors, or edge enhancement problems. I was able to notice some things were CGI(the wolves, water, wave) but for the most part everything looked very natural. I think Fox did an excellent job on this transfer.

Sound wise this is a hometheater nuts dream. There is both a 754kbps Dts soundtrack along with a 448kbps Dolby digital soundtrack. Each sounds extremely good, yielding an extremely wide dynamic range and frequency response. It is emmersive with sound effects exploding from every channel(and the same time in some cases). The score is well recorded, with great lateral and depth imaging, and is spread nicely into the surrounds. The sound effects are at times VERY intense and system challenging. There is a great deal of sub 25hz information in the LFE, and front three channels. There is also quite a bit of sub 20hz information if your sub is up to the task. There were times I heard nothing directly from the speakers(in terms of bass) but the floor, air, windows, and walls were shaking as if a 7.0 earthquake was rolling through my room(excellent example of my speakers performance under 20hz)

Comparing the Dts soundtrack to the Dolby Digital one I found some subtle but noticeable differences. The LFE of the Dts soundtrack has more detail and tightness to it. It goes deeper and sounds cleaner. The DD soundtracks bass is somewhat boomy and indistinct at times in comparison. Also the Dts sound images slightly wider, but has a very noticeable deeper and better delinated depth to it. The Dolby soundtrack sounds flat and every so slightly constricted in comparison. Dts soundtrack throws up a huge soundfield that seems to put your right in the center of the action. Effects seems to be nestled nicely within that soundfield, and popped out only when punctuated. The Dolby soundtrack seems to pool around the speakers. I had to listen closely to notice these subtle differences, but clearly Dts is the winning soundtrack here. Both soundtracks deliver a nice solid punch, and are sure to please any avid listener.

I really liked this movie, so Roland when is the next one coming out?<img src="http://drumcorpsplanet.org/forums//style_emoticons/default/worthy.gif">

Woochifer

10-13-2004, 02:12 PM

Sheesh T, thanks a lot!

Thought it would be safe to just duck into the store, pick up a copy of "Ren & Stimpy: First and Second Season Uncut" and just go home! Now I'll have to sweat it out tonight when I see those DVDs with the bargain first week price tag. Good write up, you definitely got me curious now!

I'd originally planned to bypass this release because I read that the R2 version that got released overseas is a loaded two-disc edition that should make its way stateside in a few months. I got a lot of other viewing to catch up on, so I haven't been clamoring to get Day After Tomorrow just yet. Hmmm, maybe I can just "borrow" it from a fellow East Bay'er! :D

Sir Terrence the Terrible

10-13-2004, 03:52 PM

This Guy

10-13-2004, 05:44 PM

Yeah I saw this in the theatre. I'm with you, I love these disaster movies and when I saw it in the theatre i couldn't wait for the DVD so i could hear it on my system. My sub ain't up to all that 20 hz info, but it will do 35 hz really loud!

Dusty Chalk

10-13-2004, 06:09 PM

I dug.

eisforelectronic

10-14-2004, 05:33 AM

Just watched it in stereo using the tv speakers...soo cool. :)

Kam

10-15-2004, 02:28 PM

but i liked this movie in spite of itself, thought of it more as an action-comedy than anything else. the dialogue was so ridiculously bad, people in the theater were laughing through most of the 'emotional' scenes. i did enjoy it, don't get me wrong, but maybe for different reasons.

and i hate to disagree with ya, Sir TT, but... i think emerich is big time hit or miss. i enjoyed stargate and ID4, but have to say godzilla is on my all time worst movies list and did not like the patriot at all either. and TDAT is pretty much on the border, don't really care to see it again cuz it might just ruin it. especially the wolves scene? what the heck was up with that? the entire zoo sequence seemed pretty much only to have that wolf sequence take place and if they can train lions and tigers and bears... why the hell not wolves? the cgi wolves looked horrible! and in a spfx movie with a bone thin plot and characters... i really can't forgive any lapses in spfx. alright, i better stop before i think i dont like this movie anymore.
all that said, i am curious how his King Tut is gonna be.

Worf101

10-16-2004, 12:50 PM

Whole Famn Damily loved it. I wasn't looking for Citizen Kane (and I didn't get it either) just looking for entertainment and I got it. Great effects, but I will side with Kam and say the wolves looked especially weak. And the science!!!???? I'm sure many a dead one was spinning in his/her grave during the filming of this one. Only film stupider than this one was "The Core" which was without a doubt the silliest premise for a film since man discovered fire.

Da Worfster :D

Dusty Chalk

10-17-2004, 09:16 AM

You know, we made the mistake of stopping this film halfway through for pee breaks for all. The first half is much more powerful than the second. We ended up wishing for more destruction during the second half. Especially since they kept promising that it was only going to get worse. It sort of calmed down with all those eye of the storms things.

My favourite scenes were the twisters tearing up Los Angeles.

Yeah that thing about being able to outrun air was kind of bad. I mean, the air was just falling -- you shouldn't be able to outrun it. Plus, fireplaces have flus, so the cold air would have dropped through there (and if not, it would have pulled the cold air in from everywhere else.

Lexmark3200

10-19-2004, 05:39 PM

I was going to reply individually to this post with some thoughts regarding what everyone thought of this film, because I saw it in theaters and bought the DVD on release day, instead to save time I will post a pre-made review I did on another professionally oriented site; the review got like-minded replies from other members and positive remarks in general. Here's my thoughts on Emmerich's recent work:

You know it just couldnt be a summer without Roland Emmerich (or Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer for that matter) blowing something up or making our nation's largest cities into disaster zones and demolition sites; he did this successfully (or not so successfully) in "Independence Day" and "Godzilla," all while making, in my opinion, his best film about the Revolutionary War, "The Patriot," which was a departure from his usual man-against-nature-or-aliens fare.

And so this past summer we got "The Day After Tomorrow," which was hyped all over the media as the awesome summer blockbuster from the director of Independence Day....while I am a sucker for these disaster films, I went into this knowing the plot was going to be a little contrived, but also thinking hey, this is a Roland Emmerich film about the end of the world once again, so its gotta be good.....the plot pretty much fell on its face because according to scientists who know about this stuff, its pretty much impossible to believe what Emmerich is suggesting. Still, I went into the theater when this came out, with an open mind.

Lets get the acting and plot out of the way first; Dennis Quaid was absolutely horrible in this, as the scientist who discovers that global warming of the Earth is going to cause another ice age. The film opens with a bang, with Quaid and his team in the polar ice cap, holding on to dear life when one of the ice shelves breaks and rips a seam in the Earth as far as the eye can see. Quaid's acting was just horrendous here, sleepwalking through his role, trying to convince the vice president and the world that this disaster was coming, but frankly, I dont think its his fault so much as the screenwriting team, who gave him nothing to work with here. His son, played by a look-alike of Tobey Maguire, is on his way with a nerdy scholastic team to New York City for a conference when this storm of the century hits, freezing New York and everything in the Northern Hemisphere of the U.S.; in some of the film's better action sequences, Los Angeles is ravaged by tornadoes, and Manhattan is overrun by 30 or some feet of tidal waves; again, Emmerich is at his best destroying New York as he did in Independence Day. The effects are pretty wild.

The makers want us to believe that temperature shifts in the Earth's core changes the ocean temperatures so greatly that these massive atmospheric occurances are going to bring about the onslaught of another ice age, but I dont know....something about The Day After Tomorrow, aside from its ridiculous title, just didnt feel authentic or "accurate".....things just seemed all over the place to me; why was LA experiencing tornadoes when New York was first being hit with rainstorms, then snowstorms, then ice storms and then freezing? Isnt the notion of another ice age supposed to suggest that the ice caps are just going to melt and then cover our land bodies? Much of what happens in this film just doesnt seem possible. I tried to put my brain on pause during this, even in the theater, and think to myself "this is a Roland Emmerich summer blockbuster...just enjoy!" but I found myself, when watching the DVD this evening, enjoying the film even less than I did in the theater.

Released today by 20th Century Fox in either widescreen or fullscreen editions in an absolutely beautiful package which includes a holographic image of the statue of liberty buried under ice on the cover, The Day After Tomorrow seems a bit overpriced for what the Fox is giving us in this package; their recent release of "Man On Fire" did the same thing, with no extra features because Fox is planning on releasing special editions of these down the road....what a ripoff of the public. Really. I paid over 20 bucks with tax for this because I am a fan of disaster action films in general, and enjoyed Emmerich's The Patriot and Independence Day, and so I figured I would have this for my collection, as well; but 20 bucks seems like a stretch here. There is no trailer, no making of feature.....only commentary tracks and some deleted scenes and an audio demo menu of some kind which I didnt really understand how to navigate.

I bought the fullscreen version for my standard 4:3 set, and it looked wonderful in places.....there was some minimal distraction, such as light grain that popped up during certain difficult shots of the film, but there were moments where the fullscreen transfer of this DVD in 1:33:1 were eye poppingly fantastic. No complaints about the visuals here, to be honest (and you all know Im a critic).

Fox is a studio HEAVILY jumping on the DTS audio bangwagon; seems almost all of their releases have a track now. Man On Fire did. And so we get one with The Day After Tomorrow. To be honest, when the film started, I wasnt that impressed with the 5.1 DTS mix.....sure, it wrapped around me when the ice shelf was breaking in the beginning, but it didnt sound all that mind-numbing as I expected a recent film about the weather to be; it sounded like an average surround soundtrack. NOTHING along the lines of a Saving Private Ryan DTS, lets put it that way.

But as the film went on, the audio got really aggressive, with the wind whipping and things breaking, making their way into the surrounds. The score was mixed aggressively as well, and once the film picks up, the audio really opens up as well, and gets loud in the soundstage. Another good DTS mix from Fox. Dialogue seemed okay, which you all know Im a critic of big time, and the whole soundscape had a rich feel to it, much like Man On Fire did. But bass is there in spades, too, with the subwoofer LFE channel rumbling whenever something related to an ice shelf breaking or weather disturbance took place onscreen.

In the end, though, I couldnt help but not like The Day After Tommorow, and felt that it wasnt one of my wisest DVD purchases. I gave it a chance in the theaters, and now again on home media, but the film just falls flat on its face....there are parts when it gets just downright boring; as I said, Dennis Quaid was wasted here in my opinion. Well, I havent really seen anything I liked him in, believe it or not, since Jaws III or Dreamscape. But anyway, I just dont think this was as good of an effort as Emmerich's The Patriot or Independence Day was.

And forget Godzilla.

agidol

10-20-2004, 08:53 AM

Yeah I know I know,,, that this is meant to be just a silly summer eye pleaser movie but the story still has to be somewhat reasonable but some stuff in this movie are just outright stupid. Here's a list of some of many totally outrageously dumb scenes I observed from the movie.

1. There are some silly reporters are standing/or flying right next to Killer Tornados attacking LA. Who in the right mind will stand right next to approaching tornado anyway?

2. The whole "I gotta rescue my son" plot. What the hell... the director should have just stick to major scale special effects and not attempt to build a human drama if he doesn't have any clue on how to do it. Here's a know-it-all scientist who should be vital to saving millions of lives leaving his post to rescue his son trapped in NY. Duh... his chance of survival is much more slimmer than his son staying in the library -- who's rescuing who here? And even if he gets there.... how was he going to rescue his son? He will just be another person trapped in the library. Lastly, why on earth these other two clowns volunteer to help the scientist rescue his son? Again, don't they have family of their own and what "rescue" plan is there and doesn't the scientist know better not to have them tag along to the march of death (doesn't he have moral responsibility of some sort)?

3. People can outrun ocean waves rushing through Manhattan and even freezing air approaching them. I know this is science fantasy but heck can you simply the shut the door on the incredibly freezing air and that will keep you warm?

Please.... this is too much even for a science fantasy... I must admit bass extension was good though :)

Lexmark3200

10-20-2004, 09:01 AM

Thats exactly why scientists worldwide immediately responded to this piece of cinema and claimed the concepts Emmerich was suggesting were simply implausable.

Kam

10-20-2004, 09:09 AM

kexodusc

10-20-2004, 09:20 AM

Wholly critics, Batman.

I've never seen a movie attacked on its scientific merit like this one was...you want science, watch the Discovery channel...you want to see $hit blow up...watch a movie.

As for the science, well, alot of it seemed far fetched, but then again I've never heard of any scientists being able to predict weather better than my Magic 8 Ball...how often is your local station wrong? These guys don't know nearly as much as they'd have you believe.

This movie was fun, the DVD is excellent, but this isn't going to win any oscars. I'd recommend it as a rental to all, sci-fi/FX fans will probably consider buying it.

Great DVD to show off an HT system though.

Lexmark3200

10-20-2004, 09:25 AM

Well, when you have a Roland Emmerich mega-summer blockbuster media hyped the way this title was, there are no doubts as to the fact that all reigns of geo-political tiradists are going to sit up, take notice and respond.....I agree that this damn world has become a big brother is watching you version of itself and the government becomes too involved in what we do (when it doesnt harm others) but there is no doubt that the average public believed what Emmerich was suggesting could ACTUALLY happen as they filed out of the theaters last summer. Even the most un-elightened of the students I used to teach at a local community college happened to know a thing or two more about the ramifications of another ice age coming upon us, and Emmerich's vision wasnt it.

kexodusc

10-20-2004, 09:34 AM

I'll be the first to admit, I called foul at a bunch of things in this movie too, but then a 55 year old lady who went with us told us to shut up and enjoy the SCI-FI movie...
Guess I couldn't argue with that...I can accept "The Force", warp speed, time travel, the matrix, etc, but a good ol' fashioned unpredicted storm is just too unrealistic. Somehow that doesn't seem fair.

Anyhoo, somehow I don't think that if this thing was more scientifically correct, the movie would have been any better or worse to anyone. In the end the plot, characters, and dialogue were just filler in between cool special effects.

As has been mentioned, at least it wasn't Godzilla 2.

Lexmark3200

10-20-2004, 09:40 AM

Thank the heavens for no Godzilla 2........

Woochifer

10-20-2004, 09:54 AM

Wholly critics, Batman.

I've never seen a movie attacked on its scientific merit like this one was...you want science, watch the Discovery channel...you want to see $hit blow up...watch a movie.

Well, if we want scientifically accurate movies, then all of the space battles in movies like Star Wars would have to be silent since you can't hear sub-20 Hz explosion sounds in a vacuum! The only movie I've seen that even made an effort to be somewhat realistic about space travel was 2001: A Space Odyssey. (e.g. the scene where Dr. Bowman has to blow the door off his pod and get back into the ship through the airlock -- the explosion was silent there)

jack70

10-20-2004, 10:00 AM

it's a sad state of global intelligence, or the lack thereof, that scientists thought it neccessary to disclaim the "facts" in this movie thinking people might actually believe them... which, even more unfortunately, I am sure they did.
Only History is less understood than Science in schools. It truly IS scary the kind on nonsense most people will believe. I've heard it firsthand myself all the time... and the scary part is, you can't reason with such dolts. They're no different than the uneducated peasants in the middle ages who believed whatever the priests said.

But I agree, I don't know what good it might do. I guess a few might be relieved, but you're hardly gonna change a dolt into a person of reason... with facts.

Saw this the other day on science & the movies...

...Many teachers use films to illustrate scientific concepts within their classrooms. "The bad stuff is usually spectacular," says Tom Rogers, a former mechanical engineer who now teaches at Southside High School in Greenville, S.C. If the science in a movie is really bad, Rogers says, he writes a review for Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics (http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/), which is a feature of an educational Web site that he founded.

The rest of the article is HERE (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041016/bob10.asp)

Bryan

10-21-2004, 06:25 AM

If you check your brain at the door and take this movie for the blow 'em up-let's-see-how-much-unrealistic-destruction-we-can-cause flick that it is it succeeds. Especially loved seeing LA blown to smitherines by the tornadoes and the Hollywood sign being mutilated. It wasn't about the science nor the acting. Lawrence of Arabia this is not.

"For Manchester United." ;^)

Sir Terrence the Terrible

10-21-2004, 10:58 AM

Dang you guys. You are ruining a perfectly brainless movie by simple over analysis, and bringing credidible science into the picture. Emmerich movies are never based on true science(ID4,Godzilla), they are based the suspension of belief, and just plain obsured brainless fun. I enjoyed it fully because it succeded in doing exactly what it was supposed to. It provided 2+ hours of popcorn eatin brainless entertainment. Not to mention it had a state of the art soundtrack, nobody could argue with that!!!

eisforelectronic

10-22-2004, 12:45 PM

Most movies would really suck if they were scientifically accurate! If you make a movie and people believe it, maybe it should be taken as a compliment.

Slosh

10-24-2004, 04:35 PM

It soon becomes evident that nature has taken matters in her own hands and that within days mankind will be faced with a new ice age.

I know this is just a silly-a<a>ss disaster film (and I haven't seen it) but I'd like to point out that we're currently in an ice age (albeit a relatively mild one that is seasonal).

madmax1

10-24-2004, 04:58 PM

I loved this movie. Cause i love all these blow'em up movies thats why i bought my speakers and sub for!! Anyway you guys are just like my wife saying (that couldnt really happen) AND THAT RUINS THE WHOLE MOVIE FOR ME! I know this stuff couldnt happen thats why its a movie!!! Oh well had to throw in my two cents!

Kam

10-24-2004, 05:05 PM

T, T2, Abyss, Aliens, Total Recall, Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Innerspace, Planet of the Apes, Empire Strikes back, Donnie Darko... all of them couldn't really happen yet are great movies, imo. There's a difference between saying something couldn't really happen in a movie, vs. a movie that is just plain bad because they don't take a few moments to research WHY it could/couldn't really happen, and then give an explanation as to why it does. hell, loony tunes has more inspiration behind it than most "blow 'em up movies." just cuz stuff has to blow up, doesn't mean there has to be 0 story. the two weren't mutually exclusive before, quite the opposite. epic stories and huge action were hand in hand at one time, its just been recently that a disconnect has happenned.
just my 2 cents
peace
k2

agidol

10-26-2004, 09:08 AM

As I indicated in my previous comments, for the most part I have no problem with scentific truth (or lack there of) behind the movie. My complaints are "mostly" around ridiculous storyline around human drama (nothing to do with blow em up effect or questionable science ) What I am saying is other science fantasies like Lord of the rings or Star Wars had reasonable storyline but this movie tries to create a totally forced human drama between father and son by having the father go on a rescue which is not even a rescue. I know we are not watching an Oscar movie but please..this irrational behavior is totally duh... Even silly movies like Independence Day had a good reason why Will Smith had to fly to alien mothership: to save the world... I would have loved this movie if they just kept on showing effects (no science explanation needed here) and not wasting 3/4 of film on nonsense.

Lexmark3200

10-26-2004, 09:28 AM

Sir Terrence the Terrible

10-26-2004, 11:03 AM

Nonsense....hmmmm......and what of Dennis Quaid's acting in this? I cannot think of a better explanation of his atrocious acting job other than nonsense.....

Still made a good DVD though and I applaud 20th Century Fox getting behind Digital Theater Systems (DTS) for their semi-standard title releases. "Man On Fire" was another recently launched Fox DVD with a fantastic DTS track, and I now have Day After Tomorrow and the aforementioned Man On Fire in my collection; the studio also did a mediocre job on the "Predator Collectors Edition" DTS remaster.

Lexmark,
There is no such thing as a Dts remaster. Dts is just an audio carrier. Remastering is done BEFORE encoding to Dts. All Dts does is make sure that quality is transferred from the master, to you speakers through a VERY narrow pipeline(why its lossy) Unless the audio engineers touch up the output of each encoding format, the same information is encoded into both. It is up to the codec to deliver the information intact and without to many losses. From my experience using Dts and DD, Dts does a phenominal job of delivering the printmaster output to your decoder. When full bit rate Dts is used, it us transparent to the original printmaster. Dolby Digital is also a great encode/decode system, however in my experience it has pre-echo problems, audible crossblending of the channels from bit pooling, degradation in the audio when all channels are loaded(bit sharing between channels) a collaspe of the center channel in relation to the other channels, and a degedation of the overall soundfield and imaging. All of these problems can be corrected(and usually are) in post production which is why dolby digital sounds as good as it does.

Lexmark3200

10-26-2004, 08:02 PM

Lexmark,
There is no such thing as a Dts remaster. Dts is just an audio carrier. Remastering is done BEFORE encoding to Dts. All Dts does is make sure that quality is transferred from the master, to you speakers through a VERY narrow pipeline(why its lossy) Unless the audio engineers touch up the output of each encoding format, the same information is encoded into both. It is up to the codec to deliver the information intact and without to many losses. From my experience using Dts and DD, Dts does a phenominal job of delivering the printmaster output to your decoder. When full bit rate Dts is used, it us transparent to the original printmaster. Dolby Digital is also a great encode/decode system, however in my experience it has pre-echo problems, audible crossblending of the channels from bit pooling, degradation in the audio when all channels are loaded(bit sharing between channels) a collaspe of the center channel in relation to the other channels, and a degedation of the overall soundfield and imaging. All of these problems can be corrected(and usually are) in post production which is why dolby digital sounds as good as it does.

From what I understand, PREDATOR was remastered in DTS from its original stems, for the Collectors Edition and prior-to-that edition, and the results, as others have found that I have discussed this with, were less than stellar and extremely uneven. Interestingly enough, I watched Day After Tomorrow again tonight (no pun or comedy intended here) with another HT enthusiast friend, and we had the DTS mix turned way beyond what I have been watching this DVD at since I owned it, in regard to the volume on my receiver....the results were that the mix, as I always thought, was forceful and encompassing, but the DTS effect starts out slow --- as were my sentiments on The Perfect Storm DVD, as you probably remember --- and build toward the middle half to end of the film; from the middle on, the surround action on Fox's DTS mix of "Day After Tomorrow" takes a new life as compared to the beginning, but as you explained once, this seems to be a snowballing effect as big budget action films such as this begin with somewhat shallow surround mixes and then build for finales. The effects were startling at times, depending where I turned the volume up to on my system, on Day After Tomorrow, and at times, we just seemed right in the middle of this somewhat smooth sounding mix.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

10-27-2004, 09:13 AM

From what I understand, PREDATOR was remastered in DTS from its original stems, for the Collectors Edition and prior-to-that edition, and the results, as others have found that I have discussed this with, were less than stellar and extremely uneven.

I am afraid your understanding isn't quite on the money. There are no remastering tools for Dts or Dolby Digital. Most mastering is done in Digidesigns pro tools which is PCM based, and lossless. That is the current industry standard along with the use of cool edit. All levels, remixing, repositioning, and re-eq'ing is done in lossless PCM using pro tools. This has to be done prior to Dts and DD encoding. If Dts seems less than stellar(Dolby Digital will also, they are derived from the same master these days unless otherwise stated), and uneven(that is not my opinion on it) then it was probably that way with the prior to encoding. Dts does not make a soundtrack uneven. There is nothing in the algorythm that makes that possible. So if you are looking for a problem, it most likely happen before encoding.

Interestingly enough, I watched Day After Tomorrow again tonight (no pun or comedy intended here) with another HT enthusiast friend, and we had the DTS mix turned way beyond what I have been watching this DVD at since I owned it, in regard to the volume on my receiver....the results were that the mix, as I always thought, was forceful and encompassing, but the DTS effect starts out slow --- as were my sentiments on The Perfect Storm DVD, as you probably remember --- and build toward the middle half to end of the film; from the middle on, the surround action on Fox's DTS mix of "Day After Tomorrow" takes a new life as compared to the beginning, but as you explained once, this seems to be a snowballing effect as big budget action films such as this begin with somewhat shallow surround mixes and then build for finales. The effects were startling at times, depending where I turned the volume up to on my system, on Day After Tomorrow, and at times, we just seemed right in the middle of this somewhat smooth sounding mix.

This is an artistic style that is taught in every film school that I know of. Film mixing is not just adding a bunch or sound effects to match the action on screen. There is a total psychology that goes into creating a soundtrack mix. Themes are relayed through the music, subtlties(or climaxes) are relayed through sound effects and positioning of them. I think one of the best descriptions and explainations, and most effective utilization of a subtle soundtrack comes from the movie The Sixth Sense. M. Knight gives a very good explaination of how to effectively use a soundtrack to convey a certain feeling, theme, and effect throughout this movie. The use of breathing of many different people and animals position in the surrounds and mains at various times and amplitude are very effective during subtle moments, and quick attacks during suspenseful climaxes. This is the theory used to create all really good soundtracks, and a perfect example of a soundtrack effectively enhancing the picture.

It might benefit you greatly to read and study the operation and principles behind Dts and the Dolby Digital codec. This will help you better understand the role they play in getting the sound to your ears.

Lexmark3200

10-27-2004, 09:47 AM

I am afraid your understanding isn't quite on the money. There are no remastering tools for Dts or Dolby Digital. Most mastering is done in Digidesigns pro tools which is PCM based, and lossless. That is the current industry standard along with the use of cool edit. All levels, remixing, repositioning, and re-eq'ing is done in lossless PCM using pro tools. This has to be done prior to Dts and DD encoding. If Dts seems less than stellar(Dolby Digital will also, they are derived from the same master these days unless otherwise stated), and uneven(that is not my opinion on it) then it was probably that way with the prior to encoding. Dts does not make a soundtrack uneven. There is nothing in the algorythm that makes that possible. So if you are looking for a problem, it most likely happen before encoding.

This is an artistic style that is taught in every film school that I know of. Film mixing is not just adding a bunch or sound effects to match the action on screen. There is a total psychology that goes into creating a soundtrack mix. Themes are relayed through the music, subtlties(or climaxes) are relayed through sound effects and positioning of them. I think one of the best descriptions and explainations, and most effective utilization of a subtle soundtrack comes from the movie The Sixth Sense. M. Knight gives a very good explaination of how to effectively use a soundtrack to convey a certain feeling, theme, and effect throughout this movie. The use of breathing of many different people and animals position in the surrounds and mains at various times and amplitude are very effective during subtle moments, and quick attacks during suspenseful climaxes. This is the theory used to create all really good soundtracks, and a perfect example of a soundtrack effectively enhancing the picture.

It might benefit you greatly to read and study the operation and principles behind Dts and the Dolby Digital codec. This will help you better understand the role they play in getting the sound to your ears.

Why, because we all must master engineering in the same way you do? We ALL must arrive at that level of achievement that you have? I understand what I HEAR, and what I HEAR is that the Predator soundtrack is completely uneven, unsteady, and irregular from SCENE TO SCENE in the DTS algorithm.....as for The Day After Tomorrow, I understand what you are saying and not debating that; ONCE AGAIN, I am simply stating that on this Fox DTS track, the action DID build in the way that the Perfect Storm's Dolby Digital delivery did --- slowly at first, unimpressive, and then built up to the point that shocks, stingers and directional effects in the 3/2.1 layout were enhanched quite nicely. You do not have to continue supporting and braging about your film school education.....aside from the aforementioned marine bilogy studies I halfway completed at New York's Southhampton University division of LIU, I completed courses at CW Post Campus, Westbury, New York, centering on history of cinema, motion picture concepts and filmmakers of the past century....these were summer supplements that, perhaps not up to your level of expectations for the remainder of this world, allowed me to understand film techniques, patterns and history.

And please dont tell me about Mr. Shymalan....I met him at the CES Show, south side floor of the Las Vegas Convention Center (I cant remember which year it was), where he was speaking at a Cerwin-Vega seminar for acoustic treatments of home environments. I know what his techniques are attempting to suggest, and where his philosophies regarding audio are positioned.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

10-27-2004, 03:46 PM

Why, because we all must master engineering in the same way you do? We ALL must arrive at that level of achievement that you have?

Woooooo, Lexmark, calm down man, it's not THAT serious. You are confusing a great deal of information here. A big prideful chest can lead to a very empty head. Your understanding of mastering process is flawed and inaccurate. No reflection on you, you have just been ill informed. Unless you plan on mixing audio and films the rest of your life, it is not necessary to arrive at the achievement I have. But that is not the point, rather than constantly arguing and debating with me, read the specs and white papers for each format yourself. This way your reviews will be accurately represented, and you gain some credibility in their presentation.

I understand what I HEAR, and what I HEAR is that the Predator soundtrack is completely uneven, unsteady, and irregular from SCENE TO SCENE in the DTS algorithm.

Fine, I never debate what people can, and cannot hear. However on my system, in my room, with MY ears, for the soundtracks original stems age, this is a pretty aggresive soundtrack. Not up to todays standards(the movie wasn't made recently either) but good for its period. Read the DVDfile review of the soundtrack, and the comparison between both codecs.

http://www.dvdfile.com/software/review/dvd-video_2/predator_rm.html

DVD talk

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=11823

As you can see, neither agree with your opinion(which you are entitled to have), but both take into account the films age.

You do not have to continue supporting and braging about your film school education.

Can you show me where I have done this? I simply pointed out that you were using a particular word incorrectly. There is no such thing as a Dts remaster. There is such thing as remastering for Dts encoding.

....aside from the aforementioned marine bilogy studies I halfway completed at New York's Southhampton University division of LIU, I completed courses at CW Post Campus, Westbury, New York, centering on history of cinema, motion picture concepts and filmmakers of the past century....these were summer supplements that, perhaps not up to your level of expectations for the remainder of this world, allowed me to understand film techniques, patterns and history

Wonderful, but what does this have to do with the Predator DVD, and how does all of this equate to understanding how movie soundtracks are created????? And if true, why is the information you present so incorrect?? I am at a loss here.

And please dont tell me about Mr. Shymalan....I met him at the CES Show, south side floor of the Las Vegas Convention Center (I cant remember which year it was), where he was speaking at a Cerwin-Vega seminar for acoustic treatments of home environments. I know what his techniques are attempting to suggest, and where his philosophies regarding audio are positioned.

Uhmmm, I have been to CES for the last 15 years, and I have never heard him do any such thing. Especially not for Cerwin Vega which would not even do seminars on a line of products they don't even offer. Since when does Cerwin Vega offer acoustical treatments??

This is interesting.......

r3Wind

10-27-2004, 05:46 PM

Nonsense....hmmmm......and what of Dennis Quaid's acting in this? I cannot think of a better explanation of his atrocious acting job other than nonsense.....
It could've been worse, at least it wasn't Bill Paxton...

Lexmark3200

10-27-2004, 08:48 PM

It could've been worse, at least it wasn't Bill Paxton...

Hahhahahahahha.....true....remember Paxton in "Commando" as the army radio guy? LOL.

Lexmark3200

10-27-2004, 09:19 PM

"Woooooo, Lexmark, calm down man, it's not THAT serious. You are confusing a great deal of information here. A big prideful chest can lead to a very empty head. Your understanding of mastering process is flawed and inaccurate. No reflection on you, you have just been ill informed. Unless you plan on mixing audio and films the rest of your life, it is not necessary to arrive at the achievement I have. But that is not the point, rather than constantly arguing and debating with me, read the specs and white papers for each format yourself. This way your reviews will be accurately represented, and you gain some credibility in their presentation."

Dang......and there I was thinking Dolby Digital and DTS White Papers WERE VERY serious, next to making sure there's enough milk for my Fruit Loops....LOL. If there is anyone who is sticking out a prideful chest, my friend, I think you should glance in the mirror. No offense or anything; but perhaps you are right.....some calming is in order here. Next, I do not plan to mix soundtracks right now in my life, but it is my formulation and conclusion that my understanding of these soundtracks is not flawed and inaccurate. I have been to countless seminars on the state of affairs in HT and gained a lot of knowledge, but I am not challenging your knowledge of the hobby/industry; Im simply saying that your approach borders on bullying and/or narcisism.

"Fine, I never debate what people can, and cannot hear. However on my system, in my room, with MY ears, for the soundtracks original stems age, this is a pretty aggresive soundtrack. Not up to todays standards(the movie wasn't made recently either) but good for its period. Read the DVDfile review of the soundtrack, and the comparison between both codecs."

Okay. Thats cool and fine. I think we have missed something here in communication between the two of us....you are perhaps misunderstanding me....PREDATOR did possess an aggressive DTS mix for its time; appropriately loud during effects, but it is EXTREMELY "uneven" sounding....gunfire from the center channel is blaringly loud during sequences such as when Arnold's team is attacking the Guerilla camp, and then suddenly, the gunfire gets "hushed and muted" sounding, muffling through the stereo spread and delivering a very strange sound almost as if the speakers are out of phase; I am NOT the only one who found this on the Predator Collector's Edition DTS track, so I KNOW I am NOT crazy....this is from a member of Home Theater Discussion.com:

Getting back to Predator, I agree that the PQ & audio are very uneven. Watched it on my 36" CRT w/ a 6-year old Paradigm surround system, & new Yamaha receiver (1400). One specific scene to check is when Arnold's team is first attacking the guerrilla camp. Arnold pushes an old truck loaded with his explosives down into their HQ, resulting in a huge explosion & fireball. The sound however is very muffled, nothing but a low dull roar. Wondered if it was just my system, but apparently it's the DVD.

So THAT is MY response to the links you provide....I can provide MANY more replies like this to a review that I did of the DVD.....

"Wonderful, but what does this have to do with the Predator DVD, and how does all of this equate to understanding how movie soundtracks are created????? And if true, why is the information you present so incorrect?? I am at a loss here."

Because it DOES equate to how I understand how the soundtracks are created, skippy! LOL. Not that difficult to understand.

"Uhmmm, I have been to CES for the last 15 years, and I have never heard him do any such thing. Especially not for Cerwin Vega which would not even do seminars on a line of products they don't even offer. Since when does Cerwin Vega offer acoustical treatments??"

As I said, I am uncertain of which year CES it was; I need to check my Press Pass because I was working for a magazine at the time, but Shymalan WAS there, and Cerwin Vega WAS holding a seminar regarding acoustical treatments....I NEVER said they OFFERED acoustical treatments, I said they were hosting an event/panel on the subject; there were invited celebrity guest panelists.

This may have been when the mobile electronics section of the show was held in the Sands Convention Center; my memory does not serve....I also confuse all these shows with NAB and SEMA that I have attended COUNTLESS times! The mind is slowly going with age! I know I was a big part of HAFLER/ROCKFORD FOSGATE'S panel one year, and was VERY good friends with Charlie Leib, audio historian and public relations guru for Rockford/Hafler at the time; their amps, home and mobile, were pretty impressive for the prices they were charging. I have a Rockford amp in my car.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

10-28-2004, 08:38 AM

Dang......and there I was thinking Dolby Digital and DTS White Papers WERE VERY serious, next to making sure there's enough milk for my Fruit Loops....LOL. If there is anyone who is sticking out a prideful chest, my friend, I think you should glance in the mirror. No offense or anything; but perhaps you are right.....some calming is in order here. Next, I do not plan to mix soundtracks right now in my life, but it is my formulation and conclusion that my understanding of these soundtracks is not flawed and inaccurate. I have been to countless seminars on the state of affairs in HT and gained a lot of knowledge, but I am not challenging your knowledge of the hobby/industry; Im simply saying that your approach borders on bullying and/or narcisism.

Okay, based on this response, it is clear to me you are trying to hide the fact that you don't really know that much about Dts or Dolby Digital as you say you do. Hence the personal attacks, and the change of focus. Old trick, but not very effective. It is easy to personally formulate, and come to the conclusion to convince yourself you do, but you have to exibit that in your reviews. So far you have failed miserably. If you have been to the seminars you state you have, then it would be perfectly clear to you, and clear in your postings that there is no specific mastering performed in any of the two formats, but any remastering affects both formats. Your calling a soundtrack uneven based on scene to scene analysis doesn't show any profound understanding of soundtrack assembly at all. For if you did understand how soundtracks are assembled, you would completely understand that not every scene requires that the LFE is constantly loaded, the surrounds are constantly active, or the soundtrack has to be loud at all times to be impressive. The range between powerful,and subtle is what makes it impressive, and how it pulls you into what is happening on screen. If you find that my correction of your mistakes makes me a bully, then so be it, I cannot change that. What is clear that I am NOT doing is attacking you personally, but challenging the inaccuracies that you post(and there has been many)

Okay. Thats cool and fine. I think we have missed something here in communication between the two of us....you are perhaps misunderstanding me....PREDATOR did possess an aggressive DTS mix for its time; appropriately loud during effects, but it is EXTREMELY "uneven" sounding....gunfire from the center channel is blaringly loud during sequences such as when Arnold's team is attacking the Guerilla camp, and then suddenly, the gunfire gets "hushed and muted" sounding, muffling through the stereo spread and delivering a very strange sound almost as if the speakers are out of phase; I am NOT the only one who found this on the Predator Collector's Edition DTS track, so I KNOW I am NOT crazy....this is from a member of Home Theater Discussion.com:

Getting back to Predator, I agree that the PQ & audio are very uneven. Watched it on my 36" CRT w/ a 6-year old Paradigm surround system, & new Yamaha receiver (1400). One specific scene to check is when Arnold's team is first attacking the guerrilla camp. Arnold pushes an old truck loaded with his explosives down into their HQ, resulting in a huge explosion & fireball. The sound however is very muffled, nothing but a low dull roar. Wondered if it was just my system, but apparently it's the DVD.

So now you have quoted your opinion, and some unnamed person on another forum. Great, but that does not lend your comments much credibility. Perhaps because the original stems where mixed that way(and approved by the director as all soundtracks are) as an artistic expression, or based on using the best tools of that day(analog), that is a soundtrack shortcoming, but that is not the fault of the Dts codec since it doesn't muffle information at all. It encodes what is there, and that is all.

So THAT is MY response to the links you provide....I can provide MANY more replies like this to a review that I did of the DVD.....

I have seen your reviews, and this is like those...well...sigh... no wonder I have to constantly correct your inaccuracies.

Because it DOES equate to how I understand how the soundtracks are created, skippy! LOL. Not that difficult to understand.

Well, it may not be difficult for you, but it does leave much to be desired. If you have all the education on film sound that you say, then why are your statements do inaccurate? It just doesn't square, and this is not the first time I have pointed that out.

As I said, I am uncertain of which year CES it was; I need to check my Press Pass because I was working for a magazine at the time, but Shymalan WAS there, and Cerwin Vega WAS holding a seminar regarding acoustical treatments....I NEVER said they OFFERED acoustical treatments, I said they were hosting an event/panel on the subject; there were invited celebrity guest panelists.

Can you tell me what magazine that you worked for? I sincerely hope the editor checks the quality of the information offered in it, because if anything you have posted here is an example, it would require extensive editing to correct many misunderstanding of soundtrack design, and the codec used for delivery of these soundtracks. In the last 15 years, I have absolutely no recollection of Cerwin Vega holding seminars on acoustical treatments. That would be highly irregular since they offer no line of acoustical treatments to sell. Driver technology, I can understand. Speaker inclosure and its effect on driver response, I can understand. How dispersion characteristic of a speaker effects what we hear at our ears, I can understand, they are a speaker company, and these are speaker related issues. But a speaker company doing a seminar on acoustical treatments?? That's like a cook specializing in chinese food doing a lecture on hamburgers. Doesn't square, and in the last 15 years I never saw this at CES. I think they would leave this kind of seminar to the experts that do research and development of acoustical panels for resale.

This may have been when the mobile electronics section of the show was held in the Sands Convention Center; my memory does not serve....I also confuse all these shows with NAB and SEMA that I have attended COUNTLESS times! The mind is slowly going with age! I know I was a big part of HAFLER/ROCKFORD FOSGATE'S panel one year, and was VERY good friends with Charlie Leib, audio historian and public relations guru for Rockford/Hafler at the time; their amps, home and mobile, were pretty impressive for the prices they were charging. I have a Rockford amp in my car.

Okay, so why would acoustical treatments for hometheater be discussed at a automobile specialty show? Of why would acoustical treatments for hometheater be discussed at the National Association of Broadcasters? NAB usually exibits equipment used for broadcasting radio and television, the other for aftermarket product for auto's. Hmm......

Lexmark3200

10-28-2004, 09:19 AM

Okay, based on this response, it is clear to me you are trying to hide the fact that you don't really know that much about Dts or Dolby Digital as you say you do. Hence the personal attacks, and the change of focus. Old trick, but not very effective. It is easy to personally formulate, and come to the conclusion to convince yourself you do, but you have to exibit that in your reviews. So far you have failed miserably. If you have been to the seminars you state you have, then it would be perfectly clear to you, and clear in your postings that there is no specific mastering performed in any of the two formats, but any remastering affects both formats. Your calling a soundtrack uneven based on scene to scene analysis doesn't show any profound understanding of soundtrack assembly at all. For if you did understand how soundtracks are assembled, you would completely understand that not every scene requires that the LFE is constantly loaded, the surrounds are constantly active, or the soundtrack has to be loud at all times to be impressive. The range between powerful,and subtle is what makes it impressive, and how it pulls you into what is happening on screen. If you find that my correction of your mistakes makes me a bully, then so be it, I cannot change that. What is clear that I am NOT doing is attacking you personally, but challenging the inaccuracies that you post(and there has been many)

So now you have quoted your opinion, and some unnamed person on another forum. Great, but that does not lend your comments much credibility. Perhaps because the original stems where mixed that way(and approved by the director as all soundtracks are) as an artistic expression, or based on using the best tools of that day(analog), that is a soundtrack shortcoming, but that is not the fault of the Dts codec since it doesn't muffle information at all. It encodes what is there, and that is all.

I have seen your reviews, and this is like those...well...sigh... no wonder I have to constantly correct your inaccuracies.

Well, it may not be difficult for you, but it does leave much to be desired. If you have all the education on film sound that you say, then why are your statements do inaccurate? It just doesn't square, and this is not the first time I have pointed that out.

Can you tell me what magazine that you worked for? I sincerely hope the editor checks the quality of the information offered in it, because if anything you have posted here is an example, it would require extensive editing to correct many misunderstanding of soundtrack design, and the codec used for delivery of these soundtracks. In the last 15 years, I have absolutely no recollection of Cerwin Vega holding seminars on acoustical treatments. That would be highly irregular since they offer no line of acoustical treatments to sell. Driver technology, I can understand. Speaker inclosure and its effect on driver response, I can understand. How dispersion characteristic of a speaker effects what we hear at our ears, I can understand, they are a speaker company, and these are speaker related issues. But a speaker company doing a seminar on acoustical treatments?? That's like a cook specializing in chinese food doing a lecture on hamburgers. Doesn't square, and in the last 15 years I never saw this at CES. I think they would leave this kind of seminar to the experts that do research and development of acoustical panels for resale.

Okay, so why would acoustical treatments for hometheater be discussed at a automobile specialty show? Of why would acoustical treatments for hometheater be discussed at the National Association of Broadcasters? NAB usually exibits equipment used for broadcasting radio and television, the other for aftermarket product for auto's. Hmm......

LOL. VERY funny, Terrence. Instad of reacting individually to each of your attacks (completely inaccurate on YOUR part, by the way), I am going to once again....boy Im exhausted from doing this.....tell you that that quote I left you was one of MANY from people who found the review of Predator's DTS mix to be HEAVILY flawed and congested sounding; THATS ALL WE WERE SAYING....every person on this earth Terrence, I dont know if your mother or friends ever told you this, do not need extensive education on the codec operations of these formats; I have been working for DVD ETC magazine, and still do, and not one part of their editorial team told me that I need to know the kinds of information you use to bully me around with in here. So, whatever you say, so be it...it REALLY doesnt matter to me, and I will REALLY continue going on doing my reviews and getting great replies to them, REGARDLESS of what you try and spew at me in here every time we have a debate.....it will never dampen my desire to write, it will never stop me and you will never intimidate me. I write DVD reviews based on much more surface information people need regarding these discs; here is a response I JUST got from a Dawn of the Dead review I got on another site:

DJ,
Great synopsis and review! As part of my job, I HAVE to watch all the videos that come into my store (hey, someone has to). There are some movies, that I could really care less about and this was going to be one of them. I plopped the movie in on Monday and have to actually say, I enjoyed it. The Unrated Director's Cut, allowed the opporuntiy for a little more of the character building in the movie and that really helped me. I found the plot decent and the variety of the main characters okay as well. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe it's Oscar material, but much better than I thought it was going to be (of course I wasn't expecting much....)

I was actually glad I watched this one. Boy, I never thought I would have said that.

So, continue your attacks regarding everything I dont know (all because you think EVERYONE who does not know as much as you technically is absurdly stupid; THAT is funny to me and I do laugh when you write these things); truth is, I will continue writing my reviews and getting positive feedback from my bosses and other members of HT community webboards.

Oh....and you mention my tactics that are ineffective to switch gears.....funny, you do the same thing but in a harassing kind of way. I always need to check your screen name when Im not sure....LOL. *wink*

With regard to the CES show, all I was saying was one year in particular, I sat in on a panel that Rockford/Hafler hosted with a good friend of mine, Charlie Leib, who wrote all of Hafler's public relations material at the time.

Interesting, huh?

Sir Terrence the Terrible

10-28-2004, 12:32 PM

LOL. VERY funny, Terrence. Instad of reacting individually to each of your attacks (completely inaccurate on YOUR part, by the way),

Lexmark, the burden of proof is on you. In front of everyone on this board, prove even one point that I made is incorrect. That is an open challenge to you. Step to the plate, or own the badge you have earned.

I am going to once again....boy Im exhausted from doing this.....tell you that that quote I left you was one of MANY from people who found the review of Predator's DTS mix to be HEAVILY flawed and congested sounding;

Unfortunately, you and your so called many(notice the ambigous langauge) views are not shared by the online reviews I have steered you to, nor the ones I have read since we started this dialog. All have cited that predator soundtrack is not up to today's standards, but very aggressive considering the age of the movie. Not one review uses the words flawed or congested because the age of the movie, and the technology used to mix the soundtrack HAS to be taken into consideration with any credible review(notice the word credible) If you further read what I have steered you to, you would note that the reviewers stated that the Dolby Digital soundtracks sounds noticeable inferior to the Dts encoding. Which means any flaws that both of them exibit can be traced back to the original stems, not the codec themselves.

every person on this earth Terrence, I dont know if your mother or friends ever told you this, do not need extensive education on the codec operations of these formats; I have been working for DVD ETC magazine, and still do, and not one part of their editorial team told me that I need to know the kinds of information you use to bully me around with in here.

Lexmark, you don't even have fundamental knowledge of these codecs, let alone extensive. So let me get this straight, your magazine doesn't require that the DVD reviewers have even a fundamental knowledge of either codec?? How can your make any technical observations about something you know not even the most basic understanding? Once again, you are either not making any sense at all, or you are not telling the truth about working for DVD etc. A reviewer of DVD soundtracks should have a basic understanding of the technology that delivers the soundtracks to your receiver, that way they don't write erroneous information that discredits the content of their reviews(which your seemingly always do.......makes note to himself, If Lexmark does DVD reviews for this magazine, DON"T BUY IT!!)

So, whatever you say, so be it...it REALLY doesnt matter to me, and I will REALLY continue going on doing my reviews and getting great replies to them, REGARDLESS of what you try and spew at me in here every time we have a debate.

Great, and I will continue to point out your uneducated analysis, constant mistakes and misinformation. If DVD etc doesn't deliver in the accuracy department, at least the visitors here will have it.

.
...it will never dampen my desire to write, it will never stop me and you will never intimidate me.

More inaccuracies. I am not intimadating you, I am correcting your inaccuracies and misinformed mistakes(almost a full time job these days). By all means, continue to write, but it might be helpful to learn what you write about, so you are not so easily miffed about being corrected.

I write DVD reviews based on much more surface information people need regarding these discs; here is a response I JUST got from a Dawn of the Dead review I got on another site
DJ,
Great synopsis and review! As part of my job, I HAVE to watch all the videos that come into my store (hey, someone has to). There are some movies, that I could really care less about and this was going to be one of them. I plopped the movie in on Monday and have to actually say, I enjoyed it. The Unrated Director's Cut, allowed the opporuntiy for a little more of the character building in the movie and that really helped me. I found the plot decent and the variety of the main characters okay as well. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe it's Oscar material, but much better than I thought it was going to be (of course I wasn't expecting much....)

I was actually glad I watched this one. Boy, I never thought I would have said that.

Okay, I went to the site that you claim this comment was drawn from. So DJ Scotty is your name there. Interesting, more interesting is based on the last time I checked, you have just one response. So where is the groundswell of support from the HT community???
I also read your review of TDAT on that site. Your support from the HT waded off topic by the 5th response, and half the responses in regard to your review were you responding back. Also no groundswell of support. On your review of Predator some people on that website didn't agree with your assesment as I didn't . And of course like you did me you proceeded to attack the person by asking him to, and I quote"clean your loop". Do you always respond this way when one doesn't agree with you? Then you find out that the magazine you supposidly write for give the DVD an A+ after you completely trashed the picture. Then someone else comments about the doubtful quality of the review from that magazine. And you laugh about it, are you for real???

So, continue your attacks regarding everything I dont know (all because you think EVERYONE who does not know as much as you technically is absurdly stupid; THAT is funny to me and I do laugh when you write these things); truth is, I will continue writing my reviews and getting positive feedback from my bosses and other members of HT community webboards.

No one is attacking you. The use of victim like inflammatory language is weak and tired. Another fact for you to grasp; you have absolutely no idea of what I think, so your hypothesis of my thought process is just another example of your inaccuracies based on lack of knowledge. I do not want to discourage your career(or imagined career) writing your so called review. That is not really my interested. However if you post any of your reviews on this site, I am definately going to correct any inaccuacies, and comment if I have an opposing opinion.

Oh....and you mention my tactics that are ineffective to switch gears.....funny, you do the same thing but in a harassing kind of way. I always need to check your screen name when Im not sure....LOL. *wink*

Please, don't wink. I live in the bay area, and a man winking at me makes me nervous. What seems funny to me is that you discribe this as harrassment. Any logical mind would call it constant correction because of constant error.

With regard to the CES show, all I was saying was one year in particular, I sat in on a panel that Rockford/Hafler hosted with a good friend of mine, Charlie Leib, who wrote all of Hafler's public relations material at the time.

Interesting, huh?

Not really. Again this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Irrelevant information. Oh and by the way the DVD-V specification does not allow for Ultra Stereo soundtracks. For a person who has vast information based on the many seminars you attend, you should know this. Another funny thing your find out on the website, those folk over there told you that you need to purchased a SPL meter just like we told you, and to live and die in LA. Some coincidence!

Lexmark3200

10-28-2004, 06:21 PM

Lexmark, the burden of proof is on you. In front of everyone on this board, prove even one point that I made is incorrect. That is an open challenge to you. Step to the plate, or own the badge you have earned.

Unfortunately, you and your so called many(notice the ambigous langauge) views are not shared by the online reviews I have steered you to, nor the ones I have read since we started this dialog. All have cited that predator soundtrack is not up to today's standards, but very aggressive considering the age of the movie. Not one review uses the words flawed or congested because the age of the movie, and the technology used to mix the soundtrack HAS to be taken into consideration with any credible review(notice the word credible) If you further read what I have steered you to, you would note that the reviewers stated that the Dolby Digital soundtracks sounds noticeable inferior to the Dts encoding. Which means any flaws that both of them exibit can be traced back to the original stems, not the codec themselves.

Lexmark, you don't even have fundamental knowledge of these codecs, let alone extensive. So let me get this straight, your magazine doesn't require that the DVD reviewers have even a fundamental knowledge of either codec?? How can your make any technical observations about something you know not even the most basic understanding? Once again, you are either not making any sense at all, or you are not telling the truth about working for DVD etc. A reviewer of DVD soundtracks should have a basic understanding of the technology that delivers the soundtracks to your receiver, that way they don't write erroneous information that discredits the content of their reviews(which your seemingly always do.......makes note to himself, If Lexmark does DVD reviews for this magazine, DON"T BUY IT!!)

Great, and I will continue to point out your uneducated analysis, constant mistakes and misinformation. If DVD etc doesn't deliver in the accuracy department, at least the visitors here will have it.

.

More inaccuracies. I am not intimadating you, I am correcting your inaccuracies and misinformed mistakes(almost a full time job these days). By all means, continue to write, but it might be helpful to learn what you write about, so you are not so easily miffed about being corrected.

Okay, I went to the site that you claim this comment was drawn from. So DJ Scotty is your name there. Interesting, more interesting is based on the last time I checked, you have just one response. So where is the groundswell of support from the HT community???
I also read your review of TDAT on that site. Your support from the HT waded off topic by the 5th response, and half the responses in regard to your review were you responding back. Also no groundswell of support. On your review of Predator some people on that website didn't agree with your assesment as I didn't . And of course like you did me you proceeded to attack the person by asking him to, and I quote"clean your loop". Do you always respond this way when one doesn't agree with you? Then you find out that the magazine you supposidly write for give the DVD an A+ after you completely trashed the picture. Then someone else comments about the doubtful quality of the review from that magazine. And you laugh about it, are you for real???

No one is attacking you. The use of victim like inflammatory language is weak and tired. Another fact for you to grasp; you have absolutely no idea of what I think, so your hypothesis of my thought process is just another example of your inaccuracies based on lack of knowledge. I do not want to discourage your career(or imagined career) writing your so called review. That is not really my interested. However if you post any of your reviews on this site, I am definately going to correct any inaccuacies, and comment if I have an opposing opinion.

Please, don't wink. I live in the bay area, and a man winking at me makes me nervous. What seems funny to me is that you discribe this as harrassment. Any logical mind would call it constant correction because of constant error.

Not really. Again this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Irrelevant information. Oh and by the way the DVD-V specification does not allow for Ultra Stereo soundtracks. For a person who has vast information based on the many seminars you attend, you should know this. Another funny thing your find out on the website, those folk over there told you that you need to purchased a SPL meter just like we told you, and to live and die in LA. Some coincidence!

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn........like I said, Terrible (oh....my.....why DID you pick that name I wonder), PLENTY of people agreed with me regarding these soundtrack analyses, and I DONT EXPECT half a community of enthusiasts to NEED to respond to my reviews; PLENTY of people replied to other reviews I have done, positively, and what does it prove that I "wondered" off topic? What does that have to do with anything? You are a waste of my time, man. I will continue writing for who I write for, and do what I do, and get paid for it on top of it all.......your replies dont affect me one way or the other, to be honest. My good friend Lee S on the other site found different results on these discs, sure, but what does THAT have to do with anything? I'm still going to watch DVDs, write reviews and battle off people like you who bully people from behind a computer terminal; you dont want to buy the DVDs I review? DONT BUY THEM....do you think I actually CARE?

The Bay Area, huh? That explains A LOT of what I suspected about you all along.....

BIG WINKS YOUR WAY.....

And where EXACTLY was it MY fault in the Day After Tomorrow thread that I wandered off topic? I didnt do that --- THE BOARD began talking about SACD and DVD-A? What are you TALKING about? Must be a thing about the Bay Area residents.....*wink*

eisforelectronic

10-29-2004, 12:45 AM

I never saw anything related to HT at NAB......So how about that "Day after Tomorrow" DVD? Pretty Nifty I think!

Sir Terrence the Terrible

10-29-2004, 10:28 AM

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn........like I said, Terrible (oh....my.....why DID you pick that name I wonder)

I didn't pick my name, someone picked it for me. I like it, to bad you are intimidated by it.
So why would you name yourself after a printer? Or use a old school name like DJ Scotty? Or To live and die in LA????

PLENTY of people agreed with me regarding these soundtrack analyses, and I DONT EXPECT half a community of enthusiasts to NEED to respond to my reviews;

There wasn't plenty of people responding to your crap man, I was at the website. You got a few responses, but since you respond to everything someone writes, your replies are exactly half of the responses on your own posts. Quite a few of your reviews get no responses at all. Let keep it real here.

PLENTY of people replied to other reviews I have done, positively, and what does it prove that I "wondered" off topic?

Right!!!!! I was at that website and could see for myself. Perhaps you need to start telling yourself the truth, because you not fooling me.

What does that have to do with anything? You are a waste of my time, man.

Apparently I am not that much of a waste of time, you keep responding!

I will continue writing for who I write for, and do what I do, and get paid for it on top of it all..

I never asked you to stop, but if you get paid for these reviews, whoever pays you is getting ripped off big time. Who in their right mind would buy them. Your equipment is not up to snuff(analog display) your system is not tuned correctly(by ear doesn't count), there is no comparitive Dts vs Dolby digital soundtrack review, no technical description of picture of sound quality(just a muddled opinion with no technical basis). With the exception of the aspect ratio(which you can get off the case) there are no technical issues even mentioned on your review. Your reviews are no where near the quality of even the most basic online review, let alone the ones that come from places like Widescreen review, DVD talk, DVDfile, or any of the other online site. I think this "I get paid" stuff should be taken with the same grain of salt your acoustical treatments for HT with M Shyamalan sponsored by Cerwin Vega at NAB.

.....your replies dont affect me one way or the other, to be honest. My good friend Lee S on the other site found different results on these discs, sure, but what does THAT have to do with anything?

Dude, I am not interested in the affect my replies have on you, I just want to make sure that the information that you are spreading here is correct. I think any moderator on any site would want this to be so. Lee S's response to you was appropriate. The movie wasn't made yesterday, and he took this into account when he made his response to you. You failed to do that, which is why your reviews lack credibility. Being educated in the subject matter to which you write about would certainly restore that credibility.

I'm still going to watch DVDs, write reviews and battle off people like you who bully people from behind a computer terminal; you dont want to buy the DVDs I review? DONT BUY THEM....do you think I actually CARE?

Write your reviews, quack like a duck, roar like a lion, scratch like a dog, I don't care, but if you going to post your reviews here, be open for the correction if you are inaccurate in your information. I don't make my DVD purchases based on your reviews, that's insanity in my opinion. I don't think anyone really cares about your reviews, or would base their purchases on them.

The Bay Area, huh? That explains A LOT of what I suspected about you all along.....

Here we go again with the personal attacks, why is it so difficult for you to stay with the issue at hand??

BIG WINKS YOUR WAY.....

And this confirms my suspicions about you! Sorry this is not my gig.

And where EXACTLY was it MY fault in the Day After Tomorrow thread that I wandered off topic? I didnt do that --- THE BOARD began talking about SACD and DVD-A? What are you TALKING about? Must be a thing about the Bay Area residents.....*wink*

When somebody wanders off topic, it usually means that the topic and hand isn't all that interesting. Hence the long reach of going from your review, to all music formats. I guess they were as bored as I was! Be very careful what you say about bay area residents. The site administrator Eric, and Wooch are both bay area residents. If you want to insult them too, that is fine with me.
And dude, all this winking your are doing is telling me more about you than I want to know.

Kam

10-29-2004, 11:36 AM

Lexmark3200

10-29-2004, 01:06 PM

Sir Terrence the Terrible

10-29-2004, 01:49 PM

Not that i wish to break the dialogue, but... you're telling me you had the opportunity to talk to M. Night, arguably, imo at least, one of the greatest new writer/directors out there (along with wes anderson), and you talked about "acoustical treatments"???? no offense to M. Night's level of expertise in the field of acoustical treatments, but that's the last thing i would talk to him about!!!

Kam, I seriously doubt that M Knight was at a trade show for broadcasters talking about acoustical treatments for hometheater. They don't exibit hometheater products at broadcast trade show, the exibit broadcast equipment. Would you go to a chinese restuarant to order a hamburger? Why would a speaker company exibit acoustical treatments? It doesn't make a dang bit of sense whatsoever

[side note: again, not sure what level of Night's involvement is with the sound effects of his movies are, other than telling people what he wants, when he (i think, someone correct me if i'm wrong) just has to hand it off to a rather accomplished sound effects editor.

Kam, some movie director play a big role in the creation of their movies soundtrack. George, Steven, M Knight, Jan De Bont, and James Cameron are guys that I know for sure do. Some directors look at sound as an after thought, and some completely understand that it is 50% of the film. A sound effects editor just really edits the sound effects to the picture, he doesn't do all that much to create the overall sonic impact of the track.

for 6th sense, he got his sound effects guy from spielberg, same guy who worked on sixth sense's sound did such other noticeable "sound intense" movies as, oh... i don't know... Saving Private Ryan, Last Crusade, Always, Lost World, Fight Club, T2, Cast Away among a few.

Just because you get a good sound man, doesn't necessarily mean the director walks away from the tracks creation. He just knows that that sound man can get him what he wants, and he can work well with him.

i'd trust this guy's abilities to create the sound i want. am sure M Night told him what he wanted, but this is the guy who knows how to do it (larry oatfield is the dude's name by the way).]

now big hug for everyone and.......... i'm spent.

peace
k2
go 'canes!

One of the first things I learned in 20 years of doing film soundtrack mixing, is that every director is completely different about priorities, and things he desires. I have had some directors give me the finished film product, and temp mixes, and say go to work, and you never see him again till the premiere. I have been with other who wouldn't let me mix a thing unless he(or she) was in the room. Some directors have such a firm idea of what they want the sound to do for the film, that they insist on being at every mixing session. Some don't care about sound at all. The caliber and experience of the sound designer doesn't usually play a role in the more "visionary" directors wanting input.

Kam

10-29-2004, 03:05 PM

yeah, i hear ya on that one sir ttt, mainly was meant as some light hearted tongue in cheek humor. :)

but just meant that while regardless of director and how involved or uninvolved they are, someone else is doing the technical work. doesn't mean the director is an idiot on the subject by any means, its just that there's an 'expert' that does the job and.... well is the expert. heck i've worked with soundguys and been a sound guy on different projects and prefer to let someone who knows their sit better than me, do their job. not a fan of micromanagement, let the experts be experts i say. at least THAT level.
:)

and i've ordered mexican from a chinese restaurant, but then again, this is nyc, and am sure i could find a hamburger at a chinese place... doesn't mean i'd order it though. (the chimichanga sucked by the way, couldn't finish it.)

peace
k2

Sir Terrence the Terrible

10-31-2004, 01:16 PM

yeah, i hear ya on that one sir ttt, mainly was meant as some light hearted tongue in cheek humor. :)

Damn, I hate the internet for not being able to convey tongue and cheek humor effectively. I always miss this!!

but just meant that while regardless of director and how involved or uninvolved they are, someone else is doing the technical work. doesn't mean the director is an idiot on the subject by any means, its just that there's an 'expert' that does the job and.... well is the expert.

You are right, I am twisting the knobs, pushing and pulling the faders, and using the effects programs, but I fully appreciate the directors input when it comes to fine tuning for full effects. He is the one with the vision(if he really has one).

heck i've worked with soundguys and been a sound guy on different projects and prefer to let someone who knows their sit better than me, do their job. not a fan of micromanagement, let the experts be experts i say. at least THAT level.
:)

I guess I don't mind micromanagement much if the director knows what he wants. If he wants something stupid and obsurd, like raising the level 1db on a certain effect, when all of the other channels are playing at the same time, I lose patience with him. However if he is able to effectively convey exactly what he wants, and it really makes a difference, then the callaboration is fun and exciting.

and i've ordered mexican from a chinese restaurant, but then again, this is nyc, and am sure i could find a hamburger at a chinese place... doesn't mean i'd order it though. (the chimichanga sucked by the way, couldn't finish it.)
peace
k2

I was born and raised in NYC, and that is where I learned that lesson first hand. Living in Los Angeles drove the point home. Your experience is exactly what I was referring to. A chinese restaurant is great for chinese food, but I don't think its wise to order mexican food there.