Sir TtT, I can now answer one of your questions

[GMichael]

How long have these two been maried?

[E-Stat]

Okay bozo, where in this sentence did I say this system was comparable to any home system. Let's see......no where. I said comparable to a typical theater sound didn't I.

Whether you have ADD or Alzheimer's, both are treatable ailments. With your first response to this post, you couldn't even remember the topic or the experience I shared. Sheesh. I will be more than delighted to point out what you've said and apparently have forgotten since that was - what five days ago!

It is in a response to what I said found here.

TtT: The spatial characteristic you get from a home audio system is generated by reflections within the room.

E: And by a far higher level of resolution and purity. The best home systems render like two and a quarter square Hassleblads while even the best theatre systems are more like entry level 35 mm rangefinders.

TtT: You really cannot make this statement without actually listening to all of the theaterical sound system in the field.

It is quite easy to make that statement once you've heard the best theatre systems. Using your terminology, I will once again agree that your comment is utterly retarded. At face value, theatre systems, regardless of whether they are the latest gee-whiz Klipsch design or not will NEVER resolve like the best home and studio gear.

I said if you walk into a theater expecting it to sound like a home audio system, you are stupid. I still say that, nothing has changed. If you want to keep beating this horse, more power to you.

Then I replied: I have never expected the same quality from theatre horns, pro amps and crappy cabling. I still say that and nothing has changed. If you want to keep beating the horse, more power to you. Is there a point to this repetition?

So, either you believe what you've said on this thread or what you said on the other thread. Since they are mutually exclusive, only one can exist. Naturally, we all know which viewpoint is correct.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass. If the engineers weren't incompetent fools, they wouldn't have sacrificed any of the sound quality found in the soundtrack.

E, I'll give you this. You have absolutely no idea about recording practices for either audio or film, and it shows in spades.

Well, your argument most certainly is stupid. Why would you remix that which has already been mixed and recorded? Why would you go out of your way to screw up the quality of that which was already there? Are you serious with these *retarded* (your word) speculations?

Well brightness, we start with one being a two channel CD, and the other being a 5.1 mix. Mixing for one is different than mixing for the other. Remember pea brain, one has a center channel and two surround channels, and the other does not. I would adventure to mention that the CD probably used different mixing equipment than the film score version, probably used different EQ, the system itself uses EQ. Your two channel system is not built into a baffle, does not use horns or EQ as you state. You listened to the soundtrack on a two channel system based on a different technology than the theater system. The theater system does not have room born rear reflections that create an artificial acoustic. A horn loaded system placed away from the walls sounds different than a horn loaded system mounted in a baffle. Difference, difference, difference, that is what you call a screw up, it just plain differences. Amazing that my kid knows more about recording than a golden eared narrow minded audiophile.

Gee, it is you who always says MC will always outperform two channel. If the two channel sounds significantly better than the MC, what does that tell you?

Only the OPINION of the listener. Thats it, nothing more. Did you bother to hear each mix in the same environment? Same system? Same room? Can your verify that each mix used the same equipment(I know for sure they didn't, the film score was mixed using pro-tools, and the CD was not). Did you take into consideration different room acoustics, different speakers, different mix, different, different, different! Hence apples and oranges comparison=no comparison.

Your backpeddling is amusing. We have a very different concept of resolution.

Backpeddling or pointing out obvious differences.

On this we agree. It is retarded to compare the quality of sound provided by theater quality gear and the best home systems. Professional sound reinforcement ALWAYS involves qualitative compromises.

I believe that home audio also has its share of compromises right? No home audio system is perfect is it? However it was you who made this statement

None of the twenty or so IMAX theatres I've attended has sound even approaching the resolution of the best audio I've heard.

Duh! You, in your stupidity directly compared a theatrical system to the best audio at home. That was what got this whole thing started. A stupid comparison that should have never been made in the first place. I was talking strictly theatrical system to theatrical system, and you had to throw in this bird turd.

I have never expected the same quality from theatre horns, pro amps and crappy cabling.

Then why make the stupid statement above then? If you didn't expect it, then why even compare it?

Perhaps you'll remember that the next time I make that observation. Attempting to defend their mediocre quality is pointless.

rw

It was not I who walked into a movie theater expecting to hear home audio. That was your crackpot idea. I was merely commenting on the quality of different theater sound systems, you are the one who crap up the thread with your own home brand of twisted comparisons.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Actually audio amature, I think with this post:

Isn't there a price difference here between your U-1s and a pair of the main channels from the Klipsch system? Also, I'm guessing your soundlabs could not reach the SPLs that the klipsch speakers could without compressing as much. These theater speakers are a tradeoff between absolute SQ, SPL capability and being reasonably priced. Whereas your U-1 are meant for 2c hannel listening, and are focused on delivering exactly what is on the recording, cost no object.
Now i could be wrong about the price of a pair of them horns, they could be just as expensive as the U-1 if not more.
I'm not trying to bash your system either, I would absolutely love to hear it one day. But you're comparing apples and oranges a little no?

You ruined or at least temporarily changed the landscape that E-Stat was trying to paint because it forced him to reply with this:

Clearly, just as a pickup truck has a greater storage capacity than my S2000!

Not according to Terrance! Regarding the ability to float a voice with high resolution:

"Even my cheapest MC system can do what you describe with complete and total ease... Anything a good two channel system can do, and good MC can do equally or better."

There you have it. Even my cheap MC system should trounce the stats with their ability to create realism. Guess what? They don't even come close. He continues to overstate the performance envelope of the sonic equivalent of a pickup truck vs. a Ferrari Italia. This coming from a professional recording engineer who knows the live unamplified musical event?

rw

Seems to me the original spirit of E-Stat's opening post was lost, and had you stayed out of it, maybe Sir T would've reacted differently, at least in the beginning.

Sometimes it's best to let the heavyweights duke it out and the rest of us take what we need or want from what remains. Just my opinion though.

[E-Stat]

It was not I who walked into a movie theater expecting to hear home audio.

Nor was it mine. I made a statement of the obvious and you felt the need to *correct* me with a retarded? argument. Did I get that right? Why yes, I did!

E:While the audio found at IMAX theatres is mediocre (if not loud), the video quality is on a completely different plane!

If you felt the need to comment about the audio (since my point was about the superlative video), perhaps you might have said. "yes, I will agree that all theatre audio systems are not up to home quality". For some reason, you went through your "you haven't heard all theatre systems rant". Do you remember ?

rw

[audio amateur]

Sometimes it's best to let the heavyweights duke it out and the rest of us take what we need or want from what remains. Just my opinion though.

Ssup Rich?
Yeah, you're probably right...

[E-Stat]

However, based on that, I insist that an MC can do what a stereo cannot. And that is create the illusion that you are in -- inside -- a real space. Yes, the MC might be imperfect in this regard but much less so than the stereo.

True, but I find offsetting factors. I've heard the same Telarc disc played on virtually identical EMM Labs players on HP's two systems and find that while the MC does impart more sense of space (as he emphatically states in his reviews as well), the main system can do things the Maggie system cannot. Ideally, he would have an MC version of the Scaena system. Unfortunately, the additional three channels of the same gear would run another $200k or so. And for someone who has a vast library of music stretching back decades, only some of the collection would ever benefit. Therein lies the rub for me. I think the MC experience is great but does not trump the musical content.

On the other hand when it comes to movies -- or opera -- I'm not so sure I prefer my stereo. We viewed Don Giovanni on Sunday and it was great in 5 channel sound -- something about the applause coming from behind us, etc.

I feel the same about watching Cirque du Soleil videos where the musical quality is not important. Indeed, you are placed in a larger space with the natural ambience.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Whether you have ADD or Alzheimer's, both are treatable ailments. With your first response to this post, you couldn't even remember the topic or the experience I shared. Sheesh. I will be more than delighted to point out what you've said and apparently have forgotten since that was - what five days ago!

It is in a response to what I said found here.

TtT: The spatial characteristic you get from a home audio system is generated by reflections within the room.

E: And by a far higher level of resolution and purity. The best home systems render like two and a quarter square Hassleblads while even the best theatre systems are more like entry level 35 mm rangefinders.

TtT: You really cannot make this statement without actually listening to all of the theaterical sound system in the field.

And I stand by that statement. I would make a statement like this AFTER I have heard every sound system in the field, not before. Horse before cart. I would not ignorantly make this statement without hearing every sound system out there because that would make this a limited experience opinion, and not a fact that I have researched. Cart before horse. In spite of this, you heard ONE system, and that is supposed to buttress your argument? I think not. There are literally hundreds of custom theatrical systems sitting in screening and small mixing rooms that you have never heard, so making an absolute statement without hearing all of the systems out there is shortsighted at best.

It is quite easy to make that statement once you've heard the best theatre systems. Using your terminology, I will once again agree that your comment is utterly retarded. At face value, theatre systems, regardless of whether they are the latest gee-whiz Klipsch design or not will NEVER resolve like the best home and studio gear.

This response is based on ignorance rather than fact. If you can emphatically state that you have heard EVERY theatrical sound system out there, and this is your conclusion, I'll buy it. But the reality is, you have not, so whether this statement is true or not, you do not have the experience to state it do you?

Then I replied: I have never expected the same quality from theatre horns, pro amps and crappy cabling. I still say that and nothing has changed. If you want to keep beating the horse, more power to you. Is there a point to this repetition?

Unfortunately for you some theatrical systems(especially ones in smaller rooms) do not employ crappy cabling, pro amps, or horns for that matter. So before you go making blanket statements, perhaps you need to give these custom systems a listen as well. I do not care for ignorant arguments based on limited experience.

So, either you believe what you've said on this thread or what you said on the other thread. Since they are mutually exclusive, only one can exist. Naturally, we all know which viewpoint is correct.

rw

I stand by what I said on both threads. You need to listen to ALL of the theatrical sound systems out there(regardless of the speaker technology used) before you can make a blanket statement as you have. Out of the three systems I mentioned, you heard only one of those three, and you still think you have made a point. You still have to hear the HPS-4000 system, and the custom speaker systems I have heard before you make any blanket statements on theatrical speakers. Theatrical systems come in more flavors than JBL and Klispch, and sit in much smaller theaters than the one you visited. Some theatrical systems I have heard would have easily been mistaken for hometheater if there was not a mixing desk sitting in the middle of the room.

I respect informed and well researched conclusions, not the limited exposure snobbish uppidity ignorant conclusions.

[E-Stat]

Yeah, you're probably right...

Actually, I welcome other commentary. Has this um - discourse been childish? It is a shame that it has had to be so.

rw

[E-Stat]

...And I stand by that statement. I would make a statement like this AFTER I have heard every sound system in the field, not before.

...It is asinine to walk into a theater full of horn loaded speakers, and compare that experience to sitting at home in front of two large panels. While the e-stats would trump these theatrical speakers in clarity and smoothness.

"Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky"

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Nor was it mine. I made a statement of the obvious and you felt the need to *correct* me with a retarded? argument. Did I get that right? Why yes, I did!

Ummm no you didn't. When someone makes absolute blanket statements, those statements had better be well researched. The very fact that you have not heard EVERY theatrical system out there made your comments ignorant at best.

E:While the audio found at IMAX theatres is mediocre (if not loud), the video quality is on a completely different plane!

If you found the audio mediocre, what did you compare that too? It could not have been a comparison of other theatrical systems, or this statement would have been a truly dumb statement to make. Anyone who has heard a true IMAX system when compared to another theatrical system would not have said it is mediocre, as IMAX sound systems in terms of sound quality some of the best systems out there(notice I didn't say the best).

If you felt the need to comment about the audio (since my point was about the superlative video), perhaps you might have said. "yes, I will agree that all theatre audio systems are not up to home quality". For some reason, you went through your "you haven't heard all theatre systems rant". Do you remember ?

rw

E, if you want a parrot, buy one. Please do not expect me to respond like you want me too, you will be frustrated every time. I think and speak for myself, I am not a parrot for others. Since you comment frequently about other reading skills, perhaps you missed this point.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The purpose of a theatrical sound system is not to sound as good as a home based audio system, but to cover many seats with good sound as possible. Some theatrical systems are better at this than others.

Post #46

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, I welcome other commentary. Has this um - discourse been childish? It is a shame that it has had to be so.

rw

You could have stopped it at any time.....

[E-Stat]

If you found the audio mediocre, what did you compare that too?

As one who cherishes sound quality, I find it a sad paradox that the presentation of the finest video content offers comparatively poor audio quality. I want both at the same time.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As one who cherishes sound quality, I find it a sad paradox that the presentation of the finest video content offers comparatively poor audio quality. I want both at the same time.

rw

You obviously have not really seen the finest video content, much like you have not heard EVERY theatrical sound system. Sadly, this is your inexperience and under exposure, and not really the limitations of the video content.

Be careful, finest video content brings Blu ray into play. Their are quite a few discs out there that would make a lie out of this statement.

[E-Stat]

You obviously have not really seen the finest video content...Be careful, finest video content brings Blu ray into play. Their are quite a few discs out there that would make a lie out of this statement.

I would be positively delighted if Blu-Ray could replicate the overall experience I find at IMAX theatres across the country. Out of about two dozen *real* IMAX films I've seen, I vividly remember seeing "The Dream is Alive" at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum (OmniMAX), "Space Station 3D" at Cape Canaveral, and "Coral Reef Adventure 3D" in Chattanooga. When I lived in Atlanta, the Fernbank Science Center hosted "Martinis and IMAX" on Friday nights. They would screen two films and offer food and a variety of martinis for your viewing pleasure. The wife and I did that many times. Avatar is still a trip even if it is the digital flavor. You are on planet Pandora.

I eagerly await the home 3D experience - once it matures and gets past the gimmicky phase.. When I was at the Paradiso in Memphis, they ran all sorts of previews for upcoming 3D movies. Unfortunately, they tended towards using 3D more as a gimmick. Examples are "Pirahna 3D", "Shrek Forever After" and "Despicable Me". What I really enjoyed about Avatar is Cameron used 3D to enhance the reality, not showcase obvious tricks. In a sense, it was transparent as it should be. The "Pirahna 3D" previews were so fake looking. You were constantly aware that you were viewing 3D. Here are the bouncing chests of the coeds. Here's looking down at the rotating outboard motor. It was like you were in a Brian Regan joke. "I get a snowcone and 3D here?. Ok. I get a snowcone and 3D. Snowcone. 3D. Real 3D. And a snowcone."

rw

[nightflier]

Well, as someone who's been on the receiving end of lil't's rants, I have to say that's he's up to his old deflection, unnecessary insults, and FUD routine. From the way it reads here, E-Stat is making a better case and lil't is not addressing the specific points. There's a number of places where lil't directly disagrees with his own statements, something that E-Stat's posts don't do.

Without prejudice, I have to say that E-Stat has a legitimate complaint that lil't refuses to address directly.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, as someone who's been on the receiving end of lil't's rants, I have to say that's he's up to his old deflection, unnecessary insults, and FUD routine. From the way it reads here, E-Stat is making a better case and lil't is not addressing the specific points. There's a number of places where lil't directly disagrees with his own statements, something that E-Stat's posts don't do.

Without prejudice, I have to say that E-Stat has a legitimate complaint that lil't refuses to address directly.

You know pinocchio, you are one nosy dude. This thread is over, and you stick your fat nosy schnoze in something that has nothing to do with you. If figures, this is nothing more than a hypocrites rant in an effort to stay relevant in the real world. It is difficult to stay relevant when you are making crap up from the top of your head, and not from the brain.

[E-Stat]

You know pinocchio, you are one nosy dude. This thread is over, and you stick your fat nosy schnoze in something that has nothing to do with you.

Perhaps he is still waiting (as am I ) for you to answer my earlier question: Why would there be any difference whatsoever in the Leona Lewis track released on CD and that which they played at the end of the movie? The movie was over! There was no dialogue. No sound effects. They just played the theme!

Let's see here. We already have a high quality CD track. The movie is over and all we need to do is play some music. Why would any person capable of dressing themselves in the morning remix it for a poorer result? Are you engineers that F**king stupid? Or are you just seeking another excuse why the theatrical result sucks as compared to what one can do at home? Do you remember this incredibly stupid comment?

"Theatrical sound mixes are different from audio only presentations."

So the goal is to take a perfectly good recording and render it pathetic? If what you say is true, then movie sound engineers must be among the most inept group of idiots on the planet!

rw

[atomicAdam]

You don't go to a Chinese restaurant looking for a great burger

Actually, I've had some pretty good hamburgers in Chinese restaurants, though I didn't go looking for them.

[poppachubby]

Actually, I've had some pretty good hamburgers in Chinese restaurants, though I didn't go looking for them.

Oh so you're the guy who eats those, I always wondered why Chinese restaurants have them on the menu.

[audio amateur]

Oh so you're the guy who eats those, I always wondered why Chinese restaurants have them on the menu.

lol, it's like here in england, they serve stuff like fries and other completely non-chinese foods and you always wonder who would go to a chinese restaurant to eat that?

[E-Stat]

Actually, I've had some pretty good hamburgers in Chinese restaurants, though I didn't go looking for them.

Must require large chopsticks!

rw

[GMichael]

lol, it's like here in england, they serve stuff like fries and other completely non-chinese foods and you always wonder who would go to a chinese restaurant to eat that?

That would be me. My wife loves Chinese food and I don't. Same goes for seafood restaurants. That's why they serve steak.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Perhaps he is still waiting (as am I ) for you to answer my earlier question: Why would there be any difference whatsoever in the Leona Lewis track released on CD and that which they played at the end of the movie? The movie was over! There was no dialogue. No sound effects. They just played the theme!

A) the CD is a two channel medium. You do not mix the same way for a two channel medium that you do for a 5.1 medium, whether it is music only or not.

B) One was created on pro-tools, the other was not. From what I gather from Chris(the lead re-recording mixer on the project) the music only version was not mixed by the film team, nor was it done on theatrical speakers or on a re-recording stage. It was done in a smaller studio using a completely different monitoring system, and with a different audio engineer. The audio only was EQ'd for smaller room playback on a two channel system, the film score on a 5.1 dubbing stage with EQ to tweak the mix for that venue.

C) You listened to one recording in a theater using different speakers than you used when listening to it at home. Your system at home does not have a center speaker(and the theatrical playback did), you system does not have ANY surround speakers let alone an array of them.

D) The acoustics you heard the theatrical presentation in are different from your home.

E) The reason you are asking this question is because you obviously don't know $hit about recording. If the listener took into consideration WHERE he was listening, and WHAT he is comparing to, he would have realized the question(and comparison) was a stupid one from the onset.

F) Horn system versus electrostatic panel= different sound. Both speaker technologies sound extremely different even if the source material was exactly the same.

G) Theater speakers are placed in a gigantic baffle to prevent rear reflections from interfering with the frontal wave in a delayed fashion. Your speakers at home are not, which allows those rear reflection to combine with the frontal wave to create artificial depth. If I put your speakers(you know, those special speakers that do what no other speaker on earth can do) in a baffle, they would sound flat depth wise as well, because it lacks the complex artificial room born reflections that occur at home. Depth in the theater is achieved by bringing the mix INTO the room via the surround speakers, not by artificial room born reflection derived from the end listeners room that were not on the recording in the first place.

Let's see here. We already have a high quality CD track. The movie is over and all we need to do is play some music. Why would any person capable of dressing themselves in the morning remix it for a poorer result?

Different result, poorer is a matter of perspective. My recollection of the end credit track in the theater is that it was presented in 5.1, not 2.0. If they were both 2.0 presentation, then I can understand your question. A CD mix translates very poorly in a movie theater, because all mixes must be done in an environment simular to that which it will be presented in. Duh!

Are you engineers that F**king stupid?

No, but we realize that some of our listeners are.

Or are you just seeking another excuse why the theatrical result sucks as compared to what one can do at home? Do you remember this incredibly stupid comment?

"Theatrical sound mixes are different from audio only presentations."

If you cannot realize what I said is true, then it is your ignorance and not our stupidity that is the problem. If you think that statement is stupid, then once again, you don't know $hit about the recording process. That's your problem, not ours.

So the goal is to take a perfectly good recording and render it pathetic? If what you say is true, then movie sound engineers must be among the most inept group of idiots on the planet!

rw

The goal is to mix a soundtrack to fit the environment. I do not mix an audio only soundtack in a dubbing stage. I do not mix a film soundtrack in a two channel studio. I mix soundtrack for film on a system that accurately translates what I hear in the dubbing stage to the theater. I mix a soundtrack for audio only in a smaller environment, using a different type of speaker(I don't use horns for audio only mixes) which allows it to translate well in most audio systems. Inherently, any recording not mixed on a electrostatic panel(next to none) is going to sound different when played through thus system, than it would when played back by speakers that are more simular to those it was mixed on. Better is a matter of perspective.

I just love how you translate your lack of education and information of the recording process, differences in listening environments and speaker systems, difference in playback formats, and turned that into a stupid inept engineer. To me, that sounds like a stupid listener who has an inablility to connect some very basic dots.

[E-Stat]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Any answer to an earlier question about the availability of any studio 5.1 audio recordings by popular artists or the cinematic composers I mentioned?

The audio only was EQ'd for smaller room playback on a two channel system, the film score on a 5.1 dubbing stage with EQ to tweak the mix for that venue.

They failed with the Leona Lewis music. The 5.1 *enhancement* was none at all.

C) You listened to one recording in a theater using different speakers than you used when listening to it at home. Your system at home does not have a center speaker(and the theatrical playback did), you system does not have ANY surround speakers let alone an array of them.

I listened at three theatres, two of which were IMAX and one was a full sized 1570 one. You'd think they would be representative of what is available. Maybe only the theatres you attend are better. Actually, I do have a multi-channel system at home. It just can't hold a candle to the main music one.

D) The acoustics you heard the theatrical presentation in are different from your home.

Clearly. What was lost was the inner detail and palpability of her voice, neither of which have anything to do with ambience.

E) The reason you are asking this question is because you obviously don't know $hit about recording. If the listener took into consideration WHERE he was listening, and WHAT he is comparing to, he would have realized the question(and comparison) was a stupid one from the onset.

I do wonder why engineers take a finished product and then take time and effort to change it - without any benefit.

F) Horn system versus electrostatic panel= different sound. Both speaker technologies sound extremely different even if the source material was exactly the same.

Naturally. Condenser microphones sound different from dynamic ones.

G) Theater speakers are placed in a gigantic baffle to prevent rear reflections from interfering with the frontal wave in a delayed fashion.

They hide them quite well from IMAX installations. Surely at more than one IMAX, you've seen the intro where they backlight each speaker and show you them through the screen. The ones in the rear are indeed just stuck in the corners.

Depth in the theater is achieved by bringing the mix INTO the room via the surround speakers, not by artificial room born reflection derived from the end listeners room that were not on the recording in the first place.

Ok.

Different result, poorer is a matter of perspective.

We just don't share the same vocabulary. I constantly refer to resolution, not depth. Clarity. Transparency. The ability to hear details in a voice.

My recollection of the end credit track in the theater is that it was presented in 5.1, not 2.0.

Great example of where 5.1 offers no sonic advantages with conventional multitracked studio recordings.

The goal is to mix a soundtrack to fit the environment. I do not mix an audio only soundtack in a dubbing stage.

It is a shame you continue to pen so much ink over a topic not under discussion. I have always referred to the musical only parts where there is no dialogue. There are no soundtracks. Already mixed music shouldn't require mixing. You've always said that music is always recorded in multi-channel then two channel versions are made afterwards. Why not use what already exists?

To me, that sounds like a stupid listener who has an inablility to connect some very basic dots.

I continue to agree with your assessment that the musical experience in a theatre does not share the resolution and realism of the best home systems - cone, ribbon and electrostatic alike. Wish it were. Great picture. Mediocre sound.

edit: In conclusion, I don't have an animosity towards pro gear as you seem to think. It is what it is. It involves different compromises than the best home gear. The very best home systems most certainly do not use QSC class H amps. They offer cheap power (if not locally noisy with the fans) and are quite compact. They provide lots of bang for the buck. But are lacking in the kind of refinement you would find with one of Jon Curl or Nelson Pass' best efforts. Putting the level of quality of the best home systems I've heard in a large space would cost millions. It just isn't practical.
rw