Welp.... Stevo's at it again!!!!! This time Surround Sound is dead!!!!

[Hyfi]

I have also heard people speak about not being able to understand the dialog because of all the noise in the soundtrack. I've also heard people wanting to watch movies at the theater because of the “big” screen. It seems we are making a lot talk about sound, right now, but why don't people mention it? Is it because people don't care about it or is it because it's not that note worthy?

Because more than likely, they are the same people listening to MP3s thru crappy little dirty earbuds.

One of my favorite movies for test tracking great sounds is Super 8, the train wreck. In the right setting, it can make you jump in your seat.

One of the things I keep running into, is like you said, there is too much extra sound or background music sometimes which screws with the dialog. I understand that some may be gear or rooms themselves but it seems the producers are just adding way too much to the mix and it's really not needed to watch the movie or get the point.

[JohnMichael]

You are still wrong. You have to like and agree with everything Terrance says or you are wrong. You are not allowed to have your own opinion as to what you yourself likes or dislikes, only what Terrance says you should like. Got it now?

Remember I said I have heard an impressive surround sound system. If my room was bigger than 12x15 and a dedicated audio room I would enjoy one. Terrance has never been the worst in being overly zealous and he also has a great deal of experience. I hope this is not brewing into another gang up. Post to Terrance directly and do not use others thoughts to bolster your own.

[Feanor]

One of the things I keep running into, is like you said, there is too much extra sound or background music sometimes which screws with the dialog. I understand that some may be gear or rooms themselves but it seems the producers are just adding way too much to the mix and it's really not needed to watch the movie or get the point.

Time & again I've found dialog hard to understand in stereo but have been able to make it out in surround; this because much distracting sound is moved from the front to the rear channels.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You are still wrong. You have to like and agree with everything Terrance says or you are wrong. You are not allowed to have your own opinion as to what you yourself likes or dislikes, only what Terrance says you should like. Got it now?

You can have whatever "opinion" you desire. Just don't try and represent that opinion as a fact.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I was really excited when I first got my surround system but after living with it for a long time, I find myself less and less interested in it.

If I had a poorly set up surround system, pooly(if not at all) calibrated, and in a room where modes and reflections are so loud that it affect dialog intelligibility, I would be less interested in listening to that system as well.

Fortunately for me, I don't have any of these issues - hence why I can listen to both my dedicated HT and dedicated multichannel music room systems all day and all night.

It's my opinion, but I think surround for movies is a bust too. It's not a total bust but for what it costs, the money would be better spent on better speakers and equipment for 2 channel. Of course, if money or room isn't an issue then why not.

And just what praytell would you base your opinion that surround for movies is a bust? Another comment pulled out of your bum? Here is the problem. You are on the wrong website for discussing anything multichannel. Most folks here emphasis is on two channel, which is probably why you are here. Go to AVSforum, Bluray.com, and Hometheater.com and these folks have already moved to immersive audio systems(11-1 and 14-1). The only time I listen to stereo is on Netflix.

What I like about 2 channel (with music) is that it sounds real. It has depth and the images are placed in a 3D soundstage.

Sorry, but poor choice of words. It is impossible for stereo to sound like 3D audio, there is not enough channels for that. 3D audio comes in the form of Dolby Atmos, DTS NEO:X, and Auro surround. These are object based encoders and decoders that allows a mixer to mix a signal anywhere within the room, and is object based not channel based. 3D audio requires at least 7 discrete channels, and AT LEAST two discrete height channels(depending on the size of the room). 3D audio is immersive(sound from everywhere), stereo is a purely front loaded format incapable of 3D immersion.

What I like about surround ( with movies) is that the back channels add information that a 2 channel cannot duplicate. 2 channel can give the impression of surround and even produce images behind the listener, but not to the extent of surround. So for that aspect of it I give it a thumbs up.

The only way stereo can place images behind the listener is if the two channels are processed with a out of phase enhancer such as QS processing. Otherwise, all you are hearing is just a bunch of room borne reflections that have nothing to do with the recording.

I think the biggest drawback of surround is the software. I have heard some pretty good sound from movies, but most of the time, it sounds way over done and less real than music on a 2 channel system.

What a airheaded comparison. Music is a documentary of an live event. A movie soundtrack supports a picture. The two cannot be compared without evoking laughter at the person trying to do so.

There is nothing more exciting than a low rumble permeating the room during a scary scene in a movie. It really hits to the heart of a persons emotional state. However, it seems that those that make these movies have the mindset that it takes an extended amount of time of loud crash bangs and such to achieve this effect. It has the opposite effect, it's fun when first experienced, but after many movies of the same thing, all it does is give me a headache.

Steve, you still do not understand just what a movie soundtrack is supposed to do. It supports the visuals. If the visuals do not have explosion, then the soundtrack has no need for it as well.

It's the sudden increase in sound that startles, but a constant drone at loud volumes is irritating. Thankfully, there are some audio engineers that know what they're doing and every so often a truly enjoyable movie (sound wise) comes along.

Sounds to me like this statement once again blames the software as if the posters systems is perfect. The drone you hear is more likely a room mode, and has nothing to do with the soundtracks. I would also suggest you watch more types of movies. Not all soundtracks are created equal, but it could sound that way if you only watch one type of genre of movie. Just like every movie has different visuals, it will also have a different soundtrack to support those visuals.

Underexposure leads to ignorance.

At this point I don't know what to think. I quit listening to surround (for the most part) because of the software, but with a good recording, it's very entertaining.

Steve, here is your problem. You are always blaming the software for every problem you hear. Did it ever occur to you that your system is the issue, not the software? Probably not, your system is of reference quality, so it could not possibly be your system(sarcasm off). If a person has as many issues as you do with software, it is probably in their best interest to revisited the quality of your system, your room, and how well your system is calibrated. We don't have dialog issues on the dubbing stage, I have not heard it in a professional theater, and I have not heard this problem on none of the 7 systems I own. Based on that, the problem MUST be in your room, your speakers, or the synergy between your components.

Is it worth keeping for those times when a good recording comes along? Perhaps since it's already paid for, but if I had it to do over again, I don't think I would buy another surround system.

Since you don't seem to know how to properly put together a surround system, you should probably stick with a 2 channel system. A monkey can put one together without much of a problem.

A funny thing... rarely do I hear anyone comment about the sound of a movie. As important as sound is to a movie, it's the plot and acting that people comment about.

Once again, you are on the wrong website for talking about movie soundtracks. This site is mostly audio, not movies. You can look at the forums and tell that. Go to more movie oriented sites like Bluray.com, AVSforum, Hometheater.com where movie sound is talked about all of the time.

Its hard to get exposed to things when you live in a anechoic chamber.

I have also heard people speak about not being able to understand the dialog because of all the noise in the soundtrack.

That "noise" you speak of is sound effects and music. They are as integral to a soundtracks as the dialog. Ever listening to a movie with no sound effects and music? Pretty boring.

When a person has dialog intelligibility issues, the problem lies in the speakers, amps, or room. The software is created in an environment that is pristine, and on equipment FAR, FAR better than yours.

I've also heard people wanting to watch movies at the theater because of the “big” screen. It seems we are making a lot talk about sound, right now, but why don't people mention it? Is it because people don't care about it or is it because it's not that note worthy?

Maybe its because you are talking to yourself in a vacuum. If all there was to movies is the big screen, then why are folks flocking to Dolby Atmos, and Auro based surround equipt theaters? Why has most of the technological advances in movies occurred in the audio?

Steve, stick to what you know - which means it will only take you seconds to tell it all.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Time & again I've found dialog hard to understand in stereo but have been able to make it out in surround; this because much distracting sound is moved from the front to the rear channels.

Feanor, it is also because when dialog is present, there are no other sounds(or the other effects are dropped so low) in that channel. Dialog is king in movies, and if nobody can understand it, they cannot enjoy the movie.

Vocals in 2 channel are difficult to hear(sometimes) because of head related transfer effects located in the most sensitive parts of our hearing(between 1-4khz). Inter aural cross talk is also a HUGE problem with vocals mixed between two speakers. This is why having a dedicated center channel is so much better than relying on phantom image set between two speakers.

[Hyfi]

Not only have you never cared about it, but it is patently obvious you have no experience with it either. There are so few recordings that have discrete instruments in the surrounds that it is not worth mentioning. I have nearly 800 multichannel recordings, and maybe 15 of them have discrete instruments placed in the surrounds.

Have you ever been to a concert where all of the information hitting your ears is coming from the front only? I highly doubt it. How about the crowd noises happening from behind a orchestra? Not in any concert hall or venue I have been in.



You must be talking to folks in a reverberation chamber, because multichannel system are outselling 2 channel system by at least 20-1 based on NDP recent survey.

Anecdotal stories are only valuable within your own world. Your opinions have always been based on myths, outdated, recycled anecdotal information, and talk from a single minded crowd.

If you re-read the original post, the OP asked "What do we think". That means he asked for our opinions. I know that is hard for some to grasp since all they want to do is argue and attempt to point out their superiority and attempt to make other look small. It's OK, we are all used to it here.

As for your second remark, spiteful as usual, the people I talk to are in the same pay scale as myself and below. We do not have the cash and multiple houses and spare gear as you do and I guess the people you associate with. We all know the Haves don't spend much time with the Have Not's except to belittle them.

Glad you showed up. At least there were 4 posts yesterday.

[Hyfi]

Remember I said I have heard an impressive surround sound system. If my room was bigger than 12x15 and a dedicated audio room I would enjoy one. Terrance has never been the worst in being overly zealous and he also has a great deal of experience. I hope this is not brewing into another gang up. Post to Terrance directly and do not use others thoughts to bolster your own.

How could there be a gang up? Since you Banned MarkW, I am all alone remember?

[StevenSurprenant]

Time & again I've found dialog hard to understand in stereo but have been able to make it out in surround; this because much distracting sound is moved from the front to the rear channels.

I've also found that sometimes it helps to set the center channel louder than the rest. It doesn't always help and the dialog might only be slightly better. On occasion there are movies that nothing can be done with.

The last superman movie I watched at the theater (my sister talked me into it). There were many moments that I couldn't understand the dialog. I liked the movie, so I figure that I can watch it again, at home. Compared to our local theaters, home is always better.

[StevenSurprenant]

How could there be a gang up? Since you Banned MarkW, I am all alone remember?

And I have no interest in what T says, so peace reigns on...

I will say this... Every time this happens everyone gets the blame except the instigator, if you understand what I'm saying. With that said... Life is too short to have to deal with this type of nonsense or the people who cause it and peace is but a click away with the ignore list.

[Smokey]

Time & again I've found dialog hard to understand in stereo but have been able to make it out in surround; this because much distracting sound is moved from the front to the rear channels.

I ran into that problem often since have only 2.1 set up with no center speaker for HT. A way to fix this is to reposition your speakers, including either toe-in or toeing them out. Now no problem hearing the dialog

[JohnMichael]

And I have no interest in what T says, so peace reigns on...

I will say this... Every time this happens everyone gets the blame except the instigator, if you understand what I'm saying. With that said... Life is too short to have to deal with this type of nonsense or the people who cause it and peace is but a click away with the ignore list.

No one got blame I just asked my post not be used to bolster someone else's argument. If your issue is with Sir T post to him directly. Sir T has always been Sir T and I doubt if he is going to change.

[Worf101]

I should learn to keep my big, fat, mouth shut! Or is it my big fat fingers?

Worf

[Hyfi]

I should learn to keep my big, fat, mouth shut! Or is it my big fat fingers?

Worf

No not at all. There was nothing wrong with your post. Bottom line is that you asked for OPINIONS on the Article and personal thoughts.

You did not ask that people pick apart everyone else response line by line instead of just posting their own opinion.

[StevenSurprenant]

I ran into that problem often since have only 2.1 set up with no center speaker for HT. A way to fix this is to reposition your speakers, including either toe-in or toeing them out. Now no problem hearing the dialog

That's interesting. If I understand correctly, it's a problem (at least in part) with tonal balance. Changing it helps... I can believe that.

The other day I put on the movie "300" and I noticed that the dialog and the dialog's imaging was less than ideal in stereo. In particular, the image was spread out between the speakers rather than being a tight image in the center, plus the clarity was lacking somewhat. It sounded a little muffled. The background sounds were clear and imaged well. Since many movies sound pretty good in stereo, I tend to think that it's a software issue with this movie.

When I listen to music, the clarity and imaging is really very decent, When a performer moves around, you can "see" where they are in the soundstage, but with movie dialog, not so much or at all. Apparently, there are different recording techniques for the two formats, or so it seems.

We've all put in that recording that sounds perfect (or really good), whether in stereo or surround, so we know that it's possible to achieve this level of audio with the equipment we have.

The fact is that, like all thing is life, there are good audio engineers and some that are not so good. They all probably see their work as perfection, but that is not reality. Since we all have heard recordings that sound very good on our systems, we have to assume that poor performance is not a hardware issue, but rather a software issue. After all, don't we all have good recordings and bad recordings?

Speaking of formats, since my recent retubing of my amp, digital has improved tremendously. With any decent recording, the images are solid and the soundstage is huge, however, digital still has that artificial sound that grates on the nerves after an extended listening session, that is with many CD's. I do have one CD that sounds extremely good in digital, and that CD is “This is K2 HD Sound!. Various Artists”. I can listen to this all day long and love every second of it. It is very analog sounding with no headache inducing sound. I don't know how this CD is any different than the rest (since it's still 16 bit), but whatever they did, it works.

As for surround music (SACD), I've heard people take both sides to this. Some claim that it is better than stereo and others say that stereo sounds better. I don't have an opinion on this.

John, I don't have a problem with T, he has a problem with me. I've been more than kind to him unless he starts ragging on me. I'm through with that. My final words on this is... There are many people here that go out of their way to help others with specific problems and to say that they're appreciated doesn't reflect enough how important these people are to the hobby. What T contributes rarely helps anyone and can be learned through a quick google search. Yes, theory is interesting, but most of us know enough to get the job done or can look it up without his opinion. He is a troll, as clearly demonstrated by his responses on this tread. There is no reason for me to respond to him. I know you don't want to get dragged into this and I respect that. This ends now. All I will say, (and this is it for me), is that, considering his abuse of fellow members, he is “not” an asset to this board. I'm done with this subject.

Worf, it was a good post. I'm sorry it got sidetracked.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If you re-read the original post, the OP asked "What do we think". That means he asked for our opinions. I know that is hard for some to grasp since all they want to do is argue and attempt to point out their superiority and attempt to make other look small. It's OK, we are all used to it here.

I think we are used to your uniformed, airheaded, unfactual opinions as well.

As for your second remark, spiteful as usual, the people I talk to are in the same pay scale as myself and below. We do not have the cash and multiple houses and spare gear as you do and I guess the people you associate with. We all know the Haves don't spend much time with the Have Not's except to belittle them.

Once again, you base everything on somebody's else's finances of which you know nothing about. You can save this green crap you just spewed up, it is not relevant to anything in this discussion.

The only have and have not here is audio and video education, and that is a definitely have not area with you. Anything goes with you, and that is why you get anything but great results in the end.

Glad you showed up. At least there were 4 posts yesterday.

Glad I could contribute.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've also found that sometimes it helps to set the center channel louder than the rest. It doesn't always help and the dialog might only be slightly better. On occasion there are movies that nothing can be done with.

Set the center channel louder, and you get a collapsed L/R image. Stupid advice. Why don't you just get a quality center speaker identical to your L/R speakers, that will solve the problem entirely.

The last superman movie I watched at the theater (my sister talked me into it). There were many moments that I couldn't understand the dialog. I liked the movie, so I figure that I can watch it again, at home. Compared to our local theaters, home is always better.

Steve, It might help if you get your ears checked. I saw this movie in a screening room on the Warner lot before it was released. No trouble hearing dialog there. I purchased this movie on Bluray and listened to it on 3 of my systems. No problem with understanding dialog there either. So either you are hard of hearing, or you are just making crap up to support a point.

I'll take both for $500 dollars Alex....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That's interesting. If I understand correctly, it's a problem (at least in part) with tonal balance. Changing it helps... I can believe that.

The other day I put on the movie "300" and I noticed that the dialog and the dialog's imaging was less than ideal in stereo. In particular, the image was spread out between the speakers rather than being a tight image in the center, plus the clarity was lacking somewhat. It sounded a little muffled. The background sounds were clear and imaged well. Since many movies sound pretty good in stereo, I tend to think that it's a software issue with this movie.

Once again, caught contralying. First you state the most movies don't sound very good, then you say here many movies sound pretty good in stereo. So which lie is it?

Secondly, you played back a movie designed for discrete surround in two channel, and expected the dialog to be clear when it was mixed for a hard center channel, not a phantom image. Properly placed stereo speakers are usually too wide for movie dialog. The dialog suffers because it is being stretched too wide, and that makes HRTF worse than with stereo music.

When I listen to music, the clarity and imaging is really very decent, When a performer moves around, you can "see" where they are in the soundstage, but with movie dialog, not so much or at all. Apparently, there are different recording techniques for the two formats, or so it seems.

Man, you just had a Duh moment here. Of course they are mixed differently. Both also require a different speaker set up as well. No movie is mixed for phantom imaging the dialog...NO MOVIE!

We've all put in that recording that sounds perfect (or really good), whether in stereo or surround, so we know that it's possible to achieve this level of audio with the equipment we have.

Since your system is poorly set up, I am not sure you really know what the quality is on the disc.

The fact is that, like all thing is life, there are good audio engineers and some that are not so good.

And what credentials and experience in mixing do you have that allows you to pass judgement on those that have both? I would say none.

They all probably see their work as perfection, but that is not reality. Since we all have heard recordings that sound very good on our systems, we have to assume that poor performance is not a hardware issue, but rather a software issue. After all, don't we all have good recordings and bad recordings?

This is true, and we also have good systems and bad systems. Apparently your falls in the latter since you seem to be having so many problem with software all of the time.

Speaking of formats, since my recent retubing of my amp, digital has improved tremendously. With any decent recording, the images are solid and the soundstage is huge, however, digital still has that artificial sound that grates on the nerves after an extended listening session, that is with many CD's. I do have one CD that sounds extremely good in digital, and that CD is “This is K2 HD Sound!. Various Artists”. I can listen to this all day long and love every second of it. It is very analog sounding with no headache inducing sound. I don't know how this CD is any different than the rest (since it's still 16 bit), but whatever they did, it works.

Get rid of the cheap D/A converters you are using, and you won't have this problem. Even low resolution 16bit can sound pretty darn good through a high quality D/A converter.

As for surround music (SACD), I've heard people take both sides to this. Some claim that it is better than stereo and others say that stereo sounds better. I don't have an opinion on this.

Progress. You finally kept you mouth shut about something you know nothing about.

John, I don't have a problem with T, he has a problem with me.

I don't even know you. What I have a problem with is your stupid ignorant statements you try and pass off as fact.

I've been more than kind to him unless he starts ragging on me. I'm through with that. My final words on this is... There are many people here that go out of their way to help others with specific problems and to say that they're appreciated doesn't reflect enough how important these people are to the hobby.

Cheese and crackers with that whine?

What T contributes rarely helps anyone and can be learned through a quick google search.

Oh really? Google has not helped you one bit, as you continue to make stupid ignorant statements time and time again. Google is no replacement for almost 30 years experience of mixing soundtracks, film scores, multichannel audio, and live sound. The fact we have google and you still manage to get everything wrong shows that if google was the answer, then you are too stupid to use it. Google cannot tell you how to properly place a microphone in a specific room - that takes experience. Google cannot teach you how to get the right gain to get a superior signal to noise ratio, only experience can do that. Google does not even get compression versus limiting right, so it would be stupid to rely on it.

Yes, theory is interesting, but most of us know enough to get the job done or can look it up without his opinion. He is a troll, as clearly demonstrated by his responses on this tread. There is no reason for me to respond to him. I know you don't want to get dragged into this and I respect that. This ends now. All I will say, (and this is it for me), is that, considering his abuse of fellow members, he is “not” an asset to this board. I'm done with this subject.

Steve, if I am a troll, then you are a dumb ignorant a$$. Your problem is that you do not have the necessary knowledge and experience in audio to effectively debate me, so what you try and do is dismiss my knowledge and experience as google born. Sorry, but that does not work. Why don't you just admit you are audio ignorant, and your system is piss poorly set up, and then we can move on from there.

Worf, it was a good post. I'm sorry it got sidetracked.

It didn't get sidetracked. It got overwhelmed with your ignorant, inexperienced, unscientific, anecdotal nonsense.

[Smokey]

The other day I put on the movie "300" and I noticed that the dialog and the dialog's imaging was less than ideal in stereo. In particular, the image was spread out between the speakers rather than being a tight image in the center, plus the clarity was lacking somewhat. It sounded a little muffled. The background sounds were clear and imaged well. Since many movies sound pretty good in stereo, I tend to think that it's a software issue with this movie.

When I listen to music, the clarity and imaging is really very decent, When a performer moves around, you can "see" where they are in the soundstage, but with movie dialog, not so much or at all. Apparently, there are different recording techniques for the two formats, or so it seems.

Room accoustics and speaker sonic signature probably also play a role in differences between dialog and music playback.

The best way to test this is to feed (2.1 system) speakers mono dialog and see how it sound. If dialog sound is too "hollow" or too thin, then your speakers need placement adjustments. Toeing speakers out seem to help alot in dialog clarity.

But as Sir TT mentioned, speakers that are optimized acoustically for stereo imaging probaly will not have the best dialog performance

Secondly, you played back a movie designed for discrete surround in two channel, and expected the dialog to be clear when it was mixed for a hard center channel, not a phantom image. Properly placed stereo speakers are usually too wide for movie dialog. The dialog suffers because it is being stretched too wide, and that makes HRTF worse than with stereo music.

That is exactly the problem I had when play dialog on my 2.1 system. The sound was too thin and it sounded like coming out of a can (especially mono dialog feed)

[Hyfi]

Glad I could contribute.

Please point me to your reply to the original post of your thoughts on the article that was linked. That would be helpful.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Please point me to your reply to the original post of your thoughts on the article that was linked. That would be helpful.

Go back and look at my first comments brightness. What would be helpful to me is that you actually read it.

[StevenSurprenant]

Room accoustics and speaker sonic signature probably also play a role in differences between dialog and music playback.

The best way to test this is to feed (2.1 system) speakers mono dialog and see how it sound. If dialog sound is too "hollow" or too thin, then your speakers need placement adjustments. Toeing speakers out seem to help alot in dialog clarity.

But as Sir TT mentioned, speakers that are optimized acoustically for stereo imaging probaly will not have the best dialog performance

That is exactly the problem I had when play dialog on my 2.1 system. The sound was too thin and it sounded like coming out of a can (especially mono dialog feed)

Actually, with 300, it doesn't sound thin, the dialog is just spread out too much (kind of like when your speakers are out of phase), but I do understand what you're talking about. Different movies sound different, some have good imaging with the dialog centered with a tight image. I have played some mono movies that are way to tight where the image is coming from a narrow point in space between the speakers (from a can?). All I know is that some movies do a really good job, some do not. I assume it's the way it's mixed.

When I first got into stereo I quickly realized how too much speaker distance between speakers could make an image sound hollow or too close together make the soundstage seem small. I also understood how toeing speakers affects the tonal balance. Some speakers are better or worse, meaning that with some speakers, positioning is more critical, while other speakers image quite well at wider distances. I suspect that it's a matter of speaker dispersion. I've spent considerable time moving speakers around to achieve the desired effect. With my present speakers I don't have much trouble creating a good image with most any setup as long as I adhere somewhat to the equilateral triangle. Even when I am standing a few feet in front of the speakers, the image is still tight, as it should be.

I have a few stereo recordings where the performer speaks and the image is believable. The dialog in these cases is perfect. There is no reason that a mixing technician can't do the same for movies, and some do. I think that writing this off to “not mixed for stereo”, is a cop out considering that most people, at home, watch movies listening to it on TV speakers in stereo. However, the fact that TV speakers are close together minimizes the problem.

Bottom line...

If movie companies are going to put out movies that aren't mixed for stereo, they should put a warning on the package to that affect or get off their duff and do it right. Some people can do a good job and make a quality product, the others tend to blame the hardware or make excuses when someone complains.

Quite frankly, this is a minor problem since I rarely watch the same movies more than once.

[Mr Peabody]

I'm sure not all movie soundtracks are treated the same as in audio recordings, however, some of the blame can be hardware or processing ability. There are so many configurations people use it would seem a bit silly to engineer a special soundtrack for every possible speaker set up. Some have rear channels, some don't, some center, maybe a rear center, some none. it's easier to have the processor compensate for these configurations by directing the information that can't be delivered via a speaker to other channels where there are speakers.

[StevenSurprenant]

That makes sense. All I'm saying is that it seems some people seem to be able to get the job done with acceptable results. There is no reason why it can't be done all the time. I would think that more people own stereos compared to surround and so that would seem to be a priority.

Like I said, it's not every movie.

What would be nice is to be able to adjust the soundtracks ourselves. Being that this is the computer age, anything is possible. I don't mean get every track of the movie, but separate it into categories like dialog and background and music and "boom and bang" and maybe a couple more (like they do in some computer games). Then allow the user to change each one. One example would be to lower the volume of "boom and bang" or just limit it dynamically. Any number of things are possible.

[Feanor]

Bottom line...

If movie companies are going to put out movies that aren't mixed for stereo, they should put a warning on the package to that affect or get off their duff and do it right. Some people can do a good job and make a quality product, the others tend to blame the hardware or make excuses when someone complains.

I have to agree basically. Films ought to include a stereo mix and, in any case, should clearly indicate all the audio mixes on the disc.