Movie dialogue has gotten more difficult to understand(slashfilm.com)
slashfilm.com
Movie dialogue has gotten more difficult to understand
https://www.slashfilm.com/673162/heres-why-movie-dialogue-has-gotten-more-difficult-to-understand-and-three-ways-to-fix-it/
334 comments
When I'm alone, I watch most everything with subtitles. Not just for this reason, but because the vocal track tends to be really low and the MUSIC and GUN FIRE track really high, so I need to crank the overall sound down. (And, yes, I've turned up my center channel on my sound system to try and compensate for this.)
My Apple TV has a "tone down the explosions" setting, which helps a lot.
Even still, at times I wish I had a volume knob on my remote to swing one way or the other as the scene change in the thing I'm watching. The remote is too slow.
But it's annoying to have these wide ranges. Then you watch a news or talk program or something like that, and the voices are front and center and everything is peachy.
Later, we can talk about how dark things have become on screen as well.
My Apple TV has a "tone down the explosions" setting, which helps a lot.
Even still, at times I wish I had a volume knob on my remote to swing one way or the other as the scene change in the thing I'm watching. The remote is too slow.
But it's annoying to have these wide ranges. Then you watch a news or talk program or something like that, and the voices are front and center and everything is peachy.
Later, we can talk about how dark things have become on screen as well.
The article quoted a sound designer who was oblivious to your take:
> ... when we got a look at that spec, they require it to be based on the overall [volume] of the film, not on the dialogue level of the film. Consequently, that's a big action movie with shooting and cars and big music, and the result of that is that you have a much more squashed up, un-impactful mix ...
Yes, I want it somewhat squashed up! Please do that! I understand the artistry and desire for dynamic range, but when the character is whispering some critical plot detail, you can zoom in for a feeling of intimacy/privacy and have the actor stage whisper so everyone knows what was said. It shouldn't actually be a whisper that people a few feet away can't hear. When you follow it up with an explosion, sure, make it a little louder, but not real-life loud! That would you blow out your speakers and wake the baby.
And yes, darkness on-screen is another problem. Not everyone has plasma or OLED displays (though the latter are becoming more available), nor watches in pitch black. And when downconverted from 10 bits to 8 bits, streamed through compression algorithms, and displayed on average TN displays...no, you can't see what's going on. Tom Scott did an excellent video on this subject a while ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9j89L8eQQk. Game of Thrones in particular was unwatchable for me because of this.
> ... when we got a look at that spec, they require it to be based on the overall [volume] of the film, not on the dialogue level of the film. Consequently, that's a big action movie with shooting and cars and big music, and the result of that is that you have a much more squashed up, un-impactful mix ...
Yes, I want it somewhat squashed up! Please do that! I understand the artistry and desire for dynamic range, but when the character is whispering some critical plot detail, you can zoom in for a feeling of intimacy/privacy and have the actor stage whisper so everyone knows what was said. It shouldn't actually be a whisper that people a few feet away can't hear. When you follow it up with an explosion, sure, make it a little louder, but not real-life loud! That would you blow out your speakers and wake the baby.
And yes, darkness on-screen is another problem. Not everyone has plasma or OLED displays (though the latter are becoming more available), nor watches in pitch black. And when downconverted from 10 bits to 8 bits, streamed through compression algorithms, and displayed on average TN displays...no, you can't see what's going on. Tom Scott did an excellent video on this subject a while ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9j89L8eQQk. Game of Thrones in particular was unwatchable for me because of this.
You can get a compressor/limiter for pretty cheap, but only if you have wires somewhere between the DAC and your speakers.
Most AV receivers feature an option to reduce dynamic range. It may be labelled as nighttime mode, as in trying not to distrub others.
If you're serious about watching movies you probably have some kind of (surround) receiver already, most of which have settings to tone down the dynamic range a bit (on my Denon it's called 'dynamic volume', acts the same as a compressor)
Good point. I do have OLED, and yet the scene in Invasion (on Apple TV) where they're up in the attic of a house and the aliens are downstairs, was completely unintelligible for me. It was all in darkness and there was just not enough contrast to make out anything.
> And yes, darkness on-screen is another problem. Not everyone has plasma or OLED displays
The goal is to sell. They probably get paid by TV manufacturers (like a product placement).
> Game of Thrones in particular
That confirms, they definitely get paid ;)
The goal is to sell. They probably get paid by TV manufacturers (like a product placement).
> Game of Thrones in particular
That confirms, they definitely get paid ;)
I would use subtitles all the time if it didn't ruin dramatic and comedic timing. I often find myself wishing movies and video games had "proper nouns only" subtitles.
I got so used to subtitles (learning English + anime). That I can put them in the background when I focus on the movie and quickly check them in case I did not understand something. Kinda like when you blur out the surrounding controls when watching YouTube.
> I often find myself wishing movies and video games had "proper nouns only" subtitles.
This would be an excellent idea! Oftentimes I'll watch something, then in the middle turn on the subtitles and learn that I was misunderstanding the name of someone/something.
Even if I hear it correctly the spelling may be different and can give better context and cultural flavor.
This would be an excellent idea! Oftentimes I'll watch something, then in the middle turn on the subtitles and learn that I was misunderstanding the name of someone/something.
Even if I hear it correctly the spelling may be different and can give better context and cultural flavor.
Nice idea. Sounds pretty easy to implement, just filter the subtitles with an NER function.
Simply adding a delay to ensure the sentence doesn't appear after it is spoken would fix this. It's something that unavoidably happens with Saturday Night Live's transcript, for example, and I prefer it for comedy.
I used to live in Denmark but never understood Danish, spoken or written, very well (at all).
In movie theaters, they'd show English language films with Danish subtitles and, often, I'd miss a comic piece of dialog because the subtitles let the audience in on the joke before I could hear it spoken, and then the audience laughter would drown out any chance I had of hearing the joke.
It was a bit frustrating.
In movie theaters, they'd show English language films with Danish subtitles and, often, I'd miss a comic piece of dialog because the subtitles let the audience in on the joke before I could hear it spoken, and then the audience laughter would drown out any chance I had of hearing the joke.
It was a bit frustrating.
I’ve had similar issues, but it’s when they subtitle the aliens talking and then I have no idea what they’re saying.
I’ve often wished DVDs and Blu-ray has an audio track where sound was compressed. The wider ranges of volume are fine for cinemas but absolutely terrible for casual viewing (which is 99% of home viewing). It’s even worse when you have kids who are trying to sleep while you watch your movie.
Dolby Digital audio tracks are supposed to support dynamic range compression in your A/V receiver for exactly this reason. There is a dialog normalization field in the audio data that says how loud dialog is, and then the receiver is supposed to apply compression using predefined curves based on that value. Try looking for a DRC setting.
The problem with that is you need a receiver that supports Dolby Digital and most homes won’t have that. In fact my lounge TV doesn’t even have external speakers nor amp attached. So DD does t really help the casual viewers I was describing.
DVD and Blu-ray players that do internal decoding of the DD soundtrack (most DVDs and Blu-rays will have a DD soundtrack, plus others, last time I checked a few years ago) are supposed to apply DRC. Some might have an option to change the DRC strength. If you're watching over-the-air ATSC broadcasts in the US, those will have DD (AKA AC3) audio, and the TV should be applying DRC based on the same metadata.
Streaming services have taken a massive step backward in this regard. TVs should have better signal processing options for this (and some do). I have a custom "night mode" set up that deals with mixed streaming volume levels in my system, but I'm using highly customized pro audio gear in ways that the average user won't want to pay for or deal with.
Streaming services have taken a massive step backward in this regard. TVs should have better signal processing options for this (and some do). I have a custom "night mode" set up that deals with mixed streaming volume levels in my system, but I'm using highly customized pro audio gear in ways that the average user won't want to pay for or deal with.
Good point. Most of my movie consumption these days is via streaming services.
I am fortunate enough to have a home cinema room with a projector and some pretty beefy audio gear hooked up. But most of the time we watch in the lounge where it’s a more casual affair.
I am fortunate enough to have a home cinema room with a projector and some pretty beefy audio gear hooked up. But most of the time we watch in the lounge where it’s a more casual affair.
Some speakers (Sonos comes to mind) have a "night mode" that basically does that, compressing the dynamic range. There is also a dialogue mode that emphasizes the human speech frequencies.
I really dislike post production dynamic equalisers because they’re altering the sound in a way that wasn’t intended. Sure it sometimes sounds better, but it doesn’t always. You get a lot better results when the compression is added to the tracks before they’re rendered down to a single master.
Apple TV has a similar feature, described simply as "reduce loud sounds".
> I watch most everything with subtitles. Not just for this reason, but because the vocal track tends to be really low and the MUSIC and GUN FIRE track really high
I just noticed this trying to watch Amazon's new Wheel of Time series. It doesn't matter what the volume on the TV is - the background music and effects are so much louder than the dialog that I can't understand what people are saying.
I just noticed this trying to watch Amazon's new Wheel of Time series. It doesn't matter what the volume on the TV is - the background music and effects are so much louder than the dialog that I can't understand what people are saying.
I had the same issue with Wheel of Time! I’d nearly blow out my ear drums wearing AirPods in a battle, so I’d turn down the volume, then there’d be dialogue and I couldn’t hear it. Very frustrating.
Had this experience with several series on Netflix recently. It seems correlated to shows that also do a lot of really dark scenes where the screen looks nearly black. I really don't get it.
> Even still, at times I wish I had a volume knob on my remote to swing one way or the other as the scene change in the thing I'm watching. The remote is too slow.
> But it's annoying to have these wide ranges. Then you watch a news or talk program or something like that, and the voices are front and center and everything is peachy.
I've often thought a lot of these problems could be solved just by adding a "minimum volume" knob to all the "maximum volume" knobs we currently use, allowing users to forcefully reduce the dynamic range in an easy-to-understand way (while still being loud enough to hear dialogue). I remember "large dynamic range" being advertised as something you want for home theatres/etc, but in general I think it's more a misfeature/antipattern.
> But it's annoying to have these wide ranges. Then you watch a news or talk program or something like that, and the voices are front and center and everything is peachy.
I've often thought a lot of these problems could be solved just by adding a "minimum volume" knob to all the "maximum volume" knobs we currently use, allowing users to forcefully reduce the dynamic range in an easy-to-understand way (while still being loud enough to hear dialogue). I remember "large dynamic range" being advertised as something you want for home theatres/etc, but in general I think it's more a misfeature/antipattern.
Or at least some statistically-relevant volume knobs. E.g. percentile or most recent peak.
EEs, correct me if I'm wrong, but the amplifier circuitry is digitally-controlled now, no? So hypothetically could be rapidly adjusted with low latency?
EEs, correct me if I'm wrong, but the amplifier circuitry is digitally-controlled now, no? So hypothetically could be rapidly adjusted with low latency?
You could definitely adjust with low latency, but if your compressor attack and release are too quick, it will not sound right.
You want to keep some dynamic range but not too much.
You want to keep some dynamic range but not too much.
It should be easy to add a compressor dial to audio devices nowadays
Windows 7 had a "loudness equalizer" that was basically just a limiter, and that made my computer my my go-to for watching movies. It still exists in Windows 10 but doesn't seem to work as universally with different devices.
misused feature
I used to use an AV receiver and then ramp up the volume on the center channel. Didn't need to even be 5.1 audio as the processing that plucks the speech out based on frequencies worked good enough.
Having said that, it turns out that I'm reasonably deaf in one ear. It's considered "Mild" hearing loss but wow is the effect substantial. My wife listens on videos on her phone at the same volume level that is literally me being able to JUST hear it. Moderate-Severe hearing loss must be impossible. And one of my ears is totally normal... only one ear has "mild" hearing loss.
Anyway long story short, consider getting a hearing test :)
Having said that, it turns out that I'm reasonably deaf in one ear. It's considered "Mild" hearing loss but wow is the effect substantial. My wife listens on videos on her phone at the same volume level that is literally me being able to JUST hear it. Moderate-Severe hearing loss must be impossible. And one of my ears is totally normal... only one ear has "mild" hearing loss.
Anyway long story short, consider getting a hearing test :)
“British actors (usually) speak clearly”
Until the last couple of decades, most British movies/TV tended to use a lot of “Received Pronunciation” English (the Queen’s English) which has very crisp enunciation. Other accents were usually relegated to very specific character roles that highlighted the rustic “cockney” or “Yorkshire” character.
More recently, other British accents have been used more and many of them are the opposite of crisp enunciation. Some seem to be talking with marbles in their mouths. This seems to represent a greater democratization of the characters represented with less of an emphasis on upper classes.
Until the last couple of decades, most British movies/TV tended to use a lot of “Received Pronunciation” English (the Queen’s English) which has very crisp enunciation. Other accents were usually relegated to very specific character roles that highlighted the rustic “cockney” or “Yorkshire” character.
More recently, other British accents have been used more and many of them are the opposite of crisp enunciation. Some seem to be talking with marbles in their mouths. This seems to represent a greater democratization of the characters represented with less of an emphasis on upper classes.
This is by design to some degree over the last few decades for much of the UK television landscape too. Successive UK governments have directed the BBC (state run broadcaster responsible for huge amount of UK TV) to incorporate more regional content/actors/accents. Historically the BBC had often been accused of a London/“Received Pronunciation” bias.
This has been accomplished in a number of ways - opening more regional TV production studios, commissioning more content from regions outside London, hiring presenters/actors with regional accents etc, the net effect of all of which has been to broaden BBC talent pool beyond the usual cadre of “Received Pronunciation”-style presenters.
As one example, I personally find the presenter Freddie Flintoff to be almost impossible to understand on any BBC show he appears on, but he has exactly the sort of accent you would never have heard on BBC 40 years ago.
This has been accomplished in a number of ways - opening more regional TV production studios, commissioning more content from regions outside London, hiring presenters/actors with regional accents etc, the net effect of all of which has been to broaden BBC talent pool beyond the usual cadre of “Received Pronunciation”-style presenters.
As one example, I personally find the presenter Freddie Flintoff to be almost impossible to understand on any BBC show he appears on, but he has exactly the sort of accent you would never have heard on BBC 40 years ago.
I'm well aware of the BBC shift in practice myself, understand many of the arguments for it, and yet ... if the end result is incomprehensible mush, well, They're Doing It Wrong.
I've cut back tremendously on my listening in part on this basis. (Overall quality of coverage also seems to have flagged, also often with an eye toward popularity over significance. I'm aware that there's been a war against the BBC by political elements within the UK, I disagree strongly with it, and feel that also has a large role in these trends.)
But as with online content: if your design and/or presentation are getting in the way of your message and ability to communicate ... please stop doing that.
I've cut back tremendously on my listening in part on this basis. (Overall quality of coverage also seems to have flagged, also often with an eye toward popularity over significance. I'm aware that there's been a war against the BBC by political elements within the UK, I disagree strongly with it, and feel that also has a large role in these trends.)
But as with online content: if your design and/or presentation are getting in the way of your message and ability to communicate ... please stop doing that.
Does have a down side if you move production to Wales / Scotland etc you don't have many BAME Actors and Technical Staff.
British actors are usually better actors too.
Some US programs used British actors to "raise the game" for their US co-workers.
Examples: The Americans, The Wire, Homeland, Deadwood, etc etc.
And as a side-effect, the dialogue was generally more understandable.
Some US programs used British actors to "raise the game" for their US co-workers.
Examples: The Americans, The Wire, Homeland, Deadwood, etc etc.
And as a side-effect, the dialogue was generally more understandable.
The Wire & understandable dialogue? Sheeeeeiiit.
In all seriousness, Baltimore has a pretty heavy accent, especially in the inner city & Dundalk. It's rather comical to say that they got English actors because they were more understandable, to then turn around and make them less understandable.
In all seriousness, Baltimore has a pretty heavy accent, especially in the inner city & Dundalk. It's rather comical to say that they got English actors because they were more understandable, to then turn around and make them less understandable.
Doctor House too
Pedantic point: Cockneys are about as far from "rustic" as it gets.
Given the extensiveness of the English vocabulary and me not being a native speaker, I appreciate visual media only using 3-5 different words. But movies are completely different from dialects that you encounter in the wild. Classical British actors are far easier to understand than other English speaking ones in my opinion.
The latest season of the Great British Baking Show/Bakeoff had a contestant that was very difficult to understand, both with pronunciation and slang (Lizzie). Ended up turning on subtitles just to more clearly understand what she meant. Love the broader spectrum of people they get on there though, not just Londoners.
Patrick Stewart is Royal Shakespeare Company trained. You won't find an actor trained by the Royal Shakespeare Company that mumbles their lines.
It's interesting to note that Patrick Steward might be responsible for changing the way people commonly pronounce the word Data. If so, I wonder how much impact his stage training had on how he chose to pronounce the word.
"One is my name. The other is not." - Lt Commander Data
If you mumble on the stage anywhere the director will (or should!) kick your ass.
> I rarely watch movies without subtitles nowadays
Thank you. I've been in England for 8 years now and I've become fluent with any type of accent, yet I've still been watching movies with subs at home and it's been a crutch hard to get rid of; it made me second guess my ability to understand spoken English.
I have no issues in real life, or when watching YouTube, but movies, man... there's times I miss some words or I don't understand what's going on and I am unsure if I missed some kind of plot-crucial idiomatic joke whispered 30 minutes ago. And let's not speak of Tenet. Nolan is one of my favourite film-makers, but I hated that movie because I couldn't understand half the dialogue and the plot.
I'm happy to know it's not me, nor my ears failing.
Thank you. I've been in England for 8 years now and I've become fluent with any type of accent, yet I've still been watching movies with subs at home and it's been a crutch hard to get rid of; it made me second guess my ability to understand spoken English.
I have no issues in real life, or when watching YouTube, but movies, man... there's times I miss some words or I don't understand what's going on and I am unsure if I missed some kind of plot-crucial idiomatic joke whispered 30 minutes ago. And let's not speak of Tenet. Nolan is one of my favourite film-makers, but I hated that movie because I couldn't understand half the dialogue and the plot.
I'm happy to know it's not me, nor my ears failing.
For me it's not an issue of perception, but sheer lack of working memory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2FXfFeRtJo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2FXfFeRtJo
Haha, so relatable. That's what it's felt like every time someone has tried to onboard me to a project at work, without giving me a chance to ask (enough) follow-up questions and build up a clear domain ontology as they go.
On top of that, said explainer will complain that their work is "super difficult" and "hard to explain", but then, if by some miracle I can get them to sit still long enough and get up to speed, "miraculously" I'm able to onboard others.
I swear it's not a super-power! I just don't assume a ton of context!
On top of that, said explainer will complain that their work is "super difficult" and "hard to explain", but then, if by some miracle I can get them to sit still long enough and get up to speed, "miraculously" I'm able to onboard others.
I swear it's not a super-power! I just don't assume a ton of context!
This is brilliant. I need to show this to anyone wondering what having a short-term memory issue feels like. I need a whiteboard and subtitles to figure that one out.
> And let's not speak of Tenet. Nolan is one of my favourite film-makers, but I hated that movie because I couldn't understand half the dialogue and the plot.
This one is definitely not just you... I'm not sure Christopher Nolan himself understood the plot beyond "Inception, but for time machines".
This one is definitely not just you... I'm not sure Christopher Nolan himself understood the plot beyond "Inception, but for time machines".
Of course, I agree the plot makes no sense and peolpe that liked that movie just don’t want to admit they didn’t get it.
But since we’re talking about it… it didn’t help understanding the plot that it was by far the poorest sound mixing I’ve ever heard. I had to watch it a second time with subtitles on, only to confirm it wasn’t any better when you could understand them.
But since we’re talking about it… it didn’t help understanding the plot that it was by far the poorest sound mixing I’ve ever heard. I had to watch it a second time with subtitles on, only to confirm it wasn’t any better when you could understand them.
There's been a trend over the last 15-20 years as the big US movies have internationalized of reducing dialogue complexity to enable localization (once you notice it, the lexicon and grammar complexity in recent-ish Marvel movies especially is crushingly limited). Maybe mixing poorly (and writing a movie with "you won't really hear or understand the dialogue" in mind) is another strategy to hide that.
That, or a cynical mix engineer noticed that the words don't make the movie any better, so they made an editorial decision to cut them a little (plus, everything was clear enough in their carefully calibrated 22.2 Atmos studio).
That, or a cynical mix engineer noticed that the words don't make the movie any better, so they made an editorial decision to cut them a little (plus, everything was clear enough in their carefully calibrated 22.2 Atmos studio).
If only the artists have taken over Hollywood...
Do you genuinely believe films like Edge of Tomorrow are works directed by a genuine auteur with full control? That is almost certainly not the case. The director is Doug Liman. He's not a bad director by any means but if you look at his filmography—Mr & Mrs Smith, Jumper, Bourne Identity—he's not exactly Francois Truffaut.
Besides, artists do not behave consistently. Some may care less about comprehension, while others may care deeply. Lumping them all into one category and making a false dichotomy between style and comprehension are both vast oversimplifications.
Do you genuinely believe films like Edge of Tomorrow are works directed by a genuine auteur with full control? That is almost certainly not the case. The director is Doug Liman. He's not a bad director by any means but if you look at his filmography—Mr & Mrs Smith, Jumper, Bourne Identity—he's not exactly Francois Truffaut.
Besides, artists do not behave consistently. Some may care less about comprehension, while others may care deeply. Lumping them all into one category and making a false dichotomy between style and comprehension are both vast oversimplifications.
Same. I started turning on subtitles because of noisy kids, but now I have them on most of the time. I hear lots of people say they are distracting or they ruin comedic or dramatic timing, but you quickly get used to it. You learn to read them only when you need to.
Yeah, you definitely get used to it. I still laugh at a lot of things and I think it's a good way to broaden your watch choices significantly because it opens up foreign films/tv.
Netflix has been slowly pushing more international content in the US as many of Americans are starting to become more comfortable with reading subtitles.
I do think there is some room for improvement though in that subtitles should absolutely have standardized options for how they display on screen. Some people really like the yellow, others find that much more distracting compared to a bold white lettering on a semi-opaque black background. Let the viewer decide which one they are most comfortable with unless you have some specific art directed reason why they need to be formatted a certain way.
Netflix has been slowly pushing more international content in the US as many of Americans are starting to become more comfortable with reading subtitles.
I do think there is some room for improvement though in that subtitles should absolutely have standardized options for how they display on screen. Some people really like the yellow, others find that much more distracting compared to a bold white lettering on a semi-opaque black background. Let the viewer decide which one they are most comfortable with unless you have some specific art directed reason why they need to be formatted a certain way.
I can't help it, I always cheat and ruin it for myself by reading before they've finished saying the line. :-)
I should try delaying the subtitles so I can only read things that I've missed.
I should try delaying the subtitles so I can only read things that I've missed.
I’m not hard of hearing at all and since switching to subtitles I’ve come across several scenes where conversations were taking place off-screen and I had no idea but for the captions.
Yeah my wife is not an English native speaker so we tend to leave subtitles on all the time. It's amazing how often they refer to a bit of off-screen sound or dialog that's relevant to the plot, that I didn't even notice at all.
I’m in an endless cycle of watching without subtitles until I reach max frustration with understanding the dialogue, and then with subtitles until I reach max frustration with darting my eyes up and down. Upgrading my headphones did help a lot, but hasn’t completely solved the problem. The fact that so many people feel compelled to use subtitles for a language they speak is kind of absurd.
I use subtitles all the time because I can't filter out the sounds easily.
There's a baseline assumption with a lot of "high quality" movies and television that every member of the audience has perfectly working senses. The sad fact is "low quality" reality TV is much more accessible. Sporting events are also a lot easier because you can hear the people talking clearly.
For a more concrete example Star Trek: Discovery is difficult for me to hear and follow everything, whereas the older TV series and the new the animated ones are much easier.
There's a baseline assumption with a lot of "high quality" movies and television that every member of the audience has perfectly working senses. The sad fact is "low quality" reality TV is much more accessible. Sporting events are also a lot easier because you can hear the people talking clearly.
For a more concrete example Star Trek: Discovery is difficult for me to hear and follow everything, whereas the older TV series and the new the animated ones are much easier.
I do enjoy subtitles as well, but for me I have the most trouble with accents I'm not used to. My favorite examples are scifi/fantasy/historical shows where for some reason the "way the peoples talk" is invariably a heavy English, Irish or Scottish accent that is very hard to follow for me, used to American accents, even if enunciated properly. Add in the other sounds and it becomes even more difficult.
The other nice feature of subtitles is sometimes there is helpful metadata there, like identifying the song playing in the background or some words not intended to be heard like a whisper or voice coming from a phone receiver.
The other nice feature of subtitles is sometimes there is helpful metadata there, like identifying the song playing in the background or some words not intended to be heard like a whisper or voice coming from a phone receiver.
The Expanse went really thick on the Belter creole, to the point that it was genuinely hard to understand, although subtitles helped. For the latest season they changed it into more of an accent rather than a new language, which I understand the reasoning for, but ultimately the show suffered for it IMO. So I guess I’m saying sometimes less understandable can still be better!
I have tried starting the expanse twice. Both times the dialogue compared with the overall darkness of the scenes made me stop watching. I think I’d like the show, but I want to be able to see and hear what’s happening!
Weird, I didn’t have any similar issue at all. The “creole” makes sense after you hear it a few times and occasionally you aren’t supposed to understand it in anything but tone.
I’d recommend the show overall.
I’d recommend the show overall.
It's always such a relief to me when someone speaks with an Irish accent - my cognitive load goes right down
As some one originally from Birmingham I found the accents in peaky blinders oddly relaxing.
Though I could see full "yam yam" being hard - that's the rural dialect from the black country.
Though I could see full "yam yam" being hard - that's the rural dialect from the black country.
Few years back, India theaters started adding subtitles in Hollywood/English movies. It increased viewership dramatically.
On the other hand German TV/movie acting is heavily influenced by theater so you will have dialogues that are easy to understand but sound completely unnatural. This combined with bad cinematography makes German films unwatchable for me. (German dubs of foreign movies on the other hand are usually quite good)
In a lot of European movies the dialogue is added in post rather than recorded live.
The Hollywood term for film recorded without synchronous audio is MOS.
One of the many alleged origins for the term is a German director (which director varies according to the story) declaring that a scene should be shot "mit out sound".
One of the many alleged origins for the term is a German director (which director varies according to the story) declaring that a scene should be shot "mit out sound".
Anthony Burgess, who wrote English dialogue for Italian movies--whether for subtitles or dubbing I forget--said that Fellini had his cast say sequential numbers; that way, he could just order them to start again from 10. I do recall seeing someone credited with Michel Piccioli's lines on an Austrian film.
I don’t (just) mean with regards to audibility but also lip sync and intonation. It depends on the original language of course. The lip sync in squid game was noticeably off for example (Watched it with my family who dont like subs).
Flashback to "Interstellar", where the first 40 minutes involved this guy speaking in some deep-south US accent with a mouth so full of marbles that he was incomprehensible. At some point later in the movie, I bailed. Apart from the black-hole CGI it was utter crap. Perhaps the incomprehensible dialogue was a deliberate attempt to hide the paucity of plot, logic or story.
Interstellar is a bunch of neat and well-realized space sci-fi situations stitched together by a mediocre-at-best unjustifiably-proud-of-itself plot and a solid 30 minutes too much runtime.
Nonsense. The black hole CGI was made with the help of Kip Thorne, a friend of Nolan and a theoretical astrophysicist, who ever published a paper from his research on what supermassive black holes actually look like.
Why do you say it looks utter crap then?
Why do you say it looks utter crap then?
Was it that movie with the universe in the bookshelf?
> My impression is: The "arteestes" have taken over Hollywood, and making stylish movies take precedence over making movies that are easy to watch and hear.
Based on what? In my experience, most of the worst audio experiences are middle-brow action movies (such as Edge of Tomorrow and Nolan's movies), not auteur.
Based on what? In my experience, most of the worst audio experiences are middle-brow action movies (such as Edge of Tomorrow and Nolan's movies), not auteur.
>I dont know why so many movies are shot in the dark. It might make sense when viewed in a theater, but when viewing at home, I can't see anything.
I can't recommend OLED TVs enough. Worth every penny.
But I agree that way too many movies nowadays are too dark.
I can't recommend OLED TVs enough. Worth every penny.
But I agree that way too many movies nowadays are too dark.
Video sounds like a calibration issue, streaming issue, or just a poor TV. Generally only OLED and Plasma are good at showing dark scenes due to very high contrast ratios. On everything else dark scenes just become a washed mess. Another issue is bitrate - dark scenes need very high bitrates to preserve detail. Streaming services almost across the board destroy dark detail (for a counter-example, see Meridian on Netflix, but most of Netflix's streams are not great in this regard).
If you care about it, Blu-ray and OLED should give you excellent dark scene detail.
If you care about it, Blu-ray and OLED should give you excellent dark scene detail.
I think the onus is on the movie+software to display right on my hardware, not on me to buy special hardware so I can see what's going on. This kind of hubris (most famously seen in the battle scenes from the last season of Game of Thrones) is really incredible.
If you want to have a good experience, the solution is to buy a good TV.
If you want to have a bad experience or don't care, buy a shitty TV.
I agree lots of shows nowadays are too dark overall, but I don't agree that they shouldn't have dark scenes at all because some people bought shitty TVs.
If you want to have a bad experience or don't care, buy a shitty TV.
I agree lots of shows nowadays are too dark overall, but I don't agree that they shouldn't have dark scenes at all because some people bought shitty TVs.
If I want to have a great experience, I need a great TV (and sound system, connection etc) - that much is on me.
If I want to see and hear what is happening in the movie/TV show, that should just be guaranteed for the home release of the movie/TV show for any kind of popular TV/sound system - this is on the film.
The gaming industry, for all its faults, has this right. Any game has some recommended system requirements, and as long as your machine meets these, it's the game's fault if it's not working well. No one will say "X is stuttering at low graphical settings on my system" "obviously, you need to buy the best GPU money can buy if you want to enjoy that game".
Of course, the way to achieve this is to give consumers the ability to trade off visual (and audio) fidelity for usability on the system they have. Apparently Hollywood is entirely allergic to this idea.
If I want to see and hear what is happening in the movie/TV show, that should just be guaranteed for the home release of the movie/TV show for any kind of popular TV/sound system - this is on the film.
The gaming industry, for all its faults, has this right. Any game has some recommended system requirements, and as long as your machine meets these, it's the game's fault if it's not working well. No one will say "X is stuttering at low graphical settings on my system" "obviously, you need to buy the best GPU money can buy if you want to enjoy that game".
Of course, the way to achieve this is to give consumers the ability to trade off visual (and audio) fidelity for usability on the system they have. Apparently Hollywood is entirely allergic to this idea.
>give consumers the ability to trade off visual (and audio) fidelity for usability on the system they have
They are able to for the video. You just think the tradeoff is too great.
With my OLED, I'm yet to see a scene in a movie where it is too dark to be able to tell what's going on. I agree that too many movies are too dark for pleasurable viewing though.
So I think if you bought a crappy TV then you can't see it properly, if you bought a good TV then you just find it a bit dark.
Unfortunately, with the audio complaints however, everyone is suffering, even people who bought high end systems.
I have a medium-high end calibrated 5.1 surround system with a sub. I still have the volume issues like everyone else, having to turn it up to hear the dialog and then having to turn it down for loud scenes so I don't blow the doors off.
Thousands of dollars worth of speakers and I still have to turn subtitles on to understand the audio sometimes.
So the annoying sound is clearly an "artistic" choice, or incompetence by the directors to ruin the audio for everyone.
But I don't think every single scene has to be bright just because some people bought systems that can't display dark scenes properly.
I agree to an extent with you, but regarding the visuals, because I use an OLED the dark scenes don't bother me much, so because it's adequate for me, I think it could be argued that there you have made a tradeoff with the equipment you bought. Sometimes I watch movies on my IPS PC monitor and that is bearable too.
With audio, there's no amount you can spend to make it adequate.
I'll put it this way, I find the audio nowadays much more terrible than the video.
I don't know why directors insist on annoying people in every way available to them though. It should be their job to make good movies, and a movie is about audio and video. So they're literally bad at major parts of their job.
It seems to be a fairly recent thing though. I wonder why this is happening?
Why do modern directors want to piss off their customers??
They are able to for the video. You just think the tradeoff is too great.
With my OLED, I'm yet to see a scene in a movie where it is too dark to be able to tell what's going on. I agree that too many movies are too dark for pleasurable viewing though.
So I think if you bought a crappy TV then you can't see it properly, if you bought a good TV then you just find it a bit dark.
Unfortunately, with the audio complaints however, everyone is suffering, even people who bought high end systems.
I have a medium-high end calibrated 5.1 surround system with a sub. I still have the volume issues like everyone else, having to turn it up to hear the dialog and then having to turn it down for loud scenes so I don't blow the doors off.
Thousands of dollars worth of speakers and I still have to turn subtitles on to understand the audio sometimes.
So the annoying sound is clearly an "artistic" choice, or incompetence by the directors to ruin the audio for everyone.
But I don't think every single scene has to be bright just because some people bought systems that can't display dark scenes properly.
I agree to an extent with you, but regarding the visuals, because I use an OLED the dark scenes don't bother me much, so because it's adequate for me, I think it could be argued that there you have made a tradeoff with the equipment you bought. Sometimes I watch movies on my IPS PC monitor and that is bearable too.
With audio, there's no amount you can spend to make it adequate.
I'll put it this way, I find the audio nowadays much more terrible than the video.
I don't know why directors insist on annoying people in every way available to them though. It should be their job to make good movies, and a movie is about audio and video. So they're literally bad at major parts of their job.
It seems to be a fairly recent thing though. I wonder why this is happening?
Why do modern directors want to piss off their customers??
Why is it on the viewer instead of on the producer to learn color theory? You can perfectly imply darkness with shades of blue and purple and get a far stronger ranger than shades of black can provide.
Color theory? If the image is meant to be dark I want it to be dark.
I don't want my blacks to be blue or purple because you won't buy a better TV.
If the TV you have can't show dark colors properly, your TV is faulty.
I don't want my blacks to be blue or purple because you won't buy a better TV.
If the TV you have can't show dark colors properly, your TV is faulty.
> dark. The last few scenes of Edge of Tomorrow were impossible to understand because of this. My impression is: The "arteestes" have taken over Hollywood
1. I thought movie firms were paid to sell more modern screens with contrast ratios 3000:1, so they made it look pitch black for everyone with an older screen. Didn’t occur to me that it could be for art.
2. Oh, in terms of unwatchable shooting style, there was the hype of shoulder cameras in the 2010s, with its apogee in Bourne Legacy (4th). Most shots were 0,5s to 1 second for 20 minutes in a row, unbearable. Especially when it’s a dialog with someone expressing feelings, feels like the director is surfing on the view selectors.
1. I thought movie firms were paid to sell more modern screens with contrast ratios 3000:1, so they made it look pitch black for everyone with an older screen. Didn’t occur to me that it could be for art.
2. Oh, in terms of unwatchable shooting style, there was the hype of shoulder cameras in the 2010s, with its apogee in Bourne Legacy (4th). Most shots were 0,5s to 1 second for 20 minutes in a row, unbearable. Especially when it’s a dialog with someone expressing feelings, feels like the director is surfing on the view selectors.
I think the dark thing is to hide crappy CGI, which doesn't blend well with physical sets and costumes under good lighting.
The actual article content here about the reasons for dialogue getting worse is interesting. I'd have suspected it's mostly about the actors no longer being predominantly stage-trained, but apparently that is part of it but a small part. I don't really notice it personally, though, since my wife is deaf, so ever since marrying her, I've watched everything with closed captioning on.
The actual article content here about the reasons for dialogue getting worse is interesting. I'd have suspected it's mostly about the actors no longer being predominantly stage-trained, but apparently that is part of it but a small part. I don't really notice it personally, though, since my wife is deaf, so ever since marrying her, I've watched everything with closed captioning on.
I gave up watching Ozark because I couldn't see a damn thing that was happening, and that has no CGI at all. Sometimes it really is just a (bad) stylistic choice.
I think it's probably more related to the move to HDR content. Modern movies/tv are shot and edited with HDR in mind. HDR usually has much more granular control over the brightness within a scene, not just that one part can get super bright.
That's great for people with TV's capable of that type of playback, but for everyone else, tough luck unless you have a blacked-out home theatre room to watch all you casual TV in.
I saw a great example of this in a recent LTT video[0] of a cheap "HDR" TV. The shadows all blended together and the highlights just looked like a flat white instead of a very lightly shadowed sparkle.
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGHwYMwXX88
That's great for people with TV's capable of that type of playback, but for everyone else, tough luck unless you have a blacked-out home theatre room to watch all you casual TV in.
I saw a great example of this in a recent LTT video[0] of a cheap "HDR" TV. The shadows all blended together and the highlights just looked like a flat white instead of a very lightly shadowed sparkle.
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGHwYMwXX88
> On an unrelated note: I dont know why so many movies are shot in the dark. It might make sense when viewed in a theater, but when viewing at home, I can't see anything. The last few scenes of Edge of Tomorrow were impossible to understand because of this.
Actually after re-watching BladeRunner 2049 on my q95t I came to conclusion that I like watching dark scenes on my TV as much or even more then in cinema.
Actually after re-watching BladeRunner 2049 on my q95t I came to conclusion that I like watching dark scenes on my TV as much or even more then in cinema.
Me too.
I often watch movies on my OLED and think, "this is so dark it only just looks OK on this TV - it would definitely look like crap if we were at the cinema".
Honestly I'm surprised that there are so many dark scenes in movies for that reason alone.
I often watch movies on my OLED and think, "this is so dark it only just looks OK on this TV - it would definitely look like crap if we were at the cinema".
Honestly I'm surprised that there are so many dark scenes in movies for that reason alone.
Yeah, but my point was that q95 is not even an OLED screen. FALD=high together with filmmaker mode do the job just fine.
I wasn't specifically talking about OLED but the (lack of) quality of cinema projection, probably projection in general. I bet the q95 is very good as well.
Last time I went to the cinema (a long time ago now), it was terrible how little contrast it had. Half the time I was thinking how crap it looked and I'd rather just watch it at home.
Last time I went to the cinema (a long time ago now), it was terrible how little contrast it had. Half the time I was thinking how crap it looked and I'd rather just watch it at home.
[deleted]
>I dont know why so many movies are shot in the dark.
Your TV is not doing HDR properly, cannot get bright enough, or is not calibrated correctly. If it's 4k, it's done in HDR which requires a TV to get bright enough, otherwise you will have to do tone mapping and turn up the gamma which can't be done in many setups.
>For me-- I rarely watch movies without subtitles nowadays; can't understand half the dialog. try enabling dynamic range compression on your TV/Sound Receiver. Many movies are mastered for Cinema, which means voices are whsiper quiet and other sounds are loud af, this compresses it down to a more reasonable range for a home setup.
>For me-- I rarely watch movies without subtitles nowadays; can't understand half the dialog. try enabling dynamic range compression on your TV/Sound Receiver. Many movies are mastered for Cinema, which means voices are whsiper quiet and other sounds are loud af, this compresses it down to a more reasonable range for a home setup.
Dark scenes don't compress well. You get tons of banding and blocking and artifacts in dark scenes.
You also have to control the ambient lighting around the TV which can be a pain in the ass.
If directors want movies to be seen, they should consider the home viewing environment. Just as the article says many films consider the home sound environment and mixing for non-pristine environments.
You also have to control the ambient lighting around the TV which can be a pain in the ass.
If directors want movies to be seen, they should consider the home viewing environment. Just as the article says many films consider the home sound environment and mixing for non-pristine environments.
Having watched all of Game of Thrones on Blueray, when the final season came out I was stuck with a UK streaming service called "nowtv", which my router reported was pulling in at 4mbit a second.
The entire battle of winterfell was just mush.
Needless to say nowTV get no money from me.
The entire battle of winterfell was just mush.
Needless to say nowTV get no money from me.
Given that was specifically filmed to be streamed, it's amazing how poorly the director considered what the streamed, compressed version would look like. Or that HBO didn't insist on something that would stream better.
Was it? I thought HBO was a cable channel, which of course is streamed and compressed, but TV has always been streamed and compressed (even in analog days - 422 is compression standard as it throws away a ton of chroma, interlacing is compression as it throws away half the data, both rely on the brain to recover), so I assume you're talking about unicast streaming.
I'm sure it would have looked fine if it was streaming at 20mbit.
In the UK, the DPP sets contribution bitrates for close-to-tx programs* HD are 45mbit h264 or 60mbit mpeg2 for live contribution, if you have to compress it (clearly 1.5gbit is preferred), and for UHD I think it's 90Mbit h265. Those bitrates are set to assume another compression layer, but I suspect if that episode had gone out on say BBC One HD it would have been running at 15mbit+ for the entire time.
* Game of Thrones I suspect would be classed as a close-to-tx delviery to reduce chances of leaks - certainly I know a broadcaster in Austrialia was receiving it on an NTT decoder over an MPLS from their LA office rather than as a file)
I'm sure it would have looked fine if it was streaming at 20mbit.
In the UK, the DPP sets contribution bitrates for close-to-tx programs* HD are 45mbit h264 or 60mbit mpeg2 for live contribution, if you have to compress it (clearly 1.5gbit is preferred), and for UHD I think it's 90Mbit h265. Those bitrates are set to assume another compression layer, but I suspect if that episode had gone out on say BBC One HD it would have been running at 15mbit+ for the entire time.
* Game of Thrones I suspect would be classed as a close-to-tx delviery to reduce chances of leaks - certainly I know a broadcaster in Austrialia was receiving it on an NTT decoder over an MPLS from their LA office rather than as a file)
Now TV is owned by a traditional premium broadcaster called Sky. I'm pretty sure they deliberately handicap the service, so as not to cannibalise their more expensive traditional packages.
I enjoyed this quote:
"I was at a matinee with a lot of elderly people because I took my mom, and I'm like, 'None of these people can hear what's happening.' The manager, who was probably all of 22 years old, said, 'Well, that's how the film was done.' And I said, 'No, I did the sound on the film. That's not how it was done.'"
I've been in a meeting where a third-party vendor was explaining how I was incorrect about how some particular functionality in an application worked, and I had to stop him and inform him that I was the one who developed that functionality and knew exactly how it worked.
"I was at a matinee with a lot of elderly people because I took my mom, and I'm like, 'None of these people can hear what's happening.' The manager, who was probably all of 22 years old, said, 'Well, that's how the film was done.' And I said, 'No, I did the sound on the film. That's not how it was done.'"
I've been in a meeting where a third-party vendor was explaining how I was incorrect about how some particular functionality in an application worked, and I had to stop him and inform him that I was the one who developed that functionality and knew exactly how it worked.
We have this very famous writer in our country whos works are in the secondary school curriculum. So one day a teacher is giving a lesson to the kids and off she goes into the wilderness about the man. One girl in the class quickly points out that she's wrong about this and that and in fact it happened this way. Teacher quickly goes into a meltdown accusing the girl of being out of her place. The she asks who is she to tell these kind of things to her. "I'm his granddaughter"- replied the girl...
I took a class on religion in college and had a professor tell me what the rituals in my religion were and what they meant to me personally. I don't think she understood the difference between Catholic and Protestant because she argued I was wrong when I brought it up after class.
What was the point of disagreement?
Your average Catholic, for example, isn't going to be especially knowledgeable about liturgy, much less theology. Ask your average Catholic what the mass fundamentally is and chances are he won't be able to tell you in any "academic" sense. So the situation isn't quite analogous. Now had she contradicted Jesus about the meaning of the last supper...
Your average Catholic, for example, isn't going to be especially knowledgeable about liturgy, much less theology. Ask your average Catholic what the mass fundamentally is and chances are he won't be able to tell you in any "academic" sense. So the situation isn't quite analogous. Now had she contradicted Jesus about the meaning of the last supper...
It was that all Christian traditions followed specific Catholic rituals that had specific meanings and forms. She told me I didn't know anything about Christianity (in almost those exact words) and that I was wrong about the meaning and form of the rituals my church preformed.
Someone who is supposedly has a Masters in Religion and talking about Christianity should have at least heard about Martin Luther if they are going to speak with any authority.
I wish I was exaggerating. I really do. She didn't get good reviews and I don't recall seeing her after that semester.
Note: She was white and spoke with a native midwestern accent.
Someone who is supposedly has a Masters in Religion and talking about Christianity should have at least heard about Martin Luther if they are going to speak with any authority.
I wish I was exaggerating. I really do. She didn't get good reviews and I don't recall seeing her after that semester.
Note: She was white and spoke with a native midwestern accent.
There is, famously, a similar episode involving Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., in the 1986 Rodney Dangerfield comedy Back to School.
I’d love to hear more details; who was the writer if you don’t mind sharing?
This is the actual (likely apocryphal) story:
https://www.livelib.ru/articles/post/44654-za-chto-kataev-po...
This is the writer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Kataev
This is the granddaughter: https://www.facebook.com/tina.kataeva
This is the book: http://www.sovlit.net/sonofregiment/
The story is that Tina's friend got help from Kataev on the school essay about his book. The essay was graded 3 (C) by her teacher. Kataev was very amused.
This is the writer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Kataev
This is the granddaughter: https://www.facebook.com/tina.kataeva
This is the book: http://www.sovlit.net/sonofregiment/
The story is that Tina's friend got help from Kataev on the school essay about his book. The essay was graded 3 (C) by her teacher. Kataev was very amused.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardas_Brazd%C5%BEionis
Also, a correction to my initial post: he was girl's grand grandfather.
Also, a correction to my initial post: he was girl's grand grandfather.
I like how that quote actually reflects the hubris and disconnection to reality of the sound engineer. That is exactly "how it was done", how he mixed it, the fact that it didn't sound good in a real life matinee (as opposed to the ideal conditions of his sound lab) is a fact of life. That is the target he should be mixing for, for the real life matinees with imperfect equipment and acoustics (or for the even worse real life living rooms with crappy sound system and acoustics), but instead he mixes to sound perfect in his perfect lab. He is doing it wrong, optimizing for the wrong metrics, but he can't fathom being wrong, so he will keep screwing up and people will keep not being able to understand movies. It is the sound engineer version of "You're holding it wrong".
I like how that quote actually reflects the hubris and disconnection to reality of the sound engineer. That is exactly "how it was done", how he mixed it, the fact that it didn't sound good in a real life matinee (as opposed to the ideal conditions of his sound lab) is a fact of life.
I'd be really surprised if sound engineers working in film never bother to listen to a cut of the movie in a theater. But then again the number of times I've seen "you didn't try compiling before committing did you?" crop up in chat while discussing a broken build that maybe they don't :)
I'd be really surprised if sound engineers working in film never bother to listen to a cut of the movie in a theater. But then again the number of times I've seen "you didn't try compiling before committing did you?" crop up in chat while discussing a broken build that maybe they don't :)
I wouldn't be surprised.
I stopped watching movies because it seems new movies are missing any interesting plot in them. It is like people making these movies and paying for these movies focused all on special effects and forgot that without an actual interesting plot these are just completely hollow.
So if your job is to "make a movie" and you forgot on a point on the TODO list that says "make the plot interesting" then I am not surprised sound engineers can forget "make it work in end user setting".
I stopped watching movies because it seems new movies are missing any interesting plot in them. It is like people making these movies and paying for these movies focused all on special effects and forgot that without an actual interesting plot these are just completely hollow.
So if your job is to "make a movie" and you forgot on a point on the TODO list that says "make the plot interesting" then I am not surprised sound engineers can forget "make it work in end user setting".
Honestly, most of the new good stuff is series; not movies. With the way television and streaming allows series with decent budgets, it's easier to craft a compelling story over 9 hours. Movies are more akin to "novellas" since they are time limited. How many people really read that many novellas or short stories?
I like SF and I read a lot of short stories, regularly. But I admit I prefer longer books or even series because if something is interesting I don't like it to end too quickly and I like the feeling of being embedded within the world.
If you had no previous exposure to Star Trek and watched any single episode of Star Trek DS9 it might not be very compelling. What makes it compelling is the attachment to the characters and the knowledge of the backstory the episode is embedded in.
If you had no previous exposure to Star Trek and watched any single episode of Star Trek DS9 it might not be very compelling. What makes it compelling is the attachment to the characters and the knowledge of the backstory the episode is embedded in.
Going off topic a bit, when I was in a hardcore band back in the early 90s, and we went into the studio to record, the engineer would give us rough mix downs of the music to go play in our car stereo as a quick check on it. In the recording studio with those high end studio monitors, it can make things sound far different then the more average sound system most people have access to.
I believe I read in an interview ages back that Trent Reznor did this as well!
What was the name of your band?
Ha. We were called One Step Ahead. Sounded cool to a 17 year old me.
Sounds like a cool youth crew band name to a 2x17 year old me.
This you? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fx4kmM0tqpQ
I'm into it. Sounds a bit like Silent Majority (Long Island band), who I believe would have been your contemporaries although this is all before my time so I'm speculating.
This you? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fx4kmM0tqpQ
I'm into it. Sounds a bit like Silent Majority (Long Island band), who I believe would have been your contemporaries although this is all before my time so I'm speculating.
It's standard practice - every producer or engineer worth his/her salt will some some version of this. Many engineers keep cheap boomboxes or crappy speakers in the control room for exactly this purpose.
I agree with the sentiment re: "mix it for the real world", but aren't theaters required to adhere to some degree of compliance with presentation standards as part of their licensing agreements with film distributors? I know that the "THX" mark carries specific requirements, as do "IMAX" and "OMNIMAX".
There is a legend that (ABBA) sound engineer Michael B. Tretow used to have a small (and completely illegal) FM transmitter in the studio. When he thought he had the mix right, he'd patch the sound out to that and then go down to the car park to listen to the song on his car stereo. If it still sounded good, fine, else, it was back to the draw... er, mixing board.
A movie cinema is calibrated to a certain decibel level and should have a predictable frequency response.
So it should sound the same, or very similar to, his sound lab.
If the quality of the sound in the cinema is bad, that's the cinema's fault.
So it should sound the same, or very similar to, his sound lab.
If the quality of the sound in the cinema is bad, that's the cinema's fault.
I've a friend who's done sound for some of those grunge bands in Seattle back in the day, mixing down from those 2inch tape. Had a killer sound lab setup. And also a few sets of real-shit amps and speakers - to check the sound on more common equipment.
Did you read the full article? It sounds like you are misrepresenting the quote.
It’s apparently industry standard to have the cinemas set their volume to value 7. The sound engineers then prepare the soundtrack with the expectation it will be set to 7. This particular theatre was set to 5.5 (perhaps to compensate for a previous movie that didn’t follow the standard and was mixed “too loud”), and hence the movie was significantly more quiet than the sound engineer intended.
It’s apparently industry standard to have the cinemas set their volume to value 7. The sound engineers then prepare the soundtrack with the expectation it will be set to 7. This particular theatre was set to 5.5 (perhaps to compensate for a previous movie that didn’t follow the standard and was mixed “too loud”), and hence the movie was significantly more quiet than the sound engineer intended.
[deleted]
> I like how that quote actually reflects the hubris and disconnection to reality of the sound engineer. That is exactly "how it was done", how he mixed it, the fact that it didn't sound good in a real life matinee (as opposed to the ideal conditions of his sound lab) is a fact of life. That is the target he should be mixing for, for the real life matinees with imperfect equipment and acoustics
This... has absolutely nothing to do with the quote. You're hallucinating a meaning that is pretty much the opposite of what's written.
Here's more:
> Mann says this isn't a new problem — it's actually been happening for decades:
>> what's happened is, particularly in the '90s, because that felt like the time when they were doing the loudest mixes – I didn't mix in those times, but the stories were that mixers and maybe directors would want stuff mixed at a level that was just ear-bleeding. And what would happen is, that would get to the theater, there would be complaints from the patrons, and the theater would be compelled to turn down the mix. And when the next feature came in the next week, the level was never reset, and now that level is playing way low for the regularly mixed movie. That's a problem that vendors have been dealing with for many years. I know [it's still happening]. For example, the Landmark Theater chain does not play their theaters above 5.5 on the cinema processor, where the set standard is supposed to be 7 on that processor.
> The idea that a significant theater chain would purposefully ignore industry standards for something as crucial as sound is genuinely shocking. [1]
> "I did a film that was [played] at a 4 [out of 7 on the processor scale]," [Baker Landers] says, still appalled by the memory. "I was at a matinee with a lot of elderly people because I took my mom, and I'm like, 'None of these people can hear what's happening.' The manager, who was probably all of 22 years old, said, 'Well, that's how the film was done.' And I said, 'No, I did the sound on the film. That's not how it was done.'"
> When sound pros encounter those dumbfounding levels of separation between the mixing stages and theaters, Mann says there can be a schism about the best way to move forward:
> "You're going to have some people on the mixing stage who want to turn [up that volume higher than the standard of 7] to compensate for the fact that theaters are playing it low. But [if you do that,] when you go to those theaters that are calibrated correctly, you're going to blow the doors off that theater because it's going to be ripping loud. So one thing we always try to tell our people is that you have to be happy with the mix in the properly calibrated environment, and when you go down to your local movieplex, the speaker could be blown, the level could be low, God knows what's going to happen when you're out in the wild, and we can't control all of that."
There is no issue with the equipment or the acoustics. The problem is that some movies decided to cheat on volume, theaters were forced to respond by lowering volume, and now movies that don't cheat are too quiet.
[1] I can't agree with the author that this is shocking. The theaters' role is to play each movie at an appropriate volume. If a movie is too loud, of course it should be turned down. This problem came from movies wishing they could be louder than the competition.
This... has absolutely nothing to do with the quote. You're hallucinating a meaning that is pretty much the opposite of what's written.
Here's more:
> Mann says this isn't a new problem — it's actually been happening for decades:
>> what's happened is, particularly in the '90s, because that felt like the time when they were doing the loudest mixes – I didn't mix in those times, but the stories were that mixers and maybe directors would want stuff mixed at a level that was just ear-bleeding. And what would happen is, that would get to the theater, there would be complaints from the patrons, and the theater would be compelled to turn down the mix. And when the next feature came in the next week, the level was never reset, and now that level is playing way low for the regularly mixed movie. That's a problem that vendors have been dealing with for many years. I know [it's still happening]. For example, the Landmark Theater chain does not play their theaters above 5.5 on the cinema processor, where the set standard is supposed to be 7 on that processor.
> The idea that a significant theater chain would purposefully ignore industry standards for something as crucial as sound is genuinely shocking. [1]
> "I did a film that was [played] at a 4 [out of 7 on the processor scale]," [Baker Landers] says, still appalled by the memory. "I was at a matinee with a lot of elderly people because I took my mom, and I'm like, 'None of these people can hear what's happening.' The manager, who was probably all of 22 years old, said, 'Well, that's how the film was done.' And I said, 'No, I did the sound on the film. That's not how it was done.'"
> When sound pros encounter those dumbfounding levels of separation between the mixing stages and theaters, Mann says there can be a schism about the best way to move forward:
> "You're going to have some people on the mixing stage who want to turn [up that volume higher than the standard of 7] to compensate for the fact that theaters are playing it low. But [if you do that,] when you go to those theaters that are calibrated correctly, you're going to blow the doors off that theater because it's going to be ripping loud. So one thing we always try to tell our people is that you have to be happy with the mix in the properly calibrated environment, and when you go down to your local movieplex, the speaker could be blown, the level could be low, God knows what's going to happen when you're out in the wild, and we can't control all of that."
There is no issue with the equipment or the acoustics. The problem is that some movies decided to cheat on volume, theaters were forced to respond by lowering volume, and now movies that don't cheat are too quiet.
[1] I can't agree with the author that this is shocking. The theaters' role is to play each movie at an appropriate volume. If a movie is too loud, of course it should be turned down. This problem came from movies wishing they could be louder than the competition.
Part of the problem however is the theater’s solution is too naive — ideally they should be defaulting to 7, and then modifying for the exceptional cases, and then returning to default for the next movie.
What they’re apparently doing is hitting the exceptional case, changing the volume, and then leaving it there forevermore — so effectively picking the lowest common denominator. So every movie is screwed, except the movie with the most egregious violations
What they’re apparently doing is hitting the exceptional case, changing the volume, and then leaving it there forevermore — so effectively picking the lowest common denominator. So every movie is screwed, except the movie with the most egregious violations
Who said "too loud" was the exceptional case?
What they should be doing is running their sound through a volume normalizer. A system that might be set at "7" or "4" is the problem. Set the system to the number of decibels you want, not the amount of amplification you want.
What they should be doing is running their sound through a volume normalizer. A system that might be set at "7" or "4" is the problem. Set the system to the number of decibels you want, not the amount of amplification you want.
Wouldn't a normalizer destroy the dynamic range of the sound throughout the movie?
That seems to be the problem mentioned in the "Mixing For Streaming" portion of the article.
> Case in point: Mann recently worked on Joe Carnahan's "Boss Level," which was originally meant to be a theatrical release. "For a variety of reasons, it ended up at Hulu, and when we got a look at that spec, they require it to be based on the overall [volume] of the film, not on the dialogue level of the film. Consequently, that's a big action movie with shooting and cars and big music, and the result of that is that you have a much more squashed up, un-impactful mix ... there are only a couple different ways of measuring these things these days, and I can only imagine that it's somebody just not understanding the reason why it should be this and not that."
That seems to be the problem mentioned in the "Mixing For Streaming" portion of the article.
> Case in point: Mann recently worked on Joe Carnahan's "Boss Level," which was originally meant to be a theatrical release. "For a variety of reasons, it ended up at Hulu, and when we got a look at that spec, they require it to be based on the overall [volume] of the film, not on the dialogue level of the film. Consequently, that's a big action movie with shooting and cars and big music, and the result of that is that you have a much more squashed up, un-impactful mix ... there are only a couple different ways of measuring these things these days, and I can only imagine that it's somebody just not understanding the reason why it should be this and not that."
> Wouldn't a normalizer destroy the dynamic range of the sound throughout the movie?
Not in itself; the question of "how loud is the soundtrack overall?" is not the same as the question of "what's the difference between the soundtrack at its loudest and the soundtrack at its quietest?". (That second question is about "compression".)
The normalizer will ensure that if you were trying to have explosions that are too loud, what happens instead is that your dialogue will be too quiet. But that's a good thing. Mann thinks that volume should be set at a level appropriate for the dialogue, even if that means suffering hearing loss from exposure to non-dialogue parts of the soundtrack, and Mann is wrong about that. Hulu is doing the correct thing.
Not in itself; the question of "how loud is the soundtrack overall?" is not the same as the question of "what's the difference between the soundtrack at its loudest and the soundtrack at its quietest?". (That second question is about "compression".)
The normalizer will ensure that if you were trying to have explosions that are too loud, what happens instead is that your dialogue will be too quiet. But that's a good thing. Mann thinks that volume should be set at a level appropriate for the dialogue, even if that means suffering hearing loss from exposure to non-dialogue parts of the soundtrack, and Mann is wrong about that. Hulu is doing the correct thing.
There's a fun story about David Korn, author of the Korn shell, embarrassing a Microsoft presenter at a USENIX Windows NT conference. The presenter was making assertions about a Korn shell that Microsoft licensed being a "real" Korn shell.
Question 5: https://slashdot.org/story/01/02/06/2030205/david-korn-tells...
Question 5: https://slashdot.org/story/01/02/06/2030205/david-korn-tells...
It's curious that when the memetically-preferred version of this story is told, it's always the person in power who is revealed to lack expertise and the person without power who has hidden, superior expertise.
There never seem to be versions of this story shared where, to use the link's example, the movie manager turns out to be a semi-retired audio engineer.
But statistically, surely that happens at least equally?
There never seem to be versions of this story shared where, to use the link's example, the movie manager turns out to be a semi-retired audio engineer.
But statistically, surely that happens at least equally?
The story is not about "power" vs. "powerless." I know that's how people like to analyze everything these days, but this ain't it.
It's about "smug and arrogant and thinks he knows" vs. "really does know." That's why it's an evergreen.
A favorite example is in Annie Hall where a smug guy is explaining Marshall McLuhan to his date, and Woody drags out the real McLuhan to tell the guy he's full of it.
It's about "smug and arrogant and thinks he knows" vs. "really does know." That's why it's an evergreen.
A favorite example is in Annie Hall where a smug guy is explaining Marshall McLuhan to his date, and Woody drags out the real McLuhan to tell the guy he's full of it.
If it were about "smug and arrogant and thinks he knows" vs. "really does know", then wouldn't we see the more senior person equally in both roles? I'm noting that hasn't been my experience.
How many times have you heard it told of the form "The senior architect made a statement about transaction locking, with which the junior engineer disagreed and cited ACID properties. It turned out the senior architect was Jim Gray."?
Granted, it's a terrible story, which is why it probably doesn't get told. Because you would have expected Jim Gray to be more knowledgeable about the topic. I guess it just irked me, because the anecdotes always feel curiously similar.
How many times have you heard it told of the form "The senior architect made a statement about transaction locking, with which the junior engineer disagreed and cited ACID properties. It turned out the senior architect was Jim Gray."?
Granted, it's a terrible story, which is why it probably doesn't get told. Because you would have expected Jim Gray to be more knowledgeable about the topic. I guess it just irked me, because the anecdotes always feel curiously similar.
>I'm noting that hasn't been my experience.
I think you are just overlooking something so common and in your face that it seems invisible.
In terms of retail/services, it's a 'customers are idiots' story, and they abound. An automotive example is "I need a 710 cap". In computer troubleshooting, the PEBKAC, PICNIC, and ID10T stories.
The BOFH stories might not be real, but they scratch an itch real people encounter. the BODY mangles people both up and down the chain of authority.
Vast swathes of industries have internal "Junior/contractors doesn't know how to think". On a drilling rig, a new hand will be sent to get the key to the vee door.Or a bucket of steam. Or in other industries, maybe a left-handed screwdriver or some such. In military, there are lots of real stories of drill sergeants making recruits feel foolish, and you can be sure they laugh about it over coffee with each other.
There's the SR71 airspeed story. And pilots get their callsigns from doing something stupid, normally.
No there's lots of stories where the expert comes out on top. Perhaps as many as "senior is an idiot"
I think you are just overlooking something so common and in your face that it seems invisible.
In terms of retail/services, it's a 'customers are idiots' story, and they abound. An automotive example is "I need a 710 cap". In computer troubleshooting, the PEBKAC, PICNIC, and ID10T stories.
The BOFH stories might not be real, but they scratch an itch real people encounter. the BODY mangles people both up and down the chain of authority.
Vast swathes of industries have internal "Junior/contractors doesn't know how to think". On a drilling rig, a new hand will be sent to get the key to the vee door.Or a bucket of steam. Or in other industries, maybe a left-handed screwdriver or some such. In military, there are lots of real stories of drill sergeants making recruits feel foolish, and you can be sure they laugh about it over coffee with each other.
There's the SR71 airspeed story. And pilots get their callsigns from doing something stupid, normally.
No there's lots of stories where the expert comes out on top. Perhaps as many as "senior is an idiot"
Because it's not surprising if the more senior one knows - there's an expectation that they should know more than the less senior person.
So it's not an interesting anecdote the other way around.
So it's not an interesting anecdote the other way around.
It's kind of "dog bites man."
Anyhow, the Annie Hall bit doesn't hinge on any senior-junior relationship.
Anyhow, the Annie Hall bit doesn't hinge on any senior-junior relationship.
The manager would be the one telling the story, with the patron being the confidently-incorrect character in said story.
Meme-wise, the "loser" of the exchange doesn't go on the recite the story. Then again, I love to tell my friends stories about the times I was the idiot. But I generally don't announce them to the universe.
Meme-wise, the "loser" of the exchange doesn't go on the recite the story. Then again, I love to tell my friends stories about the times I was the idiot. But I generally don't announce them to the universe.
That version exists in two forms: subordinate complaning about or bad mouthing a colleague or a colleague's work before discovering that they are are actually criticizing the boss they are talking to or someone of higher rank (boss' spouse, boss' boss); or the analogous of a child teaching their pokemon expert parents to play pokemon
Good example! Forgot about that one. I guess that's a bit more of hidden identity than expertise though.
> There never seem to be versions of this story shared where, to use the link's example, the movie manager turns out to be a semi-retired audio engineer.
> But statistically, surely that happens at least equally?
You think theater owners are statistically at least as likely to hold a non-theater-owner job as audience members of no specified profession are?
> But statistically, surely that happens at least equally?
You think theater owners are statistically at least as likely to hold a non-theater-owner job as audience members of no specified profession are?
Why not? I met a sound engineer who'd worked most large venues in the US, and for pretty much every 80s rock group on tour... as my Uber driver from the Indianapolis airport. It was his retirement gig. Owning a theater seems fun, if you were in the film-making industry for your career.
(And if you were curious, because of course I asked: Apparently indoor sports stadiums are the absolute worst for concert acoustics. At least with open stadiums it gets rid of some of the echo, and they can work their magic to pad out the space.)
(And if you were curious, because of course I asked: Apparently indoor sports stadiums are the absolute worst for concert acoustics. At least with open stadiums it gets rid of some of the echo, and they can work their magic to pad out the space.)
If the movie manager was a retired audio engineer, wouldn't the sound be correct? How would the story fit?
Per the article, an example would be if the movie were incorrectly mastered (overly loud or quiet) and therefore the movie manager took it upon themselves to correct for that via theater settings.
I don't think it matters which is more likely to happen because almost always these stories are considered apocryphal, like this one is mentioned as being by another comment, which is a nice way of saying probably made up
I had the same sort of experience with a third party IT solution who was in on a call with my client and I... he started babbling on how his company had years of experience dealing with this exact piece of software and it would be no problem at all to take over the development and maintenance for it.
I was the ONLY developer who had ever touched a line of code in that software.
Which is just as funny as the recruiter who wanted to recruit me for a position and said I'd be a great fit and a shoe-in for the interview because he had years of experience working with the company in question as a partner.
...I wrote the job description. It was literally an open position for my direct subordinate. I was the hiring manager and had never heard of the recruiter before. So I replied with "interest," we went through the interview process, I submitted my resume, and then he called us up to speak to the person hiring for the position saying that he had a GREAT candidate. This guy hadn't even read the resume, because my current employer was on it as it was obviously my current job. I let him in on my secret, and also let his manager know about my experience with him too. She used to work for me on my team as a recruiter before taking the job to start the firm's New Orleans office.
I was the ONLY developer who had ever touched a line of code in that software.
Which is just as funny as the recruiter who wanted to recruit me for a position and said I'd be a great fit and a shoe-in for the interview because he had years of experience working with the company in question as a partner.
...I wrote the job description. It was literally an open position for my direct subordinate. I was the hiring manager and had never heard of the recruiter before. So I replied with "interest," we went through the interview process, I submitted my resume, and then he called us up to speak to the person hiring for the position saying that he had a GREAT candidate. This guy hadn't even read the resume, because my current employer was on it as it was obviously my current job. I let him in on my secret, and also let his manager know about my experience with him too. She used to work for me on my team as a recruiter before taking the job to start the firm's New Orleans office.
Your story reminds of a research seminar I attended where one of my finance professors pointed out a flaw in the economic argument made by the speaker. The speaker, who is a noted finance researcher, confidently said that the professor was wrong because a paper by A, B, and C had shown otherwise. My prof replied that perhaps the speaker was misinterpreting A, B, and C's results. At this point, another professor chimed in and gently informed the speaker that he was talking to B who is a co-author on the paper by A, B, and C! I don't remember the reaction of the speaker much but I recall that he handled it in a dignified way and backtracked from his claim.
This is the part that bothers me:
---If that is the case, that the director does not want us to understand the dialogue then why make it so important to the story? Why make it so dialogue heavy then?
"I think in the case of Mr. Nolan, with ["Tenet"], the characters have a mask, and he wants to keep the original sound because I think for him it's more real," he says. Presumably, that mentality also extends to "The Dark Knight Rises," in which Bane's mask muffled a significant percentage of that character's lines.
---If that is the case, that the director does not want us to understand the dialogue then why make it so important to the story? Why make it so dialogue heavy then?
I tried to watch Tenet at the cinema and had to walk out after a minute or two and get a refund. The sound was cranked up insanely loud. I don't know if the people who sat through the full running time were at risk of hearing damage but it certainly felt that way to me, and that is not something I care to risk.
The staff said that the requirement to play it at this volume had come from the distributors and ultimately from the director, in response to complaints of inaudible dialog. No idea if that's true but they also said they were now getting loads of complaints about the volume and having to refund tickets, unsurprisingly. What a ridiculous mess.
Anyway, I eventually watched at home with subtitles and it seems I didn't miss much. Michael Spicer summed it up beautifully [1].
[1] https://youtu.be/s2FXfFeRtJo
The staff said that the requirement to play it at this volume had come from the distributors and ultimately from the director, in response to complaints of inaudible dialog. No idea if that's true but they also said they were now getting loads of complaints about the volume and having to refund tickets, unsurprisingly. What a ridiculous mess.
Anyway, I eventually watched at home with subtitles and it seems I didn't miss much. Michael Spicer summed it up beautifully [1].
[1] https://youtu.be/s2FXfFeRtJo
I’m sure it was damaging, honestly. I have to think most professional sound mixers have lost part of their hearing, because the standards for “good audio” are far too loud. For example, IMAX, which is supposed to have technically well calibrated sound in the theatre, clocks around 95db in the especially loud parts, and over 80db for large portions. This is after watching Dune in two different IMAX theaters and checking my watch’s audio level sensor :)
But Tenet is probably the loudest I’ve ever heard in a theatre. It had to be more than 90db for large parts of it.
And then I attended a wedding reception with a DJ recently, and it was over 90db for the whole two hours in a small-ish hall. Imo, that’s unacceptable.
In both of these experiences, my ears hurt bad. I can only think that the people making the decision to go this loud have already had their hearing damaged enough that they don’t think it’s loud enough. Well, why don’t we fix the problem by not busting people’s ears in the first place!
Maybe we should start suing folks who try to damage our hearing? Or get some legislation to set a cap on the average and max db allowed at various events? I’m not really sure how this problem will get solved.
And don’t get me wrong, I love immersive audio! I really enjoyed a lot of Dune’s soundtrack and mixing. I’m just shocked that immersive audio today basically means “turn it up to 90db to kill their ears” and not “let’s have a really meticulously mixed and nicely balanced experience.” But that enjoyment ends when my ears hurt.
But Tenet is probably the loudest I’ve ever heard in a theatre. It had to be more than 90db for large parts of it.
And then I attended a wedding reception with a DJ recently, and it was over 90db for the whole two hours in a small-ish hall. Imo, that’s unacceptable.
In both of these experiences, my ears hurt bad. I can only think that the people making the decision to go this loud have already had their hearing damaged enough that they don’t think it’s loud enough. Well, why don’t we fix the problem by not busting people’s ears in the first place!
Maybe we should start suing folks who try to damage our hearing? Or get some legislation to set a cap on the average and max db allowed at various events? I’m not really sure how this problem will get solved.
And don’t get me wrong, I love immersive audio! I really enjoyed a lot of Dune’s soundtrack and mixing. I’m just shocked that immersive audio today basically means “turn it up to 90db to kill their ears” and not “let’s have a really meticulously mixed and nicely balanced experience.” But that enjoyment ends when my ears hurt.
I just don't get it, why is that allowed?
There are clear guidelines on how many decibels for how long damages ears, and noise is simple to measure.
I've been to concerts which were ear-splitting even up in the bleachers. It's just crazy to think how loud it would be right at the stage.
I just don't understand how venues don't get sued into oblivion, and I wish they would because it's too goddamn loud to enjoy.
There are clear guidelines on how many decibels for how long damages ears, and noise is simple to measure.
I've been to concerts which were ear-splitting even up in the bleachers. It's just crazy to think how loud it would be right at the stage.
I just don't understand how venues don't get sued into oblivion, and I wish they would because it's too goddamn loud to enjoy.
I watched Tenet at home with subtitles, and had no problem with it. Between wife going "what are they saying?" halfway thru many movies, and getting kids to read fast, subtitles are just left on all the time now. I'm a bit annoyed at my own propensity to stare at them instead of the action, but it's better than "wait, what?".
For Tenet specifically, lots of dialogue without masks was still nearly inaudible on my home theater, while gunplay was deafening. It's not a mask issue, or at least not exclusively - it's an audio mix issue. There are scenes with just two unmasked people that were inaudible to me without having the background sounds painfully loud.
What you describe is infuriating. Many shows suffer from the same issue that even background noise obscures dialogue of main characters that is crucial for the story. It got so prevalent and so annoying that I started to vote with my feet.
If in the first few minutes I have problems hearing the dialogue, I just stop watching, leave a 1-star review with a comment that the audio is incomprehensible and ask for a refund in case I paid for watching. Hopefully, the others would start doing the same and the trend will go away.
If in the first few minutes I have problems hearing the dialogue, I just stop watching, leave a 1-star review with a comment that the audio is incomprehensible and ask for a refund in case I paid for watching. Hopefully, the others would start doing the same and the trend will go away.
I had the same problem. A fairly high end 5.1 system and I was unable to hear most of the dialogue. I have no idea what was going on in that movie, but I could hear the firing pin hit the primer in crystal clarity.
Tenet was just unintelligible; we ended up just turning it off. It had nothing to do with masks (we couldn't understand the non-masked sections either). It was purely sound mixing and a bad call from Nolan.
I won't be seeing another Nolan film until he changes his mind on the importance of voice quality, as I like to enjoy movies and not strain to have any idea what is going on. His choices in sound quality and mixing completely breaks any sense of immersion for me...if they were outstanding plot-wise I would possibly struggle through. But without that sense of immersion, they're just not worth watching imho, as his films are all about the immersion factor.
I won't be seeing another Nolan film until he changes his mind on the importance of voice quality, as I like to enjoy movies and not strain to have any idea what is going on. His choices in sound quality and mixing completely breaks any sense of immersion for me...if they were outstanding plot-wise I would possibly struggle through. But without that sense of immersion, they're just not worth watching imho, as his films are all about the immersion factor.
FWIW a couple of friends of mine really enjoyed tenet watching it in the cinema
They all wanted to rewatch it so we saw it in my home cinema and I put on subtitles, and everyone agreed that once they could actually understand the dialog, it was not a very good movie at all…
They all wanted to rewatch it so we saw it in my home cinema and I put on subtitles, and everyone agreed that once they could actually understand the dialog, it was not a very good movie at all…
I've long claimed that Transformers movies would be greatly improved by having untranslated, non-subtitled Japanese dialog.
I'm not even sure that would have helped Transformers: The Last Knight.
TLK looped around to being enjoyable for me. Sanity buffer overflow.
is the dialogue that important in a batman movie? they are more dialogue heavy than most superhero movies, but I don't think it hurts the experience that much to miss some words here and there.
I wonder if there's a parallel worth making to music. some kinds of music (eg, metal subgenres) feature vocals that are basically unintelligible unless you look them up. it can be nice to know the lyrics, but it's not essential to enjoying the music.
I wonder if there's a parallel worth making to music. some kinds of music (eg, metal subgenres) feature vocals that are basically unintelligible unless you look them up. it can be nice to know the lyrics, but it's not essential to enjoying the music.
I dunno, Batman spans the gamut from "campy bang pows" to "lite morality plays" -- not quite to the extent of, say, Joker, but some of the Nolan Batmans were way more existential and dialogue/monologue-driven than the older Batmans.
Maybe a more similar distinction would be the X-Men/Wolverine movies vs Logan, where the latter is a more introspective take on the character, and so the story is relatively more important than the action sequences.
Maybe a more similar distinction would be the X-Men/Wolverine movies vs Logan, where the latter is a more introspective take on the character, and so the story is relatively more important than the action sequences.
I'm not trying to shit on nolan's batman movies; they are definitely a cut above most superhero fare. I'm pointing out that dialogue is only one of the ways in which the content of a movie is expressed. superhero movies are an easy example; you can deduce a lot about the plot just be observing who fights whom in what order. there are also subtler cues like body language, lighting, costume design, etc. some visual content (eg, belter creole in the expanse) has deliberately unintelligible dialogue. as long as it's an intentional choice (or at least a known tradeoff), it can still work.
Yeah, but with the Nolan Batmans in particular, I rewatched them again at home with subtitles on and got a way different (better, IMO) experience than the unintelligible garble at the theater.
When I first saw Batman Begins, I didn't at all understand that there was some connection between Henri Ducard and Ra's al Ghul (both played by Liam Neeson)... was really confused why Batman's apparent friend/mentor suddenly became the villain, and then somehow a bunch of other villains showed up and wanted to do something to Gotham (but couldn't understand what). At first watch, all I got was that "Batman went through some hard shit before Gotham". It didn't at all prepare me for the plotlines of the subsequent movies and none of the characters made sense until I could rewatch it with subtitles on.
My understanding is that Nolan chose that unintelligibility for some artistic reason, but as a moviegoer, it just means I miss most of the entire plot of his movies. That's especially the case when you combine unintelligible dialogue with fast dark scenes... just a lot of blurry fists and wheels that's incredibly hard to keep track of.
Also Interstellar... first time I watched it, all I really got was "corn farmer goes to space and gets betrayed". None of the intricacies of the Bookshelf of Time™ got through because it was all unintelligible. Argh.
When I first saw Batman Begins, I didn't at all understand that there was some connection between Henri Ducard and Ra's al Ghul (both played by Liam Neeson)... was really confused why Batman's apparent friend/mentor suddenly became the villain, and then somehow a bunch of other villains showed up and wanted to do something to Gotham (but couldn't understand what). At first watch, all I got was that "Batman went through some hard shit before Gotham". It didn't at all prepare me for the plotlines of the subsequent movies and none of the characters made sense until I could rewatch it with subtitles on.
My understanding is that Nolan chose that unintelligibility for some artistic reason, but as a moviegoer, it just means I miss most of the entire plot of his movies. That's especially the case when you combine unintelligible dialogue with fast dark scenes... just a lot of blurry fists and wheels that's incredibly hard to keep track of.
Also Interstellar... first time I watched it, all I really got was "corn farmer goes to space and gets betrayed". None of the intricacies of the Bookshelf of Time™ got through because it was all unintelligible. Argh.
Understanding every word seems to be a personal preference and if that is someones preference don't see a Nolan movie. Most of his movies fool around with timeline, visuals and speech to create some disorientation. Memento would be a screaming example of that. You could find the dvd chapter order and watch it linearly if you wanted to. But that would seem to me to completely avoid the purpose of the movie.
When I watched Tenet I had to let parts of my thinking go and just let it wash through me as it went without constantly trying to think too hard about what was happening. Dark corners were later illuminated, some weren't, but ok. My wife couldn't handle the start of it as there was too much not understood. I thought it was great and worth another watch.
For other movies, as discussed in the piece, there is more going on with dialogue quality that isn't intended. That's the real shame.
When I watched Tenet I had to let parts of my thinking go and just let it wash through me as it went without constantly trying to think too hard about what was happening. Dark corners were later illuminated, some weren't, but ok. My wife couldn't handle the start of it as there was too much not understood. I thought it was great and worth another watch.
For other movies, as discussed in the piece, there is more going on with dialogue quality that isn't intended. That's the real shame.
Part of what made Momento great was discovering that the timeline was backwards, you were just as confused as the main character...that was the point.
Agreed that it was meant to be confusing. What I found cool was there was a forward and backward plot line and you had to piece it together and just run with it as it went. Lots of people didn't like it. I thought it was a really good use of editing to create an effect.
Right? In such a world where people can't understand each other's voices, wouldn't they use hand signals and other gestures? That's how his movies would look if realism is the real goal (and not just laziness or a lack of care).
Dark Knight Rises also just plain clips when the explosions + soundtrack get too loud on the Front Left/Right tracks. During the rooftop fight with Catwoman/Batman/Bane henchmen for example. It's like somebody just increased the gain after the master was done without caring for proper limiting.
In Nolan's case, it's simply because he's a poor filmmaker.
As someone living in the city with a lot of neighbors, I mostly have the problem with high dynamic range. I hate it so much and you cannot deactivate it in most streaming media. I get that it is effect-full, but either I need subtitles or I blast my neighbors to insanity. Ever watched a Youtube video and then switched to Netflix and you couldn't hear anything? That is because the amplitude is set to very low for them to have a buffer with which they suddenly blast you out of the window in case anything happens.
That sound guys aren't even allowed to utter criticism of director or risk career speaks volumes about the industry.
That sound guys aren't even allowed to utter criticism of director or risk career speaks volumes about the industry.
It’s not even just the neighbors. Sometimes (almost always) I don’t want ear-splitting explosions just to be able to barely hear dialog.
Yeah, it's always immediately frustrating when you realize it's "one of those movies" where I'm going to have to ride the volume the entire time.
The nice side-effect from that constant volume changing is that the volume display covers the subtitles, which means I can neither hear nor even read the subtitles the dialogue >:(
The nice side-effect from that constant volume changing is that the volume display covers the subtitles, which means I can neither hear nor even read the subtitles the dialogue >:(
Yeah, I really wished home video releases had a separate professional surround mix with a much lower dynamic range between normal dialog and the loudest sounds. Dynamic range compression works, but it's often heavy-handed and very noticeable (especially on an Apple TV).
I think cinema mixes are conventionally around 30 dB between dialog and the loudest sounds, which works great in the cinema (both because there is less ambient sound, and because you expect really loud sounds in the cinema), but is pretty extreme at home if you don't have a proper "home theater" setup. That's like the difference between normal conversation and a lawn mower. If you're watching a movie at home and two characters are talking and then one of them starts their lawn mower, do you actually want it to be as loud as if you fired up a lawn mower in your living room? For sustained sounds I generally wouldn't want it much more than 10 dB above dialog (that's like running a washing machine) and for very peaky effects like gunshots 20 dB is probably pushing it for most people's living room setups.
I think cinema mixes are conventionally around 30 dB between dialog and the loudest sounds, which works great in the cinema (both because there is less ambient sound, and because you expect really loud sounds in the cinema), but is pretty extreme at home if you don't have a proper "home theater" setup. That's like the difference between normal conversation and a lawn mower. If you're watching a movie at home and two characters are talking and then one of them starts their lawn mower, do you actually want it to be as loud as if you fired up a lawn mower in your living room? For sustained sounds I generally wouldn't want it much more than 10 dB above dialog (that's like running a washing machine) and for very peaky effects like gunshots 20 dB is probably pushing it for most people's living room setups.
>is pretty extreme at home if you don't have a proper "home theater" setup
I have a proper home theater setup and it seems worse.
With subs the walls shake. Try watching a movie at night with someone asleep in the next room.
It's so irritating, I wish they'd be sensible. It doesn't seem like anyone enjoys it, I can't work out why the directors don't want a movie to be an enjoyable experience for the viewer.
Every comment that I've seen echoes the same sentiment. Nobody is springing to the defense of these ridiculous dynamics.
I have a proper home theater setup and it seems worse.
With subs the walls shake. Try watching a movie at night with someone asleep in the next room.
It's so irritating, I wish they'd be sensible. It doesn't seem like anyone enjoys it, I can't work out why the directors don't want a movie to be an enjoyable experience for the viewer.
Every comment that I've seen echoes the same sentiment. Nobody is springing to the defense of these ridiculous dynamics.
The “home theater enthusiast” community online definitely seems to enjoy it, they’re always chasing higher bandwidth and bit depth audio formats! Meanwhile I can tell the difference in video quality between a UHD Blu-ray and a high quality 4k stream (like Netflix) but there’s no way I could tell the difference in the surround sound tracks.
You're getting data compression mixed up with dynamics.
I'm talking about the difference between the volume level of the quiet dialog compared to the ridiculously loud explosions. This is an "artistic" choice by the director.
I'm talking about the difference between the volume level of the quiet dialog compared to the ridiculously loud explosions. This is an "artistic" choice by the director.
> I have a proper home theater setup and it seems worse.
> With subs the walls shake. Try watching a movie at night with someone asleep in the next room.
I mean that's the point of a subwoofer. If you want to have actual low frequency response you will feel it. Obviously this setup is not compatible wiht someone trying to sleep in the next room.
> With subs the walls shake. Try watching a movie at night with someone asleep in the next room.
I mean that's the point of a subwoofer. If you want to have actual low frequency response you will feel it. Obviously this setup is not compatible wiht someone trying to sleep in the next room.
Yes but too much dynamics, ie I want to set a volume level where the explosions are just a little bit loud, and still be able to hear the dialog.
The way it is in most movies nowadays, if I set a volume level where I can hear the dialog, the explosions rattle the walls and shake the floor. It seems crazy. Why isn't the dialog louder?
The way it is in most movies nowadays, if I set a volume level where I can hear the dialog, the explosions rattle the walls and shake the floor. It seems crazy. Why isn't the dialog louder?
Some receivers have a function to help. On my Onkyo, it's called Dynamic Volume. It's essentially just a compressor to turn quiet sounds to medium quiet and loud sounds to medium loud.
In my setup, I go one step further. I have a 'no subwoofer' activity on my Harmony hub that turns off a smart outlet switch to the sub and turns on Dynamic Volume. No more keeping my roommate up by watching movies late at night.
In my setup, I go one step further. I have a 'no subwoofer' activity on my Harmony hub that turns off a smart outlet switch to the sub and turns on Dynamic Volume. No more keeping my roommate up by watching movies late at night.
And not just receivers. When I had traditional cable TV, the cable box had a setting like that. Some TVs probably have it. Some streaming devices might as well, at least Roku's documentation (https://support.roku.com/article/226802507) says theirs have it.
Yeah but it just sucks having no bass... :-P
If you are on Linux, you can use JACK or PipeWire and simply insert a compressor (I use the one from Calf) into the route to your audio sink.
Some receivers also have this function. On my Onkyo, it's called Dynamic Volume.
In my setup, I go one step further. I have a 'no subwoofer' activity on my Harmony hub that turns off a smart outlet switch to the sub and turns on Dynamic Volume. No more keeping my roommate up by watching movies late at night.
In my setup, I go one step further. I have a 'no subwoofer' activity on my Harmony hub that turns off a smart outlet switch to the sub and turns on Dynamic Volume. No more keeping my roommate up by watching movies late at night.
I use PulseEffects (for its equalizer), and it has a compressor too, among a myriad of other tools. NB I had to tweak its buffer settings to get the audio delay down to 40ms from the original 140ms.
Fyi, PulseEffects is now called EasyEffects.
Well, yes, but EasyEffects is a pipewire based thing. I didn't want to mess with my audio setup much, so I'm using PulseEffects, from this PPA: https://launchpad.net/~mikhailnov/+archive/ubuntu/pulseeffec...
A limiter might work for the purpose even better.
You can rebalance movie files with ffmpeg, but not a solution with streaming.
Funny how dynamic compression became all the range in music, but the opposite happened to movies.
Funny how dynamic compression became all the range in music, but the opposite happened to movies.
Maybe you could inline some LADSPA compression filter with PulseAudio?
I recently struggled to find all of the channels in my DTS audio collection. Turns out that it many tracks the important bits were hiding in the front-left-center and right-left-center channels which the hardware decoder in the sound system send nowhere but I was able to find via software decoding.
Completely absurd to have to hack so hard on this stuff, even if I love the process!
I recently struggled to find all of the channels in my DTS audio collection. Turns out that it many tracks the important bits were hiding in the front-left-center and right-left-center channels which the hardware decoder in the sound system send nowhere but I was able to find via software decoding.
Completely absurd to have to hack so hard on this stuff, even if I love the process!
Yes, I saw that in a sibling post but unfortunately streaming platforms don’t support Linux. For the explicit reason to keep control of such things.
I was really surprised to read that most movies have a different mix for streaming. Most of what I stream has such high dynamic range that it feels like a cinema mix to me. I can only imagine how bad it would be if we actually got the cinema mix.
I was surprised by that as well.
The writing style of this article really drives me nuts. Let me tell you why.
<ad>
I talked to some people. Some of them wanted to. Others didn't. Some were anonymous. Some weren't. Let's get to the bottom of this topic.
<NSFW ad>
"It's really a lot of problems all at once." said one person I talked to. What they say next will shock you.
<ad>
This article drags on so long I almost forgot what I was reading about. Maybe they should investigate the decreasing signal:noise ratio of modern journalism next.
<ad>
I talked to some people. Some of them wanted to. Others didn't. Some were anonymous. Some weren't. Let's get to the bottom of this topic.
<NSFW ad>
"It's really a lot of problems all at once." said one person I talked to. What they say next will shock you.
<ad>
This article drags on so long I almost forgot what I was reading about. Maybe they should investigate the decreasing signal:noise ratio of modern journalism next.
And the headline states
The only real fix is to use a dynamic compression algorithm. Most AVRs (home theater receivers) have this, and I now always use the chrome plugin AudioChannel for playback to devices that do not have that feature.
(And Three Ways To Fix It)
The only real fix is to use a dynamic compression algorithm. Most AVRs (home theater receivers) have this, and I now always use the chrome plugin AudioChannel for playback to devices that do not have that feature.
I hate long articles - because ADHD - but I read this whole thing. I thought it was incredibly well-researched and well-written and fully identified a problem that has been grumbled about continuously but not fully developed before.
1. you could make sure you read articles like this on a platform that sensibly allows effective ad blocking like ublock origin.
2. the fact that you consider this a long article says a lot more about you than the article or the author. I read the whole thing (with ublock origin active) and I did not notice much if anything that I would consider "noise" in the context.
2. the fact that you consider this a long article says a lot more about you than the article or the author. I read the whole thing (with ublock origin active) and I did not notice much if anything that I would consider "noise" in the context.
> you could make sure you read articles like this on a platform that sensibly allows effective ad blocking like ublock origin.
Ah yes, victim blame.
> the fact that you consider this a long article
I didn't say that. I said the article drags on so long before it gets to the actual content. Not that the article itself was long.
> I did not notice much if anything that I would consider "noise" in the context.
Good for you. We had different experiences, then.
Ah yes, victim blame.
> the fact that you consider this a long article
I didn't say that. I said the article drags on so long before it gets to the actual content. Not that the article itself was long.
> I did not notice much if anything that I would consider "noise" in the context.
Good for you. We had different experiences, then.
I'm not victim blaming you. Anyone who reads HN understands that a huge chunk of the contemporary web provides a fucked up experience for readers and viewers because of ad placement. I consider that complaining about any particular instance of ads doing that is essentially redundant at this point. The web is screwed up by ads, use an ad blocker or complain about online ads in general, not any particular article.
> I didn't say that. I said the article drags on so long before it gets to the actual content.
There are 6 paragraphs of introduction before jumping right into the Nolan case. With default font sizing, it's a bit less than 1 page of content in my web browser. How is that "drags on so long before it gets to the actual content"?
I tried to restrict my remarks to the article in question. You closed with the sweeping generalization "Maybe they should investigate the decreasing signal:noise ratio of modern journalism next."
> I didn't say that. I said the article drags on so long before it gets to the actual content.
There are 6 paragraphs of introduction before jumping right into the Nolan case. With default font sizing, it's a bit less than 1 page of content in my web browser. How is that "drags on so long before it gets to the actual content"?
I tried to restrict my remarks to the article in question. You closed with the sweeping generalization "Maybe they should investigate the decreasing signal:noise ratio of modern journalism next."
You and I seem to have different opinions on "dragging on". A full page of introductory fluff before getting to content, to me, is ridiculously long winded, needless bloat in an article.
it's long! 5,440 words 31,008 characters (~20 minutes to read)
And there are no charts. The proposition is simple. (Dialogue got worse.) What's the metric. How it has gotten worse. Where's the data.
Okay, maybe it's not that kind of article, but it's full of fluff. (At least compared to what I expect clicking on a HN link that has an interesting title.)
And there are no charts. The proposition is simple. (Dialogue got worse.) What's the metric. How it has gotten worse. Where's the data.
Okay, maybe it's not that kind of article, but it's full of fluff. (At least compared to what I expect clicking on a HN link that has an interesting title.)
Ironic how it is lost on the author of the article, that he himself, makes it difficult to understand such a poorly structured and click-bait ridden article.
So it's not only me then. Fair enough, English isn't my first language but I have been studying it since I was very little, and usually in the real world I tend to have close to zero issues at understanding speech, be it in first person, YouTube videos, talk shows, radio or animated shows.
I always watch BBC documentaries or clips from the previous night late shows (such as Colbert's or Kimmel's), often while cooking or doing chores, and I can follow basically the entire thing without having to go back, even if I'm distracted or if there's some environmental noise.
I can't say that it's the same with films, though. They are often hard to follow for me without subtitles, I suspect due to IMHO just how terribly they are mixed. Sound effects and music are usually boosted up to outrageous levels, which cause the dialogue to become muffled or close to inaudible. It just sucks and it's not a good experience at all.
I always watch BBC documentaries or clips from the previous night late shows (such as Colbert's or Kimmel's), often while cooking or doing chores, and I can follow basically the entire thing without having to go back, even if I'm distracted or if there's some environmental noise.
I can't say that it's the same with films, though. They are often hard to follow for me without subtitles, I suspect due to IMHO just how terribly they are mixed. Sound effects and music are usually boosted up to outrageous levels, which cause the dialogue to become muffled or close to inaudible. It just sucks and it's not a good experience at all.
> not only me then
I wonder if this explains part of TV's surging popularity relative to film. I also find modern movies frustrating to watch, in part because I can't follow the dialogue. (I assumed it was a hearing thing.)
I wonder if this explains part of TV's surging popularity relative to film. I also find modern movies frustrating to watch, in part because I can't follow the dialogue. (I assumed it was a hearing thing.)
I think that one reason is often that a film is way longer than a single TV series episode, so it requires a bigger "commitment". I can potentially watch 3 episodes of different TV series in a single evening or either 3 episodes of the same series, while I can only watch a single movie due to its length. Also, often TV series have more time to properly introduce and develop storylines, while films have to either simplify the plot or be unbearably long in order for the format to be feasible. This makes them often harder to follow or less interesting, for instance Game of Thrones would have been probably turned into utter rubbish if it was made into a film instead of (lots of) episodes - not that it ended that well anyway, though.
There's also the technical fix in AC4 and some other modern formats where the dialog track can be split out and additional metadata added so that the audio can be "remixed" for whatever listening environment people are in.
The truth about it is that people listen to audio in less-than-perfect environments all the time. The ideal "Home Theater" is a room that has one door and isn't a passage from one place to another and doesn't have people doing other things. In real life a lot of people have a big TV in an room that's part of an open plan and a "boomy" soundtrack which is great in the theater will drive people apart in their home.
The truth about it is that people listen to audio in less-than-perfect environments all the time. The ideal "Home Theater" is a room that has one door and isn't a passage from one place to another and doesn't have people doing other things. In real life a lot of people have a big TV in an room that's part of an open plan and a "boomy" soundtrack which is great in the theater will drive people apart in their home.
This is a nice idea. Theater mix is definitely different from what I want at home, and being able to switch between various mixes (e.g. headphone, binaural, small speaker, home theater, stereo image/surround, clarity, immersive music, immersive effects, personal preference, etc.) would be great.
Syracuse New York has an ATSC 3.0 TV transmitter that I pick up with
https://www.silicondust.com/product/hdhomerun-flex-4k/
I'd like to say that this is a wonderful product that "just works" but unfortunately some of the devices I have (XBOX ONE, 8th gen iPad) don't support the AC4 soundtrack even though my various trashy Android devices handle it just fine.
https://www.silicondust.com/product/hdhomerun-flex-4k/
I'd like to say that this is a wonderful product that "just works" but unfortunately some of the devices I have (XBOX ONE, 8th gen iPad) don't support the AC4 soundtrack even though my various trashy Android devices handle it just fine.
DTS:X has that as well, my receiver has a "dialog level" control to adjust it.
There's a Dolby equivalent as well, but as far as I know there are zero titles that make use of it except for a couple of demo discs.
There's a Dolby equivalent as well, but as far as I know there are zero titles that make use of it except for a couple of demo discs.
In my naive younger years, when Blu-Ray was being announced, I thought, "Hey, they could put the dialogue on one track, the music on another, and the foley business somewhere else, then you could mix those as you needed." Just put the baby down? Switch to dialogue, with only ten percent explosions and soundtrack.
(This of course would only be useful where you had original audio tracks)
(This of course would only be useful where you had original audio tracks)
The video games have pretty much universally been having at least two separate volume sliders (one for music, other for SFX, optionally the third one for the dialog) for about 15? 20? years. Maybe in another 20 years the cinema industry will adopt something like it, who knows?
Some games go even further. For example, Uncharted 2 had different dynamic ranges and even a midnight mode. A Naughty Dog audio engineer explained it at the time on the AVS Forum [0]. It's a great post, here's an excerpt:
> Dialog always pans across center, but in movies, most FX generally don't. In games, since much of the action happens up front, even with full-range centers, putting all of the volume in one speaker for all the dialog and FX happening directly in front of you generally doesn't sound as good as spreading the power for the FX around to the front mains.
It says a lot about Naughty Dog that they wanted players to have the best experience, no matter what setup they had.
[0] https://www.avsforum.com/threads/uncharted-among-thieves.109...
> Dialog always pans across center, but in movies, most FX generally don't. In games, since much of the action happens up front, even with full-range centers, putting all of the volume in one speaker for all the dialog and FX happening directly in front of you generally doesn't sound as good as spreading the power for the FX around to the front mains.
It says a lot about Naughty Dog that they wanted players to have the best experience, no matter what setup they had.
[0] https://www.avsforum.com/threads/uncharted-among-thieves.109...
Satisfactory went ballistic in the latest update, adding 50 separate volume sliders for every sound effect. Not sure it was necessary, but I did use it for a couple of items I find especially irritating.
I keep waiting for this setting and I don’t understand why a service like Netflix or HBO hasn’t offered it yet.
Directors and the like would probably refuse to cooperate.
This is mostly prevalent in video games because they lack auteurs obsessed with this kind of thing.
This is mostly prevalent in video games because they lack auteurs obsessed with this kind of thing.
Do they have access to the individual audio tracks for anything that they haven't produced themselves?
Unlikely but if they offered it on their own stuff it could create a trend.
And increasingly they are losing the quality content that they didn't produce themselves.
And increasingly they are losing the quality content that they didn't produce themselves.
In some cases this winds up being an abdication of responsibility, as I've found the default can be mixed quite poorly, with eg music drowning out the dialogue. But it's certainly nice to have that control.
In 5.1/7.1 audio mixes, the center channel is the magic channel with the dialogue.
It gives plenty of control. It's pretty great in practice.
It gives plenty of control. It's pretty great in practice.
Yeah but that messes up the balance, ie character moves from left to right - it is quiet, then LOUD, then quiet.
I guess upping the center channel is an ok solution in practice because this doesn't happen very often, but DTS:X and Dolby TrueHD do actually support a separate dialog object that you can adjust the volume of independently, but AFAIK there are no actual movie titles that are mixed to make use of this feature.
I guess upping the center channel is an ok solution in practice because this doesn't happen very often, but DTS:X and Dolby TrueHD do actually support a separate dialog object that you can adjust the volume of independently, but AFAIK there are no actual movie titles that are mixed to make use of this feature.
Until people don't have a center speaker hooked up.
That's power user thinking! Nothing is built for power users anymore, except most FOSS.
The problem is multiplied by an information-theory phenomenon: like a mathematics textbook, each line of dialog these days is distilled to contain maximum information. There is little redundancy. If you miss a line, it really matters.
Combine that with this trend of filming long, brooding pauses punctuated by only occasional dialog, and you get a lot of resentful watchers after they've waited for 30 seconds for the actor to finally say something, and then it trails off unintelligibly, leading to a 90-second adventure in rewinding not far enough, then too far, then waiting for buffering...
Combine that with this trend of filming long, brooding pauses punctuated by only occasional dialog, and you get a lot of resentful watchers after they've waited for 30 seconds for the actor to finally say something, and then it trails off unintelligibly, leading to a 90-second adventure in rewinding not far enough, then too far, then waiting for buffering...
To add to that: this gives the show some (undeserved) re-watchablility in that you’ll finally be able to understand some bit of dialog.
Anybody else find it very weird and off-putting that folks thought even talking about these issues would affect their careers? I mean, does that not speak volumes about the toxic professional atmosphere hollywood labors in?
You're often going to have to cite specific movies, specific directors when talking about this. With Nolan, it's easy because he's acknowledged this stuff and it's well known. Same with Tom Hardy. But start mentioning other directors, actors and films with specific complaints about how the vocal mix was handled, and I imagine you'll be persona non grata for vocal mixing fairly soon.
I assumed this was breathless overstatement designed to hook the reader with some ‘forbidden knowledge.’ Not anything real.
I like to think they tried to talk to more sound engineers but their dialog was inaudible.
It is hard to find any industry where skilled consultants are willing to trash talk their repeat customers.
I'd be afraid to talk negatively about any of the jobs I've had at a FAANG while working there.
A lot of blame can be put on the mumbly pseudo-naturalistic trend of prestige acting, but the real blame is dynamic ranges that are too wide in order to make effects/soundtracks ass-quakingly loud. I thought they were going to mention that in the last item.
If the dialog were mixed louder, lower volume at the cinema wouldn't be corrected (because everybody would understand what was going on) but sound meant to make the audience jump, wouldn't. This transfers to home viewing, because people at home aren't going to max out the volume of their TVs to watch your movie, so they now can't hear the dialog (unless you remix home releases.)
It's like the opposite of the loudness war. Enforcing loudness when the viewer has control of the volume knob requires making the necessary sound (the dialog) so quiet that people have to turn it up. It's like the volume blast of TV commercials before it was regulated.
https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/loud-commercials
If the dialog were mixed louder, lower volume at the cinema wouldn't be corrected (because everybody would understand what was going on) but sound meant to make the audience jump, wouldn't. This transfers to home viewing, because people at home aren't going to max out the volume of their TVs to watch your movie, so they now can't hear the dialog (unless you remix home releases.)
It's like the opposite of the loudness war. Enforcing loudness when the viewer has control of the volume knob requires making the necessary sound (the dialog) so quiet that people have to turn it up. It's like the volume blast of TV commercials before it was regulated.
https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/loud-commercials
Here is what you can do. Take an episode from The Simpsons in 2005, then take one that was released this year. Listen.
In the 2005 audio, the silent parts have grains. Both the sound effect and voice are almost at the same level. You don't spend your time constantly lowering and increasing the volume as music, sfx, and voice alternate.
Now in 2021, (or more like 2018 the last time I watched), it almost feels like the voice is on a different track. Unless you wear earphones, you will be smashing the volume button up and down from scene to scene.
With headphones, it sounds disconnected. You can feel the voice actors standing there in that empty soundproof room. The quality of the recording is so flawless that maybe you need studio monitors to hear. The home sound system doesn't cut it anymore.
The soundsystem of the future is subtitles.
In the 2005 audio, the silent parts have grains. Both the sound effect and voice are almost at the same level. You don't spend your time constantly lowering and increasing the volume as music, sfx, and voice alternate.
Now in 2021, (or more like 2018 the last time I watched), it almost feels like the voice is on a different track. Unless you wear earphones, you will be smashing the volume button up and down from scene to scene.
With headphones, it sounds disconnected. You can feel the voice actors standing there in that empty soundproof room. The quality of the recording is so flawless that maybe you need studio monitors to hear. The home sound system doesn't cut it anymore.
The soundsystem of the future is subtitles.
> "Mumbling, breathy, I call it self-conscious type of acting, is so frustrating," she says. "I would say a lot of the younger actors have adopted that style. I think the onus also falls on the directors to say, 'I can't understand a word you're saying. I'm listening to dailies, and I can't understand.' No amount of volume is going to fix that."
In Star Trek: Discovery, all other issues aside, one that irks me a lot is the main character delivers about 2/3rds of her lines in a literal whisper.
This is meant to convey emotion, since the writing on Star Trek now is dripping with deep emotion in every scene.
I'm not sure if it's the direction or the acting, but when every line is whispered, then nothing is.
In Star Trek: Discovery, all other issues aside, one that irks me a lot is the main character delivers about 2/3rds of her lines in a literal whisper.
This is meant to convey emotion, since the writing on Star Trek now is dripping with deep emotion in every scene.
I'm not sure if it's the direction or the acting, but when every line is whispered, then nothing is.
It's interesting AMC cites surveys. I haven't seen a survey but even if I did I'm not sure I'd complain to them about unintelligible dialogue -- as a layman, I've assumed that's mostly a problem with the movie and not the theater (they don't have a separate dialogue track they can boost). And I guess now that I read this I'm not sure how much it'd matter, given directors themselves are complaining about the problem.
There are few things more frustrating than researching a problem, taking it to the people responsible, and having them dismiss it with “no one has complained before.”
I don’t think I’ve ever dismissed someone coming to me in that way, and I hope if I ever do that I’m fired for it.
I don’t think I’ve ever dismissed someone coming to me in that way, and I hope if I ever do that I’m fired for it.
Maybe one thing is more frustrating: stalebot closing issues that have recent responses (I count emoji reactions).
FYI, most of the big theater chains can provide subtitles in their theaters. There are two types of devices they'll give you... one is a personal two-line LED display that fits in your cupholder and sits around eye level, the other is a pair of electronic glasses that overlays them onto the picture. Both sync to a wireless signal that gets broadcast in the theater itself.
I can't watch movies without those anymore. You just have to go to guest services and ask for them; sometimes the frontline staff won't know they have them, but a manager almost always knows how to get one and set it up for you. It's free.
I can't watch movies without those anymore. You just have to go to guest services and ask for them; sometimes the frontline staff won't know they have them, but a manager almost always knows how to get one and set it up for you. It's free.
There's also a lower-tech solution in some places, with a display at the back of the theater showing subtitles and a mirror on a stick that fits into a cupholder to reflect it.
Yikes! That seems like it'd a real PITA for anyone sitting behind you, constantly seeing flashes of light from the projector if you happened to hold it the wrong angle for just a second.
I've been wrestling with this problem lately.
5.1 audio tracks tend to put most of the voices in the center channel only.
If you listen in stereo, there is a challenge here with down-mixing to left and right.
Several band-aids to alleviate it:
If you watch using MPC-HC, turn normalize on at 400% in the settings, or alternatively if using anything else, turn on Realtek's loudness equalization to do the same thing.
If not wishing to use normalization, then if using LAV change center mix level to 1.00 from 0.71, or if using MPC-BE in the mixer change center from 0.0 dB to 3.0 dB.
I use normalize myself, because it's still too quiet even with a mixing boost to the center channel.
5.1 audio tracks tend to put most of the voices in the center channel only.
If you listen in stereo, there is a challenge here with down-mixing to left and right.
Several band-aids to alleviate it:
If you watch using MPC-HC, turn normalize on at 400% in the settings, or alternatively if using anything else, turn on Realtek's loudness equalization to do the same thing.
If not wishing to use normalization, then if using LAV change center mix level to 1.00 from 0.71, or if using MPC-BE in the mixer change center from 0.0 dB to 3.0 dB.
I use normalize myself, because it's still too quiet even with a mixing boost to the center channel.
upvoted - and MPC-HC isn't really available anymore - MPC-BC is a good replacement
It actually is still around: https://github.com/clsid2/mpc-hc/releases
I use both players actually.
I use both players actually.
> "If you listen to, say, 'Four Weddings and a Funeral,' you'll hear every word ... the sound was cut on film back then, and with limited time, track count, and budget, these are the results you got."
Can somebody translate this, what is meant by “cut on film” in this context?
I found [0] via web search, but it seems to be about distribution and not production. It seems unlikely to me that a 1994 movie’s sound was initially recorded in an optical format. But I can see how if it was planned to be distributed with sound-on-film, that could influence the production. Is that what was meant by the quote above? What do movie sound people mean by the word “cut” in this context, or does it have no specific meaning?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound-on-film
Can somebody translate this, what is meant by “cut on film” in this context?
I found [0] via web search, but it seems to be about distribution and not production. It seems unlikely to me that a 1994 movie’s sound was initially recorded in an optical format. But I can see how if it was planned to be distributed with sound-on-film, that could influence the production. Is that what was meant by the quote above? What do movie sound people mean by the word “cut” in this context, or does it have no specific meaning?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound-on-film
The sound track was an analog track, rendered onto the film itself (either as a magnetic tape strip on the film or an optical track outside the projected image) and was read by the projector as the film rolled through.
Thanks. Would you spell out the implications of this distribution format, for production? Why does the number of channels (for example) that the film is distributed with, matter for production, with regard to recording and processing techniques to do with dialogue?
Also, can you speculate on how the dialogue on that movie was initially recorded? Digitally? Analog tape?
Also, can you speculate on how the dialogue on that movie was initially recorded? Digitally? Analog tape?
I think the "track count" has to do with the number of tracks available for mixing in the sound editing stage, not how many channels are in the final mix. At the time the sound editors would have been limited by the mixing board itself - how many tapes can run simultaneously. These days, computer audio workstations can have essentially an unlimited number of tracks, allowing endless tinkering and post-production that can become a crutch. My experience is in music production but I think the same applies to film.
Now because everything is digital they can edit it a lot, so they're sloppy with recording techniques because it's easy to, eg raise the volume of a certain part.
In the old days they had to record it correctly at the time because there was no ability to fix it later in post-processing.
In the old days they had to record it correctly at the time because there was no ability to fix it later in post-processing.
I always blamed it on my declining hearing and assumed I could understand the dialog in older movies because I'd already seen them and knew the dialog.
I usually turn on subtitles not just because it's hard to understand the dialog, but I often watch movies at night after my spouse is in bed and if I turn it up to the point where the dialog is easy to hear, the sound effects/music are often way too loud.
My soundbar has a "night" mode that compresses the volume levels and makes it a bit more tolerable, but I still generally leave the volume turned down so low that I need to use subtitles to understand all of the dialog.
I usually turn on subtitles not just because it's hard to understand the dialog, but I often watch movies at night after my spouse is in bed and if I turn it up to the point where the dialog is easy to hear, the sound effects/music are often way too loud.
My soundbar has a "night" mode that compresses the volume levels and makes it a bit more tolerable, but I still generally leave the volume turned down so low that I need to use subtitles to understand all of the dialog.
One thing that happened was that home copies of movies used to have a stereo audio mix, I assume professionally and manually mixed down and rebalanced, even if they didn't originally (though older movies—and not even that old—mostly were stereo to begin with) but then at some point in the DVD era they started only shipping 5.1 or better, even though very few home viewers have a 5.1 or better speaker setup, and even fewer have it calibrated anything like correctly. Result: most people are getting 5.1 dowmnixed to 2 by whatever shit-tier hardware + software their TV or budget-level DVD/Bluray/streaming player has, then played over bad TV speakers or, at best, a mediocre soundbar. To be clear, this isn't their fault, it's the fault of media distributors for no longer distributing an audio mix appropriate for most people, which would be a stereo mix focused on clarity of dialog at normal playback volume.
The result is that all the trends of making the 'splosions louder and the dialogue quieter are amplified (haha) for the vast majority of home viewers, to the point that they can't understand any of the dialog unless the background music and explosions are waking up the neighbors. And that's without the film itself having made some questionable choices to begin with (as—which others have mentioned here—Tenet)
The result is that all the trends of making the 'splosions louder and the dialogue quieter are amplified (haha) for the vast majority of home viewers, to the point that they can't understand any of the dialog unless the background music and explosions are waking up the neighbors. And that's without the film itself having made some questionable choices to begin with (as—which others have mentioned here—Tenet)
I have a 5.1 setup and it's the same though.
They just use waay too much dynamic range.
It's like they're going for realistic sound levels. If the dialog is normal speaking volume, then the gunshots are ear-splitting.
I don't want the car chase to be at actual volume...
They just use waay too much dynamic range.
It's like they're going for realistic sound levels. If the dialog is normal speaking volume, then the gunshots are ear-splitting.
I don't want the car chase to be at actual volume...
I’ll admit - I don’t watch much tv or movies anymore, but I can’t help but think the “problem” here is how many of these programs are the equivalent of “ouch my balls” from Idiocracy - that is to say, the dialog is just filler between explosions anyway (IE: it’s being watched for the over-the-top action, it isn’t like the dialog is Goethe.)
Yep. You nailed it, man. Everyone who watches TV or movies is a big ol' dum-dum consuming real bottom of the barrel entertainment. They should really be doing more enlightened things with their time, like... commenting on Hacker News about things to let people know that they're not involved in the consumption of such drivel.
No - you misunderstand my point. My point isn't to denigrate the viewer, but rather to acknowledge that in some genres the dialog simply isn't the point. Even in the article they appear to acknowledge this, noting that in romcom and whatnot that the audio is more clearly articulated and audible, versus the various examples of action type movies.
Relatedly, does anyone know why subtitles are displayed over the video itself, as opposed to in the black rectangle that often exists below? I can see that it might be a little harder to look down to the text, but it would be much easier to have sufficient contrast against a black background. I wish this were at least an option!
I believe that DVD subtitles are just dumb bitmaps overlaid onto the video. You'd have to have logic to slice up the bitmap and relocate it off-screen.
Closed caption is textual stream with metadata (x/y position). That would be a cinch to play in an off-screen area.
Closed caption is textual stream with metadata (x/y position). That would be a cinch to play in an off-screen area.
The black rectangles exist because the video is a different aspect ratio than your monitor. Not all displays have the same ratio, a monitor with a matching ratio will have no black bars on any side. So by nature, closed captioning has to be within the video bounds.
I'm aware of the reason for the black bars. The point is that the captions that are not part of the video stream (I believe on DVDs they are not) can be presented below the video if that space exists and the user desires.
That feature is called "subtitle shift", some DVD/BD players have it (and VLC IIRC). Unfortunately streaming clients generally don’t.
The fix for me has been surround sound.
I have the center channel bumped several steps louder than the others on my receiver. This makes a world of difference over stereo mixes. (I will admit the voice sound can be more uneven - wind noise etc starts to show through)
Hmm, thinking out loud - I bet a multichannel mix could be calibrated on your system to bump the center channel, even if outputting to 2 speaker
I have the center channel bumped several steps louder than the others on my receiver. This makes a world of difference over stereo mixes. (I will admit the voice sound can be more uneven - wind noise etc starts to show through)
Hmm, thinking out loud - I bet a multichannel mix could be calibrated on your system to bump the center channel, even if outputting to 2 speaker
Oh, what a great article! Such a relief to not a read a long form that starts with a long anecdote with literary pretensions nor a listicle with bullet points explained in one paragraph.
A very short introduction in the form of a personal experience to explain the issue clearly and objectively and then explaining each issue with good research and relevant quotes. I learned a lot!
A very short introduction in the form of a personal experience to explain the issue clearly and objectively and then explaining each issue with good research and relevant quotes. I learned a lot!
Recently I figured out that this is why I like the German synced version of most movies so much more. Other than the English original versions, I have no problems understanding those. I do understand English quite well but I always had problems with movies. I thought it was just a mic positioning problem but it was quite enlightening to see it is a structural one that has developed over the past 10 years and is known in the sound community.
I consider this to be the movie version of an AAA game developed for PC, but where all configurable settings have been disabled.
All the time in the production has been spent on the game, but for some reason they couldn't be bothered to implement the first basic thing that the player is going to want to change, settings/keybindings etc.
Perhaps it is a case of the producer having lost touch with what the consumer experience is?
All the time in the production has been spent on the game, but for some reason they couldn't be bothered to implement the first basic thing that the player is going to want to change, settings/keybindings etc.
Perhaps it is a case of the producer having lost touch with what the consumer experience is?
> [...] would want stuff mixed at a level that was just ear-bleeding
I am Deaf. Whenever I start a Paw Patrol episode for my children I have to turn downward the sound. Even I can feel that someone cranked up the sound to 11. The table starts vibrating, the children cover their ears and the Yacker Tracker flashes red.
It's really annoying and as a Deaf person I don't know how to fix the sound level.
I am Deaf. Whenever I start a Paw Patrol episode for my children I have to turn downward the sound. Even I can feel that someone cranked up the sound to 11. The table starts vibrating, the children cover their ears and the Yacker Tracker flashes red.
It's really annoying and as a Deaf person I don't know how to fix the sound level.
with regard to the art of cinema, purposefully and clearly communicating the story is an absolutely critical requirement. without coherent dialogue, you've released a million dollar screen saver.
for executives: this type of failure can crucify everything from box office earnings to streaming. every copy you send to an emmy voter will be shrugged off as dark-and-mumbly.
for executives: this type of failure can crucify everything from box office earnings to streaming. every copy you send to an emmy voter will be shrugged off as dark-and-mumbly.
I think Christopher Nolan's movies make money, but every one I've seen is nearly unwatchable between the whispers and explosions.
The one thing really grinds my gear is the music volume has been tuned up so loud while the conversation volume turned so low.
Yeah, if I found a remote control with a "QUIET" button instead of just "MUTE", I'd buy it in an instant.
On my AVR you can set how many dBs the mute button attenuates.
We actually stopped watching Man in the High Castle due to audio issues with the dialog. The volume difference was so great, we were constantly increasing/decreasing the volume depending on whether there was dialog or not. This was using a Mac mini, plugged into a Bose Wave Radio, which normally works great for TV/movies.
Just want to share a completely different cause of the same symptom, I'm curious if anyone else has experienced: I watch movies at home with Netflix on a PS4 Slim plugged into an TX-NR636 receiver running in bi-amp stereo mode. Netflix defaults the audio to 5.1, and this causes muffled dialog and extremely loud music and explosions. When I manually choose stereo in Netflix, the sound comes out perfect. My searching online suggests my receiver is not doing its job properly, since it should losslessly mux the 5.1 to stereo (it officially supports the four speakers in bi-amp stereo mode configuration), but I've gone through all its settings and gave up trying to fix it. I notice this issue because I'm compulsive, but other people that still have stereo speakers but receive 5.1 signals are just presumably "living with it", and suffering muddled dialogue...
> it should losslessly mux the 5.1 to stereo
Downmixing 5.1 to stereo is almost always trash. I've never come across a solution that does it well out-of-the-box.
Most people imagine 5.1 as stereo, just subdivided into front and back, with an added center channel for funsies.
In reality, it's basically mono.
The center channel is the main thing, which delivers most of the dialogue, and there are 4 auxiliary speakers sprinkled around you for sound effects.
When downmixing 5.1 to stereo, you should turn up the volume of the center channel a ton before splitting it up to the left and right speakers. This is rarely done in reality, so you end up with a weird mix where the sound effects and off-screen noises are way too loud, and the would-be-center-channel dialogue is way too quiet.
Downmixing 5.1 to stereo is almost always trash. I've never come across a solution that does it well out-of-the-box.
Most people imagine 5.1 as stereo, just subdivided into front and back, with an added center channel for funsies.
In reality, it's basically mono.
The center channel is the main thing, which delivers most of the dialogue, and there are 4 auxiliary speakers sprinkled around you for sound effects.
When downmixing 5.1 to stereo, you should turn up the volume of the center channel a ton before splitting it up to the left and right speakers. This is rarely done in reality, so you end up with a weird mix where the sound effects and off-screen noises are way too loud, and the would-be-center-channel dialogue is way too quiet.
Thank you! Who do I blame in my setup then? Any idea why Netflix doesn't allow configuring a default to stereo? Or why my PS4 doesn't have a choice for stereo for HDMI Audio Output (it just allows choosing between 5.1 and 7.1)? Is it just a conspiracy to sell speakers??
More to the point: in a world where Netflix and PS4 default to 5.1 output, should we not expect everyone with just two speakers to be getting crappy sound?
More to the point: in a world where Netflix and PS4 default to 5.1 output, should we not expect everyone with just two speakers to be getting crappy sound?
I think Netflix does default to stereo for 720p streams. If you're streaming video in higher quality than some threshold, only then does it default to surround sound.
Basically, your TV may be better than your sound system.
Stereo is the standard way to mix music (because headphones), but a dedicated center channel has been pretty much required for any home theater for a good long while. Most non-Netflix streaming services just straight-up assume you've got a setup that can properly handle surround sound if you're streaming any 4K content.
Basically, your TV may be better than your sound system.
Stereo is the standard way to mix music (because headphones), but a dedicated center channel has been pretty much required for any home theater for a good long while. Most non-Netflix streaming services just straight-up assume you've got a setup that can properly handle surround sound if you're streaming any 4K content.
Ok then! Thanks. I hereby posit that an entire category of viewers are streaming HD (1080 in my case) with only stereo speakers, and suffering crappy sound for that reason. It’s sad to me because there’s no technical reason for this situation. After all, when I torrent HD movies and play them off my laptop through the same speakers, I have no problem. Somehow Sony and Netflix’s incentives are aligned against those of us with stereo speakers…
The technical reason is because you don't have enough speakers... :-)
Do the HD movies you torrent have 5.1 or stereo audio?
Do the HD movies you torrent have 5.1 or stereo audio?
But Netflix offers stereo- I just have to manually select it each time I press play.
My apartment is small and surround sound isn’t worth the clutter of several more speakers. Is there a product for people with high end stereos that just does the minimum to bridge the gap to allow “decent” movie sound via surround sound “simulation”? I can’t be the only one with a nice stereo that also wants to use it to watch movies… and I still don’t understand why Netflix doesn’t support us out of the box with a “default to stereo” option.
I often download torrents with surround sound tracks. For some reason I don’t have the issue with the muddled sound though (with VLC).
My apartment is small and surround sound isn’t worth the clutter of several more speakers. Is there a product for people with high end stereos that just does the minimum to bridge the gap to allow “decent” movie sound via surround sound “simulation”? I can’t be the only one with a nice stereo that also wants to use it to watch movies… and I still don’t understand why Netflix doesn’t support us out of the box with a “default to stereo” option.
I often download torrents with surround sound tracks. For some reason I don’t have the issue with the muddled sound though (with VLC).
So you're saying every time you pause the video it changes back to 5.1? If so, your only solution is to complain to Netflix.
Your AVR should downmix adequately but a native stereo track should always sound better than downmixing.
Can't you set the speaker output to stereo on the PS4?
I agree about VLC, I sometimes watch 5.1 movies on headphones and I don't get annoyed by the downmixing, so it must be ok.
Your AVR should downmix adequately but a native stereo track should always sound better than downmixing.
Can't you set the speaker output to stereo on the PS4?
I agree about VLC, I sometimes watch 5.1 movies on headphones and I don't get annoyed by the downmixing, so it must be ok.
I really appreciate your checking back. Not literally every time I pause, but if the paused frame “times out” and it drops me on the content screen with the Resume option, when I resume it will be back on 5.1 and I have to change it back to stereo. Definitely more annoying than required; subtitles options in the same menu are persistent after all!
PS4 Slim has no way to set the default. Per web search, other PS4 editions may have a workaround.
Yep, I blame Sony and Netflix. I suppose there simply aren’t enough of us watching movies on stereos for them to address our needs.
PS4 Slim has no way to set the default. Per web search, other PS4 editions may have a workaround.
Yep, I blame Sony and Netflix. I suppose there simply aren’t enough of us watching movies on stereos for them to address our needs.
It is odd that you can't force stereo though.
I'd guess that most people use the builtin TV speakers, then soundbars (which are barely surround at all despite the marketing claims) second, and proper surround a very distant third.
So it's surprising that they don't cater to what is the most common output format.
I guess the app just works on whatever the PS4 has set as max capability on startup, which unfortunately for you is 5.1 or 7.1 because it's going out via HDMI.
Pity ps4 slim doesn't have spdif out, in that case you could have used that and set to PCM output which would force stereo.
I just read that ps4 supports usb soundcards, maybe you could buy a cheap stereo soundcard and use that to force stereo. Don't know though because all the cheap ones that I've seen tout virtual surround "3D audio" as a feature, so who knows if that would work.
All this whizz-bang technology and you can't just set it to default to use only the number of speakers that you actually have...
I'd guess that most people use the builtin TV speakers, then soundbars (which are barely surround at all despite the marketing claims) second, and proper surround a very distant third.
So it's surprising that they don't cater to what is the most common output format.
I guess the app just works on whatever the PS4 has set as max capability on startup, which unfortunately for you is 5.1 or 7.1 because it's going out via HDMI.
Pity ps4 slim doesn't have spdif out, in that case you could have used that and set to PCM output which would force stereo.
I just read that ps4 supports usb soundcards, maybe you could buy a cheap stereo soundcard and use that to force stereo. Don't know though because all the cheap ones that I've seen tout virtual surround "3D audio" as a feature, so who knows if that would work.
All this whizz-bang technology and you can't just set it to default to use only the number of speakers that you actually have...
During the pandemic's "shelter in place", I started watching (and re-watching) older movies (anything pre 2000). I'm still on that binge.... I also got into 35mm film photography (developing it at home in my bathroom), and learning a ton about the chemistry, etc... I've discovered, and in some cases re-discovered, how much I prefer the older movies over newer ones. And my work in 35mm/analog gives me a new appreciation for movies shot on film. Movies like the original "Planet of the Apes" has found new appreciation in my eyes. There are some real, true, gems from the 60s - 90s.
Edit: I know this comment isn't about the audio, specifically - but rather, just about how movies have changed more generally.
Edit: I know this comment isn't about the audio, specifically - but rather, just about how movies have changed more generally.
I sure miss my darkroom. Don't miss ST:TNG in 1080p. So glad it was shot on film.
Same. I miss the darkroom, and ST:TNG looks so great on film!
In case you're unaware, you don't need a darkroom to develop 35mm film. I don't use an enlarger to transfer my photos onto photo paper (which would require a darkroom). Instead, I develop in the light but using a light-proof changing bag to load my film into a light-proof Paterson developing tank. After I pull the developed film out and let it dry, I scan the negatives using a photo scanner (I use an Epson v600, but there are plenty of options out there for scanning film negatives). Reddit's r/analog and r/analogcommunity is a thriving community.
In case you're unaware, you don't need a darkroom to develop 35mm film. I don't use an enlarger to transfer my photos onto photo paper (which would require a darkroom). Instead, I develop in the light but using a light-proof changing bag to load my film into a light-proof Paterson developing tank. After I pull the developed film out and let it dry, I scan the negatives using a photo scanner (I use an Epson v600, but there are plenty of options out there for scanning film negatives). Reddit's r/analog and r/analogcommunity is a thriving community.
The actual title is “Here's Why Movie Dialogue Has Gotten More Difficult To Understand (And Three Ways To Fix It)”. It seems like HN believes that the word why is clickbait, even though removing it changes the meaning of the title.
Another problem is movies that race over important plot points so quickly that if you blink you can't understand what's going on. I hate it when I have to read the wikipedia article to get half the plot explained.
I hate it how volume is maxed out in movie theaters way too often these days. I can't remember the last time I was able to watch a movie without putting my fingers in my ears for some parts of it. I've even Sat through whole movies with ear plugs in like I was at a concert (same problem there). I guess they pander to the physical sensation of loud music and/or people with damaged hearing? I'd be happy to find a theater where they lower the volume and even happier to find one where they would reasonably normalize it.
[deleted]
I seriously thought my wife and I were going deaf and crazy because we only watch movies at home with subs on. This article eliminates one of those concerns, but now we are crazy and mad.
This is worse than compression of pop music for Spotify broadcasting, this affects the core storytelling of the media. We purposely did NOT go see James Bond in the theater knowing that we wouldn't understand anything people were saying.
My first instinct is to throw a Raspberry PI at the problem, but I am not sure where to start.
This is worse than compression of pop music for Spotify broadcasting, this affects the core storytelling of the media. We purposely did NOT go see James Bond in the theater knowing that we wouldn't understand anything people were saying.
My first instinct is to throw a Raspberry PI at the problem, but I am not sure where to start.
Theaters are deploying captioning solutions for ADA compliance. I'm not sure what amount of "proof" of need you'd have to provide, though.
Hopefully I'll get to go back to a theater someday!
Hopefully I'll get to go back to a theater someday!
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one that struggled understanding Tenet. I think it's almost impossible to understand that movie without subtitles (I've watched Tenet over five times and still struggle at parts, especially the end). Interesting point to is with subtitles it identifies the main character as the Protagonist. Just watching the movie with subtitles is very difficult to come to that conclusion.
News we can use (as home video consumers):
"Very often, the streamed audio is a compressed version that you wouldn't get on a Blu-ray," Mangini explains:
"On Blu-ray, if you select 7.1, that is our full fidelity, 48 kilohertz, 24-bit master audio, just as it came from the mixing studio. You can get that on a Blu-ray, and you can get that on certain premium platforms. I think you have to pay extra money for that.
"Very often, the streamed audio is a compressed version that you wouldn't get on a Blu-ray," Mangini explains:
"On Blu-ray, if you select 7.1, that is our full fidelity, 48 kilohertz, 24-bit master audio, just as it came from the mixing studio. You can get that on a Blu-ray, and you can get that on certain premium platforms. I think you have to pay extra money for that.
Great, great article.
A long time ago, I took a tour of some recording studios. Many of them had some car radio speakers in the booth, so they could hear what the record sounded like in the car with shitty sound. Now, of course, cars have much better sound.
It does seem like a movie sound guy would need the equivalent, with some home theater setups that simulate how people are actually hearing it.
A long time ago, I took a tour of some recording studios. Many of them had some car radio speakers in the booth, so they could hear what the record sounded like in the car with shitty sound. Now, of course, cars have much better sound.
It does seem like a movie sound guy would need the equivalent, with some home theater setups that simulate how people are actually hearing it.
Even with a proper, calibrated surround setup like I have at home the dynamic range is ridiculous - dialog is way too soft and explosions are way too loud.
This post and comments increased my confidence in my English skills.
I don't have issues with understanding my American colleagues and talking with them, but when I try to watch a movie without a subtitle, I feel that I'm far from being good enough in English. I thought I was alone in that, so thanks for posting this.
I don't have issues with understanding my American colleagues and talking with them, but when I try to watch a movie without a subtitle, I feel that I'm far from being good enough in English. I thought I was alone in that, so thanks for posting this.
When they are talking about familiarity, it really is about a change in perception rather than lack of focus. Once you know what it is supposed to say, you can't just concentrate and then not understand it anymore. All of our perception including understanding spoken language is based on pre-knowledge.
> When it comes to dialogue unintelligibility, one name looms above all others: Christopher Nolan
I’m glad this was called out. I was super-excited for Tenet last year. I had a brand-new 7.2 Atmos setup… and I had to watch with subtitles on because I couldn’t understand anyone. Very frustrating… glad it wasn’t just me!
I’m glad this was called out. I was super-excited for Tenet last year. I had a brand-new 7.2 Atmos setup… and I had to watch with subtitles on because I couldn’t understand anyone. Very frustrating… glad it wasn’t just me!
The worst one ever for me was "Public Enemies". I had to walk out of the theater because I couldn't hear the dialogue. I did end up watching at home, even there it was a challenge so I turned on the subtitles. I recall someone saying it was typical for films directed by Michael Mann.
> "Not everything really has a very crisp, cinematic sound to it in real life, and I think some of these people are trying to replicate that," he tells me.
Well... there's no loud background music in real life, and some sounds (like rain, etc...) are usually less loud in real life than in movies...
Well... there's no loud background music in real life, and some sounds (like rain, etc...) are usually less loud in real life than in movies...
> Baker Landers knows on which side of that divide she falls. "We mix and release the film for the best case scenario, saying, 'This is how it should be.' A lot of times, we'll hear people say, 'They're not going to be able to hear this in certain theaters in the Midwest, so should we do this louder?' But then you don't have a standard any longer. You have to say, 'This is the standard. We're doing it for the optimum viewing experience.' And hopefully theaters and everyone else rise to that."
That and other parts of the article seem like clear analogs to IT design issues: If we follow the standard, then we get a lot of failures by people not following the standard. Think of web design, for example.
IME, the answer in IT is: Deal with it. Appealing to the standard as an excuse for the failures is BS. If your website fails because some end-user platform doesn't implement standards properly, that's on you. You need to build for the messy real world, not for an idealistic, perfect, clean-room world of standards.
Is there no user-centric design concept in film?
That and other parts of the article seem like clear analogs to IT design issues: If we follow the standard, then we get a lot of failures by people not following the standard. Think of web design, for example.
IME, the answer in IT is: Deal with it. Appealing to the standard as an excuse for the failures is BS. If your website fails because some end-user platform doesn't implement standards properly, that's on you. You need to build for the messy real world, not for an idealistic, perfect, clean-room world of standards.
Is there no user-centric design concept in film?
I think that's a bad analogy. What you're suggesting would be complete chaos for film. Most films adhere to the standard, thankfully.
The cinemas are meant to be calibrated. People can calibrate their home cinemas the same.
The cinemas are meant to be calibrated. People can calibrate their home cinemas the same.
The status quo is not working, so what do you propose?
Not that. That would be much worse than the status quo.
I'm not unhappy technically with what's happening now, it seems to be an artistic decision from directors to fuck it up. Technically everything is set up nicely to have great sound.
If directors want to release shit audio on purpose there is nothing we can do but not pay for their movies.
I'm not unhappy technically with what's happening now, it seems to be an artistic decision from directors to fuck it up. Technically everything is set up nicely to have great sound.
If directors want to release shit audio on purpose there is nothing we can do but not pay for their movies.
In music, often you can't understand the lyrics at first, and sometimes not at all. When talking to people, often you can't understand every word or syllable. People go to operas where they can't understand the language at all.
There is much more to communication than the literal words.
There is much more to communication than the literal words.
One of the most interesting technical details is buried in a giant quote.
> All it took was a little bit of collaboration and communication, and all of a sudden, grip and electric are moving generators a hundred yards away instead of having them right around the corner from the set.
> All it took was a little bit of collaboration and communication, and all of a sudden, grip and electric are moving generators a hundred yards away instead of having them right around the corner from the set.
I had a thought that subtitles could also be used to provide an "explainer" for those movies where the plot is so complex and so much knowledge is assumed, its almost impossible to understand what is going on.
This would have been great for the Foundation movie.
Product idea: Volume-leveling headphones. They bring the explosions down to a tolerable volume and boost the whispers to an audible level. They have external microphones for use in the cinema, BlueTooth for your phone, and a wire for low-latency on video calls.
As countermeasure, some of the higher end receivers have Dialogue Enhancement functionality
My center channel is at like +12db permanently. It's a fucking joke these days.
Mine's at +3 and I just assumed my hearing was shit so stopped there. Glad to see it's not me it's streaming. I might actually consider going back to in mail Netflix blu-ray for better quality.
Has a movie creator explained the shift to incompressible dialogue coupled with obnoxiously loud music and effects and stuff. It's really annoying but strangely persistent so ther must be a very concerned effort
High dynamic range sound mixes have been with us for a long time. Have you ever watched Lawrence of Arabia in a movie theater?
If you do the mixdown to stereo poorly and/or refuse to compress the DR and then play the result from built-in TV speakers I guarantee that you won't be able to hear the dialogue at an acceptable volume even though the film is from 1962 and features clearly-spoken lines from former professional stage actors.
If you do the mixdown to stereo poorly and/or refuse to compress the DR and then play the result from built-in TV speakers I guarantee that you won't be able to hear the dialogue at an acceptable volume even though the film is from 1962 and features clearly-spoken lines from former professional stage actors.
I think it's the interpretation/bias of louder as better/clearer. If the sound effects are louder, they're seen as better. This bias even works on the small scale when testing audiophiles: You play them a sample of music twice but tell them the sound is coming from two different sources. If you play one sample slightly louder than the other, they'll identify it as coming from from a higher-quality system.
Sound people complain about compression (muddy), not wide dynamic range (drama and depth.)
Sound people complain about compression (muddy), not wide dynamic range (drama and depth.)
This is well-known and one reason some audiofools are rightfully laughed at for not doing when comparing speakers or cables or whatever they want to wax lyrical with flowery descriptions about.
All AB testing of audio equipment should be done with volume matched. Even 0.1dB difference can skew results I believe. Also the switching should be as quick as possible because auditory memory is short.
More bass also corresponds to better reported listening tests.
Harman did a lot of great blind testing on this and came up with preferred frequency response curves and speaker characteristics (smooth directivity rolloff and a target in-room response).
All AB testing of audio equipment should be done with volume matched. Even 0.1dB difference can skew results I believe. Also the switching should be as quick as possible because auditory memory is short.
More bass also corresponds to better reported listening tests.
Harman did a lot of great blind testing on this and came up with preferred frequency response curves and speaker characteristics (smooth directivity rolloff and a target in-room response).
I thought it was common practice to re-record dialogue tracks (i.e. ADR) to make them clearer.
Another option (if they wanted to use it) would be to use signal processing techniques to extract and improve the dialogue tracks.
Another option (if they wanted to use it) would be to use signal processing techniques to extract and improve the dialogue tracks.
Not just movie dialogue. I find that some TV dialogue is difficult also. Often enough, I will replay some pieces of dialogue only to give up after several attempts in working out what was said.
God I always thought this is because I am not a native English speaker, although I have been living in UK for more than 10 years I thought it is just becasue my English is not good enough.
Fascinating and, I have to admit, a relief to hear this isn't just my hearing. I am finding, more and more, that I have to turn closed captioning/subtitles on.
I first thought it's because new TVs hide speakers on the back, but even a decent soundbar didn't help much. Best you can do is to use a headphone.
Would it be so hard to offer a “high vocals” mix? Even if it was just a simple filter/preset in whatever sound software studios use???
I just got a new 7.2 receiver (thanks, Black Friday) and it has a "don't wake the baby" mode of some sort, that I think is pretty much exactly what you're asking for. Flattens out the dynamics and raises the level of channels that tend to carry dialog.
[EDIT] But yes, a better option would be for production companies to deliver that as an option to begin with, complete with professional attention to make sure it's good for its purpose.
[EDIT] But yes, a better option would be for production companies to deliver that as an option to begin with, complete with professional attention to make sure it's good for its purpose.
In music, you would listen to the mix on different speakers.
Also, an impulse response helps a lot to emulate certain situations.
I completely agree there is so much mumbling that we watch movies with subtitles turned on, most of the time!
And I thought I couldn't understand some dialogs because I am an immigrant...
That link is horrible, it's all posture and no content.
I recommend using the chrome plugin
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/audio-channel/hafd...
to apply your own compression to the audio signal for chrome-based playback.
to apply your own compression to the audio signal for chrome-based playback.
What worked for me:
1. Move front and surround and height if you have them speakers to full range.
2. Set center speaker cutoff a few hz higher than normal, like 80 or 100
3. Turn up level going to sub. Turn down volume knob on the sub. This prevents auto off
You get a lot of the low end effects off the sub, and the center and sub is just for dialogue. You get that depth effect without the dialogue being muted. I feel filmmakers do this so their movies don't age. Supposedly they're going to have a laser speaker, and the flat panel tv will be a speaker itself with the sound shot across the screen. All those movies get a new release for that.
1. Move front and surround and height if you have them speakers to full range.
2. Set center speaker cutoff a few hz higher than normal, like 80 or 100
3. Turn up level going to sub. Turn down volume knob on the sub. This prevents auto off
You get a lot of the low end effects off the sub, and the center and sub is just for dialogue. You get that depth effect without the dialogue being muted. I feel filmmakers do this so their movies don't age. Supposedly they're going to have a laser speaker, and the flat panel tv will be a speaker itself with the sound shot across the screen. All those movies get a new release for that.
The article starts at the headline "It's in the Acting".
Part is the too many audio tracks being mixed in, that the article talks about. Also, I've noticed American actors seem to mumble their lines a lot, I dont know why. British actors (usually) speak clearly. Maybe its a cultural thing, like Americans prefer method acting more?
Also, I've noticed that stage actors like Patrick Stewart , speak clearly, maybe because on stage you have to enunciate properly.
The end result is: If a movie doesn't have subtitles, we don't watch it. (And havent been to a cinema for 2+ years, obviously, in cinemas you rarely get the option).
On an unrelated note: I dont know why so many movies are shot in the dark. It might make sense when viewed in a theater, but when viewing at home, I can't see anything. The last few scenes of Edge of Tomorrow were impossible to understand because of this.
My impression is: The "arteestes" have taken over Hollywood, and making stylish movies take precedence over making movies that are easy to watch and hear.