Another solution would be to add a second audio stream (2.1) and let the viewer choose how to watch their movie.
Comment on Off topic
BorgDrone@feddit.nl 3 days agoEdit: and before people start saying “5.1 in stereo is the cause!1!!1!1”, no forcing stereo does absolutely nothing to alleviate this.
The ‘problem’ is dynamic range. They mix movies with a large dynamic range because explosions and shit are a lot louder than spoken words. You are supposed to have your eardrums shattered during action scenes. That’s hot it’s intended to be listened to.
Could they mix it differently? Sure, but that would mean that the people who want to watch it as intended can’t. There is also no reason to because you can simply adjust this during playback. Any half-decent A/V receiver will have an option for dynamic range compression. Just because you didn’t set up your surround sound system properly doesn’t mean the movie is badly mixed.
N0x0n@lemmy.ml 3 days ago
BorgDrone@feddit.nl 3 days ago
Do you also want to add different video streams for smaller TV’s ?
What you want is a made-for-TV adaptation of the same story, but that wouldn’t be the same movie. Watching a movie is an experience, and you simply cannot reproduce experience that on a small TV with 2.0 audio. Even if they did a 2.0 mix, you won’t get the same sense of awe that you get when you watch it in a theater. What is even the point of watching it if you cannot make you feel that?
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 3 days ago
They already include multiple audio streams for language selection. In fact, watching a movie in a different language than it was originally produced in doesn’t perfectly “reproduce the experience” either. Jokes get cut, names and acronyms change, and cultural references are either altered or become too foreign for the culture of the new audience to instantly recognize.
Offering a different experience of a movie isn’t unusual. Maybe I can’t understand a Miyazaki film to the extent that he fully intended, because I don’t understand Japanese. But that doesn’t mean there’s no point in watching it.
As well, some people don’t want to experience super loud explosions. They’re content not having that aspect of “the experience” for a variety of reasons. Some people have PTSD. Some people have irritable neighbors. Some people suffer from tinnitis and would appreciate not having the rest of the movie drowned out by a loud ringing inside their own heads.
In many ways, a stream without such dynamic noises provides accessibility to people who wouldn’t be able to enjoy the movie otherwise. You can still enjoy a movie however you want. The rest of us just want an option.
BorgDrone@feddit.nl 3 days ago
They already include multiple audio streams for language selection. In fact, watching a movie in a different language than it was originally produced in doesn’t perfectly “reproduce the experience” either. Jokes get cut, names and acronyms change, and cultural references are either altered or become too foreign for the culture of the new audience to instantly recognize.
Don’t me started on that one… it’s a fscking disgrace.
OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
Watching a movie is an experience, and you simply cannot reproduce experience that on a small TV with 2.0 audio.
You heard it here guys, enjoying a movie on a normal TV or an iPad is simply wrong and you should feel bad for wanting to be able to understand the dialogue. I guess it makes sense that a BorgDrone would be intolerably inflexible and demand people conform to their unrealistic standards.
BorgDrone@feddit.nl 3 days ago
You heard it here guys, enjoying a movie on a normal TV or an iPad is simply wrong
It’s simply pointless. Like listening to music with your ears plugged. Why even bother watching a movie like that?
hunnybubny@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
a/v receiver
didnt setup your surround system
I got a soundbar. Some look at this like a luxury. You are expecting a receiver?
BorgDrone@feddit.nl 3 days ago
Sound bars are not worth the money, you can get a better setup for what you pay for a half decent one. They only exist because they have a high WAF.
I expect an A/V receiver with at least 5 speakers and a subwoofer. With the left/right front speakers being 2 full-range floor-standing speakers.
Ideally, you want a 7.1.4 setup.
Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Okay moneybags
Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
You’re like the audiophile’s evil twin (I’m kidding). The audiophile insists on purism, only 2.0, and you are waaaay on the side of the spectrum.
I have created, mixed, and mastered music. Half of doing that has been creating really cool sounds on my 2.1 monitors (which sound like shit because they’re monitors) and then spending hours trying to get that same sound on other systems. Not just Kilobuck headphones and megabuck surround sound systems, but also $15 earbuds. That is a big part of mixing, because I want as many people to enjoy my music and the music I mix for other people as possible. I am not so pretentious and arrogant that I insist that everyone who listens to this music do so on my exact speaker setup (that would be the closest to “as the artist intended”).
I have also created pieces for multichannel audio systems. These pieces get exhibitions, and are not available for purchase as audio recordings. Because no one can recreate those exact multichannel systems the way I designed them.
Movies, however, are frequently available past their premieres. Maybe this is greed on the part of the artist, that they sell the movies, even though they know that it is impossible to truly enjoy the movie without the very specific audio setup it was created with?
BorgDrone@feddit.nl 2 days ago
You’re like the audiophile’s evil twin (I’m kidding). The audiophile insists on purism, only 2.0, and you are waaaay on the side of the spectrum.
No, actually I’m not. I have a nice 2.0 system as well for listening to music. The 5.1.4 system is in my living room with my TV. The 2.0 system is in my bedroom where I can chill out on my bed while listening. I also have a nice set of headphones with a separate DAC for listening to music.
That is a big part of mixing, because I want as many people to enjoy my music and the music I mix for other people as possible.
Sure, but that’s a completely different use-case. Movies are mixed for theaters, people don’t need to spend a fortune on equipment to enjoy that mix, they just need to buy a movie ticket.
Movies, however, are frequently available past their premieres. Maybe this is greed on the part of the artist, that they sell the movies, even though they know that it is impossible to truly enjoy the movie without the very specific audio setup it was created with?
Not the artist, the publishers. They want to wring every dollar out of it they can. The people actually creating movies don’t care about people watching the movie on TV at all.
A good example of this attitude: your movie can’t even be nominated for an Oscar unless it has been in theaters. I.e. a movie that’s not made for theatrical release isn’t even worth considering.
hunnybubny@discuss.tchncs.de 2 days ago
Ideally I dont care.
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Nah, most of it is mixed like shit
grue@lemmy.world 3 days ago
If you’re playing the sound back through your TV speakers, it should compress the dynamic range by default.
ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
I don’t have a surround system…I have 2.1 stereo, and even with dynamic range compression this is an issue.
I don’t want eardrums shattered when watching a movie, nobody wants that, it’s unpleasant and 100% unnecessary for watching at home.
BorgDrone@feddit.nl 3 days ago
They don’t mix for a 2.1 home setup, they mix for a (home) theater. You’re using a set-up meant to watch the news and maybe a soccer match to watch a movie and then complain that it’s a crappy experience. Yeah, no shit.
redxef@feddit.org 3 days ago
Cool, so you’re not allowed a
goodpassable movie experience if you don’t invest a shitton of money for a home theater.BorgDrone@feddit.nl 3 days ago
You have a setup that’s not suitable for watching movies and you’re trying to blame it on the movie. How is that reasonable? The content you’re trying to watch simply was never meant to be watched in that way. I’m not sure what you expect here.
Even if they did a different mix, that still wouldn’t give the intended experience of the movie, it would be at best a watered down version. You simply cannot optimize for two very different things. If they wanted it to be viewed on a TV they would have made a very different movie to begin with. There are plenty of made-for-TV movies that do exactly that.
You expect that something that was made to be shown on a huge screen, in a dark room with a high end sound system somehow magically would work on your living room TV with stereo sound. I don’t think that’s a reasonable expectation.
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Quality audio doesn’t have to cost a ton. You can get a quality budget Dolby Atmos soundbar for less than $350.
www.bestbuy.com/site/…/6541474.p
www.rtings.com/soundbar/reviews/hisense/ax5125h
TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
For the folks disagreeing with you, I think a helpful analogy might be to think of it like a recipe.
If you try to make a fancy dish at home without the high quality equipment and ingredients the chef had, it’s not gonna turn out like the chef intended, and it’s not the chef’s fault or a bad recipe.
It’s art meant to be enjoyed in a particular fashion, and will naturally be less enjoyable when prepared or consumed in another manner.
There’s a valid argument to be made for remixing it for shitty speakers, since it doesn’t seem hard and would make a lot of people happy, but artists shouldn’t be obligated to bastardize their work if they don’t want to