What about direct to streaming shows. They still have the same problem. Not saying it does not happen, but its mostly shitty mixing. Especially in American shows.
Comment on Off topic
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 3 days agoIt’s not that it’s mixed shitty, it’s that they never remixed it for new releases. So it still uses the theater audio mix and range where there’s 12,000+ watts of audio power available and like 12 audio channels.
When they actually remix it to a home release format the issues almost always go away. Even remixing for 5.1 most TVs can downmix to stereo just fine.
SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Scubus@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
That and that they intentionally make the commercials about 30% louder than the show
Arello@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
The habit of compressing commercials super loud comes from the fact that many of them also have to fit radios where it is important for the brainwash being clearly heard on weak signals too.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Commercials? What are those? Sounds like a boomer thing.
Scubus@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Yep, only time i watch “tv” is when im visiting relatives
ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 3 days ago
Hyperrealistic acting also doesn't help. Lots of actors insist of mumbling in a way that makes it hard to understand even if in a cinema.
Enkrod@feddit.org 2 days ago
I love Tom Hardy, but dark gods he’s impossible to understand half of the time.
Khrux@ttrpg.network 2 days ago
At least I expect that from him and basically all his characters. It’s most irritating when it’s a character who should have eloquence, ht doesn’t.
Also by extension, film / TV is the ideal medium for imperfect dialogue. The medium took queues from theatre and literature in it’s inception but there is truly no other medium suited to the imperfection of real dialogue like real life.
Mediums which demand a high critical analysis like most paintings invite the viewer to study and puzzle over the narrative, but film has it’s roots in cinema, and lowbrow cinema at that. I don’t really mean that critically, it’s my preferred medium, but nothing expects an easily digestible narrative like film and TV.
I don’t think it’s inherently the mediums flaw, duration and viewing time dictates a lot.
Film and TV his a wired niche. Although mainstream TV also takes days, weeks of months to compete, the vast majority intentionally invites you to consume without analysis. Mainstream film fully invites the average viewer to see it once, and anything further than that is for chance or deeper fans.
However film and modern high budget TV is mor* e venture capitalism than art, it’s just that in it’s method of consumerism, it poses as art. This gives it its own rules, and one of those rules is that comprehension is only a useful tool when it favours creating and retaining viewers/income.
But as it’s rose to dominate all other media, there and many, many people who enjoy film and TV without any media literacy outside of it, and therefore their only touchstone is reality. That paired with the fact that we’ve largely cracked our ability for movies to direct focus via mise-en-scène, cinematography, editing sound etc, means it’s the ideal medium to not just emulate realistic performance, but focus on it and celebrate it. This often comes with unclear dialogue.
Then the only way for deeper fans to enjoy this mediu BBm is to re-experience it By re-exploring rit. Each additional delve, albeit short - often just an episode or feature film length - gains that viewer status unlike other mediums.
This forces realistic dialogue to be idolised by fans bove clarity, while being irrelevant to the casual viewer. At last in my opinion.
This is a lunatic ramble, which I’m writing at 3am in my time zone after being unable to sleep. Beyond any typos, I apologize if this is entirely incoherent or just wrong and assumptive.