BorgDrone
@BorgDrone@feddit.nl
- Comment on Still waitin for that success step to kick in 😆 2 weeks ago:
Trying is the first step towards failure — Homer J. Simpson
- Comment on Robocop: Rouge City 3 weeks ago:
Kind of dumb to set the auto-reply to a Welsh text, you’d expect that people needing the services of a Welsh translator won’t be able to understand the text.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
points at username
‘Being born on the wrong planet’ is a common analogy to explain how people like me (asperger or high-functioning autism as it’s called now) experience the world. We live on a planet with people who look like us, but who behave in strange, illogical, irrational and often creepy ways. It’s like living among a bunch of aliens. You people are seriously weird.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
You misunderstand me. My principal point is that any 2.0/2.1 (i.e., stereo) setup will always be better than the surround sound system of equal price.
Define better? Better depends on what your application is. They won’t be better at playing object-based surround sound. Both kinds of systems are set up for a different purpose. For example, in my home theater I want a subwoofer that makes me feel explosions in my gut. That’s not what I look for in the low-end of my 2.x system.
As for my comment on spending money on speakers I would only use for movies: surround sound only has a real advantage for movies,
Of course, but we were talking about sound systems for use with your TV for watching movies.
for other activities stereo speakers of the same price will undisputedly be better.
That’s why you have both kinds of systems.
I would hate to spend 3k on a surround system, when I’ll use my 3k stereo system for most of my listening anyway (this is an example).
I use both regularly, but at different times of the day and for different purposes. I use my HT system when watching a movie or series in the evening. I use my 2.0 system during the day while I’m working or relaxing on the weekend.
- Comment on Worldbuilding 4 weeks ago:
The long leaf pine has a grass phase where it just looks like grass
Trees are weird, because there phylogenetically there is no such thing as trees. As in: there is no single branch of the evolutionary tree where trees split off from other plants and there’s just an entire branch of different trees. Instead, different plants in separate parts of the evolutionary tree evolved into trees, and sometimes back into non-tree plants, and sometime even back into trees again. So a tree that spends part of its lifecycle as grass is par for the course.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks 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.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
You don’t need subtitles, you need a decent surround sound system.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
I had a great experience, in part because I love more about the movie than just the visual and auditory delivery. I like the story and philosophy as well.
A chain is a strong as its weakest link. You want to tick all boxes, not just half of them.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
You can, of course, build you own surround sound system for more than a few thousand, but that is a radically different price range, which I don’t think is really relevant to this conversation
It doesn’t have to be expensive at all. You can get a 5.1 setup with a decent amp, floor-standing fronts, bookshelf surrounds, a center and a subwoofer for as little as €3000, and that will blow any sound bar in the same price range out of the water. Add a nice 77” OLED, pick last year’s model for a good deal and you can have a home theater setup that will be good enough for 99,9% of people for less than €5k.
(I certainly don’t have that kind of money to spend on a speaker that I’m only using when watching movies).
Why do you think I would use it only for movies? I have never even heard the speakers in my TV because disabling them was the first thing I did after unboxing. I use my 5.1.4 set all the time. Why wouldn’t you?
I think it is borderline poor-shaming (or really just not-rich-shaming) to say that movies can only have audible dialogue at $10,000 surround sound systems. Before that, 2.0 or 2.1 will almost always be a better investment.
No one says you need to spend that amount of money, it can be much, much cheaper. €3k can get you a pretty nice set, but you can build a passable one for half that.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
This is what I can’t stand about you humans. This tendency to be okay with mediocrity.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
Doesn’t it bother you immensely that you’re getting a subpar experience? Even if you enjoy it, doesn’t just knowing it could be so much better suck all the enjoyment out of it?
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
By that measure, most movie theaters also shouldn’t be showing movies – very few of them have the precise setup a given movie was mastered for.
That’s what calibration is for. You master using a reference display and whatever you use in the theater should be calibrated to the same specs.
Or theaters with Atmos sound systems if the movie was made with DTS-X in mind.
Why would that be a problem? DTS:X is more flexible with speaker layout than Atmos. If you have a theater with a speaker layout for Atmos it should be no issue to use them with a DTS:X processor.
Or, you know, you release it for multiple projection and sound setups and accept that there is a close enough level of fidelity for a given use case. Which leads us back to actually properly mixing it for the home release
How do you go from “Atmos and DTS:X in a theater are close enough to give a similar experience” to “we should mix it for a bunch of crappy 2.0 TV speakers” ?
If you mix it for such an inferior setup, nothing is left of the original movie. Sounds i a huge part of the movie experience. Try watching a scary movie with the sound muted, it’s not scary at all. If you mix it for a TV’s built in speakers, nothing of value is left. What is even the point of watching a movie like that?
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
Please don’t provide alternate stream for censored cursing.
Not censored, just nerd-humor that went over your head.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks 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?
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks 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.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks 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.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
However, there’s no excuse for studios to not provide a more compressed TV mix
I think this depends on how you see movies. Do you see them as art or just a form of entertainment?
For me, it’s about how the movie makes me feel. I think movies are art, and art is meant to make you feel things. If I watch a movie I want to be overwhelmed by the action, I want to be moved by the music swelling at that emotional moment, I want to be creeped out by that scary scene in the spooky house with the wind howling all around me.
You don’t get that if you watch in a bright room with a 2.0 sound track with no dynamic range. To me there is no point in even watching a movie if it can’t immerse me in the movie and make me feel all those things.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
I’m not sure why you get so much down voted while you are right. It’s similar how people want to play a 4k movie on a 1080p screen…
People underestimate how big of a difference it makes.
If you ever get the chance to do this on a decent home theater: grab a blu-ray copy of the LoTR trilogy. 1080p, 5.1 audio. Should be pretty good right? Watch it for a couple of minutes. Then switch to the UHD blu-ray (4k HDR, Dolby Atmos). It’s a night and day difference. The 1080p version is fine, but the UHD version just draws you in. It’s almost addictive, once you turn it on you can’t look away. Before you know it you’ve watched the entire trilogy.
It’s shocking how much better the experience is, it’s like a completely different movie.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks 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?
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
In other words, movies are not intended to be played back at devices that aren’t connected to theater-grade audio hardware.
Not just audio hardware, also a big screen, darkened room, etc.
Of course this requires the question of why movies are even released on Blu-Ray, DVD, or streaming services at all instead of just using the existing distribution system for movie theaters.
Because there is a demand for them and they like making money?
If you’re ever in the Netherlands, go visit the Rijksmuseum and see De Nachtwacht by Rembrandt van Rijn. It’s absolutely enormous (363 by 437cm). Just look at it for a while, marvel at the details. Then go visit the gift shop and buy the 50x70cm poster.
Go home, stick the poster on your wall. Do you get the same sense of awe as you did from the full size painting? Can you even make out all the intricate details that make it so compelling? No, you can’t. It doesn’t work in that small format in your living room.
Is this Rembrandt’s fault? No, of course not. He painted it at the size it meant to be viewed at. He didn’t take into account that people would be making small posters off it almost 400 years later. Worse, if he had made the painting so that it would look good on a small poster, would that painting also have had the same impact in its full size? I’d say it wouldn’t have.
Rembrandt also made much smaller paintings, if you want a Rembrandt in your living room you’d be better off getting a reproduction of those. Does this mean that the gift shop shouldn’t be selling small posters of ‘De Nachtwacht’? There clearly is a demand for them.
Same goes for movies. They didn’t set out to make a movie to view at home, they set out to make a movie to be viewed in the theater. Could they have made on that worked at home. Sure, but then it wouldn’t have worked in the theater. Should they not sell them on BluRay when there is clearly a demand for them? There are plenty of people who do have a nice setup at home that does the movie justice.
Everyone who doesn’t run an IMAX setup at home is too poor to watch movies.
No, you can go to the theater or watch made-for-TV movies. The fact that blockbuster movies are made for the theater doesn’t prevent anyone from making TV movies, and they do make them. Just not that particular movie.
The problem is that you didn’t actually want to see that movie, you wanted a similar but different movie, one that would have worked on a regular living room TV. But that’s not the movie they decided to make. You bought the small Rembrandt poster and now you’re complaining that you can’t see the details and the painting kind of sucks because of it.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks 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.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
I don’t want eardrums shattered when watching a movie, nobody wants that, it’s unpleasant and 100% unnecessary for watching at home.
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.
- Comment on Off topic 4 weeks ago:
Edit: 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.
- Comment on oh no 4 weeks ago:
Why don’t you switch to a different ISP? Last time I checked I could choose from 13 different ISPs on fiber alone, and that’s in ‘socialist’ Europe. I can’t even dream of how many options someone in ‘free market’US must have.
- Comment on oh no 5 weeks ago:
Yes, it can slow down downloading.
(The explanation below is simplified quite a bit)
When you download the server that is sending you the file doesn’t just dump all the data onto the network in one go. They don’t know how fast you can receive and it’s not like the routers along the way will buffer large amounts of data. It needs to figure out how fast it can send.
So how does it do this? The sender sends a few packets of data and then waits for the receiver to acknowledge reception before it sends more data. Now the acknowledgment message isn’t that big so when downloading the amount of data sent back (uploaded) is just a tiny fraction of the amount downloaded, so that usually doesn’t matter.
The problem occurs when your local network is much faster than your internet upload and your router isn’t smart about which packets to send first. A good router will not allocate all the spots in the outgoing queue to the connection doing the large upload and instead will make sure the connection with smaller amounts of outgoing data will get a fair turn.
If your router isn’t smart like that the ‘data received, please send more’ packets may be delayed and thus slow down the download.
- Comment on oh no 5 weeks ago:
If one upload slows down your internet you probably need a router that has a better packet scheduler. I recommend you look for one that uses FQ-CoDel
- Comment on we are creators 1 month ago:
That’s mainly the US though. Here in the Netherlands they are planning cities with the intent to discourage car use as much as possible.
- Comment on My son got Nikes so he doesn't get teased. 1 month ago:
But it’s not “his independence” if it wasn’t his choice to buy those shoes. You cannot be proud of your own choices when they weren’t your own choices.
- Comment on Microsoft pushes staff to use internal AI tools more, and may consider this in reviews. 'Using AI is no longer optional.' 1 month ago:
Have you tried using a blockchain though?
- Comment on But I am mighty!! 1 month ago:
You can spent 10 seconds googling: Source