Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sound Sample Rates

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Sound Sample Rates (Page 5)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Author

Topic: Sound Sample Rates

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 03-20-2013 09:54 PM

The question is, why do they want that near field track? Again I say you're catering to a market that should instead be catering to you. If home versions had too much treble then the home hardware would take care of that. It'd have to in order to sell well. A simple treble control could be offered to dial it to individual taste (and proper EQ for the better hardware). All home theater systems allow the ability to change the volume of each channel independently so I'm not sure why you feel the need to raise the center channel a bit. If people have issues hearing the dialog, they'll raise it.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 03-20-2013 10:05 PM

quote: F. Hudson Miller
I don't understand why you think the filmmakers should not get the track they want for the home video release. The Sound Designer and the Re-Recording mixers, with the director create the soundtrack. Why shouldn't we be allowed to release the version we wish to?

So let me get this straight. You are more interested in catering to the redneck in the trailer park watching a movie than someone who has setup a "home theater" type of system at home? Do you also enjoy the new CGI Yoda?

If you guys wanted to release a "home video" version of the sound mix, then fine. If there is room enough on the disc without compromising picture or lossless original theatrical mix sound, then I couldn't care less...but I assure you NOBODY outside of you guys wants that.

Your profile shows you are part owner of a sound mixing company. I'm really having a hard time believing you actually want to remix a movie for anything but the additional funds, because you as of yet have failed to provide a valid reason why it should be done.

| IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 03-20-2013 11:28 PM

Brad, it seems the entire industry caters to the lowest common denominator in more ways than just sound mixes. I would love to know why this industry's so hell-bent on self destruction. Can anyone from the studios try to answer that question?

| IP: Logged

F. Hudson Miller
Film Handler

Posts: 48
From: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2009

posted 03-21-2013 12:04 AM

For your edification, the website you found is for my freelance sound editorial services. The company does not have interests in anything beyond a sound effects library, 2 ProTools editing hardware/software systems, and a stack of business cards. It is a personal services company.

I appreciated this discussion when it was about the merits of film presentation. Posters had posed questions as to why certain things were done in the film sound business; I attempted to provide some answers to those questions. Unfortunately it has become clear that not everyone is interested about finding out the whys and wherefores of how sound works.

I thought that I would enjoy hanging with you guys and we could learn a little from each other, unfortunately I guess I am not enough of film-handler even though I worked in 35mm everyday for 15 years.

I will continue to enjoy reading what all you have to say, but in the future will limit my two-way participation. It is fairly obvious that what some of you are looking for is a punching-bag and that is not my expertise.

Feel free to talk among yourselves; I will still enjoy listening. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 03-21-2013 01:07 AM

This has nothing to do with "how sound works". This has to do with the destruction various people, including yourself, are doing to the sound mixes of which we "cinema people" value and appreciate.

Again, you are completely missing the point, because you don't realize how disappointed we are when we pop in a bluray of a movie we have ran many times and remember how great it sounded only to find out it has been remixed into Shitville to appease those crappy Wal-Mart sound systems you seem to be remixing for.

This discussion reminds me of the yahoos that come on every so often praising how great film looks with all of its scratches and dirt. That would be film done wrong...and that is no different than home video remixing, which is sound done wrong.

Then again if I could only kick a few video mastering guys in the nuts for laying on the edge enhancement, I certainly would, because that is killing the experience just as much as your home video remixes.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 03-21-2013 04:14 AM

quote: F. Hudson Miller
I don't understand why you think the filmmakers should not get the track they want for the home video release. The Sound Designer and the Re-Recording mixers, with the director create the soundtrack. Why shouldn't we be allowed to release the version we wish to?

Somebody had this to say...

quote: Chris Slycord
Just because the studios want something doesn't mean that it's a good idea for you to give it to them and just because you guys are pretty happy with the result doesn't mean that the result is actually good.

quote: F. Hudson Miller
Posters had posed questions as to why certain things were done in the film sound business; I attempted to provide some answers to those questions.

And to be frank, your answers boiled down to "Because the contract says I have to do it."

| IP: Logged

Jarod Reddig
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 513
From: Hays, Ks
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 03-21-2013 05:00 AM

I think its two things. First being studios want to keep the theatrical mix in the theater just to defereiniate itself from what your able to get for a home presentation with Bluray; keeping the premium in the theater so to speak.

And the second is by having to remix the movie for home thats more hourly rates to profit on. Of course a mixer who owns an editing company gunna say it's neccesary.

As has been said I'm sick of buying classic movies on Bluray just to have lackluster audio compared to the DVD version. Jurassic Park as Brad said, The Line King, I even thought Dances with Wolves seems tamed down on Bluray. What gives?

| IP: Logged

Connor Wilson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 190
From: Sterling, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2011

posted 03-21-2013 06:19 AM

If this is of interest, Criterion released "The Game" on Blu-ray with both the theatrical and near field mixes. They are both presented in DTS-HD: MA (48kHz/24bit) on a BD50 disc, so your judgement about discs not having enough space to put the theatrical mix is proven wrong, although it could be an issue with different language tracks on the disc.

I seriously have no clue why people want to tamper with the sound mix for smaller rooms while the hardware should be able to play back the original theatrical mix without having it sound bright and harsh.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 03-21-2013 06:34 AM

In comes the next one who claims that putting unnecessary soundmixes on BRs inevitably takes away precious space for the picture encoding which is clearly visible by comparing the apples-edition of<title> with the oranges-edition of <title>.

There is a simple solution - like 'directors cuts', launch 'CinemaSeries' editions long after the public release to give all those the original mix who wants them - at twice the price.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 03-21-2013 09:14 AM

What typically is the difference between the theatrical mix and the near-field mix? Different EQ, surround levels? Is there a common distinction between the two?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-21-2013 09:39 AM

quote: Brad Miller
So let me get this straight. You are more interested in catering to the redneck in the trailer park watching a movie than someone who has setup a "home theater" type of system at home?

I think the corporate head honchos at the movie studios and parent global media companies are of the mindset that the sound mix for home theater is the definitive mix. They see the theatrical release as nothing more than a temporary marketing campaign for the eventual home video release. The theatrical mix plays for a few weeks in theaters while that mix for home video lasts forever (as it gathers dust on the video collector's shelf). The sound mix that's actually going to get played the most may be the low bit rate lossy Dolby Digital mix that's run on cable and broadcast TV.

Meanwhile the executives keep dreaming up ways how they can cut out the theatrical release and get to home video release quicker without killing their entire business model in the process.

quote: Jarod Reddig
I think its two things. First being studios want to keep the theatrical mix in the theater just to defereiniate itself from what your able to get for a home presentation with Bluray; keeping the premium in the theater so to speak.

I strongly doubt the studios care at all about making a movie's theatrical sound mix a premium item above that of a sound mix on a Blu-ray disc.

If the studios really cared about how sound is being presented in commercial movie theaters they would be far more hands on with the situation. There would be far more in the way of communication with the management at commercial movie theater chains on this issue. More pressure and incentives would be put on movie theaters to do a better job with sound and advance what can be done with sound via new technology. Movie studios and theaters should be making the most of what can be done with sound in d-cinema, but they're not. Dolby Atmos seems like a very revolutionary concept. But not all that many movies are being output in that process. At this point only a few dozen theaters have installed Atmos; and it's not clear how far each theater has gone with configuring Atmos. The rollout appears to be going even slower than the adoption of Dolby Digital when it was commercially launched in 1992. It already seems too much to ask for most multiplex theaters to just do 5.1 digital right, never mind moving up to something like Atmos.

These days big theater chain multiplexes are being run more on the idea of pinching pennies and cutting staff to improve the company's stock price. Delivering a better quality "product" to customers, particularly one that's significantly better than home theater, really isn't coming into the equation. As long as the speakers are putting out some sound who cares about how good it actually sounds?

I hate to say it but people like me who pick a movie theater based on presentation quality are clearly a small minority of the customer base. I think most customers really don't give a shit about good or bad sound. They only care if they can hear it or not, be it in the movie theater or in their home.

| IP: Logged

Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler

Posts: 387
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 03-21-2013 10:19 AM

While there is no shortage of greedy and/or short sighted execs who care only about making sure we Can't Have Nice Things, the requirement for home theater re-mixes came from a good place. Home theaters are nowhere near the size of commercial screening rooms, are typically bass managed in a way that movie theaters are not, and (let's be honest) don't play back at as high a volume level. The guidelines for doing a near field mix basically say "take the theatrical mix you just did, load it up on a stage that is more representative of a typical home theater, and re-balance it to maintain dialogue intelligibility and balance between music, sound FX and dialogue when playing back in a home-style environment at typical home listening levels."

I agree there are a lot of terrible DVD re-mixes, but that's the scenario that Mr. Miller's described workflow is trying to avoid - it seems his clients want a *good* home theater remix, and specify that it be done by the original sound team, immediately after finishing the theatrical printmaster and M&Es. Those clients, and him, IMHO are the good guys, and I think the attitude he's gotten on this thread reflects poorly on us.

I do like the idea of having both the original and the home theater mix included on the Blu Ray, but failing that please remember that for 99% of us who are watching in a typical home theater, a *good* home theater remix will sound better than playing back the theatrical mix in our living room.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-21-2013 10:38 AM

If F's credits on IMDB are accurate, he's really an editor, and not a mixer.

However, if he's actually a mixer, maybe F. should make his case by presenting a list of soundtracks on which he was CREDITED as the re-recording mixer for BOTH theatrical and home theatre versions.

If he's really "one of the good guys" that Daniel is describing, maybe it will settle this whole mess.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-21-2013 11:57 AM

Sound "editing" versus "mixing" really seems like an argument of semantics especially given the capability and flexibility of computer-based sound design tools. They allow you to hop back and forth to make edits to individual pieces of audio and tailor the mix in a non-linear fashion.

To me, it seems like a much bigger job to gather and record all the assets that will be used in a movie production. Dialog has to be carefully recorded and/or re-recorded (ADR). Unique sound effects have to be created using all sorts of methods. A lot of work goes into recording a music score.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-21-2013 12:50 PM

But it isn't an issue of semantics.

It doesn't matter that editors and mixers are all using Pro Tools. Sure, editors "could mix" and mixers "could edit" -- theoretically. Alas, the job functions -- editor versus mixer -- remain distinct.

Editors edit -- they deal with the objective -- what (element) goes where (track layout) and when (time).

Mixers mix -- they deal with the subjective -- how (level, eq, compression, etc) and where (panning).

Every minute spent editing on a dub stage is an expensive minute that should be spent mixing. It's not the time or place to be editing.

Since we are talking about mixes versus remixes, we are talking about mixers, not editors.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.