|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Magnepan Magneplanar 1.6QR Speakers posted by Ozzy on February 15, 2002 at 04:38:30:
Most of the audio is a movie is going to be as synthetic as the visuals. Neither of which really reflect reality. That's why the visuals are called special effects. Visual mock-ups that seem real. Same with audio. Many of the sounds are purely synthetic (foley editor created, for example), or synthetically mixed on a giant mixing board. Ok, t-rex roar front/right. car crash rear/center. people screaming front/center, sound of galss breaking.. - let's mix that slightly behind thaa car. Oooh, let's make the t-rex road LOUDER here. Good, good. Add quiet heavy metal background music.So yeah, you'd be getting increased sound quality, which is all well and good, but accurate imaging and maybe soundstaging, too, is pretty moot - since you'd be at the hands of a recording/mix engineer (or who ever). He's probably mixing the darn thing to pan from speaker to speaker in 5.1, 7.1 (or 10.2 ??) instead of across the soundstage. And it's kind of silly to strive for high fidelity with 1.) purely made up sounds (most explosions, t-rex roars (real reference?) or other effects) or 2.) a mix of real and synthetic sounds that are both synthetic placed (fake soundstange, fake imaging)on a movie in postproduction.
I'm not trying to be snobbish about this (saying audiophile setups are only good for audiophile recordings), since I frequently listen to VERY non audiophile material. One of my biggest beefs with with close-miked studio recordings. Many are hopelessly "chewed up" during the final "mixing" phase, or whatever you call it. Same thing with movies. When so much of the audio is "fake" and not intended for exact timbre and tonal reproduction, let alone precise imaging nor soundstaging.. -- It's almost like WHY BOTHER??!?
Movies can and may eventually WILL like up to the audiophile recording stanards, for in their present for the movies are no better that remixed, post-processed, close-mike studio recordings. But, moview, in their current form, fall very short of that ideal.
PS. what "bugs" me is when someone mistaken "blindly" says that stuff like "heavy metal" or movies DO NOT deserve hi-fi reproduction. that's an ignorant statement. Both are equally as worthy as classical, blues, jazz, or acoustic - as an art form and in content (somewhat, but debateable to a point). It's just the most "implementations" created by the post processing engineers (not the musicians!) limit the delivery somewhat. This is what I think most people mean when they say get "mid-fi." Except they come of as bashing the artform, though sometimes they are.
//exits soapbox
Follow Ups:
If you notice the music in a film, the director and/or the score composer has failed. I heard Danny Elfman say this during an NPR interview.I'll add that the sound effects are a little different; you are suposed to notice them, but if you find yourself listening for audiophile-type nuances, the film is a failure.
Based on my experience with a pair of humble MMGs, I say set them up for the best music listening you can manage. Add something passable for LFE and surround --- the HT will be just fine.
If you want to add more speakers primarily for multichannel music then set them up for that --- the HT will be finer still.
Summary: Set up you speakers for your musical preference and compromise on the HT aspect. Any film worth watching should take your mind far away from the audio. When Bogart and Bergman go thier separate ways at the Casablanca airport NOBODY gives a rat's ass that its all done in low-fi mono!
First of all, thanks to the original poster for the fun review of the maggies!I don't mean to change the course of the thread...but "Aroc" wrote some interesting things.
"Aroc:" I agree with much of what you've written (if I've read you correctly). Movie soundtracks are definitely synthetic - I know because I do it all day as a movie FX designer. We all try to keep recording/sampling quality as high as possible. Nonetheless there can be a large variation between the sonic quality of the sounds that go into a sound track - from high-fidelity recordings and samples to...cruddy fidelity sounds/samples which just sound "right" in some places, sometimes subtley mixed into high-fidelity sounds.
And yet...a great sound system DOES make a very positive difference in reproducing movie sound tracks. High fidelity, which of course includes the idea of a lowering of distortion throughout the reproduction chain, is a definite plus in making movie soundtracks sound better - richer, more "varied," more enveloping and realistic.
I hear my tracks played on many different systems - in my editing suite, in the various mixing theaters, in home theaters, and on humble stereo/mono TV sets. It still amazes me how much better, how enthralling, and how much more realistic the tracks sound when I hear them on the best systems (such as a good mixing theater or a great home theater set-up) vs. lesser systems.
So, my point is that, while movie sound may come together in a synthetic manner, better quality sound - high fidelity - reaps just the kind of satisfying rewards as it does for music reproduction.
Rich H.
i find that movies sound great with my system when its properly set up. Especially with tubes. You must be sure to ditch the centert and use a processor that can sum the center to the right and left. IMHO you do not need a center channel for any HT setup, if you heard my second system (not maggies right now) you would totally agree. The maggies are even better at this.
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: