Doctor Fuse
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
- Posts
- 5
- Likes
- 0
Naxos - Not Any Xcellent & Outstanding Sounds
Further, when I play different violas (my instrument - yes, poor me, I know!) a big cause of differences in sound is how strong the overtones are, and which ones are emphasized. This makes me suspect that very high overtones are perceived by the ear and brain, and they do affect the sound we hear and how we perceive it.
Nowhere is this fact exemplified more than in the film audio world, where one of the main Editors in the audio post-production team spends much of their time doing nothing else but manufacturing/recreating very specific "hisses" (called "room tones"). Each of which is specific to a single location in the film and sometimes there needs to be several different room tones for even a single location, depending on perspective.
I always imagined there was someone in charge of location ambience, but I never thought it was that specific. That is awesome.
Talking film sound is rather off topic but it is related to much of what's been discussed so: Don't confuse room tone with ambience. Room tone is just one component of ambience (more commonly called "background atmospheres" or just "atmos"). Typically, on a well budgeted film, there is an entire team dedicated purely to manufacturing/creating atmos. Room tone is recorded on set/location during filming by the production sound team, in theory 30 secs of it is recorded either immediately prior or after the "take". Only about 50% of the time can this room tone be used, instead, the Dialogue Editor has to scrounge up and stitch together bits of clean room tone from the gaps between words/sentences actually in the "take" but usually this is not enough so more has to be manufactured using sampling/regeneration techniques, convolution techniques or DX extraction. There are some interesting factoids about room tone, such as the simplest way to get more of it is to copy/duplicate what you've already stitched together, reverse the copy and butt it up against the original, thereby doubling the length. It sounds completely authentic/continuous, the ear cannot identify/differentiate the reversed room tone from the original, even though it can easily identify even relatively minor differences/changes between different room tones. And, this is the problem/difficulty with room tone, in any one scene we're likely to have two or more angles, plus potentially edits from different takes, each of which has slightly (or significantly) different room tone and all of which have to be reconciled because a change in room tone implies (creates the perception) of a change in time/location, not at all what we want in what is supposed to appear to be a continuous scene in the same location. Room tone is most closely related to white noise but unfortunately, not closely enough that we can ever just use white noise.
Atomos is another whole field, a sub-division of the SFX team, which typically also comprises Hard FX and Sound FX Design teams, plus there's the Foley team, ADR team, music team and finally the Mix (re-recording) team. In total, the entire audio post team for medium and high budget films usually comprises about 35-70 audio post personnel, including the Sound Designer who has overall artistic control of the sound and the Supervising Sound Editor who manages the entire process. Audio post is split into two phases, editorial and mixing and the whole process typically takes 3-6 months, although there are many exceptions, Interstellar for example took 9 months just for the mix phase!
The reason I mention all this is because it goes to the heart of hearing perception, of what we think we're hearing and of the ears being fooled. For example, typically somewhere around 50% (and sometimes virtually 100%) of the dialogue you hear in a film is not the dialogue which was spoken during filming, it's dialogue which has been re-performed weeks or months after the filming has "wrapped" and is recorded not "on location" but in a studio (ADR Stage) which commonly isn't even in the same country as the shooting location! Of all the sound present in a finished film, typically only a few percent is sound which was recorded during filming, the rest is all manufactured in audio post. And finally, the Sound Designer's role is an artistic role, just recreating reality would be a mainly technical task rather than an artistic one and therefore the boundary of sound design is believability, NOT reality! This provides considerable wiggle room for manipulating the audience; what they're feeling, how they're interpreting what they're seeing/hearing, even what part of the frame/picture they're focusing on. With the exception of the big flashy sound design statements (such as explosions, for example), the vast majority of sound design is subliminal, the audience are never consciously aware that they're being manipulated, let alone have any idea of how and this is why sound design can be such a powerful filmmaking tool, it directly accesses the sub-conscious and bypasses the thinking/analysing/reasoning centres of the brain. One of my favourite lectures (to give) was where I dissected a single scene from a film, explaining what was done in audio post and why. It was one of my favourites because of the invariably stunned/amazed reaction of the students, who, despite they're obvious interest in audio, had no idea of the depths of perception manipulation going on. Common descriptions of this revelation were; "that's unbelievable!","it's like a dance", "you're just constantly playing with (or teasing) them [the audience]" and "wow, that's a lot of work!". Quite a satisfying reaction from usually apathetic 18-20 year olds, trying to appear cool/unimpressed.
Audiophiles asserting that they know what they're hearing and trust their ears, is just so ridiculous it's laughable. If that were actually true, pretty much every film with sound (from about 1927 onwards) would be un-watchable, let alone enjoyable! Do these audiophiles never watch films or TV? Are they also immune to the illusion of stereophonic reproduction, the expectation and other biases generated by harmonic progressions (the basis of nearly all western music, of any genre, composed in the last 500 years or so), the human perception that notes and chords even exist, does all music just sound like unrelated collections of frequencies, nothing more than non/semi-random noise?
G
Excellent comment as is the norm for you G.
I would like to point out, that despite the 9 months spent on Interstellar (darn good movie) they left something like a continuous 15 khz tone running several minutes in a few places of the film. I wondered what it was and how that happened. Or was it intentional like the overblown organ in places? 15 khz or so is the limit of my hearing these days and I barely heard it, but it was there and must have been pretty loud.
I was not involved in making Interstellar so I cannot say whether it was a fault or deliberate and I haven't seen the film since it's theatrical release and don't recall the parts you're referring to. However, if it did take 9 months to mix (as Christopher Nolan stated), the re-recording mixers, of which there would have been at least 3, would have extremely carefully listened to every scene dozens of times, maybe even hundreds of times, so it's inconceivable something like this could have just been missed. A blockbuster like Interstellar is going to have many different print-masters/versions, possibly as many as 70 or so and the probably of such a mistake is higher on some of those versions than on others, although still fairly slim.
The organ was a tad over the top in places IMHO too, although exactly how much over the top it's difficult to judge. The particular cinema/listening environment where you heard Interstellar could easily have exacerbated the problem. "Translation", how a film mixed on a reference Dub Stage translates to individual cinemas, is a bit of a "thing" in the industry at the moment.
G
I barely perceived a fleeting tone at times. It also seemed to 'wear my ears out' when it was present. I later saw others having the same complaint. Some think it a CRT leakage though where someone would have that these days seems an odd question in itself. People with a copy of the movie pinned down the frequency and confirmed it presence. The movie where I saw it seemed to be overblown at both the low and high end. This isn't a general concern with this theater so I do believe it was the choices made for Interstellar. It could have been some mis-adjustment by the theater as well however.
https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/2mszh4/whats_up_with_this_spike_at_around_157khz_on_the/
There were a few other discussions of it shortly after the movie was released, but this one is the only one I see currently.
... So where were all the posts from annoyed audiophiles who can hear a "night and day" difference with Hi-res? Have audiophiles avoided seeing Interstellar for some reason or are they in effect saying that they can hear frequencies way above 22kHz but have some sort of mental block specifically/only at 15.7kHz?
Love that 'audiophile lunatic fringe"It is recording technique that is the first source of the trouble. Binaural, when done right, will always eclipse anything else when reproduced on headphones.
Piano has one of the greatest dynamic range in all of instruments. The greatest dynamic range is in percussion - and one can include piano in that category as well.
Not many headphones, let alone speakers, can do live uncompressed feed from the microphone justice. You would be shocked to learn just how much compression is being used in modern mastering - all done in order for the finished product to be playable by majority of the buying public and not only by the audiophile lunatic fringe exclusively.
It is much like with cars - would you be happy when all of a sudden there would be no cars but Ferraris and Lambos and other high end exotica, requiring much higher levels of diving skills that normal people possess ( ignoring the money issue altogether ) - NO easy driving from A to B anymore, at all ?
Most audiophille headphones can not play live uncompressed mike feed - usually the bass will overload them. Guess orthos should go loud eneugh with low enough distortion to do it right -
along with practically any IEM. This is regarding bass only; how it will sound higher up, is entirely different matter, but not so hard as the bass. The high frequency overtones are the second hardest thing to get right when reproducing the piano, etc, etc.
And yes, it is and will remain hard to reproduce piano correctly - particularly using CD or 44,1/16 bit resolution recordings ( not to mention lesser resolutions ); piano tends to sound glassy with them, live feed from the mike is light years better than CD quality; DSD recording, particularly DSD done at 5,6 MHz ( double DSD or DSD128 ) does not produce any glassines anymore and is very faithful to the mike feed or live sound.
So, it is and can not be exclusively headphone related problem.