Hacker News Reader

Comment by thrdbndndn | Hacker News Reader

I don't think the problem is the number of speakers.

Movies just have higher dynamic range where the lounder part is not suitable for home use if you adjust the volume to have the voices at "normal volume". The "problem" exists even if you have proper surround sound systems (obviously, surround sound systems would have it better due to better channel separation, but the volume issue is still there).

Don't get me wrong, I agree that movies released on home media should have a mix that is more balanced (compressed) in loudness. Just that the problem isn't related to the setup of the speakers.

View on HN

Question for people in the industry: Is it too hard to include a separate audio track that's more suitable for home use where a better emphasis is placed on dialogue?

Not a sound engineer but that sounds like remixing and remastering a rather large percentage of the film, if not the entire thing. I think you would have to have a director really push for that expense.

Some do, the one I noticed recently is the Valerian bluray.

I have a good 5.1 setup at home and it's still irritating. To hear the quiet parts you have to have it up loud enough that the loud parts are deafening.

I don't enjoy that even/especially at the cinema. Why do they do this? I don't need to hear gunshots and explosions at full real volume.

You need hearing protection when shooting for a reason.

The number of speakers is part of the problem. Reproduction of a center channel using two loudspeakers ("phantom center") is inherently flawed, because you get comb filtering between them. Unlike with headphones, both ears can hear both speakers at once, but unless you're sitting perfectly centered, the distance from them is not the same. This means the signal from one is delayed relative to the other, so you get frequency-dependent constructive and destructive interference. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_filter

The effect is more noticeable in an acoustically dry room where there are few reflections filling in the notches. A real center channel eliminates this source of comb filtering.

That doesn't make any sense to me. People have been listening to mono audio sources with two speakers forever without this issue. Even if the "comb filtering" is noticeable you can still make out voices just fine.

The length of time people have been ignoring something doesn't affect if it's real or not. A phantom center channel is a cost optimization, and in many cases it's good enough, but it's also true that many people have trouble hearing dialogue in movies. Some of them will benefit from a real center channel. How much they'll benefit depends on the acoustic environment and listening position.

This isn't a new idea; the very first movie with multi-channel audio used a real center channel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasound

Downvoters, it's a real thing:

>The tests showed significant improvements in word recognition using a separate center loudspeaker when compared with a phantom center image between a pair of loudspeakers.

https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14174

Reply on news.ycombinator.com