[hakunamakaka]

The entire thrust of THX, both theatrical and at home, was to present the experience "as the creators intended". They did it by standardizing certain critical performance criteria in rooms and equipment. The idea collapsed because of the expense of manufacturing equipment and building rooms to THX spec, and ultimately market confusion over what THX actually meant. But when the original performance targets were adhered to the goal of establishing a reasonable match between the creative environment and the presentation environment was actually achieved.

If the creators intention wasn't important, there would never have been THX in the first place.

it has it’s place, but shouldn’t be your main focus, unless your work is related to that and you remaster tracks. For a listener this can be put out of the picture

 

[GearMe]

THX...out of the goodness of George Lucas's heart...just looking out for the consumer's best interests!

Meh...am more inclined to believe that this strategy aligned with Lucas's innate ability to fully monetize an opportunity.

Lucas is a very smart business man worth about $6 Billion and, while THX was a drop in the bucket compared to the Star Wars franchise and additional merchandising revenue, he understands the concept of exclusivity as well as anyone. Audiences used to cheer when they saw the THX logo in the theater...masterful marketing!

For some audiophiles, it was a way to 'confirm' their purchase; others a bragging right. For those with a good set of ears and the willingness to treat a room, not such a big deal.

TBH, there have been so many different THX levels and products over the years it boggles the mind. I recall the THX Certified PC's when they first came out 20 years ago; pair em up with your THX Computer Speakers and it was definitely an 'as the artist intended' experience! Not sure if they ever got to THX Hair Dryers and Shavers


OK...a little harsh I s'pose...since he's never demonstrated the desire to separate the public from their hard-earned cash...rinse and repeat.
(may your cash be with me)

I'm sure he'll be remembered as a highly regarded, cutting-edge artist (his Oscars confirm); always pushing the envelope -- can't wait for Indiana Jones 5!!!
That said, Raiders of the Lost Ark was very entertaining...to this day a movie I'd sit down to watch at home or even pay to see in the theater again.

Other than Raiders, his first two movies were among his best -- American Graffitti...and...wait for it THX 1138.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Creator intentions doesn’t mean it’s the best of what he could achieve even by his own vision.
[2] There is no point to argue if it sounds as creator intended or what’s the ultimate sound.
[3] As music lover your focus shouldn’t be here in the first place.
[4] Enjoy what YOU like

1. Maybe Da Vinci could have done better, even by his own vision, with the Mona Lisa. Maybe you don't like Mona Lisa's smile and if you had your own copy for your personal viewing pleasure, you would change it and that would be your choice. Or, maybe the smile Da Vinci painted was entirely intentional and maybe I want to view it as Da Vinci intended, even if I personally don't like the smile, don't understand why he painted it like that and think that my own judgement is better/preferable. No artist is perfect or creates perfect works but when I view or listen to an artist's work, I want to see or hear that artist's intentions and preferences, not my own.

2. This assertion is false! There is a point in arguing if it sounds as the creator intended, as that affects what the creator intended. Maybe you personally are not interested in what the artist intended, are only interested in your own preferences and therefore there's "no point" for you, which is your personal choice. However, you did not qualify "there is no point" as just your personal choice/preference and therefore implicitly stated "there is no point" for anyone, which is why your assertion is false because there is a point for me and many others!

3. I would state almost the exact opposite! Music is an art form and as such is a form of communication, so as a music lover I want to understand/appreciate what the creator intended to communicate. If I were not a music lover, if instead I just loved satisfying my personal "ear candy" preferences, then you're right and my "focus shouldn't be here in the first place". Of course, some music creators don't exercise the ability of music to communicate and so design their music to be nothing more than "ear candy", which is up to them but clearly this isn't true of the vast majority of music creators or of many music consumers.

4. Sure, you are entirely free to "Enjoy what YOU like" but I'm just as free to appreciate and love music on it's own merits, regardless of my personal preferences (even if I don't like it, or parts of it). For example, I first heard the "Rite of Spring" when I was a young teenager, I didn't just not like it, I actively hated it. It was just an unpleasant sounding cacophony of strained musical instruments. As my understanding of the composer's specific intent and of music composition in general grew, my view of the piece changed. The piece depicts a primitive ritual where a young girl is forced to dance herself to death, which is not a pleasant situation and which the composer communicates by the piece intentionally not sounding pleasant. The overt and subtle specific ways the composer achieves this has changed my view from actively hating it, to it being my most loved piece and I could argue that it's the greatest masterpiece ever composed, even though it's still unpleasant sounding relative to my personal preferences/likes!

[1] Neil Young is the only performer I've heard of who has gone out of his way to dictate to people how they should listen to his music.
[2] There's also a great story about Artur Schnabel, who was famous for playing Beethoven's sonatas in the 30s. He was asked why he was reticent to record them and he said that he was afraid that somewhere someone would be listening to the glory of Beethoven while seated at the kitchen table in an undershirt eating a ham sandwich. There is a good example of artists' intent!

1. Now you've heard of another! I always "go out of my way to dictate how people" hear my mixes/music. For example, I will adjust say a guitar part by a few dB here and there. This dictates how people will hear my mixes/music because they cannot deconstruct my mix and change my intention of the relative balance of the guitar part. And again, I am not alone in this, every music producer I've ever heard of does the same, and so do many/most conductors, composers and musicians.

2. No, that is NOT a good example of artists' intent. It's an example of one artist's intent, it's also representative of some other artists but definitely NOT all artists' and probably only a relatively small minority!

G

 

[GearMe]

1. Maybe Da Vinci could have done better, even by his own vision, with the Mona Lisa. Maybe you don't like Mona Lisa's smile and if you had your own copy for your personal viewing pleasure, you would change it and that would be your choice. Or, maybe the smile Da Vinci painted was entirely intentional and maybe I want to view it as Da Vinci intended, even if I personally don't like the smile, don't understand why he painted it like that and think that my own judgement is better/preferable. No artist is perfect or creates perfect works but when I view or listen to an artist's work, I want to see or hear that artist's intentions and preferences, not my own.

I honestly get both sides of this discussion...

That said, I'm not going to agonize over a system being perfectly set up to wring every little nuance 'necessary' to be 'faithful' to the artists intentions...not worth the effort...to me. Also, it seems that some folks (don't believe you're one) spend their time listening to their gear using music instead of listening to their music with their gear.

As a sidebar, if I could have the perfect system but could only listen to Henry Mancini and Kenny G...vs a flawed system but I got to listen to Brubeck and Coltrane...gimme the flawed system e-v-e-r-y time!

4. Sure, you are entirely free to "Enjoy what YOU like" but I'm just as free to appreciate and love music on it's own merits, regardless of my personal preferences (even if I don't like it, or parts of it). For example, I first heard the "Rite of Spring" when I was a young teenager, I didn't just not like it, I actively hated it. It was just an unpleasant sounding cacophony of strained musical instruments. As my understanding of the composer's specific intent and of music composition in general grew, my view of the piece changed. The piece depicts a primitive ritual where a young girl is forced to dance herself to death, which is not a pleasant situation and which the composer communicates by the piece intentionally not sounding pleasant. The overt and subtle specific ways the composer achieves this has changed my view from actively hating it, to it being my most loved piece and I could argue that it's the greatest masterpiece ever composed, even though it's still unpleasant sounding relative to my personal preferences/likes!

You and I had similar experiences with this piece...for me knowing the story helped as well. However, my appreciation for this piece and others like it honestly just came with age. Similarly, I hated blues music when I was young. Over time, it has become my favorite genre.


btw...Mona Lisa's smile?

(sorry...had to!)

 

[bigshot]

The entire thrust of THX, both theatrical and at home, was to present the experience "as the creators intended". They did it by standardizing certain critical performance criteria in rooms and equipment. The idea collapsed because of the expense of manufacturing equipment and building rooms to THX spec, and ultimately market confusion over what THX actually meant.

Atmos is marching down the same road. But if it pushes things in the right direction, it's worth it. For now though, mixes are designed to suit a range of circumstances. Until the record industry decides to buy us all officially sanctioned equipment for our homes, that isn't likely to change!

THX...out of the goodness of George Lucas's heart...just looking out for the consumer's best interests! Meh...am more inclined to believe that this strategy aligned with Lucas's innate ability to fully monetize an opportunity.

The fella who designed and set up my theater room was part of the team that designed and built the prototype THX installation at Skywalker Ranch. He was authorized to do THX certification and I asked him about it. He said that the original intentions were good, but it didn't play out as well in practice. When they had control over the room- as in brand new theaters- THX was very good. Trying to adapt it for the home was pretty pointless. He said that he could certify my theater, but that would involve paying a hefty license fee and he wouldn't do anything differently than without the certification. The only difference would be that he would spend a whole lot of time on paperwork and I would get a nice certificate to hang on the wall. I passed on it.

 

[hakunamakaka]

1. Maybe Da Vinci could have done better, even by his own vision, with the Mona Lisa. Maybe you don't like Mona Lisa's smile and if you had your own copy for your personal viewing pleasure, you would change it and that would be your choice. Or, maybe the smile Da Vinci painted was entirely intentional and maybe I want to view it as Da Vinci intended, even if I personally don't like the smile, don't understand why he painted it like that and think that my own judgement is better/preferable. No artist is perfect or creates perfect works but when I view or listen to an artist's work, I want to see or hear that artist's intentions and preferences, not my own.

2. This assertion is false! There is a point in arguing if it sounds as the creator intended, as that affects what the creator intended. Maybe you personally are not interested in what the artist intended, are only interested in your own preferences and therefore there's "no point" for you, which is your personal choice. However, you did not qualify "there is no point" as just your personal choice/preference and therefore implicitly stated "there is no point" for anyone, which is why your assertion is false because there is a point for me and many others!

3. I would state almost the exact opposite! Music is an art form and as such is a form of communication, so as a music lover I want to understand/appreciate what the creator intended to communicate. If I were not a music lover, if instead I just loved satisfying my personal "ear candy" preferences, then you're right and my "focus shouldn't be here in the first place". Of course, some music creators don't exercise the ability of music to communicate and so design their music to be nothing more than "ear candy", which is up to them but clearly this isn't true of the vast majority of music creators or of many music consumers.

4. Sure, you are entirely free to "Enjoy what YOU like" but I'm just as free to appreciate and love music on it's own merits, regardless of my personal preferences (even if I don't like it, or parts of it). For example, I first heard the "Rite of Spring" when I was a young teenager, I didn't just not like it, I actively hated it. It was just an unpleasant sounding cacophony of strained musical instruments. As my understanding of the composer's specific intent and of music composition in general grew, my view of the piece changed. The piece depicts a primitive ritual where a young girl is forced to dance herself to death, which is not a pleasant situation and which the composer communicates by the piece intentionally not sounding pleasant. The overt and subtle specific ways the composer achieves this has changed my view from actively hating it, to it being my most loved piece and I could argue that it's the greatest masterpiece ever composed, even though it's still unpleasant sounding relative to my personal preferences/likes!



1. Now you've heard of another! I always "go out of my way to dictate how people" hear my mixes/music. For example, I will adjust say a guitar part by a few dB here and there. This dictates how people will hear my mixes/music because they cannot deconstruct my mix and change my intention of the relative balance of the guitar part. And again, I am not alone in this, every music producer I've ever heard of does the same, and so do many/most conductors, composers and musicians.

2. No, that is NOT a good example of artists' intent. It's an example of one artist's intent, it's also representative of some other artists but definitely NOT all artists' and probably only a relatively small minority!

G

for me there is no point to seek for that "sound, I just don't see much point in it, if it's neutral and close to what I hear in live sessions I'm happy, don't care if I missed some micro details, instead "I'm spending money on music itself and there is no Vinyl, album release that I started to dislike in many years span. Mine hobby is to explore music, no high end sound will beat my favorite albums. You sound very immature if you relate only high end sound seekers as the only music lovers, but whatever floats your boat. Good luck

 

[bigshot]

It really isn't very reasonable to expect that you can achieve studio standards in the home. You have to make compromises for livability, convenience and functionality. The trick is to apply those compromises intelligently, with a basic understanding of how things work. Just because you don't have rigid calibration, it doesn't mean that any old sound will do. You apply the science to solve the problem... and the problem is how to experience great sounding music in your home. You judge the results according to fitness for purpose, not precision.

That said, we're living in an age where technology allows us to own inexpensive systems that have greater fidelity than at any time in the past. It isn't terribly difficult to achieve great sounding music if you just keep focused on the things that matter and not the things that are a waste of energy and money. I admire efficient, inexpensive systems that do the job elegantly than expensive "money is no object" systems that make you jump through hoops to use ithem.

 

[pinnahertz]

Atmos is marching down the same road. But if it pushes things in the right direction, it's worth it. For now though, mixes are designed to suit a range of circumstances. Until the record industry decides to buy us all officially sanctioned equipment for our homes, that isn't likely to change!



The fella who designed and set up my theater room was part of the team that designed and built the prototype THX installation at Skywalker Ranch. He was authorized to do THX certification and I asked him about it. He said that the original intentions were good, but it didn't play out as well in practice. When they had control over the room- as in brand new theaters- THX was very good. Trying to adapt it for the home was pretty pointless. He said that he could certify my theater, but that would involve paying a hefty license fee and he wouldn't do anything differently than without the certification. The only difference would be that he would spend a whole lot of time on paperwork and I would get a nice certificate to hang on the wall. I passed on it.

Well, everyone has their idea of "pointless". Yes, they had on odd idea of certification. The point is not that certification was stupid, the point is that you got someone to build your room so that it could have passed certification. And that's actually still fairly rare. Hardly pointless. And if true, the THX goal was accomplished, just not official. The real problem is that so few home rooms would pass, and it cost a lot to make them pass.

THX at home, if fully implemented, accomplished the goal of matching the creative environment. That doesn't mean it's always practical, which was their problem in the first place.

 

[bigshot]

The guy did say there was more than one degree of certification. Perhaps they realized that theatrical THX wasn't practical in homes and created a lower standard. I guess that's like a TV game show and the home game by Milton Bradley.

 

[pinnahertz]

The guy did say there was more than one degree of certification. Perhaps they realized that theatrical THX wasn't practical in homes and created a lower standard. I guess that's like a TV game show and the home game by Milton Bradley.

Theatrical THX was never a possibility for the home. Small systems and rooms at 3000cu ft don't work like big theaters, dub stages, or screening rooms. Home THX (the original specs as written by Tom Holman) were specific to living room systems. The target was a timbre and presentation match to a dub stage, and it did work. The original specs morphed into THX Ultra II, to make room for THX Select, which was "cheapened" to get more of the badge into product and systems. Select and Select II never really were a great match to creative (though better than most home systems, HTiBs, etc), Home THX, Ultra, Ultra II was a good match.

Probably not known by many now, but Holman went on, after Lucasfilm, to produce a single person system called "MicroTheater", essentially THX for One. It was designed to work around a DAW with placement and timbre match to a dub stage. I actually worked with one of those systems, it was shockingly good. Many sound editors and even re-recording mixers said the could totally work that way, and it did match a dub stage quite well. It was installed in a number of editing suites, I think one I saw was at Fox, but the one I worked with was at Tom's TMH Labs. I really wish they'd moved the product forward, but it was a rental-only business model, like Panavision. He also designed speakers specifically for smaller screening rooms under the TMH badge, called Tesseract, and included a custom optimized active crossover and a couple of subs made by a third part. Heard them in a 50 seat color timing room, they blew me away, and I never say that easily about speakers. He was all about scaling the experience, and it all worked, if expensive.

 

[old tech]

From the thread below, Steve Hoffman claims that a LP record sounds closer to a master tape than a 24 bit digital copy of it.

Apart from that being technically impossible - 16 bit digital is more than enough to sound identical to an analog master tape - isn't it sad that he perpetuates this myth when nearly every other highly awarded mastering engineer that has experience with both record and digital mastering (eg Ludwig, Clearmountain and so on) have stated otherwise and would find such a claim laughable?

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thre...g-reel-tape-copy.133328/page-32#post-24184059

 

[Davesrose]

From the thread below, Steve Hoffman claims that a LP record sounds closer to a master tape than a 24 bit digital copy of it.

Apart from that being technically impossible - 16 bit digital is more than enough to sound identical to an analog master tape - isn't it sad that he perpetuates this myth when nearly every other highly awarded mastering engineer that has experience with both record and digital mastering (eg Ludwig, Clearmountain and so on) have stated otherwise and would find such a claim laughable?

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thre...g-reel-tape-copy.133328/page-32#post-24184059

Well isn't Steve Hoffman known in particular to engineer for old LP titles? I don't know how much of that is his experience just with analog or having a vested interest to be "anti-digital".

There might be an argument that the capabilities of LP are closer to old master tapes: IE larger magnetic tapes had some better capabilities, but still can't approach the capabilities of our current digital audio standards (in terms of frequency range and dynamic range). We know that either tape or LPs have more frequency roll off. I have collected some older used records thinking they may have been better mastered then some digital masterings, but I can't believe there would be any LP person would think vinyl exceed the capabilities of digital: it's just if there's a subjective preference of its colorization (and what I can think of current popularity of new LPs being made from digital sources).

I'm sure audio mastering has changed just as much as my experience with photography/digital video. The earliest digital cameras couldn't produce the resolving power or dynamic range of 35mm film. The first spec that I found digital to be better than analog was a better noise floor (IE being able to take photos in low light and high ISO). Film has been a good archive medium: quite a few older movies have been color graded and mastered for 4K HDR now. It's also interesting to see how TV productions have been transfered to a digital medium: IE Star Trek original series, which their special effects shots didn't hold up and all those shots redone in 3D. STNG, though, was sourced with ILM, who had a process of filming VFX passes on larger film stock (just as movies were in the 80s: filming VFX on large film stocks to hold up to optical printing). To meet the time constraints, those film negatives were scanned to video and edited in standard definition...but CBS could go back and rescan all film elements to do a digital master (where especially with VFX, you can add as many layers as you want, copy, distribute any number of times and stay bit perfect). I think it's great that we now have smaller cameras that are able to have a higher resolving power and dynamic range than film did. One huge comparison would be watching Top Gun in 4K: where you can see the limitations they had at the time: they were using a film format that had low resolving power, but were smaller for being able to attach to aerial photography. Now you can watch the sequel, Maverick, in 4K (trailer until release later this year) and just see how much sharper and better the image is. Now that production values are so great with current movies, I have noticed that cinephiles can be critical about other things: such as color grading or choice of aspect ratios....factors that are personal choices.

Though when speaking of studio masters, this is also reminding me of film restoration. For quite a few years now, studios have scanned 35mm sources in 4K resolution and 70mm sources in 8K. They have painstakingly color graded each shot, taken out any specks are marks in the negative etc....to make a pristine digital copy that looks better than anything someone would see in a multiplex that had run that original screening for how many cycles. When they are done, the have the digital master that gets saved and will be handed to channels for home distribution and such. They also make a new analog film master as well, just in case the software is no longer supported, and current film stocks can be archived for over 100 years.

 

[analogsurviver]

Peekaboo ...

 

[bigshot]

My personal opinion is that Hoffman’s opinion depends on which side his bread is buttered on. He’s getting more gravy from audiophiles lately so he leans that way.

 

[old tech]

My personal opinion is that Hoffman’s opinion depends on which side his bread is buttered on. He’s getting more gravy from audiophiles lately so he leans that way.

Probably explains his high regard for SACDs as of late given he has been trying to get back in the industry through a boutique label that only sell LPs and SACDs (no CDs or 24 bit downloads).