On 06/03/2014 08:23 AM, Martin Drasar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On 3.6.2014 7:55, simendsjo via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>>> Or because somebody in the production studio decided the music and sound
>>> effects needed to be at least 2x louder than the dialog. 
>> (...)
>> I was about to say the exact same thing. I always have to turn the
>> volume way down to not blow the roof when some sudden sound effect is
>> played, but then I can't hear the voice. I even use subtitles for my
>> native tongue if the movie has a lot of sound effects. I'm having a
>> really hard time understanding the rationale behind this - is it to
>> deafen viewers? To show that it's far from reality so people don't get
>> confused mixing fiction with reality?
> It's not about deafening the viewer, it's about the costs. The sound is
> prepared for theatres with lots of HQ hardware and for 5.1 sound at
> minimum. The voice goes mostly to the central channel, effects on sides.
> When you have a 5.1 setup, you can turn the volume up on the central and
> down on sides and you will get reasonably sounding movies.
> However, nobody in the industry wants to spend money on converting the
> audio from 5.1 to 2, so it's usually left up to a player and it ends how
> you describe it. Also ripped movies suffer from these problems a lot.
> Martin

I had no idea, thanks. I just thought someone had the idiotic idea it
would be a nice idea to have sound effects a lot louder than voice :)

Reply via email to