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 :)
