Greta Gerwig "turning up the volume"

[Martin Brooks]

I can tell you from experience that just one concert, a lot shorter than eight hours, can easily provide permanent hearing damage. Some years ago, I walked out of a concert with tinnitus and I was wearing hearing protection for most of it. Every single professional musician I know has hearing loss and/or tinnitus and remember that on stage, they're not even getting the brunt of the sound because the sound system is in front of them. They have their own monitors and more and more, artists use in-ear monitors to protect their hearing.
From an aesthetic standpoint, when actors are talking normally on the screen, it should not sound like they're screaming at you and it should not cause discomfort. There's a difference between room-filling sound plus great dynamic range (for blasts, etc.) and films in which is the sound is highly compressed and presented at very high levels for the duration, usually because directors are insecure about their films and believe that jacking up SPL's creates excitement or emotion, but it doesn't - it just creates fatigue.

The problem in the theater is that the levels might be set for a full crowd wearing coats on a Saturday night, but when there's only a few people in the auditorium, there's nothing to absorb the sound.

An example of the great use of dynamic range was in the original 70mm release of "Close Encounters..." In the theater and even though this was before split surround, near the end of the film when the glass breaks in the viewing tower, it appeared to come from the right rear of the theater. The sound was so loud, but so realistic, everyone turned their heads because we thought something actually crashed in the theater. (It's not mixed that way on the Blu-ray and it wasn't mixed that way when the film was shown digitally via DCP some years ago.).

Furthermore, there was an article published in EQ magazine in September of 2002, listing OSHA sound levels and the time of maximum exposure. One could listen to loud street traffic with an SPL level of 85db (A-weighted) for 8 hours, but anything louder than that had reduced times before one could expect hearing damage:
Loud classical music: 97db (47 minutes, 37 seconds)
Subway passing; 103db (7.5 minutes)
Thunder: 110db (1.5 minutes)
Loud rock close to or on stage: 115db (28 seconds)
Jet takeoff from 200' away: 125db (3 seconds)
Threshold of pain: 130db and higher (zero seconds)

I have measured peaks of 125db in movie theaters. I can't say with exactitude how long they lasted, but even relatively short blasts at that level is unnecessary and in addition to the problem of level, it's usually highly distorted.

But max levels before hearing damage is not even the point. Film mixers and movie theaters should not be setting sound levels based on the maximum before hearing damage - they should be setting level based upon what sounds good. And as an ex-recording engineer, it's my opinion that levels today are absurdly loud in too many instances and it's not just clubs and rock concerts - it's also some Broadway shows and movie theaters, especially the trailers. I think it's ridiculous that if I'm going to see an action movie that I have to remember to bring hearing protection with me. Great sound doesn't have to be over-loud - it just has to be room filling and properly frequency balanced with a great high-end frequency response, tight bass and dialog clarity, but with resonance. It should not sound metallic or brittle and in too many theaters it does, and when such sound is played at high levels, it's really awful.

[Steve Guttag]

Frank, sure, but that isn't want you said on post #11:

8 hours, 4 hours or ten seconds. If it's too loud it's too loud and there's no good reason for it.

ten-seconds is not the same as 4-hours.

And while a 1-second "sting" like a chandelier falling may be acceptable to you...would an Apollo (Saturn-V) rocket taking off (thinking Apollo 13) be okay being loud for 10-30 seconds? The sound should reinforce what we see on the screen and a rocket shouldn't sound like a sparkler.

What I object to is when dialog sounds unnaturally loud (same decibel level as shouting (90ish dB). And then music and effects compete with that. Dialog should set the level for the rest of the soundtrack.

I come back to my friend Larry Blake. Listen to one of his movies (Oceans 11, as an example). It is easy on the ears, everything is understandable and it has dynamic range.

[Steve Guttag]

I'm interested in this claim of 125dB peaks in theatres.

Was the theatre calibrated? Was it running at reference ("7" or 0dB)? Because, if so, something is wrong with somebody's meter.

Each screen channel has a maximum (0dBFS...there is nothing above full-scale) of 105dBc. And, presuming it wasn't pink noise, you aren't going to hit that. With all three screen channels going, you've only gone up to 109.8dBc. Let's say you have 5 screen channels and magically, they too are at 0dBFS for some mystery soundtrack, you're up to 112dBc. There are the surrounds which, regardless of format, only add another 105dBc channel (again, presuming calibrated properly)...we're up to 112.8dBc (and the surrounds aren't going to have the LF response but let's presume there are surround LFE channels). All that is left is the subwoofers. They're band limited so they don't translate well into a dBc (or even dBa)...nominally, they'll measure about 112 or so...let's add 3dB over all...you're at 115.8dBc.

It took everything a theatre has to get that high and you are claiming another 10dB on top of that.

Something isn't adding up. And, again, with program material, not pink noise, you aren't exciting the full spectrum so you are going to get less. If you are measuring dBa, then you will get a couple of dB bump from frequencies in the 3Kish region but a severe reduction for contributions below 1K (subwoofers don't move the dBa needle very much).

[Frank Cox]

Steve, I think we're vehemently agreeing.

The Saturn V rocket and the helicopter gunship swooping in with the pounding rock soundtrack is one thing but "Where shall I go? What shall I do?" isn't supposed to be bellowing across the room.

When people are showing up to your movies carrying industrial ear protection, I suggest there's an issue that you need to deal with. Someone else said it doesn't matter because it's not going for eight hours straight. I disagree.

I get people complimenting me all the time on the sound in my theatre, because it's set at a level where it's comfortable for everyone to listen to, "Take her to sea, Mr. Murdoch" is downright exhilarating and yes, when that Saturn V takes off you better hold onto your seat.

[Harold Hallikainen]

On maximum acoustic level... The calibration is done at the reference point. In front of that, the sound will be louder. Calibration is done with pink noise with a crest factor of 12 dB and an RMS of about -20 dB FS. So, it can only go up 8 dB before it starts clipping, yielding a level of 8 dB above 85 dB C, or 93 dB C. You can get higher RMS levels with lower crest factors. Finally, the LSS-200 logs the time and level of the highest SPL each day.

[Terry Monohan]

Most theatres I go to don't have the surround wall speakers turned up enough for me. That's why many of my friends and I enjoy getting our own copy on Blu Ray so we can turn up the surround mix and hear the effect sounds we missed in a low volume movie theatre. .Some mangers I talk to tell me they turn down the surrounds on the side walls because of leak thru sounds going into the adjoining auditoriums.

The new 'Taylor Swift' concert film wrecked havoc on any cheap soundproofing between auditoriums these past few weeks.

I was very disappointed in the surround track of the new 'Killers Flower Moon' movie. Only heard rain at times and a few other sounds from time to time from the side speakers at the Regal Stonestown SF Theatre this past Saturday on their semi small flat RPX screen $$ Cinema #12, Very few people for the 10 15AM show. No publicity because of the actors strike. May be a word of mouth movie.

Not the Regal's sound fault, may have been mixed without much surrounds? The many trailers shown had better surround sound then the feature 'Flower' movie. Great use of the surrounds on 'Flower Moon' at the end credits with no music just split rain sound with back wall and side speakers plus ceiling surrounds .Regal SF doesn't bother to show a trailer on what sound system they have I don't think it is Dolby Atmos in SF. I do see hidden speaker grills in the ceiling in the RPX Theatre #12 set up. The Century Daly City CA Cinemas a few miles away has a way bigger semi curved XD screen .

Will try to see this long movie on a Imax screen soon. 'Flower' will probably win best movie, best actor and best director at the Oscars or Barbie may throw a curve and Oppenheimer may take best actor?

Has anyone here seen 'Killers Of The Flower Moon' yet on a large Imax screen. How was the stage speaker bass and surround volume? Being It was shot in scope was It just shown on a blind wide scope image in the middle of the Imax screen with no masking or did they have some segments with full Imax top to bottom? Thanks

[Steve Guttag]

In my opinion, we blew it when DCinema standards were set. Cinemas have a history with mono surrounds (going back back to the 1950s). All channels were balanced to the same level. As such, if Center channels references to 85dBc, so does Left, Right and Surrounds (mono). When Split Surrounds came along, Ls and Rs had to be lowered to 82dBc so that when they play together as one big surround array (like mono surrouns), they too sum to 85dBc. Thus, if you have mono surrounds or stereo surrounds, you get the same level. This was carried through to Surround-EX and why Bs had its own trim when in EX mode so that again, you only got 85dBc (summing the level) rather than 88dBc (summing the voltages).

However, since DCinema was specified as a 5.1 minimum format (yeah, that worked), we should have put the burden on the studios and had cinemas set up for each channel to be set to 85dBc. There is no longer a need to be backwards compatible to film's mono surround. When the movie is authored for DCP, that is where the level should be set, not in the cinema.

Now, consumer has always had the levels be the levels...the same reference sent to any channel should yield the same SPL. The net result seems to be that surrounds seem louder in the home than the cinema.

Furthermore, when someone turns the volume down to accommodate sane people, the surrounds come down with it though they were never the big problem...it was the screen speakers playing unnaturally loud.

Surrounds are supposed to be effects channels...not primary. As such, they shouldn't be so loud as to cause you to look for what is coming from them...what are you going to see? the wall fabric? The exit sign? They give ambiance. But if the fader is turned down, they fade down right with that.

And yes, at the home, the end user gets to set the levels and they will goose the surrounds.

[Harold Hallikainen]

In SMPTE discussions for the standard for the immersive audio bitstream, there was quite a bit of discussion about bed channel levels. I THINK the surrounds ended up at the same level as the screen channels (but I don't remember for sure). During an early demonstration of the DTS immersive audio system we did at USL, it was really unclear what the surround levels should be.

On immersive, I always thought that each loudspeaker should provide a specified SPL at a specified distance, not the current variable SPL at fixed distance to result in fixed SPL at the reference position. I gave the example of an object (like a bee) flying along the side wall. The bee does not buzz louder when it gets farther away from us, yet the same level into a distant speaker makes the bee louder. To make it sound right, the bee has to be made quieter during production as it travels down the wall. But, others did not agree...

Harold

[Steve Guttag]

Yes...with immersive, the level is the level, at least with Dolby Atmos. The surrounds are not asked, individually, to hit 105dBc...even playing objects but they use the same reference and are balanced to the same level upon tuning. That said, part of the Dolby Atmos calibration is to tune each speaker individually, then turn tune each array as a group (Lss, Rss, LTS, RTS) and then tune the surrounds for 5.1 (Ls, Rs) in their usual "L" formation.

I do agree with you that, as it currently stands, LSS1/RSS1 will, in effect, be louder than LSS5/RSS5 (presuming "5" is around the 2/3rds point). From a "real-life" standpoint, that shouldn't be the case. Each speaker should be tuned with the mic at the same distance away from the speaker so that an object does not get louder the further away it gets.

However, I can already hear the argument that since those people closer to LSS1/RSS1 are also closer to the screen speakers, it will help balance the surrounds to the screen channels as one moves back or front in the theatre. I can understand both arguments. Then again, are we really trying to tune a room to please just the select few near the RLP? If it is a sound stage, I guess we are. But with a full cinema, it is probably best to not cause an effect to sound diminished just because it is nearer to the screen. Furthermore, if an object moves from the screen to the surrounds, the level has to not jump up or down but be a smooth transition.

I do object to, in effect, setting Left and Right speakers louder than Center. Yes, they all read 85dBc but if you were to mic in front of each speaker you'd find that left and right are playing louder because they are further from the RLP than Center. The sound should not raise in level as one moves laterally across the screen either. Furthermore, NOTHING should get more level than Center...that's the dialog channel. It normally isn't a huge difference...sometimes less than a dB but still, it should be variable based on how wide/long a room is either (a short fat room will accentuate the difference more than a long-skinny one).

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

I can tell you from experience that just one concert, a lot shorter than eight hours, can easily provide permanent hearing damage. Some years ago, I walked out of a concert with tinnitus and I was wearing hearing protection for most of it. Every single professional musician I know has hearing loss and/or tinnitus and remember that on stage, they're not even getting the brunt of the sound because the sound system is in front of them. They have their own monitors and more and more, artists use in-ear monitors to protect their hearing.

<snip>

Furthermore, there was an article published in EQ magazine in September of 2002, listing OSHA sound levels and the time of maximum exposure. One could listen to loud street traffic with an SPL level of 85db (A-weighted) for 8 hours, but anything louder than that had reduced times before one could expect hearing damage:
Loud classical music: 97db (47 minutes, 37 seconds)
Subway passing; 103db (7.5 minutes)
Thunder: 110db (1.5 minutes)
Loud rock close to or on stage: 115db (28 seconds)
Jet takeoff from 200' away: 125db (3 seconds)
Threshold of pain: 130db and higher (zero seconds)

I have measured peaks of 125db in movie theaters. I can't say with exactitude how long they lasted, but even relatively short blasts at that level is unnecessary and in addition to the problem of level, it's usually highly distorted.

But max levels before hearing damage is not even the point. Film mixers and movie theaters should not be setting sound levels based on the maximum before hearing damage - they should be setting level based upon what sounds good. And as an ex-recording engineer, it's my opinion that levels today are absurdly loud in too many instances and it's not just clubs and rock concerts - it's also some Broadway shows and movie theaters, especially the trailers. I think it's ridiculous that if I'm going to see an action movie that I have to remember to bring hearing protection with me. Great sound doesn't have to be over-loud - it just has to be room filling and properly frequency balanced with a great high-end frequency response, tight bass and dialog clarity, but with resonance. It should not sound metallic or brittle and in too many theaters it does, and when such sound is played at high levels, it's really awful.

First bold: I disagree with "easily". Again, I have mixed LIVE sound and have suffered (according to MANY hearing tests) NO permanent damage to my hearing. Short term, yes I have had some ringing and headaches, but as I stated in my last post, my hearing is on par with a man of my age (60). I am NOT saying that you can't get hearing damage from a concert, but like many aspects of human physiology, it will vary from person to person. By your metric, based on average attendance at major concerts, we should have hundreds of thousands of deaf people (concert goers specifically) running about, and we do not. Do many of them have some sort of hearing loss? I am willing to say yes, but is it ALL permanent? No.

Second bold: Most artists using in-ear monitors have them playing so loud they are more likely to CAUSE hearing damage than prevent it. I found that out testing in-ears for a few artists. My methodology of mixing involved two wedges on my right with sealed headphones covering my left ear and my left ear took the brunt of the levels. I do have a slightly greater amount of loss in my left ear because of that.

Third bold: They just regurgitated the same stats I posted directly from OSHA's regs. And again, those are CONTINUOUS Spls exceeding 50% duration. Short term exposures to very high spls won't necessarily cause damage. And in that article, did they have or share any input from audiologists? Were any experts on hearing or hearing loss mentioned? Magazine articles, especially trade mags, tend to be skewed to a certain point of view, rather than objective.

Forth bold: What meter were you using? Was it calibrated recently? What weighting did you use? Were you in line with a given speaker, or at a specific reference point? Auditorium full with people, or empty? And if you can't say how long they lasted, what use is that data anyways? It could have been literally milliseconds (damped to read on the meter scale electronically) or even a glitch or inability of the meter to read high levels. All of the above makes that a meaningless statement, unless you can accurately answer ALL of the criteria I raised. Steve's post about the mathematics involving cinema setup is solid. So like him, I respectfully call BS on those readings.

Fifth bold: I agree with you 1000% on this. Bear in mind though, since the goal is to get as close as possible to real life in the cinema, that WILL mean some serious sound levels, in scenes that warrant it. Like I said in my OP, I expect the sound to match as close as possible to what the REAL life thing happening on screen is. But yes, far too many mixers in the industry go for all loud, no dynamics and that is 1000% WRONG.

Sixth bold: Again I agree fully with you. Too many theatres have horrible sound, due to neglect, improper design, tampering with EQ, or EQ done wrong. That has been going on forever, and hasn't changed much since the D-Cinema "revolution". And it will most likely never change.

[Mike Blakesley]

Fifth bold: I agree with you 1000% on this. Bear in mind though, since the goal is to get as close as possible to real life in the cinema, that WILL mean some serious sound levels, in scenes that warrant it.

Yes, and that's exactly as it should be. I had one guy tell me that he heard from someone that Top Gun Maverick was too loud. (He hadn't come to the movie yet.) I said, "It's fighter jets, they're supposed to be loud." Then I told him the dialogue scenes were a normal level, it was only the jets and explosions that were loud. So he came to the movie and came out raving that it sounded amazing. I said, "Not too loud?" He said, "Hell no, it was perfect!"

I agree about the hearing-loss experience being different for different people. I've been to several hundred concerts myself, including one by Cher which had the shrillest, most horrible sound ever. I was also a dance DJ for 16 years, plus I play loud music daily whenever I drive my vehicle, and I can still hear just fine for someone my age (66). My brother in law, who is two years younger than me, has hardly ever been to any concerts -- in fact, none that I know of in the last 30 years or so -- and doesn't generally ever spend time in any loud environments, but he has hearing aids in both ears.

[Martin McCaffery]

Fifth bold: I agree with you 1000% on this. Bear in mind though, since the goal is to get as close as possible to real life in the cinema

Gotta disagree. The goal is to convince you that this is what real life sounds like. So many things in movies sound nothing like real life (take guns for example). Many things don't even occur in real life (super heroes flying around the planet). Hell, we all "know" what a lightsaber sounds like, even though they don't exist.

A minuscule portion of the population knows what a rocket engine sounds like, and I suspect no one knows what they sound like from five feet away.

And, of course, background noise does not magically disappear when we are talking to people outdoors.

Sound is just another point of suspension of disbelief that makes up the magic of movies. Too loud and the spell is broken. A good sound mix convinces us that we are watching and hearing real life.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

I said: ..........the goal is to get as close as possible to real life in the cinema


Gotta disagree. The goal is to convince you that this is what real life sounds like. So many things in movies sound nothing like real life (take guns for example). Many things don't even occur in real life (super heroes flying around the planet). Hell, we all "know" what a lightsaber sounds like, even though they don't exist.

A minuscule portion of the population knows what a rocket engine sounds like, and I suspect no one knows what they sound like from five feet away.

And, of course, background noise does not magically disappear when we are talking to people outdoors.

Sound is just another point of suspension of disbelief that makes up the magic of movies. Too loud and the spell is broken. A good sound mix convinces us that we are watching and hearing real life.

You really need to quit while you are (not) ahead. You said EXACTLY the same thing I did, but tried to skew it to just continue arguing.

You ARE correct that sound is part of suspension of disbelief, just as the visuals should be, but to make it REALISTIC, both sound and image MUST match real-life expectations.

And why does a lightsabre sound so "right"? Because it is constructed with layers of REAL LIFE sounds. Same with blaster bolts. Ben Burtt is a genius and understood that to make such futuristic weapons sound "right" the best way was to layer real life sounds in the perfect mix. And it worked. (He and George Lucas both agreed from the start that they did not want the generic, electronic "futuristic" sounds that Hollywood had used for decades, they wanted ORGANIC and REAL. So they did it.)

I am sure that more than a "miniscule" portion of people have a good idea of what rocket engines sound like, even though the may not have heard it first hand. And the five feet away bit is just dumb, no one can be that close to a rocket engine while firing. Most people are aware (through hunting, target shooting, etc.) what guns sound like. The problem is too many cinemas are so poorly eq'd, designed, etc. that they don't sound realistic...but that goes back to our basic topic of how sound mixers either don't know what they are doing, because they deliberately mix with the faders slammed, or the theatres are not maintaining or installing sound systems up to the task. Or in this case, a mix (pun intended) of both sides being responsible for excess levels and bad sound.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Modern cinema audio systems, even the basic 5.1 configurations that are seen to be the baseline standard for Digital Cinema, have a great dynamic range, especially if correctly installed and maintained. In your average-sized cinema, you don't need Atmos or "immersive 128-channel sound" to have a great experience at all. A proper 5.1 or 7.1 setup can get you pretty far.

Yet, I have the feeling that modern cinema doesn't really use the systems that are given to them to their full extend. Not every movie needs a Top Gun sound-track, but I'm pretty disapointed at how we use those sound systems, especially with regards to surround and their full dynamic range potentials.

I recently connected an X-Box Series-X in our screening room. We sometimes organize game nights, this used to be mostly Nintendo stuff, but we decided to go more "hard core" this time and throw in some more mature games. And even though we couldn't get the consumer-grade Atmos of the X-Box working with the IMS3000 or the CP-850, I was pretty much blown away by the amount of immersion many of those games offer, compared to your average movie soundtrack even in "plain" 7.1 PCM mode.

I know that surround speakers are supposed to be "supporting speakers", but damn, we're really not using them to the full potential. Again, not every movie will benefit from this "full immersive" experience, but if I'm in a high-octane car chase, I want to feel like I'm in it. When Microsoft and Electronic Arts can make that happen, why can't Warner Brothers or Universal do the same? Why does Need for Speed sound four times more immersive in 7.1 than the Atmos mix of the latest Fast & Furious movie on the same hardware?