Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well, you must since you took the time to respond. Comments like this on forums always crack me up. Couldn't the same be said for most of what gets posted here? Yet here we are.

Oh wow, it’s almost like..I was speaking extemporaneously, sharing my thoughts in the moment, and then..at the end of my comment...I shared my revelation that...oh, gosh, this doesn’t even matter, does it? :)

But I agree with you, most of this site is frivolous. I love Apple, so I enjoy reading articles about it, and reading comments about the articles. I despise the hideous nastiness of so many people on here (I can‘t understand why they subject themselves to the misery of reading and commenting on Apple news when it clearly causes them so much pain...or does it?!).

So, you can take back your condescending “comments like this on forums always crack me up” remark, save it for use elsewhere. I’m not some dense cretin who doesn’t realize how his comments may be negatively interpreted. I just like, albeit rarely, jotting down my thoughts. :)
 
People arguing over whether their fancy home setup beats a theater are completing missing the point. They clearly just don't understand (or care for) the movie theater experience. I don't care how fancy your home theater setup is, it's simply not the same as viewing a film in a theater. You may have a 96" 8K TV at home, and it may be tack sharp, blowing away the overall "quality" of a movie theater screen. But the viewing experience is still a compromise.

If you're a movie lover, you get it. Home theaters can't replicate the psychological experience of theater viewing, and this has nothing to do with technology. Theaters are very much a blank canvas, a neutral space, the complete opposite of a room in your home. When you step into the theater, you step out of your reality and share a new one with a group of strangers. This is the real power of theater viewing.

The bigger the screen the better when it comes to creating this immersive, shared environment. Very few people have home theaters that come close to even a small movie theater screen. I can understand why Hanks is disappointed. Personally I have no interest in this movie, but it's clearly one of those films that deserves a big screen and immersive, communal experience. Hopefully it will get a proper theatrical release one day.

The cinema is horrible place - there's no film i've enjoyed more at the cinema than at home - the strangers just make it worse. So does the noise, naff sound, rubbish projector and blurry image, the price, the crap snacks. They're going down the pan and good riddance, won't be missed by many.
 
“I don’t mean to make angry my Apple overlords, but there is a difference in picture and sound quality.”

Not at my house Tom. 4K HDR with 5.2.2 surround sound. I’ll take my setup over a movie theater with sticky floors and overpriced snacks any day.

Sure. But not everyone is able to afford or even care enough to buy a setup like yours. Most would just watch it on their tiny iPhone/iPad screen, over dinner, or bedtime, or poo-poo time using their AirPods and lose most of the sound detail, let alone Atmos effect.

Streaming business allows you to do just that, while the theaters ensure you watch in on a big screen in an almost meditative environment. And that’s what Hanks was complaining about.


A basic 4k HDR TV is not expensive anymore so dont think its lucky few at this point.

Basic 4K HDR means crap stereo speakers too. Everybody has different setups, thus different perspective of the film. If you’re an artist producing a piece of art, you’d want everyone to enjoy it at its full glory, fullfiling a certain minimum standard. Hence his disappointment.
 
You don't, you watch it at home in a dedicated room which is acoustically and visually optimized. Build a room first, then put the equipment in. And if you have to, start with a simple setup and upgrade later. For some reason in the last few years, people started to believe they can just put a tiny TV (and yes, I mean 65" or 85" TVs) with some speakers in a room and have a high quality movie experience. 1. Room, 2. Room, 3. Room, 4. Equipment.

Indeed. This is exactly what I do.

Room design first. Equipment last.
[automerge]1594085670[/automerge]
Theaters also have distracting noises coming from the 100 other people in there with you, so you don’t escape that. The noises I encounter in my own home are much less likely to annoy me than what I find in a theater too, as they’re noises I live with daily and probably mentally filter out at this point. As far as lights go, turn them off?

The bar to quality surround audio isn’t as high as you make it out to be. Your room doesn’t have to be perfect to get spatially directed audio to work as intended. When I watched A Quiet Place, during a certain scene a waterfall sounded like it was directly over my head thanks to Atmos, and my room is far from perfect. Obviously better environments and better equipment lead to better results, but calling surround sound a waste except for purpose-designed rooms is laughable.
Theatres don't have distracting noise coming from 100 people. They're tuned to dampen any sound except for the speakers. It's why theatre are quiet when you walk into them.
 
Indeed. This is exactly what I do.

Room design first. Equipment last.
[automerge]1594085670[/automerge]

Theatres don't have distracting noise coming from 100 people. They're tuned to dampen any sound except for the speakers. It's why theatre are quiet when you walk into them.

That’s not how acoustics work. The dampening treatments on the walls don’t prevent you from hearing a sneeze or cough, or the guy behind you fumbling with his bag of skittles. Why do you think movies always start with some request or animation about silencing phones and being quiet during the movie? Acoustic treatments don’t magically suck up all sounds except for what’s coming from the speakers. They only dampen sound reflections off the walls, not sound directly from the source or reflected off other hard surfaces. Nor for that matter do they stop the guy in front of you from checking his phone and texting.

Hahahahaha

Found the “audiophile” with self-proclaimed golden-ears lmao.
 
Last edited:
Hanks is angry that his film won't get the "big screen" treatment. Meanwhile, thousands are angry that their loved ones have already died, as a result of public exposure (such as attending big screen theaters, crowded beaches, etc)
 
They only dampen sound reflections off the walls, not sound directly from the source or reflected off other hard surfaces.

Yes and that's why theaters are so quiet. The dampening removes all reflected sounds. The only sound left are the ones coming from the source, which have an inverse square log effect on their loudness.
 
Yes and that's why theaters are so quiet. The dampening removes all reflected sounds. The only sound left are the ones coming from the source, which have an inverse square log effect on their loudness.

And yet still doesn’t solve the problems of hearing people people behind or in front of you whispering or eating, or someone three rows from you coughing, sneezing, phone ringing, etc. You give theaters far too much credit for what they actually are. Well treated no doubt, but the treatments don’t remove even close to all reflected sounds from the room, nor those from the source, which you continue to ignore as an issue. What you’re talking about is an anechoic chamber, which a theater is not, nor is it really possible considering practical constraints. You’re still going to get reflections off a myriad of other surfaces: metal railings, lights, plastic seat backs, people, etc.
 
Last edited:
Yes and that's why theaters are so quiet. The dampening removes all reflected sounds. The only sound left are the ones coming from the source, which have an inverse square log effect on their loudness.

The distance between my house and the impolite people in the theater completely dampens their noise. I'll keep watching at home, where the popcorn costs pennies and the rental is just a few bucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vipergts2207
“I don’t mean to make angry my Apple overlords, but there is a difference in picture and sound quality.”

Not at my house Tom. 4K HDR with 5.2.2 surround sound. I’ll take my setup over a movie theater with sticky floors and overpriced snacks any day.

Which TV are you using?
 
I don't understand why he didn't just wait. Do what Marvel is doing....wait.
Some entertainment companies are acting like its now or never for putting out content people will see in the theaters. Not to sound insensitive but there will be life post covid19.
 
Good movies work on every screen...

it is interesting that Apple TV+ has a say in the background of the interview. Meaning that they didn't only bought the rights, but also do all the PR of the movie. They only want to show movies, if they have control over the marketing/PR and promotion of it.
 
I would rather watch at home on my S__S___ 65 sized curved TV with Bose 5.1 surround sound streaming 4K (at 90+ Mbps stream rate) via my Apple TV in front of my warm fire on a cold winter night, eating a pizza that costs the price of a bucket of popcorn while stretched out on my comfy sofa minus the presence of strangers and cinema advertising.
 
Why is Apple supposedly the bad guy? Hamilton just came out this weekend. Fantastic. Now, they could have held off, waited until next year for a big theatrical screening. But they chose to take the Disney Plus deal. Their perspective is, they have lots of money. They want everybody to have a chance to watch it. Here, Apple outbid everybody else to get a Hollywood release with Tom Hanks. That means there were no theater deals available. Well, you won't lose money, Tom.
 
The cinema is horrible place - there's no film i've enjoyed more at the cinema than at home - the strangers just make it worse. So does the noise, naff sound, rubbish projector and blurry image, the price, the crap snacks. They're going down the pan and good riddance, won't be missed by many.

Well, what can I say? If that's your experience, I'm sorry you have such crap cinemas and terrible people where you live. My experience, a few exceptions aside, is pretty much the opposite.
[automerge]1594140904[/automerge]
Oh wow, it’s almost like..I was speaking extemporaneously, sharing my thoughts in the moment, and then..at the end of my comment...I shared my revelation that...oh, gosh, this doesn’t even matter, does it? :)

But I agree with you, most of this site is frivolous. I love Apple, so I enjoy reading articles about it, and reading comments about the articles. I despise the hideous nastiness of so many people on here (I can‘t understand why they subject themselves to the misery of reading and commenting on Apple news when it clearly causes them so much pain...or does it?!).

So, you can take back your condescending “comments like this on forums always crack me up” remark, save it for use elsewhere. I’m not some dense cretin who doesn’t realize how his comments may be negatively interpreted. I just like, albeit rarely, jotting down my thoughts. :)

No need to explain yourself. And no need for me to take my comment back either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dannys1
Sorry, but saying "no it doesn’t" and "I won’t be a part of" such a discussion doesn’t support anything you say. No need to refer to other threads. You could simply in a sentence or two try and justify your claim.
But then I'd have to support that things are falling down and not up because of gravity as well. Everyone knows. And similarly, what you say would only work if you (your eyes and brain) have no external point of reference to deduct viewing distance to the screen. You always have, because the screen is illuminating part of the room and frame, which in turn gives you a reference of distance to the screen and therefore screen size. Here's a good start (you can find more with the search function): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/3087028-bigger-screen-vs-sitting-closer.html. There are also peer-reviewed scientific publications available. I'll leave searching for those to you and others interested in it (be warned, you'll most likely have to pay to access those).


Fair enough. I already acknowledged as much in my previous comments. It's obvious that many people in this thread don't care one bit for the theater experience.
No worries, we're looking for something different. I'm looking for the best movie experience with the highest quality audio and video. You're looking for a social experience, watching a movie with strangers.


Yes and that's why theaters are so quiet. The dampening removes all reflected sounds. The only sound left are the ones coming from the source, which have an inverse square log effect on their loudness.
Sorry, that is wrong. Dampening should not remove all reflected sound. That would be the equivalent of sitting in a anechoic chamber. You do not want this, it sound's horrible. Anechoic chambers are for measuring performance of a speaker without the influence of the room. Another option would be to perform near field measurements with NF scanner systems (https://www.klippel.de/products/rd-system/modules/nfs-near-field-scanner.html). What you want is a mix of direct, reflected sound and a reverberation time (RT60, -60dB or 1/1,000,000 of it's original energy) that is within the recommended limit for the room size. Rule of thumb, first reflections within 30ms are perceived as direct sound, everything above as coming from the room. Here's the recommendation from JBL for their cinema systems:
THX-reverberation.jpg



That is why rooms are simulated with the speaker model that is used and then room treatment is adjusted, usually a mix of diffusors and reflectors, depending on the energy distribution and seating positions in the room. If you look at the Keith Yates theater I liked to in an earlyer post, you can see that part of the design was acoustic coverage. Here's another video what's usually done:
The software in the video also provides an option to simulate what the room would sound like with acoustic treatment material in place. You could build a "dead room" as you suggested in the simulation and listen to it. Not a pleasant experience. The software will set you back about $10k if I remember correctly though, it's meant for designers and professionals.
 
Basic 4K HDR means crap stereo speakers too. Everybody has different setups, thus different perspective of the film. If you’re an artist producing a piece of art, you’d want everyone to enjoy it at its full glory, fullfiling a certain minimum standard. Hence his disappointment.

Indeed. At theaters basically everyone gets the same full experience. Also you cant really compare home cinema to the real thing. I too am a nerd with a 65 inch HDR OLED + proper sound and its great. But, I have seen things. I have seen Mad Max. I have seen Avatar in 3D and c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. On gigantic movie screens. It still rocks your world like no TV can.
 
The distance between my house and the impolite people in the theater completely dampens their noise. I'll keep watching at home, where the popcorn costs pennies and the rental is just a few bucks.

As long as you don't mind the additional 50db noise floor of the cars traveling near your house and other noises nearby that your house doesn't dampen but theaters do.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.