my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Which sound format to use during screening (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Which sound format to use during screening Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-02-2004 08:10 PM                     Brad, Before any serious comparison is attempted you would need to install a good three way system....5671 or 5672, or similar. Even with the better two way systems the differences heard will be very minimal. This is another good reason that neither of the Digital systems will gain you anything over the other in an average every day situation. I've already had the opportunity to do a comparison using a CSP-1200 processor driving JBL 5672's. With very high end speakers like these the differences between DTS and SRD become VERY obvious. Even though the Sony system sounds great I left Sony out of this test for various reasons. Remember, I used to be a very big proponent of SRD in past years...till I did the comparison above. I'd have to know more about Elenas projectors....possibly Meoptas , possibly something else Russian made, as they could very well be chewing up that area well beyond what even Filmguard could take care of. Another issue that is also somewhat possible is that the release film produced over there may have an emulsion that does not harden like the Kodak release stocks emulsion does, although many other countries also use Kodak stock I'd like to hear from her what they are actually using. In this case I would send her a few of the famous sample kits or a complimentary quart of Filmguard to see if it helps her out. Mark  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-02-2004 08:42 PM                     But Mark...Gordon seems to think that the difference is the "hands down winner" and that was quite possibly a demo being played back on a SMART system with Altec speakers. Seriously, I understand your point, but VERY FEW theaters have that caliber of a sound system. Even at that, I'm betting VERY FEW people could hear a noticeable difference even on an A/B comparison, and no public showing would ever A/B the sources anyway. The 4675 is pretty much the standard in the industry. Using that for reference is plenty fine. Comparing sound between two physically different auditoriums is foolish. Regardless, this whole argument is ridiculous.  |  IP: Logged Richard Hamilton Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1341 From: Evansville, Indiana Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-02-2004 09:03 PM                     How do you measure sound "quality"? Mark says this sounds good.....Gord says this sounds better.....I say my favorite is the best,, My analyzer is better calibrated!!!!! Rick  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-02-2004 09:14 PM                     Actually it was all 4675c with jbl surrounds biamped with USA serries amplifiers The three rooms were equal room volume and identicale dimension seating and layout The SDDS was with a DFP3000 the SRD was a CP500 and the DTS was a DTS 6D into a Eprad DSS The crossovers were all UltraStereo's The meoptas are usually fairly gentle on SRD tracks but many have teflon gate bands and any lubricant will cause a image steadiness issue just like th DP75 exhibits  |  IP: Logged Antonio Marcheselli Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1260 From: Florence, Italy Registered: Mar 2000 posted 01-02-2004 09:18 PM                        Brad, You amazed me too!! First, let's assume that I will use my DTS player because DTS sounds better and I will make all efforts to have the best presentation in my multiplex. That's a fact. I agree with Mark. More, we don't have analog only screens or screens with DD and three stereo amps. As I told all of our screen are bi-amped with DCA and three way speakers. The smallest screen is 37.7 feet wide and biggest 68.8. I believe that a DTS player will make some difference. Let's come to the customers. Our multiplex have, in my opinion, the best sound and the best sound systems in the town. The customers recognize it. How can I advertise our quality for that ones that does not know us? The average customers does not know much in projection, they all know that DVDs are used or that there is a bear-projectionist that continuously run a crank on a projector. Dolby Digital and DTS are coming to average people attention since the growing of dvds. All the special edition of DVDs has DTS and DTS ES. I think that the average customer will think that DTS sounds better. Why? He/she don't know. So advertise DTS and DTS_ES is a winning strategy, in my opinion. The customer will understand that the sound is faaar superior, and the quality of the projection is the best. But he/she (also) will link this result to the sound logo that plays before the movie. It's not brainwashing, it is having the best presentation possibile AND let the people think that that amazing sound on Master and COmmander was (partially) due to the DTS player. When the same customer will go to the next multiplex (that does nto have DTS! And this is true, not an hypotesis) and hear the crappy sound and the crappy presentation he/she will, partially, think that the sound is not as our because he/she hear not DTS sound. When the same customer will come to our multiplex and realize that the almost same sound quality can be heard in every screen, with every sound format used, he will understand that DTS is not the key of that result. How would you teach to your thousand of customers that your presentation is due to calibration and speakers? However, I'm planning special presentation that explain, in few seconds, the technical specs of the projection. Let's come to the DTS complexity. I can't see this increased workload using a dts player. I could agree with you if suddenly my boss send me 3 SDDS and 7 DTS... But is is just one DTS player. I will make immediately a mobile device to move the player easier and I'll make all the connections between dolby/projector and sound rack as I saw in one photo here on film tech where the tech install three plug on the rack (timecode-automation-sound) to avoid to have half a rack disassebled each time you have to move your dts player. When this will be completed and all will be scheduled and all projectionist trained, move a DTS player to another screen will be a very easy operation. However, I agree that use a DTS player will increase the job load a bit. But I'm a projectionist, I believe that it is part of my job. Changing the sound trailer is not a pain for all of my team. I use Waterfall trailer for EX movie showing in EX screens. When the movie is moved to a non EX house the trailer is changed within 1 or 2 shows. Without any added work load! About DTS reliability, you told in this post: [QUOTE] Finding a reel with a defective dts track is very, very rare so it only makes sense to check the SRD track /QUOTE] And I agree with you! However with the little trick I explained before I think you will have no problems with DTS. Bye! Antonio  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-02-2004 09:19 PM                     Gordon, that's a terrible way to compare "digital sound formats" in my opinion. If that's the kind of demo that floats your boat, so be it. Oooooooh, a flaw with the mighty DP70??? Antonio, do you not pay attention? You don't do you? quote: posted 07-11-2002 01:27 PM Do you see the YEAR that comment was made? Are you aware of what year we are currently in? Did you not pay attention to my recent comment: quote: WAY too many times I have received defective discs and faulty timecode tracks in the last year and in fact I can firmly report that I have had roughly twice the amount of problems with playing in dts that I have had with SRD. This did not used to be the case, but it certainly is now. Times have changed. DTS is no longer the reliable digital system it once was. I am tired of these ridiculous discussions with you because you are not paying attention. Why are you wasting my bandwidth? I offered a solution to your dilemma and you didn't like it. Fine. Go run your theater however you like, but stop misinterpreting my posts thus forcing me to respond to correct you. Knock it off.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-02-2004 09:21 PM                     Brad reread the post DP75 also most machines with delrin or teflon gate bands or vlvet gate bands don't like a print ot have any lubricant on them as in the case of delrin/teflon they are in fact self lubricating  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-02-2004 09:32 PM                     Sorry Gordon, I somehow missed the "5". Regardless, the whole velvet band thing is ridiculous. First off, my testing showed zero problems with a lubricated print. Second, they offered no visible upgrade in registration.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-02-2004 09:36 PM                     And just to mix it up a bit... I've done the Digital dual myself...in various theatres...DTS has never come out on top. Not that anyone thought it was bad, but SDDS (if in the selection) has normally won...then SRD and finally DTS...when one was actually preferred and like the rest of the entries here...90% of the time no one heard the difference or necessarily preferred one over the other. Furthermore, one would need to do multiple films to ensure one mix didn't prefer one over the other (something I have not done so I find my tests non-definative). I do not agree with Mark's claim on the acceptableness of the surround/sub combination either. Virtually all of my surrounds are pretty flat to 50Hz and some go below that. As to the subs...for digial mine are generally good up to 180Hz and beyond. Ever do a sweep on DTS?...listen for the poor surround woofers to flap as the sweep goes from 20Hz on up...there is not adequate filtering for the surrounds on DTS-6D and earlier (I have not tested the XD-10). As to the 3-way versus 2-way claim...it just isn't valid. A 5672 is not inherently better than 4675. If you are trying to evaluate the HF response, why do you want to put a crossover point right there and smack dab in the middle of the vocal range (2.5KHz)? Furthermore you are introducing a vertical displacement with the accompanying lobing with a multiple driver system...again right in the vocal range. Lastly, the response of the 3-ways in the ultra HF (12KHz and above) is pretty limited and seems to be less than the 4675C-HF. Using JBL's data, the 5672 is 45 - 12.5KHz +/- 3dB...but at +/- 10dB you only expand to 35 - 16KHz. Compred to the 4675 where the +/- 3dB spec is 40 - 12KHz and at +/- 10 dB you are out to 35 - 20KHz. Clearly, the 4675C-HF has a smoother roll off in the HF department. Also note, that JBL (as do the other 3-way designs) only make their claims if using propritary DSP crossovers. Again that doesn't seem to make your claim that the 5672 and the like are essential. The response area where the 2-way is more likely to have distortion is near the crossover point for the HF...in movie theatres with a large horn is 500Hz...that frequency was choosen specifically for theatres to avoid the crossover in the vocal region. A 3-way is apt to be smoother in that area, particularly at higher SPL levels. I will give JBL high marks for using a compression driver for the mid-range in the 5000 series...this at least keeps the vocal range with a consistant driver type as opposed to the lesser 3-ways that use cone drivers that have a notably different sound at crossover. I will say, without exception, the non-5000 series 3-ways are notably inferior in repsonse and performance than the 4675C and I've tried them with every form of 2-way and 3-way crossover system imaginable...passive, active, analog or digital. DSP crossovers certainly did the best. But I think it is just plain silly to claim that one needs a particular model speaker to hear a difference between digital sound systems...it is actually more indicative of a problem with the speaker than the rest of the system. You wanna really hear the difference between DTS an SRD...go listed with an EV speaker that features the DH1a driver...either the TS-940 or TS-9040 will do...you should feel your nerves split appart when one plays (presuming your hearing is good up to 13KHz and beyond) Steve  |  IP: Logged Elena N. Solovyova Film Handler Posts: 44 From: Voronezh, Russia Registered: Feb 2003 posted 01-03-2004 06:39 AM                     Brad, wish I had a Film-Guard supply. Apparently nobody in Russia uses it now, and our dealers don't have it in stock. I hope it will change soon. As a side note, we used a LOMO film cleaner for some time but were severely disappointed with it. Mark, our current installation is three Prevost P93s (one of the auditoriums is ready for changeovers) and two Cinemecannica CNR-35 platters. The problem is not with the equipment (our previous Meopta setup, now replaced, had a simular problem), but rather the Gemini prints themselves. The explanation given by our service provider says that due to the design deficiences of the particular high-speed printing line used by Gemini, the soundtrack is developed in very thin layer which is tend to wear and deteriorate quickly both with Kodak and Fuji stocks. This is well-known problem experienced by many theatres. We don't have this problem with others prints (Novosibirsk Kinokopy prints once had a simular problem but now they are OK).  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-03-2004 07:26 AM                     Steve, I guess you are mixed up a bit. There are several important clear advantages that set these systems apart from the typical two way 4675 system. These advantages also clearly(pun intended) make them far more listenable and satisfying than an equivelent two way system. The first and most important point is the much lower distortion these systems exhibit in both the mid and high end. Importantly the high content of distortion that is there is primarily 2nd harmonic distortion which is much more favorable to have if you have to have distortion than is any odd order distortion. Odd order distortion is far more noticable and is one of the primary causes of listening fatigue in all types of audio equipment, not just speakers. Any audiophile knows that Even Order Distortion = OK and any Odd Order Distortion = Bad. I attribute at least some of the 5600's clarity to there being more even harmonic distortion than odd. Secondly, the hf driver and horn on all the 5600 series was a new design which for the first time matched the horn and driver together very well....its also the first driver/horn combination designed by JBL to work together. See JBL Tech Notes Vol 1 #21. JBL has done a remarkable if not almost impossible job of conrtroling hf dispersion for the 5600 series 3 way systems. Lobeing which you claim to be bad I've actually found is so minimal with the 5672 as to be difficult to hear when the room is walked and hf coverage as measured with my PC40 is every bit as good as the 2446/2360 combination. Unfortunately I was unable to measure the last set of 5674's that we installed...they were in a much larger and deeper room and the measurement would have been interesting. However our customer has relayed no complaints as to hf coverage. Now I have heard really bad lobeing before with Klipsch based three way systems. I reently set up a Klipsch system that a customer has had for quite some time and the hf lobeing was terrible to say the least, especially bad when walking the length of the room. The third thing you've overlooked is dynamic range capability and this is where these three way systems really shine...Not only do they provide more dynamic range capability provided enough power is made available but they also do it at far lower distortion than the two ways ever will. As for the guarantee of meeting specs and having to use a propretary JBL x-over...I say there is at least some hogwash to that. The first two sets of 5672's that I installed were with the long discontinued JBL analog x-overs. Although exact system delay alignment was forgone in these two systems it is doubtful that the overall sound quality could have been that much better to warrant almost 7K worth of DSC's. These two 5672 based systems easily walk all over any biamped 4675 based systems this same customer has in his chain by a large margin. In fact this customer has made this location his primary film viewing location even though he has to drive 90 miles round trip! For the next 5672 system I used the JBL DSC crossover with little if any gain in audible performance. I made up my mind then that the 5600 speakers are so good as to pretty much stand on their own in spite of what decent analog or digital x-over is being used. The latest 5674 system was installed with a completely different type of non DSP digitally based x-over providing all the correct alignments. This x-over uses 96 khz 24 bit dac's and is far superior and WAY less expensive than any DSP system out there. Its overload, dynamic range cpability and overall listenability is phenominal. Some day hopefully soon digital film sound will be based on the 96khz operating freq's....! Note too that all of the 5600 series I've been involved with are installed in baffle walls. All are QSC amplified and all have been quite a bit overpowered. I can also state that frequency response out of the 2352 Horn/ 2451 driver is every bit as good as the 2446 driver /2360 horn combination. Lets face it JBL is very conservative in this department with just about all their products. Were it not true the 5600 three way systems wouldn't have found their way into the finest screening and dubbing facilities in use today. As for the DH1 driver go read the tech note and you'll see why they suck! Distortion from these babies is almost twice as high as any comparable JBL driver has. Surround channels that go down to 50 hz quite flat are commonplace, but power handling capabilities at those frequencys for extended periods is not. And harmonic distortion from the small 8 to 10 inch woofers that are typically used is also so high as to be out of range of most standard distortion analyzers! My H-P won't go above 10% full scale! This is why I much prefer the controled bandwidth surround channels that DTS uses. Not only does it limit surround channel distortion levels to acceptable limits but it directs any surround low frequency info to the sub where it is best handled again with lowest distortion. All in all a very logical and smartly thought out system for surrounds, and by lowering distortion drastically it also makes them sound alot cleaner. The sweep test on DTS is also interesting as is the SRD acoustical masking demo, but at least on DTS that effect is completely inaudible with program material. All in all you will find that listening to differnt source material on these three way systems is far more revealing due primarily to the far lower distortion levels generated and the greater dynamic range capability than it would be on any two way system. The 3632 and 4632 series Screen Disarray three way systems don't even have a page in my book, Once was enough! I tore the page back out and threw it away. In leiu any customer is way further ahead buying a bi-amped 4675 system. Mark  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-03-2004 10:18 AM                     I have never been a fan of 3 way system and personally th 4675 system is the best As for the different digitals the only accurate way is to listen as an AB beween the digital format and the original source mag or DA88 tape as far as accuracy to the source material DTS wins hands down As for the sub filter it is the weak link  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-04-2004 01:51 PM                     Mark, I am rarely mixed up. As to the dynamic range claim in your statement...,it is quite simply a non-argeument. Either the speaker has the horsepower for the room or it doesn't. When the digital system is at 0dBFS and you haven't exceeded the design limits of the system...it isn't going to get any louder. In fact, I've never had any of my systems suffer from dynamic range issues...I spec appropriately. As to the rest of your arguement...one can not dispute what a customer feels sounds better and more power to you in selling the JBL 5000 series...they are certainly the best I've come across and in certain applications the best choice. As to the inherent sound qualities of the 5000 series to the 4675...nope, I'm not going to give you that one...it really depends on the room and personal preference. As to the HF response...the 4675C really does have a better extended high-end. As to lobing with multi-way systems...they are physical facts...non-disputable. As to crossovers...I love the RANE RPM-26Z....it is magic box. You can also throw away the EQ cards in the host processor (and it takes AES digital in as well). With just a couple of parametric EQs I can do a better job than a 1/3-octave EQ with far less phase distortions. It is also less than the various propritary systems out there. For analog crossovers...I use RANE AC series but for 3-ways...they normally need more help than that...I'd say the 5000 series would be more of the exception than that rule...they are good pieces. They have that A-4 sound I'd still put an A-4/MR94B up against them all And we will need to agree to disagree on the how DTS handles the surrounds/subs...it is not for the digital media to decide how to handle what my surrounds can deal with. Heck, I may have Altec 604s as surrounds (The best damn surround speaker I've ever heard!). If any of my system needs bass-management...I'll have it in the system where it needs it. Steve  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.