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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » SDDS (Page 7)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

Author Topic: SDDS Michael Swarbrick Film Handler Posts: 23 From: London, England Registered: Jan 2002 posted 11-06-2003 06:35 AM                     My cinema's been showing Intolerable Cruelty recently. The end credits identify it as an 8 channel SDDS mix, but I've never seen the Lc/Rc indicators move on the processor while the film's playing. So, who's screwed-up here?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-06-2003 08:18 AM                     Hey Michael, Really nice projector you have there ! Mark @ CLACO  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 11-06-2003 08:33 AM                     Michael, as one of the few places with all three digital systems, what proportion of your shows would you say is in each? When you run a print with more than one digital track, who decides which is used? I've only heard SDDS once, to the best of my knowledge, that was at the Odeon Marble Arch, before it was divided up, where I went to see 'Mary Shelly's Frankenstein', because I wanted to hear the system. I was not very impressed with it, but, of course, I can't really judge a system by hearing one film in one theatre. Few places here seem to have SDDS, I think the Odeon Leicester Square has it, and the Pictureville Bradford does, but I don't know how much use it gets.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-06-2003 09:19 AM                        I recently had a chance to listen to an A/B comparison between SRD and SDDS (3000-series reader, connected to processor and not using internal digital EQ), using the same film in the same auditorium, with sound formats being randomly switched during the feature. I couldn't tell the difference in sound quality, nor (as far as I know) could anyone else in the room. When it works, SDDS sounds good. The problem is that it often doesn't, either due to excessive dropouts or the lack of an SDDS track on the film. I don't really see the point of having all three digital systems in one auditorium. For almost all cases, it should be sufficient to have SRD and DTS (or maybe SRD and SDDS, if 8-channel playback is an issue).  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-06-2003 04:11 PM                     quote: Micharl Swarbrick: The end credits identify it as an 8 channel SDDS mix, but I've never seen the Lc/Rc indicators move on the processor while the film's playing. Your player needs to be set up for 8-channel playback. If your player IS, then the problem lies in the film. Either the film isn't really 8 channels or the quality of the print isn't good enough for the machine to decode the chanels. (Assuming your player is all in working order.) If your player isn't set up for 8 channels then it may not respond to the L-C and R-C channels even if the print has all the channels. I'd say that the main setback for 8-channel playback, be it SDDS or not, is the fact that you have to have two more amplifiers and two more sets of speakers PLUS all the wiring in between. That can add up to several thousand dollars for every theater that wants to have it. I don't think most theater companies would think it's worth spending the money. Personally, I don't think the difference would be spectacular enough to justify the expense.  |  IP: Logged Peter Castle Expert Film Handler Posts: 220 From: Wollongong University, NSW ,Australia Registered: Oct 2003 posted 11-06-2003 05:19 PM                     We've had all three formats for about 7 years and I must say that I prefer SDDS over both DD and DTS. We even screened a print of "From Dusk Till Dawn" recently and the SDDS track was great. Maybe the EQ setup for the SDDS is better than in our CP500. We get too many Dolby prints which fail whether from age or from bad printing. Most foreign language films which are digital are only Dolby, and with such a small release number in australia, by the time we get a chance to show them, the tracks are worn. As for DTS, sometimes the mix does not seem as good. Peter  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-06-2003 05:25 PM                     Comparing SDDS vs SRD or DTS in the same auditorium is generally a waste of time since there are two B-chains in the equation for most setups. Comparing any format to another in different auditoriums is even more of a waste of time because not only do you have different B-chains in the equation, but you throw in different room acoustics and frequently a different processor as well. When set up in a truly fair manner with direct A/B/C switching, the formats are virtually impossible to detect the difference. The few people who can hear a difference always have to listen hard and always admit the difference isn't enough to matter.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 11-06-2003 06:23 PM                        I hate to agree with Brad, but it is true that if you listen to all 3 systems though the same B chain, there is a difference but most listeners can not detect it. SDDS and dts have more clearly defined HF playback. From a fine tuning point of view, SDDS is the best sounding system, but what does it matter now? I used to be one of the system`s biggest fans, but when I had an opportunity for a few DFP-D3000 recently - in my opinion also the best cinema processor today - I passed. Sony just dropped the ball, that`s it. If you are not sure whether a print is 8 channels, or whether your unit is set up for 8-channel playback, and you don`t feel confident to check the setup, here`s a trick: Block one of the 2 tracks so that the reader can`t read it anymore. The decoder will go into DCM (Digital Conecealment Mode). It will play a mono sum of the channels it is missing from the track it can`t read. If it is set up for 8, then you will see the mono sum on the LC or RC channels. It doesn`t matter if the print you are using to test is 6 or 8. If your player is set up for 6, then those channels will remain silent. If you block the track on the picture side, you will see the LC channel become active in 8-channel mode. If you block the track next to the analog soundtrack, you will see activity on the RC channel. Randy - if the print or the player has a problem, it will drop out on one side or completely, but not just miss the LC or RC.  |  IP: Logged John T. Hendrickson, Jr Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 889 From: Freehold, NJ, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-06-2003 06:41 PM                     It's my understanding that SDDS units are no longer being manufactured. Correct? Fox and Paramount have all but abandoned releasing in SDDS. Correct? Of the three digital formats, the first casualty will be....SDDS. Correct?  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 11-07-2003 10:45 AM                    I agree with Brad & Michael that it's very hard even for a critical ear to hear a difference when doing an A/B comparison in a properly tuned theater. However, consider the following... Horror films in general have great dynamics because they frequently go from low subtle ambient noise to a loud BOO!, and it's my belief that DTS reproduces those moments the best with Dolby being a close second. So, I played The Ring in DTS from the time it came out. Everyone at the theater loved the TV scene at the end, and whenever it was on, someone from the staff was in the theater watching it - not only to watch the scene but also to observe the audience reaction. One day I did an experiment, and ran it in SDDS. I called the manager in to watch it with me without clueing him in to the change. He'd probably seen it 20 times in DTS. When it was all over, he wanted to know what was wrong. I asked him what he meant, and his response was that it didn't sound right. It sounded a little muddy... a little flat. It didn't have the "punch" it was supposed to. So, if one is very familiar with the material they're listening too, even someone who has nowhere near the critical ear that we have, they can tell the difference. Now, did the audience feel cheated that day? No. But I submit that the DTS audience jumped just a little higher, screamed just a little louder, and hence probably enjoyed the experience just a little more. That's been my experience anyway.  |  IP: Logged Bruce Hansen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 847 From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-07-2003 11:50 AM                     Someone correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, DTS uses only a 4 to 1 compression ratio, where SDDS uses the same compression used on mini disc, which uses too low a data rate, and therefore too much compression, and to my ears just sounds dead. Audio compression is done by chopping up the audio bandwidth into small segments, and then dropping any segment that does not have much in it. Different musical instruments can play the same note (the same fundamental frequency), but what gives each instrument it's "sound" are the harmonics produced by that instrument (harmonics are multiples of the fundamental, at lower levels). What gives music, and sound in general, it's "richness" are these harmonics. The more compression, the more of these harmonics are thrown out, causing the audio to sound, as I put it, DEAD. This could explain the different "impression" of the same sound track played in the two different formats in the previous post. Lossy compression, just say no! Is there still anyone on the forum from DTS that would care to comment?  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 11-07-2003 02:21 PM                        John - you haven`t read any of the posts in this topic. Correct? Mark - If there is such a great detectable difference, there is something wrong with your SDDS decoder or it is set up the wrong way. Bruce - I doubt very much that you hear the difference. It sounds more like you think you hear something because you read about it. The ATRAC is a very effective compression system, BTW a more advanced version than the one for consumer minidisc.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 11-07-2003 02:38 PM                        Michael Schaffer wrote: quote: John - you haven`t read any of the posts in this topic. Correct? I've been following the thread since it started, and have posted previously. I just was providing the "official" list of films posted on the Sony SDDS website. Or did you mean John Hendrickson Jr.?  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 11-07-2003 02:52 PM                        Yes! I just don`t understand John T.H.,Jr`s questions. What have we been taking about the last 7 pages? That SDDS is doomed. Correct?  |  IP: Logged Scott Jentsch Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1061 From: New Berlin, WI, USA Registered: Apr 2003 posted 11-07-2003 03:17 PM                        The challenge with all of the pyscho-acoustic compression systems is that what you hear and what I hear can be different. It all depends upon how different my hearing is from yours, and how different both are from the source used to create the pyscho-acoustic model for the compression scheme. While lower compression ratios should result in better sound, it's not necessarily a linear situation. The efficiency of each algorithm will dictate the sound quality at a given bit rate. The difference in perceived sound quality is probably not as great, but it is like telling someone that Klipsch speakers are better than JBL. It can often come down to personal preference. However... assuming that all three systems have similar sound quality: The differentiating factor then becomes not how each handles under ideal circumstances, but how each handles less-than-ideal circumstances. Which system gives the operators the least grief? Which system has a problem with reel changes? Does a disc-based system have a problem with getting the discs to accompany the print? For the first year or two of Dolby Digital's release in local theaters around here, the dominant chain could not show a DD print without very noticeable dropouts surrounding the reel splices. Eventually, they got it figured out. Whether it was the prints themselves or they just had to run through their stock of duct tape being used for splicing, I don't know, but during that time, I searched out DTS presentations very deliberately. SDDS is only installed in one theater in SE Wisconsin to my knowledge, so I don't have enough experience with that system to have an opinion either way. My impression of that one installation is that it didn't impress the operators enough to be worth the effort of having yet another digital sound system. SDDS always seemed like the third-wheel, and its demise is probably just Darwinism at work.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

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.