Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital sound for arthouses? YES!

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Digital sound for arthouses? YES! (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Digital sound for arthouses? YES!

Mathew Molloy
Master Film Handler

Posts: 357
From: The Santa Cruz Mountains
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 06-25-2003 10:31 PM

I've wondered about making the call on whether to show an SRD print in SR if I felt SR sounded better. Again with Monsoon Wedding although I felt the SR track was a better sounding mix I only ran it SRD as I figured if it's in SRD, that's how the director would have heard it mixed. And how the director would have wanted it presented.

| IP: Logged

Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-26-2003 01:29 PM

Art Cinemas should have Dolby Digital available. Most, but not all, of our prints come with the Dolby Digital Track.

What we have:

Auditoriums 1&2 Dolby Digital
Auditorium 3 DTS-6
Auditoriums 4&5 Dolby SR

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 06-26-2003 01:35 PM

quote:
Again with Monsoon Wedding although I felt the SR track was a better sounding mix

In how far?

quote:
I only ran it SRD as I figured if it's in SRD, that's how the director would have heard it mixed. And how the director would have wanted it presented.

Good point.

| IP: Logged

Mathew Molloy
Master Film Handler

Posts: 357
From: The Santa Cruz Mountains
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 06-26-2003 01:50 PM

I guess saying "better sounding mix" is incorrect. In digital (most of) the music came from L&R only. In SR the music was matrixed out to the surrounds and center channel as well. There was quite a bit of music in the film and it sounded fuller in SR.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 06-28-2003 05:53 PM

Matthew said: "For example, Monsoon Wedding sounded better in analog but it's only because in digital most of the music came from the left and right speakers only. When run in analog that music gets matrixed out to all channels sounding fuller and warmer."

That's actually a function of the analog 4-2-4 matrix -- a design flaw if you will. Music normally has phase anomalies going on just because that is the nature of sound recording -- sound never goes from the instrument directly to the mic -- it naturally bounces and is reflected all around and some of the paths it takes to the microphones are not in exact phase with the direct sound. This results in a very complex waveform, some of which has out-of-phase information. A decoding matrix will invariably encounter out-of-phase sounds and direct them to the surround channel. With the discrete channels of the digital mix, what's supposed to come out of the left channel ONLY comes out of the left channel, same with the right and surround. The matrix playback is not nearly that exact. Some of what comes out of the front left channel will make its way into the surrounds due to the natural phase anomalies of the waveform, which some may say gives the analog mix a fuller, more airy quality not found in the digital mix.

This difference was noted in the early days of Dolby analog by exhibitors who would play 70mm 6 track mag prints and then would hear the same picture played in 35mm Dolby analog. The complaint was, "How come the 35mm house has more sound coming out of the surrounds than the 70mm house playing the same picture?" They erroneously thought that since 70mm was the superior format, they should be getting more surround sound in 70mm rather than less -- more bang for the buck as it were. Evidently when you are talking about surround sound, more is better!

How many projectionist have been asked by a manager to "turn up the surround speakers" even though the system is calibrated perfectly?

Frank

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 07-03-2003 04:32 PM

I think arthouses SHOULD install digital, if they can afford it. In some respects, digital is more important for films that aren't effects films because dialogue intelligibility is so important, unless the primary language of the audience is only subtitled in the films, in which case I guess sound quality has far less importance.

While analog stereo mixes can sound great, they usually only sound great in theaters with the very best sound systems. While it was always possible to get a great Dolby (A) matrix optical mix, mag tracks always sounded better, even in theaters with an inferior B-chain. Same applies to digital (IMHO).

I don't think public surveys can properly analyze the true desire. Consumers don't really know what they want -- all they know is that they return to a particular theater because they can understand the dialog better and they may not be consciously aware of even that.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.