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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Definition of "Mono Compatible"? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Definition of "Mono Compatible"? Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-18-2008 08:28 PM                     Michael, let me put this one to rest for you...Unless it was one of the very rare and early Dolby Mono films...Almost NO mono films had Dolby NR. The Woody Allen films that were Mono SVA were noted as such and there were often studio notes to please turn off all of the amps except Center to avoid any crosstalk. Again...if the leader says Mono, and there is no other indication that it might have Dolby NR (e.g. "Dolby" is on the LEADER, not the credits), then it does not have Dolby NR. the Dolby Mono titles are on one of the Dolby Databases somewhere. Steve  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 02-18-2008 08:57 PM                       The Dolby Stereo license was fee was a flat fee for encoding/monitoring equipment setup, print mastering, etc. There was no mention of a fee per print and it would not have been to Dolby's benefit to charge by the print as Dolby Stereo would never have gotten off the ground. Dolby wanted to spread the technology so had the aim to encourage single inventory. The dual inventory issue had to do with print compatibility with Mono equipped cinemas which of course was more important when the mono houses were in the majority. Each studio had a different idea of what comprised compatibility.  |  IP: Logged Ken Lackner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1907 From: Atlanta, GA, USA Registered: Sep 2001 posted 02-19-2008 07:10 AM                     quote: Greg Anderson I tried playing our Ghostbusters print in mono with Dolby noise reduction (format 02, if I remember correctly) and it just gave a less-than-desirable noise gate effect.... I've heard this term (noise gating) before. What is it? Slightly off topic: Is there a good source to read up about all these legacy film sound formats, other than just searching the forums for names of the various formats? (I suspect searching for "mono" would produce more results than you can shake a stick at.) It's a topic I know very little about, as I entered the industry at a time when SR and reverse scan readers were standard. But I have long been curious about these older formats.  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 02-19-2008 07:30 AM                        I'll give you someone else's definition of a noise gate (because I'm afraid I wouldn't explain it this well). "A special type of expander that reduces or eliminates noise by greatly lowering signal levels that fall below a specified threshold. Noise gates are often configured to totally eliminate background noise during musical pauses. You can also use these gates to silence pauses in speech." It can sound very unnatural if you don't use it well.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-19-2008 09:13 AM                     On the original single Dolby A type cinema units there was a button to make the cat22 into a noise gate downward expander to clean up old noisy tracks Dolby Mono prints up here were Listomania Logans Run Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger that I can remember  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-19-2008 10:04 AM                        My take on this, cynical as it is, is that a "Dolby compatible" print is about as compatible as a square peg in a round hole. If anyone has ever heard what a Dolby A N/R encoded recording sounds like without the decoding on the playback end, then you know there is no way such a recording can be considered by any stretch of the imagination, compatible or acceptable. And that holds true whether you are playing back an undecoded Dolby A movie soundtrack or a studio master recording. The reason that the "mono compatible" idea was floated around and then just became a reality by reason of default was because the idea of double inventory was always very onerous to the studios and they weren't too happy that the new Dolby technology was forcing them into a double inventory situation. I suspect Dolby also understood that a single inventory of Dolby Stereo prints would not only make the studios very happy, but it would also hasten universal acceptance of the Dolby system since all prints would be Dolby prints. Bottom line is, if a recording is encoded with Dolby A and is not played back decoded with Dolby A, it cannot be considered acceptable by any audiophile yardstick, at least not in terms of the effect of n/r pumping -- fixed hf eq twiddling cannot fix dynamic level pumping. They may have paid more attention in the mixing stage so that the mono track isn't missing important dialog or effects, true, but that is a far cry from a sound that will still sound like dog-poo if it is not properly decoded. I mean, if that weren't the case, why spend all that time and effort getting the A channel to track n/r precisely? Exact n/r decoding is essential for proper playback and just saying "it will sound OK" if it isn't, certainly wouldn't be tolerated for film-done-right; how could it be tolerated just so double inventory could be eliminated with those "compatible" prints? Playing a Dolby A recording back without decoding but saying it's OK, regardless of what euphemistic marketing label you slap on it, doesn't make it so, no matter how politically expedient it is. I am sorry, but IMHO, "Dolby Mono Compatible" was bogus from the get-go and Dolby should be ashamed they stooped to that level of nonsense.  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 02-19-2008 10:23 AM                        In the early 80s we had six auditoriums, only one of which had Dolby Stereo sound. We played countless Dolby stereo prints on mono systems. I wouldn't claim that any of those systems were audiophile-quality. For the early 1980s, however, they were completely adequate. After all, it was optical analog sound! In the moment, the sound we got out of those Dolby prints prints was great. So I'm a little taken aback at the rant against Dolby's mono-compatible claims. It's easy to get picky now that we've been living with 15 years of easily-accessible digital 5.1 audio in theatres and, for most of that time, at home. It's easy to complain when you've been able to listen to CDs for 20+ years and your ears are finely tuned. Judgement should be kept in context on this topic. Dolby doesn't deserve to be trashed for what happened in the 70s and 80s. I'm dumbfounded.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 02-19-2008 11:36 AM                       Greg is on point IMHO. Changing technologies always involves some pain. My peeve these days is all these f*ucking flat screen TV's in hotels and public places set to full screen so every one is stretched out to fill the screen all the time, even LCD's which don't suffer from burn in. Everyone who ever worked in a booth should carry a brick and use it until we rid the world of this practice. How's that for a rant, Frank?  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 02-19-2008 02:08 PM                     quote: Ken Lackner Is there a good source to read up about all these legacy film sound formats, other than just searching the forums for names of the various formats? (I suspect searching for "mono" would produce more results than you can shake a stick at.) Lazy ass! Quick guide to 35mm optical & Dolby analog NR formats by year Obsolete Dolby sound formats Film Sound - History and technical details Dolby Clones 70mm Print Runs Woody Allen mono??? CDS-Equipped Theatres Sensurround ...and countless others.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 02-19-2008 02:39 PM                    I suspect there was someone at the studios that thought "Mono-compatible? Yeah, ok." and then instructed that some mono prints were to be made too. I also don't suspect that if you played a Dolby A Star Wars print in a mono house in 1976 anyone would have noticed or cared. My guess is that it was more of a "just to be safe" thing than anything else, but I could be wrong.  |  IP: Logged Ken Lackner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1907 From: Atlanta, GA, USA Registered: Sep 2001 posted 02-19-2008 05:24 PM                     Thanks for those links, Michael! I vaguely recall the Obsolete Dolby thread. The Quick Guide thread looks pretty awesome. I'll have to look though them when I get some time on my hands.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 02-19-2008 07:48 PM                        Mono compatable means that it was no worse-than-before. (and it was pretty bad before.) Remember 5 db down at 5k was considered GOOD! Louis  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-20-2008 12:48 AM                        No no no. I was working in a sound studio in the early 70s and my ears were better then than they are today, and I know damn well that no recording engineer worth his salt would say that a Dolby A encoded recording played back without decoding was even marginally acceptable. We were not deaf in the studios 30 years ago. And I am sorry, but no matter how you cut it, the most casual layman can hear the unnatural pumping going on in an undecoded playback. It matters not that it is on film or audio tape -- it's the same process, and it sounds like crap without its counterpart n/r playback. Dolby certainly wouldn't say that a tape recorded with Dolby A noise reduction was "mono compatible" with a tape deck that didn't have an A decoder. I have great respect for Dolby -- they have always been at the forefront of audio quality and the film industry would be in a sorry place without their contributions, but in this particular instance, they made a choice based on expediency and not good engineering practice which, again IMHO, was a mistake.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 02-20-2008 04:04 AM                        mono films could sound great, when the limitations of the technology were taken into account in production. i.e. the actors' voices were well suited to the limited frequency range of the track. a lot of early dolby films have aggressive mixes with loud music and effects and very active surround usage, to make the most of the new process. when done well, and properly decoded, this can be very effective. improperly decoded, it can sound terrible, with dialog getting lost in the general sound mush and practically unintelligible. if "mono compatible" means making sure that the dialog is in the center and nothing essential is only in the surrounds, it still won't ensure that the overall dynamics are at all right without decoding. i'd rather listen to a good supposed-to-be mono track than a dolby track played mono.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-20-2008 11:14 AM                        Again, they could mix till their ears fall off making sure the phase relationships don't cancel out important essential audio information. But THAT cannot make a Dolby A encoded recording compatible with a playback system that does not have Dolby A noise reduction decoding, which is what I assume we are talking about when referring to playing a Dolby film on a mono system -- the mono system being one without Dolby noise reduction decoding. It is the lack of proper noise reduction decoding that makes the idea of a Dolby print being "mono compatible" ludicrous. Such a print is, de facto, incompatible with any playback system not incorporating Dolby A noise reduction -- regardless of how much attention is given to the mix. Dolby's dynamic noise reduction is simply too apparent if it is not properly decoded.  |  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.