|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 35mm Digital Sound Playback Preference?
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today
Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 04-25-2010 03:46 AM
I must have never heard a properly calibrated SDDS auditorium. We had the first SDDS installed in all of Colorado (the best state in the union) at the UA Greenwood Plaza 12, auditorium #9 (one of our 3 70mm capable auditoriums). The Sony techs were there and everything. Coincidentally, this was my first day of employment at the theater (fellow forum member Ian Price hired me). SDDS sounded good, yes. But to me Dolby Digital always seemed to have a bit more punch. SDDS sounded too "boomy". Not as in great subs or whatnot, but the upper bass frequencies, maybe 100Hz and a bit higher... too boomy. Other frequencies sound hollow either as a result of the boomy lower frequencies or something else. But this was back in the time when prints rarely had more than one digital format, so it could have been the individual mixes on the movies. SDDS was also installed in most other UA complexes that I opened in the metro Denver area and those theaters never, ever impressed me with their sound. DTS was also installed in these theaters, but never Dolby Digital except for the big house at the Continental (where it is rarely used). DTS always sounded the least good, even though my first real experience with DTS was at the Greenwood Plaza watching Jurassic Park during its opening weekend. I was blown away at that mix, but no other has ever sounded that good. But I am sure the DTS unit was set up for that specific auditorium. This was long before the 300mv thing came to pass and we would move our units around with wild abandon, never resetting the levels because we were idiots.
SDDS always seemed to be the most problematic to me. The edges of the film where SDDS lives get a shit-ton of wear. It rides on the rollers, rubs in the gate, etc. They touch everything. Unfortunately the SDDS processor did not let you know what it was doing. It just had a bunch of little VU meters that were bouncing to and fro or not. Dolby Digital seems very robust, even on older prints. I've had generously used prints read 2s and 3s. Granted, I've had new prints read 8s. DTS is just stupid because it only has to read a simple timecode that is relatively large, but often it has issues even doing that. The DTS reader is not a piece of precision electronics, that's for sure.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 04-25-2010 06:54 AM
I believe you will never find a contradiction on my statements regarding the three digitals for film. My statements are also based on several (and different) listeners that did not know which digital was playing at the time...just what they (or I) felt sounded best.
And Monte..
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Sony really did have something there, but where the track is at on the film itself and how the processor processes the optical track into mono since it has to bypass the other default processor in the rack is what really make it a sore subject to some.
What are you babbling about? SDDS did not have a "mono" track nor used an "optical mono" or whatever you are referring to. The analog track was the same analog track for everyone...typically SVA and often in Dolby-SR (in the early days and always in SR in later days).
As for the DCM (Digital Concealment Mode)...you may be thinking it is mono but that isn't even accurate. First off, the Center and Subwoofer tracks are 100% backed up and redundant on both sides of the film. When one of the sides of the film became damaged, it is true there was a "prime" version of the that side recorded in a low-bit-rate on the other (good) side. It was more sophisticated than merely a mono track since the "prime" track did have level information in it so the audio would play that the approximate level for each channel (less data needed to record on track with three low-precision levels for the three potential channels to approximate the original). This worked quite well, so long as it was not in a constant state of failure. It is like a matte painting...they will fool you...so long as they are not exposed long enough to allow you to notice the lack of detail. If the prime track is on for a second or two, almost nobody notices it (far fewer than will notice an analog reversion like with Dolby). DTS' ability to free-wheel in the absence of valid time code for several seconds has all others beat, for sure.
If SDDS has issues with both sides, it too will drop to analog...what it calls ACM (analog concealment mode).
Both SDDS and Dolby don't have perfect algorithms for when to go to analog. SDDS refuses unless both sides have issues. When in fact, they should drop if one side has enough issues over a length of time. As I said, DCM works very well, if you don't get exposed to it long enough for your ears to notice the problem. Dolby tries to hang on to a failing track much longer than it should...many have heard the "underwater sound" of a Dolby track in near failure. Dolby does, however, once it drops to analog, ensure that the track is playable before coming back to digital and the more issues it finds, the longer it must prove itself before returning to digital. Another Dolby flaw is that when it knows it is going to revert, it doesn't drop fast enough...it waits until the last bit leaves the station before dropping to analog. This is why the Cat 410 came out for the CP65 (and CP55) to shorten the debounce time on the Cat 443. In truth, all they needed to do was drop to analog sooner...nobody would care that it was in digital audio for that extra fraction of a second.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 04-25-2010 12:45 PM
I was surprised to hear SDDS being so popular. When I heard it I didn't think it sounded as good as the others, but I've only ever heard it once, soon after it was introduced, one film, in one theatre, so maybe I dodn't hear it at it's best; I can't say. I've heard Tony Cutts at Pictureville speak well of it.
I've actually not heard any of the digital film sound systems very often, SR-D probably about six times, and DTS twice on new films, plus several 70mm re-releases, mainly at Bradford.
The two cinemas which I use most often do not have digital sound for film, though they do also have digital projection, which obviously has digital sound. The National Film Theatre has SR-D and DTS, but almost all of the films I see there do not have digital tracks, and the majority are mono.
I'm also not the best person to judge sound systems; at my age my hearing is obviously dropping off at the top end, and for some reason, I don't know why, I have difficulty hearing direction in sound; I can never tell which 'phone is ringing at work.
If we were to include two more formats, magnetic on 70mm and CDS, how do people feel they compare to the other three? I never heard CDS.
Unless they start to provide downloads of the CD images I think DTS is too problematical for other than first run theatres. As for the other two, I wish Dolby and Sony had got together and worked to develop a single system, taking the best from both. When I was projecting I saw few prints, maybe 5%, which had a SDDS track on them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today
Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 04-25-2010 05:08 PM
quote: Louis Bornwasser
dts has always sounded "wooden" to me especailly at higher levels. Look up ATRAC bit reduction and it will make sense.
It probably won't make too much sense as ATRAC is the compression scheme of MiniDisc, not DTS. ATRAC is also used on SDDS, but SDDS is not as awesome as MiniDisc. DTS uses a compression scheme called MPX-1000 or something like that. Dolby Digital uses AC3.
I refuse to refer to Dolby Digital as SR-D. First of all, it just sounds stupid and not very impressive. Secondly, SR has nothing to do with Dolby Digital except for the fact that the backup optical tracks are always SR on a Dolby Digital print. I do not like how Dolby is referring to their digital projection line of equipment and 3D stuffs as "Dolby Digital". Maybe Dolby should just rename themselves "Dolby Digital". I could see it now:
"Hey Ted, watcha got runnin' the sound there in that budget cinema of yours?"
"Well Bill, I got me one of them Dolby Digital CP55's and it can play not only the left, but the right channel as well!"
"Well fuck me sideways, that's crazy awesome, Ted!"
"I know!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. I have not heard SDDS nor have I installed but from DD and DTS I prefer 100% more DTS. I did an upgrade to a theater a few months ago with the XD20 unit for the opening of 2012 and I have to tell you I was very amazed by how clear and crisp everything sounded and the subs and everything. I have not heard great mixes on DD.
Printer-friendly view of this topic