Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 6 Track Magnetic vs 6 Track Digital

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » 6 Track Magnetic vs 6 Track Digital (Page 7)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Author

Topic: 6 Track Magnetic vs 6 Track Digital

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-04-2011 01:05 AM

quote: Joe Redifer
The hell are you talking about? I've never even seen an external DTS decoder, though I'm not saying they didn't exist. The first receiver I bought that was 5.1 capable had coaxial in and RF in. It did the Dolby Digital decoding itself as well as the DTS decoding. DVDs weren't yet around at the time. The next receiver that I bought did not have RF in, but it still did the DTS and Dolby Digital decoding itself. There weren't too many receivers with RF inputs. You had to buy an external RF demodulator to get proper Dolby Digital from LaserDisc on most receivers.

If you wanted DTS/RF/DVD all internal. The very first unit was $1300, that was 1997. There were a ton of RF machines.

quote: Joe Redifer
Dolby Digital decoding itself as well as the DTS decoding. DVDs weren't yet around at the time.

There was no way you had a RF in/DTS in without having a DVD in. .

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-04-2011 01:06 AM

I wouldn't say "a ton". Like I said, RF inputs were dropped fairly quickly. The price of the receiver is irrelevant. Like Bobby said, LD owners were not penny pinchers.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 01-04-2011 01:06 AM

quote: Steve Guttag
Alright Michael...lets get to the crux of this DTS thingy. What are the stats of DTS installations for the '90s. Lets see if there is a "blip" in '97 as predicted by others. You might also want to list the other two digitals as a comparison.

Okay, here goes...

INSTALLATIONS AT FORMAT LAUNCH
Dolby Digital (June 1992): 11
DTS (June 1993): 876
SDDS (June 1993): 4

INSTALLATIONS AFTER ONE YEAR
Dolby Digital: 314 (U.S.) / 671 (worldwide)
DTS: 1,505 / 2,089
SDDS: 4 / 4

INSTALLATIONS AS OF DECEMBER 1994
DD: 382 / 890
DTS: 1,821 / 2,881
SDDS: 336 / 389

INSTALLATIONS AS OF DECEMBER 1995
DD: 722 / 1,978
DTS: 3,310 / 5,725
SDDS: 1,320 / 1,581

INSTALLATIONS AS OF DECEMBER 1996
DD: 1,701 / 4,607
DTS: 4,527 / 7,921
SDDS: 2,572 / 3,153

********
INSTALLATIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 1997
(The STAR WARS Special Edition re-issues began in January '97)
DD: 1,907 / 4,872
DTS: 4,720 / 8,173
SDDS: 2,646 / 3,223
********

INSTALLATIONS AS OF DECEMBER 1997
DD: 2,930 / 7,775
DTS: 6,624 / 11,409
SDDS: 3,944 / 4,687

INSTALLATIONS AS OF DECEMBER 1998
DD: 7,378 / 17,782
DTS: 8,543 / 15,301
SDDS: 5,357 / 6,100

INSTALLATIONS AS OF DECEMBER 1999
DD: 11,210 / 23,871
DTS: 9,653 / 18,416
SDDS: 5,911 / 7,292

And, for comparison, Cinema Digital Sound (CDS), during its brief run during 1990-91, never made it past 50 installations.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-04-2011 01:11 AM

quote: Joe Redifer
I wouldn't say "a ton". Like I said, RF inputs were dropped fairly quickly. The price of the receiver is irrelevant. Like Bobby said, LD owners were not penny pinchers.

RF was around for about 5 years. Still is offered in one very high end receiver. DTS LD was about a 12-15 month failure.

There were many cheap LD players in the mid 90s that only had analog out and composite without S-Video.

Only high end LDs owners who were into DD/DTS were not penny pinchers. You couldn't afford to be as the tech was pricey.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-04-2011 01:17 AM

Any LD player with a digital output could play DTS LDs. You didn't need a special player, unlike Dolby Digital. Most home players had the SPDIF output. The only ones (at the time) that didn't were ones used in non-home theater settings like when we ran movies via LaserDisc at the theater (with changeovers). Things may have been different in wacky Canada, but that's how it was here in Denver (which is better than Canada).

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-04-2011 01:20 AM

quote: Joe Redifer
Any LD player with a digital output could play DTS LDs. You didn't need a special player, unlike Dolby Digital. Most home players had the SPDIF output. The only ones (at the time) that didn't were ones used in non-home theater settings like when we ran movies via LaserDisc at the theater (with changeovers). Things may have been different in wacky Canada, but that's how it was here in Denver (which is better than Canada).

Optical out players always started at a lot more than a standard LD player. Also, there were many mid-level LDs players with RF out and no opitcal out. To get both was an easy $800.

Going LD Dolby Digital was always cheaper than DTS. When DTS came around you pretty much required for a upgrade to your receiver which was never cheaper, or you had to get an external 6 channel DTS decorder with a 6 in receiver, the DTS decoder was alway uber-high end.

Around 1998 DTS receiver became more prevalent, these were for DTS DVD/LD, but by they, LD DTS was done.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-04-2011 01:23 AM

I've never seen one with an RF out but no digital out. That would just be insane!

Anyway, I've never heard of anyone NEEDING an external DTS DAC unless they just didn't want to buy a new receiver and already had one with 6CH analog in (which is what I was arguing about, not the price vs Dolby Digital). Of course the high-end hoity-toity people would definitely buy them because they felt that external peripherals ALWAYS had superior DACs in them. But in no way did you "almost always" need some sort of external decoder for DTS like you said. I'd change "almost always" to "barely ever" in your post.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-04-2011 01:38 AM

quote:
I've never seen one with an RF out but no digital out. That would just be insane!

There are some. Pioneer 504 comes to mind. There are also a few high-end Elite machines with optical but no RF out.

quote: Joe Redifer
But in no way did you "almost always" need some sort of external decoder for DTS like you said. I'd change "almost always" to "barely ever" in your post

Well done, you've made your point.

| IP: Logged

Thomas Hauerslev
Master Film Handler

Posts: 451
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 01-04-2011 02:30 AM

70mm Dolby SR prints: http://www.in70mm.com/library/process/dolby/index.htm

Early use of mag sound for cinema use: http://www.in70mm.com/cinerama/archive/sound/index.htm

and finally the picture of 70mm and MGM Lion is mine seen early in this thread ;-)

Dates back to 2005: http://www.in70mm.com/schauburg/2005/reviews/thomas/index.htm

happy New 70mm Year everyone

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-04-2011 03:20 AM

quote: Thomas Hauerslev
70mm Dolby SR prints: http://www.in70mm.com/library/process/dolby/index.htm

Thats a lot more 70mm titles than I would of imagined.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 01-04-2011 04:20 AM

Manny, funny you should mention the extended dynamic range of the digital over analog optical, because it just so happened that in the very same SMPTE demo I was talking about, they also wanted to demonstrate the wider dynamic range/headroom of the new digital system. To do this, Dolby used a reel of THE FUGATIVE (1993 - Harrison Ford) in SR-D. They played the second reel (I think) -- the one with that massive train crash. I am sure that was meant to impress everyone, but what an embarrassment -- it was WAY too loud. The sound of the screeching metal against metal was excruciating. I mean people were holding their ears it was so painful.

The positive impression the demo made up till then with the great channel separation got totally wiped out with the dynamic range portion of the demo. Thing is, it WAS clean and undistorted....just WAY too loud -- a complaint people have often made about digital sound in theatres.

As for the intended purpose of the matrix technology, I agree -- if it wasn't for Dolby SVA, you are right -- the exponential spread of stereo into local theatres would not have taken place and we would still have the majority of houses playing mono and the very few playing he even fewer 4trk mag roadshow titles. I was just pointing out that with the demise of 4trk 35mm, we did loose discrete channels and that necessitated center dialog pretty much as a universal practice, something I miss. I was in no way denigrating the host of positives that SVA gave us.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 01-04-2011 07:54 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
The center channel isn't behind most home TV screens either, rather it's usually above or below. Maybe I'm splitting hairs.

Yeah, you are.

At least the center speaker isn't (usually) above or below by more than a few inches, whereas left/right speakers are often displaced by more than a few feet to either side of the screen edges.

I'd bet almost nobody is going to cluster their LCR speakers to fit under their TV screens to mimic proper theatrical placement. (Even if I was willing to do that, I couldn't. My LCR speakers would still be wider than my TV.)

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-04-2011 08:33 AM

My left/right speakers are indeed behind my perforated screen [Big Grin]

However...what is the argument? Because homes are inferior places to present big screen movies we should deliberately diminish the theatre experience by having a hard-center dialog? How stupid. The home versions often get remixes anyway...have the home version of the mix with the hard center, if you so desire...however, there is often MUCH time between the home and theatrical release as compared to the completion of the film and the theatrical release.

Moving back to the absurd position that somehow George Lucas pushed DTS sales in some manner...

Looking at Michael's information...(only taking into account USA installations)

The DTS increase in sales between 96 and 97 (the time of the Star Wars SE versions), DTS had a small increase of just 4% (193 installations). Dolby Digital, on the other hand, had a larger increase of 12% (206 installations). Dolby was gaining ground on DTS starting in 97.

Lets see if there is the "Lucas Bump" in here. Looking at the 95-96 years. DTS increased 37% (1217 installations)...so, if anything the Lucas "bump" was actually a pot hole for DTS...they did better without the Special Editions the previous year. Note, Dolby was on the rise that year too since they saw a 136% increase in sales or 979 units.

Go back another year (94-95) Dolby and DTS are seeing similar percentage increases Dolby at 89% and DTS at 82% In real numbers, Dolby sold 340 systems to DTS' 1489.

The REAL story was as stated by others...DTS' numbers were huge due to Jurassic Park being released exclusively in DTS AND that DTS was VERY cheap (in comparison to other formats). Furthermore, DTS did an EXCELLENT job of ensuring their players would mate to most any processor on the market. With Dolby, you almost had to have a Dolby processor and, more often than not, upgrade it to mate up. While it was certainly possible to mate a DA10 to another processor...Dolby did not go out of their way to make it easy for you...DTS did.

Several factors have lead to Dolby ultimately surpassing the others in installed systems but it was NOT the Star Wars SE movies. YOUR theatre may have bought a DTS player in the hopes of influencing Fox...but it is more of an isolated or localized incident that not a reflection of the industry as a whole.

And bringing this back to SVA...35mm 4-track was in MANY towns...small ones too. However, there is no way that 35mm 4-track would have ever made the penetration that SVA did, for sure. However, it was at the expense of quality of the mix. Again, it is a case where the quality level was lowered to accommodate some. The alternative would have been to do a 4-track mix on magnetic and then do an SVA mix. And then convince exhibitors/studios to keep paying for a more expensive/better system that didn't sell any more tickets.

The argument about 70mm never reaching as many people is a non-starter. It was NEVER designed to reach everyone...it was always supposed to be special...most folks had to come to it.

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 01-04-2011 10:31 AM

quote: Frank Angel
I mean people were holding their ears it was so painful.

That's called the Dolby Threshold of Pain.

Man, has this topic gone all over the place! [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Robert Throop
Master Film Handler

Posts: 412
From: Vernon, NY USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-04-2011 12:42 PM

Thomas,
In your list you have "Dances with Wolves" as a 70mm SR release. Where did this play in 70mm?

quote: Steve Guttag
35mm 4-track was in MANY towns

4-track was installed in many towns but I think that when exhibitors realized the expense of head replacement they refused to do it contributing to the decline and eventual demise of 35mm mag.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

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.