|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Why are there very few movies mixed in SDDS currently?
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-25-2014 04:23 PM
Maybe my ears are not like those of "average customers," but the difference between Dolby SR optical and 5.1 digital is obvious. And this is observed in a theater where both analog and digital systems are properly set up. The differences in dynamic range between the optical analog and digital formats is pretty hard not to notice unless something is wrong with either one of the systems. The 5.1 discrete layout adds a more lively feeling spatial character.
It's not hard for me to tell the difference between a 2.0 digital track and its 5.1 counterpart on my home setup. The spatial characteristics are still very different even when both tracks are digital. Just recently our local ABC affiliate, KSWO-TV, finally upgraded its audio broadcast capability to Dolby Digital 5.1. They had been broadcasting their audio in 2-channel stereo for the past few years. I knew their broadcasts had changed to 5.1 as soon as I heard it. Then I looked at my receiver and saw "Dolby Digital" displayed rather than the usual "Pro-Logic," which confirmed I wasn't imagining things.
Typically "average customers" really don't know any better. Statements along the lines of "customers can't tell the difference between analog and digital" are not as impressive as they would seem at first glance. What exactly is being accomplished in the comparison if a customer doesn't know what details to look for in the first place? It sometimes comes with the cost cutting agenda of "we don't need 5.1 digital surround sound; analog stereo (or mono) is good enough."
If you're dealing with some "golden ears" types who know their stuff regarding movie sound, it's going to be tough to make optical analog sound as good as digital unless either part of the system is being deliberately compromised. I would only expect analog to perform as good as digital, and possibly even outperform it in some cases if the comparison was between 5.1 digital and 70mm 6-track Dolby SR magnetic sound.
quote: Will Kutler
A peoperly designed and installed surround system is supposed to replicate a real world enviornment. The point is not to pinpoint sound to a specific speaker.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Well, unless you're watching a movie in Atmos....then that may indeed be the point.
Actually real world audio environments have pin pointed sounds happening all the time. Right now a large format printer is making noise to my 8 o'clock position. I hear AC vent noise above my head to my right. And then there's some keyboard clicking going on just below.
The trick with movie sound is to keep attention directed at the screen. Atmos would allow a sound element to be placed at a specific point in the room. But I think the more tasteful intent with Atmos is to create a much more layered mix with lots of individual objects coming together in a more realistic sound environment. Atmos allows sound designers to mix diffuse, channel-based beds together with positioned sound objects. The positioning capability also allows for surround panning, fly by and fly over effects that are much more precise and satisfying than what a conventional 5.1 or 7.1 system can deliver.
These latest developments in movie theater sound playback make a dying or arguably dead format like SDDS even less useful. I still hope some theaters will do what they can to keep SDDS gear operational for the sake of playing some 35mm SDDS shows.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-03-2014 09:26 AM
Out of the three digital sound formats for film I had the best experiences with DTS, but I suppose some of it comes down to how a given theater was set up and the mix of the movie itself. One thing is certain: I rarely ever heard DTS fault out to the optical track. I've heard distracting faults to analog more often with Dolby Digital and SDDS shows with most of those occurring at reel changes.
I rarely ever heard SDDS in a theater where the audio was properly EQ'ed. It almost always sounded fairly thin, like it lacked a lot of the mid range frequencies. I'd hear a lot more in the way of treble and (depending on the room) a dose of low end. A bunch of this was the fault of AMC's stadium seated theater designs, equipment choices and how they set it up. Heat was the best SDDS mix I'd heard in an AMC theater, but it was playing in a smaller, less echo-prone room. Mission Impossible is the only movie I watched played in SDDS within a THX certified house (the UA Galaxy 9 in Garland, TX). That show sounded good, but it still wasn't the audio quality I was spoiled to hearing across town at General Cinemas' Northpark #1 theater.
quote: Lyle Romer
DTS should have sounded the best because it was lossless compression but it was 16 bit, 44.1 KHz where Dolby Digital was lossy compression but 18 bit, 48 KHz. DTS also wasn't discreet LFE as it used the low end of the surround channels to store the LFE meaning the surrounds weren't full range.
DTS/Datasat digital sound has the least amount of data compression among itself, Dolby Digital and SDDS, but the format is still lossy, not lossless. DTS/Datasat runs at 820 kilobits per second, using the APT-X waveform codec. With the XD-10 and XD-20 players DTS had the opportunity to push lossless or uncompressed audio (and even more audio channels) with 35mm and 70mm shows, but unfortunately the scalable capability of those players went largely un-used.
SDDS literally has the highest bit rate out of the digital sound on film formats, but its 2 million bit per second data rate is divided between those two parallel digital audio tracks (one being a staggered back-up) on both edges of the film. Both digital tracks each contain plenty of error correction data.
35mm Dolby Digital had the most data compression, running at 320 kilobits per second, half the maximum bit rate level for the standard Dolby AC-3 codec. There was another 200kb/s or so of redundant, error correction data encoded on the film print. Most DVDs had DD tracks encoded at either 384kb/s or 448kb/s. Most lossy DD tracks on Blu-ray are encoded at 640bk/s. Dolby Digital Plus can go quite a bit higher and support more audio channels.
To me, Dolby Digital was prone to sounding harsh and metallic if the sound system was not well EQ'ed. I've heard it sound great in some theaters and lousy in others, bad enough to where it sounded like an over-driven optical track yet had the channel separation and low bass effects to remind you it was a 5.1 track.
quote: Steve Guttag
To my ears, I never liked DTS' high end...it is very strident. Combine DTS with an Electro-Voice DH1 series driver (TS-9040 or TS-940 system) and I have to leave the theatre due to the pain...it has happened! People didn't believe me that I could tell that combination of nastiness. I've proven it several times.
Did the painful DTS mix you were listening to happen to be an MGM/UA release? I specifically remember their movies in DTS being mixed particularly loud.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic