|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Next generation IMAX sound system detailed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-23-2014 10:58 AM
That article makes some claims/points that are highly questionable (or just plain wrong).
THX certified sound systems have a frequency response of no lower than 40Hz? Hmmm. I wonder if that 40Hz spec is a recommended minimum standard. Some high end home theater subs can go well below the 20Hz average threshold for human hearing. Out of commercial cinema speakers QSC has a dual 18" sub that goes down to 27Hz. JBL's 5628 dual 18" sub goes a little lower, 24 Hz-155 Hz (2π) / 27 Hz-1.5 kHz (4π).
Obviously, making a sub bass speaker go to deep lows is one thing. Actually making it sound great is another thing, and this is really an area where IMAX' own speaker systems come up short. Good sounding sub bass is very tight, punchy, rich, clean and controlled. IMHO, IMAX' speaker systems exhibit the same kind audio quality I associate with more muddy, sloppy sounding speaker systems used in rock concerts. It's not as bad as the really sloppy, farty nonsense warbling out of pimped out ghetto mobiles. But it's not all that much better either.
IMAX uses "phantom imaging techniques" to create sounds from anywhere in the room. Is that another way of saying they're altering the movie mix to play on a limited number of speaker enclosures?
That odd dig on Atmos (worries over not being able to create the same sound experience over thousands of theater installations) is actually pretty illogical. The technology in Atmos actually does more to make the sound more consistent from one Atmos location to the next. OTOH, it's beyond Dolby's control over how good or cheap a specific theater wants to make a sound system. And that's a fact of life for all movie theaters, not just ones equipped with a certain sound format.
People can hear sounds in as little as 50ms of time? That actually seems really slow. How are they getting that number?
Human hearing is based in the frequency domain, not the time domain. The only thing that slows a person's ability to hear a sound immediately is the speed of sound moving through the air. Perhaps there might be a very tiny bit of latency between a sound manipulating a person's ear drum and the brain processing it, but 50ms is actually kind of slow. 50ms would be a slightly shitty ping time if you were gaming on a LAN.
The human brain and central nervous system is actually extremely fast and powerful in terms of processing power. We might not be able to remember where we dropped our car keys, but the sensory input we're processing at any moment from all our senses would bring the most powerful computer systems to their knees. And we have that consciousness thing too.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-23-2014 05:41 PM
Yeah, "phantom imaging" is just another one of those b.s. IMAX marketing terms, they also use the term for their current 5.0/6.0 sound system. Audio panning is the basis of stereo, (multi-channel) surround and even modern, dynamic object based systems like Dolby Atmos. You can increase realism and "spatial resolution" by adding more discrete channels, but there's a limit to what's actually useful.
It would be real "phantom imaging" if they would use Wave Field Synthesis like the still quite "experimental" IOSONO* sound system. Wave Field Synthesis allows you to create sounds that seem to originate from within the auditorium itself. The downside is, it requires a very high speaker density, all on discrete channels. So, this new 12-channel system would not even come close. Also, wave fields need to be recalculated for every room and speaker layout, so distinctive, pre-defined channels won't cut it.
IMAX more and more resembles those audiophile bullsh*t peddling marketing shills. You know, those who sell a few feet of speaker cable and even digital interconnects more expensive than the highest end speakers.
* Barco recently acquired IOSONO. If they could make open, object based sound formats work in tandem with this technology, they would have a real competitive, technological advantage compared to Dolby Atmos.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-24-2014 10:26 AM
We all understand the normal "phantom" properties of sound behavior between speakers, such as the "in your head" phenomenon that happens when you're listening to music on headphones.
But the idea that IMAX, or at least that guy writing that article, went out of the way to say they're using phantom imaging techniques to presumably overcome limitations of using a small number of speakers (rather than speaker arrays) makes me wonder if they're going to be messing around with movie mixes instead of playing them the way the movie makers originally composed them.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Barco recently acquired IOSONO. If they could make open, object based sound formats work in tandem with this technology, they would have a real competitive, technological advantage compared to Dolby Atmos.
How?
If Barco tried deploying object based sound systems based on Iosono's original concepts it would be cost prohibitive. No commercial theater is going to install literally hundreds of speakers and amplifiers in a single auditorium.
There has to be some point to Barco acquiring Iosono. I would think it has to dove-tail into DTS' efforts with their Multi-Dimensional Audio "MDA" system. Maybe the buy-out is just a way to gain Iosono's patents so DTS & Barco don't have to worry about any law suits. The end game of that acquisition has to be, I hope, a way to upgrade Auro or a replacement of Auro into a legitimate rival to Dolby Atmos.
Unfortunately no one can force Cinemark or anyone else who has already installed an Auro system to upgrade to whatever Barco & DTS develop. As it stands, I'm not sure if Cinemark actually cares about Auro at all. They're not doing anything to advertise it. John Wick is the first movie release in a long time to have an Auro 11.1 mix but not Atmos. But no one would know that without doing some deliberate searching on Auro.
Making matters worse, that activity from Barco and DTS has only seemed to make things grind to a total halt in terms of advancing movie theater sound. Dolby hasn't exactly been installing lots of Atmos systems lately. There's been hardly any new Atmos installs at all in the United States over the past several months. I can't tell what's going on with Auro since they erased most of the Auro installations from their map and haven't updated it since then.
Maybe the technology developers and theater operators are all waiting to see what IMAX will install in its IMAX branded theaters and then react to that -if they do anything at all.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-24-2014 10:56 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
If Barco tried deploying object based sound systems based on Iosono's original concepts it would be cost prohibitive. No commercial theater is going to install literally hundreds of speakers and amplifiers in a single auditorium.
If you look at the setups they implemented, they seemingly don't need hundreds and hundreds of speakers to make it work anymore. They need more speakers than your average Atmos setup, but not a whole lot more. There surely are limitations to the setup, as the "ghost images" only work in a 2D plane, but it works, I've heard it myself.
Dolby prices Atmos out of the market, starting at their totally overpriced decoder. Money not spent on overly expensive decoders, could be spent on additional speakers and amplification. Also, Barco can easily offer package deals: Buy a new projector and get x% discount on our new, upgradable sound system. You get Auro3D now, but you can upgrade to something more advanced (Auro3D 2.0) later, by adding extra (discrete) channels, but using the same decoder.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 10-25-2014 03:21 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
I think these high-end systems aren't selling well because of two basic reasons:
1. The public doesn't see the huge difference from a well designed "regular" system to the premium system (and they're not really demanding ear-bleeding volume either), hence they're not demanding these premium sound setups the way they did with surround sound in the 80s.
2. Owners are tired of spending tens of thousands per screen on upgrades that don't really improve business and (more importantly) don't give an amazing perceived benefit to the moviegoer.
I think it is a combination of things, but I think you are right the biggest difference is that the public does not the see that big of a difference between a good sound system and Atmos. Or perhaps they don't really care? Atmos in Canada is at about 25 locations nationwide, Atmos is packaged in with UltraAVX and often times there will be a really short one-week Atmos run for a movie before a new movie will take over the Atmos cinema. Having an Atmos "Lite" or "Mini" would allow Dolby to penetrate more smaller auditoriums within major multiplexes and such, thus it would expand their footprint and exposure. It would also allow smaller complexes to at least have a change to be able to afford the product.
You mentioned surround sound from the 80s, today Dolby has so much more competition than it did in the past, Dolby was pretty much the only real brand name for sound marketing in the late 70s, 80s, and early 90s.
As for the new IMAX sound system and new laser projection, just recently IMAX held an invite at a Cineplex IMAX facility for GT/SR and MPX operators. They showed of their new laser retro-fit and showed demos of upcoming content, everything described in the post from the home theater forum is spot on, the new sound system is not trying to replicate or compete with Atmos, its a different take on audio with more than 6 channels.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-01-2014 02:32 PM
quote:
I don't think this is serious. ...1.45" wraparound on the grill. You will be able to see the screws!!!... etc. (The entire thing about the new side speakers should be a clue, IMO.)
C'mon, the guy has 1 post! He's a troll. Hanging on a metal stand, no doubt. [Big Grin]
Spotted the new sound system yesterday, they are being installed in anticipation for the Hobbit 3, obviously it was not in operation as the movie playing was Interstellar in 15/70.
The description is spot on, metal type front with wrap around and exposed screws. Only difference from the link is that there were two small speaker additions on each side and not one, so two side speakers and the usual IMAX rears. Also on the roof are the speaker mounts which are four of them, they are large but they are not yet finished.
quote: Carsten Kurz
It would be natural to use Auro for IMAX as Barcos servers support it AND the format is compatible with all previous 5.1 IMAX locations without the need for a dedicated sound mix/format. They could upgrade slowly one by one without major disruptions.
I think you are correct on this, the new IMAX commercials mention Barco near the end of the ad.
| 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