|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: DTS:X for Cinemas
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-17-2015 09:26 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The format will be "Open MDA" and DTS:X is just an implementation of "Open MDA". This "Open MDA" thing needs a better name and a cool logo.
Things like "AuroMax" make it clear various cinema equipment vendors are going to apply their own branding. No effort was made at all to brand multichannel linear PCM audio, even though it is superior in quality to the lossy compressed surround sound formats. Uncompressed LPCM was one of very few quality advantages d-cinema had over film. Open MDA isn't going to get any better treatment from movie studios or theater chains.
The term "Open MDA" doesn't have any brand allure for next gen sound anyway. When I see the "MDA" letters I think Muscular Dystrophy Assocation. I'm not joking at all about that either. The Muscular Dystrophy Association owns the www.mda.org web domain. Honestly, the only branding chance Open MDA has is DTS:X. Anything else is a waste of time.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Customers also don't know what they're getting with a Dolby Digital or DTS logo on the door. THX is supposed to fix that. What you want is some kind of certification.
Movie studios and theater companies aren't going to go along with any kind of certification process. That actually means complying with some kind of quality standard. Combine that factor with the glory of "OPEN STANDARDS" and it could equate to a bunch of stuff done on the cheap that does not work right.
Dolby Digital, SDDS and DTS all provided functionally very similar surround sound formats on 35mm film. A movie production could create a standard 5.1 channel mix and output for any of those formats. That is not the case this time around. There are major differences in speaker placement between the Atmos and Auro formats. The "open" nature of MDA means we could see all sorts of other random ways in how surround speakers are placed.
You keep mentioning how Open MDA can adapt to various speaker & amp configurations. Well, the system really needs a certain number of amplifiers and speakers in order for the system not to be a pathetic, worthless joke. A minimal number of speakers and amps will equate to a surround system with not enough 3D sound resolution.
At least Dolby Atmos tried to set a standard. The trouble is it costs a lot of money to do object based surround correctly. A system based purely on "Open MDA" will cost damned near as much as a proper Atmos system if done right. The sad thing is we probably will not see any of these MDA-based systems done right. They're going to be done cheap.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I have yet to meet someone who is all excited about DTS on their home cinema set. Those people I know that care about good sound in their home theater don't prefer DTS Master Audio above Dolby TrueHD when it boils down to sound quality, as it's essentially the same. Some people are somewhat excited about Dolby Atmos, but want to wait until there are actual alternatives before buying into a single technology. They all expect those future AVRs to support all comon MDA formats.
You must be hanging around people who only listen to movies through their TV speakers. DTS has a legion of fans and fanboys that goes back to the early 1990s. Fans raised all kinds of hell about DTS output not being included in the first generation of DVD players and threats DTS might not be allowed on DVD at all. DTS' highly vocal fan base is one of the reasons why DTS-HD Master Audio is the dominant sound format on Blu-ray.
A huge part of "home theater" is carrying over brands from commercial movie theaters. Dolby has done very very well from that since the 1970's. There is an unmistakable level of prestige in taking a brand people associate with the cinema and carrying it over into home theater. Customers feel like their home system is more legit when they see those same logos they saw in the movie theater.
If DTS' brand is not visible at all in real, commercial movie theaters it has less marketing value in selling home theater.
quote: Carsten Kurz
Frankly, I couldn't care less about branding efforts. An object based sound system is convincing when it offers a customer value over 5.1 and 7.1, is supported by the industry, and is available at a price that is justified by that value.
If there isn't any credible branding, an effective way to sell next-gen surround sound to the public as a means of getting them away from their living room TV sets and putting more butts into theater seats, why would a commercial movie theater even bother making the investment in the first place? They're not going to spend thousands of dollars or tens of thousands of dollars on various upgrades for nothing.
quote: Lyle Romer
My biggest issue with "Open MDA" is what its strength is supposed to be, which is no standardization of playback.
This is essentially my main gripe with Open MDA as well. A theater could do as little as have an existing, conventional 5.1 system, add a couple speakers to the ceiling and then claim to have next-gen surround sound. "That'll be $3 extra for your ticket, Timmy!"
quote: Lyle Romer
I also worry that DTS's push is going to lead to a lot of "cheap out" installs done just to slap a logo on the door.
Exactly. Not only that, but we could see a lot of "what the hell is that" brands. They could come from various cinema equipment suppliers, speaker & amp manufacturers and even the theater chains. It could add up to a bunch of confusing bullshit.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 04-17-2015 09:50 AM
quote: Carsten Kurz
Frankly, I couldn't care less about branding efforts. An object based sound system is convincing when it offers a customer value over 5.1 and 7.1, is supported by the industry, and is available at a price that is justified by that value.
Frankly, without branding, a theater investing thousands of dollars into the best sound system in the world is going to end up with a less-than-successful result.
Without branding, there's nothing to use in marketing messages. Without marketing, there's no differentiation between Theater A that made the investment and Theater B that hasn't, beyond word of mouth. Word of mouth advertising can be very effective, but it can be very unpredictable, and take a very long time to gain traction.
It's a mistake, IMO, to have multiple brands representing the same thing. All it does is create confusion in the marketplace, and the consumer is left to try and sort it out, which they probably won't do unless they're really motivated.
If a single brand won't be embraced to represent the benefits of the technology, then the theater needs to create their own branding effort (and spend enough money and effort in enough places to make it worthwhile).
For example, if you have a situation where object-based audio is a non-branded technology, and Theater A decides to invest in it, Theater A will need to come up with a name for it so they can market it to their existing and potential customers.
It might be that the technology itself gets the brand, or it's part of a larger package of offerings that is indicative of a PLF effort (a la AMC Prime) or a chain-wide effort (all screens, all object-based, in every screen in every location).
Then, they can market the package or their chain as being special, which will hopefully persuade the customer to choose Theater A with the WayCool(TM) auditorium over Theater B that says nothing about what they do.
But without the marketing, the investment doesn't make sense. It may make the theater owner feel good in some way, but why make the investment and keep quiet about it?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-17-2015 12:30 PM
quote: Carsten Kurz
Apply that to '3D'. Does any customer care about RealD, Dolby3D?
They may not care about the differences between RealD, Dolby3D and IMAX 3D, but at least they know about the 3D option being there rather than finding a $3, $6 or higher surcharge on their ticket price going unexplained.
quote: Carsten Kurz
Of course, it doesn't make sense to shell out 100.000US$ for an object based audio system without branding it ATMOS. But let's see how that goes if the prices drop due to competition. And then what's so different between 'ATMOS' and 'MDA'?
Go back to a comment Steve Guttag made in the "will Atmos last?" thread. Even if companies like Dolby, Datasat and others were practically giving away the processors for nothing a theater would have to spend a lot of money to install object oriented audio correctly. There is no way to do object oriented audio right and cheap at the same time.
If the theater operator is going to spend money on processors to do Atmos, Auro or whatever, he might as well buy enough of the extra amplifiers and more powerful surround speakers to do the job correctly or just not bother with it at all. His upgrade money will be better spent and speaker & amplifier improvements in his conventional surround sound system.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-02-2015 09:05 AM
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
Why are the studios (other than Lionsgate) not jumping on board with mixing/releasing more movies? DTS' rollout is just as slow as IMAX's laser system implementation.
One theory I have: lack of time during post production. The sound editing and mixing process is practically the last thing that gets completed. The sound editors, mixers, foley performers, etc. get very little time to get everything together. More time might be given to an elaborate production where a lot of unique sounds are needed, but I think those situations are rare. With such tight deadlines it's really asking a lot for the sound team to crank out a professional quality 5.1 mix and then have to create even more elaborate mixes in Dolby Atmos, DTS-X, Auro and 12-track IMAX. I think this is why I've heard more than a few Atmos mixes that seemed Atmos in name only.
IMHO, one thing that would help is if mainstream audio editing tools could create a single immersive mix that can be automatically be output to Atmos, Auro, DTS-X, IMAX 12-track, 5.1 and 7.1. That would make the job easier. Right now sound editors must use separate applications or plug-in modules for each next-gen format and create the mixes separately. That needlessly duplicates efforts and wastes time. The differences in surround speaker placement between these systems and no standards of surround speaker placement with DTS-X means a one app for all next-gen sound formats approach may generate unpredictable results. Nevertheless, we're not going to see a whole lot more studio support for immersive sound unless the post production process can be streamlined. I think folks from Dolby, DTS, Auro and IMAX need to have some talks with Avid (who makes Pro-Tools) and maybe some other companies who make pro audio editing software used in movie production. Maybe if they work together to make a sound designer's life easier they'll sell more of these elaborate sound systems to theaters.
quote: Jay Wyatt
Audio processors will need 16+ channels of processing, so Datasat AP20, USL JSD100, QSC DCP300 or Q-SYS. The QSC processors allow you to get a bit more creative when handling bass management and splitting up arrays.
16 channels of audio is more elaborate than conventional 5.1 or 7.1. But it's still pretty limited compared to what can be done with a Dolby Atmos setup. Meanwhile IMAX is the most overly hyped "large format" brand yet all but maybe a dozen of their screens are stuck with 5.1 (or is it 5.0) featuring two surround speakers in the rear corners like in the living room at home.
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic