The last 70mm that I ran was "True Lies", and I watched it in the Theatre, then I saw it again in 35mm DTS in the same house about a week later to compare. The DTS was much harsher than the 70mm SR sound, and we were playing the digital back about 6db under the level that we played the mag at.

IMHO, even though more care is needed to maintain the mag sound, it was much better than it's digital counterpart.

Would like know how others out there feel.

------------------

Scott

 

The most direct comparison I had, between mag sound and Dolby digital was when I was working as the head projectionist for United Artists in Denver. We got one of the survey screenings of Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. It tuned out to be the final audio mix and was finished in LA at 3:00AM and flown to Denver on a privet jet. They had a swarm of technicians to hook up the dubber unit and to do a new b-chain on our big house. I watched the run-through of the film and the sound was amazing. It was a 4-channel SR mag mix. The show was a success that evening with Francis Ford Coppola and a few of the actors in attendance.

Two weeks later we opened the film, with the Dolby Digital track, in the same house, with the same EQ the Dolby tech left. It wasn't as good. The sound was harsh and more shrill. Now granted the first time we had the mag master, but it did point up the difference between mag and digital.

 

It's all in the mix.
 

I once alternated between 35mm prints of 2001 with 4track and 2001 with SR optical and even though this was not 70mm, the stereo soundfield with the mag was so much more distinct and opened. And of course, that little auditory game Dolby plays with "matrixed" surround is a joke compaired to the discrete surround track on a mag print.

In defense of digital, I do think a lot of the problems we hear are that many of the theatre systems don't have the necessary headroom, be it in the amps or speakers, to keep loud passages clean and distortion free. And we all know that when D/A processors and transistor amps distort, even by the smallest margins, it is a VERY nasty sound, not like tube distortion. It also may be a psychological factor....the manager just installed an $8,000 digital reader and he wants it to be noticed. So he has the projectionst goose up the volume. They always used to do this with the surround channel in the early days of Dolby stereo. Hey....we just put up all those walls speakers, let's make sure we hear them. And then you would get all that dialogue and crappy out-of-phase crappy dirt noise bleading all over the theatre.

I went to an SMPTE chapter meeting when Dolby was demonstrating their then new digital system. They ran a reel of THE FUGITIVE in analog SR. It was the reel where the train crashes. The Dolby guy explained to us how the matrix does fine with sounds that are predominantly in one or two channels, but if it tries to reproduce distinct sounds equally in all 4 channels, it can't handle complex waveforms like that and the stereo image simply collapes to the middle of the theatre, practically becoming mono. With discrete systems, all the sounds stay in their locations (I am thinking, "yah, like MAG SOUND, dufus"). Then they put on the Dolby digital reel. Yeah, the sounds stayed in their respective locations, but the screaching of the metal as the train twisted in the crash was so loud and what seemed like double the high-end energy that we just heard in the SR version, that it actually was painful. I had to hold both my ears. THIS was what they were using as a demo to sell us on Dolby Digital?!!

I walked out telling everyone, "we need to go back to mag.....honest."

------------------
Frank Angel,
Brooklyn Center Cinema

www.BrooklynCenter.com

 

Worst, though, is that it seems DTS 70mm is dead also.

Consiter: 99% of people can't hear the difference between magnetic and digital. Studios are not going to pay the significant cost increase to make that 1% happy.

Also, I think that it is generally accepted that a properly run 35mm presentation is better than a properly run E-cinema presentation. Yet, studios have _already_ accepted E-cinema (they are just waiting for the price to go down, which it surely will.)

Result: No interest in improving quality- in fact studios are willing to accept a slight decrease if the saving are significant.
 

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"
 

Just what WERE you expecting? ;-) Is it a DTS-6AD or a DTS-6D through, say, a SMART processor?

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 

We have a DTS-6D with a SMART Mod-2C and five SMART TA2050 amps. It rocks for the most part but the speakers are not the best, or are the amps. Not what I would have chosen but you make do with what you have. So far the sound is pretty damn good but I think it needs a better speaker array.

So forget the amplification, what about speakers.. what would you all say would be the best to go with?

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"
 

There is a saying about a system being no better than your weakest link... SMART is definately "entry-level" equipment and the processor is definately contributing to your overall sound (as are the amplifiers).

As to the speakers...it really depends on your room. If your room is somewhat dead then direct-radiator type speakers should work fine, if it is live, you should look into horn-loaded systems.

I am not sold on the 3-way concept for cinema sound, it spreads the sound image quite a bit in the vertical dimension, quite un-necessarily. 2-ways systems can generally work for most any theatre.

My favorite direct radiators are the JBL 4675 and the Altec A-6 (No longer available). For horn-loads, I am a die-hard Altec person...A-4s and A-5s but you have to get rid of the Multi-cells and install Altec Manarays (or even a JBL 2360 horn)

The above are opinions so your preference may not agree. I suggest going to some theatres that have different types of speakers in similar rooms and hearing what you think sounds best for you.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

 

Bruce Hansen
 

I personally like the JBL 4675, and have good experiences using them. Also, the old Altec A7 was a good speaker for its day, even though I wouldn't try to use them for digital sound.

But good speakers must have the right amps. My experience is that speakers and amps should always be chosen in pairs, because there are speakers that simply won't sound good with the wrong amps. I once tried the LAB500 (THX-approved) amp with the Altec A7, but the sound was never good, no matter what we did.

The JBL 4675's installed in my theatre are biamplified with LAB1000 amps, which seems to be a good combination.
 

What about SDDS? "8 channels of pure discrete digital sound". Sounds great, but from what I've read on this forum, it isn't. I'd rather have one good channel of glorious mono than eight channels of garbage.
 

I'll stand behind my statement...the SMART equipment are strictly entry level. The ModIIC is what it is, a cheap processor but one can hardly say it is a "good performer." It has shown to be a bit more reliable than some of the other SMART processors but sound wise, it is quite lacking. It's level of quality will most definately affect the quality of the analog AND digital processor connected to it.

>>"I personally like the JBL 4675, and have good experiences using them. Also, the old Altec A7 was a good speaker for its day, even though I wouldn't try to use them for digital sound."<<

You are right, the A-7 isn't a good choice for digital except in the smaller review rooms (40' deep or less) but upgrading it's HF driver and horn to make it an A-5 will make it into a solid performer in small to medium sized rooms). I've done it many times...including pulling direct radiators out (JBL actually) because the room didn't work with that style of speaker.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

 

There is much wrong with your above statements and MANY MANY double-blind tests on analog vs digital recording to disprove your statements, including the ones about digital compression (including lossy and loss-less) but a more appropiate forum is the group on rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.tech. There is a gentleman over there by the name of Dick Pierce that can explain it far better than I.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

 

I guess they don't feel a properly adjusted analog A-chain is necessary when they have digital sound. No sound system past, present, or future is perfect. Digital is not perfect, despite what Madison Avenue says. What good is digital sound if it's too quirky? The Dolby Digital and SDDS tracks occupy the worst locations on the film where they are subject to damage by the film gate and rollers that does not affect the picture or analog sound track.

Too often, digital solutions seem like technology for technology's sake. In other words, it's attempting to fix something that really isn't broken. The other problem I have with digital audio and pictures is the bar is set too low with regard to quality. "Let's design a system with the minimum acceptable level of performance and market that" are the watchwords of the digital industry. Analog is simple; few things to go wrong. Digital is complex by its nature; lots to go wrong.

When was the last time anyone heard the term "high fidelity" applied to a sound system? It's been a while. The new term is "CD-quality". High fidelity means a reproduction as true to the original as possible. Not "something that's kind of close" to the original like compressed digital audio. Maybe most people can't tell the difference in a double-blind test, but that's no excuse for calling such a system the best available. Maybe that's why "hi-fi" isn't used anymore; digital audio really can't make that claim, especially today. Compressed audio can not and never will be able to claim that it's "hi-fi". Not when sound is DELIBERATELY not reproduced.
 

Gordon:

I don't know where the CP-45 came into all of this and I don't know how the CP-45's performance or lack thereof has any bearing on the Mod IIC performance or lack thereof?

Is your arguement that "I would rather have JUNK than CRAP?"

I'm sure an argument can be made that either is better or worse than the other in various respects.

I could probably give the CP-45 the edge in all areas except equalization. And depending on the quality of the installer, a bad installer will get into less trouble with full-octave than 1/3.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"