Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: EX. Does It Really Worth It

This is topic EX. Does It Really Worth It in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002411

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 06-24-2001, 02:49 PM:

Dear All,
I am very curious with all this EX bulls**t that's been going around these past couple of years. I know only a selection of films has been released with this extra surround channel but does it really worth it for the cinema to upgrade it's sound system adding this extra unit? Also which one would you prefer. Dolby Digital EX, DTS ES-Adapter or SMART CS and why.
Thanks all

Demetris Thoupis

"FOR CINEMA AND HOLLYWOOD"

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-24-2001, 03:04 PM:

ok to sum this up logically. It is a gimmick. All films that have a split stereo surround channel can play with a center channel. You don't even have to have the EX box to create the same thing. In my home digital system I use a seperate reciever with dolby pro logoic (the same chip in an EX box) and send my left and right surround outs off of my dolby digital unit that is sepperate from my recievers. This reciever then processes the center channel to great effect. The same could probably be done with the cinema but at what cost differance I am not sure.

It is important that the speaker placement on the back wall are not to close to the side wall speakers for this to work and sound propper.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-24-2001, 03:41 PM:

I think it's a cheesy gimmick and basically not worth it. I haven't personally heard an EX mix that I thought made the concept worthwhile. Admittedly, I haven't heard "Toy Story 2" in EX, but that's the only EX mix that people seem to think was really good.

The only EX box that I've worked with is the Dolby SA10. It works fine and does exactly what it says it does. I don't personally think it's worth the price, however. In most theatres, the same money would be better spent on better lenses, better maintenance of existing sound equipment, and any number of other things that will result in more noticeable presentation quality improvements.

The next sound improvement that I would like to see is DTS support for 8-channel mixes and a lower compression ratio, probably using DVD disks. The cost would probably be quite low and this could easily become the killer format. Supposedly, it's possible to press DVD disks which have information on the opposite side which can be read by a standard CD player or CD-ROM drive; if this works in practice, it could preserve backward compatability with existing DTS players and allow a single inventory of disks for all prints.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-24-2001, 05:04 PM:

that would be cool for DTS to do these developements. But then where would they label the list of THX trailes That are not on the disc sometimes.

Posted by Phil Connolly (Member # 465) on 06-24-2001, 05:06 PM:

I agree with scott DTS 8-channel would be fantastic, or nine channels - five screen channels, three surround's for a discrete EX channel and subwoofer -- nice. This system would also be flexible to downmix channels to the number of avalible speakers.

It would also be cool to have a hard disk in the processor, so the audio could be uploaded from the CD's or DVD's, which are then used as backup. Having a hard disk would be great for trailers and THX logo's etc. On the compression side of things with DVD's and the low cost of big hard drives, I don't think there is any reason to use compression at all. Meridian Loss Less Packing would be OK and 24-bit 96 Khz would be a bonus.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-24-2001, 06:15 PM:

How much does the SA-10 cost? $3000 or something like that? That's a lot of cash just to derive a center channel via Pro Logic. I think DTS has the right idea with a DISCRETE center surround. None of this matrixed BS. Unfortunately, that is only offered for home theater. Shouldn't movie theater sound be more advanced than home theater sound?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-24-2001, 09:02 PM:

I have stated this before and I'll state it again....Surround-EX is the worst bang for the buck in cinema sound.

In order to be able to advertise "Surround-EX" you have to use the Dolby SA-10 for that marquee value. Furthermore, if you are a THX theatre, only the SA-10 is on the approved list for EX decoding (odd since other cinema processors with 2:4 matrix decoding are approved). The Dolby SA-10 was an ill conceived unit at best. It was a rushed design and a bastardization of another processor (the CP-45) and it shows. It doesn't play well with others, including in the Dolby Cinema Processor line up. For instance, with a Dolby CP-65, if you don't modify both the DA-20 (by shorting out surface mount resistors on the DA-20) and modify the CP-65's Cat. 443 (again shorting out a resistor) it will mess up your format control...and this is on one of their own processors (the only one that many feel is of "studio grade") Dolby does have an upgrade in the works (and may be in production by now...they were showing the updated rear board at ShoWest...but heck that is only 2-years after this thing was sabotoging otherwise good functional systems!

Another nifty "idea" was to only have full-octave EQ on the surround channels and only have 3 channels worth of EQ though the surrounds must be broken up into four channels.

From what I have seen, Panastereo's Surround-ES or whatever they are calling it decoder seems the best. It utilizes their THX approved 2:4 matrix decoder and can be ordered with 1/3 octave equalizers. It has front panel LED meters to set the unit up (another glaringly missing feature on the SA-10)...oh and another nice touch...it is only 1-U tall. To top it all off...it costs less than the SA-10 too.

But back to surround-EX....in addition to the "box" you must purchase, your surround system may need some beefing up...if you only have two surround speakers on the back wall (or in Regal Theatre's case...none) then you will need to purchase some more speakers...remember that the rear surround channel is expected to be able to play up to 103dB in the middle of the auditorium...only the shallowest of rooms with efficient speakers could do this with merely two speakers. So add two or more surround speakers to your bill. If your installer ran home run lines to the booth, you might be able to cheat the wiring by paralleling the new speakers to the existing ones in the auditorium to save on the labor of pulling in the new lines.

Oh but you aren't done yet...there is 2 more channels of amplification you need to have in order to add this single additional channel. So add one of those in.

Lastly, and hopefully not least....you will need a technician to hook all this crap up and tune it up properly to benefit from the new Surround-EX films....that is...if you happen to be playing one of the rare films recorded in Surround-EX.

In short, it is going to cost you thousands in a typical upgrade and no guarantee that you will be using it for any significant portion of your features. Then there is consumer recognition...do you think that you are in a market where the "Surround-EX" badge on your marquee and adverts. will bring in enough extra patrons to justify the expense?

This brings me back to...Surround-EX is the worst bang for the buck!

If the format interests you and you doing a new installation, the Dolby CP-650 makes things a bit more managable since it is a $1000 (list) option and has 1/3 octave EQ on all channels...the surround speakers can be installed with EX in mind and there are four channel amplifiers that only cost marginally more than their two channel counterparts. It is still expensive for the one derived channel.

Then again, you could avoid all of the and get an Allen Surround Sound system...I have read that they create the EX effect all on their own when it is appropriate! Right Gord?

Steve

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

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-24-2001, 10:10 PM:

Joe, We sell the Dolby EX thingy for under 2K U.S. Its impressive as all hell when the track is good. The best so far is Toy Story 2.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-24-2001, 10:29 PM:

Essentialy the panastereo suround es is the same as what I have done with my home stereo unit. It will decode any stereo surround channel to put the center channel active. Believe me for the home system this makes for a great holosonic experience. I have listend to Air Force One and when the machine gun fire is going on you get it from all sides and the rear. It is basically eliminating the phantom effect for the rear channel and vastly improving the rear surround effects to were you can sit off center and still enjoy the holosonic experience.

Smart designed a panastereo es system for the home wich is based off of the cinema processor. Note when you run the rear channels off of the reciever for home systems you run it in prologic three channel mode. This will prevent the loss of any signal to a none existent speaker.

I experamented several times by plugging the left and right channels into my main stereo unit line inputs and listened closely to how the effects were handeled on several films. That is when I decided to go ahead and purchase the extra reciever to split the signals. Now in my case I had to run two sets of wires one set for left and right speakes mounted in the cornes of the room and of course the center channel speakers in direct center not spread out. All this feeding off the seconed reciever. A second set of wires feeds a second set of side speakers off of the main amp for standard mono surround.

I think this type of sound enhancement works better in the home than probably a movie theater because of the various auditorium sizes and the fact that a lot of rear channels are too spread out for the effect to work properly. Plus with all the various problems listed above it is a lot of money to spend. I believe if dts could develope something that would run a discrete center channel it would work better for theaters. Just remember to move the rear surround speakers in towards the center of the back wall.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-24-2001, 10:39 PM:

Mark,

I completely agree.... Toy Story 2's track is impressive as all hell.

Lemme ask a question though, albeit a hypothetical one:

You have Theater A and Theater B.

Theater A has 500 seats, Dolby Digital Surround EX and THX.

Theater B is identical to Theater A in every single aspect except it does not have Surround EX.

Both theaters have the same booking demographics, population count and all that. Both theaters have the same film (encoded with Surround EX) and play the movie at the exact same times.

Which theater will do more business? How much more business? How much less business? Do most people really care that much about Surround EX? Probably not. Dolby hasn't done much to educate moviegoers about it. So does Surround EX actually increase revenue? Not by much.

It can sound great when mixed properly, but most EX movies are not mixed properly. Episode 1 didn't make much use of the back surround channel. The Haunting sounded very typical (this movie has since been remixed for DTS-ES Discrete 6.1). Toy Story 2 was fantastic as well as a few other movies. However Surround EX is far from revolutionary, and these days Pro Logic does little to impress. As mentioned in my post above, home theater sound employs more advanced technology for creating the back surround channel than movie theaters do. And Dolby doesn't get any of the credit.

The term "holosonic" was coined by the magazine called "Widescreen Review". I hate that term. I do like how they review every single movie, but the magazine is incredibly boring.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-24-2001, 11:02 PM:

Hey Joe,

Yes I did get the word holosonic from the mag Widescreen review. For lack of a better word at the time. Used to read it quite a lot but now I just read the DVD reviews and if your lucky there may be a good artical inside. Seems they have gotten away from good articals and thinned the mag some. By the way what better word do you have to describe the experiance other than Holosonic. Maybe spacious stereo surround I don't know. Maybe quadrophonic from the 70's. Who knows I just know it sounds great.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-25-2001, 12:32 AM:

Widescreen Review was good back when LaserDiscs were around. I can't think of an appropriate single word to describe a good multichannel sound experience, but usually I use the term "well mixed". Holosonic just sounds, well, cheesy. Am I listening to a hologram? It confuses my little brain!

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 06-25-2001, 01:27 AM:

Wasn't EX part of the hype for the Star Wars Episode 1 release?
What will be the new "surprise inside" toy for Episode 2?

A ceiling-mounted center speaker channel follows the classical progression, but I hope that instead it will be William Castle Tingler motors.

------------------
William Hooper
Junk drawer: http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/theater/3622
Theatre Empire: http://members.nbci.com/saenger.1

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-25-2001, 01:52 AM:

I think it should be Tinglers but instead of motors, they should install a subwoofer under every seat.

Posted by Rory Burke (Member # 512) on 06-25-2001, 03:33 AM:

Ive EQ'd over 70 ex units throughout the world in almost every configuration possible cp-65, cp,500, with DTS, cp-200<1> etc and have been ultimately pleased with EX. YEs its matrix decoding in a CP-45 housing but I must say that in an Acoustically sound room....<set for SMPTE EQ, HVAC, reverberation, speaker/amplification blah blah blah....the use of EX is quite effective and adds to the overall presentation no matter how subtle it is.... whether its worth it or not is another story. I for a fact know of big chains throughout the world that have bought the systems, installed them, and are now operating them...provided the setup<EQ> process is done by the book <left and right output levels approx 120mv must be as close as possible to prevent nasty "steering" that is also inherent in old cp-45's> SA10's <SATAN> are adequate....i am not a dollar cruncher so on a financial view point others could well answer over me. The new CP-650 with the EX module card is outstanding and a definite improvement over the SA-10 <SATAN> and a joy during set up. As far as EX not being properly mixed?.......well thats dangerous ground to tread on<I dont mess with mixers especially when they are goin out of their way to EQ and set their rooms up properly as well> considering that whatever they mix/edit or do IS ultimately what is intended for us to hear or see....so if they record a "bad EX track" then i technically want to hear a "bad EX track" being played through my sound systems. Also....dont expect too much out of an analog system that was created to accentuate a digital one....that in its ownself logically speaking is a "no no" in my book. But we are here mostly to talk abut remedies to our problems and not how they should have been....its more counter productive in my opinion. EX overall does what it is supposed to so long as setup and maintenance is by the book, only those trully seasoned movie goers will really enjoy it for what it is, it is a substantial cost and modification to your existing sound system........however, alot and i mean alot of theaters ARE purchasing them and installing them and having success with them as well. Call Lonny Jennings at Dolby or email him......he does work for Dolby..but he will give you an honest respectable opinion about EX. Check the newest THX certification list for the addition of certified EX hardware
Rory

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-25-2001, 04:08 AM:

I agree Joe, that is a bad word to use. When I first read it I was like what are they saying.

One note from previous post when I said I have wires running off of the main unit for two speakers on the side to run mono surround. I did not mean running them at the same time as the split stereo rear channel sound. For one thing u can't do it when playing main unit in 5.1 sound.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-25-2001, 08:14 AM:

Dolby EX...think,think,think,think

Ok if the sound mixers actually make use of it ie Toystory 2
but bad if its is wasted, Tailor of Panama, Chicken Run ect.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-25-2001, 05:55 PM:

So Mark claims that it can be impressive as all hell (this may not be a direct quote...so don't quote me)....

So there is one film in just over two years that has an impressive EX track? An animated one at that. I too would agree that Toy Story 2 and a very impressive track.

I would disagree that the SA-10 is impressive though.

And I stand by my statement that it is the worst bang for the buck (particularly for an upgrade...not so bad as a new installation when it is planned in).

For someone that is fussy about amplifier cost, I'm surprised that you would consider Surround-EX a wise purchase. It can be icing on the cake but it better had be pretty darn good cake first.

Steve

PS we too sell the EX thingy for under $2K....and have sold and installed quite a few; why, I still don't know.

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

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-25-2001, 06:22 PM:

I am for EX. I wouldn't say it is impressive as all hell, but it is definitely more impressive than 5 stage channels.

I have found that using an older Dolby processor with a cat150E or F card makes a better EX unit than the SA10. The CP200 (without Aux rack) is perhaps the easiest processor to modify for use as an EX processor. Just running the SRD tone loop or dts ES disc allows for levels to be tweeked from the regular processor's LS and RS outout on the meters in the CP200 processor, without having to mess with a multimeter (which isn't quite as accurate in my opinion). Two formats can be programmed in for standard bypass operation and for EX operation. Plus you get 1/3 octave EQing on all 3 surround channels!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-25-2001, 07:05 PM:

I HAVE to agree with Brad that EX is more impressive than 5 stage channels. I've never really noticed the SDDS "difference" on 8 channel mixes. It is subtle, even on large screens. I'm surprised Dolby didn't come up with a "box" that would take the left channel and the center channel, run them thru Pro-Logic to extract the LE channel and do the same for the RE channel.

Anyway, I'm sure that many will disagree with me on the 8 channel difference. For a new installation, though, why the hell not?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-25-2001, 08:21 PM:

Joe, I strongly agree with you earlier comment about how commercial theaters should have more advanced sound formats than what one has in a home system. I really wish the 10.2 Surround idea Tomlinson Holman was promoting some to back would take hold. Right now all the type seems to be behind DLP. And that is a pandora's box in and of itself. Any DLP Micromirror device Texas Instruments develops is going to quickly find its way into computer monitors, video projection systems for the home and not stay exclusive at all for movie theaters. Basically it will be easy for home theater to outdo digital cinema on both audio and video quality. The size of the screen (and ticket price at the box office) will be the only difference.

10.2 Surround is something that would work well for commerical theaters and would be designed specifically for commercial theaters. 5.1 channels or even 6.1 with a discrete back wall surround is more than enough for any home system. Commercial theaters have a much larger room with a lot more air to manipulate. More channels of sound are needed so more of the audience can hear the proper imaging of a film. With straight 5.1, you have to carefully choose your seat to get the right effect. 10.2 Surround will not make that seating choice quite so critical. Overall, the 10.2 thing will be an item theater operators can claim as an exclusive "only in theaters" kind of thing.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 06-25-2001, 08:25 PM:

A CP200 being used merely as an EX unit? That's.. that's... sacrilegious!

While I would never want to stop anyone from improving the sound in theaters, I sure wish people would start working on improvements with the picture.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 06-25-2001, 11:25 PM:

>>Wasn't EX part of the hype for the Star Wars Episode 1 release?
What will be the new "surprise inside" toy for Episode 2?<<

If ol' George has his way it will be a DLP-only release.

-AS

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-26-2001, 12:19 AM:

Well George has already stated that there will be release prints for episode II and III. He said you have to cover the market and that is not going to happen with digital projection at this time. These coments were reported on showbizdata's web site a couple of months ago.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-26-2001, 04:02 PM:

John,

Brad isn't saying to use a CP-200 for surround-EX...just that a CP-200 that has an AUX rack is an easy conversion...that is, within the Aux rack you can place an additional Cat. 150 and route the signals so that P and Q are the LS and RS channels..."S" becomes the EX channel so you can have Cat. 64s on all channels. He was stating how nice the CP-200 is and how flexible.

Now, for a homework assignment, figure out how to utilize the existing Cat. 150 within the Processing frame for the EX duties whilst playing digital...thereby saving on the cost of another Cat. 150.

Steve

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

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-26-2001, 06:09 PM:

Actually Steve, what I was referring to above is using a CP200 without an Aux rack coupled with another processor (such as a CP65 or CP500) to achieve EX. However, your idea of using a CP200 with an Aux rack and placing the cat150 in the Aux rack (along with some other diode stuffing programming and wiring) is a fantastic idea as well. I think Dolby actually has a CP200 to EX conversion kit for this now.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-26-2001, 10:09 PM:

My God did I misread that one! I saw "Aux Rack" and jumped in since yes, Dolby does have an "EX" mod for those Aux Rack equipped. I couldn't imagine religating a CP-200 to EX duities..."...what a waste of machinery!" A CP-50 might be better suited if one were laying about.

Personally, I will go on record as saying 8-channel has MUCH more potential for a great mix than Surroud-EX...I'm not saying that they do great 8-channels but the potential certainly is there. One well panned dialogue film would imediately show a big difference between 5 and 3 screen channels....the same can not be said of Surround-EX where , at best, it is a gimmick. Had they gone for a 4 or 5 channel surround, then they could have pulled an effect down the theatre and out the back. I can't believe as many people on this forum think of EX so well....I guess different strokes for different folks <sigh>

Steve

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

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-26-2001, 10:46 PM:

What'chu'talkin'bout Steve?

The CP200 was laying around, had no Aux rack and no updated cards. I felt it senseless to pull a CP65 or CP500 to install an out of date CP200. Since the theater wanted EX and didn't want to let go of the CP200, I just used it to save them money. I would agree though that a CP50 would be a more financially smart way to obtain EX if something had to be purchased.