Dolby Digital, DTS and even SDDS have all been used on many hundreds of films in just the last ten years. In a single year any of these formats will be featured on more than 120 major releases in North America alone.

Dolby Digital Surround EX on the other hand seems to be getting less use than 70mm mag did during the 1980's. Why? I don't think it is really a knock against George Lucas, THX or Dolby Labs. It is just that the marketing on this is TERRIBLE. C'mon, how confusing can a group of people possibly make one format?

First, you have the movie release advertising. It is never clear a film is a Dolby EX enhanced title until you see the logo crawl up the screen on the end credits (if it is even used). But you built up your newspaper ads a few days ago and may already have the morning paper while you are checking the print you just built. The one sheets rarely ever carry the EX logo. The poster art on stack seems to add it in a week or so after the film has already been released (if it is ever done at all).

Even if you know a film is going to be Surround EX enhanced, can you really use the logo? What is proper use of the DD-EX logo? Dolby seems to say it is OK for a DTS equipped theater running a SA-10 processor to pop in that DD-EX logo. But if you have a CP-500 with a DTS-ES unit hooked up to it (or even a Smart unit), you can't use the tag. So that's kind of silly for both DTS-ES and DD-EX formats.

The mistake Dolby and THX made was in not coming up with a totally separated "Surround EX" logo that had nothing to do with the Dolby Digital icon. DD-EX implies the show is playing an enhanced Dolby Digital audio track (not DTS or SDDS which may actually be the case).

A generic Surround EX term would have also been able to work as an umbrella for all the extended surround systems and their various combinations of digital sound formats they are enhancing. In the end, the whole thing is a totally confusing mess. And with the newspapers seemingly unable to get regular digital sound notifiers right in the ads, how are they going to work Surround EX into that?

The situation is just as maddening in home theater --if not more so. Dolby's marketing rules do not allow for any use of the Dolby Digital Surround EX logo on any home theater hardware or DVD release packaging. But they will allow items like "Dolby Surround EX 5.1" to be spelled out in regular type on the box. That just doesn't make much sense.

Instead, we have "THX Surround EX" emblazoned on high priced THX receivers (which now have the tinge of Creative Labs Soundblaster computer speaker association). So many theater workers try to explain to movie fans that THX is not a sound recording format. But this baloney makes it sound like that. Let's see, my DVD has in tiny print "Dolby EX 5.1" but my receiver has "THX Surround EX" ---I don't think I have the right format! I bought the wrong DVD! Well, you get the point.

Even though DTS seems to be doing something more sensible, such as allowing the DTS-ES logo to be used in movie end credits (finally) as well as appearing on home theater hardware and some software (the DVDs themselves), things have not been very consistent. First, some of the DVDs carrying DTS-ES 5.1 matrix audio don't list it. Then there are way too few DTS-ES 6.1 Discrete DVDs.

The real bone I have to pick regarding DTS-ES is in audio video receivers and surround controllers. I've talked to people who have been screwed by salespeople who basically lied in saying the receiver did full 6.1 when it only did 5.1 matrix Center Surround. Pioneer Electronics is very culpable in some of their decidedly misleading ads. There's too many phoney-baloney claims coming from manufacturers stating "6.1" or even "7.1" when it is really only 5.1 Matrix CS.

What should be done? In theaters the Dolby Digital Surround EX logo should only be used when an SA-10 processor is enhancing real Dolby Digital playback. DTS-ES should only be listed when their processor is enhancing a DTS track. All other odd combinations mixing formats and ES/EX processors should use a generic Surround EX term. Well, I think just going with the fully generic "Extended Surround" would be good enough.

In home theater, Dolby and THX need to hammer out a singular Surround EX logo and go with that alone, especially if the Dolby Digital Surround EX logo is only going to be allowed for use in theaters. Any use of "6.1" in association with a Dolby Digital based EX track needs to be banned outright in all advertising. Even Dolby says it is just 5.1. The THX Surround EX logo needs to be canned. DTS needs to crack down on manufacturers making "6.1" claims when their products don't support full DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 decoding.

Well, crap. I think I've lost all hope. My explanation of the problem and "solution" is just to long winded for any lay-persons to fathom. With that, we may see 5.1-EX and Discrete 6.1 disappear.
 

Sony is one for stating " 6.1 " when there receivers are 5.1. But you have to read the " fine print " and all is explained. Sony's version of 6.1 as stated on the front panel as a " Virtual Matrix ". But if you didn't see the " Virtual Matrix " underneath the 6.1, one could easily be fooled to think it was a true 6.1 receiver.
 

Bobby, I agree with what you have written. I think the situation is simply this:

Dolby EX is an afterthought. DTS-ES was quickly created as an answer to Dolby EX. The home versions were offered as a marketing ploy to sell receivers since it was a simple technology to bring to consumers. I believe that neither Dolby nor DTS really care much about the format. It is hardly revolutionary and therefore not worth the marketing dollars and effort it would take to really educate people about it. And if the format died, would you really miss it? It's just Pro-Logic, dude!

And make sure that the box office staff know what they are doing. If someone rings up and asks what sound format the performace of blah blah at 6pm is playing in, the box office should know.

quote:

---

And make sure that the box office staff know what they are doing. If someone rings up and asks what sound format the performace of blah blah at 6pm is playing in, the box office should know.

---

Fortunately, most theatres have something in the box office that lets the people working there know that movies are in which auditoriums, and which sound format each is in. One time, though, that must have not been the case:

There is one 8-plex (Carmike 8, Decatur) in my area that has only one auditorium with DTS and all others have pretty crummy (sometimes very crummy) sounding analog systems. When I went to see Tarzan back on June 18, 1999, Tarzan was showing in two different auditoriums. When I bought my ticket, I asked if the 5:15 showing was in the DTS auditorium and the girl selling the tickets had no idea what DTS was, so I asked if it were in auditorium 2, and she didn't know. Sigh. I bought a ticket for the 5:15 and it was the one in the DTS auditorium.

If I remember correctly, the actual conversation went like this:

Me: Is the 5:15 Tarzan in the DTS auditorium?
Her: DTS? (with a very confused look).
Me: OK, well, is the 5:15 in auditorium 2?
Her: I don't know.
Her (after a pause): We still have the 5:15. (????)
Me: OK, I'll take one for the 5:15.

If it hadn't been the right one, I would have just waited 30 minutes and gone into the other one.

How can a person working in a theatre be so dumb?

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

I think in the Denon unit, that it takes the 6.1 and basically amplifies it so there is 2 rear speakers instead of one, making it a marketable " 7.1 ".
 

That's the way theatrical EX works, since there are actually 4 zones of surrounds hooked up to the amps. But it is not all discrete, that's for sure. Denon is lying in their ads. That's like saying that since you have different amps pumping out the high and low end of each stage speaker and four subwoofer amps that you have a 16 channel sound system in an SDDS-8 house. Thanks to your second post, I will now stand outside high end audio stores all day every day and warn entering customers not to fall prey to Denon's lies!

I would not call Denon's extra speaker outputs and signal manipulations "marketable" 7.1. It is just blown up 5.1 (or 6.1 in the case of an authentic DTS-ES receiver playing a real DTS-ES 6.1 disc).

It is the same laughable hooey the electronics companies tried making everyone swallow years ago when they were claiming their Pro-Logic Surround receivers were 4-channel or 5-channel when they were really only 2-channel matrix.

I would also say Dolby Labs is opening up a different can of worms when it comes to Dolby Pro-Logic II, which features two slightly different logos where the Dolby Digital and Dolby Surround icons are included. Both marks look essentially the same but have very different results.

I've beat the drum about 10.2 Surround before. For any real "next generation" improvement in movie theater sound to happen, new formats are required with more than just the regular 5.1 to 7.1 channels. It may not have to be full 10.2. It could be 9-track or 10-track. But all channels of sound must be discrete and mastered at lower levels of data compression (if any compression is used at all). And if such a system is developed, I really hope they think carefully about how to market it.
 

quote:

---

That's the way theatrical EX works, since there are actually 4 zones of surrounds

---

Isn't it 3. Left Surround, Right Surround, Back Surround

what's the fourth?
 

There is left surround, left surround rear, right surround rear, and right surround. They are not all independent/discrete channels, however. That's just they way they are hooked up to the amps. The left rear and right rear become part of the left and right surrounds in non-EX mode. Then the left surround rear and the right surround rear become one "back surround" channel in EX mode.

Bobby Henderson
 

My processor displays '3/1 - LFE' meaning 3 discrete front channels and 1 discrete rear channel plus a .1 LFE encoding.

The DVD for 'Sex, Lies and Videotape' was produced the same way, with an alternative 2.0 track as well. The discrete one has better separation (no surprises there).
 

I was kind of surprised to find the "Edward Scissorhands" DVD being released in discrete Dolby Digital 4.0. That makes me wonder if Fox simply blew up the discrete 4 channel master for optical Dolby Stereo 4:2:4 to Cinema Digital Sound on the tiny number of 70mm CDS prints that were made.

At least in terms of those two discs, their channel nomenclature is listed correctly, as are other previously mentioned discs like "Big Trouble in Little China" with its 4.1 mix. Others are inaccurate, such as "The Abyss" (4.1 instead of 5.1). I think "Die Hard" and "Tron" fall into the same category.

To get back onto the Surround EX thing, I'm not sure which is a worse practice: not listing the Surround EX capability at all on the disc or claiming it is "6.1" when it is really 5.1 using a matrixed center surround.
 

This might be due to the added expense of upgrading. As far as audiences are concerned 5.1 Digital is just fine and dandy. The average moviegoer hasn't been properly educated about what EX is. Chances are it wouldn't exactly make that much of a difference with the average moviegoer anyway.

Not too many movies coming out with EX and it's already a few years old. You'd think there'd have been more titles in the cinemas. This may be a case of the chicken and the egg: No movies because there are so few cinemas equipped or so few cinemas equipped because it's an underutilized gimmick that customers don't really know or care about.

The other problem is that there is/was some confusion when it came to identification on the prints & cans that a given movie was in EX. So the proper application of the technology was (and still is) bound to be a bit spotty.

------------------
~Manny.

"The brown acid that is circulating around is not specifically too good."

-- An announcement in the film, "Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace & Music."
 

We could easily have 10.2 if a film was mixed with 2 sets of DTS discs, right?

Could 1 timecode reader supply data to two DTS units or would we have to stack 2 readers and just have 2 different offsets?

We could have it tomorrow!

One single time code reader could be split to two DTS machines for the playback. It is not very much different from the two machine setup DTS recommends for 70mm (one for playback and one for backup).

It would take a little more work for Dolby Digital to be made into a 10.2 Surround setup. Dolby Digital data would have to be printed along both left and right sproket areas of the print. That would require at least some degree of customization on the film printer. And then you would have the situation regarding the film reader. With those two issues tackled, two DD sound racks could play back a 10.2 track as well.

If we ever see 10.2 Surround, the media used may either be DVD-based discs (ROM/R/RW) or even a removable hard disc.
 

Karen at DTS
khultgren@dtsonline.com

It has been 1763 days since the last post.