This is topic SDDS 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=004937
Posted by Michael Elam (Member # 788) on 05-26-2003, 07:02 PM:
How much longer will SDDS prints be around?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-26-2003, 08:21 PM:
Few weeks maybe? After that, any print containing SDDS will dissolve into powder. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But you do have a good point. Fewer and fewer studios support SDDS regularly. Sucks to be AMC (heh).
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-26-2003, 10:27 PM:
Joe,
I think the number supporting SDDS has been steady with the regulars-Warner Brothers, New Line Cinema, Disney, Universal, and of course their own studio, Columbia Pictures still releasing all of their pictures with a SDDS soundtrack. Every once in a while, Paramount ,Fox and MGM also release in SDDS. This releasing pattern has not changed in years.
-Claude
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-26-2003, 11:42 PM:
Claude,
Actually it does seem to be getting worse for SDDS...even the "major" releases by the non-supporting studios are now SDDS free whereas they used to ensure their blockbuster films were quad format.
I also don't see 8-channel films on the horizon...is HULK 8-channel? Spiderman was. Harry Potter 1 was 8-channel but Harry Potter 2 was not. Star Wars 1 was 8-channel, Star Wars II was not.
Here is something to consider...if Sony would abandon their format like that on film...why would they support any DCinema endevor? I think Sony is shooting themselves in the foot for not sticking with the format until the end of film's days.
Steve
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-27-2003, 02:39 AM:
SDDS? What's that? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It's been a very long time since I've seen anything that wasn't a super-wide major-studio release that had an SDDS track. I'm doing the art-house thing right now and it's pretty rare to see anything other than SRD. SR-only releases are pretty common, too. I don't think I've ever seen even a Sony Pictures Classics title with an SDDS track. On the other hand, art houses just don't install anything other than SRD (if they have digital--or even regular Dolby Stereo--capability at all).
Posted by Michael Elam (Member # 788) on 05-27-2003, 02:57 AM:
That's the problem with Sony, they always bail out, they make good stuff, just doesn't support it long enough. I'm wondering how much longer should I spend $$$ to keep the readers working.
Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 05-27-2003, 03:53 AM:
I don't think there's a single cinema in Western Canada running SDDS at all at the moment...(if there IS, please correct me by PM or email) I've always found the format extremely hard to come by up in these parts.
Jason
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-27-2003, 08:46 AM:
Steve,
in re 8-channel films, if the DTS XD10 takes off, I suspect we'll see more films mixed for more channels. And hopefully it will be handled such that there's a natural fold-down from the XD10 to SDDS-8, such that it will be easy to mix for both at the same time.
--jhawk
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-27-2003, 08:51 AM:
quote:
On the other hand, art houses just don't install anything other than SRD
Unfortunately, many L.A. arthouses have anything but SRD systems. Bizarre, but true. Landmark's Fine Arts Theatre only has SDDS, so most of their films play back in SR. Their Westside Pavilion had/has a DTS unit, which they may have moved to their NuWilshire which used it for Gosford Park, but get very little DTS product to show. (The Fine Arts SDDS unit is left over from when it was an AMC).
Laemmle has the Fairfax triplex, with one auditorium having DTS, the res are just SR, and four screens of their Fallbrook 7 are DTS, with only 1 SRD screen and 2 SDDS.
I have to agree with Scott, this makes no sense for an arthouse, except for economical reasons. But I think they are using left-over equipment from when they had aquired the theatres.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-27-2003, 10:11 AM:
We've had two units into Sony for repair now for quite some time. I have heard both units act up at least on several occasions and was able to easily rule out the B chain. A month or so ago I received a call from Sony repair and they said they could find no problems with either unit. I told the tech, a nice Japaneese man to keep looking as they will act up. In fact one unit already had all the boards swapped out, but the unit still acted up. One unit had a fader problem with the left channel, and the other had popping sounds in all channels. So last week we got faxed estimates for repairing both. I guess they finally did act up for the tech. But one units cost was close to 1Kand the other was closer to 2K! It'll be interesting to see if both customers get them repaired after they find out how much it'll cost them.
Personally I think Sony shot themselves in the foot by even bringing these things onto the market! They developed a really bad reputation from the start. Then they shot them selves in the head by not bring out a stand alone decoder(ala DA-20) that would run through existing cinema processors the same way everyone else does. I know in both my cases that had they been stand alone decoders they would both still be running as the problems were in the processor part, not the SDDS decoder.
Mark @ CLACO
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-27-2003, 10:26 AM:
Here's the most current list of features with SDDS tracks from the Sony SDDS website:
http://www.sdds.com/news_movies.cfm
And here are the SDDS-8 releases:
http://www.sdds.com/news_movies.cfm?showfilms=8
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 05-29-2003, 04:32 PM:
quote:
It's been a very long time since I've seen anything that wasn't a super-wide major-studio release that had an SDDS track.
Warner Bros.: SDDS on most if not all releases, arthouse titles (A Mighty Wind) included.
Universal: SDDS if the company finances the picture, arthouse titles (The Guru) included. No SDDS if the film is a pickup (Empire, Brotherhood of the Wolf, Mulholland Drive).
Sony: SDDS on all Columbia and most Screen Gems titles, including Swept Away.
Sony Pictures Classics: SDDS if the company finances the picture (Sunshine State, Auto Focus). No SDDS if the film is a pickup (Talk to Her, Spider, Laurel Canyon).
Buena Vista: SDDS on all mainstream and most arthouse titles. 25th Hour had SDDS; Moonlight Mile had SDDS; Spirited Away did not.
Posted by Matt Hale (Member # 1518) on 05-29-2003, 06:06 PM:
Okay, paraphrasing my post that got lost when the drive crashed:
When we build our new mix stage this year, it will only be equipped for channels up to 6.1. The design will allow for the addition of more tracks (SDDS-8, DTS-10 etc...) in the future, but we will only add them if its required for a project. Based on the demand we have seen in the past (i.e. none) we cant justify the cost of the extra equipment at the outset.
It becomes a vicious circle: If there are few theatres equipped for sound format X, then producers are reluctant to spend the money for a mix in that format. And if there aren't many films released with sound in format X, then there is little justification for theatres to install the equipment. Pretty soon it will be impossible to release in format X even if you want to, becasue the production facilities are caught up in the same circle.
Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 05-31-2003, 02:56 AM:
Jason there was quite a few sdds units in use at the Cineplex Grande up until 2000.
Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 05-31-2003, 03:18 PM:
Paul, the Westside doesn't have DTS and I'm not sure if they ever did - unless it was put in for Yellow Submarine only. The NuWilshire had a DTS installed for Yellow Submarine but the last time it was used was for Hedwig & The Angry Inch. That unit was sent up to a Seattle theatre before Gosford Park I think. The Regent just picked up a DTS unit that should be up and running soon. The Regent also has SRD and so does The Nuart.
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-31-2003, 05:22 PM:
The Westside Pavilion installed DTS in 1995 for RICHARD III. I believe a few other attrractions followed. I don't remember seeing anything advertised in DTS for this theatre in a long time.
Gosford Park was certainly advertised as being in DTS Digital for GOSFORD PARK at the NuWilshire in the Landmark directory and by display ad in the LA Times (since I didn't see it there, I can't verify it). Also, the Landmark website still shows the theatre as having DTS.
BTW, does the Fine Arts Theatre really have 70mm equipment (per the Landmark website) and, if so, do you know when it was installed?
Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 05-31-2003, 11:29 PM:
It must be a new group of folks around there because nobody's heard of there being DTS in the Westside.
You're probably right about Gosford Park in DTS at the NuWilshire - that was showing my last month working there and the DTS was removed around that time - I just thought it was beforehand.
The Fine Arts has Century JJ's but they don't have the conversion kits...and apparently they only have SRD when there's a premiere and the studio brings it it.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-11-2003, 06:31 PM:
Pytlak's link -- on page one of this thread -- leads us to a grim depiction of the future:
If the info on the SDDS website is to be believed, it looks like SDDS is coming to an abrupt end. Just one more SDDS release this year (The Three Stooges) and then one movie announced for 2004 and another for 2005. All three films are Sony releases.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-11-2003, 08:26 PM:
According to the company that owns the rights to the 3 Stooges, the movie is supposed to be released by Warner Bros. next year. It isn't even supposed to start production until now.
New Three Stooges film by Farrelly Bros.
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 07-12-2003, 11:13 AM:
That list is notorious for not being updated... I am sure there are many more titles to come.
-Aaron
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-12-2003, 12:06 PM:
Aaron is correct, the SDDS website is often not up to date. Sometimes the site goes for years without an update. I would at least expect all Warner Bros. and Sony Pictures releases (except perhaps for some small films) to continue to be released in quad format.
Fox, Paramount, MGM and others are much more unpredictable on support for SDDS, often dropping SDDS support for major event releases. If I were to open a new multiplex, I would perhaps only have 1 or 2 SDDS units on rollaround carts to plug into racks featuring either Dolby Digital or DTS. But even then, what is the last SDDS release that didn't also include Dolby Digital or even DTS? Nearly all Sony releases go out quad format these days.
[ 07-13-2003, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-12-2003, 01:01 PM:
Can someone please explain to my why, oh why, AMC things SDDS is so great? Why the heck do they spend all that money putting it in every auditorium? I, too, would only install one or two if I were opening a new multiplex. And do they at least have other digital formats as backups?
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-12-2003, 01:08 PM:
My own feeling is: There's just no point in installing any SDDS equipment. While there were a few films where the only digital track was SDDS, any studio would be crazy to do that today.
I would not bother with SDDS at all unless I wanted to put in an 8-channel system (not that there are any films being released to play.) I would only install a DFP2500 because, if it dies, the system will revert to the next avaiable sound format. If you install their DFP3000, and it dies, there will be no sound at all.
Gordon had an idea awhile ago that Sony should make a sort of DA20-type SDDS unit, that could just be plugged in... which I thought made sense. You could then only buy one, put it in a roll around rack and move it where needed.
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-12-2003, 03:19 PM:
I used to work at a theater that has one DFP-3000. It would revert to Dolby Digital if SDDS died, and to SR if SRD died.
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-12-2003, 03:42 PM:
Not if the APR-34 PC board goes. Among other things, it has the final preamp output amplifiers. If the DEC-20 PC board goes, only the SDDS digital is affected and you could run in analog. Most times, if the DEC-20 becomes defective, the DFP3000 doesn't "know" there's a problem and will not automatically revert to the next sound format. Several people (including people here at FT) have commented on the lack of replacement PC boards for SDDS units.
Someone had to pay additional for the seperate DA20 to get SR-D. It sure doesn't come with it.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-12-2003, 04:44 PM:
quote:
Can someone please explain to my why, oh why, AMC things SDDS is so great?
Easy. Somebody sold the right person in the home office a bill of goods.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-12-2003, 06:23 PM:
As near as I've been able to tell, it seems AMC cut a deal with Sony back in the early 1990s. In short: AMC got the units at a discounted rate and was able to boast having digital sound in every theatre. SDDS got a boost to their screen count. The number of installations evidently plays a major role in the marketing of digital sound systems; all of them use their screen count as part of their bragging rights.
So...here's why I'm interested in SDDS...
I've got a small multiplex that's about to close down -- actually it's going to be moving over to a new location with new equipment -- and in the meantime I would like a cheap sound-on-film format until we close down the joint (in about 18 months). Right now, I have 2 DTS units over there but we've had too many new movies with analog sound because the CD-ROMs were a no-show.
Anyway, I've got a hunch that says we'll start seeing a lot of trade-ins of SDDS units. Or is this a nutty idea? The alternative would be to get hold of some used DA-20 units I guess.
BTW, isn't the DFP-2000 unit an add-on? I may have the model number wrong but IIRC we used them with Ultra-Stereo analog processors at AMC (circa 1997).
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-12-2003, 07:41 PM:
Yes. The difference is that it is not installed as an AUX unit like dts-6A or DA-20, but it comes after the analog processor in the audio chain, before the crossovers.
The output of the analog processor is routed through the DFP. When it receives SDDS data, it interrupts the input and switches to SDDS output. When the unit is switched off, broken or sees no SDDS, the analog input goes through because the relays are closed.
It does not sound like a good idea. The 2000 is difficult to troubleshoot and often the LED arrays in the reader are gone.
I was a big fan of SDDS, but those BEEEEEEEEP at Sony dropped the ball - just when more 8-channel mixes started to be released and they had a really good processor (DFP-D3000).
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-12-2003, 11:22 PM:
John,
The DFP-D2500 is no more...I installed the last three units into the AFI/Silver. I had two failures within the first month...DSP-94 boards.
Sony cant supply their 50m cables so it is impractical for 2-projector booths unless the soundrack(s) are very close to both projectors and one runs the cables naked.
The DFP-2500 could be hooked up like the DA-20. It even had pulsed outputs for "digital" and "fault."
Steve
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-13-2003, 03:30 AM:
On a recent screening at a Seattle AMC (formerly GCC) venue, the sound was definitely out or whack. The dialog all seemed to come out of right side and the music all came off the left. If there was any center or surround audio coming out of this performance, it wasn't apparent.
The theatre manager said it was an SDDS system and that they were yarding them out as fast as they could get replacement equipment in. He made it very clear that they were not interested in repairing the Sony equipment.
Posted by Dino Panagiotopoulos (Member # 1579) on 07-13-2003, 04:11 AM:
I know that AMC theaters use SDDS as their main format in all of their theaters but do they use SRD as their back up or is it just good old SR backing it up?
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-13-2003, 09:48 AM:
The AMC's that I've seen had SDDS as the digital format with analog as the backup. I couldn't call it "SR" because they don't use a lot of Dolby products. All of the processors I saw were by Ultra-Stereo. I wonder if that was another bulk deal...
Our largest house was an exception. It was equipped with SDDS and Dolby SR-D (via a DA-20). The analog (and SR-D) were processed with a CP-65. In daily practice, if the feature had a working SDDS track, that's what we played. I only recall using the Dolby system for one film.
That screen was also equipped for dual-system magnetic for test screenings of movies. I always assumed that was why they had to have the CP-65 installed there. I didn't see anything to indicate that the Ultra-Stereo units could handle mag. Can someone confirm/deny this?
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-13-2003, 02:45 PM:
You ought to be able to feed a USL unit 6 track mag using outboarded NR just as you would feed it the output of a digital box. 2-track matrix might be trickier but only slightly so. If there is a preamp output on the back you can feed it in there (pulling the preamp card). Otherwise tack solder connections to the backplane.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-13-2003, 03:54 PM:
Sounds like WORK!!!
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-13-2003, 11:11 PM:
The Ultra Stereos I've worked with @ AMC do not have the SR cards installed, so the Fox/Paramount/MGM stuff runs in good old Ultra Stereo.
I inquired about installing SR cards, and was told no because 1) SR sounds better playing through A (huh?) and 2) If someone happens to play A through SR, it sounds horrible - which is probably true, although I don't agree with that logic.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-14-2003, 12:04 AM:
Yes, but practically no film today is A-type encoded anymore. It is just a cheap excuse. Of course, since the installed digital format (whichever it may be) is supposed to work, the analog format is supposedly only the fallback.
It does not necessarily make sense to buy SR cards for every single processor - it certainly is not cheap either.
That is why I have surveyed the processors we have and soon those SR cards that we have will be evenly distributed in the chain and then I will teach the chief projectionists how to change the cards to move them to the auditorium where they are really needed. For instance, when a film does not play in digital at all like Bruce Almighty.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-14-2003, 09:07 AM:
quote:
It is just a cheap excuse.
I agree with that 100%.
quote:
the installed digital format ... is supposed to work, the analog format is supposedly only the fallback.
It does not necessarily make sense to buy SR cards for every single processor - it certainly is not cheap either.
But when the digital format installed in every house is something shrinking in popularity, then increasingly, the films will be playing in analog using the wrong noise reduction. It seems kind of silly to me to spend money sending engineers around to do B Chains all the time, if they don't care enough to make sure their analog product (typically 1/4 - 1/2 of the films we're running) is playing in the proper format. Someone here on this forum was going to give me a pretty good deal on the cards I needed, but they (AMC) didn't want to go for it. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Larry Zuverink (Member # 1483) on 07-14-2003, 01:12 PM:
We've started pulling all SDDS unit as they are having problems. We have several in storage and several others in racks waiting to be pulled. Most of the installs that had SDDS had all digital formats anyway. We think they make pretty good boat anchors.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-14-2003, 01:30 PM:
quote:
We think they make pretty good boat anchors.
Read the manuals. Many of the problems can be figured out. Many technicians do not understand how this format works and take the situation Sony has created as an excuse not to deal with the problems.
Still, your company has paid a lot of money at one time for the units. That investment does not need to be completely lost.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-15-2003, 08:46 AM:
quote:
We think they make pretty good boat anchors.
quote:
That investment does not need to be completely lost.
I agree. Make sure the rope is secure, Larry.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-15-2003, 10:22 AM:
UltraStereo can definitly handle mag in fact the company started out building mag systems for studios
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-15-2003, 11:41 AM:
There's a sub-run that just opened in a fromer GCC-turned-EFW location, and they have SDDS in the largest house (390) and DTS in the next one (345).
The problem with running SDDS on sub-run prints is that it WILL drop out. No matter what. Even if it works for 90% of the movie, there will be instances where the dropouts are so bad, you're just wishing it would stay in SR. It doesn't help that the SDDS plays louder than the SR either. Everything plays in SR in there now, which sounds VERY good.
It's a real shame, too. This is a 70mm house, so it's also set up for 8-channel SDDS. (but because of the lack of releases it really wouldn't matter, I guess)...
=TMP=
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-15-2003, 12:19 PM:
Can I interject one of my stupid questions here? SDDS prints have primary and backup SDDS tracks, one on each edge. Correct? It was my understanding that the backup track is printed to lag the primary track by some amount. The idea is that if the data on the primary track is unreadable, the system will seamlessly switch to the backup track, kind of like having limited "free wheeling" capability, then switch back to the primary track when it stabilizes. If this is in fact how it works (is it?), then why is SDDS so susceptible to dropouts? Is it as simple as both tracks are usually trashed at the same time? Or is it more complicated than that, like maybe the reader is rarely aligned correctly or some other technical issue that could be corrected or at least mitigated by a skilled tech.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-15-2003, 01:44 PM:
Two problems.
If one edge of the film is abraded, then both sides will generally be abraded.
The backup track is of lower quality. Anyone with decent hearing can hear the main and backup track switching back and forth and believe me the SR track sounds better than digital backup track.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-15-2003, 02:42 PM:
I often wonder if the space used for the SDDS backup track would have been better utilized as extra error-correction data, reducing the chance of dropouts in the first place.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-15-2003, 03:26 PM:
The two tracks are offset by 17 frames. The picture side (P track) contains C - LC - L - LSr plus 2 backup tracks, the SW channel from the other side and a mono sum of RC - R - RSr.
The soundtrack side (S track) contains RC - R - RSr - SW plus 2 backup tracks, the C channel and the mono sum of LC - L - LSr.
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-15-2003, 05:56 PM:
Joe wrote: I often wonder if the space used for the SDDS backup track would have been better utilized as extra error-correction data, reducing the chance of dropouts in the first place.----
It would have been better utilized by adding an SR-D track....
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-16-2003, 12:33 AM:
quote:
It would have been better utilized by adding an SR-D track.
Actually, most prints already have an SR*D track. The data blocks are usually found between the perforations on the side of the film next to the analog optical soundtrack.
Posted by Larry Zuverink (Member # 1483) on 07-16-2003, 09:58 AM:
Trust me, If the problems are repairable by us we take care of them. One of the main problems we have is the APR-6 board going bad. This is $1500 to send in and have repaired. We just don't see it being worth the cost for a fading format that again is in houses that have two other digital formats.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-16-2003, 10:12 AM:
The way the backup tracks are configured makes a drop to SDDS' backup sound really strange. Imagine one side of the room booming along, and the other half all of a sudden sound like a low bit rate mono mp3 file. And then about a second later, if the film is still bad, it drops again this time to the next format, so the effect goes away.
It would be nice to configure it to drop completely if it loses either side.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-16-2003, 10:28 AM:
The backup channels contain a mono sum of the other side, but you do not hear a significant drop in sound level. If either of the sides switches to DCM (Digital Concealment Mode, as it is called), the output level is matched to the average level of the other channels.
Only trained ears can hear a DCM. But: if a DFP is configured for 8 channels, and the movie only carries 6, the DCM will also feed sound to the LE or RE (whichever side is affected) channel which is idle otherwise. Since there is no sound on the respective channel in normal playback mode, the DCM side will actually sound a little bit louder.
If DCMs occur frequently, there will be a very slight pumping effect noticeable on the affected side.
You can tell a track is going through a series of DCMs if you have a 6-channel movie but the level display flashes on the LE or RE channel from time to time.
Instead of configuring it to drop out completely, the way to go is to switch the unit into 6-channel mode. Then the DCMs become almost unnoticeable.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-16-2003, 12:05 PM:
The last film I saw in SDDS that I can recall having a dropout problem was "Star Wars Ep II" at the end of reel 1. It dropped out several times. I think there was a thread here about possible lab printing problems with it. Anyway, the dropouts were *very* noticeable. Several customers reported it to the manager, which in itself is very rare. I don't know if it was dropping to DCM or analog though...
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-16-2003, 02:50 PM:
quote:
Instead of configuring it to drop out completely, the way to go is to switch the unit into 6-channel mode. Then the DCMs become almost unnoticeable.
To clarify, then the volume differences become almost unnoticeable...but the lower quality DCM signal is ALWAYS heard. Now people with hearing loss probably can't hear it since it mostly affects the highest frequencies, but it's there and it's annoying. I would take plain old SR any day over an SDDS track that is DCMing, even infrequently. That's why a couple of years ago on this forum I was desperately trying to figure out a modification to the SDDS system so that if it went into DCM it would just fallback to SR.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-16-2003, 04:50 PM:
You can hear it better of course in scenes with a lot of acoustic action. In quieter scenes with dialog and fewer effects it becomes almost unnoticeable. It is less noticeable to the average ear than analog fallback (even with well aligned optics and the level set).
The DCM track is very compressed, but not bandpassed to my knowledge (or is it? I have to look that up).
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-16-2003, 09:29 PM:
I disagree that DCM is hard to hear. Just like a left and right speaker playing a mono signal create a "phantom center" channel, a mono signal coming from the front right and back right collapses to create a "phantom right" channel somewhere on the right wall of the theater. It sounds like a black hole just opened up and sucked all the sound from the right speakers. Of course, the low bit rate doesn't help much.
But I do agree that the less sound there is, the harder it is to hear. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-17-2003, 05:15 AM:
Maybe you should consider installing more than one surround speaker, then you will not have this effect. There should be a group of surround speakers creating a diffuse "surrounding" sound rather than a pinpoint source in the corner.
The lower bitrate does not affect the audio quality as much as you might think. One reason it has a lower bitrate is that the backup channel has less dynamics as the actual output level of the channel is adjusted to the average level on the other channels. That does not mean that it does not have a wide dynamic range, only that the dynamics control is applied to the channel rather than stored in the audio data. That is where most of the bits are saved.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-17-2003, 09:59 AM:
With all due respect, you're saying that the low bit rate shouldn't affect the sound quality much, and the more surrounds I have, and the less sound there is on the movie soundtrack the harder it is to hear SDDS drop out. I'm saying that in a THX theater, with 20+ surround speakers, I can hear the right side of the theater collapse plain as day, even if the movie is Alex & Emma. Maybe I'm the exception to the rule.
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-17-2003, 11:20 AM:
Brad said:
quote:
I would take plain old SR any day over an SDDS track that is DCMing, even infrequently. That's why a couple of years ago on this forum I was desperately trying to figure out a modification to the SDDS system so that if it went into DCM it would just fallback to SR.
So did you ever figure it out?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-17-2003, 02:17 PM:
Ken, no I never found out, but I was told that such a modification was done for the labs so they could verify the quality of their printing. With as quiet as the SDDS camp is and the restructuring of their cinema division, I'm afraid the format won't be around for much longer anyway.
Michael, when is the last time you had a hearing test? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(I put the smiley there to show you I am not trying to be mean, but seriously have you suffered any hearing loss?)
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-17-2003, 05:02 PM:
I think about 3 months or so ago. My hearing is still very healthy physiologically, thank you. It is several times better than you guys` hearing anyway, since I am a trained musician (I should put a smiley here, as I do not mean this insultingly at all, on the other hand, it is simply true. Well, OK ).
I hear the DCMs very well and they bother me too, but what I mean is that the DCM is far less noticeable than complete fallback to analog and most people in the audience generally do not hear it. Many do hear analog fallback however.
Mark, I believe you that you hear the effect of the DCM switching on and off, but I do not think you hear the difference in sound quality. You may have read that the backup channel is more compressed, but that does not automatically mean it has a noticeably worse quality. Like I said, in this case most of the bits are saved by applying external dynamic steering.
Most of the DCMs you don`t hear anyway, because they are very short. You can verify this by running a print and watching the linear error test on the notebook. You will see that there are many very short DCMs you never knew were there. The ones you hear are only the longer ones.
Again, the pumping effect you noticed is mostly caused by the LE or RE channel being switched on and off during a 6-channel movie. Configure the unit for 6-channel playback, and the effect will be far less noticeable.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-17-2003, 05:33 PM:
quote:
My hearing is still very healthy physiologically, thank you. It is about 10 times better than you guys` hearing anyway, since I am a trained musician
Michael, here in America we call that a load of ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
. You do NOT have to be musically trained to hear a friggin' DCM. That's just stupid. Now maybe someone doesn't know what note something in the audio tyrack is at, but that doesn't mean that they can't hear it. Again, being able to hear higher frequencies is the key here, not anything musical.
It is also a known scientific fact that the older we all get, the worse our hearing gets by definition. Sure many people have damaged their hearing and suffer hearing loss at an earlier age then they should, but you get someone nearing retirement and they simply cannot hear those higher frequencies that make DCMs obvious. Google it if you think I am kidding.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-17-2003, 05:41 PM:
If what I noticed in "Episode II" was DCMs, it was *very* obvious. OTOH, if as Michael says, it's normal to have frequent but very brief DCMs, I'm having trouble understanding how they could not be noticeable in a 3-hour flick like "Two Towers" which seemed flawless to me. And I have no trouble picking up on audio anomalies, like when SR-D makes that subtle "splice" sound if the error rate is very high...
FWIW.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-17-2003, 06:09 PM:
David, a properly printed SDDS track handled by professionals (yeah I know, a rare thing) being played back on a properly calibrated SDDS system will not drop into DCM mode at all.
Since you generally see movies in their first weekend, even the crappiest theaters frequently haven't had time to do their film damage yet. Now go find a theater that has been running the same print for 3, 4 or 6 months and then you will see what separates the professionals from the ushers. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-18-2003, 01:55 AM:
David said,
quote:
And I have no trouble picking up on audio anomalies, like when SR-D makes that subtle "splice" sound if the error rate is very high...
What do you mean by that? Are you talking about at a splice, or something that sounds like a splice due to some error?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-18-2003, 02:10 AM:
On SRD if the print is worn or the reader isn't aligned well, the unit can sit at 6 or 7 and then when splices pass it will dropout for a split second...not enough to fallback to SR, not even enough for most people to notice, but it can and when it does the error display never goes to "F". You can see when it happens on the same card as the error display is though, as a red led will blip. The secret is of course to take care of the prints and have a competent tech align your SRD readers so that doesn't happen in the first place.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-18-2003, 06:16 AM:
quote:
David, a properly printed SDDS track handled by professionals (yeah I know, a rare thing) being played back on a properly calibrated SDDS system will not drop into DCM mode at all.
Ahaaaaaaa!
quote:
OTOH, if as Michael says, it's normal to have frequent but very brief DCMs, I'm having trouble understanding how they could not be noticeable in a 3-hour flick like "Two Towers" which seemed flawless to me.
I didn`t mean that it is normal or OK to have frequent DCMs, but that often they occur without anybody noticing, because they are mostly very short.
If you have long series of long DCMs, that indicates alignment and/or print problems like Brad said. I have found that long DCMs mostly occur on the left side of the theatre. That side is stored on the P track, and I have had many prints which had very badly printed P tracks. It seems to be/have been a general problem due to the construction of some printing machines, but I forgot the details.
Under real life conditions, there will always be a few DCMs. If you sit through a 3h movie, you can not be fully concentrated all the time. Maybe there were a couple of DCMs. However, if they were not noticeable, that proves that the concept is a good one. If the same system had been set up tp revert directly to analog, you might have heard one or two dropouts. This way it seems to have been an entirely undisturbed movie experience.
Brad - I didn`t say you need musical training to detect DCMs. I just mentioned that it gives you a higher level of aural perception in response to your inquiry about the state of my hearing (which I also had tested physiologically, as I also mentioned).
But I do not agree with what Mark said: if material is encoded with a lower bitrate, it does not automatically mean there is a drastic drop in perceived sound quality. There are many other factors as well, and as I said (for the 3rd time now), most of the bits on the backup channel are actually saved on the dynamic information which is derived by comparison to the activity on the other channels.
I have too often heard people voice opinions about sound quality on the basis that they have heard/read that the format was more compressed. But when subjected to blind listening tests, the same people in many cases could not point out the differences.
quote:
Are you talking about at a splice, or something that sounds like a splice due to some error?
It does not sound like an analog splice - a short crack -, but like a very short low beep. Once somebody has pointed it out to you, you will always hear it. I am sure you will start listening for it every time you see the first changeover cue from now on.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-18-2003, 01:24 PM:
Actually, I didn't even know it was a lower bit rate until fairly recently. But I've always thought that the backup channels sounded pretty bad. It always sounded like things just went way out of balance or something. Its hard to find words to describe what it sounds like, but it's bad.
The worst part about a DCM is that most of the time it's a precursor to dropping completely. So then, the audience is treated to TWO DROPS. Oh, goodie.
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-18-2003, 01:27 PM:
I don't know how we migrated to a discussion of SRD, but:
quote:
On SRD if the print is worn or the reader isn't aligned well, the unit can sit at 6 or 7 and then when splices pass it will dropout for a split second...not enough to fallback to SR, not even enough for most people to notice, but it can and when it does the error display never goes to "F".
You said not enough for "most" people to hear. This implies that some people can hear it. If it does not fall back to SR, than what is there to hear?
quote:
It does not sound like an analog splice - a short crack -, but like a very short low beep.
Are you talking about the same thing Brad is talking about? So what causes these momentary disruptions? (Is "dropout" even a correct term here?)
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-18-2003, 02:56 PM:
quote:
Are you talking about the same thing Brad is talking about?
Yes.
It is caused by a very short discontinuity of the data and sounds like a low beep or maybe buzz.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-18-2003, 03:48 PM:
The SR-D "issue" I'm talking about doesn't only occur at splices. It can be every couple of seconds. It's very noticeable when there's music with, say, a long sustained string note or piano note. I've seen a couple of films where that problem was occurring. Can't recall which films right now. Hasn't happened recently though. There was a long thread about it here, and the group's opinion was this "tick" happens when there's a high error rate and "F" is displayed.
Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 07-19-2003, 02:13 AM:
Wait... so, regarding the SRD, are we talking about block repeats or something else?
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-19-2003, 10:45 PM:
He's talking about when you momentarily get an F flash even while the overall error rate is a middling or even fairly good number. I used to have some film motion stability issues with one soundhead (basement reader) that had this problem for awhile. Depending on what's going on on the track at that moment you will hear a little tick. That's the best way to describe it and it's most noticable during music with some sort of sustained note or chord.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-19-2003, 11:51 PM:
To pull the thread even futher away from SDDS...
I've actually had a few CP-500's start making the same ticking noise all by themselves (while running an SRD track). Rebooting the units make the ticking go away.
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-20-2003, 02:37 AM:
We played a VERY used print of Bringing Down The House last week, and I threaded it through the SDDS reader for the hell of it, but left it in Bypass.
The "Data Present" light stayed lit, but none of the levels moved. I noticed this happen with an old trailer, too. The levels would be bouncing along, (sometimes a blip of LE or RE, which would explain what Michael is saying) and then they would all go dead for a few seconds, but there would still be "Data Present"
Also on our unit, the "System OK" light stays on only until it starts reading an SDDS track...
=TMP=
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-20-2003, 04:42 AM:
What firmware version do you have? You can check the version number on a DFP-D2000 by opening the front door and looking for the firmware on the mini LCD screen.
I haven`t worked with a 2000 in a long while, but it would make sense to me if the level display stayed down since it displays the output levels after the equalizer and there is no output when you leave it in bypass.
quote:
I've actually had a few CP-500's start making the same ticking noise all by themselves (while running an SRD track). Rebooting the units make the ticking go away.
The CP-500 counts the errors and reverts the unit to analog if there are too many errors or the digital track is gone altogether. Rebooting clears that buffer. I have seen that a few times myself. It seems to be a borderline symptom.
That is why you can run a loop and observe the error rate, but it is still very difficult to actually select digital on the front panel. The splice fills the error memory too quickly. But you can trick it by going to the Dolby level screen. When you come back, the buffer has been cleared and you can select digital and see the level displayed for all channels.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-20-2003, 05:04 AM:
When I said 'all by themselves' I actually meant that. Once they start ticking in digital, you can switch them into analog and they continue to tick. It has nothing to do with a faulty digital track.
Although, even if it were related to the track I wouldn't really call solid 2's borderline.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-20-2003, 06:43 AM:
Oh I see now what you mean - but that is an entirely different phenomenon. I had that a couple of times too. It starts to crack repeatedly and regularly. I believe it is caused by a misfunction of the DACs. But it is not the splice sound that we talked about earlier.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-20-2003, 02:44 PM:
On SDDS you will always get a few DCMs at the reel splice...I've never noticed them in theatre...now when a print/reader start to have "issues" then the DCMs are quite noticable. I wish SDDS were quicker to give it up and go to analog...then again, the same goes for Dolby.
Steve
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-21-2003, 01:51 AM:
Mike, I've had them make both the crack noise AND (on seperate occassions) the same noise as the 'splice' sound.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-21-2003, 06:47 AM:
The splice beep? Repeatedly? I have never come across that. But of course I believe you.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-21-2003, 09:39 AM:
FWIW, no SDDS on Universal's Johnny English.
Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 07-21-2003, 04:29 PM:
Steve,
In my experience if the PRINTS are good and projectors are well mantained Dolby's strenght is very acceptable. I have a print of Bruce Almightly that is running at 1.5 after 1.5 months of shows.
This print also left the projector as clean as you left it the day before.
And other prints (on same projector too) that is running at 6.0 at the first show... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 10-17-2003, 04:13 AM:
Saw it in Feature info first, then actually watched Runaway Jury in SDDS tonight. I was really suprised to see a Fox film in SDDS. The last one I remember was Episode II, which was also a Lucasfilm thing. Anyhow, I heard X2 had some SDDS prints, but why would Fox do SDDS on this title and not big action flicks like X2, LXG, or even Daredevil? Weird, but nice because we put Runaway Jury in our only SDDS house...thanks Fox!
AJG
Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 11-03-2003, 05:19 PM:
I've heard a rumor that SDDS will be defunct at the end of the year. Does anyone know the real scoop?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-03-2003, 05:34 PM:
Well, they are still repairing them. They were still selling them new...at least what was left on the shelf. Last new SDDS DFP3000 I installed was over a year ago though.
We are now sourcing replacement LED's from sources other than Sony for rebuilding the older penthouses and having really good luck with them as well. We install a stock LaVezzi sprocket that we have hard coated for far greater life. Good luck finding a reader in the field who's uncoated alumnium sprocket isn't badly hooked.
Mark @ CLACO
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-04-2003, 02:04 AM:
In an interesting development, I found out this weekend our SDDS is out and Dolby was coming into our sole SDDS house. Then tonight when I went to build The Matrix, a nice DA20 was sitting upstairs. Could SDDS really be going? I for one wouldn't mind.
AJG
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-04-2003, 06:43 AM:
I wonder if AMC has enough clout to demand SDDS on prints in the future. In the local AMC theatres, they only have DTS or Dolby Digital in the largest rooms, no more than 5 or 6 in a 24-plex.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-04-2003, 09:44 AM:
I doubt it. But if they decide to bite the bullet and throw SDDS out for something better, I bet they end up having enough clout to finish SDDS off for good.
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-04-2003, 10:53 AM:
From what I understand SDDS and AMC are not making any more agreements. The new AMCs are still having SDDS installed but not on every screen. No problem for new theatres but the old ones with all SDDS houses are gonna be out of luck.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-04-2003, 11:00 AM:
The Sony SDDS site lists films through December 2004:
http://www.sdds.com/news_movies.cfm
quote:
Studio/Distributor Release Date Title 8c
New Line Cinema Dec/04 The Notebook
Sony Pictures Jul/04 Spider Man 2
MGM May/04 Soul Plane
Sony Pictures May/04 Hellboy
Universal May/04 Van Helsing
Warner Bros. Apr/04 The Whole Ten Yards
Miramax Mar/04 Shaolin Soccer
Miramax Mar/04 Jersey Girl
Buena Vista Mar/04 America: Heart and Soul
Paramount Pictures Mar/04 Suspect Zero
MGM Mar/04 Agent Cody Banks 2
Disney/Persevere Prods. Mar/04 Hidalgo
Screen Gems Mar/04 Resident Evil: Apocalypse
Miramax Feb/04 Kill Bill Volume 2
Miramax Feb/04 The Great Raid
Sony Pictures Feb/04 50 First Kisses
MGM Feb/04 Barbershop 2
New Line Cinema Feb/04 Birth
New Line Cinema Jan/04 The Butterfly Effect
Warner Bros. Jan/04 Torque
Warner Bros. Jan/04 Chasing Liberty
Miramax Jan/04 My Baby'sDaddy
Sony Pictures Dec/03 Peter Pan
Disney/Buena Vista Features Dec/03 Young Black Stallion
Sony Pictures Classics Dec/03 The Company
Buena Vista Dec/03 Calendar Girls
Sony Pictures Dec/03 Mona Lisa Smile
New Line Cinema Dec/03 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Sony Pictures Classics Dec/03 The Statement
My Girl Productions LLC Dec/03 Love Don't Cost a Thing
Sony Pictures Dec/03 Something's Gotta Give
Sony Pictures Dec/03 Big Fish
Warner Bros. Dec/03 The Last Samurai
Universal Dec/03 Honey
New Line Cinema Dec/03 Highwaymen
Universal Nov/03 Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat
Warner Bros. Nov/03 Gothika
20th Century Fox Nov/03 Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
Universal Nov/03 Love Actually
Warner Bros. Nov/03 Looney Tunes Back in Action
New Line Cinema Nov/03 ELF
Warner Bros. Nov/03 The Matrix: Revolutions
Buena Vista Oct/03 Brother Bear
Miramax Oct/03 Scary Movie 3
Sony Pictures Oct/03 Radio
Screen Gems Oct/03 In The Cut
20th Century Fox Oct/03 Runaway Jury
New Line Cinema Oct/03 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Disney/Persevere Prods. Oct/03 Veronica Guerin
Miramax Oct/03 Kill Bill Volume 1
MGM Oct/03 Good Boy!
Universal Oct/03 Intolerable Cruelty
Warner Bros. Oct/03 Mystic River
MGM Oct/03 Out of Time
ArenaPlex LLC Oct/03 Concert for George
Posted by Michael Swarbrick (Member # 1108) on 11-06-2003, 06:35 AM:
My cinema's been showing Intolerable Cruelty recently. The end credits identify it as an 8 channel SDDS mix, but I've never seen the Lc/Rc indicators move on the processor while the film's playing. So, who's screwed-up here?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-06-2003, 08:18 AM:
Hey Michael, Really nice projector you have there !
Mark @ CLACO
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-06-2003, 08:33 AM:
Michael, as one of the few places with all three digital systems, what proportion of your shows would you say is in each? When you run a print with more than one digital track, who decides which is used?
I've only heard SDDS once, to the best of my knowledge, that was at the Odeon Marble Arch, before it was divided up, where I went to see 'Mary Shelly's Frankenstein', because I wanted to hear the system. I was not very impressed with it, but, of course, I can't really judge a system by hearing one film in one theatre.
Few places here seem to have SDDS, I think the Odeon Leicester Square has it, and the Pictureville Bradford does, but I don't know how much use it gets.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-06-2003, 09:19 AM:
I recently had a chance to listen to an A/B comparison between SRD and SDDS (3000-series reader, connected to processor and not using internal digital EQ), using the same film in the same auditorium, with sound formats being randomly switched during the feature. I couldn't tell the difference in sound quality, nor (as far as I know) could anyone else in the room.
When it works, SDDS sounds good. The problem is that it often doesn't, either due to excessive dropouts or the lack of an SDDS track on the film.
I don't really see the point of having all three digital systems in one auditorium. For almost all cases, it should be sufficient to have SRD and DTS (or maybe SRD and SDDS, if 8-channel playback is an issue).
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-06-2003, 04:11 PM:
quote:
Micharl Swarbrick: The end credits identify it as an 8 channel SDDS mix, but I've never seen the Lc/Rc indicators move on the processor while the film's playing.
Your player needs to be set up for 8-channel playback.
If your player IS, then the problem lies in the film. Either the film isn't really 8 channels or the quality of the print isn't good enough for the machine to decode the chanels. (Assuming your player is all in working order.)
If your player isn't set up for 8 channels then it may not respond to the L-C and R-C channels even if the print has all the channels.
I'd say that the main setback for 8-channel playback, be it SDDS or not, is the fact that you have to have two more amplifiers and two more sets of speakers PLUS all the wiring in between. That can add up to several thousand dollars for every theater that wants to have it. I don't think most theater companies would think it's worth spending the money. Personally, I don't think the difference would be spectacular enough to justify the expense.
Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 11-06-2003, 05:19 PM:
We've had all three formats for about 7 years and I must say that I prefer SDDS over both DD and DTS. We even screened a print of "From Dusk Till Dawn" recently and the SDDS track was great. Maybe the EQ setup for the SDDS is better than in our CP500. We get too many Dolby prints which fail whether from age or from bad printing. Most foreign language films which are digital are only Dolby, and with such a small release number in australia, by the time we get a chance to show them, the tracks are worn. As for DTS, sometimes the mix does not seem as good.
Peter
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-06-2003, 05:25 PM:
Comparing SDDS vs SRD or DTS in the same auditorium is generally a waste of time since there are two B-chains in the equation for most setups.
Comparing any format to another in different auditoriums is even more of a waste of time because not only do you have different B-chains in the equation, but you throw in different room acoustics and frequently a different processor as well.
When set up in a truly fair manner with direct A/B/C switching, the formats are virtually impossible to detect the difference. The few people who can hear a difference always have to listen hard and always admit the difference isn't enough to matter.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-06-2003, 06:23 PM:
I hate to agree with Brad, but it is true that if you listen to all 3 systems though the same B chain, there is a difference but most listeners can not detect it. SDDS and dts have more clearly defined HF playback. From a fine tuning point of view, SDDS is the best sounding system, but what does it matter now? I used to be one of the system`s biggest fans, but when I had an opportunity for a few DFP-D3000 recently - in my opinion also the best cinema processor today - I passed. Sony just dropped the ball, that`s it.
If you are not sure whether a print is 8 channels, or whether your unit is set up for 8-channel playback, and you don`t feel confident to check the setup, here`s a trick:
Block one of the 2 tracks so that the reader can`t read it anymore. The decoder will go into DCM (Digital Conecealment Mode). It will play a mono sum of the channels it is missing from the track it can`t read. If it is set up for 8, then you will see the mono sum on the LC or RC channels. It doesn`t matter if the print you are using to test is 6 or 8. If your player is set up for 6, then those channels will remain silent.
If you block the track on the picture side, you will see the LC channel become active in 8-channel mode. If you block the track next to the analog soundtrack, you will see activity on the RC channel.
Randy - if the print or the player has a problem, it will drop out on one side or completely, but not just miss the LC or RC.
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-06-2003, 06:41 PM:
It's my understanding that SDDS units are no longer being manufactured. Correct? Fox and Paramount have all but abandoned releasing in SDDS. Correct? Of the three digital formats, the first casualty will be....SDDS. Correct?
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-07-2003, 10:45 AM:
I agree with Brad & Michael that it's very hard even for a critical ear to hear a difference when doing an A/B comparison in a properly tuned theater. However, consider the following...
Horror films in general have great dynamics because they frequently go from low subtle ambient noise to a loud BOO!, and it's my belief that DTS reproduces those moments the best with Dolby being a close second. So, I played The Ring in DTS from the time it came out. Everyone at the theater loved the TV scene at the end, and whenever it was on, someone from the staff was in the theater watching it - not only to watch the scene but also to observe the audience reaction. One day I did an experiment, and ran it in SDDS. I called the manager in to watch it with me without clueing him in to the change. He'd probably seen it 20 times in DTS. When it was all over, he wanted to know what was wrong. I asked him what he meant, and his response was that it didn't sound right. It sounded a little muddy... a little flat. It didn't have the "punch" it was supposed to.
So, if one is very familiar with the material they're listening too, even someone who has nowhere near the critical ear that we have, they can tell the difference. Now, did the audience feel cheated that day? No. But I submit that the DTS audience jumped just a little higher, screamed just a little louder, and hence probably enjoyed the experience just a little more. That's been my experience anyway.
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 11-07-2003, 11:50 AM:
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, DTS uses only a 4 to 1 compression ratio, where SDDS uses the same compression used on mini disc, which uses too low a data rate, and therefore too much compression, and to my ears just sounds dead. Audio compression is done by chopping up the audio bandwidth into small segments, and then dropping any segment that does not have much in it. Different musical instruments can play the same note (the same fundamental frequency), but what gives each instrument it's "sound" are the harmonics produced by that instrument (harmonics are multiples of the fundamental, at lower levels). What gives music, and sound in general, it's "richness" are these harmonics. The more compression, the more of these harmonics are thrown out, causing the audio to sound, as I put it, DEAD. This could explain the different "impression" of the same sound track played in the two different formats in the previous post.
Lossy compression, just say no!
Is there still anyone on the forum from DTS that would care to comment?
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-07-2003, 02:21 PM:
John - you haven`t read any of the posts in this topic. Correct?
Mark - If there is such a great detectable difference, there is something wrong with your SDDS decoder or it is set up the wrong way.
Bruce - I doubt very much that you hear the difference. It sounds more like you think you hear something because you read about it. The ATRAC is a very effective compression system, BTW a more advanced version than the one for consumer minidisc.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-07-2003, 02:38 PM:
Michael Schaffer wrote:
quote:
John - you haven`t read any of the posts in this topic. Correct?
I've been following the thread since it started, and have posted previously. I just was providing the "official" list of films posted on the Sony SDDS website. Or did you mean John Hendrickson Jr.?
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-07-2003, 02:52 PM:
Yes! I just don`t understand John T.H.,Jr`s questions. What have we been taking about the last 7 pages? That SDDS is doomed. Correct?
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-07-2003, 03:17 PM:
The challenge with all of the pyscho-acoustic compression systems is that what you hear and what I hear can be different. It all depends upon how different my hearing is from yours, and how different both are from the source used to create the pyscho-acoustic model for the compression scheme.
While lower compression ratios should result in better sound, it's not necessarily a linear situation. The efficiency of each algorithm will dictate the sound quality at a given bit rate.
The difference in perceived sound quality is probably not as great, but it is like telling someone that Klipsch speakers are better than JBL. It can often come down to personal preference.
However... assuming that all three systems have similar sound quality:
The differentiating factor then becomes not how each handles under ideal circumstances, but how each handles less-than-ideal circumstances.
Which system gives the operators the least grief? Which system has a problem with reel changes? Does a disc-based system have a problem with getting the discs to accompany the print?
For the first year or two of Dolby Digital's release in local theaters around here, the dominant chain could not show a DD print without very noticeable dropouts surrounding the reel splices. Eventually, they got it figured out. Whether it was the prints themselves or they just had to run through their stock of duct tape being used for splicing, I don't know, but during that time, I searched out DTS presentations very deliberately.
SDDS is only installed in one theater in SE Wisconsin to my knowledge, so I don't have enough experience with that system to have an opinion either way. My impression of that one installation is that it didn't impress the operators enough to be worth the effort of having yet another digital sound system.
SDDS always seemed like the third-wheel, and its demise is probably just Darwinism at work.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-07-2003, 03:44 PM:
Michael,
What should I adjust to get the stronger punch that my manager said was missing?
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-07-2003, 04:03 PM:
Hard to say from here. I have seen many, many, many, many, many, many, many SDDS units in the field which were simply inadequately installed and aligned because most technicians didn`t understand how to do it properly. Check if the red LEDs on top of the level display come on frequently during loud passages. Many installers simply pull up the band levers in the EQ to reach a "flat" response. Then the sum of all bands is higher than 0dB and drives the unit into hard digital clipping. That does not sound nice.
How are your units hooked up to each other?
Posted by Alan Haigh (Member # 1781) on 11-07-2003, 04:23 PM:
I think Scott's use of the word "demise" is a little strong. The last rumour I heard was that they were extending support for 2000s and for the original cameras for at least 10 more years. This along with John 1's list of films doesn't seem like demise to me. I do't know if they are making them still, as in rolling off a production line, but I think the 3000s are still for sale aren't they?
Michael, hello by the way, when SDDS defaults to "one side" playback. It uses a mono mix of say RC, R and RS, which is on the "left" side. Also on this left side is an 8 bit code, renewed several times a second, which stores the levels of RC, R and RS. So if RC was silent (likely!) R was at full and RS was half level, you'd have 0,127,65 say. So you won't see RC jump up into mono as it's volume will stay at zero. This is why it's so hard to spot. If a system is installed in a 5,1 room, you'll never see 8 meters moving, as the meters show the actual CP output, not what's on film.
As for sound quality. The maths/physics says
5 channel 4:1 DTS
8 channel 5:1 SDDS
5.1 channel 10:1 (ish) SRD
But the algorithms used for compression make the differences smaller. Dolby is nothing short of miraculous that it sounds the way it does at 370kB/s or whatever (DTS 1.5Mb and SDDS 2.2 Mb) but it relys heavily on you having an "average" film soundtrack. eg you don't want to have, say piano music loud on the surrounds and reverberant drops of water at the front, for instance. Then you'd hear a big difference. But it's OK. They all are, really. Many other parts of the chain/room have bigger differences. Anyway, sorry to be so wildly off topic, but everyone else is officer.
Alan
Posted by Dennis M Dow Jr (Member # 1970) on 11-07-2003, 04:44 PM:
Mark,
Which SDDS system are you using? is it the 2000? If so either the LEDs are low or the Equalization was not done properly. The 2000 uses its own eq as opposed to the dts which uses the processors eq
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-07-2003, 05:02 PM:
I hate to agree with Michael, but he is right on the nose with this.
quote:
Mark - If there is such a great detectable difference, there is something wrong with your SDDS decoder or it is set up the wrong way.
Bruce - I doubt very much that you hear the difference. It sounds more like you think you hear something because you read about it.
Really guys, you CANNOT compare different sound formats between different shows, different auditoriums or when the exact same B-chain is not used. It's all in your heads.
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 11-07-2003, 05:10 PM:
As mentioned in an other topic here, we've got a CinemaxX 8-screener in our neighbourhood (Aarhus city) 3 weeks ago.
Situated 3 minutes walk from only other big (locally seen) multiplex, 9-screen BioCity, run by The Nordisk Film Co, this was obviuosly a war breaking out. Nordisk, who went to the classic solution few years ago, going from 5 THX-screens to one, all of a sudden has a block in their ads, telling about 9 THX-screens. The intruder's big weapon is to claim, they have the first SDDS-8 in Denmark at all. This is not true, as Nordisk Film installed this in their beautyful Copenhagen flagship Imperial, 6 or 7 years ago. Next smile comes from CinemaxX telling on their website, that with the SDDS-8 and their 5 screen channels, they are filling out the hole in the sound, left by Dolby and DTS /mainly because the CinemaxX as allways think "bigger is better" giving 60 feet screen with less than 20 feet distance from raw nr 1. Big trouble comes, when looking at the SDDS website: Only 4 releases in 2003 in SDDS-8, three of those out of business before opening of the CinemaxX, and the fourth they couldn't get, because the film (BB2) is distributed by Nordisk Film !! CinemaxX fills out the 'sound holes' with extra speakers, but without a single film to demonstrate their skills. Competition is a funny game.
The BioCity has, according to the adds, best sound in town; CinemaxX the best sound in the country. What about it !?
p.
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-07-2003, 05:20 PM:
Michael Schaffer wrote:
"John - you haven`t read any of the posts in this topic. Correct?"
No Michael- incorrect.
You have not answered my last question: Will SDDS be the first casualty or not? I was simply soliciting other people's opinion.
Our supplier and our techs both told us to stay away from SDDS. I might add that this was the major consideration when we selected Dolby for the Count Basie Theatre restoration. So far, we have not been disappointed. I might add that we have DTS at the multiplex I work at and we are not disappointed with that either.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-07-2003, 05:25 PM:
quote:
Will SDDS be the first casualty or not?
Absolutely. There is no reason for anyone to invest in new equipment for this format anymore. If you can find some equipment used and at a good price, I think SDDS tracks will continue to be made for some time and you could get your investment back, but the format is quickly dying.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-07-2003, 09:33 PM:
I hate to disagree with you, Alan, especially since I know there are few people who know as much about SDDS as you do, but the 3000 at least actually does what I described. I know about the theory with the level code, but we have seen it many times when we had 5.1 SDDS prints with a bad P-track that every time it went into DCM, the LC became very active. This resulted in a very unpleasant "pumping" effect on the left side of the theatre. I even used to switch our 3000s into 6-channel to avoid this.
I hate to agree with Brad, but he is right on the nose with this.
quote:
Really guys, you CANNOT compare different sound formats between different shows, different auditoriums or when the exact same B-chain is not used. It's all in your heads.
Even when you compare the same program material directly one after the other on the same hardware setup, it takes much more than thinking one can hear a difference or liking this or that sound better to actually pinpoint the differences in tone color, balance, distortion etc.
Posted by John McConnel (Member # 2000) on 11-07-2003, 11:43 PM:
Regarding SDDS' hanging around for very long, it appears that they're not getting support from the studios that Dolby Digital and DTS are getting. 100% of the prints that I've used have had both Dolby and DTS tracks. But not SDDS.
A recent example of this is Paramount's THE FIGHTING TEMPTATIONS. I went to see it at the AMC 24 in Oklahoma City, which is Oklahoma's top-grossing theatre and asked the doorperson to direct me to where it was showing with digital sound. She told that it wasn't shown in digital, which took me by surprise. The theatre has only SDDS, while the movie has only Dolby and DTS digital tracks. They graciously gave me a refund, and I went to a different theatre.
It made me wonder how much longer SDDS will stay, and also made me wonder how long AMC will operate the theatre with only SDDS digital equipment.
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-08-2003, 01:31 AM:
quote:
The last rumour I heard was that they were extending support for 2000s and for the original cameras for at least 10 more years.
For the UK, maybe. As far as the US goes, if you have a 2000, consider yourself screwed if it fails. I have ranted on Sony's ludicrous 'technical support' in this thread in the past. NOTHING has improved. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
SDDS= Sells Dolby and DTS Systems...
/rant off
-Aaron
Posted by Matt Zeiner (Member # 1914) on 11-08-2003, 06:51 AM:
Aliasing and dither artifacts are clearly audible in all 3 formats (Dolby Digital worst of all) with a decent pair of headphones or studio monitors.
Posted by Nic Margherio (Member # 273) on 11-08-2003, 02:03 PM:
Sony and DTS should collaborate on a new sound format based on the XD-10 platform from DTS and Sony's DSD encoding. Admittedly, its probably "all in my head" as Brad has said, but to my ears (or head) DSD is audibly superior to any form of PCM, especially PCM compressed at 10:1.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-08-2003, 02:06 PM:
Digital sound for cinema has been around for 10 years now. It's too late to bring in another format. Theaters as well as studios would not embrace it.
Besides, theaters could be running uncompressed audio and it wouldn't matter with the choice of speaker systems, auditorium acoustics and *generally* poor calibration found in the average theater today.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-08-2003, 05:07 PM:
...also factor in the findings of psychoacoustic researchers and there isn't exactly a pressing need for zero compression.
Ask around. Odds are pretty good that most viewers would be happy to see a movie presented in any of today's digital audio formats (including SDDS) and probably don't (or can't) perceive a difference between them.
Depending on the movie and the analog mix, there are times when I have to watch for a splice to determine if I'm hearing analog or digital.
I have never had the need or inclination to use headphones or monitors in a theatrical situation. I am curious as to why you were wearing the headphones and listening to SR-D with monitors? Was this a home-video situation?
Posted by Robert D. LaValley (Member # 1867) on 11-08-2003, 05:20 PM:
--- >Depending on the movie and the analog mix, there are times when I have to watch for a splice to determine if I'm hearing analog or digital.
I agree. There are alot of times I do this too.. However when I was with regal I did notice that after awhile the SDDS track did have a tendency to be more trouble, popping in and out, becuase of wear then anything else.. I'm partial to DTS myself.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-08-2003, 05:56 PM:
I am quite prepared to believe that SDDS is capable of sounding better than it did when I heard it, but it has other problems. It was launched after both SR-D and DTS were becomming established, DTS was helped by getting two 'big' titles (Jurasic Park and Schlindler's List) in its early days, and it was more expensive than the competing systems. Also, less titles were released in it, certainly most of the prints I see do not have it, but it has to be said that I handle mainly Art House material, it may be more common on other types of films.
Given these disadvantages, it would have needed some really significant advantage if it were to compete successfully with the other formats, and it didn't have one. Some people preferred the sound of SDDS, but others didn't, and any difference was minor, it could do 8 channels, but few films were released that way, and few theatres could play it.
There really wasn't any great enough advantage to SDDS to make people choose it over a better established, more widely used and cheaper system.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-08-2003, 09:30 PM:
Robert D. LaValley said
"I'm partial to DTS myself."
_________________________________________________________________
I used to be very partial to SRD but I've actually learned over the last year and a half or so not be really partial to any of the three systems. All have their own set of unique problems that we have to live with no matter what, and all three will be around for quite some time, including Sony with at least 10 more years support for existing units. And all three sound excellent when they are properly working.
One thing that I think is important is not to be bitten by the Digital is better bug. That bug is much like the plague. From my personal experience with many things digital, not just film equipment, the true fact is that digital rarely means better, it actually attempts to and sometimes suceeds at nothing more than being more convenient.
In reality there are no all digitally based Cinema processors on the market that compare audibly, or from a specification standpoint, with the very best of the analog processors from the last 5 years, or available today. Its easy enough to hang any three or a combination thereof of the outboard digital soundtrack processors onto a good analog processor. Best of all it can be done cost effectively. I've also found that the better analog processors generally sound better due to less secondary stages of digital processing taking place...such as "A", or "B" chain, then D to A back to analog, etc. and the added artifacts these stages sometimes generate. Granted, some manufacturers have done an admirable job manufacturing all digitally based Cinema Processors and these units have their place in the field, just don't expect the very best performance out of them that can be had.
Mark
[ 11-08-2003, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-08-2003, 10:05 PM:
Well said, Mark!
I have a CP45 -- yes, a CP45 -- that rivals the DTS system that runs through it but, as Mark pointed out, digital is more convenient from a maintenance standpoint.
In the eight years since I've had that DTS system, I have had to do an RXO on the reader because the LED finally died. Meanwhile, any analog system requires periodic checkups for level-setting, LED replacement and the occasional re-alignment.
Also, there is no error correction for analog so print wear is a potential quality-control issue. You can't "hear" signs of print wear with digital until it gets to the point of reversion(s) to the analog track. With maybe two or three exceptions, all of our digital presentations have played without defaulting to analog, which means there was a perceived uniformity in the auditoria.
I don't think you get that level of consistency with analog because the systems are continually drifting, and at different rates.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-08-2003, 10:26 PM:
How do you compare a cinema processor to a digital addon unit? They do quite different things.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-08-2003, 10:38 PM:
Michael,
Just a short statement regarding my experiences and coments using outboard digital processors DA-20 DTS6D, etc. with really good analog Cinema processors...Cp55, 65, CSP1200 etc. VS. using all digital Cinema processors (CP500, CP650, 6AD, USL etc.). Not really meant to be a statement regarding any maintainance issues....digital and analog all have maintainance issues we HAVE to accept and live with.
Try for instance comparing a DFP3000 or a CP650 with a DA20 feeding a CSP1200, or CP65. Either of the latter blows the 650 or DFP right out of the water!!
Brad, You need to get a CSP1200 and do some A-B listening!! Easy to A_B DTS and SRD at the touch of a button. Sorry the 200 is good, but not quite in the same league as the 1200.
Mark
Posted by Matt Zeiner (Member # 1914) on 11-08-2003, 11:17 PM:
Manny - I use headphones as a troubleshooting tool. Very handy. I have mixed down to all three formats in the studio. It's like night and day listening to uncompressed masters versus the decoded result on a set of Genelecs.
Mark - right on. The two flaws in all of the all-digital systems are the incessant conversions with cheap converters and the crappy DSP inplementation in the filters. The Sony processors are probably the best at masking the phase-smearing effects of the eq and dither in the gain stages, but they all sound like paper in the final analysis. Phase coherent filters require a LOT of DSP to work without excessive latency - None of the current processors have anything nearly powerful or fast enough powering them.
Interesting to note - Sony makes some of the finest and most coveted DSP driven audio tools (oxford eq, sampling reverbs, Oxford consoles) in the pro audio business...
[ 11-09-2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Matt Zeiner ]
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2