Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital sound for arthouses? YES!

This is topic Digital sound for arthouses? YES! 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=005021

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-24-2003, 04:28 PM:

Brad said this in a related thread:

quote:
On your lengthy paragraph about only installing SR in art house theaters, I do not agree. The public is brainwashed on that stupid "digital" buzzword. They want to see it and they expect it. (Note I did not say they could tell a difference.)

I expect digital sound in megaplexes and I expect digital sound in stadium theaters. That theory has trickled down to arthouses and they are the better for it.

Just go to the Princeton Garden Theatre in Princeton NJ. It was rebuilt 2 years ago as a twin with digital sound and stadium seating. Hall #1 has a Dolby CP500D; hall #2 has a DTS6D and a Dolby CP65. Thanks to this rebuild the Garden landed "Oscar Bait" runs of A Beautiful Mind at Xmas 2001 and Chicago last winter. The Garden also is able to run the occasional wide-release title (The Fellowship of the Ring, Star Wars Episode 2, Road to Perdition) in digital.

The Angelika Film Center in NYC upgraded to digital in order to open The Matrix Reloaded.

quote:
The amount of dts or sdds titles available for an art house is damn near zero.

In recent months the AMC Hamilton has played The Guru (SRD/SDDS/DTS), Laurel Canyon (SDDS/SRD) and A Mighty Wind (SRD/SDDS/DTS) -- all of which were aimed at arthouses. This week the Garden picks up L'Auberge Espagnole (SRD/DTS).

(Info on the Garden courtesy of The Marquee newsletter from Entertainment Equipment Corp. Click on "The Marquee" link; newsletter is in PDF format.)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-24-2003, 09:59 PM:

Charles,
I think you missed Joes point earlier in that some analog mixes sound better than the same digital mix and that it may be more desirable to play back the analog one. I have also found this to be true. There are some really killer analog mixes still being done out there. I agree that having digital capabilities might land you product over a non digitally equipped art house that might also be nearby. This is also somewhat true in regular multiplexs too.
Mark

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-25-2003, 12:19 AM:

quote:
In recent months the AMC Hamilton has played The Guru (SRD/SDDS/DTS), Laurel Canyon (SDDS/SRD) and A Mighty Wind (SRD/SDDS/DTS) -- all of which were aimed at arthouses. This week the Garden picks up L'Auberge Espagnole (SRD/DTS).

Concerning the sheer number of arthouse films released in this country (outnumbering major studios by quite a number), I would say that your list pretty much qualifies for "near zero."

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-25-2003, 01:43 AM:

It doesn't make sense for the majority of Art houses to get digital sound because a lot of the independent films are not released with it. For smaller art houses that don't make much $$$ (think of concession per caps on an art house compared to a multi-plex)...it just doesn't make sense. The majority of people that go to art films want a nice environment, clean theaters/bathrooms, clean picture quality, a friendly staff, and clean sound - IN THAT ORDER (yes, I have done a study on it). 'Clean sound' does not have to be digital.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 06-25-2003, 05:23 AM:

I find that most of the arthouse product is SRD - I've run a lot of it and it's rare to come across something that isn't. Some of it has the DTS timecode but no discs were ever pressed, at least not for U.S. release.

Sure some of the analog mixes sound better but I think it's only during the moments with music. For example, Monsoon Wedding sounded better in analog but it's only because in digital most of the music came from the left and right speakers only. When run in analog that music gets matrixed out to all channels sounding fuller and warmer. A lot of independent films have that problem(?).

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 06-25-2003, 08:53 AM:

Well the arthouse in my area runs alot of foreign films and 99% of them have a MONO track!

Posted by Paul Howard (Member # 1706) on 06-25-2003, 09:12 AM:

If an Arthouse can afford to install digital sound or even get THX, then why not. Wont their be a point when even Indie product will be mostly recorded and mixed into at least Dolby Digital. As Charles said

quote:
I expect digital sound in megaplexes and I expect digital sound in stadium theaters. That theory has trickled down to arthouses and they are the better for it.

Any Upgrade of a cinema presentation can only be a benefit in the long term, unless its DLP.

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 06-25-2003, 11:15 AM:

Arthouses tend to run more used prints, though. Including well-worn prints which drop out of Dolby Digital a lot. Given the choice between hearing Nowhere in Africa in analog SR and hearing it in SRD with twenty dropouts, as happened to me at a local arthouse, I'd pick the former any day.

(To answer the obvious question, I'm not convinced it was the equipment, as previous Dolby Digital films in that auditorium sounded fine).

It's unfortunate that DTS, the more robust digital format (at least regarding timecode on prints, not sure about discs), is used on so few non-French arthouse releases. It's also hard to get discs for many of the French DTS films.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-25-2003, 12:22 PM:

Most art house films don't have very impressive sound mixes. In many cases, the SRD track (if there is one) doesn't sound significantly better than the SR track when reproduced on a well aligned system. I agree with Tao's comment that SR can actually sound better then SRD with multiple dropouts.

Whether or not it's "digital," I do believe that art-house audiences deserve "good" sound. Dialgoue should be clear and intelligible and music should sound musical. Lots of art houses are still mono-only, which is kind of sad, but which I can live with if the mono system sounds good (some do). Sure, it would be great if every film could be presented in its "best" sound format in a THX-certified auditorium, but I'm afraid that the expense would put many (most?) art-houses out of business. I'd rather have the option of seeing limited-release films under sub-optimal conditions than not have a chance to see them at all.

I think that Amelie was the last art-house film that I've seen that was available in DTS (timecode and disks).

Posted by Bob Peticolas (Member # 328) on 06-25-2003, 01:35 PM:

Just as a point for comparison, out of our bi-monthly calendar, we run nine films (one a week) and at least seven of the nine are SRD. Occasionally we will get a film with DTS and at least twice a year we will get disks with a film (even though we don't have a DTS player).

We just installed new speakers throughout the house, three Crown stereo amps and wired for 5.1. The .1 speaker is on the way. I hope to install a Dolby reader by the end of the year.

About the only films we get that don't have at least matrixed stereo are the "classics" from the '60s and '70s.

The current calendar has films from Scotland, France, Australia, Brazil, Italy, Germany, and Iran. That's a lot of SRD from around the world.

And, if you do get a print with bad Dolby coding, run it in optical, there's always that option. That's why we preview features.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-25-2003, 06:03 PM:

Most of the 'Arthouse' type prints I see seem to have SR-D, DTS is much less common, and SDDS rare, I can't actually think of a title at the moment, but I think I have seen some. I have to say that I don't get to see as many prints as I used to.

I am certainly not opposed to an arthouse theatre installing digital if they can find the money, but I think this should be the last thing they do. If they already have a good analogue sound system, good accoustics in the auditorium, good lenses, comfortable seating, good lamps, good screen etc. and there is money to spare, then go ahead, and install digital. If not, then The money would be better spent improving these other things first. No point in listening to digital sound from poor speakers while sitting in a bad seat watching the film on an old, dirty screen.

Digital sound for arthouses? Maybe. How much does it cost now? I remember when first launched it was expensve, but with greater production voumes, the much reduced component count of the DA-20 compared with the DA-10, and the elimination of the separate power supply needed with the original readers, I would guess it has come down quite a bit in real terms.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 06-25-2003, 06:23 PM:

The arthouse type films that I see here from Miramax, Fox Searchlight, Focus, Lion's Gate are mostly SRD/SR format.
Focus Films has the movie "Swimming Pool" coming soon it is SRD/DTS/SR. Fox Searchlight released "The Good Thief" in SRD/SR in the US, but in Canada DTS was availible. Focus Films had SRD/DTS/SR on their film "8 Women".
I get many films from all around the world for New York media screenings. The SRD format is what I see more of on these films.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-25-2003, 07:10 PM:

quote:
I think that Amelie was the last art-house film that I've seen that was available in DTS (timecode and disks).

Amelie a n d Gosford - the latter so dirty a print, that srd falls out very often, analog track even more damagaed - and the smaller arthouse distributors in Denmark do not support dts. -I was luckcy, being able to have dics send on loan from dts England - Thanks again, David - . BTW exactly these two titles, i think were hearable better in dts than srd.
As the prints (at least here) er normally very few, the wear is so much worse than mainstream-films, before they get all around, at so much more reason to go for dts to secure good presentation, also out here, where not even the coyote comes araound every month (far out !)

p.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-25-2003, 09:07 PM:

Consolidated closed a number of theatres during the past few years and all of them were digital houses including the three theatre in Waikiki. They were able to move some of the processors from these defunct theatres over to the Kapolei 16 in my area making the complex 100% digital but the Consolidted's two art houses the Varsity #1 & #2 are still analogue SR houses. My friend Alan Sakaida who is Consolidated's chief picture and sound technician told me not too long ago that he would like to make those houses digital using surplus digital processors but it is not high priority right now because he has a lot of work to do at the chains many other theatres on all the islands in the state. "THE PIANIST" played in House One in SR and also played at Signature's Dole Cannery in SRD. Since I prefer Consolidated Theatres, I saw it with analogue sound.

-Claude

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-25-2003, 09:52 PM:

Claude, How was the analog mix on Pianist. I only saw(heard) it in DTS.
BTW: So I am not misquoted or taken wrong I certainly advocate digital for all theatres, just not the "all digital" type processors. However, in the art house situation it is more likely that someone could preview and listen to both the analog and the digital mix and then play back the best sounding of the two available mixes.
Mark

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 06-25-2003, 10:31 PM:

I've wondered about making the call on whether to show an SRD print in SR if I felt SR sounded better. Again with Monsoon Wedding although I felt the SR track was a better sounding mix I only ran it SRD as I figured if it's in SRD, that's how the director would have heard it mixed. And how the director would have wanted it presented.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 06-26-2003, 01:29 PM:

Art Cinemas should have Dolby Digital available. Most, but not all, of our prints come with the Dolby Digital Track.

What we have:

Auditoriums 1&2 Dolby Digital
Auditorium 3 DTS-6
Auditoriums 4&5 Dolby SR

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-26-2003, 01:35 PM:

quote:
Again with Monsoon Wedding although I felt the SR track was a better sounding mix

In how far?

quote:
I only ran it SRD as I figured if it's in SRD, that's how the director would have heard it mixed. And how the director would have wanted it presented.

Good point.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 06-26-2003, 01:50 PM:

I guess saying "better sounding mix" is incorrect. In digital (most of) the music came from L&R only. In SR the music was matrixed out to the surrounds and center channel as well. There was quite a bit of music in the film and it sounded fuller in SR.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-28-2003, 05:53 PM:

Matthew said: "For example, Monsoon Wedding sounded better in analog but it's only because in digital most of the music came from the left and right speakers only. When run in analog that music gets matrixed out to all channels sounding fuller and warmer."

That's actually a function of the analog 4-2-4 matrix -- a design flaw if you will. Music normally has phase anomalies going on just because that is the nature of sound recording -- sound never goes from the instrument directly to the mic -- it naturally bounces and is reflected all around and some of the paths it takes to the microphones are not in exact phase with the direct sound. This results in a very complex waveform, some of which has out-of-phase information. A decoding matrix will invariably encounter out-of-phase sounds and direct them to the surround channel. With the discrete channels of the digital mix, what's supposed to come out of the left channel ONLY comes out of the left channel, same with the right and surround. The matrix playback is not nearly that exact. Some of what comes out of the front left channel will make its way into the surrounds due to the natural phase anomalies of the waveform, which some may say gives the analog mix a fuller, more airy quality not found in the digital mix.

This difference was noted in the early days of Dolby analog by exhibitors who would play 70mm 6 track mag prints and then would hear the same picture played in 35mm Dolby analog. The complaint was, "How come the 35mm house has more sound coming out of the surrounds than the 70mm house playing the same picture?" They erroneously thought that since 70mm was the superior format, they should be getting more surround sound in 70mm rather than less -- more bang for the buck as it were. Evidently when you are talking about surround sound, more is better!

How many projectionist have been asked by a manager to "turn up the surround speakers" even though the system is calibrated perfectly?

Frank

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-03-2003, 04:32 PM:

I think arthouses SHOULD install digital, if they can afford it. In some respects, digital is more important for films that aren't effects films because dialogue intelligibility is so important, unless the primary language of the audience is only subtitled in the films, in which case I guess sound quality has far less importance.

While analog stereo mixes can sound great, they usually only sound great in theaters with the very best sound systems. While it was always possible to get a great Dolby (A) matrix optical mix, mag tracks always sounded better, even in theaters with an inferior B-chain. Same applies to digital (IMHO).

I don't think public surveys can properly analyze the true desire. Consumers don't really know what they want -- all they know is that they return to a particular theater because they can understand the dialog better and they may not be consciously aware of even that.