quote: Bobby Henderson

---

But I do think SDDS' absence from home theater gear and DVD does lend to its problems.

---

Do you think that SDDS had a place in the home market? What would they have to offer that wasn't already been taken care of by the current Dolby Digital and DTS formats?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-18-2004, 09:59 PM:
 
"Antonio, not to burst your bubble, but DTS is compressed."
_________________________________________________________________

Actually DTS does have ready a no compression or lossless playback system and we are about to install the very first one in the large format theatre at Thanksgiving Point. The losless system works similar to a ZIP disk in which the data is zipped up and then unzipped when ever the data is read. Pretty simple and very elegant if you ask me. I doubt that DTS will pick up where Sony left off with 8 channel, but that sure is a possibility now. I think you'll see the next big advancement in digital playback come from DTS as the XD-10 player is already capable of 96khz/24 bit playback.

As for SDDS.... it pretty much killed itself before the first unit was installed simply by its location on the film edges and the penthouse/LED/Firmware problems that just about everyone experienced.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-19-2004, 12:13 AM:
 
Film doesn't wear if you handle it right. Done properly, SRD and SDDS error rates lower with use.

I see 8 channel DTS becoming a mainstream possibility just like seeing 70mm prints being struck again for mainstream release. It's not going to happen. Sure there will be a few titles and a few theaters will put forth the bucks to install it, but even EX didn't really make it off the ground. Besides, even if it ever caught on and 8 channel DVD discs were shipped with prints, it still wouldn't fix the problem of DTS not caring about how many discs arrive scratched up from those piece of shit DVD-style cases they are shipping the discs in. The old "DTS reel" coupled with the thick soft plastic jewel cases offered the best protection to date. They should have stuck with that. Around here, nobody is installing new DTS systems anymore just because of the damaged disc issue. Everyone (except the "cheaper is better" theaters) is installing SRD.

Anyway, keep dreaming boys.
 

---

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 05-19-2004, 01:44 AM:
 
As far as SR-D deteriorating....if you handle the film right...how are people loosing their Dolby Digital Track...I know it's between the sprocket holes and whatnot, but if you handle it right, there should be NO problem...

oh yeah...the company I work for thought that 8-channel was going to be HUGE. Needless to say we just keep those extra amplifiers off now
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 05-19-2004, 02:34 AM:
 
I don't know about you all, but we haven't had any damaged discs due to the new DTS cases. Things are running as smoothly as ever. I don't really know how 8 or 10 channel will get kicked off, but we would need some major film to really show it off. Jurassic Park was the perfect film for DTS 6, and we'd need something of that caliber I believe to really push for DTS 8 or 10. Actually, what ever happen to the idea of tactile sound systems? I figured instead of more channels, this would be the next step for motion picture evolution. Sure, you can get them at home and run your subwoofer output into them, but it'd be neat to have a dedicated channel that literally shakes the room. I'd like to actually demo one, as I have only read about these tactile tranducers.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-19-2004, 03:46 AM:
 
Unfortunately, Brad is right here. It just won`t happen. If we still had a situation where only select big theatres play the big movies on the first run, then a new format or additional channels or high resolution releases on 70mm or whatever would make a noticeable difference. Because people would think, do we go to Movie Palace A or Movie Palace B? - Let`s go to B, I read they have a new sound system. As it is now, we all play the same movies on screens of the same sizes with the same standardized equipment on thousands of screens everywhere. It just doesn`t make a difference anymore. All you can do is give the audience a nice presentation and have a good feeling about it. They come to your Extremeplex for no other reason than that it`s closest to where they live or because they want to redeem the coupons for the MegaPopcornCombo.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-19-2004, 07:56 AM:
 
Hey, and remember there were only three SDDS 8 channel mixes anyway.... thats a number thats hardly noticable to anyone.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-19-2004, 08:21 AM:
 
There were a couple more... Go to sdds.com > News > SDDS movies, click on "show me 8c only". True, not all were original SDDS8 mixes, but quite of few were.
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 05-19-2004, 01:35 PM:
 
Granted the new DTS case's suck, and we get a few that the case's are broken, but have not yet had any problems playing the disks. Nor have we noticed any scratched disks. Luck of the draw?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-19-2004, 07:01 PM:
 
I had a disk break in half on me. Be careful removing the disks from those cases.
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-19-2004, 07:50 PM:
 
Brad

I know very well that DTS is compressed by aptx100, 4:1.
On my post I wrote "DTS 8 channel".
As I wrote in another post I already projected few titles in DTS 8 channel. This type of sound has NO compression since it comes in DVD media and dts had more space to achieve no compressed sound. With XD 10 of course.

Perhaps dts 8ch will became a standard, perhaps not. But if I'm not wrong the XD10 will replace the 6D. And in few years many theaters will be equipped with an equipment able to playback 8 channels of sound. Perhaps producers will note it and they will start again creating 8 channel soundtracks! Let's dream!

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-19-2004, 08:14 PM:
 
Blah! 70mm prints would be a much better improvement than 8 channel to presentations.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-19-2004, 09:02 PM:
 
I agree. 8 channel presentations hardly kick the living hell out of 6 channel presentations. Some of the peeps on this forum will have you believe that having an extra 2 speakers behind da screen results in an amazing life-altering difference. "OMG OMG 8 channel sound! I can't hold my load!! Oh there it goes all over the place!!!! Oh well, 8 channel is worth the mess I just made!!!! OMG!!!!" is what they say. These are the same peeps who claim to hear a gigantic difference in audio encoded at 4032kbps and audio encoded at 4096kbps. They say the difference is amazing, and they can hear more better highs and the like. Then they say they are better than the complete losers who can't hear the mountain-sized difference.
[av=o]

The only argument for 8 channel are big screens. And big screens are dead! Get over it! No one likes big screens anymore! 49 feet is way more than enough for any exhibitor! The world hates quality! Cheapness is better! Time for you quality freaks to die.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-20-2004, 11:37 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Blah! 70mm prints would be a much better improvement than 8 channel to presentations.

---

quote:

---

The only argument for 8 channel are big screens. And big screens are dead! Get over it! No one likes big screens anymore! 49 feet is way more than enough for any exhibitor!

---

quote: Aaron Garman

---

Actually, what ever happen to the idea of tactile sound systems? I figured instead of more channels, this would be the next step for motion picture evolution. Sure, you can get them at home and run your subwoofer output into them, but it'd be neat to have a dedicated channel that literally shakes the room.

---

That would be nice. However, it is RARE for me to visit a commercial movie theater these days where the single ".1" channel is working properly. There's a variety of problems.

Biggest one: the stadium seated theaters have weak-ass speaker systems not appropriately designed for the size of the room. They need to have speaker/amplification systems more along the lines of what IMAX puts in their houses. But that costs more money and mainstream exhibitors only seem willing to do what's "good enough."

Then you have the other issues, such as theaters not replacing blown subwoofer drivers, the sound system has fallen way "out of tune" or the EQ settings have been all jacked to hell --or just the simple problem of the fader being turned way down low to please the folks who complain about the movie being too loud. Movies are supposed to be kinda loud, or at least have impressive and even startling dynamics. Those who want a quiet movie need to stick with their TV and VHS deck.

Now, if you want a "tactile" sound system, just watch a movie in Brad's screening room. The sub-bass on that rig produces WIND.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 05-20-2004, 01:00 PM:
 
All I need is an invite and directions to the screening room!

AJG
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-20-2004, 06:13 PM:
 
Bobby - in addition to blown subwoofer drivers you also come across the problem of completely missing ones (in other words, stolen) often!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-20-2004, 07:25 PM:
 
"Why not do both? DTS is still selling those 70mm time code readers aren't they?"
_________________________________________________________________

Well thats pretty much whats happenning on any new 70mm stuff these days. Its alot more expensive and more difficult to have the prints mag stripped than it was. So most new 70mm prints are going with DTS.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 05-21-2004, 02:44 AM:
 
If a house is already equipped for 6track 70mm with the 5 screen channels, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to install SDDS-8 would it? Buy a used dfp2500 or 3000 and there you go.

Searching through the newspapers I was shocked to learn that there hasn't been ANY SDDS-8 presentations here in Vancouver, Unless they just weren't advertized. The possibility could be at Granville #7, which had SDDS installed in there at one time and is also a 70mm house.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-21-2004, 02:59 AM:
 
We discussed this in chat a while ago - if the SDDS system had had steering capabilities to "upmix" 3 to 5 channels, it would maybe have made a bigger difference and it wouldn`t have been seen by exhibitors as a waste to have the 2 extra channels sitting there silent most of the time. But that would have made the processor more expensive, and since the system was already pricier than the competitors, that apparently wasn`t an option.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-21-2004, 06:39 AM:
 
Now that the CP-650 acknowledges LC and RC...I wouldn't be surprised if they offer the virtual spread mix someday.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-21-2004, 08:04 AM:
 
"If a house is already equipped for 6track 70mm with the 5 screen channels, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to install SDDS-8 would it? Buy a used dfp2500 or 3000 and there you go."

It may well have never happened because there may not be any houses in Vancouver equipped with 5 front screen channels. While there are quite a few houses around here equipped that I know of you'll still find complete large cites without any.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-21-2004, 10:08 AM:
 
Mark,

If you did an in-depth study...you'd find that there are more 8-channel theatres out theatre than you'd imagine. There are many out here for sure...mostly AMC in the SDDS-8 front.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Alan Haigh (Member # 1781) on 05-21-2004, 11:11 AM:
 
Steve point is true in the UK too. There aren't that many SDDS screens, but of what there are, about a quarter are 8 channel. I think it wouldn't have been any more expensive to do a 3 to 5 upmix, but surely this would just make the image narrower.

Anyway there have been some very recent 8 channel films (well, last year, but still well after the mythical SDDS death knell). Namely MIB2, Charlies Angels 2 and T3 - enough of football results.
 

---

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 05-21-2004, 04:24 PM:
 

quote: Michael Schaffer

---

if the SDDS system had had steering capabilities to "upmix" 3 to 5 channels

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

The other problem is with those sites actually getting the 8 channel prints! That bombs out many times too, they don't seem to strike enough of them to go around.

---

Mark, ALL prints are the same. If the movie was mixed in 8 channel SDDS, then every print will carry that information. That is the whole purpose of providing the "fold down" in the SDDS setup software, so that non-8 channel auditoriums can simply fold down those extra two screen channels into the three. This is also why sound mixers do not want their 8 channel movies played in SDDS in 6 channel auditoriums. The fold down does more damage to their mix than playing the film in SRD or DTS.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-21-2004, 07:23 PM:
 
Dean, check Brad's response right above mine. That should answer your question.[av=m]

Also, how does "folding down" the extra channels damage the mix so much? Granted it won't be as good as having 5 real speakers behind the screen, but doesn't the fold down simply play the Left Extra channel at 50% in the Left and 50% in the Center? Kind of like how a "mono" sound in a stereo system is represented at equal volumes in both speakers? I can see how it would be bad news if the speakers were wired out of phase by some moron.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-21-2004, 07:41 PM:
 


>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-22-2004, 01:05 AM:
 

quote: Dean Kollet

---

I was playing around on the SDDS config. program on my laptop and there is an option to Matrix the 2 extra channels...is that for testing only or...?

---

What you saw was probably the "analog stereo narrow" option which uses the LE and RE channels as L and R for optical. A situation where this might be used would be on a very large screen when you play in 1:85 and feel the L and R are too far out to give you a good constant coverage. Or when you play external video sources with a matrixed soundtrack.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-22-2004, 07:13 AM:
 
Joe,

It is not that fold-down "damages the mix." It is that fold-down is static -- the same amount of LC and RC are folded into L,C,R at all times. But when the sound mixer mixes for 5-channel, they can vary the amount as appropriate for the scene, so sometimes LC might go all the way into L, or might be 30%/70% L/C or 50%/50%, etc.

So the 5-channel mix will be better sounding than the 8-channel mix folded down.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Robbie Hidalgo (Member # 2090) on 05-22-2004, 12:32 PM:
 
Hmmm...interesting conclusion, but not exactly accurate.

The fold-down matrix simply distributes content previously allocated to LC/RC between the L/R and C channels. However, if a mixer pans information from the extras to L or C or R in some degree, the content's motion is still reflected in the fold down and would be reproduced accordingly. In this regard, fold-down remains completely dynamic. If I pan a sound previously 100% allocated to LC, and move it, say, 70% to L, the matrix will correspondingly represent the content's movement exactly as it is recorded. It does not "take over" control of the mixers movement or placement within the sound field. It's really just emulating the existance of the extras, not creating it.

One conceptual benefit of this method is the ability to produce a phantom LC and RC image for an 8 channel print in a 5.1 house. So it is possible that the contrary could be argued, that an 8 channel mix can potentially make a 5.1 house sound better than a 5.1 mix can by providing LC/RC imaging that would otherwise not be there.

Then again, it is absolutely true that an 8 channel mix, monitored in 8 channels on the stage, will have slightly more accurate LC/RC imaging than the same mix folded down in a 5.1 environment.

Nevertheless, considering that 4:2:4 matrix encoding/decoding has been accepted as a theatrical audio reproduction norm for decades, the 8 to 5.1 fold-down is actually a fairly innocuous function, comparitively speaking.

Alot of subjectivity involved in such a debate of course (he said as he ducked his head...)
 

---

Posted by Alan Haigh (Member # 1781) on 05-24-2004, 03:30 PM:
 
The fold down in SDDS is obviously a fixed ratio, but it's one which was decided on by listening and comparing. I think it's something like LC goes -6dB to L and -12dB to centre, but I'm not certain. Anyway the idea is to create 2 "phantom" speakers, which sound the same (if you're sitting in the middle, of course!). I can't think of a reason why a mixer would want to do anything else than this in his/her mix. There is no analogue-style matrixing going on, so you won't have extraneous signals etc. Most mixers I've worked with ask me what the SDDS box does and then emulate that when they fold it down for the other formats.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-24-2004, 05:37 PM:
 
"I can't think of a reason why a mixer would want to do anything else than this in his/her mix."

Suppose you have an effect which you want to come from (somewhat) left of center, but you want to make sure that no component of that sound actually comes from center. In SDDS-8 mix you can mix that sound into LC, and in a 5.1 mix you can put it all in L (with less gain, perhaps, than you might put into LC). But when SDDS-8 is folded down to SDDS-5.1, some of your effect will go into the center channel, and depending on where people are sitting and phasing effects in the theatre, etc., etc., some people may hear the sound coming from the center.

I don't mean to say I think this is a huge deal or a terribly large effect, and I don't think that Larry Blake is losing sleep over his 8-channel mixes being folded down. Nonetheless, if he has the flexibility to direct the fold-down nonstatically in ways that make sense for him, then, all other factors being equal (which they usually are, or better-than-equal, when we compare SRD and SDDS...), why not go with his chosen mix?

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-24-2004, 11:36 PM:
 
In about half of the 8 channel releases I've seen there is a note from the sound mixers saying "if you have an 8 channel SDDS auditorium please play it in this format - if you do not have 8 channel capability, please choose SRD or DTS for your playback format if you are so equipped".
 

---

Posted by Mike Perju (Member # 1482) on 05-25-2004, 08:52 PM:
 
AMC in Toronto has been replacing their DFP-3000s with CP-650s in the last couple of months.
 

---