This is topic DTS - SRD Levels and quality considerations 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=007160

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-04-2005, 09:18 AM:
 
Hi everyone

It is an old question that I've read thousands of time here and in other places: Is DTS better than SRD?

I'm not here to open another thread on this, of course.

Today I spent a morning making some interesting tests on my biggest screen, equipped with CP650, DCM monitor, DCA amps, Martin Audio 6B screen speakers, 6 Martin audio Subs and 16 Martin Audio horned surrounds. Plus a DTS6D of course.



I took a "Broadway 2000" THX trailer, I made a loop and, with the help of some spare rollers, I made this loop running continuously on the projector. Then I made these tests, read up to the end, there are something that I didn't expect.

The DTS processor is set up at 300mV RMS all channels.

I usually go to the auditorium and have the THX trailer run several time in SRD and then in DTS so that I can compare the sound quality and the overall levels.

Please note that I made these tests one channel a time: Surround, THEN stage, and THEN Subwoofers. Not all toghether.

In general the more quality of the sound of DTS was always present, I noted VERY VERY well in surrounds, where SRD compression was very high and the differences in quality VERY HIGH. I could say if was SRD or DTS in any moment, the DTS' high frequency quality was light years far from SRD ones. Surround level was the same between the formats.

On stage channels the differences are less noticeable, perhaps because Martins are very good speakers but they're not as well as JBL or EV on High Frequencies over 8000Hz or because the front sound of the Broadway 2000 is not so complex. However, there are sounds you can ear in DTS that cannot be heard in SRD!

With Subwoofers, I expected some differences since the way that SRD and DTS handle the signal is very different (DTS filters out Subwoofer channel from surrounds).
Do you know "Broadway 2000"? The Sub track starts with "high" frequencies (for a sub!) like 100/150Hz that blow your head and then run lower and lower until the seat start shaking! Well, of course the first part of the track is not present on DTS because the sub is cut off at 80Hz. Seems that SRD SW track is there only when designed while DTS adds some "garbage" coming from Surrounds, but nothing important.
The overall level and depth seems the same between the two tracks but, again, what you hear was not the same.

Then, I take my notebook, equipped with a very flat M-Audio soundcard. I connected the soundcard's inputs on Dolby's Test point and I recorded the SW outputs of SRD and then DTS formats. See the graph, made at 1/6 octave and with "Peak Hold" enable.

This is the Center Channel, SRD first and then DTS




This is the Subwoofer channel, SRD first and then DTS





Subwoofer channels made me thinking...
In SRD from 80Hz up to 150Hz there are the "head shake" that is missing in DTS but I don't think that it is an issue...

Look carefully at the very low end. Under 35Hz or so, DTS track is not at the same level of the SRD one! Ok, not many sound systems are capable of frequencies under 25/30Hz but... I made the same test bypassing the cables on the rack, connecting the probes under the first "sound" cable connected at the DTS (next time I'll connect the probes directly after the plug behind the unit!) and the result was the same.

Should I think that DTS subwoofer soundtrack is not as deep as SRD? Ok, it depends of the recording... What do you think about that?

I'll wait for your opinions!

Bye

Antonio
 

---

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 05-04-2005, 10:00 AM:
 
It amazes my how technical some people need to get. Will the numbers determine what sound format you enjoy a movie in? Will people look at the numbers and say "well, the numbers say this sounds better, so I better enjoy it"? This is not a flame of any sort, but I just dont understand why things have to be over analyzed so much. If its a passion to check the numbers, fine, but for me, I just walking and listen to the movie. Based on my years of movie watching, I personally have determined that DTS has better sound...to me. I dont need scopes, computers and analyzed numbers to tell me that.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-04-2005, 10:15 AM:
 
Antonio, my recommendation to you is to stop concerning yourself so much over it. Plus, use an actual reel from a movie, not a sound demo. It is not uncommon for different versions of a sound demo logo trailer to have noticeably different mixes. The biggest offender of this to date is the THX Broadway as you compare it to the 3 different digital formats.

I do personally find that SRD packs more of a punch than DTS and I prefer the full range in the surrounds that DTS does not provide. I also find DTS can sound a tad harsh with some speakers (EV is a good example). However these are minor points that would in no way stop me from running or enjoying a movie in DTS if the auditorium was so equipped.

Bottom line: get over it.
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-04-2005, 10:28 AM:
 
Brad

I accept your raccomandations, it's just curiosity, don't worry that when I go watching a movie I just see and listen, and I do not think at other.

But, I'll never stop thinkering around equipment, curiosity is an human feature!!

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 05-04-2005, 10:54 AM:
 
Antonio, bravo for bringing it up with such technical specifics! Though the arguement will undoubtedly live on, its good to see someone go to such lengths to try and answer/pose the question
 

---

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 05-04-2005, 11:56 AM:
 
Is DTS Better?
YES

Why?
Because the Timecode keeps reading all the time unlike SRD which gives a fault error of 99!!! after several years of film playback

And the question still leaves on
D
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-04-2005, 02:49 PM:
 
Uness you have the very best of B chain equipment anbd a very good NC level and decay time in the room its hard to tell the difference. DTS does use very little data compression as compared to SRD and that can be an advantage. I also prefer DYTS surround arrangment in where the vlf comes fomr the xubwoofer and not the surrounds. Distortion levels in the LF realm and kept alot lower that way. DTS also has lossless(compression free)systems available based on the XD-10 and its doubtful that Dolby could ever pull that off as there isn't enough storage room for all the dats on the film, although it could be stored on a HD. I like both systems and the reliability of each seems to depend more on where you are and what grade prints you are sent. I can live with either one but since I much prefer the Panastereo CSP-1200SRD processor over anythng else available I have been installing more XD-10's lately with them. OUt of the box the XD-10 is capable of 8 channels and can run 24 bit 96khz digital... another tow important advantages that can be utilized some time in the near future.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-04-2005, 03:38 PM:
 
Mark

I'm a great fan of DTS, my analisys was not to declare a winner in the eternal battle between SRD and DTS...

Mine are just facts: is as Brad says and it is just a flaw in the final encoding or, really, DTS subwoofer track isn't able to go down up to 20Hz? It's just curiosity, of course, but I like to have the best from my sound systems and I'd like to know the "secrets" of both systems. No particular motivation, just curiosity. I do it for fun and personal satisfaction.

About personal taste and feelings, I was surprised by the surrounds tests: I could say in a moment if the format used was SRD or DTS... No doubt. And it was not a level issue (where one format has higher levels and sounds "better"...)

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 05-04-2005, 04:39 PM:
 
Interesting tests, Antonio. Don't let the "I don't ask questions, because I may not like the answer" people get you down. The way to find answers is to ask questions. If you like tinkering, as I do, than tinker. The way to find the truth, is to search for it, and not to just blindly believe everything your told.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-04-2005, 04:53 PM:
 
I see one fatal flaw in this test method. Since the AC-3 CODEC utilizes psychoacoustic masking as part of the compression, you cannot do a channel by channel comparison. The Dolby Digital track will not contain all of the information by design. The whole theory behind the CODEC is that certain information can be left out (or not coded as detailed) in one channel because it is masked by another sound from another channel (it's not as simple as that and yes, I've actually read the technical paper on AC-3). The only way to evaluate the two systems is an A/B listening test with material recorded off the same master. You'd also need different types of material because one system may sound better with one type of material where the other may sound better with another.
 

---

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 05-04-2005, 05:20 PM:
 
I dont think its a matter of "I don't ask questions, because I may not like the answer", its simply that most people can go into an auditorium and know what sound they feel is best without test equiptment. I let my ear be the judge and not test results.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 05-04-2005, 06:30 PM:
 
I did a seminar a few years ago with 200 projectionists and techs outside of the USA where one of my guest teaching techs was pushing test equipment for basic evaluation. The proposed hardware was equal to a month or more of their salaries My turn I pointed out they have some very good test instruments....their ears and eyes. Systematic checkout ( blown drivers, rattling surrounds, general channel balance, light illumination on screen, etc ) using their "attached" instruments has greatly improved the theatre circuit and their field techs are doing more useful work.
 

---

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 05-04-2005, 06:54 PM:
 
I agree with that. All the test equiptment in the world can say something sounds GREAT, but if the customers ears dont like it, then no charts or graphs in the world will convince them.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-04-2005, 11:23 PM:
 

quote: Demetris Thoupis

---

Because the Timecode keeps reading all the time unlike SRD which gives a fault error of 99!!! after several years of film playback

---

I don't know what's going on in your booth, but I ship all of my prints out at the end of the run tracking typically between 0-2 at the highest...essentially about 1 point lower than whey they arrived brand new.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-04-2005, 11:28 PM:
 
I question getting a second run print with a lower score less than a new print
as for comparisons the clossest match on playback to the mag or D1 master is DTS in blind tests
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-04-2005, 11:38 PM:
 
Gordo, passing the prints through the cleaner (w/FG) every show does indeed drop the error rating a solid point as compared to the first virgin run of a print straight from the lab, and the continual cleaning keeps it that way. It's no big secret and others have noted the same finding.
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-05-2005, 04:36 PM:
 
I had always good results with SRD, if a print is crap, both systems had problems, perhaps DTS is less sensitive but when a print is good, both system are perfect, perhaps DTS handle better splices and little print flaws.

But that was not my intention of my analysis!

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 05-05-2005, 10:08 PM:
 
I just checked in on this post and I must say Frank sounds way opinionated about not needing instruments to tell him what sounds good.

I spent years with legions of doormen, and assistant managers who thought they could tune a theatre with their thumbs on the EQ and power amps.

I even had one AMC manager tell me "I like a lot of surrounds in my movies", which of course, exactly the problem. It's not his F*cking movie. I bet AMC does not let him make the popcorn his way.

You know what they tell new musicians? First you have to learn the rules before you get to break them.
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 05-05-2005, 10:46 PM:
 
Ha Ha. well said Sam. My only question?.....There are rules???

Rick
 

---

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 05-05-2005, 11:02 PM:
 
Well, I dont tune to my ear...I didnt think that was what this post was about. It sounded like he was trying to analyze sound to determine what sounded better..not analyzing to tune the auditorium. I agree that test instruments are necessary for that, but NOT necessary for me to be able to decide which sound format I prefer. He looks at numbers to determine that, I walk in to the auditorium and sit through the movie. Perhaps I got the point of his post wrong...if so, I apologize.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-06-2005, 03:04 AM:
 
True, I've seen techs tune a place up by the book, and then add "color" to the sound spectrum to make sound, sound better.

Yep, "tekkies" love to break rules, and/or ignore them, yet had to start out learning the rules..lol

..it comes with practice.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-06-2005, 03:19 AM:
 
Frank

As you read on my analisys, I made it BEFORE with my ears, THEN, since subwoofer track was very different (but not worse) I just had fun analyzing it and found that the DTS track is not as deep as SRD one.

This night I will not sleep installing three more subwoofers in that screen, for Star Wars event. I'll have 9 subwoofer for 5800W. After that, the frequency response of my system will go down than before, of course. And I would like to know if SRD will give me less "punch"... Not that I'll do not use DTS for Star Wars...

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-06-2005, 05:47 AM:
 
Antonio, will you run "Star Wars" in a crappy Italian second-rate voice actors non-lipsync dubbed version with screwed up dialog levels? If so, don't waste your time with all that finetuning.
 

---

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 05-06-2005, 06:28 AM:
 
Just a passing question on subs - do any of you folks use Bagend Infra subs? I only ask as their press blurb goes on about Todd-AO using them for additional SDDS sub channels, and I wonder if the Todd-AO folks are mixing stuff down to the lower limits of the Bagends, the Infras being flat to 8Hz 'n all...
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-06-2005, 07:30 AM:
 
Thank you michael for your support and consideration in our (too often not dequated) dubbing work. So I will show Star Wars in Mono, I'll think at any upgrade when I'll change country.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 05-07-2005, 06:39 AM:
 
Antonio, I think you deserve credits for your effort. There is
nothing wrong in being curious. I´ve been wondering myself why
films can sound so different.

My theater is a single, THX with all three digital systems. What
I´ve found out over the years, is that some films sounds better in
DTS, some in SRD, and some actually sounds best in analog Dolby SR.
Generally SDDS sounds best, but since only 1 out of 3 films will
play, it´s perhaps beside the point.

The techs I´ve used over the years to tune the soundsystem, all
work the same way; tune by the book - then add a little color.
After all, it´s the ear that´s going to listen, not a computer.

Thomas
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-07-2005, 03:43 PM:
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think in Sweden you get to hear the original version in the cinema, with subtitles. Although I have always been wildly opposed to dubbing in languages other than the original, I had to concede to defenders of the process in Germany that they at least do it very professionally there. With very good voice actors, as lipsync as possible, with correct dialog levels.
There was a time when they recorded the dialog at a higher level than the original because some dubbing directors felt that "the Americans record at the wrong level because the voices are too low and the dialog is drowned by the athmosphere elements". That was nonsense of course. Nobody knows better than the people who make the original how it is supposed to sound. These directors came from TV and limited headroom analog (mono) times. Interestingly though, some of them had been involved in high quality dubbing in the 50s and 60s for 6-channel magnetic releases, with directional dialog and all that done very neatly. Maybe they felt that the plunge back into optical mono standards before the advent of Dolby Stereo necessitated "correcting" the dialog levels. Whatever. For many years now, they have been doing it correctly.
However, in Italy, the dubbings I have seen even of prime releases were really bad. Flat non-lipsync voices, too high dialog levels with too little headroom. To give US readers an idea what that sounds like: about the quality level of 70s Kung Fu movie dubbings. It really seems to me not to make too much sense to invest a lot of time in squeezing "the last 3%" out of the sound quality when the material then played back is so heavily compromised.

As Lyle has pointed out, Dolby Digital uses psychoacoustic masking across the channels as part of the process. It does not make sense to compare channels individually. The sound picture as a whole is what needs to be judged. Just like you can not judge the acoustical quality of a concert hall reliably by listening to individual instruments - you have to hear the whole orchestra to see how transparent, even and balanced the whole sound picture is.

I can't believe that this whole "I don't need test equipment because I can trust my ears" nonsense is coming up again and again. Nobody says that finetuning is illegal, b ut is has to happen within certain defined rarameters that are elements of the industry standard, and those can not be subjectively judged. Whoever says he can is full of it. Our hearing is not made to measure SPL levels and we can not judge even response over a sound spectrum, for the same reasons that psychoacoustical codecs can fool us to a certain degree. Because aural perception is so subjective, there is a huge grey area where pseudo experts can roam freely. But most people don't even have trained ears, yet they still feel they are experts because "they know what they like".
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-07-2005, 04:46 PM:
 
Michael

Original voices cannot be substituted, of course. But in Italy we had dubbed movie since the beginning and if you try to show a movie in Italy with subtitles none will go to see it, trust me. About the levels, the biggest problems is that usually the dialogs are LOWER than the original and not higher. About the lipsync, I know that we usually change something in the translation to maintain the highest possibile lipsync. About the flatten dialogues: I believe that is a matter of personal taste, I usually find German dubbing worse than Italian one, with too high level dialogue...

This is what we see in our movie, and this cannot justify a less quality presentation. For Italian audience a dubbed movie is the normal thing to see, see it with 3 more subwoofer will give something more to the experience, I do not see why I should not do it. Just because our quality of the presentation is no "as high" as yours should not justify someone to have an even more lower quality in his cinema. This is my opinion of course.

However, the purpose of my post was not this one, the only reply I had was about the psycoacustical code that Dolby uses in their encoder. It's right, I didn't think about that. But usually lower frequencies are not a problem for encoding, seems strange to me that AC3 contains some tricks at very low frequencies... But it could be the answer.

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-07-2005, 05:38 PM:
 

quote: Antonio Marcheselli

---

But in Italy we had dubbed movie since the beginning and if you try to show a movie in Italy with subtitles none will go to see it, trust me. About the levels, the biggest problems is that usually the dialogs are LOWER than the original and not higher. About the lipsync, I know that we usually change something in the translation to maintain the highest possibile lipsync. About the flatten dialogues: I believe that is a matter of personal taste, I usually find German dubbing worse than Italian one, with too high level dialogue...

This is what we see in our movie, and this cannot justify a less quality presentation.

---

Honestly, Antonio, that's a bunch of nonsense. I did not say that you should give people a "less quality presentation". I also know it's not your fault that people want to see the dubbed versions. That's the same everywhere that evil practice is common, unfortunately. Although more and more theatres at least in the big cities in Germany now play OVs, and a lot of other countries which do not have a big enough market to finance the dubbings always did it. My ex-chain in Germany even has a modern 8-screen in downtown Berlin which only plays OVs, the only modern multiplex in Europe in a non-English-speaking countries which plays OVs exclusively, I believe.

I am pretty sure you never watched a movie dubbed in German in a movie theatre, and to answer the next question, yes, I did watch several movies in theatres in Rome when I was there 2 years ago (and a few years before that in Bolzano and Milano). opinion, all dubbings are "bad taste", I hate the concept as such. But where the dialog levels are is not a matter of taste, it's an industry standard too. The dialog levels in Germany now (for the last 7-10 years or so) are right where they belong. I have seen them do it a couple of times in the dubbing studios in Berlin myself. I am not even going to go deeper into matters of quality, such as embedding the dialog in the athmosphere of the scene by using different response characteristics (in the street, in a small room, in a large room, etc). None of these happened in the Italian dubbings I watched. They were all completely dry - or "flat" - studio sound in the mid of whatever the actual ambience of the scene was. It is not really possible to lipsync different languages, but they can at least match the timing of the mouth movements and the dialog, and that was really bad too. I wonder if you have ever seen a number of OVs (we are basically talking about US product here since they make up most of the big releases) in a good movie theater either?

Anyway, what all this comes down to is not that I or anyone else doubts or criticizes your desire to give people the possible best presentation. But I have to say I do find it somewhat strange that you spend so much time investigating the tiny quality differences between formats when the actual product you are presenting is very far from what the ideal quality standards are anyway.
Now I am going off to watch a movie in the OV - in Dolby Digital. Sorry about that.
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-07-2005, 07:14 PM:
 
Michael

I saw all the Star Trek TNG (ok, not a Theater product) in OV, they are 176 episodes, I love to see OV movie BUT I have to say that I prefer dubbed version since with subtitled ones if I read the subtitles, I do not have time to pay attention to other...

I have to disagree with you about the time of lipsync in italian's subbed movie. Sure, the quality is not always the same and it is slowly worsening... But we are not used to see actors speaking when they're not moving their lips!

About the "finding the 3% more" from my presentation, this is the cinema we're used for, it's normal for me. The fact that a movie in OV is better does not change my mind...

I'm going to equalize one of my screen now, see you soon!!

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 05-07-2005, 07:26 PM:
 
So what does Darth Vader sound like speaking Italian?
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-08-2005, 12:36 PM:
 
Just know that in the original Trilogy Darth Vader was renamed "Lord fener", don't ask me why...

The effect of the mask is recreated of course!!

Bye
A

[ 05-08-2005, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Antonio Marcheselli ]
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-08-2005, 02:13 PM:
 
of course, even italian-made films have traditionally had dubbed, or post-synced, dialog, in the flat manner that michael describes. personally, i find that very hard to watch. i'll watch it, but it's hard.

isn't it getting more common for italian films do have dialogue recorded during shooting? is there any chance of italians being "spoiled" on synced dialogue to the point of accepting subtitles as a compromise?

what would happen if, for example, george lucas insisted that star wars play only in OV in italy? would people still see it?

and to stray further off-topic, is there any truth to the stories i've heard about how in italy it is considered acceptable to answer a phone and to smoke in the theater? i don't think i've ever seen a film in italy and i certainly wouln't want to if that is the case.

carl
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-08-2005, 02:39 PM:
 
Carl,

Italian movie are recorded on the field. Too often they have a very poor quality on dialogues...

I do not think that our dialogues are very flat, please consider the fact that it is not your language and that each language has a difference "sound"... For example english language has a sound that in some condition is not possibile to have in Italian. I', sometimes amazed on how different sounds dialogues in english than italian ones, but I can not see the way to make them the same (in some condition). Our language is different, you cannot expect that an italian man speaks exactly as an english man!

If George Lucas have Star Wars in OV in our theaters, I do not think that he'll find Italians' favour... You're not used to see much foreign movie since the most of production is made by US. When I see OV movie with subtitles (often in English...) I realize that I cannot have time to see the action. Today on MTV there was a special called "Pimp my car", I looked at the subtitles and I was not able to see what happened on the screen 'cause the dialogues was very fast...

About smoking and talking at the phone in Italian's theaters... We're not so primitive, it is not allowed to smoke in theaters since 20 years; about cellular, it depends of people kindness but if someone starts talking at the phone and an usher see it (or the customer come to complain) that people is asked to stop talking and to shut off the phone! It is not a law but in a movie theater you can not disturb the others!

After that, rude people are everywhere, you too find sometime used condom in theaters...

Bye
Antonio
 

---

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 05-08-2005, 03:09 PM:
 
Michael
Correct. In Sweden only films for children are dubbed. Most films
in Swedish theaters are from the USA, OV with subtitles.

I´ve heard John Wayne speak German. I didn´t like it. The French
also seem to dub films, but the ones I´ve seen had english subtitles.
Is that the case in Italy, Antonio?

Since we´re off the topic anyway - another thing I´ve experienced
both in Italy and the Netherlands, is a nasty habit of stopping
the show in the middle to make people go to the concession stand
one more time.

Thomas
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-08-2005, 03:48 PM:
 
Thomas

No, we do not have subtitles at all!
And, yes, we usually had the behaviour to stop film in the middle to have people go to the "concession stand". Then US style multiplex arrived and this behaviour has stopped!

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-08-2005, 04:14 PM:
 
Actually John Wayne's "German voice" is not a good negative example since he liked it himself. He was friends with the actor Arnold Marquis who dubbed him, they went drinking heavily together when Wayne was in Germany to work on their coarse whiskey voices...

What we mean here by "flat" is not the actual melody or intonation of the language - Italian is actually more melodic than English - but the manner in which the voices are recorded and also the texts are delivered. Those dubbings I have heard had no athmospheric recording at all (meaning they are recorded and treated with an ambience that matches the scene and the acoustical environment in which the scene takes place), they were just dry sounding studio takes which did not match the acoustical athmosphere. Another feature I did not like was that the voices mostly had a very different color than the original actors, and the texts were usually delivered very straight, basically just people reading through their texts instead of really "acting" them.
BTW "Lord Fener" in Italian sounds like a guy talking into a handkerchief. I once saw "L'Emperio battuta ancora" in a cinema in Milano.

Antonio, I am a little surprised that you apparently haven't noticed these acoustical "incompabilities" so far. Sorry, but that makes me doubt the validity of your extended listening tests even more. And no, watching Star Trek on DVD does not count. You need to watch and listen to a lot of OVs in a good cinema to get a feeling for what US productions really sound like.

Thomas - Yes, in France they dub movies too. Interestingly though, they also show a lot of OVs. Very surprising for a country in which everyone emphatically pretends not to be interested in speaking foreign languages. Big releases are often shown in dubbed and OVs on may screens. For that reson, DTS is really big in France. I guess that is because they have a very special appreciation for cinema as an art form there and they understand that the original language is part of the stylistic texture of the movie.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-08-2005, 04:34 PM:
 
ah, i'm glad about the smoking and cell phones. when i said "flat" i meant it in the sense michael did. in other words, the dialogue all sounds like it was recorded by someone in a booth, and not in the environment in which the action takes place. i'm sure it's much better done now than it was in the 40's-70's.

that mtv show seems like rather an extreme example of subtitling problems. usually it's possible to read titles in a movie and catch most of the action. true, it is a compromise. but in a dubbed film you are missing the entirety of the original vocal performance.

perhaps the worst case scenario is a post-synced foreign-language film, shown OV with subtitles. when i saw roma, citta aperta, for example, i often couldn't figure out who was speaking the lines because the translation was incomplete and all the normal aural cues we normally have at our disposal were not there.

btw, if you were talking about me personally, i am quite used to seeing foreign language films. but you're probably right about people in general.

thomas, i could be wrong, but i seem to remember seeing a donald duck cartoon subtitled in malmö about 20 years ago.

carl
 

---

Posted by Joop de Gruiter (Member # 84) on 05-08-2005, 05:14 PM:
 
The break in the middle of the film is a nasty habit that is becoming less common in the Netherlands in the past years. I think the break has been accepted since you have a different way of going out to see a movie in the Netherlands. Many theaters have a bar and you can have a beer in the break and discuss the movie so far.

Another aspect which I didn't think of before I became a projectionist is that this way, if the film is of normal length, you only need one projector which can run 6000'/1800 meter reels. That's also a money saver.

Interesting that the spreading of Hollywood movies > multiplexes has created a culture of running a film without intermission, as it should be.
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-09-2005, 08:16 AM:
 
Michael

I didn't say that dubbed movie are better than OV...
I just say that I will live to see OV movie sometimes (in my home theater since there are just few theaters showing OV movies) BUT I'll prefer to see them dubbed in Italian since that way I can fully appreciate the images and the action!

I realize that many of the feature of the sound is lost in dubbed version. I just understand that it is not easy for dubbing mixers to recreate PERFECTLY the surrounding environment. Sometimes they do it poorly, sometime they do it in a good way. I just think that to have the full featured movie you have to see it in OV. It's a compromise, as has been said!

I'm sorry that this personal feeling can judge the analisys I post before, made in my best objective way... You don't like dubbed movie (remember that you know perfectly english, I don't), this does not make me think that your opinion on sound systems is inadequate!

When you saw "L'impero colpisce ancora" in italy? Remember that was a 1970's dubbing work, even in the reissue version.

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 05-09-2005, 03:00 PM:
 
Carl,
You´re right about seeing a subtitled Donald Duck. Most cartoons
showed in Swedish theaters used to have subtitles. Unfortunately
cartoons in theaters is a thing of the past here. However, most
full length movies for kids are dubbed, and has been for as long
as I can remember. Many Disney and Pixar releases usually have a
dozen or so OV prints with subtitles.

As for Donald Duck; one man - and one man ONLY - could do the
voice perfect, and that was Clarence Nash. Period!

As for the intermissions in Netherlands, I have seen a couple of
movies without a stop. As for Italy, the one and only film I saw
in Rome was Les Miserables, OV with subtitles. We were 4 people
in the theater. In the middle of the film there was a stop. A man
with a box full of snacks walk up in front of the screen, clapped
his hands very hard four times to get attention. Nobody bought
anything. He walk all the way around the auditorium and back to
the screen and clapped his hands again. After standing there for
about 3 more minutes with nobody buying anything the film started
again.

Annoying, perhaps - but it was Italian charm, the old-fashioned
way, you can only see in movies today.

Boy, am I way off topic now...

Thomas
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-11-2005, 09:37 AM:
 
Thomas

I never saw a clapping man during intermissions in Florence! There were intermissions, sure. But it is a behavior that is slowly disappearing. There are no intermission in most of the theaters right now!

Yesterday I spend part of the time comparing OV with dubbed version of Matrix. Sure, the OV cannot be reproduced at 100% but I strongly disagree with the "dubbed version are a piece of crap => do not try doing better shows"... About sounds surrounding the dialogues, some are lost, some not, some are recreated. And, yes, dialogues changes tonality only when the ambience change drastically. So you'll find the same "studio" dialogue in a little room, in a big room, but they'll change in a church or in the road. It's not 100%, of course, but it is 70%. AND, dialogues do not continues when the actor stop talking! At least, the dialogues are almost synchronized, someone that know english and check the lipsync can see the differences, but if you're hearing the dialogues and watching the action you won't notice the delay.

I would love to see only OV movie. I do not know english so well to fully understand without subtitles. So I prefer dubbed version. Perhaps I'd love to see italian version and then see it again in OV with subtitles...

Just my 2cent opinion!

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-11-2005, 02:05 PM:
 

quote: Antonio Marcheselli

---

Sure, the OV cannot be reproduced at 100% but I strongly disagree with the "dubbed version are a piece of crap => do not try doing better shows"...

---

quote:

---

Sorry, people, but… how/why did you become technicians? Isn’t there in you any curiosity, any hunger for knowledge?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

I have done this test for many people and everyone agrees that even on a direct A/B/C comparison, the difference is SO MINISCUAL that it is damn near impossible to tell

---

quote: Michael Schaffer

---

A lot of US premieres are run in Dolby Digital, do you think the people who make the movies don't know what they want and settle for "the second best"?

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

The Sony rep got it wrong a lot more times than he got it right. Sometimes he would say there was a switch when there wasn't.

---

That reminds me of a story when a TV team from Germany interviewed a very high Coke rep and at the end of the interview, they gave him a Coke bottle they had filled up with Pepsi and asked him to take a good sip for the camera. He took his sip "aaaaah - Coke is still the best!" When they aired this, they got into a lot of trouble. Coke threatened with lawsuits etc. and they had to apologize and say it was just hoax. I think I can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi reliably BTW
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-13-2005, 05:17 AM:
 
This kind of experimentation is (sort-of) interesting but it falls way outside of a theatre tech's job. Not that it isn't worth pursuing but, as Michael S. suggests, all of the basics had better be covered. Otherwise, Antonio's use of his time and other resources might be called into question.

...and don't use those logo trailers for this sort of comparative testing. They're known to have different mixes!!! Come to think of it, this actually proves it. Doesn't it?
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-13-2005, 11:26 AM:
 
Michael

I fully agree with you that there is a "development" moment. So this is mine! I believe that a tech should always be open to new tecniques and procedures, but I still have to develop mine! Or should I trust blindly at yours or someone's else tecniques? Not to judge your opinions, I fully respect them. But I'm sure that all of you started on the basis of other theories and then experiment your personal ideas and tecniques, isn't it true?

Manny's reply is, IMHO, very appropriate, I didn't know that it is known that THX trailers have differents sound mix for differents formats. If I'll have the chance, I'll make the same tests with a loop of a movie.

Michael,
What you say is right. But do you really think that I'm spending my nights trying to better understand my sound systems and I allow my shows to revert to SR? Do you simply really think that I allow my shows to REVERT??? Do you really think that while the sound systems are truly checked I allow my movies to be showed with poorly centered lamps or with poorly image stability? Of course I cannot do miracles, I'm not the theater owner and I try to do my best with the equipment I have.
But you're really underestimate me, we had a long chat months ago!!!

Bye
A

[ 05-13-2005, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Antonio Marcheselli ]
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-13-2005, 07:12 PM:
 
Hmmm, how odd. This from page 1, nine days ago...

quote: Brad Miller

---

use an actual reel from a movie, not a sound demo. It is not uncommon for different versions of a sound demo logo trailer to have noticeably different mixes. The biggest offender of this to date is the THX Broadway as you compare it to the 3 different digital formats.

---

quote: Antonio Marcheselli

---

I didn't know that it is known that THX trailers have differents sound mix for differents formats.

---

It helps to read the replies, doesn't it Antonio?
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-13-2005, 07:49 PM:
 
Yes Brad, I read your reply too!
What I mean is that I didn't know that before you and Manny told it to me!

If I do not read your replies, why should I post here?!

When I'll have a bit of time I'll make the same test with a loop of movie.

Oh, BTW, I've finished installing my subwoofers. I have 11 now . There was somewhere an old thread on how many subs has been installed at maximum. If I correctly remember the maximum was by Steve and was 6... Then, there are 11 subs, 12 cones since one is a 4688... Oh, Steve, I finally followed your suggestions, I bought an RDL ST-CX1 filter and applyed to the 4645B...

The sound is... fascinating!

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 05-14-2005, 09:15 AM:
 
Antonio,
I have probably missed something. Do you mean you have 11 sub woofers all together in your plex, or in one auditorium alone?

Thomas
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-15-2005, 08:25 AM:
 
One auditorium alone.

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 05-15-2005, 10:23 AM:
 
Antonio
Why in the wide, wide world do you need 11 subwoofers?

Thomas
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-15-2005, 12:46 PM:
 
So, Antonio, what's the geometry of your auditorium and how are the eleven subs arranged? How are they amped?

Thanks!

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-15-2005, 01:37 PM:
 
The auditorium is 30 meter long. 20,5 meter wide the screen.

About the subs, it is not an ideal setup. They're 8 Martin Audio, 2 JBL 4645B and 1 JBL 4688.

Since it is not a permanent setup, I had to use the wires available. So I have

1 DCA 2422 in Bridge mode (2400W 4 Ohm) for 2 Martin Audio
1 DCA 2422 in Bridge mode (2400W 4 Ohm) for 2 Martin Audio
1 DCA 2422 in Bridge mode (2400W 4 Ohm) for 2 Martin Audio
1 JBL MPX600 in Bridge mode (1700W 4Ohm) for 2 JBL 4645B with RDL boost filter
1 channel of a DCA2422 (I know that it is not optimal, only 700W for two subs) for 2 Martin Audio
1 channel of a DCA2422 for 1 JBL 4688

BTW, when a DCA is connected using Dataport and has a spare channel, can I use the spare channel with the CH2 Euro input?

Don't tell me, it is not the best setup since there are mixed subwoofers brands and amplifiers, plus some subs are not adequately amplified.
Just think it as a gift for a friend that it is not anymore with us...

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 05-15-2005, 03:37 PM:
 
Antonio,
I´m very sorry about your friend.

Ok, a very big auditorium. Explains the need for a lot of bass.
I still think 11 sounds a lot. In your opinion, does it make a
big difference compared to what you had before, and can you
explain in what way?

Thomas
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-15-2005, 04:02 PM:
 
I believe that when you're talking about bass frequencies you'll never reach "too much"!!

Having the enclosures working at maximum half power improve dramatically the frequency response and the dynamic.

Probably I could reach the same results with less subs if the subs were all 4645B or TL880D (before what Steve said!). Martin are good subs but they could do better!

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 05-15-2005, 04:34 PM:
 
Very interesting, Antonio. I hope to be able to visit you
some day.

Thomas
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-28-2005, 10:49 PM:
 
Eleven subwoofers! How'd I manage to miss that one?

If a "mothership" ever lands in that theatre, it'll asphyxiate the patrons!!!

You'd better arrange to have oxygen masks designed to fly out the back of each seat in the event of pressure loss in the theatre.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-28-2005, 11:06 PM:
 
Just because there are 11 subwoofers does not mean each one of them will play at their maximum capacity, ya know.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-29-2005, 12:17 AM:
 
Oh, Brad...

Lemme have my fun.
 

---