Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Subjective sound quality

This is topic Subjective sound quality 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=010895

Posted by Andy Frodsham (Member # 4061) on 05-07-2011, 04:09 AM:

Right, I know I'm opening-up myself for entry into the 'stupid question of the year' category, but I've been thinking about this for some time:

What level of subjective sound quality should one expect from a cinema based sound system?

As a comparison, I am thinking-of, say, a moderately well specified domestic, hi-fi system with separate amplifier, floor standing loudspeakers and CD player.

I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that a good theatre sound system will be capable of exposing the differences between different sources (non-sync and digital/analog soundtracks).

So, just what level of quality should one expect? Should a good theatre system sound as good as the home hi-fi and, if not, where will the differences lie?

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-07-2011, 09:12 AM:

Remember audio at home for music just has to sound good.

Cinema sound has to be able to reproduce the entire reality. (door slams, bombs, etc. . . . not the same thing.) Louis

Posted by Tom Sauter (Member # 616) on 05-07-2011, 11:03 AM:

Louis pointed it out exactly. The source material being listened to will provide different subjective listening experiences.

Second, the listening environment differs greatly between a home stero and a cinema.

Take a third environment: a rock concert. What do YOU expect to hear?

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 05-07-2011, 11:30 AM:

In cinemas, it's about speech quality first for sure. It can sound great in every other way, but you'll leave very unhappy if you missed plot points due to dialog not being understandable.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 05-07-2011, 01:22 PM:

I would hope that in 2011, paying $10 or more for a first run film, that it should sound very good for whatever it may be. Clean dialog, deep bass, pristine highs, no clipping, and little to no background/amp noise. If the system is tuned well, then the majority of mixes should sound as they should (you can't always fix a bad sound mix).

Sadly, most cinemas do not live up to that sort of standard.

AJG

Posted by Andy Frodsham (Member # 4061) on 05-07-2011, 04:23 PM:

I think the question posed by Tom,'What do you expect to hear?'. is the key to it all.

The problem is, we do not KNOW what we expect to hear!

How many people have actually heard a live orchestra in a concert hall, or gunfire, an explosion, soprano or double bass?

Do we really want to hear EVERY detail of the orchestra playing the opening music to the latest Bond film? This could be a rather distracting experience.

I take the points already made about theatre systems favouring spot effects or dialogue, but surely a good, well-tuned and balanced system should reproduce EVERY sound equally well?

Personally. I've yet to hear really good sound in any cinema I have visited. Where is the deep, tight bass, or sweet openess of that sound found in the top end? I'm not surprised your average member of the public can't tell the difference between digital and analogue audio!

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-07-2011, 05:21 PM:

I have been in and around this business since 1946 and have never heard anyone when selecting a movie to watch say "I wonder if the sound system is any good". Most people go to the cinema to see their favorite actors or for a good story. Audiophiles may do this but the vast majority of population are not audiophiles. BTW I've never been in a theatre where the sound was unacceptable. But focus and light are frequently a problem.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-07-2011, 05:51 PM:

True. Yet,we can thank Disney and his "House of Mouse" empire in presenting to the limited public a new sound concept called "Fantasound" from his 'concert feature' presentation, FANTASIA, in 1940.

The usage of multichannel,stereo sound, optically recorded on film to be played in standalone dubbers units that ran in sync with the projectors...now, "stereophonic sound" was born..

We've see "CinemaScope and Stereophonic Sound" plastered on marquees, newspaper snipes and what have you in the 1950's and early 60's. We've seen " in 70mm and six-track stereophonic sound" on special engagements. "Cinerama" and seven-channel stereo" in other engagements....and so on...

..all good analog sound.

Now, we're in the "Dolby Digital", or just plain "Digital Sound" world .... and nobody even pays attention to it..

Yet, as mentioned: it's the picture quality that really matters..

-Monte

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-07-2011, 06:44 PM:

Ideally, I would want a theatre to sound exactly the same as the mixing stage where the track was mixed.

Since this does not generally happen in reality, I would want (roughly in order of priority) clear dialogue, good channel balance and separation without dialogue in the surround channels (for example), clear reproduction of music, and no "extraneous" sounds not in the track (hiss, hum, "pumping" (e.g. mono or A-type track played in SR), etc). Good low end (real bass, not "thumpy" one-note bass) would be last on my list.

This is sort of hard to articulate in words, but I know a good sound system when I hear it. And, as I have said before, I would happily take good mono sound over bad multichannel sound. I can think of a handful of theatres with truly amazing sound systems, several with above-average systems, a bunch with mediocre systems, and several with truly bad systems.

I agree that most patrons will not notice sound unless the reproduction system is truly bad, but I do think that a well mixed track and a quality reproduction system will add to the emotional impact of a film. For an example of this, compare the track of (say) Star Wars as reproduced on a 3" mono TV speaker to how it sounds on a good cinema system. Even if patrons do not immediately recognize the value of a good sound system, I believe quite strongly that they will have a more enjoyable filmgoing experience (and be more likely to return) if both picture and sound presentation are of high quality.

I'm not sure that the comparison to a home stereo system is entirely valid. Home stereos are designed to reproduce music, and a typical music recording is very different from a movie soundtrack. Even music used in movies is typically recorded differently from a normal classical music recording, and is not necessarily designed to be an accurate reproduction of what was heard when the musicians recorded the track. Also, homes generally do not get the benefit of acoustical treatment, which makes a big difference in a quality theatre.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-09-2011, 02:51 PM:

I wouldn't underestimate the desire of people to have a good sound experience in a movie theater. George Lucas made his "The sound and music are 50% of the entertainment in a movie" quote many years ago, and it's more true now than ever.

Sound gives a sense of space and environment that helps your brain process what is being seen with the eyes. Imagine the introductory sequence of Contact without the ability to produce well the multi-channel sound cues of the solar system fly-out.

Just this morning, I received a Reader Comment complaining about the sound at a theater. As with most everything, many people only say something when it passes their threshold of acceptance (or in this person's case, threshold of pain):

http://www.bigscreen.com/Marquee.php?theater=8626&view=comments

Granted, that's a single anecdotal item, but it's evidence that people do pay attention and that a problem affects their enjoyment of the movie and their willingness to attend that theater.

I think people complain about sound being too loud when it's really distorted instead. Maybe a speaker is going out, or an amp channel is going bad, or maybe a sound tech needs to come in and recalibrate the theater?

The original poster asked about what the point of comparison should be when evaluating the sound in a movie theater.

My personal opinion is that the movie theater should be the best possible environment in which to hear that movie. With the ability to control the construction of the building, the treatments on the walls, and the design of the system as an isolated environment with a single purpose, a movie theater should be able to knock the socks off action movie fans and reveal every tidbit of dialog in the romantic drama with equal ease.

If I had to choose a comparison, I would say that it should compare to an audiophile's setup. These people spend inordinate amounts of time, money, and effort to create a perfect environment for music reproduction.

Unfortunately, they run into a situation where the performance capability of their playback system outstrips the source material in many cases. The crap that passes for popular music isn't made well enough to be listenable in these environments because all the flaws, shortcuts, and other shortcomings are made more apparent by the equipment and listening environment.

A good movie theater should be better than any home theater system, simply because movie theaters shouldn't have the limitations in most home playback equipment and environments. A movie theater has a single purpose, so it doesn't have to contend with an open-concept living area and spouse-accepted speakers. Movie theaters should also be putting much more money and effort into the equipment and environment than a homeowner ever could.

At the very least, the sound should never be distorted. How difficult is that to achieve?

Posted by Andy Frodsham (Member # 4061) on 05-09-2011, 03:25 PM:

Thank you for the feedback guys.

Scott, I was really pleased to read your reply in particular. I truly didn't know if I was aiming too high. I like the idea that a theatre should sound so much better than a domestic hi-fi (however good that may be)!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-09-2011, 04:23 PM:

One thing also is that in a living room one is in the near field of the speakers in a large room one is in the far field and psyco acoustics start to kick in

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 05-09-2011, 05:31 PM:

This question of subjective sound quality can be considered in partnership with the type of entertainment expected at the location of the patron's choice.

As mentioned by some of the learned contributors above, the picture quality should, but rarely does, take precedence over the audio. This shouldn't be taken to mean that there is a choice to be made e.g Pic quality vs Audio quality - rather that, as most exhibitors understand all too well, there is a finite amount of funds available for 'presentation' and as such the maximum return for the dollar is vital.

..hence why picture quality gives that. Value.

Why?

If arthouse product is considered as opposed to mainstream, the predominant requirement is that dialogue is clearly and correctly presented to the audience. This does not mean that distortions on explosions/gunshots, pole-ing speaker cones in subwoofers and the like should be tolerated. Not at all. But as long as the dialogue ( the MAJOR storytelling device) in the presentation is as good as possible then many other faults can be subconsciously glossed over.

The same can be said for uneven aperture illumination, soft focus, jump and weave, incorrect framing &tc. This of course should never be the case, but should these faults be evident then clear and understandable dialogue will carry the presentation.

The human brain is well able to fill in missing parts of an incomplete image/audio pairing. But in order to see how this works, and why that 'It's the dialogue, Stupid', then turn to the radio industry. Every person who listens to radio fills the lack of visuals with their own 'mini-movie' inside their brain- but for this to work adequately the audio must be intelligible and clear to the listener.
And there should be no difference in this respect when comparing radio and film.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-09-2011, 10:10 PM:

..can we also point out that the horns, speaker cabinets and sub bins are much larger and correctly mounted in baffle walls than home units and also most of the theatre systems are also bi or tri-amped?

Plus new auditoriums are closely constructed in size and design for maximum sound performance...

Posted by Eric Robinson (Member # 2966) on 05-09-2011, 10:36 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
spouse-accepted speakers

Good one

My sound system is in the garage, likewise the acoustics are horrible.

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 05-09-2011, 10:47 PM:

My thoughts are you have to do some of the ushers yourself just to check everything out.
Making sure that the dialogue is clean, and the explosions are just as clean.