Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Why are there very few movies mixed in SDDS currently?

This is topic Why are there very few movies mixed in SDDS currently? 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=011705

Posted by Afshin Omidvar (Member # 8427) on 08-23-2014, 09:02 AM:

Is there any reason why?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-23-2014, 09:11 AM:

Because the system is basically dead, since around 90% of the industry has gone to digital, would be my guess.

Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 08-23-2014, 10:44 AM:

I would love to know if there any remaining theaters that are still playing 35mm and SDDS. I would assume even all the specality/rep cinemas are SRD or DTS only at this point.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-23-2014, 11:27 AM:

AFI/Silver supports SDDS on all three screens and SDDS-8 on the larger two.

But as others have said. You have an all but dead format (35mm) with the least popular and has been discontinued for 10-years (SDDS). The combination does not lend itself to needing to waste money on it anymore.

Furthermore, those that had money for SDDS are likely all DCinema now so again, it would logically be the first of the digital audios for film to go.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-23-2014, 01:29 PM:

Sony discontinued the sale of new SDDS equipment a while ago. Even the official site on sdds.com is dead nowadays.

The last 8-channel SDDS release was somewhere in 2007, so that practice is essentially dead. Many 35mm production processes are probably still "configured" to deliver an SDDS master and since it doesn't need a special mix as it can be easily created from the 5.1 PCM mix, it's probably still included in several releases... for now.

As Steve already put it, most locations that invested in SDDS and are still operational probably had the necessary means and foresight to convert to digital some time ago.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-23-2014, 02:36 PM:

For some of us that used to work with SDDS on a continual basis, it was a great system until the tracks started to wear down...which caused the system to default to MONO since the whole SDDS system bypassed the default processors.

Thus, there was no automatic backup route if the SDDS playback had issues - it had to be done manually.

Thus, we at a 21 plex, opened up with three houses with full digital capability. But, in just two years later, out came the SDDS - I had to do the uninstall and put in SRD CAT700's in its place.

I did really like SDDS for the dynamic sound it put out, but it was a company decision on the uninstall.

-Monte

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-23-2014, 03:10 PM:

quote: Jason Whyte
I would love to know if there any remaining theaters that are still playing 35mm and SDDS.

The Egyptian in Hollywood still has Dolby, DTS (35 or 70, swappable) and SDDS penthouse readers and processors in a Norelco AAII changeover installation. We last played SDDS about a month ago (The Fifth Element) and do so, I would guess, about two or three times a year.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-23-2014, 07:11 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
For some of us that used to work with SDDS on a continual basis, it was a great system until the tracks started to wear down...which caused the system to default to MONO since the whole SDDS system bypassed the default processors.

Thus, there was no automatic backup route if the SDDS playback had issues - it had to be done manually.

Monte what have you been smoking? That post is flat out inaccurate.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-23-2014, 07:17 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
For some of us that used to work with SDDS on a continual basis, it was a great system until the tracks started to wear down...which caused the system to default to MONO since the whole SDDS system bypassed the default processors.

Well, it has been a while, but from what I remember it could actually fall back to SRD/SR and even DTS if you had those connected...

Edit: Seems like Brad came before me.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-23-2014, 11:46 PM:

Not the way our setup was wired.

It was wired as a bypass setup, thus it didn't went back to default SR optical or any other format.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-24-2014, 12:29 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Not the way our setup was wired.

It was wired as a bypass setup, thus it didn't went back to default SR optical or any other format.

1. Could you just select SR if the SDDS dropped out?

2. How did you play trailers and snipes that were not SDDS encoded?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-24-2014, 12:44 AM:

Back then in the late 1990's, it was rare to catch a trailer that had no SDDS encoding. Practically all of the trailers had quad track.

Granted, in these three houses, our preferred sound was DTS since we had the SDDS reader on top of the DTS timecode reader and SR-D basement readers.

Thus, I was told of the bypass and MONO thing from our installers. But as seeing the bypass wiring in the rack, there was no pulse wiring method from the SDDS processor to the main Dolby CP500 processor to take over optical, or even digital playback when the two SDDS track reads failed.

When I was projecting, I would use the SDDS just to keep it breathing and in operation. Also, new films would always play in these houses and move to other houses after the first week to where I had no problems with the SDDS playback.

As for the snipes, we had none - just simple trailer and feature performances.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-24-2014, 01:17 AM:

That makes no sense...if you had all four formats available, why revert to mono if SDDS should misread? Why not revert say to SR-D?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-24-2014, 02:14 AM:

Monte, first of all I don't believe you are accurate in your understanding of the SDDS fallback.

Second though, on the assumption that you ARE correct in your statement, then I can factually add to your statement that your installers sucked!

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 08-24-2014, 05:57 AM:

I ran a 20-plex booth. All screens were THX certified and equipped with either Dolby Digital, DTS or SDDS with Dolby analog as the back-up fail-safe. We had 4 of Brad's Film-Guard systems, so all 20 prints would be cleaned at least once a week (no...we did not interlock!).

News flash! The average audience could not distinguish between the analog sound coming from a clean print and properly maintained projection system vs. a digital track. The only time they could really distinguish was when the digital track would fail and switch to analog. More often than not, we would be running silent films if not for the good ole analog!

That being said, SDDS was the worst of all three digital formats...primarily because of its placement on the film (the edges) and that area being most susceptible to wear. We used to get many, many audience complaints because of the constant annoyance of the audible switching between SDDS to analog so much so that audience refunds became the norm. Our SDDS screens became so unreliable that we got permission from the corporate home office to just run those screens in Dolby analog. Not one audience complaint about Dolby analog...sound problem solved!

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 08-24-2014, 11:15 AM:

As I understand it, to shoot an SDDS track required some sort of licensing with Sony. I know NT Audio has a multi format camera that can shoot all of the different tracks including SDDS. http://www.ntaudio.com/services/optical-soundtrack.php Now that Sony has pretty much abandoned SDDS, and the website (that used to list all upcoming releases in sdds) is dead, I wonder if it is technically no longer possible to shoot the track because of the licensing aspect of it.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 08-24-2014, 11:25 AM:

In germany, 'Skyfall' had an SDDS track, but there was no data on it. That was the last 'sight' of SDDS in germany.

The internet archive has the SDDS site covered - incl. the config software for the processors.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130701055758/http://www.sdds.com/

- Carsten

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-24-2014, 11:50 AM:

quote:
More often than not, we would be running silent films if not for the good ole analog!

More often than not? Man you must have had some REALLY trashed prints.

During our film years we only had a couple of occasions where the digital track wouldn't work and we had to drop back to analog sound.

I remember one odd occasion, it was just reel #1 that wouldn't play in digital. But for some reason, on that reel only, the system wouldn't switch to analog like it normally would; it would just go to silence. We had a USL processor at that time and I think we still had our original DTS-6. When the next reel came on, DTS would pick it up and switch back to digital normally.

This was before we had a volume control in the office, so I would be in the booth at that point anyway to adjust the volume for the feature, so it wasn't a big hassle for me to push the analog button when Reel 1 began. And, it was only a one-week run anyway so there wasn't time to get a new Reel 1 shipped in.

Never did figure that one out!

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 08-24-2014, 01:36 PM:

Will K. that is definitly not a problem solved but at least better then the distraction sound of it reverting to analog during a show. Problem solved is changing out the SDDS. Also just because no one complains doesn't mean there wasn't any unhappy guests. Most choose to just not come back but I digress. SDDS's reliability issues always seemed to casued these situations.

Another thing I notice is that I still see SDDS icons at the end of credits. Wonder when thats gunna stop?

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-24-2014, 02:04 PM:

quote:
The average audience could not distinguish between the analog sound coming from a clean print and properly maintained projection system vs. a digital track. The only time they could really distinguish was when the digital track would fail and switch to analog. More often than not, we would be running silent films if not for the good ole analog!

Honestly, I have never really liked digital sound all that much, the sound from analog stereo always sounded fuller and richer to me, perhaps this was because the sound was in fact not discrete.

I also found that a lot of 35mm digital houses would play digital soundtracks way too loud. I would probably estimate that that 9 out of 10 auditoriums close to me present movies at volumes that are way to loud. Even the Atmos screening room has volume levels that are dangerous IMO.

I don't recall ever having any issues with THX auditoriums. The sound was always great.

With D-Cinema, the playback levels are even worse at Cineplex than ever before. That along with scope films projected on a open flat screens really makes me want to avoid Cineplex at all costs. (But I don't think the average person cares)

quote: Jarod Reddig
Most choose to just not come back but I digress.

I once tried to ask why the projectionist why are they playing all the movies on flat screens with digital masking. I gave up after a few minutes. I just choose not to go to Cineplex anymore, I go out of my way to find a theater with masking. (I should mention, I don't mind no masking at all IMAX/ATMOS/VIP) it is the projected masking on a open flat masked screen that really bothers me. Luckily for me, these masked screen play the movie at an acceptable volume level.

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 08-24-2014, 03:01 PM:

Sorry to burst Mike and Jarod's bubbles. Always new prints in this theater. As previously stated...treated with Film Guard. We did everything possible to get our SDDS screens right, but to no avail. Also took some random customer surveys regarding sound quality...not mentioning that we were running analog. Nearly allpatrons were convinced we were Iin digital. Learn how to properly set up a analog track on properly maintained film and projectors and your in business!

Terry...trailers were often recorded at different sound llevels than release prints. We would therefor try to find a proper balance. Verry difficult running around 20 screens doing nothing but adjusting sound levels.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-24-2014, 03:23 PM:

quote: Will Kutler
Terry...trailers were often recorded at different sound llevels than release prints. We would therefor try to find a proper balance. Verry difficult running around 20 screens doing nothing but adjusting sound levels.

Where did I say the trailers were too loud? I am talking about the overall experience. Feature film is what I am mostly referring to.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 08-24-2014, 04:00 PM:

The first time I saw a surround sound Movie, I was so distracted with all the sounds you never hear in analog that I was turning my head to the left and right more than I was watching the Screen. As far as sound goes. You could put 1 or 2 Altec Lansing 800 Voice of the Theaters behind the Screen and I would be just as satisfied...

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-24-2014, 05:22 PM:

quote: Sean Weitzel
Now that Sony has pretty much abandoned SDDS, and the website (that used to list all upcoming releases in sdds) is dead, I wonder if it is technically no longer possible to shoot the track because of the licensing aspect of it.

I doubt that Sony was paid any licensing money by the studios for SDDS mixes, because that would've seriously hurt the adaptation of the system. They were already late to the party and their system wasn't the cheapest either. Also, there are still movies released with SDDS tracks. So, if a license is required, that system still seems to be operational for now.

quote: Mike Blakesley
During our film years we only had a couple of occasions where the digital track wouldn't work and we had to drop back to analog sound.

SRD and especially DTS/DATASAT are more reliable on worn-out and damaged prints than SDDS. Although SDDS has the most error correction of any digital audio format, it's located on the most vulnerable positions on the prints.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I remember one odd occasion, it was just reel #1 that wouldn't play in digital. But for some reason, on that reel only, the system wouldn't switch to analog like it normally would; it would just go to silence.

I guess that something extraordinary must have happened to the timecode on that reel, triggering some bug in the DTS decoder software. Besides trashing the timecode on the print entirely, DTS was virtually unaffected from any print damage whatsoever.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Honestly, I have never really liked digital sound all that much, the sound from analog stereo always sounded fuller and richer to me, perhaps this was because the sound was in fact not discrete.

I also liked it better when the pianist in the room provided the music. It was so much fuller and richer to me. Perhaps this was because the sound was, in fact, not recorded?

quote: Jarod Reddig
Another thing I notice is that I still see SDDS icons at the end of credits. Wonder when thats gunna stop?

Those that do show the SDDS logos still have an SDDS mix (or at least those who created the credits were convinced it still does [Wink]

), at least in their original language mix. As Carsten has indicated, there don't seem to be any new German dubbed releases in SDDS, but they will sure as hell just bear those SDDS logos if their original version does have it.

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 08-24-2014, 05:55 PM:

A peoperly designed and installed surround system is supposed to replicate a real world enviornment. The point is not to pinpoint sound to a specific speaker.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-24-2014, 08:48 PM:

quote: Will Kutler
Nearly allpatrons were convinced we were Iin digital.

If an analog sound system sounds good, most casual listeners would never spot the difference if the whole show runs in analog. If the system is switching back and forth that's another story.

A lot of people just think "digital" means "louder" so if you turn an analog system up and tell people it's digital, a lot of them would go "wow, that sounds MUCH better than analog!"

quote: Will Kutler
A peoperly designed and installed surround system is supposed to replicate a real world enviornment. The point is not to pinpoint sound to a specific speaker.

Well, unless you're watching a movie in Atmos....then that may indeed be the point.

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 08-24-2014, 10:05 PM:

No worries Will. Props on the Film-Gaurd [thumbsup]

Yes Terry I get very annoyed when a screen isn't masked correctly. IMAX doesn't bother me too bad. I dislike some of AMC's ETX rooms that would have Flat screens and show mostly Scope movies. It seems masking is becoming rarer and rarer.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-24-2014, 10:45 PM:

It's because the people in charge with professionalism and showmanship are a dying breed.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-25-2014, 12:46 PM:

I agree with Brad that Monte's system sounds like a not very well thought through installation.

Admittedly ours is unusual, because we're a rep cinematheque with a stated mission to be able to show everything from full gate silent at 16FPS to 4K DCPs in as near to original technical conditions as possible. But what we've got strikes me as the sensible way to install multiple film sound systems to interact with each other, and I'm guessing that the same approach will have been taken elsewhere.

We have processors for Dolby digital, DTS and SDDS. They all sit between the output of a CP200 and the input to a DMA8+. So when a processor is pumping out digital sound (i.e. it's reading from the film and getting good data), it's blocking the analog output from the CP200 from getting to the DMA8+. If the digital audio fails or there simply isn't any, the digital processors let the audio from the CP200 through to the DMA8+ and thence the power amps.

The advantage of this is that it'll drop to whatever the CP200 is set to. For example, there were some Universal DTS titles from the 1990s which didn't have a proper SR track as a backup, but a ripoff stereo variable area track badged "DTS Stereo", which sounded better played as A-type than SR. So if we set the CP200 to 04, then if the DTS drops out, it does so to A-type, not SR.

I don't know how our system would work if multiple digital tracks were in use - I've never tried it. It would be theoretically possible to thread film through both Dolby digital and either DTS or SDDS on our setup. I don't know if it would be possible configure DTS to drop to Dolby digital and then Dolby to drop to SR: I haven't been working there long enough to have experimented in that level of depth. One of these days...

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-25-2014, 01:34 PM:

At the AFI/Silver...one can have Dolby and any one of the other digital readers. The reason isn't electronic but one of lip sync. Since both DTS and SDDS are "above" the gate readers, the film path would enlarge to accommodate both and unnecessarily wear out one reader (particularly the SDDS since it has a sprocket in the path) if one always had to thread both all of the time.

We did devise a circuit so that they could choose their digital priority of DTS or Dolby if both are available.

We chose to let SDDS come AFTER the CP200 (or CSP1200 in the two smaller theatres) rather than be part of the loop. This was done for multiple reasons, not the least of which was to allow it to be unencumbered by the CP200's B-chain, it provides a real nice 8-channel VU meter for ALL FORMATS (which is its primary function because...how many SDDS titles are there out there versus Dolby?) DFP-D2500 has a hard relay bypass so when SDDS is not going to be used, it has zero chance of interfering with the audio. It is a balanced output device and there is no point of sending it into a an unbalanced input that is ultimately JM-21.

All three digitals can share the Surround-EX decoder too.

It has never caused issue either. Oddly enough, I don't think the AFI/Silver ever had a problem running any SDDS titles. If they did, they didn't tell me about it. Though rare, the DFP-D2500 was Sony's best decoder, in my opinion, particularly for 2-projector systems...it had dual inputs, not a matrixed one like Dolby used on their DA series or Sony used on all of their other decoders. Unofrtunately, the DFP-D2500 was very rare...the serial numbers at the AFI are in the 50s.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-25-2014, 04:23 PM:

Maybe my ears are not like those of "average customers," but the difference between Dolby SR optical and 5.1 digital is obvious. And this is observed in a theater where both analog and digital systems are properly set up. The differences in dynamic range between the optical analog and digital formats is pretty hard not to notice unless something is wrong with either one of the systems. The 5.1 discrete layout adds a more lively feeling spatial character.

It's not hard for me to tell the difference between a 2.0 digital track and its 5.1 counterpart on my home setup. The spatial characteristics are still very different even when both tracks are digital. Just recently our local ABC affiliate, KSWO-TV, finally upgraded its audio broadcast capability to Dolby Digital 5.1. They had been broadcasting their audio in 2-channel stereo for the past few years. I knew their broadcasts had changed to 5.1 as soon as I heard it. Then I looked at my receiver and saw "Dolby Digital" displayed rather than the usual "Pro-Logic," which confirmed I wasn't imagining things.

Typically "average customers" really don't know any better. Statements along the lines of "customers can't tell the difference between analog and digital" are not as impressive as they would seem at first glance. What exactly is being accomplished in the comparison if a customer doesn't know what details to look for in the first place? It sometimes comes with the cost cutting agenda of "we don't need 5.1 digital surround sound; analog stereo (or mono) is good enough."

If you're dealing with some "golden ears" types who know their stuff regarding movie sound, it's going to be tough to make optical analog sound as good as digital unless either part of the system is being deliberately compromised. I would only expect analog to perform as good as digital, and possibly even outperform it in some cases if the comparison was between 5.1 digital and 70mm 6-track Dolby SR magnetic sound.

quote: Will Kutler
A peoperly designed and installed surround system is supposed to replicate a real world enviornment. The point is not to pinpoint sound to a specific speaker.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Well, unless you're watching a movie in Atmos....then that may indeed be the point.

Actually real world audio environments have pin pointed sounds happening all the time. Right now a large format printer is making noise to my 8 o'clock position. I hear AC vent noise above my head to my right. And then there's some keyboard clicking going on just below.

The trick with movie sound is to keep attention directed at the screen. Atmos would allow a sound element to be placed at a specific point in the room. But I think the more tasteful intent with Atmos is to create a much more layered mix with lots of individual objects coming together in a more realistic sound environment. Atmos allows sound designers to mix diffuse, channel-based beds together with positioned sound objects. The positioning capability also allows for surround panning, fly by and fly over effects that are much more precise and satisfying than what a conventional 5.1 or 7.1 system can deliver.

These latest developments in movie theater sound playback make a dying or arguably dead format like SDDS even less useful. I still hope some theaters will do what they can to keep SDDS gear operational for the sake of playing some 35mm SDDS shows.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-26-2014, 12:27 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
It would be theoretically possible to thread film through both Dolby digital and either DTS or SDDS on our setup

Of course it would be possible. I don't know why you would thread a DTS reader and then a basement Dolby Digital reading when running a 35mm print.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-02-2014, 03:38 PM:

To have Dolby digital as a backup if the DTS fails (either at the timecode or disc reading stage).

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-02-2014, 04:05 PM:

We did that (threading for both DTS and Dolby Digital) regularly back then when we received DTS discs regularly. However, our standard DTS+DA20 setup did not allow for this fallback path, as a valid DolbyDigital signal would always have priority over DTS.

We would have needed to develop a special logic stage to allow a DTS->DD->SR fallback. At the time we were thinking of it, DTS disc supply was already bad and our DTS drives reliability went downhill, so we abandoned the idea.

- Carsten

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-22-2014, 12:37 PM:

Thought about putting this in the "random pictures" thread, but here seems more appropriate...

The 2002 rerelease of The Last Waltz playing in SDDS 5.1 on Saturday evening. Despite the print being a little the worse for wear (quite a bit of dust and sparkle and one or two light emulsion tramlines that came and went), there were no dropouts at any point in the show, and the audio was very impressive.

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 09-23-2014, 12:50 PM:

That's very cool Leo. Curious though, was the choice to playback the SDDS track due to lack of SRD or DTS (or lack of discs) or was the choice simply made based on the quality of the track?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-30-2014, 11:11 PM:

We didn't get any discs with the print, so DTS/Datasat wasn't an option. I played reel 1 in SR-D and SDDS before the show, and to my ears the SDDS sounded significantly better - less compressed and more detail in the HF. Reel 1 played without dropping out and others looked to be in a similar condition on the bench, so I ran the whole movie that way.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-01-2014, 11:08 PM:

I always precieved SDDS as being better than DTS and Dolby.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-02-2014, 12:42 AM:

Yeah Terry, but you also think the shrill sound of IMAX is better.

Since Sony can't possibly do anything normal and must override everything else, it required the SDDS installations to have the Sony player take total control over the system with it's own B-chain. Since the pink noise generator inside was high frequency deficient, it meant every single SDDS installation was improperly boosting the high frequencies. This is why so many people complained that SDDS sounded too shrill.

Posted by Brent Francis (Member # 5008) on 10-02-2014, 06:30 PM:

Just going by experience screening check prints for commercials & trailers in the 90's... a print with a digital track always sounded fine, the same print on SDDS would SHAKE THE FLOOR AND WINDOWS of our "soundproof" booth. Eventually I had to turn levels down automatically.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-02-2014, 11:52 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I always precieved SDDS as being better than DTS and Dolby.

I was told a story about a demo that Sony set up for GCC back in the 90's. They set up SDDS in an SR-D house with a remote to cut SDDS out (i.e. switch to Dolby Digital) and told the people in the demo to hit a button when they heard a switch from one format to another and indicate which sounded better.

To make it accurate, sometimes they would "switch" but not change the format so that the "click" would be heard but it went back to the same format.

The overall conclusion was that nobody could tell when they were listening to SDDS vs. Dolby Digital and neither scored sounding better.

This was a Dolby Digital setup calibrated by the regular tech and the SDDS setup calibrated by Sony.

DTS should have sounded the best because it was lossless compression but it was 16 bit, 44.1 KHz where Dolby Digital was lossy compression but 18 bit, 48 KHz. DTS also wasn't discreet LFE as it used the low end of the surround channels to store the LFE meaning the surrounds weren't full range.

When looking at Dolby Digital vs. SDDS, they were both lossy compression. Dolby AC-3 was based on Dolby AC-2 and was essentially AC-2 with cross channel bit sharing. Sony's ATRAC codec (used for SDDS) must have had a lot in common with Dolby AC-2 because they had to pay a licensing fee to Dolby for it.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-03-2014, 06:27 AM:

In my own experiments...both with all three and those with just DTSvsDolby...by and large, the SDDS would come out on top if there was a preference. Likewise, In the Dolby/DTS comparison...Dolby would win out. DTS consistently last for those that could hear a difference. As others have noted...the overwhelmingly large portion of the people taking the challenge could not hear a difference.

To my ears, I never liked DTS' high end...it is very strident. Combine DTS with an Electro-Voice DH1 series driver (TS-9040 or TS-940 system) and I have to leave the theatre due to the pain...it has happened! People didn't believe me that I could tell that combination of nastiness. I've proven it several times.

And none of the digitals ever sounded as good a magnetic, to my ears. While not comparing the mix, True Lies was one of the cleanest, most powerful 70mm magnetic tracks I've ever heard. It was really well done. The Sound of Music remains my favorite 70mm mix, however.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-03-2014, 09:26 AM:

Out of the three digital sound formats for film I had the best experiences with DTS, but I suppose some of it comes down to how a given theater was set up and the mix of the movie itself. One thing is certain: I rarely ever heard DTS fault out to the optical track. I've heard distracting faults to analog more often with Dolby Digital and SDDS shows with most of those occurring at reel changes.

I rarely ever heard SDDS in a theater where the audio was properly EQ'ed. It almost always sounded fairly thin, like it lacked a lot of the mid range frequencies. I'd hear a lot more in the way of treble and (depending on the room) a dose of low end. A bunch of this was the fault of AMC's stadium seated theater designs, equipment choices and how they set it up. Heat was the best SDDS mix I'd heard in an AMC theater, but it was playing in a smaller, less echo-prone room. Mission Impossible is the only movie I watched played in SDDS within a THX certified house (the UA Galaxy 9 in Garland, TX). That show sounded good, but it still wasn't the audio quality I was spoiled to hearing across town at General Cinemas' Northpark #1 theater.

quote: Lyle Romer
DTS should have sounded the best because it was lossless compression but it was 16 bit, 44.1 KHz where Dolby Digital was lossy compression but 18 bit, 48 KHz. DTS also wasn't discreet LFE as it used the low end of the surround channels to store the LFE meaning the surrounds weren't full range.

DTS/Datasat digital sound has the least amount of data compression among itself, Dolby Digital and SDDS, but the format is still lossy, not lossless. DTS/Datasat runs at 820 kilobits per second, using the APT-X waveform codec. With the XD-10 and XD-20 players DTS had the opportunity to push lossless or uncompressed audio (and even more audio channels) with 35mm and 70mm shows, but unfortunately the scalable capability of those players went largely un-used.

SDDS literally has the highest bit rate out of the digital sound on film formats, but its 2 million bit per second data rate is divided between those two parallel digital audio tracks (one being a staggered back-up) on both edges of the film. Both digital tracks each contain plenty of error correction data.

35mm Dolby Digital had the most data compression, running at 320 kilobits per second, half the maximum bit rate level for the standard Dolby AC-3 codec. There was another 200kb/s or so of redundant, error correction data encoded on the film print. Most DVDs had DD tracks encoded at either 384kb/s or 448kb/s. Most lossy DD tracks on Blu-ray are encoded at 640bk/s. Dolby Digital Plus can go quite a bit higher and support more audio channels.

To me, Dolby Digital was prone to sounding harsh and metallic if the sound system was not well EQ'ed. I've heard it sound great in some theaters and lousy in others, bad enough to where it sounded like an over-driven optical track yet had the channel separation and low bass effects to remind you it was a 5.1 track.

quote: Steve Guttag
To my ears, I never liked DTS' high end...it is very strident. Combine DTS with an Electro-Voice DH1 series driver (TS-9040 or TS-940 system) and I have to leave the theatre due to the pain...it has happened! People didn't believe me that I could tell that combination of nastiness. I've proven it several times.

Did the painful DTS mix you were listening to happen to be an MGM/UA release? I specifically remember their movies in DTS being mixed particularly loud.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-03-2014, 01:53 PM:

Bobby...it wasn't the mix...it was the way that DTS reproduced the high end combined with the EV DH1a driver. Both are harsh and together downright painful.

On "my" shootouts...the same pinknoise source was used to tune all three systems. DTS and Dolby shared the same EQ but I let Sony use its own (why bottleneck Sony with a potentially inferior B-chain?)...However I had discovered that Sony's PN was deficient and would have one set it up to be too shrill. This was the case on the DFP-D2000...I don't know if that was the case on the later models...I didn't notice the problem on the DFP-D2500 and they definitely don't sound too shrill at the AFI/Silver, despite the EV DH2a drivers (not the same as the nasty DH1a).

At the Uptown...when I would get some nimrod come into the booth to tell me to run the film in a particular format (usually DTS)...I would offer them the challenge...I would thread up different reels in different sound formats so there was a mix of DTS and Dolby...in the end, they always picked the Dolby or couldn't tell the difference...and it was with the SAME EQ, SAME LEVELs...Most of the time, they couldn't tell the difference.

People hear the words "compression" and immediately think the one with less is going to sound best. The truth is there are a lot of factors that go into sound (or picture) and just homing in on one aspect is not going to tell the whole story.

One of the cinema sound processor companies is trying to tell me that because their sample rate is higher than others it HAS to sound better. The problem is...in actual tests...it isn't necessarily the case.

Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 10-03-2014, 02:17 PM:

That shit-looking Left Behind movie that opened today has the SDDS logo in the ads. I wonder if the movie itself does. I know a few recent Universal releases have it in the ads but not the actual film credits (Non-Stop comes to mind).

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 10-03-2014, 02:54 PM:

Steve,
they must have fixed the PN on the 3000 (or with a SW update), I checked my 3000 and the PN is perfectly flat.

Was the the headroom of the unit a big issue? As any professional sound device, the unit seems to clip the signal if positive EQ/channel gain is applied and a 0dBFS signal is recorded.
Actually on my unit a 0dBFS signal (internally generated I must admit) clips with channel level higher than -2dB if memory serves.
I've seen SDDS units which looked like Christmas trees when a loud scene was played back.
I was told that Dolby units were designed "idiotproof" and the USL have a selectable headroom (default is 26dB if I remember correctly which allows for the signal headroom and 6dB of EQ. There is also a 32dB which allows for +12dB EQ, 31 bands and shelves.)