Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sound Sample Rates

This is topic Sound Sample Rates in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=001428

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-18-2013, 02:41 PM:

I was reading the "worst 70mm screening" forum (now closed) and found an interesting discussion about sound sample rates in the creation of the theatrical mix. I wanted to add couple of comments to this discussion. One was the idea that after we finish the theatrical version we (I am a feature film sound designer/sound editor) go back and remix the film more carefully for BluRay . Nothing could be further from the truth. Almost all of work is done solely for the theatrical release. Being at the end of the proaction process it may be hurried, but it is never just a slap-dash holding job until we can do the home video.

I have been known to add the odd sound effect (because the VFX changed after the print master was made) or even change a music cue due to licensing issues, but this is rare and I can assure you the mix is rarely creatively altered for aftermarket release.

We often create the Near Field Mix (AKA Home Theater master) on the next day after the theatrical M&E. We have been known to raise the center dialogue channel a tad, limit the dynamic range a touch, do some bass management,or to even narrow the stereo spread a bit to conform to a narrower home screen. We may on occasion generate a 7.1 if the film has only been mastered in 5.1 (that usually just some minor re-channeling). Our single most important format is the theatrical release. That is the one the director signed off on and it is the "definitive mix." It is the reason we are making the movie.

I also want to address the questions of higher bit rates for theatrical release. While I have no scientific proof to back me up, just twenty-five years of ears, I suspect the biggest noticeable change from higher sample rates would be in the music mix. While higher resolution production and effects tracks would always be nice, I don't think there would be that much bang for the buck there. We often do new field recording at high rez sample rates, but often it is so it will give us more latitude in the digital post-production processing world.

Snark alert! No matter how loud, how clean, how detailed we make the track, we are always in competition with 400 popcorn crunchers, candy bar opened, talkers, cell phones, and sex addicts! [Wink]

Thanks for what you guys and gals do. We work hard to provide great listening experiences to audiences, but they are only as good as the final pass through your hands. It is our job to entertain!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-18-2013, 05:40 PM:

Hi F. Please stop screwing with home theater mixes. Especially changing levels, limiting spread, compressing the dynamic range and all of that. It's not really necessary and definitely not appreciated. Thanks F!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-18-2013, 06:31 PM:

How hard would it be to have options for "theatrical mix" and "optimized for your home mix" in a DVD/Blu-Ray menu?

I have no problem with the idea of including a mix that is intended for home use, but some of us (sadly!) have to play these home formats in theatrical environments. It would be nice to have the ability to play the original theatrical mix in those cases.

(You may argue that Blu-Rays have no place in cinema exhibition. I agree. But not everyone else does.)

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-18-2013, 06:37 PM:

A couple of issues here:

1) The home theater enviroment is not the same as the theatrical environment. The tracks are optomised for different speaker system (driver vs. near field) and different SPL. I don't think you really want 85 SPL in the living room (well maybe you do!) but when you lower it for say 83 SPL other parameters are altered. Also most home theaters do have a perf screen to contend with. If you don't think it makes a difference go to that large chain of theaters than has its speakers above the screen.

2) If you want the theatrical mix on the Blu-ray, you are going to have to get the distributers to provide more storage space on the disc (good luck with that one). You also need to remember sound is still the bastard step-child in the aftermarkets.

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-18-2013, 08:09 PM:

It should be remembered that these changes are subtle and a generally done by the same re-recording mixers who mixed the film.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-18-2013, 09:22 PM:

As someone who has played back a theatrical mix on his modest home system, I can tell you that it works just fine, in fact in spectacular fashion. I'd imagine many members on this board have vastly superior home equipment than I as well, and would love the original, untampered theatrical mix.

AJG

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-18-2013, 11:48 PM:

Hi,

I do appreciate the purest in you! There are a couple of things that I don't seem to be able to communicate. The near field mix is designed, by the entire sound team, to perform optimally in the home theater. It is designed to provide exactly the same experience but on different equipment.

The changes in the mix are truly minimal. I would be shocked if anyone outside of the dub stage could tell me one thing that was different when played back from a blu-ray in a quality home theater. We strive to mirror the theatrical experience exactly but in a dramatically smaller space and with very different sounding equipment.

The editors and mixers for the near field mix are usually the same ones who did the theatrical, and you can be sure that after months and thousands of hours of work on the soundtrack we are not going to produce an anything but a top grade near field print master for posterity. Trust me, the pain of getting there is too great to let go of it in any but perfect condition.

You also might be surprised to find the attention to detail and the pride of ownership sound people have. Our names continue to live on in the credits in perpetuity! You can be sure we value the film as much, or more, than you do! Rest assured you are hearing the film as we intended and without compromise!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-19-2013, 12:01 AM:

F.

I don't think you are going to find ANYONE on these forums that appreciates any jacking around with the sound mix.

I know it really pisses me off, and it is pretty easy to tell when a mix has been screwed with that I am familiar with.

This practice really should be stopped. Not everyone is watching these blurays on a 48" television with a "home theater in a box" sound system from Wal-Mart you know. The blurays should be the ORIGINAL mix, untampered. The home theater in a box guys won't know the difference...but we will.

If you must mess with the sound mix, throw it on that damned DVD version they force us to buy with the bluray disc. Quality-conscious people don't care about that anyway. It's just a way for the studios to screw customers out of a few more bucks.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-19-2013, 12:20 AM:

Don't "F" with the original mix!

Especially since some cinemas are gonna run that Bluray when the movie goes into repertory release. (And that's no joke.)

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-19-2013, 12:55 AM:

As I have posted earlier I really do appreciate the passion. I appreciate everything you guys do to bring all our hard work to life in theaters. The theatrical mix is tweaked to perfection to play in a theater. The Imax mix is adjusted for best presentation in an Imax theater. The televison mix and the airline mix are both different, as is an atmos release, and the LT/RT. The near field is a home theater mix designed to give the best possible presentation to hundreds of millions of people who see the film that way. As I have said before it is designed to play in a different enviroment, with different equipment, yet provid the same experience.

I am sorry that you guys get stuck with blu-ray. That is crappy and wrong. You should be getting a DCP. Rep titles are whole nother kettle of fish . . . lets hope that distribution can find a workable solution. 4K Blu-ray anyone?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-19-2013, 07:36 AM:

Airline mix? Is it optimized for cheap headphones?

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-19-2013, 09:00 AM:

Trying to optimize for the home theater environment is always going to be compromised, because there is no standard for home theater configurations. The variables are endless!

Many people have a 40-60" flat panel TV in their living room. Some have projectors shooting at a wall, while some have non-perf screens, while others have gone the route of an acoustically transparent perfed screen with the speakers hidden behind them. I'm actually surprised that you mentioned that last example, as I figured that would be the minority by a long shot once one got away from the houses of the rich and famous.

That's just the video environment. The sound environment is going to be different in every single situation. You're going to have the low end, with a living room equipped with a home theater in a box sub-satellite combo (most likely not calibrated), and the higher end configurations that people have put more effort into. Unfortunately, there are so many schools of thought regarding multi-channel audio, how does a sound designer make a choice of which to optimize to?

I have a 7.1 setup, with dipolar side surrounds to the side of the listening area above ear level, with two dipolar rear surrounds on the back wall. Others adhere to the more angular approach, with direct firing surrounds in the back corners (135° and 235°), with a single rear surround at 180°.

I remember reading in Widescreen Review a long time ago that DTS had the ability to embed the configuration used to do the sound mix, and a so-equipped processor could see what it was configured in the home, and the translation could be done real-time, but I don't think that has ever made it to production.

Home Theater has been hobby of mine since 1993, and when I designed my room, I tried to make the best choices I could, leaning towards a theater-style configuration rather than the "holographic" sound that people like Gary Reber advocated for home theaters.

I honestly don't know how decisions could be made to "optimize" a home theater mix with so many variables. I'd be curious to find out more, so if there are some reading materials available, or ideally, you would be willing to enlighten me with how you manage that balancing act, I would be eager to learn.

I'm not the stickler for holding to the theatrical mix like some here, but they have much more first-hand experience with the theatrical mix than I. While I am open to the idea that some optimization might be warranted, the pitfalls seem to outweigh the benefits due to the non-standard configurations. Perhaps when Atmos gets to the home, we'll have an unmodified source mix that the processor then takes and modifies with its DSP's to the owner's delight/detriment. Any chance of that?

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-19-2013, 09:30 AM:

How can something that is tweaked provide the "same" experience? It is, by its very definition, different.

Wasn't this the whole point of THX Re-EQ anyhow? Films that were mixed for the cinema and put on video would sound harsh without it?

Supposedly, most LaserDiscs had theatrical mixes on them. I can definitely buy that because when I compare one to a DVD/Blu-ray, it's usually brighter and has more dynamic range (when adjusting for volume no less). Why the big shift once DVDs came around?

If anyone has compared the LaserDisc of Mission: Impossible to any subsequent home video release, you'll know what I'm talking about.

AJG

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-19-2013, 09:50 AM:

I think I was saying saying that a difference between home theaters and commercial venues is that most home theaters do NOT have a perf screen while most theatrical theaters Do have a perf screen.

My guess that any form of home Atmos is dependent on exhibitors embracing the format. Will they go for a new sound format after hefty outlays for digital projection and 3D installations. I also think it depends on whether 3D drives profits up or down. If 3D fades into more a specialty format it could effect the exhibitors appetite for new equipment outlays. That remains an unanswerable at this point.

The airline version is obviously a stereo mix. You have to deal with the fact that low end disappears in the headphones and presence of jet engine rumble.

Since I am an editor most of the responsibility for the home theater mix is out of my hands and in those of the re-recording mixers. The big three engineering issues that I am aware of (all handled by the engineering department) are using near field monitors in a small room setup and a lower SPL. After monitoring has been pinked, the mixer re-records the three stems (D,M,E) into a new Near Field master. Our goal is to reproduce the theatrical mix as accurately as possible. This is a much art as it is science. The goal is to reproduce the mix so that the home audience can have a successful film experience in a huge variety of playback situations.

The studio and/or distributor has a list of deliverables (various versions) that we are required to provide at the end of each film, the near field is one of them. As I mentioned earlier, the exhibitors need to petition for a special rep format. Maybe something like a hi-rez 4K disk with the theatrical mix on it. The sound crew has somewhat less than zero influence on what the distributor does with our work.

I hope that helps explain what happens in the real world creation of the near field mix.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-19-2013, 10:33 AM:

Scott already pegged your answer. There is no standard for home setups, so as such there is no way to tweek it for a standard that doesn't exist.

This silly notion of remixing is punishing the people who truly care are about the sound in their screening rooms by doing it right, and rewarding the people who in all honestly really don't give a shit.

Sorry, but you guys are screwing up. You should just hand over the theatrical mix and say "there you go". The suits won't know the difference anyway, and there are lots of bluray releases that didn't jack with the sound.

BTW want a really nasty example of bad remixing? Go check out Back to the Future. Whoever did that needs to be taken out back and shot. (Same with the blind guy remastering the video who kept cranking up the edge enhancement knob.) The DVD release is better.

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-19-2013, 11:31 AM:

I am sorry you feel that way. We spend 50-80 hours a week creating and listening to soundtracks. Like all things Hollywood it is a creative choice made within a business environment. We always strive to balance these two aspects of any project. I have met very few filmmakers who are not absolutely passionate about how every version sounds. I am sorry if you think we fall short at times.

We love great projectionists who fight to present our work in its best light. Once again I urge your exhibitors to come up with a solution for the rep title biz that is better than blu-ray. Films are designed to play in a theater and I think you will find that most film artists are happiest when our films are presented in that magic space.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-19-2013, 11:56 AM:

quote: F. Hudson Miller
Films are designed to play in a theater and I think you will find that most film artists are happiest when our films are presented in that magic space.

If only the studio suits felt that way -- maybe they would quit trying to destroy the industry.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-19-2013, 12:23 PM:

Lots of apologies, but a defensive standpoint nonetheless.

I suspect we are in a "brick wall" situation.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-19-2013, 02:23 PM:

I should note that this is more of an issue for catalogue titles as opposed to new releases. Most new titles seem to feel the same or better at home, most likely because as you said, most near field mixes are being created by the original sound team that worked on the film.

I'd imagine most catalogue titles are being worked on by someone who did not work on the original film, and are merely trying to create something "better". I don't want "better". I want the same mix that was created when the original film was released. Jurassic Park is a great example. The original 5.1 theatrical mix was virtually perfect. It won several awards. Yet Universal, in their great wisdom, decided that a 7.1 re-mix would "be better" and help them to market the film to all the countless people with 7.1 in the home. And while it sounds "good" it sounds completely different than the theatrical 5.1 track, and does not even come close to re-creating the theatrical experience. Thank goodness I kept my LaserDisc because it comes quite a bit closer than the new and "improved" Blu-ray.

And even if a new mix like that is offered, why not also give us an original mix for posterity? Disney did this for some titles, specifically Lady and the Tramp, and I was very pleased with the results.

And thanks Brad, I was thinking about buying Back to the Future, but you've now convinced me otherwise.

AJG

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-19-2013, 03:33 PM:

How about this: Don't try to cater to the home theater market. Let them cater to YOU. Seriously, that's really the only way to get the best and most uncompromised sound.

I set my home theater up like I set theatrical auditoriums up with the same levels and a similar EQ (as close as I can get it given the 16-band or so EQ on my current receiver). Why wouldn't I? If the highs are too high because they are intended for a perfed screen, I dial them down. People with lesser home theaters will not notice the difference with your tampering. Perhaps you are doing it just to earn a few more bucks?

Send Brad or myself a 5 minute sample of anything. It can be sound only just as long as it plays in 5.1 on a Blu-ray player. First part should be the original mix. Second part should be the home theater adjusted mix of the same thing. We'll see if the difference is as minimal as you say.

quote: Brad Miller
The DVD release is better.

Same with Ghostbusters. The sound is pretty wimpy on the Blu-ray and I haven't watched it in a while but I think they may have tried some de-noising as well.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-19-2013, 03:38 PM:

quote: F. Hudson Miller
If you want the theatrical mix on the Blu-ray, you are going to have to get the distributors to provide more storage space on the disc (good luck with that one).

Actually, more often than not the typical Hollywood studio release on Blu-ray has plenty of empty space left on the disc. There's lots of movies on dual layer 50GB discs that have 10GB or more of unused space remaining on the disc. The "feature" portion of some of these discs would have no problem fitting on a 30GB HD-DVD. It would appear to me that many of these discs could fit in lossless tracks for both the original theatrical mix and a home theater optimized version.

There are some bandwidth intensive Blu-ray discs out there, like Saving Private Ryan. The "feature" portion on Disc 1 uses up nearly all 50 gigs and it has video bandwidth peaks that don't leave a lot of additional space for the lossless and lossy surround tracks alongside the video stream. However, discs like this seem more like the exception than the rule.

While Blu-ray definitely boasts an improvement in audio above that of DVD, there are startling differences in how sound will be treated from one movie to the next. Some discs have pretty standard sounding dynamics and then a few others such as Dredd or Prometheus will have me wondering if I'm gonna blow a speaker driver. They're not all being mixed and mastered the same way. I wonder about various tweaks that are done to the mix from one audio format to the other. The Blu-ray I have of Close Encounters of the Third Kind had Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio tracks on it. The DTS version doesn't necessarily sound better, but it does sound quite different -a lot more bass is the most notable thing.

If both the theatrical mix and "home theater" (near field, no X-curve, etc.) mix are being done at the same time I don't see why the theaters should be cheated out of a 7.1 layout if such a layout is going to be used at all. Especially these days when the "print" is a DCP on an external hard disc with very ample capacity. If more 7.1 channel tracks are being distributed this might actually encourage theaters to wire their surrounds for 7.1 rather than using the excuse "there aren't enough 7.1 movies to justify the effort." It might even get them to do more about properly maintaining their sound systems.

This sort of thing has been going on for over a decade now, all the way back to the "Dolby Digital Surround EX" days. From 1999 on forward numerous movies were released with standard 5.1 mixes in theaters but had Surround EX tracks on DVD. Lots of catalog titles were remixed with EX. DTS upped the ante by delivering a discrete back wall surround channel exclusively for the home in their DTS-ES 6.1 format. Then Blu-ray introduced 7.1 discrete capability for home theater in LPCM, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD formats, years ahead of d-cinema offering something similar (after Dolby provided a push to use the capability). DTS' newer theatrical sound processors could do 8-channel audio right out of the box and scale to more elaborate layouts, but Hollywood studios ignored the extra capability.

D-cinema can, at least in theory (but certainly not practice) support more elaborate formats than 7.1. A discrete 9.1 layout with five channels up front, four surround channels and one LFE is do-able. But is anyone gonna bother? I suppose theater operators could pin their hopes on Dolby Atmos to give the commercial theater a way to one-up home theater. So far, I don't see a whole lot of movies being mixed in Atmos or theaters installing the sound format either.

quote: F. Hudson Miller
We often do new field recording at high rez sample rates, but often it is so it will give us more latitude in the digital post-production processing world.

Sounds similar to the principal of editing photos in deep color depths (16-bit per channel or higher). Screwing around with curves, hue sliders, etc. in 16-bit mode isn't too bad. Doing the same in a 8-bit per channel image can create all sorts of problems with banding, noise, shadow crush, etc.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 03-19-2013, 05:19 PM:

Hello F.

Thanks for sharing your experience here, it's very educational.
I am afraid I do agree with most of the guys here. I see what you're trying to do, but the point is that a BD run through a TV or a cheap/average home theatre system will sound awful anyway.
Whoever is investing time and money on a proper setup, would like to enjoy the full dynamic, the full stereo image and so on.

Even though I am not a mixer and I have very little understanding of the workflow involved, I do believe that you should leave the tracks as they are.

Question: why a theatrical track should take more space on the media? DTS-MA and Dolby True HD are already lossless, what would be the difference in terms of space when using a theatrical track?

Also, you mention that the home track is optimised for, say, 83dB rather than 85dB.
Do you know many cinemas running their feature at 7.0? It would be 6.0 if you're lucky (that would be 82dB). More likely 5.5 (80.5dB) or 5.0 (79dB - hope that my figures are correct here). To follow your argument, you should release different theatrical tracks as well, for different fader settings! (DON'T!)

Brad,
Funny, I played the Back to the Future trailer today for the first time and I was shocked to see how much sharpness they put on the picture, it's completely ruined [Frown]

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 03-19-2013, 05:23 PM:

"Perhaps you are doing it just to earn a few more bucks?"

I agree with the basic premise of "leave the mix alone", but the guy is just giving his opinion on why he thinks it is better to make adjust mix for the home. And you impugn his integrity for it?

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-19-2013, 05:58 PM:

I actually find this discussion to be pretty cool as long as we can all agree to disagree when appropriate.

Just to play the devil's advocate, and because I really don't know the answer:

How often are your rooms pinked and the SPL reset? Just for reference, our dub stages are done every morning and, if its mission critical, again mid-day. It is also reset every time we change procedures (from pre-dub to master to print master) or we change sound formats.

I also know that you guys don't have a lot of control, but the room should always be at SPL 85. It is the equivlent of having the wrong FL on the screen and results in the same mis-calibrations.

I am sure it drives you guys crazy when we arrive for a preview and rip your rooms all apart, but the cool part of that is it should be perfect when we leave (we hope).

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-19-2013, 06:10 PM:

Wow.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-19-2013, 06:16 PM:

quote: Andrew Thomas
but the guy is just giving his opinion on why he thinks it is better to make adjust mix for the home. And you impugn his integrity for it?

I am not impugning his integrity personally because he's not the one who makes the decision, but rather the ones who send the invoices. I can't see any other reason to do it other than to get a few more bucks from the studios, especially when every home theater system is different. Making the changes described isn't going to do any good in the real world and the studios will blindly pay for it especially if they think it needs to be done.

F, so the remixing you do for the home environment negates the need to set the levels or somehow compensates for not doing so? Is that what you are saying?

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 03-19-2013, 06:16 PM:

quote: F. Hudson Miller
I also know that you guys don't have a lot of control, but the room should always be at SPL 85. It is the equivlent of having the wrong FL on the screen and results in the same mis-calibrations.

In fact, most of the time it is the projectionist who turns the volume down. Now in the digital world it even worse, where Technical Managers don't have the faintest idea of what happens and leave the fader at the level the engineer set it when it left - assuming they knew what a 'fader' is.

I mean that I know very few cinemas - commercial cinemas, not premiere ones - running their features at more than 6.0. I know what you mean and I agree with you. The subject has been discussed on this forum before anyway.
The fact is that in the real world that is not going to happen. Back to the original subject, my point is that maybe the industry should take that into consideration, and discuss whether a bespoke track for BD is really necessary.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-19-2013, 06:22 PM:

Most commercial theatres would be lucky to get a full B-chain once per year, assuming no equipment upgrades or changes.. In principle, nothing should change significantly in that time, assuming that there are no blown speakers or amplifiers and that no one has touched any gain pots.

quote: F. Hudson Miller
I am sure it drives you guys crazy when we arrive for a preview and rip your rooms all apart, but the cool part of that is it should be perfect when we leave (we hope).

This is when it is nice to have a modern digital cinema processor (CP650, JSD100, etc.), where settings can be saved and recalled as needed.

Out of curiousity, why do mix facilities need to have the B-chain adjusted so frequently? I'm guessing (hoping) that it is not due to equipment damage.

I should also add that it is not uncommon for "7" on the fader to be set to some other value than 85 dBC. This is done for various reasons, ranging from the need to have additional headroom in theatres that run a wide assortment of new and old prints to problematic multi-use rooms where 85 dBC is just too loud. I hate multi-use facilities, but they are a reality, and need to be dealt with as best as possible. And is there really any difference between setting the levels so that "7" plays at 82 dBC or setting the levels normally and playing every film at "6"?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-19-2013, 06:26 PM:

Scott, didn't you know that you're supposed to B-chain at each reel change?

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-19-2013, 07:03 PM:

That'd be hard with platters.

AJG

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-19-2013, 07:04 PM:

The room is pinked because the client is paying $1000 plus an hour just for the room. If it is always being checked there is never a question about having to give back any of that lovely cash. Also, we are usually slammed on time and just don't have time for any system failures.

The near field mix is in the delivery requirements of almost every film. It is part of the produce's contract with the studio. I am on a weekly guarentee (usually from the studio) so if we finish on Monday, Tuesday, or Friday it makes no difference to my pay. It just reduces the amount of time I have to clean out my office and find another job. By the time the near field comes along I have seen the movie hundreds and hundreds of times; I usually could not escape soon enough!

Oh and by the way if we just re-labeled a clone of the print master it would be bounced out of home video so fast you would see stars. They maybe annoying but they are not dumb. When it was played back in the mastering suite there would be hell to pay. The home video release is huge money. The studios take it very seriously.
For example a film that I worked on "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" had a worldwide box office of $748,806,957 and DOMESTIC video sales of $387,966,324. These guys are not the least bit casual about the near-field I can assure you; this is BIG BUSINESS.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-19-2013, 09:01 PM:

I don't follow your logic.

1) You're arguing that near-field mixes are good/neccesary because the contracts specify that they be there. That's neither here nor there; it merely shows that you're following the terms of the contract, not that the terms of the contract lead to something good/neccesary.

2) And at the end you're arguing that near-field mixes are good because they make lots of money on the end-product. Are you suggesting that not doing these mixes would lead to them making less money? Riddle me this, out of the ~$388 million that movie made in home video, how much of it do you think it was due to near-field mixing?

Oh, and whether or not you're being paid a weekly guarantee doesn't change the claim that near-field mix requirements lead to you being paid more. More responsibilities, generally, leads to higher pay.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-19-2013, 10:05 PM:

quote: F. Hudson Miller
if we just re-labeled a clone of the print master it would be bounced out of home video so fast you would see stars. They maybe annoying but they are not dumb. When it was played back in the mastering suite there would be hell to pay.

But remember when you said...

quote: F. Hudson Miller
It should be remembered that these changes are subtle and a generally done by the same re-recording mixers who mixed the film.

Sounds like those changes are not so subtle if studio people would go nuts if the theatrical mix was used and just relabled.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 03-19-2013, 10:24 PM:

Very interesting reading! I'm part of the SMPTE Cinema Sound Systems committee. We are revisiting such things as B-chain calibration, use of the SMPTE 202 X-Curve, etc. This is all quite controversial!

Several people in the group are arguing that X-curve and the far measurements are useless. Instead, the thinking is that the sound should be flat leaving the screen (taking into account speaker frequency response and screen frequency response). As you get farther from the screen, there is high frequency loss due to air attenuation and additional sound due to reflections. But, the thought is that your ear and brain use the sound of first arrival (largely ignoring reflections) to determine tonal balance.

Since dubbing stages are relatively small, with the listener not getting a lot of reflections or air attenuation, it is argued that the frequency response of the dubbing stage should be flat instead of X-curve (or even the less drastic X-curve for a 30 seat auditorium).

So, F., do you know how the dubbing stages are equalized? Are they using the 30 seat X-curve? Something else?

What are the group's thoughts on the validity of X-curve and distant measurements using 1/3 octave RTA and 1/3 octave EQ?

Thanks!

Harold

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-19-2013, 10:51 PM:

This is going to make me seem like an insensitive prick, but...

The argument that "we do it because they tell/pay us to do it" didn't work in Nuremberg, and I don't think anyone's buying it here. If that's your job, fine. I get it. But don't let's pretend there's a valid technical reason motivating it.

And, while we're at it, the condescending tone is really annoying. (To me, anyway.)

Some of us know a thing or two about what goes on in your world. And we're not idiots who rely on test screenings to get our cinemas EQ'ed properly. Collectively, we know a heck of a lot more than you're giving us credit for.

#trollsonfilmtech

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 03-19-2013, 10:56 PM:

On a different, semi-related note, I definitely heard one or two sound effects in "The Great And Powerful Oz" that sounded like a bad sample rate conversion. You know, when someone does a rush job of converting 48 -> 44.1, or the equivalent.

If I recall correctly it's shortly after the arrival in Oz, notably some "bird call" effects on the surround channels.

I heard the same low-quality effect in both a Dolby Digital 35mm auditorium, and a Sony D-Cinema auditorium. Wadup with that? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-19-2013, 11:11 PM:

F,

You are really starting to dig yourself into a hole here because your reasons are just wrong. As others have pointed out, if you just admit you're doing it for the money because that is part of your job, then we get it. However to sit there and back the concept that a home video mix is necessary or appropriate???

quote: F. Hudson Miller
I also know that you guys don't have a lot of control, but the room should always be at SPL 85. It is the equivlent of having the wrong FL on the screen and results in the same mis-calibrations.

Joe said HE was restricted to his 16 band equalizer, but that doesn't mean all of us are. I'm running BASIS systems from a CP650 through QSC SC-444 speakers, SB15121 subs, etc. You might want to check it out
here. In no way am I restricted and there are others that have every bit as much control as most theaters, so let's not start assuming. Assuming is what brought on the whole stupid notion of remixing for the home anyway. If anyone cares enough, they will build their home system to cinema standards. If they don't care enough...then they don't care enough. That's the point you are clearly missing, because regardless, remixing is not needed nor wanted by the public and you guys are wasting your time and the studio's money.

(And by the way, I'll bet you that Joe's 2/3 octave EQ system sounds better than most home setups, as he does have a good set of ears on him.)

quote: F. Hudson Miller
The home video release is huge money. The studios take it very seriously.
For example a film that I worked on "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" had a worldwide box office of $748,806,957 and DOMESTIC video sales of $387,966,324.

I feel your pain having to sit through that movie over and over and over. How it ever made so much money is beyond me. Still let me ask you...

#1 How many people do you feel bought that DVD or bluray because there was a near-field mix on the disc?

#2 How many of those people do you think bought the movie because for some weird reason they actually liked or wanted to sit through that movie?

#3 How many disc sales do you think would have been lost had the fine print on the box said "the original unaltered theatrical sound mix has been preserved here in DTS-MA"?

I can't make text appear upside down on here, but I'll give you the answers if you click this spoiler link:

#1 - None. Absolutely none.
#2 - 100%. Every single one of them.
#3 - None. All the studio did was waste their money on a near-field mix because it wouldn't have lost them one penny had they used the original theatrical mix.

quote: F. Hudson Miller
I am sure it drives you guys crazy when we arrive for a preview and rip your rooms all apart, but the cool part of that is it should be perfect when we leave (we hope).

That has never, never, NEVER happened to me. There have however been a couple of times the studio tech came in to tune a room of mine, did so, and then it was deemed my settings were superior for the room and we ran the show with my settings. Usually I'll insist they listen to a reel of the movie before deciding to re-calibrate. They never complain after they listen though. Again, you are making assumptions.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-19-2013, 11:33 PM:

I'll allow that compression and limiting were necessary to contain a theatrical mix to home-video back in the days of VHS. I suspect the remix is a hold-over that simply hasn't been thought through.

I also suspect that sound laborers aren't going to step forward and admit that remixes are no longer necessary, because unions aren't in the business of pointing out ways to cut costs -- not if it means lost jobs. So, that leaves this in the hands of management.

Alas, I have to wonder just how many producers really know anything about sound. Sure, they'll all say they "care" about sound. But do they know anything about it?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-20-2013, 01:33 AM:

Speaking of "big business", I decided to peruse www.bluray.com and found a few interesting things.

This movie was released on bluray Oct 25, 2011.

Now take a look at this bluray which is releasing March 26, 2013.

Seriously???

But an even bigger question, is the release next week nothing more than the same transfer and fucked up sound mix from the release a year and a half ago...or did they actually go in and FIX that awful sound mix? (It is obvious by the 7.1 it isn't the original theatrical sound mix, but at any point did someone with decent hearing sit down and say "damn guys, the new near field mix is really awful!") I'm going to bet they just re-packaged the same movie, with the same insulting sound mix, and yes we are talking about none other than Jurassic Park!

And F, before you go talking about how wonderful the remix was on Jurassic Park, I can ASSURE you it sucked. I was in the unique position of doing side by side comparisons against an original 35mm print playing in dts of this movie not long ago and WOW did they ever fuck up the bluray audio mix!!! It sounded like ass. There is simply no excuse for this.

But wait, there's more. Take a look at this cinematic classic. (And no I'm not being sarcastic there, this really is a fun movie.) But wait, what have we here? Yup, 2 years later almost to the day, another release for no damn good reason.

Jump back to 1983 in the days of mono and we have National Lampoon's Vacation. They went to great pains to preserve that original mono mix here in DTS-HD no less...but wait...wait...what's this? Yes indeedy this May they are re-releasing this same blu-ray, also in DTS-MA mono sound. (I'm not knocking the concept of releasing the movie in mono, I'm knocking the Lucas'itis that is going on where the studios keep releasing the same movies over and over and over.) In this release, the only thing they did to make things even more awesome was lock it to region A. [Roll Eyes]

BTW is it really necessary to have NINE bluray releases of Top Gun?

I do have a very serious question for you, F. Why are Universal bluray releases just downright godawful with their remixing? I don't see such destruction happening to studios like Fox (well, except for Rocky Horror). Universal doesn't just change things ever so slightly, they royally fuck it up. At least that's the pattern I've seen.

When I think of Universal, I am reminded of this excellence in audio mastering.

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-20-2013, 12:36 PM:

1) The engineering dept sets up the room. The details are beyond the my pay grade. I do know that when I do my thing the dub theaters sound great.

2) Dub stages come in all sizes. Which ones are chosen is a complex metric of talent, availability, price, producer preference, type of film, and philosophy of mixing among others. Here are five examples of how different they are:

http://www.sonypicturespost.com/soundservices/motionpicture/motionpicture.html

3) There is not an absolute answer to the home theater mix issue. I am sure some theatrical mixes would sound fine in a near field situation. I can tell you from personal experience that A/B switching from theater drivers to near field monitoring sounds shockingly different. All kinds of detail (good & bad) shows up in the near field that you never hear through diffuse theater drivers. We then fine tune the near field to match the theatrical. If it were my movie you can bet I would want it to have a separate print-master for the home theater.

4) Each studio operates its home theater division in its own way. Some care deeply about the films, some treat them as cash cows. As long as commercial filmmaking is a corporate enterprise with such huge amounts of money at stake there are going to people who are more or less responcible about their treatment of the golden goose.

5) I guess the only thing that I am offended at is the assumption that filmmakers are doing it for the money and are going after every red cent. I have met very few film workers in my 25 years of doing this who don't care deeply about the films we are making. This is a shitty business if you just want to make money. Almost every film worker was a big enough fan that they wanted to spend their life making movies.

6) We work within the parameters of big business where art and money have to co-exist. The studio has business requirements, we have creative license, but we arrange to meet in the middle to make it work for both sides. The studios want a home theater mix and we want the film to sound consistent with the directors theatrical vision. I would say that as a whole we are pretty happy with the result.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-20-2013, 12:54 PM:

Nobody is claiming everyone involved in producing movies are not passionate about their work, but overall I think you are blind to the comments here.

What are YOUR answers to these questions?

quote:
#1 How many people do you feel bought that DVD or bluray because there was a near-field mix on the disc?

#2 How many of those people do you think bought the movie because for some weird reason they actually liked or wanted to sit through that movie?

#3 How many disc sales do you think would have been lost had the fine print on the box said "the original unaltered theatrical sound mix has been preserved here in DTS-MA"?

Now don't go cheating and looking at the correct answers already posted above.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 03-20-2013, 01:07 PM:

To change the subject for the moment, I have heard that Dolby Digital, DTS, and SDDS each got there own sound mix. I am referring to the theatrical mix, not the home versions. I was wondering if this is true?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-20-2013, 01:14 PM:

I have to admit I'm a little surprised that so much thought and work is (apparently) put in to the near field mix for home theater, when the following things seem to be true:

- Home theater users who REALLY care about how it sounds would obviously prefer the theatre mix to be left alone.

- At least 98% (and probably more) of DVD/Blu-Ray buyers wouldn't know the difference between the theatrical mix and the near-field home mix without a direct A-B comparison (and maybe not even then in some cases).

- A huge percentage (a majority, I'm sure) of home video watchers are watching on a system where they're just using the TV alone, or a Wal-Mart-ish "home theater in a box" system that's never been properly set up and calibrated, in an odd-shaped room, with the speakers and screen positioned where they're out of the way, with no regard to the sound field. Or a bedroom with the sound turned way down to keep from waking up the significant other.

Given all that, and given that studios want to cut costs in any way possible, I'm surprised they don't just throw the theatrical mix on all the home video formats and call it good.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-20-2013, 01:28 PM:

quote: F. Hudson Miller
6) We work within the parameters of big business where art and money have to co-exist. The studio has business requirements, we have creative license, but we arrange to meet in the middle to make it work for both sides. The studios want a home theater mix and we want the film to sound consistent with the directors theatrical vision. I would say that as a whole we are pretty happy with the result.

Just because the studios want something doesn't mean that it's a good idea for you to give it to them and just because you guys are pretty happy with the result doesn't mean that the result is actually good.

quote: F. Hudson Miller
I can tell you from personal experience that A/B switching from theater drivers to near field monitoring sounds shockingly different.

Sure and if you go to any number of home theaters you'll find those sound shockingly different from each other and the monitoring system you've set up.

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-20-2013, 01:39 PM:

I do absolutely hear what other posters are saying about maintaining the theatrical as the home theater. I just just don't happen to agree. I believe that we should maximize the experience for each format.

I agree people usually buy the film because of the story. I would also posit that the studio is trying to provide a track that will play well in the maximum variety of home situations.

The various thaeatical formats are treated slightly differently. The Dolby D is overseen by a Dolby Consultant who comes in and lays it down on mag/optical. The D-Cinema version is a straight PM as is the Data-Sat (DTS), the SDDS will be a different Print Master if it is using 5 across the front. The Imax mix is different because of different speaker placement. The Dolby LT/RT fall back is a different PM. The M&E is a very different pass that drops the dial and replaces all missing production effects. Home theater is near-field.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 03-20-2013, 01:43 PM:

Chiming in to answer Mitchell's question: for the theatrical release, the same mix is used for SRD, Datasat (formerly DTS), SDDS and the Digital Cinema, with a few exceptions. For example, there was a brief window when some films did both 8 channel and 5.1 channel mixes, since SDDS supported 8 channels. Nowadays there are often both 5.1 and 7.1 mixes for D-Cinema (not to mention Dolby Atmos mixes or Auro 11.1 mixes)- in that case, the 5.1 mix for D-Cinema is also used for the 35mm SRD/Datasat/SDDS tracks.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-20-2013, 01:46 PM:

Assuming discs don't have enough space for the theatrical mix (which as has been pointed out, isn't the case for the vast majority of them), why can't they create a special-order disc that has the theatrical mix for people who have properly set up rooms?

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-20-2013, 01:56 PM:

Realistically, how much longer are disks of any kind going to be manufactured? Why would the suit types put anymore money into improving the format if, as expected, downloading will wipe them out?

And while we're at it, is the download mix the same as the disk?

This all from someone who has never bought a TV and the one he owns just lost one of the Red.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-20-2013, 02:16 PM:

I think disks will be made for quite a while. I don't know about DVD/Blu-Ray, but in the music industry, where the media would have you believe the CD is "dead," the industry is on track to sell over 100 million of them this year. There is still a large market for "physical ownership."

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-20-2013, 02:35 PM:

There is not a big enough market for special order disks.

The download version gets the near field. The theatrical is used no place except cinema theaters.

Mr. Schulz is correct. There are all kinds of of other exceptions. There are or course upto 32 language versions that at derived for the M&E. There are International English versions for when the picture is different internationally than domestically. Also different countries have certain censorship issues that result in a mix that the sound is adjusted to make it less aurally violent.

In the end it is a crazy complicated sound order.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-20-2013, 03:11 PM:

I can kind of understand the interests of making separate mixes for home theater/near field and commercial theater far field environments. However, modern EQ technology should be able to allow one definitive mix to work in either environment (wasn't this the original motivation behind "Home THX?"). The situation with IMAX and its very odd surround speaker placements are another issue.

This still doesn't get to the core of the problem with some of these movies on Blu-ray: technicians are coming in long after the movie played in theaters and conducting radical revisionism on the original mix.

The Lion King had a pretty awesome sounding theatrical mix, and it was just lossy 320kbs Dolby Digital 5.1. It didn't sound quite so powerful on DVD and many have complained the lossless surround mix on Blu-ray is pretty wimpy. I don't think the near field vs. far field X-curves have anything to do with that. Somebody simply chose to pull down the faders on those master stems.

The same things goes for Jurassic Park. The idea the Blu-ray track got wimped out seems like déjà vu all over again. We went through this crap over a decade ago when Jurassic Park arrived on DVD. The original DD 5.1 and separate DTS 5.1 DVDs had wimpy audio compared to the original theatrical mix and what was encoded on the DTS Laserdisc. Universal Home Video heard the very loud complaints and issued a "fixed" DTS DVD with audio that more closely resembled that of the DTS Laserdisc. Is Universal Home Video going to bother with a fixed JP Blu-ray?

Why anyone at Universal is tinkering with the original Jurassic Park mix is beyond me. They're going in and farting with Gary Rydstrom's Academy Award winning work. That's not much different from someone taking their oil painting kit into an art museum and "fixing" various paintings made by other artists. But I suppose if the art museum is paying the mystery painter to come in and alter the work that makes it OK.
[Roll Eyes]

quote: Chris Slycord
Assuming discs don't have enough space for the theatrical mix (which as has been pointed out, isn't the case for the vast majority of them), why can't they create a special-order disc that has the theatrical mix for people who have properly set up rooms?

Considering what all can be done with BD-Live it would seem possible, at least in theory, for an end user to download an alternative sound mix and run that with the movie. The downloaded data could be stored on a flash memory card connected to the Blu-ray player (or on the hard disc in the case of the Playstation 3). Unfortunately this kind of function would probably have to be already authored into the disc (various links, scripting, etc. in BD Java to allow the alternative mix download from a menu). In the case of The Lion King or Jurassic Park, the studios would have to author another disc with a fixed audio track.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think disks will be made for quite a while. I don't know about DVD/Blu-Ray, but in the music industry, where the media would have you believe the CD is "dead," the industry is on track to sell over 100 million of them this year. There is still a large market for "physical ownership."

I think it's interesting how vinyl LPs are kind of making a comeback. The 30th anniversary picture disc of Screaming for Vengeance by Judas Priest caught my eye in our local Hastings store this weekend. I might have bought one if I had a turntable.

Movies in physical retail packaging will be around for a long time for various reasons. If consumers are going merely download all the movies they buy they'll need a stack of external hard discs to store all the data (and continually move the data to newer hard discs to keep from losing it as the discs degrade over time). The Internet, for most people, is too damned slow. Big telcos are putting more of their money into mobile phone infrastructure rather than doing anything to improve residential-based Internet connection speeds. It's going to be a long time before Americans see Internet download speeds fast enough to stream Blu-ray equivalent HD quality video in real time on any widespread basis. Sadly, too many of us are so engrossed with our tiny smart phones and tablets to give a damn. ISP's will milk customers for everything they can get with each incremental upgrade. Internet speeds in America are not going to leap forward in any big way until our bandwidth bottlenecks turn into a serious competitive disadvantage for international business. Until then progress will continue to be deliberately very sloooowwwwwww.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-20-2013, 03:41 PM:

A group of some of my friends are getting very much into digital downloads of films, and seemingly quite keen on it. In fact, they see me as a bit antiquated that I still by films on disc. They say that they cannot see a difference between Blu-ray and their digital download on their setup, which I guess is fair but for many of us, especially with front projection systems, Blu-ray is almost required.

In regards to Jurassic Park: at the time of the initial Blu-ray release, I asked someone at Universal why the original theatrical 5.1 mix was not included, and all they said was that the 5.1 mix was on the DVD release. Obviously the folks at Universal have no clue. This whole situation has me skeptical of the 3D re-release: will the theatrical track be re-mixed or 1993 original?

AJG

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-20-2013, 03:52 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
If consumers are going merely download all the movies they buy they'll need a stack of external hard discs to store all the data (and continually move the data to newer hard discs to keep from losing it as the discs degrade over time).

You don't need a hard disk for mass storage if you don't want one. If you "buy" your downloads from Amazon, you can either watch them streaming, or if your connection is too slow for that, you can download them to your DVR and then delete when you are done. If you want to download again in the future, you still can. I think this will probably be the future of movie "ownership," although it still doesn't give you as much as the package does, especially in terms of extras and portability. I can see ways around those issues though.

Back to the other topic, already in progress.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 03-20-2013, 04:13 PM:

Speaking just for myself, I think the workflow described by Mr. Miller is the ideal one - the original mixing crew, after finishing the theatrical printmaster and the M&Es, do a home video remix with near-field monitors. I definitely agree with the consensus that long-after-the-fact remixes leave a lot to be desired - you have a different mixing team, who are creating a new mix to their own liking, without regarding to the original creative choices made in the mix. But, given that there are dramatic differences between 99% of home theaters and commercial cinemas, a home video remix for the Blu Ray supervised by the original mix team, while the project is still fresh in their minds & ears, and taking into account the sonic differences between a theater-sized room with theater-sized speakers and a living room with a typical 5.1/7.1 setup seems pretty ideal to me.

While there are no home theater standards per se, the mixing guidelines that I've seen for home video are pretty reasonable approximations for what most home theaters look like, in terms of speaker layout and distance from the viewing position.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-20-2013, 04:28 PM:

There are some cases where an original was involved. Ben Burtt I believe helped re-mix the Indy trilogy for Blu-ray. I never heard the original 6 track mixes, but the ones that are there seem period accurate and amazing.

I also read that the sound mix on Tron Legacy was never really complete for theatrical release, and was thus refined for the home release. After seeing it a few times theatrically, including IMAX, I will say that I enjoyed the sound much more at home. I've also heard that Blu-ray mix in a cinema once as a demo, and it sure sounded amazing in there too.

But then there is stuff like Jurassic Park and Ghostbusters that are just all sorts of wrong. Hell, the Dolby A track on Ghostbusters sounded much better than the Blu-ray. Hands down better.

AJG

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-20-2013, 04:44 PM:

I must say the coolest thing is that you guys love the tracks so much! I (on behalf of my fellow sound guys) take that as a big compliment. I also must apologize for the number of drivers I have helped blow out!

I think it all comes down to how much the studio values the property. Over the years I did a whole bunch of Jerry Bruckheimer movies. Whenever Disney wanted a new release master, Jerry always came back to us to do it. I can't count how many versions of "Con Air" I have done over the years!

Posted by Lincoln Spector (Member # 6835) on 03-20-2013, 05:51 PM:

"(You may argue that Blu-Rays have no place in cinema exhibition. I agree. But not everyone else does.)"

Scott: I'm one of those who doesn't agree. I've seen Blu-rays projected onto very large screens with DVI projectors. And I thought they looked acceptable. Not as good as DCP or a pristine 35mm print, but much better than many a 35 I've seen.

Lincoln

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-20-2013, 06:38 PM:

F has failed twice now to answer these simple questions.

quote:
#1 How many people do you feel bought that DVD or bluray because there was a near-field mix on the disc?

#2 How many of those people do you think bought the movie because for some weird reason they actually liked or wanted to sit through that movie?

#3 How many disc sales do you think would have been lost had the fine print on the box said "the original unaltered theatrical sound mix has been preserved here in DTS-MA"?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-20-2013, 06:54 PM:

quote: Lincoln Spector
I'm one of those who doesn't agree. I've seen Blu-rays projected onto very large screens with DVI projectors. And I thought they looked acceptable. Not as good as DCP or a pristine 35mm print, but much better than many a 35 I've seen.

Um, that really depends on Blu-ray and DCP that are being compared (not to mention the 35mm print and its handling).

Judging by the file size of some DCPs it's clear quality standards have been relaxed to some degree to allow much smaller file sizes (probably to allow either faster downloads via satellite or faster ingesting into the server). I was used to seeing 2K DCPs tip the scales at 200GB-250GB. Now it's not unheard of to see a 2K DCP coming in at 1/4 of those file sizes.

Some DCPs are getting nearly small enough to fit on a 50GB dual layer Blu-ray disc. The movies are encoded in JPEG2000, which is really just a bunch of still images wrapped in a movie container. The MPEG-4 AVC and VC1 video formats used on Blu-ray can utilize inter-frame compression techniques, use more transform blocks and probably other compression tricks that can't be used or aren't allowed in a DCP.

In the end, a 1080p/24 movie encoded in AVC or VC1 on Blu-ray that uses most of the capacity on a dual layer BD50 disc could actually end up looking better than a 2K JPEG2000 DCP that has been squeezed down to a 60GB size. The AVC and VC1 formats are arguably more efficient at small file sizes.

Of course there's plenty of Blu-ray discs with feature file sizes crammed down to small levels despite the capacity of a BD50. I like to jump on Warner Bros. from time to time over the small DCPs it releases from time to time and the even smaller encodes found on their Blu-ray releases. Some of these movies would fit just fine on a single layer BD25 if not for the extras pushing it past that level. Maybe there's some guy at Warner Home Video who still thinks they're supporting HD-DVD.
[Razz]

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-20-2013, 07:59 PM:

F has failed twice now to answer these simple questions.

quote:
#1 How many people do you feel bought that DVD or bluray because there was a near-field mix on the disc?

#2 How many of those people do you think bought the movie because for some weird reason they actually liked or wanted to sit through that movie?

#3 How many disc sales do you think would have been lost had the fine print on the box said "the original unaltered theatrical sound mix has been preserved here in DTS-MA"?

1) NOT MANY

2) HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS

3) NOT MANY

I don't understand why you think the filmmakers should not get the track they want for the home video release. The Sound Designer and the Re-Recording mixers, with the director create the soundtrack. Why shouldn't we be allowed to release the version we wish to?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-20-2013, 09:54 PM:

The question is, why do they want that near field track? Again I say you're catering to a market that should instead be catering to you. If home versions had too much treble then the home hardware would take care of that. It'd have to in order to sell well. A simple treble control could be offered to dial it to individual taste (and proper EQ for the better hardware). All home theater systems allow the ability to change the volume of each channel independently so I'm not sure why you feel the need to raise the center channel a bit. If people have issues hearing the dialog, they'll raise it.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-20-2013, 10:05 PM:

quote: F. Hudson Miller
I don't understand why you think the filmmakers should not get the track they want for the home video release. The Sound Designer and the Re-Recording mixers, with the director create the soundtrack. Why shouldn't we be allowed to release the version we wish to?

So let me get this straight. You are more interested in catering to the redneck in the trailer park watching a movie than someone who has setup a "home theater" type of system at home? Do you also enjoy the new CGI Yoda?

If you guys wanted to release a "home video" version of the sound mix, then fine. If there is room enough on the disc without compromising picture or lossless original theatrical mix sound, then I couldn't care less...but I assure you NOBODY outside of you guys wants that.

Your profile shows you are part owner of a sound mixing company. I'm really having a hard time believing you actually want to remix a movie for anything but the additional funds, because you as of yet have failed to provide a valid reason why it should be done.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 03-20-2013, 11:28 PM:

Brad, it seems the entire industry caters to the lowest common denominator in more ways than just sound mixes. I would love to know why this industry's so hell-bent on self destruction. Can anyone from the studios try to answer that question?

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-21-2013, 12:04 AM:

For your edification, the website you found is for my freelance sound editorial services. The company does not have interests in anything beyond a sound effects library, 2 ProTools editing hardware/software systems, and a stack of business cards. It is a personal services company.

I appreciated this discussion when it was about the merits of film presentation. Posters had posed questions as to why certain things were done in the film sound business; I attempted to provide some answers to those questions. Unfortunately it has become clear that not everyone is interested about finding out the whys and wherefores of how sound works.

I thought that I would enjoy hanging with you guys and we could learn a little from each other, unfortunately I guess I am not enough of film-handler even though I worked in 35mm everyday for 15 years.

I will continue to enjoy reading what all you have to say, but in the future will limit my two-way participation. It is fairly obvious that what some of you are looking for is a punching-bag and that is not my expertise.

Feel free to talk among yourselves; I will still enjoy listening. [Wink]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-21-2013, 01:07 AM:

This has nothing to do with "how sound works". This has to do with the destruction various people, including yourself, are doing to the sound mixes of which we "cinema people" value and appreciate.

Again, you are completely missing the point, because you don't realize how disappointed we are when we pop in a bluray of a movie we have ran many times and remember how great it sounded only to find out it has been remixed into Shitville to appease those crappy Wal-Mart sound systems you seem to be remixing for.

This discussion reminds me of the yahoos that come on every so often praising how great film looks with all of its scratches and dirt. That would be film done wrong...and that is no different than home video remixing, which is sound done wrong.

Then again if I could only kick a few video mastering guys in the nuts for laying on the edge enhancement, I certainly would, because that is killing the experience just as much as your home video remixes.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-21-2013, 04:14 AM:

quote: F. Hudson Miller
I don't understand why you think the filmmakers should not get the track they want for the home video release. The Sound Designer and the Re-Recording mixers, with the director create the soundtrack. Why shouldn't we be allowed to release the version we wish to?

Somebody had this to say...

quote: Chris Slycord
Just because the studios want something doesn't mean that it's a good idea for you to give it to them and just because you guys are pretty happy with the result doesn't mean that the result is actually good.

quote: F. Hudson Miller
Posters had posed questions as to why certain things were done in the film sound business; I attempted to provide some answers to those questions.

And to be frank, your answers boiled down to "Because the contract says I have to do it."

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 03-21-2013, 05:00 AM:

I think its two things. First being studios want to keep the theatrical mix in the theater just to defereiniate itself from what your able to get for a home presentation with Bluray; keeping the premium in the theater so to speak.

And the second is by having to remix the movie for home thats more hourly rates to profit on. Of course a mixer who owns an editing company gunna say it's neccesary.

As has been said I'm sick of buying classic movies on Bluray just to have lackluster audio compared to the DVD version. Jurassic Park as Brad said, The Line King, I even thought Dances with Wolves seems tamed down on Bluray. What gives?

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 03-21-2013, 06:19 AM:

If this is of interest, Criterion released "The Game" on Blu-ray with both the theatrical and near field mixes. They are both presented in DTS-HD: MA (48kHz/24bit) on a BD50 disc, so your judgement about discs not having enough space to put the theatrical mix is proven wrong, although it could be an issue with different language tracks on the disc.

I seriously have no clue why people want to tamper with the sound mix for smaller rooms while the hardware should be able to play back the original theatrical mix without having it sound bright and harsh.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 03-21-2013, 06:34 AM:

In comes the next one who claims that putting unnecessary soundmixes on BRs inevitably takes away precious space for the picture encoding which is clearly visible by comparing the apples-edition of<title> with the oranges-edition of <title>.

There is a simple solution - like 'directors cuts', launch 'CinemaSeries' editions long after the public release to give all those the original mix who wants them - at twice the price.

- Carsten

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-21-2013, 09:14 AM:

What typically is the difference between the theatrical mix and the near-field mix? Different EQ, surround levels? Is there a common distinction between the two?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-21-2013, 09:39 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
So let me get this straight. You are more interested in catering to the redneck in the trailer park watching a movie than someone who has setup a "home theater" type of system at home?

I think the corporate head honchos at the movie studios and parent global media companies are of the mindset that the sound mix for home theater is the definitive mix. They see the theatrical release as nothing more than a temporary marketing campaign for the eventual home video release. The theatrical mix plays for a few weeks in theaters while that mix for home video lasts forever (as it gathers dust on the video collector's shelf). The sound mix that's actually going to get played the most may be the low bit rate lossy Dolby Digital mix that's run on cable and broadcast TV.

Meanwhile the executives keep dreaming up ways how they can cut out the theatrical release and get to home video release quicker without killing their entire business model in the process.

quote: Jarod Reddig
I think its two things. First being studios want to keep the theatrical mix in the theater just to defereiniate itself from what your able to get for a home presentation with Bluray; keeping the premium in the theater so to speak.

I strongly doubt the studios care at all about making a movie's theatrical sound mix a premium item above that of a sound mix on a Blu-ray disc.

If the studios really cared about how sound is being presented in commercial movie theaters they would be far more hands on with the situation. There would be far more in the way of communication with the management at commercial movie theater chains on this issue. More pressure and incentives would be put on movie theaters to do a better job with sound and advance what can be done with sound via new technology. Movie studios and theaters should be making the most of what can be done with sound in d-cinema, but they're not. Dolby Atmos seems like a very revolutionary concept. But not all that many movies are being output in that process. At this point only a few dozen theaters have installed Atmos; and it's not clear how far each theater has gone with configuring Atmos. The rollout appears to be going even slower than the adoption of Dolby Digital when it was commercially launched in 1992. It already seems too much to ask for most multiplex theaters to just do 5.1 digital right, never mind moving up to something like Atmos.

These days big theater chain multiplexes are being run more on the idea of pinching pennies and cutting staff to improve the company's stock price. Delivering a better quality "product" to customers, particularly one that's significantly better than home theater, really isn't coming into the equation. As long as the speakers are putting out some sound who cares about how good it actually sounds?

I hate to say it but people like me who pick a movie theater based on presentation quality are clearly a small minority of the customer base. I think most customers really don't give a shit about good or bad sound. They only care if they can hear it or not, be it in the movie theater or in their home.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 03-21-2013, 10:19 AM:

While there is no shortage of greedy and/or short sighted execs who care only about making sure we Can't Have Nice Things, the requirement for home theater re-mixes came from a good place. Home theaters are nowhere near the size of commercial screening rooms, are typically bass managed in a way that movie theaters are not, and (let's be honest) don't play back at as high a volume level. The guidelines for doing a near field mix basically say "take the theatrical mix you just did, load it up on a stage that is more representative of a typical home theater, and re-balance it to maintain dialogue intelligibility and balance between music, sound FX and dialogue when playing back in a home-style environment at typical home listening levels."

I agree there are a lot of terrible DVD re-mixes, but that's the scenario that Mr. Miller's described workflow is trying to avoid - it seems his clients want a *good* home theater remix, and specify that it be done by the original sound team, immediately after finishing the theatrical printmaster and M&Es. Those clients, and him, IMHO are the good guys, and I think the attitude he's gotten on this thread reflects poorly on us.

I do like the idea of having both the original and the home theater mix included on the Blu Ray, but failing that please remember that for 99% of us who are watching in a typical home theater, a *good* home theater remix will sound better than playing back the theatrical mix in our living room.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-21-2013, 10:38 AM:

If F's credits on IMDB are accurate, he's really an editor, and not a mixer.

However, if he's actually a mixer, maybe F. should make his case by presenting a list of soundtracks on which he was CREDITED as the re-recording mixer for BOTH theatrical and home theatre versions.

If he's really "one of the good guys" that Daniel is describing, maybe it will settle this whole mess.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-21-2013, 11:57 AM:

Sound "editing" versus "mixing" really seems like an argument of semantics especially given the capability and flexibility of computer-based sound design tools. They allow you to hop back and forth to make edits to individual pieces of audio and tailor the mix in a non-linear fashion.

To me, it seems like a much bigger job to gather and record all the assets that will be used in a movie production. Dialog has to be carefully recorded and/or re-recorded (ADR). Unique sound effects have to be created using all sorts of methods. A lot of work goes into recording a music score.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-21-2013, 12:50 PM:

But it isn't an issue of semantics.

It doesn't matter that editors and mixers are all using Pro Tools. Sure, editors "could mix" and mixers "could edit" -- theoretically. Alas, the job functions -- editor versus mixer -- remain distinct.

Editors edit -- they deal with the objective -- what (element) goes where (track layout) and when (time).

Mixers mix -- they deal with the subjective -- how (level, eq, compression, etc) and where (panning).

Every minute spent editing on a dub stage is an expensive minute that should be spent mixing. It's not the time or place to be editing.

Since we are talking about mixes versus remixes, we are talking about mixers, not editors.

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-21-2013, 01:14 PM:

I vowed not to get back into this but. Yes I am a sound editor. I have been on the stage with the mixers of dozens of shows. I cut, they mix. Together we listen and collaborate on the track. I have been there for pre-dibs, finals, print masters, and near-fields. My most valuable asset are my ears.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-21-2013, 01:33 PM:

I really appreciate your participation here Mr Miller! [Smile]

That is an impressive list of movie credits!

A question I have...when changing a mix for the near field...is a high end home theater considered? Many out there have a home theater in a box type system while the best high end equipment is for those who really care and can afford it.

Cheers [beer]

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-21-2013, 02:00 PM:

I would say that we make the very best sounding near-field we can. The engineering dept comes in and sets up the room with near field studio monitors at prescribed distance from the sweet mix chair. I would guess about eight feet out (they use a tape measure) and then the pink the space.

Then what ever adjustments are needed are made to make it sound as close to the theatrical as we can. There is an art to this, otherwise we could just send it through a processing chain in transfer and have a near-field. But we actually spend at least a day going through and making the two sound as close as we can.

Given the equipment and set-up we use, it would be definately called a high end mix, and the same tweaks that make it sound good on high end gear should make it sound good all the way down the food chain. Garbage in - garbage out and visa versa.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-21-2013, 02:36 PM:

F. Hudson -- please don't look at people's comments as making you a punching bag. This is a forum where people will say EXACTLY what they think, meaning you have to be kind of thick-skinned sometimes.

We have all been in situations when we've proposed some idea that turned out to be bad, only to have our fellow Film-Techers tell us in no uncertain terms how boneheaded the idea was.

I for one am glad you are here and participating. We don't often get a chance to shoot dialogue back and forth with somebody who actually works in the movies we know and love. I'm just hoping you can put up with the occasional "Why the HELL would they do that?!" types of questions...they only get asked because all of us are passionate about presentation, whether it's in the home or the cinema.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-21-2013, 02:46 PM:

Personally, I don't think this discussion has helped anybody.

How useful is it to complain to somebody who is too low on the food chain to really do anything about it?

How useful is it to try to persuade somebody who is locked into a "status quo" mindset of anything?

It's interesting that, in a discussion about sound, neither side is really "hearing" the other.

And on and on it goes.

quote:
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-21-2013, 06:24 PM:

It's helped me: I don't feel so alone in thinking many remixes absolutely suck.

[Wink]

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 03-21-2013, 07:06 PM:

Mr. Miller I wanted to say that I really appreciate you posting here. I think in general you may have been the skape goat to the anger some of us and myself have towards the big wigs calling the shots. I think it's cool to here your perspective and I respect your opinion as well as everyone else on here.

Bobby i too am in the minority as I will travel hours out of my way for the best film prese!ntation. I have a dedicated theater space with a 10 foot perf screen and cinema style DIY speakers in a 7.2 traditional arrangement and I take movies very seriuosly.

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-21-2013, 07:17 PM:

You guys should find jobs in LA! (I know easier said than done) There are so many places to see film on the big screen, and really good ones at that. Some suck, just like everywhere, but the level of presentation here is pretty high. If you are that passionate I sure as hell would consider living here. [Wink]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-21-2013, 07:18 PM:

In the case of some of the movies being mentioned I honestly think something else is happening to make the remixes really stink. There's more to do with it than merely the difference between near-field and far-field listening environments.

Case in point: the original Dolby Digital Train sound format snipe. The original trailer, with the Dolby Stereo Digital logo, had quite a dynamic mix. It was startling enough to scare the hell out of kids and make them cry before the start of The Lion King (I personally witnessed this scenario).

Dolby released two revisions of the Train trailer. The first revision was a little longer and added some sort of pan flute stuff into it. The second revision took place when Dolby dropped the word "stereo" from their logo. Both of those revisions didn't sound all that bad, but they were definitely toned down compared to the original mix. Why did they do this?

I don't think the near field argument came into play when those mix revisions happened to the Dolby Train trailer. The first Dolby AC-3 Laserdiscs appeared in the summer of 1995. DTS and Dolby Digital mixes on Laserdisc were known for being every bit as dynamic as their theatrical counterparts (and maybe even a little more so). Home THX re-eq was still popular at the time.

Seven is one of the first DVDs I'd heard of that featured a specific near field home theater mix. The "Platinum Edition" DVD was released in 2000.

Yet several years earlier we had a perfectly good Dolby Digital trailer that, for reasons likely very subjective, was changed for the worse.

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-21-2013, 07:25 PM:

Don't know why Dolby dialed it back. It is possible that some theater owners complained it was disturbing adjacent rooms. Or possibly, Dolby thought they were just over-playing their hand. When I see one of the Dolby guys I will ask them.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-21-2013, 08:44 PM:

quote: F. Hudson Miller
You guys should find jobs in LA! (I know easier said than done) There are so many places to see film on the big screen, and really good ones at that. Some suck, just like everywhere, but the level of presentation here is pretty high. If you are that passionate I sure as hell would consider living here.

F, I'm sure you have seen many presentations you consider great, but in speaking of theaters in your area these are the 3 I have seen:

Arclight - dirty prints, out of focus picture, blown stage woofers
Chinese - dirty prints, good but not great sound
El Capitan - best condition print I saw in LA, but still dusty (these LA projectionists need to learn what "film cleaner" means), sound was nothing mindblowing

At least the transition to digital will help with the poor film handling skills, but as you might've guessed, I wasn't completely blown away with the sound.

So are there better theaters, or did I already visit the best LA has to offer?

quote: Bobby Henderson
Dolby released two revisions of the Train trailer. The first revision was a little longer and added some sort of pan flute stuff into it. The second revision took place when Dolby dropped the word "stereo" from their logo. Both of those revisions didn't sound all that bad, but they were definitely toned down compared to the original mix. Why did they do this?

The story I heard was that it was blowing people's speakers. You heard it at GCC Northpark with Lion King and we never blew any speaker on it. I absolutely agree with you though that the remixed versions were awful. Their most recent remix was the closest to the original mix, but none of them were as good. This is another good example of where people are catering to the lowest denominator by remixing, when the proper solution is to blow those speakers and force people to put in proper systems.

quote: Aaron Garman
It's helped me: I don't feel so alone in thinking many remixes absolutely suck.

Come visit and we will run some theatrical prints along side DVD, bluray and Laserdisc for comparisons. You will only end up hating home video remixing even more by the time you leave though. [Razz]

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-21-2013, 09:05 PM:

Arclight - dirty prints, out of focus picture, blown stage woofers
Chinese - dirty prints, good but not great sound
El Capitan - best condition print I saw in LA, but still dusty (they need to learn what

Arclight generally is pretty good. Digital projection has helped the dirt. The run lots of rep titles as well. Cinemarama festivals in the Dome every couple of years.

Chinese - is only good to experience the room. Sound sucks, its mostly Hollywood fun.

El Capitan - Flash, Owned by Disney. The only good sound is the front of the balcony. When we do premiers there the subs are augmented.

AMPAS _ Goldwyn has lots of public screenings. They use archive prints from the studios and from their own collection.

The New Beverly - recently purchased by QT and reworked. I have not been there since he fixed it up. (rep house)

LA County Museum

ULCA USC film schools

Directors Guild of America (runs public stuff regularly)

The Egyptian. American Cinematheque theater.

AMPAS is building a new Museum that has three new public screening rooms in it. They will be equipped with just about every format you can think of. 35/70 will be Norelco.

Those are a few that come to mind.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-21-2013, 09:58 PM:

BTW I was speaking of the new auditoriums at the Chinese. The big one wasn't running. Not that it matters since I'm guessing the big auditorium is worse than what I heard.

The rest of the places you listed are not regular theaters, so I'm sort of getting that feeling theater-going isn't all that great out in LA like LA'ers want everyone to think?

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-21-2013, 11:49 PM:

You can still run LaserDiscs? In AC3? That might be more impressive than 70mm mag.

AJG

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 03-22-2013, 12:00 AM:

As an LA resident, I would say: the commercial cinemas are not as good as they should be, but on average are somewhat better than other cities where I've frequented movie theaters.

But as a film (or I guess I should say movie) lover, I think LA is a great place to live because of all those specialty houses screening stuff for the public. Presentation standards at AMPAS, the Cinematheque (both the Egyptian and Aero Theaters), the DGA, UCLA, WGA and so on are very, very high, and they routinely screen material you'd be lucky to see almost anywhere else in the world. It's an embarrassment of riches for film buffs.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-22-2013, 12:27 AM:

Aaron,

If we're going to do this, let's do it right. We will get the same title (yes prints and all video formats of the same movie are accessible) and A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H it in the screening room, all formats running at the same time.

VHS Hi-Fi
DVD
Laserdisc
Bluray
D-VHS
35mm SR
70mm mag
Internet streaming

Just for giggles, I may even be able to borrow a 16mm print from a local collector.

You up for it?

Maybe F can list several movies where he was involved in the near-field mix that he feels proud of and we can track down a print of that and compare too.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-22-2013, 12:39 AM:

Which film would be on all of those formats? Now I just need time and money to visit Texas.

AJG

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-22-2013, 10:14 AM:

Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Backdraft are probably the only movies released on all of those formats.

Alien and Die Hard were released on all of those formats, except Alien was released several years before Dolby SR was introduced. I'm pretty sure the 35mm prints of Die Hard were Dolby A, not SR. Even the 70mm prints of Die Hard were Dolby A.

True Lies was released on almost all those formats, but Fox hasn't coughed up a Blu-ray of it yet. Hell, they never bothered to release a proper anamorphic widescreen DVD either! (edit: not in the North America region) But the movie was released in 70mm mag, 35mm Dolby SR (with DD and DTS). My parents have "D-Theater" D-VHS copy of it.

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-22-2013, 10:15 AM:

Don't forget DCP.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-22-2013, 11:40 AM:

I've heard the DVHS mix of True Lies. It was very very good on my system. It felt better than both the AC3 and DTS LaserDiscs I have. I never bothered with the DVD.

What I wouldn't give for an awesome Blu-ray or a chance to see it on film.

AJG

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-22-2013, 12:13 PM:

Rumor has it Fox is working on Blu-ray releases of True Lies and The Abyss and may release them sometime this year. Of course other rumors have been buzzing about those two movies for years.

I don't know what's causing the hold-up on these discs. Is James Cameron wanting to perform some CGI revisionism to scenes in these movies? I wonder since there's a couple obvious nits to pick -like the few shots in True Lies where you can clearly see the face of the stunt double standing in for Arnold Swarzenegger.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-22-2013, 04:07 PM:

Anyone who thinks Grauman's Chinese Theater has crappy sound didn't see True Lies there. It played there in 70mm-magnetic Dolby SR (the last such presentation at that venue), and it was fantastic.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-22-2013, 04:17 PM:

To be fair True Lies was released nearly 19 years ago. I've seen good theaters go from good to bad in far less time than that.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 03-22-2013, 04:43 PM:

The uncompressed PCM 2.0 track on the True Lies LaserDisc is an emulation of the 35mm Dolby SR optical track, and sounds amazing on my home theater in DTS Neo:6 Cinema Mode. My mother compared it to Blu-ray audio, and she's not keen on A/V stuff. I don't have an AC-3 RF demodulator or an LD player with an AC-3 RF output, but I can imagine the AC-3 track is better.

I need to get a D-Theater collection.

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 03-22-2013, 04:52 PM:

The last picture I saw in the Chinese Theater was "Casino Royal." It has the same problems it has always had, its way to live for the film theater. It was designed before the advent of sound. It is quite possible that a live ensemble with a film would sound great, but it is a very muddy room with massive dialogue inteligability issues. The have tried lots of things to make it better, but it is pretty much un-salvageable. What you need to do is love it for what it is, the most famous picture palace in the world; don't worry about the presentation as much as the iconic Hollywood experience.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-22-2013, 06:07 PM:

The General Cinemas Northpark 1-2 in Dallas was kind of the opposite of the Chinese Theater in terms of decor. The theater looked nice, but was really conservative in appearance. It kind of had a 60's-70's minimalist architectural vibe. But the twin had it where it counts: great picture and great sound. None of the premiere class theaters I visited in New York City sounded as good as the Northpark #1 screen.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 03-22-2013, 06:09 PM:

I have to agree with F. here. This is a very live venue and it has been worked on for years by just about everyone. There was a time when the HF drivers had a very short life there.

If electronics and the best speakers were the answer, someone would have found the answer by now. Understanding dialog is always a chore.

Not to say action films are not fun here, but it is a far from the perfect venue.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 03-22-2013, 06:30 PM:

The Ziegfeld Theatre in New York City had dialog intelligibility issues, but that was built in 1969 (the current one). I believe they fixed it last time I've been there when I saw The Amazing Spider-Man, but the 3D had some banding unlike the IMAX 3D presentation of the film I saw earlier at the UA Westbury Stadium 12.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 03-22-2013, 06:39 PM:

The Chinese was for worse than the Ziegfeld which I don't feel was bad, quite good all things considered.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-22-2013, 09:25 PM:

My experience at the Chinese was good, not great. Bass was nice, dialogue was easy to understand. But it was so live that it felt odd.

Too bad since it is such a beautiful place. The Aero was wonderful. Lawrence in 70mm DTS was a real treat.

AJG

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-22-2013, 09:42 PM:

quote: Connor Wilson
The Ziegfeld Theatre in New York City had dialog intelligibility issues, but that was built in 1969 (the current one).

I never had a problem hearing dialog at the Ziegfeld Theater. I watched a lot of movies there, a bunch of them in 70mm. The audio could be a little muddy at times depending on the movie playing there. Born of the Fourth of July sounded great there (70mm SR mag).

The Guild 50th next to Rockefeller Center was a pretty good place to see movies in 70mm from time to time. It wasn't too big a house and the audio had a little more of a, dare I say, near field feel to it. The 70mm show of Die Hard at the Baronet kicked ass. Glory sounded pretty good at the UA Gemini Twin. The THX screen in the Loews Village VII sounded nice when that theater opened in 1991. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to see anything in 70mm there. Just Thelma and Louise in 35mm Dolby SR. That's the ONLY time I have ever seen a Dolby SR sound format snipe played in front of a movie.

The theaters in Manhattan I visited to see movies in 70mm never sounded bad. There's only a few cases where I thought the sound was kind of "meh" (Lethal Weapon 2 at Chelsea Cinemas, Total Recall & Alien Nation at the Criterion Center). I was more annoyed by the columns next to the screen at the National Twin theater in Times Square than I was by anything to do with the audio. Those columns reflected ambient light back into the screen. Plus I'm not sure if the plate they had for Casualties of War was cut right.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 03-22-2013, 10:30 PM:

The North Park was always a pleasant surprise. It looked just like a lot of other GCC houses I had been to all over the country. But it had great sound.

Pretty standard amps and speakers but it all worked well together. Sometimes what looks like great design is a lucky accident when it comes together acoustically.

Of course the place was always run very well from the booth to the manager in a way one does not see much anymore.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 03-23-2013, 11:50 AM:

Are there any known Blu Ray discs using a theatrical version of the soundtrack? Or are there movies with known better re-mixes?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-23-2013, 07:54 PM:

quote: F
The have tried lots of things to make [the Chinese] better, but it is pretty much un-salvageable.

quote: Sam Chavez
[The Chinese] is a very live venue and it has been worked on for years by just about everyone. There was a time when the HF drivers had a very short life there.

If electronics and the best speakers were the answer, someone would have found the answer by now. Understanding dialog is always a chore.

Yet it's able to get THX certification without any problems.

THX will certify ANYTHING.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 03-23-2013, 09:21 PM:

They actually created a category for live old old barns in important zip codes. I think they created a legacy category.

The Chines was once wired completely with Monster cable too.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-23-2013, 09:53 PM:

"was once?" Why would they take out Monster cable?

Not that I'm a fan of it -- I think it's overpriced and overrated -- but it's not bad stuff, so why take it out?

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 03-23-2013, 10:33 PM:

The wire might still be there but this was before more screens were added to the original so who knows.

It was done for free BTW.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-24-2013, 12:52 AM:

That reminds me of a joke e-mail I once sent to Monster Cable (I may have regaled you all with this tale before). I told them I was building a new house and all of the wiring, audio, electrical, ALL OF IT would be 100% Monster® Cable. I wanted the best signal to noise ratio on my power connectors after all and only the proper shielding, gold plated connectors and properly oxidized wires that IMPROVES OVER TIME was good enough for me. The head monster, Noel Lee, actually wrote me back excited about the project. I never replied but he did attempt to write back again later. I've gotta work on my subtleties so that people know when I'm joking.

In reality, I've had many Monster Cables fall apart on me. Their connectors are pure crap. Their s-video connectors in particular were always losing pins. I've had other brands get bent pins, but they can be bent back and work fine. On Monster cables they just fell off. And their connectors never stay round. They bend easily.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-24-2013, 01:28 AM:

Got most of my monster cable for virtually nothing when I worked at Best Buy. The S-Video cable was a noticeable improvement over my crap one back in the day, but the pins broke just like Joe's.

Most of them are now broken and gone, but the subwoofer and digital coax cables remain. Damn, now that I think about it, my sub is approaching 14 years old, with the same cable and still very functional. Best open item I've likely ever purchased!

AJG

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-26-2013, 02:49 PM:

THX Historic on Film-Tech.

Article was not quoted in the thread and -- surprise! -- the link in the article is now dead.

The following is from Film Journal International June 1, 2003.

quote:
For 20 years, THX has demonstrated its love of the movies by offering the only quality-assurance program designed to promote superior cinema sound and picture presentation. More than 3,000 cinemas and mixing studios around the world have earned THX certification, and almost all of them have one thing in common: They were built since 1983, the year THX was founded by legendary filmmaker George Lucas.

Does this mean that older venues cannot reap the benefits afforded by THX certification? Until now, the answer typically would have been yes—because few, if any, older cinemas were constructed with THX quality standards in mind.

But that has now changed, since THX has created a first-of-its-kind certification program for historic cinemas. The THX Historic Cinema Certification Program includes all of the core cinema design compliance requirements of the company's standard cinema certification program, while honoring the architectural characteristics that make historical venues unique.

"We created this program in response to demand from owners of historic cinemas, and because we value the role these landmark buildings are playing in revitalizing many downtown areas," says Ivan Fujihara, THX general manager. "We are pleased that this program will help owners provide state-of-the-art picture and sound presentation without taking away from the unique character their treasured cinemas possess."

The Certification Process

The process to attain THX Historic Certification is somewhat different from what new cinema venue construction undergoes in securing traditional certification. THX must determine if it's even possible for historic venues to meet certification standards before any plans for retrofit or upgrades can begin.

"The first thing we do is send a field engineer to the cinema to conduct extensive tests of the auditorium's current sound and picture capabilities," explains Jerry Zernicke, THX design-services manager. "We then evaluate the data, compare it with our standard certification criteria, and make two kinds of recommendations: items that must be upgraded to gain certification, and other suggestions that will help improve presentation quality."

Zernicke says THX considered 15 technical categories relating to sound and picture quality during the creation of this new program. Some of them were a direct application of the THX standard cinema certification criteria, while others have a tolerance respectful of the historical nature of each cinema venue. Specific minimum standards have been designated for each category, to ensure that the value of THX certification is not compromised.

The THX evaluation criteria include evaluation of the following auditorium elements: baffle or Bafflette installation, industry-standard sound-pressure level playback requirements, room reverberation, room geometry, projected image quality, background noise and playback equipment. Since each element is evaluated on its own merits, the program retains the flexibility to consider each venue's specific circumstances.

"The unique characteristics of these cinemas warrant special consideration when applying our criteria to determine their potential for historical certification," Zernicke notes. "At the end of the day, our intent is to help historic-cinema owners get the optimum performance out of their facilities, while recognizing these venues' place in history."

Once the THX design team makes its recommendations regarding necessary retrofit elements, it's up to cinema owners to make the changes that will allow them to achieve certification. After the mandated work is complete, THX will re-test the venue to determine whether the historic certification criteria have been satisfied. Those that pass will receive THX Historical Cinema Certification.

A Case in Point

One of the cinema owners leading the charge to initiate a THX certification category for historic venues was Tom Kiefaber, owner of Baltimore's historic Senator Theatre, which has been hosting moviegoers since 1939.

The Senator is being evaluated to be the first cinema to attain THX Historic Cinema Certification. As of this writing, Kiefaber is reviewing the evaluation report completed by THX engineers and making plans to complete the upgrades deemed necessary at the cinema before it can be certified. THX certification is something he has sought for a while.

"I've been talking with THX about this for a long time," Kiefaber says. "Over the years, I've continually upgraded the Senator's sound and projection systems, often after consulting with THX. Since my theatre was not built with the THX standards in mind, I was not eligible to achieve THX certification. This new THX program is a terrific way to acknowledge historic venues with extraordinary presentation qualities."

Kiefaber says that while he consistently gets commended for the Senator's extraordinary sound and picture quality, he also frequently gets asked why it is not THX-certified. This longtime THX fan looks forward to promoting the cinema's THX Historical Certification, confirming the Senator as a historical cinema that exudes character and offers a first-class presentation.

Good Business Sense

THX believes there are perhaps several hundred venues in the U.S. that are potential participants in the Historical Cinema Certification Program. The historical program will be a THX niche offering, as the traditional certification program remains the primary focus of the THX Cinema team.

THX management understands that patrons of historic cinemas typically choose those venues for reasons other than presentation quality; they consider the cinema's beauty, unique architectural design and overall ambience. The Historic Cinema Certification Program will support these cinemas offering first-class picture and sound presentation in addition to their gracious "golden-age" environment.

"Historic cinemas provide a unique experience and speak to a demographically different audience than multiplexes, but there's no reason their patrons shouldn't be afforded the best moviegoing experience possible," says Ann Brighouse, THX director of marketing. "Our work with cinemas that seek THX Historic Cinema Certification will enable these venues to be premier locations for movie lovers for decades to come."

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-26-2013, 07:01 PM:

And here in the Warehouse...

http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/trailers/showest2003/filmtechshowest2003thxhistorical.html

Note, the Senator Theatre was never THX approved and the THX Historic program was seemingly scrapped.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 03-27-2013, 06:45 AM:

So it seems they DON'T certify everything. Good to know. ;-)

- Carsten

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 11-13-2018, 11:53 AM:

It has been 2057 days since the last post.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-13-2018, 11:53 AM:

What a read this one was all these years later.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-13-2018, 10:20 PM:

I wonder what ever happened to F and if he's still reading posts here? Hey F, are you out there?

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 11-15-2018, 07:32 PM:

No IMDB credits this year.

But yeah, what a read.