Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: OK - What Exactly is an 11.2 Channel Sound System?

This is topic OK - What Exactly is an 11.2 Channel Sound System? in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=002300

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 12-16-2009, 10:02 AM:

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2913795

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-16-2009, 10:50 AM:

Based on the context in which they use the term - and allowing for the likely ignorance of the writer concerning such things - I would guess they have manipulated the speaker placement to create what they think will be (for lack of a better term) "islands" of sound. Since sitting on the right side of the screen leaves you about 100 feet from the left side speaker they are probably trying to compensate in some way.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-16-2009, 12:30 PM:

That theater is no more "11.2" than a high end home theater received with double the number of amplifier channels.

The only thing that counts in terms of audio channels is the number of channels natively recorded into the audio track itself. 5.1 channel surround is not magically transformed into "11.2" just by building a lot more amplifiers and speakers into the sound system.

Tomlinson Holman has demonstrated 10.2 channel surround with an actual 10.2 channel audio stream playing into a system that reproduced all 12 discrete channels of audio.

The article about that theater was amusing for its grammatical errors. It might be interesting to watch a movie on a screen more than 100' across, but if they're just using 35mm or a standard 2K d-cinema projection setup then the huge imagery is going to be dim and blurry.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-16-2009, 12:45 PM:

Amateurs. NHK (the Japanese answer to the BBC) has been installing and demonstrating Ultra High Definition Video (UHDV - 7K x 4K on a theater-size screen) with 22.2 channel sound for years. Strictly a large-format special-venue thing for now, though parts of that system will no doubt be incorporated in the next generation of HDTV, presently scheduled for rollout in Japan in 2015.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-16-2009, 06:24 PM:

Naughty Jonathan...

Here is the text from Jonathan's link.

--------------

The word “big” is not enough to describe the world’s largest movie screen, located right here in Korea at the Yeongdeungpo CGV multiplex in western Seoul.

The massive screen, located in CGV’s Starium theater, measures 31.4 meters (103 feet) in width and 13 meters in height, ranking it as the largest one on the globe, according to Guinness World Records.

Previously, the largest movie screen in Korea was at CGV Centum City in Busan, which measures 27 meters in width.

One of the most striking aspects of the Starium theater is its powerful sound system. For the best sound, it uses an 11.2-channel stereoscopic system, which it claims provides uniform distribution of sound in every part of the theater.

Some moviegoers who have watched a film there have even said the acoustics are similar to what you’d find at an opera house.

The Starium boasts 50 speakers, more than double the number that regular theaters often use.

The speakers are actually the same ones found in concert halls. They are spread out over a long line, and each speaker can be adjusted manually in order to balance the sound across the theater.

Additionally, the subwoofers at this theater are two to four times more powerful than those in regular movie venues.

By leaving a solid impression on moviegoers, the Starium has become a popular venue for Hollywood blockbuster movies and other hit films. Most recently, it premiered “2012,” the $2.6-million disaster movie from Sony Pictures. Some viewers who saw the local hit film “Haeundae” in regular theaters watched the movie again at the Starium, leaving with a higher satisfaction level the second time around, according to CJ CGV, the operator of CGV multiplexes in Korea.

James Cameron’s 3D sci-fi epic “Avatar” and the Korean blockbuster “Jeon Woo Chi” (“The Taoist Wizard”) are expected to be shown at the Starium theater as well.

As the screen occupies 407.9 square meters (4,390 square feet), the theater wall had to be torn down three times to get the screen through the entrance.

The distance between the screen and the first row of seats is 11 meters - much further than 4 to 8 meters at regular theaters.

Still, some consumers have complained about the view from up close.

“If you watch a movie from a seat in the first five rows, you may feel a little sick,” a customer wrote on the theater’s Web site.

For 3-D films, seats located at the sides of the theater should be avoided if possible, those in the know say.

“Three-dimensional films require both the left and right eyes to take in the images and send them into our brains, where the two images are combined into a full picture, said Yim Jeong-hun, CJ-CGV’s technical expert.

“Therefore, it is better to be seated in the middle so that the images can be easily processed. It also provides less pressure on your eyes, and viewers will be able to concentrate on the movie better.”

By Ki Sun-min [jbiz91@joongang.co.kr]

-----------

And here is the reason I did this...

-----------

RULE #4 Posting links off-site.
As a member of the Film-Tech Forums, any time you make a post off-siteto a news story or written article of some sort, it is YOUR responsibility to choose one of the four available options to you:

OPTION #1 You may provide the link to the article as well as paste the entire article into your post. (Please use

quote:
tags to make it easier to read. Simply click the "QUOTE" button and paste the text of the article in between the [QUOTE] and the

.

OPTION #2 You may provide the link to the article as well as pasting the relevant paragraph(s) from the article into your post that pertain to the discussion.

OPTION #3 You may provide the link as well as explaining IN YOUR OWN WORDS the gist of the article within that same post. This does not have to be overly detailed, but does have to be at least useful enough to preserve the discussion for archival use. As an example, if a link is provided to kodak.com that is explaining about a new film stock and the point of the article is that it offers higher resolution, your post can read something along the lines of "Kodak's new 35mm filmstock claims to have a resolution roughly double current filmstocks. Here is the link..." This third option will be moderated solely at the random moderator's opinion, and the first moderator to get to it has final decision. As a result, do not simply type "Here is a link to a new filmstock from Kodak." That does not offer the bare minimum point of the article and as such will be deleted without member notification.

OPTION #4 If none of the above three options are acceptable to you for whatever reason, you may not post links off-site to articles of any sort on the forums.

These policies have been placed on the members for the benefit of preserving the archives as best as possible. When links are posted and the link to the website goes dead over time, the discussion is killed for future use.

Violators of this policy will be removed from the forums for a couple of weeks to help get the point across. Repeat violators will be removed permanently.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-16-2009, 09:16 PM:

Since every seat in any theatre will provide a slightly different sound experience, I'm going to start advertising that we have "194.1-channel sound." [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 12-16-2009, 09:29 PM:

103 foot wide screen!

[Eek!]

That's awesome!

Posted by Alex Edwards (Member # 5413) on 12-16-2009, 11:11 PM:

Did they ever say what film format they used on that monster?.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-16-2009, 11:46 PM:

Certainly not 70mm.

Chances are it will be movies by Braille. Very dim, blurry, gigantic crap.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-17-2009, 03:16 PM:

quote: John Wilson
Some moviegoers who have watched a film there have even said the acoustics are similar to what you’d find at an opera house.

And that would mean LOTS of reverb, echo and slapback? And of course all opera houses sound the same, yes?

quote: John Wilson
The speakers are actually the same ones found in concert halls. They are spread out over a long line

Jibberish.

quote: John Wilson
The Starium boasts 50 speakers, more than double the number that regular theaters often use.

And how may speakers are found in "regular" theatres, btw? 25?

quote: John Wilson
and each speaker can be adjusted manually in order to balance the sound across the theater.

They do this manually for each film, or is the writer talking about B chain adjustments...ah, what the hell, why even wonder....I'm calling this jibberish as well.

quote:
That's awesome!

From the standpoint of size alone, not at all -- go to any Drive-In and you'll see similar large screens; from the standpoint of image quality -- nothing awesome about an underlit image, washed out and soft focus, Geoff....although some may think it's cool to be able to see film grain the size of golf balls.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 12-17-2009, 07:50 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
an underlit image, washed out and soft focus

In other words, the same sort of picture I get on most smaller screens?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-17-2009, 08:22 PM:

35mm looks better on small to modest sized screens. And what I mean by modest is small enough not to need 70mm. Many theaters with giant sized screens yet only equipped with 35mm really need 70mm projection. But they don't have it. And their projected images often look sub par regardless of what all they do to deal with the problem.

If the giant screen and small screen was delivering similar results, which is really better: a small piece of shit or a really super gigantic piece of shit? In this regard, I'm thinking smaller is better. I know I don't have to travel as far to see the small piece of shit show.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 12-17-2009, 09:15 PM:

hehe - I think you just made the case for home video!

[Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-17-2009, 09:35 PM:

Well, I have been watching a lot of Blu-ray lately!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-17-2009, 11:59 PM:

I'd just like to point out that the above quotes in Frank's post attributed to me are in fact taken from the text of the article Jonathan linked to and are in fact not my words.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-19-2009, 06:09 AM:

Sorry, John, you are right of course, but it's not my fault -- the program did it...the program did it!