quote:

---

Auro-3D is the next-generation 3D sound format for the cinema industry. Developed by Galaxy Studios and powered by Barco, Auro-3D turns conventional cinema audio into a fully immersive 3D sound experience, with sounds coming from all around and above the listener.

100% compatibility with existing standards
Auro-3D improves the audio experience by making intelligent use of the headroom in today's audio standards. This means that the current formats and channels can still be used for content generation and distribution. No changes to SMPTE standards or the DCI specifications are required. As an exhibitor, you will still receive 1 DCP containing the movie content – your Auro-3D decoder will simply extract the extra sound information from the existing 5.1 or 7.1 track files, when present.

Commercially viable Auro-3D can easily be installed in new-built or existing theaters, in most cases utilizing components from your current audio system. According to your speaker layout, simply adding height speakers can bring real 3D audio to your theater. Moreover, Auro-3D sound processing is similar to, and compatible with, existing set-ups.

A unique differentiator Auro-3D creates a unique differentiator – allowing you to maintain your premium 3D revenues and differentiate yourself from the competition.

---

Forgive me if I comment on the last line, but this is how I think they can market the new Auro 3D sound -- "Here at Acme Theatres, we differentiat ourselves from our competition -- we have a unique sound differentiator -- it's called BULLSHIT."
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-30-2011, 09:25 PM:
 
Another product doomed to fail.
 

---

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 07-30-2011, 10:49 PM:
 
Yeah . . . sorry about that. I was in the middle of researching some projector info. when I ran across that, so I was just posting it real quick, and then continued on with my research.

Do they realize human hearing does not distinguish sounds above or below the median plane? We look up when we hear an airplane, because we know from the sound that they are flying, and we look down when we hear a crunch, because we know we just stepped on something expensive.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-30-2011, 11:49 PM:
 
At the Dolby "Surrounded" meet, several film-makers when asked about the "future of sound," said they wished for more surround channels.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-31-2011, 12:00 AM:
 
Ugh, this is what happens when marketing students graduate and come up with new ways to make money.

The key to great cinema sound is not any 3D gimmick or more and more channels, but proper equalization, good equipment, and proper maintenance.

I know, I'm Captain Obvious!

AJG
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 07-31-2011, 12:41 AM:
 
Do you have to wear glasses?
- - or stick some kind of 'sound polarizers' in your ears?

Just shoot me . . . .
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-31-2011, 06:32 AM:
 
The b--- s--- continues! Louis
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-31-2011, 06:55 AM:
 
A great movie sound designer, in my opinion, told me when I asked about "more surrounds" something to effect that more surrounds was mostly an exercise in masturbation. Too much use of surrounds takes attention off the screen, which is where he thinks the sound should be concentrated. I agree with him.

Personally, I would have 5-screen channels before I would want the second surround channel...definitely 5-screen channels before the 3rd or 4th surround channel.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 07-31-2011, 09:22 AM:
 
Next: 3D soft drinks. As you drink it, little explosions go off in the cup, and throw soft drink all over your face. WOW! (And yes, special glasses are required, to keep the stuff out of your eyes).
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-31-2011, 12:01 PM:
 
Aren't we up to 4D yet? Perhaps we should all reequip for 5D?? Louis
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-31-2011, 01:08 PM:
 
I agree about this being a product doomed to fail. I don't like the idea of a processor that is artificially creating new channels of sound and doing all sorts of steering tricks to supposedly liven up the mix. A movie should only call attention to the surround channels when it has been specifically mixed to do so.

Audio editing tools are far more powerful and capable than ever before. Mixing and sound panning moves shouldn't be all that much different in principal when applied to something like a 10.2 channel sound field versus that of a 5.1 field. New software gives the sound editor a graphical representation of the sound field. He can visually pan a specific sound element to different points in the room and do so on the time line. It's not as labor intensive as fiddling with a bunch of levels for each specific channel. The mix with more audio channels is simply going to make the audio imaging more subtle and seamless. There's little desire from Hollywood movie productions to do this, even though such a thing is practical.

Digital cinema supports up to 16 channels of audio. Some of those are special use channels, but sound mixes with up to 12 discrete tracks can be supported. Channel assignments are already reserved to allow 5 stage channels as well as 4 or more surround channels. Ceiling surround can be implemented.

If a movie production really wants to create a 10-track or 12-track mix they can do so already and at least get the mix delivered to key theaters without very much work. Unfortunately sound just isn't nearly as popular as it was in the 1990s and earlier. I think movie productions are trying to gear things so they'll be more compatible in the home environment, and that typically means no more than 5.1 channels (and HDTV levels of image resolution).
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-31-2011, 03:46 PM:
 
While DCinema did provide for up to 16-channels (of which over half of them are now spoken for) they did NOT deal with how to mix down a more sophisticated track into the required 5.1 (the defacto standard). Thus, a Surround 7.1 mix does not play in a 5.1 theatre without information being completely lost (the rear surrounds living on channels 11 and 12). At least Sony had, in their processors, the inherent ability to mix down an 8-channel into 5.1 in the event the theatre did not have all 8.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-31-2011, 04:20 PM:
 
How hard would it be to implement a down-mix feature with existing digital cinema servers? It might take as little as a software update.

Honestly the companies that sell digital cinema products should already be working on something like this to get rid of the need to carry dual audio tracks in 5.1 and 7.1 on the digital cinema print. With a more elaborate audio track (like 10.2) theaters would need the ability to select the channels their hardware can play and have the server down-mix according to those limits.
 

---

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 07-31-2011, 05:39 PM:
 
Would a down mix be the responsibility of a server, or of a processor. I'm leaning towards it being the processor's job since it now has to decide what to send to rear surround speakers when 5.1 content is played versus 7.1DS (more of an up-mix).

Would it be possible to come up with a uniform down-mix that works well for all content, as opposed to having the producer make separate packages for each sound format?

Harold

.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-31-2011, 05:53 PM:
 
AFAIK none of the cinema processors currently in use perform down-mix duties on 7.1 quad-surround tracks to make them 5.1 stereo-surround.

I don't know what's under the hood in terms of code and how things can be customized (or not) in the server software from companies like Doremi and Dolby. On the surface it would seem easier to program this capability into the software and have it output an audio signal compatible with an existing booth setup.

If the same features were only built into a cinema processor movie theaters would end up being stuck having to buy new equipment just to get the down-mixing capability. A software upgrade in the digital cinema server would avoid all of that.
 

---

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 07-31-2011, 06:05 PM:
 
I just had surgery 3 days ago, so I'm not 100% as I write this.

Last weekend I saw Harry Potter 7.2 at Newark Cinema Center, even though it was presented in optical mono, it was a more sonically satisfying experience than seeing it in DTS 6-channel the day it came out. The audio had a nice warm analog feel to it, and there was honestly only one moment in the entire film where I can honestly say I noticed a difference between the two as far as directionality (the shot where Neville wakes up and some flaming something or other comes crashing down to his right). The main difference I noticed was the analog presentation had more bass than the digital one. No, I did not mistype that.

Most of the movies I've seen since age 13 have been at Newark Cinema Center, and presented in mono. When I went away to college in Miami, I started going to one or another AMC theater, presumably running SDDS. I can say I really didn't notice much difference, even on the one big action film I saw (Indy 4, most of the other stuff I saw was arthouse/rom-com type fare). This, to me, confirms something I have long suspected: that surround sound is really little more than a gimmick.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-31-2011, 06:42 PM:
 
Many movie credits lists only SRD (Dolby Digital) and SDDS. DTS is not listed . In it's place, another system is listed. What is it? Without the DTS listing in the credits, does it mean theatres with DTS processors will not be provided with discs?

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-31-2011, 07:07 PM:
 
Claude - you're probably seeing the Datasat logo. DTS changed its name to Datasat.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-31-2011, 07:17 PM:
 
Thanks Mike for the information. I did not know DTS had changed it's name. Does it mean the home video division will also change it's name. with Datasat HD Master Audio in place of DTS HD Master Audio on Blu Ra discs?

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 07-31-2011, 07:18 PM:
 
Claude - the DTS cinema business was acquired by Datasat and re-named Datasat Digital Entertainment. We'll continue providing discs for as long as 35mm release prints are still being distributed, and stick around after that selling our audio processors and other gear.

DTS still exists, but is focusing on licensing their codecs for consumer electronics; Blu-Ray, DVD, PC, mobile devices, etc.; so the DTS brand name will still be used for DTS-HD Master Audio and related technologies.
 

---