Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Jurassic Park: Mixed for Dolby Digital??

This is topic Jurassic Park: Mixed for Dolby Digital?? in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=006544

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-06-2011, 11:22 PM:

I wasn't entirely sure where to put this post so I figured I'd start in Yak.

Was reading on another forum about the Jurassic Park Blu-ray and someone posted this:

quote:
Yes, the sound mixers at Skywalker worked hard, but this film was originally mixed and mastered for Dolby Digital...and that's the way it was released overseas. The DTS decision was very late in the game and as a result many prints went out in the DTS-S (2.0 stereo) format only. Also it wasn't equalized for DTS so JP sounded quite harsh in a lot of installations. Even in the discrete multichannel version there was no .1 (it ended up 5.0 on the disc): the bass was low pass filtered to the LFE/subwoofer.

So the home versions in both DD/DTS/DTS-HD MA sound much better than they did theatrically, plus the bonus of them having been what the sound mixers originally intended.

Of course, no source is cited. Anyone care to offer insight?

AJG

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-07-2011, 04:36 AM:

quote: Some butthead on another forum
this film was originally mixed and mastered for Dolby Digital...and that's the way it was released overseas.

He's talking through his butt.

AFAIK, Jurassic was ONLY in DTS for the original theatrical release...it certainly was that way here.

The DTS was absolutely 5.1.

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 11-07-2011, 05:20 AM:

Doesn't (or was it didn't) DTS contain its sub signal in the surround channel?
So the comment that the original DTS only was 5.0 was 'sort-of'
correct.
It did have a great sub signal back in 1993 in DTS.

And DTS-S was DTS's stereo signal, as the original DTS movies did not have a Dolby-certified analog track.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-07-2011, 05:34 AM:

Actually, Jurassic Park DID have a Dolby Stereo analog track...Type-A, as I recall. It was one of the only ones...then DTS came up with their DTS-Stereo encoder.

The DTS decision was not really a late one at all. In fact, the JP previews had a DTS track on them so theatres could test their systems somewhat in advance of receiving the feature.

-Steve

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 11-07-2011, 07:34 AM:

Some original release prints had the Dolby "Spectral Recording" logo, and were SR. Most were Dolby A.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-07-2011, 07:47 AM:

One of the key things I remember reading about the sound production of Jurassic Park was how it was mixed first and foremost for digital sound and then the mix was later tailored for optical analog. I think this was published in Widescreen Review. Previously most films were mixed with the optical track in mind, with those dynamic range limitations taken into account.

Regardless of the claims made in the quote at top I thought Jurassic Park sounded excellent. Very dynamic. But then I watched it for the first time in a really great movie theater.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 11-07-2011, 10:18 AM:

quote: Some knucklehead wrote this
Yes, the sound mixers at Skywalker worked hard, but this film was originally mixed and mastered for Dolby Digital...and that's the way it was released overseas. The DTS decision was very late in the game and as a result many prints went out in the DTS-S (2.0 stereo) format only. Also it wasn't equalized for DTS so JP sounded quite harsh in a lot of installations. Even in the discrete multichannel version there was no .1 (it ended up 5.0 on the disc): the bass was low pass filtered to the LFE/subwoofer.

So the home versions in both DD/DTS/DTS-HD MA sound much better than they did theatrically, plus the bonus of them having been what the sound mixers originally intended.

Where did you read this, Aaron? This sounds like the type of crap I often read over at blu-ray.com. It's stuff like this that makes me feel like the Internet is the worst thing ever invented.

Perhaps some confusion exists because in the months just prior to the release of Jurassic Park, Universal did release a couple of their films in Dolby Digital (Matinee and Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story). Had DTS not come along and tested well, Jurassic Park probably would have been released in Dolby Digital and/or 70mm Six-Track Dolby. Anyway, it was the sequel, The Lost World, that was released in Dolby Digital in some overseas markets.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-07-2011, 11:53 AM:

quote: Peter Castle
Doesn't (or was it didn't) DTS contain its sub signal in the surround channel?

I do recall reading this in DTS documentation. The LFE (.1) is derived by applying a band-pass filter to the surround audio. Anything below 80Hz is routed to the Subwoofer output.

I remember querying their claim that their surround tracks were 20Hz-20kHz. It really ought to be stated as 80Hz-20kHz.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 11-07-2011, 12:09 PM:

Jurassic Park was definitely mixed with DTS as the intended presentation format: Steven Spielberg had seen an early demo of the system, and instructed his post team to target using DTS for his next feature, which was Jurassic Park. Spielberg (and Universal) were among the initial investors who took DTS from being a concept to a company in time for the Jurassic Park release.

You recall correctly how DTS handles the subwoofer and surrounds, but the mixers were well aware of where the frequency cutoff filters were. In those days it was viewed not so much as a limitation, but as a recognition that the surround channel chain was not capable of full range anyway, and it was a clever way to package more digital data in less space. The dubbing stages were provided by DTS with equipment to simulate the playback filters, so the mixers were able to accurately present in theaters the intended soundtrack.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-07-2011, 01:29 PM:

Lots of bad info in the original post.

-DTS uses timecode. It's your setup and disc which determines 2.0 or 5.1 DTS, not the print itself.

-You don't need to specially EQ for DTS compared to Dolby Digital.

-Wondering why the auditorium shook if there was no subwoofer track on the disc. The subwoofer is used in the same exact manner as all other DTS discs.

-The sound of the Blu-ray version is a completely different mix for a channel configuration that didn't exist at the time of Jurassic Park's theatrical release, so the mix couldn't be what they originally intended.

Not sure where your guy got his information, Aaron, but it likely wasn't from a bright place where the sun shines.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-07-2011, 01:43 PM:

The aforementioned knucklehead.

Reading through the rest of that thread, I am just astonished how dumb many people are.

AJG

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-07-2011, 02:22 PM:

I had the opportunity to see JURASSIC PARK for the very first time at the Kabuki Theatre in San Francisco with the new sound format because they were no theatres in Honolulu at the time capable of playing movies with DTS 5.1 soundtracks. The presentation at the Kabuki was excellent and I enjoyed my first experience with J.P. very much. Shortly after I returned home, I went to see the movie again in the large auditorium at Consolidated Kahala 8 Theatres with Dolby A sound and it was not as exciting as the way I saw the film in San Francisco. There was one interesting thing about the Kahala showing. Because all of the JURASSIC PARK prints may have been released with the DTS trailer, the Kahala projectionist forgot to remove it and was still been shown with the feature about two weeks after it had opened at that theatre and nationally.

-Claude

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 11-07-2011, 02:45 PM:

Jurassic Park had a duel inventory of 5.1 discs and Stereo 2.0 discs. See these links where it's been discussed before:
http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002982#000000
http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002339#000008

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-07-2011, 02:46 PM:

I know many theaters left it on purposely to mislead...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-07-2011, 08:15 PM:

Both the AVS and Blu-ray.com forums are filled with lots of garbage. The "Insider Discussion" area of the Blu-ray.com forum is the only section of that forum I visit with any sort of frequency at all (which hasn't been much lately); it's the only area of the forum that's moderated to a somewhat satisfactory level. The sheer volume of posts in the other sections makes moderation a daunting task. That leads to LOTS of wrong information being posted.

IMHO, the Home Theater Forum is a good bit better. Guys like Robert Harris are more active there. I still prefer Film-Tech out of them all. FT is the only place with in depth discussions about the "nuts and bolts" process behind showing movies in theaters.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-07-2011, 08:20 PM:

In Louisville, the installations that had dts did not configure the CP-200s correctly, so analogue was played with thunderous bass.

Two weeks later I removed the DC from the exciter lamp during the show and all sound stopped. The dts did, in fact, run; it just wasn't set up to switch the processor. Early dts 6 channel was not significantly better than really good optical. No one knew the difference. Louis

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-07-2011, 08:22 PM:

I looked at some of those posts on that and some other threads at AVS forums and much of what is said there is total nonsense. That isn't a place I would look for accurate information. Might go there for a laugh or two now and then, though.

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 11-07-2011, 09:22 PM:

Louis that post made me remember the first time I saw some analog shows played with a reverse scan reader. I was shocked at how good the fidelity was.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-07-2011, 11:46 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
IMHO, the Home Theater Forum is a good bit better. Guys like Robert Harris are more active there. I still prefer Film-Tech out of them all. FT is the only place with in depth discussions about the "nuts and bolts" process behind showing movies in theaters.

Agreed. I love reading Robert Harris' posts. Very very insightful.

AJG

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 11-14-2011, 11:44 PM:

quote: Sean Weitzel
Jurassic Park had a duel inventory of 5.1 discs and Stereo 2.0 discs.

Yep, and the dirty little secret is that the majority of the DTS presentations of Jurassic Park were the inferior 2.0 version. Only about one-third of the theaters that installed DTS installed the full six-track version.

The fact that DTS, initially, was offered in two flavors has been downplayed in DTS press releases and company chronologies.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-15-2011, 01:42 AM:

Anyone know if those 2.0 discs were the same 2.0 LPCM mix on the LaserDisc? If so, I'd take that over optical Dolby A any day.

AJG

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-15-2011, 03:40 AM:

I imagine it probably is. Didn't you once say that all LaserDiscs have the theatrical sound mix on them?

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-15-2011, 10:20 AM:

Well I guess I can't speak with definitive certainty if the LaserDiscs are indeed theatrical mixes, but I'm going to assume that they wouldn't have bothered re-mixing for LD back in the day. Some have said that the DTS LD is actually mixed hot, specifically in the subs and surrounds but hot compared to what, I've always wondered.

All I know is that the DTS LaserDisc (and the LPCM 2 channel track for that matter) sound amazingly better than any of the DVD releases (Dolby or DTS) and are a completely different mix than the Blu-ray.

AJG

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-15-2011, 03:50 PM:

The last time I showed "JURASSIC PARK" the print arrived with BOTH sets of discs -- "Stereo" and "6-Track"

Of course, we ran the 6-Track!

Was the 2.0 intended to be decoded to LCRS?

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-15-2011, 04:16 PM:

In the THX house I worked at the time we at first played the 2.0 discs through the LCR and mono surround until we went to split surround 5.1.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-15-2011, 05:13 PM:

I thought the 2-channel DTS still had a discrete LFE? The way the one I ran was set up, the subwoofer was at a fixed level so turning the main volume down would make it disproportionate- at least that's what I was told, it might have just been an excuse for playing it loud.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-15-2011, 05:16 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
Was the 2.0 intended to be decoded to LCRS?

Yes. The DTS-S system was designed for theaters that played Dolby Stereo optical. The 2-channel option at least got the DTS unit into the theater so an upgrade to full DTS-6 operation could happen later.

When the DTS systems were first introduced the DTS-6 unit cost only $3500 and the DTS-S only $2500. DTS charged a $1000 fee to upgrade a DTS-S machine to DTS-6. The standard DTS-6 price was $5900.

I thought the existence of DTS-S was common knowledge, at least among anyone who cared at all about movie theater sound. IMHO, the biggest embarrassment for DTS concerning the Jurassic Park debut was the large number of analog sounded theaters that didn't bother removing the attached Digital Experience flying disc snipe. This happened on most other movie releases with DTS until Spring 1994 when the sound format trailers were no longer attached to the feature.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-15-2011, 05:50 PM:

I'd be very interested to see what those 2.0 discs actually sounded like. Was it some form of LPCM, or was it still the proprietary DTS compression format?

I'm still guessing that while not 6 track, it sounded better than optical Dolby A.

AJG

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-15-2011, 06:32 PM:

Call it a "dirty little secret" -- those are some of the best ones -- but DTS Stereo was better than analog-optical in a few ways:

Better frequency response, signal-to-noise, dynamic range and "azimuth" equivalent.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-15-2011, 09:14 PM:

I know that dts 6, 2 channel existed. I never saw one, since we were busy prepping for 5.1 for (future) Dolby Digital. The factory balked since they thought that 2 channel would be the norm and the discrete unit only in special venues. Discrete was hard to source, but it is amazing what cancelling the purchase order will do.

btw: Jurassic was supposed to be Dolby Digital, but Dolby wasn't ready. dts was developed suddenly over a weekend; damn good job, all things considered. Louis

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-15-2011, 10:15 PM:

So how far ahead of the release date did that happen?

AJG

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-15-2011, 10:34 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
btw: Jurassic was supposed to be Dolby Digital, but Dolby wasn't ready. dts was developed suddenly over a weekend; damn good job, all things considered. Louis

Dolby Digital was made available to commercial theaters a year before the release of Jurassic Park. SR•D debuted with Batman Returns in June of 1992. The format was first announced in March of 1991, a full year before any units were made available for sale. CDS' 35mm system was being formally introduced, with The Doors being the first advertised CDS 35mm release. Dolby Digital vaporware and the spotty reliability problems of CDS killed the CDS format, even with all the visibility that came from the Terminator 2 release.

If anything, the sheer lack of Dolby Digital installations at the time helped Universal back DTS. Universal and Amblin wanted a lot of movie theaters playing Jurassic Park with digital sound. That wasn't going to happen with SR•D. Dolby Digital DA-10 systems originally cost $20,000 a pop. IIRC, CDS was just as expensive. Dolby made the early mistake of seeing Dolby Digital as a replacement only for 70mm mag prints in flagship class theaters and priced the system that way. Rumor, legend or whatever has it that Steven Spielberg experimented with CDS during the post production of Hook and was completely turned off by sound on film systems because of it. DTS had a different take on movie sound and Spielberg bought into it. DTS systems cost much less and the concept was more reliable.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-15-2011, 11:48 PM:

DTS was made over a weekend? I thought it was developed from idea to finished product the night before Jurassic Park came out. [Smile]

quote: Manny Knowles
Was the 2.0 intended to be decoded to LCRS?

Yes, it hooked into the solar cell inputs of your sound processor and was decoded there.

quote: Jesse Skeen
I thought the 2-channel DTS still had a discrete LFE?

No form of cinema DTS has a discrete subwoofer.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I thought the existence of DTS-S was common knowledge, at least among anyone who cared at all about movie theater sound.

No kidding, right? I knew about this even when I was an usher and our theater didn't even get Jurassic Park. But I knew which theaters had full DTS and which ones were DTS stereo. I think I managed to grab some DTS-S discs and still have them somewhere. Not Jurassic Park, but some other movie(s).

quote: Aaron Garman
Was it some form of LPCM, or was it still the proprietary DTS compression format?

Still compressed via the ATX or whatever they called their compression scheme.

quote: Aaron Garman
I'm still guessing that while not 6 track, it sounded better than optical Dolby A.

Of course, but the sound systems it was hooked to usually were not designed to handle it as they had wimpy speakers and the such. I remember hearing reports of blown subs and high frequency drivers. I remember my sister telling me that it sounded like it was raining during the entire movie where she saw it (a DTS-S house).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-16-2011, 03:09 AM:

I ran both systems (6 track and stereo). Joe's info above is correct.

I was told by someone (can't remember who) that the entire reason dts released the "stereo" version was because there was a shortage of then-scarce cd-rom drives. This way they only needed 1 per system. I can't help but think even if that was true, just as much of the reason was people with systems not capable of handling 4+ channels of discrete audio inputs.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-16-2011, 03:27 AM:

I'd love to see a list of the first DTS installs in 1993...in Michael Coate fashion. Would DTS (well Datasat) still have that information?

AJG

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 11-16-2011, 07:11 PM:

It turns out we do have a first-installations list (I love having a few employees here who have been around from the very beginning!) It unfortunately does not differentiate between 5.1 channel and 2 channel sites though. My impression on the short-lived 2 channel experiment was that had nothing to do with a shortage of CD drives or APT-X chips, but a simple miscalculation as to market demand. Remember Dolby had been beating the drum for some kind that full discrete digital sound was for premiere houses only (essentially to replace 70mm) - DTS mistakenly thought there would be high demand for 2 channel digital sound (Lt/RT, decoded on playback to LCRS).

Anyway - Brad, once I get this cleared to post, is there a place I can upload a PDF of the site list, since people seem interested?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 11-16-2011, 09:46 PM:

I can tell you first hand that the install for Jurassic Park at the then Cinemark Man O' War Movies 8 was a 5.1 install and it was the only one in the Lexington market at the time. I remember the clips from Backdraft, Far & Away and Born on the 4th of July we ran testing the system. I kept that same unit running with some upgrades and a couple of CD rom drive changes for about 15 years. I moved it from that location to another location we had were it finally died a few years ago.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2011, 09:49 PM:

I would have found it hard to believe there was a shortage of CD-ROM drives, even though the original DTS units used pretty expensive SCSI-based Toshiba units with CD caddies.

I'd like to see a list of the original DTS sites. With some research it might not be too difficult to figure out which venues had DTS-6 systems and which ones had DTS-S.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-16-2011, 10:10 PM:

Email the list to me and I will add it to this thread.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-17-2011, 01:56 AM:

Here's a video I shot in 1994 of the now-gone Cinema 2 theater (single-screen) in Davis, CA. It had the matrixed DTS system hooked to a 1981 Dolby CP50 when Jurassic Park came out, the last movie it ran that supported it was "Crooklyn" a few months later. You can see the sound rack at about 2:14.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3VeYSCfDSA

After Crooklyn played the DTS unit was sent out to be converted to 6-channel with a 2nd CD-ROM drive since there weren't going to be any more releases that used the 2-channel system. When this video was shot the DTS system was installed but with mono surrounds since that was all the CP50 could do. A CP65 was installed a couple months later, but until then I chose to bypass the timecode reader and run the analog sound track. I know some people are gonna disagree with me for that, but I felt it was better to play the analog track uncompromised than to play the DTS track with the surrounds downmixed to mono.

Funny thing was shortly after the CP65 was installed, there was a slight buzzing when the DTS came on. The main projectionist claimed he couldn't hear it; he did replace a part in the DTS unit that fixed it for a while but it came back, but by then the theater was slated to be closed anyways. Read my video description for more useless info about this theater.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Rumor, legend or whatever has it that Steven Spielberg experimented with CDS during the post production of Hook and was completely turned off by sound on film systems because of it. DTS had a different take on movie sound and Spielberg bought into it. DTS systems cost much less and the concept was more reliable.

Of course it was only reliable if the discs were included- there were MANY times when someone 'forgot' to include the discs. I even got into trouble with someone at DTS for ranting about it on an old Usenet group- their attitude was "how DARE you criticize our system!" I had a list of movies about a page long which we had to play at least once in analog because the discs weren't included, for a couple I had to do some extensive calling around to get them and for some I just waited to see if they would ever show up (they didn't) or if any customers would complain about the sound not being in digital (they didn't). When the system shown in this video was installed in another theater, even THEN they often didn't get DTS discs, and this was around 2007!