my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » will five front channel sound ever make a comeback? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: will five front channel sound ever make a comeback? Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 01-25-2011 11:23 PM                     Since it's pretty much well known that 8-channel SDDS is being phased out by Sony - why haven't they or other studios rethought and reintergrated 5-channel/speaker sound (70mm/SDDS-8) via lossless digital cinema applications? - if "Dolby" can unlock, utilize (and market) two additional channels of sound in the surrounds, I think it would be rather interesting how soundmixers will implement and use 9 channels of sound (plus subwoofer) for maximum effect. With the trend to make screens larger and wider, do, or can, sound setups ETX, XD and RPX (and Ultrascreens) add speakers to create a fuller sound behind the screen? Would five front channel be beneficial? Even though 7.1 sound is becoming more common in home theatre systems, I'd think it'd be worthwhile if 9-channel sound would become a reality and make this theater experience unreplicable for the home video market. thoughts?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-26-2011 09:37 AM                     The channels are specified (7/8) but it is up to the people that make the movies to use them. Also, one has to have a scheme to deal with those theatres that do not have those channels (the majority). As it is, Surround 7.1 creates a dual inventory situation (something this industry abhors). There is no telling if it will stick any more than EX has and it was 100% compatible with 5.1 systems. SDDS-8 isn't being phased out by Sony so much as nobody is mixing in it. However, that was Sony's hook. If you buy into their system, you have an 8-channel possibility and they backed that up with Columbia Pictures, which they own, to guarantee 8-channel product. I believe, if you look at the total number of SDDS-8 versus Surround-EX, there are more 8-channel movies. Note too, Sony dealt with the 5.1 vs 8-channel thing too by having their processors (the only ones using 8-channel) do the mix down if you did not have all 5-screen channels. Soooo, if an 8-channel format were to come out or even a 9.1...you now have a compatibility issue that would need to be addressed. For now, that means multiple inventory. Perhaps, the future of the IMB/servers will be able to do their own mix downs of such sound formats, but for now they can't/don't. If 8-channel makes a come back (and I do hope it does), it will likely come from folks like Larry Blake who prefer the 5-screen channel system (look at the films he has mixed and you will see there are quite a few that feature the 8-channel mix). -Steve  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-26-2011 10:11 AM                        quote: Steve Guttag As it is, Surround 7.1 creates a dual inventory situation You can't be serious. YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! The industry cannot be that incredibly stupid. There can't be a line of code in the program that determines of a theater has 7.1 (YES) and runs in 7.1 mode or (NO) and runs in 5.1 mode instead? There's no reason for dual inventory 7.1 Blu-Rays and people have a lot more varying sound setups at home than movie theaters tend to. If what you say is true, the industry is doing digital wrong. Dumbasses.  |  IP: Logged Jake Spell Master Film Handler Posts: 294 From: Johns Island SC Registered: May 2009 posted 01-26-2011 12:39 PM                     Did you expect it any other way? And is there any reason that Dolby or any other company couldn't make a box that does the down-mixing? Something that would go between the server and processor and take 7.1 8.1 or whatever the mix what and down-mix it to whatever your current setup is, weather it be mono, stereo, 5.1, etc...  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 01-26-2011 02:15 PM                     I'm with Joe: Blu-ray and the home market does a pretty good job with this sort of thing for 7.1 titles in 5.1. I only have 5.1, and never seem to run into trouble with the handful of 7.1 stuff I have: my processor takes care of all of that. AJG  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-26-2011 03:47 PM                     The companies that make cinema processors, crossovers, etc. need to step into the 21st century already. They're the biggest road block in allowing a greater number of audio channels into movie theaters. Typical cinema processors are equipped to handle either stereo optical audio or 6-track audio in 5.1 configuration. Some can do 8-channel for compatibility with 5 stage channel configuration and/or split surround. AFAIK there are no cinema processors on the market that can support 10 channel operation. That's what you would need in order to have the choice of 5 stage channels or 4 surround channels or even both features together. And then that's just leaving one channel left over for sub bass. I think the current digital cinema standard supports something like 16 audio channel assignments or maybe even more than that. It is possible, at least on paper, for someone to make a movie with 5 stage channels, 4 surround channels, perhaps even multiple sub bass channels and still have other audio channels left over for functions like descriptive language tracks for the blind. All that capability on paper is like tits on a bull: useless. There's nothing in terms of A/B chain hardware that can take full advantage of the capability. Meanwhile, some high end home theater components actually boast being able to send two different 5.1 audio signals to two different surround setups, all from the same single box. If a company like Yamaha can do that in one of their consumer devices I know good and well Dolby could pack 12 channel operation into a single cinema processor.  |  IP: Logged Jake Spell Master Film Handler Posts: 294 From: Johns Island SC Registered: May 2009 posted 01-26-2011 04:27 PM                     So then why cant the server become the audio processor as well?  |  IP: Logged Daniel Schulz Master Film Handler Posts: 387 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 01-26-2011 05:03 PM                        The Datasat AP20 supports 16 channels in and out. That said, the frustration on this board is well-placed: the d-cinema standards do not provide for an elegant solution to format proliferation problem, and indeed as has been pointed out do not handle this as well as basic consumer-grade electronics.  |  IP: Logged Clint Koch Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1435 From: San Luis Obispo, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-26-2011 07:01 PM                     USL, Inc.'s JSD-100 and the JSD-80 can handle 5 stage channels. The JSD-100 will go up to 16 channels so there are options on the market.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-26-2011 10:18 PM                     I happily stand corrected. But it would be nice to have this news filter up through the chain at various movie studios to let the powers that be realize they can do a few things way beyond what home theater can reproduce -at least in terms of sound. The movie studios have to produce the "software" that can take advantage of the hardware. Currently the situation is backwards and has been that way for a little over a decade. The lossy versions of Dolby Digital and DTS have been able to operate at higher bit rates on DVD than their theatrical counterparts on 35mm. On Blu-ray, DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD are generating more interest in movie audio than Linear PCM 5.1 is managing in digital cinema. I think "Dolby Surround 7.1" generated a wave of "so what" reaction in that Blu-ray has already been offering discrete 7.1 in Linear PCM, Dolby True-HD and DTS-HD even at high bandwidth rates like 24/96. 5 stage channels isn't practical for home theater. Good reason for big movie theaters to have it, especially those with giant sized screens. Add to that at least 4 surround channels and perhaps multiple sub bass channels. That sort of thing can be folded down into 7.1 or 5.1 on Blu-ray. If audiences are going to be increasingly exposed to these premium priced d-cinema giant screen theaters, either in Lie-MAX branding or something else, it would be nice to have something better than plain vanilla 5.1 audio or 7.1 that Blu-ray can still do.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-27-2011 01:51 AM                     I believe the industry on the whole (producers and exhibitors) regards sound formats as potential marketing gimmicks, much like 3D. If venues with <fill in the blank> earn money then the industry adopts it. If a format or process doesn't seem to have any appreciable marketing clout behind it (SDDS-8) -- or loses traction (70mm and THX) -- then it gets dropped. Le/Re has come and gone. TWICE. I'd be pleased, but very surprised, if it ever made a serious comeback and became commonplace. Also, the prevailing attitude about sound -- on the production/post-production side of things -- is pretty discouraging. There's a lot of lip-service about how important sound is but, if you talk to sound peeps, you get a different story. Tom Holman, in his 10.2 demo, talks about number of channels being asymptotic. Basically, there's a threshold where he feels we just won't notice the extra channels. He is in favor of more channels behind the screen (including elevated channels). However, a friend of mine -- who mixed one of the few short subject films done in 10.2 -- complained of it taking too long to make decisions. Producers don't budget a lot of time or money for sound. Much more time, thought, money and care is invested in picture. This is a common complaint among sound people. And so the need for (time) economy is how you end up with the standard 5.1 mix that we see today: L/R = Music and Effects Center = Dialogue Sub = LF Effects Ls/Rs = Ambiences and selected SFX I recall reading in SDDS marketing (circa 2001) that Le/Re was imagined as a way to prevent Music and Effects from competing within the L/R channels. So they did not seem to anticipate dynamic panning across the screen. (Although it certainly would be possible.) And then there's the public opinion. Based on what has proven to be popular -- there seems to be an appreciable difference between the 4.0 "Dolby Matrix" and 5.1 discrete, but not much difference between 5.1 and EX or SDDS-8. So, when it comes to the general public, it seems that 5.1 hits the sweet spot. Anything more seems to be lost on most people. ...and how is the new 7.1 format doing? Is it the new box office gold?  |  IP: Logged Tom Mundell Expert Film Handler Posts: 120 From: Silver Spring, MD, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 01-27-2011 08:35 AM                        I always thought a big part of the problem was the horrible promotion of sound formats; even those like me who really like more than 5.1 can't always find showtimes that utilize them. I always liked seeking out SDDS-8 presentations, but this was often very difficult to do; this was pretty nearly never advertised anywhere (I know of) and even when questioning theater staff I couldn't always get clear answers on which auditoriums were even capable of the format. Probably didn't help that the very few times I saw the 8 channel logo in the paper the theater actually had the movie in several rooms, some 8 channel and some 6 channel. I think most people just never even heard of Le/Re due to never being mentioned anywhere so of course they didn't seek out the format. 7.1 has been poorly advertised as well it seems; figuring out which theaters have which showtimes in 7.1 has been sketchy at best. These new and old formats that have more than 5.1 channels might do better if the studios used them more and theaters advertised which showtimes feature them! quote: Bobby Henderson If audiences are going to be increasingly exposed to these premium priced d-cinema giant screen theaters, either in Lie-MAX branding or something else, it would be nice to have something better than plain vanilla 5.1 audio or 7.1 that Blu-ray can still do. Exactly what I've been thinking; one of my complaints about Lie-MAX is that it's the exact same 5.1 sound I have at home for a very premium price; it's even the same two surround speaker setup just like I have, not very impressive! (I greatly prefer the array of surround speakers, sounds significantly better to me especially if you aren't sitting in the middle of the room)  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-27-2011 09:19 AM                     Advertising is another issue why sound has been generating more interest in home theater than it does the commercial theater. In home theater it's easy to find Dolby and DTS logos on various pieces of electronics hardware. Just about any DVD player will at least sport a Dolby Digital logo if not DTS as well. Blu-ray players often have Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD logos, although you can barely see the faint screening of the things on a new "slim" PS3. Dolby logos appear on HDTV monitors, DVRs, cable/satellite boxes, etc. I've even seen a few HDTV monitors sporting DTS logos as well (can't remember which ones specifically but I have seen them). In home theater the various Dolby and DTS logos are all over the "software" as well. They're on DVD and Blu-ray packaging. Often they're on the actual discs. They're in the sound options menu. Quite a few DVDs have featured the limited number of DTS trailers. Some Blu-ray discs have a new DTS-HD trailer. When someone channel surfs to a premium channel waiting for a certain show to start they have to wait for the end credits of the previous movie to finish. Those various Dolby, DTS and SDDS logos scroll up the TV screen. Most viewers never watch the entire credit roll in the movie theater and only see the tail end of those credits on TV. Sound formats are nowhere near as visible in movie theater advertising as they are in home theater. Most commercial theaters gave up on playing the various Dolby Digital and DTS snipes long ago. Sound format listings have been dropped from most movie theater directory ads and "stack" ads in newspapers. I haven't looked in the New York Times or Los Angeles Times in quite a while to see if the agencies are still bothering with sound format listings in those movie stack ads. A great deal of movie theater listings either in print or on the Internet have taken on a pretty generic tone. Unless the movie is playing in IMAX, Lie-MAX or digital 3D you may just get the movie title, MPAA rating and show times. In that environment "Dolby Surround 7.1" arrived with next to nothing in terms of fanfare. The advertising situation today is very different from how it was back in the late 1980s when you could open a newspaper movie ad and see a big 70mm logo listed above a block of movie theater locations. Unless this situation can be changed it would be tough promoting a movie sound presentation with 5 channels of audio behind the screen.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 01-28-2011 09:18 AM                     quote: Manny Knowles I recall reading in SDDS marketing (circa 2001) that Le/Re was imagined as a way to prevent Music and Effects from competing within the L/R channels. So they did not seem to anticipate dynamic panning across the screen. (Although it certainly would be possible. yet even effective use of panned dialogue is very rare to inconsistent, I'd love to hear what Pixar's soundmixers would do with five front speakers of sound, even in 5.1 dialogue is effectively implemented in between the left-center/right center on 'Toy Story 2'. frankly I wasn't impressed with their foray into 7.1 with 'Toy Story 3' - 'Step Up 3D's was much more impressive in my opinion. The marketing/advertising in the Washington Post for movies and specifically sound is no where as prevailent or detailed as it was in the past. I don't think that the majority of the filmgoing public is even aware of 7.1 sound, unless you actually see a film with Dolby's logo upfront. (I think, and know, its because all decoders/receivers can decode 7.1 and is technically not a 'Dolby exclusive') All in all I think 'sound' has received the short end of the stick in terms of marketing a film. Nowadays news prints only featuring artwork and not theater info anymore which I find very unfortunate.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-28-2011 10:30 AM                     Another funny thing is the lossy data compressed digital sound formats still get billing on movie posters and end credits while the higher quality 24-bit 5.1 channel uncompressed Linear PCM track is never mentioned at all.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.