Solaris / Larry Blake
Steve Kraus
I think it's a great idea that your film can letter is promoting
communcations with projectionists, techs, and other interested parties
via this news group. You might also want to look at the forum sections
of the web site http://www.film-tech.com
Now for the first question: You give SDDS-8 as your first choice with
DTS and SR-D as second with SDDS-6 only to be preferred over analog.
How much different are the DTS and SR-D versions from SDDS-8 folded down
to 6-channel? Or are you basically saying that you simply like these
other two formats better but since SDDS is the only game in town for 5
screen channels you like that better but otherwise you don't really like
the format?
Swelltone
Sorry about the delay in getting back to you.
I noted the preference for DTS and Dolby Digital with regard to
three-screen-speaker presentation because those formats were printmastered
with the chosen spread for this film, i.e., left- and right-center tracks were
apportioned 50/50 to their respective sides and the center. This was the ratio
chosen by me for my sound effects and by Alan Meyerson, who recorded and mixed
the music. SDDS would have put the Lc and Rc tracks 75/25 to their respective
sides.
If you're seated in the dead middle of a theater, then DTS and Dolby Digital,
in terms of literal stereo imaging, will be pretty darn close even to a 7.1
SDDS. But when you get off the center--which is to say 95% of the
audience!!!--is when the point-source imaging of the Lc and Rc speakers has its
advantage.
As to my fave formats, it's a simple answer: SDDS is my fave when I use five
screen channels on a film because I believe that this format is the best,
period. (To answer the question that someone will invariably throw out, any big
film playing in SDDS will play in many more theaters in 8-track than the number
of 70mm theaters 95% of the films released in 70mm during its "renaissance"
from '77-92).
Outside of the 7.1 issue, my favorite is whichever format a projectionist is
most comfortable threading up: DD, DTS, or SDDS. They all sound good.
Thanks for your feedback.
Larry Blake
swel...@aol.com
Bobby Henderson
news:20021202065546...@mb-fw.aol.com...
> As to my fave formats, it's a simple answer: SDDS is my fave when I use
five
> screen channels on a film because I believe that this format is the best,
> period. (To answer the question that someone will invariably throw out,
any big
> film playing in SDDS will play in many more theaters in 8-track than the
number
> of 70mm theaters 95% of the films released in 70mm during its
"renaissance"
> from '77-92).
SDDS-8 (when installed in a properly designed sound system) is pretty cool.
I saw "U-571" in SDDS-8 and found that to be one pretty impressive mix.
It's just too bad there's not all that many SDDS-8 theaters in relation to
the larger number of SDDS 5.1 theaters. Same goes for the relatively small
number of SDDS-8 mixdowns versus those that just go 5.1.
My biggest problem involving SDDS really has less to do with SDDS and more
to do with AMC Theatres. I hate how they put together their surround arrays
and even their screen tower design leaves much to be desired. More often
than not, moviegoers typically have to hit an AMC site to see a show mixed
in SDDS-8. So you hear SDDS in the way AMC thinks you should hear it. Most
AMC stadium seated screens have surround speakers stuffed up at the top of
the wall next to the ceiling. You just get sound in front and on top, but
hardly surround at all. It is rare to find an AMC auditorium that actually
has a good sound system design.
Bobby Henderson
RICHVINCE
>AMC stadium seated screens have surround speakers stuffed up at the top of
>the wall next to the ceiling. You just get sound in front and on top, but
>hardly surround at all. It is rare to find an AMC auditorium that actually
>has a good sound system design.
This speaker configuration would be consistent with AMC's Torus compound curve
screens. Due to the curvatture of the screen they are non-porous. For that
reason the speakers must be mounted either above or at the sides of the screen
rather than behind it.
Their theatres that I have seen without this type of screen have the speakers
in the typical locations behind the screen.
Rich
Bobby Henderson
news:20021203000908...@mb-fz.aol.com...
I agree about the Torus screen problems. AMC has been using the things even
before they started doing the stadium seated thing. In addition to
weakening the overall character of the front stage channels, you get more
noticeable echo problems. With stadium seated auditoriums, that echo
problem is compounded. I laughed the first time I visited the AMC Grand 24
in Dallas to see "Die Hard With A Vengeance." There was all kinds of echo
in there.
But aside from Torus screens and stage channels, I was referring to AMC's
missteps in installing surround speaker arrays. Many AMC auditoriums have
all the surround speakers stuffed up at the top of the walls or just simply
pointing down from the ceiling. It is by far the worst kind of surround
speaker setup in use today.
I can only figure AMC uses such a scheme as a cost cutting measure.
Surround speakers properly placed near the upper center of a wall require
audio cable to be run down in the wall to the speaker unit, or at least
concealed behind wall treatment, curtains or something. AMC's typical setup
just has the speaker line coming out of the drop ceiling. No one is going
to see the wire way up there since the surround speaker is stuffed up next
to the ceiling tile anyway. Damn, their sound systems suck.
Bobby Henderson