Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Multiplexes still hooked on SR

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Multiplexes still hooked on SR

Author

Topic: Multiplexes still hooked on SR

Steve Scott
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1300
From: Minneapolis, MN
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 10-14-2000 07:05 PM

Ever since I got my job, I wonder why my 18 plex (built in 1998) has half of our screens running scratchy SR sound off of Ultra Stereo processors?

I mean, we make more money as a small company owned theater than the Carmike 15(all digital) plex or the Regal (all digital) 16 plex with in 15 miles of us do, so why can't we upgrade?!

We've got the budget, but our owner is more content with making plans to doulbe our size, adding another NINE SR houses!

Can't certain owners get with the times? SR is dead, digital, any type for god's sake is better than this filth I have to, in good conscience play.
(I know 80% of patrons don't know the difference, but if the difference was there (my vice on loud presentation), at least they'd be somewhat aware!)

Anybody else live in this despair?

------------------
"Trying is the first step towards failure!"
-Homer Simpson

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-14-2000 07:29 PM

Don't go knocking those analogue processors just yet!

You get a good CP-65 or a JS-1000 and give it a good tune-up and you can get some pretty damn good sound out of it.

Doesn't even really matter what processor you're using (to a point) as long as you have a good A-Chain alignment and a good EQ.

I think you're right that any theatre worth its salt will have AT LEAST one house with digital. (My choice is DTS) If it was me, I'd have DTS in ALL my houses.

Yeah, digital sound in SOME form is becomming standard equipment but that's NO SUBSTITUTE for a projectionist who knows what the hell he's doing and knows how to keep the film clean and scratch-free. (Probably the reason you mention that SR sounds "scratchy".)

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-14-2000 07:51 PM

I agree with that comment. If you think that SR is really _that_ bad, then you have equipment or alignment problems.

SR can really sound quite good if the optical chain (exciter, slit lens, solar cell) and processor are set up properly. I'd much rather listen to a truly good quality SR optical system (good amps and speakers, and regular re-alignments by a good tech) than to most of the cheesy "cheapest thing we could possibly find, installed as cheaply as we possibly could, with no maintenance" digital systems that are so common in the gigaplexes.

Unless you need the marketing advantage of having "DIGITAL!!!" on the marquee (and, given that you're doing better business than the competition, it sounds like you don't), please don't put any money into digital anything until you get your existing system sounding as good as it possibly can. There's nothing worse than a cheaply installed digital sound system, except a cheaply installed digital sound system combined with a horribly misaligned optical system...

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 10-14-2000 10:35 PM

While I have to question the logic of not putting digital sound in new theaters, I can still watch a movie in analog in good conscience because you are still properly playing the analog soundtrack; specially mixed for the matrix format, you're not taking the 6-channel digital tracks and squeezing them down to regular stereo (like you can do with a DVD player's audio outputs.) Since I've had my own Dolby Digital and DTS home theater system for about 2 years now though, I wouldn't want to pay to go to an analog-only theater if I could help it.
What is far worse is theaters that still have MONO!!! I refuse to watch movies in mono theaters because that IS tampering with the soundtrack- mixed for 4-channel matrix but played back in mono. I can't in good conscience work at a theater like this either because it's simply not equipped to give the audience the proper presentation they deserve. We still have far too many mono theaters in this area, including an 'art house' that usually gets exclusive engagements of a lot of good movies, forcing me to wait until I can enjoy them properly at home.
One common digital system that I DON'T like is the way most theaters have SDDS set up- they don't use the two extra screen channels which are part of the system! I say why bother if you aren't going to do it right- "Erin Brockovich" even came with a note asking that it NOT be played in SDDS without the full 8 channel setup.

| IP: Logged

Greg Pauley
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 173
From: Huntington, WV, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 10-14-2000 10:45 PM

I can't remember if the patent has ran out for Dolby's SR so that Ultra can copy it completely. I know that a well aligned CP55 or CP65 with Dolby SR cards offer very good sound and you should not be hearing a lot of popping and cracking on the sound track. I would guess that most customers would not know the difference between SR and Digital on most normal(non Star Wars type)films. Steve, I would agree with you that a theatre your size should be all digital, but then again, your boss is still in business unlike a lot of the big boys. Does your theatre use exciter bulbs or LED's? When was the last time your system was checked by a sound tech? Sound like it might be time to align your A/B chain.

| IP: Logged

Russ Kress
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 202
From: Charleston, WV, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 10-15-2000 12:01 AM

Just to add my two cents worth...

Compare the frequency response and dynamic range between a digital recording and one recorded and played back using SR (single channel).

You might be surprised at SR's capability. (Be sure to use Dolby cat# 280s to decode the SR and not another brand that only "emulates" the process)

Digital's channel seperation is better because it does not use a "level dependant" matrix to ensure proper decoding.

I use CP-65s in out DTS houses. When there are no DTS disks, the sound is still very good.

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 10-15-2000 07:53 AM

There is nothing really wrong or out-dated with a proper SR-analog installation. By "proper", I mean; not only are the A and B chains set correctly, but the cards in the processors' are up-to-date, good quality amps and speakers, etc, etc.

It takes a little more work, but can still sound very good.

As an example; if I had proper SR analog sound systems, but were using 30 year old lenses, I'd replace the lenses before spending the money on digital.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Parry
Film Handler

Posts: 3
From: New Orleans, LA USA
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 10-15-2000 03:25 PM

I've had excellent results with Dolby's SR. I wasn't as pleased with Smart's, or Ultra-Stereo's SR clones.

The Ultra-Stereo DSP60 processor has a digital SR which sounded very good. The Dolby CP-650 decodes the SR in the digital domain also.

I was told by a Dolby Engineer once that Ray Dolby considers his SR noise reduction his best cinema achievement. Not Dolby Digital.

| IP: Logged

Ky Boyd
Hey I'm #23

Posts: 314
From: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-16-2000 01:04 AM

John,

I have to jump in here and concur with you. Good quality lenses are just as important if not more important than good quality sound, be it SR-stereo or digital. When Ian and I took over our theatre we replaced 8 of 10 lenses prior to reopening and the remaining two within a matter of months. I can't begin to tell you what an amazing difference new lenses made in picture quality and screen brightness. And our patrons have noticed - they noticed the new lenses much more than the upgrade of the two mono houses to SR and the two big houses to SR-D.

| IP: Logged

Bill Purdy
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 139
From: Seattle, WA
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 10-16-2000 11:43 AM

Theatre after theatre tells us that the single greatest improvement they have made in the overall quality of their sound has been the switch to reverse scan readers. When properly read and decoded, Dolby SR analog recordings can be truly wonderful and there are those who feel that the advantages of adding digital are not worth it for smaller theatres. I know of one recent subjective test at Disney where both SR and SRD were carefully tuned to their maximum potential and listened to A-B fashion. Until the tracks got busy and the distinct advantages of the descrete tracks from SRD became apparent, no one was able to tell the difference.

------------------
Bill Purdy
Component Engineering

| IP: Logged

Dave Cutler
Master Film Handler

Posts: 277
From: Centennial, CO
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 10-16-2000 12:59 PM

Got to put in my 2cents as well. A well setup SR system can sound wonderful. Case in point...

I was working at a 10 plex UA in Michigan built in the mid 80's. Like so many other theatres of the time they had installed mono with surround Kintek systems. UGH! One day we came in and it had died. YEAH! Our tech came out with a CP-200 that had been pulled from a building we had closed. After he worked all night building speaker towers, running wire, installing the processor, amps, and eq'ing I came in a gave a listen. I had to ask if he had installed a digital processor. It was amazingly clear and clean.

Moral of the story. I learned that a good SR setup can be just as impressive as a digital, and better if the digital isn't setup properly (or if it's SDDS).

| IP: Logged

Carl King
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 199
From: Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 10-16-2000 01:27 PM

Bill Purdy is correct as far as I'm concerned. A system running SR with a reverse scan reader is just terrific. They beat the exciter lamps hands down. In the four house that I use the Reverse Scan system it is hard to tell one from the other.
Be sure that your tech person aligns the A and B chains properly and checks them at least twice a year you should have fabulous sound quality.

Carl King

ps> Scratchy sound? Film cleaners work wonders.

| IP: Logged

Jason Burroughs
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 654
From: Allen, TX
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-16-2000 01:55 PM

With GOOD reverse scan, and properly setup A an B chain, SR can sound VERY, VERY, VERY good, to an untrained ear, it can sound very similar to Digital (minus the split surrounds) First time I heard a reverse scan was at a new UA theatre in '95, the techs had decided to give everything a test run after they got things pretty much setup, and let us know that they were about to run a test reel of True Lies in that house, we were expecting DTS playback, we watched the reel, thinking "wow this sounds GREAT" at the end of the reel, the person in the booth announced much to our amazement that the timecode cable had come undone, and that it had only played back in SR. Even the senior technicians in the auditorium were astonished at the quality of the sound.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.