What do you think?
As far as I know, this is not the first ceiling channel experiment. But I do not recall where I heard about earlier systems.
Michael

It is kind of disappointing Dolby Labs is simply trying to merge this concept into the existing Dolby Digital Surround EX model. I can understand it from an aspect of cost control. But really, the 5.1 systems for commercial theaters are out of date and need to move onto a next generation system.

The 10.2 Surround format promoted by guys like Tomlinson Holman has provisions for two ceiling surround channels, along with three discrete surrounds for the left, right and back walls. That, combined with 5 stage channels and 2 LFE channels, make 10.2 a very formidable concept. It would certainly humble most any home theater surround system.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Sound on film systems will never be able to deliver this kind of thing. Cinema Digital Sound was the closest to it, using 5.1 channels at an incredibly high bitrate.

There is really little problem at all with dual systems (such as DTS, Sonics or any other special venue digital sound format). They are proven to work and proven to be more reliable than any sound on film printed system. The only drawback I see is not having all the movie trailers available to play in digital sound. But that is not really a huge loss.

Dolby Digital, using its current bitrate and printing method, could easily accomodate 10.2 Surround by printing a second DD sountrack in between the perfs on the right edge of the filmstrip. It would double the number of channels and double the overall bitrate.

SDDS is pretty much maxed out on what it can do.

As for 10.1....SDDS hardly ever creates special 8 channel mixes that use the full 8 that it's capable of. It's really a matter of cost. Those kinds of additional mixes for nonstandard configurations don't come for free, and given the number of theatres that would spring for the additional amps and speakers, it really seems a 10.1 system would languish on the designer's drawing board. After all, the original 70mm configurations had 5 channels behind the screen and we know how fast they dropped two of them. The trend is to create one mix that can be used for everything, not multiple mixes for different theatre configurations.

Then you also have to ask yourself, where is the point of no return? When is it that the average movie-goer -- you know, the ones with only two ears -- stop being impressed by the number of channels that the system is capable of reproducing, given the fact that you can easily create 360 degree sound with the simplest 3 in front and 3 in rear configuration, unless you are talking about the big movie palace size theatres which are gone forever. Besides, if a movie is really good, the general public is fairly oblivious to the number of surround channels -- they are paying attention to what's in front of them, IMHO.

And what's with that name? It sure looses something in the translation. They aren't going to capture the imagination of the public with such a goofy moniker: "Sonic Whole Overhead Sound." That's good for unrelenting jokes by Leno and Letterman.

Frank

- Many films today are simply marketing exercises for the DVD release, which is 5.1.

- I seem to remember research that the Russians did in the 1960's or 70's which maintained that listeners could not perceive additional channels beyond six or so. I think there was a translated book on this subject.

- If you believe in the THX concept of a largely diffuse sound field, especially in the surrounds (and as designed by Tomlinson Holman), you have to wonder what the extra channels are going to get you. I haven't read the papers (if there are any) on the subject, but it surprises me that the same guy who pushed for diffuse sound fields in theatres is also the guy who is pushing for 10.1 channels.

In home systems, THX certified speakers are specifically designed not to interact with the floor or ceiling. If you were add another channel or two for overheads, you'd be interacting with the ceiling. And even if those overheads do get you something, is the cost/benefit ratio worth it, just to get a bomb or aircraft sounding like it's coming from above?

Given that bass is less directional than treble, would it not be a good thought in todays tile ceiling cinemas to install only the Ceiling surround horns in the ceiling and the bass at the top of the side and rear walls ?

10.2 channel designation is as follows;

L, Le, C, Re, R, LS, BS, RS, Ceiling Surr Ch1, Ceiling Surr Ch2, (=10)
+ 2 separate incomplete range Sub Channels (.2)