|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Author
|
Topic: Overhead channel
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
![](/ubbmembers/840f.jpg)
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-10-2002 05:14 PM
Ceiling surrounds are somewhat of an interesting idea. In fact, you can hear "ceiling-only" surround in many AMC Theaters locations. Just a big blob of sound in front and some on the top of your head!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 But really, the 5.1 systems for commercial theaters are out of date and need to move onto a next generation system.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. However, ceiling surrounds have one big drawback. How do you incorporate them into the typically flimsy drop ceilings of many movie theaters and get the speakers installed between all those air conditioning ducts and other stuff?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
![](/ubbmembers/840f.jpg)
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-10-2002 11:53 PM
Naturally, any 10.2 Surround system (as well as any new surround sound format for commercial movie theaters) will be developed as a separate "dual system". People may want uncompressed 20-bit 48kHz LPCM digital sound or some lossless compressed format like MLP used instead of the lossy systems employed by DD, DTS and SDDS. 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. DTS time code could theoretically be used to drive any kind of sound format since the media and hardware are separate from the film print.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/214.gif)
Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-11-2002 12:06 AM
Additional ceiling mount "older" theatres I've seen: NYC: Ziegfeld (still visible, but not working); Northpoint, SF; Music Hall (pre-triplexing), Bruin (still visible), Cinema Valley Plaza, Bakersfield, and an old GCC twin in Hayward, CA (Southland, perhaps?).These surround speakers always had round openings, and resembled the type you see mounted in many stores with suspended ceilings.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/248b.jpg)
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 10-11-2002 08:26 AM
The Cantor Theatre at the Brooklyn Museum still uses ceiling surrounds (unfortunately). As Bill points out, it is not a new idea, but it certainly is a bad one give the quality of speaker that's available for that type of installation. I remember the ceiling surround presentations at the Ziegfield. It wasn't impressive.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
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1269b.jpg)
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-11-2002 12:36 PM
There are a few other factors as well which would not favor 10.2 reproduction:- 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? - As per previous comments, my count (which could well be inaccurate) shows about 40 films in Dolby Digital EX, 10 in DTS-ES, and about 60 in SDDS-8 channel. although relatively few in recent years.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David Graham Rose
Expert Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1450.jpg)
Posts: 187
From: Cambridge, UK
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted 10-11-2002 02:28 PM
Peter, 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) Dave
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|