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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » 35mm Digital Sound Playback Preference? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: 35mm Digital Sound Playback Preference? Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-24-2010 09:26 PM                  If you have the required hardware and the print has the ability to playback Dolby Digital, DTS, and SDDS, which one would you choose as your 1st choice and why?  |  IP: Logged Bernie Anderson Jr Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: Woodbridge, New Jersey Registered: Apr 2000 posted 04-24-2010 09:37 PM                        DTS! Always liked the dynamics and the mix in DTS. Still remember the first time I've heard DTS in a packed theatre for opening night of Jurassic Park. When they played the flying dts disc logo before the film, the crowd went wild. Then SDDS and then DD.  |  IP: Logged Cameron Glendinning Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 845 From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia Registered: Dec 2005 posted 04-24-2010 09:37 PM                     DTS due to better stereo effect in the surrounds than the same Dolby Digital track. Please note Phil that I do not have much experience with SDDS  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-24-2010 09:50 PM                     Easy... SDDS. By far, the best sounding of the three. Every time I've done an A/B/C comparison of the three, having tuned them using the same analyzer, SDDS has always won. Furthermore, SDDS, when available, has 5-screen channels (my preferred sound arrangement) and some talented recording engineers use it. #2 for me is Dolby Digital, unless the print is beat. It has a pretty natural sound to it. #3, DTS...it has always been too strident for me. DTS with EV speakers, in particular can be quite painful (if they are using the DH1 driver, like on the TS9040 or TS940). I don't understand the comment about DTS' surrounds...they are compromised since part of their frequency range goes to the subwoofer. Dolby and SDDS, on the other hand, have full range surrounds. DTS no longer needs to perform this economy to get the 6-channels to fit...however, for legacy processors, they still have to encode the subwoofers on the surround channels. DTS can also carry the torch on 5-screen channels, which they do for some 70mm reissues. At the Uptown, years ago, when folks would ask what digital I was running, and I told them it was Dolby...they would bring up "compression" and such...so I told them I would randomly switch between Dolby and DTS during the show...then they would have to tell me which reels sounded best (I would switch sound on a changeover). Those that could tell (and many couldn't) would always pick Dolby over DTS without knowing it until I told them. They just had preconceived notions about Dolby having this horrible compression as compared to DTS. Steve  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-24-2010 10:10 PM                     My findings have been the same as Steve's (provided the SDDS was done fairly...I never use the SDDS internal EQ as the pink noise is HF deficient which results in a shrill-sounding end product). I do find SRD and SDDS to be very close, but SDDS does have an ever so slight edge. That being said I hardly ever run SDDS because at least I can get the Dolby processor repaired if it breaks. Not quite so easy with the SDDS. DTS is a fine format, but it is the last on my list. The sound is sterile to my ears. As with Steve, blind listening ABC tests in my own screening room consistently produce the same results with other people. SDDS first, SRD second (some people can't tell the difference), but DTS always comes in as their last choice. Phil, if you will get off of your ass and come visit me, I'll let you do the listening test for yourself. We still owe you a trip to Chuck-E-Cheese anyway.  |  IP: Logged Peter Castle Expert Film Handler Posts: 220 From: Wollongong University, NSW ,Australia Registered: Oct 2003 posted 04-24-2010 10:19 PM                     Definitely SDDS. Having had that choice for 15 years, I've found that SDDS gave the best sound and was the most likely to be still working on older prints. Maybe the EQ was doen better the first time for SDDS. DTS is just too much trouble, even if discs were never a problem for us - lip synch was always a worry, especially with two projectors. And Dolby was more than likely to drop out on prints we got - and more recently Dolby is poor, even on prints of good quality.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-24-2010 10:42 PM                  quote: Grand-Poopie-BAH Phil, if you will get off of your ass and come visit me... I'm riding my ass "Francis the Talking Mule" to your abode and should arrive sometime in late summer. Save a pizza and a pizza boy for me.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 04-24-2010 10:53 PM                        My opinion doesn't count for s**t here since I'm a non-professional, but SDDS always sounded the best to me at the local Regal Cinema World 8 which had all 3 sound formats. That theater is gone now. Can't tell you why SDDS was better but it was.  |  IP: Logged Tony Bandiera Jr Film God Posts: 3067 From: Moreland Idaho Registered: Apr 2004 posted 04-24-2010 11:23 PM                     Those who know me well enough here will be shocked by my answer: SDDS has the best sound to my ears. DTS has always sounded good to me and I prefer it slightly over Dolby Digital which sounds a bit harsh to me (opposite of Steve's experience.) Hey Phil, detour to UC Irvine and take a listen to my new screening room there, and I can introduce you to some hot college studs.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-24-2010 11:34 PM                  quote: Tony Bandiera Jr ...I can introduce you to some hot college studs. Hubba Hubba!  |  IP: Logged Tony Bandiera Jr Film God Posts: 3067 From: Moreland Idaho Registered: Apr 2004 posted 04-24-2010 11:37 PM                     Thought that would get a rise out of you.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 04-25-2010 01:36 AM                     True, what I've heard that SDDS really can knock the socks off the other formats. Yet, DTS has the lowest compression rate at 4x, whereas SRD is 12x and SDDS at 8x compression.. Sony really did have something there, but where the track is at on the film itself and how the processor processes the optical track into mono since it has to bypass the other default processor in the rack is what really make it a sore subject to some.  |  IP: Logged Ian Parfrey Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1049 From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E Registered: Feb 2009 posted 04-25-2010 01:56 AM                     SR.D For practical reasons as opposed to quality. The vast majority of prints released have, in addition to the SR analogue track, a Dolby Digital track effectively making it a defacto standard. Here in Australia, it's almost guaranteed that there will be a DD track, whereas SDDS tracks are getting rarer and to find (playable) DTS discs with a print is a lottery at the best of times. As for audio quality, I agree with the others here in that SDDS- to me- sounded better and more detailed than the others. Trouble is, just because it sounds better doesn't make it my automatic choice. The support for SDDS is almost gone, and if the DTS discs are damaged or non existant, then no matter how good it sounds, you aint getting no digital audio.  |  IP: Logged Manny Montes Master Film Handler Posts: 270 From: United States Registered: Feb 2010 posted 04-25-2010 03:06 AM                     I like the way SDDS sounds, but I've seen too many prints where the SDDS track is either non-existant or damaged and drops out. So i'd probably say: #1. DTS #2. SR.D #3. SDDS But if every print had SDDS from now on, and every theater did "film done right" it would be #1. SDDS #2. DTS #3. SR.D  |  IP: Logged Peter Castle Expert Film Handler Posts: 220 From: Wollongong University, NSW ,Australia Registered: Oct 2003 posted 04-25-2010 03:45 AM                     quote: Monte L Fullmer Sony really did have something there, but where the track is at on the film itself and how the processor processes the optical track into mono since it has to bypass the other default processor in the rack is what really make it a sore subject to some. In our SDDS setup, we had Dolby Digital and DTS backup so that, automatically, an SDDS failure reverted to another digital - the times that happened can be counted on the fingers of one foot.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

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.