|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Subjective sound quality
|
Andy Frodsham
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 238
From: Stoke on Trent, Staffs, UK
Registered: Nov 2006
|
posted 05-07-2011 04:09 AM
Right, I know I'm opening-up myself for entry into the 'stupid question of the year' category, but I've been thinking about this for some time:
What level of subjective sound quality should one expect from a cinema based sound system?
As a comparison, I am thinking-of, say, a moderately well specified domestic, hi-fi system with separate amplifier, floor standing loudspeakers and CD player.
I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that a good theatre sound system will be capable of exposing the differences between different sources (non-sync and digital/analog soundtracks).
So, just what level of quality should one expect? Should a good theatre system sound as good as the home hi-fi and, if not, where will the differences lie?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Frodsham
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 238
From: Stoke on Trent, Staffs, UK
Registered: Nov 2006
|
posted 05-07-2011 04:23 PM
I think the question posed by Tom,'What do you expect to hear?'. is the key to it all.
The problem is, we do not KNOW what we expect to hear!
How many people have actually heard a live orchestra in a concert hall, or gunfire, an explosion, soprano or double bass?
Do we really want to hear EVERY detail of the orchestra playing the opening music to the latest Bond film? This could be a rather distracting experience.
I take the points already made about theatre systems favouring spot effects or dialogue, but surely a good, well-tuned and balanced system should reproduce EVERY sound equally well?
Personally. I've yet to hear really good sound in any cinema I have visited. Where is the deep, tight bass, or sweet openess of that sound found in the top end? I'm not surprised your average member of the public can't tell the difference between digital and analogue audio!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 05-07-2011 05:51 PM
True. Yet,we can thank Disney and his "House of Mouse" empire in presenting to the limited public a new sound concept called "Fantasound" from his 'concert feature' presentation, FANTASIA, in 1940.
The usage of multichannel,stereo sound, optically recorded on film to be played in standalone dubbers units that ran in sync with the projectors...now, "stereophonic sound" was born..
We've see "CinemaScope and Stereophonic Sound" plastered on marquees, newspaper snipes and what have you in the 1950's and early 60's. We've seen " in 70mm and six-track stereophonic sound" on special engagements. "Cinerama" and seven-channel stereo" in other engagements....and so on...
..all good analog sound.
Now, we're in the "Dolby Digital", or just plain "Digital Sound" world .... and nobody even pays attention to it..
Yet, as mentioned: it's the picture quality that really matters..
-Monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-07-2011 06:44 PM
Ideally, I would want a theatre to sound exactly the same as the mixing stage where the track was mixed.
Since this does not generally happen in reality, I would want (roughly in order of priority) clear dialogue, good channel balance and separation without dialogue in the surround channels (for example), clear reproduction of music, and no "extraneous" sounds not in the track (hiss, hum, "pumping" (e.g. mono or A-type track played in SR), etc). Good low end (real bass, not "thumpy" one-note bass) would be last on my list.
This is sort of hard to articulate in words, but I know a good sound system when I hear it. And, as I have said before, I would happily take good mono sound over bad multichannel sound. I can think of a handful of theatres with truly amazing sound systems, several with above-average systems, a bunch with mediocre systems, and several with truly bad systems.
I agree that most patrons will not notice sound unless the reproduction system is truly bad, but I do think that a well mixed track and a quality reproduction system will add to the emotional impact of a film. For an example of this, compare the track of (say) Star Wars as reproduced on a 3" mono TV speaker to how it sounds on a good cinema system. Even if patrons do not immediately recognize the value of a good sound system, I believe quite strongly that they will have a more enjoyable filmgoing experience (and be more likely to return) if both picture and sound presentation are of high quality.
I'm not sure that the comparison to a home stereo system is entirely valid. Home stereos are designed to reproduce music, and a typical music recording is very different from a movie soundtrack. Even music used in movies is typically recorded differently from a normal classical music recording, and is not necessarily designed to be an accurate reproduction of what was heard when the musicians recorded the track. Also, homes generally do not get the benefit of acoustical treatment, which makes a big difference in a quality theatre.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 05-09-2011 02:51 PM
I wouldn't underestimate the desire of people to have a good sound experience in a movie theater. George Lucas made his "The sound and music are 50% of the entertainment in a movie" quote many years ago, and it's more true now than ever.
Sound gives a sense of space and environment that helps your brain process what is being seen with the eyes. Imagine the introductory sequence of Contact without the ability to produce well the multi-channel sound cues of the solar system fly-out.
Just this morning, I received a Reader Comment complaining about the sound at a theater. As with most everything, many people only say something when it passes their threshold of acceptance (or in this person's case, threshold of pain):
http://www.bigscreen.com/Marquee.php?theater=8626&view=comments
Granted, that's a single anecdotal item, but it's evidence that people do pay attention and that a problem affects their enjoyment of the movie and their willingness to attend that theater.
I think people complain about sound being too loud when it's really distorted instead. Maybe a speaker is going out, or an amp channel is going bad, or maybe a sound tech needs to come in and recalibrate the theater?
The original poster asked about what the point of comparison should be when evaluating the sound in a movie theater.
My personal opinion is that the movie theater should be the best possible environment in which to hear that movie. With the ability to control the construction of the building, the treatments on the walls, and the design of the system as an isolated environment with a single purpose, a movie theater should be able to knock the socks off action movie fans and reveal every tidbit of dialog in the romantic drama with equal ease.
If I had to choose a comparison, I would say that it should compare to an audiophile's setup. These people spend inordinate amounts of time, money, and effort to create a perfect environment for music reproduction.
Unfortunately, they run into a situation where the performance capability of their playback system outstrips the source material in many cases. The crap that passes for popular music isn't made well enough to be listenable in these environments because all the flaws, shortcuts, and other shortcomings are made more apparent by the equipment and listening environment.
A good movie theater should be better than any home theater system, simply because movie theaters shouldn't have the limitations in most home playback equipment and environments. A movie theater has a single purpose, so it doesn't have to contend with an open-concept living area and spouse-accepted speakers. Movie theaters should also be putting much more money and effort into the equipment and environment than a homeowner ever could.
At the very least, the sound should never be distorted. How difficult is that to achieve?
| 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 05-09-2011 05:31 PM
This question of subjective sound quality can be considered in partnership with the type of entertainment expected at the location of the patron's choice.
As mentioned by some of the learned contributors above, the picture quality should, but rarely does, take precedence over the audio. This shouldn't be taken to mean that there is a choice to be made e.g Pic quality vs Audio quality - rather that, as most exhibitors understand all too well, there is a finite amount of funds available for 'presentation' and as such the maximum return for the dollar is vital.
..hence why picture quality gives that. Value.
Why?
If arthouse product is considered as opposed to mainstream, the predominant requirement is that dialogue is clearly and correctly presented to the audience. This does not mean that distortions on explosions/gunshots, pole-ing speaker cones in subwoofers and the like should be tolerated. Not at all. But as long as the dialogue ( the MAJOR storytelling device) in the presentation is as good as possible then many other faults can be subconsciously glossed over.
The same can be said for uneven aperture illumination, soft focus, jump and weave, incorrect framing &tc. This of course should never be the case, but should these faults be evident then clear and understandable dialogue will carry the presentation.
The human brain is well able to fill in missing parts of an incomplete image/audio pairing. But in order to see how this works, and why that 'It's the dialogue, Stupid', then turn to the radio industry. Every person who listens to radio fills the lack of visuals with their own 'mini-movie' inside their brain- but for this to work adequately the audio must be intelligible and clear to the listener.
And there should be no difference in this respect when comparing radio and film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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.
|
Home
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic