Sir TtT, I can now answer one of your questions

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Any answer to an earlier question about the availability of any studio 5.1 audio recordings by popular artists or the cinematic composers I mentioned?

Just google, that should help you out. I listen to enough film scores at work and therefore have no need to really collect them.

They failed with the Leona Lewis music. The 5.1 *enhancement* was none at all.

Actually, you failed because you choose that as your reference. If I used your logic, then every 5.1 film mix is a failure. Movies played back in theaters never sound the same played back at home, even if the mix is a theater dump straight to disc. Once again, what you are comparing is apples and oranges, and the other side of that equation is always failure.

I listened at three theatres, two of which were IMAX and one was a full sized 1570 one. You'd think they would be representative of what is available. Maybe only the theatres you attend are better. Actually, I do have a multi-channel system at home. It just can't hold a candle to the main music one.

You cannot use three theaters as a reference and think you have a lock on things. Not even two THX certified theaters sound the same even if the equipment was. As a film guy, I have been in hundreds of movie theaters all over the country. All of them sounded pretty different because of the quality of the A chain, the quality of the B chain, some theaters are underpowered, others have non working drivers in surround arrays, sub are turned off when broken instead of repaired, digital data readers that are out of alignment, not tuned according to SMTPE standards (happens alot), horrible sound islolation between theaters, main speakers are too small for the room, amps malfunctioning, and some that do not apply the proper ISO curve.

The theaters in my are of better quality than most. One of my favorites uses the HPS-4000 system, and the other uses its little brother the Klipsch system. The one "real " IMAX we have is always kept in top condition and tuned twice a year. All of the THX certified theaters have decayed and are probably out of spec by now.

Clearly. What was lost was the inner detail and palpability of her voice, neither of which have anything to do with ambience.

But it does have something to do with acoustics, the mix, and the widely different system it is compared to. Inner detail losses can occur when you sit farther away from the reproduction source, its the difference between near field and far field listening. If all things were equal and you compared what you hear with your setup, and a pair of Wilson audio Alexandria 2 and Maxx 3, you are not likely to hear inner detail in exactly the same way.

I do wonder why engineers take a finished product and then take time and effort to change it - without any benefit.

Because they have to. Do you think your audio experience would have been better if they only used two channels out of the six channels they have? Electrostatics(or domes and cones) wouldn't last three seconds trying to fill a theater with sound, and reproducing the broad dynamics(and the frequency response) of a typical film soundtrack. A mix done in a studio does not sound very good when played back through a theater sound system.

Naturally. Condenser microphones sound different from dynamic ones.

Correct, but both have specific usages that are not exactly interchangeable, much like the differences between home and theater speakers.

They hide them quite well from IMAX installations. Surely at more than one IMAX, you've seen the intro where they backlight each speaker and show you them through the screen. The ones in the rear are indeed just stuck in the corners.

Yes, they are stuck in corners, but they are optimized for that placement, and the radiate evenly a 90-120 degree spread.


snip

We just don't share the same vocabulary. I constantly refer to resolution, not depth. Clarity. Transparency. The ability to hear details in a voice.

We have the same vocabulary. What we don't share is the intrinsic belief that one speaker technology is totally superior to another.

Great example of where 5.1 offers no sonic advantages with conventional multitracked studio recordings.

You are making another blanket statement that you are not qualified to make. Have you heard this soundtrack on a quality 5.1 hometheater speaker system? No, so you cannot make a determination that 5.1 offers no sonic advantages over the 2.0 version you heard. As a person who has mixed the same project in both 5.1 and 2.0, 2.0 offers ZERO advantages over a 5.1 mix when all things are equal.(same quality loudspeaker system). Because you neither record nor mix for a living, you have no idea of how much processing it takes to make a 2.0 recording sound as good as it does. A 5.1 mix IMO is easier to do, requires far less compromises and processing to sound good. Be a casual listener leaves you completely in the dark on what happens in a recording studio. All is not as easy as you think it is.

It is a shame you continue to pen so much ink over a topic not under discussion. I have always referred to the musical only parts where there is no dialogue. There are no soundtracks. Already mixed music shouldn't require mixing. You've always said that music is always recorded in multi-channel then two channel versions are made afterwards. Why not use what already exists?

It is a shame I have to use so much ink to explain something so easy to figure out with some critical thinking.

You obvious do not understand recording language. The sound on film is called a soundtrack. A recording of a film soundtrack is also called a soundtrack, because it is based on a film's soundtrack.

sound·track also sound track (soundtrk)
n.
1. The narrow strip at one side of a movie film that carries the sound recording.
2.
a. The music that accompanies a movie.
b. A commercial recording of such music.

I continue to agree with your assessment that the musical experience in a theatre does not share the resolution and realism of the best home systems - cone, ribbon and electrostatic alike. Wish it were. Great picture. Mediocre sound.

Another blanket statement you cannot make. Film sound tracks start off in theaters, but they end up on hometheater systems where the determination of quality can truly be made. As a re-recording mixer, I would never use a theater sound system to determine the quality of a 5.1 channel sound mix, only that it translated well to that environment. Your logic would fail if you ever heard a Disney/Pixar film played back in a good quality hometheater.

edit: In conclusion, I don't have an animosity towards pro gear as you seem to think. It is what it is. It involves different compromises than the best home gear. The very best home systems most certainly do not use QSC class H amps. They offer cheap power (if not locally noisy with the fans) and are quite compact. They provide lots of bang for the buck. But are lacking in the kind of refinement you would find with one of Jon Curl or Nelson Pass' best efforts. Putting the level of quality of the best home systems I've heard in a large space would cost millions. It just isn't practical.
rw

After all this bickering back and forth we absolutely agree on this statement.

[E-Stat]

The sound on film is called a soundtrack. A recording of a film soundtrack is also called a soundtrack, because it is based on a film's soundtrack.

Gee, that's funny! That's exactly what they call the two channel Avatar CD soundtrack.

Film sound tracks start off in theaters, but they end up on hometheater systems where the determination of quality can truly be made. I would never use a theater sound system to determine the quality...

Now, I think I finally understand your inability to understand my point. I'm not complaining about the media or the recording. IT'S THE THEATER SOUND SYSTEM!

After all this bickering back and forth we absolutely agree on this statement.

Two in a row!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Gee, that's funny! That's exactly what they call the two channel Avatar CD soundtrack.

Yep!

Now, I think I finally understand your inability to understand my point. I'm not complaining about the media or the recording. IT'S THE THEATER SOUND SYSTEM!


Two in a row!

rw

There is another level to this as well. Not all theater sound system are created equal.

You have the HPS-4000XL system which is the creme of the theatrical sound system crop. It has a very natural smooth powerful sound that is quite a bit more refined(when properly tuned) than its little brother the Klipsch system. All of the amps are especially designed for this loudspeaker system, and are not the typical Peavey, ASC, or Crown amps. It uses BGW amps which IMO are far better for sound quality than the other amp designs for theater systems. The Allen surround array is the smoothest most powerfully designed surround array in the market. The amps are still not as refined as amps for the home, but it is head and shoulders better than what you heard in Memphis.

Screen speakers

http://www.hps4000.com/pages/4_systems_.html

Surround Array

http://www.hps4000.com/pages/asa_.html

I purchased 6 of these system for Disney's Burbank and Orlando sound stages.

The you have what I call the second best system out there, and the one you were exposed to. The sound is not even close to as refined as the HPS system, but never the less better than other THX certified designs from JBL.

http://www.klipsch.com/na-en/product...rand-overview/

We have two of their largest systems at Disney in Burbank.

The JBL 4732 is the worst sounding cinema speaker in the field IMO. The majority of our sound stages at Disney(and quite frankly everywhere else) are fitting with JBL's top of the line sound system. These sound like PA speakers, are harsh and hard(even at lower volumes) sound muddy, but tell us more about what we are going to hear in the field than the other two systems since these are what most large cinema's use.

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/Genera...x?PId=82&MId=1

Then you have the absolute crap turds of all theatrical sound system. The Bose system, and while there are just a few installations, they are out there.

http://pro.bose.com/ProController?ur...araylt9403.jsp


All four of these system even when calibrated to SMPTE standards all sound very different, and have different levels of resolution and refinement when reproducing soundtracks. While the JBL and the Bose systems sound horrible to me, the Klipsch and HPS systems sound much better, and the HPS system sounds the best by far.

[E-Stat]

You have the HPS-4000XL system which is the creme of the theatrical sound system crop. It has a very natural smooth powerful sound that is quite a bit more refined(when properly tuned) than its little brother the Klipsch system.

I referenced the Klipsch system only because you mentioned it. Have you ever heard any Danley Labs speakers? Horn loaded for sure, but all the drivers radiate from a single "mouth" and are said to be more coherent - like my stats and unlike most horns with each driver having its own unique pattern.

Danley Synergy Horns

All of the amps are especially designed for this loudspeaker system, and are not the typical Peavey, ASC, or Crown amps. It uses BGW amps which IMO are far better for sound quality than the other amp designs for theater systems.

While BGWs have never really been favorites for me (they've been around for decades), at least they are conventional AB amps with high current capability.

The Allen surround array is the smoothest most powerfully designed surround array in the market. The amps are still not as refined as amps for the home, but it is head and shoulders better than what you heard in Memphis.

Very well.

The JBL 4732 is the worst sounding cinema speaker in the field IMO. The majority of our sound stages at Disney(and quite frankly everywhere else) are fitting with JBL's top of the line sound system. These sound like PA speakers, are harsh and hard(even at lower volumes) sound muddy, but tell us more about what we are going to hear in the field than the other two systems since these are what most large cinema's use.

Perhaps that is more like what to what I'm accustomed.

Have any idea what the 1570 IMAX theatre at the Mall of Georgia uses? The picture quality has always impressed if not the sound...

BTW, the opening two seconds of Avatar makes the Sound Labs diaphragms flap at anything but low levels. With the double Advents, you can see the woofers quiver. Evidently, its got some wicked low end like you find on Dafos.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I referenced the Klipsch system only because you mentioned it. Have you ever heard any Danley Labs speakers? Horn loaded for sure, but all the drivers radiate from a single "mouth" and are said to be more coherent - like my stats and unlike most horns with each driver having its own unique pattern.

Danley Synergy Horns

Never heard of them, but coherency in loudspeaker design can be achieved in more than one way than just a single "mouth" design. All of my speakers in all of my home theaters are time aligned-phased and frequency correct designs(whether through a stepped back baffle, or through the crossover). In horn loaded speakers, the radiation pattern is determined by the shape of the mouth of the horn. If you use an identical shape for each horn, but each horn has a different size and depth, the radiation pattern will remain identical even as the frequency changes. That is the basis of the constant directivity horn, that when combined with either a stepped baffle, or a time alignment in the crossover region, will yield exactly the same result as a co-axially mounted horn driver to a bass driver. The object of this excersize is to force the signals at all frequencies to arrive at the ear in a continous wave, and not in a staggered pattern like most loudspeakers do.

My horn hybrids use constant directivity horns for the ultra high, high and midrange drivers, and a co-axially mounted 5" driver mounted to a 15" subwoofer. It is time aligned, phase and frequency correct(only a 1.5-/+ variation from 20-50kHz in a anechoic chamber). They are time aligned over a 90x60 constant directivity pattern in the midrange, treble, and high frequency ranges.

While BGWs have never really been favorites for me (they've been around for decades), at least they are conventional AB amps with high current capability.

I believe this is what John uses for the HPS system.



Snip

Perhaps that is more like what to what I'm accustomed.

You, and 90% of the theater going public!

Have any idea what the 1570 IMAX theatre at the Mall of Georgia uses? The picture quality has always impressed if not the sound...

rw

It is a classic IMAX theater with the ultra tall screen, and a Sonic Associates speaker package if it hasn't been replaced. Some Sonic Associates speaker designs have had their drivers replaced with those icky JBL ones over the years, as Sonic Associates is now defunct. However the Metreon IMAX Theater in my neck of the woods, and the California Science IMAX use the original Sonic Associates drivers that are not JBL based. Since I still tune the California Science IMAX, I strongly encouraged the owners to stock up on original drivers just in case we had any failures. If it sounded like you described, it probably has the JBL replacement drivers in a Sonic Associates cabinet, because the original drivers did not sound harsh or have muddy bass

BTW, the opening two seconds of Avatar makes the Sound Labs diaphragms flap at anything but low levels. With the double Advents, you can see the woofers quiver. Evidently, its got some wicked low end like you find on Dafos.

According to Chris, it has some below 20hz information in both the effects and music tracks, so yeah I can see drivers shakin like a huge leaf in the wind on some passages.