Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[iguana]

Hi,

during the next months, I'll be working on the post-production of an indie movie, and as this is my first more serious venture in that direction, I'm still kind of a noob regarding surround stuff. Basically, I'm planning to extend my existing stereo setup (Tannoy Reveal Active, which are now being superseded with the new Reveal 5, 6 and 8 ranges if I'm not mistaken) with rear speakers, a center and a sub.
As I quite like my Reveals on stereo projects, I wouldn't mind getting 2 more of them as rear speakers. Has anyone tried the tannoy stuff in an 5.1 environment? Is this advisable? What about the center speaker, does it make any sense to try and get the same model as the rest (which might prove difficult, as they're only sold in pairs)? Or should I spend a little more and get one of the specialized center speakers from the new model ranges?

Regarding subs, are the Sub10s from Tannoy any useable? I find their price suspiciously low compared to other subs, but then again, I probably won't do surgical LFE tricks, so getting an idea of the "oomph" that will occur on home theater systems and small cinemas will probably suffice.

As the title suggests, I'm somewhat on a shoestring budget - the whole upgrade should not exceed $1600, and I'm not sure yet whether I'll need a monitoring controller (I think technically, I won't need one, but it will certainly make things easier not having to feed the monitors via the direct outs of my mixer).

I'd be grateful for some comments from someone more experienced with this kind of stuff - is this any feasible or am I totally off-track?

[Level]

Two words..

Blue Sky

http://www.abluesky.com/p_s_gb/p3s4s1.html

[jfrigo]

Level wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 12:53

Two words.. Blue Sky http://www.abluesky.com/p_s_gb/p3s4s1.html

I have to agree about Blue Sky for a budget system. It really is great for the money, and the monitor controller/bass manager is a remarkable value. We use Quested (stereo and 5.1) in the mastering room and Boxer T5s for stereo mains in the mix room, but we bought a blue sky rig to tide us over when we started getting regular work doing 5.1 music DVD mixes. They aren't necessarily the final solution, but they certainly get the job done.

However, the speakers don't hold up against the more expensive systems. The sub is flabby and underpowered and the satelites definitely look through a "smaller window" than the better speakers. That said, I would still recommend them as an entry level system, perfectly capable of doing professional work. Just keep in mind that you'll probably want to plan an upgrade path for the future.

[iguana]

Thanks for the suggestion - I'll definitely look into the Blue Sky products, it's nice to know they're worth the money.
After a quick research, it seems the only complete 5.1 setup that fits my budget would be their MediaDesk 5.1 system, and it costs roughly the same as extending my Tannoy setup with matched rear and center monitors... I'm somewhat hesitant to use different monitors as front and rear speakers, so I'd rather not just add Blue Sky monitors to my stereo setup.
So what do you think, am I better off keeping my reveals for stereo stuff and buying the BS system (what an unfortunate acronym) as a separate surround setup? I could still imagine the reveals working fairly well in a 5-speaker configuration, I'm just really unsure about the quality of their sub and the issue of the center speaker.  

Anyone out there who has tried the tannoy nearfields in a surround configuration and could comment on that?

[Bob Olhsson]

Beware that "5.1 monitoring on a budget" is an oxymoron.

If your career is riding on achieving a 5.1 mix that translates well between different playback systems, it's wise to rent final mix time in a room having full range monitors along with room acoustics that can accommodate 20 Hz. bass coming from six speakers.

The combination of near-fields combined with low frequency mastering tweaks works well for mono and stereo but not for surround.

[minister]

jan,

speaker manufacturers, the ITU, SMPTE and many re-recording engineers recommend that you get an identical speaker for the center channel.  you CAN, if you have large monitors in front, get one size smaller in the rear.  i have genelec 1032's in front and 1031's in back.  for film & tv mixing, this is acceptable.  in part, because you calibrate your Surrounds down 3 dB from the fronts (they add up to one screen channel) for film, not for TV or home DVD.

blue sky's are great, but if you are on a budget, then get the tannoys for the C and S and you'll be fine.  is this for a low budget indy film?

my suggestion to you is look for information regarding 5.1 monitor setup and calibration.  you will NEED to calibrate your system.  get a pink noise generator -- the signal generator in Pro Tools is OK, -- or get files from the Blue Sky site.  you will also need a SPL meter, C weighted.  maybe are available.  the least expensive workable one is the radio shack analog SPL meter.  the levels refer to pink noise.

It is for film (in the US):
-20 dBFS = 0VU = +4 dBu = 85 dBC SPL for L,C,R, 82 dBC SPL for LS, RS and on a Real Time Analyzer 10 dB of inband gain above the center channel from 20 ~ 30 hz to 120 hz

It is for TV, DVD:
-20 dBFS = 0VU = +4 dBu = 85 dBC SPL for L,C,R,LS,RS and on a Real Time Analyzer 10 dB of inband gain above the center channel from 20 ~ 30 hz to 120 hz

elsewhere, it is -18dBFS.  where are you located?

some people calibrate for 79dB for TV since homes tend to play back at a lower volume than theaters.

here are some links:

http://www.abluesky.com/p/p5s10.html   for PN files

http://www.dolby.com/resources/tech_library/index.cfm  -- click on surround mixing read all the articles there.

then read this:  http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/4_Multichannel_ Music_Mixing.pdf

might i also suggest that you pick up "5.1 Up and Running" by Tomlinson Holman.

also, what controller are you using for your monitors?  there are several inexpensive options out there.  i believe SPL (the co.) makes one.  tascam makes one, but it is pricey...relativele to your budget.

is it feasible?  well, at a semi-pro, or hobby, or "art" (yes, there is high production value art, so don't jump on me for that) level, sure.  practically, you can do anything...i mean, you learn.  you mix it, it, sounds good, it plays back in the theater and it kinda sucks, but it was cool it was there.  right?  i 'mixed" my first "film" in opcodes studio vision pro  for a 16MM mono art animation.  was it good?  i thought so at the time....  you have to start somewhere.  i didn't know dookie, technically, when i started.  i just wanted it to sound good.  you have to ask yourself what is at stake here?  what are the director's expectations?  what are yours?

your nearfields will only work so much.  the blue sky would be better.  but, hey, you do what you can, right?  if this was a "PRO" facility, nearfields would be a mistake.  also know that dolby recommends that one be at least 15 feet from the monitors for theatrical mixing....so...this is a different league than you i suspect.

if this is a film that will have broad exposure, might i suggest doing some pre-mixing and designing at your place and then taking it to a larger, DUB satge facility for final mixing and tweaking.  you might be able to swing a deal.  the film will benefit from some experienced hands being on the sound for theatrical playback.  ..and you won't embarrass yourself.

good luck and work you butt off.

[jfrigo]

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 07:18

because you calibrate your Surrounds down 3 dB from the fronts (they add up to one screen channel) for film, not for TV or home DVD.

82 dB surrounds for Dolby Digital. I believe DTS stays at 85 dB in back.

Quote:

you will also need a SPL meter, C weighted.  maybe are available.  the least expensive workable one is the radio shack analog SPL meter.

C-Weighting and "slow" response. Radio Shack analog meter is the most commonly seen unit in the field. It's a good value.

Quote:

pre-mixing and designing at your place and then taking it to a larger, DUB satge facility for final mixing and tweaking.  you might be able to swing a deal.  the film will benefit from some experienced hands being on the sound for theatrical playback.yourself.

If it truly is destined for theatrical playback, you do not want to use a satellite/sub configuration in a small room. There's also the X-curve to consider. The above is good advice if this is the case. Do a pre-dub on your own and do the final tweaks and printmastering on a real stage. Playback in movie theaters is not nearly the same as playback at home. You won't get good translation to the big screen from a small music-style studio. You'll also need an LT-RT to go along with the discrete 5.1 if it's a film release. Depending on who is releasing or distributing, there may be a list of specs. Follow them closely because they won't hesitate to bounce it back to you if you are out of spec. Film mixing can be fun, but there are more technical requirements and standards to follow than in music mixing.

[minister]

jfrigo wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 10:23

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 07:18 because you calibrate your Surrounds down 3 dB from the fronts (they add up to one screen channel) for film, not for TV or home DVD. If it truly is destined for theatrical playback, you do not want to use a satellite/sub configuration in a small room. There's also the X-curve to consider. The above is good advice if this is the case. Do a pre-dub on your own and do the final tweaks and printmastering on a real stage. Playback in movie theaters is not nearly the same as playback at home. You won't get good translation to the big screen from a small music-style studio. You'll also need an LT-RT to go along with the discrete 5.1 if it's a film release. Depending on who is releasing or distributing, there may be a list of specs. Follow them closely because they won't hesitate to bounce it back to you if you are out of spec. Film mixing can be fun, but there are more technical requirements and standards to follow than in music mixing.

many mixers and designers work in small rooms on blue sky (satt-sub bass managed) for pre-mixing film stuff.  then they take it to dub stages for printmastering.  they tell me that they have no problem with these mixes translating.  (of course this assumes that the small room is set up properly.)  X-Curve, which is a room EQ, as you well know, only applies to large rooms.  but small to large Dub stage translation is not a big deal, if you know what you are doing and you book mix time for the printmaster for tweaking for the film curve.  but, for sure, i would NOT mix a theatrically released film in a small room.  but i would pre-mix.

LF response translation from room to room is a very tricky and complicated subject.  with 5 separate quasi full-range speakers, it is very difficult to get consistent response between each speaker in a small room.  the smallest wave that comes out if a SUB is 16 feet (someone correct me if that is wrong), so you can see how a small room could have problem with proper acoustical summation of these frequencies.  frequencies below 100Hz will be greatly influenced by where each speakers is placed in the room, its relationship to the boundaries, relative distance to the other speakers -- which affects phase relationships --, where the listener is, etc. having multiple sources for LF in a small room usually means that the bass will vary greatly between channels.

electrical summation of LF in a bass managed system, for small rooms, is a consistent way to get LF response.  the LF source can be placed in its best location, for accuracy and also, bass frequency phase relationships are resolved.  this type of performance is translatable to a large room.

the main problem of a large room is RT60, not LF performance.  that is something that is not accurately represented in a small room, but it is predictable if you know what you are doing....be careful of panning, be mindful of the amount of verb you use, be cautious about ripping the image of a source by placing it between the front and the surrounds...

so, from the guys i know who do premixing in small rooms on bass managed systems, they have a very professional way (in fact, maybe better) to prepare for DUB stage mastering.

jan, do you know if you have to do a fold dwon from the 5.1 to encoded stereo, aka LtRt (dolby stereo)?  if you do, oh boy, that is another can of technical worms for ya....  is this 35MM or DVD?

[iguana]

Hey, thanks alot for the great comments, this is very insightful.

Bob:

Quote:

If your career is riding on achieving a 5.1 mix that translates well between different playback systems, it's wise to rent final mix time in a room having full range monitors along with room acoustics that can accommodate 20 Hz. bass coming from six speakers.

I appreciate the heads-up and I'll consider that way whenever I'm working on projects with larger budgets in the future. For the time being, my career fortunately does not depend on the surround aspect (although of course, I'm willing to pretend it did , the film budget does not cover a setup for mixing AND studio time for mix-proofing (it is, in fact, a low-budget production), and I'll most probably need a _considerable_ amount of time to do the mixing (i.e. I can't do the whole job in a high-end post-pro facility).

Minister, thanks for the goldmine of info, the pointers are greatly appreciated. Also, you're on the mark in that I don't have any false hopes that any of this will magically get me into the realm of serious post-pro facilities; the main point is to get this project's mixes halfway decently into the surround domain.

For the record, the film won't be designed for theaters (if it would be, I wouldn't be even considering doing the post-pro myself). The main distribution path will be DVD, with some 35mm copies going to art house cinemas and film festivals.

[minister]

iguana wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 11:27

Minister, thanks for the goldmine of info, the pointers are greatly appreciated. Also, you're on the mark in that I don't have any false hopes that any of this will magically get me into the realm of serious post-pro facilities; the main point is to get this project's mixes halfway decently into the surround domain. For the record, the film won't be designed for theaters (if it would be, I wouldn't be even considering doing the post-pro myself). The main distribution path will be DVD, with some 35mm copies going to art house cinemas and film festivals.

you are most welcome.

flame suit on:

i am all for people jury-rigging together what ever they can to make stuff happen on this level. forget, money, blah, blah, blah. you are better than that, use your creativity and be innovative with the tools you have at your disposal.  have fun.  christ, have the time of your life.  whatever works.  if it sounds good, it IS good.

flame suit off:

but there are technical pitfalls associated with playback.  there are setup issues to consider.  take your mix to a place to test the playback.  take notes.  make adjustments.  test again.  there are reasons Pro's do things the way they do.  it is best to learn them.

ah, i see you are in germany?  then -18dBFS = blah blah blah...

35MM you say?  then you MUST go to a DUB facility for an OFFICIAL DTS or DOLBY SR-D print master.  you need a license.  the LAB will not accept a 5.1 track in anyother way.  for DOLBY it needs to be on a MOD (magnetic Optical Disk) created through a DMU.  the director needs to contact DOLBY LONDON.  you need to get a DOLBY tech at the PM session.

then there will be the LtRt...HOT 5.1 mixes will "clash" on the meter bridge and steering issues will crop up.  analog SR playback is slightly different beast, but the 2 (LtRt) is derived from the 6 (5.1).  you will need to book extra time for this at the print mastering session especially if you have not done this before.  sometimes, you have to create a new set of mix stems for fold down.  but you never know what it sounds like until you listen to the 5.1-->stereo fold down through the Dolby decoder on the Dub Stage.

i would say stick with DVD, and then when you KNOW you are going 35MM, report back and someone can help you.  ...even for ART HOUSE release....

ROCK ON!

[minister]

jfrigo wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 10:23

82 dB surrounds for Dolby Digital. I believe DTS stays at 85 dB in back.

i did not know this.  i have only done Dolby films. ... but i thought the reason for the lowered level in the surrounds for film was so that the acoustical sum of the two surround channels adds up to one screen channel.  since it is acoustical summation, why does DTS recommend equal calibration levels for all FILM channels?

[iguana]

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 18:44

but there are technical pitfalls associated with playback.  there are setup issues to consider.  take your mix to a place to test the playback.  take notes.  make adjustments.  test again.  there are reasons Pro's do things the way they do.  it is best to learn them.

Yes, I don't know if I can book studio time at a large facility to test my material, but I _will_ make sure to test it on as many semi-pro (and also home) setups as I can.

Quote:

35MM you say?  then you MUST go to a DUB facility for an OFFICIAL DTS or DOLBY SR-D print master.  you need a license.  the LAB will not accept a 5.1 track in anyother way.  for DOLBY it needs to be on a MOD (magnetic Optical Disk) created through a DMU.  the director needs to contact DOLBY LONDON.  you need to get a DOLBY tech at the PM session.

w00t, sounds like fun. Not.
Seriously, we might consider leaving the film copies at stereo if it turns to be too much trouble, because the first and foremost priority is getting the AC3 tracks on the DVD right. That's also why I've not yet done my homework regarding the peculiarities of 35mm copies. In any case, thanks for the perspective!

[minister]

iguana wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 12:14

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 18:44 but there are technical pitfalls associated with playback.  there are setup issues to consider.  take your mix to a place to test the playback.  take notes.  make adjustments.  test again.  there are reasons Pro's do things the way they do.  it is best to learn them. Yes, I don't know if I can book studio time at a large facility to test my material, but I _will_ make sure to test it on as many semi-pro (and also home) setups as I can.

well...know of a theater, school theater, museum theater..something...where you can pull a favor?  i have done this.  cheked mixes in the local Art college's theater that has a 5.1 DVD playback system.  or, heck, ingratiate yourself into a lasrger DUB facility.  ask if you can audition your film there and maybe exchange that for interning, or some grunt work.  i dunno, be creative.

[bobkatz]

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 13:05

jfrigo wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 10:23 82 dB surrounds for Dolby Digital. I believe DTS stays at 85 dB in back. i did not know this.  i have only done Dolby films. ... but i thought the reason for the lowered level in the surrounds for film was so that the acoustical sum of the two surround channels adds up to one screen channel.  since it is acoustical summation, why does DTS recommend equal calibration levels for all FILM channels?

The origin of the 3 dB down rule was to try to get a bit more mono compatibility and compatibility with Dolby Pro Logic which only has a mono surround. Compatibility with home music mixes at unity gain then becomes a sticky wicket. Sometimes I wonder if Dolby regrets having instituted the 3 dB down setup when they went to AC-3.

BK

[minister]

bobkatz wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 12:23

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 13:05 jfrigo wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 10:23 82 dB surrounds for Dolby Digital. I believe DTS stays at 85 dB in back. i did not know this.  i have only done Dolby films. ... but i thought the reason for the lowered level in the surrounds for film was so that the acoustical sum of the two surround channels adds up to one screen channel.  since it is acoustical summation, why does DTS recommend equal calibration levels for all FILM channels? The origin of the 3 dB down rule was to try to get a bit more mono compatibility and compatibility with Dolby Pro Logic which only has a mono surround. Compatibility with home music mixes at unity gain then becomes a sticky wicket. Sometimes I wonder if Dolby regrets having instituted the 3 dB down setup when they went to AC-3.

hi bob,

i don't know all the history, but i thought the 3dB drop was for Theatrical (35MM) playback, not necessarily for mono compatibility and Pro Logic playback.  i thought the two issues were/are separate.  i was told by film guys that the 3dB drop was instituted in the early DOLBY 5.1 for theatrical setups.  it is recommended that you boost your surround calibration levels for Home or consumer playback.  

i am talking film mixes here, not music mixes.

[jfrigo]

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 10:39

bobkatz wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 12:23 The origin of the 3 dB down rule was to try to get a bit more mono compatibility and compatibility with Dolby Pro Logic which only has a mono surround. Compatibility with home music mixes at unity gain then becomes a sticky wicket. Sometimes I wonder if Dolby regrets having instituted the 3 dB down setup when they went to AC-3. hi bob, i don't know all the history, but i thought the 3dB drop was for Theatrical (35MM) playback, not necessarily for mono compatibility and Pro Logic playback.  i thought the two issues were/are separate.  i was told by film guys that the 3dB drop was instituted in the early DOLBY 5.1 for theatrical setups.  it is recommended that you boost your surround calibration levels for Home or consumer playback.   i am talking film mixes here, not music mixes.

You'd have to ask dts for details and rationales for their standards, but let me throw a little specualtion out...  It seems having the surrounds add up to a "singel screen channel" makes sense when you derive your LT-RT from your 5.1. You don't overload the mono surround. All SR-D prints of course require an LT-RT (matrixed SR) in addition to the Dolby Digital (AC-3) soundtrack, and this would make the fold down easier. From that standpoint it makes sense for Dolby to stick with 82 in back. For dts, it seems that they really are most concerned with the digital 5.1 (and 6.1 now), and I think you are on your own when it comes to having a compatible LT-RT. There's not a dts version of "SR" as with Dolby, so they aren't trying to nod to compatibility with legacy formats. Again, this is some speculation, but it seems to make logical sense. For the definitive skinny, we would need comment directly from the horses' mouths.

As for the earlier reply about pre-dubs on small speakers, we said the same thing: on limited budget projects, do your pre-mix in your smaller room on smaller speakers, but if it's for for theatrical release, make sure to do the final tweaks and printmastering on a real stage to catch any anomalies.

In the case of an indie film direct to DVD, this isn't so much of an issue. For the limited number of 35mm prints for the art houses that he mentioned, they'll probably just make stereo prints and not bother with bringing in the Dolby guy to shoot the room, printmastering to MO, and doing a full blow licensed SR-D print. Many small art houses have old, small sound systems, some simply mono, some stereo, some matrixed surround ("Dolby Stereo" or "SR"), but a decided minority have digital 5.1 sound.

[JamSync]

[quote title=minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 17:23many mixers and designers work in small rooms on blue sky (satt-sub bass managed) for pre-mixing film stuff.  then they take it to dub stages for printmastering.  they tell me that they have no problem with these mixes translating.  (of course this assumes that the small room is set up properly.)  X-Curve, which is a room EQ, as you well know, only applies to large rooms.  but small to large Dub stage translation is not a big deal, if you know what you are doing and you book mix time for the printmaster for tweaking for the film curve.  but, for sure, i would NOT mix a theatrically released film in a small room.  but i would pre-mix...


[/quote]

We've mixed several films here that translated fine to large theaters. Any time you mix in surround, you have to tweak the mix for the target in its native environment (dub stage for theater, home theater for DVD). What we used to call mastering has very little to do with making sure mixes translate to the modern target media. It's a pity we don't properly call *that* mastering today.

Of course, with the news that studios are considering releasing DVDs concurrent with theater release and the fact that DVDs now bring in a larger share of revenue than theater releases, small room mixing for home theater playback is an important part of the "moving picture" business future.

[thedoc]

A lot of good advice from Minister and JFrigo, et al.....So you thought it would be no big deal, eh?   NOT!

Definitely talk to Dolby and DTS, you will get great advice for sure.

[JamSync]

bobkatz wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 18:23

The origin of the 3 dB down rule was to try to get a bit more mono compatibility and compatibility with Dolby Pro Logic which only has a mono surround. Compatibility with home music mixes at unity gain then becomes a sticky wicket. Sometimes I wonder if Dolby regrets having instituted the 3 dB down setup when they went to AC-3. BK

No, there's a choice for decoding the surround levels that you consciously make when you encode for AC3. It depends on the target medium.

[JamSync]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 14:40

Beware that "5.1 monitoring on a budget" is an oxymoron. If your career is riding on achieving a 5.1 mix that translates well between different playback systems, it's wise to rent final mix time in a room having full range monitors along with room acoustics that can accommodate 20 Hz. bass coming from six speakers. The combination of near-fields combined with low frequency mastering tweaks works well for mono and stereo but not for surround.

I disagree. We've mixed for film for years and I have several things running on CMT at the moment as well as a concert DVD coming out. Most studios built with six "full-range" speakers not only don't really have full range, they have enormous problems in the bottom end. I know. I've heard a lot of them.  You can get knocked over by standing waves when you walk from left to right in most of them.

There are lots of sub-satt rooms making money. It's not the way it used to be, but it's here and it works. They aren't exactlly rooms on a budget, either, unless you call a couple of million dollars a small budget for a small room. These days, with reduced technology costs, you can set up a nice small room that translates well for a couple of million.

[JamSync]

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 18:05

jfrigo wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 10:23 82 dB surrounds for Dolby Digital. I believe DTS stays at 85 dB in back. i did not know this.  i have only done Dolby films. ... but i thought the reason for the lowered level in the surrounds for film was so that the acoustical sum of the two surround channels adds up to one screen channel.  since it is acoustical summation, why does DTS recommend equal calibration levels for all FILM channels?

You should check out SMPTE RP-200 2002. It changed some of the stuff for DTS (at least as I recall...it's somewhere in my office at the studio). The difference between RP-200 1999 and 2002 is important in several areas and a lot of the stuff you read on the 'net is from people who still are standardized on the old 1999 with its resultant level discrepancies. DTS also put out several DVDs with the LFE level wrong in the old days.

"RP 200-2002: Relative & Absolute Sound Pressure Levels for Motion-Picture Multichannel Sound Systems.This practice specifies the measurement methods and wide-band sound pressure levels for motion-picture dubbing theaters, review rooms, and indoor theaters. Together with SMPTE 202M, it is intended to assist in standardization of reproduction of motion-picture sound in such rooms."

[iguana]

jfrigo wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 20:51

In the case of an indie film direct to DVD, this isn't so much of an issue. For the limited number of 35mm prints for the art houses that he mentioned, they'll probably just make stereo prints and not bother with bringing in the Dolby guy to shoot the room, printmastering to MO, and doing a full blow licensed SR-D print. Many small art houses have old, small sound systems, some simply mono, some stereo, some matrixed surround ("Dolby Stereo" or "SR"), but a decided minority have digital 5.1 sound.

Yes, I think this might indeed be the most likely option in our case. Though you guys got me interested - besides potential phase problems and excess levels, are there any other problems in doing a 5.1 mix that lends itself to an SR matrix encoding? I'm wondering if it would make sense to forget about SR-D for the 35mm copies (I agree most theatres showing our film most likely won't have DD rigs), but provide an SR track?

[minister]

i agree with (all of ) Jay's comments about 35MM...you may want to go for straight stereo at that level becasue:

1) it is cheaper for LAB costs
2) cheaper because you don't have to print master
3) most Art houses are SR (4 channel matrixed or stereo)
4) they have older projectors not retro-fitted with the proper SR playback technologies.

it's REAL FUN to listen to your SR mix from a CYAN print play back on a Tungsten Lamp driven SR optical playback       ...down about -11dB, phase coherency problems.

but i have had luck with 5.1 and SR at festivals and art houses as well. the lab used either silver or high magenta stock and the lamps dealt with them fine, or the projector had the proper red LED reader for SR, or, hey! they had 5.1...

it's a crap shoot!

and film is a living, ancient medium.

and for sure, the DOLBY people are VERY helpful.

oh, but hey, a 35MM, animation film i recorded, designed and mixed  in 5.1 SR-D will be part of the first wave of available video content for the new APPLE video iPods.  so, YEAH, it was worth it for the director to have a 35MM SR-D print made           ain't technological advancement grand?

just be prepared to be delighted!

and disappointed!

[iguana]

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 22:27

i agree with (all of ) Jay's comments about 35MM...you may want to go for straight stereo at that level becasue: 1) it is cheaper for LAB costs 2) cheaper because you don't have to print master 3) most Art houses are SR (4 channel matrixed or stereo) 4) they have older projectors not retro-fitted with the proper SR playback technologies. it's REAL FUN to listen to your SR mix from a CYAN print play back on a Tungsten Lamp driven SR optical playback       ...down about -11dB, phase coherency problems.

Ok, sorry for dumb questions, but I've been under the assumption so far that the very idea of matrix encoding of multi-channel signals was that transmission channels designed to deal with stereo signals can correctly deliver it to the decoder. Or, in other words, what (technically) distinguishes an Lt/Rt signal from an L/R signal, and why would printing a Lt/Rt signal be more expensive?

Quote:

oh, but hey, a 35MM, animation film i recorded, designed and mixed  in 5.1 SR-D will be part of the first wave of available video content for the new APPLE video iPods.  so, YEAH, it was worth it for the director to have a 35MM SR-D print made           ain't technological advancement grand?

Sounds cool for sure, care to tell the title?

[JamSync]

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 21:27

oh, but hey, a 35MM, animation film i recorded, designed and mixed  in 5.1 SR-D will be part of the first wave of available video content for the new APPLE video iPods.  so, YEAH, it was worth it for the director to have a 35MM SR-D print made           ain't technological advancement grand? just be prepared to be delighted! and disappointed!

Interesting...one of our recent soundtracks was for a film shot on the LAST batch of Ilford B&W. It's gorgeous, a fast speed film but not grainy. Now all people will have is Kodak...

I really hate to see Ilford stopping production of  black and white.

[minister]

hi iguana,

in theory, you understand LtRt playback.  however, in the reality of projectors playing back a 2-channel encoded analog optical track, they have to decode it by means of a light passing through that portion of the film print. this is what is sent to the decoder.  this encoded SR is, as you well know,  distributed to the LCR, and mono S of the theater.  in the case of an LtRt on a Dolby print, it is created by the DMU of the 5.1 track feeds.  one issue that is important here is that there are silver and
silverless (cyna or magenta dye) optical tracks, incandescent sensors cannot play back cyan dye tracks.  do you see the problem with playing back the encoding?

here is a link that has info on SR playback in projectors:
url]http://www.dyetracks.org/ci.os.0012.reddye.html[/url]

what is confusing is Dolby uses SR (Spectral Recording) to mean noise reduction and SR (SuRround)...in order get an LtRt onto a film print, you have to go through an Official Dolby print mastering process.  this is the expensive part.  this matrixed 2 must be derived from the 6, at the printmastering session.  you cannot show up with a matrixed track to transfer to a film print.  also, the lab costs are at least $1000 more, and upwards for longer prints.  Dolby ASKS for $1000 for a License for under 30 minutes.  i can't remember what they want for the feature.  AFAIK, there are few Dolby rooms around, and they are often not cheap -- $300-$1000/hour.

does that explain?

well, i don't want to self-promote here, my point was about the fact that a HUGE 35MM film resolution picture with surround sound will pay back on a tiny wee screen with crappy lossy compressed audio.  (but if you must know...one film is called "a plan" by american tom schroeder, the other is "jona/tomberry" by dutch director rosto.)

btw, KK, since we are now officially OT, i know you didn't record her, but Mary Loise Knutson played piano on my very first film soundtrack!  we also attended the same university...that is how i knew her.

[JamSync]

iguana wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 21:59

Ok, sorry for dumb questions, but I've been under the assumption so far that the very idea of matrix encoding of multi-channel signals was that transmission channels designed to deal with stereo signals can correctly deliver it to the decoder. Or, in other words, what (technically) distinguishes an Lt/Rt signal from an L/R signal, and why would printing a Lt/Rt signal be more expensive?

An Lt/Rt is compatible with stereo. It's more expensive to properly matrix encode for Lt/Rt, but the chance you take with simply printing stereo and having it de-matrixed by accident makes it worth the extra bucks.

There are several DVDs on the market where well-meaning authors have set the Dolby Surround flag on stereo material so that it plays back "upmixed". There's a Roy Orbison tune on "Gummo", for instance, where the room seems to shift to the right and back, causing the listener to become sea-sick. It's an obvious case where a stereo track was mistakenly added with the flag set wrong.

If you simply print to stereo without at least testing what the playback in Dolby Surround sounds like, you may face some unpleasant surprises when someone down the line flips the wrong switches for playback. It happens. Besides, Lt/Rt sounds fine as stereo, just a bit wider and if you're used to working in surround, you may actually hear surround occasionally! It's an odd phenomenon...

[JamSync]

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 22:33

btw, KK, since we are now officially OT, i know you didn't record her, but Mary Loise Knutson played piano on my very first film soundtrack!  we also attended the same university...that is how i knew her.

Interesting...I spoke with her briefly. Really enjoyed listening to her band for the project.

[minister]

JamSync wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 16:43

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 22:33 btw, KK, since we are now officially OT, i know you didn't record her, but Mary Loise Knutson played piano on my very first film soundtrack!  we also attended the same university...that is how i knew her. Interesting...I spoke with her briefly. Really enjoyed listening to her band for the project.

nice player.  nice person.  nice recording.

[PaulyD]

Are Blue Sky speakers also suitable for mixing stereo music? Y'know, for those times when one isn't doing 5.1 work?

tia,

Paul

[bobkatz]

JamSync wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 15:29

bobkatz wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 18:23 The origin of the 3 dB down rule was to try to get a bit more mono compatibility and compatibility with Dolby Pro Logic which only has a mono surround. Compatibility with home music mixes at unity gain then becomes a sticky wicket. Sometimes I wonder if Dolby regrets having instituted the 3 dB down setup when they went to AC-3. BK No, there's a choice for decoding the surround levels that you consciously make when you encode for AC3. It depends on the target medium.

Right! I meant to say when they decided on the rule for surround levels when mixing for the theatre being 3 dB down in AC-3, if there had not been a Dolby SR/Pro Logic system preceding the digital system in the theatre I wonder if the 3 dB down thing would have occurred.

BK

[minister]

but i thought the Dolby Digital for theater creating the decibel equivalent of one acoustically summed screen channel in the rear (dropping it 3dB) pre-dates the Pro Logic business.  and Dolby instituted it for FILM THEATER reasons and not vis a vis a consumer format.

or am i wrong in that?

[JamSync]

minister wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 01:16

but i thought the Dolby Digital for theater creating the decibel equivalent of one acoustically summed screen channel in the rear (dropping it 3dB) pre-dates the Pro Logic business.  and Dolby instituted it for FILM THEATER reasons and not vis a vis a consumer format. or am i wrong in that?

????

Dolby Surround preceded ProLogic decoding (a system that had better steering, but still was effectively Dolby Surround). Both preceded Dolby Digital...at least that's my understanding.


Here ya go. Check out the timeline on pp. 3-4.

http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/2_Surround_Past .Present.pdf

[compasspnt]

JamSync wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 17:01

I really hate to see Ilford stopping production of  black and white.

That is seriously bad news.

[JamSync]

bobkatz wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 01:06

Right! I meant to say when they decided on the rule for surround levels when mixing for the theatre being 3 dB down in AC-3, if there had not been a Dolby SR/Pro Logic system preceding the digital system in the theatre I wonder if the 3 dB down thing would have occurred. BK

Yeah...it's like if my mom had accepted the job with Linus Pauling instead of marrying my father, who would I be?

[bobkatz]

JamSync wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 00:06

Yeah...it's like if my mom had accepted the job with Linus Pauling instead of marrying my father, who would I be?

You'd be dispensing vitamin C instead of good audio advice?


BK

[iguana]

Hi minister,

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 23:33

in theory, you understand LtRt playback.  however, in the reality of projectors playing back a 2-channel encoded analog optical track, they have to decode it by means of a light passing through that portion of the film print. this is what is sent to the decoder.  this encoded SR is, as you well know,  distributed to the LCR, and mono S of the theater.  in the case of an LtRt on a Dolby print, it is created by the DMU of the 5.1 track feeds.  one issue that is important here is that there are silver and silverless (cyna or magenta dye) optical tracks, incandescent sensors cannot play back cyan dye tracks.  do you see the problem with playing back the encoding?

Yes, the site you mentioned explains the issue pretty thoroughly. But this is not an SR-specific problem, is it?

Quote:

what is confusing is Dolby uses SR (Spectral Recording) to mean noise reduction and SR (SuRround)...

Actually, as I learned from the Dolby docs, it means the same in both cases - the SR in film context refers to the fact that it's Dolby Stereo with added SR noise reduction.

Quote:

in order get an LtRt onto a film print, you have to go through an Official Dolby print mastering process.  this is the expensive part.  this matrixed 2 must be derived from the 6, at the printmastering session.  you cannot show up with a matrixed track to transfer to a film print.  also, the lab costs are at least $1000 more, and upwards for longer prints.  Dolby ASKS for $1000 for a License for under 30 minutes.  i can't remember what they want for the feature.  AFAIK, there are few Dolby rooms around, and they are often not cheap -- $300-$1000/hour. does that explain?

Yes, thanks again for the info (also to JamSync); I think we'll say good-bye to a SR-D print and do more research on the SR option. It seems there's a Dolby guy aswell as certified dub labs in Berlin, so at least getting the appropriate infos shouln't be a big problem.

[minister]

bobkatz wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 09:24

JamSync wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 00:06 Yeah...it's like if my mom had accepted the job with Linus Pauling instead of marrying my father, who would I be? You'd be dispensing vitamin C instead of good audio advice? BK

would those be SLOW response vitamins?  get it, C weighted?  

oh, sometimes i KILL me

iguana:

yes that site is about SR, matrixed 2channel that unfolds into vainglorious 4.0! LCR mono S.  LtRt, or Left Total Right total -- stereo is LoRo Left Only Right Only, and Z-axis playback is ZoRo.  and SoZo and SoHo and BoBo and HoMo and... as i adumbrated to in one of my posts, it is corn-fusing.  dolby use to call noise reduction (and still do, SR -Spectral Recording...)  your Ste-REO speedwagon Mix going to 35MM at a Lab:: it will have this types of Dolby A replacement Noise reduction: SR.

here is some poop:

Dolby Stereo (LCRS-->LtRt-->Dolby A encode-->OpticalTrack-->Dolby A decode-->LCRS) 4:2:4 matrix described above with Dolby A type noise reduction. Dolby A is no longer favored, instead use Dolby SR.

Dolby SR (LCRS-->LtRt-->Dolby SR encode-->OpticalTrack-->Dolby SR decode-->LCRS) 4:2:4 matrix described above with Dolby SR type noise reduction. This is the same as Dolby Stereo except that the optical track is encoded with SR instead of A type noise reduction. This format is still used for surround audio from film optical and as the backup track for Dolby Digital. The terms Dolby SR and Dolby Stereo are often interchanged, incorrectly.

Dolby Digital a.k.a. AC-3 5.1-->AC-3 data stream-->5.1 The compressed data stream supports up to 5 full bandwidth plus one low frequency effects channel. It is designed for film, broadcast, and DVD final audio delivery. It is NOT considered "editable", which means you cannot just "punch in" on the data stream without consequences. This is the digital audio part of Dolby SR-D and Digitial Cinema.

Dolby SR-D is a dual-stream audio delivery system printed on the film, with a Dolby SR optical track and blocks of bits printed between sprocket holes that, when reconstructed, form the AC-3 digital audio stream. Since both technologies (Dolby Digital and Dolby SR)are present on the same piece of film, the print will play in any theater, whether or not equiped with Dolby Digital equipment.   unless the projectionist is drunk!

hey, when is johhnny b gonna say that analog optical playback rules and dolby digital or DTS playback sucks?            

oh, and if the SR playback sucks, i can fix it with drastic EQ cuts!    

[minister]

jfrigo wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 10:23

minister wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 07:18 because you calibrate your Surrounds down 3 dB from the fronts (they add up to one screen channel) for film, not for TV or home DVD. 82 dB surrounds for Dolby Digital. I believe DTS stays at 85 dB in back.

hi there.  thought i'd resurrect this because i am about to do a DTS mix.

the DTS application Memo states that the surrounds are to be calibrated to 82 and the SUB to 88 (LCR are 85).  not 85 as stated here.

couldn't find this info at the site, but the place where i printmaster looked up this info for me.

...and let's see how long DTS stays around....

[Augustine Leudar]

jfrigo wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 01:42

Level wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 12:53 Two words.. Blue Sky http://www.abluesky.com/p_s_gb/p3s4s1.html I have to agree about Blue Sky for a budget system. It really is great for the money,

what is the money ? Cant seem to find a price quote and it doesnt say on their webpage....

[minister]

i have seen the 5.1 system for around $3700-$3900 USD

[Alécio Costa - Brazil]

So a set of Monitor Ones would be total sin?