So MGM HD does not do DD5.1 in some Movies? What's up with that?

[John Kotches]

There is not the slightest doubt amongst professionals that the the best picture and sound quality were in movies and music filmed and recorded in the late 1950's and 1960's..

Can I disagree here? Analog was not a great recording technique for films.

In the 1970's, mass production of cheap cr*p started and replaced the hand made professional equipment of the previous era - poor sounding transistor mixing desks, film processes with less accurate colors (not to mention houses and cars that were the worst ever made).

One could easily argue that the consistency of the gear was a good thing. At least you always knew what the limitations were.

Digital picture and sound have helped that m the 21st Century, but 35mm film stock has way more resolution than 1080p digital video...

These two are orthogonal. It's been quite a few years since capture was made via analog for audio tracks.

PS If HDNet-Movies and Voom send DD5.1 for 30+ year old movies, then that is incorrect. If the movie is DD2.0 or DD1.0, then one is supposed to allow the receiver (and the user) to respond to that in a different way than a DD5.1 input.

Bravo on this point. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[nsps]

Can I disagree here? Analog was not a great recording technique for films.

Then why are the majority of films still shot on film?

Or are you only referring to sound?

 

[John Kotches]

Then why are the majority of films still shot on film?

Or are you only referring to sound?

I'm referring to the sound, but film is far from a perfect medium; and you don't see anywhere near the true detail on film in a theater. You get about 4 generations removed from the original and by the time you see it, it doesn't have much more resolution than 1080p.

Cheers,

 

[Barry Erick]

Maybe MGM will have a greater variety of offerings.

 

[StonesCat]

I think they've already caught up to all the non-Monster voom movie channels in the first week.

 

[steve4810]

This is the channel that is supposed to substitute the Voom film channels. I never saw a movie in the voom channels without DD5.1. This really sucks what is the point of watching a movie without dd5.1

I'm stupified.

By the way, sometimes posts aren't in size 3 Palatino Linotype.

What's up with that?

What's the point in reading a post if it isn't in size 3 Palatino Linotype?

 

[Sean Mota]

I think they've already caught up to all the non-Monster voom movie channels in the first week.

mmmhh... You never watched the non-Monsters hd movies right. Take a look at some the I posted and you will see that MGM shows movies mostly from their vaults but Voom showed movies from different studios other than MGM.

 

[bhenge]

This seems like the most authentic way to do it... present the original sound and let the customer process it as they wish.

I tend to agree here. Sean, you are a big supporter of OAR (I am too), why not Original Sound? Any good surround processing equipment should be able to morph the sound into a form you like.... are you saying you want some person at MGM to decide what format audio you listen to or to convert every audio source for movies to 5.1 regardless of the format of the original movie audio tracks?

 

[Sean Mota]

I tend to agree here. Sean, you are a big supporter of OAR (I am too), why not Original Sound? Any good surround processing equipment should be able to morph the sound into a form you like.... are you saying you want some person at MGM to decide what format audio you listen to or to convert every audio source for movies to 5.1 regardless of the format of the original movie audio tracks?

call me crazy but I rather have the dd5.1... I do not want to reset the configuraton of my receiver everytime I watch MGM.

 

[bhenge]

Heck man, you're not crazy... I understand... I personally prefer my Lexicon processor's Logic 7 surround mode to most all others, so I default to it on most sources, especially older soundtracks. I just like making the decision for myself and not have some gunkie somewhere else doing it for me.

 

[Sammy033]

call me crazy but I rather have the dd5.1... I do not want to reset the configuraton of my receiver everytime I watch MGM.

Do you mean keeping it set that way on your end or what they broadcast? If its on your end, have at it and do what sounds the best to your ears.

 

[John Kotches]

call me crazy but I rather have the dd5.1... I do not want to reset the configuraton of my receiver everytime I watch MGM.

A competent receiver would engage the appropriate algorithm based on the input signal type.

I know my receiver and my preamp/processor both can engage whatever processing I want based on input signal type. I would assume that yours would be capable of this rather rudimentary function as well.

Mine will talk a PCM stereo input and apply PLII (Receiver) or Trifield (Processor). Both will take a Dolby 2.0 input and process via PLII or PLIIx. The processor is in a 7.1 system and applies PLIIx to 5.1 as well.

This really isn't terribly complicated to do.

 

[kstuart]

call me crazy but I rather have the dd5.1... I do not want to reset the configuraton of my receiver everytime I watch MGM.

You need a better receiver. Any $150 Onkyo receiver will do that automatically.

 

[kstuart]

Can I disagree here? Analog was not a great recording technique for films.

It was admittedly ambiguous, but I was referring separately to 35mm/70mm films and magnetic tape audio recordings (as opposed to movie sound played back on film projectors).
Specifically, I was referring to late 50's and early 60's magnetic tape recordings, which still represent the best sounding recordings until you get to relatively recent 24-bit/96khz recording.
The best sounding recording I have heard is still the SACD transfer of an early 60's magnetic tape recording (Scheherazade-Reiner).

 

[cadon59]

Intriguing thread; a bit of history...........

Surround sound was developed for Coppola so that he could release Apocalypse Now and have it sound as he wanted it to. That was 1979, so the rudiments of surround were started about 30 years ago.

Also to consider is the fact that different theaters have different projection and sound equipment. When I grew up, pre VCRs, my father would rent films and project them with a 16 MM projector on a screen, which had one speaker connected to it. It sat under the screen, connected by a cord to the projector. Most theaters are 35 or 70mm; some of the newer ones within the last two years are digital. Each carries with it a different sound (and visual) system. To see, for example, Return of the Jedi in 35 mm is completely different from 70mm, both in sound and vision.

My Yamaha has sound fields for 10 or so different theater configurations replicated, including Mono Movie for classics/TV. It has 9.1 channels, and also offers a variety of soundfields that replicate different venues for listening to music. To change them is a touch of a button on the remote. I prefer Adventure ES for films, and Roxy Theater for Rock and Roll.

Spend the money to buy a decent amp, and select the appropriate decoding for your source; you will be much happier than arguing minutae on bulletin boards.

 

[thxdan]

Voom never seem to have a problem with it.... and always show dd5.1 no matter how old was the movie.

The Voom channels frequently "faked" 5.1 by "synthesizing" (artificially creating it) for any show/movie that didn't have true 5.1. This is actually bad practice, because it does things like move the dialog around the soundstage so that it no longer comes from the center channel.

It's much better to transmit the original audio (1.0, 2.0, or 5.1) and let the home user decide if they want to create fake 5.1 from the 2.0 source. Every surround sound receiver ever made will let you create simulated 5.1. Just check out your surround receiver's manual for details of its Sound Field Modes, etc.

 

[John Kotches]

It was admittedly ambiguous, but I was referring separately to 35mm/70mm films and magnetic tape audio recordings (as opposed to movie sound played back on film projectors).

Specifically, I was referring to late 50's and early 60's magnetic tape recordings, which still represent the best sounding recordings until you get to relatively recent 24-bit/96khz recording.[/quote]

I heartily disagree. Too many artifacts. The best that can be said is that there wasn't a lot of signal processing available at the time, which means less means to muck with the sound.

That said, I would still take a 20/48 recording over analog. I'm not a big fan of tape hiss -- that said I don't want to filter it out when it's there as that nice little filter takes away some signal too.

The problem from my perspective is limited dynamic range which means a relatively high noise floor. It's either that or gain riding to avoid the hiss.

The best sounding recording I have heard is still the SACD transfer of an early 60's magnetic tape recording (Scheherazade-Reiner).

I can think of a number of superb pure digitals too. I won't argue with you about 24/96K sounding amazing though.

 

[John Kotches]

Intriguing thread; a bit of history...........

Surround sound was developed for Coppola so that he could release Apocalypse Now and have it sound as he wanted it to. That was 1979, so the rudiments of surround were started about 30 years ago.

That's weird, because you can go back to Disney's Fantasia in the 1940s which had a discrete surround sound track created. Fast forward to Star Wars in 1977 which was the first Dolby Stereo release which gave any theater with the proper gear surround sound for this movie.

If you're going to give a bit of history, actually knowing the history should be part of the giving.

Also to consider is the fact that different theaters have different projection and sound equipment. When I grew up, pre VCRs, my father would rent films and project them with a 16 MM projector on a screen, which had one speaker connected to it. It sat under the screen, connected by a cord to the projector. Most theaters are 35 or 70mm; some of the newer ones within the last two years are digital. Each carries with it a different sound (and visual) system. To see, for example, Return of the Jedi in 35 mm is completely different from 70mm, both in sound and vision.

If it wasn't filmed in 70mm, it is a distorted view.

My Yamaha has sound fields for 10 or so different theater configurations replicated, including Mono Movie for classics/TV. It has 9.1 channels, and also offers a variety of soundfields that replicate different venues for listening to music. To change them is a touch of a button on the remote. I prefer Adventure ES for films, and Roxy Theater for Rock and Roll.

I'm not a particularly big fan of these fake surround modes. They all sound hopelessly artificial. Give me an unadultered soundtrack and an excellent room so that I can actually hear the soundtrack; not the soundtrack + someone's interpretation on top of it.

Spend the money to buy a decent amp, and select the appropriate decoding for your source; you will be much happier than arguing minutae on bulletin boards.

None of the soundfields you described above are appropriate decoding.

 

[bkushner]

I've had MGM on Direct for a while now and have never seen 5.1

 

[Grandpa J]

"Also to consider is the fact that different theaters have different projection and sound equipment. When I grew up, pre VCRs, my father would rent films and project them with a 16 MM projector on a screen, which had one speaker connected to it. It sat under the screen, connected by a cord to the projector. Most theaters are 35 or 7O"

If you recall the early 16 MM used an optical sound track that replaced the sprockets on one side of the film. There was an optical "exciter lamp" that the film was threaded over - set for 16 frames after the film past the project bulb and lens. The exciter lamp allowed the optic reader to "see" the track. You needed to loop the film to that tolerance to keep the sound in sync. Theaters also used optical tracks systems. Optical tracks look somewhat like bar codes but with different widths as the sound changes. When a film broke and was spliced together you would here a crack over the speakers as the splice past the optical reader