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

[cadon59]

John,

I assume that you know the difference between stereo and surround.....Yes, star wars was in stereo; Apocalypse Now specifically had center channel developed for dialogue and rear speakers for helecopter effects, which could be recreated in theaters equipped with significantly more sophisticated equipment than was required for Star Wars.

And yes, it is always better to get audio in the original form than in a form recreated by either a commercial recording or broadcast. My point is that you can't expect content providers of broadcast television to be as attentive to detail as some of us dilletantes......I used to love to go see Led Zeppelin or the Grateful Dead when I was younger. Due to time, younger people have to be satisfied with DVDs, and the interpretation of the producers as to how they should replicate the sound.

Lastly, for people who don't spend an excessive amount of money on home theater (ie a separate room in their home with the correct acoustic insulation), an amp that will replicate soundfields is the best alternative to just listening to the speakers provided with any television. And I would rather switch my amp to mono from a 5.1 discrete broadcast than try to upscale to what is essentially pro logic from two channel PCM, which is how all the films on MGM are presented.

And I would also like to say that my collection of analogue LPs still, for the most part, sound better than their digital CD recreations. Just a preference of mine.........

 

[Mr Zulu]

John,

I assume that you know the difference between stereo and surround.....Yes, star wars was in stereo; Apocalypse Now specifically had center channel developed for dialogue and rear speakers for helecopter effects, which could be recreated in theaters equipped with significantly more sophisticated equipment than was required for Star Wars.

From InformIT: The History of Surround Sound > Surround Sound in the Movies :

The 1970s: Dolby Stereo

True surround sound made a comeback in the 1970s with the introduction of Dolby Stereo. In spite of its name, this was an optical four-channel technology, introduced in 1976 by Dolby Laboratories.
Instead of using magnetic audio tracks, which tended to be of lower fidelity, Dolby reverted back to the earlier—and superior—optical recording technology. It also added noise-reduction technology for clearer playback.
The big boost for surround sound was the release of a single movie—1977's Star Wars, with its swooping rear-channel effects. The success of Star Wars inspired theater owners to upgrade their sound equipment to the Dolby Stereo standard, and led to other producers and studios embracing the surround sound format.

 

[John Kotches]

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

Dolby Digital for 35mm is an optical track. I believe that DTS uses an optical track to keep the external decoder in synch with the film.

 

[John Kotches]

John,

I assume that you know the difference between stereo and surround.....Yes, star wars was in stereo; Apocalypse Now specifically had center channel developed for dialogue and rear speakers for helecopter effects, which could be recreated in theaters equipped with significantly more sophisticated equipment than was required for Star Wars.

Stereo is only the end result when you don't have the decoder. With the decoder you get surround.

And yes, it is always better to get audio in the original form than in a form recreated by either a commercial recording or broadcast. My point is that you can't expect content providers of broadcast television to be as attentive to detail as some of us dilletantes......

I'm pleasantly surprised by the sound quality from broadcast TV these days.


[quote[I used to love to go see Led Zeppelin or the Grateful Dead when I was younger. Due to time, younger people have to be satisfied with DVDs, and the interpretation of the producers as to how they should replicate the sound.[/quote]

Knowing some of the people that mix concert discs for audio, I can state unequivocally that what you hear is agreed upon by the mixing engineer and the artists. Never mind that the sound quality of the vast majority of live concerts is deplorable.

Lastly, for people who don't spend an excessive amount of money on home theater (ie a separate room in their home with the correct acoustic insulation), an amp that will replicate soundfields is the best alternative to just listening to the speakers provided with any television.

No, it isn't. They don't take into account the acoustic impact of the room itself, so what you get is the acoustics of the target colored by the room. These are often incredibly significant. Now, if you want to take about something like the Audyssey system it's another beast altogether.

And I would rather switch my amp to mono from a 5.1 discrete broadcast than try to upscale to what is essentially pro logic from two channel PCM, which is how all the films on MGM are presented.

All center channel or all channels with the same signal? The latter is an acoustic nightmare.

I disagree, but since we're talking preference there's no right or wrong.

And I would also like to say that my collection of analogue LPs still, for the most part, sound better than their digital CD recreations. Just a preference of mine.........

Having heard the some of the best that both have to offer, I'll simply say that your point of view is diametrically opposed to mine.

If digital recording and playback existed first, the "reverence" that many have for analog recording and playback would be gone.

Cheers,