surround in theaters - why no envelopment?

[kosmokrator]

Hey post-pros!

Yesterday I went to see Avatar in 3D. While I liked the sound, I really thought it could have been mixed better.
And I thought that with every flick I saw the last years.

Sure, it was very good craftmanship, but what I'm really missing in all cinema experiences is a true sense of envelopment. I really think theatrical surround mixing is not very well done in genereal.
I was thinking about that for quite a long time, but with the advent of 3D-CGI, it's so obvious.
Have you ever been in a real jungle? There's sounds all around you, not in front with some chirps and atmo from behind.
Can you guys explain to me why this is so? No, it's not the way the theaters were calibrated. I'm having the same experience with almost every blockbuster in every cinema I've been to.
For me, the theatrical surround experience is not there yet. I want true envelopment, not just bullets passing by. I want to be enveloped by the score! In a theater I'm not interested in the natural projection of an orchestra on a stage with some reverb in the surround channels. I want the atmos all around me! Not a jungle in front of me and a mini-jungle behind me!

Actually, I think this also to a degree is one of the reasons 5.1 at home doesn't take off as expected. If the sound changes to stereo /LCR in the theater, most visitors wouldn't notice at all! Imagine 3D-imagery with a depth-perception of maybe 10cm.

I think this has to do that the scores are still produced in stereo (I know it's tracked and mixed in surround, but not produced!), the SFX are often stereo.

Can you guys explain me why this is so? I really think this has to change.
I'm really interested what the pro-rerecording-mixers think about that.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Patch Morrison]

Despite not being a re-recording mixer (some day I hope) and more like a freelance sound editor/runner, I did find this article interesting.

Iosono Demos 3D Immersive Sound at Todd-AO

[kosmokrator]

Originally Posted by Patch Morrison

Despite not being a re-recording mixer (some day I hope) and more like a freelance sound editor/runner, I did find this article interesting.

Iosono Demos 3D Immersive Sound at Todd-AO

IMO the issue is not the technology. It's very possible to create a sense of envelopment with standard surround. It's just not done.

[Jussi]

If the sound changes to stereo /LCR in the theater, most visitors wouldn't notice at all!

And they shouldn't. Films are not about sound. Films are stories, and often too much sound can take you out of the story. Instead of enveloping, one would want to reduce surrounds to focus attention to the screen where the real drama happens.

[kosmokrator]

Originally Posted by Jussi

And they shouldn't. Films are not about sound. Films are stories, and often too much sound can take you out of the story. Instead of enveloping, one would want to reduce surrounds to focus attention to the screen where the real drama happens.

I'm not talking about unrealistic things that distract like dialogue from behind or whatever.
True envelopment is the exact opposite. If I'm in a 3D-jungle and the sound is NOT all around me, that distracts me.
A somewhat valid analogy would be the switch from blackwhite to color movies. If everything would be neon-colors, of course it would distract from the story. But if you have barely enough color to notice it's not B/W, it makes no sense to use colors at all.

And the human senses don't work the same. You just see the things in front of you. So a screen makes perfect sense. But you hear 360°.

[Jussi]

Originally Posted by kosmokrator

I'm not talking about unrealistic things that distract like dialogue from behind or whatever. True envelopment is the exact opposite. If I'm in a 3D-jungle and the sound is NOT all around me, that distracts me.

But to what extend a mixer wants to keep the surrounds as alive as they are in the beginning of the scene, depends how the story develops.

A very common scene, seen in every film I guess, usually starts with wide shot to estabilish the location and characters(sound all nice surround), but the closer we go and deeper we get in to the drama in this scene, the less there needs to be in surrounds to the point that a single bird call in rear can get in the way of story. Beginning of next scene; back to full surrounds and then focus again from there.

But it all depends on a film, the style, scene... Every film is different.

[kosmokrator]

Originally Posted by Jussi

But to what extend a mixer wants to keep the surrounds as alive as they are in the beginning of the scene, depends how the story develops.

A very common scene, seen in every film I guess, usually starts with wide shot to estabilish the location and characters(sound all nice surround), but the closer we go and deeper we get in to the drama in this scene, the less there needs to be in surrounds to the point that a single bird call in rear can get in the way of story. Beginning of next scene; back to full surrounds and then focus again from there.

But it all depends on a film, the style, scene... Every film is different.

No, they are almost all the same. No true sense of envelopment.

I know what you mean with the bird call. But it doesn't matter where it comes from. If the drama calls for focus on the dialogue or whatever, a birdcall from R is equally disturbing as from Rs.

[Lipflap]

Originally Posted by kosmokrator

I'm not talking about unrealistic things that distract like dialogue from behind or whatever.
True envelopment is the exact opposite. If I'm in a 3D-jungle and the sound is NOT all around me, that distracts me.
A somewhat valid analogy would be the switch from blackwhite to color movies. If everything would be neon-colors, of course it would distract from the story. But if you have barely enough color to notice it's not B/W, it makes no sense to use colors at all.

And the human senses don't work the same. You just see the things in front of you. So a screen makes perfect sense. But you hear 360°.

There's a lot of room for personal taste in this discussion. I watch films very aware of the fact that I'm in a theater, watching action on a screen. I don't see this reality as a limitation, but rather as a framework within which to enjoy the tale that unfolds before me. I like my story on the screen, with only a space provided by the room and the surround speakers. I am distracted by "envelopment" soundtracks, and I find them annoying. Worse yet are films in which "realistic" points of view are maintained within edited scenes, resulting in background elements flying from the screen to the surrounds, or from left to right. My preference is for a pretty stable screen image that lets me stay there, on the screen. (I was also never a fan of Quad Sound in the early '70s, that put you in the middle of the band; I always found it confusing. Perhaps, then, I merely have very old-fashioned taste in sound imaging.)

But that's only my opinion. Thankfully, there's room for all sorts of surround styles, just as there are many types of films.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by kosmokrator

No, they are almost all the same. No true sense of envelopment.

I know what you mean with the bird call. But it doesn't matter where it comes from. If the drama calls for focus on the dialogue or whatever, a birdcall from R is equally disturbing as from Rs.

One big problem is that there are no rear speakers in most US theaters. The have speakers behind the screen, on the walls but nothing directly behind the viewers. The ear is a marvelous organ and can hear lots of things including directionality of the sound source but to be enveloped you have to be "surrounded by sound" and not just in front of you and on your sides. I have been in the woods and sound comes at you from all directions including high above your head and at foot level. They come from everywhere all at once. The brain is not fooled by some speakers along a wall and some in front as much as the proponents of 5.1 or 7.1 surround would like you to believe. Also a lot of theaters in the US do not have the time or the money to check their audio playback systems as often as they should and sometimes speakers or amplifiers fail or their settings get changed and what sounded good when they were installed no longer sound that good.

When I worked at the local college we had an "environmental" sound artist come in and set up a field of speakers in a room and you could walk into the setup and feel like you were at the ocean, in a rain forest or in downtown Manhattan depending on what surround source they were using. There were about 40 speakers in a hemispherical shape and it was pretty amazing. It took two days to set up the exhibit and the lines were endless to experience the total envelopment in the sound field. I believe he did all of his recording with the sound field microphone from Soundfield or Holophone SoundField: Benefits of a SoundField System Holophone | H2-PRO 7.1 Surround Sound Recording | H2-PRO | B&H

[kosmokrator]

Originally Posted by Lipflap

There's a lot of room for personal taste in this discussion. I watch films very aware of the fact that I'm in a theater, watching action on a screen. I don't see this reality as a limitation, but rather as a framework within which to enjoy the tale that unfolds before me. I like my story on the screen, with only a space provided by the room and the surround speakers. I am distracted by "envelopment" soundtracks, and I find them annoying. Worse yet are films in which "realistic" points of view are maintained within edited scenes, resulting in background elements flying from the screen to the surrounds, or from left to right. My preference is for a pretty stable screen image that lets me stay there, on the screen. (I was also never a fan of Quad Sound in the early '70s, that put you in the middle of the band; I always found it confusing. Perhaps, then, I merely have very old-fashioned taste in sound imaging.)

But that's only my opinion. Thankfully, there's room for all sorts of surround styles, just as there are many types of films.

Fair enough. Can you give me an example of an "envelopment"-soundtrack? I'd like to watch a movie with such a thing, but never did actually.

[Lipflap]

Originally Posted by kosmokrator

Fair enough. Can you give me an example of an "envelopment"-soundtrack? I'd like to watch a movie with such a thing, but never did actually.

You caught me there. I can't honestly say I've seen a film whose soundtrack was intentionally designed to effectively envelope a viewer. Instead, I should have said that I'm annoyed by films with surround tracks that call attention to themselves. Take Sherlock Holmes, for example. Very competent sound job, but I felt the surround was distracting. Compare that with Zodiac from a few years ago. A seamless sound image from left surround, across the screen, then to right surround. Nothing showy, but very pleasant, and it set a good stage for the story on the screen.

[kosmokrator]

Originally Posted by Lipflap

You caught me there. I can't honestly say I've seen a film whose soundtrack was intentionally designed to effectively envelope a viewer. Instead, I should have said that I'm annoyed by films with surround tracks that call attention to themselves.

That's not what I mean, as you surely noticed. I want an enveloping soundtrack that doesn't distract by overuse of the surrounds for FX 'showoff' purposes and neither distracts by providing an almost-2D-soundscape with some flybys, as 99% percent of the movies I watched have.
You may call it my personal holy grail.

[kosmokrator]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

One big problem is that there are no rear speakers in most US theaters. The have speakers behind the screen, on the walls but nothing directly behind the viewers. The ear is a marvelous organ and can hear lots of things including directionality of the sound source but to be enveloped you have to be "surrounded by sound" and not just in front of you and on your sides. I have been in the woods and sound come at you from all directions including high above your head and at foot level. They come from everywhere all at once. The brain is not fooled by some speakers along a wall and some in front as much as the proponents of 5.1 or 7.1 surround would like you to believe. Also a lot of theaters in the US do not have the time or the money to check their audio playback systems as often as they should and sometimes speakers or amplifiers fail or their settings get changed and what sounded good when they were installed no longer sound that good.

When I worked at the local college we had an "environmental" sound artist come in and set up a field of speakers in a room and you could walk into the setup and feel like you were at the ocean, in a rain forest or in downtown Manhattan depending on what surround source they were using. There were about 40 speakers in a hemispherical shape and it was pretty amazing. It took two days to set up the exhibit and the lines were endless to experience the total envelopment in the sound field. I believe he did all of his recording with the sound field microphone from Soundfield or Holophone SoundField: Benefits of a SoundField System Holophone | H2-PRO 7.1 Surround Sound Recording | H2-PRO | B&H

Hey Tom, yes I've experienced similar sonic landscapes in art installations. That's what I want in a theater as well.

And here in Europe, the big multiplex cinemas have almost always speakers in the back. As I said, the 'problem' is not on the reproduction side.

[leeg1970]

Originally Posted by kosmokrator

Hey Tom, yes I've experienced similar sonic landscapes in art installations. That's what I want in a theater as well.

And here in Europe, the big multiplex cinemas have almost always speakers in the back. As I said, the 'problem' is not on the reproduction side.

Hey Kosmo,

You make a strong point. I've made surround sonic images for installations (in one case it was a 20.4 set up in a old power station in Zurich with 9 projected screened rooms) where you're surrounded and have often thought about how it would be in a cinema. I always come to the conclusion that I'd want to be walking around within in it rather than sitting in a chair waiting for those sounds to come to me...I can also see gaming to be more like this. Just my opinion of course.

Lee

LEE G

[dsteinwedel]

Originally Posted by kosmokrator

Fair enough. Can you give me an example of an "envelopment"-soundtrack? I'd like to watch a movie with such a thing, but never did actually.

Children of Men did a pretty good job. Still, it was more called for based on the way it was shot--very close up, in your face, 'first person-ish' at times.

-Dave

[pasarski]

Good points. But you have to remember that even in 3d, if you hear a sound coming from rear, you cant turn your head and look at the source, unlike in a real jungle. So the extensive use of surround channels can be distracting, just like in 2d.

[bassman]

You are in Berlin, go check out some of the IOSONO stuff. Its in a club in Berlin I believe.

I wrote the manual for IOSONO's plug-in system and have had a chance to really check it out. The technology in that case really does make a difference. Is is unlike 5.1 in so many ways. Envelopment is the exact word I would use. It has true planar sources that will be the same volume for each listener in the theater which is a big part of the problem right now. The point sources are just plain scary as hell. Putting a voice right next to your head and stuff like that.

Peter Jackson's people were in when I was there checking it out for the Hobbit. Hopefully the system will get a chance to be used for that film.

-bassman

[philper]

True surround, where the sound field for all enviro sounds is equally coming from all around the listener IS possible in cinema, but it is generally not done because only a very small part of a theatrical audience is sitting in the ideal sweet spot to make such a mix work. Everyone else is out of the sweet spot, and thus sounds coming from a given direction in correct balance for the sweet spot would seem overly loud, get in the way of dialog and be a distraction from the story. The PICTURE in normal cinema is really coming from only about 90 degrees of your peripheral vision, so SOUND coming from outside that angle has to be less present in some way (with some obvious exceptions) than sound appearing to come from within that angle. Well-defined sounds coming from the side or from behind us without warning trigger human fight-or-flight reactions, a major distraction from the story, so they are generally used sparingly. Surround mixes for other kinds of venues: theme parks, live shows, installations, performance art etc. do not have those limitations, and in those cases I've been allowed to go wild with the surrounds and really envelope the listener. In these cases the listener is often free to move around, and so can change their location as the piece progresses, or is being moved through a serious of defined acoustic spaces. As was said, for the illusion to really work you need a lot more speakers/channels than 5.

Philip Perkins

[pasarski]

Originally Posted by philper

The PICTURE in normal cinema is really coming from only about 90 degrees of your peripheral vision, so SOUND coming from outside that angle has to be less present in some way (with some obvious exceptions) than sound appearing to come from within that angle. Well-defined sounds coming from the side or from behind us without warning trigger human fight-or-flight reactions, a major distraction from the story, so they are generally used sparingly. Surround mixes for other kinds of venues: theme parks, live shows, installations, performance art etc. do not have those limitations, and in those cases I've been allowed to go wild with the surrounds and really envelope the listener.
Philip Perkins

This is what I meant to say.

[Big Andy]

I understand that you want to hear atmos and the World around the characters, but let me ask you this. When you are out on a busy street with your friend are you (A)really hearing every word your friend says and the traffic at an equal or louder level than the dialogue, or (B)does your mind tame down the traffic so it's easier to hear your friend? The answer should be (B). Our minds can calm the noise that isn't important at the moment so we can more clearly understand the important information.

This is what we do in film. In a wide shot we might have a little more Ambience because we want the audience to understand our location, but when we pull in to a closer shot, when Dialogue becomes the focus it is important to pull out some of that ambience so that Audience doesn't need to struggle with making that separation.

There ARE big cinematic moments where the Ambience needs to be bigger and louder. Think the last third of AVATAR. There is sound coming from every speaker and at a good level too. You aren't noticing it that much, because you mind is plastered to the screen listening to the actors, watching the explosions and listening to the mass of audio coming from directly in front of you.

I have had directors tell me during the final mix they want more BGs in the surrounds. I give them a little, then a little more and go until they feel satisfied. EVERYTIME this has happened, a week later they will ask me if I can put it back down. In film Dialogue is King, everything else is just for fun. If the story is good, you shouldn't even notice the BGs.

I predict AVATAR takes the Oscar for Sound. Any other takers?

[dr.sound]

Sound Mixing is like Movie making,
It is a question of balance.

Since we are in Sound our focus is there.
Sound should be like a supporting actor, without it
the movie is flat, with it it is whole.

This is not to say that Sound shouldn't be brought
into a primary focus when appropriate, just not
during the whole movie.

I remember my first surround mix in 1982.
It was all about the surrounds.
These days it all about "The Sub".

Once again it's a question of balance.

Having heard Iosono demos, with a little bit of tweeking
that is a process that might have a lot of potential.

[surflounge]

Design a system that really puts the sound exactly where it needs to go. If you don't hit the walls, then you can greatly improve the intelligibility of the space. Forget about being practical. Just scan the number of people in the audience, analyze the response and feed the system with antisounds.

[philper]

Originally Posted by surflounge

Design a system that really puts the sound exactly where it needs to go. If you don't hit the walls, then you can greatly improve the intelligibility of the space. Forget about being practical. Just scan the number of people in the audience, analyze the response and feed the system with antisounds.

I'll get right on it.

Philip Perkins

[kosmokrator]

Originally Posted by philper

True surround, where the sound field for all enviro sounds is equally coming from all around the listener IS possible in cinema, but it is generally not done because only a very small part of a theatrical audience is sitting in the ideal sweet spot to make such a mix work. Everyone else is out of the sweet spot, and thus sounds coming from a given direction in correct balance for the sweet spot would seem overly loud, get in the way of dialog and be a distraction from the story. The PICTURE in normal cinema is really coming from only about 90 degrees of your peripheral vision, so SOUND coming from outside that angle has to be less present in some way (with some obvious exceptions) than sound appearing to come from within that angle. Well-defined sounds coming from the side or from behind us without warning trigger human fight-or-flight reactions, a major distraction from the story, so they are generally used sparingly. Surround mixes for other kinds of venues: theme parks, live shows, installations, performance art etc. do not have those limitations, and in those cases I've been allowed to go wild with the surrounds and really envelope the listener. In these cases the listener is often free to move around, and so can change their location as the piece progresses, or is being moved through a serious of defined acoustic spaces. As was said, for the illusion to really work you need a lot more speakers/channels than 5.

Philip Perkins

Thanks for your answer, Philip. I understand that in a cinema you have to mix for the whole audience. So it seems this is really about the reproduction technique and the 'problem' can only be solved with some kind of wavefield-synthesis (IOSONO et al.)
I mix quite a bit of surround as well, but not theatrical. So I can be more extreme with the enveloping of the listener, as they are more likely to sit in the sweet spot.
Another question: Can you envelope the listener more with theatrical 7.1 than with 5.1?
How many channels do you think would be necessary for true surround in theaters?

[philper]

Originally Posted by kosmokrator

Thanks for your answer, Philip. I understand that in a cinema you have to mix for the whole audience. So it seems this is really about the reproduction technique and the 'problem' can only be solved with some kind of wavefield-synthesis (IOSONO et al.)
I mix quite a bit of surround as well, but not theatrical. So I can be more extreme with the enveloping of the listener, as they are more likely to sit in the sweet spot.
Another question: Can you envelope the listener more with theatrical 7.1 than with 5.1?
How many channels do you think would be necessary for true surround in theaters?

For me, 7 channels wasn't really much diff from 5. Some live shows I've heard of have 50 or 60--some interesting possibilities at that level. I agree surround audio presentation for theatrical films needs to be upgraded to the degree the picture has in recent years--something like the IOSONO or etc..

Philip Perkins

[dr.sound]

Originally Posted by philper

I agree surround audio presentation for theatrical films needs to be upgraded to the degree the picture has in recent years--something like the IOSONO or etc..

Philip Perkins

Now all we need is for the sound budgets to rise and the time alloted to mix it to increase..... and then I woke up!

[njrsound]

Does anyone know any more about the IOSONO system as implemented for Cinemas? I've been aware of it for some time for location based (themed) entertainment and one-off events, where the various sound sources or stems are processed into the sound field in real time (what they are now advertising on their website as aimed at DJs). I didn't know it was being posited as a general cinema format. Nowhere on their website can I find how the soundtrack of a cinema release would work.
As I understand it, each cinema will have the full sound processing kit, calculating and addressing the feed to each speaker or small group of speakers, rather than just playing back hundreds of tracks specific to each speaker - so will the film be distributed with a drive full of the individual stems to be 'flown' (up to 32 from what I recall) and an automation file telling the cinema processor where they are to 'source' from / what trajectory to trace - all chasing timecode on the print? They'll need a pretty rigorous system-to-room calibration regime for exhibitors.

[bassman]

IOSONO has 32 channels now, planning on 64 in the future. All the audio and positioning data can be saved in standard digital cinema formats. Yes, you need quite a bit of kit to do it. 300 channels or so for a normal theater.

One great thing is the array effect of maintaining equal volume of signals over the entire listening area. This helps keep the experience the same for all the audience. No more sweet spot problems for the theater

For cinema, a simple approach is to create a five channel planar array for ambiences and other envelopment sounds and then also create a 5 channel point source array for discreet stuff so that you can easily bring in already mixed 5.1 material.

Once that is done, you can then break elements out for motion of point sources around the room, SFX etc... after the two arrays, you still have 22 channels to play with. I'm sure there will be a million other options once folks get there hands on a system. It was a blast to play with.

It really is a new approach. A brave new world....

-bassman

[soundboy]

Kosmokrator,
Well if we get some sort of wrap around projection system going, I could see that kind of sonic immersion. However, I think that both tacks would miss the point. To me, good story telling is combination of context (the environment of the tale), and focus (the tale that is weaved through that context). No matter how innovative the film maker is, there is always the context of the scene(the wide shot), and the focus (the mid and close up). From Eisenstein to Guy Richie, this visual language has remained fairly constant. Because it works. Around the world it works. We in post sound, have a similar language. Like the cinematographer or director decides the composition of a shot, we decide the composition of the aural shot that goes with it. It is all in service to the story. We aren't creating realistic soundscapes, we are providing enough detail to create context, but making specific choices about what we and the director/producer feels is vital to the scene. I think these choices are what makes art. Just filling the theater with lots of sound, and letting the audience sort it out is something else. I think that even as technology refines our ability to create space, (2 channel stereo was a refinement of mono, and 5.1 was a refinement of 2 channel stereo) the elements of story telling and it's filmic language will remain fairly constant until we as humans start taking information in, in a different way.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Avatar's sound was good because it added to the feeling of the film. It was never too much or too little. The surround was not overdone but it was there. There have been a couple of films lately that the sound detracted from the movie and you may or may not agree with me but "Public Enemy" was such a film where they used a lot of on location dialog for a "gritty" feeling and IMHO it did not work. It made me NOTICE the sound which is not good for my enjoyment of the movie.

Slightly off topic...

I was at my Niece's house over the holidays. We watched "The Sound of Music" on her parents new large LCD television and a very nice 5.1 surround system. I had never heard TSOM in surround but it was very well done and the levels and the mix were all perfect. I forget when that movie was made, sometime in the mid 60's???, but the sound work sounded as fresh as anything done today. I assume it was not originally released in surround but was done later during the films restoration. anyway it was very well done.

FWIW and YMMV