Die Hard 4K UHD (1988)

[notops]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

didn't tons of theaters lack the rear speaker though?

None that I can remember attending.. I remember countless Dolby Stereo (and Ultra Stereo) equipped theaters having the surround speakers mounted up on the side walls long before the days of digital audio.

[Bn43]

Is "rear speakers" technically completely wrong phrasing? I'm asking because most of the example diagrams I've found have surrounds placed on the sides. I have no room behind my sitting area, so they're placed right on the sides, almost facing each other. I don't know if that's the best position, but it can't be helped.

[notops]

Originally Posted by Bn43

Is "rear speakers" technically completely wrong phrasing? I'm asking because most of the example diagrams I've found have surrounds placed on the sides. I have no room behind my sitting area, so they're placed right on the sides, almost facing each other. I don't know if that's the best position, but it can't be helped.

Yes, the correct placement is to put your surround speakers on the sides. You only want to have speakers behind you for 7.1.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by notops

If you want it to sound the way it did originally in the theaters back in 1988, you should use a matrix decoding method like Dolby Pro Logic. That will properly unfold the surround information that is baked into the 2.0 stereo mix.

Movies mixed in Dolby Stereo never played theatrically in just 2.0 stereo. They had a center channel and a mono surround channel folded into the 2.0 optical audio tracks on the film print and the Dolby Stereo processor unfolded them for the intended surround mix. This is called LCRS. If you are set up for surround sound, you should not play 2.0 stereo tracks on just your left and right speakers, since they were never played that way in theaters.

I agree with the underlying info re: the matrixed LCRS but stating that they never ever ever played in theaters in stereo seems a bit much. The entire point of encoding the system like that was so that it retained compatibility with stereo playback for auditoria not equipped for Dobly.

(I do realise that I'm normally the first guy who rolls his eyes and says "why is there always such confusion here, this 2.0 stuff was MEANT to be unfolded into LCRS" but even so, if people still wish to play it in straight stereo then I won't shame them for it. It's more the lack of awareness re: Dolby Stereo matrixing amongst the home theatre cognoscenti that I find mystifying. That's a not a pop at Dave 6 either.)

[singhcr]

I think one of the confusing parts is that it was called Dolby Stereo, so I always assumed it was stereo with some noise reduction ala Dolby A or Dolby B for cassettes. Surround sound for film other than the 70mm mag stripe or odd 35mm mag stripe print didn't arrive until Dolby Digital 5.1, I thought.

I didn't get into home theater until DVD and watched my VHS tapes in mono or stereo at best. Going back, it's impressive how rich the VHS Hi-Fi tracks could sound on a proper setup as I still have a few VHS tapes I watch of some Disney shorts and such. I also made a comment to that regard during the opening of Keeping up Appearances on VHS after seeing it on TV for all of these years. Oh yes, Hyacinth Bucket would stand for no less!

[Geoff D]

That's fair enough re: the assumption of the name but even so, it wouldn't take more than a minute of looking on the internet to find out that it's not 'just' stereo, which is what baffles me. I'm no audiophile, I don't even have a surround sound system any more, but I still know more about the history of this stuff and how that affects playback of it today than most surround junkies do.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's fair enough re: the assumption of the name but even so, it wouldn't take more than a minute of looking on the internet to find out that it's not 'just' stereo, which is what baffles me. I'm no audiophile, I don't even have a surround sound system any more, but I still know more about the history of this stuff and how that affects playback of it today than most surround junkies do.

That's a valid comment. It just never occurred to me to look it up until I started researching sound-on-film history and the LRCS diagram came up. Then I figured out what the hell Ultra Stereo was too.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's fair enough re: the assumption of the name but even so, it wouldn't take more than a minute of looking on the internet to find out that it's not 'just' stereo, which is what baffles me. I'm no audiophile, I don't even have a surround sound system any more, but I still know more about the history of this stuff and how that affects playback of it today than most surround junkies do.

I've atchually been meaning to ask what soundbar you are using?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

I've atchually been meaning to ask what soundbar you are using?

No soundbar. Just TV speakers with a sub hooked up.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No soundbar. Just TV speakers with a sub hooked up.

I've thought about getting a sub module for my Bose 500. I got the thing because 1 it was cheap, 2 it has a centre channel. And when you downmix into stereo, in a small room like I watch in. It's pretty damn effective.

If you can find one for cheap, I'd recommend it.

[Geoff D]

Nah I'm done with external speakers, even a soundbar is just too fatiguing on my ears. I get a surprisingly good faux surround effect from the TV, which was FAR better than on the £300 Sony soundbar I tried out last year, and the addition of the sub gives it a more rounded sound (a BK XLS200-DF which I couldn't be arsed to sell when I'd sold all the rest of my surround gear, I then remembered I could plug it into the TV). I miss surround sound every day but I miss my hearing even more, so the latter wins.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's fair enough re: the assumption of the name but even so, it wouldn't take more than a minute of looking on the internet to find out that it's not 'just' stereo, which is what baffles me. I'm no audiophile, I don't even have a surround sound system any more, but I still know more about the history of this stuff and how that affects playback of it today than most surround junkies do.

I can't see why Dolby can't put out a little video to go alongside audio options to explain to people what they've actually got. It wouldn't hurt to educate people.

So what happens with things like Alien's English DTS-HD Master Audio 4.1? does that get automatically flagged by receivers or do you need to use ProLogic? It (DTS-HD) doesn't funk around with it.

I usually forget to check to be honest, I can't remember the amount of films that I've watched for 15 minutes before glancing at the AVR to notice that 2.0 was the default track.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Nah I'm done with external speakers, even a soundbar is just too fatiguing on my ears. I get a surprisingly good faux surround effect from the TV, which was FAR better than on the £300 Sony soundbar I tried out last year, and the addition of the sub gives it a more rounded sound (a BK XLS200-DF which I couldn't be arsed to sell when I'd sold all the rest of my surround gear, I then remembered I could plug it into the TV). I miss surround sound every day but I miss my hearing even more, so the latter wins.

I'm no audiophile, but I genuinely get depressed if my surrounds get taken away, maybe it's having the TV too far away, but it just feels hollow without them, they never go that loud and I mainly watch TV shows (the last few episodes of The Clone Wars were great in DD+).

But my biggest gripe with audio is sync issues, most of my TV's Apps are garbage.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by chip75

I'm no audiophile, but I genuinely get depressed if my surrounds get taken away, maybe it's having the TV too far away, but it just feels hollow without them, they never go that loud and I mainly watch TV shows (the last few episodes of The Clone Wars were great in DD+).

But my biggest gripe with audio is sync issues, most of my TV's Apps are garbage.

And that idea, maybe, everything is suppose to be loud. Is how you might end up like Geoff has sadly with his hearing.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by chip75

I can't see why Dolby can't put out a little video to go alongside audio options to explain to people what they've actually got. It wouldn't hurt to educate people.

So what happens with things like Alien's English DTS-HD Master Audio 4.1? does that get automatically flagged by receivers or do you need to use ProLogic? It (DTS-HD) doesn't funk around with it.

I usually forget to check to be honest, I can't remember the amount of films that I've watched for 15 minutes before glancing at the AVR to notice that 2.0 was the default track.

The 4.1 or 4.0 track is discrete (i.e. dedicated channels), you won't have to do anything to keep it that way. Depending on your receiver and/or how the stereo track is encoded it may automatically play in the 4 channel matrix mode. You can typically set your AVR to "Dolby Surround" and force it to play that way too.

Some tracks automatically play for me that way and some do not. For example Criterion's new Silence of the Lambs (killer disc BTW) does, as did Glory. But Kino's Wanted Dead or Alive did not. In my personal experience engaging the matrix mode typically doesn't make the track sound very good, I prefer straight stereo. But if the track plays in 4 channel mode automatically it can sound great. Glory is a great track with lots of separation and tight bass and that's not even discrete 4.1!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by chip75

I can't see why Dolby can't put out a little video to go alongside audio options to explain to people what they've actually got. It wouldn't hurt to educate people.

So what happens with things like Alien's English DTS-HD Master Audio 4.1? does that get automatically flagged by receivers or do you need to use ProLogic? It (DTS-HD) doesn't funk around with it.

I usually forget to check to be honest, I can't remember the amount of films that I've watched for 15 minutes before glancing at the AVR to notice that 2.0 was the default track.

That's already encoded in 4.1 discrete channels, the AVR will route it to the appropriate speakers just like any other discrete multichannel source. The world's not gonna end or anything if people listen to DS stuff in straight stereo, I just don't get the pushback that some people have to pushing a button on a remote control to enable the surround matrix.

Originally Posted by chip75

I'm no audiophile, but I genuinely get depressed if my surrounds get taken away, maybe it's having the TV too far away, but it just feels hollow without them, they never go that loud and I mainly watch TV shows (the last few episodes of The Clone Wars were great in DD+).

But my biggest gripe with audio is sync issues, most of my TV's Apps are garbage.

I got weaned off surrounds by how good the faux surround effect actually was on higher end Sony TVs. No word of a lie, I once got about halfway through a movie before realising I didn't even have my AVR on. That was when I knew it was near the end for me and surround sound. This is when I had the Sony 55X9005B with those amazing 'dumbo ears' speakers, and although the 65ZD9 lacks those speakers it retained the high quality processing (it can accept up to PCM 5.1) and with the addition of the sub it's as much as my ears can take. And, to go back to the discussion at hand, it's very good at automatically unfolding a 2.0 DS mix into 'surround', Elephant Man sounded crazy good with all that constant ambience of the gas lamps in the hospital.

[koberulz]

Why would anyone Google Dolby Stereo at all, though? It's Dolby, it's in stereo. Done. It's not like it's a name that makes me think I might not understand it.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

And that idea, maybe, everything is suppose to be loud. Is how you might end up like Geoff has sadly with his hearing.

We generally listen to the TV at 8/100 over 12 is rare. AVR with power saving turned on is around -40dB, when it gets late late it goes to-60dB.

My hearing is okay, thankfully, apart from some brutal tinnitus and those voices.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by koberulz

Why would anyone Google Dolby Stereo at all, though? It's Dolby, it's in stereo. Done. It's not like it's a name that makes me think I might not understand it.

It's when actual reviewer types have no clue at all as to what Dolby Stereo is, that's when I despair. Funny thing is that during the earlier years of consumer surround sound then this really was common knowledge, but as discrete formats have over it's like that knowledge base has gone with it. But it's still really not that hard to figure out though.

[Pagey123]

For what it's worth, I had no idea about the intricacies of this format until reading this thread, today. The Wikipedia article seems to do a relatively adequate job of explaining it. I would have just assumed it was a standard, run of the mill 2 channel stereo design based on its naming convention alone. Thanks for the knowledge!