FILM SOUND

A forum to share ideas and opinions on the equipment and technical aspects of film, video and AV making.
Post Reply
User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

FILM SOUND

Post by FILM THURSO »

[Editor's note: this came up in a topic on replacement screens and seemed to me to be worth its own separate topic. I have edited this posting by Film for Thurso to concentrate on the sound matter. The original posting can be found in full in the topic: "Projector Screens again"]



I just recently got a very nice VHS-C off ebay for a mere £23, hardly used and does a great job. It has mono sound too which is better at capturing the lower frequencies unlike digital which has the sound values of a tin.
tom hardwick
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am

Re: Projector Screens (again!)

Post by tom hardwick »

[Editor: I have trimmed the first part of this posting to concentrate on the sound issue. The full version can be found under the topic "Projector Screens again".]

But to the VHSc camcorder. Having a mono sound recording facility doesn't in any way make for better bass response, and to equate digital with tinny is odd. Everything audio broadcast on TV has been digital since the introduction of Nicam many years ago, and it sounds fine to all the audio engineers.

tom.
User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Re: Projector Screens (again!)

Post by FILM THURSO »

Mono analogue sound has better ambience and bass response in terms of digital being crystal clear to the detriment of being able to hear bass. In Gone With The Wind terms, digital is 'toppy' and this has been much moaned about by vinyl users over CDs.
Analogue is an actual sound signal where as digital is only a code that has to be recreated into a sound. You can't hold digital up to the light and see the picture, nor can you run a needle attatched to a sheet of paper over the disc and hear he sound, nothing beats the reel thing.

My first stereo video player is a nicam machine and rather stunningly good sound it produces in analogue with a very wide range from thundering deep bass to clear trebble sounds. It once needed fixing and the engineer was amazed by the quality of sound processors in it.

The next generation of audio visual playback is combi equipment that records and plays analogue but has digital processing to compensate any issues. My VHSc is analogue with digital refinement.
Film users will always favour film for it's qualities and musicians will always favour valve amplifiers likewise. Here at Film-Thurso we have the joy of working with reel-to-reel tape, 8track, Compact Cassette, shellack, vinyl, miniDisc, CDs standard 8 (silent or mono magtrack), super 8 (silent, mono mag, stereo mag, surround mag, optical), 9.5mm, 16mm and 35mm (variable density mono, variable width mono, high magenta mono, stereo and cyan stereo surround) 70mm 6 track mag digital. There are some wide points of comparison with which we can call digital 'tinny'.






I didn't mention the sample of Cinerama because it's only the right side of the picture and doesn't carry a soundtrack! :shock:
Geoff Addis
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:56 pm

Re: Projector Screens (again!)

Post by Geoff Addis »

As a professional classical music sound recording engineer I have to agree with Tom regarding the quality of digital v analogue and stereo v mono. The frequency spectrum recorded on analogue LPs is no wider than that of CDs, indeed in most cases it is less and its extreme LF and HF response is certainly not as linear as that of a CD. In the case of LPs, then the linearity of frequency and transient responses is influenced by the mechanical properties of both the cutting head used to master the LP and the playback cartridge, both of which are less predictable in long term performance than the A/D and D/A converters used in digital systems. Distotion produced by the electro-mechanical operation of these analogue devices may well be attractive to the ear, but they are not honest. Perhaps the reason why FILM THURSO prefers the mono sound of his analogue camera is that it has a restricted Mid/HF response, quite likely due to head wear/clogging.

There is so much 'twaddle' spoken/writen about HiFi and it is beyond my comprehension that reviewers can say that a modern LP is in any way better than its CD counterpart when, most likely, both will have been recorded and edited in the digital domain! Such statements come from the same marketing/product promotion 'experts' concious of advertising/sales income that will have us believe that gold plated mains plugs result in better aural quality - sheer bumcum! The debate over solid state v thermionic amplifiers will go on forever, the fact is that both are capable of excellent quality; the reason that some favour valves is that, usually, the onset and nature of harmonic distortion is often less noticable in a thermionic amplifiier than that of a solid state device, but if both are well designed and are operated within their specified power output level for a quoted amount of distortion then you will not hear any difference.

One other point, NICAM is an analogue format, but these days all STL (studio to transmitter links) are digital anyway!
Geoff Addis
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:56 pm

Re: Projector Screens (again!)

Post by Geoff Addis »

Ref my earlier post. I should have said that NICAM was an early form of digital transmission, but unlike CDs it was, if I remember correctly, 14 bit pulse code modulated using level compression at the source and expansion at the receiver; it must have been a 'senior moment' in my response that I said that NICAM was analogue!!!.

Another point in the analogue v digital debate is that the 16bit digital format used for CDs has in practice a greater dynamic range than its analogue counterparts such as the LP; typically >90db as against <70dB. Greater use of compression and gain riding, in itself a form of distortion, is necessary in analogue recording.

Now, back to that 3 CD album that I'm mastering ...

Geoff
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Re: Projector Screens (again!)

Post by billyfromConsett »

I've got a Lynn Axis turntable - it rocks!
granfer
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:43 am

Re: FILM SOUND

Post by granfer »

It would be better if your turntable were level and steady rather than rocky!
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Re: FILM SOUND

Post by billyfromConsett »

I bought it in 1987, with the intention of getting my first CD player, but came out with a new turntable. The guy in the shop persuaded me that it sounded better than most typical CD players.

There is a different sound to turntables though - the bass response sounds stronger.
User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Re: FILM SOUND

Post by FILM THURSO »

It's all jolly good stuff but you know the average viewer/listener doesn't notice. In fact a sound recording can be reduced to just 25% of it's full spectrum before anyone will spot the difference- and I got that tit-bit of info from a professional too! :D
I wonder then why the audio industry is continuing to create new state of the art analogue equipment, oh that's right, because analogue is better than digital as it is real sound not a code! The analogue/digital combis are mostly anaolgue.

One has only to listen to remastered soundtracks from old movies to hear that analogue does have a brilliant quality that reaches the best possible results. Have a listen to Seven Brides For Seven Brothers restored from magtracks or Walt Disney's Pinocchio restored from optical masters.

We have to remember that how good it sounds depends very largely on what it's played on, not just how it's recorded. I have a vinyl soundtrack of Disney's The Black Hole, now that's obviously an analogue playback yet the score was digitally recorded at source. It sounds bright and clear, one of the best LP sounds I've ever heard. Bambi on the other hand is on CD and came off optical masters from 1939 yet also shines with surprising brilliance and and clearity.
It is not that digital hears more, it's that digital has less distortion. Hiss on a tape comes not from the recording but the gaps between the magnetic particals, hum on a record is from the mechanics. Hiss on optical tracks is a combination of minor surface scratches and space between the photographic emulsions. When you remove these elements the sound is crystal clear.
The electronics of the system that sound is recorded or played on also adds noise to the sound and speakers will be the make or break point for sound clarity. No 2 speakers give the same sound and no 2 TVs (or film prints or digital cinemas) give the same picture.
A digital signal like any other has to be read before transfer to the final output and in that process it can miss information resulting in incorrect playback. The same applies at the recording stage. Digital files are more easily damaged or destroyed than analogue recordings including magnetic ones and digital does degrade with each copy and or playback.
The methods of recording sound and picture that experts regard as the best for long term storage and continued playability of best quality sound and image - vinyl and film!
Analogue recordings are known to have a better recording and playback capability than digital. Digital is a con like enrgy save light bulbs!


You can leave a wind-up music box in the ground for the next 250 years and someone could find it and work out what it does and possibly still get the tune to play. Could you say the same for a memory card?
tom hardwick
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am

Re: FILM SOUND

Post by tom hardwick »

You raise some interesting viewpoints FT, but I can't say I agree with them all. You say that. 'analogue is better than digital as it is real sound not a code', but that 'real sound' comes at a price, and the price is as poorer signal to noise ratio. Assuming the song, the microphones, the cables are all the same, the digital mixers and recorders and CD and player will add no noise to the signal, whereas the analogue chain will add noise all the way, right up to the vinyl groove or the magnetic track's noise reduction circuitry.

If you listen to anything from mag tracks you're highly dependant on playback head azimuth, speed stability and print-through - none of which interfere with digital audio.

You say, 'Digital files are more easily damaged or destroyed than analogue recordings including magnetic ones'. More easily destroyed? Have you tried to bulk erase a Mini DV tape? It's almost impossible to do an any bulk eraser that will wipe a Hi-8 analogue tape in seconds. I'd say it was far easier to damage a vinyl LP or crinkle an audio cassette tape than to damage a CD. But I really take issue with your claim that 'digital does degrade with each copy and or playback.' This is patently not true, so do you have specific examples in mind when you say this?

I'm surprised to hear you think that digital is a con. Digital video has killed blurry, smudgy analogue video stone dead. iPod audio stomps all over cassette Walkmans, satellite TV is unfailingly reliable as against the moving shadows and grainy noise of terrestrial reception.

Your wind-up music box vs the flash memory card is a good comparison though. The same would apply to a reel of Super-8 film vs a DVD, so I'm with you on that one.

tom.
Geoff Addis
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:56 pm

Re: FILM SOUND

Post by Geoff Addis »

With the proviso that you are copying from like to like formats, digital copying does not degrade the original. On the other hand, if you are copying from an uncompressed 16bit CD to a highly compressed MP3 format, then it is almost certain that there will be some change to the original. Multiple playing of a CD will not degrade the quality of the CD whereas multiple playing of an LP or tape will gradually degrade the quality and increase the chance of surface noise and clicks on LPs or frequency response and print-through on tape. If we consider the LP for a moment, the speed and therefore the frquency response, is not consistent as the pick-up moves from the perimeter to the centre; this is not the case with either analogue tape or digitally recorded media. One of the main problems facing a cutting engineer is that, in classical music, the loudest part is usually at the end of the record ie. it occurs near the centre of the disk and at a point where frequency response and distortion are at their worst; no such problems with the CD! Over the course of time, print through will be evident on analogue tape recordings; no such problem with digital!

Mention has been made of re-mastered analogue recordings, well it is 99% certain that the remastering was done on a digital platform so the arguement that digital quality is less than analogue is immediately quashed. What this does show is that analogue recordings can be to a high standard, but this does not mean that they are any way better. Having said that, I can recall the wonderful quality of some analogue recordings made on 35mmm magnetic film, but in the end so much depends upon the delivery format and environment in which the audio is heard; we have to consider the complete system from the microphones used and the recording environment to the loudspeakers and size and acoustic nature of the listening environment before we make bland judgement.

An interesting point about bass; for many years I have been recording everything from solo instruments to classical orchestras with chorus and soloists using the Soundfield microphone as part of my mic set up. This has enabled me to produce both stereo and surround mix-downs and it is very apparent that the quality and life-likeness of the bass is so much better in the surround form; it is not necessarily that the bass is louder or more extended, I can only describe it as more the feeling to the sound and I have a strong suspicion that this is due to the nature of the wavefront and standing waves induced in the listening environment. This of course may also be why some perceive that bass from a mono system is better than bass from a stereo system; in a stereo (or multi channel) system the bass from individual microphones or speakers may be out of phase with that from the other(s). With the 5.1 surround derived from the Soundfield mic, then the bass from all directions is sampled at a common point and all recorded channels are therefore in phase.

On final comment: Why is there market for analogue and thermionic amplifiers? Simple, its called making a profit - there will always be a market for specialist 'audiophile' equipment and manufactures, especially the smaller 'boutique' ones, are only too happy to serve the needs of such buyers.
granfer
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:43 am

Re: FILM SOUND

Post by granfer »

I'm not a professional recording engineer, but I do have a lengthy background in Consumer entertainment. And I wholly concur that ONCE a recording is in Digital form it can be processed, copied, etc without degradation.
BUT, let us not forget that the ORIGINAL sound is Analogue, the device used to
capture it into the recording process is also Analogue , the device used to recreate the sound is Analogue, and the resulting sound is Analogue.
Also, let us not forget that the electronic conversion of it to Digital form for processing is a SAMPLING process which does not use ALL the available Analogue information, and what is removed can never be accurately replaced. Any claim that the analogue result from a Digital recording anywhere approaches the original sound is, frankly, rubbish, especially as the conversion back fro Digital to Analogue is usually performed by "Consumer Grade" equipment of doubtful Digital to Analogue conversion performance.
Yes, the established Analogue methods do add "noise" to the result, but remember that it is an "addition"; the original sound is still there. Remember, also that "noise" is normally present where any original sound is generated; it's called atmosphere.
The professional recording Studio "sanitizes" the performance by removing the atmosphere, and the same professional recording studios took great pride in reducing the noise added by their processing to extremely low levels.
I'm old, and I'm deaf, and I wear hearing aids (but often headphones instead for listening to music), and still prefer Analogue recordings and FM radio. I know I get "noise" as well as the music, but at least I get more of the ORIGINAL music.
User avatar
Dave Watterson
Posts: 1872
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Bath, England
Contact:

Re: FILM SOUND

Post by Dave Watterson »

We seem to have got into realms well beyond a-v, film and video here! That's fine and let it continue if you wish ...

But for our practical purposes we know that the VAST majority of video - and even a great deal of AV work - will be watched and heard on a domestic television set. While more people these days hook their tv sets up to good amplifiers and speakers than used to be the case, most viewers still make do with the tiny speakers in their tv sets. Perhaps there is a lot to be said for optimising our images and soundtracks to that form of presentation.

Even when our pictures are presented through a projection system, sound very often comes a poor second. I long ago lost count of the setups I have suffered with a single (yes, just one) speaker on the floor under the screen.

The first time I watched a decent AV show I was stunned by the sound quality. The team used 7.5ips tape and a decent speaker at each corner of the hall, higher than the audience heads. It knocked the typical 8mm show of those days right out of the water.

Ironically in the digital age AV people seem less concerned about that level of sound quality, whereas video makers are doing better. At the very least they usually have two speakers now! Sometimes those are even mounted on stands or shelves high enough to have line-of-sight connection to the ears of the audience.

-Dave
granfer
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:43 am

Re: FILM SOUND

Post by granfer »

"Line-of sight connection to the ears of the ears of the audience"

Somehow that has an incongruous ring to it! :? :wink:
Post Reply