Musings on Dolby Atmos & Low Budget Sound

[PatrickFaith]

It was suggested to me to look at what the high end shops are doing in sound, and I wasn't thinking I would find much applicable to my low budget production ... but I was pretty much totally wrong.

Aside from looking at the high end sound studio's, I watched the movies in 3D non-atmos, IMAX non-atmos and 2D Atmos - interesting enough I found myself more immersed in 2D Atmos then any other format(I haven't seen anything in 3D Atmos). I really dislike Dolby 5.1 and 7.1, they just irritate me in a similar was as bad 3D, so I was expecting Dolby Atmos to be even more irritating then surround sound - wrong again.

I'm not qualified in understanding why Dolby Atmos is so much of a better experience, I watched the video http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/dolby-atmos-video.html that explains it (interesting enough he uses TED's "future proofing" phrase, interesting how the RED philosophy has really permeated the industry).

A lot of these shops run at 64 bit float, mix of 48,96 & 192 khz on the high end protools systems (hdx with the series 5 consoles with just a trillion channels ... ok not a trillion but a lot). A lot of the boards debate 48khz vs 96+, it's a bit like the 1080p vs 4k debates, but the high end shops are often at more then 48 khz (at least for mixing). From my low budget perspective protools at 24 channels 96khz is the closest I can get at a low budget to the high end shops. Also if I acquire at a mix of 48khz and 96khz, the high end shops can easily take my 24 channel 96khz protools files and seriously do amazing things with them.

I'm sure that the great sound is not only from Atmos in these high end shops, there is a practical professionalism in them too. One low budget thing I found is using a parabolic mic setup to get a lot of my ambient sounds. I got Talinga parabolic just like the big guys, and it wasn't deadly on price ( http://www.stithrecording.com/index...universal-mkh-series-parabolic-microphone.cfm ). With the Talinga it makes me think of sound in a more cinemagraphic way, kind of like shooting sound through a 100mm lens(is ear opening). Another "side" thing is that some of the plugins work better at 96khz over 48khz, specially ones that deal with time and frequency. Even though I can't hear a difference between a 48khz and 96khz sample, I get better overall sound in processing at 96khz. My SD744t, btw is the same thing used at many of the high end shops for ambient recording and works good at 96khz (not so good at 192 khz). Back to future proofing, size difference between 48khz and 96khz is in the noise for my production, and if it eases the hand over to a Dolby Atmos shop (my new lust for my film), I will get better results.

Just some musings, not sure what reduser's think about Atmos.

 

[Alex Rawet]

I saw Man of Steel in an Atmos equiped cinema and whilst my technical knowledge on sound is very limited; I was very impressed. Would very much like to watch something there again.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

IMO Dolby Atmos is a well needed update to their 5.1 & 7.1 surround systems, not that I am not happy with them, but this is taking things to the next level...

I take sound very seriously in Movies, s to me they are what drive your emotional status in a definite scene, and without it, you would never be able to experience it in the same way, not ever!!

But as with everything, it is important that the installations are certified, and not self made and self claimed, as for 3D Cinemas, that crippled the media before it even had a chance.

 

[PatrickFaith]

I saw Man of Steel in an Atmos equiped cinema and whilst my technical knowledge on sound is very limited; I was very impressed. Would very much like to watch something there again.

It's one of the things I look forward too, in the theater near me it's in the "RPX" room (there is only 1 room out of 20 that is RPX, so I think atmos is only installed in one room) ... so I now check when a movie is being played in RPX and only go to that showing.

IMO Dolby Atmos is a well needed update to their 5.1 & 7.1 surround systems, not that I am not happy with them, but this is taking things to the next level...

I take sound very seriously in Movies, s to me they are what drive your emotional status in a definite scene, and without it, you would never be able to experience it in the same way, not ever!!

But as with everything, it is important that the installations are certified, and not self made and self claimed, as for 3D Cinemas, that crippled the media before it even had a chance.

That's for sure, Atmos is a major step up, in that they have "objectized" the sound in a phased array. Dolby has a major office with Atmos in San Francisco, and Skywalker Sound is fairly close to me (which is a reference implementation) ... so i'm good for facilities that can do Atmos ... my real problem is getting my movie up to the level where the cost is justified to go Atmos.

 

[Marc Wielage]

New surround systems like Dolby Atmos and Barco Aereo mainly add height to the theatrical sound experience. I think it helps somewhat compared to traditional 5.1 and 7.1 surround, but it's not the gigantic change that going from stereo to surround was.

Given the small number of mixing stages equipped with 11.1 (or greater) loudspeakers, I'm not sure it's a pressing need at this point. I have never, ever, seen a Hollywood film or TV show mixed at any higher sampling frequency than 48kHz, but many of them are done at 24 bits, which is very standard. Sound effects crews often do work at higher sampling frequencies (up to 192kHz) mainly to give them some flexibility at massive speed changes, to slow down some of the sounds they gather in the field, and not run into certain kinds of distortion that are more apparent at slow speed.

Bottom line, I kind of think this is much ado about nothing for the vast majority of indie filmmakers. I think regular 5.1 works fine, is affordable, and is reasonably fast to accomplish. When you have a budget north of $100M, then it's a whole different ballgame, and you can take 2 or 3 months for a large mix and tie up a big stage for many weeks. Even hit TV shows don't have this kind of budget and scheduling flexibility, and they typically have no more than a week to get an entire 42-minute mix cut, mixed, and delivered.

BTW, I think parabolic mics sound very, very colored and "hollow" a lot of the time, based on using one at ABC football games some years back (just to pick up quarterback play calls). I don't think a parabolic has any real use for filmmaking because the mic winds up not being flat enough. Nothing can compensate for just getting the microphone closer to your subject. By the same token, a shotgun mic doesn't sound as natural or as flat as a much less-directional microphone, but it can still be useful when you simply can't get close enough to the subject.

 

[PatrickFaith]

New surround systems like Dolby Atmos and Barco Aereo mainly add height to the theatrical sound experience. I think it helps somewhat compared to traditional 5.1 and 7.1 surround, but it's not the gigantic change that going from stereo to surround was.

Given the small number of mixing stages equipped with 11.1 (or greater) loudspeakers, I'm not sure it's a pressing need at this point. I have never, ever, seen a Hollywood film or TV show mixed at any higher sampling frequency than 48kHz, but many of them are done at 24 bits, which is very standard. Sound effects crews often do work at higher sampling frequencies (up to 192kHz) mainly to give them some flexibility at massive speed changes, to slow down some of the sounds they gather in the field, and not run into certain kinds of distortion that are more apparent at slow speed.

Bottom line, I kind of think this is much ado about nothing for the vast majority of indie filmmakers. I think regular 5.1 works fine, is affordable, and is reasonably fast to accomplish. When you have a budget north of $100M, then it's a whole different ballgame, and you can take 2 or 3 months for a large mix and tie up a big stage for many weeks. Even hit TV shows don't have this kind of budget and scheduling flexibility, and they typically have no more than a week to get an entire 42-minute mix cut, mixed, and delivered.

BTW, I think parabolic mics sound very, very colored and "hollow" a lot of the time, based on using one at ABC football games some years back (just to pick up quarterback play calls). I don't think a parabolic has any real use for filmmaking because the mic winds up not being flat enough. Nothing can compensate for just getting the microphone closer to your subject. By the same token, a shotgun mic doesn't sound as natural or as flat as a much less-directional microphone, but it can still be useful when you simply can't get close enough to the subject.

I am not sure of the "technical" reason why I prefer atmos over surround sound, it's more of a movie going experience where I need to put my hands over my ears about 90% of the time on the surround sound films because the sound is way to "loud". I've complained multiple times on sound volume issues, doesn't seem to do anything ... it's like they mixed the movies to blast explosions and make the film a roller coaster ride noise rather then focus on story. So my issue might not have anything to do with atmos vs surround sound, but when I got into a RPX theater with atmos (and they are playing) atmos I can listen comfortably to the film. In a RPX theater that has atmos, but it was mixed 5.1/7.1, the sound levels are just way to high for me. I almost feel like bringing in a db meter into theaters, the quality is so horrible. I do tend to go when it is latter at night and is a bit more sparse, so they must calibrate the theaters to when it is fully filled and not modify the sound when there are only 20 people in there.

For my parabolic mic, i have a mkh 20 omni that I use in conjunction with the parabolic (which is similar to the setup that some major sound studios use) - so it's not like the sports parabolic and is designed for nature/ambient recording (it doesn't remove side noise). I also use the mkh20 as my "center" mic for room tone, music, folio, and the parabolic nature sounds - also using the same mic for my center allows me to mix the tracks while keeping a consistent "sound". About 30% of the sound samples in my film are nature based, water/birds/ducks splashing/squirrels/leaves high up in trees/bugs - I don't use the parabolic for human voice. I am finding the parabolic pretty good for mechanical samples though, like trucks going along a street, planes overhead. I know parabolics are used by the sound design guys at skywalker sound. Aside from the omni, I almost always have two KM184's as my main mic's (and use the omni to pull the mix together), thus mixing the telephoto/hollow sound of the parabolic with the other mics to give me short/medium/long "shots" via sound.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I am not sure of the "technical" reason why I prefer atmos over surround sound, it's more of a movie going experience where I need to put my hands over my ears about 90% of the time on the surround sound films because the sound is way to "loud".

Then you have to ask: is it the fault of the mix, the speakers, or the people who set up the room? Are you aware there are standards in place where the room needs to play back with a reference level of 85dB for theatrical mixes?

Read this:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/post...theater-dvd-broadcast-tv-commercials-etc.html

Loud sounds are not a condition of Dolby Surround vs. Atmos vs. Auro vs. stereo or even mono; it's a setup problem that boils down to the humans running the show, which is the lowest common denominator. You can have the best-mixed film in the world ruined by an idiot in the booth who has speakers turned off, speakers too loud, or levels that are totally unbalanced.

I've heard some horifically loud playback from even LA theaters (especially Imax, for some reason), so this is an ongoing industry problem when there are technical standards that have to be enforced by the part-time popcorn kid making $8 an hour. I was just at a screening of Pacific Rim a couple of weeks ago, and at one point, the levels were so loud, I checked one of my iPhone apps and caught a peak that hit 106dB. This is very, very, very loud, and should not happen if they're observing the 85dB level (which should only allow peaks that hit maybe 97-98dB or so). I always take foam earplugs along when going to any live events or films these days.

I know parabolics are used by the sound design guys at skywalker sound.

I've never heard of that. To me, there are a dozen other ways to get better sound without having to resort to a parabolic. The phasey "boxy" quality of a parabolic mic is not pleasant, but I don't disagree that the Sennheiser MKH20 is an excellent, very flat mic. I just think you're going about capturing sound effects all wrong. You need to find an actual sound effects gathering professional who knows this stuff well.

The experts on Gearslutz.com and the JWSoundGroup.net people are very, very knowledgeable about this stuff and there's more than a decade worth of material on these subjects on those sites. I'm a fan of using M/S stereo mic setups for effects gathering, but I concede that there are many ways of doing it right, and some of the best SFX people record sound with multiple mics all the time, deciding later which to use, combine, or not use in a final mix.

 

[PatrickFaith]

Read this:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/post...theater-dvd-broadcast-tv-commercials-etc.html

Loud sounds are not a condition of Dolby Surround vs. Atmos vs. Auro vs. stereo or even mono; it's a setup problem that boils down to the humans running the show, which is the lowest common denominator. You can have the best-mixed film in the world ruined by an idiot in the booth who has speakers turned off, speakers too loud, or levels that are totally unbalanced.

I've heard some horifically loud playback from even LA theaters (especially Imax, for some reason), so this is an ongoing industry problem when there are technical standards that have to be enforced by the part-time popcorn kid making $8 an hour. I was just at a screening of Pacific Rim a couple of weeks ago, and at one point, the levels were so loud, I checked one of my iPhone apps and caught a peak that hit 106dB. This is very, very, very loud, and should not happen if they're observing the 85dB level (which should only allow peaks that hit maybe 97-98dB or so). I always take foam earplugs along when going to any live events or films these days.

I will look for that app to measure db and follow your advice on always bringing ear plugs to the theaters. I too have the worse experience in the IMAX theaters, the sound that goes with the dolby & imax "commercial" before the movie starts is often the most extreme on volume. This super high db is so endemic in theaters that it has to be something that the employee's are told to do (is probably easier to crank the volume up, then have complaints that the volume is too low).

It's Tim Nielsen at skywalker sound ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0631004/ ) that uses a setup like mine(i read one place that he had the stereo one, but i'm perty sure he also uses the omni - the parabolic's tend to get checked out a lot). I've noticed the film sound research guys tend to go with the mkh2020 which requires all those multistage capsules, while the nature guys go with the mkh20 which is cheaper and has most used options built in. Is definitely a specialty item though, probably not useful on most films (i am a bit of a lens and mic addict, and I overuse the adage "the right tool for the right job" ... just so i can collect a new lens or mic).

 

[Christopher Mills]

Patrick, in sort of an opposite approach to your parabolic, have you tried any of the Holophone offerings?

 

[L. Langer]

I've tested out the local premium theatres and they definitely have the volume turned way up in their premium cinemas vs the adjacent rooms with normal setups.

 

[PatrickFaith]

Patrick, in sort of an opposite approach to your parabolic, have you tried any of the Holophone offerings?

That is super cool, I have never seen that. I looked at the Schoeps surround microphones, but they were just too complicated & expensive for my film.

There is a dolby 7.1 to atmos converter, would be so cool for a documentary(or a film that would work with long takes and needs immersive sound) use that microphone and have a dolby 7.1/atmos sound track ! I could see a great indie moving filming only with the pro version of the holophone ... would require the boom to move with the camera (so you'd have to shoot the film knowing your were going for a atmos/7.1).

I'm still in love with the quad Schoeps ortf surround system, i will have to test both of the systems on my next film. In my current film I have a shot where someone is sitting next to a brook, the holophone would be perfect for that scene (but I can't justify getting that mic just for one scene).

I've tested out the local premium theatres and they definitely have the volume turned way up in their premium cinemas vs the adjacent rooms with normal setups.

It's just crazy, it reminds me of the kids that put massive amounts of watt's in their cars and think that the loudest car has the best sound.

 

[L. Langer]

I remember when I was in a theatre - watching some movie I can't honestly remember for the life of me - adjacent to a premium screen showing Argo and it sounded like there was a SWAT raid. You could clearly hear the gunfire and explosions through the walls and even the dialog was mostly understandable.

 

[PatrickFaith]

I remember when I was in a theatre - watching some movie I can't honestly remember for the life of me - adjacent to a premium screen showing Argo and it sounded like there was a SWAT raid. You could clearly hear the gunfire and explosions through the walls and even the dialog was mostly understandable.

That just drives me crazy!

...
The experts on Gearslutz.com and the JWSoundGroup.net people are very, very knowledgeable about this stuff and there's more than a decade worth of material on these subjects on those sites...

I have been lurking over at gearslutz, and finally decided to take the plunge and post - glad I did. When it really comes down to it, some of my voice/music was what I had to work on most. And given my limited budget, notes in gearslutz, private emails and looking at mic usage at a major sound studio i decided what I MOST needed was a solid condenser mic(LMAO, back to basics). The one everyone agreed on for my requirements was a Neumann M 149, which should be coming early next week.

 

[Marc Wielage]

The Neumann 149 is a great mic.

I still say there are other things more important for low-budget filmmakers to think about than Dolby Atmos. I also think there are ways to make regular 5.1 surround more effective, but a lot depends on the sound design, dialogue, sound effects, and final mix, there are no easy predictions on what's possible or affordable. Every situation is different. But I do think mixes beyond 5.1 channels are generally not necessary for a small indie film with a budget of less than (say) $10 million. I think the basics of story, direction, performance, and editing trump multi-channel sound in a case like this.

 

[PatrickFaith]

The Neumann 149 is a great mic.

I still say there are other things more important for low-budget filmmakers to think about than Dolby Atmos. I also think there are ways to make regular 5.1 surround more effective, but a lot depends on the sound design, dialogue, sound effects, and final mix, there are no easy predictions on what's possible or affordable. Every situation is different. But I do think mixes beyond 5.1 channels are generally not necessary for a small indie film with a budget of less than (say) $10 million. I think the basics of story, direction, performance, and editing trump multi-channel sound in a case like this.

Cool, good advice. Here's a list of comments I have gotten when handing over a mix for mastering:
1) do your mix in stereo first, then hand that over to master (for 5.1 or atmos)
2) label your tracks before handing over the stereo mix (i hadn't been labeling my tracks aside from using the default track label ... i think this is a general pet peeve for guys that do masters).
3) surround sound masters need access to each instrument (different instruments types need special handling, and if the guitar is bounced into the drums and the master mixer can't separate them, it will not create a good surround sound mix).
4) let the master mix do the heavy compression and do loudness (i was doing this often way to early in the mix)
5) make sure you have clean tracks before you hand it over to the master (i.e. remove all the pops, inserts for problem areas, track leveling - so the master mixer isn't messing with basic things).

 

[Marc Wielage]

Even a small-budget (below-$500,000) film can do a 5.1 mix from the start without incurring a great expense. I just supervised the post on a $400,000 film and we had no problem hitting our schedule and budget for a 5.1 mix at a medium-size mixing stage here in LA. We had the benefit of a terrific supervising sound editor who did wonders with our dialogue, and he also did a terrific job doing a premix with all the effects. We had five days for a 5-reel mix, and it worked out fine. We still had time to create 9 or 10 deliverables, including foreign M&E's, an LtRt stereo version, the whole deal, all meeting broadcast specs.

It sounds to me like what you're trying to do is a scratch mix first, and there's no harm in that. Just know that if the re-recording mixer is not in on the plan, you might be delivering a session that they can't use, or it may require so much work to get it into their system, it winds up extending the schedule and pushing your project overbudget.

I would always have an extended conversation first with the re-recording mixer to make sure you're both on the same page in terms of plug-ins, software versions, track layout, and so on. We don't do any limiting or compression this early in the game, unless it's a very loose pass for viewing DVDs or something like that. Those decisions belong to the re-recording mixer, and that also goes for noise reduction and EQ selection.

 

[PatrickFaith]

Even a small-budget (below-$500,000) film can do a 5.1 mix from the start without incurring a great expense. I just supervised the post on a $400,000 film and we had no problem hitting our schedule and budget for a 5.1 mix at a medium-size mixing stage here in LA. We had the benefit of a terrific supervising sound editor who did wonders with our dialogue, and he also did a terrific job doing a premix with all the effects. We had five days for a 5-reel mix, and it worked out fine. We still had time to create 9 or 10 deliverables, including foreign M&E's, an LtRt stereo version, the whole deal, all meeting broadcast specs.

It sounds to me like what you're trying to do is a scratch mix first, and there's no harm in that. Just know that if the re-recording mixer is not in on the plan, you might be delivering a session that they can't use, or it may require so much work to get it into their system, it winds up extending the schedule and pushing your project overbudget.

I would always have an extended conversation first with the re-recording mixer to make sure you're both on the same page in terms of plug-ins, software versions, track layout, and so on. We don't do any limiting or compression this early in the game, unless it's a very loose pass for viewing DVDs or something like that. Those decisions belong to the re-recording mixer, and that also goes for noise reduction and EQ selection.

I had a talk today, I'm starting to get it and changing how I do things. Also this was my first time with a high end mic, the Neumann M 149, and almost anything I do to it with my current plugins makes it sound worse.

[btw ... the M 149 is crazy amazing, it reminds me of the raw quality of my epic monochrome - I had no idea how good the high end mic's were]

By following your advice and keeping my scratch mixes totally clean (without plugins), also allows me to tell if I have any problems in my raw material(by applying plugins too early, I wasn't detecting phase and other issues with my raw recording). It also simplifies my turn over to the re-recording & master mixer with a very simple protools session.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Just make sure you have that conversation with the re-recording mixer first. You'd be surprised what they want and what they don't want.

 

[L. Langer]

Since we're talking about Dolby, Ray Dolby just passed away this week. He joins Amar Bose and Fritz Sennheiser in the after-life.

 

[PatrickFaith]

Since we're talking about Dolby, Ray Dolby just passed away this week. He joins Amar Bose and Fritz Sennheiser in the after-life.

Some good references at http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/868788-rip-ray-dolby.html

I find his passing upsetting in a nostalgic way, I remember playing with the "new" dolby switch in the 70's on a tape to tape real system, listening to the difference it made and how it changed the tone of the recording(both if I recorded with and without, and played with and without, the switch set).