SDDS? Boring! (1 Viewer)

[Chris Lynch]

With Sony no longer providing hardware support for the format, it seems the writing is on the wall for SDDS.

Oh well, it was great while it lasted. Besides, and I got nothing against Sony, but it is nice to see them lose a format war (sort of), just cause they are so mighty an all powerful. I still buy their products regularly. They aren't hurtin'.

 

[Carl Johnson]

I got nothing against Sony, but it is nice to see them lose a format war (sort of), just cause they are so mighty an all powerful.

I could be mistaken but wasn't Beta a Sony format?

 

[Chauncey_G]

Another problem with the SDDS soundtrack is that it, of the three available, it is the most unreliable. DTS tracks, which consist of a dot-dash timecode that sync's up a CD to the film, is the most reliable since what is printed on the film isn't actually the sound. It's just timecode, so you can scratch it or get it dirty or even splice it and it's no big deal. Dolby Digital (SRD) is next, and even though it is a digital track, it is printed on the film, so it has the potential to suffer from the same thing the picture does: scratches, spices and dirt. SDDS is also printed on the film, but it is printed at the extreme edges of the film, which places it in a very vulnerable position to the aforementioned kinds of damage.

That, along with the fact that most theaters are simply not equipped with five seperate channels behind the screen, mean that there's a decent chance that you're better off in a DTS house, with Dolby SRD being the runner-up.

IMO.

 

[Keir H]

Saw the first Mummy at a Loews here in Houston. Oustanding. Soundtracks that stand out is what I look for when going to the movies...to see if I'd purchase it on dvd alone for just the sound in mind. Too bad we cannot recreate that in home theater (SDDS):frowning: .

 

[AaronP]

I took the time to check out Lord of the Rings in each digital sound format

----

WHOA! HAHAH LOL sorry, but that is pretty funny.

 

[Chris Lynch]

I could be mistaken but wasn't Beta a Sony format?

Yessir, I believe it was...:b
Point well made.
It's just that sometimes, when all these companies sit down to decide on a new format, Sony sometimes takes the attitude of "Screw you guys, I'm goin' home." Sometimes the Sony format in question is superior (as with Beta), sometimes not (anyone remember the MiniDisc/DAT format war? yeah, me neither). I am kind of rooting for SACD though, but not at the expense of DVD-A. We got room for both formats now, since universal players are a reality.
Sorry to get so far off topic. I'll try to control myself.

 

[Shad R]

I saw Phantom Menace in SDDS...and it ROCKED!!!! The bass was incredible! And I distincly remember the voices of the charectors comming from where the charector was standing on the screen... it was the coolest effect. I wonder if it has to do with the actual theater that is showing it...acoustics and such.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I wonder if it has to do with the actual theater that is showing it...acoustics and such.

IMO, that's almost always a much bigger factor than the sound format.

M.

 

[Adam Barratt]

anyone remember the MiniDisc/DAT format war? yeah, me neither

Both of these formats were Sony products, and neither reached even a fraction of the popularity of CD. Sony's format war in the early nineties was with Philips' doomed DCC system. Considering Sony's investment in Beta, MD and DAT and Philips' investment in DCC and Musicam, and their joint venture with MMCD, they've both had more than a few failures (although to give credit where due, MD and DAT did have limited success).

Maybe SACD will be a success, but then maybe not. I would say that they have more failures under their hats than successes, but considering the jackpot both struck with CD it's really no surprise they both keeping churning new formats out.

Adam

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

I took the time to check out Lord of the Rings in each digital sound format: Dolby Digital, DTS, and SDDS. Low and behold, the SDDS was the weakest.

Were you able to do this comparison in the same theater with the same volume level in a blind comparison? If not, your findings are highly subjective.

I also work in a movie theater, and I wouldn't think of comparing a DTS track to a Dolby Digital track. No 2 of my theaters are alike, and none of them have both processors in one auditorium. Now I can say that theater 16 has the best sound of all of my theaters (it does), but I'm not going to say it's because of the Dolby Digital processor. We have other Dolby theaters, and they don't have the same power and clarity to me that that 16 has.

Neil

 

[Adam Barratt]

Sony have officially commented on SDDS's future, and it seems it isn't going anywhere (for the time being). Sony are consolidating their Cinema Products Corporation division with the Broadcast and Professional Company division. This is what sparked the rumours of SDDS's demise. Sony will continue to sell SDDS hardware through the Professional division, with technical support coming from the core remaining staff from CPC.

It seems Sony are actually offering several upgrades for processors in the field. These include new reader and decoder firmware and a CCD alignment upgrade. Hopefully these will remedy the ongoing reliability problems projectionists have with the system, but I'm not holding my breath.

Adam