Along with the hyperbolic (& in my opinion somewhat dubious) promotion of 3D films as “game changing” an aspect that seems to be late to the conversation is the use of sound in such films. In some ways I guess this is partly due to the fact that with the implementation of surround sound many decades ago, bringing sound “off the screen” has been a part of the vocabulary of every film mixer since the 1970s; the concept of 3D sound is not new in that respect.
But the re-launch of 3D films in the form of huge budget blockbusters such as Avatar raises the issue again, since for such a film to cost many hundreds of millions of dollars to make means there must also be vast funds available to develop & present an appropriately “game changing” soundtrack. Accordingly there can be no doubt that a need has been created, but is it being fulfilled?
For those of you who have seen Avatar, did you think the soundtrack presented any new innovations in terms of physical depth and/or use of surround sound? But of course, accompanying that question is the philosophical issue of whether it actually should do and if so, how?
These questions were partly prompted by a thread on the Gearslutz Post forum where a lone voice asked why is there no envelopment in film soundtracks?
The three most obvious & important answers are:
1. The soundtrack must work for every audience member, whether they are sitting at the front or rear of the theatre
2. the soundtrack must work in every screening theatre, from the premiere through to a run down theatre in a small town
3. Does the film require and/or motivate use of surrounds/envelopment?
The most common use of surrounds in 5.1 tends to be diffuse and/or momentary, due to the three reasons above. While the two surround channels of 5.1 are discrete channels in terms of mixing & playback, when it comes to actual theatre playback the discrete surround Left and surround Right signals are usually each fed to an array of speakers, some of which are on rear side walls & some on the rear wall thereby making point location of sounds difficult.
With 7.1 discrete channels are provided for left and right side speakers, plus a discrete signal for diffuse rear speakers so it is possible to seperately control elements being presented diffusely in the rear, or discretely.
In terms of the creative motivation to use surround sound, it’s interesting to read comments from Chris Boyes, FX mixer on Avatar. Quoting from a Mix Online article about sound for Avatar: “I never felt we had to make radical adjustments [for the 3-D] and I also felt it was very important to just choose certain details to highlight and not get gimmicky because there’s a tremendous amount of information to take in, and if we give them too much sonic information at the same time, it will detract from the experience. Jim’s edict to me was: Clarity is king. He was always looking for a focus and clarity to the sound. It was important to him — and to me — that any sound that went into the film really had to have a reason behind it and be driving the story forward or really selling an environment, but not overselling it.”
While more complex delivery formats have been developed, such as 10.2 and 22.2, the issue then becomes one of viable implementation. What use is a superior format if no one uses it? I do not mean this in any derogatory way, I am trying to be purely practical: is the future of 3D film sound more closely aligned to the model of theme parks than movies?
I would love to experience the 22.2 surround sound system detailed in the diagram above, but “coming to a theatre near you, anytime soon?” I have my doubts…. Especially when many theatres struggle to present even 5.1 in decent fidelity… But again, back to the theme park model; 3D films are not ‘normal’ films. This is a point of difference in their marketing and in a way it makes them a boutique experience, so is 7.1 sound their future?
A company by the name of Iosono have another solution which is based on wavefield synthesis and according to StudioDaily magazine, CSS Studios (part of Todd-AO Burbank) has recently become the first sound facility in the U.S. to aquire the ability to mix feature films in the Iosono 3D immersive format. Quoting from the article: Iosono’s algorithm and large speaker array “create sound waves in free space that audiences perceive as sounds originating from anywhere within the 3D sound space.”
On Stage 2, Todd-AO Burbank was outfitted with an array of 672 speakers, reproducing 224 audio channels and delivering 44,000 watts of amplification. Iosono also added four render PCs and an Iosono Spatial Audio Workstation (SAW), the authoring tool that enables a mixer to create all this aural magic. “The SAW is designed to be easy to understand for any mixer who has used a multi-channel panner,” said Slack, who showed a visual on the screen that represented the “listening area,” with 32 focus sources that could be placed and moved anywhere in the room.
You can read more about the technology behind Ionsono here and check here for a list of installations where you can actually experience it… Apart from film theatres & theme parks one notable installation is the infamous Tresor Nightclub in Berlin, Germany!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by tim prebble, David Bird. David Bird said: RT @timprebble: new blog post: Sound for 3D Films http://3.ly/2kd [...]
Interesting post.
Personally I thought the Avatar soundtrack was very good but ultimately as pedestrian as the story. It’s like Cameron thought maybe a mindblowing story coupled with mindblowing visuals and mindblowing audio would be just too much.
You have to wear glasses to get the best visual 3D effect. IMO you have to wear headphones to get the best aural 3D effect.
The soundtrack that still sticks out in my head as being the best I’d heard in years – Cloverfield (no matter what I think of the movie overall).
I saw both Avatar and Cloverfield in the same THX certified screen.
S’funny, although I saw Avatar in 3D, my mind’s eye recollections are all essentially 2D. I also remember thinking that Avatar was showing the age and limitations of 24fps with various shots strobing horribly whilst others were just fantastic.
I’ve been following the post on Gearslutz you mentioned (just realized it was started by one of the composers of the last film I worked on).
I have always slightly taken side with those that say that too much sounds coming from behind or from the surrounds will confuse the audience and detach them from the film. Ofcourse, each film does have scope for more surround activity plus there would be films in which depending on genre, style and scenes, a strong use of surrounds would be great and justifiable.
It is hard to believe that an upgrade of world theatres to a system like the 22.2 or the IOSONO would happen anytime soon and I do believe if it does happen it would be more of a theme park/special location thing. But I would really like to get a chance to experience the IOSONO sound and see how well it works! It is an exciting world to follow that of technology in sound projection for film. I’ve been tracking back the history of it and its great to see how it has all evolved from the early days!
[...] has come. So, what about sound? What could be the next step on film sound? Tim Prebble has made a great review about this topic, regarding some aspects abut the technology and the techniques that could be [...]
Cool read, Tim, thanks for putting it together. This 22.2 system sounds epic!
I’ll probably be crucified for saying this, but I felt that the Avatar soundtrack wasn’t all that impressive. I admit that I went in with high expectations, and perhaps my dislike of the film itself contributed subconsciously to my feelings on the sound. In fact, most of the soundtrack was pushed aside in favor of annoyingly generic “melodic tribal shouts” / the same “hopeful strings and chants” score that I swear I’ve heard a million times before. As a result, the soundtrack took too much of a backseat to the music.
This is just my opinion.
As the orignal poster of the mentioned Gearslutz-post, most of my feelings regarding that topic can be read there.
But I want to add that I don’t think that in the current economic climate, I don’t think that most dubstages nor theaters are willing to change their playback-systems to a 22.2 or even wavefield-synthesis platform.
Also, since most 5.1-systems are not properly calibrated, imagine the issues of a 400+ speaker system with rendering computers.
I agree, but had Avatard failed at the box office what you say would definitely be true whereas there will now be a financial impetus for a certain kind of film (aka a blockbuster studio film) to be released in 3D and to push the boundaries of whats been achieved with the medium – visually & sonically. The fact that 3D screenings of Avatard are still sold out a week in advance will be making many Hollywood people very happy – when was the last time that happened, a month after the release date?
Thanks for the great post ..
Was great to find your site. I think about this stuff alot .. and one of my clear thoughts during Avatar was that the sound was a let down.
But then cinema sound is always fairly flat & blunt in general. Try closing your eyes next time you watch a film. Its revealing to see how much your brain fudges audio cues into the visual cues to create spatial sensations. But when you cut out the visual cues then the sound becomes very mono dimensional & clunky.
So while the film industry has made huge progression in surround/3d/multi channel sound .. they have also put a huge roadblock in the way by committing to specific formats that are really all about commercial objectives and not sonic results.
In many respects the sonic results of 5.1 are so poor & hammy that it has left many consumers skeptical of the promise of surround sound. This ever present skepticism has been a problem ever since quadraphonic promised the earth and just delivered expensive stereo system.
Still its a massive kettle of fish “3d Sound”. One persons favorite soup is another persons fertilizer. Sound is such a subjective environment and the laws of physics are a bit of a party killer too.
I think mass entertainment will have to change a lot before we get real 3d sound environments. We have to break down the audience-stage barrier, as long as the audience is in one place and the entertainment is in front of them then there really is no point in producing high fidelity 3d sound. Its simply too out of context.
The other problem with film sound would be choosing what to make sonically 3d. What do you do when the camera changes angles or cuts to another shot?
I think 3d sound mostly ends up in the too hard basket or the more popular “why bother when you can fool them with gimmicks” basket.
In my view there are still some fundamental changes that need to happen in they audio is reinforced before we can really leap forward across the whole gamut of audio industries.
What we need is wireless smart speakers boxes that know where they are located in relation to the other speakers boxes in the system, what their specific & exact orientation is, what their capabilities are as a box and also what it sounds like where they are located.
So you put your speakers where ever you can, however you want and where ever suits. “ping” the system and let it crunch the spatial data and then feed it signal while letting super fast boy-grouped chips smash through the algorithms that tell what speaker to produce what part or parts of the sound based on the spatial requirements of each sound.
I guess you could call the system “a school of fish”?