The use of digital 5.1 surround sound in cinema and how it enhances

the cinema experience.

Recorded Work: Batman Returns film score/audio.

Table of Contents

DIGITAL SURROUND SOUND ................................................................................................ 3

WHAT’S BEEN SAID ............................................................................................................... 3

WHAT’S NOT SAID ................................................................................................................ 4

IMPROVING THE CINEMA EXPERIENCE ................................................................................. 5

IMPACT ON THE MARKET .............................................................................................................. 5

WHY 5.1? ...................................................................................................................................... 6

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 7

APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 8

Appendix A – Cinema attendance. ....................................................................................... 8

Appendix B – 5.1 Surround Set Up. ...................................................................................... 9

References .......................................................................................................................... 10

Multichannel film sound was a failure. That is, until the advent of the Dolby’s 5.1 digital

surround system. Only after this was the marriage of sight and sound in the cinema

experience able to be taken to the next step.

DIGITAL SURROUND SOUND

In its most contemporary form; Digital Surround Sound, the art of producing and delivering realistic,

immersive film audio has been subject to increasing interest from not only theatre-goers but also

studio audio engineers, home theatre production corporations and, of course, Western-American

film studios. What has fallen by the wayside, at least in a research context, is the way in which the

technology has been developed and implemented to change the cinema experience. This paper will

look at what’s not been said and will build on existing research to demonstrate how the cinema

experience has improved with the advent of 5.1 digital surround sound.

WHAT’S BEEN SAID

Collectively, the literature positions the introduction of digital audio technology in cinema surround

sound in the early 1990’s, with Batman Returns being the first film shown in Dolby Digital 5.1

surround sound. Even though it received rave reviews, the new digital format was, for the most part,

overlooked by the majority of the public. Kerins (2011, p. 39) asserts this as being due to “its

extremely limited initial deployment: only ten theatres in the United States and Canada were set to

show Batman Returns in digital surround when it was released.” He goes on to explain that the

financial extravagance involved in fitting an existing theatre to provide the digital surround

experience was the likely cause of such a limited initial rollout, but that utilising the misnomer of

‘digital as better’ would soon see digital 5.1 surround become the “de facto standard for

multichannel digital film sound in the cinema” (Ballou, G., 2002, p. 1457).

This subjective projection of ‘digital as better’ was the driving force behind the eventual success of

the new format, despite its financial overheads. Having such a strong attitude prevalent amongst the

cinema-going public meant that the only way forward was digital, regardless of expense. Belton’s

paper on the ‘digital revolution’ highlights this by stating “audiences expected it...digital means

progress and customers wanted it” (Belton, J. 2002. P.100). Most of the literature that provides

comment on the history of digital surround also gives mention to the competition between DTS

(Digital Theatre Systems), Dolby Digital and SDDS (Sony Dynamic Digital Sound) and the different

ways in which they delivered the digital information with the visual component of the film.

Commenting on this competition highlights the financial potential envisioned for the (then) new

technology and the importance it held for the future of cinema.

A number of sources in the reviewed literature make reference to psychoacoustics and the

relationship to surround sound. Chion and Kerins give a passing reference to psychoacoustics by

each making mention of the space within the theatre and the ability to move sounds throughout it

to achieve what Mora terms ‘envelopment’ and the way in which it “increases the realism of audio”

and “enhances the listening experience” (Mora, D., n.d., p. 5). Chion correlates the use of multi-

channel sound in film to psychoacoustically “...enlarging the space that can be filled...” (Chion, M.

1994, p. 154), whereas Kerins relates it back to the narrative of the film itself and the manner in

which it allows the audience to “understand the multi-dimensional aural world through their visual

‘window’ into that space” (Kerins, M., 2007, p.2). This again demonstrates the intrinsic link between

sight and sound.

WHAT’S NOT SAID

One fundamental assumption that is carried throughout the literature, but not given direct

comment, is that surround sound was inevitable; that the biological processes that underpin our

lives with relation to hearing, in particular its marriage to sight, are integral factors in how we seek

and derive pleasure. Chion (1994, p. foreword) touches on this through the use of a quote by Walter

Murch that states “We gestate in sound, and are born into sight. Cinema gestated in sight, and was

born into sound.” This statement gives reference to the intrinsic human link between sight and

sound, which highlights the importance of film sound considering the emphasis placed on the quality

of the visual component through special effects and the financial backing of large studios. The

psychoacoustic properties that surround sound appeals to is the fundamental cause for its universal

success in the commercial and domestic marketplace. Sobchack (2005, p. 2) emphasises this by

stating, “Whereas it was once a given that vision was the dominant and most nuanced (and hence

poetic) element of the cinema experience, of late that dominance has been challenged by shifts of

emphasis and attention in both sound technology and our sensorium.” Auditory factors that largely

impact our everyday lives such as sensitivity to pitch and frequency, spectral filtering and their

influence on localisation were able to be engaged and manipulated with the introduction of

surround sound, improving the cinema experience.

As extensive and edifying as all this information is, it falls short of explaining or demonstrating how

the new technology was used to deliver an improved cinema experience, and ultimately if the

experience really did improve for both the corporation and the consumer. With such a subjective

topic of study, short of conducting extensive field tests and surveys, it is possible to rationalise a

response by looking at the impact it had on the market after its introduction as well as the theory

behind the practice; how the technology was developed and the reasons why.

IMPROVING THE CINEMA EXPERIENCE

IMPACT ON THE MARKET

As has been identified in the literature, digital technology in surround sound was introduced into the

commercial marketplace in 1992 with Tim Burton’s Batman Returns. At the time, digital audio

transmission was becoming widely available both commercially and in the consumer audio space

with CD, however had not found a viable format for use with moving pictures. Up until this point, all

audio used in film was delivered by optical, or magnetic striping methods which were available on

either a 35mm or 70mm film reel, to synchronise the sound to the picture. Magnetic became more

popular as, in addition to better sound quality due to the addition of noise reduction techniques and

the expansion of dynamic range (Karagosian, 1999, p.1), it was available in stereo whereas optic was

only mono. However, magnetic sound prints were expensive, with 35mm prints cost up to 15

times as much as standalone magnetic tape (Benrey. 1967, p.86). The introduction of digital

sound, which could exist solely on 35mm film removed one of the major justifications for using

the expensive magnetic format. Due to this, the cost of installing a digital audio system in a

commercial cinema; between $6000 and $14000 (Neale, S., 1998, p.119), would eventually pay

for itself, not only in purchase and maintenance expenses but also in consumer revenue.

Although 5.1 systems had been implemented previously; most notably with Disney’s Fantasound

system devised for the 1939 release Fantasia, which incidentally failed as a commercial

mainstay due to being overly complex (Kerins, M., 2011, p.24), it wasn’t until the advance of

digital that the cinema industry was able to deliver five sound channels and one effect channel

within the budget of film tracks (Blesser, B. & Salter, L. 2007, p.208). In the 10 years since the

introduction of digital surround sound in the cinema, population percentage and frequency of

cinema attendance in Australia has seen an upwards trend (Appendix A). It’s interesting to note

that the largest increases in population percentage and frequency of attendance in the two years

following the release of Batman Returns occur in the 35 to 50+ age bracket. This may indicate

that those who had not previously grown up around digital audio formats (CD, DVD etc) were

more interested in the burgeoning new technology. While surround sound had been around in

analogue formats for many years prior to the arrival of digital, the increase in audience numbers

after its implementation highlights the ‘digital is better’ public perception discussed in the

literature. But was it just a perception or did it actually improve the cinema experience for the

audience?

WHY 5.1?

The concept of achieving a level of realism is, in some considerations, the most important factor

in determining overall preference in sound quality (Rumsey, F., 2001, p.38). Surround sound use

in cinema is based upon the principal that, like sight, humans hear in 3D and as such derive

enjoyment from a more ‘real world’ or immersive aural experience. As such, technological

advances and innovation with regard to cinema sound has been based on the pursuit of ‘greater

realism’ (Altman, R. 1992, p.159) and recreating a level of spatial awareness.

As a fact of nature, humans don’t have eyes in the backs or tops of their heads, and as such rely

on their vision to perceive the scene in front of them, while using auditory cues to interpret the

world above and behind them (Rumsey, F., 2001, p.1). 5.1 surround sound exploits this fact by

placing the audio at the front of the cinema as well as to the left, right, and behind the audience

(Appendix B).

Rumsey discusses the psychoacoustic phenomena of Apparent Source Width (ASW),

locatedness and listener envelopment as being important considerations in achieving what he

terms ‘Naturalness’ (Rumsey, F. 2001 pp. 36-39). Apparent Source Width refers to how large the

sonic space is that is occupied by a particular sound source, with Rumsey noting that during

concert hall experiments, subjects preferred a larger amount of ASW. Having discrete control

over a left, right and centre channel in a 5.1 set up as opposed to just left and right as in stereo,

or just centre as in mono greatly enlarges the sonic space a single sound source can occupy in

front of an audience. This justifies the use of a forward stereo placement in conjunction with the

centre mono channel, but what about the rear channels?

Listener envelopment refers to the sense of immersion and involvement in a reverberant sound

field. In a 5.1 system, providing discrete control over not only the level, but also the timing of

signals sent to the rear left and right channels creates a powerful tool for expanding the listening

space without physically manipulating its dimensions, through emulating reverberation and

ambient environmental sounds. These factors combined allow manipulation of a person’s sense

of location or direction, by blending and diffusing several direct sound sources across all five

channels.

CONCLUSION

Though there is no single objective answer to define the impact that digital 5.1 surround has had on

the cinema experience, by looking at the changes in the market place since its arrival and relating

the psychoacoustic phenomena it impacts, it is possible to rationalise that digital 5.1 surround sound

delivers a much more pleasing cinema experience that, even with the development of the home

theatre, drives one to continually return to the theatre.

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Cinema attendance.

Attendance rate (%)1 Frequency2

14–24

yrs

25–

34

yrs

35–

49

yrs

50+ yrs 14–

24

yrs

25–

34

yrs

35–

49

yrs

50+ yrs

1990 87.4% 62.1% 58.4% 37.0% 12.7 10.5 9.2 8.9

1992 87.0% 69.0% 62.0% 42.0% 12.4 10.6 9.1 9.1

1994 88.7% 73.2% 67.7% 49.0% 12.2 10.5 9.4 10.1

1996 92.4% 79.3% 74.1% 51.8% 13.0 11.3 10.0 10.6

1998 91.0% 80.1% 73.4% 53.8% 10.6 8.5 6.6 7.5

1999 91.5% 80.3% 72.9% 54.0% 11.3 8.4 6.5 7.4

2000 89.8% 79.2% 70.6% 51.3% 10.8 8.4 6.7 7.6

2001 89.0% 78.2% 72.0% 52.6% 10.3 8.1 7.1 7.7

2002 89.8% 79.8% 73.4% 56.6% 10.2 8.3 6.7 8.1

2003 88.9% 78.3% 72.8% 55.4% 10.2 8.2 6.6 7.8

2004 90.0% 79.3% 73.1% 57.0% 9.8 7.8 6.5 7.4

2005 87.1% 74.6% 69.6% 54.3% 9.3 7.6 6.1 7.3

2006 85.2% 73.2% 69.1% 54.8% 8.9 7.4 6.1 7.3

2007 84.4% 72.9% 68.0% 54.0% 9.0 6.7 6.0 7.2

2008 84.1% 69.9% 68.8% 53.0% 9.3 7.6 5.6 6.9

2009 85.9% 72.8% 69.4% 56.9% 9.7 7.3 5.9 7.0

Taken from http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/research/statistics/wcrmagepattern.asp on June

2nd, 2011.

Appendix B – 5.1 Surround Set Up.

Taken from http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/zz-

_Shared_Assets/English_PDFs/Professional/L.mn.0002.5.1guide.pdf on June 2nd, 2011.

°°°

REFERENCES

Altman, R. (Ed.) (1992). Sound theory, sound practice. New York: Routledge.

Ballou, G. (2002). Handbook for sound engineers. Massachusetts, USA: Focal Press.

Belton, J. (2002). Digital cinema: A false revolution. October, 100(1), 98-114. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/779094.pdf .

Benrey, R. (1969). Today’s stereo: How they capture it. Popular Science, 191(2), 84-88.

Blesser, B. & Salter, L. R. (2007). Spaces speak, are you listening? London: The MIT Press.

Chion, M. (1994). Audio-vision. New York:Columbia University Press.

Cowan, S. (1999). From mono to 5.1 and beyond. Professional Sound Journal, 10(4), 45-49. Retrieved

from

http://search.proquest.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/docview/756574949?accountid=14543.

Holman, T. (2008). Surround sound: Up and running. Massachusetts, USA: Focal Press.

Karagosian, M. (1999). Multichannel film sound. Film Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.mkpe.com/publications/d-cinema/misc/multichannel.php.

Kerins, M. (2011). Beyond Dolby (stereo): Cinema in the digital sound age. Indiana, USA: Indiana

University Press.

Kerins, M. (2007). Constructing the diegesis in a multi-channel world. Offscreen, 11(8-9), 1-5.

Retrieved from http://www.offscreen.com/Sound_Issue/kerins_diegesis.pdf.

Mora, D. (n.d.). The exploitation of digital surround sound in today’s mainstream cinema. Retrieved

from SAE UK web site: http://www.saeuk.com/downloads/research/mora.pdf.

Rumsey, F. (2011). Spatial audio. Massachusetts, USA: Focal Press.

Sergi, G. (2004). The Dolby era: Film sound in contemporary Hollywood. Manchester, UK: Manchester

University Press.

Sobchack, V. (2005). When the ear dreams: Dolby digital and the imagination of sound. Film

Quarterly, 58(4), 2-15.