I like the disclaimer
The pilot tone for level control is very clever. No wonder Fantasia nearly bankrupted disney. For all people might think of Uncle Walt he had some balls to move the state of the art as far as he did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasound wikipedia says so, but we know what their hit rate can be 
Indeed. Back when I "invented" Dolby Digital, the space between the sprocket holes seemed much too risky. As a film projectionist at the time, I knew how fragile and prone to damage that area of the film is. I placed my data about where DTS puts their time code.
Back in late 1990 I decided that there ought to be a way to get digital audio onto 35mm film prints and still remain backward compatible with older projectors and sound pickup heads. I spent a lot of time, thought and research to come up with an optical digital system for cinemas. It was all on paper, in a little notebook. In late '91 or early '92 I went to Dolby labs in San Fransisco to present my ideas and look for help in developing the system. They glanced at my papers and said "Would you like to see our new digital sound system that's coming out next month? We call it Dolby Digital." They showed me the system and gave me some bits of 35mm film with the digital soundtrack. The similarities in my system and theirs were uncanny. Both used a 2D matrix (like a QR code) to carry the signal. Both used a CCD camera to read the info, both placed the reader upstream of the projector gate to allow easy retrofitting and digital delay to sync image and sound, and also account for latency. Both had a system for a quick switch to the analog track in case of dropouts or other troubles. The only two significant differences were that I used a color matrix for octal data and low data compression, Dolby used a black and white target for binary data and a higher compression rate. And the placement of the data on the film was different.
Of course I realized that if Dolby Digital was about to be announced as a system, they had been working on it much longer than I had. Oh well. Another day late and dollar short sort of story.
Funny thing was, about a month later I applied for a job at Dolby Labs, but they wouldn't hire me because I didn't have a degree!
Quite by accident I found these articles (I needed to scroll to see them all as the tiny window loads for me at the last page) while looking for something related to the Shearer, so maybe I'm 'remembering' them from it and/or W.E. related search in general.
Last edited:
I have to attribute this image By Rotareneg - en:Image:35mm_film_audio_macro.jpg, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1210853
Now I've done that, did Sony steal the real estate on the left first leaving nowhere else or was Dolby just being contrary by chosing the most difficult location?
(sorry for drifting so far off topic, but audio, films and WE sort of go together)
Attachments
It's for both. Image registration is needed, so why not use your logo?
When I got started thinking about this, my first idea was to put the data between frames. Since all new releases and 35mm prints at the time were in 1.85 or 1.66 ratio, that left a great blank spot between each frame. Lots of room in a robust, unused space! Yes, it took me some time to remember that 'scope (anamorphic) prints use almost the entire frame height. So that was a bad idea.
When I got started thinking about this, my first idea was to put the data between frames. Since all new releases and 35mm prints at the time were in 1.85 or 1.66 ratio, that left a great blank spot between each frame. Lots of room in a robust, unused space! Yes, it took me some time to remember that 'scope (anamorphic) prints use almost the entire frame height. So that was a bad idea.
The photos show what may be the wet dream of most WE aficionados.
From the center out there is a WE16-A flanked by 2 Mirrophonic style w-bins, the 12-A (hanging) + 13-A combo and - my personal favorite, a rather unusual combination of the Mirrophonic w-bin with 24-A horns above. The 24-As are loaded with 594-As using a 19-A throat adapter.
Speaker cabinet TA-7396 (w-bin) is officially equipped with 2x TA-4181A 18" drivers, although I spot only one here.
The crossover freq. is 300 Hz.
With the modified 594-A drivers developed for the 'Auditory Perspective' experiments, this 2-way should be near full range (approx. 40-15,000 Hz).
24-A+19-A+594-A Response:
From the center out there is a WE16-A flanked by 2 Mirrophonic style w-bins, the 12-A (hanging) + 13-A combo and - my personal favorite, a rather unusual combination of the Mirrophonic w-bin with 24-A horns above. The 24-As are loaded with 594-As using a 19-A throat adapter.
Speaker cabinet TA-7396 (w-bin) is officially equipped with 2x TA-4181A 18" drivers, although I spot only one here.
The crossover freq. is 300 Hz.
With the modified 594-A drivers developed for the 'Auditory Perspective' experiments, this 2-way should be near full range (approx. 40-15,000 Hz).
24-A+19-A+594-A Response:
Last edited:
Some comments from Joe Roberts and others:
"The 31A horn is PA gear-- for airports and parking lots. It is not Mirrophonic theater gear. They were mostly used with cheap PA drivers with a 1" adapter.
JC and I tried 31A again last year with a 594A...it is one of the worst horns I know. Even a 594A can't save it.
They used to be worth $50. I wouldn't even take a 31A for free if i had to listen to it. Now I see them online for $5000/pr! Crazy!
The best horn by far is the 26A, followed by the 24A. I never heard 25A but it has a poor reputation compared with 24A and 26A. it is beautiful to look at, however. There are other multicell horns in the Silbatone collection that I haven't heard yet, such as the 27A. This stuff is heavy and we are all lazy and happy with the 26A in Model 2 configuration (actually 26B--two drivers per side).
I personally think the Mirrophonic gear (26A/594A) is "better" than the 555 Wide Range. More modern, clean, super detailed, extended frequency range. Monitor quality. Crystal clear and super coherent in HF. Triangles and little bells sound like they are in the room. Great 3-D. Bass is like an earthquake and it shuts off instantly--no hangover. Will play everything.
However, most WE fans will go for the 555 systems. I think that the 555 systems have a lot more character and if you like the flavor, then you can be very happy.
Mirrophonic plays everything. Wide Range setups are more limited or specialized, but they are great at what they do.
I like a wide variety of music, but I value systems on how well they play jazz and blues. Lee Morgan on Mirrophonic is insane. Brass instruments sound life size and real and have the sparkle they have in live performance. Mirrophonic can play funky bass, while that is outside the design curve for Wide Range.
When we need to check out a new Silbatone item, we hook it up to the Mirrophonic 2. It is the best "monitor" sound we have.
I don't like the idea of a crossover at 300hz (compared to none at all) but with the proper original crossover and bass cabs, it is not so bad. Think of Ray Charles' vocal fundamentals played by four 4181s!! Strong!
The stock crossovers are like magic and do a lot to make the system sound like one piece.
Some problems with the Mirrophonic range:
--Too big and too powerful for home use. I mean this stuff will play LOUD.
--Rare and Expensive.
--Must be the exact factory setup to get the official Mirrophonic effect.
Actually, I don't think many people have heard complete Mirrophonic systems. There are a few installations around but hard to find outside of Korea and Japan.
Even over there, most Mirrophonic installations are not what they should be. It is difficult to get this gear set up perfectly.
Wide Range gear is relatively common, inexpensive, and compact. If it can fit in the room, it can probably be made to sound good. It is extreme but still within possibility, especially with replica horns available for purchase.
Mirrophonic is a completely different thing from 555 setups and possibly even more amazing as a technical achievement. Cost, rarity, and mass put it in a different category from the 15A.
Although I think the Mirrophonic is technically "better," there is no way to rate any of this stuff expect by taste and musical preference.
A simple 15A system is a lot easier to put together and would be much easier to live with. It is on a high enough level that you really don't have to worry about other "better" gear anymore.
For years, we used the M2 as a two way. 594 has really superb HF on the 26A horn...I'm talking music not ultrasonic bat sounds.
Triangles and bells sound scary real on that thing.
Western Electric considered 13k to be all that was needed. Maybe they were right.
I think most tweeters that go higher just put out ringing trash in the highest registers anyway.
Last year, we put a GIP 9501 tweeter in and it adds a little bit of air. A good improvement so it stayed. That might be the best tweeter of all time. It is almost wasted in that system because a tweeter is not strictly necessary..
Yeah, I had the pleasure to listen to the M2 last September. I don't see a tweeter and I think it was still run as a 2-way system. In any case, I didn't miss any treble at all and triangles, hi-hats, etc. did indeed sound super-real.
My impression was that the M2 is an awesome system for rock, large-scale symphonic stuff, etc., i.e. where macro-dynamics are more important than hearing the most minute micro-details (here the 555 systems have the upper hand). Hence, the above mentioned "Smoke on the Water" indeed blew me away. I'm not a huge rock fan and I always thought that this is a rather dull and stupid song. However, when I heard it over the M2 I nearly fell off my chair. The bass was super-tight, without any boom, colorful, detailed (you could clearly hear how the plectrum hit the strings on each note) and it truly hit you in the stomach. And then the guitar - I thought I was sitting in front of a huge Marshall amp-stack and not in front of some 75 year-old speaker system. Epic stuff and lucky us that they torched the Montreux Casino back then!
Relating this to previous discussion on materials...
The sheet metal construction of the 16A obviously contributes to that lively upfront sound, making it killer for certain things (I'd like to hear some Delta Blues silde guitar) but making it a more specialized tool.
I consider the 15A a much more versatile device...a bit on the rich and juicy side but the end result is hard to complain about.
Now, the 26A is a very special construction which is part of what makes it amazing. It is made of a sandwich of steel and bitumenized felt, i.e. felt treated with an asphalt substance. Incredibly labor intensive. When you tap the horn, it does not sound either live or dead...just a proper "click."
Other Mirrophonic horns such as 24A and 25a do not have this feature instead have single sheet metal vanes which do ring a bit if you really crank it up. I mean LOUD."
And here's another comment on the 24-A:
"The midrange horn was also genuine WE... the 24... the 24 is a strange horn... it has a very good profile... good length.. mouth size.. pattern... it looks like a multi-cell, but it is not... it has dividing vanes.. but they are not breaking the horn into discrete sections like the 26, a true multi-cell... it sounded absolutely stunning on many recordings.. occasionally when it got really loud (and these guys definitely cranked - one morning my ears were ringing!)... think dynamic peaks on basically low level music... you could hear some distortion.. it was the vanes vibrating.. you could feel them... most of the time, with moderate SPL's, you would never notice.. from what I heard on Sunday morning with Art Pepper, I would say that it is the best vintage horn I have yet heard...."
I don't think the description of the 24-A is correct. At the entrance of the 24-A individual cells are clearly visible. The 19-A adapter is basically a round to rectangular duct. 19-B and -C adapters are longer in order to support smaller exits.
Contrary to other multicells, the cells (sectors?) of the 24-A aren't seperated but segmented, which seems rather clever, since none of the adjacent cells are identical (the complete horn is only mirrored right-left).
The Japanese guy that created the plot in the previous post stated that a 24-A is capable of treble reproduction without the typical issues of regular multicells.
Which makes me wonder how a non-metal 24-A would perform.
"The 31A horn is PA gear-- for airports and parking lots. It is not Mirrophonic theater gear. They were mostly used with cheap PA drivers with a 1" adapter.
JC and I tried 31A again last year with a 594A...it is one of the worst horns I know. Even a 594A can't save it.
They used to be worth $50. I wouldn't even take a 31A for free if i had to listen to it. Now I see them online for $5000/pr! Crazy!
The best horn by far is the 26A, followed by the 24A. I never heard 25A but it has a poor reputation compared with 24A and 26A. it is beautiful to look at, however. There are other multicell horns in the Silbatone collection that I haven't heard yet, such as the 27A. This stuff is heavy and we are all lazy and happy with the 26A in Model 2 configuration (actually 26B--two drivers per side).
I personally think the Mirrophonic gear (26A/594A) is "better" than the 555 Wide Range. More modern, clean, super detailed, extended frequency range. Monitor quality. Crystal clear and super coherent in HF. Triangles and little bells sound like they are in the room. Great 3-D. Bass is like an earthquake and it shuts off instantly--no hangover. Will play everything.
However, most WE fans will go for the 555 systems. I think that the 555 systems have a lot more character and if you like the flavor, then you can be very happy.
Mirrophonic plays everything. Wide Range setups are more limited or specialized, but they are great at what they do.
I like a wide variety of music, but I value systems on how well they play jazz and blues. Lee Morgan on Mirrophonic is insane. Brass instruments sound life size and real and have the sparkle they have in live performance. Mirrophonic can play funky bass, while that is outside the design curve for Wide Range.
When we need to check out a new Silbatone item, we hook it up to the Mirrophonic 2. It is the best "monitor" sound we have.
I don't like the idea of a crossover at 300hz (compared to none at all) but with the proper original crossover and bass cabs, it is not so bad. Think of Ray Charles' vocal fundamentals played by four 4181s!! Strong!
The stock crossovers are like magic and do a lot to make the system sound like one piece.
Some problems with the Mirrophonic range:
--Too big and too powerful for home use. I mean this stuff will play LOUD.
--Rare and Expensive.
--Must be the exact factory setup to get the official Mirrophonic effect.
Actually, I don't think many people have heard complete Mirrophonic systems. There are a few installations around but hard to find outside of Korea and Japan.
Even over there, most Mirrophonic installations are not what they should be. It is difficult to get this gear set up perfectly.
Wide Range gear is relatively common, inexpensive, and compact. If it can fit in the room, it can probably be made to sound good. It is extreme but still within possibility, especially with replica horns available for purchase.
Mirrophonic is a completely different thing from 555 setups and possibly even more amazing as a technical achievement. Cost, rarity, and mass put it in a different category from the 15A.
Although I think the Mirrophonic is technically "better," there is no way to rate any of this stuff expect by taste and musical preference.
A simple 15A system is a lot easier to put together and would be much easier to live with. It is on a high enough level that you really don't have to worry about other "better" gear anymore.
For years, we used the M2 as a two way. 594 has really superb HF on the 26A horn...I'm talking music not ultrasonic bat sounds.
Triangles and bells sound scary real on that thing.
Western Electric considered 13k to be all that was needed. Maybe they were right.
I think most tweeters that go higher just put out ringing trash in the highest registers anyway.
Last year, we put a GIP 9501 tweeter in and it adds a little bit of air. A good improvement so it stayed. That might be the best tweeter of all time. It is almost wasted in that system because a tweeter is not strictly necessary..
Yeah, I had the pleasure to listen to the M2 last September. I don't see a tweeter and I think it was still run as a 2-way system. In any case, I didn't miss any treble at all and triangles, hi-hats, etc. did indeed sound super-real.
My impression was that the M2 is an awesome system for rock, large-scale symphonic stuff, etc., i.e. where macro-dynamics are more important than hearing the most minute micro-details (here the 555 systems have the upper hand). Hence, the above mentioned "Smoke on the Water" indeed blew me away. I'm not a huge rock fan and I always thought that this is a rather dull and stupid song. However, when I heard it over the M2 I nearly fell off my chair. The bass was super-tight, without any boom, colorful, detailed (you could clearly hear how the plectrum hit the strings on each note) and it truly hit you in the stomach. And then the guitar - I thought I was sitting in front of a huge Marshall amp-stack and not in front of some 75 year-old speaker system. Epic stuff and lucky us that they torched the Montreux Casino back then!
Relating this to previous discussion on materials...
The sheet metal construction of the 16A obviously contributes to that lively upfront sound, making it killer for certain things (I'd like to hear some Delta Blues silde guitar) but making it a more specialized tool.
I consider the 15A a much more versatile device...a bit on the rich and juicy side but the end result is hard to complain about.
Now, the 26A is a very special construction which is part of what makes it amazing. It is made of a sandwich of steel and bitumenized felt, i.e. felt treated with an asphalt substance. Incredibly labor intensive. When you tap the horn, it does not sound either live or dead...just a proper "click."
Other Mirrophonic horns such as 24A and 25a do not have this feature instead have single sheet metal vanes which do ring a bit if you really crank it up. I mean LOUD."
And here's another comment on the 24-A:
"The midrange horn was also genuine WE... the 24... the 24 is a strange horn... it has a very good profile... good length.. mouth size.. pattern... it looks like a multi-cell, but it is not... it has dividing vanes.. but they are not breaking the horn into discrete sections like the 26, a true multi-cell... it sounded absolutely stunning on many recordings.. occasionally when it got really loud (and these guys definitely cranked - one morning my ears were ringing!)... think dynamic peaks on basically low level music... you could hear some distortion.. it was the vanes vibrating.. you could feel them... most of the time, with moderate SPL's, you would never notice.. from what I heard on Sunday morning with Art Pepper, I would say that it is the best vintage horn I have yet heard...."
I don't think the description of the 24-A is correct. At the entrance of the 24-A individual cells are clearly visible. The 19-A adapter is basically a round to rectangular duct. 19-B and -C adapters are longer in order to support smaller exits.
Contrary to other multicells, the cells (sectors?) of the 24-A aren't seperated but segmented, which seems rather clever, since none of the adjacent cells are identical (the complete horn is only mirrored right-left).
The Japanese guy that created the plot in the previous post stated that a 24-A is capable of treble reproduction without the typical issues of regular multicells.
Which makes me wonder how a non-metal 24-A would perform.
Last edited: