Sony G90 Users Manual

G90 to the manual c768e6e3-ba75-4639-b405-71ce53fac2d5

: Sony Sony-G90-Users-Manual-296528 sony-g90-users-manual-296528 sony pdf

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 105 [warning: Documents this large are best viewed by clicking the View PDF Link!]

$5.95 US • $7.95 CAN

Sony G90

Size D o e s M a t t e r !

New Products From Runco, Revel, NAD, Pioneer, Linn & Lexicon

www.theperfectvision.com

Editor-in-Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Harry Pearson

Executive Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sallie Reynolds

Senior Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Greg Rogers, Video

Thomas O. Miiller, Audio

Greg Sandow, Music & Multimedia

Technical Editor,Audio . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Harley

Assistant Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bob Gendron

Technical Consultant,Audio . . . . . . .Richard Marsh

Contributing Writers . . . . . . . .Alice Artzt, Bill Cruce,

Thom Duffy, Neil Gader, Bob Gendron,

Robert Harley, Alen Koebel, Bruce Lawton,

Tom Martin, Andrew Quint,

Barry Rawlinson, Paul Seydor,

Jonathan Valin, Heidi Waleson

Art Director . . . . .Nancy Josephson for Design Farm

Proofreader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aubin Parrish

Artists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gary Oliver, Illustrations

David Omer, Cover Photography

Steve Friedman, Benigni Photos

Absolute Multimedia, Inc.

Chair man and CEO . . . . . . .Thomas B. Martin, Jr.

Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mark Fisher

Finance & Adminst ration . . . . . . . . . .Trish Kunz

Accoun ting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Scott Pettit

Advertising Represen t ati ves . . . . . . .Anne Hart,

Mike Grellman

Circulation Manager . . . . . . . . . .Steven Wa y n e r

Legal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jim Robinson

Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vito Colaprico (printing),

Richard Sabella (HP’s business),

Howard Arber (HP’s legal affairs)

www.theperfectvision.com

SUBSCRIPTION, RENEWALS, CHANGES OF ADDRESS

Phone (888) 475-5991 (USA) or (973) 627-5162 (outside USA). T h e

Perfect Vi s i o n Subscription Services, Box 3000, Denville, New Jer-

sey 07834. Six issues: In the USA, $32, Canada $36 (GST includ-

ed); outside North America, $65 (includes airmail). Payments must

be by credit card (Visa, MasterCard, American Express) or USA

funds drawn on a USA bank, with checks payable to Absolute

Multimedia, Inc.

EDITORIAL MATTERS

Address letter to: The Editor, The Perfect Vision, Box 235, Sea Cliff,

New York 11579, or by e-mail to hp@theperfectvision.com. Address

all other editorial matters to: The Executive Editor, The Perfect

Vision, Box 141, Cool, California 95614, fax (530) 823-0156, email:

sreynolds@theperfectvision.com.

DISPLAY ADVERTISING

Contact Anne Hart at the address below or e-mail: ahart@theper-

fectvision.com. or contact Mike Grellman at (925) 327-1304, fax (925)

327-1429 or e-mail: mgrellman@earthlink.net.

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING

Please use the form in the back of the issue.

NEWSSTAND DISTRIBUTION AND LOCAL DEALERS

Contact Eastern News Distributors, Inc., at 250 West 55th Street,

New York, New York 10019, phone (800) 221-3148.

PUBLISHING MATTERS

Contact Mark Fisher at the address below or e-mail: mfisher@thep-

erfectvision.com.

COPYRIGHT Absolute Multimedia, Inc., Issue 26, September/October 1999.

The Perfect Vision (ISSN #0895-4143) is published bi-monthly, $32 per year for US. residents, Absolute

Multimedia, Inc., 7035 Bee Caves Road, Suite 203, Austin, Texas 78746. Application to mail at Periodi-

cal Postage rates is pending at Austin, Texas, and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send

address changes to The Perfect Vision, Subscription Services, Box 3000, Denville, New Jersey 07834.

Printed in the USA.

Absolute Multimedia, Inc. · 7035 Bee Caves Road, Suite 203 · Austin, Texas 78746

(512) 306-8780 · Fax (512) 328-7528 · absolute_multimedia@msn.com

T

his was a hard issue. Our third time out and maybe three’s a jinx, maybe

we got a little cocky. In any case, nothing jelled for the longest time. Then,

because TPV has Twinkle-Dust Factor, something finally clicked, and the

topic rose to the surface: We were questing for the Mythical Beast. The elu-

sive, the magical and mysterious. The thing you want – It – ever and teas-

ingly just beyond reach.

The experience of “art” is a mystery, after all, and requires that willing suspension

of disbelief. Furthermore, we want this shimmering thing in our homes – so quotidian,

the antithesis of the magic carpet. If It can ever happen at home at all, the process

requires an extraordinary blend of multi-sensual cues with true artistic vision – more

than ever we needed in strange, dark caves.

Paul Seydor tells you how film editors strive for It. Alen Koebel haunted INFO-

COMM looking for It. Alice Artzt says she found It in Roberto Benigni. For Tom Miiller,

It turned his “perfect” room into a Ti g e r. Greg Rogers says you might be able to find

perfect color – but not without real know-how. Greg Sandow digs at the very heart of

the experience before he finds a little of It.

HP points out that while Special Editions are supposed to have It, suppositions by

nature create unassuageable desires. Jonathan Valin takes on the vision of the great

Imago himself, Ingmar Bergman, in the hope that some spells work forever.

W h y, you say, I might have It in my hands right this minute! But drat, you can’t get

the system to work – you keep punching buttons and get picture but no sound, sound

but no video. Where are those simple, hunky knobs of yore that clicked so cleanly

from off to on and let you know when you’d got there? For some of us, It might just be

sound and vision at the same time – every time.

Still, we have good, solid stuff here: Controllers (maybe they’re that great old knob

in new skin, if we can figure out how to use them). DVDs. Projectors, line doublers.

Even whole systems (Part 1, of course. This is still a q u e s t. And we are yet ourselves.)

Highlights: Sandow in Cuba at the Buena Vista Social Club; Seydor on the Cutting

Room Floor; Rogers on Color; Rogers on Runco & Sony; Miiller in the War Room with

Revel; Rawlinson with the Alchemist of Linn. Valin with Queen Elizabeth (he’d rather

be with Mrs. Brown). And HP with Kubrick and the Space Monsters.

S R

IN THIS ISSUE

I s s u e 2 6 , S e p t e m b e r /O c t o b e r 19 9 9

V I E W P O I N T S

6 Editorial

7 Editorial Notes

Can All That Counts Be Counted? A Forum Begins…

Janet’s Index (A footnote to “Keeping It Real:

Producing Classical Music Videos,” Issue 25)

9 Letters

The Problem with DVD: Digital Artifacts…Targeting

14-Year-Old Boys?…Down the Primrose Path…What

Not To See on DVD…Electronic Cinema

Columns

13 Audio: Death to Convention – Tom Miiller

15 Video: We’ve Got What it Takes for Home

Theater – Greg Rogers

16 Music & Multimedia: The Vexed Question of

Multimedia – Greg Sandow

17 Out of the Box: Video Travels – Tom Martin

19 Design Concepts: The Human Interface

– Barry Rawlinson

J O U R N A L

20 Industry News

INFOCOMM ’99: An Insider’s View – Alen Koebel

24 Exploring Film

Trims, Clips, and Selects: Notes from the Cutting

Room Floor – Paul Seydor

A U D I O

31 Featured Product

Lexicon MC-1 Controller: Sonic Flavors To Slake

Every Thirst – Robert Harley

35 Department

What You Should Know…About Controllers

– Robert Harley

41 Reviews

41 Revel Ultima Speaker System Episode One:

The Ancient Enemy – Tom Miiller

48 Linn-AV5100 Tukan Multi-Channel System:

In Search of the Mythical Beast I

– Barry Rawlinson

51 NAD T770 Audio-Video Receiver: Just the

Basics, Done Well – Neil Gader

53 Manufacturers’ Corner

RPG

MUSIC & M U L T I M E D I A

55 I Want My DVD! Major Labels’ Plans for

Classical Music on DVD – Heidi Waleson

57 Upscale Pop (on DVD) – Thom Duffy

59 Made for DVD: Puccini’s Tu r a n d o t – Greg Sandow

63 A (Classical) DVD Sampler – Greg Sandow

67 Surrounded! Roger Reynolds’ Wa t e r s h e d (created

for DVD) – Greg Sandow & Barry Rawlinson

71 Pop with a Twist – Bob Gendron

77 Multimedia: A Close Encounter (Voices of Light

&The Passion of Joan of Arc) – Andrew Quint

V I D E O

81 Department

Video Insights: An Introduction to Digital

Video 2: Video Color Concepts – Greg Rogers

87 Reviews

87 Sony VPH-G90U Multiscan Projector

– Greg Rogers

90 Runco DTV-930 Multiscan Projector

– Greg Rogers

Measurements – Greg Rogers

94 IEV Turboscan 1500 Line Doubler – Bill Cruce

96 Pioneer Elite DVL-91 Combination

CD/LD/DVD Player – Bill Cruce

Measurements – Greg Rogers

99 Further Thoughts: DVDO iScan Plus Line

Doubler – Greg Rogers

FILM & M O V I E S

101 Personalities

Roberto Benigni – Alice Artzt & Bruce Lawton

105 HP’s Movieola

Special Editions (DVDs): Kubrick & Alien box

sets…Worth a Look: Weir’s Gallipoli; Ward’s

What Dreams May Come; Vadim’s Barbarella

110 Second Run

110 BioPics: Elizabeth; Mrs. Brown;

Gods & Monsters (DVDs) – Jonathan Valin

Comments by HP

114 Current Attractions

Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut – HP

115 Film Forum

Bergman’s The Seventh Seal (DVD)

–Jonathan Valin

S I G N O F F

118 For the Reader

Information about TPV

120 VisionWatch

Prognostications: Our staff predicts the future

Front Cover: Sony VPH-G90U Multiscan Projector

.

“Do not keep anything…that

you do not know to be useful

or believe to be beautiful.”

– William Morris

Let it be said, at this the half-way point of summer

(as of the writing), the neighborhood multiplexes

find themselves wishing they could either get rid of

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace or at least move

a surviving copy of it to one of their lesser screens.

Most of you probably know the terms that George

Lucas stuck the exhibitors with: (a) a 12-week min-

imum run and (b) on their biggest screens. It is even said that

Lucasfilm is demanding 90 percent of the box-office gross for

the entire 12 weeks. Unheard of terms. And not soon likely to

be repeated.

Instead of being a Titanic-buster, as the marshmallow-

cloud prognosticators foresaw, the fourth Star Wars install-

ment looks a bit more like Dennis the Menace in its measur-

ing up to the Cameron box-office juggernaut. And so we have

the lovely irony wherein the biggest venues in the local plex

may be less than half full, while across the hall, in a smaller

theater, folks are getting turned away from the likes of Wild,

Wild West, Austin Powers, Big Daddy,and other such intel-

lectually stimulating and spiritually instructive treats. Me, I’m

just glad that Lucas hasn’t cornered the popcorn concession,

demanding a cut there as well.

I had hoped to have a few “real” films under Current

Attractions in this issue and was prepared to review one for-

eign flick no longer much about (The Dream Life of Angels)

and even an artistic failure with plenty of meat on the bones

(Mike Figgis’ The Loss of Sexual Innocence). Eyes Wide Shut

opened just in time for me to squeeze in a few observations.

But I was able to catch Run, Lola, Run, which is an exhil-

arating film, as full of energy as any dozen others and perhaps

a significator of where film is going at the end of the century.

When I walked out of the theater, mind abuzz with the images

I had just encountered, I felt almost a guilty pleasure, know-

ing that Lola marks the end of film as we know it. Well, maybe

that’s an exaggeration; but still, for some time movies have

been abandoning traditional narrative formats for the hyped-

up visual experience and Lola takes that hyped-up energy to

the edge. And when you metaphorically peer over that edge

into the abyss, you’ll have to ask yourself, “Just where do the

movies go from here?” Will they all become machine-gun fire

multi-media collages, going even further than Lola, which is a

multi-media treat (animation, live action, stupendously well-

employed Dolby Digital, wall-to-wall-papered rock)?

I can’t imagine this German import not becoming one of

the most successful foreign/art-house films ever. Yes, it has

subtitles (oh horrors!), but you hardly need them to keep up

with the action, which has the virtue of being pure movement

(cinema’s forte) once Lola sets out on her run, repeated three

times over with a different outcome each time. At issue is sav-

ing her dope-dealing boyfriend’s life, which means she has to

come up with $100,000 (Deutsche Marks) within 20 minutes

or else. There is a cast of characters whose paths she crosses

(or doesn’t) during each run, and as the camera pauses to con-

template each, you see a rat-a-tat barrage of still photographs

of each’s future, which changes according to the circum-

stances of the encounter with Lola. There are, additionally,

two beautifully done bridge passages after the first and sec-

ond runs, which show, slyly, why she gets another chance at

changing the outcome. There is a surprising amount of heft,

emotional meat on the bones, in this seemingly slight virtuoso

exercise in the craft of film, and buried within its telegraphed

shorthand staccato outbursts, a reservoir of deep feeling. And

such mordant, dry, macabre humor to keep the tone ironic

and post-modern. All this is in vivid, day-glo color, filmed in

almost every medium one can think of, but done in such a way

that it all coheres and makes perfect artistic sense (unlike,

say, Oliver Stone’sNatural Born Killers, where Stone is

showboating with technique, failing to relate it to content).

Like I said, it may well make you feel as high as a kite, but

what in the world do you do for an encore?

Barco Vision Watch

In the first chapter of our adventure, Projector Installation:

The Real Menace, I took a shot at Barco’s official Long Island

installation folks at Gavi. That was written on deadline.

Between then and the time the folks at Gavi saw the unfavor-

able mention in the last issue, the company sent its men back

again and again in an effort to get the 708 data-grade projec-

tor working at the level I needed in order to make solid and

sound judgments about everything from laserdiscs and DVDs,

enhanced and non, to HDTV when it finally arrives at the Sea

Cliff studios.

Part of the problem the first time out was that Gavi’s folk

did not remount the Barco so that it was correctly distanced

from the 8-foot Stewart screen. Instead, they used the ceiling-

mounted plate Sony had installed for their projector. Thus, I

couldn’t get an accurately sized 4:3 picture, which meant I

couldn’t watch full-screen discs (this means anything before

l954 and Latter Day stuff either made for TV or not – IMAX,

e.g.). Then on a subsequent visit, I found the team had put in

an anamorphic widescreen setting without supplying another

for standard widescreen discs. So non-anamorphic DVDs and

laserdiscs looked really weird, being squeezed as they were

into aspects that ranged up to 3:1 for a 2:35.1 disc. There have

been more visits and now I am waiting for Gavi to get its color

analyzer back (it’s in California) so that we can check the

grayscale and color temperature. I’m not satisfied with the

colors as rendered – for one thing, the whites aren’t as pure as

I’d like, and either some transfers (mostly of foreign films) are

a bit “pink” or the set isn’t fully dialed in just yet.

Meaning? The installation of a front projector is tricky

business, especially with the advent of anamorphically

enhanced DVDs and of HDTV. And we shall be addressing the

topic in detail sufficient unto the day.

HARRY PEARSON

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

E D I T O R I A L

Follies & Frolics

. . . . . . . . . .

I: Can All That Counts Be Counted?

A Forum Begins

We are running Charles Hansen’s response to Issue 24 as the

beginning of a forum in which we explore how we will blend

the observational and the empirical (tests and measurement

programs) in our video and audio sections. Our aim is not to

overwhelm the reader with our expertise at the test bench or

with our skill in the obfuscatory use of High End jargon – but

to produce the clearest, most comprehensible and useful

examination of the hardware we review and the concepts

behind that hardware. Every reader should understand every

line of text and every graph, no matter which he uses most to

help him make his own judgments. If one serious reader does

not understand, we believe we must simply learn to explain

b e t t e r. Over time, we will.

The editors will respond next issue.

E d i t o r :

Congratulations on the rebirth of The Perfect Vi s i o n, a superb

new beginning to an intriguing journal. As I was reading the

first issue, I was struck by at least one marked similarity to T h e

Absolute Sound, namely the satisfying richness of content that

requires multiple readings to digest fully.

One thing that also struck me was the dichotomy between

the methods used to review the video and audio performance

of a component:

1) Objective observational methods are the only accept-

able means to review audio equipment, whereas labora-

tory measurements must be relied upon to judge video

e q u i p m e n t .

2) Long-term listening tests are much more sensitive in

discerning meaningful differences in audio equipment,

while instantaneous A/B switching is favored for com-

paring video equipment.

3) Any sort of signal manipulation has been traditional-

ly frowned upon in the realm of High End audio, but in

video “clever electronic prestidigitation” is able to cre-

ate “unprecedented picture quality. ”

This last point is particularly interesting, as it appears to

contradict item one. If I read the review of the Pioneer DV-

09 correctly, the measurements performed were unable to

identify the source of the sharpness enhancement, instead

requiring the use of objective observational methods. (By

the way, the service guide for the Pioneer player describes

the sharpness enhancement feature as selectively modifying

the luminance signal with a non-linear gain element. A simi-

lar technique used in an audio component would be unac-

ceptable to the High End community. )

As I consider these two different reviewing approaches for

audio and video components, three distinct possibilities come

to mind on the reasons for their need:

a) The human brain processes audio and video informa-

tion in completely different ways, and therefore differ-

ent methods must be used to evaluate audio and video

equipment; or,

b) While analog audio has always had arbitrarily high-

resolution capability, video has had format-prescribed

resolution limits. This limited resolution may require dif-

ferent evaluation methods; or,

c) In this early stage of video equipment, there are gross

differences (and defects) in measurable performance

parameters, just as in audio equipment of the 1950s. As

these measurable defects are corrected (thanks to the

feedback provided by the measurement capabilities of

Convergence Labs), meaningful differences in the

observed performance of video equipment may or may

not still exist.

At this point, I lean toward the last possibility as most

l i k e l y. This view would seem to be supported by

Jonathan Va l i n ’s comments on the Theta Voyager [Issue

24], in which he noted improvements in the following

areas: video noise and grain; gradations of the gray

scale; sharpness of image; focus of background sub-

jects; depth of field.

Can all of these observed improvements in image quality be

correlated with improved performance on the test bench? It

seems unlikely, although I suppose we will have a partial

answer in the next issue, when the Voyager is placed under the

scrutiny of Convergence Labs’ battery of tests [see Issue 25]. (I

say “partial answer” because the correlative results from one

unit do not necessarily apply to all models.)

I look forward to future issues, as these and other topics

are explored in depth. CHARLES HANSEN

AYRE ACOUSTICS, INC.

II: Janet’s Index

And now a footnote to our interview last issue with Phillip Byrd

and Janet Shapiro, producers of classical music television

broadcasts. Janet talked about a terrific show she’d just fin-

ished, called C a n ’t Stop Singing, a documentary about the 60th

annual convention and contests of the Society for the Preser-

vation and Encouragement of Barber Shop Quartet Singing in

America, held this year in Atlanta, at the Georgia Dome. A few

days ago, she sent me some statistics she’d prepared for the

o r g a n i z a t i o n ’s board, to show them what goes into her work. I

asked her if she’d share them here, and she agreed, provided I

let her say the following:

“Although the show is a documentary, it contains a lot of

straight performance as well. It exists in two forms: an

81-minute version for pledge time on PBS stations,

which airs nationwide on PBS beginning August 11, and

also in a slightly longer version that will air at an unspec-

ified time after August without pledge breaks. [It’s an

h o n o r, she’d explained, for a pledge show to be picked

for national distribution outside those special weeks.]

“There will be a home video version. My role in the

production was Producer and Editor, and I’ve poured

my heart and soul into this show. I want people to

watch it!!!”

Which they should – it’s engaging from beginning to end

and the quartets look and sound pretty fabulous.

J a n e t ’s stats, for her 87-minute show:

• Number of field crews: 4 (each with its own producer,

s h o o t e r, audio tech, and PA )

• Number of field tapes: 86 30-minute tapes

• Amount of time needed to log and transcribe said field

tapes: 2 months

• Number of pages of logs and transcriptions: 591

• Number of cameras at the Georgia Dome: 5

• Number of contest tapes: 67 90-minute tapes

• Amount of time to edit finished program: 2 1/2 months

• Number of video edits in finished program: 662

• Number of audio edits in finished program: 361

• Number of e-mails in my Barbershop folder when I last

looked: 202 GREG SANDOW

EDITORIAL NOTES

The Problem with DVD:

Digital Artifacts

E d i t o r :

I have subscribed to your revival of

The Perfect Vi s i o n, and not being famil-

iar with the original, I can only say you

seem to be off to a strong start. Yo u r

style feels more academically, intellectu-

ally driven than some of your competi-

tion, and I welcome this.

I’d like to address one point that

M r. Pearson makes in his Vi e w p o i n t s

editorial. “And we shall push, push, push

for the highest quality images, either

from an ‘enhanced’ DVD...” How hard

are you willing to push? Are you satis-

fied with DVD now?

I find the digital motion artifacts of

DVD too severe for a serious High End

format. DVD’s 10Mbps data rate is just

not enough to carry a component digital

standard definition video signal! Wi t h

only few exceptions, every DVD I watch,

on a wide variety of systems, is plagued

by large-area low luminance chroma

macroblocking. Also, pre-compression

noise reduction removes much of the

film grain within the image. Film grain is

an integral part of an image; the type of

film stock and its grain structure are

often aesthetic choices made by direc-

tors of photography. How can reduction

or removal of this element be aestheti-

cally acceptable?

The popular press, and even some

higher end journals, are head over heels

over DVD. I will admit that it offers

some true benefits such as component

color space, progressive output capabil-

i t y, anamorphic presentation, and

extended luminance/chroma channel

bandwidth. But the digital artifacts are

bad, they are visible, and they are unac-

ceptable. But I hear no other voices to

the contrary. This saddens me.

If The Perfect Vi s i o n is to “push,

push, push,” then I implore your maga-

zine to [convince] manufacturers that

our future digital formats must use

milder data reduction methods. I fear for

the future “enhanced DVD” format. Wi l l

we be saddled with a digital output

channel that will max out at the low 19

Mbps data rate specified by the ATSC for

1080i transmission? Wo u l d n ’t it be better

to output a wideband RGB or Y/R-Y/B-Y

analog signal to feed our monitors?

Within the home, we should shoot

for performance above the AT S C / G r a n d

Alliance system and stay free of injurious

motion artifacts caused by high data-

reduction schemes. Please use your plat-

form to strive for the finest images we

can get – we are counting on you!

CHRISTOPHER MOORE

M A N H AT T AN BEACH, CALIFORNIA

Greg Rogers: I applaud your desire for

high-quality video, but I can’t agree with

your sweeping generalization of DVD.

You haven’t provided a single example

of a disc or player for which “digital arti-

facts are bad, they are visible, and they

are unacceptable.” That certainly is not

the case with the vast majority of DVDs

I buy or the players I use today. Early on

there were some quite poor DVDs

rushed to market to make a quick buck

and some DVD players that were ques-

tionable in terms of MPEG artifacts and

D/A converter output stages. Your char-

acterization would have applied to

them. But MPEG encoding on major stu-

dio releases is generally quite good

today and MPEG decoding and signal

processing in players is excellent. That

said, there are still plenty of video quali-

ty problems on DVD, but I think you are

barking up the wrong tree. I would spare

you the usual advice to make certain

your displays are calibrated, but I have

no other explanation for what you see.

I believe if we want real improve-

ments in DVD quality, we must have bet-

ter transfers using high-definition down-

conversion, no edge-enhancement arti-

facts, and use the 16.9 enhanced format

for all widescreen movies. And stop

recycling old transfers done on inferior

telecine equipment or stored on D-2

composite video VTRs.

I’m not sure how much film-grain

you have been able to see through dirty

film transfers and the video noise of pre-

vious formats like laserdisc, and forgive

me, VHS tape. But you are correct that

pre-processing to remove noise is an

important part of the MPEG compres-

sion process. But if that means cleaning

up dirt on film, and using better telecine

equipment with less noise, then I think

i t ’s a pretty good tradeoff.

When it comes to future high-defin-

ition DVD formats I’m not as worried

about the ATSC bit-rates as I was a year

ago. From what I’ve seen of pre-record-

ed HDTV, multiple-pass MP@HL MPEG

encoding is working well and encoders

will be even better by the time 720p gets

to DVD. The jury is still out on real-time

high-definition MPEG encoding.

Targeting 14-Year-Old

Boys?

Editor:

I’ve just skimmed through Issue 24,

and already TPV is better than just about

anything else out there. A few weeks ago

a friend and I were discussing the lam-

entable state of Home Theater m a g a -

zine, which apparently has decided that

its target audience is 14-year-old boys.

…I’m now using one of the Panan-

sonic DVD players, which does a pretty

good job. My monitor is the Toshiba 35-

inch direct view, and I heard that the

Sony DVD player looks a little soft when

not in 16.9 enhanced mode (although

that appears not to be a problem with

the S7700). I’d be tempted to spring for a

Theta Voyager if I had 6 grand to spare!

I’ve seen all the films in your “Best

of 1998” list except Central Station,

Gods and Monsters, Elizabeth, and T h e

Object of My Affection. I’ve been pleas-

antly surprised to see that the library of

DVD films isn’t entirely made up of

blockbusters. I had never seen Picnic at

Hanging Rock before and was knocked

for a loop by it. What an incredible,

haunting film! I’ve also been picking up

a goodly number of laserdiscs at give-

away prices. Speaking of which, is DTS

a consumer failure? I see that Ken

C r a n e ’s is dumping its DTS laserdiscs,

which can’t be a good sign.

RICHARD GALLAGHER

RGALLAGH@IX. NETCOM.COM

L E T T E R S

Down the

Primrose Path

Toward Perfect

Vision Forever?

E d i t o r :

I’ve been with TPV since the first issue,

and was thankful, even delighted, when

you covered the remaining issues on my

subscription from five years back. That’s

perfect honesty. Now that you know my

credentials, here’s my wish list, which I

hope will help you keep your focus on

the perfect vision:

1. Reviews must be brutal in their

criticism of any company whose

film transfer falls short of DVD’s

promise. It wouldn’t hurt to take

up a page or two with three ongo-

ing lists: (near) perfect transfers,

adequate transfers, and lousy

transfers, arranged alphabetically

by company.

If magazines like this have any

goal in life at least one has to be to

speak truth to power and put

more pressure on the industry to

do what’s right instead of extend-

ing its rip-offs further into every

new technology.

2. In keeping with that goal, editors

must not allow a DVD review to

get longer and longer because its

author is rehashing plot-lines or

attempting to create a “think”

piece about the film’s story con-

tent, idea content, the director’s

o e u v r e – or lack thereof. I know,

everyone wants to strut his

insights. But there are other maga-

zines for doing that. Your bi-

monthly shouldn’t eat up precious

space that way. We’re after the

perfect movie vision, not the per-

fect movie insight. In the

July/August issue it took 14 pages

(about 14,000 words) to cover a

mere 18 DVDs because of such

noodling on. At that rate, you’ll

cover not much more than 100

DVDs per year. The list sure won’t

grow fast at that rate. More impor-

tant, the story content of most

DVDs isn’t strong enough to begin

to justify buying all the expensive

equipment that TPV reviews.

Everyone should re-read Morrell’s

thoughts about what constitutes

the viewing experience under var-

ious conditions.

3. If there’s anyone to supply them,

add more think pieces that illumi-

nate the problems and weakness-

es of the medium. Morrell’s “Theo-

ry of Relativity” is a good example.

My favorite would be a discussion

of whatever technical factors

cause some TV sets/monitors to

have that wonderful 3-D window-

on-reality look while others don’t

even come close.

I’ve seen cheap TVs in motels

have that “see through” look and

s u p e r-expensive units that did not –

at all. So it doesn’t take HDTV or

DVD to get there. But what causes it

and why don’t all sets have it? What-

ever the answer is goes to the heart

of attaining the perfect vision.

4. Please, don’t go back totally to the

“good old days” of TPV. Av o i d

space eaters such as long, long

rambling interviews and general

articles about the history of film,

T V, Te c h n i c o l o r, formats, etc.,

unless the discussion is directly

and explicitly relevant to illumi-

nating specific problems with

attaining the perfect vision in cur-

rent media.

An example of relevance would

be the parts of Allen Daviau’s inter-

view where he reveals how sloven-

ly movie houses can be. Since the

goal is to “recreate” the theater

experience in the home, it’s rele-

vant to know what the theater

“standard” really is. For those inter-

ested in film as film, there are other

magazines. An example of irrele-

vance would be his own favorite

film scenes. How does that help

achieve the perfect vision?

5. As we go once more down the

primrose path toward another

technological bait and switch, TPV

c a n ’t be too critical when any

manufacturer violates DVD’s im-

plied promise of perfect (or near

perfect) vision at low cost. That

would include manufacturers who

reportedly “cripple” the DVD play-

e r ’s video high-frequency output,

supposedly because viewers don’t

know enough to turn down their

s e t ’s sharpness (edge) control.

Why not have three lists for front

end equipment, too?

After more than a decade of CD

hype, aren’t we all more than a lit-

tle disgusted when no reasonably

priced hardware can completely

reproduce the content of the best

software, forcing the consumer to

fulfill the promise by buying more

and more expensive equipment to

more “perfectly” decode the damn

thing? From a marketing perspec-

tive, it’s a perverse inversion of the

standard “give them the razor and

sell them the blades” tactic. Here,

even when the blades are great,

must all the reasonably priced

handles be so designed that you

c a n ’t avoid cutting yourself?

6. Finally, a modest proposal for all

readers looking down that prim-

rose path. Given the increasingly

high cost of recreating a good

movie theater and the difficulty of

choosing compatible equipment,

and assuming your video purchas-

es have nothing to do with show-

ing a profit, wouldn’t it be wiser to

buy the small movie theater your

town isn’t using any more? Sever-

al audio/videophiles could even go

into this together.

The owners’ families would re-

serve the best seats. You could let

everyone else in for a buck and

pay the mortgage and film rental

costs with income from something

that has nothing to do with any

kind of vision but that is neverthe-

less endlessly popular – popcorn.

I t ’s just a thought.

Best wishes for great cash flow in

the future. MIKE ROBBINS

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVA N I A

M R O B B I N S @ P O L E S H I F T. O R G

H P : So your credentials consist solely

of “perfect honesty?” I might add that

you write well and make your points

c o g e n t l y. And as you probably suspect -

ed when pen you first picked up, I am

far from being in agreement with the

bulk of your thinking, to the point of

saying perhaps the letter should have

best been addressed to some other mag -

azine ( Widescreen Review p e r h a p s ? ) .

1. Agreed. I’ve been, since the re-

installation of a big home-theater

projection system, sorting the

DVDs in my collection into quite

distinct categories. You’ll be read -

ing about this in an upcoming

issue. My biggest problem to date?

Drawing the line between the A+,

A, and A- categories of excellence.

2. If there were other magazines

capable of strutting their “in-

sights” on film better than I can

muster as editor of this one, I will

cease. But I don’t believe that.

Content is at the heart of the mag -

azine. I quite agree that the

assessment of movies should

never be routine or mere assess -

ments of the plot line. That said,

I’ll note that the magazine is in

transition (I’ve said this before)

and the film section is far from

its final form. There will be a

“mix” of reviews, short to long,

with more material being cov -

ered, but I’m not running a cata -

log of quickie impressions. Other

magazines, as you so helpfully

noted, do that.

3. No problem here. We will talk at

some length about the differences.

(Another reason why the percep -

tion of movies ought to be taken

into account in our reviews, thus

adding to their length.)

4. I remain unrepentant. We shall

continue to cover film technology

because it is at the heart of the

experience of cinema in the

home. The “old” TPV had it right.

5. Agreed.

6. Not unless we’re recreating a Cin -

erama equipped local theater. Oh,

Paul Allen, the nation looks to you.

What Not To See on DVD

Editor:

The Perfect Vi s i o n exceeds all my

expectations in terms of its control of the

subject and originality. I predict it will be

a great success. I found “Outtakes” espe-

cially useful [Issue 25]. DVDs vary enor-

mously in quality and are bought blindly.

Alerting buyers is thus a great service.

My candidates for disappointments are

Fox Lorber films. For a few, such as

Ta m p o p o, they got the original print

used for transfer to video. But in most

cases – e.g., L’ E n f e r, Ran, Nostalgia,

Swept Aw a y – they just dumped video

(with its 200? lines) onto DVD.

ED EPSTEIN

M A N H AT TA N

Edepstein @worldnet.att.net

Digital Cinema: The Good

& the Bad of It

E d i t o r :

…It was… a surprise to see TPV on

the shelf of my local Borders. Somehow

I guess I hadn’t really expected you to

hew to the publication schedule right

out of the gate. Guess this means you’re

really back.

Once again, an outstanding read –

probably even more so than the first

“new” issue, although I have to admit that

I skipped the more technical articles on

first pass in favor of the letters page,

movie reviews, and Allen Daviau inter-

v i e w. Daviau’s story about the $130 pro-

jector lenses at local multiplexes is a

h e a r t b r e a k e r. Of course, I always wel-

come think pieces on the differences

between theater viewing and home-the-

ater viewing, though this issue’s article on

the topic reminded me that TPV had run a

similarly provocative piece back in the

d a y. Did you see Walter Murch’s article in

The New York Ti m e s a month or so back

about the implications of a digital cinema?

Greg Rogers remains nothing if not

exhaustive in both knowledge and tem-

perament. Good to see him handling his

end of things – he’ll keep the hardware

guys on their toes. (I saw him beat a

Sony rep into submission at CES over

the lack of blacker-than-black display on

the DVP-S7700.)

Speaking of hardware, saw Te x a s

Instruments’ DLP Cinema in action over

last weekend in Secaucus [the digitized

Star Wa r s ]; was impressed. Particularly

stunning was the richness of color and

the eye-blinding brightness of whites on

the screen. The line structure was occa-

sionally visible, however, and the dark-

est scenes looked murky, with little in

the way of shadow detail. I suspect that

movies that don’t have Star Wars in the

title might not lend themselves quite

this well to digital projection.

Of course, we’re showing this off

to a generation of filmgoers whose stan-

dards have been systematically lowered

by a lack of even a token effort at 70mm

exhibition and poor quality 35mm the-

atrical prints. It’s no wonder that, with

no 70mm blow-ups for comparison’s

sake, lots of folks think this system

looks “better” than 35mm film. It’s com-

parable to a clean 35mm print, and it’s

not much else. Any thoughts?

B RYANT FRAZER

bfrazer@panix.com

Bryant Frazer is a film critic (and pen

pal of HP’s) whose website, Deep Focus,

contains his intelligent and stimulat -

ing writing about movies. HP considers

him one of the best young film critics in

the country. Vi d e , his review of David

C r o n e n b e r g ’s Vi d e o d r o m e for starters.

John Eargle: Lossy Data

Compression & DVD

Sound

E d i t o r :

I want to thank The Perfect Vi s i o n

for the excellent coverage of surround

sound by Robert Harley and Tom Miiller

in your May/June issue. I hadn’t intend-

ed to discuss lossy data compression as

such, but the subject did come up

obliquely in TOM’s DVD reviews. I’d like

to make the following

additional comments:

I consider the major

lossy data compression

systems (AC-3, DTS, and

MPEG2) to be virtually on a par with

each other. If I had felt that AC-3, for

example, was not up to the job required

of it in producing the Delos DVDs, then

the DVDs would not have been issued

at all. As it is, I have A/B’d the 1812

Overture surround sound mix via all

three of the above-mentioned lossy sys-

tems, and they all sound, to a first

approximation, like the uncompressed

original.

My remark about future media and

the prospects of not “worrying about

any lossy data compression” reflects

not so much a current problem with

those systems, but rather the simple

fact that future systems will not require

them. I think everyone would be in

agreement that, all else being equal,

lossless is better than lossy.

JOHN EARGLE

DELOS RECORDS

TV Is TV

Editor:

Have received two issues of TPV.

Both have remained in the plastic wrap.

I am no fan of TV. I believe that analog

recordings on vinyl are all that is needed

to satisfy the needs of music lovers. Dig-

ital recordings and TV are not part of my

life, and will not become a part.

RODNEY ABBOTT- B U C H A N A N

Rabsba @earthlink.net

H P : Do you think I care? The point of

The Perfect Vi s i o n is film and the con -

tent of other media we experience via

television. This is not an either/or

proposition and I think you are being

bone-headed, but it’s your life to live as

narrowly as you choose.

RAB: Sir: I did not ask for TPV. L a

S t r a d a is Film. I do not think Film is the

content of the Digital Age. Film is an

analog experience from the get go to the

end of the optic nerve. The Digital expe-

rience does not accomplish that which

is Film. I was at Hi Fi ’97, my first and

o n l y. Digital-ready speakers and subs-

peakers to demo wall of noise with spe-

cial visual effects is not Film. I am a

character in the film C l e a n S l a t e, you

can use my outhouse anytime – yes I

concur with a narrow path through the

woods – much better than a crowded

f o u r-lane highway.

When we embarked upon the re-launch of The Perfect

Vision, I envisioned the experience as a great

adventure – an opportunity to explore uncharted

territory in home entertainment. Everywhere I looked and

listened, there were new experiences, as the emergence of

digital technology shattered the old notions of what is pos-

sible in home audio.

I didn’t expect that the most challenging adventure

would be developing an editorial approach that would do

justice to the topic. As I planned the audio section for each

issue before me and the ones beyond, I came face to face

with a harsh reality – there weren’t enough pages to cover

the subject using conventional techniques. Indeed, our sub-

ject matter is so rich that using the conventional approach

of reviewing consumer equipment one product at a time

would yield superficial coverage of the available products at

best, while we were forced to ignore many of the fascinating

issues that underlie those products.

We needed a new way.

For inspiration, I turned to two wildly different sources:

Star Trek and law school. By way of analogy, most audio

reviewing today is similar to the episodic structure of a TV

series such as Star Trek: The Next Generation. Each

episode is a whole story, with a beginning and an ending.

And next week the crew is off on another adventure that

typically has nothing to do with last week’s. In contrast, Star

Trek: Deep Space Nine is serial in structure. While elements

of each show are episode specific, there is a dominant plot

structure running from week to week that makes DS9 seri-

al. That’s what we need in TPV’s audio section: a review

structure that is open enough to feature products while

using those same products to explore the larger plot that is

our quest to accurately recreate the sound of the original

event, be it music or movie.

You may well wonder what law school has to do with any

of this. Even lawyers who love the law will tell you that

law school was a nightmarish experience. One of our

principle objectives at TPV is to provide guidance to the

intelligent reader who is interested in home entertain-

ment. This objective flies square in the face of the reality

that even if you read every publication available on con-

sumer electronics, you could not read a review of every

product you might be interested in.

Faced with this limitation, I found myself in

a situation not unlike my first year of law.

Rather than teaching us the law, our professors taught us

how to think about the law. There are too many “rules” for

any student to sit down and absorb them all – just as there

are too many audio products for any reviewer to cover. And,

like the law, the results obtained from an audio product are,

to a degree, fact specific. What is needed is a broader per-

spective in approaching each product.

In law school, they taught us to read cases and discover

for ourselves the issues within those cases. Only then could

we begin to comprehend the use of rules in the law. Similar-

ly, it is the issues presented by each product and each sys-

tem that must be our starting point in understanding multi-

channel audio. If we reviewers can understand and share

the larger issues with you readers, you won’t need a review

of every product to guide you. You will be better equipped to

guide yourselves. And an informed marketplace produces

better products through economic force.

And how do we fuse the structure of DS9 and approach

of law school in the audio review section? Crudely, at first, I

suspect. There isn’t a manual that tells us how to do this. So

like Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark, we’re going to

make it up as we go along.

In this issue, you can read the first installments of two

serial system reviews – one by Barry Rawlinson and the

other by me. Rawlinson, with his design background, will

approach the Linn system he is reviewing from a different

and invaluable perspective. Meanwhile, I’m off on a journey

to confront humankind’s ancient enemy as I review an evolv-

ing system based on Revel loudspeakers.

I envision an audio section that will provide more con-

text and insight than is possible with a conventional review

structure. There are limitations with this approach, of

course. The most significant is that we will be covering a

smaller number of products than if we just limited our

reviews to 1,500 words and grabbed every product we

could get (worse yet would be writing 3,000 word

reviews that cared not for the larger issues –

think about it). Because of this limitation, we

must be highly selective in choosing the products

we review. We want products of high performance

that have something to teach us.

This then is our manifesto of freedom from

the old conventions of audio reviewing.

But what did you expect? TPV is not a

conventional magazine!

Death to Convention

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

TOM MIILLER

A U D I O

IVX Dead! Enough said. Too much was written about

it when it was alive, so we don’t need to talk more

about a company that just didn’t get it.

Video at The Perfect Vision is about Home Theater, and

to me that means a large screen picture. Sorry, but a 32” TV

just can’t be home theater, can it? I’m not talking just about

picture quality; I’ve spent endless hours looking at the best

picture quality available, on 13” and 19” professional broad-

cast monitors. No, it’s the emotional experience of a large

screen that fills our field of vision with images of a different

reality. That’s the reaction we get at the cinema and what we

need to experience home theater. So unless you can sit close

to a RPTV, home theater means a front projector with at

least a six foot wide, 16.9 or 1.85 screen.

In this issue I review front projectors from Sony and

Runco that will really make your home-theater experience

happen. But you can’t have large screens without HDTV or

upconverters, unless you want to stare at scan lines. And

that doesn’t quite capture the cinema experience, either. So

Bill Cruce looks at the IEV Turboscan line doubler with lots

of features at a budget price. And I take another look at the

DVDO line doubler, with almost no features, but a sensa-

tional price at $700.

Bill also reviews another DVD/LD combi player. I sup-

pose its time to admit that laserdisc is dead, but some of us

have an awful lot of laserdiscs lying around that we may

never see on DVD. How about Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me,

with Max Parrish, Sean Young, and Timothy Leary? Not like-

ly to make it to DVD, but it’s a great LD title.

Finally, there’s something missing from the video cover-

age in this issue. Part 2 of Christy Warren’s review of the

Runco 5800 HD-ready RPTV. It’s hard to evaluate high-defin-

ition picture quality without an HD source. We didn’t solve

that problem until right before our editorial deadline. So

rather than rushing something with little time for evaluation,

we postponed that report until next time.

Speaking of HDTV: As we went to print with the

Unity Motion review in the last issue, they were clos-

ing their doors in St. Louis. Now as this is written,

Unity Motion, under a new management team, is

officially trying to refinance, restructure, and return

to business. As I wrote in the review, they delivered

some excellent hardware but needed programming

for success. The key was HBO, and Unity Motion

just couldn’t seem to get together with them

and make something happen. We’ll stay

tuned, but it won’t be long before DirecTV and the Dish Net-

work will be delivering HDTV via their satellite systems.

Unity Motion will have to find some sort of niche to make

another run at it. How about an all HDTV sports network?

Movie Trivia

So much for my career in trivia games. When last we met, I

dropped the names of a couple of sci-fi film characters into

Video Insights and the Unity Motion review (Issue 25). I for-

got there were really two characters from different movies

in the Unity review. One was trivial, Scotty from pick your

favorite Trek film, but the other was a bit more difficult.

Unfortunately, I asked for just two movie titles instead of

three. The first person to identify Prof. Barnhardt from The

Day the Earth Stood Still and Scotty, was Neil Bulk from

New Jersey. He wins the AVIA Guide to Home Theater DVD.

But Rick Connolly came through a day later and also identi-

fied the “Toys for Ellie” clue as Jody Foster’s character in

Contact. So Rick also got a copy of AVIA courtesy of its

authors at Ovation Software (www.ovationsw.com). Now

remind me not to try this again!

16.9 DVDs Gaining Momentum

Paramount followed up The 10 Commandments and S t a r

Trek Insurrection with 16.9 enhanced transfers of A Simple

Plan, Varsity Blues, a n d B a r b a r e l l a ( r e v i e w, this issue). I

was feeling really good about Paramount until I heard that

“King of World” Cameron’s chick-flick was going to be

released in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but without a 16.9

enhanced transfer! Is that any way to treat the biggest

money maker of all time? Well, I was one of the four people

on the planet that found the movie boring, so I doubt that

they’ll miss my $30.

Fox finally joined the party with a spectacular boxed-set

of the four A l i e n films (review this issue), all in the higher- r e s -

olution 16.9 DVD format. And Criterion has announced their

intention to use 16.9 whenever possible on future releas-

es. Their first 16.9 enhanced title is July’s release of

I n s o m n i a. Criterion pioneered widescreen and spe-

cial editions on laserdisc, so it’s great to see them

commit to the highest-quality DVD format.

It must be getting lonely over at the Mouse.

First DIVX dies and now Mickey may be the last

company to switch to 16.9 enhanced DVDs. Oh,

sorry! I wasn’t going to talk about DIVX or

companies that just don’t get it.

We’ve Got What It Takes for Home Theater

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

V I D E O

G R E G R O G E R S

…is it just a random mesh of sight and sound, or does some-

thing really new emerge? T h i s gets another look in this issue

from Andrew Quint, who saw a performance in New York that

made him think the much-hyped phenomenon might be real.

And I, along with anyone else who’s seen the Wim Wen-

ders film Buena Vista Social Club, now better understand

something simpler, but still important: How an extra visual

dimension can help us understand music.

This is Wenders’ latest film, and its title ought to ring a

bell with people interested in Latin music, world music, or

just plain good music, thanks to the Nonesuch Records CD

also called Buena Vista Social Club. It’s a Ry Cooder project

(another of his explorations of cross-cultural musical

styles), recorded in Cuba and featuring older Cuban musi-

cians who hadn’t performed for quite a while. I’d had the CD

for some time, along with others spun off from it, including

something credited to the Afro-Cuban All-Stars (featuring

some of the same people), and a recent solo album spot-

lighting Ibrahim Ferrer, a Cuban singer with a tenderness,

sly wit, and radiant sense of rhythm that mark him, for me,

as an exceptional treasure.

Wenders’ movie might be called a high-class “making of,”

and it helped me understand something about the musical pro-

ject I hadn’t quite grasped. Ferrer apart, my first reaction to the

CDs was to think the music was nice, but a little sloppy and

informal, traits I normally don’t mind (I love rock & roll, and

how could I, if I didn’t like sloppy and informal?), but which

struck me here as odd, maybe because I thought Cuban music

should be hot and tight. Adding to my puzzlement was a recent

trip to Cuba, where I spent a week tracking down Cuban clas-

sical music for two articles I wrote for the Wall Street Journal,

and which appeared there in May. I t ’s not that I heard any of

the Buena Vista musicians (my loss), or even any musicians

like them (again my loss). But I got a shot of Cuba in my blood,

heard a lot of other Cuban things on CD, and even spoke to a

Cuban musicologist, who – maybe I took this out of context –

suggested that the Buena Vista recordings aren’t all that

remarkable to anyone who knows Cuban music well.

And then I saw the Wenders film. I’ll tease Wenders

about one exaggeration, harmless but misleading – his many

shots of old American cars. These, it’s true, are a famous

sight in Cuba, especially Havana, and for good reason. When

the Castro revolution hit in 1959, Cuba was economically

and politically close to the United States (it was virtually an

American colony, with Havana essentially controlled by the

Mafia). American cars were naturally what people drove.

When the US broke relations with the Castro government,

American car imports stopped, and Cubans for a while had

neither money nor the chance to buy anything else. They

kept driving their old Chevys and Oldsmobiles, and still

drive them, holding them together with spit and ingenuity.

These ancient vehicles are a famous sight on just about

any Havana street. But they’re not the most common sight.

Most cars in Havana are creaky Russian ones, boxy and can-

tankerous, imported during the years when

the Soviet Union was Cuba’s ally. They’re no

fun to look at, and Wenders simply left them out, a pardon-

able decision cinematographically, but not an accurate pic-

ture of what he surely saw.

But the wonder of the Buena Vista film, apart from the

sheer delight of watching it, is how it changed my hearing of

the music. (I should note that it’s shot in grainy video, but

since Wenders is an artist, the grainy video becomes an

artistic element. It helps convey the otherworldliness of

Havana, a city literally crumbling, but jumping with life. The

colors are intentionally distorted, too, for an extra distanc-

ing effect.) I knew, for instance, that the musicians weren’t

young. But to see them – genial old coots in their seventies,

eighties, and even nineties – makes them come alive.

We hear them tell their stories, too, and we realize some-

thing else. These aren’t just musicians. They’re top entertainers

from another time, who know their business cold, even if they

h a v e n ’ t practiced it in quite a while. So for them, the B u e n a

Vista Social Club recording isn’t just a job. It’s recognition.

Even more, it’s a kind of unexpected personal gravy. Never did

they think they’d play again, least of all with international atten-

tion. But they’re prepared. The old shticks – pianist Rubén

González plays a solo moving up the keyboard, and when he

passes the highest note, keeps on playing in the air – work just

as well in Carnegie Hall as they did in old Havana nightclubs.

A trip to New York for a Carnegie performance is the cli-

max of the film, and for the musicians, we sense, the climax

of their careers. “Que linda, linda, linda, linda!” cries one of

them, walking up Broadway. “How gorgeous, gorgeous, gor-

geous, gorgeous!” They all go to the observation deck near

the top of the Empire State Building, and here – with Wen-

ders scoring a coup for both delight and honesty, by filming

his stars exactly as they are – we see them searching for the

Statue of Liberty, even though none of them knows where it

is or what it looks like, not even the one who swears he vis-

ited it, many, many years ago.

Of course I wanted to love their music. And I learned to

hear it differently. What was sloppy once (though I should

stress that not all of it is), is now adorable, in the spirit of the

search for the Statue. What was lively gets promoted to

completely irresistible, and what’s most important, most of

the players and the singers gain individual voices. They had

them all along, of course, but once I saw the movie, their

individuality was magnified. “That’s the one who prays to

Santeria gods…those are the guys who can’t stop playing

dominoes…he’s the one who’s 90, and can’t stop grinning.

He says he’s working on his sixth child!”

Not that all of this, in some metaphysical subliminal

form, wasn’t in the music anyway (and of course was part of

the reason so many people hear these CDs with such

delight). But the movie brought it out for me in implicit

stereo, 3D, surround, and holographic hypertrue reality.

Go see the movie if it’s playing at an art house near you.

And get the CDs, all on Nonesuch: Buena Vista Social Club,

Buena Vista Social Club Presents Ibrahim Ferrer,and “A

Toda Cuba le Gusta,” credited to the Afro-

Cuban All-Stars.

GREG SANDOW

The Vexed Question of Multimedia…

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

MUSIC & MULT I M E D I A

ViaTV VC 105 Vi d e o p h o n e

At about the same time, during the

1963-64 New York World’s Fair, AT&T

demonstrated videophones to the gen-

eral public. In the early years of the

space age, you couldn’t help but feel

that videophones were right around the

corner. Yet somehow this dream never

materialized, even as the PC era pro-

gressed. In the mid-90s videophones

re-emerged, but were rather expensive

(over $2,000/pair). This has changed

with agreement on the H.324 protocol

and the advent of consumer video-

phone adapters such as the ViaTV VC

105 from 8x8 Corporation.

Using low-cost video compression

and modem chips, the VC 105 brings

the cost of a pair (obviously you need

two to make the video element work)

of videophones under $500. The VC 105

is a small box containing a video cam-

era as well as the compression and

communications electronics needed to

make video work over conventional

phone lines. Operation is straightfor-

ward: You connect the VC 105 to your

TV and a phone, dial an owner of anoth-

er H.324-compatible device (which

could be a PC-based system or a set-up

like the VC 105), and press a button to

start the video call. After about 30 sec-

onds, an image of the scene at the loca-

tion you’ve called shows up. You talk

through the phone and listen through

the phone and TV speakers.

Every time I used the VC 105, I had

the feeling of using a technology one

generation away from being really use-

ful. At this stage, the technology is

okay, but every session involves a set of

distracting compromises. First of all,

you have to choose between moderate

resolution and the ability to follow

motion. Most of the time, you’ll proba-

bly set up the VC 105 so that the picture

is relatively clear and live with an

update of the picture every few sec-

onds (sort of like sending still pictures

regularly). Second, no matter what you

do, the picture is pretty fuzzy (maxi-

mum 352x288 pixels, but in practice

more often 176x144). This might seem

like a minor factor, but it decreases the

sense of “thereness” in the interaction.

Third, and maybe the biggest factor

in my experience, the effort needed to

set up a call is a problem. The steps

d o n ’t seem that cumbersome on paper,

but in practice you have to make at least

two phone calls to get a video call going.

Even with these limitations, I found

that the VC105 significantly lengthened

calls (we would stay on the line longer).

As I’ve said before, discussing down-

loadable music: Higher bandwidth

communications (whether xDSL or

cable) should make a huge difference

to this technology.

Panasonic DVD-L50D

PalmTheater

With the advent of DVD, truly portable

video solutions suddenly abound. I’ve

been using a notebook computer with

built in DVD for about a year, and have

found it very useful for watching movies

when traveling. At the roughly 24” view-

ing distance that feels comfortable with

a computer, my 14.1” screen is actually

quite large (and the latest 15” screens

are even better). At this distance, I esti-

mate that a notebook-based video sys-

tem is equivalent in viewing angle to an

84” wide front-projection system.

If you don’t have a notebook com-

puter, or think a notebook is too large

to carry where you are going, Panason-

ic has a solution. The DVD-L50D is a

DVD drive with a footprint slightly larg-

er than typical portable CD players. It is

a bit thicker than these CD players are,

too, because it has a 16.9, 5” TFT LCD

display and a pair of speakers above

the disc lid. But at around 1/3 the size of

a notebook computer, it is still quite

portable.

I found that the DVD-L50D worked

well. The picture was bright and clear,

though on occasion the LCD produced

edge artifacts (because LCDs are rela-

tively slow). The headphone sound was

solid, and even through the mini-speak-

ers, was usable (my kids and I watched

a DVD one night on vacation and the

sound was adequate for a three-listener

situation). The screen size might seem

tiny, but with a normal viewing dis-

tance, my calculation is that it is equiv-

alent to a 20” screen. Maybe not home

theater, but completely usable. And, the

DVD-L50D can play CDs (like all DVD

players). It has a full set of audio and S-

Video outputs so that you can use it as

a conventional DVD player, whether

you are at home or in a hotel room.

Sometimes new technologies just

work right from the beginning.

TOM MART I N

Video Travels

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

O U T O F T H E B O X

A

certain fascination tags along with any complex technology

when it penetrates a new area of our lives. This is true in part

because we get to see familiar things in unfamiliar places. And

in part because of the sheer amazement that these new forms of tech-

nology work at all. Making a technology portable frequently triggers

this sense of awe. I recall when Sony introduced its first portable CD

player, not long after the introduction of CDs to the market, and it was

only slightly larger than a jewel case. While this seems trivial now that

you can purchase such a machine in a blister pack at Walgreens, at the

time it seemed miraculous. Similarly, when a technology can be deliv-

ered remotely, it seems quite special. In the mid-Sixties, my father

took me to his office to see a new accessory attached to the corporate

mainframe computer: the facsimile machine. It wasn’t just surprising;

it seemed almost impossible.

recall as a seven-year-old switching

on the system that my father had

designed, made, and housed in a

meticulously crafted and veneered cabi-

net. One satisfyingly large circular knob

served as on/off switch and volume con-

trol, another selected between radio

(wireless!) wavebands, and a third tuned

the radio. All immediately obvious to me

and everybody else in the household,

and as a result, the radiogram received

constant use. A similar state of affairs

existed at school, where from my earli-

est days our teachers’ efforts were com-

plemented daily by BBC schools broad-

casts. What concerns me here is the

immediate accessibility of programming

– to anyone with the wit to turn a knob.

Now let us travel forward in time to

the advent of remote control of these

same functions, and let me give you an

example of the problems we have

encountered.

I know an intelligent woman who

holds a degree from a solid university;

she has a good position with a large

company; she is responsible for a num-

ber of subordinate employees and sev-

eral large accounts whose annual

billings run into several millions. And

yet on several occasions she has been

unable to receive the television program

of her choice because of the perceived

complexity of her system. This televi-

sion is connected to a cable feed and a

VCR with their own separate controls,

both remote and otherwise – fewer

inputs than my father’s radiogram. And

yet she tells me that sometimes a week

has passed before she could coax pic-

ture and sound from the thing.

This is clearly bad design. For good

design by its very nature is all encom-

passing, while bad design is exclusion-

ary. If you cannot see the emperor’s

new clothes, the fault does not lie in

you. Some manufacturers have tried to

address this problem by using analog

reproductions of those vintage controls

on their remote control handsets, but

even those suffer from a cognitive dis-

connection.

When we communicate with each

other, we unconsciously use the teach-

ing model – we say what we’re going to

say, then we say it, then we say what

we’ve said. We do this using implicit

languages; if we can see each other, we

use body language and timbre of voice

to confirm reception; when we cannot

see each other we use semantic redun-

dancy – “Did I tell you I spoke to Larry?

He said he’s doing well – he sounded

well – did he speak to you? Did you

think he sounded well?”

And so we find that our better com-

munication channels contain 100 per-

cent redundancy. Writing may contain

only 80 percent redundancy, or less – a

good example is the use of irony. When

Swift proposed that the problem of

famine in Ireland might best be solved by

urging the populace to eat their babies,

he relied upon the contextual cognitive

disconnection between his public posi-

tion as a vehemently pro-Irish represen-

tative to the English Parliament, together

with his reputation as a humanitarian, to

provide a key with which to decode the

real message: that we are all one; there-

fore allowing harm to come to another is

to visit violence upon ourselves – all this

reliant upon context, a questionable

assumption founded upon the premise of

a common culture.

This may explain why irony is

emerging today in American culture to

the degree it has long been apparent in

the older, more homogenous European

cultures.

N o w, if you are not sure of the con-

text within which your recipient will

receive the message, you can build into

the message another layer of redundan-

cy geared to the recipient’s reception.

This is called m i r r o r i n g by psycholo-

gists; the rest of us know it from “When

in Rome, do as Rome does.” It is perhaps

the greatest politeness to adopt the

mores of your recipient, even if you con-

sider those mores abhorrent, because

the common context thus formed will

lead to better communication.

And that’s my agenda for remote

control. When I first use the equipment,

I want to use a large rotary switch with

an audible “click” to turn it on, and I

want both the remote and the system to

confirm that command to my senses –

without having to turn on a separate

d i s p l a y, which will simply introduce

another variable to the equation. I want

next to be informed of the signal chain

I have invoked – and I’m quite happy to

have system memory reinstate whatev-

er I was using when I switched the sys-

tem off – anything rather than a baffling

lack of activity.

Next I may wish to select a differ-

ent source; again I’ll choose a large

rotary control that satisfyingly clicks as

it moves between clearly labeled, illu-

minated positions. And now I may wish

to connect other monitors, video or

audio, in various ways dependent on

the source programming format and, of

course, my whim.

You can see that by allowing the

on/off knob to also control volume, I’ve

arrived back at my father’s radiogram

control panel: three rotary switches

scaled for human hands, with back-lit

labels illuminated as the knobs are

turned.

By now you may have decided that

I’m a reactionary Luddite, and you may

infer that I can’t cope with the micro-

processor age. You would be partially

correct, but only in the first assumption.

My point is to make the experience as

comfortingly familiar as Linus’ blanket.

So where do we go from here? No,

I’m not suggesting that we should all have

remotes styled after 1950s illuminated

fascia panels. I suggest that we are miss-

ing the tactile interface with these com-

plex devices, the subconscious feedback

that adds to the richness of our environ-

ment. Although it may seem grandiose, I

am going to draw a parallel between this

feedback and body language, which con-

veys a surprisingly high proportion of our

communications and adds to the redun-

dancy that is so vital to consistent com-

munication. This is the missing element

from our connection to the machine, and

no box of M&Ms can supply it.

I don’t know the solution: That’s

going to take a serious investigation to

define. But I know this problem is being

vigorously addressed elsewhere – have

you noticed the eagerness of the voice

that greets AOL users? And the resigned

tone of its “Goodbye”? Or that the GUI

(graphic user interface) of current com-

puters includes a satisfying snick every

time you click the mouse?…

B A R R Y R A W L I N S O N

The Human Interface

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESIGN CONCEPTS

I

When most people hear “Orlando,

Florida” they think of Disney-

world, Universal Studios, palm

trees, and flamingos. They don’t

usually think of darkened, car-

peted convention halls filled

with flashy images projected

onto huge screens. But that’s

almost all I saw in Orlando when

I visited last June to attend INFOCOMM International 1999. This annual trade show, sponsored by

the International Communications Industries Association (ICIA), is the most important event of

its kind for vendors of presentation products. An estimated 25,000 people attended the show this

year – most of them “information and communications” professionals but some consumers as

well. More than 450 exhibitors were on hand, many to introduce new products. The most excit-

ing such products were displays – cutting-edge projectors and direct-view monitors. While most

of these are designed for the needs of audio-visual professionals – and priced accordingly high,

the same technologies will soon find their way into more-affordable consumer products, the kind

you and I can buy in a retail store. No matter how you look at it, the show is an important event

J O U R N A L

INFOCOMM

in the world of displays.

As with many trade shows, the city hosting Infocomm

changes each year. But the general organization of the show

remains much the same wherever it occurs. This year it was the

huge halls of the Orange County Convention Center that were

filled with manufacturer’s exhibits. The largest booths, some

threatening to scrape the ceiling, were those of the pro-

jector manufacturers. Many of these contained screens

of nearly theater proportions displaying high-definition

material, much of it from recent blockbuster movies,

projected by the brightest projectors available. Sur-

rounding these were the smaller booths of manufactur-

ers with more humble space requirements. Line the aisles

between with plush carpet and your picture of this trade show

is almost complete. (Did I mention the indigestible food?)

Separated from the main exhibit halls was the ICIA Pro-

jection Shoot-Out. This event-within-an-event is a showcase

of Infocomm. It is also quite misunderstood: It was created to

allow potential buyers of display equipment – potential

because nothing can be bought at the show – to compare the

performance of products from different manufacturers under

identical conditions. No one actually wins the Shoot-Out, and

there are no prizes – in fact, participants are strictly prohibit-

ed from declaring themselves winners. Nevertheless, it’s an

important event for manufacturers and buyers alike because

it is rare to see similar display products together in one place.

This year, over 90 projectors were presented, as well as a

handful of direct-view CRT monitors and plasma-display pan-

els. Products were divided into multiple categories according

to image resolution and display application. Projectors in a

given category were fed identical signals for display on iden-

tical side-by-side low-gain screens. For the first time, the

Shoot-Out included a high-definition “HDTV Demo” category

whose entries consisted, for the most part, of high-brightness,

large-venue projectors (the screens were large - 27 x 15 feet).

The Shoot-Out also included categories for scan converters

and video upconverters. (See the sidebar.)

Since I work as an engineer for Electrohome Projection

Systems, an exhibitor at the show, my view of Infocomm is

that of an industry insider, an advantageous perspective from

which to report the event. Of course, it carries with it the dan-

ger that I could be perceived as biased toward my company’s

products or against those of its competitors. To set this aside,

let me assure the reader that, apart from supplying a relative-

ly low volume of OEM projectors for the very High End of

home theater, Electrohome does not make products that

directly compete in the categories of most interest to this

report.

Significant New Products and Trends

Among the multitude of new display products introduced at

Infocomm, I have selected a handful as “significant” because

they demonstrate the most important trends taking place in

the display industry. They also turn out to

be the most relevant to those attempting

This year’s Infocomm pre-

sent ed over 90 project ors in

its annual Shoot Out , as well

as a handful of direct -view

Video upconverters have become important prod-

ucts for home theater. A large number of these

were introduced this year at INFOCOMM, almost

all of them scalers. Unlike simpler line doublers or quadru-

plers – which output progressive signals with either double

or quadruple the number of

lines in each original inter-

laced video field – scalers

offer a range of progressive

output formats and scan

rates to better match the

characteristics of a given dis-

play device. The new products this year at the show includ-

ed Analog Way’sTrans-Scaler, Communications Specialties’

Deuce Pro, Extron’s DVS 100, Faroudja’s DVP3000 and

DVP3000U, Focus Enhancement’s QuadScan, Inline’s

IN1402, IN1403, and IN1404, RGB Spectrum’s DTQ and VLI

200, and YEM’s DVS-1000. Space prohibits describing all of

these products, so I focus here on only a few of the most

noteworthy.

Communications Specialties’ Deuce Pro, with a sug-

gested list price of $4,995, is a much-improved version of

its popular Deuce video scaler.The product adds a compo-

nent/RGB input, VGA pass-through, stereo audio switching,

RS-232, and an internal power supply. Compatible with

NTSC and PAL signals, it outputs RGB in ten different for-

mats up to 1365 x 1024, at three selectable refresh rates.

Performance improvements include a two-line comb filter,

noise reduction, and a sharpness control. Extron’s DVS

100, with a list price of $2,325, includes a component input

and a three-line adaptiveY/C separator. It can decode

NTSC, PAL, and SECAM and provides a total of 17 RGB

output formats, including 480p, 720p, and 1080p. Faroud-

ja’s DVP3000, with a suggested list price of $19,995, con-

verts 480i (NTSC) to one of eight output formats, including

720p, 1080i, and 1080p HDTV. In addition to Faroudja’s

renowned film-mode deinterlacing, the DVP3000 includes

“Directional Correlation Deinterlacing” to eliminate motion

artifacts from video-originated material. Another significant

feature is the ability to upconvert 480p signals from future

progressive-scan DVD players. A component output is also

included for connecting to HDTVs. The DVP3000U

($21,995) adds 580i (PAL) and 580p input compatibility and

the ability to output at 100Hz.

A total of 11 upconverters were entered into the Pro-

jection Shoot-Out this year, including several of the new

products described above. The upconverter Shoot-Out was

divided into two categories - 31.5 kHz output and 64 kHz

output. Each product was fed identical input signals and

the output was projected onto identical side-by-side

screens – using 8” CRT projectors in the 31.5 kHz category

and 9” CRT projectors in the 64 kHz category. Video mater-

ial consisted of colorbar and multiburst test patterns, color

and black-and-white movie scenes, and VCR playback of

video-originated scenes, including fast-forward and reverse

previews, as well as paused frames. These images permit-

ted only a limited evaluation of performance (scaling quality

with other output formats was not tested, for example).

Accordingly, I ranked products simply as “good,” “ade-

quate,” or “poor” based strictly on the test images shown.

In the 31.5 kHz category, I rated two products “good:” the

Astro Systems SC-2025A line doubler and the Chromatek

Biraster 3428 line doubler. Both displayed the test patterns

competently, had few objectionable deinterlacing artifacts,

and handled VCR playback well. I rated the Communication

Specialties Deuce as merely “adequate” because of its rel-

atively poor high-frequency luma response and smeary

VIDEO UPCON-

VERTERS

ALEN KOEBEL continued on page 23

to recreate the theater experience in the home.

The dominant display technology today for home-theater

screens larger than 40” diagonal is CRT (Cathode Ray Tube)

projection. It is used in almost every rear-projection TV and

most HDTVs just recently introduced. But it is an old technol-

ogy near its limit and its days are numbered. The display

industry, driven by the desire of business professionals to

make presentations in fully lit rooms, has been hard at work

replacing CRT projection with brighter and friendlier alterna-

tives. These alternatives are Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) pro-

jection and Digital Light Processing (DLP), the latter invented

by Texas Instruments. Both of these technologies use discrete

pixels to form images and both use a lamp as the source of the

light projected on the screen. These considerations have

made it possible to design small, portable projectors with

much higher light output than a CRT projector – just the thing

for the mobile presenter. Most of the projectors at Infocomm

were of this type. One of the standouts in light output per unit

weight was the U2-1080 from PLUS Corp. Based on DLP tech-

nology, this small, ultra-portable projector weighs less than 6

pounds yet puts out 800 ANSI lumens of light - three to five

times as much as a CRT projector can provide. (I will explain

the meaning of “ANSI” below.) The native resolution of the

image is also relatively high – 1024 x 768 (XGA format). Unfor-

tunately, there are trade-offs for the small size of ultra-

portable projectors. Input connection options and features

are usually more limited than with larger models. Also, in

some cases performance may have been compromised to

minimize the projector’s size and weight.

Although light-output ratings for small LCD and DLP pro-

jectors are usually much higher than for CRT projectors, they

do not always appear as bright as you might think from the

numbers. When displaying video images, which typically have

a much lower average picture level (APL) than graphics

images, a CRT projector can put more of its energy into high-

lights of the image – an ability indicated by its “peak lumen”

rating. This makes the image appear brighter than you would

expect from the projector’s ANSI lumen number, which rep-

resents the brightness achievable with a full-white image.

Nevertheless, an LCD or DLP projector rated at 1000 ANSI

lumens – a number that is now quite common – looks brighter

on video images than a typical 9” CRT projector.

One area where CRT projectors still have the edge is

black level. Despite years of steady improvement, neither

LCD nor DLP has yet managed to achieve, on small screens,

the deep blacks achievable with CRT. That is reason enough

for some to choose a CRT projector for their home theater. A

promising new choice introduced at the show was the HD

2000 from Chromalux. Like DWIN’s HDP-500, this 7” CRT pro-

jector has no fans – the projector’s metal chassis serves as a

heat-sink. Designed by Arthur R. Tucker – one of the pioneers

of the projection industry – it includes a built-in line doubler.

Chromalux claims peak and ANSI light outputs of 1100 and

800 lumens, respectively. Since the projector was not shown

operating, I could not confirm these numbers. Eight hundred

ANSI lumens would be an astounding output from any CRT

projector, much less one using 7” tubes. In a bid to improve

domestic harmony, the projector’s plastic cover is available in

custom colors to match any décor.

Despite late arrivals like the HD 2000, it is clear that the

total replacement of CRT-projection by LCD and DLP, even

for home theater, is close at hand. The quality of images from

LCD and DLP projectors at the show this year was dramati-

cally better than last year. Colors were more saturated, whites

were more accurate, blacks were deeper (although not yet

quite good enough), and overall uniformity was improved.

The final nail in the projection-CRT coffin may be this: Texas

Instruments showed a prototype of a rear-projection HDTV

Notable New Display Products at INFOCOMM ‘99

Manufacturer Model No. Price Technology Light Output Pixel Format

(ANSI lumens) (H x V)

Barco BarcoReality $20,995 LCD projection 2,000 1280 x 1024

6300DLC (w/o lens)

Chromalux HD 2000 N/A 7” CRT projection 800 Not applicable

Davis DL X10 N/A DLP projection 1000 1024 x 768

Epson PowerLite 9000i N/A LCD projection 1,600 1280 x 1024

JVC Professional DLA-G15 $20,000 est. LCD projection 1,500 1365 x 1024

NEC PlasmaSync $22,995 Plasma, N/A 1365 x 768

5000W 16.9, 50” diagonal

PLUS Corp. U2-1080 N/A DLP projection 800 1024 x 768

Princeton AF3.0HD $4,100 CRT, 30” diagonal N/A Not applicable

Revox E-542 $17,000 est. Plasma, N/A 848 x 480

16.9, 42” diagonal

Sanyo PLC-EF10N $23,995 LCD projection 2,300 1280 x 1024

Toshiba TLP-770 $9,995 LCD projection 1,800 1024 x 768

Project ors in a given cat ego-

ry were fed ident ical signals

for display on ident ical side-

based on DLP with a native resolution of 1280 x 720 pixels

(16.9). Hitachi and Mitsubishi have signed agreements to

develop consumer HDTVs based on this technology for sale in

late 2000. The image quality of the prototype was, to my eyes,

excellent. If the consumer versions can match it, and do so

affordably, we may not have reason to mourn the passing of

CRT for long.

Given the arrival of HDTV and the ramp-up of HDTV pro-

gramming over the next few years, there is little reason to

consider buying an LCD or DLP projector today with less than

XGA resolution. The gain in detail on high-definition images

with XGA is, in my opinion, well worth the typical 30 percent

price increase over comparably equipped SVGA models. If the

price can be justified, SXGA (1280 x 1024) projectors are, of

course, much better, but are currently available only with

LCD technology. Several notable models of LCD projectors

with SXGA resolution were introduced at the show, including

S a n y o ’s PLC-EF10N and Barco’s BarcoReality 6300DLC.

While neither would be my first choice for a home theater,

they are significant in one respect: They both include a form

of digital video connection. Such a connection bypasses the

traditional conversion steps between analog and digital most

video signals must take between the video source and the dis-

play. A digital connection provides the cleanest possible way

to send the signal and, as importantly, eliminates a lot of the

fussy set-up issues involved with getting an image to look

good. The Sanyo projector provides a digital connection

called “PanelLink,” which is becoming a standard way to con-

nect computers to flat-panel monitors. The Barco product

provides an optional FireWire connection. FireWire (IEEE

1394) is the standard that will very likely be used to connect

consumer DTV products together, from HDTVs to digital

VCRs to surround processors. The important point is this:

What is available on these professional projectors now will

become available on consumer projectors, in one form or

another, soon.

The trend to digital connectivity is not just restricted to

projectors. Plasma display panels (PDPs) are getting in on

the act, too. A prime example introduced at the show is the

Revox E-542. Advertised as the world’s thinnest PDP, at a 2-

inch depth, it consigns all user-connections to an external

box that sends digital video signals and power to the display

over a single cable up to 40’ long. The control box has a slot

to accept a FireWire interface card to be developed later

this summer.

Speaking of PDPs, they were definitely one of the hot

technologies at the show. They are being increasingly con-

sidered for use in corporate boardrooms and for point-of-sale

displays. In the consumer world, more and more people are

considering them worthy alternatives to large direct-view

CRT monitors and rear-projection units for home theater.

The more affordable panels are those with “standard” resolu-

tion – 852 x 480 at 16.9 aspect ratio. The most recent of these

at the show had better contrast ratios, higher brightness, and

more accurate colors than last year’s models. Nevertheless,

they weren’t turning heads the way their high-definition sib-

lings were. Last year, only one high-definition PDP was intro-

duced at the show. This year, five were introduced, which is

a good indication of the way this technology may be matur-

ing. NEC’s PlasmaSync 5000W was the standout. This 50”

diagonal 16.9 panel, with a resolution of 1365 x 768, had the

best looking image I’ve seen yet from a PDP.

While PDPs are unquestionably getting better, they still

have problems. One of the more notable is a tendency to pro-

duce noise in dark areas of the image. The only panel I saw

not showing this noise – the Revox E-542 – had obvious con-

touring (discrete steps in the grayscale) in the dark regions of

the picture, leading me to suspect that the noise may be an

intentional trade-off to reduce the visibility of contouring.

PDPs also tend to show rather obvious deinterlacing and

resizing artifacts, although this may simply be a function of

the image processing electronics rather than a property of

PDP technology itself.

An Ideal Cinema?

This report wouldn’t be complete without mentioning a land-

mark event at this year’s show. Hughes-JVC and Miramax

Films teamed up to give show attendees a “digital sneak pre-

view” of Miramax’s An Ideal Husband before its release on

film. Shown in its entirety, the movie was projected onto a

t h e a t e r-sized screen by a Hughes-JVC ILA-12K projector.

“ILA” stands for Image Light Amplification and is Hughes-

J V C ’s answer to the problem of projecting a high resolution

electronic image with extremely high brightness. Digital

Light Processing (DLP) is the competing answer from Te x a s

Instruments. While the image I saw from the Hughes-JVC pro-

jector was not perfect, the resolution, color saturation, and

contrast were all good enough to give me confidence that

electronic projection – whether based on ILA or DLP tech-

nology – will be equal to the task when digital cinema

becomes an every-day reality. When that day arrives, the

technologies exhibited each year at Infocomm will have

found their ultimate expression.

chroma transitions. Barco’s VSE-20 line doubler, Extron’s

DVS-100 scaler, and RGB Spectrum’s DTQ scaler all earned

a“poor” rating, mostly because of their inability to cleanly

handle VCR playback (particularly in the case of the DTQ).

If VCR playback is discounted, they each earn a rating of

“adequate.” In the 64 kHz category, I considered only one

product “good,” the Communication Specialties Deuce Pro.

I rated Analog Way’s Smart Cut II scaler “adequate”

because of some instability during VCR preview modes

and because of relatively poor high-frequency luma

response. Extron’s Sentosaxi earned a “poor” rating

because of a considerable number of obvious deinterlacing

artifacts. I likewise rated Focus Enhancement’s QuadScan

“poor,” in this case mostly because of its unstable

response to VCR playback – the image was not steady

even during regular play. If this is ignored, its overall perfor-

mance is adequate. Lastly, Barco’s VSE-40 also earned a

rating of “poor” because of its relatively poor high-frequen-

cy luma response combined with an excessively noisy pic-

ture.

This comparison of upconverters should be ta ken with

caution because the source material and conditions

imposed by the Shoot-Out were too limited to evaluate the

p e r f ormance of the products thoroughly. If yo u ’re in the

m a r k et for an upconve r t e r, try to audition the products yo u r-

self using test material and sources you are intimately

familiar with. A K

For t he first t ime, t he Shoot -

Out

included a high-definition

ometimes I think that every position on a

moviemaking crew comes with its special privi-

leges, its perks, as it were. If you’re the script super-

visor, you stand right next to the director as the film

is shot, noting which takes are to be printed and any

remarks the director may have about them. From

this position you watch the script come to life

before the camera. If you’re the director of photography or

the production designer, you play large, determining roles in

how the film will look. The actors literally give a flesh and

blood reality to characters whose only previous existence is

on paper. The writer, of course, has written the screenplay; if

it’s an original screenplay, then he has invented the story. The

most important position of all, it goes without saying, is that

of the director, who realizes the story before the cameras and

oversees every aspect of preproduction, production, and post-

production.

It is the special privilege of the editor that he or she is the

person who first gets to see the movie as a movie. Before it

passes through his hands, it is only a collection of long takes

from various angles, of various sizes, without dramatic shape

or rhythm. Having said that, I wouldn’t

want to suggest that the editor alone

gives it shape and rhythm. The screenplay has a structure, as

does each scene; and in most of the scenes, the director has

built tempo or range of tempos. But these things have no real

cinematic existence until they leave the editor’s bench. One of

the most continually exciting and personally rewarding

aspects of an always interesting job is that first time I run a

scene after I’ve cut it. Suddenly, as if by magic, I’m looking at

a real movie where there was none before, or at least the

beginnings of a movie.

Outsiders are sometimes surprised to learn that most

movies are shot out of sequence and that editing begins the

moment there is a complete scene to cut, which is to say with

the first day of shooting. It makes no sense to wait – you can

cut just one scene at a time anyhow. And it would be bad eco-

nomics to let the interest on the loans increase while the

footage just piles up. What directors want and need is to have

a first cut finished as soon as possible after the completion of

principal photography. As it usually takes longer to edit a

scene than it does to film it, cutting must begin immediately.

Editing as you go along gives everyone involved the

opportunity to assess how the project is shaping up – are the

performances working, as the scenes

accumulate do they tell a story, does

J O U R N A L

NOTES F ROMTHE C UTTING

Wh at d o e s a f i l m e d i t o r d o ?

A nd w hat e f f e c t d o e s t hi s hav e o n t he f i na l v e r s i o n

PA U L S E Y D O R

Bef or e

it passes

t hr ough t he edi-

t or ’ s hands, a f ilm

is a collect ion of

long t akes f r om

var ious

there appear to be a movie here at all? Sometimes technical

problems develop – shots go out of focus, the director loses

the light at the end of the day and doesn’t get some angles he

fears he needs, the negative gets damaged in the lab. When

this sort of thing happens, it is imperative that the director see

the scene cut together as soon as possible so he can deter-

mine if additional shots are needed or, perish the thought, the

entire scene needs to be rescheduled.

I’m often struck by the number of people, including those

in the movie industry itself, who have little or no idea what a

film editor actually does. “Oh, you cut out all the bad parts,”

is the usual salvo when I’m introduced as a film editor. Almost

as frequent and worse: “Oh, they say an editor can make or

break a film.” The one conceives the job more or less as glo-

rified bean counting, the other invests it with far more power

than it actually has. When I tell people that I usually do my

work on my own, as first cut is done while shooting is going

on, which means the director is filming while I’m editing,

they’re often taken back. Doesn’t that almost mean that

you’re directing the film, not the director? Of course not. An

editor’s power to radically alter a scene is much less than peo-

ple often think. For one thing, you want to keep your job, so

you’d have to be egotistic to the point of professional suicide

even to try to cut a scene much differently from the more or

less clear intent with which it was shot, at least on first cut or

without discussing your ideas in advance with the director.

For another, you’re limited by the material itself. A

well-placed reaction shot can make a character appear more

or less sympathetic; if you’re given a fairly wide range of read-

ings (not usual, but not atypical either), you can pitch a per-

formance higher or bring it down by your selection of takes;

you have the option of playing dialog on or off camera. But it’s

the really unusual film that would allow the editing as such to

transform the direction into something else entirely.

I’ve had directors tell me many times that I’ve “saved” a

scene. This is always flattering, but also a little puzzling, and I

usually reply that I didn’t shoot any new footage, so whatever

I did was there to be found in the material. For one of the

most valuable things a good editor can contribute is a fresh

perspective. That, of course, and his basic talent for story-

telling, his taste and sensitivity in shaping performances, and

his imagination in how the shots can be most effectively com-

bined. Sometimes colleagues tell me they like to hang around

the set to soak up the feel of the movie, but I’ve never found

them convincing. Anyone who has spent any time on a film set

soon finds out there is little “feel” for the story to be

picked up there – not with production assistants,

camera crews, sound recordists, costumers,

assistant directors, service people, and the

countless other crew members necessary

to the making of a movie milling about.

And if the editor is hanging out

there, he plainly isn’t editing the film,

which is what he should be doing. I

prefer to approach the raw footage

with as little knowledge as possible of

what went into getting it. It doesn’t

matter if the star was sick and not on

best behavior; it does me no good to

know that certain essential setups were

never filmed owing to inclement weather

or a camera breakdown. All that makes for

interesting dinner conversation or frustrated

venting over a drink, but is of no consequence

one way or another when it comes to working with

the footage.

Every film is in fact three films: the film that

is written, the film that is directed, and the film

that is edited. Sometimes they’re all the same

film, sometimes they’re not, and I can’t

think of any necessary correlation in qual-

ity between when they are and when

they aren’t. I do know that the only film

you finally have is the raw footage

that has been developed and is wait-

ing to be cut. Everything else is

academic.

Early in my career I was on a

job interview; present were the

director, the producer, and the two writ-

ers who were also associate producers. One

of the writers asked me who I thought should

get the right to final cut. Talk about being on the

spot. I replied that insofar as it devolves to a single per-

son, I believe it must be the director. (Whatever prob-

lems I have with the auteur theory, I nevertheless

believe that the director is the overall “author” of

a film, because a screenplay is not a final any-

thing – it awaits realization on film, for

which the director is responsible.) But I

went on to say that my experience sug-

gests it is the film itself that deter-

mines the final cut, the film itself

that soon becomes the last, best

arbiter. A movie that is good

or has a chance of becom-

ing any good eventually

develops a life of its

own. And every direc-

tor and every editor

who are good keep

themselves alert to

this process and bend

their egos to helping

this emergent organism

assume the shape it desires,

to letting it, in a word, live.

The director with the greatest editorial imag-

ination of them all, Sam Peckinpah, used to

say that he knew what he saw in

the material, he wanted to

see what others saw in

it. Of one of his

favorite editors,

Robert Wolfe, Sam

once told me, “Bob

will come back with

20 ideas. I might hate ten of

them, but that still leaves ten that I’d

never have thought of that’ll make my

movie better.”

Different directors work dif-

ferently. Some give you copi-

ous notes at dailies, right

down to which specific line

readings they want and

how they’d like the shots

used. I’ve been lucky, I

The

edit or shoot s no

new f oot age; w hat ev-

er he does w as in t he

f ilm all along.

1Takes are stored individually for a

movieola (i.e., an upright viewing-machine);

they are stored in 1,000-foot reels for

flatbed viewing.The former obviously allows

for much faster access to a given piece of

film.

guess, in working

with this kind of direc-

tor only once. Most of the

time I get few, if any, notes, and the

directors seem to trust me to use my

abilities to select the takes and structure the sequence of

shots. (On at least two projects I had put the films into first

cut before I ever met the directors in person.) This makes the

job more difficult because more challenging, but also more

rewarding because more creative.

Different editors also work differently. Perhaps because

when I first started editing in 1982, the editors I worked with

– Roger Spottiswoode and John Bloome – cut on a movieola,

I continued to use one right up until I switched to the Avid

computer in 1995, the way most films are cut these days. I like

the Avid for the same reason I liked the movieola, as opposed

to the KEM or flatbed: the quick access to all the footage.1I’ve

never been one of these editors who watch the dailies and

take notes on the so-called “best” takes or readings, then build

or have their assistants build a “selects” reel and cut from

that. For one thing, typically you watch dailies at the end of

what has been a long day of editing (if you’re the editor) or

shooting (if you’re the director). Hardly the best conditions

under which to be making editing selections. For another, I’m

never really certain where I want something to be played until

I reach that point in the scene. It’s all very well to feel that a

reading of this or that line was much better in the medium

shot than in either the close-up or the master shot, but what if

the medium shot is emotionally or psychologically the wrong

place to be at that point in the scene? Perhaps the isolation of

a close-up is what’s called for or the tie-in of the over-the-

shoulder or the distance of the master. Then you’ve got to

search through the other takes and find a reading that works

or alter the cut accordingly. I like to have the fastest possible

access to all the footage at whatever point I am in the scene.

As important as individual moments are – in my opinion, they

are the very lifeblood of truly vital movie-making– scenes are

more important, and you usually have to sacrifice the inci-

dental to the overall.

Editing is a curious process of the intuitive and the intel-

lectual, the instinctive and the ratiocinative. For every deci-

sion you make has both immediate and long-range implica-

tions. There’s an old saw –one that, dull though it has

become, is alas still in too much use – that goes, once you go

in, stay in. This refers to the classic way of editing a scene,

where you begin with the masters, then move to the medium

shots, the over-the-shoulder angles, going progressively

tighter until you conclude with the close-ups. And

when you get close in, stay close in. You see a

lot of cutting like this, especially in older

movies and quite a bit of television. It’s

certainly a serviceable way to edit

movies,

it works,

and it’s not

likely to get you

into any trouble.

But it doesn’t necessari-

ly make for terribly exciting

or dynamic moviemaking,

nor does it allow you to avail

yourself of anything like the full

expressive use of the filmic language at your disposal. One of

the most valuable lessons I learned from studying Peckinpah,

for example, is how dropping back to the master shot or even

an establishing shot in the middle of scene can let it breathe,

or alternately can give it a beat that will then invest your

close-ups with even greater force and intensity.

Some editors and directors don’t like what are called

jump-ins and jump-outs, that is, going from one size to anoth-

er without an angle change or a cutaway. Yet this is one of my

favorite procedures. These are, admittedly, difficult cuts to

make work, but when they do work, you gain an expressive-

ness that you don’t otherwise have. In the movie I’m current-

ly doing, for example, Ron Shelton’s Play It to the Bone, Loli-

ta Davidovich has a scene in which her character is talking

about the things she enjoys. Ron covered the passage pretty

thoroughly, as he usually does. But there were two takes in

particular, a loose over-the-shoulder looking at Lolita past

Woody Harrelson and an isolating close-up, both from the

same angle, that contained readings that are especially effec-

tive. Lolita sustained the speech through both readings and

either take could have been dropped in with hardly a second

thought. If I had to choose one or the other, I would have

selected the looser angle because she is responding to some-

thing Woody’s character has asked her and it felt wrong to me

to play the whole speech in the isolation of the close-up. Yet I

also felt that the end of the speech is slightly more effective in

the tighter angle and I wanted to play the whole speech on

her, without cutting to a reaction and back again. So I simply

cut from the looser to the tighter angle at an unobtrusive spot.

The performance plays as seamlessly as if in one, but the shift

to the close-up gives the last part of the speech just the right

subtle emphasis, drawing us closer to the character and her

dreams, than would have been the case had I been doctrinaire

about jump-ins or, for that matter, had I worked with selects,

which would have forced me to choose one or the other take

before the cutting part of process began.

Do editors have styles of their own? I suppose they

must, but I don’t imagine they can be very well

defined ones, otherwise they’d be terribly

limited. As I think about my own, I can

state a few – preferences I’d rather

call them, as they’re nothing so hard

and fast as principles. I prefer my

cuts to be as seamless, even as

invisible as possible. I generally

like to knit the scenes internally,

which means that I prefer to have

the emotion, the mood, the action, the transfor-

mation lead the cut, rather than the other way

around. I don’t like to let picture cuts fall on

hard consonants, as that emphasizes a cut.

I enjoy prelaps to pull the narrative

along – that is, starting an incoming

line of dialog over an outgoing

scene – provided it doesn’t become

a mannerism. I generally detest

what I call the never-let-a-mod-

ulation-die-out-before-you-cut-

away school of editing, which

in our attention-deficit age

is becoming more and

more common.

When most people are

impressed by editing they usually

think of elaborate action

sequences, but the real art of editing

lies in working with performances

and in concealment. What I care

about most is achieving a theatri-

cal sense of performance but

with filmic means. By the-

atrical, I don’t mean

ostentatious “acting”;

rather, I am referring

to the continuity you

get from a perfor-

mance on stage, the

building up and

releasing of tension

and emotion in an

unbroken arc of

time and space.

This can be

achieved on film,

but it is more

difficult because

films are made in

pieces and over

time. Usually the

master shots are done first. In a long scene,

allowing for camera setups, lighting, and rig-

ging, the director may not get around to

the close-ups until the end of the day

or the next day. Yet the shots have to

cut together. Sometimes one

actor will have his close-ups

before lunch, the other after

lunch; and emotionally, psycholog-

ically, even physiologically they’re

in completely difference places. Yet

the shots have to cut together. When scenes

involve several characters, each actor has his or her dif-

ferent way of working; they reach emotional peaks or

descend into emotional valleys at different times. Yet

the shots have to cut together. More often than not,

one actor will nail the scene in the first few

takes and setups (meaning the master),

another will not hit his stride until the

medium shots and over-the-shoulders,

and a third finally comes up to

speed in the close-ups. Yet still the

shots have to cut together.

It’s a funny thing about matching in editing. Most lay

moviegoers who pay attention to editing admire the elegance

of the shot matching; most editors brag about the mismatch-

es they manage to get away with. What experienced editors

care most about matching is the mood and emotion of the per-

formance from one shot to the next. (Even a volatile perfor-

mance that swings between extremes must have the integrity

of its changes.) Neophytes usually worry about quite trivial

matters – how much of the cigarette was burned away in this

shot as opposed to the previous one. The second scene I ever

had to cut was in a movie called The Best of Times. Kurt Rus-

sell and Robin Williams are at a bar drinking beer out of bot-

tles. The scene was covered from every conceivable angle and

size except that there were no singles –that is, a shot that con-

tains only one character. Every shot was some variety of a

two-shot, which means not only that both actors were plainly

visible, but so were their beer bottles. What a learning experi-

ence! Every time I wanted to make a cut, one bottle or the

other got in the way. Soon enough I discovered what every

editor discovers – the hell with matching. You cut for mood,

emotion, for the feeling of the moment, and then later correct

any mismatches you can’t live with.

In the scene I just described, the only cut I don’t like is the

one I absolutely had to make for the match alone: after one of

the actors delivered his line, I had to wait for him to raise the

bottle to his lips because that is where it was in the incoming

take that was best for the next line. I’d have rather cut away

sooner, but there was no other way without leaving a mis-

match so grotesque as to throw any moviegoer right out of the

moment. When I ran this scene for Garth Craven, one of my

mentors, he remarked, “Never give an actor a prop.”

Garth did not, I must add, say this to the detriment of the

actor; it was just commiseration between editors. The takes in

question were made hours apart; no actor can be expected to

turn in a good performance at the same time as he’s trying to

keep precise track of what are supposed to be casual swigs of

beer during a long scene in a neighborhood bar. That’s one of

the things editors are for.

There was a time when studio previews served an

admirable and necessary function, or complex of functions.

They let you observe how your movie played in front of an

The scr eenplay has a

st r uct ur e. Each scene has a

st r uctur e – a r ange of t empos.

But t hese t hings have no r eal cin-

emat ic existence unt il t hey

leave t he edit or ’ s

2 In computerized editing, the movie is only edited in the video/com-

puter domain; the final product is still film, which is assembled from a

cut-list generated by the computer with numbers corresponding to each

piece of negative.

audience for the first time. There are always surprises. Things

you worried were unclear the audience tracked perfectly;

things you never imagined would be a problem turn out to

require a lot more thought and work. Previews were useful for

studios, too, helping them determine the kind of movie they

had, the more effectively to market it.

But in our marketing-obsessed age, where high among the

Monday morning headlines, even in Podunk, USA, are the

weekend grosses of the latest movies, the principal function

of previews now is to let the marketing people tell the film-

makers how to “fix” their movies to make them easier to mar-

ket. One of my favorite minor spectacles of our time is watch-

ing rich, powerful studio executives and movie producers

hang on the every word of teenagers in focus groups for some

scrap of a clue as to anything objectionable that might make

the movie under discussion unpalatable to the 16-25 age

group. They pay slavish attention to witless comments built

around words like “rad,” “awesome,” or “icky” as they bring

the common denominator lower and lower.

The studios don’t care about older moviegoers any more,

and you have only to look at the latest products – this is being

written as the summer approaches – to see where their sights

are set. Previews have become a degraded and degrading

process that only the most powerful or committed of direc-

tors can withstand and prevail against. It’s the only part of the

editing process that I actively hate, and every editor and direc-

tor I know feels exactly the same way.

Most movies are now cut on computers, rather than on film

itself, and only assembled as films relatively late in the process.

Does this affect the way movies are edited? I suppose it must,

but when I look at my work before and after Avid, I don’t see

any differences that I can attribute to the technology alone.

When Avids first appeared, you did see a great many more dis-

solves because, unlike film, the computer lets you see the dis-

solve immediately.2A far bigger influence than the tools them-

selves is the whole home-video market.

Fifty years ago, Jack Warner used to say that the life of a

movie was basically three months, which may explain why

the studios were so careless in handling and storing the mas-

ter negatives once movies had their theatrical runs. But the

video market has not just given theatrical movies a whole

new lease on life, it has practically b e c o m e their life. Most

people now see movies on video, whether via cable or

through rentals. (The best single thing about the advent of

DVD is the hope among many of us that it will supplant

videotape as the preferred viewing medium, so that home

viewers will have decent picture and sonic reproduction.)

This cannot help but affect the way movies are made. I

c a n ’t recall that I’ve ever cut with anything other than the-

atrical viewing in mind, but just the other day something

happened that gave me pause. I wanted to end a particularly

intimate scene by dropping back to an extreme long shot

that Ron Shelton had filmed. I use big screen (30”) monitors,

but when I cut in the long shot, I realized I couldn’t even see

the two actors. For all I or anyone else knew, I was cutting

to a different scene or I was doing a time cut. The actors

completely disappeared, and I thought that when the movie

shows on television this is exactly what will happen there as

well. And because the medium I was using to cut the film is

video, it was driven home to me more forcibly than before. I

made the cut anyway, because I knew it would

be effective in the theater, and we continue to

make movies for viewing in the theater.

Peckinpah, old theater man that he was,

always believed that one of the most

important aspects of moviegoing was

leaving your house, joining other peo-

ple, and seeing the movie as part of a

large audience: in other words, the

communal aspect of the experi-

ence, and also, of course, the

giving of your full attention to

the movie that being in a the-

ater demands. But this is not the

way most movies are watched

these days, and it is sobering to think

through the implications of this from the

editorial point of view. Do most people who

watch movies at home actually set aside time

and watch the movie? Do they turn off the tele-

phone or at least silence it? Do they watch the

movie as an integral, unbroken experience? Or

do they, as I suspect, treat it as a social occa-

sion? In Understanding Media, M c C l u h a n

argued, correctly, I think, that a televi-

sion in the home becomes rather like

another person in the house, its

content less important than its

presence as an electronic

device with sounds and

images of its own that it

brings to the party. Peo-

ple talk, go to the

r e f r i g e r a t o r, pause

the movie for any

number of valid

and invalid rea-

sons. This is the

reality of what the

movie experience

has become after a

hundred years during

which it was hailed as the great art form of the

Twentieth Century.

W h y, then, in making a movie do we

continue to lavish such care on pace, on

tempo, on rhythm, on timing, on conti-

nuity of performance, story

t h r o u g h-line, narrative clarity, and

all the rest? If through the medium of

television, a movie becomes just

another member of the household,

merely one of the party, with no more

claims to our attention than anyone or any-

thing else, what becomes of the art of film or, indeed, of the

film experience itself?

I haven’t any brilliant answers right at hand. But when

I contemplate the future of movies as the technology

of home video becomes ever more sophisticated

and widely available, I do find myself feeling

rather like Dorothy after the tornado has car-

ried her far, far from home. Whatever else,

Toto, this really doesn’t seem to be

Kansas any more.

exicon is unique among companies building multi-chan-

nel digital controllers (see “What You Should Know

About Controllers,” which follows this review). Rather

than approach the product category after designing two-chan-

nel analog preamplifiers, Lexicon enters the multi-channel

arena with a decades-long history of creating professional dig-

ital-signal-processing gear.

Lexicon introduced the world’s first digital-delay line in

1971, the Precambrian era in digital audio. Lexicon’s chief

technologist, Dr. David Griesinger, has spent his career study-

ing surround sound, reverberation, human hearing, and the

relationship between the physical properties of sound and our

perception of them. In the academic audio community,

Griesinger is considered one of the leading authorities on the

perception of acoustic environments.

I t ’s no wonder, then, that Lexicon’s new flagship MC-1

Music and Cinema Processor is packed with an extensive array

of multi-channel surround-sound modes. Moreover, many of

these surround modes are designed for music listening, not

just multi-channel film-sound. With 7.1 channels and signal

processing that is unique among surround-sound controllers,

the MC-1 raises some interesting questions about multi-chan-

nel music reproduction.

For those of you familiar with Lexicon’s DC-1 and DC-2

controllers, the MC-1 is a significant re-

design. The MC-1 has more inputs, better

DACs and analog circuitry (which increased the signal-to-

noise ratio from 98 dB to 110 dB), a “broadcast spec” video

board, and the unit will receive and decode 24-bit/96-kHz

input signals.

The MC-1 is an eight-channel device, with line-level out-

puts for the usual left, center, right, surround left, surround

right, and subwoofer signals, plus additional outputs for rear

left and right signals. In its optimum configuration, the 7.1-

channel MC-1 will drive seven power amplifiers and seven

loudspeakers (plus any number of subwoofers).

Three RCA jacks marked “Expansion Ports” accept stereo

PCM signals at up to 96kHz sampling and 24-bit word length.

Expansion Port A feeds the left and right channels, Port B

feeds the center and subwoofer channels, and Port C drives

the left and right surround channels. These inputs bypass the

DSP in the MC-1, including the bass management functions.

The idea is to provide an input for high-resolution multi-chan-

nel digital sources. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely that DVD-

Audio and SACD players will provide unencrypted high-reso-

lution digital output on RCA jacks. Still, you can use one

expansion port to connect those DVD players that can output

24/96, realizing a simpler signal path than is available through

the MC-1’s conventional digital inputs.

Bass management in the MC-1 is a little more flexible than

usual, offering three crossover frequencies

(40 Hz, 80 Hz, 120 Hz), but no slope adjust-

Lexicon MC-1 Controller

Sonic Flavors To Slake Every Thirst

. . . . . . . . .

A U D I O

F E A TURED PRODUCT

R O B E R T HARLEY

ment. A “Bass Split” feature takes bass infor-

mation filtered from the center channel

(assuming you have a small center speaker)

and directs it to the left and right channels.

Inside, the MC-1 uses AD converters and

DACs from a company called AKM. Both are delta-sigma

devices that are supposedly better performing than the con-

verters used in most controllers. Note that both are always in

the signal path, meaning that all analog signals are converted

to digital upon entering the MC-1 and then converted back to

analog at the output. If you have a High End turntable or dig-

ital source (I used a Krell KPS-25s and a Mark Levinson

No.31.5 transport and No.360s processor), the MC-1’s digital

conversions will degrade the sound quality. There’s no

“bypass” mode that directs an analog signal to the output

unaltered. This is, in my view, a serious shortcoming.

I’ve used many controller and A/V receiver remotes;

this is one of the best. The MC-1 needs a good remote

because the machine is extremely complex. There are four

layers of menus incorporating 17 submenus. This opera-

tional complexity goes with the territory on a controller

with as many features as the MC-1. No fewer than 24

effects are provided, including simulated acoustic spaces

(Concert Hall, Night Club), various film-soundtrack modes

(Dolby Digital, THX 5.1, DTS), Lexicon’s Logic 7 process-

ing, and music surround.

Logic 7 Digital Signal Processing for

Movies and Music

Logic 7 is Lexicon’s proprietary technique for generating multi-

channel playback from two-channel sources. Logic 7 processing

can also “enhance” existing 5.1-channel programs such as Dolby

Digital and DTS for seven-channel reproduction. Lexicon pro-

motes Logic 7 as a universal format for distributing multi-chan-

nel music over two-channel formats such as CD and television or

radio broadcasts. These programs can be Logic 7 encoded to

achieve the full surround-sound effect, or unencoded (such as on

existing CDs) and still create surround-sound playback.

When reproducing 5.1-channel sources (Dolby Digital and

DTS) with Logic 7 and seven loudspeakers, the MC-1 sends

the right surround signal to the right side and right rear speak-

ers, and the left surround signal to the left side and left rear

speakers. This is identical to wiring two surround speakers to

each surround channel. But as sound effects pan toward the

rear, the Logic 7 algorithm uses equalization to “steer” sur-

round signals between the two side and two rear speakers.

Specifically, effects moving from the left to rear pan smooth-

ly from the left front loudspeaker to the left side, then from

the left side to both left and right rear speakers. When effects

are moving toward the rear, Logic 7 adds a 3dB treble cut

(shelf filter) to the side speaker. As the sound further pans to

the rear, the frequency at which the shelf filter begins attenu-

ating is lowered, further reducing the treble sent to the side

speaker. When the sound is fully to the rear, a 6dB per octave,

400Hz low-pass filter is applied to the side speakers. The

result is an apparent separation between the side and rear

channels that heightens the feeling of envelopment, and of

sounds in motion.

Lexicon’s Music Surround Modes

The music-surround modes are as innovative as Logic 7. The

music modes are divided into two categories, ambiance

extraction and ambiance generation. In the latter modes, the

MC-1 generates new signals (reverberation) that drive the

side and rear speakers. In the extraction modes, the MC-1

simply recovers ambiance information from the existing sig-

nal for reproduction by the side and rear speakers. The

extraction modes are much more subtle, and, in my view,

more musically appropriate. Nonetheless, the ambiance-gen-

eration modes driving seven loudspeakers can produce some

startling results.

The music modes use a variety of processes to increase

the sense of spaciousness and create a feeling of being

enveloped in an acoustic larger than that of your listening

room. Some of the MC-1’s modes use a crosstalk-cancellation

trick to widen the soundstage. Crosstalk occurs when sound

from the left speaker reaches the right ear, and vice versa.

L e x i c o n ’s booklet that accompanies the MC-1 explains

crosstalk cancellation: “Imagine there is a sound coming from

the left channel only. This sound will travel to the left ear of

the listener, then diffract around the listener’s head and be

heard by the right ear. If we take the left-channel sound, delay

it just the right amount, invert it in phase and feed it to the

right speaker, it will arrive at the right ear just in time to can-

cel the crosstalk from the left speaker.”

Although crosstalk cancellation has been used in other

products (where it has been called a variety of trade names),

the MC-1’s implementation is considerably more sophisticat-

ed. The simple technique described above can introduce col-

orations because the cancellation signal becomes audible.

Lexicon uses a multi-order cancellation technique in which

the cancellation signal is itself canceled by a second signal,

and that signal canceled by a third, and so on. Reducing this

“inter-aural crosstalk” by adding cancellation signals can

make the sonic presentation appear wider.

These are just a few of the processes, used individually or

in combination, by which the MC-1 creates multi-channel sur-

round playback from two-channel sources. Other equally

interesting techniques are also employed that space restric-

tions prevent me from describing.

Listening to Movies

For starters, the MC-1 in straight decoding mode (Dolby Pro

Logic, Dolby Digital, and DTS), or those formats with THX

processing, was superb sounding. The MC-1 had outstanding

dialog clarity and intelligibility, even with the center- c h a n n e l

level perfectly matched to the other channels. With lesser

products, I find myself increasing the center-channel level a

couple of decibels to make the dialog easier to hear. The MC-

1 ’s good resolving power and image solidity seemed to

anchor the dialog right on the screen (it helps to have a

superlative center-channel speaker like the Revel Vo i c e ) .

This impression of tight center-channel focus and clarity

was particularly impressive with matrixed Dolby Surround

sources, which often lack the image specificity and clarity of

discrete multi-channel sources. The MC-1’s Pro Logic

decoding made matrixed sources sound more like discrete

soundtracks, with greater apparent channel separation,

smoother pans, and increased clarity compared with other

Pro Logic decoders.

Even without any additional processing, the impression of

envelopment from the surround channels was exceptional. The

MC-1 seemed to create a spaciousness behind me, along with a

smooth transition between the front and rear speakers. More-

o v e r, detail resolution in the surround channels was excellent.

Moving next to Logic 7, Lexicon’s process for deriving 7

channels from 2-channel or 5.1-channel sources, I found the

effect worked remarkably well on film soundtracks. (Logic

7 enhancements can be combined with some THX process-

ing on discrete 5.1-channel sources such as Dolby Digital

and DTS.) The addition of rear speakers driven with Logic 7

produced a more vivid feeling of sound effects moving

behind me rather than simply stopping near the listening

position. I had a greater impression of the wall behind the

listening seat disappearing. This effect was enhanced by

Logic 7’s other salient attribute, the perception that the

soundstage was continuous from front to rear. That is, pans

were seamless along the room’s side walls, rather than pre-

sented as a discrete jump from the front channels to the

rear channels. In addition, Logic 7 processing widened the

soundstage and created a more expansive feeling. Try the

chase scene in Toy Story (chapters 28 and 29 on the DTS

laserdisc) in which the toy car speeds through traffic; the

“real” cars whiz by as pans from front to rear, an effect vast-

ly more effective with Logic 7 than either straight DTS or

DTS/THX decoding. In addition to these benefits, seven

loudspeakers are, I believe, fundamentally better than five

for film-sound reproduction.

An interesting way to judge Logic 7’s effectiveness is to

compare a full 5.1-channel discrete source with that source

downmixed to two channels, then played back with Logic 7.

H e r e ’s how you do it: Record a section of a film soundtrack

on a VHS machine (or cassette deck) using the MC-1’s “AC-

3 2-Channel” mode. This mode downmixes the discrete 5.1-

channel soundtrack into two channels for recording on a

two-channel medium. Then play back the two channels with

Logic 7 decoding and compare it to the discrete 5.1-channel

source. I did this with the scene in D r a g o n h e a r t in which

the dragon flies 360 degrees around Dennis Quaid. The

sound of its wings beating, accompanied by Sean Connery’s

voice, moves from speaker to speaker around the room sev-

eral times, making it an ideal test of Logic 7 decoding.

If someone hadn’t heard the discrete version, they’d

never think that they were hearing a matrixed format. Logic

7 is that effective in creating the impression of wide chan-

nel separation. Indeed, I found it hard to believe I was lis-

tening to two channels decoded into seven. The channel

separation in the DTS original was better, generating a

stronger illusion of movement, but it was a much closer call

than I would have thought possible.

Overall, Logic 7 provided an impressive enhancement to

film soundtracks. The processing did, however, seem to

make the soundtrack less intimate, as though I were sitting

farther away from the action. The upside of this impression

is that my 14.5 by 21 by 9-foot listening room seemed larger.

I evaluated the MC-1’s DAC quality by feeding it a digital

signal from a Mark Levinson No.31.5 CD transport, then

connected the MC-1’s main outputs to an Audio Research

Reference One preamp. The No.31.5 also drove a Mark

Levinson No.360S digital-to-analog converter, which also

fed the ARC preamp. (Power amplifiers were Audio

Research Reference 600s.) I could thus switch inputs on the

Reference One and compare the No.360S to the MC-1.

Granted, a $5,995 multi-channel processor should be no

match for a $7,995 two-channel DAC, but the comparison

put the MC-1’s performance into perspective.

The MC-1’s sound quality in this evalua-

tion was only fair. The MC-1 overlaid the

music with a grainy texture, with a darkening

of the upper midrange that resulted in a less

palpable rendering. The MC-1’s treble was a

bit hashy, and the soundstage was somewhat flat and

closed-in. These characteristics became apparent when lis-

tening critically to two-channel music sources through a

reference-quality playback system; when listening to film

soundtracks, the MC-1’s sonic shortcomings didn’t intrude

on the experience. I would rank the MC-1’s DAC stage as on

the level of a $500 CD player. (That’s not bad considering

the $5,995 MC-1 has eight DACs and analog line stages, plus

everything else that goes into a sophisticated multi-channel

c o n t r o l l e r. )

The $6,500 Classé SSP-50 controller provides an inter-

esting contrast with the MC-1. The Classé was significantly

better sounding when reproducing music. If the MC-1’s

DACs were comparable to those in a $500 CD player, the

SSP-50 sounded more like a $2,000 outboard converter. The

Classé benefits from an audiophile-quality signal path and a

superb multi-bit DAC stage. That superior two-channel per-

formance is, however, offset by the MC-1’s more sophisti-

cated surround processing, 7.1-channel capability, THX pro-

cessing, vastly better remote and user interface, and propri-

etary Lexicon film-soundtrack enhancements. But that’s the

beauty of diverse design goals: You can choose the product

that best matches your priorities.

If you are uncompromising on both film and music repro-

duction, you can still enjoy the MC-1’s terrific surround per-

formance without shortchanging High End music playback:

run the MC-1’s left and right outputs through a two-channel

analog preamp on the way to the left and right power ampli-

fiers. (The Krell KPS-25S has a “Theater Throughput” mode

just for this purpose. Theater Throughput sets the preamp’s

gain at a set level so you maintain your individual channel-

level calibration when switching back to multi-channel.) Ana-

log source signals that you will listen to in two-channel feed

the analog preamp and never go though the MC-1’s A/D and

D/A stages. Note that adding an analog preamp works only if

you have full-range left and right speakers that don’t require

the MC-1’s front-channel crossover.

Listening To Music Surround

My experience with surround-sound modes on A/V receivers

has left me contemptuous of the concept. The modes sound

gimmicky, often destroy the musicality of the front signals,

and their presence is purely marketing driven. That is, the

receiver must sport a huge list of surround modes for it to be

competitive on the sales floor, whether or not those surround

modes are well thought out or even musically appropriate.

But after living with the MC-1 and reading the superb book-

let explaining the theory behind the MC-1’s surround modes,

I’ve taken a somewhat different view. The MC-1’s modes,

designed by Dr. David Griesinger, are all based on solid

research that relates the physical properties of concert-hall

acoustics with our perception of sound. The MC-1’s effects are

far from marketing gimmicks.

The MC-1 is without question the most sophisticated music

processor available today. But do two-channel recordings ben-

efit from this processing, or is a pure, unadulterated signal path

more musically engaging? Before tackling that question, I

should mention that my loudspeaker array is

less than ideal for assessing Lexicon’s surround

modes. The side loudspeakers are bi-polar (the

Revel Embrace set to bi-pole for music sur-

round, di-pole for films), and the rear speakers

were the point-source Mirage Reference Monitors. Lexicon rec-

ommends seven timbre-matched loudspeakers in an acousti-

cally absorbent room. Nonetheless, I got a good impression of

what each surround mode was doing. (I’ve also heard these

modes in Lexicon’s listening room.)

The subtlest of the music processing modes is called Music

Surround, which sends the left and right signals to the left and

right loudspeakers unaltered. The MC-1 in this mode creates a

low-level center-channel signal, along with side and rear signals

(with seven-channel playback). The side and rear speakers

receive ambient information extracted from the recording.

Delay and steering are used on the side and rear channels.

Music Surround produces a gentle expansion of the soundstage

that takes the presentation out of the front speakers. In Music

Surround, I was never consciously aware of sound arriving

from the sides or rear. Instead, my listening room walls seemed

to disappear aurally, replaced by a larger acoustic. Switching

back to two-channel mode caused the soundstage to collapse

into the front loudspeakers. About 30 percent of the music I

tried in Music Surround benefited from the processing.

Smaller, more intimate music was best reproduced with-

out any processing. The classic Bill Evans recording Sunday

at the Village Vanguard (a superb transfer on JVC XRCD) was

more immediate and direct in two-channel mode, even though

the “Nightclub” surround mode created an amazingly realistic

impression of a club acoustic. In surround, I felt a sonic and

emotional distance from Evans’ introspective expression.

One of the most spectacular examples of two-channel

playback conveying a sense of the recorded acoustic is Keith

Johnson’s stunning recording of Rutter’s Requiem on the Ref-

erence Recordings label. When played back with HDCD

decoding on a superlative two-channel system, Requiem is

transcendent. Could this maximally optimized recording be

improved upon with surround processing?

R e q u i e md i d n ’t benefit from any of the MC-1’s processing, in

my view. The processing did expand the acoustic, but at the

expense of reduced image specificity. Just for fun, I ran R e q u i e m

through the decidedly unsubtle Cathedral ambiance-generation

mode. Although this was a gross distortion of the recording, the

feeling of being transported to a large acoustic was stunning.

Twenty minutes in the listening chair with the lights off and I was

awestruck at how convincing the illusion was.

I also evaluated the ambiance-generation modes by play-

ing the Denon Anechoic Orchestral Music Recording CD

[Denon PG-6006], an orchestral recording made in an ane-

choic chamber (a reflection-free room). This recording does-

n’t just seem dry; the sound is totally distorted in a way we

never hear in real life. The complete absence of reverberation

allowed me to add effects with the MC-1 and hear exactly the

effect’s contribution to this unique recording. The MC-1’s

reverberation generation was exceptionally clean and

smooth, producing an almost convincing impression the

recording was made in a real hall.

Overall, the MC-1’s music surround modes were more suc-

cessful on some types of music than on others. Most of the

time I preferred two-channel reproduction. Nonetheless, I

found some music discs more involving and engaging in sur-

round sound. That’s a big step for a confirmed two-channel

purist – and a testament to the careful thought that went into

the MC-1’s music-surround processing.

Conclusion

The Lexicon MC-1’s unparalleled array of sophisticated signal-

processing modes represent the state-of-the-art in consumer

multi-channel controllers. For those who listen primarily to

film soundtracks or surround-sound music, the MC-1 provides

exceptional surround performance, unique signal processing,

and a terrific remote and user interface. The thought that

went into the music surround modes and the effectiveness of

Logic 7 were particularly impressive.

If you’re a two-channel music purist looking for a home-

theater controller, the MC-1 may not be for you. The lack of a

two-channel bypass mode that circumvents the MC-1’s A/D

and D/A converters limits the musical performance possible

from your system. It does little good to own a High End digi-

tal processor or turntable if its analog output is digitized by

the MC-1. This shortcoming was exacerbated by the only fair

sound quality of the MC-1’s D/A stage.

If you want the ultimate performance from both film and

music sources, you can always add an analog preamplifier. It’s

a bit of a hassle and adds to the system cost, but the MC-1’s

outstanding film-soundtrack and multi-channel music perfor-

mance make it worth the effort.

LEXICON, INC.

3 Oak Park

Bedford, Massachusetts 01730-1441

Phone: (781) 280-0300; fax: (781) 280-0490

Web: www.lexicon.com

Source: Manufacturer loan

Price: $5,995

See text.

M a n u f a c t u r e r I n f o r m a t i o n

A s s o c i a t e d E q u i p m e n t

M a n u f a c t u r e r’s Response

We would like to thank The Pe r fect Vi s i o n and Robert Harley

for the comprehensive rev i ew of the MC-1. One of our primary

goals in the MC-1 and DC-2 was to improve upon the earlier DC-

1 ’s audio performance. We procured samples of the latest Dig-

i tal to Analog and Analog to Digital converters from our ve n d o r s

and began a series of objective and subjective tests. During this

process we came across a prototype DAC from AKM. The per-

formance of the AKM exceeded that of eve ry other DAC we

tested, and handily exceeded the performance of the DC-1’s

DACs, which Mr. Harley noted in his rev i ew.

We used several analog and digital sources to compare the

A D C / D ACs to ensure that even the purists would be satisfied

with the results. It was no contest. The AKM converters easily

won the subjective listening tests with comments like: “ c o m -

pletely neutral,” “dead quiet,” and “extremely dynamic.”

We stand by our decision and feel that the MC-1 and DC-2

s h a tter the myth that digital audio products are “ g r a i ny” com-

pared to analog designs. The performance of digital audio prod-

ucts has reached the point where the ceiling is now being dic-

tated by the limitations of analog. T H E C O N S U M E R P RO D U C T ST E A M

L E X I C O N,I N C.

No product better exemplifies the fundamental shift in

home-entertainment technology than the controller. Also

known as a surround-sound processor or audio-video pre-

amplifier, the controller is an entirely new

product category that combines many

diverse functions in a single chassis. To

understand what a controller is and does is to

understand the technologies that are trans-

forming the way we reproduce sound in our

homes.

A modern controller replaces as many as

four separate components in your music and

home-theater system: the source-switching

functions of a preamplifier, a surround-sound

decoder, six (or eight) channels of digital-to-

analog conversion, and an electronic

crossover to split up the frequency spectrum.

Moreover, the rapidly increasing computer horsepower in

today’s controllers points to a future in which they will

incorporate even more func-

tions and capabilities, such as

digital signal processing for

loudspeaker and room cor-

rection. While power amp-

lifiers and loudspeakers

change relatively little over

time, the controller repre-

sents a radical new path to

the future.

Despite the power and

sophistication of some of

t o d a y ’s controllers, they are

remarkably inexpensive and

relatively easy to use. While

none of us would call a $5,000

audio product cheap, the price

of a High End controller is rea-

sonable considering all the

functions it performs. In addition, it seamlessly merges a

diverse array of sophisticated processing and controls to pro-

vide nearly transparent inter-operability to the user. Still,

designers need to focus on improving the user interface so

that anyone can operate even the most sophisticated system.

As controllers replace two-channel analog preampli-

fiers, many of us music purists are concerned that two-chan-

nel music reproduction may be compromised in the rush to

add features. Some controllers are designed with an empha-

sis on multi-channel film-soundtrack repro-

duction, with little regard for the two-chan-

nel musical experience. Other controllers can be considered

true High End preamplifiers that also offer surround-sound

decoding and video switching. This diversity of products on

the market lets you choose a controller that

parallels your priorities. The movie buff will

have very different requirements from the

music listener who wants a little surround

sound when he occasionally watches a

movie.

Inputs, Outputs, and Source

Switching

Let’s start with the controller’s most basic

function, selecting the source you listen to or

watch. The controller accepts audio or A/V

(audio and video) signals from all your

source components and lets you select which

source signal is sent to the power amplifiers and video mon-

itor. A basic controller will offer two analog-audio inputs

(for a tuner and CD player, for

example) and perhaps four

audio-video (A/V) inputs. In

addition to the main outputs

that drive your TV and power

amplifiers, two record outputs

are often provided to drive

two VCRs or a VCR and an

analog tape recorder.

When choosing a con-

troller, make sure its array of

inputs matches or exceeds the

number of source compo-

nents in your system. Yo u r

system is likely to expand in

the future, so look for a con-

troller with at least two more

inputs than you need right

now.

All controllers have inputs for digital audio signals as

well as for analog. These inputs receive the digital-audio

output of a DVD player, laserdisc machine, DSS receiver, or

CD transport. The signals carried on these digital connec-

tions include Dolby Digital, DTS, Dolby Surround, and two-

channel PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) signals, such as from

a CD transport.

If you’re an old hand at home theater, you proba-

bly own a laserdisc player with Dolby Digital output. Fur-

ther, you know that to get Dolby Digital

(once called AC-3) onto a laserdisc, the sig-

R O B E R T H A R L E Y

Controllers

. . . . . . . . .

A modern controller replaces

as many as four components

in your music and home-the-

ater system: the source-

switching functions of a pre-

amplifier, a surround-sound

decoder, six (or eight) chan-

nels of digital-to-analog con-

version, and an electronic

crossover to split up the

frequency spectrum.

nal had to be encoded as a radio frequency (RF).

If you don’t want to immediately replace your

cherished laserdisc collection with DVDs, you’ll

probably need a controller that can decode

those RF-encoded Dolby Digital discs. If your

controller doesn’t have an RF digital input (typ-

ically labeled “AC-3 RF”), you’ll need an exter-

nal RF demodulator box. This device converts

RF Dolby Digital to bitstream Dolby Digital, which

can then be fed to one of the controller’s standard digital

inputs.

Don’t forget the controller’s responsibility for handling

the video signal. Look for S-Video input jacks on all A/V

inputs and outputs. Most controllers offer both composite

video (on RCA connectors) and S-Video jacks. Controllers

can degrade video quality and some have better quality

video processing than others.

Two-Channel Bypass Mode

For the music lover shopping for a controller that will also

serve as a two-channel preamplifier for his system, one of

the most significant considerations is its performance with

two-channel analog sources (especially if you have an

extensive vinyl collection). In that case, you’ll want a con-

troller that has analog bypass. Without a bypass mode, the

analog signal will be converted to digital and back as it pass-

es through the controller. Digital conversion is far from

transparent, so the sound will suffer.

There are two catches to look out for regarding the

bypass mode. First, the controller must have an analog vol-

ume control such as that used in the Proceed AV P. Most mod-

ern controllers adjust the volume digitally in their DSP chips

(which don’t sound as good as an old-fashioned potentiome-

ter). Second, whenever you engage bass management, even a

controller with a bypass mode will convert the analog signal

to digital because bass management is performed by the DSP

chips. If you have a subwoofer with satellite speakers and use

the controller’s crossover to divide the frequency spectrum,

the bypass mode won’t remove the A/D and D/A conversions

from the signal path. This is a serious limitation for music

lovers who demand the ultimate in sound quality.

Surround Decoding and Digital Signal

Processing (DSP)

The availability of powerful Digital Signal Processing

(DSP) chips has revolutionized controllers in the past few

years. DSP chips are the heart and brain of the controller,

performing surround-sound decoding, signal processing

(equalization, crossovers), and THX post-processing (if

the controller is THX certified). To d a y ’s advanced con-

trollers boast the computing power of a late 1980s main-

frame computer.

The first job of the DSP chip is decoding; that is, con-

verting a stream of digital data into separate digital signals

that can be converted to analog audio. Virtually all con-

trollers today decode the three major surround-sound for-

mats: Dolby Digital, Digital Theater Systems (DTS), and

Dolby Surround. Dolby Digital is by far the most common

format on DVD and laserdisc, and has been chosen as the

surround-sound format for HDTV.

Even inexpensive A/V receivers sport DSP

chips, although they have vastly less comput-

ing power than those in High End controllers.

Consequently, High End controllers offer bet-

ter implementations of surround-sound decod-

ing, more flexible features, and higher sound

quality (more powerful DSP chips allow greater

precision in the mathematical computations per-

formed on the audio signal).

A DSP chip is a number cruncher that operates on spe-

cific instructions (the software) controlling it. When decod-

ing a Dolby Digital source, for example, the software tells

the DSP how to decode Dolby Digital. When decoding DTS,

the same DSP operates under the instructions for decoding

the DTS bitstream. A DSP chip is only as good as the soft-

ware it is running. That’s why some High End companies

write all their own software in-house rather than rely on

stock software that performs a given task. As DSP chips

grow increasingly more powerful and less expensive, con-

troller capabilities increase proportionately.

Beyond decoding digital data signals, DSP chips are

used to perform advanced signal processing that creates the

artificial acoustic environments such as “stadium” or “con-

cert hall.” Those artificial environments are the parlor tricks

of DSP. Much more importantly, DSP can be used to perform

equalization and room correction. That is, DSP at the high-

est level can be used to alter the signal so that it compen-

sates for the intrinsic sound of your room, smoothing out

the room’s resonant characteristics and allowing you to bet-

ter hear the music and the sound of the recording venue.

On a practical level, DSP makes it possible to execute

the crossover for the subwoofer in the digital domain. Some-

day, DSP chips may be the standard method for providing

crossovers in speakers.

If the trend toward more powerful, less expensive DSP

continues – and it will – controllers will incorporate more

and more sophisticated signal processing. Digital crossovers

for the subwoofer will become more flexible (see, for exam-

ple, the Theta Casanova crossover options). Surround

decoding will be executed with greater precision. The

potential for DSP in audio is only now starting to be real-

ized. Much more is yet to come.

DSP and the Future-Proof Controller

Because of this software control, some controllers can be

updated simply by downloading new software into the

machine. As new technologies arrive, or refinements in

existing systems are discovered, you simply install new

instructions for the DSP chips. Such “software-based” con-

trollers can be thought of as general-purpose DSP devices

that happen to be running the software for Dolby Digital,

DTS, and Dolby Surround decoding.

The Proceed AVP is a good example of a software-updat-

able controller. The unit has an RJ-11 port (a telephone jack)

on the rear panel that connects to a computer’s RS-232 port.

A Proceed dealer can download the latest software from the

Internet, connect his computer to your AVP (either in your

home or his shop), and update the AVP’s flash memory. The

process takes about eight minutes, can be per-

formed with the AVP installed in your system,

and doesn’t erase your set-up and configuration

settings.

New software can add capabilities such as

DTS or MPEG decoding (by changing the DSP

code), refine the user interface (by updating

the operating system), or configure the unit to

accept formats not available when the product

was designed (by changing the input-receiver software).

The AV P ’s Proceed input receiver (the chip that receives,

identifies, and decodes the incoming bitstream) is custom

made, which allows the AVP to work with future formats

whose interface protocols have not yet been established.

Updating software in this way reduces the likelihood of

needing expensive hardware changes.

Another method of heading off controller obsoles-

cence is “modular” construction. A modular

controller is built like a PC, with a mother-

board and smaller circuitboards that fit into

slots on the motherboard. If a new technology

comes along or better digital-to-analog con-

verters become available, as examples, you

simply swap out a circuitboard to bring your

controller up to date. Some controllers com-

bine the ability to update software with modular

construction for the ultimate in upgrade flexibility.

Bass Management

An important controller function performed by the DSP

chips is bass management, the subsystem that lets you

selectively direct bass information in the soundtrack to the

main loudspeakers or to the subwoofer. Bass management

allows a controller to work correctly with a wide variety of

Some controllers are “THX Certi-

f i e d ,” meaning they incorporate

Lucasfilm signal processing – a

technology that Lucasfilm believes better

translates film soundtracks created for

theater playback into the home. THX-cer-

tified controllers must also meet a set of

technical performance criteria established

by Lucasfilm. If the product corr e c t l y

implements the THX technologies and

meets the performance criteria, the unit

can be branded “THX Certified.”The man-

u fa c turer then pays a license fee to

Lucasfilm on every unit sold.

The goal of Home THX is to re-create

as closely as possible in a home-theater

system the sound that the mixing engi-

neers heard on the film-dubbing stage.

THX-certified controllers employ fo u r

processes that Lucasfilm has found to

i m p r ove the home-theater ex p e r i e n c e :

surround decorrelation, timbre matching,

re-equalization, and the subwo o fe r

crossover. Let’s look at each of these.

S u rround decorr e l a t i o n m a kes the

monaural surround signal slightly different

in the left and right surround channels by

varying the time and/or phase of those

signals. This technique prevents the “in

the head” localization of surround signals,

and “smears” the surround signal so that

we feel a greater sense of envelopment

in the film soundtrack. With the advent of

5.1-channel formats with separate left and

right surround channels, THX surround

d e c o rrelation has ta ken a new tw i s t ,

called “adaptive de-correlation.” Adaptive

de-correlation turns off the de-correlation

circuit when the two surround channels

carry different information, but smoothly

turns it on when the surround channels

are identical. Most 5.1 soundtracks still

have mono surrounds most of the time,

so this is a useful feature. (See the side-

bar to the Denon AVR-5700 review in

Issue 25 for more on surround decorrela-

tion.)

Timbre matching makes it possible

for sounds arriving from the sides to have

the same perceived timbre as sounds

arriving from the front. This makes pans

(movements of sounds) from front to rear

more realistic, because the perceive d

timbre doesn’t change with movement.

You can easily demonstrate for yo u r s e l f

h ow perceived timbre changes with direc-

tion: Snap your fingers in front of your fa c e ,

and again to the side of your head. Th e

sound is “sharper” to the side. THX timbre

m a t ching compensates for this diffe r e n c e

with signal processing in the controller.

Re - e q u a l i z a t i o n is a treble cut applied

on play b a ck to make soundtracks mixe d

for movie theaters sound natural when

p l a yed in the home. Mixers intentionally

m a ke soundtracks bright for several rea-

sons. Theaters are usually full of absorbent

seats, drapes, and people, all of which roll

o ff high frequencies to a greater degree

than midrange and bass frequencies. In

addition, the long distance between the

audience and loudspeakers tends to selec-

t i v ely attenuate treble. Consequently, the

s o u n d t r a ck has a natural tonal balance in

the theater, but exc e s s i v e brightness on a

home-theater system. The answer is to

e q u a l i z e the soundtrack during play b a ck so

it sounds correct in the home.

But how much treble cut is correct?

And what should the equalization curve

look like? To find out the correct THX re-

equalization curve, THX’s inventor,Tomlin-

son Holman (THX stands for Tom Hol-

man’s eXperiment), asked a series of top-

level film-sound mixers to listen to their

films on a home-theater system. Th e

mixer had an equalizer in front of him, and

was asked to adjust the equalizer until the

soundtrack sounded “right” on the home-

theater system. Holman averaged the

equalization curves created by the mixing

engineers (which were remarkably close)

to generate the patented THX re-equaliza-

tion curve.

To save money, some budget con-

trollers license only the re-equalization

part of THX processing, not the entire sig-

nal-processing suite. Other controllers

not licensed by Lucasfilm may employ a

selectable treble cut, often carrying a

name such as “Cinema EQ.”

F i n a l l y, the THX s u b wo o fer crossove r

s ta n d a r d i z es the crossover ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s

( c u t - o ff frequency and slopes) that split the

frequency spectrum into bass for the sub-

wo o fer and midrange/treble frequencies

for the main speakers. The THX crossove r

frequency is 80 Hz, with fourth-order low-

pass and second-order high-pass slopes.

The subwo o fe r-out jack on a T H X - c e r t i f i e d

controller thus carries a precisely defined

signal. When decoding 5.1- channel Dolby

D i g i tal or DTS (so-called THX 5.1 mode),

the subwo o fer output carries the Low Fr e-

quency Effects (LFE) channel, plus the

bass from any number of the other five

channels. When decoding Dolby Surr o u n d ,

the THX subwo o fer output is a mix of the

front three ch a n n e l s’ bass below 80 Hz,

assuming that the front speakers are small

satellite ty p e s .

You may have recently seen the desig-

nations “THX Select” and THX Ultra”

replace plain old THX. THX Select products

h a ve relaxed performance standards, and

are designed to allow products suitable fo r

smaller rooms to benefit from THX pro-

c e s s i n g. The more rigorous Ultra perfo r-

mance level corresponds to what used to

be simply called “THX” and is built on the

assumption that the room invo l ved may be

3 , 000 cubic feet or larger. R H

THX-Certified Controllers

speaker systems. For example, if you have five

small loudspeakers and a subwoofer, you tell

the controller to filter bass from each of the

five channels, and to direct it, in sum, to the

subwoofer. When watching a Dolby Digital or

DTS movie, the bass from the LCR and sur-

round channels is mixed with the Low Fre-

quency Effects channel to drive the subwoofer.

The bass management in most controllers lets you

direct the full frequency range to the left and right channels

(including the LFE channel), but filter bass from the center

and surround channels.

A feature in the most advanced controllers is the ability

to specify the crossover frequency and slopes between the

subwoofer and main speakers. The crossover is implement-

ed in the digital domain with DSP. Splitting the frequency

spectrum into bass and treble in the controller is a vastly

better approach than subject-

ing the analog audio signal to

the capacitors, resistors, and

inductors found in the cross-

overs built into subwoofers.

Other controllers let you

specify the crossover frequency (40 Hz, 80 Hz, 120 Hz, for

example), but not the slope or phase characteristics. The

greater the flexibility in this function, the greater the likeli-

hood that you can achieve the best results with your speak-

ers and room.

Keeping low bass out of smaller loudspeak-

ers confers large advantages in the speaker’s

power handling, dynamic range, midrange clari-

ty, and sense of ease. When the woofer doesn’t

have to move back and forth a long distance try-

ing to reproduce low bass, the midrange sounds

cleaner and the speaker can reproduce louder

peaks without distortion.

High-Resolution Digital Audio

Decoding

Many controllers today feature the ability to accept digital

input signals with a sampling frequency of 96 kHz and word

lengths of up to 24 bits. This allows them to decode high-res-

olution digital audio output from a DVD player that can

deliver 24/96 digital signals (the Pioneer DV-09 is an exam-

ple). The selection of 24/96 discs is slim, and until a digital

interface with a copy-protec-

tion system is in place, don’t

expect many DVD players to

provide access to the 24/96

bitstream.

A more useful feature for

taking advantage of the high-resolution multi-channel for-

mats about to come on the market (DVD-Audio and Super

Audio CD – SACD) is a six-channel analog input on the con-

troller. Until the digital-interface issue is resolved (which

may take a long time because it is inextricably linked to the

…the controller represents

a radical new path to

the future…

copy-protection problem), DVD-Audio and

SACD players will have six analog outputs for

reproducing multi-channel music discs. Unless

your controller has a discrete six-channel ana-

log input, you won’t be able to play high-reso-

lution multi-channel music through your sys-

tem until the copy-protection dust has settled.

The six-channel analog input approach has its

drawbacks: You’re paying for six DACs in the DVD-

A or SACD player and for six DACs in the controller. It

would obviously be better and more cost effective if multi-

channel DVD-A or SACD was provided to the controller in a

single digital data stream. Until then, the most important

thing to look for is that the analog bypass is available for the

DVD-A and SACD signals. Adding extra layers of conversion

will only degrade the sound. The issue becomes more com-

plicated when you add bass management to the mix, since

bass management is done in the digital domain.

After DSP – Digital to Analog

Conversion

Every 5.1-channel controller has six digital-to-analog con-

verters (DACs) and six analog output stages built into it. The

DACs convert the digital data for each channel into analog

signals. The quality of these DACs and the subsequent ana-

log output stage (which drives the power amplifier through

interconnects) is crucial to realizing good sound quality.

DACs vary greatly in their sound, and a poor-sounding DAC

(or a poor implementation of a good one) can ruin an other-

wise excellent controller. More expensive controllers use

higher quality parts and design techniques, including metal-

film resistors, polystyrene capacitors, four-layer circuit-

boards, and exotic circuit board material. Also look for ana-

log stages made from discrete transistors instead of inex-

pensive operational-amplifier chips. Some High End compa-

nies now have considerable expertise in designing cutting-

edge digital converters, expertise they can apply to building

multi-channel digital controllers.

D o n ’ t be swayed by marketing hype that touts the DACs as

“24-bit.” Although the DAC may have 24 resistor “rungs” on its

“ l a d d e r,” that doesn’t mean it has 24-bit resolution. The last

four bits often contain just noise, not real information.

Because real-world DAC technology is limited to 20-bits, those

last four bits are known in the industry as “marketing bits.”

The best minds working today in digital conversion cite

the historical “two bits per decade” rule of con-

verter advancement. Assuming this rate contin-

ues, consider this: 24-bit digital audio has a the-

oretical noise floor of –144 dBV, but the thermal

noise produced by a single 1,000 ohm resistor

(generated by random movement of electrons)

at room temperature is –125 dBV, a noise floor

19 dB higher than a 24-bit converter’s theoretical

limit. I doubt that converter technology will

advance beyond 21 bits without a fundamental break-

through employing new DAC architectures.

(Inter)Facing the User

Most of this article has been concerned with the path of a sig-

nal from input to output and the wide variety of turns

between. But how the user operates a controller with all

these features is just as important as the raw technology that

makes the magic. A controller can be easy to set up initially

and a joy to use on a daily basis. Or it can be a confusing

nightmare that makes you feel lucky to get any sound at all

from your speakers – never mind fine-tuning the controller

for the best performance. Which of these scenarios comes to

pass is determined by the controller’s user interface, a term

that encompasses the front-panel controls and display, the

remote control, and the on-screen display. Some products are

easy and intuitive to use; others are frustrating and complex.

Before buying a controller, ask the salesman to run through

the system set-up; if he has a hard time, watch out. Second,

play with the unit yourself in the store; you’ll not only get a feel

for how it works, you can ask questions before you take the

controller home. Third, take a close look at the remote; if it is

covered by a sea of identically sized, shaped, and colored but-

tons, it doesn’t bode well for the rest of the user interface. The

buttons should be color coded, grouped by function, and fea-

ture different sizes according to their frequency of use or func-

tion. And it’s all to the better if they light up in the dark.

Do not underestimate the importance of a well-designed

user interface. It could make the difference between loving

and hating the component that is the heart and brain of your

multi-channel system.

For more information about controllers and other home

theater topics, check out Robert Harley’s book Home The-

ater for Everyone. For information, or to order a copy, call

800-848-5099. Website: www.hifibooks.com

One feature lacking on even some

High End controllers is compo-

nent video input and output jacks.

Component video, carried on three sepa-

rate cables, offers vastly improved picture

quality over composite video, and is even

better than S-Video. As more and more

products with composite-video connec-

tions become available (DVD playe r s ,

HDTV set-top boxes, video monitors),

component-video switching becomes an

increasingly important feature. Most con-

trollers with component-video switching,

however, have no on-screen display from

the component-video output.

If you have a single component-video

source (a DVD playe r, for example) and a

video monitor with component-video

input, you can simply run the component-

video cables directly from the DVD play-

er to your video monitor, bypassing the

c o n t r o l l e r’s video-switching function. Th i s

t e chnique requires that you switch inputs

on your video monitor to wa t ch a DV D.

E ven if your controller has component-

video switch i n g, howeve r, none ava i l a b l e

t o d ay offer cross-format conversion (i.e.,

S - Video input to component-video out-

put), meaning you still must switch

inputs on your video monitor when

wa t ching a component-video s o u r c e .

Although component-video switch - ing will

become increasingly common, multiple

RCA jacks ta ke up valuable rear-panel real

e s tate. Some products just don’t have

the room. R H

Component-Video Switching

t is a conflict as old as good vs. evil. It is the war that came

before wars between peoples. It is the battle between

humankind and its environment and it is being fought to

this day in your house.

While not so noble as a life and death struggle between a

Jack London hero and the elements, your battle to extract

good sound from the room in which you listen to

music and watch movies is as challenging. Your

victory is not to be measured by survival,

but satisfaction. And when the tools

of war cost many thousands of dol-

lars, satisfaction is survival.

Know thine enemy: T h e

Room. Do not think of it as a help-

ful collaborator or even an inno-

cent bystander. It, more than any-

thing else, will determine the

overall quality of sound you

extract from your system. A bad

room will put a foot on the throat

of your speakers, choking off

their musical life.

From hard experience I have

learned these lessons. I built a

room – from scratch. And I vowed

it would be a great room, unlike

any other. In my hubris, I thought

this was truly possible and that I

would do it. Now my comfort

comes from knowing that humili-

ty brings education and, with edu-

cation, satisfaction is, indeed,

possible.

This article and the ones that

follow trace my experiences

installing the Revel Ultima speakers

and Proceed electronics multi-channel sys-

tem into this enemy mine. We begin here with the

Revel Salon loudspeaker and the Revel Sub-15/LE-1 sub-

woofer system. Future episodes will include the Revel Voice,

Embrace, and Gem models. Other players in this first episode

include the RPG Room Optimizer software and, briefly, the

Cambridge Signal Technologies T1100 Room Correction Sys-

tem. Each of these companies has faced the enemy with their

products, offering hope that victory can be had.

Meet My Enemy

Now that you have a blank sheet of paper,

what’s next? Choosing the dimensions. Start

with the realization that no set of dimensions is perfect. The

perfect room does not exist. Revisit Robert Greene’s “What

You Should Know About Bass” in Issue 24. Every room has

modes that arise from its dimensions. The most obvious – and

the most significant – are the axial modes. These are the fun-

damental acoustic resonant modes (and their harmonics) that

are created between two opposing surfaces, such as front

wall and back wall, side to side and floor to ceiling. In addi-

tion to axial modes there are tangential and oblique

modes. Tangential modes arise from four surfaces (e.g.,

the side, front, and back walls) and oblique modes arise

from all six surfaces. Your room’s modes will create

audible gaps within (nulls) and boosting of (nodes)

the sound at different frequencies, destroying the

tonal uniformity that is necessary for uncolored

music reproduction. The best you can hope for is to

avoid modes piling up on top of one another, since

that will greatly exacerbate the non-uniformity of the sound.

Programs now exist into which you can input the dimen-

sions of your room and calculate the room’s modal character-

istics. A “simple” Excel spreadsheet, properly configured, will

do the trick. It’s nothing more than math. But don’t let that

deceive you into thinking it’s simple. Such programs assume

accurate dimensions that form a uniform lossless rectangle –

that is a perfectly rigid room. But building a rigid, uniform room

d o e s n ’t solve your problems; it only helps make them more pre-

dictable. There is even some thought that a rigid room isn’t

preferable because it actually intensifies the low-frequency

modes because none of the bass can be atten-

uated by leakage through walls that flex.

R E V I E W S

Revel Ultima Speakers – From 2 to 7.1 Channels

Episode One: The Ancient Enemy

The Revel Ultima Salon

loudspeaker and

Sub-15/LE-1 subwoofer

system face an implacable

enemy of sound, with

some help from the RPG

Room Optimizer software

and, at the last moment,

the SigTech T1100 Room

Correction System.

I

TOM MIILLER

Now that your head is swimming, choose

your dimensions. The actual dimensions you

select based on a ratio such as those listed

below will determine the exact frequencies at

which the modes will develop. Jim Thiel, the

engineering brain behind Thiel speakers, calculated the fol-

lowing set of ratios:

2.5 by 1.6 by 1 2.18 by 1.6 by 1

1.39 by 1.14 by 1 1.54 by 1.14 by 1

2.33 by 1.6 by 1 1.9 by 1.4 by 1

1.9 by 1.3 by 1 2.1 by 1.6 by 1

2.5 by 1.5 by 1 1.59 by 1.26 by 1

I chose to build a room that measured 33’3” long by 22’9”

wide by 8’9” high. That’s 3.8 by 2.6 by 1. At the time, I thought

it was permissible to double any of the numbers (it isn’t). I

doubled two of them in the 1.9 by 1.3 by 1 ratio. Plug these

numbers into our Excel spreadsheet and the resulting plot of

modes looks something like Diagram 1.

Despite my mistake, the room ended up with a good

spread of modes (save for a pile-up at 50 Hz). Being somewhat

skewed myself, I chose not to build a perfectly rectangular

room (see Diagram 3, page 46) although I built it fairly rigidly

with studs that were on 12-inch centers and two layers of dry-

wall (the floor is concrete). I wanted an equipment room I

could walk into to change components and cables, and I want-

ed an opening from that room into the media room. I also

decided not to wall off the entrance to my office at the end of

the media room, leaving a floor-to-ceiling opening. Finally, I

have always suspected that rooms with bay windows or simi-

lar broken angles behind the speakers sound better. So I

framed in three-foot facets where the side walls meet the

front wall. If I ever get the chance to do it again, I would do it

a little differently – but that’s another story.

Deploying the Troops –

RPG Room Optimizer Software

Nothing is more important to good sound than where you

choose to place your speakers. Over the years there have been

numerous attempts at simple empirical formulae to help you

place the speakers. Perhaps the best known is the Rule of

Thirds (put the speakers at the one-third points away from the

side walls and back wall). The Rule of Thirds is derived from a

superficial understanding of modal room characteristics. This

approach, which seems to work with dipole loudspeakers, is

less than optimal for dynamic coil designs.

There is no predictable location that works optimally for

all speakers and all rooms; the variables are too numerous.

Indeed, finding the absolute best location for a certain speak-

er in a certain room is extraordinarily difficult (unlikely, but

not impossible). Now, though, there is a useful tool to credi-

bly attack the location issue: Room Optimizer software ($99 a

copy) from RPG Diffuser Systems, Inc. You quickly learn,

when using Room Optimizer, that what is optimal depends on

where you sit, on the geometry of the speakers, and their loca-

tion. Fortunately, Room Optimizer will consider all those vari-

ables for you.

Room Optimizer, in simple terms, does the math for you.

It combines a modal analysis with a Speaker Boundary Inter-

ference Response (SBIR) analysis based on the legendary

work of Roy Allison. It is the combination of these two

approaches that makes Room Optimizer unique and useful.

Balancing the modal and SBIR analysis, Room Optimizer

searches out locations within your room for your speakers

and your listening location that will meet a certain threshold

frequency uniformity. See Diagram Two for a graphic repre-

sentation of a solution that Room Optimizer found for the

Salons in my room.

I will eschew a detailed technical explanation of how

Room Optimizer works and concentrate more on how well it

works and its limitations. Know this about it: It will “do the

math” on many thousands of locations, relentlessly honing in

on the optimal location within parameters set by the user.

Room Optimizer randomly selects a starting spot within user-

defined boundaries. This random starting point influences

Room Optimizer’s search for the optimal location. Once it has

a starting spot, it works around that location gradually refin-

ing the search. Different starting locations lead to different

final solutions. For this reason, it can and usually does come

up with different solutions when fed identical parameters.

Thus, it is worthwhile to spend some time at the computer,

Diagram 1: Room Mode Calculator

by Allan Devantier

letting Room Optimizer search out different solutions (just hit

“start” and go get a beer, or two).

Room Optimizer is concerned only with the low-frequency

characteristics of your room. Its search is based upon the fre-

quencies from 20 Hz to 300 Hz. It is possible to set the high and

low points within that 20-300 Hz range. Thus, you may seek an

optimal location for a full-range speaker or a main speaker that

will be crossed over to a subwoofer. Similarly, you can set the

upper limit so that search is concerned only with the frequen-

cies that will be covered by a subwoofer (e.g., 20-80 Hz). It is

not possible to set the upper limit below 80 Hz, if, for example,

you wanted to cross over your subwoofer at 40 Hz (the

crossover point I prefer when using full range main speakers).

Another limitation of Room Optimizer is that it assumes a

fairly rigid symmetrical room. Its formula includes an absorp-

tion coefficient for the surfaces that is comparable to the

amount of flex in the walls of my room. According to RPG’s

president Peter D’Antonio, at low frequencies most rooms are

essentially rectangular, so the assumption of a rectangular

room might not be as limiting as it first seems. If you don’t

take Room Optimizer’s results as gospel – how can you when

the same problem usually yields different results? – it can be

remarkably useful in finding a good (and close) starting spot

for placing full-range speakers.

I used Room Optimizer to find initial locations for the

Thiel MCS-1, Thiel CS 7.2, and Revel Salon loudspeakers in

two-channel configurations. In each instance, Room Optimiz-

er got me within several inches on each axis of an excellent

location. From the suggested location, I used a variety of pro-

gram material as I moved the speakers to and fro, listening to

the extension and smoothness of the bass as well as its blend

with higher frequencies. As I will discuss later in this series,

matching the performance of the two channels

as closely as possible is instrumental in attain-

ing outstanding soundstaging performance.

Thus, symmetrical location within the room is

highly desirable. Room Optimizer automatical-

ly sets the speakers up in symmetrical locations.

When Room Optimizer generates a solution, it also identi-

fies suggested locations on your walls and ceiling for diffusive

and absorptive materials. These are materials that RPG will

be more than happy to sell you, and the suggested locations

are rational and not just a clever cross-promotion for RPG

products.

Here we set Room Optimizer aside, but do not leave it

behind. It will return in our discussions of subwoofer set-up

and, more importantly, surround speaker set-up. Beware: You

cannot use the software as a means of totally avoiding empir-

ical experimentation in your speaker set-up. But if used to

substantially narrow your empirical search, Room Optimizer

is remarkably useful.

Revel Ultima Salon – Noble Warrior

At first blush, it isn’t apparent why any loudspeaker could be

thought of as a warrior in the battle against The Room. Rather,

it may seem more like a casualty of war. And yet the $14,200

Revel Ultima Salon is not only equipped to do battle, it is well

suited to the task.

The Salon is, in every sense of the word, a full-range loud-

speaker. It can plumb the lower depths (way below 30 Hz)

with ease and reach dizzying heights of amplitude without

strain. Revel rates the Salon’s “in room response” (their mea-

surement) as plus or minus 1 dB from 25 Hz to 18 kHz. I real-

ize that response seems limited in the treble, but it is well

Diagram 2: Room Optimizer Frequency Responses

established now that dead flat 20 kHz treble

response in your room is an unpleasant expe-

rience. I’m not sure if that’s because 20 kHz flat

is just too much treble or too much distorted

treble. I find that treble distortions are the

most pernicious throughout the entire chain from recordings

to speakers. The Salon’s treble seems well balanced as a part

of the musical whole. I do, though, hear slight treble limita-

tions within the highest harmonic structures of instruments.

But I wouldn’t want more treble extension if it meant that

I had to sacrifice even one other positive characteristic of the

Salon. The Salon seems almost uniquely well crafted to repro-

duce musical timbres. It has the best balance of tonality and

character of any speaker I have ever used. In this regard, it is

our noble warrior against the ancient enemy.

The Salon is a four-way design with crossover points at

125 Hz, 450 Hz, and 2.2 kHz. All crossovers are fourth order

Linkwitz-Riley. Three 8-inch mica/carbon-filled polymer dome

woofers handle the range below 125 Hz. These woofers are

said to extend the Salon’s bass response to a minus 10dB

point at 17 Hz. The midbass driver, which actually handles the

upper bass through lower midrange, is a 6.5-inch driver of the

same composition as the woofers. The midrange driver is a 4-

inch titanium dome. The Salon has two tweeters. One, which

is more robustly built of an aluminum alloy, fires forward

while the other fires back, to provide ambient fill in the high-

er frequencies. Except for the tweeters, the Salon drivers are

designed and made within the Harman International house

(likewise for the 15-inch woofer in the Sub-15).

The design brief for the drivers included the ability to han-

dle high peak amplitudes without compression. This was nec-

essary to achieve the Revel design team’s (led by Kevin

Voecks) objectives, since they wanted a speaker that would

not change tonal character on dynamic peaks.

Nearly every aspect of the Salon’s design and perfor-

mance can be related to Revel’s primary objective – to pro-

duce a speaker as timbrally accurate in the listening room as

it is in the lab. To that end, Revel embarked on an extensive

research effort to quantify in-room speaker behavior and

incorporate its findings in its speaker designs. The typical lis-

tening room undermines many speaker designs, which boast

nonpareil frequency response when measured anechoically.

Typically, the upper bass and lower midrange are suppressed,

exaggerating the upper midrange and lower treble content. To

combat this, Revel developed a model of what a typical lis-

tening room does to a loudspeaker’s frequency response.

It is ironic how so many of the virtues we prize in sound –

midrange openness, soundstage depth, and detail resolution –

are exaggerated by the colorations created by the room-loud-

speaker interface. Many might regard these characteristics as

indicators of “transparency,” since they artificially open up

the soundstage and highlight the transient details of images.

In this context, the Salon can come as a bit of a shock. It

sounds fuller than many other loudspeakers. Further, its

sound is more up front spatially (not timbrally) and it doesn’t

seem, at first listen, to resolve as much information. It doesn’t

take long, though, to realize that the Salon is telling a higher

truth. In contrast with most other speakers, it is capable of

rendering timbres that are more fully saturated. That is,

instrumental timbres sound more authoritative and more

complex. There is a legitimate weight to the sound of instru-

ments through the Salon that is natural sounding and intoxi-

cating. Consider, for example, the ride cymbal front and cen-

ter at the start of the Conspiracy Theory soundtrack [TVT

8130-2]. Through the Salons, it is possible to hear the sus-

tained fundamental in the instrument’s metal while the sizzle

rides cleanly in the overtones. There is richness here that is

often missing, and yet the textural aspect of the instrument’s

timbre is not lost (as it would be with another rich sounding

type of component – the single-ended triode amplifier). I sus-

pect that the Revel’s ability to project power into the room in

the lower midrange through upper bass is directly related to

its wonderful way with timbres. Don’t forget that this is the

region where most fundamentals reside. Reduce the strength

of the fundamentals and lower harmonics in a note and the

result will be washed out timbre.

There are a number of loudspeakers based on the legacy

of Allison’s work in room acoustics that reproduce timbre

much like the Revel. While I haven’t heard all of these, my

impression is that the Revel distinguishes itself by maintain-

ing its tonal balance more evenly at all loudness levels. Dur-

ing major dynamic peaks, the Salons don’t compress nearly as

much as most speakers I have heard. Thus, their tonality

doesn’t change. Moreover, the treble distortion is truly mini-

mal during such peaks – movie lovers will drop to their knees

to thank Revel.

A c t u a l l y, mentioning the single-ended triode amplifier

makes me wonder – did music lovers turn to that flawed

device in an effort to restore the timbral richness that was

lost in their rooms by many loudspeakers? If so, the solid-

state amplifier is going to experience a perception makeover

when paired with the Salon, because listeners will be able to

enjoy solid-state control with timbral accuracy. I have, with

a wide variety of solid-state amps (the BEL 1001 Mk IV, the

Proceed HPA 3, and the Conrad-Johnson Design MF-5600).

You will want to use a sizable solid-state amp with the Salon.

Its sensitivity is moderate at 86 dB with 2.83 volts input and

its minimum impedance is 3 ohms (nominal: 6 ohms). This

i s n ’t a hideous load, but a robustly designed solid-state

amplifier with low output impedance will pay dividends. Do

not assume, though, that the Salon is imposing a pleasant-

sounding distortion through the lower midrange that makes

these different amplifiers all sound alike – the Salon can dif-

ferentiate the sound of amplifiers and source components

quite easily. In this respect it is a reviewer’s dream – reveal-

ing sound that is also a delight to hear.

When optimally set up, the Salons easily reached into

the 20 Hz region, producing clean bass information that I

could feel in my chest. It clearly delineated the plethora of

big instruments on Conspiracy Theory. The Salon sports a

bass control that allows the listener to reduce or boost the

bass in the region around 50 Hz. This proved helpful in my

room, as I was able to reduce the effect of the 50 Hz node

(take t h a t ! cursed Room).

Although the Salon’s balance through the lower and

middle frequencies seems to bring images forward, it still

produces a remarkable soundstage with stunning resolution

in the field of depth. This soundstaging performance is

unique among the direct-radiating dynamic-coil designs I

have experienced. Many direct radiators produce pinpoint

images within a smaller, sharply defined soundstage. In con-

trast, the presentation of dipole radiators is more open.

Dipole images, depending on the design, can range from

well-focused (though typically not as tightly focused as a

direct radiator) to bloated. The Salon’s soundstage com-

bines the best attributes of both types. It has better image

specificity than most dipoles, though it doesn’t render pin-

point images. There is a natural sense of size and weight to

images generated by the Salon. The soundstage itself seems

huge and encompassing on material such as that recorded

by Keith Johnson for Reference Recordings.

While the Salon doesn’t produce that phony see-into-it

t r a n s p a r e n c y, you can easily distinguish between instruments

in space – if you want to. But the separation isn’t tossed in your

face. Indeed, this is true of all aspects of this speaker. It’s all

there and you can listen to it, if you want to. But you’ll proba-

bly be too busy listening to the music.

What more could I want from

the Salon? For now, it doesn’t

resolve the p u l s a t i o n y o u

hear from live instruments. I

say for now because I haven’t

yet had an opportunity to

apply basic acoustic treat-

ments to the first-reflection

points in the room. The sensa-

tion I am discussing is subtle

and could easily be lost within

the ambient wash of an overly

live room. Because of room

issues not yet addressed, I sus-

pect that I have only heard a frac-

tion of this speaker’s potential. Never-

theless, it is already obvious that the Revel

Salon is the finest speaker I have ever used and

one of the best available at any price.

Revel Ultima Sub-15/LE-1

Subwoofer System – Bring-

ing in Reinforcements

If the Salon is so wonderful all alone, why

add the Sub-15 subwoofer (much less four of

them)? How ’bout: size matters. I used to

despise subwoofers, but home theater has infused

the old beasts with new vitality. More research has

been devoted to subwoofer design in the last few years than

in the preceding decades. As a High End kind of guy, I would-

n’t much care about all this subwoofer research if digital sig-

nal processing in controllers hadn’t made subwoofer

crossovers so much less audible and so much more flexible.

So, why add subwoofers to a state-of-the-art full-range

speaker? Removing the bottom octave from the Salon’s

duties frees up a good deal of power from the main amplifi-

e r. Deep bass sucks up more power than anything else does.

By shifting the bass load to the LE-1 power amplifier, the

main power amplifier can perform at a higher level. Likewise

for the Salon woofers. It all adds up to more dynamic range

without compression that distorts the sound. Finally, it is

possible to place subwoofers in other locations that will

smooth out the bass response of the whole system. With four

subwoofers, it should be possible to do an even better job of

balancing the bass. Using multiple subs also results in lower

distortion because each sub doesn’t have to output as much

sound as one alone would.

My description of the Salon might lead you to think that

the bass in my room was seamless and free of resonance. I

wish. Using a wide variety of recordings, I can

draw a map of the disaster area called the bot-

tom three octaves. Don’t forget – this is war. I

mentioned the pronounced bump around 50

Hz. Listening to the bass guitar tracks on

Elvis Costello and Burt Bacharach’s Painted From Memory

[Mercury 314538002-2] was like riding a roller coaster. All

bumps and dips and the bumps were ugly. Similarly, trying to

follow the bass synthesizer lines in Celine Dion’s “My Heart

Will Go On” from the Ti t a n i c soundtrack [Sony SK 63213], a

worthwhile test disc for bass performance, was an exercise

in frustration. Some notes overpowered the arrangement

while others were nearly inaudible. But I know you know

what I’m talking about because this condition exists in every

room. I don’t care how much you move your speak-

ers around; the modes will get you every time. Over

time, you will probably accept all but the most pro-

nounced perturbations in tonal uniformity.

I worked well nigh a month trying to find the best

location for those four subs. I started by using the

Room Optimizer and quickly discovered that its value

dropped with the frequency. The charts reflected the

problems I kept bouncing into, but the program didn’t

offer me any real solutions (possibly a user limitation –

I need more time to work with the program). The main

problem was that I could get deep bass and midbass

bloat, or a good midbass blend and no low bass. Ulti-

m a t e l y, the four subwoofers ended up flanking

the Salons – one to each side of

both. This provided

the smoothest

blend with the

best extension,

but the response

below 30 Hz was

weak. Alert: This

was solely a room

p r o b l e m .

It is worth working

this hard to get the bass right,

because if the lower octaves are

excessive, the midrange is clouded

by the bass resonances and perception of

the highest treble is warped. It can actually sound as if the tre-

ble is reduced in level, though that is not the case. Changing the

perceived tonal balance of a system this severely has a direct

correlation with the accuracy of timbre. Timbre for each instru-

ment is created by a finely balanced group of unique frequencies

and is easily disturbed by the gross irregularities arising from

poor bass reproduction, whether it is the fault of the speaker or

the room.

Bass has a profound effect on our perception of the tem-

poral aspects of music. I will acknowledge that a hi-fi cannot

change the beat of the music. But I just as steadfastly main-

tain that a system can alter our perception of the music’s

rhythms. Precision down through the bottom octave is essen-

tial to accurately define the beginning of a note. Smear that

moment and our perception of the moment and when it

occurs can change. Worse, if bass resonances get in the way

of the proper bloom and decay of a note, the transition from

one note to the next is smudged. Again, the points of refer-

ence in the music’s time are less clearly defined. Finally, musi-

cians often use emphasis in the intensity of

notes to build rhythmic structures within the

measures of the music – it’s one of the things

that separates artists from technicians. Bass

that won’t get out of the way (and other

distortions) mars the fine artistic emphasis applied by

the musician, denying us access to the performance’s

inner architecture.

Finally, the presence of deep bass, accurately reproduced,

informs our perception of the music’s physical presence. It not

only adds weight, but it defines the environment of the per-

formance. Orchestral music, for example, is performed in

large venues that have observable modal characteristics only

at very low frequencies. These low modes allow us to hear the

size and volume of the space. It is an essential part of trying to

generate a realistic illusion of a live performance.

The $2,500 Revel Ultima Sub-15 is a stupendous sub-

woofer, when it is well integrated with your main speakers.

Each Sub-15 features a robust 15-inch driver in a compact cab-

inet that blends into your room easily. It offers very low dis-

tortion, with no audible doubling. If it is barnstorming in the

basement, it does so cleanly. Ultimately, I could play “The

Vikings” from Pomp and Pipes [Reference Recordings

RR–58CD] at lifelike volumes (94 dB peaks) without a hint of

strain in the Sub-15s. And the Sub-15 is clean enough to blend

seamlessly with the Salons, which means it should blend just

as well with any other speaker you choose, unless their char-

acters are radically different.

Driving the Sub-15 was Revel’s $6,000 LE-1 amplifier/

crossover. Used with one Sub-15, the LE-1 will pump out 700

watts; with two Sub-15s the LE-1 will deliver 1,200 watts total.

I used two LE-1s with the four Sub-15s. But I didn’t use their

internal analog crossovers, having previously played with the

crossover and having not cared much for its effect on the high-

pass signal. Instead, I relied on the digital crossovers in the

Proceed AVP and Theta Casanova controllers. While I was

playing with subwoofer placement, the LE-1’s phase adjust-

ment feature was invaluable. The blend with the Salons was

more transparent when the phase was adjusted just so and the

perception of the music’s timing improved. Both phase and

level can be adjusted by remote control from the comfort of

your chair.

Diagram 3: Tom Miiller’s All-Media Room

I have one minor sonic criticism of the Sub-15. Until the vol-

ume is advanced to higher levels, it doesn’t resolve the sensa-

tion of air moving in the recording venue. This is a sensation

that exists in the concert hall and I have heard it reproduced by

the Audio Artistry dipole subwoofers. The Sub-15 gets the

pitch, timbre, and timing of the music right, but the environ-

ment in which the music takes place is a shade to the dry side.

C o n s e q u e n t l y, it is more difficult to perceive the acoustic vol-

ume of the recording site. It will be interesting to explore how

room acoustic treatments effect this characteristic.

Battle Summary – Stand-off

I don’t pretend that all the work described above resulted in a

convincing victory over The Room. At this point, though, I was

close to a draw. The spectral balance of the room was delight-

ful, even though I had minimal damping material on the walls

(just a 12 by 9-foot cotton canvas sheet over the area for the

video screen and a little more propped up in the rear corners).

Despite the great overall spectral balance, an excessive amount

of ambient splash remained in the room, limiting the loudness

levels that could be cleanly attained and smearing images and

information in the soundstage. The bass was better, especially

when listening to classical program material. But popular

music, especially Painted From Memory, wouldn’t let me for-

get that the fight for the lowlands was far from over.

I have two major offenses planned: acoustic treatment of

the first reflection points on the sidewalls and ceiling and the

use of advanced technology to address room-induced distor-

tions. The former is to come first from Acoustic Innovations

and, later, from RPG. The latter arrived from Cambridge Sig-

nal Technologies just in time for a sneak peak.

The SigTech T1100 is one of the most important audio

products to reproduced sound since the introduction of elec-

tricity. The T1100 is a dedicated computer whose sole task is

to analyze the sound of your room in three domains (frequen-

cy, phase, and time). It then develops adaptive filters that

modify the signal and applies those filters to pre-correct the

signal to counteract room distortions. This is an extraordinar-

ily advanced and sophisticated use of digital technology that

promises to mitigate room problems that were previously

intractable.

As much as I had hoped for from the T1100, I was unpre-

pared for the fundamental way it reshaped my aural experi-

ences. First, using the T1100, the subwoofers blended seam-

lessly with the Salons and reached 20 Hz flat. The perfor-

mance I extracted from the Salons and Sub-15, which is

described above, was fully attainable only with the SigTech.

Not that I would change a word about the Revels. The SigTech

confirmed the excellence of the Revels.

You will have to wait until Episode Two for a full report on

the T1100, but I will share this now: The changes it wrought

improved not just the tonality of the music, but the dynamics

and space as well. If you want to know more right now, dig

out your old copies of The Absolute Sound (Issues 113 and

109) and read Robert E. Greene’s comments on the SigTech.

Episode Two – A War On Two Fronts

With the arrival of the SigTech T1100, The Room was thrown

back on its heels. There was reason to hope for a convincing

victory. Before the day could be won, though, the war expand-

ed to another front – the center (Revel Voice) and rear chan-

nels (Revel Embrace) – giving The Room more opportunities

to prevail. How would the design prowess of

Revel fare outside the traditional realm of two-

channels and could the SigTech triumph over a

fully activated room?

To Be Continued

Heartfelt appreciation to Robert E. Greene for his technical

contributions to this article. He is a gentleman and a schol -

ar, as generous with his knowledge as he is passionate about

the science of audio.

REVEL

8500 Balboa Boulevard

Northridge, California 91329

Phone: (818) 830-8777

Source: Manufacturer loan

Price: Salon – $14,200 ($15,500 as tested with high gloss

finish and rosewood panels); Sub-15 – $2,500;

LE-1 – $6,000

RPG DIFFUSER SYSTEMS, INC.

651-C Commerce Drive

Upper Malboro, Maryland 20774

Fax: (301) 249-3912

e-mail: info@rpginc.com

Price: Room Optimizer software program – $99

CAMBRIDGE SIGNAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

95 Fulkerson Street

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02141

Phone: (617) 491-8890

M a n u f a c t u r e r I n f o r m a t i o n

Manufacturer’s Response

We thank Tom for his tremendous effort and vigilance in work-

ing to create a listening room that allows more meaningful crit-

ical listening. We are pleased that he found Room Optimizer

and our approach to its utilization to be useful. Through its use,

it becomes evident how inadequate simplistic dimensional

ratios are in the quest for optimum room design.

A couple of clarifications of points Tom made in the review

might be useful to the reader:

Dynamic compression does much more than rob the

music of dynamics during high-level peaks. We have found

that many High End speakers change in sound quality at per-

fectly normal loudness levels. The problem is greatly exacer-

bated by the use of first-order filter networks, smallish voice

coils, or less than optimum crossover points. We believe that

our efforts to combat dynamic compression pay off in

improved neutrality and realism. The lack of dynamic com-

pression is an essential factor in achieving the even tonal bal-

ance to whichTom refers.

To m ’s listening room currently has bare, untreated wa l l s .

A normally furnished or acoustically treated room yields ve ry

d i fferent sound at high frequencies. Since Tom is planning to

treat his room, we look fo rward to his further comments

a fter he has installed room treatment in the next episode of

his saga. KEVIN VOECKS

REVEL

he gleaming white livery of the Fed-X truck splintered

the morning calm with a fusillade of gravel against the

stone griffins sternly guarding the massive oak front

door. Upon the FedEx man’s announcement: “Two items,” the

door opened to reveal a man who might well be a stone Grif-

fin himself, his face bearing a stern and raptor-like stare.

“What do they weigh?”

Looking down at his clipboard, the Fed-X man replied:

“800 pounds.”

“But that’s a third of a ton!”

The next morning saw the arrival of the Bull, who swiftly

moved the boxes to the music room.

Then on the third day came the Alchemist from Linn Prod-

ucts to spread layers of thick black cables, cardboard boxes,

black metal boxes, and wooden speaker boxes. This formed

an ultimate hi-fi horizon layer two feet deep over the entire 25’

by 18’ floor, but the tide had again receded by sunset that

evening. The first level of alchemy left the room pristine and

newly decorated with a four-foot tall rack of black metal

boxes and a perimeter of cherry veneered cabinets. The Linn

AV speakers were arranged variously on black metal stands

(the four principal channels served by the AKTIV Tukan), on

a television monitor (the Aktiv AV5120 center channel), and

on the floor (the AV5150 sub).

The cabinets of the Tukan speakers are a foot tall, a little

more than half as wide and deep. They sit upon open black

metal stands that raise the top of the loudspeakers to a height

of three feet. At the front of the room, a television monitor is

centrally placed between the two loudspeakers on stands, and

it is surmounted by the Aktiv AV5120 cen-

ter loudspeaker (2 feet wide, 7 inches

high, 9.5 inches deep). The AV5150 subwoofer (26 inches high,

18.5 inches wide and deep), sits between the television and

one of the Tukans. A Quadraspire rack contains the five

AV5105 power amplifiers, the AV5103 system controller, and

on the top two shelves, the Linn Karik CD player and Numerik

digital-to-analog converter. The shelves are finished in cherry

veneer to match the loudspeaker cabinets.

The price of systems based around the 5103 controller

starts at $18,815; the system I am testing costs $27,170. This

reflects the 11 channels of amplification provided to separately

power each driver or pair of drivers, in the case of the center

speaker and subwoofer. With the addition of better Linn com-

ponents, it is possible to drive the system cost to $145,680.

The fourth day was set aside for musical refinement. The

Alchemist was pushing buttons on a remote control, watching

as messages appeared on the control unit and simultaneously

on the monitor. He listened to the hiss (pink noise) emitted by

each loudspeaker in turn, measuring the distance between

each loudspeaker and the listening position, adjusting the loud-

speaker stands, moving them a half inch at a time. At one point,

he added a cellular telephone to his juggling, speaking rapidly

into the mouthpiece as he set white words to flash across the

screens and listened to the loudspeakers hiss as he moved

them to and fro.

In the middle of the fourth day, music appeared whole and

viscerally present, as first the Alchemist then I sat on a chair

placed at the focus of the equipment. The cherry cabinets with

their eyes one above the other gazed upon us as frantic mes-

sages in computeiform script scrolled over the blank displays.

A new cycle began. After much

searching and deep consideration, a disc

LINN-AV5103 AKTIV Multi-Channel System

In Search of the Mythical Beast: I

B A R R Y R A W L I N S O N

was withdrawn from its shell and consigned to its whirring

drawer mechanism. Messages darted again over the screens,

followed by music that materialized throughout the room, a

large gentle beast trembling the wooden floor, stalking along

the walls, palpating the window panes.

In the Company of the Beast

I am listening as I write this to the latest release on the Water

Lily Acoustics label, entitled Fascinoma, a virtuoso vehicle

for trumpeter Jon Hassell in collaboration with Ry Cooder,

Ronu Majumdar on flute, and Jacky Terrasson on piano. A

point of special interest is that before developing his Fourth

World style, Hassel worked with Stockhausen and thereby

acquired the technique and aesthetics of electro-acoustic

composition. He now routinely incorporates loops and sam-

ples into his music as an accompanying ground bass.

On track 3, the entry of the synthesized percussion loops

explodes into the room with the intensity of a seismic tremor

over which Hassel floats the gossamer threads of his muted

trumpet tone like an impressionistic Milky Way serenely arch-

ing over a landscape in turmoil. The bass energy in this

recording is remarkable, but it demands a great deal of the

system to faithfully reproduce this together with the accom-

panying delicate and discrete strands of musical information.

If the system can cope, the assembled illuminati weave a

tapestry of surpassing richness within the ample acoustic of the

stone chapel in Santa Barbara, California, in which Kavi

Alexander has made so many remarkable recordings. So wide

is the dynamic range of this recording that the demand for the

system not to sound strained at climaxes becomes paramount.

The recording chain used by this label is unsurpassed in

rendering instrumental timbres naturally, and this will require

commensurate performance from the reproduction chain. If

there is any tonal imbalance in the system, this recording will

quickly expose it. With the Linn system, there was no such

problem, and the cavernous acoustic was rendered with tac-

tile presence while the music was woven in its supportive

embrace. But this degree of performance did not materialize

overnight, and before we achieved this resolution we were to

undertake the voyage of discovery that I have set down here.

Because there are so many aspects to the installation of

such a comprehensive surround-sound system, this review

will extend into the next issue, wherein we shall evaluate the

performance in other respects, most notably film sound.

The Quest Begins

Characterizing Linn’s advance man as the Alchemist is more

than just a writer’s device. Linn is an atypical audio company

that will purposely not regale you with design parameters and

specifications. Their typical response when asked about any

aspect of their products’ performance is “enough.” They will

perform the magic that brings the mythical beast of entertain-

ment to your home. That is not your concern. The Linn dealer

will play the role of Alchemist for every purchaser of a Linn

system. You need only sit back and be awed.

In keeping with that company philosophy, the Linn

AV5103/Tukan system delivered to me came without manuals

that would disclose its innermost workings. Linn did not feel

that I needed to know how this particular trick was per-

formed or how that rabbit got in the hat. But magazine writ-

ers (and editors) are compelled to pull back the curtain of

magic and witness the act itself. For this article, we will sit

back and watch the show. In the next issue,

though, we want to work the controls.

The sound of the Linn system has mutated

through three distinct phases to date: When

first set up, the sound was, in my room, a bliz-

zard of razor blades – a room problem, for my walls are plas-

tered. There is very little diffusion, and a handclap produces

a ring at the top of the room, near the ceiling. This has not pre-

vented the room from working well with most speakers, espe-

cially the Quad 63s with their tightly focussed treble radiation

patterns. The Linn tweeters are, I suspect, more generous in

the breadth of their polar dispersion patterns.

Purists of sound arcana always begin by aligning sound

radiators to achieve a solid mono image within the room,

and so did we. This process was aided in great part by “party

mode” – a multiple mono mode invoked by the surround

options button. Switching then into stereo mode revealed a

surprisingly deep stage. The bass frequencies, though, were

too much of a good thing, even when the controller

crossover sending the main signal to the Tukans was config-

ured as “small,” resulting in a low-frequency roll off begin-

ning at 60 Hz. This bass heaviness had a rubbery quality, a

looseness or slight slowness of response that added a drag-

ging beat to the music.

I suspect that this first set-up had located the drivers

within existing room modes. The AV5103 controller, for its

high price, has a limited bass-management system, but it

may be possible for Linn to add more options for tailoring

this range within the installer menus, which are normally

invisible to the user. It appears that the only bass manage-

ment provided is the turnover point for the main speakers, a

selection between ”small” and “large.” This is not a major

limitation in a closed system such as the Linn. Bear in mind

also that the system had at this point been working for only

one day, and all the speaker suspensions were unused!

Our next step was to tilt the cabinets slightly backward.

Now transients acquired substance as the midrange frequen-

cies aligned better with the treble. Next the speakers were

turned out to fire parallel along the long axis of the room,

then toed in toward the center just enough to attenuate the

side-wall reflections. In this position, the room ceased to

negatively dominate the treble presentation, and now it was

possible to relax into the sound. The predominant charac-

teristic of the sound at this second stage was clarity, reflect-

ing correct time alignment of the principal stereo pair with-

in the room acoustic.

Integration of the subwoofer was impeded by the heavy

bass response, which may at this stage have resulted from a

low-frequency mode of the room. Whatever the cause, the sub

had to be integrated with this anomaly, resulting in a dragging

bass with a slow decay.

At this point the Alchemist felt the results were more

than acceptable for running in the system before his second

visit a month later. There’s more to this saga, but that must

wait until the third phase, set-up for film sound, which

brought about a new level of performance with both music

and film recordings.

For now, the sound had acquired a clear and muscular

characteristic. Everything was imbued with a dynamic sound;

orchestras filled the room with massive wavefronts, while

Massive Attack turned the room into a massive vibrator at low

frequencies. Piano benefited especially, reminding me yet

again that this instrument was the first attempt

at a full-range home music center, a range

rarely captured or replicated by electronic

devices today.

All systems are biased in some way, and

the three principal biases are toward time coherence, phase

coherence, or tonal production. It is not possible to have all

three unless you also factor in the room, which acts as a filter

affecting all three. This Tukan-configured system seems to me

biased toward temporal alignment, as a result of which its

dynamic capabilities are enhanced. I would like to hear more

of the subtler textures of the tonal range, and so would you, if

you’d spent 15 years listening to Quads and BBC monitors.

For voice intelligibility, this dynamic bias has much to recom-

mend it; I was able to follow unfamiliar Sullivan (The Rose of

Persia) with surgical precision.

Controlling the dynamic qualities of this system requires

discretion, but this is encouraged by the system’s ability to

disentangle and relax the sound sources across the full width

of the stage when so adjusted. The soundfield projected is

also surprisingly stable when heard at some distance from the

focal point of the loudspeaker array, a very refreshing change

for those who dislike being confined to the sweet spot.

Working the Environment

It seems to me that the THX concept is good for the rooms in

which we listen to films, for it mandates an observational fre-

quency response at the listening position. In other words, the

response of the system at the listening position is measured

and guaranteed to meet specifications laid down and used for

mixing guidelines on sound stages, ensuring that the mix heard

in the cinema or your room will bear some resemblance to

what the mix engineer intended! This is something that no sup-

plier of music reproduction equipment has dared to offer in the

past. This, however, merely addresses tonality. To arrive at the

best solution, we must also have control of time and phase.

These factors are routinely addressed in live, amplified

concerts, following pioneering efforts spurred by the giant

concerts of the Seventies, which necessitated time alignment

of their public-address towers to achieve a single pulse

response over the full audience area. That technology is now

used to improve the acoustic performance of sound stages

and recording studios, where at least a smooth response is a

prerequisite.

Now it’s time to take that mature technology and apply it to

the domestic environment. Our controllers already include dig-

ital-signal processing to achieve stadium effects; the next ingre-

dient is the processing algorithm that optimizes the response

from the loudspeaker-room interface. The hot contender here

is SigTech T1100, which, to date, is the only device that corrects

for non-uniformity in tonality, time, and phase (see the Revel

r e v i e w, this issue). In a perfect world, its proprietary algorithms

would become a de facto system licensed to other manufactur-

ers. Regardless of who does it first, all controller brands will be

galvanized into action by the first one to use a microphone to

optimize the signal for any room.

The Linn AV5103 controller incorporates a PC port on the

rear panel, and I assume this will be used to update the host

software. The larger point is that the system uses a separate

channel of amplification for each driver, and its dynamic

capabilities reflect that. It is implicit in such a system that

there is a crossover filter upstream of each amplifier. For

now, the crossover functions (except for the bass manage-

ment) are performed in plug-in modules that are installed in

the AV5105 amplifiers. It would be much better to move the

crossovers even further upstream, to the DSP engine where it

can be performed elegantly in the digital domain.

This system cries out for a finer control of the tonal qual-

ities of the room response. Absent DSP correction, we will

see how these qualities can be further optimized by moving

the acoustic sources within the room in the next article,

wherein we devote ourselves to extracting maximum tempo-

ral synchronization from the system.

The Remote Interface

I’ll look at two levels of the interface, the customer’s and the

installer’s. First, the customer interface is kept simple by link-

ing video and audio bus switching to the source controls, so

all the customer has to remember is to switch the system on

from standby, and then hit a source button if the system is

addressed to the wrong source.

The remote control itself is built upon a cast metal chas-

sis resembling a footprint in plan, a rather weighty slab that

tapers from three inches in width to two and a quarter inches

to provide a hand grip. The area of the control pad is divided

into four zones, one at front left for controlling the Linn 5103,

another at front right for the source transport controls

invoked by the source selector zone keys, which occupy the

center of the remote. There is also a number pad zone on the

heel of the remote. Altogether a very good piece of industrial

design modeling after the Brancusi school, though perhaps

not the best choice for those with small or arthritic hands.

One quirk the user must get used to is the slight delay built

into the response of the 5103 processor before visual feed-

back confirms receipt of the signal. Perhaps this is where

some more instant feedback might be given, even something

as simple as a repeater LED within the display area. This

would also encourage use of the system without video moni-

toring for those of such disposition. The manual makes a good

case for this delay; it enables a short-press option for control-

ling sources other than those currently selected without dis-

turbing the video and audio images you are currently follow-

ing. In other words, if you tap the relevant keys quickly, you

can cue up a CD and route it to a CDR and make a recording

without having to stop following the currently selected pro-

gram. But sans audible or visual feedback, I was more likely

to start repeatedly pressing the source key until the confirm-

ing caption appeared.

Switching on the system from standby compounds this

problem. Unless your video display is on, you know that the

system has received the command only via a rearrangement

of the typography of the Linn 5103 caption, from one line of

type to two, on the display, which is rather dimly lit to start

with. If you have been successful in switching the system on,

you can confirm this by pressing a source key, but there’s a

slight delay.

The remote worked well as a universal remote, soaking

up all the functions of the other remotes with the notable

exception of the one that operates the cable television box –

surely one of the most commonly found remote-control sys-

tems in America?

The interface itself needs a little more memory to allow

tagging of soundfield settings to sources. This happens with

AC3 decoding, as confirmed by the caption “As mix” that

appears on the displays when the “surround” button is

pressed while playing an AC3-encoded source. Also useful

would be a last-source-selected memory. Now if you play a

disc and adjust one of the speaker level controls, then hit

“Play” to start the track again, you will discover you have to

press the relevant source button before regaining use of the

transport controls.

Summing Up

The Linn system offers advantages insofar as it is a turnkey

system, and anybody who buys one will be able to leave to the

dealer all the tedious installation details of running cable,

positioning loudspeakers, finding a home for the components,

and initializing the system controller to accept the source

components and direct their signals through the appropriate

processing functions to the related amplifiers and thence to

the speakers.

Linn also is known to have built its reputation on playing

the tune. This refers to its superimposition of one cardinal

rule upon all the flashing lights that surround audio: The

music comes first, and it don’t mean a thing if it don’t play the

tune. If your toes ain’t tapping and your hands ain’t clapping,

if your head ain’t bobbing and your guitar ain’t throbbing –

well, what’s the point?

This strikes at a schism between tonal quality and imaging

that divided the field of home music reproduction following

the advent of stereo. When you put two loudspeakers into a

room, you set up comb-filter effects that add and subtract

from the recorded sound in unpredictable ways. When you

put, as in this case, six sound sources into a room, you are far

better placed to control the room modes that render most

stereo a weak sister to mono – provided you are given the

tools for the job!

I hope Linn acquires a digital equalizer interface to refine

the tonal consequences of all that power (1,200 watts total),

power that should be even more nimbly

applied using the new generation of Linn

amplifiers as these incorporate switching

power supplies.

I asked Linn to supply a system of minimal

bulk, as I suspect this will be the choice of most people con-

templating the addition of such a system to a room of modest

dimensions that will probably have to serve multiple uses. As

a consequence, the smallest loudspeakers in the range, the

Tukans, were supplied. They did not betray any power han-

dling problems despite the use of live piano recital levels.

In the next installment, we’ll experience the full power of

the Linn illusion, applied to music and movies. And we’ll take

a much closer look at how it all works.

LINN INCORPORATED

4540 Southside Boulevard, Suite 402

Jacksonville, Florida 32216

Tel: (904) 645-5242

Source: Manufacturer loan

Prices:

5103 System Controller: $8,495

5150 Bass Reinforcement Loudspeaker:

$4,195 ($4,395 in cherry)

5105 amplifier for front left and right: $3,590 each

5105 amplifier for center: $3,590

5105 amplifier for rear left and right: $3,590 each

Aktiv 5120 Tukan loudspeaker: $2,490 each;

$2,590 each in cherry

Aktiv 5120: $1,220 ($1,440 in cherry)

Karik CD Player: $3,595

Numerik D-A Converter: $2,595

M a n u f a c t u r e r I n f o r m a t i o n

NAD T770 Audio-Video Receiver

Just the Basics, Done Well

n 1976 the NAD 3020 integrated amplifier hit the North

American shores and changed performance expectations

for less expensive audio forever. While competitors

stretched the limits of inanity with bells and whistles, NAD

(New Acoustic Dimension) concentrated on the basics of

clean sound: short signal paths; bulletproof power supplies

and conservative power ratings. NAD succeeded by appealing

to what audiophiles like most – less. Though nearly 25 years

have passed since that first NAD arrived, the new $1,700 T770

Audio-Video Receiver hasn’t turned its back on its roots.

If you are looking for adrenaline-pumped features like

Cinema EQ or compression levels or 1,001 surround modes

from the Sistine Chapel to Abbey Road Studios, then you’ll be

missing the point of the T770. NAD’s philosophy is to give you

what you need to listen to music or watch movies by provid-

ing the best engineering and components

at the price point. Features that they

believe will not contribute to this experience or might sub-

tract from performance are canned. Like the High End audio

market, NAD is taking the purist approach. Here’s an exam-

ple: Many AVRs automatically take a stereo analog signal and

process it through an inferior analog-to-digital converter and

back out through a D-to-A. NAD leaves the signal undisturbed

in the analog domain. The simpler and purer path.

The Model T770 is a five-channel, 70 watts per channel

into 8 ohms surround sound receiver that incorporates an

integrated Dolby Digital decoder. It provides a 5.1 input for

the addition of an external decoder, allowing the user to

expand to another surround sound format such as DTS. For

two-channel listening with surround enhancements, the T770

provides EARS (Enhanced Ambient Recovery System).1Three

digital inputs are provided, including RCA coaxial, TosLink

optical and an input with an integrated

RF demodulator for laserdisc players

NEIL GADER

I

that are DD compatible. There are preamp

outs for all five channels. Build quality in gen-

eral seems up to NAD’s usual fine standards.

Also included are the NAD Link jacks, which

allow other NAD components (with NAD Link)

that are not remote controlled to be driven via the T770’s con-

troller. Very clever if one intends to stay within the NAD fam-

ily. But since the remote is not of the learning variety, the user

is penalized if he chooses to consider a competitor’s offerings.

Once I managed to hook up the Sound Dynamics RTS-3

Surround Speaker system and my Pioneer 414 DVD player,

making friends with the T770’s remote control was the next

important step. It is well organized and allows thicker fingers

some room to negotiate the keypad. And the infrared end is

angled slightly so users know how to orient the remote when

they grasp it in the dark. (A lighted keypad would have been

better.) The OSD has the requisite multiple layers. Its graphics

are concise and the critical surround set-up mode is easy to

access. The T770 circuitry will adjust the delay characteristics

of the surround system based upon the distances of the five

speakers. Then with an SPL meter (not included), it’s easy to

calibrate 5.1 speaker levels via the T770’s test tone.

For apartment dwellers, the “Late Night” feature is espe-

cially welcome for those soundtracks with lease-busting explo-

sive effects. Since it’s a compressor, it limits the dynamic range

of the audio portion. That is, the extremes of loudness will be

drawn closer together. Explosions will not be as loud, while

soft dialog will not be as quiet. This allows the user to turn the

overall volume down and still not miss important moments – a

boon for some elderly videophiles as well.

Bass management is downright basic. With a Dolby Digi-

tal source, the LFE (Low Frequency Effects) option in the

OSD’s (On Screen Display) level calibration menu permits an

attenuation of 10 dB; take it or leave it. Using this in conjunc-

tion with the Late Night feature, you can listen at reasonable

overall levels. Still, it does not have the flexibility of a THX

crossover, which allows you the option of mixing sub-80 Hz

bass information with the LFE and redirecting it to the sub-

woofer – an effective way to reduce the work load and open

up dynamics on smaller speakers.

The Sound

At 70 watts into five channels, the T770 is not a real

stump puller and speaker matching should be carefully

evaluated for sensitivity and impedance. But that said,

running the T770 as a two-channel integrated amplifier

into either the Joseph Audio RM-22 or the slightly larger

Meadowlark Shearwater loudspeakers2reveals a pleas-

ing, smooth sonic character. The T770 understands the

all-important midrange. It’s not aggressive in the highs

and that area in the upper mids between 2-3 kHz is full. In

my book, the midrange is the sweetspot and the NAD

really connects. Vocals, male and female, are rich and

continuous. Soundstaging is wide and fairly deep, but

imaging is not as precise as some dedicated two-channel

rigs I’ve heard. The image specificity on tracks like Roy

Gaines’ “Stormy Monday” [I’ve Got the T-Bone Wa l k e r

B l u e s ; Groove Note, GRV-2002-2] is a little swimmy. It

just doesn’t have the snappy focus that this cut can have.

Pitted against the 150wpc Plinius 8150, my reference inte-

grated amplifier, the T770 sounds slightly dry. Bass is not

quite as rich and extended. But neither is it muddy or ill-

defined. It’s just a little rolled off.

The heart of the T770 is its competence in decoding Dolby

Digital soundtracks. Intelligibility of dialog is paramount not

only to understanding but to conveying nuance and atmos-

phere. One of the easiest ways to test for this is to find sound-

tracks where narration occurs. The Tennessee Mountain nar-

ration of actor Jeff Jeffcoat in the charming and overlooked

film The Education of Little Tree[Richard Friedenberg, direc-

tor; Paramount Home Video LV336143] is a prime example of

how a few well-chosen words can whisk the movie-goer into

a different time and place. The warm, non-aggressive

midrange character of this voice sounded remarkably similar

to the theatrical presentation I attended at the state of the art

Academy Theater in Los Angeles. And when you listen to the

West Virginia drawl of Levon Helm from The Right Stuff

[Philip Kaufman, director; Warner Bros. 20027] through the

T770, you not only catch every inflection with clarity and

smoothness, you can almost smell that stick of Beemans gum

he just started chewing.

The sound design of the film Elizabeth gave the NAD’s

decoder a thorough workout in retrieving ambience via – of

all things – footsteps! The movie’s interiors are set primarily

in medieval castles and churches. These large vaulted expans-

es have huge reverberant fields with delay characteristics bor-

dering on echo chamber. Throughout the movie, characters

are shown in medium and long shots walking through these

cavernous spaces, sometimes from above, other times at eye

level. The NAD demonstrated exemplary steering combined

with fast transient attack by not only localizing approaching

and departing footfalls from LCRs into the surrounds then

back again, but by taking those footfalls and their accompa-

nying reverberations and shifting them spatially to another

combination of speakers as the camera set-up shifted. Each

camera position yields a similar but distinctive spatial per-

spective. A thunderstorm sequence during chapter eight

reveals the T770’s ability to place powerful cues deep in the

background, an auditory illusion that appeared to be occur-

ring well behind the LCR speakers.

For spatial resolution I use the “Raindrops Keep Falling

on my Head” Test. In this case directly overhead. The DVD of

Das Boot, The Director’s Cut [Wolfgang Peterson, director;

Columbia-Tristar 22219] has some of the finest, most immer-

sive sound effects I’ve experienced in a movie soundtrack –

the metallic clatter of the diesel engines in the background,

the occasional groan of the boat’s hull as it descends deeper

than it was ever engineered to go. The sound designers

implanted a living, breathing soul within the vessel and her

fate is very nearly as poignant as that of the submariners she

carries. You can close your eyes and almost smell the mildew

hanging in the stale air. And feel the panic as claustrophobia

takes hold. The “Raindrops” test occurs late in the film, with

the U-boat crippled on the sea floor near the Straits of Gibral-

tar. Pipes have burst from the pressure on the bulkheads and

the sounds of discrete leaks are plopping in all channels.

These sounds were clean and startlingly lifelike. But there is

one specific leak that consistently dropped right down my

back, courtesy of the NAD T770 system. And it appeared to be

coming from my ceiling! This immediacy was not accom-

1 NAD points out that EARS is left-minus-right channel ambient process-

ing, incorporating no reverb.

2 86 dB & 88 dB sensitive respectively.

plished with gain biasing to the surround channels, either. I

set up the speakers fair and square. But clearly, the T770’s

steering in DD mode is precise and smooth.

Finally users are going to have to decide for themselves

which features they can and can’t live without. At its suggested

list price, the T770 faces some stiff competition from AVRs with

higher stated power ratings and prodigious features. Now I’m

not a big bells and whistles fan. If I want to drive fast, give me

direct input of a gated manual five speed from a n y era Ferrari,

not the “fly by wire” computer electronics of a clutchless Ti p-

tronic. The same goes for audio and video. I want to see and hear

the unadulterated material reproduced as intended. A great

many poseurs impress with their sizzle. But as single-chassis

designs go, the NAD T770 is all steak.

NAD ELECTRONICS OF AMERICA

6 Merchant St.

Sharon, Massachusetts 02067

Tel: (781) 784-8586; fax: (781) 784-8386

Website: www.nadelectronics.com

Source: Manufacturer loan

Price: $1,699

M a n u f a c t u r e r I n f o r m a t i o n

Manufacturer’s Response

NAD would like to thank Neil Gader for his

thoughtful review of the T770 receiver.

One point I would like to elaborate on is his

assertion that speaker sensitivity and impedance should be

carefully evaluated for compatibility with the T770’s 70-watt x

5 power rating. While he is correct in the absolute sense, the

T770 incorporates an exclusive NAD amplifier design, imped-

ance-sensing circuitry, which endows the NAD with the ability

to properly drive 4-ohm speakers by maintaining the correct

relationship between voltage and current irrespective of the

loudspeaker being driven. This is accomplished automatically,

requiring no adjustments from the listener. The T770 is stable

even at 2 ohms!

As Neil mentions in his opening paragraph, we rate our powe r

for A-V products the same way we rate our stereo amplifiers,

that is, all channels driven simulta n e o u s l y, 10 Hz – 20 kHz, at

0.08 percent T H D. Most manufa c t urers would have rated the

T770 at 100 x 2, 20 Hz – 20 kHz at 0.08 percent THD and 100 x

5 at 1 kHz. We believe our conserva t i ve approach is more in

keeping with our “music first” approach to A-V products.

GREG STIDSEN

DIRECTOR OF SALES AND MARKETING

NAD ELECTRONICS OFAMERICA

We are grateful to manufacturers

for correcting any errors of fact

in our reviews. When we can,

we also include the manufacturer’s com -

ments following a review. But sometimes

space does not allow us to do that and

this section gives us the opportunity to

include a cogent comment while the sub -

ject is ripe, rather than holding it over for

inclusion in another issue.

RPG Diffuser Systems,

Inc., Room Optimizer

I ’d like to commend Tom Miiller for ta ck-

ling a ve ry challenging task (“Revel Ulti-

ma Speaker System Episode One: Th e

Ancient Enemy,” this issue). Episode

One is a wonderful attempt to raise the

awareness of our community to the

acoustical distortions a room can intro-

duce. RPG has been conducting room

acoustics research for 16 years, sharing

our results with the acoustical and enter-

tainment industries through peer rev i ew

publications, seminars at CEDIA, NSCA,

the Audio Engineering Society, and the

Acoustical Society of America. Ove r

time, it became apparent that despite

the progress we have made in room-

acoustic design, sound diffusion, and

absorption tech n o l o g y, recording stu d i o s

and residential hi-fi and home-theater

communities were still at the mercy of

the location of the loudspeakers and the

l i s t e n e r. In researching existing pro-

grams to assist in these two areas, we

found that the solution lay in a new

a p p r o a ch that simultaneously addressed

modal coupling and speake r- b o u n d a ry

i n t e r ference response (SBIR), the two

causes of low-frequency acoustic distor-

tion. A technical description of this new

algorithm was presented at the AES and

a copy can be down-loaded from our

website (www. rpginc.com). One can

address this problem using wave

acoustics, called the frequency- ove r l a p

method, or by geometrical acoustics,

using the image model. Both approach e s

are difficult to apply. The recta n g u l a r

room offers a unique case in which both

r e s o l ve into simple and identical solu-

tions. The image model, howeve r, is the

d e fault solution, since it is time-based

and can be windowed to provide the

SBIR and modal responses. The issues

are how to deal with the SBIR and modal

coupling simultaneously and how to

s e a r ch the millions of possible solutions

for the best one. Simultaneous treat-

ment of SBIR and modal coupling wa s

easily addressed by using the we i g h t e d

smoothness (standard deviation) of both

responses, and an intelligent search

engine (downhill simplex, in this ve r s i o n )

was used to search through error space

for the best answe r. One thing to keep in

mind is that this type of problem

requires optimization of many va r i a b l e s

at one time. This type of problem con-

tains the possibility of false solutions.

The goal is to find the global minimum.

The starting point always affects the

solutions, so the program allows for the

evaluation of many random sta r t i n g

points. Each solution is valid and users

should choose the solution that has the

smallest error and the best ergonomic

placement. Once loudspeaker and listen-

er positions are established, the pro-

gram indicates optimum positions on

walls and ceiling for absorptive and diff u-

s i ve materials to control the mid-high

frequency portion of spectrum. It is

i m p o r tant, though, to remember that the

o b j e c t i ve is envelopment in the A - V

experience, and this cannot be accom-

plished by sound absorption alone. Th e

acoustical palette consists of absorption,

reflection, and diffusion. The best room

can be ach i eved by an appropriate com-

bination of these. Deader is not better!

While users are generally astonished

at the difference proper placement can

provide, some tweak the positions the

program generates. The program will find

the locations that generate the best room

response within its stated assumptions.

While a flat room response may be math-

ematically preferable, listeners have dif-

ferent hearing acuity, musical tastes, and

musical training. So let the Room Opti-

mizer get you close, then tweak to taste.

We are committed to expanding and

i m p r oving the Room Optimize r, and

users’ comments are welcome.

PETER D’ANTONIO,PRESIDENT

RPG DIFFUSOR SYSTEMS,INC.

Manufacturer’s Corner

f you’re looking for DVD movies at the Lincoln Cen-

ter Tower Records in New York, there’s no prob-

lem: Just head down the escalator

and there they are – banks and banks

of them. Classical music video on

DVD is something else. Those are

buried deep in the classical depart-

ment upstairs, in their own small

rack in the opera room. Small is the

operative word. On a recent visit,

there were only 23 titles available.

DVD may be the fastest adopt-

ed new medium to come down the

pike. Just ask the folks who are pro-

moting it: Statistics from the DVD Vi d e o

Group, an industry nonprofit aimed at

getting consumers to sign on to the

format, tells us that two years after

the introduction of the VCR, there

were 877,000 of them

out there. Now, two

years after the intro-

duction of the DVD

p l a y e r, there are two

million, to say noth-

ing of the 16 million

DVD drives that are

supposed to be in

home computers by

the end of the year.

But if you like watching

classical concerts and operas

I Want My DVD!

Major Labels’ Plans for Classical Music on DVD

. . . . . . . . .

M U S I C & M U L T I M E D I A

I

H E I D I W A L E S O N

in a home theater, don’t toss that VCR or

laserdisc player just yet. Ken Crane’s, a DVD

consumer sales website address, a subsidiary

of Image Entertainment, and one of the medi-

u m ’s distributors and licensees, lists 3,759

titles (everything from pornography to operas from Milan’s

La Scala opera house) and climbing. Of the 325 music titles,

41 are classical music, 21 more are opera. DVD Express,

another dedicated internet site, offers 55 titles under “Clas-

sical Music”; some of the titles listed on both sites are not

yet available (though scheduled to be released in the next

few months). Nominally (read: dubiously) classical events

such as “The Three Tenors” and performances by Andrea

Boccelli were, naturally, the first to appear. But what

about the opportunity to have some fabulous opera pro-

ductions with DVD’s high definition image? Pickings are

still slim. “Opera tends to be a year behind – that’s how it

was for VHS,” says Paul Gruber, author of The Metropoli -

tan Opera Guide to Opera on Vi d e o and executive direc-

tor for program development at the Metropolitan Opera

Guild, which sells such products through the Met By Mail.

No one disputes the usefulness of the format for clas-

sical programs – the ability to choose tracks without the

constant rewinding and fast-forwarding of video is only

one of the more practical advantages. Still, most of the

major classical labels are hedging their bets. Universal

Classics, the company formerly known as Polygram, com-

prising the classical labels London (Decca), Philips, and

Deutsche Grammophon, has nothing yet to say about how

much or how little of their vast back catalog of opera and

concert video will make it into DVD in the US. (Polygram

Japan, however, has released a 25-opera set on DVD – sub-

titled in Japanese and the original language, so probably

not destined for the US market.) EMI Classics has nothing

to say yet either.

Pioneer, which put out laserdisc versions of a number of

the Metropolitan Opera productions, did leap into the fray

with two DVDs of popular operas from the Met – a 1982 La

Bohème and a 1985 Tosca plus the 1983 Centennial Gala. The

Met, however, found some flaws, and all three titles have been

recalled for audio remixing. Over at Lincoln Center, caution

now prevails. One other Met opera, a little-known work by

Zandonai, Francesca da Rimini, a particularly lavish produc-

tion, is out on Pioneer in DVD, and two more are in the

pipeline. Choices available so far from other houses are not

exactly greatest hits: for example, Verdi’s early work Attila

(see review) from La Scala; Janàcek’sThe Cunning Little

Vixen from Chatelet.

Some major labels do admit to be grappling with the ques-

tion. Sony Classical has brought out six titles; five more,

including one new program, a teenage wundersinger from

England, Charlotte Church: Voice of an Angel in Concert,are

in the plans. Most of the Sony titles are old Herbert von Kara-

jan performances – the Great Stone Face conductor (see

review) up close and personal. Only one, planned for next

spring, is an opera – Karajan conducting a 1987 Vienna per-

formance of Mozart’s Don Giovanni with Samuel Ramey.

Leslie C. Cohen, vice president, business development at

Sony Music, is decidedly bullish on the potential of DVD and

is jubilant at the demise of Circuit City’s DIVX competitor.

“Sony Music supports DVD. Each of our labels [Columbia,

Epic, etc.] has had it from the beginning, and there are now 34

music titles out,” she says. “With three to five titles a year,

Sony Classical has done slightly less than some of the other

labels, but is keeping pace proportionately with the number of

releases. We’re also working toward simultaneous release of

VHS and DVD programs.”

I t ’s not surprising that Sony, with its hardware divi-

sion, supports the new format. Cohen also cites its wider

entertainment potential. “There’s an entire market of DVD-

ROM players to be satisfied,” she says. “There are only a

handful of titles available. People are traveling with their

computers, and the DVD gives them flexibility. We can also

do web links with DVD – with a new title from an artist, we

could add a link to their web site, so that fans can keep

current.” (It would also naturally give the company the

opportunity to sell fans its other recordings by that artist.)

All new Sony projects are being evaluated as to their VHS

and DVD potential. Will the day come when DVD replaces

VHS? “Not in the immediate future,” says Cohen. “But DVD

has been adopted more quickly than either VHS or CD. If it

keeps going, the whole market may change.”

An added feature of the Sony DVDs with Karajan is the

addition of surround sound, familiar to moviegoers – that

airplane taking off from the back of the theater and flying

over your head – but new to classical video. According to

David Kawakami, a director in Sony Corporate strategy

and a developer of DVD, the medium can support sur-

round sound in the compressed audio formats of Dolby

AC-3 (Dolby Digital), as well as newer formats, DTS (Dig-

ital Theater Sound) and SDDS (Sony Dynamic Digital

Sound). “They all allow 5.1 channels of audio, compressed

so they can fit on the disc with the video,” Kawakami

says. “The quality is good, though below the quality of CD.

P s y c h o a c o u s t i c a l l y, we are able to elicit perceptually

good quality, though if you turn off the picture and con-

centrate on the sound, people have commented that the

audio falls short of what we’re used to hearing.”

Richard King, engineer on the Karajan discs, agrees.

“No one is super-happy with the audio on the DVD. When

you compress it, you don’t get everything back.” He says

that Sony is working on the new Super-Audio CD technol-

o g y, which, when combined with compressed video,

should give a better result. There is room to combine

uncompressed stereo with DVD, but the 5.1 channels for

surround sound take up too much space.

By adding surround sound in a music program, the pro-

d u c e r ’s goal is “to recreate the ambiance of the actual hall,”

There are two million DVD

players in our homes today.

But if you like watching

classical concerts and operas

on home theater, don’t toss

your VCR and laserdisc players

just yet.

ˇ

Kawakami says. “The greater number of

channels is useful in directing that envelop-

ing ambient sound.” Kawakami says that

producers are more conservative with the

surround sound on classical than they are

with pop. “Few orchestras or classical producers want to

take liberties – they’re not going to have the instruments

coming from behind you. They’re trying to recreate the feel-

ing of sitting in the hall, in the best possible seat, with a

wide and deep soundstage, with the instruments placed

a c c u r a t e l y. Coming from behind would be reflections of

sound, and sounds from the audience, so it feels like a hall.”

Steven Epstein, who produced the DVD Karajan record-

ings, went back to the original multi-track recordings. “The

1987 New Ye a r ’s Concert had pick-up mikes hanging in the

audience,” he says. “We fed that information to the rear

channels, added a little reverb to glue the perspective from

front to rear, and added a slight delay to get more of a sense

of distance from the front to the rear, which enabled us to

achieve a realistic surround sound. The Beethoven N i n t h

was recorded without ambient mikes, so we used informa-

tion from the main mikes as well as the spot mikes in the

orchestra. First we remixed the stereo, and brought it into a

more present-day natural sound. Then we took information

from the two main mikes and brought it to the rear ones,

but we had to process it, to recreate the sense of depth. We

used delay, some additional reverb, and equalized the sound

to get a believable result.” (See review of three Karajan

DVDs, this issue.) Producers working on popular concerts

sometimes get fancier. “You can put a guitar solo or a drum

solo front and center, tailoring the audio to feature what’s

on the video at that moment,” Cohen says.

Back to the numbers, however. Classical has its own

peculiarities, particularly within major labels. When sales of

5,000 have been considered typical – indeed, good – for a

single audio title, labels have to think carefully before com-

mitting resources to a project. After the industry downturn

in the 1990s, which saw a major reduction in the number

and kinds of classical audio releases put onto the market, it

is not surprising that these companies are taking a relative-

ly conservative approach to the new format, which adds big

bucks to the production costs. Classical video isn’t exactly

a mass-market seller anyway. Paul Gruber points out that

many of the classical VHS titles are going out of print. “The

audience just isn’t big enough for the big companies now, ”

he says.

The one major label to come out ahead of the pack with

new product is BMG Classics, which several months ago

released its DVD version of Puccini’sTurandot, as lavishly

performed last September in the Forbidden City of Beijing.

Why this one? David Kuehn, VP marketing and A&R director

On a recent visit to Manhat-

tan’s major Tower store, there

were just 23 classical DVDs

available.

Upscale Pop

DVD is having a profound impact on how pop record

companies look at music videos for the home market.

“It’s almost reinvented the business, now that we

have a system that delivers a high-quality picture and high-

quality audio,” says John Beug, senior VP, film/video produc-

tion and marketing for Warner Bros. Records. “Not to cast

aspersions on VHS, but the audio quality stinks and the picture

quality depends on who is duplicating it.”

Music video programs on DVD are now released routine-

ly by pop labels and are available from scores of acts, from the

Allman Brothers to Yes. But record companies still are selec-

tive in choosing acts for DVD treatment, given additional pro-

duction costs of $10,000 to $30,000 per title. “It certainly

appears as though the slightly older, slightly upper-demo-

graphic artists are selling better,” says Beug.

A recent ranking by Amazon.com of its best-selling music

video releases on DVD included titles from Eric Clapton, B.B.

King, Neil Diamond, Earth Wind & Fire, and Sarah McLachlan.

But also in the Top Ten were Michael Jackson and Madonna,

acts with a younger appeal.

“DVD was originally skewing toward older fans and clas-

sic releases,” agrees Leslie Cohen, VP of business develop-

ment for Sony Music. “But now with DVDs from groups like

Oasis and Savage Garden and Pearl Jam, we’re obviously

reaching out to younger listeners, and also trying to capitalize

on the existence of a fairly large CD-ROM population, which is

completely underserved.” The thinking here, says Cohen, is

customers won’t watch DVD films on small computer screens

but they will play music programs on their PCs.

Pop music fans, like their classical counterparts, are drawn

to the consistently high sound quality of DVD titles, whether

provided through Dolby AC-3 [Dolby Digital], Dolby 5.1, PCM

Digital Stereo, or the Digital Theater Systems (DTS) alterna-

tive, which requires a decoder-equipped DVD player.

While the quality of DVD audio and video is relatively con-

sistent, interactive content is not. Pop record companies differ

in their approach to DVD programming. Pop music DVDs may

include biographies, discographies, song lyrics, interviews,

and more. James Taylor Live at the Beacon, a made-for-DVD

release with several interactive elements, has outsold its VHS

counterpart 2-to-1, says Cohen at Sony Music, which is explor-

ing web-links and gaming elements in future music DVD titles.

Metallica’s Cunning Stunts concert DVD offers multiple cam-

era angles, interviews, and a photo gallery of nearly 2,000

shots. (See review,TPV 25.)

“I appreciate all those bells and whistles but I tend to be

pretty traditional and I’m really focused on the audio and pic-

ture quality,” says John Beug at Warner Bros., which has

released straightforward music programs on DVD from Clap-

ton, R.E.M., Prince, Frank Sinatra, Fleetwood Mac, Alanis

Morissette, and others.

As classical and pop fans embrace DVD, record company

executives now wonder if the format will work in other gen-

res. “How much more will the business ‘sectionalize’ itself?”

asks Beug. “We know the classical stuff works. Will this work

for country?”

How about a Garth Brooks concert on DVD with an inter-

active choice of hats?

THOM DUFFY

Thom Duffy is International Deputy Editor of B i l l b o a r d

magazine.

for classical music at BMG, explains, “We decid-

ed to do it because the format had become stan-

dard, and projected volume of hardware for last

Fall was so high. This was an elaborate joint

venture between various Bertlesmann compa-

nies. We were shooting it in high definition, with multiple

cameras, and a documentary was going to be made. It was an

opportunity to put a product on the market that we felt would

have the highest level-capability of features for the format.”

Turandot has all available bells and whistles, including a

behind-the-scenes documentary, camera angle changes, sepa-

rate audio track, multiple languages for titles, to say nothing

of the standard indexing programs. “It really shows the capa-

bility of DVD, and what everyone should be thinking abut

when making decisions about doing it in future,” Kuehn says.

(See review, this issue.)

So far, BMG reports that the title is selling well – several

thousand copies – though it is moving more through internet

sales than conventional retail. Also helpful was the June PBS

broadcast, after which sales made a 40 percent jump. Kuehn

doesn’t think it’s necessarily selling to the people who plan to

play it on their computers, however. “My guess is this is more

of a dedicated DVD player audience. It’s a big, colorful spec-

tacle. Still, the market is going in the direction that will see

computer and TV combined.”

BMG Classics will be doing more DVDs. “Eventually, ”

says Kuehn. “It more than doubles the production budget

from video, because the authoring costs are high. If we took

videos from the catalog and reissued them, we would have

to give them something special, such as interviews, docu-

mentary footage, opera libretti in three languages. The labor

that goes into that is expensive. We’ve earmarked some

items as good candidates. We could just take the four or five

best-selling operas or videos, do a master transfer, and rush

them out to take advantage of the fall buying season. But if

we want to be able to market them properly, we have to give

the consumer something different. Just the higher defini-

tion is not enough – and most of them have been on

laserdisc.”

For new programs, Kuehn says, “our strategy is to reserve

DVD to those projects with the biggest commercial potential,

say, an event with a TV broadcast. We’re also doing more new

recordings now with future DVD audio in mind as well. Since

the format standard isn’t completely agreed upon, it’s a little

risky to release it now. Then in ten years, if we want to come

back and exploit the catalog, we won’t have to go back and

remaster.”

The Atlantic Warner classical labels – Teldec, Erato, and

Nonesuch – are also going slowly, according to Arthur Moor-

head, VP, Associated labels. The company is planning two or

possibly three titles for the fall. One will definitely be the

exotic Matthew Bourne Swan Lake – that’s the one with male

swans. Two documentaries Richter: The Enigma (about Svi-

atoslav Richter, the late Soviet pianist; review,The Absolute

Sound, Issue 115, page 144) and The Art of Singing(in which

households names in opera talk about vocal technnique and

performance) are also under consideration. “We’re still con-

quering technology issues,” Moorhead says. “Most of our

repertoire is from Europe, and it’s expensive to remaster it to

the US/Japanese standard. If these do well, we’ll do more. We

have a great video catalog.”

It doesn’t look as though Atlantic is going to be rushing to

market with classical concert videos, however. “It’s the age-

old conflict. Things intended for the stage, like theater, ballet,

and opera, are immediately interesting from a marketing

standpoint. Videos of people performing sonatas – that’s for a

special kind of consumer. It’s a struggle we had with VHS and

laserdisc, and it won’t change.”

Small, independent video labels are being careful, too. VAI

(Video Artists International) which has a large library of his-

torical classical video, is not even entering the market yet.

“The compressing and authoring costs to create a DVD are

not justifiable for our type of product,” says Ed Cardona, the

company’s general manager. “As with CD, the pricing will

have to come down to where it becomes reasonable, and we

can generate a profit after conversion. But now, with the num-

ber of units we typically move on a historical classical release,

which can be a few thousand to perhaps 10,000 to 15,000 over

the life of the program, it’s too high a number. We didn’t do

laserdisc for the same reason, and now we’re glad we didn’t

spend the money on it. It’s better to allow the majors and

mass-market merchandisers to set the format definitively.

Once it’s being done on a mass-market basis to a high degree,

that usually drives prices down low enough so that it becomes

reasonable to invest.”

K u l t u r, a New Jersey-based producer of opera and other

classical videos with 1,200 performing arts titles now on the

market, thinks differently. Dennis Hedlund, chairman of the

c o m p a n y, reports, “We’ve been watching for two years, and

we’ve decided to go ahead this fall with 20 DVD titles,” he

says. Initial titles will focus on star names, such as Barysh-

n i k o v, Nureyev, Callas, Domingo, Pavarotti, and Leonard

Bernstein. “The profit margins have eroded even before we

got started, with some companies putting out product at

$14.95 and $19.95,” he says. “Our minimum price will have

to be $24.95 or $34.95, depending on if it’s one disc or two.

But we survived Beta and laserdisc. And because of the

compatibility with the computer, DVD is the future of the

world. I see Best Buy going to 50 percent DVD, 50 percent

VHS – the handwriting is on the wall. And since some cus-

tomers already have our whole collection, we’re honor

bound to make the product different, with additional

footage, bios, possibly adding an additional language. Some

titles we’re now acquiring might go straight to DVD – per-

haps some of our visual art titles, which have more applica-

tion for the search-and-find capability. We’ll see what hap-

pens to the first titles between now and the end of the year. ”

By that time, some of the fence-sitters may have decided

that the whole medium is too much fun to miss. For

starters, how about the outrageous Peter Sellars produc-

tions of Mozart operas (in unlikely modern settings) with

the addition of commentary from the director, as has been

done for films? Maybe then we’ll know what he was really

thinking.

Heidi Waleson writes about opera for The Wall Street Jour-

nal, and used to be a classical music columnist for Billboard.

Puccini: Turandot (at the Forbidden City of Beijing). RCA

Victor Red Seal 74321-60917-2.

’m inclined to be kind to the lavish RCA Turandot, and not

just because – as I sample a smorgasbord of available big-

name classical DVDs, in this and a succeeding review – it’s

the only one seriously crafted for the medium. In fact, let’s give

it full credit. It’s the first major-label classical video planned

from the start as a DVD release, which means it’s full of DVD

candy: angles, audio, and subtitles in six languages, plus a

“making of” movie. No surround sound, but that, if you ask me,

means that RCA is being honest. There wasn’t surround sound

in the original, so they’re not going to fake it for DVD.

Still, none of this guarantees a worthwhile product. Some-

body, after all, had to be the first to release a serious classical

DVD, and now that it’s here, the most important question has

to be, “How good is it?” And here, I admit, I was skeptical.

Turandot is one of those operas for huge voices, like Verdi’s

Aïda, that don’t fare well in the current operatic climate.

What we handle easily these days are ensemble operas,

operas that require intelligent, educated singers who con-

tribute small fragments to a mosaic. But we struggle with

works that fail unless the cast (educated, thoughtful or not,

who cares?) floors its collective accelerator, vocally speaking,

and sings with the force of a top-of-the-line Corvette in heat. I

wrote about a cast like that in Verdi’s La Forza del Destino in

the first issue of this restored magazine. But that performance

was filmed in 1957. Now it’s 1999, and the Beijing Turandot

doesn’t even feature the modern world’s most famous opera

stars. God, was I skeptical.

And my first look at the thing only fueled my doubts. I gave

myself a taste of the beginning, letting the opera play for 15

minutes or so. It’s a beautiful, distinctive, unusually artistic pro-

duction (no surprise, considering it’s directed by Zhang Yi m o u ,

C h i n a ’s leading film director, auteur of The Story of Qiu Ju, To

Live, and Shanghai Tr i a d),but what was clear from the start

was that the most telling artistry comes from the staging, along

with costumes and Chinese dancers, all of which make a com-

pelling, even thoughtful frame for the opera, but don’t deliver

the heart of the performance. The singers

seemed blah; careful, reasonably sonorous,

but not possessed. At times I wouldn’t have sworn that they

even cared much about their work.

The hero of the opera, Calaf, an impetuous wandering

prince (with, ideally, a heroic tenor voice), has just encoun-

tered his blind exiled father, Ti m u r, on a crowded street in the

Forbidden City of Beijing (Turandot, of course, is an Italian set-

ting of a Chinese story, and the shtick of this production is that

i t ’s staged more or less exactly where the story is supposed to

take place). Ti m u r, blind and helpless, has been rescued and all

but adopted by Liú, one of those old-fashioned opera charac-

ters with a personality profile that can make a modern person

shiver with dismay; she’s a slave girl of unbounded, abject loy-

a l t y. Upon hearing all this, Calaf, the prince, is seized with grat-

itude, and tells Liú she’s blessed. But on screen, unfortunately,

we see not a real prince, or even a reasonable simulacrum, but

instead a boyish Russian tenor named Sergej (on the DVD box)

or Sergeij (on the DVD itself) Larin, and none of his fairytale

get-up (not even his long black barbarian’s ponytail) could stop

me from noticing that he sang his line with all the enthusiasm

of a man saying, “Yes, thanks for helping my dad, but now I’ve

got to watch the stock market report.”

Taking advantage of DVD technology, I

paged quickly forward to the opera’s most

Made for DVD

. . . . . . . . .

I

The first release of a serious

classical DVD, and the most

important question has to be:

“How good is it?”

G R E G S A N D O W

Zhang Yi m o u

dramatic confrontation, in the second scene of Act Two.

Princess Turandot of China suffers from an icy heart, and a

jones toward men. Any male of royal blood may woo her, but

must answer three riddles. If his answers are correct, she

marries him; if they’re wrong, you guessed it: He dies. Every

prince who’s tried up to now has contributed his severed head

to Turandot’s collection; the Chinese nation, ruled by an

ancient, weary emperor, is caught up in the drama, with peo-

ple either turning cynical, or lusting for more blood.

Calaf, it won’t surprise any reader to learn, is the prince

who answers the riddles and melts Tu r a n d o t ’s heart. But first

she must defy him, explaining with frigid passion that the

whole scheme is designed to avenge a female ancestor who’d

been horribly violated, and then flinging a threat at the prince,

the kind of utterance that only makes sense in the unreal world

of fantasy (or opera): “The riddles are three, but death is one!”

She sings this, of course, in a phrase that rises to a high

note. “The riddles are three,” replies our game hero, taking the

musical arc even higher, “but life is one!” And then both of

them hurl their lines at each other, both singing at once, tak-

ing the music to the highest note yet. I would have thought

nobody, not even Richard Nixon, could have sung that music

without shameless excitement, if only because the high notes

won’t come out without some physical oomph behind them,

and because exuberance would be anyone’s natural reaction

after surging through them successfully. Like many other

great operatic moments, this one isn’t just music and drama,

but also an athletic feat.

So what happened in the Forbidden City? The Tu r a n d o t ,

soprano Giovanna Casolla, has a voice a size or two too small

for her forbidding role, so she has to work a bit too noticeably

to project her formidable music. I’ve already noted Mr. Larin’s

lack of conviction, though I later found that I’d been unfair to

him. He can sing passionately, but he doesn’t get involved with

anyone else on stage. His best moments are those that are his

alone, especially his famous aria, “Nessun dorma,” at the start

of Act Three. His worst are those that absolutely

demand interaction, like his blessing of poor Liú

(will anyone, by the way, be surprised to learn

that, in the end, she sacrifices her life to save

Calaf?), and his defiance of Turandot. So when

the moment for the highest high note comes, here’s what we

see. Both singers take a careful breath; then, with equal care,

they sing their lines. No drama, no music, no atheleticism; just

abstract performance, as if the two had been bred in a tank of

nutrients and trained to accomplish this task, with no idea that

anything raw and human was involved.

The Liú, soprano Barbara Frittoli, was miles better, a singer

fully equal to the human, vocal, and musical challenge of her

role, the one member of this cast who wouldn’t have been out

of place in the long-gone golden age (though, to be honest,

those years were only golden when the good singers sang; there

were more bad ones than there are now, and when they got on

stage, you’d want to run for the hills). But in the first act, at

least, Frittoli seemed to publish her music, rather than sing it.

It seemed far too premeditated. “Yes, this is how I sing Liú,” she

might have advertised. “I always do it just like this.” Perhaps

she wasn’t helped by the traditional Beijing Opera poses direc-

tor Zhang Yimou prescribed for her, a tricky hurdle for opera

singers, and maybe Zhang’s only miscalculation; she executed

them well enough, but not with any spontaneity.

When I sat down to watch the whole thing through, then,

I wasn’t surprised that the first two acts were a chore, vocal-

ly. Casolla has a notable wobble in her voice, and, maybe

worst of all, looks matronly. Here, of course, we’re on tricky

territory, because this is opera. If you’re casting the role of a

drop-dead gorgeous princess in a movie, you start by elimi-

nating everyone who doesn’t look right. In an opera, you elim-

inate everyone who doesn’t sound right, which means the

looks are secondary.1Still, a matronly Turandot is a big prob-

lem, at least in close-ups. Why, after all, does Calaf take up her

challenge, risking his life and allowing the sacrifice of hapless

Liú? This really is a question we shouldn’t ask too strongly,

because the odds are that Puccini himself didn’t know. The

way I’ve spun the story – China, a kingdom in distress, itself

needing liberation from Turandot – is only hinted at in the

opera, carelessly, so we can’t really say that Calaf wants to

free the Chinese people. Instead, he seems besotted by Turan-

1 In fact, to digress briefly, it’s even worse than that. For some very diffi-

cult roles, the bottom line is to find someone who doesn’t sound absolutely

horrible; the parts are so hard to cast, in other words, that sounding good

might not even be a requirement. For what’s arguably the hardest opera

role of all, Siegfried in Wagner’s Ring, opera companies will even settle for

the lowest standard of all – someone who can hack his way through the

music without breaking down, even if he sounds raw and ugly.

dot’s looks. Maybe, on a deeper level, he senses

her own need to shed her obsession, but all we

hear from him is that she’s beautiful. Maybe in

the 1920s, when Puccini composed the piece, a

preoccupation like that made more sense, but

now it sounds silly. “Jeez, Cal! I know you like bimbos, but

stay away from this one!” Still, this is all we have to go on, and

when the singer in the title role is dowdy, without even the

star-power that can override mere looks, Turandot as drama

falls apart.

What did grip me, though, was the production. I would

have said, up to now, that there’s nothing really Chinese about

Turandot. And why would there be? Yes, Puccini conscien-

tiously used Chinese folk songs in his score, but what did he

really know about China? What did any Westerner, besides a

few scholars and unusually open-minded travelers, really

know? China, in this opera, serves (or so I used to think)

merely as an exotic locale for a pre-Hollywood spectacular,

much as Egypt serves in Verdi’sAïda, or, reaching heights of

grand absurdity, the American frontier, complete with Indi-

ans, did in an earlier Puccini work, La fanciulla del west

(“The Girl of the Golden West”).

But now I’m not so sure. This production, first of all, is

grand enough to suit the opera, whose music – a direct ances-

tor, I’d think, of Hollywood scores for epic films – proclaims

its size, and gilded (if not precisely golden) glitter. Conductor

Zubin Mehta even jokes, in the “making of,” that the opera

tucks into a tiny corner of the staging. Hordes of Chinese

extras come on stage, along with dancers, and the Western

singers in the leading roles are costumed with unheard-of

sumptuousness. Even Liú, who has crossed deserts and

begged for coins in the street, is wearing clothes lavish

enough to bankrupt a small city; her nails flash with mani-

cured splendor. Somehow, instead of making the work seem

silly, all this helps it make sense. “It’s only a fable,” the pro-

duction seems to tell us, with surprising gentleness, consider-

ing its size. Some of the Chinese effects are brilliant, even

touching. In the first scene, there’s a chorus about the rising

moon; onstage we see a corps of Chinese dancers, wearing

long white sculpted robes that shiver in the midnight wind.

Touches like these even give the opera depth it wouldn’t nor-

mally have, perhaps because the visual imagery takes the

grand suggestions in the music to a higher and more truthful

plane. Whether Puccini’s vision was surprisingly Chinese, or

whether Zhang Yimou picked Chinese imagery that would

complement the music, I don’t know. (And don’t look to the

“making of” for him to tell us; nothing there goes even half an

inch below the surface.) But the whole thing adds up to much

more than I would have expected.

And in the third act, even the operatic performance starts

to be good. I’m not quite sure what makes that happen. Zubin

Mehta gets some credit. He’s a conductor somewhat reviled

these days by critics, ever since his hollow tenure in the Eight-

ies with the New York Philharmonic. But there’s no way to

fault him here. His Turandot (he conducts the Maggio Musi-

cale Fiorentino orchestra from Italy) is spacious, lyrical, and

suitably grand. And Barbara Frittoli helps to bring the act to

life. She’s the one principal, remember, who can really sing

her part, and here, given her biggest scene (her sacrifice), she

loses all her caution, and wakes the drama up.

But Sergeij Larin gets a medal, too, for his “Nessun

dorma.” He doesn’t interact much, I’ve said, but here he does

not have to; the aria is sung alone on stage, for what seems to

be his favorite dramatic partner, himself. And his voice rings

out. I have to admit that I’m suspicious of that ringing sound,

because the entire sound of the performance is artificial. It

had to be; the event took place outdoors, in a huge open

space. Obviously, the singers are miked, and the “making of”

shows us exactly how, as well as revealing, for those who

catch a fleeting moment when Larin tests a mike, that his

singing is beefed up with some reverb. “Beefing up” might not

be the intention; the idea might simply be to give the sound

some ambience. But there’s nothing like reverb to make a

rough voice a little smoother, and a small voice a little bigger.

Larin doesn’t have the trumpet sound a Calaf really needs;

worse, when we hear him in a practice studio in the “making

of,” he’s rougher than he sounds in the performance. Give him

the benefit of every doubt; grant that he’s just rehearsing, that

he could have been hoarse, or just generally having a bad day.

But still I think that amplification helped him. Maybe, know-

ing it was there, he sang more lightly than he would have, not

pushing his voice, but letting it blossom naturally. If then he’s

not loud enough, there’s a simple solution: Turn up the vol-

ume, which would have been simplicity itself to do. In the

“making of,” we see a giant mixing console, with separate

channels, clearly marked, for every singer.

And yet in the end, I was moved (even though Puccini died

before finishing the opera, and someone else had to write the

final scene, someone who couldn’t find the right, convincing

sound for Tu r a n d o t ’s crucial transformation). And so, I find I

recommend this DVD – though if you’ve never heard the opera,

you might supplement it with either of two classic audio-only

recordings, the RCA with Jussi Björling as Calaf, or the EMI

with Franco Corelli; both have Birgit Nilsson, spectacularly the

right kind of voice, as Turandot. (Avoid the set with Pavarotti

and Joan Sutherland, spectacularly the wrong sort of voices.

Pavarotti sings “Nessun dorma” nicely, but he’s far too light and

lyrical for this heroic role; don’t be fooled.)

About the goodies: I’ve already said the “making of” won’t

tell you anything deep; I trust you’re not surprised. The syn-

opsis, read out loud against snapshots from the performance,

is pompous in English, much more friendly in the other lan-

guages; it’s adequate, and not a word too long. There’s a PCM

audio-only track, again with snapshots, if you want that. What

the package badly needs, but doesn’t have, is a complete

libretto of the opera, on screen or in a booklet, so listeners

can prep themselves and then watch without subtitles. The

whole package needed much more careful editing. I’ve men-

tioned the two spellings of the tenor’s name, but there are

odd, no doubt accidental omissions. We’re correctly told, for

instance, that Zhang Yimou is a distinguished film director,

but we don’t learn the names of any of his films.

The box contains a booklet, with the kind of random

scholarly essay on the opera’s origins that might be found

with any new recording. We didn’t need that; we needed what

I said was missing from the “making of,” some comment from

Zhang or from a Chinese scholar on how Chinese the opera

seems, how it feels to be a Chinese person working with it.

The musical performance, with its strengths and obvious

weaknesses, is what it is. But if someone had worked one-

fourth as carefully on the DVD package as Zhang (and his

choreographer and costumer) worked on the staging, this first

big-time classical DVD – welcome as it is in many ways –

could have been better.

Verdi: Attila (La Scala production), Image Entertain-

ment ID4360PUDVD.

Cilea: Adriana Lecouvreur (La Scala production), Image

Entertainment ID4362PUDVD.

Dvorák: Symphony No. 9, “From the New World” (Her-

bert von Karajan conducting), Sony Classical SVD 48421.

Vivaldi: The Four Seasons (Herbert von Karajan con-

ducting), Sony Classical SVD 46380.

New Year’s Concert, Vienna1987 (Herbert von Karajan

conducting), Sony Classical SVD 45985.

erewith the rest of my classical DVD smorgasbord –

the appetizers, if you like, the desserts, the smaller

items (compared to the oversized Beijing

Turandot), all involving big classical-

music names, but chosen with no

attempt to be complete or comprehen-

sive. Consider them a sampler, a taste of

what’s available.

I’ll examine them under two headings

– as DVDs (looking at the DVD-ness of the

products, how well they use the DVD for-

mat, its resources, and its interface) and as

performances.

DVD-ness:

How well do these items use the DVD

format? The overall answer: Not very well.

Neither the Karajan nor the Scala series offers

a 16.9 image, for instance. (Both series include more

releases, the Scala many more.) The Scala DVDs

offer nothing but an opera performance; no com-

mentary, no plot synopsis (well, there’s one on the

box the disc comes in), nothing. There’s no libretto,

either, as there isn’t for the BMG Turandot, so you

can’t take your time to prep yourself, and then

watch the opera without subtitles. But wait – you

can’t turn the subtitles off, so that isn’t an option

anyway. Nor can you get them in any language but

English.

The chapter menu shows itself with a touch

of operatic cuteness; a red curtain parts, to the

sound of applause. How quickly will you get sick of that? At

least the selection bar, which shows you which scene you’ll

chose by hitting “select,” is elegant, an image of one line of a

musical manuscript. But now we come to

something really weird. For Verdi’s Attila

(yes, Verdi really wrote an opera about the rampaging Hun;

more on that below), the chapters don’t correspond with the

start of scenes. Just imagine a CD that worked this way. The

soprano (a warrior woman Attila admires) finishes her aria,

and goes offstage. Now the baritone arrives; he’s an ambas-

sador from imperial Rome, and he’s here for formal colloqui-

es with Attila, the bass.

But the new CD track wouldn’t begin with his entrance. No,

it starts only when the baritone and bass begin the melodic part

of their duet! If you want to hear their recitative, or in other

words if you want to start the scene from the baritone’s

entrance, its natural beginning, you’re out of luck. Nobody

would accept that on CD, but that’s how this DVD is planned.

The chapters take you from one musical highlight to another;

they don’t let you page through the opera scene by scene. If you

want the baritone’s entrance, you have to find the soprano’s

aria and fast forward, or find the Attila/ambassador duet, and

hit rewind. This frustrated me to no end; there are parts of

the opera that are quite literally inaccessible, unless you

scan forward or back from one of the official landmarks.

Adriana Lecouvreur works better, but has yet anoth-

er oddity. Each act begins with the white-haired con-

d u c t o r, Gianandrea Gavazenni, whom the audience

adores, entering the orchestra pit. If you don’t want to

see that, you’re in luck, because the chapter on the

DVD begins a moment later, when the music starts.

But we hear the music too abruptly; the chapter all

but coincides with the first note, which, no matter

how many times I tried to get used to it, came as an

uneasy shock. I make my own CDs at home, and I’ve

learned to leave a breath between the start of each

new track and the beginning of the music.

For exactly the same reasons, I wished that

I could start each act with Gavazenni, but I

couldn’t.

The Karajan discs are a little more elab-

orate. They offer program notes and bios.

But what the point is, I’m not quite sure,

because these are simple, undecorated

texts, which to me at least would be much

easier to read in a booklet than on my TV

screen. (The program note for The Four Sea -

sons, I might add, amounts to little more than

just another biography of Karajan, with

almost nothing about the work or the soloist.

But that’s a separate complaint.) Each time

you want to read them, by the way, you have to choose your

language, English, Deutsch, or Français. This gets annoying,

and while it’s a separate software issue

(there isn’t any DVD standard for choos-

A (Classical) DVD Sampler

. . . . . . . . .

G R E G S A N D O W

ˇ

ing the language of written text), it seems to vio-

late the spirit of the DVD interface to provide no

way to pick a language once, and stick with it.

The Karajan discs also let you choose sur-

round or standard audio. But I’m not impressed

with the sound either way, or with the sound of the Scala

discs, which also offer 5.1 surround, but (and this applies to

Karajan, as well), not convincingly. Yes, it surrounded me, and

provided a momentary high. (“Look, ma! More sound!”) But

the effect wasn’t in the least realistic. We know that it was

faked, not to mince words, in the Karajan releases (see Heidi

Waleson’s piece, in this issue, for Sony Music’s acknowledge-

ment of that), and when I listened, I found I’d choose the

merely “stereo” option to get something even vaguely like the

real spatial layout of an orchestra. The Scala discs – like the

Karajan, transfers from VHS – also have an engineered sur-

round effect, and with no way to turn it off, I had to mute the

rear speakers before I could hear where the singers were on

stage. The surround sound, on both series, was richer, more

full of pomp and circumstance, but much less lifelike.

The Performances:

Not, though, that we’re talking about sound that’s all that

lifelike in the first place. The two Scala discs, especially Adri -

ana (which has refreshing clarity),aren’t all that bad, but the

Karajans are awful. Or let me qualify that. The Karajans, I’m

sure, sound just the way the great conductor wanted them to.

At this late stage of his career, he favored a rich, undifferenti-

ated, beefy orchestral sound, and clearly reveled in every arti-

ficial way to make it even more that way on his recordings.

There’s certainly something impressive about the result, but

not in any way that reminds me of real music. There are won-

derful, pop-production sonic moments, one involving a bass

drum on the Vienna disc that made me feel that I’d descended

to the roots of all the earth. But a bass drum would never

sound that shivery and intimate in a live concert. If you have

any taste for live orchestral music, the sound of these DVDs

will be, at best, severely puzzling.

I might say as much for Karajan’s performances. By one

standard, they’re wonderful. On the Vivaldi disc, he leads the

Berlin Philharmonic; on the others, it’s the Vienna orchestra.

Both orchestras reach the highest levels of achievement, or at

least they do if all you care about is pure technique; their

sound, in a detached, not quite human way, is ravishing. The

performances, for that matter, do everything performances of

these pieces are supposed to do, except maybe touch the

heart. There’s something contrived, almost undifferentiated

about them, as if Karajan looked at all music as some kind of

abstract challenge, and even if he didn’t sacrifice the most

basic musical values, worked to make them sound like him,

not like Dvorák or Vivaldi.

In one way, the Dvorák is the best of the three, because

the music ends up speaking for itself, once you get used to

Karajan’s trademark sheen. There aren’t issues of Baroque

style (which might stop a purist from enjoying the Vivaldi), or

Viennese frivolity. But then, from another point of view, the

New Year’s Concert is the best, because it raises no deep

musical issues, and the sheer virtuosity of the orchestral play-

ing can stand on its own. I’d rank it lowest, though, because

this virtuosity seems almost unhinged, torn away from any

real contact with human life.

Weekly news updates

First looks at new equipment

Access past articles from

The Perfect Vision

Cutting edge reviews

Editor’s Choice listings

Subscribe on-line

Buy and sell equipment

Manufacturer links

VISIT US TODAY!

w w w. t h e p e r f e c t v i s i o n . c o m

ˇˇ

Paging through the chapters is an eerie experience. At the

start of each one, there’s Karajan on screen, his face

inscrutable, a mask of – what? He projects, at best, a statue-

like institutional persona, “Herr Music Director of All

Europe,” as he used to be sarcastically called, in charge not of

music, necessarily, but of musical institutions. Flip from one

chapter to the next, and he looks the same. No New Year’s

froth for him; whatever’s at stake here, it seems deadly seri-

ous, and I’m not the only one to find this unsettling. Two

friends, both seasoned musical professionals, found it

strange, as well, and one of them even told me that Karajan –

his unmoving, not quite human face – disturbed her children.

The operas are happier experiences. Verdi’sAttila is far

from his greatest work; it was the product of a rushed time

when he was building his career, a period he later called his

“years in the galleys.” There are moments when you know his

heart isn’t quite in the music that he’s writing, maybe because

at times he was too rushed to write music that he really liked.

When I’ve seen it on stage, the

work comes off like an animated

poster, broad and bold but never

subtle, though it has wonderful

moments, like most of the last act,

where there’s a tenor aria that

ranks with Verdi’s best, and a trio

that’s simply ravishing.

This performance is broad and

bold, but never quite involving. For a start, I’d blame Samuel

R a m e y, the Attila, and the reason for many of the opera’s more

recent revivals; not many works provide such a juicy title role

for a bass, and Ramey’s huge and oaken voice is perfect for it.

(So is his bare chest, as almost any woman who saw him in the

part will tell you.) His problem is that he doesn’t give us any

notion of the person behind the music. Attila, as a dramatic

c h a r a c t e r, doesn’t go very deep, but he’s more than a cartoon,

depicted, in fact, as the only honest human being on stage, the

only one who isn’t plotting against anybody, the only one who

rejects cowardice and rewards courage, whether shown by

friend or enemy. Ramey can’t show us any of that, and plays

the role mostly as a force of nature, powerful but blank.

Cheryl Studer, as the Italian warrior woman Attila falls heav-

ily for (and who ultimately kills him) is another strong-voiced

blank, completely unable to convey either her character’s

strength, her anger, her conflict, or her swirling, lost love for the

t e n o r, to say nothing of all of these together. The tenor, Kaludi

K a l u d o v, is far better, a manly persona with a ringing sound (it

helps, too, that he gets much of Ve r d i ’s best music); his only

problem, as video so mercilessly shows us, is that he looks Slav-

ic, hardly his fault, since he’s Bulgarian. But he’s supposed to be

Italian, and, unfortunately for him and us, this matters here,

because the most convincing of the principals, baritone Giorgio

Zancanaro, looks, with his fine, chiseled Italian face, exactly like

what he’s supposed to be, an ambassador from Rome. “Bring the

Roman envoy to me,” Ramey sings to a servant, and when Zan-

canaro comes on stage, reality, for one brief moment, settles

into place, because a Roman is precisely what Zancanaro looks

like. Nor is his solid baritone voice a disappointment. This is the

one moment of dramatic truth in this performance; everything

else, even Riccardo Muti’s conducting – strong but blank, like

his two leading singers – falls short by comparison.

Adriana is another kind of stew. Cilea was a minor com-

poser of Puccini’s era, the early Twentieth Century, with a gift

for heart-stopping moments. There are a few of

these in this opera, most of them familiar

excerpts, like the soprano’s two arias, “Io son l’u-

mile ancella” and “Poveri fiori,” or the tenor’s

two. Everything else is empty boilerplate, and

one principal character, the vengeful mezzo-soprano princess,

has no real musical existence at all. The plot of the opera posi-

tively creaks, and should have been turned into a French farce.

The Princess, at one crucial point, is hidden in a back room, not

knowing that everybody knows she’s there; it’s meanwhile

essential that everyone onstage should have a different notion

of who she is. One intelligent question from anybody, and the

whole tired house of cards would collapse.

So why perform this nonsense? Because it gives a soprano

diva a commanding role, and this rendition features two divas

at once, Mirelli Freni in the title part, and Fiorenza Cossotto as

the Princess. And they’re not just divas; they’re aging divas,

whose combined experience and charisma gives the perfor-

mance a kind of stature, much loved

in opera, that lies halfway between

star appeal and utter camp. There

are some problems, though. One of

them is Cossotto’s character, an

older woman who, if she can’t have

the younger man she loves, would

launch nuclear missiles, if only

they’d been invented, to destroy the

world. This all is so absurd that, as I watched Cossotto, I almost

had to look at the calendar to make sure it wasn’t Halloween.

Another problem is Freni’s voice, originally a lyric soprano,

and too light for this role, even though it’s been strengthened by

age and artifice; it still negotiates (rather than simply conquer-

ing) music that’s too low for it. And the final problem, I’m

afraid, is Freni’s age. I can enjoy a battle of the matron-divas,

but the whole point of the confrontation in this story is that

F r e n i ’s character is young and beautiful, and therefore gets the

guy Cossotto can’t keep. We even hear about her age right near

the start, when a devoted older man falls in love with her.

Worse yet, Freni’s one moment of real dramatic truth is only

bearable if she’s young. Her character is supposed to be a

famous actress, and when she first comes on stage, she’s wor-

ried about a passage in a role she’s about to play. “I’m just a

humble handmaiden of art,” she tells us, and those sentiments

from the lips of an older woman would be disastrously self-

involved, too disingenuous to take seriously, even for a

moment. From a woman of about 22, they’ll pass, but Freni has

not seen 22 for quite a while.

Beyond this, there’s not much to say. The tenor, Peter

D v o r s k y, playing a character whose irresistible manly charms

provoke everything, sensible or silly, in the story, sings in a

manly fashion, while looking like a stable, proper bourgeois.

The many minor characters are fine, except the scheming little

Abbott, tenor Ernesto Gavazzi, who has a sharp, clear voice,

but mugs relentlessly, underlining every utterance with a sim-

per or a pose. I wanted to swat him like a fly. I can’t finish,

though, without a cheer for Maestro Gavazenni, whose alert,

rapt, and passionate conducting deserves every drop of the

a u d i e n c e ’s adulation. Gavazenni was music director of La Scala

in a bygone era; Riccardo Muti, who conducts the Attila, i s

music director now. The difference between them – one man’s

art has character, the other is a flashy empty suit – tells a sad

story about what’s become of opera in our modern age.

DVD-ness:

How well do these items

use the DVD format?

Performances:

A question of another hue.

Surrounded!

Roger Reynolds: Watershed (Mode 70, DVD)

. . . . . . . . .

Jargon

ere we have a first that needs

attention – “the first music DVD

[the package says] designed to

totally utilize the medium’s full 5-channel

capability.”

I just wish it were better, and less pre-

tentious. The composer, Roger Reynolds,

is (as he probably won’t forgive me for

saying) one of the earnest, gray mod-

ernists of a past generation, a specialist in electronic music

who teaches at the University of California in San Diego.

One problem with modernist composers is (I’m tempted to

say “was,” but they’re still with us, even if their influence

has waned) that they over-intellectualize. They tend to over-

value things in music that can objectively be analyzed, and

then they turn around and insist that

everything in music can or should be ana-

lyzable. One mistake they make is to

think that music is a language – not

metaphorically (as when someone tells

us “music is the universal language”), but

literally. They think musical sounds are

or should be connected by grammatical

rules, like words in a sentence. That’s an

academic preoccupation, if anything is.

On this DVD are extensive conversa-

tions with Reynolds, with Steven Schick, a

percussionist who plays the longest piece on the disc, and

with Peter Otto, a computer sound specialist who’s responsi-

ble for (jargon alert) the “spatialization” of sounds in one of

Reynolds’ works. Now, we could argue over whether there’s

too much conversation, and whether it ought to be sand-

wiched around the actual compositions, as it is on the DVD,

or placed in its separate section, for

GREG SANDOW

Experiment in a New Medium

Because I’ve been exposed to far too much featureless mod -

ernistic music, and might be jaded coming anywhere near

what looked to be new example of it, I thought I’d ask Barry

Rawlinson to listen to this, too. A non-professional ear’s

reaction would be worthwhile, I thought, especially since

music like this shouldn’t just appeal to specialists. Maybe

Barry would hear something in it that I didn’t. We heard and

watched the DVD together, both of us for the first time. We

d i d n ’t discuss our reactions. Here are his, refreshingly more

evocative than mine. GS

first played Watershed IV, in which the listener is placed at

the center of a circle of percussion instruments. I found

the “Raindrops” section a particularly engrossing piece as

the surrounding forest of percussion is chaotically stimulated

to reveal an imaginary landscape radiating outward into far

darkness. I soon discovered that a mild elevation of rear- c h a n-

nel levels centered this sonic landscape

in my room, at which point I ignored

the visual image in favor of the hemisphere of sound projected

far beyond the walls, stretching into the distance all around –

full immersion. The larger drums seem to ripple the floor as

percussive wave fronts pass, smaller

sources hang in space around you,

B A R R Y R A W L I N S O N

I

The performance you experience

will be defined by which sounds

you choose to listen to, and your

choice can vary from moment to

moment, implying that you can

never experience the same

performance twice…

attention only if you care to give it some. I admit I’m skepti-

cal about the need for so much commentary. Shouldn’t the

music speak for itself? But then maybe the techniques really

are so new that we all need orientation.

Still, I knew we were in trouble when Reynolds tells us,

with all the emotion of a librarian reading the phone book,

that “meaning” will “arise” in his music from his “syntacti-

cal” use of space. There it is, that old fallacy of music as a

language, with not just grammar, but syntax (a collection of

rules that can turn languages into well-developed logical

systems). Reynolds’ statement – I’m not going to be shy

here – is utter, total bilge. For one

thing, notice that we don’t talk

about painting as a language. We

don’t look for “syntactical” rela-

tions between green and orange

splotches in Jackson Pollock, or

between the breasts of dancing

women in Matisse.

In music, talk like this arises

only because (and forgive me for

getting technical) harmony –

chords and chord progressions –

can be talked about as if it fol-

lowed rules. From a music theorist’s point of view, what I’ve

just written is a laughably simplistic statement, but these

theorists, if they have even the lightest mist of compassion

in their blood, will forgive me for sparing you the full com-

plexities of their theories. What readers should understand,

though, is that Reynolds is way too impressed with the

mathematical explorations of music common among acade-

mic modernists, and has forgotten something very basic.

Yes, theorists can find all sorts of relationships among

chords, but any attempt to find something similar in other

areas of music – rhythm, loudness, and tone color, for

instance – has essentially been laughed away with the acad-

emic equivalent of a Bronx cheer.

So when Reynolds says he can create “syntactical” rela-

tionships from the spatial placement of sound, he’s whistling

in the dark. All he means is that he can create patterns of a

reasonably elementary sort – you know, like saying, “Hey,

w o w, Kenny dies in every South Park episode.” Anyone can

understand that this might give the show some continuity;

nobody claims it’s any kind of South Park syntax.

To me, the comments by Reynolds and his colleagues

are badly sunk in jargon. “Instantiation” (meaning the way a

sound begins), and “sense modalities” (meaning ways that

we perceive things) are two examples. When Schick, the

sober, well-meaning (and certainly skilled and sensitive)

percussionist referred to his “practicioning,” I was ready to

throw the DVD out the window. “In the course of my prac-

ticioning,” he said, “I’ve found…”

(or words to that effect). What he

means is not much more than

“When I play my percussion gigs,”

or, to stretch things as far as pos-

sible in his favor, maybe “When I

play a wide variety of percussion

gigs.” The benefit of all this jargon

is all too clear. It serves, con-

sciously or not, to inflate the

importance of Reynolds’ music.

And by distancing the conversa-

tion from everyday life (and, in

fact, from any kind of human emotion), it enables all con-

cerned to sidestep what seems quite plain to me, the unre-

markable mediocrity of Reynolds’ work.

There are four works on this DVD. The first, Eclipse, a

1980 piece for computer-generated sound, originally “spa-

tialized” on seven channels, is a collaboration with video

artist Ed Emshwiller, and it’s his contribution that makes

the time spent watching it worthwhile. Reynolds, ever the

conscientious modernist, evades direct comprehension of

his meaning by swirling shards of poetry around us in sur-

round-sound space. His processing of human voices leads

to wonderful moments, especially when the voices blend

together in an unexpected chord. But these are only

moments. To me, at least, the whole thing feels old-fash-

ioned, stiff, and, to use the word again, too conscientious.

Emshwiller, meanwhile, unfolds images that range from

The first music DVD with

full 5-channel capability:

The composer is a special-

ist in electronic music. A

pairing made in a

virtual heaven, or…?

gongs and cymbals shimmer from the depths beyond.

Within the piece E c l i p s e is a poem comprised of multiple voices that move in time and space to form shifting patterns of

c o m p r e h e n s i o n :

Female voice :Male voice:

On the night of the quiet moon Her luminary reflection

He would be awakened Her constancy under all her phases

By the fleeting train music Rising and setting by her appointed times

Of thunder dawns Waxing and waning

That brought on ruinous floods Her power to enamour

And left a desolation of tattered gowns To mortify

Of dead brides To invest with beauty

On the branches of the almond trees To render insane

Of the quiet moon The tranquillity

(repeats) Of her visage

(repeats) Her omens of tempest

At the former Dutch lunatic asylum! And of calm

Male voice :The admonition of her craters,

her arid Seas, her silence silence

silence

silence

Silence!

wandering, questing wiggles to a pulsing, stylized sun, all

choreographed to the music, but far more gripping. (Imag-

ine a dance with choreography more interesting than the

musical score.)

The largest, longest work we’re given is a 1996 compo-

sition with the name Watershed IV, and it’s a tour de force

for Schick’s percussion. He stands in the middle of a circle

of percussion gear, some familiar, some not, and at first I

hoped the surround sound would simply let us hear what he

hears, which would have been especially appropriate since

the conversation about the lengthy piece stressed its struc-

tural use of percussion sounds, drum sounds in one place,

maybe, succeeded by metallic effects.

What we get, however, is Peter Otto’s “spatialization,” or

in other words his processing of the sound to shift it around

in space, and sometimes in time as

well, to make the spatial effects

more noticeable. To put it different-

l y, he’s now applying his own kind of

c h o r e o g r a p h y, in this case a useful

m e t a p h o r, because he makes the

sounds move around in what might be some faint reminis-

cence of what dancers do. The only problem is that the piece

itself is unremarkable and in fact close to stultifying.

One obvious difficulty is its lack of any real rhythm,

astonishing in a work for percussion alone, and even more

so in a work this long. Why there’s no rhythm is suggested

by an excerpt from Reynolds’ written score, reprinted in the

DVD’s long, detailed (too detailed?) booklet. In what we’re

shown there, the percussionist is asked to play freely with-

in given spans of time, sometimes faster, sometimes slower,

but in rhythms he himself creates. In practice, these, to

judge from what we hear, tend to be remarkably uneventful,

essentially patterns of even notes. That creates a lulling

effect, not conducive to sustained listening. I could also say

that, while Otto is allegedly creating syntax by moving

sound in space, the most elementary kinds of rhythmic syn-

tax are completely missing. Odd. I couldn’t stay with Water -

shed at all. (Those with computer DVD-ROM drives can

check my theory; one added feature of this DVD is that they

can print out large sections of the Watershed score.)

The other items aren’t as striking, and to judge from the

blurbs on the back of the DVD package, which don’t men-

tion them, are essentially there to fill out the disc. First we

get an excerpt from The Red Act Arias, commissioned by

the BBC and premiered in 1997. The piece was originally for

live performers and 8-channel tape; we get just a little of the

tape segment, mixed down to five channels. I liked it,

maybe because it was short enough to be enjoyable just as

sound, without wearing out its welcome or making unjusti-

fied artistic claims.

And then came the best item on the DVD, a surprise not

mentioned on the box, in the booklet, or in the spoken com-

mentary. This is called An Odd Dream, and is a two-minute

excerpt from Watershed, with the visuals slowed down and

the sound processed to sound vague

and distant. The track is set to

repeat infinitely, and creates a uni-

verse of its own. I kept waiting for it

to end; I imagined changes that

weren’t really there, like the sound

getting more and more vague. That’s how the piece played

with my expectations. I myself became a participant, and I

think any listener would. Here, for once, we had something

that lived up to the high artistic claims made for Eclipse and

Watershed, something that really did change my percep-

tions.

This, in a word, was art. The rest of the DVD is acade-

mic timidity, though I’ll grant that the spatial journeys of

the sounds were interesting, and that 5.1 surround has

sonic potential that, outside of the obvious movie effects,

has only begun to be tapped. Reynolds, in the end, did me

one favor. He made me want to hear more music that uses

the full 360-degree rotation of real life – as long as we

understand that the spatial placement is just another kind

of color, another kind of narrative effect, similar to orches-

tration (playing music first on a violin, then on a clarinet),

or to the imaginative stereo mixes we already get on some

pop recordings. It’s not a new development in musical lan-

guage.

Shouldn’t the music

speak for itself?

I have transcribed this; it will give you a better idea of the

experience of listening to this piece. Both poems exist inde-

p e n d e n t l y, but taken together they convey a third.

Of course, the performance you experience will be defined

by which sounds you choose to listen to, and of course your

choice can vary from moment to moment, implying that you

subjectively can never experience the same performance twice

– a point that Roger Reynolds later pursues more blatantly in

“An Odd Dream,” which by repeating the same two-minute per-

formance creates a mantra that becomes a meditation and then

the ever-changing concentric reflections within a mandala.

M r. Reynolds is playing games, as he tells us in the accom-

panying interviews, and these are games played with our per-

ceptions of reality as distorted by time and space and the other

tricks in his sorceror’s cabinet.

As his percussionist Steven Schick tells us, at some point,

this stops being music and becomes ritual.

But we know the effect of endless repetition from cen-

turies of experience of ritual, so while the point is valid and

proven by this hidden bonus track, it is hardly novel. What is

novel is the use of new technology to “spatialize” the image,

and here Reynolds is in danger of becoming intoxicated by the

t e c h n o l o g y.

I think the composer has realized that one of the principal

advantages of this format lies in the improved control of the

room acoustic and he has used this to create a compellingly

robust sonic hologram.

This gives rise to a heightened realism that can be both

graphic and unnatural, and is carefully crafted by Reynolds. I

found the subtler, more “realistic” sounds beguiled my ear

more than those deliberately distorted by “spatialization,” and

by manipulations of the dynamic envelope. I should like to

hear this solidity of image achieved with no engineering, other

than the highest quality recording.

H o w e v e r, I think this a worthy experiment in a new medium

with some worthwhile results. And I did particularly savor the

utter tangibility of the imaging, even if each voice pops out of the

background like the illuminated red nose of a clown…

Alice Cooper: Welcome to My Nightmare.

Rhino 74469. $19.99 (DVD).

alvador Dali saw his

paintings come alive in it.

Groucho Marx said it was

great vaudeville and the last

chance that burlesque had of

surviving. Disney designed its

costumes. It combined ele-

ments of A Clockwork Orange,

What Ever Happened to Baby

J a n e, D r a c u l a, James Bond,

and Zorro. When it closed, the

likes of Elton John, Michael

Jackson, Kiss, and David

Bowie borrowed its concepts.

No, it is not Cats. It is 1975’s

Welcome to My Nightmare, rock’s very first full-scale theatri-

cal tour, complete with dancing, illusions, movies, melodra-

ma, and monsters.

Conceived by Alice Cooper and record producer Bob

Ezrin, Nightmarewas a huge gamble, costing over $600,000 to

design and hundreds of thousands more to compensate the

tour’s cast and crew. Such amounts may seem small in com-

parison to the mammoth pop productions we’ve witnessed

since then (U2’s four-story high TV screen on their 1997-98

Popmart Tour springs to mind), but conditions were consid-

erably different in 1975. Remind yourself that no rock artist

had ever staged a theatrical tour before. Cooper and Ezrin

paid for the entire venture with money from their own pock-

ets. Nightmare was so bizarre that it had two strikes against

it from the start. There was an enormous risk of failure; if the

tour bombed, Cooper’s career might have been over. Some of

the same uncertainties still exist now, but today Nightmare

would at least be underwritten by corporate sponsors and

Cooper’s record label. And don’t forget that the biggest gam-

ble of all is removed – theatrical rock tours have existed now

for 24 years, a parade that began with Cooper’s original vision.

The performance we see on DVD begins with a film

(another rock concert first) that depicts Cooper waking up

and rising from his bed in a cemetery. Dressed in pajamas, he

plays the role of a little boy who realizes he is interactively

immersed in an unshakable nightmare. From the moment the

concert begins, we experience the dream’s dementia and its

humor via Cooper’s lyrics and encounters, all of which are

scored to music, combining Cooper songs specifically written

for the staged presentation, and older, classic Cooper hits.

To fully appreciate how intense the

film is, consider that all its characters

and creatures – a legion of them – are played by an extremely

talented ensemble of only six people. With no pauses or inter-

missions, the cast is forced to change costumes quickly, cos-

tumes that range from a one-eyed Cyclops ensemble to silver

lamé space suits. The 18-year old woman who dances as a Day-

Glo skeleton, crawls as a Black Widow spider, and awakens as

the necrotic lover “Cold Ethyl,” to name but a few of her roles,

met Cooper during the Nightmare tryouts, dated him during

the tour, and is Cooper’s wife to this day.

Does Nightmare still work now? If we ask whether or not

it is fun to watch, the answer is resoundingly yes. Some of the

props and effects are outdated, but that adds to the charm.

What is most striking, though, is that two of Cooper’s stage

innovations seem as fresh today as they did in 1975: a movie

screen that erupts from the floor, and a giant spider web,

which also rises from the floor and spans the width of the set.

The way Cooper uses the movie screen has never been dupli-

cated. A performance of the song “Escape” begins, and we see

what is presumably a celluloid Cooper

in a cemetery on the screen. Four alien

Pop With a Twist

. . . . . . . . .

BOB GENDRON

creatures surround him, place him in a wooden

coffin, but suddenly, to our surprise, he bursts

out, runs through the screen, and lands on

stage, while the dancing spacemen remain in

the film. Soon, the aliens locate Cooper, and one

by one they smoothly jump from their places on film to the

stage. Before “Escape” concludes, Cooper and his pursuing

predators jump back into the film and onto the stage once

more, and the spacemen seize Cooper on stage. They carry

him off into the screen, where, on film, we see him taken over

the horizon, probably to his death. It is a scene that demands

perfect timing and careful choreography.

The performance on the Welcome to My Nightmare DVD

was filmed at London’s Wembley Arena in 1975. Sadly, even

though the original film was restored and its sound remixed,

the DVD still looks and sounds like a grainy B movie. It lacks

resolution, sharpness, and even cohesive audio. The sound

fades in and out, obnoxiously, as does the loudness of partic-

ular instruments. That Cooper was an alcoholic, and drunk at

Wembley (as he himself has said), doesn’t help either. He spo-

radically undershoots high notes and garbles lyrics, turning in

a below-average vocal performance.

If the quality of DVD is poor, why bother with it? Well, it’s

just too much fun to pass up. And despite its flaws, it comes

with an exclusive and highly informative 25-minute interview

in which Cooper explains his musical influences, supersti-

tions, and film heroes (Bette Davis, James Bond), as well as

the reasons why a male rock singer would invent a character

named Alice Cooper, and play that role onstage. There is

also an alternate version of Nightmare with a running

commentary by Cooper himself; as we watch, it seems

as though Cooper sits beside us while he describes the

film. He even mocks himself at times, saying that if he

could do Nightmare today, alcohol free, his vocals

would be better. Besides, Nightmare is a starting point

for those interested in the development of exotic fanta-

sy at rock concerts. And, I confess, the crude look of the

film gives Nightmare a certain cult-like feel. To put the

options on this DVD in context, I’d watch them in the

following order: The Cooper interview,Nightmare by

itself, and finally the version with Cooper’s commentary.

I can’t resist mentioning The Life and Crimes of

Alice Cooper [75680], Rhino’s new four-CD box set,

which makes a wonderful supplement to the Nightmare DVD.

The CDs arrange Cooper’s 32 years of music in chronological

order. If we listen in sequential fashion, we trace Cooper’s

rise, pinnacle, fall, and slight rebound. Discs one and two,

which span a period of 11 years (from 1966 to 1976), are

essential, and document Cooper’s most creative work.

From 1976 to 1985, Cooper battled drinking, spent time in

treatment, and recorded several forgettable concept albums

with which only he seemed to relate. Having lost most of his

original band to solo careers, Cooper chose to work with ses-

sion players rather than assemble a new group. In what may

have been an effort to lure the public, whose tastes lay with

disco at the time, Cooper embraced a disco-like sound, and

layers of excessive keyboards supersede his usual shrill, edge-

slicing guitars. He also drops his familiar diabolical snarl in

favor of a warm purr, a transformation that strips his music of

its adventurous edge. The team who assembled the box set

seem to recognize this; they included just 12 songs from the

six albums (all of them out of print in the US) that Cooper

released during these years,.

After alienating many of his fans, Cooper enjoyed a come-

back with 1989’s slick, hook-heavy Trash (which profited

from the last stages of the late Eighties hard-rock boom),

before sinking to an all-time low with 1991’s moronic Hey

Stoopid. Once fantastically original, Cooper’s lyrics and music

now became pathetic clichés. Several tracks on his later

albums, including songs from Trash and 1994’sThe Last

Temptation, remarkably reveal Cooper to be a proficient

mainstream pop writer, a facet that, thankfully for his hard-

core fans, didn’t surface in his earlier works. The main reason

you’d buy this box is for the first two CDs and the compre-

hensive booklet inside.

I’m compelled to close with a wonderful quote from an

affectionate essay, specifically written for the box set by none

other than John Lydon (a.k.a. Johnny Rotten of Sex Pistols

fame): “There’s originality and then there’s always ten cheap

versions, and it’s a shame that it’s those versions people pay

attention to. They don’t want to find out the history of how

things emerged, and that’s too bad, because without any his-

torical perspective, nothing can make any sense…I love orig-

inality, and there’s nothing like Alice Cooper…before or since,

really. Alice Cooper…whatta man.” Indeed.

Radiohead: Meeting People Is Easy. Grant Gee (director).

Capitol. $19.99 (DVD; VHS).

The title is a sarcastic jab at music

journalists, hangers-on, and over-

zealous fans. The film, subtitled

“A Movie About Radiohead,” is a

chronological documentary that

traces the group’s 1997-98 tour

from its beginning to its conclu-

sion. M e e t i n g does not glorify

Radiohead’s live performances (as

R.E.M.’s Roadshow does) or rock

star lifestyles (like Marilyn Man-

son’s Dead to the World). Nope,

this is exactly the opposite – if

there ever was any true-to-life film

made about the emptiness of

being a successful rock band, this is it.

Meeting is made from what seems to be a callous and

uninviting point of view. After watching it, we sense that

Radiohead was uncomfortable with its new fame after releas-

ing OK Computer, an album that not only won a Best Alter-

native Record Grammy in 1997, but also received critical

acclaim all over the world, landing on nearly every critic’s top

ten list. The film gives us a first-hand look at life through the

band’s eyes. We are placed in hotel rooms where our privacy

is invaded, swept onstage where no matter what we do, the

audience still wants more, and dumped in the band’s

car/bus/train/Lear jet (the film’s point seems to be that, it’s all

the same after a while), where everything is uncontrollably

moving around us. All these frantic experiences, and more,

constantly accompany Radiohead on their tour.

P e r s o n a l l y, I find it difficult to empathize with rock stars,

but M e e t i n g confronts my beliefs that famous rock celebri-

ties are luckier than everyday people. I lost count of the crit-

ics hounding the band, the profusion of printed record

reviews scrolling across the screen,

and the many images of endless pave-

ment, tunnels, and indistinct automo-

bile headlights vaguely glowing from

neon-lit gridlock. Much rock journal-

ism might as well be printed in a

tabloid, because of its sensational pur-

suit of rumor and hype. This film

exposes the soap-opera mentality of

writing like that, with segments in

which sound check footage drowns

out interviews (the music audibly suf-

focates the press to symbolize the

insignificance of the media) and with a

revealing scene where lead singer

Thom Yo r k e ’s reluctant, wiry body

contorts under the onslaught of merci-

less flashing cameras. By the end of

the film, you will ask yourself, “Why?,”

the same question Radiohead probably

ponders as well.

Several scenes demonstrate the

g r o u p ’s occasional lassitude (an

expected side-effect of touring), but

none more so than the bored look on

Yo r k e ’s face when he’s performing

“Creep” in Philadelphia. As the audi-

ence chants the song’s verse, Yo r k e

apathetically stands like a cardboard

cutout, holding his mic towards the

crowd. He finally turns it inward with

apparent disgust, as if he imagines it

to be a painkilling dagger, and telling-

ly slurs the tune’s climactic line,“What

the hell am I doing here?” We can

barely hear Yorke against the din of

the band; all we clearly make out are

cries from the audience, “We love you,

Thom!” Still, compared to the exas-

perating journalists Radiohead

encounters in every town (and who,

among other offenses, ceaselessly fire

redundant questions and arrive at

interviews unprepared), the fans and

their blind lust for the band seem easy

to cope with.

Meeting is Capitol Records’ first

venture into the DVD market, and

s t r a n g e l y, the Radiohead DVD’s cover

art is obtuse, to the point where you

almost can’t see the band’s name. The

DVD has no chapters, which may

annoy those accustomed to selecting

particular slices of the movie for

repeated viewing. But the constant

alternation of black and white with

color footage, and slightly grainy film

with more vibrant stock, combines

with multi-perspective angles (many

shot with a minicam) in creating a

stimulating A/V presentation that

DVD, with its digitally clear resolution

and seamless flow, best

allows. Sonically, the

DVD has 5.1-channel

and AC-3 surround

sound that serves us

well. Since Meeting does not focus on

concert footage, but is instead a col-

lage of events and experiences, it’s

appropriate that the sound wraps us

in a cocoon, and lathers us with ambi-

ent electronic pulses, squealing fans,

and the echoes of interviews. In

scenes where we’re surrounded by the

crowd, the band, and the acoustic ric-

ochet of a concert hall, and simultane-

ously see strobe lights dance off the

band members onstage, the DVD

delivers a menacing, and almost claus-

trophobic, feeling.

Whether or not you like or know

Radiohead’s music is beside the point.

Tour documentaries have existed for

years, but Meeting assails your senses

and then dares you to think. You’ll

come away feeling as if you’ve been

through the grind yourself, and it’s that

realism, however unnerving, that

makes the film worth owning. Consider

it an introduction to media studies:

Meeting demonstrates how the media

manipulates and harasses rock stars in

an effort to glamorize rock stardom for

all it’s ($) worth.

Fugazi: Instrument. Jem Cohen

(director). Dischord 80. $18.00

(VHS only).

Fugazi is difficult to describe – the

band escapes classification. Even when

I state that Fugazi is a band, I fail to

provide the whole picture, because

Fugazi is more than a band; it’s an ideal,

a political concept, a paradox. I’ve had

an easier time explaining The Grateful

Dead’s 30-minute “space jams,” full of

guitar feedback, to people who wanted

to understand what that group was

attempting (if wasn’t just pure obfusca-

tion, which sometimes it was). In

Fugazi we have a band that distributes

its own records, books its own shows,

has never taped a music video, works

exclusively with independent promot-

ers, hawks no merchandise (not even T-

shirts), and charges only $5 for a con-

cert ticket. Think about it. Today, $5

wouldn’t even buy you a Rolling Stones

bumper sticker. Does all this sound like

what some artists are doing on the

Internet? Yes, indeed, but Fugazi was

practicing its independent philosophy before

“Internet” was even part of our vocabulary.

By remaining true to its standards, Fugazi is,

without question, in a league by itself. Champi-

ons of free speech, free thought, the homeless,

minorities, AIDS research, and the elderly, the group rejects

violence, racism, homophobia, war, alcohol, drugs, and slam

dancing. Not only does it charge a mere $5 for its cathartic

live performances, many of which are benefit shows, it man-

aged to price its albums at only $8 until 1997, when for End

Hits it raised the price to $10.

How is all of this possible? It helps that Fugazi’s founder

and leader, Ian MacKaye, also co-founded Dischord Records,

the now legendary Washington, D.C., punk label. MacKaye is

one of the last active members of the original D.C. “strait-

edge” (read: no drugs or alcohol) hardcore scene of the early

Eighties. By setting up networks of fans, print rags, and home-

grown record labels across the country, the D.C. scene thrived

without the help of the record industry. Among the D.C. bands

that took things into their own hands were MacKaye’s Teen

Idles and Minor Threat, both of which expressed their rage

and frustration at the Reagan era through one-minute punk

blasts. In 1987, MacKaye formed Fugazi with cohorts Guy Pic-

ciotto on guitar and vocals, Joe Lally on bass, and Brendan

Canty on drums and bells; MacKaye named the band Fugazi

after coming across the word in a dictionary that defined it as

a messed-up situation in Vietnam. Fugazi has released six full-

length albums, and a few EPs, and now the group has made its

first ever home video, Instrument, which started out as a pri-

vate documentary and evolved, 12 years later, into a visual

history for the public.

The spirit of the film is pure Fugazi. Most of Instrument

was shot using Super 8 and 16mm film (the director’s prefer-

ence), with more recent footage captured on video.

Videophiles may turn their noses up at the hardly high-tech

formats, but expensive professional filming would be out of

place for a band like this; the director notes that the two-hour

Instrument cost less to make than most three-minute videos

on MTV. And just like recent engrossing, low-budget indepen-

dent films (Gods and Monsters, C o o k i e ’s Fortune) that

oppose the omnipresent cross-corporate digital monstrosities

(G o d z i l l a, A r m a g e d d o n ), Instrument is better than the

majority of the “here today, gone tomorrow” videos flooding

the market. Instrument is about a band, its fans, music, and

mission; there’s no place for premeditated hype and sensa-

tionalism.

With scenes shown in non-chronological order,Instru -

ment gives us a seething mix of images. MacKaye erupts into

the microphone like a shark expanding its jaws before it

devours its prey; Picciotto plows his right hand into the gui-

tar’s scuffed body as if he were punching a hole through a

plaster wall; Lally plugs his bass as he staunchly stands like a

marine waiting for his superior officer to inspect him; and

Canty whacks the old-fashioned school bell that shares space

with the cymbals on his drum set, as if he were speaking to

the band in Morse code. A haze of distorted melody fills the

stage, drum beats resonate, and the resulting sound is perfect

– so natural that it seems to be unamplified. Meanwhile, as we

watch the video, we are up on stage with the band, close

enough to see that MacKaye’s worn black canvas loafers are

indeed without a brand name.

With interviews, recording sessions, and performance

footage, Instrument proves that like The Grateful Dead,

Fugazi functions as a “group mind,” able to improvise and to

stretch songs into long, cohesive jams without a predeter-

mined scheme. Other artists, such as Elvis, performed with-

out a set list, but they called out the names of songs they were

about to sing, to cue their bands. Nobody in Fugazi does this.

Rather, in order to segue from one song to another, Fugazi

relies on instrumental cues, hand signals, tempo shifts,

glances, and nonverbal follow-the-leader communication (the

leader being whoever first initiates the beginning of the next

song). To triumphantly pull this jazz-like feat

off, the band relinquishes any selfishness in the

name of a one-for-all mentality. Fugazi has stat-

ed that music will become powerless if it isn’t

unsettling, and a force for political change. The

record industry and all serious new artists of

today should take heed – Fugazi is in it for life

and wants long-term change. Its work isn’t fin-

ished just because it plays one benefit show; it

seems to recognize that social change doesn’t

happen so simply. This band may never change

the world, but what matters is that it will never

give up.

Of course, in order for a group to thrive in

such an alternative universe, it needs a two-way

relationship with its fans, one that is based part-

ly on trust, but more on respect. Fugazi has a

cardinal rule of thumb when it plays live: It

wants an audience of whole human beings, not

simple idlers or consumers. That’s why it plays

with such unnerving energy. While it’s true that

such an audience does not always exist,

F u g a z i ’s anti-marketing stance, low prices,

word-of-mouth promotion, and broad-minded

concert rules all help eliminate the coattail rid-

ers and drunks commonly found at the average

rock show. Furthermore, Fugazi’s principled way of being a

rock band doesn’t tend to appeal to the kind of people (i.e.

frat boys, wanna-be’s, rednecks) who attend rock concerts in

order to get high or smashed or both.

One thing Instrument does not provide is a sense of

Fugazi’s musical evolution. And so I urge you to listen to the

band, sans video accompaniment. The quartet’s first two

r e c o r d s , 13 Songs and R e p e a t e r, have brisk, abrasive

melodies and bracing stop-start rhythms; they are a perfect

hybrid of punk and straight-ahead rock. Straightforward, dri-

ven by an intense urgency readily identifiable in MacKaye’s

voice and Canty’s thwacking percussion, these records

besiege a listener, challenging our concept of what rock

should communicate. These are two of the most solid inde-

pendent albums ever released.

With 1991’sIn on the Kill -

taker, Fugazi branches out. Gal-

vanized distortion merges with

extended guitar hooks, and ten-

sion and suspense swell during

moments of complete silence.

Despite its occasional surrender

to generic racket, Killtaker man-

ages to add complex rhythms to

the combustion and cavalry-

charge energy of Fugazi’s earlier

work. 1995’s Red Medicine fuses

delicate piano and brass motifs

that crudely coexist with uptem-

po punk. Certain songs are sur-

gically precise while others,

with sounds of distracting laugh-

ter and talking, are coarse and

broken. Unfortunately, Fugazi

attempts too many rhythmic

variations and seems unfocused. The group’s usual thick and

jagged approach gives way to a soft, unrehearsed perfor-

mance, and for the first time, the music doesn’t flow or

breathe.

1997’s End Hits is less fragmented, but even though it

sounds milder, Fugazi’s social criticism still gives the music

bite, revealing the band to be more comfortable with its new

approach. 1999’s Instrument is a soundtrack to the film bear-

ing the same title, and a set of acute songs and instrumental

demos from 1989 to 1997. On all these records you will hear

the kind of striking depth and dogged precision you would

normally associate with the most scrupulous classical ensem-

bles. Although Red and End aren’t as good as they might be,

they only seem below average in comparison to Fugazi’s best

work, because the band sets such extremely high standards.

Which raises a question: If Fugazi’s later albums aren’t as

good as its first three, is that because the group failed to live

up to its principles, or weakened them? I firmly believe that

the band’s comparative decline was a by-product of evolving,

and experimenting with new sounds. Every great artist makes

at least one mediocre record. Most bands would consider End

a masterpiece, while for Fugazi, the album is a sign that the

group is back on track, even if the music is still a tad below

the almost unachievable standards Fugazi set earlier.

I’ll end by describing some unforgettable scenes from

Instrument. Cohen films people in line for tickets. Some are

young, some old, some white, some black, some brown –

most are dressed down, some gussied up in

business suits. And when you look at their

scarred faces, dim eyes, spiked hair, and pierced

lips, you may be quick to label them as punks,

delinquents, or losers, because they fit these

stereotypes. But really, this audience embodies diversity. It’s a

slice of ragged Americana, an assortment of folk not imagin-

able at most rock (or classical or jazz) concerts, which auto-

matically exclude poorer, younger fans because ticket prices

are so absurdly high.

At one performance, we see the front row of an audi-

ence being crushed into a guardrail by the push of hundreds

of swarming bodies. Seeing the crowd veering out of con-

trol, Fugazi abruptly stops playing. MacKaye announces

that someone’s head has split open and that the vicious

elbowing needs to cease. Vi d e o

scans of the crowd reveal six

a n g r y, drunk, insensitive

teenagers near the front row.

After issuing his warning,

MacKaye leads the band back

into the music. Moments later,

the band’s misgiving comes

true. Something flies onto the

stage and hits MacKaye, who

immediately signals the band to

halt. MacKaye, aided by two

enormous security assistants,

struggles to pull a young guy

out of the swaying audience.

Finally successful, MacKaye

grabs the teen, holds him in a

headlock, drags him to the

microphone, and demands a

public apology; the kid, appar-

e n t l y, had spit at him. MacKaye asks the fan to make

amends twice more, but the guy cannot manage to utter

anything discernible. MacKaye then picks the offender up,

informs the audience the youth is getting removed, and car-

ries him to security personnel backstage. The crowd erupts

in applause. Wow – of the hundreds of rock concerts I’ve

attended, never have I seen an artist give any offender even

one chance, let alone three, to redeem himself and remain

in the audience. Fugazi’s patience must be unwavering. As

the band walks off stage after playing its encore, the same

kids spit at them again.

When I was jolted by the seemingly frightening faces in

shots of the people in line to buy tickets, I became troubled,

even though I have been at concerts with people of the

same sort. Wanting to know why, I searched my soul and

thought of Fugazi’s fans as an antidote to inner fears and

prejudiced mindsets. We cannot allow our minds to vege-

tate so much that we openly embrace narrow-minded views.

If the only thing I n s t r u m e n t does is rattle our preconcep-

tions about youth or punk, I believe it’s done enough, and

perhaps we’ll be happier and more tolerant because of it.

This film and all Fugazi albums can be ordered, postage-

paid, directly from Dischord Records, 3819 Beecher Street

N W, Washington, D.C. 20007. Phone: 703-351-7491. We b s i t e :

w w w.dischord.com. Most titles are also available at rep-

utable record stores and on the Internet, but at slightly high-

er prices.

With scenes shown in non-

chronological order, Instru -

ment gives us a seething mix

of images. MacKaye erupts

into the microphone like a

shark expanding its jaws

before it devours its prey;

Picciotto plows his right hand

into the guitar’s scuffed body

as if he were punching a hole

through a plaster wall.

rom the moment of its rebirth two issues ago, The Per -

fect Vision has addressed itself squarely to the difficult

concept of “multimedia.” Essays from Greg Sandow

and HP in Issue 24 sought to define what multimedia is and is

not, and to imagine its possibilities. Sandow, in a piece that

touched on unfolding technical developments, offered the

computer game Myst as a “domesticated case of true multi-

media.” A bona fide specimen, perhaps, but not one that aims

very high. HP noted the limitations of currently available soft-

ware that present the marriage of music and images. He con-

sidered DVDs of an opera “gala,” a classical concert video, a

Sondheim musical, a pop music video – and found them all to

have shortcomings. He also described two potential multime-

dia experiences he had in the concert hall, both involving

music by minimalist Philip Glass: the opera Einstein on the

Beach and Glass’ score for the film

Koyaanisqatsi. These were, I’m sure,

intensely sensuous experiences. Still, for many listeners, the

repetitive nature of much of Glass’ cleverly constructed music

doesn’t demand attention on a moment-to-moment basis and

can induce a nearly physiologic contemplative state that, I

think, allows a listener to focus more keenly on whatever else

is before him, on the stage or screen. If this seems hard on

Glass, I don’t mean to be. It would just help if our early mod-

els for multimedia transcended issues of musical and narra-

tive style.

A useful prototype could be what visual artists call “mixed

media” – an oil painting with collage elements like fabric,

paper, or “found objects” incorporated into the canvas, for

example. The different materials have their own textures,

requirements for manipulation, and associations with both

artistic tradition and the real world. The challenge is to main-

tain their individual characteristics

and, at the same time, integrate them.

A Close Encounter

Voices of Light/The Passion of Joan of Arc

. . . . . . . . .

A N D R E W Q U I N T

Is this achievable with multimedia involving

music? Can the whole be greater than the sum

of its parts?

On a Monday evening in May, I attended a

production that was certainly a close approach,

one that suggests interesting prospects for multimedia’s

future. The occasion was a performance of Richard Einhorn’s

Voices of Light, along with a screening of the silent film mas-

terpiece The Passion of Joan of Arc at Avery Fisher Hall in

Lincoln Center. Details concerning the musical work and an

interview with the composer can be found in an article I wrote

for The Absolute Sound (Issue 115), but the background can

be laid out briefly. Einhorn is a New York-based musician

who, a decade ago, discovered the 1928 film, directed for a

French studio by Carl Dreyer. Cinema authorities routinely

cite The Passion of Joan of Arc as one of the most perfectly

realized and influential movies ever made. The unusual cam-

era angles, frame-filling close-ups, naturalistic acting, and the

manner in which the film is edited will impress even a casual

viewer as remarkably “modern.” The work derives much of its

power from Dreyer’s casting of Maria Falconetti, a stage actor

recruited from the Comédie Française, in the title role. So

truthful is her portrayal of Joan’s ordeal that the performance

can become almost difficult to watch. The actress reportedly

suffered a psychological collapse during the shooting.

Richard Einhorn used Dreyer’s film as the inspiration for

an oratorio on the subject of Joan of Arc’s final days – her

imprisonment, trial, and fiery death. The piece is written in an

accessible, but distinctive, musical language, largely tonal,

with dissonances applied sparingly. There are elements of

minimalism, but these are subtle components of the musical

texture, and the work has a fairly conventional dramatic

shape with a strong sense of forward impetus. Einhorn cap-

tures well the relentlessly claustrophobic quality of the movie

(all but the very end is filmed indoors), Joan’s vulnerability

and spiritual core, and the viciousness of her inquisitors.

Voices of Light has had an excellent Sony recording [SK

62006]. That CD features, as the voice of Joan, the four

women of Anonymous 4, a quartet that specializes in Medieval

polyphony and has achieved, by classical music standards,

something like star status. The work has also been successful

in concert, with dozens of public renderings since its pre-

miere in 1994. The composer invited HP, my wife, and me to a

special presentation of Voices of Light/The Passion of Joan of

Arc celebrating the 15th season of Marin Alsop’s Concordia

Orchestra. Alsop, who is also music director of the Colorado

Symphony and who has recently been named principal guest

conductor for several European orchestras, is known as a

tireless advocate for American music. She knows the Einhorn

piece well, and the participation of Anonymous 4 promised a

definitive performance. The auditorium was full and the

atmosphere expectant as the lights dimmed.

Technically and musically, the evening went splendidly.

The Dreyer film was projected on a large screen suspended

over the musicians, and the quality of the image was excel-

lent. Orchestral and choral execution were unassailable. But

although I knew Einhorn’s work very well from the CD and I’d

watched the movie on video several times, I was not prepared

for the emotional impact of the event. Somehow, I’d expected

the film and oratorio to be presented sequentially. Richard

Einhorn has emphasized that Voices of Light is not a film

score for The Passion of Joan of Arc, and he feels that any

attempt to compose one would be folly. As he told me a few

weeks after the Avery Fisher performance, “There have been

some 30 scores written for the film. This figure comes from an

article I’ve read; I’ve been able to document about 17. All of

them, according to my informants, are awful. The reason is

obvious. The movie is about as complete as it can be. The

rhythms of the film contradict any typical film score approach

– trying to Mickey Mouse the action, underscore the emotion,

etc.” But to present the two works

back to back would make for a very

long evening and would also be, the

composer noted, “a bit didactic,

like having everyone gather to read

Nietzsche after a performance of

[Richard Strauss’] Also sprach

Z a r a t h u s t r a.” So, the hall went

dark and, with Anonymous 4

singing the Old Testament passage

that opens Voices of Light, the film

rolled.

The movie and the music fin-

ished virtually simultaneously, and

along the way were many striking

correspondences. For example, a

section in the oratorio called “The

Jailers” began just as Joan, on

screen, is being abused by leering

guards. The texts at this point are

drawn from Thirteenth Century

misogynist verse (“When it comes

to women, men, hold your tongue! On the outside she’s reli-

gious, on the inside keen and venomous...”). This, and many

other instances, were not merely happy coincidences, nor

was the music meant to “accompany” the action. Rather, they

quite naturally fell out of Einhorn’s effort to follow the struc -

ture of Dreyer’s film in devising his own work. The result is

that The Passion of Joan of Arc and Voices of Light illuminate

each other. Seen together, they seemed inseparable; yet I

knew from experience that each was entirely self-contained.

This is new territory, and I found that some of my own

personal rules didn’t necessarily hold anymore. Walking into

Avery Fisher, I was disconcerted to see a large mixing console

halfway back in the hall. Every singer was miked, along with

the chorus and orchestra. But once the concert began, it was

apparent that this decision did not deserve the scorn earned

by much of the “sound reinforcement” heard in Broadway

musicals these days. True, I missed the nuanced delicacy of

Anonymous 4’s singing, as I’ve heard it in a Philadelphia

church. But the four vocalists, singing softly for most of

Joan’s music, would never have been heard in the large audi-

torium. In addition, Einhorn likes the aural sensation that

electronic enhancement engenders. “The sound of amplified

instruments is different from non-amplified. Not worse: sim-

ply different. If, say, a violin has a pickup attached and is

amplified so that it is far larger than life, it has an amazing

sound for me. It’s the aural analogy to the ‘magic realism’ of

South American writers like Gabriel Garcia Marquez.”

Although the composer doesn’t insist upon amplification for

all performances of Voices of Light, it was certainly his origi-

nal intention. “It gave the music a hallucinatory quality that I

thought was entirely appropriate for a represen-

tation of Joan of Arc. It was also a sounding ana-

log to the visual displacements that are a hall-

mark of the visual style of Dreyer’s film.” So, the

nature of one medium informed the technical

realization of another.1

Was anything lost at the performance that night? One pos-

sible casualty, it occurred to me, were the words Einhorn had

chosen to set to music in Voices of Light. The texts are a rich

composite drawn from biblical sources, medieval female mys-

tics, and Joan of Arc’s own letters.

They are sung in the original lan-

guages: Latin, Italian, and Old and

Middle French. Needless to say,

translations are necessary and they

were provided in the program at the

concert, as they are with the Sony

recording. But in the darkened hall,

it wasn’t possible to follow along.

Would Einhorn consider projection

of the texts in some fashion – as

supertitles, or on something like the

LED screens that are installed on

the backs of seats at the Metropoli-

tan Opera House? “We have not

tried this yet and I would like to,”

said the composer. “It would change

the piece dramatically, but not nec-

essarily for the worse. By projecting

my texts, the balance of image,

music, and word would be shifted

to the word and to the tension

between the linear narrative of Joan’s trial in the film and the

non-linear organization of the music texts. I would love to find

out what that feels like!”

In fact, Einhorn was far less worried than I was about the

audience missing something. “The notion that the experience

of a piece of music begins and ends when the music begins

and ends is an odd one to me. If we are moved, we carry that

emotional experience with us for quite a while. In the case of

Voices of Light, I quite consciously wanted to provide an audi-

ence with more information than they could apprehend at one

performance. Why? Because that’s what makes art fun and

different from simply entertainment. You come back to it, to

experience something that you haven’t grasped before.”

The feeling, then, that there was more going on in the hall

that night than I could take in – this despite familiarity before-

hand with the component parts – may have been the best indi-

cation that I was in the presence of something different,

something we might truly call “multimedia.” I have a growing

understanding that it can be exceptionally demanding, can

mean abandoning some old ideas about how we should per-

ceive art, and that it can be very, very wonderful.

Andrew Quint has written on musical subjects and

reviewed classical recordings for The Absolute Sound. He

lives in Philadelphia.

1 Einhorn reports that reverb was added to the amplified signal. He’s not

certain if there was any compression or equalization, but said he wouldn’t

be surprised if there were; it’s a common practice with amplified music.

V I D E O

olor is critical to the performance of any home the-

ater. Most of us instantly recognize the problem with

our neighbor’s TV, orange faces that look painted for

Halloween or dull washed-out colors in a parade. We may

not have problems like that in our equipment, but even sub-

tle errors in color accuracy will produce unnatural flesh-

tones or destroy the carefully painted vision of a master cin-

ematographer. So I want to discuss some basics of color

that apply to video – the factors that are required for a dis-

play to achieve accurate color and how we measure and

present color accuracy to you.

1. The Physics of Color

The subject of color science could easily fill this book. But

all we need to know is that color is a characteristic of light

defined by its spectral content, i.e., the distribution of ener-

gy at different wavelengths. The visible wavelengths of light

are roughly from about 380 nm (nanometers) to 780 nm. An

example of one color of light is shown in Figure 1.

2. Human Color Perception

In the human eye, light enters through the pupil and forms

an image on the retina, which has photoreceptors that con-

vert light into signals that are processed by the eye’s neural

circuits, which then transmit information to the brain.

Vision in normal lighting depends on photoreceptors called

cones. (Our vision at night depends on photoreceptors

called rods that have no color-discrimination capability, so

we are all colorblind in dim light.)

There are three types of cones with different spectral

responses that are sensitive to long, medium, and short

wavelengths of light. They roughly match the spectral dis-

tributions of the colors red, green, and blue. Their respons-

es are shown in Figure 2. These response plots have been

VIDEO INSIGHTS

. . . . . . . . .

An Introduction to Digital Video

Part 2: Video Color Concepts

GREG ROGERS

Two conditions are necessary

to achieve perfect display

color accuracy. The grayscale

must maintain a perfect D65

color temperature across the

entire brightness range of

the display, and the CRT

phosphors must match the

SMPTE C standards…For this

reason, the blue-filter

method [of calibration] must

be considered an approxima-

tion for consumer monitors.

Fig. 1

normalized in the diagram. We are actu-

ally about 20 percent more sensitive to

the green curve than the red, and about 40 times less sensi-

tive to the blue curve.

As the wavelength of light varies, the probability that a

cone will absorb that light depends on its spectral response,

but all light absorbed by the same cone contributes equally

to its response regardless of wavelength. The relative

amounts of light collected by the three cone types, our tris-

timulus response, determines how we perceive a particular

color. This makes human color perception trichromatic

(three-color). The sum of the three responses determines

our perception of brightness, while the ratio between the

three responses determines our perception of hue and sat-

uration, the chromatic properties of light.

Interestingly, different spectral distributions can be per-

ceived as the same color if they provide the same tristimu-

lus response. Also notice that there are areas at the

extremes of the visible range where only a single type of

cone has any response. That means colors in those areas

will be perceived the same, since there is a response from

only one type of cone.

Colorblindness

About 0.003 percent of people can’t see color at all. About 8

percent of males and 0.5 percent of females are color blind,

which means they don’t see color the way most of us do.

About 2.5 percent of males see reds and greens as the same

color. The other 5.5 percent of colorblind males match col-

ors differently than the rest of us and differentiate small

color differences less well. This hasn’t much to do with

video, but it was too interesting to leave out.

3. Color Concepts for Video

Additive Color

All video display systems create colors by adding together

three primary colors of light, which is equivalent to adding

together their spectral distributions. Red, green, and blue

are used by video systems as primary colors because they

can create a wide gamut of visible colors.

To be a primary color, it is only necessary

that no primary can be created by a combination of other

primaries. It is also important to our video system that

adding the three primaries in some portions will create a

reference white color.

In video projectors, the three light sources are mixed by

overlaying them on the projection screen. In direct-view

monitors, phosphor dots or stripes of the primary colors

are arranged so closely together that the eye perceives the

light coming from a single location. The eye’s visual acuity

(ability to see detail) to color is related to the separation of

the cones on the retina.

Luminance

Luminance is a measure of our sensation of brightness. It

depends on the spectral sensitivity of human vision. Colors

closer to the center of the visible wavelength range (yellow-

green at 550 nm) are perceived as brighter, and therefore

have higher luminance than other colors with the same

energy.

Hue and Saturation

Hue is what we commonly refer to as red, green, yellow,

greenish-yellow, and so forth. It is related to the dominant

wavelength of a color.

Saturation is the purity of the color, what might be

described as its vividness or depth of color. The more pale

the color, as a pastel, the less saturated it is. A color can be

desaturated by adding white. If a color is formed by adding

portions of three primaries, some portion of white that con-

sumes one primary can also be formed. That portion of

white can be thought of as desaturating the color formed by

the remaining portions of the other two primaries.

The Color of White

It may seem that the color of white is unique, a black and

white matter. But of course there are many colors of white.

Compare the pages of this book, writing paper, or anything

else you normally define as white. They all have a distinc-

tive hue. In video systems, the color of a reference white is

crucial to generating all other colors. So it is critical to have

a precise method to specify the color of white required. The

physicist Max Planck determined that carbon heated to

extreme temperatures emitted light with broad spectral dis-

tributions (i.e., shades of white) determined by their tem-

perature. In physics these are called blackbody radiators.

Standard illuminants are defined by the temperature of a

blackbody radiator that most closely matches their color.

This is called the correlated color temperature, which is

measured in absolute degrees Kelvin (K). So the color of

white can be specified by a temperature. All of our current

video systems use a standard illuminant called D65, at a

correlated color temperature of 6500 K.

4. The CIE Color System

It is far too complex in practical applications like video to

specify colors by their spectral distributions. The CIE

(Commission Internationale de L’éclairage - International

V I D E O

Fig. 2

Commission on Lighting) was created in

1927, and in 1931 established a colorime-

try system to describe colors using a simple system of

numerical coordinates. I won’t delve into the details behind

that system other than to say it is based on the tristimulus

response principles discussed earlier and experiments that

were done with human observers. A result of their work

was the creation of a two-dimensional (x,y) chart called the

CIE Chromaticity Diagram. (Figure 3)

The CIE Chromaticity Diagram

The horseshoe-shaped curve in the diagram is called the

Spectral Locus, and consists of all colors with only a single

wavelength. The lowest wavelength color, ultraviolet at 380

nm, is located at the bottom left of the horseshoe, and the

wavelengths increase moving around the Spectral Locus to

infra-red, at 780 nm, on the far right. The Line of Purples

connecting the ends of the locus represents colors that can-

not be created with any single wavelength.

The line shown in the middle is the called the Plankton

Locus, or blackbody radiation curve. The color temperature

is infinite at the left end and drops to several thousand

degrees as the Plankton Locus converges with Spectral

Locus in the reds. The important D65 white reference, at a

correlated color temperature of 6500K, is at (0.3127, 0.329)

expressed as CIE (x,y) coordinates. It is a “correlated” color

temperature because it lies just off the Plankton Locus.

Brightness is not shown on the diagram, only saturation

and hue. The hue of totally pure colors is determined by

their position on the Spectral Locus, or Line of Purples. The

saturation is determined by how far the color lies from the

reference white point near the center of the diagram. The

pastel colors lie close to the center and the pure, fully satu-

rated colors lie on the horseshoe.

5. Display Color Accuracy

RGB Primaries – The Color Triangle

One of the properties of the CIE diagram is that any color

created by mixing two other colors will

lie on a straight line connecting them.

The distance along the line where the new color appears is

inversely related to the proportions of the two colors. Since

all single-wavelength visible colors lie on the Spectral

Locus, all visible colors must be inside the locus. Further-

more, it follows that all colors made from a combination of

three primary colors must lie inside a triangle formed by the

three colors. Colors outside the triangle cannot be repro-

duced because that would require negative amounts of light

from one or two primaries.

The red, green, and blue primaries of video systems are

chosen to enclose a reasonably large triangle that deter-

mines the entire gamut of colors that can be displayed. If

two displays have slightly different sets of red, green, and

blue primaries, the overlapping color triangles demonstrate

that the two displays cannot produce exactly the same

gamut of colors. (Figure 4)

Equally important, since the primaries are at different

locations, mixing the primaries with the same proportions

of light will generate different colors. Hence we see that to

reproduce the colors specified by video signals, it is critical

that the primaries be matched to the video system stan-

dards.

The NTSC primaries were specified in 1953 based on

phosphors available at that time. But over the years, TV dis-

play manufacturers continually used newer phosphors that

provided higher light output than the original NTSC phos-

phors. This created serious color errors. Finally, in 1971 a

new set of primary phosphors, called the SMPTE “C” phos-

phors were selected. (The SMPTE C phosphor specification

has been revised since then with very slight changes.)

These are the phosphors used in all professional broadcast

monitors. Unfortunately, consumer CRTs are still using

slightly different phosphors, and different phosphors from

one product to another. (The SMPTE C phosphor values are

given in Table 1.)

The obvious result of not using the standard phosphors

V I D E O

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

is that colors created by following the video signal’s “recipe”

for mixing light from the red, green, and blue primaries will

result in wrong colors. Hence, the colors from consumer

monitors must be wrong! How wrong is a function of their

deviation from the standard, and I’ll look at how to measure

it below. But that isn’t the only error that plagues color accu-

racy for consumer monitors and projectors. Another error is

usually much larger when consumer TVs are purchased.

White Reference Color Temperature

It is necessary, but not sufficient, that the chromaticity

coordinates of the primaries match the SMPTE C standard

to accurately reproduce color. It is also necessary that the

relative brightness of light from the three primaries be cali-

brated to produce the standard D65 white reference color,

otherwise the contribution of light from each primary will

not be correct when creating any other colors. White is

defined to be the color represented by equal red, green, and

blue values of an RGB signal. The color produced by any

other combination of signal values depends on the initial

calibration of the relative primary light outputs for the

white signal values. But what brightness of white should be

used when calibrating the color temperature?

Grayscale Color Temperature

The answer is that all brightness levels of white should pro-

duce the same standard D65 color temperature. That means

the relative light outputs from the three primaries must

track together as the total brightness changes. As a result,

any color generated by another mix of the primaries will

also stay at the same CIE (x,y) location regardless of the

brightness of the color. Grayscale is the term used to

describe the color temperature of the reference white over

the range from dark gray to peak white. The closer the

grayscale color temperature can be held to D65, the more

accurate the colors will be at all brightness levels within the

picture. For instance, if the color temperature increases to

the more blue-white of 7500K in the middle of the brightness

range, then colors will be seen with a bluer hue than desired

when they appear at that brightness level.

So we have seen that two conditions are necessary to

achieve perfect display color accuracy. The grayscale must

maintain a perfect D65 color temperature across the entire

brightness range of the display, and the CRT phosphors

must match the SMPTE C standards. It’s just that simple.

U n f o r t u n a t e l y, we can’t seem to get any consumer products

that exactly match the SMPTE phosphor chromaticity stan-

dards, and no one has ever built a display that can be cali-

brated for perfect grayscale tracking. It is interesting to note

that direct-view CRT monitors can usually be calibrated for

significantly better grayscale tracking than CRT projectors,

but CRT projectors can have primary colors that more close-

ly match the standard because each primary color is gener-

ated by a separate CRT. This allows more specialization of

phosphor selection and possible color filtering of the light

output from the CRTs.

Now that we know that no consumer display will be per-

fect, let’s discuss what sort of technique we can use to mea-

sure color accuracy.

6. Color Measurement

Color Bars

It is helpful to have some standard video test signals that

can be used to calibrate a display, or to measure the accu-

racy of the display’s color performance. The easiest signals

to generate are the common color bars that almost every-

one has seen at one point or another. (Figure 5)

Color bar signals are generated by creating all possible

combinations of the three primary colors with each of the

RGB signals set to the same value. The resulting colors are

red, green, and blue, their complementary colors, cyan

(blue + green), yellow (green + red) and magenta (red +

blue), and white, which is always defined as equal RGB sig-

nal levels. The most common color bars are those that use

75 percent of the maximum signal value. We rather obvi-

ously refer to those as 75 percent bars, but 100 percent bars

V I D EO

Table 1 SMPTE C Color Bars

White Yellow Cyan Green Magenta Red Blue

x 0.3127 0.421 0.231 0.310 0.314 0.630 0.155

y 0.3290 0.507 0.326 0.595 0.161 0.340 0.070

Fig. 5

are used in some circumstances.

Remember that although the signal lev-

els are the same, the actual brightness of light from each

primary is not the same, that is determined by calibrating

the reference white color to D65.

Changing the signal levels of all primary colors

together does not change the CIE (x,y) chromaticity of a

c o l o r. Color bars with 50 percent signal amplitudes would

have the same (x,y) coordinates as color bars with 75 per-

cent signal amplitudes. The difference is that the bright-

ness of the color bars will change with amplitude, but

brightness information is not included in the CIE Chro-

maticity Diagram.

Notice that a complementary color lies on the exten-

sion of a line connecting its missing primary and the refer-

ence white point. This follows from the fact that adding

equal signal levels of a primary and its complementary

color must create the reference white, and the rule that any

color lies on a line between the two colors creating it. That

latter rule also means that the complementary color lies on

the line connecting its two primary components. Hence the

intersection of these two lines geometrically locates the

(x,y) position of the complimentary colors. (See Figure 6)

The (x,y) coordinates can also be calculated using a

mathematical analysis based on the coordinates of the

phosphors and white point. The (x,y) coordinates for each

color in the color bars based on the SMPTE C phosphors

and the D65 white point is shown in Table 1.

We can measure the (x,y) coordinates for each color in

the test pattern directly from a display

using a sophisticated electro-optical

instrument known as a color analyzer (or a spectro-

radiometer) and plot the results along with the SMPTE C

standard colors to display the errors.

At this point you might realize that the color accuracy

for a display being driven by RGB signals is pretty cut and

dry. Once the primary colors are determined and the white

point set, the color accuracy

is determined. The variable

for any display is its variation

in grayscale color tempera-

ture, which means the white

p o i n t ’s (x,y) coordinates

change with brightness level.

If the white point moves

around, we can see from the

simple geometric analysis

that the complementary col-

ors will move on the edges of

the display’s RGB triangle. Of

course, the (x,y) point for

other color signals will also

move around proportionally

inside the color triangle cre-

ating errors.

Some of you may wonder

if it isn’t possible to convert

the RGB video signals from

the SMPTE standard to

match a non-standard set of

display primaries, thereby

avoiding color errors. The

answer is yes, within the lim-

its of the display’s color

gamut, but it is more complex

than one might expect

because the RGB signals are

non-linear. Why they are non-

V I D EO

Fig. 6

linear will be dis-

cussed at another

time, but with the availability of digi-

tal signal processing, such transfor-

mations are practical, but expensive.

Some approximate corrections can

be made more simply on consumer

displays.

7. Color and Hue

Adjustments

I have shown that color accuracy is a

function of grayscale and phosphor

accuracy when a monitor is driven by

RGB signals. However, no video

sources produce RGB signals direct-

ly. Instead we have composite, S-

Video, or YPbPr component video

from our sources. These signal for-

mats must always be converted to

RGB signals to drive the display

device, either in a TV monitor or per-

haps externally in a line doubler, or

other upconverter, to drive a projec-

tor. This introduces another source

of color errors. Hue and Color con-

trols are usually provided to calibrate

the conversion from the source sig-

nal format to the RGB signals.

Color bars are used to adjust

Color and Hue because we know

that the three RGB signal values

should be the same everywhere

they are used in the color-bar pat-

tern. Therefore, with proper cali-

bration, the same brightness of blue

light should come from each color

that contains blue (blue, white,

cyan, and magenta). The same is

true for red or green. Remember

that the brightness of red, blue, or

green is different and that was set

by adjusting the white color tem-

perature. But the brightness of any

one primary should be the same

everywhere it is used in the pattern,

including white.

Using this principle, calibration

DVDs like Video Essentials and the

AVIA Guide to Home Theater p r o-

vide filters (blue in Video Essentials

and red, blue, and green in AV I A) so

that the light from only one primary

can be viewed at a time. Most CRT

projectors provide a means to turn

on one primary at a time (or you can

cover the lenses), so filters are

u n n e c e s s a r y. The Color saturation

control adjusts the signal levels of

the primaries with-

out changing their

levels for the white color. It is

adjusted until the signal levels of

each primary alone matches its sig-

nal level, and therefore brightness,

in white. The Hue control varies the

relative signal levels of the primaries

to each other, except in white, so

that the brightness of any one pri-

mary is the same in two complemen-

tary colors. For instance, the bright-

ness of green should be the same in

yellow as it is in cyan. When the sig-

nal format conversion to RGB is cor-

rectly calibrated, the brightness of

any one primary will appear the

same everywhere it is used in the

color bars.

On many consumer monitors, it

is not possible to adjust the Color

and Hue controls for the proper

results. This means that the conver-

sion circuits are not capable of being

accurately calibrated to generate the

correct RGB signals. This can be an

intentional decision by the manufac-

turer who believes that the resulting

colors, although inaccurate, are

more likely to attract purchasers.

C o n v e r s e l y, Sony now includes addi-

tional service level adjustments in

its top-end products to improve the

conversion and color accuracy.

However, it should now be appar-

ent that even if the color decoding is

adjusted correctly, the colors will still

not be accurate unless the grayscale

is properly adjusted and the phos-

phors match the SMPTE standards.

The blue-filter method works perfect-

ly for professional broadcast moni-

tors be-cause the latter condition is

satisfied. In consumer monitors, this

method will produce colors only as

accurate as the phosphors and con-

version circuits allow. A highly

knowledgeable calibrator, who

understands all the concepts we’ve

discussed, can use a color analyzer to

adjust all parameters and achieve

better color accuracy. For this rea-

son, the blue filter method must be

considered an approximation for

consumer monitors. The AVIA DVD

provides an additional test pattern

that can aid in fine tuning the Hue

and Color adjustments, but that is the

best a user can do without e x p e n s i v e

instrumentation.

V I D E O

he ultimate in home-theater

display devices are the 9” CRT

projectors. Size matters in CRT

projectors because it enables higher

resolution and brighter images.

S o n y ’s new VPH-G90U has entered

this elite market at an attractive

$35,000 price to do battle with exist-

ing products from home-theater spe-

cialists Runco and Vidikron, priced as

much as 50 percent higher. The new

Sony may not be everyone’s Sony, but

home-theater enthusiasts who dream

of 9” CRTs may have come a little

closer to reality.

Physical

The G90 has a huge physical presence, not

unlike other 9” CRT projectors. At over 240 pounds, it is

one of the heaviest projectors I’ve encountered. It was deliv-

ered in a Styrofoam-padded cardboard box screwed to a

wooden pallet. It is also several handfuls, at nearly 30 inches

wide and 42 inches long. Fortunately it is only a bit more than

15 inches high, which improves handling somewhat. It is actu-

ally easier to carry and maneuver than many lighter projec-

tors because Sony has cleverly designed eight convenient and

sturdy handles into the perimeter of its case, each pair look-

ing a bit like bicycle handlebars. They pull outward from each

side of the projector and lock in place for use, then retract

back into the case, out of the way, when not needed. This

made it easy for four men to carry the projector up a flight of

stairs, and for two men to lift it into place on a sturdy table.

Although its case isn’t aerodynamically designed and

painted a bright racing color, it is sculptured to look quite

handsome in two-tone gray for ceiling or “tabletop” mounting.

For this review, I mounted it on a table below a ceiling-mount-

ed Runco IDP-980 Ultra. So I can’t relate to you the experi-

ence of lifting and attaching it to a ceiling, but I’m certain

those handles would have played a critical role.

Description

The front panel of the projector contains

only an IR remote control sensor. Above that

the huge 9-inch lens assemblies

protrude several inches in front of

the angled bezel, proudly pro-

claiming that this is one serious

projector. Just behind the lens-

es, the top panel swings open to

allow an installer to make

mechanical focus and one-time

aiming adjustments of the CRT-

lens assemblies. This is particu-

larly nice since the main cover of

the case remains closed, protect-

ing the electronics. The user

should never need to access or

repeat any of the mechanical

adjustments. All of the inputs,

power receptacles, switches, and

status indicators are located on the rear

panel. There are also two slots in the rear panel

for optional video input/output boards.

The top cover has a sliding door that conceals a complete

duplicate of the external remote control, only fixed perma-

nently in place and running off the projector’s power. This

makes it convenient, especially in a tabletop installation, to

use this panel for set-up. It also ensures that the user will have

complete access to all projector controls should you tem-

porarily misplace the remote.

The external remote is an almost square panel, about six

inches on a side, but quite thin for easy holding. A button on

the top edge turns on backlighting for all of the panel labels.

All of the controls are nicely grouped and logically laid out.

Two rows of calibration keys at the bottom can be covered by

a sliding plastic panel. They are also disabled unless unlocked

by a sequence of key pushes so that curious fingers can’t acci-

dentally disturb their settings. On-screen displays provide

numeric feedback for all the variable settings and status mes-

sages. What I like most about this remote is that all calibration

and normal usage functions have dedicated keys. On-screen

menus are provided for functions that are seldom used, such

as setting up the sync signal selections, or for obtaining status

displays of incoming signals. We so often criticize remote con-

trols that I want to acknowledge when one is

done this well.

R E V I E W S

Sony VPH-G90U Multiscan Projector

GREG ROGERS

The G90 comes with two manuals. One is an

operator’s manual that describes the basic user

controls and the other an installation manual.

The manuals are reasonably good but they could

have done a bit better job explaining the basic

memory system concepts. The service manual

also left out a key point, failing to note that the status mode

must be on before a specified series of keystrokes will enable

the service mode. I began setting the G90 up on a Saturday

and was stymied by this omission. Fortunately, a quick query

to an Internet newsgroup brought several correct solutions.

Many thanks to those who responded.

I/O Connections

The G90 includes the usual composite, S-Video, and RGB

inputs. It also includes YPbPr component video inputs for

standard-definition and high-definition sources with both bi-

level and tri-level sync capabilities. This means it will be com-

patible with virtually any video source existing or announced.

There are also two slots on the rear panel for additional I/O

modules, so it can be upgraded for any digital video interfaces

in the future.

The rear panel has an RS-232/422 interface. I put this to

use during my evaluation. The projector I was sent arrived

with version 1.02 firmware, which was missing a grayscale

calibration feature. I received the latest firmware version

(1.11) by email from Sony and downloaded it to the G90 in

less than 30 minutes.

Scan Rates

The G90 is compatible with just about any video format that

exists, including the most advanced scalers and upconvert-

ers. The horizontal scan frequency range is 15-150 kHz, and

the vertical scan range is 38-150 Hz. This also accommodates

a wide range of computer graphic resolutions. The RGB

bandwidth is 135 MHz for displaying the highest resolution

g r a p h i c s .

Installation and Set-up

I always recommend that ceiling mounting and initial pro-

jector set-up be done by professional installers and calibra-

tors. There are serious safety issues when mounting heavy

objects overhead on ceilings, and lethal voltages a r e

found inside projectors and remain stored there even after

they have been unplugged for long periods.

So never open a projector case for any reason.

In addition to safety reasons, projectors should be pro-

fessionally installed because positioning distances and

angles are critical to getting the best performance, indeed

even proper functioning. In ceiling-mounted installations,

it really pays to get it right the first time. It is also essen-

tial that the grayscale color temperature be correctly

adjusted. It’s ludicrous to spend a large sum on a projector

and then try to save a few hundred dollars by avoiding this

critical calibration step. It is pure fantasy to do this adjust-

ment without a sophisticated color analyzer, so be sure

your installer or calibrator has the proper electronic test

e q u i p m e n t .

Your installer will be able to make many mechanical and

electronic calibration adjustments to optimize the picture.

Beyond the standard CRT-Lens alignment and focus adjust-

ments, Scheimpflug adjustments are included for each CRT.

These mechanical adjustments alter the horizontal and ver-

tical tilt of the CRTs to alter the focal plane with respect to

the lens assemblies. This provides optimum focus at all

edges of the picture. After all of the mechanical focusing is

complete, an extensive array of electronic magnetic-focus

adjustments are made from the remote control for nine sep-

arate screen areas. Sony’s new hexapole focus adjustments

produce the small spot size and round shape that are so cru-

cial to the ultra high-resolution performance of the G90.

A complete professional calibration should be done at

the time of installation. That way you know that everything

involved in the installation process has been done correctly

and you are getting the best picture possible from your pro-

j e c t o r. Most current projectors provide picture geometry

and convergence adjustments using a remote control. It will

reward owners to learn how to make those remote control

adjustments to keep the picture in optimum shape, since

some drift is inevitable over time, particularly during the

first year of any projector’s life.

Some High End projectors are available with small

cameras that provide automatic adjustments, but manual

controls must generally be used to fine-tune the results.

The Sony G90 has no automatic adjustment capability, but

its geometry and convergence controls are among the eas-

iest to use and provide a versatile array of capabilities to

get near-perfect results. All the necessary test patterns are

built in, and skew, bow, size, linearity, pincushion, and

keystone adjustments are available for each color and for

different areas of the screen. Then each color can be fine-

tweaked for horizontal and vertical registration at 25 dif-

ferent locations on the display using the Zone adjustment.

The variety of controls, their effectiveness, and ease of use

are exemplary.

Operating Functions

The memory model for accessing different sources and dis-

play formats on the G90 can be a bit confusing at first

glance. The projector has 150 input memories, each storing

identification and calibration information for a particular

type of input signal. An input signal memory is selected

based on the signal scan-rate, signal type (S-Video, RGB,

Y P b P r, etc.) and the input signal port. All signals from a line

quadrupler use one input memory, S-Video signals another,

and so forth. Separate geometry, convergence, and grayscale

information is stored for each input signal type. Then 10

video memories store specific aspect ratio and picture con-

trol information (brightness, contrast, color, etc). When a

signal is input to the projector, the appropriate input memo-

ry is selected automatically. The user then selects one of the

10 video memories for the aspect ratio desired. The 10 video

memories are selected with numbered keys on the remote,

but can be named for on-screen identification with up to 18

characters each. Memories can then be selected by name

using the on-screen menu.

I set up a variety of input memories, including standard

NTSC through the S-Video input, and line-doubled and HDTV

signals through RGB and YPbPr inputs. I created video mem-

ories for 4:3, 4:3 letterboxed, and 16.9 enhanced aspect ratio

formats.

Other features include a picture-orbiting function to

help prevent CRT burns, which can be disabled if desired.

The user can also select between a 3-line-adaptive comb fil-

ter or a motion-adaptive 3-D comb filter when using the

composite input.

Performance

My overwhelming first impression of the Sony G90 was its

razor-sharp image clarity. The 9-inch CRT technology reveals

the resolution limits of projectors with smaller CRTs. I sup-

pose it was even more impressive that the first things I looked

at were HDTV pictures. But the differences in detail between

the Sony G90 and the excellent but smaller CRTs of the Runco

IDP-980 Ultra, were also noticeable on DVD. Edges were a tad

sharper and areas of fine structure appeared to have addi-

tional depth and contrast.

The G90 has an outstanding ability to differentiate subtle

levels of dark gray just above black. Plus there is virtually no

shift in black level with changes in average picture level

(APL). I confirmed this using the various PLUGE test patterns

provided by the Video Essentials DVD in title 17, chapters 2,

3, 5, and 7. The Video Montage sequence from this same DVD

showed how effectively the G90 held black levels constant to

increase contrast-ratio and reveal shadow details.

I was able to adjust the grayscale color temperature to

exceptional accuracy, 6500K +300/-50K at 7.75 ft-L measured

at the plane of my 1.3 gain screen, which equates to about 10

ft-L for on-axis viewing. The G90 provides a gamma adjust-

ment for individual CRTs that is found on few other projec-

tors. It enables better tracking of the three CRTs and a flatter

grayscale response. I believe I could have improved the

grayscale even further had I had more time. Without even re-

calibrating, I cranked up the light output at the screen plane

to over 14 ft-L and the color temperature only dropped to

6100K. So the projector is capable of much higher light output

than I used for comparison tests.

Despite the excellent grayscale results, I was less

pleased with the color accuracy. The primary reason (pun

intended) was the chromaticity of the green phosphor. It is

somewhat more yellow than the SMPTE C standard green.

(See measurements.) This eliminated the deepest green hues

from the color gamut, slightly desaturated the blue-greens

(cyan), and shifted the purple hues (magenta) toward blue.

The yellower-green can be seen in landscapes and fields

where greener pastures are expected. Skin-tones appeared

slightly pale or colder than normal. If the color temperature

is calibrated slightly more red than normal, the skin-tones

will be corrected and magenta much improved. I found that

a more pleasing picture.

The green phosphor may have been a deliberate choice to

maximize the light output of the projector. The G90 is rated at

1300 peak lumens and 350 ANSI lumens, impressive specs for

a CRT projector. In my testing, the G90 luminance dropped

only 2 percent when going from a small white window to a full

screen of peak white. That is amazing performance and

reflects its superior full-white rating of 500 lumens. The pic-

ture simply won’t dim on the brightest scenes. The white field

uniformity was also exceptional with very little variance in

brightness or color over the screen.

Fan noise on the G90 wasn’t nearly as loud as might be

expected from a projector drawing 1050 watts. I measured 51

dB “C” weighted, at three feet from the unit. The fan noise is

not high-pitched, but has a rushing-air sound that is often

masked by the music and dialog in a movie. It may be accept-

able in a ceiling-mount application without additional attenu-

ation, but I wasn’t able to experience that.

The Sony G90 includes a built-in video

upconverter that converts NTSC formats from

480i (active lines) to 960i interlaced video. Sony

calls its process Digital Reality Creation, or DRC.

It uses pattern matching in look-up tables to do

the conversion. Conventional line doublers or quadruplers

use entirely different processes to create 480p and 960p pro-

gressive video. I used the DRC to watch live basketball games

and DVD movies. Video-camera sources, like the basketball

game, will create some artifacts on any type of upconverter. I

found the artifacts on Sony’s unique DRC system to look more

artificial, dare I say digital, than other techniques. Artifacts

sometimes have a pixellated appearance. It comes down to

matter of preference, but I’m more accustomed and comfort-

able with the twitter artifacts of conventional line-doublers

and quadruplers. On movies the DRC did a better job but

couldn’t match the complete absence of deinterlacing arti-

facts from upconverters that use inverse-telecine processing.

But the DRC feature is included standard with the G90 and a

high-quality quadrupler will approach $20,000.

I used PBS broadcasts to evaluate HDTV on the G90. This

was where it really excelled. Projectors without 9-inch CRTs

simply don’t have enough resolution to fully display the hori-

zontal and static vertical resolution of 1080i signals. The G90

has what it takes. HDTV on 7- and 8-inch CRT projectors like

the Runco DTV-930 can look wonderful, but on the G90 the

picture achieves an astonishing clarity. PBS has many air-

borne sequences flying across agricultural and urban land-

scapes that are so clear that you will feel like you are actual-

ly skimming the tree tops and peering into office building win-

dows. A ride in a raft down the mighty Colorado river may

convince you that it might be better to watch on the G90 than

to actual participate. After sitting glued to my chair watching

this HDTV demo material several times for more than hour, I

can sing praises about the HDTV format and the incredible

resolution and 3-dimensionality of the G90 picture. It rivals

the best film presentations that I have seen at a well-main-

tained cinema. Sadly, few people will actually get to enjoy this

experience.

Summary

The Sony VPH-G90U will produce stunning picture resolution,

surpassing the definition, contrast, and image depth of 8” or

smaller CRT projectors. It is one of the very few CRT projec-

tors, or display devices of any kind, capable of producing

HDTV’s available resolution. Audition it when you are select-

ing from among the ultimate home-theater projectors.

SONY VPH-G90U MULTISCAN PROJECTOR

Sony Electronics Inc

1 Sony Drive

Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656

Phone: (201) 930-1000

www.sony.com

Source: Manufacturer Loan

S/N: 2000039

Price: $35,000

M a n u f a c t u r e r I n f o r m a t i o n

ne of the more exciting announcements at the last

Consumer Electronics Show was the introduction of

the Runco DTV-930, which significantly altered the

price-performance curve for CRT projectors. The DTV-930

was cloned from one of Runco’s most successful products,

the widely acclaimed IDP-980 Ultra. Conservatively built and

highly reliable, the IDP-980 Ultra has been a favorite in pre-

mium home-theaters for its excellent picture quality and easy

to use features. A year ago, it was priced at $23,000. The DTV-

930 with point convergence option is now $16,195. To sweet-

en the deal even further, Runco offers a DTV-933 package that

adds an external line-tripler for another four large. I haven’t

evaluated the tripler yet, but I’ll review it separately in a

future issue.

You are probably asking what you give up, other than

cash, for nearly a 30 percent reduction in price. The answer is

very little for home-theater applications.

Specifications

The DTV-930 was created by limiting the maximum horizontal

scan-rate of the IDP-980 Ultra from 100 kHz to 50 kHz. This

positions the DTV-930 to handle nearly all video applications,

but leaves a little room at the top-end for Runco’s higher

priced CRT projectors. The DTV-930 is fully compatible with

line doublers, triplers, and any of the ATSC HDTV standards

including 1080i or 720p. Its 50 kHz scan rate will accept a

maximum computer display resolution of 1024x768 at 60 Hz.

The DTV-930 has a bandwidth of 80 MHz, while the IDP-

980 Ultra bandwidth was specified as 100

MHz, but this difference was only significant

for the higher resolution computer

graphic display capabilities of the IDP-

980 Ultra. It doesn’t affect video perfor-

mance, where the highest bandwidth

requirement is a flat response to 30 MHz

for HDTV. The only other change from

the IDP-980 Ultra is the deletion of a

scan-line dithering board, a feature I

never used anyway.

Curiously, the DTV-930 is listed as an

8-inch CRT projector, which Runco

quickly volunteers really uses liquid-

cooled, 7-inch electromagnetic focus

(EMF) CRTs. The decision to list it as an

8-inch CRT projector dates back to the

introduction of the IDP-980, apparently

as a way to differentiate it from inferior

projectors that used 7-inch electrostatic focus (ESF) CRTs.

Runco says they intend to revise their specifications in the

future. Electromagnetic focus CRTs mean smaller spot size

and higher resolution, so they hope this distinction will be

understood by buyers comparing projectors by CRT size

alone.

The DTV-930 uses the same (USPL HD-144) color-correct-

ed, air-coupled lens assemblies that have been used for sever-

al years on the IDP-980 Ultra. (Runco’s webpage is outdated

on this point.) Light output is specified as 1100 Lumens peak

and 225 ANSI Lumens. The former spec is more descriptive of

video performance, which has relatively low average lumi-

nance levels, while the latter better describes computer

graphic display capabilities.

Description

The DTV-930 is available in black or white, 24 inches wide and

30 inches long, weighing about 124 pounds.

The case is about 12 inches high at the front

G R E G R O G E R S

Runco DTV-930 Multiscan Projector

to accommodate the three lens assemblies and input connec-

tors, and then slopes gently downward toward the rear. There

are no handles or other means for lifting the projector so it

can be quite awkward when lifting to a ceiling mount position.

The three lens assemblies are recessed into the case with

just their rims exposed on the front bezel. The entire top

cover is hinged at the rear and swings open to mechanically

aim and focus the CRT-lens assemblies. All input connectors,

the power switch and line-cord receptacle reside on the front

panel, slightly recessed from the lens bezel. When the projec-

tor is ceiling mounted all of the connectors are above the lens-

es, which keeps cables out of the way. A remote control jack

is provided that can be used with one of two supplied cords

(13’ and 52’) to save batteries during long calibration sessions.

Two IR remotes are provided, one for installation and

another for user operation. The installation remote contains

dedicated keys for almost all calibration functions to avoid

going through the on-screen menus. The remote is backlit for

working in the dark. The smaller user remote runs only on

batteries and is not backlit.

The rear panel contains status lights, a two-digit diagnos-

tic display, and a small collection of keys for navigating the

on-screen menus. The latter need never be used since set-up

and operation is more easily done from the remote control.

Inputs/Outputs

BNC connectors are provided for RGB and sync inputs. Com-

posite or separate H and V sync, as well as sync-on-green can

be used. Composite and S-Video inputs are provided using an

unusual 15-pin D-connector. A short breakout cable is includ-

ed to provide a standard mini-DIN jack for the S-Video and a

BNC jack for composite video. These inputs are compatible

with NTSC, PAL, and SECAM. Curtain control switching is

provided via DC voltages on another D-connector.

There are no YPbPr component video inputs. Line dou-

blers and other video upconverters provide RGB outputs. But

some HDTV set-top boxes provide only YPbPr outputs (Pana-

sonic, Pioneer), while others provide RGB outputs (Sony,

RCA) or both. This is a common limitation of a large installed

based of projectors, so hopefully future set-top boxes will be

designed with both RGB and YPbPr outputs to maximize their

market opportunities.

Installation and Set-up

A professional installer should always be used for mounting

projectors on ceilings. Projectors are heavy, and proper

mounting is a safety and performance issue. Furthermore, a

professional calibrator must be used to do the initial

set-up. This requires mechanical adjustments inside the pro-

jector where there are lethal voltages that remain present

even when the projector is unplugged,which again is both

a safety and performance issue.

The projector used for this review was mounted on the

ceiling and an 89-inch wide, 1.85:1 Stewart Filmscreen was

used for display. As with all CRT projectors, the correct dis-

tance and height relative to the screen must be set correctly.

The distance from the screen to the lens for the DTV-930 must

be 1.33 times the screen width when using multi-aspect-ratio

widescreens. Runco has superb technical phone support and

should be consulted to find out the exact height and distance

dimensions you would need for any screen size and one of

their projectors. A professional installer should mount the

projector and do the mechanical adjustments,

which consist of setting two knobs on each lens

assembly for the correct projection angle and

screen size, aiming the CRT-lens assemblies to

converge at center screen, and adjusting focus

rings for best center and edge focus for each

CRT. From that point, all other calibration is performed elec-

tronically using the remote control.

The grayscale color-temperature must always be calibrated

by a professional using a color analyzer. Don’t avoid this step,

and make certain your calibrator has a color analyzer. The

color accuracy of this projector is excellent, but it depends, like

all display devices, on an accurate grayscale adjustment that

can only be done using sophisticated test equipment. The pro-

fessional calibrator should also ensure that all set-up adjust-

ments are individually optimized for multiple aspect ratios and

different sources. This projector is remarkably stable and

touch-ups are required infrequently after an initial burn-in and

calibration period of six months or so.

Built-in test patterns consist of cross-hair, focus, white-

w i n d o w, and multiple cross-hatch and dot patterns. When a

projector has electronic remote-control adjustments for geom-

e t r y, convergence and focus, as this one does, I encourage

enthusiasts to learn to do these adjustments. Part of the fun of

projector ownership can be tweaking the picture to optimize

the image quality. But don’t alter the grayscale adjustments or

you will need a professional to put it right again.

An excellent array of adjustments is provided to optimize

geometry and convergence. Each CRT has tilt, skew, ampli-

tude, linearity, pin-cushion, and keystone adjustments for

both vertical and horizontal axis with separate control over

the top, bottom, left and right picture edges as required. Elec-

tronic focus is included for each CRT with adjustments for

center, top, bottom, left and right sides. But the user should

not readjust the blue focus, which will alter the color balance.

In addition there are astigmatism controls with two-pole

adjustments for 8 different areas of the screen. It is time con-

suming, but with effort you will be rewarded with a fine spot

size uniformly over the entire screen.

I found all the adjustments easy to make and logically

organized. There is also a contextual help button on the

remote control that brings up one or more text screens

describing the function and usage of the current adjustment.

I think many users will be quite comfortable in tweaking these

adjustments to keep the alignment in pristine condition.

There is even a function that automatically guides a novice

user through the calibration adjustments in order, a step at a

time. Once all parameters are adjusted for best performance

the point convergence option is remarkably quick and easy to

use. By moving a cursor on a 16x13 grid you can adjust for vir-

tually perfect convergence over the entire screen, which is

always critical for the best picture, but crucial for HDTV. Be

sure you get the point convergence option.

Operating Functions

This is one of the easiest projectors to use. There are 100

video memories that store individual picture formats includ-

ing the input source and all display parameters. Each memo-

ry includes the source scan-rate, display aspect-ratio, and a

complete set of calibration values for that picture format.

Each memory can be individually named by the user, such as

“16.9 DVD” with up to eight characters. The first 10 picture

Accurate color reproduction depends on how well the

projector’s red, green, and blue primary colors match

the SMPTE C standard phosphors, combined with the

accuracy of the white-point color temperature. The projector’s

white point has been calibrated to match the D65 standard

white-point at 75 IRE. The projector’s primary and complimen-

tary (yellow, magenta, cyan) colors (circles) are compared to

the SMPTE C standard colors (squares) on the CIE diagram.

Changes in the grayscale color temperature will shift the posi-

tion of the complimentary colors and the color accuracy.

The Runco DTV-930 RGB color triangle almost completely

overlaps the SMPTE triangle so nearly all colors in the video

signal can be reproduced. The blue and green primary colors

are close to the SMPTE standard phosphors and the red pri-

mary is shifted to the right. The resulting color accuracy is

excellent.

The green primary of the SonyVPH-G90U is shifted toward

ye l l ow. This results in a gap of non-reproducible colors

between its RGB color triangle and the SMPTE C triangle. The

cyan color is desaturated (shifted toward white) and magenta

is shifted toward blue.

If the VPH-G90U color temperature is lowered by moving

the white point slightly toward red during calibration, the

resulting color accuracy will be significantly improved with bet-

ter skin-tones and more accurate purples. The eye is more sen-

sitive to errors in blues and purples than it is to equal distance

errors in yellow or cyan on the CIE diagram.

formats can be selected directly from the remote

control. The entire 100 picture formats can be

selected by an on-screen menu that shows the

memory number, name, video source and date

created. When a memory is selected the source

is switched and the display is setup with all of

the individualized calibration settings for that picture. The

memories can be copied, moved, deleted and renamed for

selection convenience or to expedite creating new entries.

Although 100 memory set-ups may seem like overkill, 10-

20 wouldn’t be enough for me. You will need separate memo-

ries for 4:3, 4:3 letterboxed, and 16.9 enhanced aspect ratios,

and I have special set-ups for 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 movies. Most

of these are duplicated again for a doubler, tripler, quad, com-

posite video, S-Video, and my 3Dfusion progressive-scan DVD

player that has a 72 frame-per-second output. Then add 720p

and 1080i for HDTV and several set-ups for computer dis-

plays. Finally I have some special picture formats for watch-

ing 4:3 sports presentations cropped and expanded to fill the

entire 1.85 screen. You may also want to keep a duplicate set

of everything just in case you accidentally mess something up

while tweaking.

Each memory has a counter and a timer to keep track of

how many times it is used and for how many hours. This is

convenient for knowing how much time you’ve used the CRTs

for watching 4:3 pictures or widescreen pictures. Two sets of

timers, one that can be reset by the user, are also included for

total CRT and projector hours.

Color temperature can be selected from 3200K, 5400K,

6500K, 7500K, and 9500K for special applications. Incoming

Convergence Labs Test Report Greg Rogers

horizontal and vertical scan frequencies and other source

information can be displayed at any time. A phosphor saver

function is provided to periodically shift the horizontal and

vertical image position on screen to avoid a CRT burn. This

function can be turned off if desired, although I believe it is a

worthwhile function to use. If a very slight overscan is added

to the picture the effect of this screen saver function will not

be noticed.

Performance

I used a Runco IDP-980 Ultra for this evaluation. Its video per-

formance is identical to the DTV-930 with the point conver-

gence option, for everything discussed in this review.

Color accuracy is primarily dependent on two factors,

grayscale accuracy and how well the red, green, and blue pri-

mary colors match the SMPTE standard. The latter is fixed for

each model of projector based on its CRT phosphors and any

additional filtering in the lens-CRT assemblies. The grayscale

accuracy must be calibrated and will degrade if the projector

is asked to supply too much light because the blue CRT phos-

phors will begin to saturate at high output levels. To achieve

the best grayscale accuracy, and therefore good color accura-

cy, the screen size and image brightness must be appropriate

for the projector. Generally, the larger the CRTs the more light

output they can provide while operating in a linear grayscale

range.

For this projector I used an 89” wide screen and set the

contrast for 7.75 ft-L measured at the screen plane, which

equates to about 10 ft-L on axis for the 1.3 gain screen. This

combination is about the reasonable limit to achieve an

acceptable grayscale and good color accuracy. If you want a

larger display you can select a higher gain screen, but you will

probably find hot-spotting and color variations across the

screen unacceptable if you have a critical eye. The projector

is also capable of much higher light output levels but the color

accuracy will suffer as a result.

Using this set-up I adjusted the grayscale for the SMPTE

standard color temperature of 6500K, +/- 400K over the range

of 20 IRE to 100 IRE. These adjustments were made while

using a Faroudja VP250 line doubler. Since the scan lines

don’t overlap with a doubler, a tripler would provide even flat-

ter grayscale results since the blue CRT will provide more out-

put before the onset of phosphor saturation. The colorimetry

of the green and blue phosphors is quite close to the SMPTE

standard and the red phosphor is a slightly deeper red. The

result is near perfect color-bar patterns and excellent color

accuracy on movies. Skin tones look exceptionally accurate

while full color-saturation is maintained elsewhere in the pic-

ture. With good DVD transfers there is no need to reduce the

line doubler’s color control to prevent overly red faces that

would desaturate (washout) other portions of the picture.

(See measurements.)

Other key performance characteristics of any video dis-

play are its ability to provide a geometrically stable picture

and constant black levels as picture luminance levels change.

The latter can render black-levels gray and dynamically

reduce the contrast ratio of the picture. These attributes are a

function of good high-voltage power supplies for the CRTs.

Some products, particularly RPTVs and direct-view monitors,

suffer size or geometry changes as the average picture level

(APL) varies. Examples include static changes when a bright

object enters a dark scene, or momentary effects during

bright flashes. On this projector the high volt-

age system holds picture size and geometry

rock solid regardless of steady state or tran-

sient changes in APL. The new Alien DVD is

an excellent test of these capabilities with its

dimly lit interiors that are punctuated by

bright flashing strobe lights in one scene. Black level is also

well maintained with APL changes.

Spot size and focus uniformity across screen is excep-

tional for CRTs of this size. I compared resolution and picture

definition on some of the best DVDs to the performance of the

Sony G90’s 9-inch CRTs. Alien and The Fifth Element are two

movies that have some of the best detail. The G90 provides a

modest increase in the sharpness of fine details in direct A/B

comparisons. Both projectors are capable of performance

beyond the resolution limits of the DVD format.

A line doubler will work well with this projector when

viewing 16.9 enhanced and 4:3 DVDs on a widescreen from

about 4 PH (picture heights), but scan-line structure will be

visible on 4:3 letterboxed DVDs. If you are sensitive to scan-

line visibility, then a line tripler would be better for non-16.9

enhanced letterboxed sources and it will allow you to move

up to the “ideal” 3.3 PH if you desire a wider field-of-view.

It’s well established that 9” CRT projectors are required to

reproduce the full resolution of 1080i HDTV. But does that

mean HDTV looks blurry or unimpressive on this projector?

Definitely not! HDTV broadcasts look breathtaking and clear-

ly distance themselves from the best DVDs. I used PBS broad-

casts as my HDTV source. It was no contest with any of the

rear projection HDTVs on which I’ve viewed the same mater-

ial. Picture clarity and definition on the Runco is far superior.

The gap between the Runco and the Sony G90 is not as wide,

but the G90 really does capture that sense of looking through

an open window. Perhaps the Runco is more like looking

through a double-pane window. The G90’s detail and sense of

depth is significantly better in direct comparisons, but unless

you’ve already acquired a trained eye for HDTV on a 9” CRT

projector you’d better sit down, because the Runco DTV-930

will knock you off your feet.

Summary

If there is anything in home theater priced a few DVDs over

$16,000 that can be considered a bargain, it is the Runco

D T V-930 with Ultra option. If you are in the market for any-

thing less than a 9” CRT projector, you owe it to yourself to

see this projector optimally set-up and calibrated. But you’d

better hurry. The chassis used for the DTV-930 was a last

time buy for Runco, and when they are gone, they are gone

for good.

RUNCO INTERNATIONAL

2463 Tripaldi Way

Hayward, California 94545

Phone: (510) 293-9154

www.runco.com

Source: Reviewer purchase

Price: DTV-930 $14,995;

DTV-930 w/point convergence $16,195

M a n u f a c t u r e r I n f o r m a t i o n

Any home theater that uses a CRT front projector capa-

ble of graphics- or data-grade resolution needs a way

to reduce the visibility of scan lines and remove inter-

lace artifacts, which become painfully unpleasant on a big

screen. Until recently the devices (line doublers) for doing

this with credible quality have cost over $7,500. For my own

modest home theater, with a 7-inch CRT front projector and 6-

foot wide screen, this price was beyond budget. My first pri-

ority was to find a way to convert the YPbPr component video

outputs of my DVD player to work with the RGB inputs of my

projector. I also needed input switching for my laserdisc and

VCR viewing.

The least expensive YPbPr-RGB converter, without line

doubling, is about $900 from Extron. I was about to buy one

of these when I discovered the $2,495 IEV Turboscan 1500 line

doubler. This unassuming black box performs the conversion

I needed, has switching functions, and does line doubling.

This remarkable device also includes separate adjustment of

video parameters (brightness, contrast, color, tint, and sharp-

ness) for each input, and overall adjustment for red, green,

and blue gain and offset levels. The former is important to me

for matching the slightly different output levels of my

laserdisc player to those of my DVD player. The latter is use-

ful for fine control of color temperature, especially for a pro-

jector like mine that doesn’t have digital controls for this func-

tion. Imagine my delight to find all of these features in a box I

could afford!

Description

The back panel of the Turboscan sports an on/off switch (nor-

mally left on), a power plug input, and a large array of video

input/output connectors. The composite and S-Video inputs

include buffered loop-through outputs. There is also an RJ-11

connector for a remote infrared control (IEV can supply this

or you can buy from a third party) and an RS-232 connector

for computer control of the unit (RS-232 programming com-

mands are in the manual).

My only complaint is that the VGA input connector

should be female, not male. All the readily available con-

nector cables, including VGA to 5-conductor BNC, or com-

puter to VGA monitor, terminate in a male VGA connector.

To use these on the Turboscan you have to use a female-to-

female adapter, creating a potentially unstable connection.

For an RGB input, the Turboscan can automatically

detect whether it is already progressive (as all computer

VGA outputs are) or whether it is interlaced; it can also be

forced into one or the other state. Thus I set up the Tu r-

boscan to accept a computer signal on the VGA input con-

nector (which also includes my 3Dfusion progressive DVD

player) and pass that through without dou-

bling. For laserdisc, I use the S-Video input

and for cable TV (via a VCR tuner) I use the composite

i n p u t .

The front panel of the Turboscan is clean, showing only

a small LCD panel and a touch panel control with left-right-

up-down arrows. The menu commands, displayed on the

LCD panel or on a simple onscreen block, are logically

linked in a circle, all accessible by the left-right arrows on

the front panel or the remote.

Remote Control

The Turboscan 1500 has many features beyond its line dou-

bling capability, most of which I have already mentioned. As

supplied by IEV, it comes with the excellent Home Theater

Master SL-8000 universal remote that includes the control

codes for over 500 devices (audio, satellite, TV, VCR, cable,

CD, DVD, and auxiliary). My Turboscan, along with my Elec-

trohome projector, came from Hi Rez Projections, Inc., of

Boston (www.hometheater1.com), which include Home The-

ater Master’s better remote, the SL-9000 with learning capa-

bilities. Both these units are wonderful, exceeded only by

remotes costing several hundred dollars.

Line Doubling = Deinterlacing

The name “line doubler” is misleading. These devices don’t

increase the total number of scan lines per video frame.

They deinterlace conventional NTSC video by replacing

each interlaced video field, which alternately displays only

the odd or even half of the frame’s scan lines, with a pro-

gressive video frame containing all of the scan lines. Dein-

terlacing is a complex process because the fields from a

video camera represent the image at different moments in

time. Simply merging fields together would create double

images of objects in motion, while interpolating new lines

between existing lines of each field produces a softer image.

Deinterlacing video sources is where most line doublers fall

down, the IEV included. That is not to say that it does a bad

job, though.

Film sources are converted to video by a telecine device

that repeats video fields at regular intervals, to convert the

2 4 - f r a m e - p e r-second film to 60-field-per-second video. This

is called 3-2 pulldown and creates an opportunity for a line

doubler to detect this pattern and reverse the process to

generate progressive video. For many years, only Faroudja

had special patented circuits to detect film sources with 3-2

pulldown and perform an inverse-telecine process to ideally

deinterlace them. (See Issue 24 for details of the inverse-

telecine process.) The Turboscan does not have inverse-

telecine deinterlacing and must process both video and film

sources using other techniques. The question is, how well do

they match up to the Faroudja standard?

The IEV Turboscan 1500 performs well with

B I L L C R U C E

IEV Turboscan 1500 Line Doubler

film sources but doesn’t match the quality of inverse-

telecine deinterlacing.

Performance

My primary source for evaluating the IEV was a Sony DVP-

S7000 DVD player, using its composite, S-Video, and compo-

nent outputs to test the various Turboscan inputs. I also used

a Pioneer CLD-97 laserdisc player with its composite and S-

Video outputs. As a progressive video reference, I used a

3Dfusion PC video card with an Mpact-2 processor decoding

from a DVD-ROM drive to produce RGB output. The 3Dfusion

creates progressive video without deinterlacing artifacts

when playing film source DVDs, equivalent to the result of

Faroudja’s inverse-telecine processing. It is not nearly as

effective at deinterlacing DVD video sources, nor does it

accept any sources other than DVD. (See Issue 24 for a review

of the 3Dfusion and a discussion of its deinterlacing process.)

For display I used an Electrohome ECP-4100 front projec-

tor on a 6-foot wide Stewart Studiotek 130 screen (16.9 aspect

ratio). For a brief time, I was able to compare the Turboscan

to a Faroudja VP-250 line doubler on a Runco IDP-980 Ultra

front projector. (A line doubler requires a TV with progressive

video inputs and higher than normal scan-rate capabilities,

but these inputs and capabilities are standard with any graph-

ics-grade front projector.)

With real-world material, it was evident that the Tur-

boscan was not doing 3-2 pulldown removal, as the Faroudja

and 3Dfusion do (each in different ways). The Turboscan

sometimes displays line twitter artifacts on moving objects,

and while not nearly so objectionable as the artifacts seen

with non-line doubled sources, they make the Turboscan dis-

play slightly inferior to that seen from the Faroudja or 3Dfu-

sion. For example, in the opening scene of The Fifth Element

(chapter 3, absolute time 03:20-23), one can see fine line twit-

ter in the tent ropes and moving “jaggies” on camel backs at

the center of the screen as the camera pans left to follow the

running boy. In chapter 9 (absolute time 28:23-42), twitter arti-

facts appear as the camera zooms in on the curved top left

edge of the chamber that LeeLoo is kicking to get out of.

The Turboscan has a “motion filter” that appears in the menu

only if you have “Input Setup” turned on. The filter

slightly softens the image, but IEV recommends

that this filter be turned on for video. However,

there are examples where the image looks much

worse with the filter on. The horizontal pan of the

bridge during the video montage segment on Vi d e o

E s s e n t i a l s is one. The vertical cables of the bridge break up

badly as they move horizontally with the camera pan. In other

cases the filter reduces, but doesn’t eliminate, some residual arti-

facts, such as jaggies in the hair of the pink T-shirted girl with the

b i c y c l e .

I used the Video Essentials DVD and the Dolby Labs DVD

(DVD-TEST1) to explore other aspects of the Turboscan per-

formance. The tests on these discs are rigorous and repeat-

able, even though they are much more demanding than what

you will usually notice on real-world video images.

With its sharpness control set at “0,” the Turboscan had a

significant high-frequency roll off above 4.2 MHz in all input

modes, but at a sharpness setting of +6, it became reasonably

flat to 5 MHz without outlining artifacts. This sharpness con-

trol isn’t the equal of Faroudja’s adaptive detail-enhancement

circuit, but it is useful for reducing the nastiness of some

DVDs with overdone edge enhancement; it is also handy for

slightly boosting the sharpness of soft video sources, espe-

cially many laserdiscs. You can set this control individually

for each of the three input sources.

The Turboscan showed minor artifacts on color-bar pat-

terns that were not present with either the Faroudja or the

3DFusion. For a component source, there was a faint light

band along the cyan side of the vertical yellow/cyan transition

and along the magenta side of the vertical green/magenta

transition. S-Video and composite sources did not display the

same artifact. Instead they had a black smudge along the two

transition regions characteristic of the lower chroma band-

width of these video formats. Some luma-chroma delay was

evident on the red vertical stripes against a white background

(title 18, chapter 4 of VE-DVD). There was a thin black line

along the left edge of the white/red transition, just inside the

red bar. On S-Video and composite sources, this artifact was

replaced by a smeared black region on both inside edges of

Faroudja VP251 IEV DVDO

Turboscan 1500 iScan Plus

Line Doubling Yes Yes Yes

Line Quadrupling No No No

Line Scaling (Other) No No No

Inverse Telecine (Film Mode Deinterlacing) Yes No Yes

Video Cal - Color,Tint,Brightness,Contrast All All None

Detail Enhancement Adaptive Detail Sharpness Only None

Noise Reduction None None None

Composite Video Inputs 1 1 1

S-Video (Y/C) Inputs 1 1 2

Component Video Inputs 1 (YPbPr/RGB) 1 (YPbPr/RGB) None

Component Video Pass-thru Yes Yes None

Input Loop-thru All Inputs Composite/S-Video None

Stored User Settings 4/Input 1/Input None

Other Features RGB Pass-through Input RGB Gain/Offset Film-Mode LED

Price $7,500 $2,495 $700

Key Features: Video Upconverters

the red bar.

At the horizontal edge between the cyan bar

and magenta patch (or the magenta bar and cyan

patch) on the VE disc color bars, there were two

or three dark blue scan lines; these were partially

broken up into rows of jiggling dots above and

below the transitions. There was also some bleeding of the left

magenta block into the white block beneath its left corner. Fur-

thermore the color bars displayed some video noise, especially

in the green. The blue scan lines were evident on the 3Dfusion,

but were not broken up into jiggling dots; nor was there any

bleeding of magenta into white or any obvious video noise.

Fortunately, although the color bar tests can be used to

discriminate between doublers, I didn’t find any glaring evi-

dence that the Turboscan’s artifacts significantly affected per-

formance on real-world film sources.

Summary

At first I used the Turboscan for viewing DVDs from the Sony

DVP-7000. Later I discovered the joy of watching line-doubled

laserdiscs from the Pioneer CLD-97. Laserdiscs look very

good through the Turboscan, as long as you don’t have an

anamorphic DVD for comparison. They look softer (owing to

the lower luma bandwidth of LDs) and there is some color

bleed (owing to the lower chroma bandwidth of LDs), but

these are small imperfections, inherent in the laserdisc for-

mat. My current reference source is the 16.9 (“anamorphic”)

DVD progressive-scan output of the 3Dfusion; however the

Turboscan is essential for watching my library of laserdiscs,

many of which will either never make it to DVD or which

aren’t worth the expense of duplicating on DVD. In fact, given

the bargain-basement prices for which laserdiscs can now be

found, the frugal movie fanatic should give serious considera-

tion to the viewing of line-doubled laserdiscs.

There are some things in life that, no matter how well I

understand them, I marvel that they actually work: air-

planes for example. Every time I take a flight, I can’t

believe that I’m really in the air, even though I fully under-

stand the physics. Combination CD/LD/DVD players are

another example. They will play just about every home-the-

ater optical media available, automatically adapting for the

size and format and moving the laser into the appropriate

position.

But why would anyone buy a combi player, given the

increased complexity of the mechanical and electronic sub-

systems? Well, you may have a laserdisc collection or a near-

by rental store that still carries LDs. There are also many

movie titles still available only in that format (Star Wars, for

example). If you want to buy a new laserdisc player, you have

no option; the only ones available are in

combi players (and the only company still

making the player mechanisms is Pioneer).1

Last issue we looked at the upscale Theta Voyager, based

on the Pioneer 919 combi player. This time we look at Pio-

neer’s top-of-the-line Elite combi player, the DVL-91, to see

what is the best available from the company that has single-

handedly supported the laserdisc market for many years. This

unit will play CDs and CD-Videos (an MPEG-1 video disc more

popular in Asia than the US), but our primary interest is in its

LD and DVD performance.

Look and Feel

The DVL-91 has that special Pioneer Elite look: high-gloss black

enamel, gold trim, and polished rosewood

side panels. It has the usual assortment of

gold-plated outputs on its rear that you

would expect from a component of its

stature: two analog stereo audio, two coaxial

digital audio (one PCM only, one PCM/AC-

3/DTS), one optical audio (PCM/AC-3/DTS),

one AC-3 RF (for LD only), two composite

video, two S-Video (Y/C), one set of compo-

nent video, and an in/out set of connectors

for Pioneer SR control signals. You must

select from the player set-up menus whether

you wish DVD output to be via component or

Y/C-composite; the mode not selected still outputs a luminance

signal (helpful in navigating the menus to switch the type of

o u t-

IEV INTERNATIONAL, INC.

3855 South 500West, Suite O

Salt Lake City, Utah 84115

Phone: (800) 438-6161

www.iev.com

Source: Reviewer purchase

Serial number: 2134

Price: $2,495

M a n u f a c t u r e r I n f o r m a t i o n

Pioneer Elite DVL-91 Combination CD/LD/DVD Player

1The Faroudja LD1000 laserdisc player mentioned in

Issue 25, based on the Pioneer Elite CLD-99, is no

longer available. The final unit was sold in April 1999.

B I L L C R U C E

put). From the setup menus, you also select whether you want

16.9 formatted video output. This is called “wide,” which might

not be self-explanatory but the on-screen graphic makes the

meaning clear.

You can also select whether you want the digital audio out-

put to be 24 bit/48 kHz or 24 bit/96 kHz, the latter available only

on some DVDs. Older outboard DACs and digital preamps or

receivers will not accept 96 kHz bitstreams, so it is important

to pay attention to this. If you select the 48 kHz output in the

set-up menu, then any DVD audio track containing a 96 kHz sig-

nal will be downconverted to 48 kHz by the DVL-91 for back-

wards compatibility with older components. The DVL-91’s

internal DACs are 20 bit/96 kHz devices. The player will also

pass a DTS surround signal through its digital outputs. The set-

up menus allow you to configure such things as onscreen lan-

guages, menu colors, etc. One idiosyncrasy of the DVL-91, like

the Pioneer-based Theta Vo y a g e r, is that the set-up menus must

be accessed with a disc inserted, but stopped. The

kind of menu you get depends upon the kind of

disc you put in. The onscreen display, besides

having the usual chapter and time information,

includes a digital bit-rate meter, with both a bar

graph and numerical information. As with the

Theta Vo y a g e r , it is an accurate meter, unlike that on the Sony

p l a y e r s .

The front panel of the DVL-91 is sparsely populated with

controls. These include power, play, stop, forward, reverse,

side change (for LDs), display off, and the display itself. There

are also separate eject buttons for CD/DVD and LD. The

remote repeats all of these controls but has no separate eject

buttons, instead responding to what disc is in the machine or

which format was last used. The remote also contains menu

navigation controls, programming and search functions, a

numeric keypad, and a jog dial with shuttle ring. Unfortunate-

Pioneer Elite DV L-91

The Pioneer Elite DV L-91 is compared to the Th e ta Voya g e r

r ev i ewed in TPV 25, our Pioneer Elite DV-09 DVD refe r-

ence playe r, and the Pioneer Elite CLD-97, one of the best

s tandalone laserdisc players from a previous generation. Th e

DVD frequency response differences are insignificant. The DV L-

91 laserdisc playe r’s horizo n tal frequency response, like the Th e ta

Voya g e r, is excellent to 4 MHz (320 TV lines per picture height),

but then falls off rapidly at 5 MHz (400 T V L ) .

Frequency Response ( d B, MHz)

MHz 0.5 1. 0 2 . 0 3 . 0 4 . 0 5 . 0

DV L-91 DV D Y P b Pr 0 0 . 1 0 . 4 0 . 3 - 0 . 6 - 2 . 4

Voyager DVD Y P b Pr0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 4 0 . 4 - 0 . 3 - 2 . 0

DV-09 DVD Y P b Pr0 . 0 0 . 1 - 0 . 2 0 . 2 - 0 . 3 - 1. 9

DV L-91 LD S - Vi d e o - 0 . 5 - 1. 0 - 1. 4 - 0 . 8 - 0 . 8 - 10 . 9

Voyager LD S - Vi d e o - 0 . 3 - 0 . 6 - 1. 2 - 0 . 9 - 0 . 9 - 9 . 0

CLD-97 LD S - Vi d e o - 0 . 3 - 0 . 5 - 1. 0 - 0 . 8 - 1. 9 - 8 . 9

The DV L- 9 1 ’s luminance noise is excellent for a laserdisc playe r

and will not be visible above the background noise of most

discs.

Signal to Noise (dB rm s ) Vi d e o L u m i n a n c e

C o m p o s i t e S - Video (Y/C)

DV L-91 Voyager LD CLD-97 DV L-91 Voyager LD CLD-97

15 kHz-Fu l l 4 9 . 2 4 9 . 7 4 9 . 8 5 0 . 1 5 0 . 8 5 0 . 1

NTC-7 wtd 5 4 . 2 5 5 . 2 5 5 . 7 5 4 . 8 5 5 . 9 5 5 . 8

The DV L- 9 1 ’ s chroma noise did not equal the CLD-97, the best

of the standalone laserdisc players from a previous generation,

continuing the trend found in combi players. The noise is visible

on test patterns but somewhat less so on movies. Measure-

ments are for maximum chroma noise reduction settings since

no adverse effects were found using that setting and noise

i m p r ovements were significant. Chroma noise is far worse on

the composite video output, so use S-Video with laserdiscs.

Signal to Noise

(dB rms) AM Chroma Noise PM Chroma Noise

C o m p o s i t e DV L- 9 1 Voya g e r CLD-97 DV L- 9 1 Voyager CLD-97

L D L D

100 - 500 KHz 42.0 40.2 5 1.0 43.1 4 0 . 7 4 1. 0

100 Hz - 1 MHz 40.2 3 8 . 5 4 5 . 9 4 0 . 5 3 8 . 2 4 0 . 2

S - Video (Y/C)

100 Hz - 500 KHz 5 1. 1 5 0 . 2 5 4 . 1 4 5 . 6 4 0 . 6 4 7. 0

100 Hz - 1 MHz 4 8 . 4 4 5 . 3 5 1. 7 4 3 . 5 3 8 . 8 4 6 . 5

DVD component-video noise performance is excellent.

S - V ideo noise levels are ve ry good and shouldn’t be visible on

a n y discs. But Y P b Pr component video should always be used

to get the best chroma bandwidth and color deta i l .

Signal to Noise

(dB rms) S - Vi d e o Y P b P r

U nwe i g h t e d YC - A M C - P M YP b Pr

DV L- 9 1 DV D 7 2 . 1 5 6 . 1 4 9 . 2 74 . 7 7 7. 1 7 5 . 8

Voya g e r DV D 74 . 7 6 9 . 9 4 8 . 8 74 . 6 8 0 . 0 7 7. 5

DV- 0 9 7 5 . 9 6 6 . 0 4 5 . 6 7 5 . 4 74 . 8 7 5 . 5

Component-video signal alignment was excellent. A 12 nS

luma to color- d i fference signal delay is less than 1/6 pixe l .

YPbPr Delay ( n S ) Pb to Y Pr to Y Pb to Pr

DV L- 9 1 - 11. 8 - 11. 6 - 0 . 2

Voyager DV D - 18 . 2 - 17. 2 - 1. 0

DV- 0 9 3 1. 8 - 4 2 . 9 74 . 7

Convergence Laboratories Test Report Greg Rogers

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

0.5

MHz 1.0

MHz 2.0

MHz 3.0

MHz 4.0

MHz 5.0

MHz

Frequency Response

dB Voyager DVD YPbPr

Voyager LD S-Video

CLD-97 LD S-Video

DVL-91 LD S-Video

DVL-91 DVD YPbPr

Frequency Response

ly, the remote of the DVL-91, like that of the

Theta Voyager, has no back lighting. Given the

small size of many of the buttons, it is easy to hit

the wrong one in the dark.

Like all of Pioneer’s recent combi players, the

DVL-91 has a small drawer on the front to pick up

CDs or DVDs and a larger drawer for holding LDs. Fascinated by

the whooshes and whirrs of sliding trays and turning gears (rem-

iniscent of Dark City), I opened up the DVL-91 and found an engi-

neering work of art. I l o v e watching the laser carriage move from

front to back and roll over, which it seems to do whenever the

disc drawers open or shut. (Pioneer should really consider releas-

ing a special edition in a transparent case.) A good part of this

machinery is Pioneer’s famed Epsilon-turn mechanism, which

moves the laser head from side A to side B of an LD in 10 seconds,

about half the time of the CLD-97. Part of the turn mechanism is

housed in a small box protruding from the back of the case.

DVD Performance

Now that DVD players have reached their “third generation”

and 10-bit video DACs have become the standard, video per-

formance looks much the same no matter the brand or model,

certainly in the $1,000-and-up range. The exception are DVD

players such as the Pioneer Elite DV-09, with additional video

signal processing to adjust picture parameters like color satu-

ration, or to provide advanced adaptive detail enhancement

and noise reduction. MPEG artifacts are now rarely seen –

untrue of many first-generation players. The DVL-91 produces a

DVD image that is largely indistinguishable from that of my ref-

erence player, the Sony DVP-S7000 or the newer Sony DVP-

S7700 (on either Y/C or component outputs). On tests from the

Vi d e o E s s e n t i a l sDVD [DVDI 0711], it appears to have good fre-

quency response to at least 5 MHz; color bars are solid and

without apparent noise. All of this is reflected in good perfor-

mance on a variety of movies. The DVL-91 can display below-

black levels from a DVD, which not all players can do. This is

important for using test patterns to properly set up black levels

on a video display device.

Two areas in which DVD players still differ in perfor-

mance are (1) quality of downconversion from 16.9 format

DVDs to 4:3 displays and (2) motion control. These are areas

in which the Sony DVP-S7700 sets the standard and in which

the Pioneer DVL-91, like its cousin the Theta Voyager, falls

short. On a variety of 16.9 format DVDs, the DVL-91 produced

aliasing artifacts while downconverting, most prominently

observable in images with closely spaced horizontal lines, par-

ticularly if those images move slowly in a vertical direction. In

the opening scene of Goldeneye [MGM 906035], where an air-

plane flies low over a dam, the top of the dam has two close-

ly-spaced horizontal lines. On the Pioneer and Theta Voyager,

these lines twitter a little but are sharp; on the Sony they are

stable but with a slightly softer focus. This is a common dif-

ference between downconversion algorithms: stability with

softer focus or sharpness with aliasing artifacts. I prefer the

non-aliasing appearance of the Sony; you may disagree. Some-

times the aliasing artifacts can be seen on suit jackets with

fine patterns, as in Contact [Warner 15041] at the beginning of

chapter 5, in Tom Skerrit’s jacket, and at the beginning of

chapter 9, in Jody Foster’s. In both instances, the Pioneer and

Theta produce a slightly sharper detail but with twittering,

whereas the Sony produces a slightly softer focus but with a

steady image.

While the DVL-91 is fine for playing movies, I found it

quite difficult to control many of the special features of DVDs.

Slow motion and still-step must be done via the jog/shuttle

control and use of this is awkward, at best. (Perhaps I would

enjoy it more if the player had a faster response time.) I pre-

fer the simpler button controls of the Pioneer 919, also on the

Theta Voyager, or the even better buttons on the Sony 7000

remote. Homing in on a series of still frames, such as on the

Video Essentials test disc, is not as easy as with the Sony 7000

series. The DVL-91 does not provide smooth slow motion in

reverse, but neither do most other DVD players; Sony still sets

the standard here. The DVL-91 is also noticeably slower than

the Sony to jump to different spots on a disc; there are long

delays when jumping to different parts of feature menus. The

DVL-91 also has a limited ability to function with DVD menus

that have multiple layers. The main place I’ve encountered

this is with test discs such as Video Essentials or AVIA [Ova-

tion Software], so it may not concern those who just want to

watch movies. The presence of a single “menu” button, which

functions for Player Menus, Disc Root Menus, and Disc Title

Menus, may contribute to this awkwardness.

LD Performance

The laserdisc performance of the DVL-91, while acceptable,

like the Theta Voyager does not match Pioneer’s last stand-

alone laserdisc players, the CLD-97 and CLD-99. All of the

Pioneer DV-09 Theta Voyager Pioneer DVL-91

Progressive Video Output No No No

Component Video Output YPbPr YPbPr YPbPr

Advanced Digital Video Processing YNR,CNR,H-Detail,V-Detail None DNR

Y/C Delay

Video Calibration Adjustments S-Video Color, Black Level None None

Below-Black Video Output No Yes Yes

96 KHz/24-bit Digital Audio Output Yes Yes Yes

DTS Digital Audio Output Yes Yes Yes

5.1-Channel Audio Priority No No No

Other Laserdisc Player Laserdisc Player

Price $2,200 $6,500 $1,800

Key Features: DVD Players

In the last issue, we previewed a prototype of the DVDO

iScan Plus line doubler, a breakthrough product at $699. Its

price and key feature, inverse-telecine processing, threatens

to restructure the line-doubler market. Inverse-telecine is a

process that can convert interlaced video from film sources to

progressive video without creating deinterlacing artifacts.

Until recently it has been protected by patents making it avail-

able only on line-doublers and video upconverters more than

10 times the price of the iScan Plus. (The inverse-telecine

process is explained fully in Issue 24.)

I have now received a standard production iScan Plus and

can update our earlier evaluation. The inverse-telecine pro-

cessing continues to work as flawlessly as before to deinter-

lace DVD and laserdisc movies, as well as anything shot on

film for broadcast TV. Deinterlacing material shot with video

cameras, where the inverse-telecine process no longer

applies, continues to be rather mediocre. That is actually a

much more difficult technical challenge, so I didn’t expect

anything better for this price.

The complete iScan Plus feature set is implemented on

the production unit, which includes one composite and two

S - Video inputs, but no component video inputs. It is disap-

pointing to give up the higher chroma bandwidth that com-

ponent video inputs would have provided for DVD. Yo u

also don’t get the conventional video picture adjustments

for contrast, brightness, color, tint, and

sharpness. The black level of the produc-

tion iScan Plus was set too low, but this can be compensat-

ed with the projector’s brightness control. I believe the

absence of a color control will be the feature missed the

most. There is very little control over color levels on cable

TV and digital satellite broadcasts, and chroma levels on

laserdiscs and DVDs are sometimes variable, reflecting the

judgement and taste of the telecine colorist.

The performance of the YPbPr and RGB outputs were

essentially the same when connected to a Sony VPH-G90U

front projector. I also didn’t see any of the earlier VCR

Macrovision problems using my Sony SLV-R5 S-VHS deck.

My primary concern with the prototype’s performance was

a significantly softer picture than its more expensive competi-

tion. Here DVDO may have overreacted. The production ver-

s i o n ’s picture appears much sharper, but that has been

achieved by excessively peaking the horizontal frequency

response in the 2.5-3 MHz region. This creates edge-outlining

artifacts, a ghostly white halo adjacent to dark vertical edges

that can most easily be seen against light backgrounds. It isn’t

as bad as the severe edge-enhancement that I have been com-

plaining about on some DVDs, but it is more than I wish to see.

The NTSC decoder in this product has a wide range of hori-

zontal bandwidth settings, so it would be a benefit if DVDO

turned this peaking back down, or somehow provided user

control. A slightly softer picture is preferable to edge-outlin-

ing. Otherwise, the iScan Plus would be the

line-doubler deal of the century.

players mentioned have a similar flat-frequency response to 4

MHz with a rapid fall-off at 5 MHz (seen as a weak image in

the 5 MHz band on a multiburst test pattern, e.g., on the Video

Essentials laserdisc). There is a strange moiré or rainbow

color in the 5 MHz burst on the DVL-91 that I haven’t seen

before. I couldn’t find any examples of this in real-world

images from laserdisc playback, possibly because few

laserdiscs have any content at this frequency.

The DVL-91, like the Theta Voyager, has its weakest per-

formance in chroma noise. On color bars or full-frame color

displays, the noise is best described as “worms” in the image.

This is most prominent in blue and cyan, but is also present in

red, magenta, green, and yellow. The noise can be significant-

ly reduced by turning the variable digital noise reduction (V-

DNR) to max, but is still visible, even with that setting. Fortu-

nately this chroma noise does not often intrude

on laserdisc playback. I noticed it most on older,

noisy laserdiscs. Their inherent noise, added to

that of the DVL-91, created a noisier image than

from the CLD-97/99. The DVL-91 also has an

exaggerated chroma delay: See the Video Essen -

tials test pattern with two red bars on a yellow background.

There is smear of the red bar to the right, into the yellow

background, and it includes an irregular pattern of red dots.

The awkward controls, which I mentioned above for DVD,

also apply for laserdisc. Pioneer’s earlier CLD-97 and CLD-99

had better controls for still step than does the DVL-91, and

their jog/shuttle controls worked better.

Summary

The video performance of the Pioneer DVL-91 is essentially

equivalent to that of the Theta Voyager. It is particularly

impressive as a DVD player, but like the Voyager, doesn’t

equal previous generation state-of-the-art laserdisc players.

However, for $1,800, you get a combination LD and DVD play-

er, which is not a bad deal, especially if you have a collection

of laserdiscs and need a new LD player. There is also the con-

venience of having just one set of hook-ups and one remote

control for all your home-theater optical disc needs. Of

course, as with any stand-alone DVD or LD player, you also

get a CD player in the bargain.

Further Thoughts:

DVDO iScan Plus Line Doubler

PIONEER ELITE DVL-91

Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc.

2265 East 220th St

Long Beach, California 90810

Phone: 1-800-Pioneer

www.pioneerelectronics.com

Source: Manufacturer Loan

Price: $1,800

M a n u f a c t u r e r I n f o r m a t i o n

G R E G R O G E R S

Edinburgh Intl. Film Festival

August 15 – 29, 1999

Edinburgh, Scotland

Montreal World Film Festival

August 26 – September 26, 1999

Montreal, Canada

Black Filmworks Festival

of Film and Video

September 1 – 3, 1999

Oakland, CA

Telluride Film Festival

September 3 – 6, 1999

Telluride, CO

Toronto International Film Fest

September 9 – 18, 1999

Toronto, Ontario

International Broadcasting

Convention

September 10 – 14, 1999

London, England

Le Nombre D’or

September 10 – 14, 1999

London, England

Empire State Film Fest

September 14 – October 9, 1999

Mohawk, NY

British Short Film Festival

September 16 – 23, 1999

London, England

Mostra Rio

September 16 – 30, 1999

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Athens International Film Festival

September 17 – September 24, 1999

Athens, Greece

Independent Feature Film Market

September 17 – 24, 1999

New York, NY

Bangkok Film Festival

September 17 – 26, 1999

Bangkok, Thailand

Drama Short Film Fest

September 19 – 25, 1999

Drama, Greece

Aspen Film Festival

September 22 – 26, 1999

Aspen, CO

South Bronx Film Festival

September 23 – 25, 1999

Bronx, NY

Manhattan Short Film Festival

September 24, 1999

New York, NY

New York Film Festival

September 24 – October 10, 1999

New York, NY

Spokane Film Festival

September 25, 1999

Spokane, WA

Screens on the Bay

September 29 – October 1, 1999

Rome, Italy

Saint Louis International

Film Festival (8th Annual)

October 29 – November 7, 1999

St. Louis, MO

The Rehoboth Beach Independent

Film Festival

November 11 – 14, 1999

Rehoboth Beach, DE

Cairo International Film Festival

November 25 – December 8, 1999

Cairo, Egypt

SEE HEAR

Celebrate Film.

A publ i c ser vi ce of The Per fect

o many Americans, Roberto Benigni and his film Life Is

Beautiful materialized out of nowhere. Who was this

odd foreigner who suddenly jumped to the front of the

line and garnered three Oscars: Best Foreign Language Film,

Best Actor (a first for an actor in a foreign subtitled film), and

Best Dramatic Score? Recently, in television interviews and in

print, Benigni has been depicted largely as a crazy but charm-

ing buffoon who says he loves everybody and spews mangled

English in long incoherent sentences.

But our ignorance has been our loss, for this masterful

comedian is not a Johnny-Come-Lately, and he is nobody’s

fool. His name is a household word in much of Europe, where

he is respected and adored for his large body of work as

writer, director, and actor. Benigni has been a major figure in

Italian cinema for well over a decade, though making only

occasional appearances in American films. He is so well loved

in Italy that there was an astonishing show of public jubilation

– literally, dancing in the streets – when he

won his Oscars. The Pope himself request-

ed a private viewing of Life Is Beautiful –

apparently only the third film the Pontiff

had ever seen.

Unlike many contempo-

rary comedians and comic

actors whose memory of their field goes no further back than,

s a y, Monty Python or the original Saturday Night Live, Rober-

to Benigni has been drawing from the well of the pioneering

masters – particularly the silent ones: Charlie Chaplin, Buster

Keaton, Harold Lloyd. There are also shades of Laurel & Hardy,

the Marx Brothers, Jacques Tati, and Peter Sellers throughout

his work. Fans of silent and classic comedy have been drawn

to him; he appears to be the living embodiment of the traditions

of slapstick and pantomime – rechanneling the magical aura of

these past greats and reinventing it for audiences today. While

he draws inspiration from these comic geniuses, he steals noth-

ing – for he has a unique persona and a style all his own. His

appearance, stance, walk, voice, and gestures are already

unmistakable and are fast becoming as well known as Chaplin’s

once were. What wonderful gifts this man has to offer! His

warmth, charisma, his lust for life, are infectious – and a bit of

fresh air in these cynical times. What makes him an even more

endearing figure is his warm public and pro-

fessional relationship with his wife, actress

Nicoletta Braschi (who calls him “a poet”).

Benigni often includes her as his co-star and

leading lady, referring to her as the “light-

ning” or electricity that ani-

mates his work.

FILM & MOVIES

Classic Comedy’s Second Coming:

Roberto Benigni

A L I C E A R T Z T & B R U C E L A W T O N

Benigni with

Wim Wender

in 1993.

Though a number of films in which Benigni

appears have not reached the US, many of his ear-

lier efforts have been available for some time on

home video in this country. As of this writing, none

of his films have been released on DVD (with the

exception of the just released Seeking Asylum – see sidebar).

But while you wait for the soon-to-be released laserdisc of

Life Is Beautiful, consider the following five films on LD and

VHS:

Down by Law

1986 • 107 minutes

Writer/Director Jim Jarmusch’s starkly photographed black

and white film about three losers – all victims of circumstance

who end up together in a New Orleans jail cell and who subse-

quently escape – was Benigni’s first American (and English-

speaking) feature. The film has a decided “watching paint dry”

pace, particularly in the beginning, which shows the malaise

and boredom of the surroundings – while the visuals and nar-

rative keep things interesting. The first half hour is taken up

with one day in the lives of a hot-shot pimp (John Lurie) and a

down-and-out disc jockey (Tom Waits) leading up to the “set-

ups” that put them behind bars. Around the 20-minute mark,

Benigni makes his first appearance – with his back to the cam-

era – appearing like a vision to the drunken Tom Waits. He says,

“ I t ’s a sad and beautiful world,” in a thick Italian accent, to

which Waits replies, “Buzz off.” Rather than taking offense,

Benigni takes note of this new expression (perhaps a greet-

ing?), practices saying it with different inflections and in differ-

ent contexts – “Hello, How are you and buzz off to you, too!”–

writes it in his little black book for future reference, and disap-

pears. Throughout the film, in an effort to improve his fractured

English, he carries around this little notebook and writes down

any phrase he hears, usually having no idea of its real meaning.

When not spouting Italian translations of American poetry and

p h i l o s o p h y, he innocently and happily parrots these phrases in

incongruous situations.

While he’s an unlikely fellow to find wandering around

Louisiana (almost like a friendly alien from another planet),

Roberto (who goes by his real name in this picture) nonethe-

less becomes the heart of the film. Not long after Lurie and

Waits are jailed, Benigni joins them in their cell. His manner

and demeanor upon entering his new surroundings are not

unlike those of Stan Laurel. Like a child, he is cautious of – yet

curious about – his new “friends.” He studies them, attempts

to make conversation and tries to learn better English from

them. While they are at first reluctant to befriend him, Rober-

to manages to bring them out of their shells. In doing so, he

serves as the glue that gradually brings these two surly, self-

ish, brooding American rebel-types together. While they ben-

efit from his ingenuity (it is he who discovers a means of

escape from the prison and keeps them from starving in the

wild), they also benefit from his warm kindness and friend-

ship. They clearly become better people just from knowing

this “good egg.”

Toward the end of the film, the beautiful NicolettaBraschi

(also going by her real name) appears as a lonely café owner

with whom the fugitives find refuge. The highlight is a loving,

sensuous dance between her and Roberto to the Irma Thomas

song “It’s Raining” on the jukebox. There’s a feeling of blissful

irony and cosmic justice that these two warm souls – Italians

in a foreign land – should meet and fall in love. While the ulti-

mate fate of all the characters is left in question, you can’t

help but suspect that Roberto and Nicoletta will go on to a

happy life together.

The film was released years ago on VHS through the Fox

label, Key Video – then disappeared. It was finally remastered

and re-released on VHS in 1996 by Polygram Video ($15),

which led to its first domestic laserdisc release [ID3911PG]

through Image Entertainment in the same year. The disc is

now an out-of-print collectors item.

Johnny Stecchino

1991 • 102 minutes

Even before Johnny Stecchino (“Johnny Toothpick”), Benigni

had written, directed, and starred in several Italian films (all

of which have yet to be released on video in this country).

However, Stecchino went on to become Italy’s most success-

ful box-office hit until The Monster and Life Is Beautiful, and

thus received a theatrical release here, where American audi-

ences got their first impression of what the multi-talented

Benigni could really do.

Following in the grand film comedy tradition often used

by Peter Sellers, Benigni plays two roles: that of Dante, a free-

spirited bus driver who yearns for romance and has a propen-

sity for stealing bananas (by sleight of hand from fruit mer-

chants), and that of Johnny Stecchino, a macho mafioso

forced into hiding by a feud with a rival family. While the first

role is one that we’ve come to equate with the warm Benigni

Benigni with Claudia Cardinale and Blake Edwards in 1993.

persona, it is the second that gives us a glimpse of his remark-

able chameleonic abilities as an actor. While comical, gang-

ster Johnny is also a menacing figure and one to be feared,

even if not taken completely seriously. This basic premise is

not unlike that of the little known Buster Keaton film, The

King of the Champs-Elysée, a 1934 French comedy in which

Keaton plays both a variation of his usual screen character

and a ruthless gangster.

Through a chance meeting with Johnny’s wife, Maria

(played by Braschi), the unknowing Dante is invited to stay

at the Stecchino villa – to be used as a decoy to deflect atten-

tion away from the gangster in hiding. Numerous farcical sit-

uations ensue, the most hilarious running gag being the inno-

cent Dante’s impression that he’s being dogged by those

around him for banana theft, when really he’s being pursued

by hit men and betrayed m a f i o s i. Another is his being misled

into believing that cocaine is really a miracle medicine for

diabetes! The film is full of such gags and yet remains a light

and bittersweet piece of sublime entertainment. The jaunty

evocative musical score by Evan Lurie is also a treat.

The film was released on VHS and laserdisc [ID23244LI]

by New Line Home Video in 1993 and is in Italian with English

subtitles. The transfer is quite nice and brings out the rich col-

ors of the Italian locales, although several cropped shots

show that it could have benefited from letterboxing. The retail

price of the laserdisc was recently reduced to $20 (down from

$40), although the disc appears to have just gone out of print.

The VHS, which also retails for $20, is still available.

Night On Earth

1991 • 128 minutes

Jim Jarmusch just couldn’t keep himself from using the great

Benigni in yet another of his quirky films. Night On Earth is a

unique concept film (sporting a lurching Kurt Weillesque To m

Waits score) that proves that variety is the spice of life. The

gimmick: five taxi cab rides which take place in succession in

different major cities on Earth (Los Angeles, New York, Paris,

Rome, Helsinki). While all five stories are interesting, the New

York and Rome segments are the most piquant. Benigni, of

course, is featured in the Rome episode and gives a tour de

f o r c e of hilarity in his characterization of Gino, an eccentric,

whacked-out cabby who picks up a weary priest (played with

beautiful comic restraint by Paolo Bonacelli, who also

appeared to great effect in Johnny Stecchino). Upon picking up

his holy fare, Gino spews a barrage of conversation at the padre

– and then gets a bright idea. Since he hasn’t been to church in

quite a while, he asks the priest to hear his confession.

Undaunted by the priest’s protestations, Gino relates with great

gusto his rather odd string of sexual escapades – starting from

puberty! Only an artist of Benigni’s winning personality and

temperament could pull off such an outrageous routine without

appearing sleazy. The sequence is a comic gem,

arguably the highlight of the film.

Both New Line Home Vi d e o ’s VHS and laserdisc

[ID2246LI] releases derive from the same solid

widescreen (1.85:1) transfer that really can’t be fault-

ed, considering how much of this film takes place in dark cabs at

night, lit by the streetlights of the different environments. The

VHS retails for $15 while the laserdisc is one of the most sought

after out-of-print titles around.

Son of the Pink Panther

1993 • 93 minutes

Let’s face it – when the great Peter Sellers died, he took the

key to the Pink Panther series with him. The five “Clouseau”

films that he and comic director Blake Edwards created are

classics of the genre and still constitute the most successful

feature slapstick series ever created. After Sellers’ death,

Edwards and United Artists tried to revive the series with two

companion films produced at the same time. Using many of

the series regulars, he fashioned Trail of the Pink Panther

(1982), which utilized sequences from the previous films as

well as unused ones to tell the story of the “missing” Inspec-

tor Clouseau. This was followed by Curse of the Pink Panther

(1983), which attempted to revive the series by introducing

Clifton Sleigh (Ted Wass) as the second worst detective in the

world. The mediocrity of these two entries appeared to bring

an end to the Panther.

But then a decade later there appeared a beacon of hope.

Comic sensation Roberto Benigni would be a natural to revive

the series – and what better way to bring him on board than to

fashion a premise where he could play Clouseau’s long hidden

(illegitimate) son – the product of a brief romantic tryst with

Maria Gambrelli (Elke Sommer’s character in A Shot In The

D a r k , now played by Claudia Cardinale, Princess Dala in the

Roberto on the Internet

If you are internet savvy, you can check out Benigni’s up-to-

date filmography on the popular Internet Movie Database at:

http://uk.imdb.com/Name?Benigni,+Roberto.

A delightful “Un-Official Roberto Benigni Fan Site” can be

accessed at: http://lavender.fortunecity.com/wildbunch/334/.

Seeking Asylum (Chiedo Asilo)

1979 • 112 minutes

In what is, I hope, only the first of numerous home-video

unearthings of Benigni’s past work, Image Entertainment

has just released Seeking Asylum [ID4771SI] in Italian with

English subtitles on VHS ($20) and on DVD ($25). (The cas-

sette we viewed had a serious glitch for the first few minutes,

which we assume was particular to our copy and not an arti-

fact of Image’s master.) The film stars Benigni as a unorthodox

kindergarten teacher (named Roberto – what else?) whose

anarchic manner with his pupils is not unlike the school scene

in Life Is Beautiful. But as the film goes on, we see that he

regards his charges more as experimental material than any-

thing else. Suspicions of comic ideas and glimpses of the

Benigni to come are in evidence here – not surprising since he

was a co-writer on the film. However, while shot in a sponta-

neous and improvisational manner, the film is mired in ennui

and ambiguity (and ends on a strange and unexpected mysti-

cal note) thanks to its writer/director, the late Marco Ferreri.

Considering Ferreri’s controversial cinematic output, this film

seems to be his most conventional – which is not saying a lot!

If you love Benigni, it’s worth a look, but don’t expect an urge

for multiple viewings.

The transfer appears to be an old one, which, short of let-

terboxing, could have used some attention in the composi-

tional framing department.

The Only DVD…

original Pink Panther film – go figure). Sad to say,

though, the film just doesn’t work. The dramatic plot

of international intrigue (the kidnapping of the

Princess of Lugash played by Debrah Farentino) is

murky and uninteresting. The comic plot with which

it is intertwined – that of Commissioner Dreyfus’ (the great Her-

bert Lom) discovery of a bumbling yet dedicated Gendarme

(Benigni) who causes the return of his familiar paranoia and

accompanying facial tick, is an inspired concept. Naturally,

Benigni is delightful as Jacques Gambrelli-Clouseau, Jr. – and

though there are a number of hilarious moments and bits of busi-

ness, the direction is stale, and the poorly realized script doesn’t

give Benigni enough to work with. For Benigni fans, it is worth

watching for those fun moments, and it includes Braschi in a

cute cameo – which perhaps hints at a sequel.

MGM/UA Home Video released the film in pan-and-scan on

VHS (which is out of print, but seemingly about to be reissued)

and in widescreen (2.35:1) on laserdisc [ML103044], which origi-

nally retailed for $35 but can now be had for $10. The disc also

includes the trailer, which gives the impression of a much better

film. With its scope framing and chapter markers, the disc is a

great way to savor Benigni’s best bits. Oddly, the jacket lists both

the aspect ratio and running time incorrectly.

The Monster (Il Mostro)

1994 • 111 minutes

Produced right before Life Is Beautiful, The Monster is a near

perfect comedy of mistaken identity, making it an obvious

companion piece to Johnny Stecchino. (Like Stecchino, t h i s

film also sports a nifty score by Evan Lurie.) Benigni plays

Loris, a clever fellow who gets by on part-time odd jobs, sup-

plementing his resources through inventive small-time

scams as he manages to stay one step ahead of his creditors

(a character not unlike Chaplin’s Tramp). Through a hilari-

ous risqué incident and subsequent misunderstanding, Loris

is pegged by the local law enforcement as the elusive sex-

crazed serial killer they’ve been after. Sure that they have

their man, they put the unknowing Loris under surveillance,

and as they misconstrue every innocent move he makes,

they become progressively more convinced that he is the

m u r d e r e r. Obsessed with catching Loris red-handed (and

finding out what makes him tick), the police psychologist

(splendid French star Michel Blanc) enlists the assistance of

a policewoman named Jessica (again, the enchanting

Braschi) to go undercover as “bait.” Pretending to look for

an apartment, she ends up rooming with the unsuspecting

Loris, who is mystified at her relentless attempts to be

provocative. The comic situations and developments that

take place under these circumstances are nothing short of

hysterical. The ending (a topper to a running gag) is exquis-

ite and serves as a loving nod to Chaplin. The film is brim-

ming with brilliant gags and bits of slapstick resulting in

farce on a grand scale. That, combined with the vibrant char-

acterizations of the entire cast makes this one of the most

satisfying comedies of all time. This may be just the begin-

ning of what Benigni, along with Braschi, has in store for us.

The film was released in Italian with English subtitles on

VHS through Columbia TriStar Home Video in 1997 and has

just recently come down in price to

the $20 range. The transfer is service-

able although it’s clear throughout

that the film would have greatly bene-

fited from letterboxing. It’s worth not-

ing that the version available here

omits an early four-minute sequence

that, while not essential, is quite funny

and sets up certain adversarial relation-

ships that follow.

Alice Artzt is a professional classical

guitarist who has performed world -

wide and recorded extensively. She

writes on music for The Absolute

Sound.

Bruce Lawton is a motion picture and

video specialist, serving for five years

as archival director of New York’s Kil -

liam Shows, where many silent clas -

sics are stored. He has produced and

edited documentaries and presenta -

tions for public and international

television, and has presided over

home video and laserdisc releases for

Republic Pictures Home Video and the

Voyager Company. He writes for

Sound and Vision, and BraiPlay.com,

and produces “live” film presenta -

tions (including The Silent Clowns

series) in New York City.

he fanatics among you will know, by the time you

read this, that the long-awaited Stanley Kubrick

boxed set of seven films, released through Warner

Home Video, is a great big disappointment.

I am, at the time of this writing, just experiencing that

first wave of anger and incredulity. The DVD set was

released, officially, on the very day this article had to be

turned in, and I only managed by wit and ingenuity – hardy-

har – to scrounge the Kubrick package a few days earlier,

no thanks to Warner’s folks.

And small wonder.

The set consists of Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A

Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The

S h i n i n g , and Full Metal Jacket. MGM issued three other and

earlier Kubrick films separately: K i l l e r ’s Kiss, The Killing,

a n d Paths of Glory. K u b r i c k ’s director- f o r-hire flick, the epic

S p a r t a c u s , evidently had been disowned by the man.

I have no idea why the three earlier films weren’t

included in the “official” Stanley-approved set. Maybe, as in

the case of Spartacus, he didn’t consider them equal to his

best. What we were told, by Warner, was that Kubrick

designed the package and approved its contents. In which

case, double the mystery and double my doubts about cer-

tain of Kubrick’s judgments. None of the discs are “anamor-

phically” enhanced, which is a crying shame. And most of

the transfers have been done at relatively low bit rates,

which results, in too many cases, in soft pictures – even on

a standard monitor.

Lolita, Strangelove, and Barry Lyndon fare best in

terms of picture quality (read: definition), even though the

film stock used in shooting Lolita (as seen in the theater)

wasn’t of consistent quality: Exteriors are sometimes soft in

focus, while the interiors are just jim-dandy. Exactly the

same may be said for Strangelove, which also has more

speckles than you’d ever expect from an element that ought

to be in better shape. (But, then, so does The Shining in

places.) Lyndon looks spectacular, better than I’ve seen it

on any transfer. Note particularly the available-light scenes,

shot with only candles for illumination, which are now

sharply defined with much less color saturation and much

more natural skin tones.

2001 is regrettably exactly the same transfer (unen-

. . . . . . . . .

Special Editions:

Kubrick and The Space Monsters

hanced) that came from UA/MGM some months ago,

with all the flaws of that release, including the image

“sharpenings” that leave everyone, from man to

apes, outlined by fine miniature halos. The picture is soft

and the colors a bit on the pink side (on both my viewing

devices). I doubt that 2001 should ever be seen on home

video, no matter what the size of the screen. It was best pro-

jected in Cinerama (the single lens variety) and shown on

a deeply curved screen. Its grandeur disappears and the

architectonics of its set design and special effects are

reduced to the equivalent of a postcard replication of Vi n-

cent Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” – that is to say, with noth-

ing like the impact and awesomeness of the original.

Once, and the first time I saw it, at the long -gone George

Cinerama in Atlanta, I noted during the film’s opening

moments that, as the camera rose upward to reveal the

alignment of the planets deep into the background, I actu-

ally had the sinking feeling that I was rising as well. See-

ing it on other big screens, but not in a Cinerama installa-

tion, I did not find the sort of involvement I felt with the

opening scene, nor did I have the intense rush of adrena-

line during the now widely imitated “light show” that was

2 0 0 1 ’s penultimate thrill. For that matter, the entire mas-

sive scale of the film is shriveled and with it, much of the

awe 2 0 0 1 could inspire is lost. Instead of the feeling of

great spaciousness that Kubrick manages to work in to

almost every scene, we get a tamed “instant” version of

what was once really a “space” odyssey. On this DVD, we

are not even treated to a picture-book replica of the origi-

nal, but something, in terms of quality, that approaches the

look of an upscale comic book.

Consistency is not much in evidence in the set. F u l l

Metal Jacket and The Shining are shown in their full-frame

versions, not in the 1.66:1 aspect that Kubrick evidently pre-

ferred – 2 0 0 1 being Kubrick’s only foray into multi-channel

sound (which he used with indifference to its potential) and

a very wide aspect ratio. Played back, however, on a 16.9

screen, both The Shining and Full Metal Jacket play better.

In The Shining, for instance, such picture cropping covers

the shadow of the helicopter from which the opening

sequence was filmed. I can’t imagine that Kubrick didn’t see

this as he watched the film on video, just as I am puzzled by

the exterior shots of the Overlook Hotel, where no maze is to

be seen – why the incongruity? And the transfer of The Shin -

i n g appears to be identical with the full-frame version

released on 12-inch laserdisc, and not materially better. It

suggests, Kubrick-approved or no, that the package –

evidently originally intended to accompany Eyes Wi d e

S h u t’s July release – was pretty much thrown together

from existing transfers. We get zilch in the way of special fea-

tures – save for an interview with Arthur C. Clarke on the

2 0 0 1 disc and a Vivian Kubrick directed documentary about

the shooting of The Shining on that disc. Otherwise, nada.

That said, the documentary on the making of The Shin -

ing is tantalizing and, sad to say, all too brief a look at the

director at work, fleshed out with Jack Nicholson’s on-and-

off-set antics and a not very flattering glimpse of some of

Shelley Duval’s diva-like (in the “difficult” sense of diva-

like) tactics during the filming.

With the exception of Barry Lyndon, which I would

much, much rather have seen in a widescreen “enhanced”

version, these transfers are far from the state of the art. I

despised the look of 2001 and found the “softness” of too

many images in A Clockwork Orange distracting (it may

look better on a direct view, small-screen monitor, but you

won’t want to blow the image up to front-projection size).

Both Clockwork and Full Metal Jacket exhibited pinkish

skin tones on both systems here.*

So what do we have? All of the releases from Lolita

through Barry Lyndon at the correct aspect which, except-

ing 2001, is basically 1.66:1 All, save 2001, are monophon-

ic Dolby, with the sound on Barry Lyndonoverly ripe in the

bottom octave (which plays havoc with the e’er-circulating

Vivaldi theme) and not so good as the laserdisc issue. All

appear to be taken from older transfers. There are few

“goodies” for the avid moviegoer in the way of extras. And,

top it, no enhancement. Bad show.

The other big news in boxed sets was the early June

issue of The Alien Legacy from Fox.

For the four movies therein – Alien, Aliens, Alien3,and

*The direct viewToshiba IDTV set, a 32-incher, was set up by Joe

Kane and has always exhibited a breathtaking color fidelity, especially on

hard-to-capture reds. The recently installed Barco is promised a color ana-

lyzer check out of its grayscale and color temperature. I believe it could

use some fine-tuning of its color balance.

**For those who care, the goodies include, on Alien, an interview with

Ridley Scott, the movie’s storyboard, the original score on its own audio

track, some deleted scenes, one of which surely ought not to have been

deleted, given its importance to the versions that would follow, and this

is the scene where the survivors find the first victims of the alien all bun-

dled up in their gooey cocoons. On Aliens, we have an interview with

James Cameron, some behind-the-scenes footage, and the restored 17

minutes missing from the Dolby Digital laserdisc issued last year. On 3,

we have a “making of” feature, original trailers (but, who cares?), and

so on.

Alien Resurrection – we find each at its correct

aspect, 2.35:1 for all save the James Cameron-direct-

ed Aliens, done here at 1.85:1. All are enhanced for

widescreen displays. All are in Dolby 5.1 surround, which,

as we shall soon learn, is not always an unmixed blessing.

And all have value-added features, ranging, at the simplest,

from Resurrection’s making-of featurette, to the chock full

of goodies on the original Alien, now in its “20th Anniver-

sary” edition.**

The bad news? The sound on Alien is stinko. In earlier

laser transfers of the film, the sound is quite remarkable,

especially in terms of low-frequency weight and articula-

tion and in overall dynamics. Considering its l979 origins,

the surround sound was most effectively deployed.***

But on this DVD, there is no low bass to be heard, and lit-

tle in the way of dynamics. Indeed, if you want a notion of

how far off the sound is, you don’t have to look up the earli-

er editions; all you have to do is select and play back the

music track itself (one of the nice features of the disc) and

see how vitiated, anemic, and jejune the sound has become.

Castrated is the word that pops to mind, if not to body.

This disc should be recalled, a new attempt made to

squeeze its wideband response into Dolby Digital’s narrow

band of bits.****

Vi s u a l l y , it’s a hard choice. I think my Palme d’Or for visu-

al excellence would go to A l i e n s (viewed in enhanced fash-

ion), which is up there with the best in my experience. *****

Nearly, maybe just as good is Alien Resurrection, but

what a mess its script is, and its director Jean-Pierre Jeunet

(Delicatessen, The City of Lost Children) brings little of his

outrageous visual flare to bear on the proceedings. Given

its box-office reception, nearly as bad as the critical drub-

bings it took, I doubt there will be another in the series,

although I find the implied prospect of aliens loose on a

futuristic planet earth yummy (maybe they would physical-

ly morph into the sleaze-spitting Matt Drudges of the world

to come). Alien3, which repulsed me when I saw it in the

theater, actually plays better on the smaller screens of the

home theater. ******

It certainly makes more sense. The look that

director David Fincher (S e v e n) bestowed on it was

radical in several senses and made following its con-

voluted goings-on, particularly where the monster was con-

cerned, difficult on first viewing. 3 i s n ’ t as bad a movie as I

first thought, though it is not in the same starry pantheon as

the first two movies. Is it heresy to say that Cameron’s only

two good films are the original Te r m i n a t o r and A l i e n s? If so,

so be it. And the restoration of the 17 minutes he had to cut

to accommodate the marketing powers that be makes sound

emotional sense in the deepening of Ripley’s character,

although I think I could have done without the prolog of

what happened to the colonists. The film works better, I

think, if the way the aliens connected with the people in the

off-world settlement is left a mystery. I find it particularly

objectionable that it is the parents of the one survivor who

first got alienated, so to speak. Too pat. Being pat to the point

of obviousness is one the things I object to most about

C a m e r o n ’s work. In Terminator II, he throws away suspense

and the unexpected, unanticipated shock for the gratuitous

special effect. If the morphing villain of I Icould change him-

self into anything including the floor, the suspense of where

he’d pop up next ought to be killing, but Cameron doesn’t

once take advantage of this inherent license to scare the

remaining wits (not much these days, judging from what’s

making money at the box office) out of the audience.

These discs are available separately, to be sure. So you

might save a buck or more by cherry-picking the best of the

series. I don’t recommend the Alien disc and won’t short of

a remastering (unlikely, I’d think) to solve its sonic woes.

Aliens is a must. Whether or not you go for the other two

would depend entirely on your compulsiveness about these

things. I think you could pass, but then I didn’t, did I?

Special Editions:

A Few Weird Thoughts

I seem to have developed a kind of journalistically induced

schizopolis when it comes to the “added value” stuffings found

in laserdisc and DVD special editions. I deplored the lack of

these features in the Kubrick set and have wondered what

else, beside the kitchen sink, might be found on the DVD of

What Dreams May Come.

As a general rule, I have no use for the “making of” fea-

turettes on DVDs since they are basically promo stuff that

adds virtually nothing to my understanding of the background

of what I’ve just seen. Exception: The all-too-short film made

during the filming of The Shining. Proving the rule: The film

accompanying the release of Gods and Monsters ( “ Worlds of

Gods and Monsters: A Journey with James Whale”), which I

expected to further enlighten me about the life of that director.

It didn’t.

O d d l y, I think, given my endless fascination with film tech-

n o l o g y, I really don’t want to know how every special effect has

been done – some things are better left mysteries, as any prac-

ticing magician can tell you. And I find some of the blather from

directors self-indulgent to the point of narcissism. I under-

stand, from a standpoint of pure ego, the desire of directors

and stars to leave behind some sort of permanent record that

***I saw a 70mm blow-up of this film in one of Long Island’s best the-

aters, before United Artists split it into three theaters and finally razed it

to the ground. The sound design helped scare the pants off me and virtu-

ally everybody else who was there.

****I intend to undertake a lengthy analysis of the all-too-often crum-

my AC-3 sound on DVDs. I have tarried for DTS capability, on the thought

that the DTS soundtracks that haven’t been souped up to the high Andes

might provide a useful comparison, provided I can find a DTS disc that

has not been dicked with.

*****I am working on a comparative listing, in terms of visual excel-

lence alone, for an upcoming Super DVD compilation. So far, for those of

you who cannot wait, that list would include Starship Troopers, Crash,

Austin Powers (but not for content - yes, I just don’t get it), Dark City,

Ronin, Elizabeth, and Gods and Monsters, to name but a few.

****** I saw, with Tom Miiller some years ago, the opening day show-

ing of John Carpenter’s The Thing in a 70mm blow-up, and it left me feel-

ing queasy with stomach over easy, much as did a reading recently of

Thomas Harris’ Hannibal, which cannot, without the dread NC-17 rating

hovering overhead, be translated faithfully to the screen. Those who have

read the ending will know what I mean. When I again sawThe Thing, in

the first of its two laserdisc editions, I found it fascinating and what had

been repulsive was tamed almost into an objet d’art field day for the gift-

ed Rob Bottin. The home-theater experience seems to favor feeling over

impact, expanding our ability to identify or “read in” to the emotional

context of a film, while shrinking the film’s ability to overpower, trans-

port, or disgust.

goes beyond the film itself, since through video we have

come to, essentially, the preservation of film history. But

is, for instance, The Last Starfighter really all that his-

torically significant in the pioneering of digital effects as its

liner notes proclaim, as does an included documentary? Do I

really care, I ask myself, hoping by the asking I can pump up

some enthusiasm for the subject? Nope, not really and truly.

But then again, sometimes I do. I would have loved any

commentary from Stanley Kubrick about his aesthetic sensi-

bility and how he applied it to film. (As noted above, I watched

the documentary on The Shining before I checked out the

quality of the movie’s transfer, and normally a behind-the-

scenes documentary I could care less about.) I would even

liked to have known how some of the Steadicam shots in that

film were made, and whether the evil smile Jack Nicholson

gives the camera as he throws dishes at it was on purpose. I

would like to know how some of the shots in Wo l f e n w e r e

made – and how they got an obviously terrified Albert Finney

to go up on the Williamsburg Bridge’s topmost spans. Ditto for

a director’s cut of Wo l f e n and some commentary about how

he, Michael Wadleigh ( Wo o d s t o c k ) , used sound to tie the the-

matic elements of the film together. *

Or what he originally had in mind before the picture was

taken away from him. I wouldn’t even have minded hearing

from John Frankenheimer about the spectacular last car

chase in R o n i n: DeNiro looks terrified and he appears to be

doing much of the driving. How did they manage the mechan-

ics of driving two high-speed cars the wrong way on a Paris

freeway (and through a tunnel that looks suspiciously like the

one where Princess Diana met death)? And I’m always inter-

ested in seeing the sexy stuff they cut out, e.g., the 65 seconds

of Eyes Wide Shut, which Kubrick fudged on to avert an NC-

17 rating in America, but which will be shown as shot (private

parts and all) elsewhere in the world. Postscript: Wo u l d n ’t it be

an event, if not one likely in this or any other realm, to have a

commentary about his work from Terence Malick?

Maybe I’m just wondering aloud if I am the only movie col-

lector who could do without the sometimes intimidating array

of bonuses that come increasingly on DVD, even for movies

that are quite ordinary. Too much of what passes for “special”

features on DVD is drivel and only partially treated sludge, cre-

ating an illusion of importance and “permanence” for movies

that are quite ephemeral in the sense of having lasting value,

even if such features are therapy for the egos of the

moviemakers, and aromatherapy, in the more odious sense,

for the rest of us.

Worth a Look:

(Relatively) Recent Arrivals

G a l l i p o l i . Peter We i r, director. 1981. 5.1 discrete

surround. 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Enhanced for 16.9.

111 minutes. Paramount.

As it proved with its DVD issue of Days of Heaven, P a r a-

mount is no slouch when it comes a startlingly good video

t r a n s f e r. And of late it seems that Paramount has put itself

solidly back in the camp of those who “enhance” their

transfers for widescreen viewing on a 16.9 sized

screen. (It started out with “enhanced” releases, then

abandoned the practice, now “enhancement” is back on their

recent releases, including, most notably The Ten Command -

m e n t s . )I believe than fans of this early Peter Weir movie (fea-

turing a baby-faced Mel Gibson) will be in hog heaven with

this release. The movie is exquisitely beautiful in this transfer.

Weir knows how to use the widescreen, and this disc could

well be a demonstration for the virtues of preserving a film’s

original aspect ratio. Pan-and-scan, a phrase that always

reminds me of the early California gold miners, hurts this film,

reducing it to a buddy movie when that is only the super-

structure around which Weir has built a picture of the Aussie

and his sensibility, then as now.

What Dreams May Come. Vincent Ward, director. l998.

5.1 AC-3 sound. 2.35:1 aspect. Enhanced for 16.9. 114

minutes. THX. Polygram.

Vincent Ward has made two fascinating films. One is called

The Navigator: A Medieval Odyssey, the other is Map of the

Human Heart.

The Navigator is a wondrous strange little film, about

some medieval villagers, on a kind of crusade (looking for

a cross) who stumble across time and into contemporary

New Zealand. It is a film full of odd and quite gripping

moments, none finer, to my way of thinking, than their con-

frontation with a freeway, which they must cross if they are

to succeed in their venture. Map of the Human Heart,

which is available on a laserdisc you must not buy, is a film

that works best and only in its wide aspect ratio. If you see

the pan/scan version, you won’t have the vaguest notion

why us modern-day Romantics find it such a gem of narra-

tive storytelling. (Even the versions shown on satellite’s art

movie venues, usually home to widescreen issues, are

pan/scan.) I don’t know how to explain what happens. But

somehow the heart has gotten cut out of the film.

What Dreams could have been every bit as good as the

two earlier films if only Ward could have had a Tom Hanks

or some latter-day Jimmy Stewart in the lead, instead of a

pompous, smug, condescending Robin Williams, who, I’d

guess, isn’t into the material at all. Lacking that kind of High

Romantic’s sensibility, he would be bound to a kind of con-

fusion about the character he is playing. We have to believe

in a man who loves his wife to the point that he would give

up all hope of Heaven to find and to rot beside her in Hell.

So Williams slaps on a goofy, sweet grin, the one that has

carried him through so many other mushy roles, and tries to

look sincere. He’s as out of place in this fantasy as I’d be at

a militiaman’s convention. And it wrecks the picture. We

can’t believe in him, so we don’t believe in it. By a mile, it

was the worst performance by a major male star last year

(and he still had Patch Adams ahead of him).

Williams dies, in more ways than one, early on in the

picture and goes to a Heaven that seems to consist of his

wife’s paintings, evidently meant to be her idea of heaven,

though it is not quite clear why it should be his. This gives

the special effects “artists” – and in this movie they are that

*This movie is still available on laserdisc and is a showcase, even in

matrixed form, for the use of surround sound.

– opportunity to run riot with the colors and they do.

Dreams has some of the most beautiful visuals you’re

going to see short of the next world and this transfer

does them full, full justice. It is one of those rare instances

where high-tech movie reproduction in the home is fully

justified by the visual content of the film you’re seeing.

Which only makes me the angrier at whoever did the cast-

ing (they needed a star for box-office gross; that didn’t save

the investment in this case, just the opposite). It’s too bad

they can’t digitize him out of the film and put Jimmy Stew-

art in. That way the elaborate structure and plotline of the

movie would have had the solid foundation it needed.

Yes, you should rent. And I guess fairness requires me

to say that the film is developing a cult following; some

folks quite like it. I did not. I squirmed and watched the

clock and picked holes in every illogical loop in the film,

which I wouldn’t have done had I “bought in,” that is,

believed in the ability of the main character to love with

that degree of passion and sacrifice. (Oh yes, the ending is

just as sappy as a maple in Vermont.) What a beautiful,

beautiful looking DVD. Oddly, I don’t remember a thing

about the sound, so engrossed was I in the visual.

Barbarella. Roger Vadim, director. l968. Dolby mono.

2.35:1. 98 minutes. Paramount.

At last, B a r b a r e l l a done justice. The laserdisc widescreen

transfer was nowhere near so good as the one here and the

mono sound on that issue was shrill and horrid, like some of

the music tracks on an Italian horror film. Not so here –

smooth as could be and given the importance of the

Bacharach-alike score to the film, a genuinely lovely surprise.

Jane Fonda has long since turned her back on sex-kitten

(or even sexy) roles, and so it is easy to forget just exactly

how beautiful she was when she was married to Roger

Vadim. She alone is worth the price of admission and you

certainly would get more than one eyeful. The film’s PG rat-

ing gave me pause for thought. It would, with its acres of

revealed skin and suggestive, how is it they say it – “sexual

situations”? – get a sterner rating today.

I like the quality of the transfer. It is just shy of being in

my top ranking (but nevertheless, some thing like an A-) and

has made me try to devise sub-categories for the best DVD

transfers. The differences between the best and those just

below that exalted level are actually quite small. And I’m not

yet sure how to quantify those most minor differences. The

very best transfers have a quality of coherency, almost like

the concept of “continuousness” I devised for audioland edi-

fication, about the image, maybe a smooth fluidity and con-

sistency of resolution that makes the picture seem, especial-

ly on a big screen, almost seamless.

Noted in Passing

The Last Starfighter. 1984. 5.l Surround. 2.35:1.

Enhanced for 16.9. 101 minutes. Universal.

Fairly simple and sorta sweet story about a guy and his video

game, called “The Last Starfighter.” The object is to shoot

down alien spaceships. What he doesn’t know is that,

upon becoming the highest scorer, he will actually get

a chance to do just that in fact. It’s a recruiting tool.

Lotsa digital effect of the sort Disney pioneered in Tron

(which was the film of genuine historical importance for

these kinds of special effects). Nice widescreen transfer, if

a little soft looking despite a high bit rate, with quite good

sound in terms of bass, dynamics, though with not too

much emphasis on surrounds per se.

On the other hand, the movie’s fairly bland, maybe a

once-a-year sort of thing to entertain undemanding friends.

Silverado. Lawrence Kasdan, director. 1985. 5.1 sur-

round. 1.85:1. Enhanced. 135 minutes. Columbia.

The box says the movie’s aspect is 2.35:1, but ’taint so. Sil -

verado was originally shot in what they call Super 35, a

process favored by James Cameron, one that I don’t find

Super visually. The idea is to shoot the movie full frame,

while also composing for an aspect of 2.35:1 within the

frame for theatrical release (the full-frame version thus

goes to video, where there is, as some would have it, near-

ly twice as much picture information). It was a treat in its

wider aspect; much is lost at 1.85 in terms of the film’s look

and architecture. And I think portions of the transfer look a

bit brown and grainy. Not to my liking. Silverado itself,

despite flaws, is a hugely entertaining western. I hope it will

be done “right” one of these days. But this wasn’t that day.

The Ugly. Scott Reynolds, director. l998 (US release

date). 2-channel Dolby. 1.85:1. Not enhanced. Trimark.

This sharp-looking and beautifully edited Down Under horror

film from New Zealand looks like the work of a major new tal-

ent. Its first 40 minutes (or so) are as good as anything I’ve seen

lately on the horror circuit. The sleek visuals and high-intensi-

ty color schemes add measurably to the pleasure of watching

it. And the sound is surprisingly good, if entirely too heavy on

the subterranean bass (á la the madhouse scene in Silence of

the Lambs) and a bit light on some of the dialog (unfortunate-

ly no subtitles to help us over the rough patches). During that

first 40 minutes, before we know which way the writer is going

with the story, the movie is filled with real possibilities of being

a minor classic in the mind-bender school of horror noir.

You begin to wonder if the mad patient in the asylum

h a s n ’t driven everyone crazy and what a picture it would

have been had this been the way it went. Alas, despite

some wonderful near-psychic touches, which the movie

d o e s n ’t follow through on, things take a predictable turn

toward the conventions of the genre. The use of black

blood for the gore sequences actually struck me as an art-

ful way of distancing us from the slaughter – it is far from

the only imaginative touch, but all to little avail. Shown

unenhanced on the big screen in Room 1, it was a terrific

looking disc. Not all that different from the average

“enhanced” disc. The liner notes on The Ugly say the

movie is for “16 x 9 widescreens” which led me to believe

it had been enhanced, but no, it wasn’t.

Elizabeth. Shekhur Kapur, director. With Cate Blanchett

(Elizabeth), Joseph Fiennes (Leicester), Geoffrey Rush

(Walsingham), Christopher Eccleston (Norfolk), Richard

Attenborough (Cecil). 1.85:1 Widescreen. Dolby 5.1.

Polygram Video. Enhanced for 16.9.

Mrs. Brown. John Madden, director. With Judi Dench

(Queen Victoria), Billy Connolly (Brown), Antony Sher

(Disraeli). 1.85:1 Widescreen. Dolby Four-Channel

Surround. Miramax Classic Widescreen.

Gods and Monsters. Bill Condon, director. With Ian

McKellan (James Whale), Brendan Fraser (Clayton

Boone), Lynn Redgrave (Hanna), Lolita Davidovich

(Betty), David Duke (David Lewis). 2.35:1 Anamorphic

Widescreen. Dolby Digital 5.1. Universal.

Enhanced for 16.9.

ineteen-ninety-eight was another banner year for the Virgin

Queen. As acted by the great Judi Dench, Elizabeth

played a small but memorable part in Shakespeare in

L o v e.1As portrayed by giggly, gimlet-eyed Cate

Blanchett, in Shekhur Kapur’s

gaudy Gothic meller Elizabeth, she got

an entire “coming of age” movie of her

own. All things considered, she was considerably better off in

the supporting role.

Not only does this so-called “historical drama” play

fast and loose with the facts,2it does so in particularly

unhappy ways.

Lord knows, England was in a “parlous state” when Eliza-

beth came to the throne, to quote Richard Attenborough’s

weak-kneed Cecil. The wounds of the War of the Roses, only

75 years past, were not yet healed; the cultural, economic, and

religious divisions that would throw all of Great Britain into

Civil War a mere 40 years after Elizabeth’s death were setting

Englishman against Englishman. Yes, there were court

intrigues. Yes, there were plots against Elizabeth’s life and

crown. But to present virtually every major character, from

lovers to conspirators, as curly-eyed, saaaasssy young things

– all of whom look like pirates who were kidnapped by royal-

ty when they were babies, all of whom speak a hilarious quasi-

Elizabethan version of the superheated, crisis-mode dialog

SECOND RUN

. . . . . . . . .

Biopics: Three British Royals

1 Despite the fact that Dench had a total of eight minutes screen time in

the witty but lightweight Shakespeare, she was awarded the Oscar for Best

Supporting Actress of 1998 – a classic example of the Academy’s biennial

“consolation” award, making up for the Best Actress Oscar that Dench

should have won – but didn’t – for her performance as Queen Victoria in

Mrs. Brown.

2 For instance (and, zounds, how many “f’r-instances” there are in this

film!), Sir William Cecil (Richard Attenborough) is portrayed as a doddering

old buffoon, when, in fact, he was a mere 13 years older than Elizabeth and

served her faithfully (and well) for better than 40

years, dying just five years before she did.

J O N AT H A N VA L I N

you regularly hear on ER, all of whom act as if they were in a

Tudor version of The Godfather – is to turn high drama into

high kitsch.

Director Kapur’s florid, melodramatic visual style only

makes bad matters worse. Kapur dotes on short, punchy,

M T V-like takes, in which he typically ratchets up the fore-

boding (the one effect he seems to have mastered) by shoot-

ing in very low light from lots of quick, “arty” angles. He

loves setting his actors in frantic, pointless motion and then

tracking them restlessly down dark, column-lined corridors.

He is also far too fond of crosscutting, in hackneyed fash-

ion, between pretty sunlit or candlelit idylls and ominous

shots of horses galloping across moors or armed men strid-

ing dark castle halls. When this whole calliope of clichés is

set to David Hirschfelder’s dreadful, pounding, prophetic

score, the saga of Elizabeth’s transformation from princess

to Virgin Queen is turned into Gothic camp. The Castle of

Otranto 90210.

Although the producers of Elizabeth went to great

extent to film in authentic locations (as if keeping faith

with the past were simply a matter of keeping up appear-

ances), their true intentions are clear from the start. The

movie has been written, shot, and cut strictly for the high-

adrenaline, short-attention-span Gen-X market. There are

flashes of romping-through-the-fields romance and dirty

dancing for the girls; dusky romps in the hay and violent

revenge for the guys; and a cast that was clearly selected,

coifed, and costumed with an eye to what would appeal to

young viewers of each sex. Polygram ordered the old girl

and her courtiers to lively up themselves – and figured

they’d ordered up a hit.

A hit the movie was, although not, as you can tell, in the

Valin household. Cate Blanchett, who is perhaps the only rea-

son to sit through this kitschy claptrap, looks great and acts

well in a tough part, but even she goes over-the-top on occa-

sion. (Take a look at the scene in which she is forced by Cecil

to accept the Duke of Anjou as a suitor, while simultaneously

trying to deal with her jealous lover, Robert Dudley [1:9, c. 50

minutes]. Blanchett flies about, with Kapur’s camera doing its

usual ring-around-the-rosy, twisting her hands and screwing

up her face like a bad actress in a bad silent film.)

E l i z a b e t h is a very good-looking transfer, with a powerful

Dolby Digital soundtrack and a lot of thunderous low bass – for

what those things are worth, which isn’t much, in my opinion.

* * *

If Elizabeth turned out to be a major disappointment, Mrs.

Brown, another film about another great English monarch,

turned out to be a surprising success.

Unlike Shekhur Kapur, director John Madden is a pro with

a straightforward, serviceable visual style that never gets in

the way of the storytelling. As a filmmaker, he has the virtues

of modesty, faith in his actors, and good taste in scripts.

(Shakespeare in Love was his next project.) All of which

means that Mrs. Brown, which starts from a far less promis-

ing (and sexy) premise than Elizabeth, holds you for almost

its entire length by the power of its plot-line and the pleasure

of its performances.

As I said, the premise is not promising, though more accu-

rate historically than anything in Elizabeth. After the death of

her beloved consort, Prince Albert, Queen Victoria sank into

a years-long depression. While she sat in Windsor and

mourned, her country was left virtually without a monarch,

giving the crown’s enemies in the House of Com-

mons, Gladstone and the Liberals, room to maneu-

ver and giving her son, Albert, the opportunity to

promote his own regency.

In an attempt to revive her spirits and head off

a constitutional crisis, some of the Queen’s advisors decided to

call on John Brown, a Master of Horse at Balmoral Castle in

Scotland, whom Prince Albert had greatly admired and who

had once saved the Queen’s life after a carriage accident. The

thought was that the rugged, affable Brown could entice Vi c t o-

ria to go riding – and that once out-of-doors, out of Wi n d s o r

Castle, her depression might begin to lift and her mourning end.

What none of the Queen’s counselors realized was that

Brown was an extremely independent and headstrong Scot,

with his own firm ideas about how to raise the Queen’s spirits

– and with an absolute devotion to her person. Beginning with

their daily rides, he gradually won Victoria’s trust – and, to

everyone else’s horror, her heart. Before long, he was the

most powerful man in court – able to persuade Victoria to

move her royal family and retinue to Balmoral, in the High-

lands, able to control the Queen’s daily regimen and official

schedule, able to head off her son, Albert, whom he treated

with utter disrespect.

The court and Commons began to gossip about Brown and

“Mrs. Brown,” raising the possibility of a monarchy-wrecking

scandal and leading the Queen’s Prime Minister Benjamin Dis-

raeli (Antony Sher, in a marvelously arch and supple perfor-

mance) to visit Balmoral and try to negotiate with Brown the

return of the Queen to London – and the public eye.

Nothing sensationally dramatic occurs in the course of

Mrs. Brown – certainly nothing like the bloody intrigues and

hot liaisons of E l i z a b e t h . Queen Victoria and John Brown

d o n ’t even share a kiss. And yet the love that grows between

them – and the way that love transforms the Queen, giving

her the strength to carry on – is enough to keep us highly

entertained.

Although Billy Connolly does a superior job as burly John

Brown, the faithful servant, his performance grows a bit one-

note as he bangs against the limits of the belligerent Scot’s

foursquare character. One gets a bit weary of hearing

Brown/Connolly bray things like, “Woman, why y’no listen to

me?” in that booming brogue. On the other hand, Judi Dench’s

Victoria, which is acted within an even narrower expressive

compass than Connolly’s Brown, is a thing to marvel at.

Given Vi c t o r i a ’s infamous sense of propriety, Dench has to

express the Queen’s love for Brown primarily by indirection –

rather than through words or deeds. The glint of her smile, the

subtle movements of her eyes or hands become barometers of

what her character is thinking and feeling. That a performer

can make such gestures consistently expressive of complex

and shifting emotional states – without hammering them too

hard, without going over-the-top – is acting of the highest order.

In its modesty and restraint, Mrs. Brown may well be the

ultimate Victorian love story, but that does not keep it from

being a moving one – or keep Dench from giving the best per-

formance of 1997. * * *

For the best performance of 1998, you’ll have to turn to anoth-

er type of British royal – expatriate film director James Whale,

whose life and death are the subjects of Bill Condon’s deeply

affecting biopic, Gods and Monsters.

Whale made his reputation in Thirties Hollywood, direct-

ing a number of successful mainstream films such

as Waterloo Bridge (1930), Showboat (1936), and

The Man in the Iron Mask (1939). But it is his

wildly popular horror films – Frankenstein (1931),

The Old Dark House (1932), The Invisible Man

(1933), and The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) – for which he

is chiefly (and rightly) remembered. (The title of Gods and

Monsters is taken from a scene in Bride, in which Franken-

stein’s assistant, Dr. Praetorius, toasts Frankenstein’s brave

new world of god-like scientists and their creations.)

In the early Forties, Whale fell out of favor with the studios

and the public. Whether because of his sex life (he was openly

gay at a time when gay Hollywood was deeply closeted), or,

more likely, a series of failures at the box office, he retired from

filmmaking into genteel disgrace – living a life of dilettantism

and dalliance that ended when a series of strokes incapacitat-

ed him in 1956. In the following year, Whale drowned himself in

his backyard swimming pool, leaving a note for his ex-lover, the

film producer David Lewis (Arch of Tr i u m p h, Raintree Coun -

t y): “The future is just old age and illness and pain.... I must

have peace and this is the only way. ”

Director Bill Condon, himself a dabbler in horror films

(Strange Invaders), has taken this cautionary tale of Holly-

wood excess and managed to fashion it into something a good

deal closer to Death in Ve n i c e than Death in Brentwood.

Indeed, the film is a triumph of style, producing, at its wordless

denouement (and in a final wordless scene following its

denouement), an ache of genuine sadness the likes of which I

h a v e n ’t experienced from a film in many a year.

How Condon has done this is chiefly a matter of four

notable successes: a hauntingly beautiful score commissioned

from composer/arranger Carter Burwell; an unusually intelli-

gent and inventive script (that Condon himself wrote, based

upon Christopher Bram’s novel, Father of Frankenstein); a

visual style that perfectly matches the intelligence and inven-

tion of the script; and, finally, what was and will remain – so

beyond doubt, question, or debate that the voting contingent of

A M PAS ought to have its collective membership revoked – the

finest performance of the year by an actor in a leading role. Sir

Ian McKellen, who is himself openly gay (the first openly gay

Britisher to be knighted), brings this sad, witty, complex man to

the most vivid life imaginable. It is the role of a lifetime and a

c a r e e r-crowning achievement.

Like Mrs. Brown, Gods and Monsters is about the myster-

ies of love and friendship, but it is also very much about the

ways art and life grow knotted together, like vines in bark.

Indeed, as in the novel it is based on, the film attempts to under-

stand Whale’s life and death as variations on the very story that

Whale himself made famous on film – F r a n k e n s t e i n .

At times, the parallels to the novel (and Whale’s version of

i t ) makes this extremely well-crafted film seem somewhat

overwrought, as if Condon were intent on having every shot of

every scene answer to some aspect of the myth. For example,

in his excellent commentary track on the DVD, Condon talks

about how he deliberately photographed Brendan Fraser in bits

and pieces through the opening credit sequence – his feet, his

face, his torso, never his whole body. The point being that Fras-

e r ’s character, Clay, is like the monster – inchoate, just parts –

until he meets his “creator” in James Whale, who “reassembles”

him into a “whole” person.

While this sort of thing is tough to see on the screen (even

when you know it’s coming), it says something about the wit

and subtlety with which the film was made. And without doubt,

that wit and subtlety – and, yes, Condon’s overriding metaphor

– pay off emotionally. I have rarely seen a film in recent years

that is so intricately crafted to such powerful effect.

Gods and Monsters begins in 1957, after a series of mild

strokes has already begun to take a heavy toll on Whale physi-

cally and mentally. Haunted by bad memories and the nearness

of death, Whale attempts to maintain his spirits and his sanity

by doing what he’s always done – flirting, drawing, trying to

preserve the illusion that his life is as orderly and urbane as it

once was. It is through flirting that he meets Clay, a tall hunk of

a gardener, fresh out of the Marine corps, with a handsome,

square-jawed, high-browed face and huge physique that

reminds Whale (and us, a little) of Frankenstein’s monster.

Whale pretends that he wants to use Clay as a model for his

sketching (although, as we find out late in the film, Whale’s

mind is so disordered that he can no longer sketch). Once he

discovers that Whale is the director of the F r a n k e n s t e i n f i l m s

– “Just the first two,” Whale notes, with characteristic asperity.

“The others were done by hacks.” – Clay agrees to pose.

The exceptionally naïve and very straight Clay truly believes

that Whale is interested in him as a subject – as a person – and

is flattered by the attention. To Clay, Whale represents a life, a

level of culture, that he’s seen only in movies. (His own life is an

aimless ruin.) Even after he learns that Whale is gay, he contin-

ues to sit for him, although the thought that Whale may be see-

ing him as a sex object (which Whale innocently denies) clearly

upsets him. It’s as if Whale were a god, and Clay his grateful,

adoring creature – eager to learn, eager for friendship. The par-

allel with the Frankenstein story is patent.

Whale, who has only been pretending to sketch the boy in

order to get him to take off his shirt and have some fun ogling

him, begins, almost against his will, to talk to him candidly.

Whale explains this sudden candor by saying that there is

“something about your face that brings out the truth,” only it is

not Clay’s face but his trust that makes Whale so helplessly sen-

timental. That trust reminds Whale of another boy who trusted

him absolutely – a secret from the past which is not told until

late in the film.

Whale as Frankenstein and Clay as his Creature are scarce-

ly the only parallels this film draws between life and art. Con-

don is intelligent enough to see that Whale was both Franken-

stein a n d the Creature – both a creator of mythic films about

monsters and himself a charming monster, born of wishful con-

fabulation and sheer will power.

W h a l e ’s miserable youth, which he spent a lifetime repress-

ing, is presented in flashback memories during his talks with

C l a y. Born of a poor family in northern England, he was, as he

later confesses, like a “giraffe given to a family of farmers. What

could they do but hook the giraffe up to a plow?” Rejected by

his father, who despised his effete manner and artistic ambi-

tions, he was forced out of school and set to work in a factory

while still a boy.

W h a l e ’s experiences in the First World Wa r , also presented

as flashback memories, made him – and destroyed him. As an

officer in the trenches, he adopted the manner of the upper

crust and discovered his talent to direct men. He also had a

homosexual affair with a handsome young adjutant, who

adored him and whose horrible death (and the terrible imprint

it left on Whale) is the guilty secret at the heart of the film.

In Hollywood, Whale the director managed to reinvent his

past, as so many in Hollywood have done. Like Frankenstein

and the Monster in one, he killed off the poor, undereducated

outcast he was born and – using pieces of other lives real or

imagined – reconstituted himself as the sophisticate he always

wanted to be. The only vestiges of the old “Jimmy Whale” are

found in his films, which, like the patchwork monsters they’re

about, turn the bits of horror, loneliness, and alienation that

Whale repressed from his past into an art that was quintessen-

tially about death, loneliness, and the pain of not belonging.

What makes this movie so deeply moving is the way these

long-suppressed truths come to light. It is the film’s conceit that

W h a l e ’s stroke, while not completely debilitating, leaves him

defenseless against images and scenes from his youth and

young manhood; they flood in on him in hallucinations that are

heartbreakingly sad. It is Clay – the least likely (or perhaps, as

a stranger and straight one at that, the most likely) of confi-

dantes – who gives Whale the chance to bring these disowned

memories back into focus – a last chance to confess to anoth-

e r, and to himself, the unvarnished truth.

Empowered by Whale’s friendship and candor, Clay also

finds his way to telling the truth about his own past of grinding

p o v e r t y, alienation, and rootlessness. These two men, so com-

pletely different in culture, achievement, and sexuality, some-

how discover what they share, and that they d o share these

things, in spite of the vast gulf between them, is what makes

their unlikely friendship so affecting.

Having used the Frankenstein myth as a metaphor for

W h a l e ’s life and art, Condon goes the final step at the film’s cli-

max, where art becomes life.

Unable to bear the sadness of the past or his growing help-

lessness in the present, Whale tries to use the bond of affection

that has grown between him and Clay to put an end to his suf-

fering. In a terrible act of desperation, Whale accosts Clay sex-

ually – deliberately turning the younger man’s love into some-

thing ugly in the hope that Clay will react with violence and kill

him, as Frankenstein is killed by his monster. Although we

understand the despair that motivates him, Whale’s cruelty has

a devastating effect on Clay, who, as he tearfully says, is not a

m o n s t e r. It isn’t hard to know at this point in the film who the

real monster is – and Whale, to his credit, realizes this. His apol-

ogy to Clay – and Clay’s acceptance of it – is a thing of great

grace and pathos.

That night Whale commits suicide. We do not see the act.

Instead, Condon gives us the most remarkable sequence in the

film – a wordless dream-like fantasy, in which Clay (dressed as

the Creature) leads Whale to his rest, to sleep beside his long-

dead lover in the death-filled trenches of Passchendaele. It is,

the movie suggests, the place in time that Whale never really got

beyond – and it is one of the saddest scenes I’ve seen on film.

There is yet another sequence at the film’s close, long after

W h a l e ’s suicide, that has almost as touching an effect. I will not

spoil it for you, save to say that it caps off this great movie – and

I truly believe that Gods and Monsters is a great movie (high

among the very best of last year, or any year) – perfectly.

I am happy to report that Universal’s DVD transfer is sen-

sationally good, visually and aurally. It and the movie get my

highest recommendation.

HP Comments:

I think His Nitpickingness is being grumpy and hypercritical.

Misappropriating a line from Apocalypse Now, complaining

about inaccuracies in a historical film (or any of today’s “true”

stories) is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

What makes E l i z a b e t h work, despite the necessary

time compression and factual revisionisms (several

of which are more serious than the example he

cited), is the way it suggests the constant danger

she faced in the early days of her rule, and how she

persevered through enormous force of will, an inner toughness

she used to reshape herself from sweet young thing into iron

maiden. And her performance captures every nuance of the

changes she underwent, from the aflutteredness of a young

woman onward. The mafioso-like plottings of even her inner

circle justifies the G o d f a t h e r borrowings and help give the

movie an irresistible pulse. (If Valin wants to see real MTV- s t y l e

editing, he ought to check out Run, Lola, Run.)

The visual quality of E l i z a b e t h is among the best. But, I

w o n d e r, what is it about British films and pinkish skin tones?

C a n ’t figure it. The sound is big, bold and dramatic, with con-

siderable bass energy, a definite improvement over that in the

theatre where the dialog was drowned out consistently. M r s .

B r o w n is a pretty good transfer, even though it isn’t enhanced -

why can’t Miramax cut against the Disney corporate grain,

which has decreed, for now, no enhancements, and do its trans-

fers the honor that many so deserve?

Gods and M o n s t e r s has the best color rendition of any DVD

I can think of, beautiful 2.35:1 framing – it looks better on this

disc, in terms of color fidelity and saturation, than it did in the

t h e a t e r. The sound, even though two-channel, is superb, but I

wonder why Universal didn’t go the extra mile, and use the orig-

inal four discrete tracks instead of their matrixed version?

Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut

. . . . . . . . .

yes Wide Shut is one of those films that has the main-

stream movie reviewers (I don’t dare use the word crit-

ic in this context) in cloud cuckooland, with their

assessments reading more like Rorshachs than having much

to do with Stanley Kubrick’s last film. If you’ve seen the pic-

ture, reading the reviews can be a bucket of fun, especially if

you have an idea of what’s really going on in the film.

First of all, E y e s is a horror movie, and has more in com-

mon with The Shining than with any other Kubrick opus.

The Shining failed, finally, because Kubrick never success-

fully connected the ghost story with his hero’s descent into

madness. He is far too literal a director to hurl himself with

abandon into the conventions of a ghost story. And so you

get two-thirds of a great movie that, for all practical pur-

poses, ends when the “ghosts” let Jack Torrance out of the

food-storage room.

What The Shining is really about is the fragility of the

family and its susceptibility to attack. It fails because Kubrick

cannot correlate Jack Torrance’s inner demons with those

that exist independently of him or are functions of his own

subconscious projections. The Overlook Hotel represents the

ghosts of the past, and the ghost in Torrance’s past is the bot-

tle, which, of course, the ghosts are quick to provide (in the

form of Jack Daniel’s). The drinks, we may assume, are not

real, but the alcoholism – or its root cause – is, since it

unleashes his inner demons.

In Eyes, the family is once again under attack. And the

trigger is, once again, an external one – the wife (Kidman),

whose confession of a passing crush unleashes her

foursquare (doctor, played by Cruise) husband’s demons of

sexual jealousy and sends him on an Odyssey through New

York’s sexual underworld – a demimonde depicted in cool,

stylized, and, at its core, highly ritualized fashion. His preda-

tory curiosities, once evoked, threaten both him and his fam-

ily. Kubrick once again fails, and by a wider margin than he

did in The Shining, to correlate his mythic hero’s journey into

the underworld of the subconscious with the externals of his

life as we are shown them.

Making the connection with The Shining e x p l i c i t ,

Kubrick films a party sequence near the opening in much the

same fashion (and exactly the same colors) as he did the

haunted Ballroom sequences of the Overlook; he even plays

some of the same music. The party’s host is Sidney Pollack,

playing a corrupt Manhattan patient of Cruise; Pollack’s avun-

cular manner notwithstanding, he serves the function of

Charon in Cruise’s journey to the far shores of Hades. And it

is he who, toward the film’s end, will try to explain away much

of what has threatened Cruise as a “charade.”

The film’s central tableaux is a ceremonial sexual rite

(set in a mansion in Glen Cove, Long Island, which drew

huge laughs at the local theater) and it is more frightening

than anything in The Shining – with the possible exception

of the baseball bat sequence. All of the guests – Cruise

being the party crasher who is about to be exposed – are

dressed in cloaks and masks and resemble nothing less

than an army of c o m m e n d a t o r i from A m a d e u s. The music,

the chanting, the sepulchral spaces, and the mechanical,

stylized sexual couplings all suggest sexuality run rampant,

that is, sexuality without feeling. (One has to look no fur-

ther than the S&M community for insight on how the trap-

pings of sex become a substitute for love.) And sexuality

without love, that is, outside the family, Kubrick views with

p.c. heterosexual suspicion.

This sequence surely wasn’t meant to be pornographic or

sexy; it strips bare the intellectual threadbareness of the

MPAA and its consummate white-bread (and childish) fear of

sex. What Kubrick suggests, I would argue, is that this form of

sex is a form of death and that is why it was without anima-

tion – there was no need to cover up the soft-core behavior of

the mannequins. What the scene reveals is both the charac-

ter’s and the director’s fear of death, as represented by the

death of love. Indeed, what could be more explicit than the

offer of a young woman to stand in Cruise’s place once he is

discovered and about to be sentenced to death? She saves

him, and the next day he learns that she is really dead. Cruise,

of course, is way out of his depth here. He is surrounded by

vampires and he’s incapable, Top Gun-style, of showing the

slightest bit of fear (the horror of a big shot looking weak!).

Nor can he suggest layers of depth within the repressed doc-

tor, much less the presence of lusty subconscious urges; he

flirts more with a gay hotel clerk – a wonderful bit by Alan

Cumming of Cabaret – than with anyone else in the film, prob-

ably because he can be playful in this scene, freed from the

darker depths Kubrick may have wanted him to explore.

The ending is particularly unsatisfying. In a long, badly

played, clumsily staged scene, the Pollack character tries to

explain away the happenings of the evening before and the

threats on Cruise’s life as part of the stylized goings-on.

Instead of being ambiguously disturbing, it is just a mess, leav-

ing the audience to wonder. (Certain disturbing things are left

unaccounted for, including an explanation of how the mask

Cruise wore to the ball turns up on the pillow next to his

sleeping wife.) Whether the goings-on where real or a dream

– and they are played straight – the final word of the film,

uttered by Kidman, suggests the solution for the couple is to

go home and “fuck.”

The Seventh Seal. Ingmar Bergman, director. 1957.

B&W; 96 minutes; 1.33:1; Dolby Digital Monaural.

Criterion DVD.

he Seventh Seal was the film that made Ingmar

Bergman internationally famous. After The Seventh

Seal (and Wild Strawberries, which appeared later that

same year, 1957), Bergman the brooding Swede was an inter-

national succès d’estime, instantly elevated to the top tier of

the art-house pantheon alongside Fellini, Antonioni, Kuro-

sawa, Truffaut, Ray, and Buñuel. Marxists, existentialists,

avant-gardists, humanists of every sect claimed him as their

own. And the truth is that there are aspects of The Seventh

Seal that justify all of these claims. And yet, 42 years along,

with the post-war Age of Anxiety behind us (or fitfully so), the

consensus seems to be that The Seventh Seal is not really a

very good motion picture, after all.

Robin Wood, than whom none can be more prescient (or

dogmatic), puts his finger squarely on the problem in his fine

book on Bergman’s films.1When we think of The Seventh Seal

we think of individual images – chalk-faced Death spreading

his cloak like a raven’s wing to engulf Max Von Sydow’s

knight; the game of chess on the beach, so artfully lit by

Bergman’s cinematographer Gunnar Fischer that the contes-

tants glow as if reflecting the fires of Apocalypse; the ghastly

parade of flagellants, dragging that great cross through the

dust like Christ on the road to Calvary; the burning of the

witch in the dark woods, with its conscious homage to Drey-

er; par excellence, Jof’s vision of the final Dance of Death

across that distant hillside beneath that lowering sky. Wood’s

point is that a series of still pictures, no matter how memo-

rable, is no substitute for narrative movement, “not just phys-

ical movement from image to image but the inner movement

of thought and feeling it embodies.”2The Seventh Seal lacks

that narrative movement. It is a cold,

s h o w y, supremely well-crafted photo

album that coheres as a gallery of effects rather than as a nar-

rative whole and, even at that, is never as disturbing as

Bergman meant it to be. This is hard, but not altogether unfair.

The Seventh Sealis an episodic film, built up of groupings and

tableaux, like church art or tapestry. It does move us more by

the power of its imagery (and often by the poetry of its lan-

guage) than by the unity of its story line or our emotional

engagement with its characters. Yet, in spite of this, I find

myself wanting to defend it as an extraordinary work of cine-

matic art. While I don’t see The Seventh Seal as a substantial-

ly different kind of film than Wood does, I do see more “inner

necessity” – and less commercial exigency – in it than Wood

is willing to allow. This does not make The Seventh Seal into

the kind of wrenching character-based drama that, say,Win -

ter Light is. But it does add a moving personal subtext to the

film’s play of “important and impressive” ideas.

It is time to come to terms with the fact that The Seventh

Seal is an allegory of man’s fate in a Godforsaken universe –

and every bit as serious as that sounds. As such it reflects the

personal spiritual crisis that Bergman was going through at

that moment in his life. It also, quite obviously, reflects the

larger public crises in post-war Europe, where the horrors of

the Second World War and the new horrors of the Nuclear Age

were casting dark shadows backward and forward in time.

Set in the holocaust of the Fourteenth Century, when

bubonic plague was killing off that portion of Europe that had

not already been killed by war or famine, The Seventh Seal is

clearly meant to apply to our own age of holocausts – or to

any time when God seems most distant from suffering

mankind. Antonius Block (Max Von Sydow), a knight who has

returned to Sweden from the carnage of the Crusades, is one

of the film’s protagonists; his squire Jöns (Gunnar Björn-

strand) another. The idealistic knight still yearns for a God in

From Art to Cult

. . . . . . . . .

1 Robin Wood, Ingmar Bergman (Praeger,

1970). [Hereafter, Wood.]

2 Wood, p. 87.

J O N AT H A N VA L I N

whose existence he can no longer quite believe;

the cynical squire has learned to take life as it

comes, without the prop of divinity. Together they

are Everyman (and Bergman), and together they

face the questions that vexed and haunted the

Fourteenth Century and our own: In a world beset by evil, in

a world that God has seemingly deserted, in the face of cer-

tain annihilation, how does one live one’s life with value, and,

without the goodness of God, whence does that value come?

The film’s opening montage thrusts us immediately – and

nearly wordlessly – into the heart of the matter. A gorgeous

shot of a sea eagle, floating aloof, predatory, and majestic in a

storm sky; a picturesque cusp of mountainous beach; a brief

voice-over quotation from the Book of Revelations about the

silence in heaven following the Lamb’s opening of the Seventh

Seal; and then the shingle where the knight and his squire lie

sleeping among the rocks, looking as if they’ve been tossed

up, half-dead, from the sea. Their horses lap at the surf. A

chess set sits on the stones by the knight’s kit. The knight tries

to pray, perhaps for his safe deliverance and return, but can-

not complete his prayer. Getting to his

feet, he awakens his squire who grouses at

him mockingly, and out of nowhere there

is chalk-faced Death (Bengt Ekerot) in his

black cassock come to claim what is final-

ly and always his.

As in the Church emblems that

Bergman daydreamed over when he was a

boy, where Death and a Knight (represent-

ing Mankind) confront each other over a

chessboard, the knight seeks to delay his

doom by challenging Death to a game of

chess. Although the knight doesn’t fear

Death, he fears a death without meaning,

without the judgment of a God he can’t

quite believe in or forsake. He plays for

time – to do one last meaningful thing, and

continue his search for grace. The film is

ostensibly about this quest to do good –

about the very possibility of good in an evil

world where all but death is uncertain.

In other films that attempt allegorical effects, the symbol-

ic values of characters and events are meanings derived from

the action as it unfolds – not essences from which we start.

Bergman simply presents us with Types – Death, Spirit, Rea-

son – as if we were watching a latter-day Mystery play, and

only later goes on to give them human dimensions. Even

those who appreciate the film’s ambitiousness may find the

opening allegory rather too portentous, and wonder whether

such blatant symbolism can sustain an entire movie.

Not content to present us with an allegory of the eternal

contest between Death and Man, Bergman quickly tries some-

thing that is in some ways even more delicate and dangerous

– and potentially just as prone to travesty. He gives us Inno-

cence in the form of a family of itinerant players, also jour-

neying through Sweden: a father called Jof or Joseph (Nils

Poppe), a mother called Mia or Mary (Bibi Andersson), and

their infant child. This grouping is clearly meant to suggest

the Holy Family (or the “holiness of the human spirit,” as

Bergman has it). But the literalness of the allegory begins to

break down here, and something more personal to make its

way in.

To begin with, Jof is scarcely a holy personage. He is an

acrobat, a singer, a performer – albeit a bad one – a charming

and persistent liar, a writer of sweet quasi-religious love

songs, a bit of a thief, a childlike braggart, and a self-professed

seer blessed with second sight (although no one else truly

believes in his visions). In short, he is in show business. His

innocence, though sweet and real enough, is not the Inno-

cence of the Lamb of God, but the innocence of the artist,

whose childlike imagination isolates him from the hurly-burly

of the world of the knight and the squire – but, just as impor-

tantly and vitally, reflects the world of the knight and the

squire back to them, turning its terrors and wonders into play.

While the mask of Death that Skat, the “director” of the small

troupe of actors, wears and then hangs from a tree limb is a

symbolic reminder that death is everywhere present in the

brutal world of this film, it is also a reminder that not even

this fearsome mystery is beyond the ken of imagination.

Indeed, the entire film is an illustration of this.

Jof and Mia reflect something else that troubled Bergman

throughout his life and in this period particularly: his intellec-

tual’s isolation from other people. Of

all the characters in The Seventh Seal,

Jof and Mia are the only two who

express love for one another, the only

two who make a family. Everyone

else is alone; after ten years’ separa-

tion, even the knight and his wife,

when they finally meet again, are

strangers to each other. Although

there is something infantile about

Jof’s love for Mia – closer to the love

of a child for his mother than an erot-

ic attachment – it is an attachment (or

an acceptance) that Bergman explic-

itly says he hungered for.

Allegory has an inner movement

of its own, dictated by the dialectic of

its ideas. It can work itself out like a

straightforward argument, as in Pil -

grim’s Progress, or it can cloak its

meanings in mystery, like The Pearl.

The Seventh Seal is somewhere between. Bergman has clear-

ly invested his symbolic characters with fundamental aspects

of his own personality. But he has set them on a broad public

highway that leads past tableaux of the downfall of civiliza-

tion and culture, through a wasteland of medieval horrors that

have very modern parallels. The ghastly fascistic parade of

flagellants, which interrupts the players’ whimsical play about

death and suffering with the terrible reality of death and suf-

fering, the senseless burning of the girl witch, who after tor-

ture can only, and rightly, see the devil right beside us, are in

the film because they must be in the film – the allegory of

good and evil demands it. Bergman does all he can to make

these scenes memorable, including the superb lighting and

photography and the marvelous set design. But there remains

a formality in them that sets them off as separate episodes,

like frames in a diorama, without the naturalistic probability

of realistic narrative. This is not a complaint, but an observa-

tion. Allegory is the route Bergman chose, and episode is how

allegory works itself out.

Robin Wood notwithstanding, there are many scenes in

The Seventh Seal where the strength of Bergman’s personal

feelings breaks through the allegory with moving power. The

great set piece on the hillside, where the knight and the squire

share “communion” – here a bowl of milk and a plate of straw-

berries – with Jof and Mia has a beauty of spirit and gor-

geousness of language that are as deeply moving as Bergman

intends the scene to be. In spite of a few false notes (the

Plog/Lisa/Skat subplot, the knight’s “confession” to Death), a

good many of the tableaux are equally touching or horrifying.

And Jof’s final vision, and the biblical language that accompa-

nies it, is unforgettable.

And then there is the salvation scene, which has its own

special resonance. In choosing to spare Jof and Mia – and

what suspense there is in the film involves their salvation –

Bergman is saying two things, one overt and “public,” one, I

think, covert and personal. The overt and public meaning is

dictated by the allegory: Innocence is magically saved. But

what Bergman is not quite openly saying – or saying in a way

cloaked by this other meaning – is that, for him, the answer to

the riddle of death, to the quandary of faith, to the isolation of

pure reason is also bound up with the childlike imagination of

the artist and the bond of love. These are the meaningful

things worth saving, even if they can’t ultimately save the

artist’s life. The sentiment is so personal – and perhaps more

dear for that – that it is presented half-disguised by the “Inno-

cence” metaphor that the allegory requires. But it is there

amidst the obvious symbolism, like a secret wish.

There is another artist in The Seventh Seal, the church

painter (Gunnar Olsson) whom the squire encounters paint-

ing the very terrors that Bergman used to ponder in his youth.

By means of the painter, Bergman says:

I present my own artistic conviction. [The

painter] insists he is in show business. To sur-

vive in this business, it’s important to avoid

making people too mad.3

To believe Bergman’s witticism just a little bit is to see

how he went about wrestling with his tangle of personal con-

flicts and violent historical realities by representing them

through signs and symbols, and, finally, to see him put his

faith not in the “important and impressive” ideas of God or

Reason but in the play of art and the acceptance of love. No

matter that these solutions would soon seem jejune to the

Bergman of Winter Light and other films. At the time he pas-

sionately cultivated his themes to their fullest, and The Sev -

enth Sealremains, in Bergman’s words, “one of the few [of my

own films] really close to my heart.”4

C r i t e r i o n ’s new digital transfer of The Seventh Seal i s

superb, far superior to their earlier excellent laser transfer

or to any other print or transfer of this film I have seen. (Cri-

terion actually gives you side-by-side examples of the laser

transfer and the new digital one in a special feature includ-

ed on the disc. You’ll be astonished at the improvements in

c l a r i t y, contrast, and noise on the DVD.) All in all, a disc well

worth owning.

3 Ingmar Bergman, Images: My Life In Film (Arcade, 1994), p. 238. [Here-

after, Bergman.]

4 Bergman, p. 235.

www.theabsolutesound.com

The Site for Sound.

Download issues and articles

(Issues 111 - 119)

Subscribe online

Buy and sell equipment

Maufacturer links

Performing arts

information

What The Perfect Vision Is About:

The Perfect Vision positions itself as “The Journal of Digital

Audio and Video.” We cover major facets of the home enter-

tainment arena: video equipment (HDTV); audio equipment

(speakers, digital power amplifiers); convergence technology

(DVD drives, digital-signal processors); multimedia and music

software; films (laserdiscs and DVDs); emerging technologies

in audio, video, and digital processing.

Questions About Your Subscription:

If you have questions about your subscription (length before

expiration, missing issues, starting issue of a new subscrip-

tion), please call the subscription office at (888) 475-5991

(North America) or (973) 627-5162 (outside North America).

Please do not contact our business or editorial offices. They

do not have the information necessary to help you.

Change of Address:

Please send change of address cards to: The Perfect Vision,

Box 3000, Denville, New Jersey 07834. Remember: Second

Class mail is not automatically forwarded by the US Post

Office. Please allow 8 weeks for a change.

Letters to the Editor:

We encourage our readers to write, since we believe in the

free expression of opinion, a right guaranteed constitution-

ally in the US to encourage the diversity of viewpoints nec-

essary to freedom. We do not publish unsigned letters. We

will, if circumstances warrant, withhold a writer’s name,

but we must know his or her identity. Writers must include

their mailing address. We will not print the street address,

for security’s sake, but we will include the name of the

town. Letters must be sent to The Editor, The Perfect

Vi s i o n, Box 235, Sea Cliff, New York 11579, or by email to

hp@theperfectvision.com. If you have other business with

the magazine (change of address, subscription renewal,

etc.), please see the information below for the appropriate

means of contacting us; and if you wish to write for the edi-

t o r ’s perusal, then do not send a note to any of the other

addresses below.

Editorial Submissions:

We welcome editorial submissions; however, we may be

unable to respond to every submission and we cannot return

unused manuscripts. Please send a query letter before you

submit a manuscript to: The Editor,The Perfect Vision, Box

235, Sea Cliff, New York 11579.

New Subscriptions or Renewals:

Subscriptions to The Perfect Vision are $32 for 6 issues in the

US (second-class mail). In Canada, a 6-issue subscription is

priced at $36 (US funds only) for 6 issues via airmail. Foreign

subscriptions are $65 (US funds only) for 6 issues via airmail.

To subscribe, you may use any of three methods: (1) call our

subscription office at (888) 475-5991 in the US or (973) 627-

5162 elsewhere; (2) fill out the form on the TPV website at

w w w.theperfectvision.com; or, (3) send your credit card

information or check to: The Perfect Vision, Subscription Ser-

vices, Box 3000, Denville, New Jersey 07834. Checks must be

drawn on a US bank and should be made payable to Absolute

Multimedia, Inc. For questions about your subscription see

the information below.

Back Issues:

No back issues are available. Visit www.theperfectvision. com

for some key articles from past issues.

Website:

You can find news, links to manufacturer and performing arts

sites, our subscription and classified advertising forms, and

other interesting items on our web site at www.theperfect-

vision.com.

The Absolute Sound Subscription Info:

For new subscriber information, call (888) 732-1625 or visit

www.theabsolutesound.com.

Manufacturer/Dealer Display

Advertising:

Please contact Anne Hart at (512) 306-8780 ext.3 or

ahart@theperfectvision.com for rate cards, demographic sta-

tistics, and circulation information.

Requests for Submission of

Software for Review:

Contact Bob Gendron at (512) 306-8780 ext.4 or

bgendron@theperfectvision.com.

Manufacturer Requests for

Reviews of Equipment:

For video products – grogers@theperfectvision.com.

For audio products – rharley@theperfectvision.com.

For film reviews – hp@theperfectvision.com.

Manufacturer Requests to

Reprint Reviews:

Not one word of editorial text from The Perfect Visionmay be

reprinted without written permission from the editor. To

arrange permission and reprints, contact Mark Fisher at (512)

306-8780 ext.1 or mfisher@theperfectvision.com.

Classified Advertising:

The form at the back of the magazine will tell you everything

you need to know to make out your Classified ad.

Glossary Available:

Our editors have written a glossary of terms, both familiar and

esoteric, in use by reviewers and reporters in both audio and

video. If you don’t know the meaning of a word or phrase in

one of our articles, and we have not explained it to your sat-

isfaction in context, you can consult this glossary by visiting

our website: www.theperfectvision.com.

Aerial Acoustics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 2

www.aerialacoustics.com

Alphasound & Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 76

www.alphasound.com

Audio Products International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 60

www.sound-dynamics.com

Audionut.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 113

www.audionut.com

BTS (Revox) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 66

www.revoxaudio.com

CEDIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 80

www.cedia.org

Conrad-Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 18

www.conradjohnson.com

Cool Audio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cover II & page 1

www.coolaudio.com

Faroudja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 14

www.faroudja.com

Goldmund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 40

www.goldmund.com

Laserland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 104

Loewe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 4 & 5

www.loewetv.com

Meridian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cover IV

www.meridian-audio.com

Nordost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 54

www.nordost.com

Nuts About Hi-Fi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 78

Outlaw Audio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cover III

www.outlawaudio.com

Rotel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 12

www.rotel.com

Runco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 26

www.runco.com

Soliloquy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 38

www.solspeak.com

The Academy Advancing High

Performance Audio and Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 73

www.avacademy.com

Thiel Audio Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 30

www.thielaudio.com

Tice Audio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 86

www.ticeaudio.com

Yamaha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 8

www.yamaha.com

CLASSIFIED AD ORDER FORM

RATES: Private parties, $1 per word; Commercial, $3.15 per word, $150 minimum (commercial only). A word is one or more

characters with a space, dash, slash or other punctuation on either side. (Telephone numbers, e-mail, and web addresses count

as one word.)

PAYMENT: All ads must be prepaid with order. Credit cards (Visa, MasterCard, or American Express) or checks are accepted.

SEND ADS TO: Absolute Multimedia Inc., 7035 Bee Caves Road, Suite 203, Austin, Texas 78746. Fax to 512 328-7528. (Faxed ads

are credit card only.) Or place ads via our website: www.theperfectvision.com.

DEADLINES: Ads are due the first of the month preceeding each issue. (For example, ads for the July/August issue are due

with payment by August 1.) Ads that reach us after the first day of the month preceeding publication date will appear in the next

available issue.

NAME

COMPANY

ADDRESS

CITY, STATE , ZIP

PHONE ___________________________________________________ FAX

COPY (Please type or print; attach separate sheet if necessary):

Please run my ad in the following issues: 27 (Nov / D e c ) 28 (Ja n / F eb 2000) 27 (March/April 2000 )

COST: $ _____________________

(Count the words in your ad. Multiply by the number of issues, then by the rate – personal or commercial.)

Enclosed is my check, payable to Absolute Multimedia Inc. I prefer to pay by credit card

CARD NUMBER: ______________________________________________________________ EXP DATE _________________________

SIGNATURE (credit card users)

EVENT EXPERT A EXPERT B EXPERT C SIGNIFICANCE

1 = Minor

5 = Major

First consumer Dolby EX products go on sale Q4 1999 Q4 1999 Q4 1999 1

High-resolution, multi-channel digital audio output Q4 2000 Q4 2000 Q1 2001 4

on DVD-A and SACD players (IEEE1394 or Universal I2S)

C: Important to achieving formats’ sonic potential.

Electronic cinema (digital video projection in theaters) exhibited in ten cities Q2 2003 Q2 2000 Q4 2002 2

Digital download kiosks appear in music-retail stores Q1 2000 Q1 2000 Q3 1999 3

C: Any kiosk can download any title at any time; no more out-of-print

music, no more out-of-stock stores.

Hardware to receive HDTV satellite broadcasts nationally available Q3 1999 Q4 1999 Q4 1999 3

A: Already happened with Unity Motion; what’s important is when someone

will start broadcasting continuous HD movies like HBO. That will also

happen this year by DirecTV.

Availability of 20 HDTV channels broadcasting continuously Q4 2001 Q1 2001 Q2 2002 4

B: But will there be anything to watch?

Plasma displays available below $10,000 Q3 2000 Q1 2000 Q1 2000 2

A: It will be important when they fall below $3000.

Multi-channel DVD-A and SACD titles available (>20 titles) Q3 2000 Q2 2000 Q4 2000 3

B: Don’t think we’ll ever see multi-channel SACD; Q2 2000 for

DVD-A (Expert C disagrees).

C: Multi-channel editing infrastructure not yet in place; two-channel SACD

set for September 1999 launch with 50 - 60 titles.

Universal (DVD-V, DVD-Audio, CD, SACD) players available Q4 2000 Q4 1999 Q4 1999 3

B: Important for the ultimate market success of high-quality

multi-channel music recordings.

C: Matsushita (Panasonic) will launch two Universal players this fall,

probably without SACD playback.

Controllers and receivers with IEEE1394 or Universal I2S input go on sale Q4 2003 Q4 2000 Q4 2001 3

Next generation (beyond Dolby Digital) audio 2002 2003 2005 5

A: DD and DTS are available today, and that is all that is used on film.

I don’t expect to see SDDS or 6-channel DD on DVD ever.

B: One of the most important things on the list; high fidelity for film.

C: Would require a format revolution such as HD DVD.

Stand-alone consumer-recordable DVD available Q4 2000 Q4 2000 Q1 2002 5

A: Most important thing on list. This will begin the replacement of

VHS tape.

C: Copyright issues could delay introduction.

Portable music players using removable memory-card technology available Q3 2001 Q4 1999 Q2 2000 2

Digital HD VHS available Q4 1999 Q4 2000 Q4 2000 1

B: Provided recordable DVD makes it to market, VHS’ days are numbered.

IEEE1394 connections become available for HDTV Q3 2000 Q2 2001 Q2 2001 1

Ten million DVD players sold in North America Q1 2001 Q4 2001 Q1 2001 3

C: The benchmark level at which a format is considered “mass-market”;

afait accompli.

VISION WATCH