Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Theatre Volume

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Theatre Volume (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Theatre Volume

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-21-2001 11:28 PM

Well, the way I see it, doing any kind of test/adjustment involves the use of test materials that put signals of known origin through the system and then adjusting to that standard. I look at it from the point of view that no test signal is the same as a real-world signal, therefore any work you do needs to be checked against real world conditions.

Therefore, anybody who does an EQ job and doesn't at least go down to the auditorium and listen to the results isn't doing his job. Maybe, just maybe, the results will be just fine. Then again, maybe they won't be. There is one sure way to tell... go check.

I worked on a stage for a couple of years and have seen piano tuners at work. The good ones (who will earn repeat business) will always go find the person who is going to play the instrument (or his representative) and have them play a few notes on it before he packs up and leaves. If there are any requests for "final adjustments" they are done right then, before all the equipment is packed up. The same goes for sound systems. It's just the "right" way to do business.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-22-2001 11:45 AM

Of course you go have a listen! Dah.....
The only thing I can relate is that when using the R2 I have not heard anything that I didn't like when listening afterwords.
I can relate though that on at least several dozen instances of setting up room eq for location dailies screenings and the sound mixers have intentionally had me eq it to the ISO curve for them and leave it as-is. I alwaws have them present though when doing it and they have as of yet to monkey with the final results after listening.
Mark @ GTS

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 06-22-2001 12:34 PM

Regarding the "near field" vs. "far field" effect, has anyone ever tried and published results of different mike placements to EQ the auditorium? In particular, has anyone ever tried directional mikes or mikes mounted in a "dummy" head to simulate the ear placement, directionality, and head density of a real person?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-22-2001 01:09 PM

I for one would like to see someone take a multiplexer and equalize an auditorium and get a "screen shot" of the RTA. Then utilizing one single mic, move it around the auditorium and take pictures of the RTA in a dozen different locations, including the front row and the back row. I have a feeling the results would be worse than expected.

Has anyone done this?

| IP: Logged

Rory Burke
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 181
From: Burbank, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 06-22-2001 02:30 PM

John P!

I believe that THX has also addressed your very question. They have been certifying PM3 rooms for over a year now. They are your smaller post monitoring mixing rooms typically used in broadcast, telecine etc etc. Maybe someone with the powers to be can answer your question as to how they have addressed the near field environments and as to how to proceed with EQ. AT some point I would assume that the ISO curve no longer applies when room volume levels get too small. Would be good to know!!

As far as Eqing a room and moving the mics and comparing the results.. I believe the R2 software already offers features for such A-B testing and comparison. Gordon might know better I'm sure!!! Again moving mics around wouldn't show me anything other than how fragile EQing a room and how really subjective the process really is ultimately. Think about it...with out moving mics even the test can be performed. Take measurements diring the coldest time of the day and compare them with measurements from the hottest part of the day. Try the same comparison with different humidity extremes as well. I wouldnt be surprised if differences in altitide also affect mic readings so long as you can have a mile high elevator/studio to do the test in.
Rory!!

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-22-2001 05:29 PM

With the R2 comparrisons are easy asyou can do comparison file between any to rta files
I find humidity makes the biggest difference. Manly because Condensor mics are humidity sensitive and the room will absorb diffently as the fabrics absorb moisture
That is one reason I don't worry as much about the eqing of a room for opening night of a complex as the room will radically change as the drywall and tuff dry out over the first two weeks
I usually put it in the ball park and then come back a few weeks later when things have stbalised
Also the only film I run when it is done is Jiffy

| IP: Logged

Francis Casey
Film Handler

Posts: 44
From: Saint John, NB, Canada
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 06-22-2001 09:39 PM

Gordon
Who did you get your R2 calibrator adapter from at THX ? I have enquired about this a couple of times over the past year but have not heard back from them yet. How much did you pay for it and is there a part number for it ?
thanks
Francis

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-23-2001 09:17 AM

Brad,
I have made those comparisons quite a few years ago. I didn't record the findings and can't quite remember what they were but they were so far different that I sent my PC-40 back to Ivie to make sure that it was working correctly. On the ivie there was a consistant midrange hump or dip or something like that..and I talked to Ivie about it and their engineer said that it was not really taking the whole room into account like it would if it were fed from a multiplexer. He also said that Ivie ahd planned to build a multiplexer but never got around to it then the R2 was introduced and they shelved the idea. The Ivie engineer did not reccommend me EQ'ing a cinema with just one mic and that if I had to to use the record/averaging feature of the PC-40 analyzer and walk it while recording to do so. I tried that with much better results but still not nearly as good as a 4 mic setup.
I'm in the middle of doing a 5 plex right now and I'll record the screens of the analyzers and e-mail them to you if we have the time for this. I also feel that the EQ'ing of the HPS systems with the R2 sounded better due to the room being more factored into the readings. There was none of the "horn"type sound on dialog or in the midrange after R-2'ing them that I always disliked about them.
Mark @ GTS

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.