Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Blown Subwoofer

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Blown Subwoofer (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Blown Subwoofer

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-09-2005 10:40 PM

Thanks Jim...I'll stick with the word ignorant on this one. The original post was not in the form of a question but stated as if one is coming from a base of knowledge which they clearly didn't have. Mistaken if for someone that knows better but merely made a mistake. John professed knowledge he did not have.

| IP: Logged

Bill Enos
Film God

Posts: 2081
From: Richmond, Virginia, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 07-10-2005 04:08 PM

It appears that Mr. Parker thought that he and his tech knew it all. One thing I've learned at Film Tech is that if your knowledge isn't complete you will get shot down pretty quickly, best to shut up and learn something.

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 07-10-2005 04:31 PM

That's a two-way street, Bill. In the ultimate arrogance of those who DO profess to have all the knowledge, I often find gaping holes in information or practice. No one should close their mind and assume they know everything, yet there are many here who carry themselves as if they are the final word in all things. When challenged, they rationalize and offer circular arguments, but NEVER acquiesce. I submit that this is far worse than someone who simply speaks from ignorance. We're not talking brain surgery here; no one's life hangs in the balance.

I can't say that I blame Mr. Parker for baling out. This could've been handled with a great deal more tact and sensibility, and with less conceit.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 07-10-2005 04:49 PM

"This could've been handled with a great deal more tact and sensibility, and with less conceit. "
I didn't see much conceit except from the original poster
steve offered a very fair and honest explaination of the facts

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-10-2005 05:04 PM

quote: Tim Reed
When challenged, they rationalize and offer circular arguments, but NEVER acquiesce. I submit that this is far worse than someone who simply speaks from ignorance.

Tim, there are those that offer opinions as facts and I can understand your dislike of that. "I like brand ABC projector and it blows the rest out of the water...yadda, yadda, yadda." People can debate such a statement forever since what goes into what one likes/dislikes is unique to the individual.

What I don't agree with you on here is the harmlessness of one that speaks from ignorance. They do a disservice to everyone else that reads the post and tries to apply truth to it.

In this post, we have an individual that backs up his statement with "40-years of experience". To many people, that would be considered pretty credible. However to make a statement that is beyond debate wrong (the math does not back it up) and hence is misleading to those that don't know better. So this gets chalked up as a "print problem" and others now feel that it is a fluke and that a single 18" sub is all one needs in a 65' deep room. What a disservice that is to everyone that reads it.

Many people in this biz are weak in the higher mathematics department. To calculate power is not that hard but it does require working with logarithms and anti-logarithms.

How many people here on Film-Tech select amplifier power based on actual need and how many choose it based on "gut feeling" or past experience?

Again it is one thing to post something to the effect that "we just blew out our subwoofer on such and such a film and I don't understand why" but this guy came from a position of experience that it couldn't be the amp and subwoofer combination. It is like saying 2 + 2 = 5 and saying it has to be true...that is not life and death either but is quite wrong as well.

If the guy had posted that with a 1000-watt lamp his 50-foot wide picture looked dark while running THE VILLAGE and there is no way that 1000-watts was not enough...after all that is over 16 TIMES the size of his Soft-white lamps he uses in the ceiling and that is pretty bright. Other films didn't look that dark. The math is easier there and many at least have some formula they use to justify their lamp size versus screen size (then again, there are those that continue to figure that the throw factors in there).

If someone professes knowledge they do not have, they should be challenged, in my opinion.

| IP: Logged

Jim Ziegler
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 753
From: West Hollywood, CA
Registered: Jul 99

posted 07-10-2005 05:36 PM

quote:
I didn't see much conceit except from the original poster
Steve offered a very fair and honest explanation of the facts

Along with some less than tactful comments and a condescending tone that most people would take as an insult... If the original poster learned anything at all from this, he learned that asking questions will get you flamed. What he does or does not know, or think he knows, is no reason to flame him and lecture him for daring to have a gap in his knowledge.

Steve, rather than teach someone something that they could use to improve their presentations, you did nothing but make them think of you as some pompous SOB. I can assure you that, in the eyes of the original poster, your explanation was completely lost in the condescension that surrounded it.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 07-10-2005 05:44 PM

I guess if you can't handle the heat then get out of the kitchen
The original poster made a claim and then went on to blame the film and then offer incorrect facts to back it up.
one takes there knocks

| IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 07-10-2005 06:29 PM

I think I know the theatre that Mr. Parker spoke of. It is a tiny room, but even I would have used more than one subwoofer. I've seen one film there, and there was definitely something lacking in the sound. I'm sorry that a fellow North Carolianian will not benefit from the vast knowledge of the people here on F-T. I'm about 45 minutes from Brevard. I would have liked to work with these people in this theatre.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-10-2005 06:58 PM

Jim, you missed it...he didn't pose a question...he made a statement of fact. He wasn't looking for knowlege...he was posting to profess knowledge (there was something wrong with the film). He didn't have a gap in his knowledge...he didn't have the knowledge yet posted as if he had.

BTW...a few years ago I made a post regarding Altec speakers and power handling...the same rules apply...here is the original post:

Altec 802 Power handling

| IP: Logged

Jim Ziegler
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 753
From: West Hollywood, CA
Registered: Jul 99

posted 07-10-2005 08:13 PM

Steve, you are missing the point. I am not questioning speaker placement/quantity/make/model/color etc... What I am saying is that you could have said exactally what you said, without the following phrases - "You clearly don't know what you are doing or what you are talking about." and "Sorry if I sounded cross but your statement in your original post was just plain wrong and stupid. It showed absolutely no understanding of power ratings and sound."

Omitting those two phrases would have taken nothing of the substance away from your post, but would not have made you come across sounding like a self righteous jerk. So what that he was mistaken on an issue? You can say, "Wait a sec, you have something wrong here - here is how all this is supposted to work" and you probably would have gotten some follow up questions not had him get pissed off and leave.

Steve, people will be hesitant to ask questions if they are going to get flamed - which defeats the entire purpose for this forum being here.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-10-2005 09:17 PM

Steve was dead right in ALL of his comments. I see alot of this happen and in my service area and its mainly due to digital systems being installed onto older SVA type "a" capable systems without any additional upgrades when the dts was slapped in place. I think way back to the Jurassic Park days and when DTS was new how many of those systems never got any upgrade..... back then many cinema owners were just way too cheap to upgrade amps/speakers and many techs were not qualified to spec system upgrades anyway. Still I alert the customer to this problem and get ignored even though I sell and repair alot of drivers.....

Mark

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 07-10-2005 09:19 PM

Jim, as owner of this board I believe you have said more than enough. These forums aren't here to play happy talk to a bunch of kiddies and more importantly, you are not their father. If Steve's wording was too harsh for you to handle (or your belief that others can't handle it), then you may leave or keep your comments to yourself. In the future if you have a problem with something on the board, you should bring it to my attention and that marks the end of your involvement. You are not a moderator and have no business telling other people how to post. Posting this sort of crap again WILL get you removed.

Steve's posts were completely fair and accurate...every single sentence. The only "flaming" was due to flat out incorrect information attempted to be passed off as fact, which does this forum a TERRIBLE disservice. This is no different than the guy "with 25 years experience" who thought all films should be framed to where the frameline was just barely hidden above the edge of the top masking...and that is 100% flat out dead wrong. Steve didn't just respond with how many subwoofers that size room needed. He actually took the time out of his day to EXPLAIN how and why he got to that number. That's quite admirable, as most of us don't have tons of spare time to be writing out extended length posts to try and educate others on a regular basis, so knock off the Steve flaming.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-10-2005 09:58 PM

quote: John A. Parker Jr.
If you want to gripe at the original installer of the system, call Frank Worthington of Goldsboro, N. C. as that is who designed and installed this system in 1999.

quote: Brad Miller
Stupid was a poor choice of terminology. The proper word would have been ignorant (look it up if you think those two words mean the same thing).

I think the real term to apply to that sound system design is "cheap."

The auditorium John Parker described at his theater is larger than the two houses at the Carmike 8 in my town that were originally built for THX certification. Those auditoriums originally had just over 200 seats each. Each house has four JBL subwoofer enclosures. Just one subwoofer enclosure for a 239 seat theater, likely with stadium seating, is being really cheap.

It's just another example of how a great deal of movie theaters are installing (and later not maintaining) weak sound systems. Sure, they'll put a Dolby Digital capable cinema processor in the rack or install a DTS unit. But do they put in the sound systems beefy enough to do the job? For the most part no. It seems like the digital sound processor is just there to get the "digital" moniker onto the marquee and in the stack ads. Funny thing is most of the marquees and ads don't feature that stuff anymore either.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

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

posted 07-11-2005 01:10 AM

I've noticed that, sometimes, peoples' replies can be a little curt. Frankly, most of the time I just think to my self, "F*** him!", then let it roll off.

Sometimes I'll reply by saying, "I thought...", then wait for the explanation. By that time, I've probably gained about 10 times more information than I could have dreamed of learning in the first place.

By that time, if I still don't like the guy's tone, I just go back to the F.U. thing. You know the saying: "If they can't take a fuck, JOKE EM'!" [Big Grin]

Back to the topic:

I can empathize with the people whose sound systems are under gunned and over worked. I have to deal with a real "Frankenstein" of a sound system! I spend all my time trying to make my shows as good as possible only to have a crappy sound system make me feel like I'm shoveling shit!

I'm shooting a 31 foot wide screen with a 2000 watt lamp from 109 feet away. The picture is just about as bright and clear as what the local Cinemark does with the same size screen and half the distance and twice the wattage. (I'd like to see it a LITTLE bit brighter... Maybe I can squeeze a few more photons out of it... Someday.)

But, anyway, the picture is as good as I know how to make it. Then we play some British costume drama where 2/3 of the movie's plot is in the dialogue and they all speak with heavy accents. It's like trying to pull hen's teeth to convince people to even THINK about fixing the sound system!

Some nights I go home feeling like I want to spit bullets!

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-11-2005 08:43 AM

quote: Steve Guttag
Many people in this biz are weak in the higher mathematics department. To calculate power is not that hard but it does require working with logarithms and anti-logarithms.

I say screw the math. You simply can't have too many subwoofers. [Big Grin]

quote: Steve Guttag
(then again, there are those that continue to figure that the throw factors in there).

Funny you should mention that -- my General Manager and I just had this argument a week ago. He insists that the greater the throw, the more light is needed. I keep telling him, if the lens speed stays the same and the image size stays the same (by virtue of the correct local length lens), then the light intensity that produced nFtL at that given image size when the projector was 50' way will produce the same nFtL at 75' or 100' or 150' for that same image size, assuming a controlled indoor environement, not an outdoor DI where atmospheric light attenuation.

He refuses to believe me. I think it is because most people's experience comes from unscientific observation, where when they move a lamp closer to a surface, the reflected light on that surface gets brighter; move the lamp away and it gets less bright -- bring a flashlight close to the wall, the light gets brighter & vise a versa. Of course this observation is missing the lens AND the size of the lighted area is not remaining constant. Yet it seems that this practical experience or "gut feeling" is one powerful thing to overcome, even when facts to show otherwise.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.