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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Is THX still relevant? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  10  11  12

Author Topic: Is THX still relevant? Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 11-02-2010 02:53 PM                        My first "twin split" was 1974. There was no issue of sound leakage, since my background was broadcasting. I used "studio" techniques to stop the bass. The only theatres that I installed that had leakage were those where the owner & architect refused to comply. Moreover, thx, if you read the specs, did require no leakage and decent reverb times, right from the start. Indiana Jones, one of the loudest films ever mixed, played perfectly with no leakage into the other rooms. Stadium theatres are not necessarily bad by design, in fact there is a demonstratable evenness from front to back; more so than a normal auditorium. A normal room rarifies from front to back and the sound drops off. In a room with a smaller area in back (such as the Fox in Atlanta) the distance reduces the level, while the smaller volume compensates. i do not feel my rooms are perfect, but sound (& sight lines) was the driving force behind the original stadium cinemas. Louis  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-02-2010 05:48 PM                        What are "studio" techniques? quote: Louis Bornwasser Indiana Jones, one of the loudest films ever mixed No, Close Encounters is louder according to Screenvision's careful and exhaustive research. Of course, either being one of the loudest makes no sense.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-03-2010 02:22 PM                     CE3K was said to be the loudest mix -- up to that point in time -- I question if that was still true when Temple of Doom was released.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-03-2010 08:03 PM                     The 70mm True Lies was the hottest mix I've heard.  |  IP: Logged Martin Brooks Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 900 From: Forest Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 11-08-2010 10:30 PM                        I saw Close Encounters at the Ziegfeld in NYC in 70mm 6-track Dolby and again for the special edition. Extra subwoofers were added for the original presentation. The mix and overall sound quality were absolutely superb and IMO at the time, far superior to Star Wars in 70mm seen at the Loews Astor Plaza. I did not sense that the mix was over loud and there was certainly plenty of dynamic range. There were peaks that were very loud (although not distorted or pain causing) and that may account for the legend that it was the "loudest mix." In the original mix, when the ship plays the first sound and blows the glass out in the observation booth, the sound of the glass breaking came out of the right surrounds and was so realistic, everyone turned their heads (which actually is a mixing no no.) The special edition did not have as impressive a sound, IMO, but this could have been because it played back through the ordinary b-chain (no extra woofers).  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 11-08-2010 11:36 PM                       "Altered States" was way over the top.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 11-09-2010 12:10 AM                     Yes i saw Altered States at Toronto's Famous University theater and it was advertised in 70mm Mega sound! It had the most aggressive surrounds i have ever heard to this day!  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 11-09-2010 01:20 AM                       I set up some of the screenings including one at the Stanley in Vancouver. Only almost 30 years ago.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-09-2010 04:04 AM                        Martin, we could have been sitting watching the same show at the Ziegfeld; I was so incredibly impressed with the sound when I went to see it there, that I insisted in dragging my entire family out from Smithtown to the city specifically to see it there. And I saw it three more times after that at the same grand old lady, with her SINGLE screen, grand curtain and all -- and still going strong today. Yes, the extra subs (I was told Columbia paid to have them installed) made this thing sound better than any film I had seen up until that time. It had the power of Sensurround, only much cleaner. Indeed, it was the inspiration that lead to my saying which is posted on the wall in my office -- You Can't Have Too Many Subs -- E=MC2, +/- 2db  |  IP: Logged Ron Lacheur Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 650 From: British Columbia, Canada Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-16-2010 02:07 AM                     Sam, Do you remember any specifics about the Stanley installation?  |  IP: Logged Robert Throop Master Film Handler Posts: 412 From: Vernon, NY USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-16-2010 06:29 AM                     Didn't the Stanley have one of the first CP200 installations?  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 11-16-2010 10:27 AM                       The Stanley had a CP100 and SA5 stereo surround decoder at that time. Norelco A11's. The sound system was scattered over a couple of wall racks, not my favorite method but nicely done as always by General Sound. That is about all I remember. It did have the Megasound Cerwin Vega subs as well.  |  IP: Logged Ron Lacheur Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 650 From: British Columbia, Canada Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-16-2010 12:20 PM                     quote: Robert Throop Didn't the Stanley have one of the first CP200 installations? Unless THX approved the CP100, it probably got one in 1985 when it was certified. quote: Sam D. Chavez The Stanley had a CP100 and SA5 stereo surround decoder at that time. Norelco A11's. The sound system was scattered over a couple of wall racks, not my favorite method but nicely done as always by General Sound. That is about all I remember. It did have the Megasound Cerwin Vega subs as well. Thanks for sharing Sam! It's hard to get information about a place that hasn't run film in almost 20 years! The building still stands today, but as a Live Theatre.  |  IP: Logged Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 11-17-2010 06:46 AM                     Getting back on topic... the answer is clearly "NO!" Let's remember the #1 thing about THX: it was, and will always be, a for-profit company that carved out a niche in developing high-quality standards for operating procedures and practices concerning audio production, and for the equipment to play back that audio in a movie theatre. You had to pay for specific THX-certified equipment (from sound baffle and speaker wire to processor) to be installed in your theatre. You had to pay to have someone make sure your theatre was compliant. And then you had to pay for the right to have that screen THX-logo'd, $10,000 or so, each and every year. Just 100 screens would cost you a million dollars every year for the right to play that Deep Note before your movies. And when your profit margins are already razor thin, dropping that cost is easy to do. THX, at least for movie theatres, is the past. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying I like it. I'm just saying it is.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-17-2010 01:43 PM                     quote: Edward Havens And then you had to pay for the right to have that screen THX-logo'd, $10,000 or so, each and every year. I know the annual THX licensing fee per screen wasn't real cheap, but I don't think it was $10,000 either. I thought the annual fee was closer to $1,000.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  10  11  12

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.