|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: NATO sound volume study results
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-04-2018 05:11 PM
Oh, I dunno Bobby. I think it comes back to my statement (shared by others) that if you sucked then, you suck now.
So, going back to the good Ol days, you'd be amazed at how many MONO sound systems were going in...even in the 90s!
I lot of the theatres I was involved with had a 3-tier approach to their sound systems. That is, the big theatres in the complex got the spiffy sound systems with the cutting edge equipment, the next tier down got an economy version of that and the bottom tier theatre got an economy version of that or mono. The thought being, the people that cared about such stuff came in the first few days/first week and those that were thrifty and came towards the end of the run, they didn't care about whiz-bang sound system so why spend the money on it?
As for speakers, in the major brands, there used to be fewer choices. in the pre-1980s, there was Altec and there was junk, by and large. In the 1980s, you saw JBL emerge as the speaker brand of choice but again, there weren't many versions. There was the 4675, the 4670, the 4673, and 4671 (there were horn loaded versions, the 4672 and 4674 but those were more akin to competing with Altec speakers of yore). EV (Electro-Voice) had their versions of the JBL speakers but again, a relatively small spread of models with clear distinctions as to what size would fit the job.
Note, this isn't to say there weren't other brands at play (Klipsch and Frazier, as examples) but the bulk came from Altec, JBL and EV with Altec going down fast in the 1980s)
Then you move into the 90s. There was this trend towards the 3-way speakers. The problem is, a good 2-way beats a bad 3-way EVERY time. Most 3-way speakers suck too (if you listen to them). Though Klipsch had 3 and 4 way systems out there in the 80s, it was in the 90s that things started to change. JBL had their 5000 series speakers (5671, 5672 and 5674), which were more money than people were going to spend so the econo 3-ways came out. By and large, they don't sound very good (really). It isn't the shape of the theatre, it is the sound coming out of the speaker.
From the speaker's point of view a stadium theatre is taller (easy on the speaker because most of them have a 40-degree dispersion vertically) and the theatres became shorter. It was harder for the speakers in the old days where theatres were 100-feet plus long on a sloped floor. The higher up the speaker went behind the screen, the better your chances.
So you have this trend of the econo 3-ways and then, the need to be yet MORE competitive so you get variations of everything. Companies now have a "Good, better, best" line of speakers for EACH MODEL. And you have it in a 2-way or a 3-way. There is always someone telling you you can do it for less/cheaper. Why get model "A" when Model "C" is essentially the same thing but cost $1000 less and fits in just 12-inches of depth? The realities are, there are reasons why the better speakers are more expensive and why small speakers rarely make good sense behind the screen (it is all in the physics of making and moving sound.
You should look at the number of models the major players in cinema sound have (JBL, QSC and Klipsch...again, there are others, like Meyer but in terms of speakers sold, JBL and QSC are going to cover the lion's share now). They both have good products, if you know what to go for. I just counted, QSC has 22 models of screen speakers on their web site. JBL has 15 currently showing. Are there really that many variations of cinemas that it takes that many models to cover every theatre size/shape? Don't get me wrong, 1-size does NOT fit all. Within those numbers, there are quite a few different size categories. I guarantee that many/most of those models came out to find a particular price point because they lost a sale to "the other guy" that was "just as good" but cheaper.
My point is, how is the exhibitor really supposed pick from that collection? Many are indeed going to vote with their wallet since it is a business after all. If you spend an extra $500/speaker on the "better" speaker and multiply that times 3 speakers/theatre or 30 speakers per complex, you are going to save $15K/complex. How much MORE popcorn has to be sold and attributed to the better speaker to justify the better one?
Again, it isn't that these companies can't, won't or don't make good speakers. They do...but if all you have is the "Cadillac", you'll lose sales to the guy selling the Chevys and also lose what Cadillac sales were there for the "good theatres."
Another truism is that when budgets get tight, that money always comes from projection and sound. Everything to do with showing the movie itself is a loss. The money is made in the lobby/concession area...that is what gets the money. People don't see the speakers (except the surrounds) or projector.
There are some other fact about today's cinema. They are not the big barns of yesteryear (pre-1980s and really pre-1970s). You give me a big old theatre and plunk some Altec A4s or A2s (if big enough) and you'll get that big-fat sound you remember. You have to be 25-30 feet back from an Altec A4 before the HF/LF converge...that would put you half-way back in a modern cinema. I do find it humorous that after maligning the Altec A4/A5 designs in the 1980s and basically stomping them to the curb, when the modern 3-ways came out, they keep trying to capture what Altec did in the 1950s/1960s with 2-ways. That is, it is a mid-bass horn with a bass-reflex bottom end.
So you tell me Bobby, how is the modern exhibitor supposed to choose his sound system...even if he can specify the type (immersive, 7.1 or 5.1)? Note most people can't calculate the power requirements too. Heck, I'm noticing some spreadsheets can't do it either.
Now, in the field of surrounds. You'd have to admit, most of those HAVE gotten better. Before the 1980s, surrounds were either some "box" with an 8 or 12" utility speaker in it or some bookshelf speaker attached to the wall. With rare exception where you might see an Altec A8, 604/640 or in a HUGE theatre, Altec A7s (the Uptown in DC used 12 A7s for surrounds...bi-amped, no less!).
Frazier was one of the first for having a dedicated surround speaker (sounded nasty but it was a "surround" speaker). JBL then turned their utility speaker line speaker, the 8325 into a "Surround speaker" with the 8330. The have since maintained 2-3 variants of surround speakers ever since. EV likewise ported other speakers into surround use. Late comers like QSC have had dedicated surround speakers with probably too many choices (they currently are showing 7 models though some are designated for immersive).
How do you make a good speaker in a little box? And since one needs, typically somewhere between 8 and 24 of them per screen (5.1/7.1), cost effective such that they will actually sell? Also, since they hang over people's heads and can be awkward to get to once seats are in, it is nice when some weight considerations are made. It is tough to make a really good surround speaker with all of the constraints on them. My favorite surround remains the Altec 604/620 combination but it would be too large in most cinemas (9 cubic foot box) and too expensive (if made today...probably close to $2K each). But there was never really a heyday for good surround speakers. There is always a size/budget constraint to them. Also, back in the day, you sort of depended on their crappy response to hid ugly things like hiss, tones...etc.
Subwoofers. Now this is an area where things really HAVE gotten better.
Pre-1980...what did you have? Sensurround? So big cabinets with Cerwin-Vega drivers in a proprietary sound format.
Moving into the the late 70s early 80s, I recall mostly JBL's lone offering, the 4645 (single 18") and Kintek's KT-90 (self-powered dual 15"). There wasn't really much. The 4645 had a good driver (2245H) and would play really low but it could only handle 350-watts and it combined that with okay efficiency so you really needed a lot of them if you were serious. Most cinemas, except for 70mm, didn't get subwoofers back then. I saw a lot of KT-90s out here. They were not a great subwoofer but at the time they were one of the choices. They tended to have the same sound, no matter what was playing. Eventually, in the later 1980s the subwoofer field expanded and the double 18s like the EV TL-880 and JBL 4642 and later the 4642A became available. The 4645 gave way to the 4645B and Later 4645C. So in the 90s you really have a decent range of subwoofers to choose from and the ability to have as many as you needed to fill the room. These subs play pretty deep and are pretty powerful.
Current cinemas have even more choices of decent subs. It is now mostly a choice of how deep you want it to play (and you better have the room isolation to back that up), how much space you have behind the screen and how much power you have. JBL is showing 5 subwoofers currently and QSC is showing 9. Again, some are immersive specific products (e.g. Surround LFE). By and large, subwoofers get better with size and quantity. Check out QSC's SB-15121. It is large, efficient, plays deep and is powerful. Check out JBL's 5628 (note the power rating on it (4000-watts continuous pink noise), it plays deep though not as sensitive as others (needs to be bigger!).
My point is, compared to yesteryear, we have choices and some pretty darn good ones for subwoofers.
And bringing this full circle, we actually have some pretty good choices for speakers now, in general too. There are a mountain of them to wade through when choosing though and many are targeting the thrift side of things. There are other brands out there that have decent offerings as well.
If you aren't hearing good sound, it is because the exhibitor didn't think you would value it to the point it would hurt their business (how frequent you attend the movies based on sound quality) or they were convinced what they put in was "just as good" as the better offerings. Furthermore, far too little attention is paid to the acoustics of cinemas. That was probably THX's biggest contribution, that lingered for a while...the notion that a cinema had to be made right (acoustically) before you put the equipment in.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-05-2018 12:34 AM
quote: Steve Guttag
If you aren't hearing good sound, it is because the exhibitor didn't think you would value it to the point it would hurt their business (how frequent you attend the movies based on sound quality) or they were convinced what they put in was "just as good" as the better offerings. Furthermore, far too little attention is paid to the acoustics of cinemas. That was probably THX's biggest contribution, that lingered for a while...the notion that a cinema had to be made right (acoustically) before you put the equipment in.
Yeah, I have basically suspected that "good enough" sound quality in movie theaters is a deliberate choice on the part of the theater chain. Neglect or lack of attention to detail on the part of the staff as well as customers demanding the sound be turned down are also persistent factors.
I do remember the configuration of theaters in the 1980's and 1990's. Theaters that showed 70mm prints were rare; and of the ones that did the typical 70mm-equipped multiplex usually had its one big 70mm-capable house and the rest a combo of mono or stereo. In the 1990's a lot of multiplex sites had maybe one or two digital sound equipped houses. When our old Carmike 8 theater opened in late 1994 it opened with two THX-certified screens, each with Dolby CP-65 processors and DTS-6 players. The other 6 rooms had regular stereo optical surround via Smart processors. One upside is all the rooms had JBL speakers and QSC amplifiers. About 10 years later those 6 analog houses were upgraded to 5.1 digital sound, just a couple or so years before the conversion to digital projection.
Back in the early 1990's I think there was some understanding of what to expect from a better auditorium equipped with digital sound versus one that only played audio in optical stereo or mono. These days the technology is providing so much more potential than was there in the past. Yet that potential is largely being completely squandered.
I totally get that really great quality sound in a commercial movie theater costs a lot of money. It pretty much costs a fortune if the theater operator wants to install something like Atmos and do it right. However, the theaters boasting this gear are often carrying a ticket price premium. If I'm having to pay something like $18 per ticket or more (on top of the high cost of those snack counter items) then I'm going to be a little more demanding that the theater's sound system packs more of a wallop than the old 5.1 home theater system in my living room.
I still think something is going on at the production and distribution end -like the theory of sound mixes being more dynamically compressed for cheaper speakers. Jurassic Park is currently available to stream on Netflix. I fired it up just to see how it would look and sound. The sound dynamics of the Netflix stream are just pathetic. They're not in the ballpark of the mix from the old DTS DVD, much less what played in theaters back in 1993. The movie has its dramatic flaws. Coupled with wimpy audio the flaws stand out worse. Some scenes just don't play right at all without thunderous sub-bass.
Obviously people on the distribution end are monkeying around with the sound mixes of catalog titles. And I think the same deciders are forcing their influence on the sound of new movies.
quote: Jarod Reddig
I sure wish I could of visited that Northpark GCC at least once. The stories of amazing presentations at that location are legendary. Wasn't Brad a projectionist there? Also, wasn't it the location of one of the first THX installations in a commercial cinema or am I confusing it with a different place?
Brad did work there. Unforunately I didn't meet Brad until years after the Northpark 1-2 closed. Yes, the GCC Northpark 1-2 was one of the original handful of theaters to be THX certified for the release of Return of the Jedi in 1983. IIRC Tomlinson Holman was personally involved in the THX setup for house #1 at the Northpark. The GCC Avco Cinema in Los Angeles was very similar to the Northpark. The Prestonwood Town Center in Dallas was also an original THX site. I can't remember the other theaters. I think there were maybe 5 total then.
The Lion King was another movie I liked watching at the Northpark #1. The drum beat on that movie's title card was maybe even more scary dynamic than that of Jurassic Park. That was also back when the original Dolby Stereo Digital "train" trailer would seriously threaten speaker drivers.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic