Wasn't the Cooper 7's (in Denver) big house a HPS-4000 theatre? Did you see a film there?
I regret that you have not had the opportunity to hear an HPS-4000® system for yourself. I am sure you would be impressed as most are. It is indeed the most powerful system on the market today. While any system could equal the acoustic power of an HPS-4000® system, we are the only company that ensures that every installation has at least four times the output required for the loudest peaks of a digital soundtrack. This specification is met in every channel, including the subwoofer. The HPS-4000® reference system in Framingham has an acoustic output equivalent to nearly 13 symphony orchestras. The Waikiki Theatres 1 and 2 are currently the largest with an output of 14 1/2 symphony orchestras. The largest ever built was equal to 20. Motion picture soundtracks require this kind of power if they are to be heard without strain or distortion. Another benefit is reliability. In the 20 years since their introduction, no HPS-4000® sound system has experienced a driver failure.
Four times the power may seem like a lot, but it's only 6 dB -- or about the difference in raising your voice. It's really about the least amount of headroom one can get away with, particularly if one is designing a sound system with equalization.
As to the "couple of dozen" installations: I wonder when I hear this (this is not the first time) if those couple of dozen include the 60 plus systems in Hawaii or the over 70 systems in Illinois? I actually do not keep track of all the installations. For instance, when a circuit is sold and the new management is not interested in quality sound, I loose track of the systems involved when I know they are no longer properly maintained and have no hope of ever sounding the way they should.
As to how our sound systems compare, you should read what customers and others have written at: http://www.hps4000.com/pages/comments_.html
I hope you get a chance to hear one someday. If you are ever in Boston, let me know.
John F. Allen
I have seen movies there. I remember seeing True Lies and Courage Under Fire, both in DTS, as well as Alien 3 a few years prior. I did not know that I was in an HPS4000® (can't forget that "®") theatre at the time. I wasn't impressed. But I don't know if it was properly maintained or not by our tech. He seemed to like the house, so I assume he put some TLC into it. Too bad the theatre only did 40 people per day. The all THX Mann 12-plex a couple of blocks away stole (or earned) the customers it once had.
As I remember, the theatre I did was called the Cooper 7. I believe it was in Littleton, but I'm not sure. It was many years ago. The theatre was round. It was the first time I used my surround array formulas developed for a round room. Coverage was ± 3/4 dB. Not too bad.
The system sounded great. The round room was not a problem for us due to the superior coverage patterns of our speaker systems. We opened with a 70 MM print of GHOSTBUSTERS.
Ultimately, the theatre was sold and the system was replaced. As I said, when theatres get sold and the new owners don't care about quality sound or don't know what they have, I typically loose track of what happens. I understand that the system that was installed after that was, at best, about 1/8 the acoustic power -- hardly enough for 70 MM or digital.
At any rate, if you heard the system I installed, it would have had to be before 1985, I would think. Even then I can't be sure if what you heard was what you should have. The theatre did not remain on the active list very long. Is the theatre still open?
John F. Allen
The theatres in Hawaii and Illinois are fully functional and very well maintained installations, I am happy to say. In fact, the technicians who maintain those particular theatres are among the best around. I actually get to visit the Illinois theatres at least once a year, because the owner wants me to personally check things out for myself. In Hawaii, I get to see some of those theatres when I am there: typically once a year or so.
There have been somewhere between 250 and 300 installations over the years. The fact that I can only recommend about 1/3 rd as being properly maintained is sad. But as things go, 1/3 rd is better than some others might claim. I am certainly not alone in wishing things were better.
John F. Allen
THX boasts that every auditorium meets the standards of the screening room the films were mixed in. That way if you see a film in a THX certified auditorium, you are listening to the film EXACTLY as the director intended it to be heard. Personally, I have found that each and every THX house sounds completely different. I have heard some new installations that sound like pure crap, and some new installations that sound absolutely fantastic! All calibrations are performed by "professional" THX techs. In fact, some of my non-THX houses sound noticably better than my THX houses. Of course, they are all built to the same standards during construction, it's just that they do not have the "official" THX liscence.
So my question is if I went to an HPS-4000 house and watched a movie and noticed certain characteristics in the sound, would I be able to go to a different HPS-4000 house 5 states away in a much smaller auditorium, watch the very same movie and have, more or less, the same sound?
I wish there was a prize for you. You are the very first person in 20 years to ask that question. The answer is yes. It's very important to me and something I have had to work very hard to do. Early on, I realized that the tuning and measuring systems recommended for cinema sound systems did not work. Not only did they result in inferior sound quality, but they almost never provided similar tone from theatre to theatre. What's more, the measurement system was not repeatable.
The best example of the problem can be found at the Century Plaza Theatre in Los Angeles. There are two sets of EQ cards in the large HPS-4000® theatre. One is the set I adjusted when the system was first installed. Those settings have never been changed. The other set is there because technicians cannot leave well enough alone. In the 16 years since the system was first installed, those secondary EQ cards have never been set the same way twice. Furthermore, never have they been set in a way that even approaches the sound quality available by simply using the house cards that I originally adjusted.
Because of this problem, and the fact that there is no measurement system that measures what something sounds like, I personally set up every HPS-4000® system. Generally they are well maintained. Generally the equalization is not changed. If it is, the sound system is no longer HPS-4000®.
We have four levels of HPS-4000® sound systems. The bigger ones sound bigger than the smallest. The bigger theatres also sound bigger than the smaller ones. That obvious caveat being said, the tone is remarkably similar in all HPS-4000® theatres. I know this because I hear every one, I listen to the same reference materials and make sure they sound natural. Today, we have newer and better amplifiers. This has resulted in even cleaner sound quality -- really remarkable.
Natural tone is, for me, one of the most important aspects of sound system performance. A sound system must sound natural. It comes from the adage that the best sound system is no sound system. If that is so, then the next best thing is a sound system that doesn't sound like a sound system. When I worked for the Boston Symphony and later was sound director for the Boston Ballet, we often were asked by the musicians and conductors who came out to listen, "Is it on?"
John F. Allen
Am I wrong when I say what I think you were trying to convey was that since you are the only sound tech for HPS installations that there is more consistency from auditorium to auditorium in comparison to THX, since there are so many licensed THX techs?
Also, might I recommend you start an area on your site with a complete and current "licensed" HPS theaters list? By this I mean if something is altered (eq settings, levels, etc), then that theater would be removed from the web list. I think it would serve people better who are interested in hearing a demo without flying to the Framingham theater, Illinois or Hawaii.
The HPS-4000® systems do basically sound the same (they have similar tone) and they sound as natural as I can make them. Since I have done each and every one, there is an advantage of consistency if nothing else. I believe that the article you refer to said that all screen channels should have the same equalization settings, provided they are the same speakers. This is the only way that the three channels will sound the same. It is also the best way to ensure the widest and deepest stereo image. I don't recall ever saying anything about swapping cards.
The far field measurements have little relevance to anything. Blauert refers to the reverberation repression done by our brains in filtering out later arrivals of a sound for a period of time after we hear the direct sound. I like to use the speaker phone analogy. We hear an echo of the room when someone speaks to us on a speakerphone, but we cannot hear that reverberation when we are standing next to the person speaking. Our brains won't permit it. Since microphones don't have brains, we need to try to trick our measurements to behave more like our hearing system and focus on what our hearing focuses on. The far field measurement doesn't work and should be abandoned.
Equalization of movie theatre sound systems is a double edged sword. Properly applied, it can solve problems. But since it is almost never properly applied, I fear that, in most instances, it introduces more problems that it solves.
I have not claimed that only HPS-4000® sound systems have the output required to do their job. I have said that all of them do.
Rooms the size of most movie theatre are not large enough to have reverberation time problems with good loudspeakers. If you can understand a person talking from the front of the theatre, but not the sound system, it's not the acoustics that are to blame. What I do pay attention to are the surface treatments, where they are applied and not applied. The noise spec has always been NC-25.
Good to hear from you!
John F. Allen
May I suggest that you and Brad visit the Preferred Theatres section of the HPS-4000® web site: http://www.hps4000.com
I did this page as a list of theatres where I am reasonably comfortable, if not absolutely certain, that they are properly maintained.
Should you wish to visit the Boston area, the General Cinema Framingham complex has 13 systems installed. Theatre #6 is my reference theatre. It is outfitted with our four-way screen speakers, eight channels and has superior amplifiers. The new theatre #1 also has superior amplifiers as well as our four-way screen speakers.
Regarding Brad's comment about different theatres sounding different: Of course they will. However, our systems do have far more consistent tone from one theatre to another than any other sound system I have ever heard.
JFA
I notice that all speakers must be Klipsch. Why is that? Is it a personal preference? Also, why do the speakers have to be so close to the screen? Ever thought of using baffle walls or bafflettes? (I'm sorry, I don't get BoxOffice magazine at my current theatre, and these topics may have been covered by you in there since I stopped getting it).
I think that the idea of "Good Sound" is completely subjective. What you think sounds fantastic, I may not. Likewise, if I design a system (JRS-5000®) and think it sounds great, you may think it is horrible, even if everyone else loves it.
For professional purposes, the definition I have used to describe good sound is that which sounds like the original. While we must be honest and admit that it is not possible to reproduce what went into the microphone(s), we can do a satisfactory job at creating the illusion of auditory perspective and tone. Judging how well this is accomplished is a matter of training and years of experience, as much as personal taste. The experience and training is necessary to be able to listen beyond what we like and may not like. Some people listen primarily to the strings of an orchestra, for instance, when there is a great deal more going on.
So, indeed, we all have the right to our tastes, prejudices and levels of experience. I would caution anyone, however, not to expect to gain much proficiency by listing to loudspeakers, any loudspeakers -- even ours.
As to your question about the speakers: Klipsch made all my speakers until 1986. At that time the SR-70 surround speaker became available and our customers started to use it as well. By 1995, the Klipsch professional division had been sold twice. The company I was left with (which was not Klipsch) was not satisfactory. Since then I have had all my speakers built by the original inventor of our large 545 system and the SR-70. The other firm that had been unsatisfactory in 1995, ultimately went out of business. Today, I would have no objection to having speakers built by Klipsch again. In fact, I fully expect that to occur. The reason for using them initially in 1979, was that they were they best source for fully horn loaded loudspeakers.
The speakers must be close to the screen to eliminate behind-the-screen reflections. Our speakers have been designed for this. This has the advantage of eliminating any need for sound absorptive materials to be installed behind the screen. I do use baffle walls in certain cases where there is an exit corridor under the screen, forcing me to place the woofers above the HF sections, which I want to remain at their optimum height.
John F. Allen
Anyway, Mr. Allen, I would very much like to meet you on your next visit to Hawaii. What kinds of checkups do you perform here, exactly? Or is it more to touch bases with the technicians here?
John F. Allen
Does the sound retain it's characteristics as it travels around the room? The only place where I have heard the sound do this accurately was at a theatre which used the exact same speaker for surround purposes as the stage speakers. There really isn't any way that a tiny surround speaker (even in multiple numbers) can match the tonal balance of a giant horn loaded quadruple bass bin speaker. If it can, why not just use the tiny surrounds behind the screen as well and save tons of money?
Also, "audio experts" like to say that subwoofer bass is non-directional. I do not always find this to be the case. It is certainly less directional, but I can usually tell the general direction of low sound frequencies. I can always discern a lack of rumbling bass from the surrounds. The easiest way to tell where the bass is coming from is to feel which direction your pant legs are shaking from. I want surrounds that force my head to tilt because of the awesome bass!
Ten of our surrounds equal the output and radiating area of one of our large screen speakers. That's one of the reasons that our surrounds match the output of one of our screen channels. The matching of tone is accomplished by using horn loaded midrange and tweeter sections in the surround speakers, driven with the same drivers that are used in the screen speakers. My Allen Surround Array™ speaker placement formulas provide the surround locations required to achieve extremely uniform coverage, typically ±1/2 dB throughout the surrounded area.
Deep bass is non directional when it is playing continuously. For instance, if you walked into a hall when a 32 foot organ pipe was playing, you will probably not be able to discern its direction. However, when a low frequency sound begins, you can almost always tell where its coming from. Also, a loud bass transient will produce a wave front. You can always tell the direction of the wind in that situation.
John F. Allen
Mr Allen how do you equalize your surround arrays to maintain near field response in a comb filtering enviroment of a wide coverage field yet maintain the required Ambience styled coverage
Also i assume the theatres in Illinois are all the ones owned by mr Johnson?
My surround arrays are not equalized at all. They produce a uniform field with a very smooth and flat frequency response on their own. Because the speakers have a relatively high directional characteristic, we are never in what I call the far field. We are always effectively in the near field of the speakers. They aren't that far away after all.
The comb filtering effect is taken care of by the multitude of speakers and their distance from each other, not to mention the advantages of stereo surrounds. Even if there was a comb filtering problem, one would only detect it by walking around and no one is walking around when they are watching a film unless they get up to go somewhere. When I do walk around a theatre while the surrounds are playing, as I did today, I hear no comb filtering effects at all.
The surround speakers have 12 inch woofers in a well tuned sealed box. There are usually 10 or 12 of them. They can produce a fair amount of bass. (You should have heard TWISTER.) One of them is always placed in each of the rear corners. (There is a special formula for the rear corner units.) The corner placement provides many benefits. One of them is better bass.
It's interesting: Showscan used to use two identical speakers for the left and right rear speakers rather than a full set of surrounds. I told them that with my system, they would hear both directional and non-directional effects beautifully as well as full dynamics. When they heard their films on the HPS-4000® system installed at their headquarters on a 45 day trial, they believed me. The "trial" was over in 45 minutes and the system is still there.
Yes, the theatres around the Chicago are owned by Mr. Johnson. You should pay him a visit sometime.
John F. Allen
Second, how do you handle the pulling of certification to theatres who do not keep it maintained properly? Many THX theatres will be left to turn to shit and yet they continue to have certification so long as the checks keep going to Lucasfilm. Then again, many THX theatres are maintained extraordinarily well and provide an amazing sound experience. How strict are you on your certification and how do you keep track since you are the only tech? Also, what do you allow techs to do to your systems in your absense without getting their certification pulled.
You said you have different levels of the system. Can you give a brief rundown on them? Please include facts such as speaker sensitivity and amplifier power.
I've read your articles in Box Office magazine on how to get a better eq and such. You have very non-standardized methods as opposed to the rest of the industry. I'm not saying that they aren't superior, just very different. How does this affect the playback of a film in an HPS-4000 auditorium that was mixed in an auditorium that was equalized using the standard methods the rest of the industry has adopted?
You like Klipsch speakers obviously. Do you allow any other brands for use in HPS-4000 installations, or is it a monopoly situation where all HPS-4000 theatres absolutely must purchase the Klipsch system? And do you own stock in Klipsch?
Since you insist on Klipsch, do you insist on a certain digital format for playback? Do you have a preference? Also, what is your analog processor of choice? I've never heard a mention of this. Does it matter?
How about home HPS-4000 systems? Is this strictly a cinema system? I think the home THX systems are a complete joke and have never been impressed with one to date. Have you tapped into that market yet? If so, do you personally go into every person's home and perform the equalization?
And one last little curiosity, why is it that every time you mention the HPS-4000 name you have inserted that little registered sign? I don't even know how you are doing this. You must have some special keyboard! But really, why do you do this? I noticed Joe did this too in his post. I'm fairly certain DTS and THX and all the other names discussed in this thread have been registered as well, yet you do not extend that same courtesy to those. So what's up with that, really? I think most people with a reasonable IQ level will know that the HPS-4000 system is registered without the notation.
quote:
That is John F. Allen's system. I think there's probably a couple of dozen, but I'm really not sure. He's got a web site now that gives plenty of information www.hps4000.com[/QUOTE]Don't miss the collection of Mr. Allen's technical articles written for BoxOffice there, too.
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-01-2000, 11:39 PM:
Dear Mr. Wells:To answer your last question first, the "®" is required to be used by trademark owners should they ever find themselves having to defend their registration against someone who might want to say that the owner didn't maintain it and no longer should be entitled to it. In short, my lawyers recommend it and if you must know, I think it's kind of a pain. The keystroke is "option-r", at least on my machine, if you wish to try one for yourself.
I believe that I explained that not all my systems have been done with Klipsch-built speakers. I do not own stock in Klipsch or any speaker company except my own, and of that I own 100 percent.
The HPS-4000® system is priced very competitively. When pricing is compared with other systems designed to have an equal acoustic output, our system is about 30 to 50 percent less expensive. This is due to the efficiency of the speakers. The speakers cost more, but that allows everything else to cost so much less that the entire package becomes very economical.
I personally train the technicians that service HPS-4000® systems. Most of them have the same equipment I have. I calibrate their equipment or provide them with a B&K 4231 microphone calibrator referenced to my own. The equalization is never changed, so all one needs to do is maintain the "A" chain and correct for level drifting once or twice a year. That's not a lot to do. I have a fairly close relationship with my clients, so I can be pretty certain as to whether I can list a theatre on the preferred list.
The four systems all have the same surround speakers and subwoofer cabinets. Only the screen speakers are different. They are matched to theatres by the size of the room. While the largest speakers can be used in any theatre, I make sure that our smaller screen speakers do not get placed in theatres that are too large for them.
Presently, I am using Dolby processors for analog.
The speaker sensitivity of our large 545 three-way and four-way systems as well as our 545-W subwoofer is 109 dB per watt per meter. This is the wide-band sensitivity, not just the middle frequencies. The two smaller systems are 106 dB per watt per meter. The SR-70 surround speakers are 98 dB. The amplifier power is specified to ensure that when the first arrival of the loudest sound a film can produce is delivered to the center of the theatre, the amplifier will be at no more than 25 percent of its output. This is true for all channels including the subwoofer.
I have done two home HPS® (another trademark, sorry) systems. (I actually did my first home-theatre installation in 1974. It was not HPS® at the time.) The HPS-4000® system will only be sold to theatres. This allows the exhibitors to have something you can't get at home. The home HPS® systems have used similar approaches but were only done because I knew the people involved and wanted to help them. Beyond that, I do not have time to do retail.
One last point: Producers have always told me that their movies sound better in my theatres than they do at the studios. Sir David Lean personally told me (while literally shaking me in excitement) that the Dolby "A" optical soundtrack print of A PASSAGE TO INDIA sounded better at the Century Plaza Theatre than the masters did on the rerecording stage. Producers are amazed at the sounds they can hear that do not get delivered anywhere else they have heard their film.
John F. Allen
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-02-2000, 01:02 AM:
Why don't studios recommend that their films be played in HPS-4000 if the theatre has it? Also, what would you do if there was a sudden upsurge in the popularity of HPS-4000? Say there were 200 screens that requested HPS-4000 in a single month? When you take nearly 30 hours to EQ each auditorium, that's a lot of work! Would you do it?Also, if a theatre buys and HPS-4000 system today (or maybe tomorrow or even next week), do they get a free upgrade when you come out with HPS-4000.1 or HPS-5000?
I figured out how to do the ®, but how do you do the "TM"? œ*´®Ý¥¨¨ˆø*åß*ƒ©·*°¬…æ“‘«*=ç**˜˜µ**÷¡™£¢*§¶•ªº–*
OK nevermind I figured it out. Alt/option + 2 and © is alt/option + G. Cool!
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-02-2000, 03:03 AM:
Dear Mr. Redifer:Wow, 30 hours per theatre. Try 20 minutes. That's about the time it takes to tune a theatre. It seems to take more time to set up the equipment than to do the work. I think I probably need about a day to do five or six theatres with "A" chains and the various digital formats. Some theatres with balconies take a day or two, due to the eight to 12 surround channels. Getting that balanced can take awhile and often seems to need to be done twice. I had to tune the Waikiki #1 theatre while the seat installers were working. When I needed a moment of silence, I'd ask for it. On maintenance trips, we do a 12 plex in 5 hours. I have two men doing "A" chains while I check all the "B" chains. We haven't started a show late yet.
Today, with digital processors, a technician can load a file with settings I provide, do the "A" chains and set levels. I don't even have to be there until after everything is done and the theatre is open. That way I am working in a completed complex and don't have to wait while the fire alarm is tested 100 times.
JFA
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-02-2000, 08:01 AM:
>>"The drivers for all three horns were melted open. 34,000 ohm resistance. Lost the house for a week while we waited for replacements. Oh well sh** happens"<<What brand of drivers were they? Just for reference, we stock theatre diaphragms for EV, JBL and Altec.
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-02-2000, 10:16 AM:
John since we have you available to pick your brain two questions come to mind
With EX do you classifie those rear corner speakers as part of the side wall or rear wall array. Would not the logic then tend to modulate the total low end response as it tracks the directional steering from side to rear or vice versaAlso your nearfield direct eq technique you mention has been documented in several journals. Since I have the AES saved back into the seventies I would be interested in reading up on these articles so I would appreciate which articles and issues
thank you for your patience
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-02-2000, 01:24 PM:
Dear Gordon:In the four theatres where we installed the SA-10 as well as the testing I did with it at Framingham prior to last May, I used the rear corner speakers in the rear group.
Back in 1972, I think, Daniel Queen published an excellent paper in the AES JOURNAL about the use of pink noise and real-time analyzers. He found that the measurements did not corollate with human hearing. I wish I could find that paper but I have not been able to. Once at an SMPTE meeting I was complaining that we needed to do something better. I was unsuccessful. Queen was there and didn't say a word. After the meeting, I asked him why he didn't and he said he was tired of fighting a loosing battle.
I also remember reading another AES paper in the late 1980s or early 1990s that came to the same conclusion. I thought I kept it but have not been able to find it despite several attempts.
I did a presentation for the ITEA here at Framingham in 1995 that compared the tuning that resulted form a four microphone setup, a single microphone and my tuning. I later repeated the demonstration for the local sections of SMPTE, AES, BAS and ASA. There was no dispute from any of the 400 or so people who have heard this that the far-field methods are inferior to terrible. Sorry I can't be of more help.
I can recommend a book by Jens Blauert called SPATIAL HEARING. It is available from the MIT Press in Cambridge, MA. The ISBN number is 0-262-02190-0. I think I paid $50.00 for the book 15 years ago. The book was translated by John S. Allen. No relation.
John F. Allen
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-02-2000, 10:47 PM:
Maintaining INTEGRITY throughout the system; that's the key! Remember, Ray Dolby spoke "heresy" too, in the beginning.John Allen's good.
Posted by Charles Lubner (Member # 157) on 02-03-2000, 12:57 AM:
Mr. Allen:Two years ago I was on vacation in Waikiki and went to the Waikiki #3 cinema. Does that theatre have HPS-4000 sound? Does the IMAX behind the Waikiki 1 and 2 have HPS-4000 sound? If not, do you plan to introduce a HPS system to the IMAX industry?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-03-2000, 01:08 AM:
So then, is HPS-4000® theoretically the best possible movie theatre sound? There is absolutely no way that it could sound better given current technology, sound formats, and soundtrack mixing practices? Do HPS-4000™ auditoriums "bleed through" to adjascent auditoiums?If keeping the price "competitive" was not an issue, what would you do? What would be the ultimate system that you would love to design and build? Also, how many channels do you think theatres could really benefit from? Is 8 enough?
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-03-2000, 07:10 AM:
Dear Mr. Lubner:The Waikiki #3 is indeed HPS-4000® and is one of my favorite theatres in the world. We have not done any IMAX theatres. They have their own sound company. We have done several theatres around the world for Showscan.
JFA
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-03-2000, 07:22 AM:
Dear Mr. Redifer:We are always looking for ways to improve drivers. I think the horn designs are correct as they are designed according to the laws of physics and have stood the test of time.
As to the number of channels, I am quite satisfied with eight channels. I wish that all films were made that way. I have done mixes with four surround channels. There is a small advantage to having the surrounds split up into stereo side and rear groups, but I emphasize small.
I suspect that the easiest way to improve the system is to improve the amplifiers. We recently did just that and the results were incredible. BGW makes special amplifiers for us and has done so for many years. Their new Millennium 3-HPS® is the best amplifier of any kind I have ever heard. I now have one in my living room.
Our sound systems bleed through to other theatres but less than other systems. This is because horn speakers do not vibrate very much, so they don't shake the structure of the building as much. Airborne transmission must be dealt with by good wall construction.
JFA
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-03-2000, 10:38 AM:
Some of the older Klipsh cabeniets used a variety of driver sources I distinctly remember seeing some B&C and RCF and Emenience in them over the years. But I also remeber seeing a driver in one that had a phenolic diaphram that looked a lot like a police sieren element. Are all drivers used now interchangeable between vinatges as the cabinent loading would probably effect them.
I was curious since you mentioned you had to find a replacement source during the trouble years at Klipsh
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-03-2000, 12:58 PM:
Dear Gordon:Today's drivers are generally interchangeable with older drivers. The manufacturers of the drivers have changed once in a great while, but the drivers are basically the same with the exception that they have somewhat greater power capacity. All the speakers ever used in HPS-4000® installations used drivers that meet today's needs. None has needed replacement or updating and, as I have said, except for manufacturing defects (maybe five in twenty years), none has failed. The woofers and tweeters are still from the same sources. There have been two sources of the midrange drivers.
When I changed cabinet builders, the drivers remained the same.
John F. Allen
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-06-2000, 05:01 PM:
I was just noticing your note about Sir David Lean's comment on sound he had not heard before
A theatre system is supposed to reproduce what was heard on the mixing stage and a system that reproduces in a different fashion ( althow possible better) becomes a double edged sword of possibly making a film with an acceptable soundtrack sound worse because the theatre reproduces what was not evident during soundingAre there any Dubbing/mixing facitlies with HPS4000 and has any mixing facilities accredited it
Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 02-06-2000, 08:00 PM:
If I remember right the GCC Northpark auditorium #2 had HPS-4000 at one point. Unfortunatly GCC Northpark is and has been closed.
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-06-2000, 08:03 PM:
Dear Gordon:The mixing stages are pretty well standardized with two-way systems, for better or worse. The good ones have had years of tweaking from mixers who know what their recorded materials really sound like since they often have recorded the things themselves. Though not the best sounding systems I have heard, the rerecording stages I have worked on do sound fairly decent.
The producers have always appreciated that our systems make their films sound better than they heard at the studio. They pour hours and hours into making the best sounding film they can with the relatively small two-way speakers they have available. When their film is played on a superior sound system, they are overjoyed that their hard work produced something that much better than they thought.
We had a world premiere of a film last year at a theatre in New York. The director was there and was so stunned by the sound quality, he talked about it to the reporters who were covering the opening. He later asked the technician how it was possible that this theatre could sound so much better than any other theatre he had ever heard. He even wondered if he had been deceived all these years by other sound technicians. I would like to have been there myself.
John F. Allen
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-07-2000, 06:26 PM:
Dear Mr Allen
Since I get to new york regularly what theatre has an HPS4000 system ther as I wouldbe interested to here it as a comparison to the one I heard the carib In Kingston many years ago
Also will you be at show west this year
and what other processors than Dolbys do you certify for use in your system sucha s say PanaStereo or Ultra Stereo, Peavey or other THX approved ones
regards
Gordon A. McLeod
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-07-2000, 07:50 PM:
Dear Gordon:The New York theatre is the Westhampton Beach Performing Arts Center in Westhampton Beach. It's about two hours out of the city on Long Island. The theatre is only used for film at certain times of the year, so I can't predict what would be going on at any particular time.
Presently, I am only using Dolby CP-65's and CP-500's as the base processor in the HPS-4000® sound systems. I have also been using the DTS 6 and 6D as well as the Sony DFP-2000. I am in the final phase of evaluating another processor that looks very good. When these tests are complete, I will make an announcement, as this would be the first time I have will have recommended a stereo processor to my customers not made by Dolby.
I should say that the process for acceptance of a component for my systems is quite different from the practices of others. Rather than inviting manufacturers to send me their product(s) and accept money for evaluating them and so on, I select those products that I believe are the best for my systems and my customers. No one pays me anything. The current processor evaluation is being done at my request with the cooperation of the manufacturer. I have been in discussions with them for many months and offered several suggestions that have, along with others, been implemented. Even so, I am still doing and have been doing a thorough evaluation of the sound quality and reliability in all formats before I make a final decision. The unit is currently in operation at Framingham where we are able to live with it for a while. I might add that no other processor has made it this far before and gone into daily operation. It's been kind of fun to see one do it.
I will be in Booth 939 at Showest.
John F. Allen
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-07-2000, 09:49 PM:
>>"Presently, I am only using Dolby CP-65's and CP-500's as the base processor in the HPS-4000® sound systems. I have also been using the DTS 6 and 6D as well as the Sony DFP-2000. I am in the final phase of evaluating another processor that looks very good. When these tests are complete, I will make an announcement, as this would be the first time I have will have recommended a stereo processor to my customers not made by Dolby. "<<Here is a bit of a gray area....
Once upon a time in Washington DC....there was, and is the Avalon theatre, formerly HPS-4000¨ certified theatre...it's initial HPS-4000¨ performance was Disney's reissue of Fantasia in Digital sound....I distinctly remember the PCM VCR feeding a Kintek KT-700 processor with a KT-750 decoder for the 2:4 decoding. Unlike most KT-700s, this one had a complement of equalizers hidden behind blank panels so as not to attract attention (rather than for security reasons). Kintek had a presence at the Avalon's HPS-4000¨ debut too.
Mr. Allen, was the Kintek KT-700 ever "approved?" If not, why was it used for the Fantasia shows? (the "first in digital" shows).
For the record, that theatre did have H.F. component failure as well as numerous fuse blowings, prior to anyone tampering with the system and its subsequent removal from the HPS-4000¨ list.
One last tidbit about this theatre, the screen frame was made by Standard Theatre Supply and they had a bad habit of using an odd number of legs...in this case, 5. As such, the center speaker either had to be placed directly behind the leg (and destroy the direct coupling aspects of the HPS-4000¨ speaker, or be shifted to one side (which was done)...as such, Center was never really center.
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-07-2000, 10:36 PM:
Dear Mr. Guttag:The Kintek KT-700 was never recommended by me as a stereo processor. I did think it did a very good job at synthesizing stereo from mono. In those days, it was not uncommon to use a Dolby processor for stereo and Kintek for mono in HPS-4000® theatres. The 1/3 rd octave equalizers at the Avalon were installed at my insistence. They were placed behind the special security panels for security.
The primary processor for the theatre was a CP-200. The Kintek was used in stereo for FANTASIA over my objection as its steering was defective and remained so through out the engagement of the film. The Kintek unit did have a very clean sound. That was its best feature. All in all, I thought the steering problems detracted and the use of the Kintek surround steering module was not well advised. Clean sound yes, but I felt better about the digital presentation of FANTASIA that we had done at the Plitt Century Plaza theatre in Los Angeles.
The Avalon theatre has not been an HPS-4000® listed theatre for about 13 or 14 years (I'm guessing.) I had forgotten about the center strut of the screen frame. It was one of the many stupid things that one runs into in this business.
John F. Allen
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-07-2000, 11:21 PM:
>>"The Kintek unit did have a very clean sound."<<Dear Mr. Allen:
I am surprised you would rate "clean sound" as one of the KT-700's hallmarks...when in fact, it's VCAs had a rather harsh sound. Did you ever try and play somthing through the unit and switch the VCA card in and out of "bypass" and then compare that sound to not using the KT-700 at all? I found that while in "bypass" the sound is just about indistinguishable from not using the KT-700 whereas using the VCAs created a rather harsh quality to the sound.
BTW...since I go with theory that the final result is no better than the weakest link...and since Fantasia used an analog 2:4 matrix decoder how can it be claimed to have been a "digital" performance? Just because there was a digital recording somewhere in the chain? One can hardly claim it had the dynamics that are on today's digital films or magnetic films in the era it was released.
While obviously the sound must be converted to analog at somepoint (at least with present technology), a format that used analog "processing" that inhearently limited the dynamics of the whole system shouldn't be given the credit of a digital presentation. These are my opinions, naturally.
Good day,
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-08-2000, 12:17 AM:
Dear John
I find it disheartning to read that a untampered HPS4000 system had driver failures
after reading both your posts here and on the MSP page and on the HPS web site that there had never been driver failures. I also found it disquieting that you would have allowed a centre screen strut or the offset centre speaker for THX would never have allowed that
Also the KT700 was not a very good processor at anything they were typically noisy and the VCA's as steve pointed out were very harsh. The surround steering generator was nothing more than a set of Comb filters creating a synthetic surround spread. I am suprised that an engineer of your stature would not have prevailed at insisting the CP200 with its 1/3 octave EQ be used since it was already installed. Also the surround generator was addressable on the backplane of the KT700 so it still could have been used as an assecory device.
Gordon A. McLeod
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-08-2000, 12:24 AM:
Dear Mr. Guttag:The choice to use the KT-700 at the Avalon was taken out of my hands or it would not have happened. There was a blind listening test. The opinion was that one of the processors sounded cleaner. That one turned out to be the KT-700. The test was done with THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE. This had been my suggestion because I guessed that the kind of orchestration used in that piece might not provoke the problems of the KT-700 and Kintek had asked for more time to fix it. It turned out to be a good guess on my part but it hid the problems, and I was never able to convince anyone that the CP-200 would be a better choice after that. There may have been one or two others, but I can only recall the using the KT-700 at that one theatre. I certainly did not hear any harshness. I would suspect that such a thing might occur if the VCA's were being over driven somehow. Again, this was 15 years ago. My memory is that the KT-700 sounded pretty clean when I dealt with it.
The FANTASIA presentations were indeed the first times a feature film was presented with a digital soundtrack. Two track or 20 track, is was digital. In fact it was a copy of the digital master. In Los Angeles, we actually opened with the one inch reel-to-reel digital print master, in the theatre, because the VHS version had not been fully completed. The 1982 Irwin Kostal recording of FANTASIA was the first film ever to be recorded, dubbed and presented in digital sound. Earlier films were done digitally by Disney for the theme parks, but this was the first digital feature film as far as any of us knew. Moroder's METROPOLIS and many others came later.
As to the 2:4 decoder, Dolby supplied us with a special CAT-150 card. In the Los Angeles presentation, the same CAT-150 card was used in the studio and the theatre. Not many know this, but a new print master was mixed for these presentations. To say that it wasn't digital because it was converted to analog at some point makes me wonder if any digital presentation is digital if it passes through a CP-65 or CP-55 or CP-200 or any analog processor after conversion in a DA-10 or DA-20 or a DTS unit? It's the digital soundtrack source that was and is digital in movie theatres. Nor would I think the use of a purely analog SA-10 with its 2:4 matrix, means that a film is no longer presented in digital.
Thanks for asking. It gives me a chance to write about FANTASIA a little. It was a great honor to work on that project and meet the people I did. Irwin Kostal became a close and dear friend. I miss him terribly. Disney's Nelson Meacham and I still stay in touch to this day. We had a great time -- just fabulous.
John F. Allen
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-08-2000, 01:07 AM:
Dear Gordon:I am not aware of driver failures. We have had defective drivers that have acted up after leaving the factory, but they have not failed in the classic sense of being over driven or burned out. I have a stock of replacement drivers here just in case someone needs something on a weekend or some other time when the factory is closed. I have always had them here and all they do is gather dust. The only time I ship them anywhere is when they go back to the factory to be replaced by fresher stock. We do not have driver failures and, to my knowledge, have never lost a show due to a speaker problem in an HPS-4000® theatre.
The vast majority of defects we see in drivers are buzzes. A few exhibit adhesive problems. Some of these have escaped the factory, but I don't think there have been more than five to ten such units in twenty years and thousands of drivers. I remember finding an open voice coil in a midrange that had obviously been shipped that way as the lead was never properly attached to the diaphragm. It happens to all speaker makers. We have some duds sitting at the factory now waiting to go back to the vendors. The best news is that we haven't had a driver defect show up in any speaker produced in the last five years.
The speakers at the Avalon Theatre each had four midrange and four tweeter drivers. If only one of four units develops a problem, you can be pretty certain that it's a manufacturing problem in that specific driver. Otherwise more than one driver would show damage, since they all play the same thing at the same time. If you overheat one, you must overheat them all. Calling the Avalon theatre "un-tampered" is optimistic to say the least. Since I never received an order for a replacement driver for the Avalon, any such replacements were done after it was no longer a listed HPS-4000® theatre. As I said, it was not listed for very long. It's too bad too. I thought it was a wonderful sounding room at the time.
As far as moving the speaker off center is concerned; the high frequency units were moved to one side of the woofer horn rather than being placed right in the middle. It was hardly a major displacement and was never detected by a listener who didn't know about it. Today, I have those center struts removed and have the frame supported by some other means. One stature I do not have is that I do not own the theatres. When an owner installs screen frames with center struts, the best thing you can do is get them removed. If that is refused, you move the center HF unit 16 inches. On a 40 foot screen, it doesn't destroy the presentation. I agree with you, however, the struts do not belong in the center.
The choice of processor was not mine. It turned into a political mess and there was nothing one could do. I was surprised as well. But, the sound was clean despite the shortcomings of the KT-700 you and Mr. Guttag report. We must have had a good one.
John F. Allen
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-08-2000, 07:39 PM:
>>"Calling the Avalon theatre "un-tampered" is optimistic to say the least. Since I never received an order for a replacement driver for the Avalon, any such replacements were done after it was no longer a listed HPS-4000® theatre. As I said, it was not listed for very long. It's too bad too. I thought it was a wonderful sounding room at the time.As far as moving the speaker off center is concerned; the high frequency units were moved to one side of the woofer horn rather than being placed right in the middle. It was hardly a major displacement and was never detected by a listener who didn't know about it.
"<<Dear Mr. Allen
Not to harp...
The way I found out about the center speaker was by watching a film...Center always seemed to be right of center...it wasn't untill some time after that I was able to go behind the screen and see for myself.
The mode of failre on the HF unit was indeed buzzing...most people would call that driver failure since it is something that should be replaced. But I suppose this may be a semantics thing. Why a replacement was never ordered makes no sense to me.
Back to the digital thing...
Special Cat. 150 (SB, I think was its designator)...The flaw I find in the thinking is that the "digital" recording is immediately sent into an analog 2:4 decoder that had inferior noise and dynamic range as it's digital recording. Fantasia had a serious weak link in it's chain...inferior dynamics, inferior channel separation...all attributed to an analog process used as part of the final presentation.
The current systems use their own discrete channels (or mostly discrete in DTS' sense with the subwoofer track living on the surrounds. If one could say the the VCAs of the analog processors is the limiting factor of the digital process, then there is some validity discounting the digital presentation through them but at least, the actual processing of the performance (ie 2:4 decoding) is not being done in the analog domain.
To draw an analogy...I have many Telarc digitally mastered records...I would not classify them as digital since they are played on an analog medium (records. Heck, they would have been classified as DDA in many cases. As opposed to DDD if they were on CDs.
As far as the SA-10 detracting from the digitalness...you bet it does...in fact, it has been the subject of some ridicule as to what it does to the surrounds.
My opinions...
Cheers,
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-08-2000, 08:07 PM:
Speaking slightly off topic one of DTS's original bigest complaints was the original DTSunit that used a single disk and played into the analogue matrix
The complaints about its accuracy, noise and distortion levels were numerous in the industry and I happen to remember vividly how bad the KT700 handled the dynamics and headroom of that signal and it wasn't pretty
A starsope probably would have handled that better. AT least they didn't have overdriven VCA's
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-08-2000, 08:10 PM:
John,Let's talk dollars here. Assuming you were happy with the auditorium and sound processor, how much would it cost to bring in HPS approved speakers and amps for a medium to large size auditorium? If there are variables, please give a price range.
Next one, are there any special requirements such as screen size, viewing angle, a competent projection staff (don't we all wish), etc. that must be met before it is certified?
Thanks
(For those who enjoy statistics, this thread is officially the longest one in the history of Film-Tech. It also has the most number of posts by one member.)
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-08-2000, 08:49 PM:
Dear Mr. Guttag:When we did the actual world premiere of digital sound in a commercial movie theatre, we used the five-track digital print master of Giorgio Moroder's version of Fritz Lang's METROPOLIS. We fed the output of a Sony 3324 24-track digital recorder directly into the discrete inputs of a CP-200. The source of the presentation was a digital recording. We played only the third reel of the film as that was the limit of the technology at that time. But the sound quality was so stunning to everyone there, including Moroder's engineers, that Edward Plitt asked me what we could do for a feature film.
FANTASIA followed a few months later. I needed to come up with a practical way to do a full length feature film without having to rent hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment. We also needed to avoid changeovers as no technology was available to reliably perform such a maneuver. Keep in mind that in those days it took a minute or two just to establish synchronization with the digital recorder. The only choice I had was a two hour VHS cassette, used to store a PCM recording, that would be locked up to the projector. The film would be on a platter. No frames would be cut from the heads or tails. I suggested this to Nelson Meacham and his team at Disney made it work.
Though it was indeed a matrixed two track storage, it was in every way a digital presentation. You may argue the merits of the various analog stages that we must pass signals through in motion picture sound systems, and you will find much agreement from myself and many others, but the digital source makes it digital.
The special CAT-150 may have had a designator. I'm not sure. There were only two of them at the time and we had one. It came in at the last minute. I was asked to try it and see what I thought. Well, it sounded so much smoother and cleaner, I never had to reinstall the older card for comparison.
I would agree that the digital presentations of FANTASIA would have been better with a discrete master, but it sounded so good as it was that I actually found certain moments more satisfying to my ears than Boston Symphony Hall. I should explain that I don't mean that the theatre sounded better than the concert hall. I do mean that I personally felt more satisfied at certain moments. This was because we had come so close to recreating the concert hall experience that I could even think of making a comparison, and the sound we delivered in the theatre compared very well. The dynamics were quite good, considering that it was a room of 160 feet in length and 92 feet wide. Beethoven never saw a hall that big in Vienna. There isn't one that big in Vienna today either.
As to the driver: A buzzing driver is often repairable on site. It's usually just a small piece of debris that has become caught in the gap. Sometimes the buzzes disappear on their own, but I wouldn't depend on that. I would have been happy to fix it if I had been asked. However, I was not, as you now know.
I would have expected someone like yourself to hear the displacement of the center HF horns at the Avalon. I certainly didn't like it either, but there was no alternative for us at the time. I can tell you that I have never tolerated such a thing since. Of all the stupid things. We play talkies. One of the speakers goes in the center of the screen. Don't the frame folks know that? (I hope they read this so we never have to see a center support again.)
John F. Allen
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-08-2000, 10:48 PM:
Dear Brad:A small HPS-4000® B-class system with 10 surrounds and amplifiers would run about $15,000.00 for the speakers and amplifiers. A large XL-class system with our 4-way screen speakers would run about $26,000.00. These figures are negotiable with the dealer and do not include the installation, done by the dealer, or my trip to the theatre for final setup and calibration. These figures also do not factor in the approximately 33 percent savings in acoustic treatment realized when our speakers systems are used.
One should also keep in mind that a conventional subwoofer package built to equal the output of the one included in the large system quoted above, would cost around $20,000.00, just for the subwoofers.
I do not require theatre owners to build theatres with screens that can only be viewed within certain viewing angles. I have always found it quite satisfying that I have been able to "fit" and HPS-4000® system into any theatre. I do not believe a company like mine should be in the business of depriving an exhibitor of a superior sound system simply because the picture viewing angle falls outside a number by a few degrees. Think of all the older, sometimes historic, theatres that cannot install the ideal 50 foot screen without demolishing the front of the theatre. Some of these theatres have given me my favorite challenges.
John F. Allen
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-08-2000, 11:38 PM:
>>"When we did the actual world premiere of digital sound in a commercial movie theatre, we used the five-track digital print master of Giorgio Moroder's version of Fritz Lang's METROPOLIS. We fed the output of a Sony 3324 24-track digital recorder directly into the discrete inputs of a CP-200. The source of the presentation was a digital recording."<<Dear Mr. Allen:
Thank you for this information, it does make your point of being first in digital clearer.
>>"Though it was indeed a matrixed two track storage, it was in every way a digital presentation. You may argue the merits of the various analog stages that we must pass signals through in motion picture sound systems, and you will find much agreement from myself and many others, but the digital source makes it digital."<<
On this we must disagree. A band limited system (the surrounds are subjected to a 100Hz - 7KHz band pass filter), with substantially reduced dynamic range and a purely analog channel matrixing doesn't, in my mind, constitute a digital presentation, just sourced with digital material.
>>"We also needed to avoid changeovers"<< though off subject, this alone is enough for _ME_ to discount the process!
>>"I would have expected someone like yourself to hear the displacement of the center HF horns at the Avalon. I certainly didn't like it either, but there was no alternative for us at the time. I can tell you that I have never tolerated such a thing since. Of all the stupid things. We play talkies. One of the speakers goes in the center of the screen. Don't the frame folks know that? (I hope they read this so we never have to see a center support again.)"<<
I NEVER intended to imply this was by your design. Standard Theatre Supply screen frames were nortorious for this serious flaw. I feel you did the best with what you had to work with.
One last question, if you truely did not want the KT-700 used for the presentations, and you were have to choose which material was to be used in the "shoot off", why would you choose a piece that, in your opinion would give the KT-700 the best chance? Wouldn't have been better for all to let the KT-700 (and the CP-200) succeed or fail based on it's own merits or weaknesses? During a shoot off, normally, it is expected that flaws in a system are fleshed out (unless the shoot off is done by one of the parties and is biased).
Regards,
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-09-2000, 12:09 AM:
Dear John
I remeber once at show east Warren Jenkins and I asked about the use of an Ultra Stereo processor for a client in Canada and at that time you had no objections to it. Have you since reconsidered that and have you ever evaluated some of the other THX approved processors such as the CSP1200 and the Peavey CInemaAccoustics
Gordon A.McLeod
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-09-2000, 12:13 AM:
Dear Mr. Guttag:Hindsight is a wonderful thing, as we all know. The reason I suggested that THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE be used in the listening test, was to save Kintek the embarrassment they would surely have suffered had they test been done with the Beethoven 6th symphony, where the steering was just out of control. There was still plenty of time left. Kintek had acknowledged the problem and had asked for more time. Remember, the choice of which processor to use was not mine. I could have kept my mouth shut, but I think that would have been unfair since I knew that the unit was totally unacceptable at that point in time. I also believed that should they fail to cure the problems they were having, they would simply withdraw the unit from the presentation.
This seemed fair to me because the KT-700 was not designed for straight audio processing and they needed time to complete the modifications. When it came time to open the film, the KT-700 was behaving much better. It was decided to use it. But, I was still unsatisfied and would not have used it had it been my decision. I also hated what the surround steering was doing and I made myself clear.
So, yes I did privately regret making the suggestion that saved the KT-700 from certain and early rejection. In hindsight, had I kept quiet I would ultimately have had my preference. If I had it to do again in the same circumstances, I would probably do the same thing and try to be as helpful as possible to the team. It's just the way I work.
John F. Allen
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-09-2000, 12:22 AM:
Dear Gordon:So far the customers that install HPS-4000® systems have not elected to use the processors you mentioned. If they had, I would have investigated for them. So, I have not heard those units.
I will say that my complaint with most of the analog processors I have heard, other than Dolby's, is the poor noise reduction decoding. Some of them didn't have adequate equalization.
JFA
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-09-2000, 09:23 AM:
Dear John, What do you consider adequate eq in a processor? And since your system requires such little eq anyway what are the requirements needed in the processor? I agree with you on the noise reduction issue on older processors however this is now most likely a moot issue. In fact Dolbys version of SR included with the CP-500 is not exactly the cats meow either. The real SR card is quite a bit more $$ as I'm sure you know.
Mark
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-09-2000, 09:51 AM:
Mr. Allen --
This has been a very interesting thread indeed. I'm looking forward to talking with you on the phone later this week.
One question, though: you quote rough prices for loudspeakers and amplifiers, but do not mention acoustical treatment of the auditorium itself. Obviously the need for this will depend on the auditorium itself, but how much acoustical treatment is usually necessary to make a "standard" theatre ready for the HPS-4000 (R) installation?
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-09-2000, 10:33 AM:
Dear Mark and Mr. Norwood:First the EQ question: Despite the fact that we don't use much in the way of equalization, what is done requires 1/3 octave adjustments for the screen speakers. No equalization is needed for the surrounds. A 100 HZ low-pass filter is sufficient for the subwoofers.
The acoustic treatment required for the HPS-4000® theatres is an absorptive ceiling and rear wall. In theatres greater than about 37 feet wide, the treatment on the side walls needs to be nothing more than Econopleat with nothing behind it, or its acoustic equivalent. This is to stop high frequency flutter. The relatively hard side walls are good for bass and do not detract from dialog intelligibility due to the vastly superior control we have of the coverage angles from the screen speakers. No absorption is required behind the screen, as there are no meaningful behind-the-screen reflections to absorb. This level of treatment costs about 1/3 rd less per auditorium than what is typically recommended.
We have done historic theatres, that are relatively reverberant by today's standards, with complete success. In fact, some of these installations are among my favorites. Such rooms each have a quality all their own and are very enjoyable for listening to movies. The Tivoli and Arcada theatres outside Chicago come to mind as does the Waikiki #3 in Honolulu. The Carib theatre in Kingston, Jamaica, in its single screen days before a fire, was incredible with big films. The bigger, the better.
John F. Allen
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-09-2000, 04:20 PM:
One reason this topic has proven to be popular may be because many people (including myself) are a little disappointed with THX. I know of two auditouriums that could never have met THX spec's, yet were approved anyway.Now, I not compairing the two techinally. A properly installed and tuned THX system also sounds great. What I mean is: It seems like if a theater doesn't meet the spec's for an HPS system, you don't get to say HPS approved. If a theater doesn't meet THX spec's, it still might get approved.
Also, there are probably several owners that would want an HPS system just for it's reliabilty; the sound quality would just be a bonus (what was that? one driver blown in 12 years?!.)
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-09-2000, 05:16 PM:
Dear Mr. Walsh:Thank you for your comments. Actually, it's zero blown drivers in twenty years. It's something we're pretty proud of.
JFA
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-09-2000, 06:56 PM:
Hey John,
Yes, I remember how reverbrant the Tivoli is. I also remember the multi thousand dollar quote that Classic got back for the acoustical treatment that needed to be done to correct a number of new problems that crept in after HPS installation. Mainly LF problems in the back corners(they are curved), reflections off the upper rear wall and dome reflections. Even if they did half of what was reccomended, and I think they did,thats still alot spent on acoustical correction(and consultation).Then,there is still the dome problem thats difficult, if not impossible to solve(in any theater for that matter) without obliterating the dome itself. Yes, the system sounded very good indeed but oh those rear corner seats and dome reflections!
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-09-2000, 07:54 PM:
Dear John
I thought that you posted earlyer that no accoustical work was need in these domed movie palaces yet here Mark says that a lot was required at the Tivoli
Interesting
Also almost all of Dolbys competition have allways offered 1/3 octave equalizers except for that mater KintekGordon A. McLeod
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-09-2000, 09:00 PM:
The work didn't stop at the Tivoli. The Lake Theater also needed major acoustical treatment. Not really due to any particuluar speaker system going in, but due to the shape that the large room ended up being......a large "T".
I'm only trying to point out that its been my experience that installing HPS(or any other system for that matter) in a particuluar theater won't cure, mask, hide, or lessen the existing acoustical deficiencys, and in some cases doing so makes things worse. There are many systems that will function satisfactorily in old theaters with poor acoustics. The 4675's, BGW M2200, and 28 JBL surrounds come to mind at the Boise Egyptian.
The system sounds very good there , but with good acoustical treatment could sound fantastic.
Mark
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-09-2000, 09:10 PM:
Dear Mark and Gordon:The Tivoli is a theatre about 130 feet long and 86 feet wide. Sometime after the initial installation of the HPS-4000® system in 1982, the old acoustical treatment was removed from the ceiling. This was done because of the condition of the material. The dome is not and has not been a problem. The exposed hard ceiling was detrimental and was the source of acoustic problems until new panels were installed.
Also in 1982, acoustic recommendations were provided by Bolt Beranek and Newman. Among other things, a large heavy curtain was installed across the rear wall, including the rounded corners. This curtain remained until it was replaced with a more decorative treatment during the most recent redecoration and restoration of the theatre which was completed a few years ago. The theatre has in fact undergone a slow but rather complete restoration since I began working there. A freak wind storm once blew away the roof membrane and allowed a massive amount of water into the theatre. This damage has now been repaired. I wish I had a picture of the theatre for you. It looks absolutely beautiful.
I have worked in two large theatres with domes. They can be of benefit for directing sound from live orchestras into the most distant seats. However, these domes did nothing positive or negative for the film sound, as its source was behind the on-stage screen and not in the pit. The pits at these two theatres have the advantage of being out in the auditorium and therefore somewhat underneath the domes.
The Tivoli still hosts live events with live orchestras. Therefore we have left the room more live than most movie theatres. Still, it's a great sounding theatre and the favorite of many. Theatre owners have commented that just the sound coming out of the theatre and into the lobby, is better than the sound in their own theatres.
John F. Allen
PS: I should add that Mark Gulbrandsen and I have had many terrific adventures at the Tivoli and Lake theatres. Mark was behind the 70 MM installation at the Tivoli and also provided excellent observations concerning the acoustics of the Lake Theatre when I could not spend the time there that he could. The Lake became a better theatre, thanks to Mark.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-09-2000, 09:31 PM:
Hi John,
While I don't know whats transpired at the Tivoli in the last few years I do know that latest set of reccomendations carried out were made by Kirkegarrd and Associates when they ran the tests on the room in the early 80's. The 4" thick panels that Classic installed(when I worked for them) encompassed the lower half of the back wall and the corners. There were other reccomendations made in the report at the time which included both dome, and ceiling treatment above the procenium. Since the Lord struck there and dowsed the place I don't know if the Kirkegarrd reccomendations have been put back into commission or not. But it took care of alot of the problems that were created....L.F. wise anyway.
Mark
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-09-2000, 09:40 PM:
John,
Thanks for the kind words. In reality the lake was better because Willis had the drive to spend the cash to have the analysis done and then the ensuing treatments which were in the end, very expensive(geez....sounds like a medicine ad). He is really the one to thank here. Not many theater owners really care about that stuff. Fortunately there are quite a few independent theater owners out here in the mountain states that also care and will spend what it takes to do it right. I am fortunate to have several of them as my steady customers.
Mark
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-12-2000, 03:02 PM:
Dear John,
Just a couple of questions
I remember ready many years ago an article by you regarding an installation in Europe for the I believe it was the Kinopolis group of an HPS system in one of there largest theatres. Is it still functioning for I don't see it on the list of preffered theatres
I would still like to see published here a coplete list of HPS installations and that compare to howmany are still approved for some how the numbers seemed to show only a small amount that stay listed from the many thousands that we are lead to believe have been done
Another question the NorthPark what was the problem there for I heard a rumour that GCC had the HPS system retunned due to the large number of customer complaints.
I heard the system you installed at the Carib and it was interesting but definitly did not convince me that the system was outstanding and was very suprised when I visited the booth the actuall amount of work the amps seemed to be doing considering the quoted high efficiency of the speaker that has been claimed.
I also felt that the surround array was tending to be rear wall heavy which again as I have mentioned earlier re Mr Leans comments a theatre system should emulate the mixing/dubbing stage no more no less so the audience here exactly what was heard by the sound desginers. Not artifacts that would not be possibly noticed or heard during the mix
Gordon A. McLeod
Posted by Scott Nelson (Member # 344) on 02-12-2000, 04:47 PM:
Gordon is this the GCC NorthPark in Dallas Texas? I knew they had a THX house which was by far the best sound I have ever heard, but there was no mention of an HPS4000 house. That theatre was only 2 screens so if this is indeed the theatre I am assuming you are talking about the smaller house. If so then I must stand behind John F. Allen as I saw Titanic 6 times at the NorthPark in 70mm and the last week it ran in their smaller house and the sound was incredible. I would pick the NorthPark THX house over that HPS4000 house because of the distortion that was in it, but it still beat every other system I've ever heard that was not under the NorthPark's roof. So if this was HPS4000 sound I was hearing, why was it not advertised?
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-12-2000, 05:09 PM:
Dear Gordon:Actually both Showscan / HPS-4000® systems that were installed in Europe are no longer in operation. I do have other installations in Germany and Norway.
The Northpark theatre no longer exists. The building was torn down. The system worked beautifully but was severely tampered with. Wires were cut. The EQ was completely changed. I am not surprised at Mr. Nelson's report of distortion in the system. It was quite a mess. The retuning, if you want to call it that -- restoration would be more accurate, was done by me after a General Cinema Vice President heard the system and knew it did not represent my work. Even after that, the system was again tampered with. After the theatre closed the system was moved to General Cinema's Framingham, Massachusetts complex, where it was installed in the new theatre #1 that opened late last year.
I don't know where you heard that there have been thousands of HPS-4000® installations. As I believe I said earlier, the number is around 300. Of those, the theatres on the preferred list are the ones I believe are properly maintained.
I am sorry that you did not appreciate the installation at the Carib. You're the only one I know of who didn't. Certainly the owners appreciated it as the Carib became the highest grossing theatre in the entire West Indies and as there are now almost nothing but HPS-4000® theatres in Kingston. The other theatres have now gone out of business, unable to compete with the superior presentation of the Palace Amusement theatres. You should also keep in mind that the Carib theatre was 180 feet long. Each of the screen speakers was powered by a 1000 watt amplifier. Even so, the peak level possible at maximum power, as measured in the middle of the theatre, was no more than our typical installations. The room was 50 percent larger than Boston Symphony Hall.
As I have tried to explain, producers and directors tell me that their films sound better than they made them in HPS-4000® theatres. If you think they are wrong to feel that way about their own films, you should take it up with them. I am just reporting what they have said.
The argument about everyone seeing the film exactly as the director saw it is silly and nothing more than a marketing slogan. The only way for such a thing to be possible is for everyone to see it in the same theatre the director did. Failing that, at least all screens should be the same size as that in the studio. The room should be exactly the same dimensions. The lenses should all be the same. I think you get what I mean. Works of any kind can be presented in different venues. It may indeed be possible, if not quite likely, for various venues to be superior to the one where the work was created. This is true for a painting, a symphony, an opera, a play or a film. If the quality of a theatre's presentation can enhance a motion picture, why shouldn't it?
John F. Allen
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-12-2000, 10:50 PM:
I'll have to agree with you that the way the director saw it or had it mixed should certainly not be regarded as the best a certain work can be, especially considering the low quality of many directors and and sound mixers out there. Other people, like James Cameron and Gary Rydstrom definitely do pay attention and make sound very enjoyable.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-13-2000, 02:34 AM:
A couple of corrections to Mr. Allen's statements above, as I have first hand information on the following.The Northpark theater has not been torn down. The manager of the Northpark mall (Mr. Nasher) in all of his greed decided he could make more money if that incredible theater was a Foley's. His plan fell through, this fantastic theater was destroyed, but only on the inside. The outside remains intact.
Also, specific orders to "break the seals" on the eq cards were given by GCC before Mr. Allen's return visit. There were several techs who retuned that system in all of it's days, but the first was done at GCC's request. That is why Mr. Allen returned to a rewiring and recalibration of the eq cards after the first tech's lousy attempt. GCC's ok was later given again a second time by another higher up after doing a comparison with the THX auditorium (granted probably the best THX system in the country). I was given the task towards the end of it's existence and the theater closed with my eq settings (about a year's time).
My beef with the system was the surrounds were nothing short of shit, whatever make and model they were (too high up to tell). They were "4k happy" and shrieked like crazy. (I brought in outboard eqs to handle these channels and flatten them out. If only that CP-200 had've had an Aux rack!) The stage speakers sounded very nice, but didn't reproduce anything below 50hz very well at all. The system sounded extremely good with normal movies (dialogue in particular was extra clean and crisp), but it just did not have enough power to drive a track like Titanic at the intensity it needed to be run at in that size of an auditorium (800 seats). The amps were clipping constantly, hence the cause of that distortion mentioned above. I'm sure with the digital tracks of today, the HPS-4000 systems are built to handle such power requirements. This was an early system built back in the days of SR that was being forced to run DTS with one hell of a mean track (referring to Titanic).
I do look forward to being able to travel to the Framingham to the reference theater I've heard so much about! Apparently it's nothing short of astonishing.
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-13-2000, 09:44 AM:
Dear Brad:This is very odd information indeed. I can assure you that any "authorization" to touch the settings of the HPS-4000® system at Northpark #2 did not come from the home office. When it was discovered that the system had been ruined, people were in danger of being fired for it. I personally argued that, despite the mistakes made, there were good people there and that no one should be fired.
I do not understand your comment about the surround's frequency response as they produce a very flat response throughout every other theatre where they have been installed, as they did at Northpark when I was there. The Northpark surround speakers are now in Framingham and are as flat as they have always been. I am puzzled by the need for outboard surround EQ. Did not the CP-200 have at CAT-560 card? In any event our surrounds do not require equalization. If you thought they needed it, then something else was going on. I should also point out that all these "problems" that you describe, were dealt with without a single telephone call to me.
The distortion and amplifier clipping would be due to technician mistakes. The theatre was 92 feet long and 73 feet wide. The screen channels clipped at 113 dB in the center of the theatre. That's 2 dB higher than our minimum specification of 111 dB. The subwoofers clipped at 122 dB and the surrounds at 111 dB. The loudest passage possible from a digital soundtrack, therefore, would use no more than 1/4 of any amplifier's power unless the system wasn't set up properly. Since you report amplifier clipping after someone other than myself or someone trained by me adjusted the system, it's not hard to know where the problem really was. A complete set of setup instruction was left at the theatre. All anyone had to do is read them and do what they said.
When I received the amplifiers from the Northpark #2 theatre, I noticed that their inputs had been turned down at least 12 to 14 dB. This would have caused the CP-200 to work that much harder. There's no way to be certain what that would mean for distortion as I had set the gain structure for the CP-200's optimum. For the amplifiers to have been set in that manner is a fairly serious mistake.
By the way, the old Framingham theatre was longer than the Northpark #2, though not quite as wide. Their sound systems were virtually identical. No amplifier clipping occurred here. The home office executives knew the sound and performance of the Framingham system extremely well because that's the theatre they watched their movies in. When they heard the condition of the system in Dallas, they knew where the problem was before I was called.
I am surprised to learn that the building is still there. GCC has told me on several occasions that it was their understanding that it was gone. The plan had been to replace it with a Framingham type complex, but those plans were dropped.
John F. Allen
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-13-2000, 01:06 PM:
Mr. Allen,Your reply is very insulting. As I stated before, I have first hand knowledge of this theater. Your statements that it was "ruined" and "people were in danger of being fired", etc are false. I personally saw a memo from GCC that gave the permission to break the seals, so do not call me a liar. The bottom line was people were not happy with the system after it was installed, there were customer complaints (granted by comparison to the THX auditorium next door) and you were not notified because as I was informed, you had a real temper if anyone else ever touched one of your systems and no one wanted to deal with it. Basically they were not happy with this particular installation and did not want to fight you in regards to what was their auditorium. On the flip side, I was also told they were extremely pleased with all of your other installations.
The surrounds performed poorly, with a strong peak at 4K as I noted above. Perhaps it was the placement, as you well know placement will drastically alter frequency response. They were installed at the joint of where the walls connected to the ceiling if you remember correctly...and that was a very high ceiling. Before the outboard surround eqs, the surrounds were run lower than spec due to the harshness it created to the overall blend, thus giving the system more of a "mono-ish" sound. Again, I have first hand knowledge and this is a fact of the combination of those speakers in that particular auditorium. I am not doubting that they performed well in another, but not in this one. Yes, the CP-200 had a cat560 and the peak was strong enough to necessitate outboard eqs that could not be controlled with that card.
As to distortion, I can assure you the system was not powerful enough for the level that Northpark presented their movies. As anyone who has experienced a movie at that location before it was closed can back me up on this. Movies were not set at a standard 85db fader of "7" and left. Action movies such as Titanic were as I said before, an "experience". I can also verify the system would clip before the eq cards were "tampered" with on action movies. I think the problem here is you are not understanding how hard that theater drove it's sound systems. It was not your everyday run of the mill theater.
As to the gain controls, that was something that was played with over that last month of the theater's existence. A comment was made by someone (I do not know who) about the possibility of various combinations between the outputs of the CP-200 vs. the gain inputs of the amplifiers to attempt to cut back on the clipping. I do not know specifically how this test went, but I cannot imagine it providing any more headroom. Again, this was done in those last few weeks and my comments above were directly after both of us had a crack at the eq, years apart.
I do not doubt your personal expertise nor do I doubt the capabilities of the HPS-4000 system. However, not every installation will yield perfect results. This is an acoustic impossibility and a fact of life.
I know what I heard and I know what I saw. You were not there and I was. Do not ever call me a liar again.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-13-2000, 01:56 PM:
I will agree that noy every instalation will be perfect. But when a system get complaints I tend to agree it needs work
John I noted that when I reread the article from BoxOffice by Palace amusements they found the subs that you provided (kintek) inadequate and had to replace them and also replaced the high frequency units
Why did you install the Kinteks in other installations of the same period you always reffered to useing just the Bass bins of the Klipsh cabeniets and praised there performance yet at this installation you used the kintek which is a ported direct radiator cabinet not one of the horn designs that you have regulaly stated are the only way to go
Also when I heard the carib it still had the CP50 with the Kintek synth system
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-13-2000, 02:00 PM:
Dear Brad:I cannot find the word "liar" anywhere in what I wrote.
We knew that the theatre had operational issues, but I have not gone into them and won't go into them on a public forum. If nothing else, to do so is in my opinion, impolite. Let's just say that the system was not in qualified hands and it is now.
JFA
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-13-2000, 02:17 PM:
Dear John
I personally find it offensive when you insinuate that you are the only capable hands and other engineers are not.
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-13-2000, 02:23 PM:
Dear Gordon:The Kintek subwoofers were part of the Kintek stereo synthesizer system. They were never used with the CP-50 is stereo. I did not recommend them, but they were used anyway. Their sound was considered unsatisfactory. They failed after a short period and were not repaired or replaced. I think that was the only time they were ever installed in an HPS-4000® theatre.
Our large three-way units generally did not require optical bass extension when used with Dolby "A" type optical. I started adding them in all installations when "SR" came along. That is why the original Carib installation did not have a stereo optical subwoofer channel.
The high frequency units you are referring to were the tweeters. The earliest installations were done with a stacked tweeter array that Paul Klipsch and I did not like. He spent two years coming up with a superior unit. When we finally had it in production, we replaced all the existing earlier units, including the ones at the Carib theatre. Following that, the theatre was further upgraded from three-way systems behind the screen to four-way. This was made possible to more powerful amplifiers that could reliably be bridged into 4 ohms. The original Carib installation needed to be bi-amped as that was the only way, at that time, to build up that level of amplifier power. The 1000 watt amplifiers of the day were not considered reliable enough. The bi-amplification was removed when we upgraded to the four-ways.
John F. Allen
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-13-2000, 02:39 PM:
Dear Gordon:I am not trying to insult anyone. I don't have the time nor do I have such a desire. The system in question is not the only one that performed poorly after someone with no training with that kind of system thought they'd done the right thing and made a mess of it instead. I do leave specific instructions with every installation. When these are followed everywhere else in the world, there is no trouble. When they are not followed, then you get what you get.
Since I do not maintain most of the HPS-4000® systems around the world, I would be silly to insinuate that only I can, and I did not intend to do so.
As I have said, there were known operational issues at that theatre. The source of the complaints was well understood. Now the theatre is closed and those issues have been resolved. I really will not get into the personalities or who did what. I hope you can understand.
John F. Allen
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-13-2000, 02:43 PM:
John,This theater was one of the ONLY theaters I've ever been to that did NOT have operational issues. Every presentation was flawless in every aspect. That comment is even more insulting than your previous one to myself, the operators and the managers of that establishment, and it's incredible following of dedicated patrons.
The system was put into several "competent" sound tech's hands over a few years time. By your comment, you are stating that all of those techs, including myself, are "unqualified" to do soundwork of any caliber.
As to the specific word "liar", no you did not use that. You did however say it in different wording. My choice of the word "liar" is taking all of the fat out of your reply and combining it into one word.
I have received 4 private emails in the time since your post (less than an hour!). Three of which were other techs who were also highly insulted with your comments and the fourth one someone who knew the Northpark team and is insulted. I think it would be best for you to rethink your approach that it is possible for other techs who are not trained by you to achieve excellent sound.
Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 02-13-2000, 03:58 PM:
Wow. Evidently I opend up a few wounds and started a little flame war when I mentioned the Northpark installation. I remember when GCC had first installed the HPS-4000, one of the first movies they showed with this new system was "Flipper" and members of the general audience started laughing at the HPS-4000 Logo trailer. Guess they were used to the ever-impressive THX logo, that never failed to blow your socks off at Northpark.The sound wasn't all that great when compared to the THX cinema I. The action scenes in it were a bit ear splitting and harsh. It also lacked the really low bass from the THX cinema I.
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-13-2000, 04:17 PM:
Dear Mr. Burroughs:You did not hear an HPS-4000® system. The sound you describe is exactly the sound that results when one of our systems is tampered with. Shrill and no bass. I can do it too. All I need to do is mis-measure the frequency response and mis-EQ the system. It works every time. It is truly unfortunate that the technicians who service movie theatres are handicapped by such poor and outdated methods. That's the source of most of the problems I see.
Of all the tampering incidents that have happened, this was one of the two worst. There was one other instance of cut wires. I had to go back to that one too.
John F. Allen
Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 02-13-2000, 04:28 PM:
Mr Allen:I'm a little suprised about your response there. Certianly you did the inital installation of the HPS-4000 theatre there? How is it you can accredit what I heard to tampering. I was a regular customer there at Northpark when it was still open, and in my opinion the #2 auditiorium sounded BETTER before the HPS was put in. After talking to a manager shortly after they stopped advertising the HPS I asked why? They said that it was removed because of the poor quality, and that the technicians were trying to restore the auditorium to what it was before.
Posted by Scott Nelson (Member # 344) on 02-13-2000, 04:35 PM:
I am confused. Who then calibrated this house when I saw Titanic? Did Mr.Allen return and fix it for this?
Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 02-13-2000, 04:37 PM:
Mr Allen:
Annother question I failed to ask in my previous post...If you accredit the poor sound quality at Northpark to operators tampering with your settings, how is it these same operators never had any sound problem in the THX house. That auditorium always sounded GREAT.
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-13-2000, 05:12 PM:
Dear Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Nelson:I just got of the telephone with the former GC executive that I dealt with when we did this theatre. He confirms that the system was tampered with almost as soon as I left on both occasions.
John F. Allen
Posted by Scott Nelson (Member # 344) on 02-13-2000, 05:31 PM:
I find it interesting how Mr.Allen refuses to admit to any negative directed comments and how he dodges specific questions such as the last three.Mr.Allen, if you have such little time as you stated in a post above, then why is it your responses are so quick to the forum? Also, why are there not more of your systems installed? And why are you disturbing a GC executive on a Sunday afternoon for something like this that could easily wait until operating hours tomorrow?
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-13-2000, 06:01 PM:
Dear Mr. Nelson:I am afraid that I cannot help you. I prefer not to get into personalities, personal attacks or directing blame about this theatre that has now closed. I am sorry if that displeases you.
My computer is next to me when I am working. It's been time consuming but kind of fun to answer all the good questions that people have asked. I hope my answers have been helpful as well as prompt.
I called my friend to confirm my memory so that I would not misinform anyone. We speak regularly. I believe I pointed out that he is no longer with the company. Not to put too fine a point on this, but we discussed politics as much as we did the theatre.
I am sorry that you were not happy with the system you heard five years ago. I believe everything you and Brad have said. It should be obvious by now that I was not responsible for the sound you heard.
John F. Allen
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-13-2000, 06:02 PM:
What I still don't understand If it sounded so great why would they have asked anyone to tamper with it?
That is self defeating unless you are of the belief that there is a conspiracy against your system
Also I find it very odd that to date we still don't actually have any costing for a typical HPS4000 system. Most THX costs are of record on this forum.
I also still find it hard to understand that if there were only 300 hps systems why so few remain intact on your preffered list.
If they all preformed so well and required little in the way of maintance as you claimed in your earlier post then I would think any theatre owner would be more than happy to leave them alone. And also maintain the HPS4000 status since it is claimed to mean so much to its following.
Maybe it would be advantageous for you to post a list (since there are not that many 300) of the installations and there status now
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-13-2000, 06:11 PM:
Dear Gordon:I believe that I answered the question of cost when Brad asked it. Please look above. I also have explained that when circuits get sold, the new owners sometimes have different priorities from the previous owners. Some units have been closed or sold again. Since the equipment is their property, they are free to do what they want with it. When a system is no longer an HPS-4000® system, I simply remove it from the list.
JFA
Posted by Scott Nelson (Member # 344) on 02-13-2000, 06:41 PM:
Mr.Allen, again you are not answering the questions put forth. I said I liked your system when I saw Titanic. You are replying to me as if I was complaining.So if the system is as wonderful as you keep speaking, why is THX the reference people look to in the industry today? Why isn't the HPS4000 system the standard? And where is this list?
Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 02-13-2000, 07:07 PM:
Dear Mr. Nelson:Indeed, if the system is what everyone says it is, why is not installed in all the theatres in the world? I would like to know that myself!
The current list is posted on the HPS-4000® web site: http://www.hps4000.com
JFA
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-13-2000, 07:51 PM:
Gentlemen:This once interesting thread has now turned into a bickering contest of who did what and such.
My take on the HPS-4000¨ system is not only the equipment used but it's installation (ie the surround placement) and it's method of tuning, which, can be any damn way Mr. Allen pleases (it is HIS copyrighted name).
Whether or not anyone, including myself, like's his results is strictly a matter of opinion as are ALL sound reproduction issues.
For him to write off ANY changes to using his copyrighted name is perfectly acceptable since the copyright holder has lost control of the system...the same way THX could pull certification if a non-THX certified tech tampered with their copyrighted system.
For Mr. Allen to say his system was "ruined" by others is also acceptable since he obviously was satisfied with the results he left (or he would otherwise be diluting the HPS-4000¨ name). This not to say it has in fact been ruined to others, including the public at large.
To say Mr. Allen or others can tune one of his designed better or worse is strictly a matter of opinion.
I have personally heard on of Mr. Allen's HPS-4000¨ system right after he tuned it (he was still in the theatre so I don't suspect tampering) and it did have a "big" sound. I personally like the horn sound. I do not agree with his tuning methods nor do I think he gets the best performance out of his speakers but those are my opinions. I also find his surround speakers are place so high as to be distracting (ALSO my opinion). I just tuned one of his Allen Surround Sound systems (never an HPS-4000¨) and found 1/3 octave EQ allowed me to get a very even and flat response in all four quadrents (Surround-EX theatre) such that they were rather pleasing to me (once again my opinion).
As to Mr. Allen's other comments of system integrety and reliability, a reader on this thread can find their own answers just by paying attention.
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-13-2000, 08:49 PM:
VERY well put, Steve.It WAS interesting to read once, but no longer ( and besides, it takes so damn long to load).
It would be nice also, if some contributors to this thread added SOME info to the 'who?' link so we can get some idea of their credentials or what it is exactly they do.
Please, no more personal attacks.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-13-2000, 08:54 PM:
Ah ha! I am the originator of this thread and now I have the coveted 100th post!So I have a hypothetical question:
If a movie were mixed in an HPS-4000® studio or sound stage, how would it sound played back in a THX auditorium?
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-13-2000, 10:17 PM:
I think steve is right and maybe the originator show close this topic
In all fairness John has awnsered some of the questions and in many ways created more questions
My personal experience would not allow me to recomend to a customer an HPS4000 system though as steve knows I do like horn loaded cabinets
That said I have found that Mr Allen's views as he has expressed them in his articles in some ways have been detrimental to the sound industry. Recently I had a customer demand that his theatre be tuned in the near field method because of one of Mr Allen's articles. His system nor his room would have benifited by it. I stand behind the methods that I and many others in this industry use to tune rooms. I have a serious problem when a person who claims to only have 300 systems installed but has only a dozen or more that he claims maintained to his standards preaches in a fashion that it is the only solution to good cinema sound. I find it hard to fathom why if so great not all are still maintained.
Myself and many others have complained to Boxoffice about the nature and selfserving nature of some of these articles and in fact a rebuttal was published by two of the industry leaders Mr Ioan Allen and Mr Thomoson Hollamn rebutting your views. Both of which I believe you must credit with far more credit for the evolving of quality cinema sound.
Techniques are a matter of professional differences and should be respected as souch but the cavet should always be included that they are solely ones own views not the gosple of fact
I do not intend this to offend so with proffesional regards I wish you sucess on future endevours
GAM
Posted by Scott Nelson (Member # 344) on 02-13-2000, 10:57 PM:
Mr.Allen, your web page is scrambled and your installation list is not viewable.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-13-2000, 10:58 PM:
Let's please put a "pause" on this discussion. Many good points have been made here and much valuable information has been exchanged, but as the last part of this discussion has turned into a rant between who is capable of calibrating good sound and who is not, I feel a need to exercise my duty as moderator to put an end to this.This entire thing is getting a bit ludicrous, as although it is not the same thing, is in my opinion just as crazy as if our changeover master friend Steve Guttag was to come onto the forum and tell everyone that he and only people he has trained were qualified to do a proper changeover. Sound is completely subjective and even a theater that I believed to sound the best in the world might not be agreed with by many others on this forum...just as even the reference Framingham HPS4000 theater might not sound good to myself or many others. I truly believe there is no right or wrong answer here.
So, out of respect for all of the qualified non-HPS trained (with due respect to all of the HPS trained) sound techs out there, any message during the next 30 days regarding "HPS4000" or sound questions that are aimed at Mr. Allen's specific techniques will be deleted so as not to offend any more people before everyone can cool off from the comments made on this thread. I apologize in advance to everyone on the forum as well as Mr. Allen for necessitating the temporary ban of this topic, but the private emails I have received today from sound techs who are greatly offended by Mr. Allen's comments regarding unqualified sound techs warrant it.
THREAD CLOSED