quote:

---

my question is what is the difference between a THX certified theater and a THX compliant theater.

---

quote:

---

Ex-suppose a engineer who has tuned and optimised all the settings for a certfied THX theater in terms of acoustics equipment RTA analysis etc and applies all the same techniques in designing a auditorium and sound system and using the THX R2 analyser and all THX certified parts in the B chain will the results be similar or almost equal to a THX certified screen.

---

quote:

---

And is it possible to design a screen that meets or exceeds THX quality standards without actually getting the screen certified by THX .

---

You answered this one yourself in your example. Of course, you can. As mentioned above, you just cannot use the THX® brand name in conjunction with said auditoria.

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Lakshman Thodla (Member # 1211) on 07-02-2003, 01:42 PM:
 
thank you very much
i have one more question What real use does the THX crossover box have when a digital crossover can be implemented from companies like JBL.I have seen the THX 3417 crossover at Starcity
Mumbai which is a THX screen.Some theaters in my city are using the JBL digital crossover( got to check the model no though )
with a cp650 wired up in EX mode with QSC amps and DTS6D and the sound is very good .

are all the crossover freq and designs of THX confidential or do you get to know about them during system calibration.

thanks
laksh
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-02-2003, 03:02 PM:
 
Actual THX liscensing and certification is for the most part a waste of money. A competant sound engineer can design you a ststem based on the THX principals and get you the same results. You can build a theatre, install its sound system, align it with the R-2 analyzer, and no one would know the difference. Stop and think that they charge 10,000.00 U.S. for the first screen, and then 9,000.00 U.S. for each additional screen just to let you use the name. ITS NOT WORTH IT!

As for the cross overs.... JBL I believe has discontinued all of their cinema cross overs. The USL VX series cross over has been giving me really good results. Its all digital, and does provide the proper time alignment needed. There are other companies that also make digital crossovers as well, but so far the USL has been the best performer for me. The settings for the different stage , subwoofer, and surrounds are all conained in the USL VX software, or you can easily create your own deign as well. These specs are always listed in the speaker manufacturers literature and data. Also, remember that your analog end of the system should be built using the highest quality equipment made.

BTW: You can get alot better processor by going with the Panastereo and adding an outboard digital processor to it. It does in fact have two digital inputs...one set up for DTS and the other for Dolby Digital. There is no processor on the market that approaches the aound, or build quality of the Panastereo at the present.
Mark
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-02-2003, 05:42 PM:
 
There are a number of items I've rarely ever seen in a non-THX certified auditorium. How many theaters build a baffle structure like the kind demanded by THX, as opposed to just bolting the speakers into the wall behind the screen? I haven't been to too many non-THX theaters that did extensive wall treatment either.

The principal goal of THX is a great one and valid for all commercial movie theaters. The bad things are outweighing the good though. Licensing fees are overpriced. And then the spec is not consistent in how it is applied. Some bad theaters are allowed to get under the wire with auditoriums that obviously don't meet the spec. If I walk into a theater and do "the clap test" I should not hear noticeable echo. The room should sound quiet and "dry." But I have been in plenty a THX house where that wasn't the case. So that makes me think the certification is just about getting the cash instead of enforcing certain levels of higher quality.

And that's too bad. Because that has allowed many a circuit to drop all THX certifications and cop the attitude "digital sound and stadium seating is enough." I have visited lots of new-yet-bad theaters in recent years all 100% thanks to this attitude. Industry-wide, I believe the folks managing the exhibition circuits care a lot less about sound and projection quality than they did 10 years ago.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-02-2003, 06:40 PM:
 
quote:
"So that makes me think the certification is just about getting the cash instead of enforcing certain levels of higher quality."
_________________________________________________________________

Bobby,
My feelings exactly!! Sure the THX thing was a great idea but is way, way overpriced!! Believe it or not there are alot of baffle walls constructed in many non THX theatres across the country. Its the baffle wall that really makes the biggest difference in sound quality..... The auditorium acoustics are next in line. You can do decent room treatment and then add a baffle wall and the system will sound at least 50% better than without a wall. Aside from the bit of low frequency boost the wall provides it also reduces the reflections from off the back of the screen and really cleans up the dialog. Bafflettes also do a pretty good job, but no where near as good as a full wall does.
Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-02-2003, 10:38 PM:
 
As to JBL crossovers...JBL does have the DSC-260 which is a DSP based crossover. THX used this crossover (With their badge on it) while the THX D-1138 crossover was still being made ready.

As to crossovers in general...stay away from DSP unless it gets you something. A good quality analog crossover is more than adequate for any 2-way system that is worth owning. I also strongly recommend staying away from people that "dabble" in certain technologies like DSP. It is more tricky than they realize.

DSP crossovers can bring something to the table though. Many will allow some parametric tuning to come along with the crossover functions. A few well placed and tuned parametric filters can all but eliminate the need for 1/3-octave equalization and all of its shortcomings.

If you are using a 3-way system...particularly if you are using one that cost under $2,000 for each speaker...then odds are you are better off with a DSP crossover to make up for the speaker's "issues."

If you want to look into a DSP crossover...I'd look at the RANE RPM-26Z...very power stuff there and with a great interface that will maximize S/N in both digital and analog domains. RANE RPM26Z

As to room vs baffle wall...I 100% disagree with Mark on this one...get the room right first...this includes all walls, ceiling (often forgotten about) and even the floor.

If you get at least 2" of fiberglass on the walls behind the screen and on the back wall of the auditorium you will be doing yourself a big favor but don't stop there. On the side walls you want at least 1" of fiberglass from ceiling to floor...don't stop about 5' up...people's ears are below that in their seats...you have to get the sound deadening down below ear level. If the room is small and too dead you can reduce the coverage from 100% down to as low as 75% but go all of the way down to the screen plane (very important).

Above the ceiling you want a MINIMUM of 6" of insulation (fiberglass) to knock down the resonance with the cavity above the tiles up to the roof top. This not only helps the sound greatly in the upper-bass and improves dialogue but helps on the heating/cooling costs. This one is often forgotten about since "after all we used acoustic tiles"...however the RT-60 test will quantify just how well that area is covered.

The area just in front of the screen is also a hot spot...if you have a really live area due to tile floor...carpet it! That is where the sound is eminating from keep it dead there.

Once you have all of that...then I push for the baffle wall...there is no substitute for it with a direct radiator speaker (non-horn load bass). The response of the bass will go up leaps and bounds...not just frequency response but the whole timbre of it will sweeten and sound much better. If you have horn-loaded bass cabinets, the value of the baffle wall is reduced...unless you have something like an Altec A-5 or A-7...those are only horn-loads down to 125Hz...below that they are bass-reflex and need a baffle wall to get a rather flat response down to 40Hz. The Altec A-4, with its bass-wings already has baffletes by design...cover them with fiberglass and they will do even better.

Think you are done? Only if you have a single...if you have any common walls...demand STC-75 for any common walls if you have digital sound...if not, and I don't care what anyone says, you WILL hear the neighboring theatre and that is another THX item...sound transfer.

While you are at it...make sure the booth wall adequately stops the sound too...STC-65 with double-glass ports (properly spaced, angled and with anti-reflective coatings) is the goal. As loud as the booth can be...the rectifier is about the only bass generating device and it isn't very loud comparatively. The most annoying thing is the sound of the projector coming through the port areas...double glass ports go a long way to nixing that sound. Also, keeping the port holes as small as practical is another thing...if you have a 36" x 36" port, learn how to know where the projection beam will be rather than having such a large, leaky target.

THX covers much of the above. One aspect I strongly disagree with them on is the angle of the ports....they have the double ports in a "A" formation so the glass on the auditorium side angles any reflected sound up...I haven't had an issue with a reasonably sized port glass causing undo reflections...I have had issues with booth side port glass reflecting the projected beam up and sometimes across a booth and out another theatre's ports!. Also, who wants the reflected beam up in their eyes? I'll stick with the "V" formation.
 

---

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 07-02-2003, 10:45 PM:
 
This topic reminds me that I lost a PDF manual detailing how to setup a THX auditorium. For example, it gave all details about how to construct the baffle. I've searched the web and the manual pages of Film-Tech but the specific one I have in mind is not here. I think (although I'm not 100% sure) that Brad had mentioned it in a forum topic and put a link to it -- that's how I got it the first time.

Could someone point me to this manual somewhere? Thanks a lot.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-02-2003, 11:33 PM:
 
quote:
"If you get at least 2" of fiberglass on the walls behind the screen and on the back wall of the auditorium you will be doing yourself a big favor but don't stop there. On the side walls you want at least 1" of fiberglass from ceiling to floor...don't stop about 5' up...people's ears are below that in their seats...you have to get the sound deadening down below ear level. If the room is small and too dead you can reduce the coverage from 100% down to as low as 75% but go all of the way down to the screen plane (very important)."
_________________________________________________________________

This is what I would call a minimal decent room treatment..... I've been involved with lots of non THX rooms, and some THX rooms that required far more than this to meet the decay specs that were specified by THX and calculated out by the acoustical consultant. 6" of treatment ABOVE acoustical ceiling tiles is a typical minimal requirement for alot of rooms. I've actually seen this amount added to at one location to bring the RT-60 into spec!! 4" on rear auditorium walls is typical to allow proper LF absorbtion as is at least 2" on all rmaining walls. The cost of 1" vs. 2" is minimal and its really the labor to install what ever treatment you're doing thats the main expense involved. But here you HAVE to follow the specs your hopefully cinema experienced acoustical consultant has calculated for a given room.

As to the X-over thing.... I was very skeptical using my first DSP based x-overs, however I've actually grown very positive towards digital DSP type x-overs for use in any decent two way or three way system. The advantages of certain DSP/Digital systems far outweigh the iffy performance that even high end analog x-overs allow for. Its typical for many analog x-overs to be off by as much as 10 to 15% from where you THINK you are setting it, or from where THEY say they have preset it. Analog x-overs also introduce uneven amounts of phase shift at different operating frequencies. What DSP does provide is extreme accuracy of setting, no phase shift at all, very accurate presets for commonly utilized speaker systems, or extremely accurate preset or variable time alignment, parametric eq, screen loss and other finer adjustments that analog x-overs only dream of attempting. Most of the adjustments DSP provides would never be utilized though they are there if needed in some extreme condition. Indeed using the parametric adjustments can allow for a very minimal to no eq setting in the processor if the rest of the system was engineered correctly. Also, the sound quality of all of the DSP x-overs.....JBL, USL VX I've used is so superb as to seem to not even be in the system. As to cost over using analog x-overs..... not even noticable over the cost of building an 8 to 16 screen complex....
Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-03-2003, 08:02 AM:
 
I'd put the AC-22B and AC-23B up against most DSP crossovers for just the crossover function. You have adjustable crossover frequencies, continiously variable time-delay and settable CD horn compensation (for the AC-23B you have two of the above since it is a 3-way device).

2-way crossover
3-way crossover

For long-term reliability, you just can't beat this sort of stuff. They are clean and transparent. In terms of cost they are considerably less than DSP alternatives which must send you through another set of A/D and D/A converters.

As to phase shifting...there is no getting around the laws of physics...you apply a frequency domain filter...you get a time-domain effect. The key is using a system that minimizes these.

Rane does have a new gizmo that will handle up to 4-way systems! It is all analog outside (knobs) and DSP inside...it is the AC-24 Analog controlled DSP crossover

As to the fiberglass...I did say "at least" not "no more than". I would agree that upping the rear wall of the auditorium (the one that the speakers point to) is a great idea.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 07-07-2003, 02:46 PM:
 
It appears that everyone here agrees that THX certification is not necessary to have a great sounding theater.

But how are the paying audiences supposed to differentiate between that well-done theater and the marginally acceptable one just down the road?

The THX moniker gives the audience something to look for when they are choosing which theater to attend to see a film. So, part of that certification fee is the marketing that goes into the THX name.

Obviously, issues relating to bad theaters still getting certification is a problem, and they should be tossed. But I would allow that no such program is without similar issues. I've stayed in a couple AAA rated 3-diamond hotels that should be closed by any authorities in charge of such things...

What is the incentive for a newly opening theater to put money into baffle walls and a good sound system if they can't differentiate themselves to the paying audience? If they screw it up really badly, and the sound is bad to even the most casual observer, they will suffer as a result. But aside from that, it's difficult for people to understand and appreciate minor differences (to the casual observer).

Unless the paying audience can somehow pick out the better presentations, all that money and effort that was put into going the extra mile will have been wasted (in effect). Those going that extra mile need a way to tell the audience that they have done so, and to pay attention to the difference between their theater and the mediocre one down the road. The THX label helps them do that.

I'd be willing to support any theater's efforts to do so by building that differentiation into our schedules on The BigScreen Cinema Guide. We currently have indicators for THX, digital sound (generic and each format), and stadium seating.

For over eight years, our goal has been to help people find the movies they want to see with the best possible presentation, and I would be more than happy to help a theater market and differentiate their shows over another that didn't care about sound or picture for the shows they present.

If paying for the THX certification is out of the question, how else do you suggest the audience differentiate between shows when they're trying to decide which theater to visit?
 

---

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 07-07-2003, 07:04 PM:
 
Al Capone, Don Vito Corleone, Varying Rocker-groups through history have always been offering "protection" against fee.
When fee is payed, Your shop will not be burned down (by us), when You come in tomorrow.
The Millenium version of this kind of business is to brainwash moviegoing (young) people, that only cínemas showing a certain logo on their facade are worth visiting. No sign, don't go in there.
Even spending 10, maybe 20 % of the "protection fee" on hype brainwash marketing, "protector" will earn good money, as long as cinema owners are kept afraid to be hung out for having no sign.

p.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-08-2003, 12:21 AM:
 

quote:

---

If paying for the THX certification is out of the question, how else do you suggest the audience differentiate between shows when they're trying to decide which theater to visit?

---

quote:

---

Instead of relying on simple Pavlovian brand-name recognition, explain clearly, elegantly, and creatively what you have, what it does, and why it's so great. Brand-name recognition is very superficial; recognizing quality itself is much more profound.

---

Your entire message hit it right on the money, Christopher.

To do some match, I'll put numbers out of the air. Please feel free to insert your own...

On a day where 10 screens sell 150 seats each for four shows on each screen, that equals 6,000 people that are a captive audience for a theater to communicate its marketing messages to during their 3 hour visit.

In the Milwaukee area, theaters do not take advantage of that time to communicate what makes their theater better than their competitors. It may be because there is only one other chain besides Marcus, so none is needed.

It is definitely a lost opportunity if a theater does not take the time to educate and inform their customers as to why they made the right choice about where to see the movie they came to see.

In particular, any THX theater that has patrons coming up on a regular basis asking uneducated questions about THX (is the THX on?) means that it has not taken the time to educate its customers about the investment it has made to make their movie-going experience the best it can be.

THX has an informative web site, they produce posters for display that describe THX, and I believe there are also flyers that can be placed on the box office and/or concession stands. Finally, they have a THX trailer which is usually pretty impressive and absolutely hard to miss.

In The BigScreen Cinema Guide, the THX logo is clickable to an explanation of THX:

http://www.bigscreen.com/Help.php?id=8

I probably need to revisit that page and bring it up to date, since it's been a while since I wrote it, but the point is that we're trying to educate our readers about how to get the best movie presentations, and the THX logo is currently the best way to easily identify what should be first-class presentations.

One of the intents we have with our Theater InfoPages is to detail what each theater has to offer their customers. At one time, we were listing detailed information about the equipment in each screen, the size of the screen, seating capacities, etc. We've been removing that information as we update those pages, as the theaters are completely uninterested in keeping it up to date.

Here are two examples of InfoPages that attempt to achieve these goals:

Hartford Theatres InfoPage
Star Cinema Johnson Creek InfoPage
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-11-2003, 04:46 PM:
 
One of the problems with THX is that in many areas, even theaters that were THX certified never advertised in the newspapers that they were such. This isn't a problem in L.A. or San Francisco, but it's definitely a problem in New York.

Also, there should have been more consistency between the sound of theaters that were certified. In NYC, the Loews Village 7 screen #3 and the Clearview Chelsea Cinemas screens #6 and #7 were once certified THX, but they actually weren't very good, so even consumers who knew what THX was would have been baffled (so to speak).

The UA Union Square 14 does (or did) have a poster in the lobby indicating they were THX certified (screens #3 and #8). And there were plaques outside the Loews Lincoln Square #1 ("the Loews") and the Loews Orpheum 7, screen #7.

However, the THX web site no longer lists a single Manhattan theater, so they all must have given up certification. IMHO, THX certification should include the mandate that certified theaters must include in newspaper advertising and on the marquee and box office, exactly which theaters are playing a film in THX. I think that would also set up more of a competitive situation where other theaters might feel the pressure to upgrade their sound systems.

IMO, the other factor working against THX is that the entire industry is now geared towards opening weekend and perhaps the first two weeks of a run. In that scenario, it's almost impossible to get into many films anyway since they sell-out and therefore, there's no competitive advantage to having THX.

And while in the days of 70mm, theatres playing 70mm prints did do much better boxoffice than those that didn't (I think I posted an old Variety article about this once), my feeling is that most of the public really doesn't understand presentation quality and will put up with almost anything. I have been at presentations in which sound channels were missing and I was the only one complaining.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-13-2003, 05:25 AM:
 
All the big exhibitor chains in Germany cancelled THX during the last 2 years or so. They actually messed up the installation in the Sony Center so bad that we had to start over and realign all the screens. That didn`t make the management exactly happy.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 07-13-2003, 12:34 PM:
 
At a theater I used to work at before they closed it, we had three THX theaters that were once but were no longer certified. Only us projectionist knew this and a handful of the staff members. The difference between the THX cinemas and the non THX cinmas were remarkable. There was no lobby sound entering the auditorium, during the silent scenes you could not hear the HVAC nor could you hear the doors of the theater open or close. All the walls were padded and this was a non statium seating theater. What ever seat you sat in the theater was angle slightly towards the center of the screen. I sat in a stadium seating theater last night and I sat near the aisle and was pointed toward the exit sign next to the screen. This would never happen in the old THX certified cinemas.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-14-2003, 01:53 PM:
 
There are laws, and those who break them --- get caught, and you get fined or go to jail.

There are SMPTE Standards and THX Specifications, and those who ignore them --- you may not "get caught", but as THX used to say "The Audience is Listening", and may decide to take their business elsewhere when presentation quality is poor.

It's not the logo on the screen, it's the QUALITY of the presentation that counts. The logo is a useful marketing tool, but you better deliver the quality it is supposed to stand for.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-14-2003, 06:59 PM:
 
This logo used to mean something...


 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 12-09-2003, 12:30 PM:
 
I'd like to revive this thread for a bit if anyone is interested in continuing the discussion.

Are the recert fees the same as the initial fees?

Would it maybe be worth the expense if you were building a theatre from the ground up to have the optimum THX equipment(thinking of the THX crossovers here) installed and get the certification as part of the start up costs and then not recert? (...if you have quality technitians doing all your p.m.s of course.)

On the idea of using the premovie time(something I have been thinking of for some time now that might make those digital ads worth it.) Is it legal to even say the THX name as a reference point? By saying something like... "Xbrand theatre was built to stringent standards equalling that of THX..." I know I've seen Pepsi commercials talking about how people prefer Pepsi to Coke. Maybe there is a way to spread the quality word which would both make people understand what THX really is and understand that you can be as good as THX without it. I find people aren't stupid. They may not know why the prefer something over another technially(most people prefer scope even though they don't know that it is because of it's more efficient light usage.) A little education can go a long way.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 12-09-2003, 12:37 PM:
 
No way. If you want to build to or in excess of THX specs, great. You should do that anyway.

But if you want to claim to be just as good by directly referring to 'THX' you should really prove it and pay for the certification and re-certs.

10 years down the road when your theatre is still claiming to be 'just like THX' when in reality it has been neglected and now sucks, only helps to weaken an already weakening program.

Your Pepsi over Coke argument isn't even a good example. There's a big difference between "people like THX certified theatres over non-compliant theatres" and "we're just like THX".
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-09-2003, 12:46 PM:
 
As far as I know, it's impossible to have a theatre "equal to THX specs" without paying for the certification, as the THX specs require the use of the THX crossover, which is (was?) part of the THX booth monitor/crossover, which is only supplied to theatres which pay for the THX certification. It's a good booth monitor, too.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-09-2003, 01:37 PM:
 
I really can't fathom why anyone would want to build a theater to match or surpass THX specifications without paying for the certification.

Honestly, the very act of avoiding THX certfication cost and saying "our theater is like THX" would make me extremely suspicious and probably avoid the theater completely.

You cut corners by avoiding to pay for certification. And then that makes me think the corner cutting doesn't stop there. In every field of business there are legions of people who do stuff on the cheap and say "this is just as good" when it really is shit. I fight that all the time in the sign manufacturing business. There are so many different factors at play in what makes an auditorium great. And every one of those factors is a potential area where some bean counter will water things down with something cheaper. In the end, that doing-it-cheaper stuff accumulates into a very mediocre theater.

To build an audiotorium to satisfy THX specifications costs a serious amount of money. It can really be costly if you're taking an existing theater and bringing it up to the THX spec. It would be stupid to invest all that money without having a good way to market it, such as using the very recognizable THX brand name.

quote:

---

Would it maybe be worth the expense if you were building a theatre from the ground up to have the optimum THX equipment(thinking of the THX crossovers here) installed and get the certification as part of the start up costs and then not recert? (...if you have quality technitians doing all your p.m.s of course.)

---

quote:

---

No way. If you want to build to or in excess of THX specs, great. You should do that anyway.

But if you want to claim to be just as good by directly referring to 'THX' you should really prove it and pay for the certification and re-certs.

10 years down the road when your theatre is still claiming to be 'just like THX' when in reality it has been neglected and now sucks, only helps to weaken an already weakening program.

Your Pepsi over Coke argument isn't even a good example. There's a big difference between "people like THX certified theatres over non-compliant theatres" and "we're just like THX".

---

quote:

---

I don't agree that THX certification is a stamp that says "This theatre is better than others."

---

quote:

---

I mean a well maintained theater will sound superior to a non-maintained theater regardless of the certification.

---

quote:

---

They could do A LOT MORE to differentiate good theaters versus bad in the very same way that virtually every big city has restaurant ratings in newspapers and books.

---

[Normally, I don't quote text from the post above, but for clarity I need to show which sentence I'm referring to since the post was long.]

This is exactly what I do on my site. Check out this page if you haven't before.

Theatres that do a great job on their film presentation get higher ratings and scores. I've mentioned this several times in the past few years here, but since new people come along, I like to mention it again every now and then.

The site, in the presentation quality reviews section, lists 386 showings attended at the current open theatres from the past few years, each of which has presentation quality notes and scores, and those scores are used to calculate presentation quality scores. THX certification does not figure into the ratings.

Click the theatre names in the rating table to see the complete lists of attended showings with notes, detailing any problems noticed and number of points deducted for each. Zero is a perfect score.

Has anyone encountered anyone else running a "theatre presentation quality review" system? It's similar to a restaurant review site, but it's for theatres. Note that the quality of the movie does not matter -- it's the image and sound that are rated.

I feel that a system like mine gives a better indication of theatre presentation quality than presence or absence of THX certification.

Thoughts? Criticisms? No system I come up with will make everyone happy, but I feel the system I've been using works and serves the purpose. I believe the site has caused improvements in presentation quality here during the past few years. All of the local theatre managers are aware of the site.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-10-2003, 01:08 AM:
 
Evans, I've visited your site before and you are indeed doing the kind of thing which needs to be done. Unfortunately there is no nationwide version of such a site.

Virtually every web site that covers theater showtimes nationwide doesn't really lift a finger to separate good theaters from bad. They probably would flat out refuse or drag their feet when requested to do so out of fear of losing advertisers. IMHO, the opposite would happen because the site would gain credibility and dependability. A really good nationwide showtimes site would offer clear technical information, reviews on theaters and reviews on movies from respected critics. No such site exists right now. But it would be a winner and have a lot of ad profit potential.
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-10-2003, 10:59 AM:
 
The problem with a nationwide version of my site (or even smaller, local versions) is they would not run the site that way I do. They would get sponsors and the sponsors would have input as to how the site would be run. I'll bet theatre companies could pay the site manager money to get better reviews. It would inevitably happen. The reviews would end up being biased by things other than presentation quality at the theatres.

I have no advertisements on the site and make every attempt to allow nothing other than presentation quality in the theatres affect the ratings. Would other people do this if they were running the site?

If I wanted to expand the ratings to cover a wider area, I'd have to get other people to attend movies and review the presentation. I don't care how much I train someone -- they'll not rate the presentations the same way I do. Some will be more lenient or more harsh, so that ratings for showings would not be comparable with each other. Having more people would cost money and force income to be fathered from somewhere, which could cause problems. That's why I'm content to review the Huntsville/Decatur theatres and compile historical information. I get far more feedback on the historical information than the presentation quality anyway.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-10-2003, 11:31 AM:
 
How about getting "Consumer Reports" to run the site?
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-10-2003, 12:58 PM:
 
If "Consumer Reports" reviewed the theatres, they'd run into some of the same issues I mention in my previous post. (Multiple reviewers with different tolerances and rating habits, much like different school teachers and their grading styles.) Heck, who knows -- they might get kickbacks for giving good ratings too. I receive no kickbacks or benefits from my ratings and receive no income from my site.

THX should have had reinspections once a year and should have checked the theatres based on the numeric quantities in their specifications, such as X footlamberts of screen illumination in the center and at corners, ability to resolve X lines of resolution at the center of the screen and X at the edges, no more than X decibels of sound from sources other then the sound system for that auditorium. Doing so would help take some of the subjectiveness out of things.

When I do reviews, I look at the image edges. Either the edges are sharp or there is aperture shadow. Either the image is centered or off-center. There is noticeable shutter ghosting during the movie or there isn't. The framing is proper or it isn't. The screen appears uniformly illuminated or it isn't. I must decide how many points to deduct for various problems, and I do so based on how severe the problem. It's true that this is a bit subjective, and one must have "mental tolerances" to decide when something warrants a deduction, but I've been doing this a long time and I feel I'm very consistent in the way I deduct.

THX should look for all these kinds of problems when reinspecting and the theatre companies should inspect their own theatres looking for the problems as well. Quality checking and control within a company is very important, and I don't see enough of it.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-10-2003, 01:28 PM:
 
Evans said "THX should have had reinspections once a year and should have checked the theatres based on the numeric quantities in their specifications, such as X footlamberts of screen illumination in the center and at corners, ability to resolve X lines of resolution at the center of the screen and X at the edges, no more than X decibels of sound from sources other then the sound system for that auditorium. Doing so would help take some of the subjectiveness out of things."

In fact all those are items that are checked in part of doing the recert process
And to keep the certification it is done yearly
there are many theatres that are not certified though that still run the tags and adverts but are not certified
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-10-2003, 01:39 PM:
 
Here's just a few of the THX/TAP certification procedures/guidelines for theatres and prints:

http://www.thx.com/mod/techLib/pdf/service.pdf

http://www.thx.com/mod/techLib/pdf/guidelines.pdf

http://www.thx.com/mod/techLib/pdf/scoringkey.pdf

http://www.thx.com/mod/techLib/pdf/labgrad.pdf

Here is the original SMPTE Theatre Quality Evaluation Program that I helped develop over 20 years ago:

http://www.film-tech.com/manuals/SMPTEEVALPROG.pdf
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 12-10-2003, 04:18 PM:
 
Bobby Henderson wrote:

quote:

---

Virtually every web site that covers theater showtimes nationwide doesn't really lift a finger to separate good theaters from bad.

---

As Evans astutely observed, a widespread system is a logistical challenge to say the least. I've done the best I can to differentiate between theaters in our guide by indicating THX-certified shows and digital sound presentations. The InfoPages also give theaters the opportunity to differentiate themselves from their competition.

While these are not guarantees of quality by any means, they are better than nothing at all.

Digital sound is so prevalent these days, that people assume its presence. Most theaters don't wish to differentiate between their DTS, Dolby Digital, and SDDS presentations, so even that distinction isn't there. While we have the ability to display DTS-ES, DD-EX, and SDDS-8 flags, very few theaters take advantage of it.

I've seen a couple of attempts at rating theaters in the past, all have failed for one reason or another. I would imagine that they faced the challenges that Evans describes, making success a difficult goal to achieve.

How do you get lots of people spread across the country to evaluate presentations and theaters in a consistent way? The solution probably lies in lots of training, objective scientific measurements of quantifiable parameters, subjective ratings of theater condition, staff behavior, etc., strict regulation of review criteria, cross-checking of reviewed theaters to verify accuracy, and somehow preventing corruption of the process.

OK, let's say we create a plan to do just this and more. How does it get funded? The ever-present problem of money rears its ugly head...

I've been mulling the idea of creating something less ambitious, but still provide people with some way to identify the good and the bad theaters.

So far, the best of the options that I've come up with so far is similar to eBay. Positive, negative, and neutral reviews, with short text comments. The problem I keep coming back to is keeping people from stuffing the rankings, but I can probably get around that by limiting the reviews per day, and to registered users with more than x days since registration.

However, that doesn't come close the detail that Evans provides on his site. But given the challenges facing the scalability of a such a system, I don't think it can be done.

I'm up to the task of implementing a theater rating system on my site (while it does not list showtimes for every theater in the country, it does list every theater I know of). If I can get some help hammering out some of the details, that would go a long way to getting it to be a reality.

My site does solicit theaters to pay to be listed on the site, so there is a concern about a conflict of interest and pressuring from theaters. The best thing I can think of to address this issue is to allow theaters that pay to be listed to hide the detailed comments from the public, while still allowing the composite ranking to be displayed. EBay does this with some sellers.

I'm sure there is some solution that will work for everyone involved, it's just a matter of figuring out what that is. Considering the numbers of staff on this board, I would think that there are some good perspectives to be had.

Is anyone willing to help me develop this? Should we take this to a different thread or stay here?

[ 12-11-2003, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Scott Jentsch ]
 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 12-10-2003, 04:28 PM:
 
We should probably take it to a different thread but I have an interest in the idea of rating theatres. I know I don't want to work for theatres the rest of my life. I would like to have my own someday. I know if I were an owner I would want to know as unbiased as possible what people really think of my theatre. I'm not interested in squeaking by. I want to be the best. I would also want to see how people knowing I'm the best really affects things.

I'd still really like to know if THX is really affordable at all. I've just put in some not so conservative but not real liberal numbers and it's about $6,000.00 a month for an 8 screen. With that, payroll is a much larger factor in monthly survival. In fact, assuming a 3 million dollar loan/VC investment, the $30,000.00 a month and the generaly accepted 14% of gross for labour are the two costs that gum up the projection works. Even if the 8 screen brought in 50 thou a month, you're losing money. Not paying THX wouldn't change that.

Which leads me to conclude that if THX can increase your business by the 40ish percent they claim, it would be absolutely worth it.

I don't know if a new thread is needed, because I addressed the two topics(THX and ratings) in this thread and they were totally interwoven in relevance.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-10-2003, 09:25 PM:
 
What an interesting and lively debate! I was involved with the origins of THX and TAP, even to taking Tom Holman and Gary Summers to a number of Bay Area theatres so they could conduct surveys and measurements. THX was like a number of George Lucas's startups, Pixar, Editdroid and others come to mind. They were not done for hype but to improve the stae of the art. In fact the tech building at Skywalker was originally designed for digital storage and manipulation of the audio. Alas, the science and hardware were not ready and the facility opened with conventional dubbers which only recently have been replaced with digital dubbers.

I have some insight and a viewpoint of my own but it's interesting to note that all participants to this thread have valid and focussed viewpoints and It's hard to disagree with any of the views presented.

This is one of the best threads I've seen since I've looked in on this site.

Keep up the good work!

PS. Nice new photo, Manny
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-12-2003, 09:56 AM:
 
Sam said " In fact the tech building at Skywalker was originally designed for digital storage and manipulation of the audio. Alas, the science and hardware were not ready and the facility opened with conventional dubbers which only recently have been replaced with digital dubbers."

There is nothing wrong with mag dubbers they are if nothing else reliable and the output is interchangable with almost any facility one thing a lot of these digital post prodcution house don't have is a universal sharable system
Often doing previews the question of soundformat is awnsered by bring in the gear or just strike a mag with SR

Analogue Mag rules
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-12-2003, 10:01 PM:
 

quote:

---

As Evans astutely observed, a widespread system is a logistical challenge to say the least. I've done the best I can to differentiate between theaters in our guide by indicating THX-certified shows and digital sound presentations.

---

quote:

---

Digital sound is so prevalent these days, that people assume its presence.

---

That is true, and it brings up an interesting point. There are still lots of theaters with some, few or no screens digital sound equipped. Many operators prefer to hide that point, so they make no mention of sound formats used in any of their ads or marquee displays.

For example, Dickinson Theaters Central Mall 12 theater here in Lawton has never listed which movies it shows in DTS. But oddly enough they mention "DTS Digital Sound" vaguely on the electronic marquee in their box office. The truth is only 2 of their 12 screens have DTS players, which is kind of shocking for a theater which opened only a couple years ago. This is a fact few in Lawton know. They figure, "well, they all must have DTS shouldn't they?" I can't blame Dickinson for all the corner cutting. The Central Mall owners own the theater and only pay Dickinson to operate it. In the intial plans, all 12 screens were to be equipped with either DTS-6AD or Dolby CP-500 units (along with much better booth and auditorium hardware than the bottom of the barrel stuff they installed). Still, it bugs me that they won't say which movies are playing in the two largest DTS-equipped auditoriums. So I never watch movies in the place. I drive across town to the Carmike 8, which lists the movies playing in DTS as well as what is showing on their THX certified screen.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-12-2003, 10:42 PM:
 
"As far as I know, it's impossible to have a theatre "equal to THX specs" without paying for the certification, as the THX specs require the use of the THX crossover, which is (was?) part of the THX booth monitor/crossover, which is only supplied to theatres which pay for the THX certification. It's a good booth monitor, too."
_________________________________________________________________

Scott,
Are you talking about the older THX X-over, or the present version?

As for the older version, there are far superior cards available from Component Engineering to replace the original THX cards. The old monitor was also a piece of crap. Very unreliable. Many units monitor functions didn't work properly out of the box!! Many techs tore their hair out after the 2nd or third unit still didn't function right...luckily I only had one screen that had this problem. After you got one that worked properly it generally stayed working at least as long as the volume pot lasted

I used to be a big proponent of THX amd did quite a few nice systems back in Wisconsin and Illinios, but THX over a several year period, in the late 90's, proved themselves not to be able to handle, or perhaps was not interested in the smaller markets. Their very high turnover rate among employees was also very disenchanting to say the least. So I quit selling my customers on it all together. There is however no reason at all that a competant dealer cannot design to that same standard, and any good dealer worth his hourly rate should definately be doing that.

Another interesting but valid point was also gathered from the plexes that only installed one or two THX auditoriums out of say 8 or 10 screens. In all instances all of the customers loved those particuluar auditoriums so much that they wouldn't buy a ticket to a given show unless it was playing in one of the THX auditoriums. Many left when they found out it was in a regular auditorium, which in most of these cases were also pretty darn good. So in any given complex it is really best to do all THX, or do none at all but design to those same standards anyway.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-12-2003, 11:39 PM:
 
Regarding Gordon's statement that analog dubbers have advantages; I agree totally and in fact, Lucasfilm modified the mag dubbers for superior results to that of the original Magna Tech's.

My point was that Goerge Lucas with help from Tom Holman and others, spawned a lot of technology to improve the state of the art. Some ideas were more successful than others, but they were pure research to lead where it may. Of course the marketing hype inevitably followed the more commercially viable concepts.

As to Mark's statement that the original THX monitor was a piece of crap. As a point of fact, it was manufactured by Component Engineering.

How could the company that manufactured such a steaming pile as an OEM manufacturer to THX then turn around and manufacture superior replacement cards to the one's THX designed, for the sole purpose of assisting customers who no longer wanted to pay the THX "dues"?

Don't the cards end up in the aforementioned frame?

As I said, I do have a point of view.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-13-2003, 12:14 AM:
 
Ha! Good answer, Sam. To celebrate it, I will now drive off and install 2 RSTR-2000!
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-13-2003, 02:58 PM:
 
Outside of the pots getting noisy I have had 0 problems with the crossover frames and we sure have a lot of them up here.
The logic was very simple to troubleshoot as well and the speaker drivers were of excellent quality with a good amp behind them
Sam I wasn't being criticle stating dubbers rule
by the way is there a reverse scan mount to put a optical reader on a magnatech from bacp yet
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-13-2003, 04:07 PM:
 
News to me that the RSTR 2000 will fit a Magnatech. Hadn't gotten around to that yet. Someone must have done it for me.

As to analog sound, the best soundtracks I've ever heard side by side were 70mm Mag.

As to the THX 3417 frame; The acoustic chamber as it were was designed by Tom Holman. The speaker was also selected by him. They did have a number of QC problems for a time and there was the issue of the monitor section breaking into supersonic oscillation when the volume pot was wide open. This set off the PTC fuse which shut off the monitor amp.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-13-2003, 06:28 PM:
 
No sam I am waiting for you to do it
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-13-2003, 10:43 PM:
 
Yea, I had trouble with the 3417's oscillating...two in a row at Johnson Creek, WI. location. Actually the C.E. 3417 replacemet cards may be the only real decent product they make and its easy to make up a stand alone x-over out of them.

BACP on a dubber... If it mounts in place of the head block then I'll take one for my spare MTM!! That would turn a doorstop piece of equipment into something somewhat useful.
Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-14-2003, 12:10 AM:
 
Decent CE products?

Their basement readers (analog and digital) are decent. The SG-1 is the preferred "Cat 85" for CP-65s and earlier, many like their automations and there is a thread on booth monitors around here where many came out in favor of the MS-100 (not my personal favorite...but then again, I've yet to find a monitor I truely liked).

Of the THX 3417s...I've had zero failures other than the odd noisey pot. Perhaps, Mark, you got caught in the bad production run and are acousing the whole line as being bad. I've yet to find a manufacturer that hits it right everytime and to that, I've found no exceptions.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-14-2003, 12:32 PM:
 
I agree with steve never had any major issues with CE products
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-14-2003, 11:54 PM:
 
I agree with Steve on this as I generally do. I have no general gripe with CE products since I helped develop some of them.

The SG-1 generator by way of example was a project to improve the existing Dolby Cat. No. 85. The sweep generator was needed to identify speaker rattles that are all but impossible to find using pink noise as a signal source. Since Dolby had other higher priorities, I took the idea to CE to get it built in the short term.

Certain other features like "red noise" were added at the request of THX.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-15-2003, 08:41 AM:
 
Ok, They make two decent products...., perhaps three. Actually my SG-1 is ser # 18 and has worked flawlwssly for about 20 years now!! The ASR 40's are definately the best alternative to a JAX light... but as for the rest of their stuff in the present time... I feel its a bit substandard as to what else is available out there. particuluarly the TA-10.

Sorry Sam.... but your analog scanners have left the C.E. scanners and others for that matter for want of a customer IMHO.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Stephen Wilkinson (Member # 1463) on 12-16-2003, 08:18 AM:
 
IMHO The Panastereo CX230-EX monitors are great. Very flexible, especially for fault finding.
Out of Processor monitoring, Out of Amp monitoring, Hearing loop, etc... Mix of L/C/R or individual channel listening.

Not as cheap as the CE ones but a lot more flexible.

Of course a tech likes something with a lot of buttons on it.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-16-2003, 08:47 AM:
 
Actually I'd have to add that all of Panastereos products are about the best of their type available today. No grief, no problems, no fuss no muss. Customers love em!
Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-16-2003, 09:15 AM:
 
CX-230 is indeed a fine monitor. It does not have any speakers, it is just a selector/amplifier (stereo however or dual mono).

It does lack the LC and RC channels (odd since they are the only ones making 70mm adapter frames for their processor). It also has an annoying "feature" that the far left LED almost always twinkles even with no inputs.

If the CX-230 ever adds the remaining screen channels and allows for tri-amping...then it will really top in-class. However, most cinemas will not pay its price (a couple hundred more than the typical booth monitor and you still have to buy speakers).

Steve
 

---