Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Want to upgrade my equipment

This is topic Want to upgrade my equipment in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007527

Posted by John Summers (Member # 3397) on 10-13-2005, 09:01 AM:

Hello all,

I own a little theatre in Milaca, MN. I want to better the equipment. I am currently running a super simplex with an Orcon 1000 lamphouse and only one speaker in front of the screen (mono). I have read that if you keep your projector in top maintenance condition, that it should last a long time. What are the maintenance steps for keeping my super simplex running great? I want to put at least stereo in and I know that some really like the JS-220 stereo processor from Ultra Stereo. I would get QSC amps to power newer speakers in the front with a subwoofer. I just don't know of a place to get good used equipment and which speakers should I get to replace the one front speaker. My theatre is long and narrow. I can seat 388 and the throw is around 90 feet. The walls are cinder block with plaster as a cover. I plan on painting the ceiling flat black instead of pine and bare sheetrock. I want to improve my presentation and improve the customers movie experience. I took ownership in March and have already repainted the outside with a mural. I just need help with the projection stuff. I am new at this as you can tell.

Thank you for any help.

John Summers
Milaca Theatre
Milaca, MN

Posted by Andy Bergstrom (Member # 360) on 10-13-2005, 10:22 AM:

John,
Give me a call at Cinema Entertainment Corp. in St. Cloud. We have a fair amount of used equipment that we would be interested in selling.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-13-2005, 12:30 PM:

John -

If you keep enough oil in your projector and keep it clean, it'll last virtually forever. We have a Simplex here that's been running with no major repairs since 1980...we had to have the intermittent rebuilt once, but that was caused by a film "clog," not the projector itself.

Given your walls and ceiling, I would bet you have an echo problem. In addition to upgrading the sound, I would consider treating your walls with some kind of drapery/insulation. It isn't that expensive and can really dress up your place. Here's a link to show you what we did with our auditorium here:
Roxy auditorium

How wide is your screen? You say that your speaker is in front of the screen...any way of moving it behind? Is the screen perforated?

Some may tell you that if your auditorium is long and narrow, you can get by with a "center/surround" sound system rather than full stereo. That's WRONG. Get full left/center/right, you will never be sorry.

You don't mention surround speakers, but you must consider them if you're upgrading the sound. When you wire your surround speakers, be sure to separate the left speakers from the right, because someday you will have digital sound and you'll want them separated.

There are several people on this board (myself included) who have upgraded older theatres. I can tell you, the results are extremely rewarding, especially when you see the increased crowds coming in your door.

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 10-13-2005, 01:22 PM:

A little off the subject, but why is it wrong to go center/surround if the theater is very long and very narrow. I have been in theaters like that with full stereo. It seems like you loose the stereo effect not to far back from the screen because the speakers are so close together.

Posted by John McConnel (Member # 2000) on 10-13-2005, 01:45 PM:

Mike,

Enjoyed your evolutionary pictures of the Roxy auditorium. That's a great job of upgrading. It should give John some ideas of what he can work toward.

As to the number of channels of sound, for me, 4 channels is worthwhile, even in a narrow auditorium. But he could start with center-surround, and add left and right as money was available.

John Mc.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-13-2005, 02:49 PM:

He hasn't said what kind of films he's running or who his audience is. If he's running mainstream product, then, yes, he should upgrade to a full 4-channel SR system. If he's running art/foreign films or older films, then it's less necessary. How big is the screen? I doubt he's getting enough light with an ORC1000 if the screen is of a decent size and maybe that would be a better first upgrade, especially if he has an older audience.

My personal feeling is that mono/surround is a half-assed configuration that usually doesn't work right. I'd rather have a top-quality mono system (with A and SR NR) than a half-assed multichannel system. Especially if the mono house has good lenses and screen illumination. This isn't to say that sound isn't important--in fact, my point is just the opposite: $X spent on a mono system will usually result in better sound than the same $X spent on a multichannel system. In any case, I'd think that acoustical improvements would be a major part of the budget.

On the other hand, "Digital Sound" and even "Dolby Stereo" are marketable phrases that the general public at least somewhat understands. It's harder to "sell" the public on proper screen illumination and increased line pairs per millimetre, unfortunately.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-13-2005, 06:46 PM:

Actually the Super is not all that bad a machine but you ought to upgrade your lamphouses and be sure to get a lamp with a dicro reflector to keep that Super as cool as possible. There are still over 24 Supers running along just fine in the Mountain states and parts are not all that hard to come by.

Not only should you get at least three quotes from three completely different dealers in three different states but I definately reccomend that you post the list of equipment that gets reccomended to you by all three on this thread so we can assist you in hashing it out.... If you are not familiar with the ins and outs and downs of buying used, or new equipment.... we don't want you to end up with a booth full of so-so or ho-hum equipment if you are going to bother to make the switch over.

Mark

P.S. It would also help to know the inside dimensions of your theatre in cubic ft., as well as the screen to aperature throw, the screen size and any other pertinant info that you can feed us.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 10-14-2005, 12:52 AM:

quote: John Summers
I plan on painting the ceiling flat black instead of pine and bare sheetrock.

Reflections of sound from the ceiling can be very annoying in smaller theaters. If you can't put in a dropped ceiling with acoustical tile (& for best results, sheets of sheetrock lying on top of them & fiberglass insulation on top of that), you might need to do something creative to break the surface up with pseudo-coffering.

If you've got acoustical tile, don't paint it. The paint makes the surface reflective to sound again, pretty much negating the whole purpose of having the tile. Buy it in the color you want.

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 10-16-2005, 09:14 AM:

I have a small town place and I've recently been doing the same thing, upgrading the sound with used equipment.

Don't be awed by the word digital. I've worked in places that had DTS but had crap Smart Mod whatever processors and the speakers were not biamped. They sounded lame.

Economically, the best thing to do is setup a nice analog system and then add DTS (Dolby digital is usually more expensive to get).

I have had good luck with Dolby processors (CP 55 with upgrades or CP 65), BACP sound readers, and JBL speakers.

I've never been impressed with Smart or Ultra Stereo processors. Many will say the Panastereo processor is the best, but would be hard to get used.

Be patient and just keep looking for the best deals.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-16-2005, 09:43 AM:

quote: Matt Fields
I've never been impressed with Smart or Ultra Stereo processors. Many will say the Panastereo processor is the best, but would be hard to get used.

Sure the build quality is not as good with Smart and USL but I've had great luck over the yeaqrs with both Smart and USL. Some theatres take out loans in order to do equipment upgrades and many banks require that they purchase all new equipment... I've run into this many, many times. So with given small budgets there are times when a Smart or USL is the only budgetable item a theatre can afford. If you have a competant tech that knows how to properly set up a processor you can get excellent results with most any decent processors. What you will mainly find and hear are differences in the noise resduction end of things. Otherwise one processor is really no different sounding than the next. When running digital you would never notice any difference betweenSmart, USL, or Dolby.... in fact given 1/3 octave eq on both a USL and Dolby processor if you did a blind listening test you'd never be able to tell which is which even if you had the most golden of ears.

Now as for all digital processors I dispise them... and except for Dolby's the nopise reduction really sucks big time... worse than their older analog coujnterparts. You are also stuck with whats "built in" to them as far as software goes, I've yet to see any major upgrades happen through software updaytes. Most of them seem to be building on a single board or two so a failure of a simple 50 cent I.C. could lead to a very expensive repair/exchange of an entore board no matter who's processor it is.

Mark

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 10-16-2005, 10:23 AM:

Mark-

I once opened a theatre that had two auditoriums that were the same size room, same speakers, same amps (QSC), both DTS, one had a Ultra Stereo (forget the model), one had a CP-55.

I thought the Dolby sounded alot better in both analog and digital. The ultra sounded hollow. I've had similar experiences with Smart stuff, it just didn't sound as good to me.

Maybe the Ultra wasn't set up right though...but that was what I was basing my earlier statements on, how they sounded to me.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-16-2005, 10:56 AM:

Yea, probably not set up correctly or perhaps the USL had one octave eq cards in it.... this is common. I hate 1-octave eq and anyohne that specs out a unit that could have had 1/3 in it should be shot! Also were both rooms equipped with the same JBL speakers or were they different... JBL makes some pretty lame speakers too.... some of the JBL Screen (Dis)Array stuff is really awful. There are alot of vairables but assuming both units have 1/3 octave cards in them both can sound darn near identical and would be just about impossible to pick apart on a blind digital listening test. Analog , now that is another story but if one is worried about analog all you need fo is add the Panastereo SR adaptor, its pretty inexpensive and does as good or better a job as real Dolby SR does.

Mark

P.S. Theatres that just have their techs set the speakers on stands or other simple installs(these seem to be the majority of systems out there) are the ones that really have to have 1/3 octave cards in them to be able to hopefully tame other room problems that result from doing things this incorrect way.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-16-2005, 05:13 PM:

I must strongly disagree with Mark here...the difference in sound quality between the brands is quite astounding...even on digital. You can start with just the background hisssssss that the lesser processors seem to have that the better units do not.

The matrix decoding quality also varies amoung processors. The equalizers are not all created equal (no pun intended there). Most of the analog, non-Dolby brand (Panastereo being a noted exception) also seem to have omitted the bass and treble shelving filters on their EQ that can take care of a great many things without introducing several phase anomolies.

As for digital...Dolby's CP650 has come along way in being quiet as compared to how it originally debuted. The CP650 also does an amazing job in the noise reduction department...it isn't as flexible as I would like but for the average multiplex, it is a great unit.

The USL JSD-80 has a very impressive feature set and great bang for the buck.

The Panastereo remains the best sounding and most flexible processor out there in production.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-16-2005, 06:52 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
You can start with just the background hisssssss that the lesser processors seem to have that the better units do not.

Hardly! If you run the processors at a nominal output level with the amp gains turned down there is no audible hiss. Just set up two JS proecssors last week on JBL's and there was absolutely no audible hiss standing in front of the screen. This same sort of thing also has to be done with Dolby equipment and was reccomended a long time ago by Sam and Lonnie on CP-50's, 55's and 65's. If you don't run any unit in its optimum SN range then audible hiss may well result. As for the JSD 80 its SR NR is worse than its JS predecessors SR and in case you were not aware the thing won't meet fire code in many areas becaue of its poorly designed input switching. The only thing I see in its favor is 1/3 eq on the surround channels and the SPDIF digital input. Other than that USL has priced themselves out of a major market share with the JDS-80 and needs to fis the input switching and mute function before they will be ok'd by fire inspectors in this neck of the woods.

As far as matrix decoding the worst out there at times was the CP-500 whose matrix would literally lock up at times. Later versions of software seem to have cured that problem at least to some extent. Of course there are differences in matrix's between processors, just like the differences between fine wines.... drinking the same wine would be very boring all the time. I find the differences interesting but hardly startling. One can decode pretty darn well for not alot of $$ these days.

I finally somewhat agree on the 650. I think its finally gestated to a point where I would be comfortable selling and installing them. I was not the least bit impressed with the early units we sold and we have not sold any since. I do like the new x-over card that was recently released, extremely flexible and makes a ton of sense!! So I feel the 650 is finally starting to hold some promise after all this time.

Mark

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-16-2005, 07:38 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
If you run the processors at a nominal output level with the amp gains turned down there is no audible hiss.

Okey, I'm going to throw a line in on this one and see what I can catch:

I've seen places where they have the amp output gains were set at unusual, individual levels and I've seen all amp gains wide open.

The places that had the gains wide open were done so if an amp decides to let go, the replacement amp could then be easily replaced with no extra tuning involved when the individual that replaced the amp has run the gains all the way up (and made sure that the switch in the back are set to the correct positions between bridged and normal-in as well as the DIP switches).

I liked this arrangement of the full-gain operation (and there were not any hiss or noise coming from the amps themselves), where the processor/preamp end can be more easily adjusted.

Thus, the question is: is there a certain way of this, or is it just the tech's preference.

thx-Monte

All of these were the QSC variety.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-16-2005, 08:04 PM:

I prefer to set the processor to whatever output level its internal bus is and that optimises the SN of the processor and then set the SPL on the amps that typically gives me the less noise and if the amp is sized properly greatest headroom

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-16-2005, 08:24 PM:

I too go for optimal S/N configuration...the JS and JSD most certainly hiss. Then again so do most of the Dolby analog processors. This unwanted noise, especially in small screening rooms where the front row may be less than 10-feet from the screen is one of the reasons that sent me to Panastereo...a much quieter unit.

I've yet to not notice the hiss on a JS series processor...it is not that particularly quiet.

As to crossovers in the processor...you can have them...only makes for more effort on the monitor...now you have to run wires to monitor the HF and LF of the stage channels. The monitor/crossover concept makes much more sense to me...but certainly this is a preference thing.

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 10-16-2005, 10:06 PM:

So how do you find the optimum output level for each processor?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-17-2005, 08:15 AM:

Steve,

I agree that it may be noticable in small screening rooms but in real world cinemas this noise level that you speak of is just not an issue even on the least expensive processors. Since screening rooms only account for about .01% of the total screens out there there is really no issue especially since the Panastereo covers that small portion, but there are a few in that percentage that use 650's. With all the flexibility in the new Dolby X-over card I don't see wiring to the monitor a very big issue. After all, before those all in one x-over/monitors appeared we all used to hard wire to that item. I'd also much rather hard wire than plug-n-play. There's just something cheesy about it and perhaps its the crappy wire thats introduced with plug-n-play, thats a step down in quality fomr using Belden or Gepco wire and something I would rather not place upon my customers.

Mark

Posted by John Summers (Member # 3397) on 10-28-2005, 03:21 PM:

Mike -
Thank you for your response on this. I am sorry I haven’t responded sooner. I have a day job that keeps me busy. You say to keep the projector clean. I have no manual or information on how to do this. I am still looking through the posts so maybe someone answered that later on.

What fabric did you use for the walls and where could one get it really cheap since I am a second run theatre?

The speaker is behind the screen and it is perforated.
I looked at The Roxy and ours looks very similar. I still have the seating you have but with Crushed red Velvet for the old seats and about 12 rows of newer (1980’s) seats. I seat 388 with what I have in it right now. The layout is similar to what you had originally but I have 10 seats in the middle while you had 7. One day, I want to replace the seats with newer ones but not brand new. I don’t make that much. The theatre is only open for one show at night. I do plan on separate lf, rt, center, and sub for the front with at least three surround on the walls going back to the projection room. I will replace what is currently there since it is at least 55 years old. I have had customers tell me that they normally drive the 30 minutes to a big theatre because my picture and should aren’t the best. I want a better ambiance but have to do it on a shoe-string budget.

The screen is 21feet wide and about 12-15 feet tall. The overall sqft of the auditorium is around 7500 with a 90 foot throw to the screen from the projector. I still need to get width and length to the front stage down. The ceiling isn’t tile. It is sheetrock at a peak, not flat. I am running second run movies in a small rural town. Most people are farmers there but it is also on one of the fastest growing stretch of highways in MN, HW 169. We are in a 10% growth corridor for the state. I am showing The Fog this weekend. I have the corner on the market as far as entertainment goes. The only other thing there are the bars and that is big in MN. The lamphouse is really weak and does need to be upgraded along with lenses and screen. I know acoustics are bad and will be working to fix that.

Andy Bergstrom just dropped off two working Supers for me for parts. I want to publicly thank you for the generous donation to our cause. If I knew how to keep it well maintained and cleaned, I would stay with the projector and just keep it running well.

I appreciate everyone’s willingness to help with this.

Thank you all for your suggestions. I have Andy with some used CP-50s for Stereo processing. I don’t have all the specifics but when I do, I will let y’all know.

John Summers