This is topic Surround speakers -- why still visible? 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=007943

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-21-2006, 01:36 AM:
 
Although this is about aesthetics rather than technical, I will pose it anyway. I have always wondered why, after all these years of a surround channel (first called an effects channel) being part an parcel of cinema sound, why are surround speakers not designed into the actual structure of the room rather than hanging them on the walls like used to be done, and probably still is in grade school and high school auditoria PA systems?

I only saw one theatre design where surrounds were incorporated as part of the auditorium design, and that was at a theatre on the St. Mary's campus in South Bend IN. It had these large intersecting circles in relief on the side walls with the speakers built in behind them. Very impressive looking; there was no hit that speakers were in there. The design units were covered each with different colored fabric which I am assuming was acoustically transparant (like china silk). Simple and seemingly easy to accomplish.

It just seems to me that after all these years, why are we still hanging surround speakers on the side walls as if they were some oversight that was installed after the room was completed? That might have been OK when theatres were first outfitted for CinemaScope and, well, the theatre was already built, so what else can you do....hang 'em up on the walls, boys. But to still be doing it that way at the very least speaks of questionable aesthetics on the part of cinema archetechs and certainly shows about as much creativity as a toilet seat.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 04-21-2006, 01:49 AM:
 
Is St. Mary's a single auditorium Frank? My guess is that the speakers are hung on the outside of the walls because it would take at least double walls in a multiplex to recess the speakers and then soundproofing could be a problem not to mention the square footage that would be eaten up by doing that.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-21-2006, 02:08 AM:
 
Yes, Robert, it's a single, large auditorium; I would guess about 800 seats. And you are right, it might take up a bit more space between theatre walls, but that might actually be an opportunity for multiplexes to put in more soundproofing as the speakers, of necessity, will add a bit more space between the adjoining room. On the other hand, speakers today are not all that deep in the first place that you couldn't incorporate them righ into the structure, especially in a new build, just the same way they incorporate everything else that's essential, like ducting and conduit.

Then on the other hand, the surround sound is a function that distinguishes the theatre experience the home TV environment. Until the advent of "home theatre," surround sound was exclusively the cinema's specialty. Maybe people WANT to see speakers on the walls -- it reassures them that they are getting that unique cinema experience. I know if I go into a theatre and I don't see surround speakers, I immediately assume this is a crapola house and I am going to get royally screwed. Maybe from a marketing standpoint, it might be a negative not to have those boxes hanging in full view every three feet, even though half of them are just empty prop boxes.

Stupid public.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-21-2006, 06:18 AM:
 
GCC used to sort of build them into the design. I always used to wonder how it affected sound for the people that were under the wall boxes.

Click here to see a picture on cinematour.com

I don't think this would work in a commercial cinema because the walls would break all the time but the coolest design I've ever seen is Dolby's screening room. The walls are basically made out of speaker scrim and the surrounds are in the walls. Also, the A/C is diffused through the walls making it SILENT (and I mean eerily silent) in there. Well, the A/C diffusion method combined with the screening room being "suspended" from the building structure to reduce vibrations.




 

---

Posted by Dan Harris (Member # 1759) on 04-21-2006, 07:15 AM:
 
Although not embedded in the walls, our standard new design is to blend the surround speakers into the acoustic wall panels and use LED lighting mounted above and below, to create a pretty cool feature. You can kind of see it here, on the left:



Along the back wall, all the speakers are hidden behind an angled "ledge" which runs whole width.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-21-2006, 09:52 AM:
 
You are correct in thinking about this aesthetic problem. I believe inertia is rampant in the planning part of this industry. Also, there are those who like the speakers visible because they can "take credit" for having stereo. The rest of us "expect" great sound.

My personal belief is that anything that detracts from the "magic" is bad. For that reason, visible hardwarte (projectors, speakers, portholes) are a bad idea from the perspective of "suspending reality." Louis
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 04-21-2006, 10:38 AM:
 
Famous Players in Canada used to have chase lights around the surrounds to draw attention to them. There were even plans to make them writhe to the music. Don't know if this ever happened full scale.

Face it, we are in the carnival industry.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-21-2006, 11:26 AM:
 
I don't mind a theater incorporating speakers into the walls to hide them -so long as the room's asthetics justify going to that effort. Most theaters have a very plain look along the walls and the speakers enclosures at least break up that look a bit.

The thing I find annoying as hell is the habit of certain exhibitors (AMC) to stuff the surround speakers up in the ceiling. That is unforgivably retarded. I challenge anyone from AMC to give me a single good reason why they should do that. If I were an executive for AMC theaters my first move would be to get those damned surround speakers out of the ceiling and installed along the walls where they belong.

I am pretty sure why AMC does that idiotic nonsense.
1. Some old executive didn't like how the speakers looked on the walls and wanted them hidden.
2. It was cheaper and easier to install them up in the ceiling.

Still, the end result of putting all the surround speakers in the ceiling it this: SHIT QUALITY SURROUND SOUND. AMC and any other exhibitor installing surround speakers in that manner needs to stop doing it already!
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 04-21-2006, 01:11 PM:
 
In Bakersfield, the Fox Theatre's surround speakers were flush mounted into the side walls of the auditorium way back since 1953. They had the advantage of adding sheer walls in front of the old walls during a remodel a few months before CinemaScope was installed. A number of older theatres used this same speaker technique, with a number of 50's locations in the ceiling (in L.A., these ceiling speakers can still be spotted at the Bruin, NuWilshire, Fine Arts, Vogue, as well as newer theatres such as the National). I've noticed them at other 60's era theatres as well (Bakersfield's Valley Plaza Cinema, Ziegfeld, NYC, SF's Northpoint, GCC Southland, Hayward, as well as others. Of course, all of these theatres have used side speakers for years.
The GCC Avco in Westwood had them origiannaly conceiled in angled flaps that hung from where the ceiling met the wall in addition to some spread through the ceiling. The Chinese originaly had very ornate fixtures that hid the speakers, although these have since been removed. The Village also had them "hidden" behind wooden designs that fit between the pillars/posts on the side walls. These were also removed in the 90's.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-21-2006, 01:27 PM:
 
Bobby,

Agreed 110% on AMC and the ceiling surrounds. What's funny some of thier complexes have a mix of THX auditoriums (surrounds on the wall like they should be) and non-THX with ceiling surround. You'd think that it would sink in that if the surrounds had to be on the wall for THX cert than that's where they should be placed.

It must be for aesthetics. I can't imagine that (especially 10 or 15 years ago) they could have been saving that much on wiring.

At least the newer AMC auditoriums I've been in have wall surrounds.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 04-21-2006, 02:04 PM:
 
The ceiling speakers had nothing to do with money, it was just the AMC way. There was an era when they were doing the suck screens, Smart, and ceiling surrounds, all at the same time.

Dolby was teaching modern surround placement ever since the late '70's, but AMC always wanted to go their own way.

There was a time when they were spending serious money on 16mm stereo. "AMC, There is a Difference".
 

---

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 04-21-2006, 03:51 PM:
 
In the Mid 1990's AMC was also one of the biggest purchasers of SDDS.

You have to wonder who in AMC's purchasing department got the payoffs/kickbacks.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-21-2006, 05:01 PM:
 
In the Phillips handbook "designing the cinema" from 1968 recomended that the effects speakers be placed in the ceiling
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 04-21-2006, 05:32 PM:
 

quote: Jonathan M. Crist

---

You have to wonder who in AMC's purchasing department got the payoffs/kickbacks.

---

quote: Sam D. Chavez

---

As to SDDS, it was a deal between Sony Pictures and AMC. It demeans the issue to claim bribery was involved, even in jest. The truth is even stranger. AMC wanted to be different and they wanted to validate a new vendor they could control (not Dolby).

---

quote: Sam D. Chavez

---

The point was Sony was new to our business.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

SDDS has no entry in large format film.

---

I should correct myself. Sony is trying to get their SXRD 4K digital cinema projector format off the ground. However, they're not just shooting themselves in the foot in the manner of trying to promote it. They're blasting off their entire foot, ankle and lower part of the leg with a double barrel 10 gauge shotgun.

My understanding is they're using 2K originated material and blowing it up to 4K to demonstrate the virtue of the 4K standard. Whoever came up with that idea needs to at least be written up if not fired outright.

What's the matter with these guys? They run a damned movie studio! If they want to show off 4K on their Sony-branded 4K equipment they can easily order filmmakers working under the Columbia/Tri-Star/MGM name plates to get some shit done at native 4K levels. Duh!!!!!


Sony seriously needs get some people who understand digital imagery involved in driving their D-Cinema business model. Not turds who stupidly think anything "digital" equals perfect. If they're gonna promote 4K they need to wake the **** up and promote it using native 4K originated material. Gawd!!!!!

 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 04-24-2006, 02:33 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Whoever came up with that idea needs to at least be written up if not fired outright.

---