Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: AMC WC has one of the best 35mm presentations..but WTF is with the sound?

This is topic AMC WC has one of the best 35mm presentations..but WTF is with the sound? 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=010723

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-29-2010, 12:20 AM:

Ok, I went to the AMC Winston Churchill 24 tonight. I was Monsters which was great. I was hesitant on seeing a movie there because I worried about how good the picture was going to look.

Well, the 35mm film presentation was OUTSTANDING. I looks to me like this AMC WC is clearly taking the film look seriously. I went into a few other auditoriums and the film looked just as good. The only print with issues was some Indian film which looked badly used.

The print of Monster had really good sharpness and the contrast and framing were excellent. Screen was small, maybe 25 feet.

My big issue is with the sound.

Who came up with the rediculous idea of having the surrounds at the top of the wall/roof.....It was horrible. Not surround sound at all.

Also, the speakers behind the screen for some reason did not seem to be centred with the screen. It seemed as tho the speakers were higher up that normal.

Overall great 35mm film look. Terrible sound.

Film: ****
Sound: zero

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-29-2010, 03:10 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
the speakers behind the screen for some reason did not seem to be centred with the screen. It seemed as tho the speakers were higher up that normal

Was this complex smaller then screens were added?

There could be a hallway corridor behind the screen where the speakers were placed on top of the corridor's framework ... seen that before in a local 6plex where the next house's exit had to pass behind the neighboring house, thus the speakers were mounted quite high behind the screen..and they were not tilted down towards the front center of the house making them sound not in the middle of the screen no matter where you sat...and to service them, you had to take half the screen apart off the frame (a floating screen) to get to the speakers since the screen is the same width as the auditorium-wall to wall common height screen.

Sounds like the surrounds just didn't get the angle down enough no matter how high they were mounted as well ..

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-29-2010, 03:28 AM:

Sounds like an older complex with the (s)HITS sound system in it.

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 11-29-2010, 08:30 AM:

quote:
about 15 years ago, I walked into a room with a "suck" screen. It looked and sounded horrible. I told the local tech that I wasn't going to fuck with it. I cleaned the optics and set dolby levels and walked away. LJ fucked up with this idea. He must have been in bed with the vampire

Old post from a couple years ago. Good old Larry Jacobson and his suck screen. I forget the "Vampires" name, but he placed a single surround in each rear corner.

Rick

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-29-2010, 08:46 AM:

The suck screen guy was Glenn Berggren. Louis

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 11-29-2010, 09:35 AM:

Louis, Then I must have been misinformed back then, I forget which tech told me it was an L J design. Luckily I only ran into that screen once. Horns mounted from the ceiling above the screen and bass cabinets below the screen.
Rick

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-29-2010, 10:54 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Was this complex smaller then screens were added?

No, this was a brand new build in 1998. All 24 screens were built brand new.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-29-2010, 12:06 PM:

Were they still doing SHITS auditoriums in 1998? I know they definitely learned from that mistake and don't do that anymore.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 11-29-2010, 12:11 PM:

Not sure if it was true across the board, but the single surround were a cluster built by Community.

They looked and sounded horrible. Oddly enough they actually sounded better when installed backwards (there was a designated Left and Right)

Even the non-suck screens had the horns mounted above, and bass cabinets below the screen (Typically EV or EAW). Typically they used solid screens regardless if they were suck or suckless.

Also they did not use any sound absorbing materials on the sides, and frequently also not on the back, instead on relying on angles to (in theory) reduce echo and reverberation.

No matter how you slice it, it is impossible to get decent sound of these auditoriums.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-29-2010, 01:35 PM:

Actually the suck screen was great... It was AMC's poor implementation of sound that made it actually suck. Speakers above??? Oh please! That sucky screen had great light distribution if the lamphouse was correctly set up but all else stopped there.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-29-2010, 03:15 PM:

Oh please, indeed!

There was nothing like a suck screen that stopped sucking for a variety of reasons; like the area behind the screen filling with water and killing the suction motor. Made the screen look like a spent condom.

When they worked light was fine but the screen behaved like a parabolic reflector for sound so you could hear conversation on the other side of the room.

Where else would you put the speakers, Mark?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-29-2010, 07:16 PM:

Sam...

Some of the best visual presentations I've ever seen were on suck screens in Florida AMC locations back when the screens were in their hay day and kept fairly well tweaked. As for the sound, I'd have gone with stereo headphones and low frequency transducers in the seats. Nothing out there is perfect and all things mechanical like this are as failure prone as the next piece in the chain which usually seems to be the power supply in what ever.

Mark

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-29-2010, 11:43 PM:

ok the theatre in question doesn't have suck screens
the torus was cleaver and solved light issues but if you work in this industry there trade offs
i think if memory serves they have 4675 behind the screens with ev surrounds
and yes they did choose a very high placement but also note the coverage was very even at that point

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-30-2010, 01:26 AM:

Is the Torus and suck screen the same thing?

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-30-2010, 01:55 AM:

quote: Gordon McLeod
coverage was very even at that point

Gord. What do you mean by this?

I found the sound to be muffled and pointed away from the centre of the audience. I am not a tech but I am more than certain that the speakers should be point towards the middle of the seating section.

Its seamed to me that the centre channel was aimed at the port glass window. The voices of the actors sounded like they were coming from the top of the screen.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-30-2010, 03:53 AM:

Why is this in the Film Handler's Forum?