This is topic cinema speaker brands 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=011336
Posted by George Murray (Member # 6991) on 10-29-2012, 10:46 PM:
Out of the 5 major cinema speaker manufacturers being jbl qsc klipsch sls and electrovoice which one would everyone say is the top of the line and does anyone have any experience with the SLS brand they appear to be higher end products that use a proprietary ribbon driver.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-29-2012, 10:55 PM:
Current top of the line will be QSC, hands down. They really sound great, are durable and have a great price point. JBL is a close second.
Klipsch? Overrated garbage, totally suck for cinema and as Joe Redifer would say, sound like ass.
EV? At one point, not a bad speaker (I used them at a location in the mid 1990's, they didn't sound bad but the subs kept blowing out and were replaced with JBLs) but I cannot vouch for the current product line. Since QSC's are so good and JBL's are proven, I'd avoid current EVs.
SLS? Never heard of them but ribbon drivers aren't a good idea for the high SPL's they would encounter in cinemas. And what are you gonna do when the company goes tits up or discontinues their "proprietary" ribbon driver? Why trust what is essentially a "no-name" brand when your livelihood is at stake?
Bottom line, stick to QSC or JBL, EV as a last resort. Buying the wrong speakers is gonna be very costly...remember you'll need to drop the screen to change them out, plus the tech time to redo them.
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 10-30-2012, 09:50 PM:
Having E\V speakers installed about 3 years ago they are not bad but certainly not the best. As Tony said their subs really are the weak link. There's not nearly enough bracing and they do sound decent there are defiantly better ones out there. Having used QSC amps and herd their new powered speakers I can vouch that if it says QSC its going to sound good.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-06-2012, 02:40 PM:
Well I have never had an issue with EV subs nor the late Neville Thiele bass refex box designs (this guy invented the maths that made the ported box work). Yes EV had a smaller voice coil but they did go much deeper than the JBL designs in the early 90's. A quality over quantity thing. I remember getting -3db at 25hz with only one DL18w woofer!
Plenty of JBL subs were blown up when digital audio was new too!
If you don't have great quality audio with an EV cinema speaker or any of the other cinema brands then its been installed and eqed badly. The difference between brands is pretty subtle, noticeable in a side by side demo but dialogue and music should be crystal clear no matter what brand.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-06-2012, 04:37 PM:
I'm totally with Tony when it comes to speakers with one exception: QSC's I have no experienc with. Should be good, though, you guys like them and people I trust work there: Barry Ferrell.
EV's seem to "blow up" with little or no provication; 97% of my customers had JBLs, but I sold 50 EV voice coils for each JBL coil. louis
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-06-2012, 08:04 PM:
quote: Cameron Glendinning
If you don't have great quality audio with an EV cinema speaker or any of the other cinema brands then its been installed and eqed badly.
Cameron, a certain very experienced Dolby technician would find that statement highly offensive. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
He was favorably impressed with the sound quality (as I was) and the system required surprisingly little EQ.
(At the time of that install, my RTA was out for calibration so I called in Dolby to do the B Chain.)
As Louis' experiences pointed out, (and I am sure he know how to properly EQ a system) EV's suffer in the durability department.
Bottom line is EV's aren't necessarily bad, but based on Louis' and my own experiences I would only use them as a last resort.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-06-2012, 08:05 PM:
Ev chose to use 3 inch voice coil technology and JBL used 4 inch. JBL therefore could take 25% more power/ watts.
Tony I don't disagree with your findings, I am trying to stress that these differences in speakers technology sound is pretty subtle to the layman. I too have preferences to speakers that sound more realistic, but its not like dialogue intelligibility should not be perfect with any of the name brands.
BTW I know Louis would do a first class job ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-06-2012, 08:12 PM:
And with the demands of today's digital soundtracks, that 25% is critical. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-06-2012, 08:22 PM:
We have EV surrounds. Out of 10 of them, I've only ever had to replace one tweeter. On two other ones, the tweeter quit working but I found that the wires had apparently vibrated off the drivers and they've worked fine ever since I fixed them. But I'm sure they don't have the full range awesomeness that the newer surround speakers have.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-06-2012, 08:26 PM:
Yes Tony but they were cheaper and more subs are always better
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-06-2012, 09:19 PM:
More subs, yes always better. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
But, cheaper is NOT always better.
Which would you rather do: Save a bit of money at initial purchase, then be caught up with replacing blown drivers and speakers, (along with the possible loss of attendance due to crappy sound), which represents additional costs (parts and labor); OR spend a bit more for equipment that won't fail unless some really odd catastrophic event happens (massive power surge or amp blowup.)
I would much rather spend even a few grand extra up front and not have to worry if my speakers can handle the normal wear and tear of the daily shows. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Too many cinema folks (sadly, even on the projection side of the fence) try to cheap out on the most critical aspects of WHY you even open a cinema: TO SHOW MOVIES. The equipment to do that presentation should ALWAYS be the best one can afford. If you really need to save money, look to other, less critical areas: like lobby decor.
Remember this: without a quality presentation hitting the screens, all you will have is a very overpriced candy store.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-06-2012, 11:56 PM:
EV uses smaller VCs as compared to JBL on both woofers and tweeters and as a certified EV, JBL (and others) reconer...the number of EV repairs to JBL is a landslide. EVs are almost always not up to the task. Their build quality is WAY below that of JBL (and others) EV's best woofer design was their EVX line and they even had to constantly play with that to get them to not self-destruct. But their final versions don't sound as good.
As to the DL-15W...yeah...it does go down because of its foam compliance...big deal...compare it to the JBL 2235 and the JBL wins a gain (also foam compliance). Both companies should be shot for sticking with foam when various rubbers would allow the lower f3 but without the deterioration of foam. JBL went away from offering the foam compliance drivers (2245 was superseded by the 2242 in the subwoofer department).
But more to the point, the DL15W is just a BAD sounding driver...I swear drums played on it sounds Tupperware. The DH1/DH1A was a NASTY sounding piece of crap...I know there are some that think it is the bees knees but I am flabbergasted as to how that can be. It does not sound natural to anything...it is a screechy sound piece of crap. Anyone that likes it has to have had some HF hearing loss because it is NASTY up in the higher frequencies.
Some of the EV stuff sounds better than others and JBL certainly has their clunkers out there too but I have never found that EV ever made an equivalent driver to a JBL where the EV wasn't a really poor comparison. The JBL 2206, 2226, 2242, 2446/2450 are just awesome drivers for what they do and EV has nothing in their league.
I normally don't post negative viewpoints but EV is one where I've had to leave a theatre because they just sound that bad...I can tell the make of the speaker just by listening to the movie...often right down to the drivers being used. A good speaker should not be so characteristically bad but EVs sound like EVs...not like what was recorded.
Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 11-07-2012, 11:36 AM:
Steve I would find it hard to believe that anyone could tell the make of a speaker if it's a bad sounding room along with a bad EQ. Everything sounds shitty then.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-07-2012, 04:09 PM:
Believe it...because I've done it (with witnesses) in a theatre I had never been in. The previews weren't on for a minute before I noted the brand of the speaker and the model! It was the EV TS940. It had the Tupperware DL15W bass with the painful DH1A driver...I wonder how anyone could NOT tell them...they don't sound natural.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-07-2012, 06:46 PM:
Get a good look at the DH1A on an RTA fairly close.. Looks like the down escalator. Bumpy.
Not a bad speaker for what it was. . . . the first exponential for cinema if it were 1970.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-07-2012, 07:28 PM:
No...it was always a piece of crap! "In its day" ..there was the Altec 288 and later 299 (and currently the 399)...they were/are FAR superior to the DH1/DH1A. Horn wise. the HP9040 had/has its good points...I noted that Dolby even used JBL drivers on those horns to avoid the EV sound. Personally, I prefer the MR94 (Altec) over all other CD horns (at least of its day). The sound was simply uniform anywhere in the coverage area. Likewise, nothing touched the MR594 for the smaller format horns but if you are going to go down to 500Hz...you really need a large horn or you can't have pattern control.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-08-2012, 04:02 AM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Dolby even used JBL drivers on those horns to avoid the EV sound
I was recently offered a tour of a mixing suite that used this combination, funnily enough the technician explained it was because it sounded better than using the JBL Bi Radial horn.
The JBL 4" compression driver is still my favorite. My personal side by side comparison tests between brands and technology gave me different results than others here. I compared a Cinerama modified multicell horn (sap filled and lead lined)and compression driver with the DH1 with the mid sized flare and found the results similar. The Altec driver was then placed on a standard multicell horn and the EV to me was notably superior.
We live in a society where the majority of the population is visually discerning but most of the population are simply not audio aware. Musicians especially classically trained tend to appreciate realism far more, simply because of there own real life experience, yet your typical cinema goer simply wants to understand every word of the movie and typically not too loud. Those cinema technicians who do line ups with the X curve tend to be discerning too. I heard a rumor that the SMPTE is thinking of getting rid of it as the science behind it seems to have no basis, anyone else heard this?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-08-2012, 09:15 AM:
I am a member on said SMPTE committee...the science behind the "X" curve is sound (read ANSI/SMPTE 202). It is peer reviewed and has stood up the rigors of time.
No claim has ever been made that it was the only or even the best way to tune a cinema. It is "A" way and one that is repeatable using obtainable technology that enhances the cinema experience. The fact that it has lasted this long is testament to its value.
While all standards/RP/EGs are subject to periodic review, it does not mean that they will be radically changed on each review. Discussions do come up with using alternative methods for tuning cinemas but as of yet, nobody has put forth a suitable alternative that has met the criteria discussed above. Remember too, the goal is to have a uniformity such that presuming everyone follows the standard, the results will be predictable and uniform from cinema to cinema.
Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 11-08-2012, 11:36 AM:
Very impressive Steve.
Posted by Bajsic Bojan (Member # 4928) on 11-08-2012, 02:37 PM:
Since the brands mentioned on this forum are not the ones that are often offered here (except for JBL), i am trying to get info on EAW or Martin Audio lines of cinema speakers. Anyone use them? Good or bad experiences?
Both of those companies have decent reputation in the live sound territory but does anyone use their cinema boxes? They seem to be priced competitively and the specs seem in order. Just wondering how much and why do they not get any use?
Since talking about 'the best', where is Meyer Sound? They do make some pretty darn good and high profile cinema speakers also.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-09-2012, 01:21 AM:
My personal experiences with EAW have be positive. I find their bottom end a little tubby but overall, they are good speakers, well made and as passive crossovers go, they seem to do as good or better than most others.
There is no such thing as "best" though. Sound remains subjective and as clearly seen in the above discussion, one can have a wide range of opinion on what sounds good/bad. My personal dislike for the EV sound is not shared by everyone (and there are specific examples of EV that I don't like...it does not carry throughout the brand).
As to why some get more use than others...that would a long discussion too. Some of it has to do with momentum ("we've always used brand ABC") and some has to do with how much presence the company has put forth in the cinema specific industry. When EAW was at all of the trade shows and in the Trade Magazines, they were more popular (in the States) but each company has to decide what and how much resource they want to put forth in order to capture a percentage of a market. If you think about it...there have been really only THREE big manufacturers of cinema equipment that "others" have tried to take a piece of the market away (again, using the USA as an example)...Altec Lansing set the standard up until about 1980. Then there was/is JBL and now I would say the QSC is either the dominant or on par with JBL. EV had a pretty decent usage in the '90s but it was only a piece away from JBLs domination.
For a worldwide presence, it takes a pretty massive effort to support stuff everywhere and Harmon International is such a company to do that...they also make their own drivers too and can really control the product from beginning to end.
But there really isn't a best or worst...any such claim is purely opinion.
Posted by Brian Bowman (Member # 3804) on 11-09-2012, 08:17 AM:
Greetings all,
Generally speaking, I'm a complete newbie here (and somewhat of a dilettante in terms of film handling) - but on this particular topic I feel I have something to offer. Coming from a background in audio engineering (specifically, concert sound and room "tuning"), I've spent a great deal of time dealing with sound reproduction on both micro and macro levels. IMHO, hands down, the best cinema sound product out there currently is the Meyer sound "Acheron" series. If the theater opts to go the extra distance and set it up with the EXP option, it's completely untouchable in terms of the linearity of it's performance. Cinema presents a unique opportunity for those of us in the sound reproduction world; the opportunity to delay the visual in order to accommodate real-world time alignment difficulties created by wavelength differentials. To my knowledge, Meyer is the only company that's doing this.
For those interested in the hows and whys, here's a link to a great interview with John Meyer re: linearity in cinema systems:
Meyer Cinema Linearity
(Lots of good, short youtube videos on varying aspects available from this page as well).
Hope this is of some interest!
-Brian
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 11-10-2012, 01:47 AM:
quote: George Murray
Out of the 5 major cinema speaker manufacturers being jbl qsc klipsch sls and electrovoice which one would everyone say is the top of the line...
I too wondered why Meyer are not mentioned. In the world of pro audio, none of those brands would be considered to be (being polite) on par with Meyer, and I know that Meyer make speakers intended for cinema use. Surely someone uses them?
Are SLS really a well known cinema speaker brand?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-10-2012, 09:05 AM:
Cinema, being a quantity based sound industry, tend to be a bit more "thrifty" their equipment. Also, a cinema is not judged as heavily on their sound systems as say a "sound company" that may be doing music shows.
You don't see much Labgruppen in cinemas either but pro audio/touring companies will swear by them over the popular brands used in cinema. Just like Meyer...you don't see much (though there is some) LabGruppens in cinemas due to cost...they are almost a non-starter.
Then you look at a typical "cinema" speaker. They are often purpose built with a price point in mind...they (most) would not stand up to the rigors of touring. But if you focus the design for a specific application you can get a lot of bang for the buck. If you have not auditioned a QSC SC-4x4 series speakers, I encourage you to. It is a very smooth sounding speaker that does not tend to leave its mark on the sound. And then, compare that to a properly speced Meyer. And then (and here is where the business part comes in)...ask yourself..."how many more buckets of popcorn/tickets will switching to Meyer sell?" And remember...the audience never gets to A/B speakers like you might and, sadly enough 80-90% of them wouldn't change their patronage or even know the difference based on that one factor.
Now, if the theatre is using junk and/or set up poorly and has poor acoustics to begin with...then one can indeed lose patronage (even if one has exclusivity...nowadays...they'll just wait for home release on video).
Presumably, someone that is going going to spend the money on the Meyer system will ALSO put them in a room that is worthy. An overwhelmingly large number of cinemas have really bad acoustics and it is for little to no reason. The incremental cost of getting a cinema acoustics right is relatively trivial...You'd think I was asking for the moon when I ask for insulation above the ceiling tiles, for instance...not only will it help the acoustics it would save them on the HVAC costs by not heating/cooling the cavity above the tiles.
So that is why many don't think Meyer and the higher end of the pro audio line of sound reproduction. It is cost and if they are going to go in a direction (quality wise), it is going to be in a largish quantity that has to be paid back via popcorn, soda and part of the ticket sales.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-10-2012, 10:30 AM:
SLS barely makes a dent in cinema. For one thing, the sales distribution is sketchy at best.
They like to sell line arrays but there is no real point in all but the biggest venues and even then I question the need or the supposed superiority of this method.
Also, the company seems to have changed hands a time or two and this makes buyers nervous.
It's a tough and small market. Bose tried to crack it and failed miserably. The reasons; wrong speaker type not suitable for the application, and strange cultish marketing. This is a classic case of a giant company trying to sell the name and not an actual product designed for cinema.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-10-2012, 11:49 AM:
I have worked with some very good live-sound guys recently on a project (the dreaded "mixed-use facility") and it's interesting to see how attitudes differ in that industry. They love Crown amplifiers, while the cinema folks mostly love QSC, for example (they can't both be right...can they?). Also, they don't seem to get the idea that a cinema B-chain is something that is done once (correctly) and left alone, not something that gets modified for every film that plays in the venue. The idea of only being able to adjust a main fader during a show is completely foreign to them.
On the other hand, they have some very good acoustical measurement tools and techniques, most of which go beyond what is typically used for cinemas. They clearly have more tools to deal with "bad" rooms, whereas cinema systems generally depend on having a "good" room to begin with.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-10-2012, 06:45 PM:
QSC and Crown are both good brands. They are just power amps after all, the least complex part of the audio chain. It's power output and noise/distortion figures, and reliability. Both have accessories for the intended market.
As to line arrays vs conventional speakers, my comments were strictly directed to use behind a perforated screen.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-11-2012, 01:08 PM:
Good to see you here Sam.. long time since we chatted last. No word from our favorite pain in the behind client so I guess my last visit made them happy.
Back on topic, so you have installed the SLS speakers? Can you elaborate on them for us?
And re the amplifiers: I will disagree with you a bit on that as I have found QSC's reliability to be far above Crowns, both early and late models. (QSC's only real bump in the road was those Series Three amps with the removable modules...remember the power resistor that kept melting its own solder connections and falling out?)
Plus QSC's customer service has always been phenomenal for me at least.
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 11-11-2012, 01:36 PM:
Slightly off topic... I had a live sound engineer tell me that old QSC's could literally be washed out. If it got noisy take off the cover and remove the transformer and hose it out. Let it dry for a few weeks and it was good as new. Has anyone else ever herd this? Hes not the typical guy to bs on something like this.
I can also say that Iv only ever seen one Crown amp in a cinema were as almost EVERY amp Iv seen is a QSC, some pushing 15+ years.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-11-2012, 04:23 PM:
Can't say I have any recent hands on experience with SLS. Not a big fan of the company as there was a lot of snake oil marketing which sent me running in the other direction.
As to Amps, there's no real excuse for unreliable amps. Crown did have a bout of unreliable amps after years and years of bullet proof performance. I believe this was sorted out quite a while ago. So it all comes down to features and price point, customer service, etc.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-11-2012, 06:18 PM:
Thank you Sam. I need to get up there for a visit sometime soon.
Jake, your washout story is probably not impossible....my first exposure to QSC's was at Knott's Berry Farm here in So Cal. I had a Series One (1400) amp that got rained on while it was powered up, and it survived perfectly. (It had the vented top as well, even bigger surprise.)
Most electronic components are sealed and liquid tight, so it would not be impossible to wash down an amplifier and once it is dried it should work well.
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 11-12-2012, 09:57 PM:
The next time I come across an older QSC thats non operational Ill give it a try for curiosity sake.
Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 11-14-2012, 04:08 PM:
did the sound engineer mention whether we should use washing up liquid or maybe bleach to improve the HF transients?
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 11-14-2012, 11:07 PM:
He did not, made it sound like just a good hose down to remove the dust and grime.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-15-2012, 12:39 AM:
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
I have found QSC's reliability to be far above Crowns, both early and late models.
I have all QSC amps here and have not had a problem with any of them.
When I was doing mobile DJ work, I had a Crown power amp for my two biggest speakers. Once during a gig I needed to move it slightly and when I touched its case, "POP" and the sound went out just like that. Fortunately I had my crappy old backup amp to take up the slack. I changed the fuses in the Crown and they popped again instantly on power-up, so I had to send it in for warranty service. I never did find out what had caused the problem...you tech guys can probably tell just from my description. After that repair it worked fine until I quit the DJ business, about 8 or 9 years later.
Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 11-17-2012, 04:25 AM:
I'm with Tony here. QSC win hands down over Crown on reliability. You just set them up and forget about them.
Also, the basic filters and limiters on all models are always useful. When budget does not allow anything better - like a DCM or proper filters - it's always nice to be able to filter off dangerous frequencies from speakers, particularly when speakers are not really up to the job.
That said I am not very familiar with the latest Crown models to be honest.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-20-2012, 10:01 AM:
quote: Steve Guttag
If you have not auditioned a QSC SC-4x4 series speakers, I encourage you to. It is a very smooth sounding speaker that does not tend to leave its mark on the sound. And then, compare that to a properly speced Meyer. And then (and here is where the business part comes in)...ask yourself..."how many more buckets of popcorn/tickets will switching to Meyer sell?" And remember...the audience never gets to A/B speakers like you might and, sadly enough 80-90% of them wouldn't change their patronage or even know the difference based on that one factor.
While I completely get that your statement above is reality, it's also a slippery slope that I think too many theaters get stuck on.
Rationalizing saving money because "no one will notice" is how curtains were lost, THX certifications became meaningless, and carpets and seats are used way beyond their useful life. Day old popcorn tastes the same, as long as it's warm and salty, right?
This is probably why I would fail as a theater owner, but I would not look at the decision as "what will sell more popcorn" but rather I would decide based on my own impressions of performance vs. price. What I choose will reflect upon me and my operation. If speaker A sounds really good for $1000 (for example), and speaker B sounds just a small bit better, but it costs $1500, I would have to figure out if that small difference was worth the extra $500 to me.
If I had my choice about seeing a movie in a theater equipped with A, would I be happy, or should I bite the bullet and know that in the long run of the life of that investment, I'll be glad I spent the extra money?
People with home theaters make this type of decision every time when they buy equipment for their own setups. Except it's their own money, and no one's paying to come see the movies being shown, so it's even more personal.
If I were to pick equipment that would be good enough for my wife and kids to be happy with, I would have very different equipment. In contrast, by choosing high quality equipment (without being ridiculously irresponsible about costs), I'm delivering a presentation that not only am I happy with, but also one that sets the standard for them to appreciate what a movie experience can be.
The appreciation level of the audience can be raised simply by providing them with an excellent experience. Once they have the best, how will the substandard stuff at the theater down the road sound to them?
That's why I would probably fail in the theater industry. But if I did, I would have failed knowing that everything I did I was proud to put my name on. I'd like to think that there's a realistic balance to be had between costs and performance, but also that (perhaps naively) making good choices will increase the chances of success. Cutting corners is a sure way to failure in my book.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-20-2012, 10:43 AM:
"People with home theaters make this type of decision every time when they buy equipment for their own setups. Except it's their own money, and no one's paying to come see the movies being shown, so it's even more personal."
I like Scot's sensibility about what he would do as a cinema owner. The problem is speakers are pretty subjective and some new company comes along every now and then and tries to market their way into our arena. After all these years it is well known what works behind the screen, and all the rest of off brand stuff that try to peddle magic power amps and speaker wire.
I remember one such salesman telling me a movie director complemented them by saying "I've never heard sound like that before". That could mean anything but was probably a left handed complement.
Now, when you come to home cinema sound, there is an amazing variety out there. The box sets you buy at Costco are pretty good value and a small enough price to toss if they don't work out.
When you get to the higher end stuff in "media rooms" is when the horse crap really splats.
All sorts of off brand stuff with magical properties and the obscure branding is actually used to encourage you to buy something exclusive your neighbor does not have. A lot of times it is just ordinary or worse.
OK, now I've had my morning rant!
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-20-2012, 11:48 AM:
quote: Scott Jentsch
I'd like to think that there's a realistic balance to be had between costs and performance, but also that (perhaps naively) making good choices will increase the chances of success. Cutting corners is a sure way to failure in my book.
That's pretty much been my philosophy here. I always want to get something better than what we "need" to get the job done. It definitely pays off. Some guy told me a couple years ago that we had "the best sound in the whole country" which is ridiculous of course, but hey, if he's going around telling people that, it's only going to help us.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-20-2012, 12:00 PM:
quote: Scott Jentsch
If speaker A sounds really good for $1000 (for example), and speaker B sounds just a small bit better, but it costs $1500, I would have to figure out if that small difference was worth the extra $500 to me.
I love this sentiment, but it assumes that you _have_ the $500 to spend. Lots of theatre owners don't, especially in smaller towns. Even if they thought that the $1500 speaker would sell more tickets and pay for itself, they still might not have the working capital to buy it.
And, of course, we're not really talking $500, either. We're talking about $500 x 3 x number of screens.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-20-2012, 02:18 PM:
Basically if you are not doing the best you can at the time you are doing it, you are a fool. Good equipment can always be moved to another venue if the first one fails. Bad equipment ???? Louis
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-20-2012, 02:52 PM:
"The stingy man ends up paying the most"
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-20-2012, 08:19 PM:
With Brand being the issue in this thread, cinemas tend to have another factor which is the x curve. Having personally built several custom speaker systems which were critically acclaimed by film makers, sound mixers and the Australian sound guild I can not help but point out the differences and inconsistency of the eq process.
We had three separate eq's done by three different individuals from different companies of the same auditorium (that I had personally custom built the speakers for and had advised on the acoustics of the room at design stage) all within a 21 day period and the differences where not subtle at all when watching the exact same piece of film in a great acoustic room!
Now no speaker is perfect so when we audition home speakers in the showroom to music we already know, some brands sound better/different than others with some styles of music over others, this is due to different frequency response and colorization that each speaker possesses.
I personally think that the difference between speaker brands found in cinema is a lesser issue, as the person who lines it up ultimately has a bigger effect on the audio outcome.
quote: Steve Guttag
the science behind the "X" curve is sound (read ANSI/SMPTE 202). It is peer reviewed and has stood up the rigors of time.
There are several forums where the science is being seriously questioned. I am surprised that none of this has appeared here on film tech. Here are some quotes.
quote:
Brian McCarty
Comment posted May 13, 2012 @ 00:17:45 UTC (Comment permalink)
We've had some terrific discussions underway in the SDCTV forum - in fact we received very positive comments from the TC on the high level of participation in this group, although just newly formed.
We are busy organizing sessions for the 133rd Convention in San Francisco, and one that has been proposed is a session on the "Science of the X-Curve", which is the underpinning for cinema sound around the world via ISO 2969.
We have raised hands from a raft of opponents to the X-Curve. We would like however those engaged in this process on the other side of the fence to come and defend the use of this technology, and perhaps propose modifications to it if they deem them appropriate.
We welcome engineers from Dolby, DTS, the Theater Owners, or anyone else with working experience on this issue to step forward now so we can arrange a useful and information discussion as part of our SDCTV workshop program for San Francisco.
Brian McCarty
quote:
Philip Newell
Comment posted April 26, 2012 @ 13:47:58 UTC (Comment permalink)
A great service that the AES group could do to the industry would be to study the whole history and concept of the X-curve and its application to cinema sound, in a scientific and objective manner.. The principle evolved in the early 1970s, when the thinking was stiill only just emerging from optical mono soundtracks, and the loudspeaker systems then available were often very limited in their output capability, especially at high and low frequencies. What is more, in those days, our knowedge of psychoacoustics was scant by the standards of today, and the analysis and measuring equipment for room acoustics was rudimentary.
There is now a growing body of opinion within both the motion picture and television industries that the X-curve can no longer be justified in any scientific manner, and that its application to cinema sound is also an obstacle to achieving the better sound that modern-day equipment and working practices could deliver. In short, its time has expired.
The Members of the AES have the wherewithal to study the concept in an independent and knowledgeable manner, and an independent report from the Technical Committee on Sound for Digital Cinema and Television would be very valuable, whether an AES Standard were to be issued or not.
A further subject requiring in-depth study is the question of what dynamic range can be reasonably supported in different listening/viewing conditions. Strong evidence now exists to show that what may be considered an appropriate sound level, whether it be deemed to be either realistic or desirable, depends to a very great degree on the size of and distance to the screen. It no longer seems to be reaonable to calibrate all cinema mixing rooms to the same SPL, from a 100 cubic metre room for mixing trailers and commercials to a large dubbing theatre of 3,000 cubic metres. Larger screens seem to stimulate the brain to expect more level, and vice versa.
Mixing to a 20 metre-wide screen in a huge room can realistically support a dynamic range of 70 decibels, or more, yet this would not even be pleasant in a home theatre, or even in a small room in a multi-screen cinema. There is therefore little wonder that the cinema-going public is often heard to complain that the soundtracks are too loud, but an inevitable consequence of reducing the level can often be to lose the intelligibility of the low-level dialogue. There is thus no easy solution available to projectionists.
The transfer of soundtracks to media for home-viewing is another casualty of the lack of attention that has often been paid to these subjects.
The questions of the X-curve, the standard calibration levels and the supportable dynamic range are therefore matters that need urgent, and independently objective, re-assessment, and the AES is perhaps the body most well-equipped to tackle them.
[To keep the record straight, I should state that I am a Member of the Audio Engineering Society, a Fellow of the Institute of Acoustics, and a Member of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. I am not partisan to any group: I merely want to get to the truth, so that we can all get on with doing our jobs better.]
(Respond to this comment)
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-20-2012, 11:49 PM:
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Which would you rather do: Save a bit of money at initial purchase, then be caught up with replacing blown drivers and speakers, (along with the possible loss of attendance due to crappy sound), which represents additional costs (parts and labor); OR spend a bit more for equipment that won't fail unless some really odd catastrophic event happens (massive power surge or amp blowup.)
quote: Steve Guttag
EV uses smaller VCs as compared to JBL on both woofers and tweeters
The different technology does have different results, the bigger the woofers voice coil is less likely it is to blow up if blasted but the other factor is the byproduct of increased shake and heat with the bigger motors. This can translate into noticably more leakage through the walls into the adjoining cinema with the exact same sound level being achieved within the auditorium! I have tested and demonstrated this reality.
So if your cinema has sound leakage issues perhaps the EV and their choice of smaller 3" voice coils, may in fact give your audience better results overall.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-21-2012, 02:51 PM:
The whole point of the "X curve" is to establish a reference. Probably ANY reference will do. If the cinema and the mixing room agree, then sound is adjusted to suit the director and it should be the same in the cinema.
ANY reference will work as long as both sides agree. Hence no reason to change unless there is an upside. Louis
Posted by Bajsic Bojan (Member # 4928) on 11-21-2012, 03:25 PM:
I'm guessing that the xcurve question is appearing because it's cinema specific, when nowadays the focus when doing a 'movie' in post / studio is nowhere near concerned with how it sounds in the cinema, but rather how it sounds everywhere else.
It is an interesting point, as we do get a lot of post studios and people from broadcast here, saying their mixes sound different than in the studio. Of course they will, if you mix for broadcast and use flat reference monitors, then go into a cinema with an xcurve on the audio b-chain.
I am guessing that in a not so near future we'll see more and more 'flat' theaters "for unification purposes". With even worse sound on 35mm.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-22-2012, 12:59 PM:
I've been trying to find the time for a reply and Thanksgiving has come (in the USA).
We'll start with Scott: quote: Scott Jentsch
While I completely get that your statement above is reality, it's also a slippery slope that I think too many theaters get stuck on.
This is in reference to my statement regarding how many more buckets of popcorn will one sell. I was not trying to say that striving for a better system should be avoided but that each increment of improvement, in a business, has to also be tempered with what positive business it will bring. With most things, one will find that at the lower-end, each increment of improvement costs relatively little more...however as one gets towards the tippy-top end of things, each increment of improvement costs progressively more to achieve. So while one can discuss say EV, JBL, QSC and a dozen other brands as small cost variances. Even 2-way to 3-way is not too big a jump and one could argue benefits/cost on some brands...when you make a relatively BIG jump in cost...one really has to evaluate if the business of that investment will follow. In some theatres and markets...the best really does matter. In the majority of markets/cinemas...it really does not. Part of the problem also is...what is best? That is subjective so you still won't please every one even if you spend top-dollar. You are trying to please as large a group of people as possible. A speaker, like the QSC SC-424 is going to do that (in an appropriate sized room with reasonable acoustics). There are others but I'm using that as an example.
quote: Louis Bornwasser
Basically if you are not doing the best you can at the time you are doing it, you are a fool. Good equipment can always be moved to another venue if the first one fails. Bad equipment ????
The problem with this statement is what is best? And even if we could reach mass consensus on what "best" is...is there not a top price limit on it? Let's exaggerate a bit. If the BEST speaker as reviewed by anyone that reviews cost say $100,000 each. Should everyone use that simply because it is the best and may be moved if the theatre folds due to, among other things, the high overhead?
People should get high-quality and excellent performing equipment, agreed. Junk is junk. Anyone that knows me knows I don't peddle junk...some might even say I deal in pie-in-the-sky stuff. Remember, the Kinoton FP30/38E is my standard film projector! It isn't exactly cheap and can easily outperform competition on most measurable specifications but you didn't see the industry drop their Simplexes/Centurys, Christies...etc for them. Clearly, people did a cost/benefit comparison with respect to their business. In the studios...the Kinotons generally outplaced the others. I know I've pulled other brands out for them.
I don't regret the JBLs, Altecs and QSC's I've sold and installed. I've never had a customer feel like they settled for them. I have also never had a customer come out of a Meyer room and think..."Why can't my theatre sound like that?" Getting the room right, I maintain, is the bigger and more beneficial challenge to exhibitors.
quote: Cameron Glendinning
I personally think that the difference between speaker brands found in cinema is a lesser issue, as the person who lines it up ultimately has a bigger effect on the audio outcome.
I'll agree with that...so long as you reach a "good" threshold.
quote: Cameron Glendinning
There are several forums where the science is being seriously questioned. I am surprised that none of this has appeared here on film tech. Here are some quotes.
Absolutely...again the SMPTE and others have never claimed it was the only or even the theoretical "best" method. It is "A" method that can be universally applied using available equipment that, can yield VERY repeatable results. That is, if you use calibrated microphones in a 4-mic plex...if you tune it and I come behind you and set up my calibrated mics (not even knowing where you set your mics other than as per the spec)...I'll, within +/-3 dB have the same reading...I've done it MANY MANY times. In fact, they are closer than +/-3dB. Normally, where this falls down is the lack of calibrated mics (1st) and the quantity of mics (2nd). Those of you that have the USL mic plexer that think they have "calibrated" mics...you are delusional. Now it is far better than a single mic and the mics are decent enough but not what I would call calibrated...they are not even level normalized on any given room unless you take the time to do it. Compare the response to an R2 or D2 system...those are CALIBRATED mics on a frequency-by-frequency basis through out the passband.
So back to the statement...Brian doesn't like the x-curve...there is nothing new there...he has been vocal about it for decades. He is entitled to his dislike. Let him devise, publish a method/procedure that can be codified and presented to the industry. To say there is a better way is not good enough...it would have to be a method that can be adopted by nearly everybody. And as soon as that happens, there will be the next guy that says it is all wrong. A key to ANSI/SMPTE 202 is that, right now, just about the entire industry is on the same page and marching to the same beat. Not many other industries have that luxury. No matter what individuals may say, the X-curve has its merits and is, presently, the best method we have. If you have something better, present it.
quote: Cameron Glendinning
So if your cinema has sound leakage issues perhaps the EV and their choice of smaller 3" voice coils, may in fact give your audience better results overall.
I have no problem with the V.C. size...I have a problem with the sound of the EV speakers. Using them because you built the structure of the building improperly isn't the solution...the real solution is to fix the building...if that is not feasible, then tune the room to minimize the transfer. I have indeed done STC testing and then based on the results tuned the rooms to keep the transmission down to acceptable. At least with that method, what sound you hear is good.
quote: Louis Bornwasser
ANY reference will work as long as both sides agree. Hence no reason to change unless there is an upside.
You stepped into it on that one Louis (sorry). The problem with that statement is that anyone that does measurements knows that a measurement only measures what it is measuring, not everything. In the case of an RTA, you are only "seeing" the volume of each frequency. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what constitutes the sound we hear. Part of the X-curve does try to take into account reverberation (the roll off) but it works (by those that believe it does) because many of the parameters of a theatre are reasonably well known. When the X-curve falls apart is when the room is made poorly such that the x-curve does not reasonably apply. If the RTA was the final word in sound...all speakers that meet the curve should sound identical...and most everyone knows that isn't true. There are many other parameters to perceived audio. THX took this a bit further by ensuring that the room was better made so that RT-60 was in the proper range, the NC level was in the proper range and that the equipment was inherently good. That will have the X-curve work even better.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-26-2012, 10:13 AM:
quote: Steve Guttag
I was not trying to say that striving for a better system should be avoided but that each increment of improvement, in a business, has to also be tempered with what positive business it will bring. With most things, one will find that at the lower-end, each increment of improvement costs relatively little more...however as one gets towards the tippy-top end of things, each increment of improvement costs progressively more to achieve.
Ah, OK. I agree that once you meet that point where extra performance requires a significant uptick in price, you need to carefully consider what you're getting for the extra money and why you're looking for that last x% towards perfection. It is where I usually stop in my value assessments, as you can usually get very close to "perfection" but there is a point where you get very small increments of performance for increasingly large increments in price.
Many many years ago when I was considering striking out on my own full-time, I received some advice that I think rings true for just about any business. That advice was to not work on a shoestring budget, because doing so meant that you would often make choices that were not good choices, but necessary ones just to get by. And making bad choices is a sure way to head towards failure.
That advice was tempered somewhat by someone else that I respected, which was "do what you need to do in order to get going, because if you can't get on your feet, you can't move forward and be successful enough to do it the 'right' way in the future."
While those two pieces of advice would seem to be in conflict to a certain degree, I have taken them to be complementary. You can be "scrappy" by doing whatever you can to get started, but doing so should only be a means towards getting to the point where it can be "done right."
I see too many businesses where they never get out of the "scrappy" stage and it turns into just being cheap, which compromises the end product due to the bad decisions that have to be made.
To use the home theater analogy again, when I first got into that hobby, I didn't have a surround sound processor, so I wired out two rear speakers out of phase with the fronts for a pseudo-surround arrangement. It actually didn't work too badly, but I was never under the illusion that it was as far as I needed to go. Shortly after that, I was able to afford a new receiver and did it right. Once I was able to save up enough money, I replaced the front (two) speakers with some pretty good THX units, which I'm still using to this day, some 20 years later. I went without a subwoofer for quite a while, but when I got one, I got a good one. Still using that, and it's been 15+ years. Never through this process did I make the mistake of diving into the ridiculous realm of high-end "audiophile" speaker cables or $10,000 speakers. That's great for some people, but not me.
Being scrappy can work at first, but at some point, a person has to put on their big boy pants and make the hard choices so that they can be proud of what they're offering to their customers and earn their business on a recurring basis.
As a customer, I would respect an operation that was brand-new, just trying to get started, and maybe didn't have the best presentation, but they were cognizant of the fact and were transparent in their desire to do better as time goes on. But I would have no respect for a theater that was still running crappy equipment many years after getting started, with no apparent regard for the fact that they were delivering a substandard presentation.
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 11-28-2012, 10:18 AM:
quote: Bajsic Bojan
It is an interesting point, as we do get a lot of post studios and people from broadcast here, saying their mixes sound different than in the studio. Of course they will, if you mix for broadcast and use flat reference monitors, then go into a cinema with an xcurve on the audio b-chain.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the X-Curve is to account for attenuation of certain frequencies in larger spaces. Therefore if you're mixing in a small studio, you'd want those monitors to be flat or nearly flat to get an accurate representation of the audio. In my opinion the differences in what they're hearing could just be a bad EQ.
Posted by Mark Pasquesi (Member # 7208) on 11-28-2012, 01:05 PM:
Have been reading quite a few opinions on speakers - thanks for all the input.
We are refitting our cinema with used speakers...
Unsure if it is a good idea.
Here is what we have found:
PSI 38-3 (3 voix) for Front Left/right/center
6 KCS Sr10 for surround
and an unnamed sub...(this worries me - I want to hear it first)
------
We had discussed new JBL's, but our provider dislikes them quite a bit... too many blown tweeters...
---------------
Amps -
we have 2 Fostex AP 3060....
- and we need to go to three... Better to switch to used QSCs
if we can find them?? Which QSC's to avoid??
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 11-28-2012, 01:52 PM:
quote: Mark Pasquesi
We had discussed new JBL's, but our provider dislikes them quite a bit... too many blown tweeters...
I find this hard to believe unless they're improperly powered, not EQ'd correctly, or not crossed over correctly.
Posted by Mark Pasquesi (Member # 7208) on 11-28-2012, 02:05 PM:
I agree - it seemed strange...
Have you heard of these other speakers,
the PSI 38-3 (3 voix) or the 6 KCS Sr10 ?
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-28-2012, 06:19 PM:
They may be many things, but the one thing they are (JBL) is indestructible. (assuming you didn't buy the bottom of the line.) Louis
Posted by Mark Pasquesi (Member # 7208) on 11-29-2012, 01:58 PM:
Louis,
I have no idea which models he used. But he found JBL overpriced,
and has offered us these models second hand.
1) is second hand a good idea - it's better for our budget..
2) Have you heard of these models:
PSI 38-3 (3 voix)
KCS Sr10 (for surround)
3) is it a good idea to mix and match brands?
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-29-2012, 07:32 PM:
I am unfamiliar with the European brands. 90% JBL here with some Electro Voice and older Altec.
I would think the 3 screen channels should match each other. likewise the surrounds. I favor great screen channels and subs and typically I am willing to bend a little on the surrounds, even with digital audio. The reality is on the screen. louis
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-29-2012, 07:40 PM:
I was involved with a venue that did a temporary setup for a film festival. They rented QSC stage speakers and used the existing Peavey (!) surround speakers that were already installed. The result was fine. I'm sure that it is not an ideal situation, but a surround channel recording is not exactly high-fidelity, especially on optical tracks. In this case, it would have been a huge waste of time and money to swap out all of the surround speakers for a week and then replace the originals after the event. And I am sure that Peavey speakers are pretty much the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality.
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-29-2012, 08:23 PM:
KCS is quite popular in europe. No mistake.
PSI I have never heard of for cinema, only for smaller studio monitors. They do have some reputation there.
3way is usually 'nice' compared to JBLs mass market 2-ways.
http://www.psiaudio.com ?
A lot of cinemas have different brands between screen channels and surrounds.
Come on, give us some numbers. Maybe the integrator just want's to get rid of an unknown PSI custom line.
Do you know http://www.filmvorfuehrer.de/ ? Someone there might know more about them.
- Carsten
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 11-29-2012, 09:22 PM:
The X-Curve is about due for retirement though.
At the time of its introduction, it was a really good compromise solution. However, we now live in a world of DSP audio, and applying transfer functions to audio analysis in real time is a well understood technique. Thus having a flat source out of the media server could then be shaped by the subsequent processor to match the actual room.
Posted by Mark Pasquesi (Member # 7208) on 11-30-2012, 04:00 AM:
Carsten, Scott, Louis -
Thanks for the advice on the surrounds. Maybe we should just test all our surrounds to make sure they are functioning, and keep them.
However, we ar sure the front left speaker has a frequency weakness... several comments...
The 6 KCS SR10's for surround would cost us about 2,500 chf plus install.
The PSI 38-3 seems unfindable on the PSI website, as Carsten pointed out - weird...They would cost us about 2,100 chf
and the no name sub-woofer, only 600...
His pricing is often quite..Swiss. He has helped us out in the past, but..the prices climb at times in an Alpine way..
example:
He wanted to sell the dezoned Oppo 93 for 1,300 chf. I picked it up in France, with tax, import tax, and delivery, and a 3 year guarantee, for only 900 chf (I know, 750/850 for in the US, but the shippingand border tax gets us...)
For a USL JSD 80, plus DA 20, plus unnamed amps,
with other extras (rack, messaging for diabled),
he wants 16,000...
I think to myself, why not stick with our dolby cp 55,
and set up a balanced analogue audio patch to handle the 35mm in 4.1, or DTS from the Oppo through the Dolby 750 analogue ins?
Or get the AP20 with the 35 mm card ?
Anyone have pricing on these?
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-30-2012, 01:15 PM:
David said "The X-Curve is about due for retirement though"
I see no reason for its retirement as it was a room curve based on the psycoacustic properties of large room volume and not really hardware
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-30-2012, 06:13 PM:
cp750 should be around 2000-2200. However, if you need a remote volume control, this CAT868 can cost you an additional 600-700.
The AP20/8ch with Filmcard should cost around 4300-4500. JSD80 below 4000
You can buy second hand DA20 for 300-500. Decent mainstream amps for a small screen like yours go for 300-400 each.
Add some Swiss bonus, but these 16.000CHF seem ridiculous to me.
I suggest a shopping trip to germany.
- Carsten
Posted by Mark Pasquesi (Member # 7208) on 12-01-2012, 08:15 AM:
carsten
you r so right. where can we find reasonable suppliers near Switzerland?
but we have this border thing ; )
we did ask for a new offer - so now he's proposing:
a CP 500, and 3 used amps (2 QSC LMX1450, 1 USA900) for 6000.
This seems a waste of money to me.
Seems we should test our speakers and amps to see where we have problems - we know we have some : (and replace the basics.
If we buy for the future -
dolby 750, Datasat AP20, or USL JSD-80 (replacing the cp55) or JSD-100 (60 is not out yet)...
Have you used the Datasat AP20 - it seems interesting, theeit Dirac approach..
Can we have mono, stereo, dts 5.1, and dolby 5.1 presets?
Can it take Doremi direct, or must we use the Doremi converter?
--------
We do need a short term solution - we are putting in digital in a weeks...
and a longer range for quality as we have more money...
-------
We already have the CP-55, and the SR card. (though not full 5.1)
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-01-2012, 08:28 AM:
I would buy the CP750 and feed the CP55/DA20 into it. Louis
Posted by Mark Pasquesi (Member # 7208) on 12-01-2012, 09:05 AM:
Louis,
Thanks. Do we need the DA20 as our projecteur is not digital?
We have the SR, and the SR card for the CP55 - could we just do analog out to the analog audio in of the 750?
Thanks,
Mark
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-01-2012, 01:53 PM:
The Da-20 is used onlyfor Dolby Digital. So, no, not for analog.
Posted by Mark Pasquesi (Member # 7208) on 12-02-2012, 03:17 AM:
Thanks Louis,
That's what I thought. So I finally got my team to read the forum comments, and we have all agreed NO CP-500. Thanks everyone!!!
However, our provider hates the CP 750 - and we have given the down payment already for the Christie 2210 and Doremi 2k4...
Has anyone else had difficulty setting the cp 750 up? Are there tricks we need to know? Crossovers? Frequency and balance issues? I think is sounds very good in the cinemas I've listened to - but it was set up by another provider : (
So if we take this, it will be up to us to make sure it's spot on
- and it does not handle DTS (but our oppo does, so we could do analog in)...
-------
Our cinema is from the 40's, in a 100 year residential building - we are in a long box, low ceiling, without a need for mega-volume - just well adjusted for the surround.
Is it worth it for us to set up 7.1
( 2 extra amps in addition to our fostex trather than 1 extra amp?)
------
Our provider is pushing the JSD-80, new, for 3,900 chf.
In other cinemas it seems to be a good, but not great solution..But is it just a question of setting it up better?
In a cinema where we have filmmakers testing their image/mixes, the JSD-100 seems to have a lack of transparency in the 2k-10k range, despite our having speakers with horns... I confirmed this with a test in the mixers studio who brought this to our attention. But it seems we should be able to 'fix this' with the USL....Another strange thing though - the noise (crackling, etc) seemed filtered out...Perhaps this is a question of an overly enthusastic Dolby NR filter?
Anyone test the Christie SKA-3d for 6400 chf- Has anyone used this yet? It scales, it processes, it does 3-d - and it makes coffee...it seems like a great solution for alternative format in (the infrequent beta, or dv) and Bray without losing quality..but not essential for us now....
Has anyone used the other Christie image/sound scalers for sound?
Finally, He also likes DAtasat AP20.... but I have never heard it - and it is the most expensive...
-----------
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 12-02-2012, 11:28 AM:
If he offers you a JSD80 new for 3900 CHF, get it, nail him on it!
In a longish auditorium, 7.1 is usually better than an SDDS layout. It only costs you another amp or a 4ch amp and some rewiring.
CP750, AP20, JSD80 can take digital audio from the Doremi directly, no need for a separate D/A. They all offer presets for different layouts and input combinations.
The AP20 has nicer options for BluRay/alternative Content, as it offers an HDMI switcher with full HDMI audio decoding (incl. all DTS formats). Of course, with the Oppo you can use the analog outs/ins without any noticable degradation as well.
- Carsten
Posted by Mark Pasquesi (Member # 7208) on 12-02-2012, 01:22 PM:
Carsten,
Thanks. I agree with the 7.1. I'm going to try to negotiate a better prce for the 2 QSC's, and keep our two fostex for surround and back surround.
Would 6 KCS Sr10 be enough for the surround in 7.1?
2 for sL, 2 for sR, 1bL, 1bR.
Our cinema has 12 rows, and is 14 meters long.
I've seen other cinemas our size go with 8.
I hope this isn't indiscrete, but what is a fair price for the 2 used LMX1450 QSC amps ? For the 6 KCS?
Posted by Bajsic Bojan (Member # 4928) on 12-02-2012, 02:30 PM:
@Mark
Speakers and amps. you are asking about two products that don't seem to exist. one is the LMX series of QSC amps. Might be something from the 70s? there are RMX 1450s, there are CMX series amps, there are MX series amps, none of which have the number 1450. The PSI 38 is another thing that noone can know anything about, as we don't even know the manufacturer. Maybe it is PSI Audio, maybe they actually made non-monitor speakers, back in the day. Either way even if the LMX series and PSI Audio speakers exist,they are probably antique.
Each piece of gear CAN be made to sound proper. Be it either the Christie, the USL, the 750, AP20, 650,... Sure they are different but you need to see what you will be using them for. They will sound good if your room is setup properly, if the amps and processors are setup properly, and if the equipment is suitable for the room. That can mean hiring a competent sound engineer to do precise calibrations, tell you if there are acoustic treatments you should do, provide you with detailed schematics for the equipment you should(!) buy in order to get the desired result. Only after that should you go hunting.
As for the kcs question, sure you can use just 6. They wont run out of steam in a 14x7m space. Might not be enough to hit the front rows @85dB with the back surrounds, but that is probably not wanted. Much rather have 8 tho. Especially since you want to be a reference cinema.
Used RMX1450 in good condition go for about 150$. But they are more common in usa than here i would guess. Used KCS maybe 100 Eur each (some are usually on sale on the german forums).
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 12-03-2012, 06:54 PM:
For 7.1, 6 surrounds is a bit on the edge, but might just be okay in a small auditorium.
Take KCS for surrounds only, not fronts or subs.
What do you use NOW?
- Carsten
Posted by Mark Pasquesi (Member # 7208) on 12-06-2012, 02:52 PM:
Carsten -
L/R - PSI Module 3012 IV 300 Watt, 8 ohm
C - Sentry AVB Horn loaded system 8 ohm (electro voice inc buchanan michigan)
We did some stereo and surround tests in our cinema,
and another,
with a very good local mixer...
Good return on our L/R and amps,
turns out the guilty party was a blown track on the mixer...
Posted by Mark Pasquesi (Member # 7208) on 12-10-2012, 08:34 PM:
Update -
We are getting a new USL JSD-80..with used QSC amps...
(we really had to fight off the CP-500 - thanks for all your input!!!)
Installation this thursday and Friday eevening...
with the Christie 2210, 2k4 Doremi server...
Excited to have 5,1 with a measurements for Friday evening...
and proper masks for scope, 16/9, and 4/3...
we'll be havin both measured during the install...
any recommendations for the SMPTE curve??
-------
In another cinema I work at we found that
1) the SMPTE distributes the sound quite well...
No mixers find any faults..
2) there is a dip between 1.5-10/12,000 ...
and mixers do notice it a bit..the public does not...
---------
Thanks again everyone!!!
-----
The speaker replacements will be next year's work...
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-17-2012, 11:16 AM:
Scott, How could you post this reply?
quote: Scott Norwood
I am sure that Peavey speakers are pretty much the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality.
Do you have experience other than a venue with Peavey surrounds that were already installed and the result was "fine"?
When I went to work for Megasystems, they had just done speaker tests in their screening room from various manufacturers. The best combo they came up with for the stage and two surround speakers was a peavey cabinet with 2 15" drivers topped off with a JBL 5742 mid high. They ended up being over 8 feet tall. The subs were Peavey CAS 5155. I believe all were THX approved.
The only Peavey driver I had to replace was during construction when someone damaged one before install.
My only "complaint" is that the cabinets are too damn heavey. They should use that cheap ass partical board that everyone else uses instead of that good plywood.
Rick
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-17-2012, 02:34 PM:
"My only "complaint" is that the cabinets are too damn heavey. They should use that cheap ass partical board that everyone else uses instead of that good plywood."
FYI, cheap ass particle board actually weighs more than similar thickness plywood. Maybe partical board is a whole other material?
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-17-2012, 03:16 PM:
Wise guy!
Particle board has a distinct "sound." I suppose we are all accoustomed to it by now. JBL once had a super subwoofer which worked well in Europe not so well in US. US was pb, Europe was hard wood. The box would flex visably here. Louis
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-17-2012, 07:25 PM:
That is me for sure, wise guy. Sometimes I just can't resist.
I don't disagree that each material has a distinct sound, but the idea is for the box to be as inert as possible. Here again, cheap ass particle board is more dense and should be more inert than plywood of the same size.
Plywood is better wood for sure and certainly more rugged, but this is only a real issue on speakers that get handled a lot as in concert sound.
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-20-2012, 11:48 AM:
Sam, I think the Peavey cabinets were 3/4" thick. They did the testing before I arrived at Megasystems, but they came up with the Peavey/JBL combo out of various manufacturers they tested.
I like Peavey products because I am familiar with them and have visited their factories on a few occasions. From the cp-600, Media Matrix, X-Frame, and Digitool (some delay device that we had to come up with because someone had the brilliant idea of creating an optical 35mm penthouse reader ). I stopped by Peavey once and noticed a framed poster behind the receptionist. I said "Oh, the Bibliotheca Library in Egypt". Told her I installed all the equipment in the planetarium, and then demanded to speak with Hartley about his heavy ass speakers he was making.
Rick
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-20-2012, 01:21 PM:
Richard,
I did not attack your choice of speakers, I was just pointing out a fact anyone who has ever done remodeling knows well. Particle board weighs more than plywood.
I think JBL boxes used an even thicker MDF or particle board, maybe 1 inch.
EV made boxes out of smaller thickness MDF and were thus, much easier to damage in transit.
Thanks for the reminder about the analog penthouse reader. It was one of maybe 3 total. Quite easy to do because of the mechanical design of the DSTR-20.
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-20-2012, 07:13 PM:
Sam, I know, I was just defending Peavey, a brand that I trust and recommend same as JBL.
As far as the readers, I believe one is still used at Chabot in Oakland, one in Hastings, and one that never got installed in China. Somehow I got the job of integrating them into our projectors. I had to put a SRD penthouse with an analog penthouse and then a DTS reader and figure out all the delays and bypass rollers, then buy a 6 foot ladder for the projectionist to thread. The 35mm design for the 8/70 was a bad idea and I was against it from the begining, but somehow I was given the job of making it work.
Rick
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-21-2012, 08:05 AM:
To answer Richard's question above: no, I am not familiar with Peavey's cinema products (other than the aformentioned surround speakers, which were fine). I have heard some of their other products (many of which are marketed toward "garage bands" and the like for PA applications) and they are, um, mostly not so great. If the cinema products are well made and sound good, that is good to hear.
As far as I know, there are no cinemas in my area that have really unusual equipment. Most every theatre has some variation of Altec, JBL, EV, or QSC, with a few Kliipsch installations and at least a couple of EAW houses.
I have heard the Meyer system in a screening room; I was impressed with what I heard, but didn't spend enough time in the venue to make any definitive conclusions about the quality.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-21-2012, 08:28 AM:
Subs and bass bins are no big deal: a box with a woofer, the majority sub-contracted from Eminence, right here in Kentucky.
The real trick is crossovers and horn design. Each is different and distinctive.
The L.F. is so easy, we looked into making our own. Just carpentry plus a cardboard box. Shipping it well is the hard part. Louis
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-21-2012, 08:49 AM:
garage bands
Louis, we programmed the crossover in the processor during installation.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-21-2012, 09:38 AM:
I have been mostly un-impressed with the "Cinemacoustics" line of Peavey stuff. I didn't like their processor and have yet to hear one of their speakers that I liked. Peavey is what it is...low-cost stuff that may be a needed step for someone starting out but it has yet to show (to me, at least) that it is high-end.
I've had mixed results with the media matrix stuff. At the AFI/Silver it is used quite a bit and has performed REAL well...in other sites, it has been the source of much frustration. I think the key to the AFI system is that it isn't played with. It was set up and controlled by Crestron so it is really working behind the scenes. I think in the 10-years it has been in use (multiple systems too), we have had one BOB failure.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-21-2012, 10:25 AM:
Regarding garage bands; One can always tell where the band is on the food chain. They seem to start out on Peavey and progress from there. Pawn shops seem to have a good supply as bands come and go. I'm not being overly critical, just pointing out something I see all the time.
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-21-2012, 11:59 AM:
quote: Steve Guttag
the key to the AFI system is that it isn't played with
Exactly. I would password protect everything and give the operator limited access unless the owner/boss wanted the password. I told them that any changes that were made and resulted in a service call resulted in them paying for a service call.
When I was at the museum of natural history, they were having problems with their media matrix, it was a new install and another company did it. I told them I wouldn't touch someone elses work and they should call them to fix it.
Sam, are you saying you hang out at pawn shops?
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-21-2012, 01:05 PM:
Actually, these days, I'm kind of a pawnbroker to the industry. I buy used lenses and Dolby gear and then sell back the parts to some of the very same people who gave or sold them to me, so yeah, kind of.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 12-21-2012, 01:18 PM:
To: TruTV, Discovery Channel, TLC:
RE: New Show Idear
Gentlemen:
With the cinema industry's mass conversion to Digital Cinema, a whole new and interesting retail supply chain has opened up. The buying and selling of used and (now) outdated cinema projection and sound equipment. Most such transactions do not follow the usual retail sales model. It is much more like a pawn business.
To this end, I would like to present to you the newest reality program:
Cinema Pawn Stars!!!
Starring the esteemed Mr. Sam Chavez, a true gentleman and character in our industry.
The show will follow Mr. Chavez' adventures in the buying, selling and trading of used cinema gear. Some items are extremely rare and never before seen by the public.
A true hit in the making. Jump on this deal now before I sell it to one of the majors.
Sincerely,
Tony Bandiera Jr.
Executive Producer of "Projection At A Glance."
(If any of the aforementioned networks uses this idea I expect my royalty checks to be sent to me immediately.)
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-21-2012, 03:50 PM:
In this industry EVERYONE is (and was) a character! Real personalities. part of the charm! Louis
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-21-2012, 07:15 PM:
Roscoe Purdue comes to mind, but only if you're of a certain age, as in older than Louis and me.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 12-21-2012, 10:43 PM:
Add the late Conrad Button to the list..another great guy and character we lost too soon. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-22-2012, 07:26 AM:
I remember having to carry Roscoes tools around when he came to service our theatres. It was in the mid 80's and I was just starting. He had me doing half the work and teaching me along the way. Really a nice guy, and yes, Quite a character.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2