quote:

---

Steve Guttag

What I REALLY like about Dolby Atmos is that, regardless of theatre shape/size, it scales such that what was recorded is what is played back. There is a lot of capability there.

Marcel Birgelen
Well, that's what I've been saying for years. Unfortunately, the Dolby Atmos format isn't a pure object based audio format, it still invites people to take shortcuts and mix stuff into "beds", which are essentially just the "fixed channels".

A pure, object based mix could potentially be rendered optimally on all systems, no matter what the size or shape is, whereas a channel based mix will "forever" be coupled to the channel layout.

The capabilities of Atmos go beyond just movies, it could also be used to recreate a very accurate rendering of an orchestra, for example. There are multiple other examples to be made, but they're all a bit too much out of scope of this already off-topic discussion.

Bobby Henderson

I would like to see more companies who build amplifiers for movie theater sound systems offer more multi-channel models for use with Atmos and DTS-X. I could be wrong, but I think Dolby is the only company offering amplifiers with 16 and 32 channel configurations. QSC is usually the go-to company for movie theater amps. Their DPA series amps for Q-Sys maxes out at 8 channels per unit. And then there's the factor of bi-amping and tri-amping. I don't know how often that is used in commercial theater sound systems, but it's pretty common with PA systems for live concerts. Anyway, to me that sounds like even more racks filled with amplifiers!

Marcel Birgelen

While I'm not immediately a fan, I expect active speakers to become more of a thing, especially when we keep increasing speaker density.

Speakers will then be placed on a bus, probably something like Ethernet. While it would require you to bring power to every speaker, it would eventually decrease complexity in wiring and increase flexibility in deployments.

Disadvantages are obviously the increased weight of those speakers, more active components that can fail and are often hard to reach and the heat getting dumped into the auditorium instead of the booth. While the last one might, in the greater picture, not be a direct disadvantage.

Bobby Henderson

IMHO, amps and speaker cabinets should always be kept as separate components. Each piece of equipment is a potential point of failure. Combining the two into one unit is just going to add to the factors of complication and expense.

Systems like QSC's Q-Sys offer flexibility via Ethernet connection without needing to build amplifiers directly into the speaker cabinets. Some of the cabinets, particularly those hung from the ceiling, need weight trimmed to only what's essential.

---

Bobby, I'd say 95% or greater of cinemas bi-amp their stage speakers (or better) and I have begun to quad-amp our 4-way installations (more on that later). In fact very few, and only on the lower-end offer passive crossover systems anymore. Just about all cinema processors offer crossovers now, most booth monitors and many amplifiers have crossover options, not to mention that via various DSP platforms, crossovers are available.

So with respect to amplification and where it should go and how many channels...etc. BGW offers a 16-channel amplifier. It takes two power cords so it is closer to two 8-channel amplifiers in a single big, heavy case. Unlike the others, BGW has stuck with A/B design rather than Class D.

Both Dolby's DMA (and there are three different channel counts and two different power levels available so it isn't just the one amplifier) and QSC's line of DPA/DPA-Q amplifiers are Class-D amplifiers (you got to do something to get that sort of channel count in a small package and have high power ratings!).

I never want to design a system where I have all of my stage speakers driven from a single amplifier...particularly one that has to "boot up." When I design even Q-SYS systems, Left/Right will be on one amplifier and Center/Subwoofer will be on another (presuming enough power for the subwoofer) and if 5-screen channels, another amplifier for them so if there is a failure, there is symmetry to the fail and a form of bypass can keep it going.

How one designs for a system like Q-SYS and DPA amplifiers is a bit different than for conventional linear amps due to how you can utilize the power in a Class-D and in particular, QSC's flex power. In a conventional stage speaker system, it is no secret that the LF section consumes more power than the HF section (particularly as one moves away from a 2-way system crossed over at 500Hz) and how the DPA amplifiers allocate the power is like having a pool where the LF can take more of it since the HF isn't using so much. So that will affect amplifier sizing choices. In a conventional 2-channel amp, if biamped, you size the amp to cover the LF power needs with the HF normally coasting (power wise). Crown tried making amps that had different power ratings for the two channels though I don't think that concept lasted very long (it was years ago and I don't follow Crown much anymore). This flexible power concept also means that wiring a 4-way as a 4-way doesn't necessarily limit the LF section's power since the VHF driver is taken even less from the power pool.

So I don't mind breaking my amplifiers up into smaller chunks, when it comes to stage speakers. If I were designing an Atmos room using the Dolby DMA, you can bet there would be at least two of them to ensure that Center is not on the same amplifier as LC/RC (I'd rather LC/RC phantom a Center than L/R, given the choice) to ensure an amp failure wouldn't bring the system entirely down.

Certainly, with conventional 5.1/7.1 systems, a single DMA could handle the entire room with up to tri-amped speakers but you have a lot of single-point failures in that system with the amplifier at the end of that list (the cinema processor is also a single-point failure, as is the server and the projector, for that matter).

As to self-powered speakers...perhaps. With Class-D amplifiers and being able to mount them in the speaker with relatively little weight penalty, there is an appealing aspect to them. They could be designed specific to the speaker and it would always be the right size (and with the right EQ built in too). So installation is a power cord and either an analog cable or, more likely an Ethernet cable. We are already getting quite close to that with Q-SYS as we have moved some of the amplifiers behind the screen in a very minimalist rack (something to keep them off the floor and keep crap from being set upon them...vermen...etc.) so installation are short speaker cables and some CAT cables. Clearly not all cinema environments are conducive to such a strategy but it is one step closer to amps in the speaker.

For surrounds...I don't know...you still have to get power to them and if you have an Atmos system, it isn't going to be cheap to wire up 40 outlets and then run 40 sets of cables (CAT or analog) on top of that...versus just running the cables and a few circuits at the amplifier location.
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 11-21-2019, 08:12 AM:
 
Like usual I agree with pretty much everything Steve has said. When I have designed Q-Sys based systems depending on the specific needs, budget etc... I have separated HF and LF sections of loudspeakers such that a large LF is on a large bridged or parallel amp (I have a system where double 18" subs are used as LF elements on the screen channels with a custom crossover) and the HF and MF sections are on another amplifier so the amps look like this;
Amp A- Left MF, Left HF, Right MF, Left HF
Amp B- Center MF, Center HF, Spare, Spare
Amp C- Left LF, Left LF, Right LF, Right LF
Amp D- Center LF, Center LF
Amp E- Sub 1, Sub 1, Sub 2, Sub 2
etc...

Even on my 7.1 installations I use discreet surrounds with very few exceptions where there may be 1 set of two speaker on parallel but I try to avoid it as much as possible. I have also had a lot of success with adding "bass management" sub woofers to my 7.1 systems and find that there is actually a lot of full range information in today's surround mixes.

I think the biggest bang for the buck in Atmos is the bass management on the surrounds, the discreet surrounds, and the fact that everything should be appropriate for the room (speaker, and amp selection) the objects are cool and all but to me is more of a gimmick.

The Dolby DMA now has a version where they replace a set of channels with an analog input card FWIW. I have not used it yet I have used the QSC 8 Channel DPA-Q amplifiers and have had no issues with them.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-21-2019, 11:39 AM:
 
For 5.1 and 7.1 systems, I often parallel up (almost always, actually). It is rare that, in a conventional room I run discrete amplifier channels to each speaker. I've yet to see the benefit to discrete channels other than failure points but that too hasn't been a problem.

I can't claim to be as impressed with surround LF information as Sean but perhaps I haven't heard the mixes he has to pick off that they have something down there.
 

---

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 11-21-2019, 03:44 PM:
 
There is a unique system of sound recording called "Ambisonic".
There are special microphones to capture the sound and then computer programs to place the sound anywhere in the listening field.

The microphone
https://en.rode.com/ntsf1

The software
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frN_UsNtyGw

Note the plug in that allows the sound to be positioned anywhere.

Do you recognize the sound from "Black Hole" processing?
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-21-2019, 04:28 PM:
 
I guess bass management can be done with 5.1 and 7.1 and Q-Sys too.

Regarding the trend for active speaker systems... I've seen a general uptake of them and right now for stuff like live events, active speakers are more or less the defacto standard, especially since line arrays made their way in.

I expect the same to happen for cinema deployments too. Actually, I expect to see much more line arrays too in the near future. Meyer Sound has been deploying line arrays in cinema for a while and Dolby has started to incorporate some of SLSes former Line Array products into their Dolby Cinema rollouts.

The biggest problem I see isn't so much the extra weight, but more the cooling of those kind of speakers. Whereas in a live venue nobody really cares about a bunch of fans on the backside of those speakers, in a cinema environment, those kind of noise sources are pretty much bad news.

As for active surrounds and Dolby Atmos... The current Atmos specifications limit their usefulness, as in that every single speaker has to be able to produce a 105 dB peak SPL at the reference location. For large rooms, this means the speakers must also be rather large and have powerful amplifiers, you probably don't want to put this extra weight into your already pretty bulky surround cabinets.

But in their recent Dolby Atmos installs, they seem to do something different. They blanket the room with speakers, even more than Atmos supports output channels. So, I suspect they're creating speaker arrays of e.g. 4 speakers that share the same channel. Together, they'll probably able to produce the required sound pressure at reference.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-22-2019, 05:28 AM:
 
Cooling for cinema won't be an issue. You locate the amplifier in the speaker...the driver motion will move enough air. Remember too, the demands on a cinema speaker/amplifier are FAR FAR less than a concert. Also, moving to class D amplifiers will cut down on the size/heat.

As for line arrays...no...they have their place but very few cinemas would benefit from them and it is misguided to try and use them for most cinemas. The goal should NOT be uniform SPL for every seat but to create a point-source feel. Your visual perspective to the screen from a far corner seat is not the same as the one in dead center...neither should your sound perspective or you destroy directional cues, including depth.

Where line arrays can have benefit are in difficult rooms (large, particularly with balconies or multiple balconies where point-source speakers will struggle to adequately cover without lobing of the audio such that multiple HF components will comb in a negative way (it is very hard to surgically aim speakers such that they provide coverage yet not overlap.

Line arrays are a tool but for cinema they are often the wrong tool.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-22-2019, 06:47 AM:
 
Putting the amp inside the enclosure instead of slapping it onto the back might be not an entirely novel, but still an interesting idea, it would limit the application to vented/ported designs though. I think I'm going to do a little experiment this weekend.

Regarding line arrays, I agree that for smaller and most medium sized rooms, line arrays don't add much. I would also only consider them for the stage speakers and not so much for the surrounds (although Christie Vive* apparently uses line arrays in combination with ribbon drivers for just that*). But there are quite a few configurations where I can see the benefit. It's mostly larger rooms, obviously balconies, but also rooms with high-pitched stadium seating or very deep rooms or very wide rooms. Generally rooms with challenging geometry. I'd add another dimension to it though, I'd split the array in both dimensions: I've encountered unbalanced sound from the stage speakers in many bigger rooms for everybody not sitting center to the screen. Depending on your seating position, left or right is often way more dominant. This could be solved with horizontally stacked line arrays. Only the venerable baffle wall would probably suffer from such an approach, but I doubt that a baffle wall and line arrays will ever be compatible...

* I know, not everybody is a fan and I didn't like their demos either, but in their initial Dolby Cinema roll-outs they actually made it work somehow...
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-22-2019, 08:00 AM:
 
I think the notion of uniform level across the auditorium is not only a false one but absolutely incorrect for creating a proper cinema experience. Yes, if you sit near the right side, the right speaker will and should sound louder...just as in real life if you are nearer to the object making the noise. The only thing I'd compensate some for is the frequency response if due to the limitations of the speaker's coverage area. Mind you, those that are out of a speaker's coverage, in MOST cinemas are seats in the extreme front corners.

In that same vein (where the speaker is the limitation, not the seat position), yes, line-arrays can be an effective tool in very large rooms with multiple levels. But that's it. If you use them to even out the SPL in the seating area, you are no longer creating what was mixed nor representing the audio in a "realistic" manner...you are deliberately altering the audio in a misguided belief that each speaker should have the same SPL from each seat...a misguided belief that has fooled many a technician. If you are going to make the sound louder, you should provide glasses to go with it so the image looks bigger too.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-22-2019, 08:57 AM:
 
I am still awaiting an impressive object based mix to go see and hear. So far Gravity was about the only decent Atmos mix that has been released. It's also interesting that not one of my customers has any interest in directional sound even though many of them could easily swing it.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 11-22-2019, 09:04 AM:
 
I guess we will agree to disagree on the discreet amp channels for the surrounds. I have found the ability to use time alignment and level adjustement helps in odd rooms where the surrounds have to be placed in less than ideal positions.

there is a clip of John Wyck (sp?) where there is thumping techno music coming from the surrounds and some gunshots too. When i play it back with full range surround systems I get much more than a traditional surround system.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-22-2019, 10:04 AM:
 
Sure...as you get into longer and oddly shaped rooms, adding surround channels can have benefit but as for time-alignment on a speaker by speaker basis...um no. The surround channels (mono through 4-channel) are to be a uniform bank without distinct origin other than potentially side, rear or rear corner. Adding time alignment and/or level to each speaker doesn't help that cause and can potentially add combing effects that detract from it.

Most of my surround systems have 12+ speakers in them (it is room dependent, of course) going from 4-channels to 12 of amplification where there is no justified reason (room shape), brings nothing to the table other than increase cost.

To put it another way...if I were to wire up a typical rectangular room with 4-channels of amplification to handle the surrounds and you were to individually amplify each speaker, I defy you to be able to A/B test and tell which system was which.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-22-2019, 12:13 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I think the notion of uniform level across the auditorium is not only a false one but absolutely incorrect for creating a proper cinema experience. Yes, if you sit near the right side, the right speaker will and should sound louder...just as in real life if you are nearer to the object making the noise. The only thing I'd compensate some for is the frequency response if due to the limitations of the speaker's coverage area. Mind you, those that are out of a speaker's coverage, in MOST cinemas are seats in the extreme front corners.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

I am still awaiting an impressive object based mix to go see and hear. So far Gravity was about the only decent Atmos mix that has been released.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

What theatres have you found that do Atmos bad and why (did it sound harsh, was it economized...what are your reasons)?

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

BTW...I've had customer satisfaction with the "Amaze" trailer.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

There are many examples of sound events that can be justifiably placed in specific locations of the surround field or panned through various locations in the surround field. A properly configured Atmos system can render such effects in a more convincing manner than conventional mono, split or quad surround. Better yet, if the audio editing folks put the work into it, they can layer lots of objects into the surround field with varying levels of diffuse or point specific character to create detailed soundscapes that totally blow away the perceived ambiance of a 5.1 or 7.1 mix.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

One example is the Regal Broken Arrow Warren location, the only one out of the previous Warren chain to have any Atmos-equipped auditoriums. Their two Grand Infinity houses have Atmos. I was surprised at the low number of ceiling surround speakers used. Given the sheer height of the ceilings (these are auditoriums with premium priced balconies) the speakers used weren't nearly powerful enough to be heard adequately from the floor level seats. The Dolby Atmos "Unfold" trailer just didn't sound right.

---

Auditoriums like the Grand Infinity houses are almost impossible to get right, in regards to the ceiling speakers. You risk to over-expose the balcony, while underexposing the seats on the ground floor. Maybe a case for line arrays.

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The "Amaze" trailer is okay. It does a decent job of calling attention (slightly) to the technical side of Atmos. I've only seen it played at Harkins locations, and even they've gone back to using the "Unfold" trailer since it has a more "in your face" bombastic nature like a classic THX snipe. I've rarely seen any AMC/Dolby Cinema screens play Atmos-specific trailers. The Chapel Hills Mall theater in Colorado Springs played the "Unfold" trailer (along with AMC's home-brewed Dolby Cinema trailer). But then again, theaters in that town were pretty good about playing sound format trailers even when they were showing film.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

It's obviously a pretty personal thing, but I currently like the "Nature's Fury" trailer the most. It not only showcases the system, it also explains it a bit to the audience. It's essentially the current Dolby Cinema trailer, without the Dolby Vision part. It also combines some more subtle elements with a lot of bombastic / "in your face" elements.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

As for power of the speakers...I don't know how they could get it wrong given that Dolby puts absurd demands on the sizing of speakers and amps (crazy headroom requirements...and I mean not really based on good math sorts of things...impossible worst case scenarios).

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Still, I'm used to sound format trailers not containing any dialog at all, just music and sound effects. When dialog is introduced the sound format snipe is just turned into a literal commercial ad rather than something to just get the blood pumping right before the start of the show.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Dolby has the same problem. It would help, in my opinion, to have an Atmos-Premium or like name that does not allow any of the economizing and has a bit more enforcement of adhering to the design standards. It would set apart those cinemas that have the better system.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

The old Dolby City SRD trailer (the helicopter flying through the rendered city) did a good job at pointing out the distinctive left and right surrounds in a time where few people even did have surround sound at home. But I think you really need to grab the attention of the people about what's different between Atmos and the 5.1 or 7.1 surround they're familiar with.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I miss the late 1980's and early 1990's when visiting a THX-certified theater actually meant something. We have nothing like that today. The movie theater chains are only going to do what they deem good enough.

---

I was quite impressed with the ORIGINAL rollout of the Dolby Cinema concept, only to see it getting butchered in the mass-rollout. It was supposed to be the no-compromise cinema going experience. Yes, I did have my gripes with the unmasked screen, but the rest of it was pretty much spot-on. But now, it's like seeing In-n-Out go McDonald's.

Maybe someone should volunteer an auditorium list, with the technical specifications of that auditorium. A list that can be peer-reviewed. The crowd-sourced version of THX.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-29-2019, 01:19 PM:
 
I think movie theaters need to be built from the ground up with certain standards in mind. If a theater operator wants to match or surpass the original standards of THX they have to start with the building's construction (walls, wall treatment, HVAC system, etc). Lots of variables have to be considered before any actual projection and sound gear is installed. I'm under the impression big chains have a broadly "good enough" set of standards they're applying to all rooms, even the premium priced ones.

I don't agree about any sort of "crowd sourced" approach to building high standard movie theater screens. Such theaters need to be designed and equipped by qualified audio experts. They need to create a certain target standard to hit, lay out the building plans and equipment lists needed to hit the target and then leave it up to the theater chains whether they want to spend the extra money to create a theater like that. Currently I think theater chains couldn't care less about it.

THX declined in popularity for lots of reasons. But I'm sure a major factor for theaters yanking certifications was cost. Even without the significant yearly re-certification fee a lot of extra money had to go into building the THX-certified rooms. Most theater chains just didn't want to pay that.

Dolby Cinema is kind of victim of the same thing. I still don't understand the nature of the deal Dolby has with AMC. No other theater chains in the US are installing Dolby Cinema screens. The first few dozen of AMC's Dolby Cinema installed looked just like their previous "Prime" concept (black decor, red LED lights in Christie Vive speakers). The newest ones have ditched all the red lighting. Now there's just some blue border lighting on the side walls. But the same powered recliners are being used. I do like the wall-like partitions between the rows. They block the view of people in the rows ahead and their mobile phone screens. Unfortunately there is no stealth fighter-like wall treatment like the original Dolby Cinema houses in Europe had.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-29-2019, 01:57 PM:
 
Theatres are a business. As such, they are going to evaluate expenditures versus their perceived return on investment. This is true whether it is recliner chairs or THX approved/certified sound systems. If the exhibitor doesn't believe paying for the THX certification will increase their ticket sales (and consequently, their concession sales) to offset the added expense, they aren't going to spend it.

I think THX did themselves (and the industry) a disservice when they went for the money (or the short-term money as it really became) by approving cinemas that really didn't meet standards and keeping cinemas that didn't. The real turn of events was when theatre chains could self-certify. How can a technician, employed by Chain-X fail one of their theatres and expect to keep their job? Chain-X could quickly get one of their other techs to certify the theatre (which they would do since former employee would be fired as an example).

To set up a qualify enforcement system, you really need a 3rd party that has no vested interest in the theatre they are measuring/certifying. There really should be an exclusion clause for companies that could be financially swayed by the site to be certified/recertified. Of course, that sort of policy would de-incentivize service companies investing in the test gear/training since it would limit the amount of potential customers for the service. Then again, if losing one's certification to recertify a THXesq facilities was the penalty for fraudulently passing people, maybe it would have worked better.

I think the industry would be well served to have an independent certification agency and rating agency that would classify theatres so consumers (patrons) would know the quality level to be expected at particular theatres. Then the patron could reasonably evaluate the quality level versus the price and decide what is good-enough for them.
 

---

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 11-29-2019, 05:20 PM:
 
Is that certification body now known as Yelp?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-29-2019, 06:30 PM:
 
No. Yelp is whomever thinks they are were wronged or think they have power to slander a business. The people posting comments do not have any technical expertise to guide others they can only really decide if they were happy or not.
 

---

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 11-29-2019, 07:39 PM:
 
Probably true. But does technical expertise correspond with customer satisfaction?

I just saw some luminance masurements where only 10% of the screens met SMPTE luminance at the center of the screen, and 10% met luminance uniformity (not the same screens met both).

Harold
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-29-2019, 07:56 PM:
 
Customer opinions are based on gut feelings and assumptions. They're not based on any sort of measured variables. I think it's good if they have some kind of voice on the overall big picture scheme of what a sound system should be able to do (market feedback). But when it gets down to the particulars that's where the audio experts need to be involved.

An audio engineer, theater technician, etc has training, acquired expertise and equipment to accurately measure what is happening in an existing movie theater or make decisions on how a new theater should be built if for some reason a theater chain is even interested in doing that.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-29-2019, 08:38 PM:
 

quote: Harold Hallikainen

---

Is that certification body now known as Yelp?

---

Yelp itself is a commercial business and they pulled quite some shady tactics. Despite all kinds of other abuses on it, it's not really a good example of a crowd-sourced platform.

Wikipedia is a better one. Most articles on there are of decent quality. They actually have a core team that monitors articles for quality and abuse. It's not perfect, but Wikipedia is a very useful source of information.

The motivations for an independent certification entity, something like the new THX are apparently pretty low and it's clear that you really can't trust on the likes of Dolby to come up with something similar. THX had the major marketing force of Lucasfilm and Star Wars behind it, without it, it would probably not have seen the success it had in its heydays.

That's where my (admittedly haphazard) idea of a "crowd-sourced" alternative came from. The "light" version, so to speak, could simply be an index that lists the technical features of an auditorium. From there, maybe it can grow into something more. Maybe the theater owner could get a "verified" status if he/she proves that the theater is indeed equipped with certain features, etc.

It's just an idea, shooting on it or maybe even coming up with (better) ideas, is pretty welcome, that's what discussions are for.

Please notice: Crowd-sourced doesn't mean free-for-all. You can still moderate stuff. This forum is also an example of "crowd sourced" information and a lot of the information on here is of pretty high quality, especially if I didn't write it.

quote:

---

An audio engineer, theater technician, etc has training, acquired expertise and equipment to accurately measure what is happening in an existing movie theater or make decisions on how a new theater should be built if for some reason a theater chain is even interested in doing that.

---

quote:

---

Theatres are a business. As such, they are going to evaluate expenditures versus their perceived return on investment. This is true whether it is recliner chairs or THX approved/certified sound systems. If the exhibitor doesn't believe paying for the THX certification will increase their ticket sales (and consequently, their concession sales) to offset the added expense, they aren't going to spend it.

:

I think the industry would be well served to have an independent certification agency and rating agency that would classify theatres so consumers (patrons) would know the quality level to be expected at particular theatres. Then the patron could reasonably evaluate the quality level versus the price and decide what is good-enough for them.

---