Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sound Design Consultants

This is topic Sound Design Consultants in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=002798

Posted by Nicholas Suchyta (Member # 2050) on 12-23-2003, 02:43 AM:

Does anyone know of any good sound consultants in Michigan? We've got a single screen historic and I'd really like to have someone consult us that has experience with theatre sound, compared to just stadium or church systems. If anyone knows of someone it would be a huge help.

Thanks

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-23-2003, 03:05 AM:

You can also read up yourself a little. There is some good literature on http://www.jblpro.com/pages/tech_lib.htm
Make sure to scroll down, there is also a cinema section.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-23-2003, 06:39 AM:

When you're researching companies & getting their sales push, a number will be touting how many historic theatres (or churches, or regular theatres) they've done.

The question is always "how many have they done well.

There have been a lot of auditoriums messed up for extremely high cost, usually making fixing the problems economically impossible.

It's also hard to check on companies just by calling the theatres where they've done work to ask about the result. VERY often management will refuse to say there's ANYTHING wrong with the theater, or admit they've boned up spectacularly. You have to sort of go to 2nd-level critiques.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-23-2003, 12:58 PM:

I agree with William, especially if you're going to do something really big. Its actually best to go hear a couple of the touted locations first and talk to those people. You don't want to be left wondering if you do or do not have digital sound like Manny's customer.

Also, do not forget the acoustics aspect of what you are doing. Good acoustics is far more important then the actual sound system. If you have poor acoustics a great sound system will still sound poor!
Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-23-2003, 03:15 PM:

One clue as to how well the job was done is to see if the contractor is still doing business with the theatre. People tend to dump the bad ones (but not always).

Now if you were to move your theatre to the Mid-Atlantic region...I'd be happy to help you out! [Wink]

Steve

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-23-2003, 05:10 PM:

Steve --

You're in the middle of the Atlantic!?

You should come help me out. [Wink]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-23-2003, 06:00 PM:

Yea, [steve]

's a really good swimmer....He's been at it for years too. He pulls his test equipment around on a big raft...does service on the liners theatres as they pass by [Wink]

.
Mark

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-23-2003, 08:20 PM:

Manny I doubt you really need any help

Posted by Nicholas Suchyta (Member # 2050) on 12-23-2003, 11:57 PM:

Our "Architect" wants us to use a sound counsulting firm that has done several churches and along with some large items such as the Palace of Auburn Hills. We have a very talented sound professional that handles all of our live events, plus he works with me with our existing movie sound. I give as much information that i can, but the board still wants to hear from a. Thanks for your info everyone. I wont let us end up like Manny's customer.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-24-2003, 01:30 AM:

quote:
Our "Architect" wants us to use a sound counsulting firm that has done several churches

I don't know this guy, but by the great majority, the companies that have mostly done churches tend to make a mess of historic theatres. If you look at the churches with lots of sound reinforcement, they've usually blown off esthetics when installing the tech-y sound stuff in the sanctuary/auditorium/whatever to the point that it becomes like a gym with PA stuff & religious stuff in it. Speaker clusters hanging wherever the lack of imagination/consideration/work/taste of the sound guys will hang them, wires & cables all over, masses & slabs of black equipment in ornate rooms, etc. The intended effect that the room was supposed to have on the people in it is lost, as it becomes junky. People try not to look at the things which ruin it, try not to look at anything.

In theatres, they'll do the same thing. A huge black, naked speaker cluster permanently hung in the space above the prosc where the valance curtain is supposed to go, making an ugly space there that wrecks the focal point of the room. Little speakers on stalks sprouting from an ornate or streamlined ceiling, making people look away from there. Blank columns set up in front of a partially-visible ornate proscenium. The overall effect is no longer attractive, but junky, like a garage or somebody's bedroom with wires & video & computer crap everywhere.

Some companies are aware of the fact that the decoration of the interior of the theater is in fact functional. Speaker clusters over the prosc that are decorated to look decorative features, or on chain motors so that they can be put up for rock'n'roll shows & taken down for the symphony. Lights & speakers on the box booms concealed by 'downstage' panels integrated into the house decoration, speakers in walls or soffits behind panels or otherwise integrated into the decoration.

Church installs usually follow a path along the lines of referral from another church or advertising, bid costs, then decisions by non-technical committees that aren't aware of how the gears of the room go together or just can't tell or care & say "this looks OK to me".

Folks in theaters have to remember they're in show business, & they are trying to attract people, & make them desire to come back. Marcus Loew said "I sell tickets to theaters, not movies". That was absolutely business. His theaters' decoration schemes were more ornate, but even as they became more streamlined, the point remained. The decoration is functional, & if it stops being attractive or becomes distressing or visually repellent, it stops working.

It's hard to tell some folks who work in the theaters who just see them as big holes with seats about how the decoration is functional. The analogy is flowers in plant life: their function is simply to be attractive. It's one of the essential, undispensable functions; that's how they survive & propagate. The function of attractiveness in flowers & theaters is seduction.

The short message is to just tell them they're selling sex. If it even starts looking skanky, you lose customers.

If the contractor for audio, plumbing, whatever proposes something which will wreck the operation of some other system, the decoration system included, then says, "nobody notices that", or "that don't matter", or "there's no other way to do it", you find someone else. A theatre is a machine. You see how the machine works. They may be unaware or (usually) unconcerned.

Posted by Nicholas Suchyta (Member # 2050) on 12-24-2003, 02:50 AM:

Here is a picture of how the interior looked in 1930.

This is the look we are going back to. The 4 openings in the proscenium are abandoned HVAC ducts, and this is where part of the sound system is supposedly planned to go. They want to install 2 systems, one for the movie aspect and one for the live aspect. We have agreed that there will be NO visible speakers; at least at the front of the house, for surround, we will have to make exceptions.

I agree that sound quality is of utmost importance. Making sure that the system doesn’t make a visual mess of the theatre, but also has excellent sound quality. Our board is not technical savvy, so it’s hard to make them understand that just because someone has done several businesses, it does not mean that they are the best option.

William, I will bring up your idea of selling sex before our next meeting, I know that our board will understand that.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-24-2003, 04:56 AM:

Wooo, that's seductive.

quote:
The 4 openings in the proscenium are abandoned HVAC ducts, and this is where part of the sound system is supposedly planned to go.

Excellent. You are very lucky to have those in that position. Focused arrays for the orchestra & balcony.

quote:
They want to install 2 systems, one for the movie aspect and one for the live aspect

Generally the live system is mono; an array with the main component above the prosc focused to make the sound seem to come from the stage. I've heard some well-focused systems that sounded pretty good for mono film. The film system (& you say there'll be surrounds, so you're looking at more than a mono cinema sound system) will require 3 speakers behind the screen: Left, center, & right. That spec & installation will really need to be done with a cinema tech.

The bugbear with screen speakers in a PAC is what to do with the things when *not* running a movie. Randy Stankey is in a similar venue with a pretty usual solution: the speakers are on wheels (trucks, dollies, speaker wagons) to get them on & off. But getting them *really* off is usually the big problem. Unless there's good, easy storage space right offstage, it's neccessary to do thought on system design. The important thing is to realize what a heavy premium is on space on the stage, that stagehands can be reckless gorillas, damage can easily come to things that folks are batting around & trying to get around, etc. The most important thing in operational design to always keep in mind is people are lazy. Work from that for the best results. The stage folks may not give a whit about the movie stuff, & in some cases may be hostile to it. And when they're working, they're tired, in a hurry, & under the gun.

Getting the stuff off has always been a problem. The best solution was the Movietone Lift in the Fox houses. Speakers were on a lift onstage, press a button, they go down & the tops of the cabinets become part of the stage floor. That's too much engineering to do for most PAC's, so just having a route & place to take them between shows is usually the big step. If you've got a trap with a lift onstage, you're in gold. Next best is if you've got storage right outside the loading door. Next after that is if you've got a pit lift you can roll them out on & store them under the stage. Whatever, those cabinets need to be made protected & collision-ready.

quote:
We have agreed that there will be NO visible speakers; at least at the front of the house, for surround, we will have to make exceptions

WHAT? WHAT? TURN IN YOUR PLIERS & DUCT TAPE! YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THE SCREWDRIVER BOYS! You can always jack this mother up, whatever it is! Two showbiz mottoes which are for all time are: "Great ideas are not born; they are stolen!" and "If you can't make it work, turn it into a bit."

That Egyptian type-scheme is working on your side, since its components are monolithic, umm, chunky. Instead of just hanging the surrounds on the walls, you should integrate them into the decoration. Some Egyptian-type schemes had all the ornament down front, leaving the side walls slab-like. My suggestion would be to get with the set builders/designers at some local community theatre group, & come up with some enclosures to hang on the walls to masquerade as decoration & conceal the speakers behind acoustically transparent cloth (cheap) or decorative grillework (that's what the front of your pipe chambers are doing). Make them scarabs, scrolls, protrusions of masonry with censers & hieroglyphics, or little arks of the covenant, or whatever. Those guys work with available material, come up with successful, integrated results for given existing designs, understand that your auditorium works like a set, & will be the easiest, cheapest, & most fun part of the install.

Usually PAC's taking over a movie theater want more house lighting; I'd say stick some concealed lights on the top, around the edges, the bottom, whatever works for what you come up with, & make them combo sconces. Anything is better than that footlockers hanging on the walls look of surround speakers in a decorative auditorium. Research some sconces & ornament in Egyptian theaters, steal, & adapt. Or just leave it to the set construction guys; they're bound to come up with something functional & cool.

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 12-24-2003, 11:35 AM:

Our tech is Audio Imaging Specialists, I think they are out of Sterling Heights. The tech's name is Ken Angst. I dont personally know him since our business partner is the one there during tech visits but they have, in my opinion, done a very good job with our historic theatre in Houghton Lake built in 1941. His company has serviced us and done upgrades for at least 10-15 years.

The surrounds could have been hidden better, but as a first run I think we want people to see that we have the speakers to do the job.

www.pinestheater.com

[ 12-24-2003, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Adam Fraser ]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-24-2003, 03:36 PM:

"Our "Architect" wants us to use a sound counsulting firm that has done several churches and along with some large items such as the Palace of Auburn Hills."
_________________________________________________________________

First off I hope your architect is ONLY a restoration architect. There are regular architects and those that only deal with PROPER restoration and the extremely specialized techniques involved. I've never met and acrhitect that can deal with both. Restoration in itself is a whole other field and is way to specialized in and of itself. Your beautiful theatre deserves the same treatment the Egyptian got. You also still need to use someone that generally does cinema acoustics weather its a new or old location. An acoustician that has done more cinema type work will know cinema equipment, its requirements and such. He would also work better with a restoration type architect and together they would come up with some sort of treatent that would "fit in" to the type of theatre it is. I worked on the Boise Egyptian with a restoration architect and the experience was absolutley amazing. The results wrere beyond belief to say the least!! I've attached a couple of photos taken during the rehab there.

You ought to see the outside of this place..... Its amazing!

Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-24-2003, 04:08 PM:

Sound designs done in two historic theatres in this area now doing live performance ( Carpenter Center, formerly Loew's and the Mosque) both sound as bad as they look and look as bad as they sound. The engineers obviously blind and deaf.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-24-2003, 05:27 PM:

Don`t those shiny Egyptian columns refelct a lot of light?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-24-2003, 05:28 PM:

The engineers obviously blind and deaf.

...but he sure plays a mean pin-ball!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-24-2003, 05:36 PM:

"Don`t those shiny Egyptian columns refelct a lot of light?"
_________________________________________________________________
Michael,
They only reflect when the movie is very dull.
Mark

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-25-2003, 02:01 AM:

quote:
First off I hope your architect is ONLY a restoration architect.

Just to terrify you further, there's no guarantee that they're good just because they're exclusively restoration architects or have worked on well-known theaters. A theater Ed Jurich & I know was sold, the new folks were all starry-eyed & excited & called in a well-known theater restoration firm to consult about what "needed to be done". They showed me the company's report, & it was astounding in its huge list of things that "must be done". The first thing in my memory is that they said the WHOLE approx. 1,000 seat balcony must be REMOVED AND REPLACED with a new one, since the original was built in 1927 & did not meet ADA guidelines. Then they specified that all non-stage space be remodeled to make meeting rooms, offices, etc. - including ALL OFFSTAGE STORAGE spaces. One short statement was "Remove movie projection equipment." - with no reason why, nothing to put in that place, & oblivious to the fact that the theater was generating thousands of dollars annually from a summer film series & odd films. The report was so mind-boggling that I can't remember the name of the firm, but remember that they sent out lots of glossy brochures to LHAT members & theaters. They plainly didn't even know how a theater worked! Where do the stage folks store lights, cables, soft goods, tools, set pieces that aren't on yet, etc.? One theatre victimized by this had to keep all its soft goods, rope, sound equipment, lights, etc. in a big rented truck parked outside the loading door, hauling it back & forth through rain & cold, until additional funds were found to create storage space for the stage guys again. At this same meeting, a local architect had "attached" itself to the group to consult for a 'minimal expense', & recommended INSANE things like increasing concession area by demolishing the back wall of the auditorium to create a bar/lounge. Noise & traffic aside (there haven't been 'lounges' & 'bars' attached to auditoriums since the opera house days), the guy plainly didn't know the back wall was 18" of poured concrete (to isolate noise from the auditorium, of course)! I wish I'd gotten a photocopy of these 'reports', but my head was swimming. These things attract folks smelling money from the uneducated like flies drawn to a maple syrup spill.

Which reminds me, you'll get a lot of statements relating to ADA: "ADA requires this, that, etc.", & much of it will be spurious, to put it nicely. You need to get a copy of them, familiarize yourself with them.

The DOJ has the guidelines online in html & pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/reg3a.html
A 2002 version is at
http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm

And it would probably be a good idea to get a book from Amazon about Americans With Disabilities Act Construction.

It's important to note that the ADA applies to NEW CONSTRUCTION, not REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE. Put in new carpet, fix seats & aisle lights, etc. & it is not neccessary to widen the aisles, change the slope, put in new seats, etc. ALTERATIONS come under the heading of new construction, but they only affect the FEATURE altered.

quote:
Alteration.
An alteration is a change to a building or facility that affects or could affect the usability of the building or facility or part thereof. Alterations include, but are not limited to, remodeling, renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, historic restoration, resurfacing of circulation paths or vehicular ways, changes or rearrangement of the structural parts or elements, and changes or rearrangement in the plan configuration of walls and full-height partitions. Normal maintenance, reroofing, painting or wallpapering, or changes to mechanical and electrical systems are not alterations unless they affect the usability of the building or facility.

quote:
(1) General. Alterations to existing buildings and facilities shall comply with the following:

(a) No alteration shall be undertaken which decreases or has the effect of decreasing accessibility or usability of a building or facility below the requirements for new construction at the time of alteration.

(b) If existing elements, spaces, or common areas are altered, then each such altered element, space, feature, or area shall comply with the applicable provisions of 4.1.1 to 4.1.3 Minimum Requirements (for New Construction). If the applicable provision for new construction requires that an element, space, or common area be on an accessible route, the altered element, space, or common area is not required to be on an accessible route except as provided in 4.1.6(2) (Alterations to an Area Containing a Primary Function.)

(c) If alterations of single elements, when considered together, amount to an alteration of a room or space in a building or facility, the entire space shall be made accessible.

(d) No alteration of an existing element, space, or area of a building or facility shall impose a requirement for greater accessibility than that which would be required for new construction. For example, if the elevators and stairs in a building are being altered and the elevators are, in turn, being made accessible, then no accessibility modifications are required to the stairs connecting levels connected by the elevator. If stair modifications to correct unsafe conditions are required by other codes, the modifications shall be done in compliance with these guidelines unless technically infeasible.

[...]

(h)* Entrances: If a planned alteration entails alterations to an entrance, and the building has an accessible entrance, the entrance being altered is not required to comply with 4.1.3(8), except to the extent required by 4.1.6(2). If a particular entrance is not made accessible, appropriate accessible signage indicating the location of the nearest accessible entrance(s) shall be installed at or near the inaccessible entrance, such that a person with disabilities will not be required to retrace the approach route from the inaccessible entrance. Appendix Note

(i) If the alteration work is limited solely to the electrical, mechanical, or plumbing system, or to hazardous material abatement, or automatic sprinkler retrofitting, and does not involve the alteration of any elements or spaces required to be accessible under these guidelines, then 4.1.6(2) does not apply.

(j) EXCEPTION: In alteration work, if compliance with 4.1.6 is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide accessibility to the maximum extent feasible. Any elements or features of the building or facility that are being altered and can be made accessible shall be made accessible within the scope of the alteration.

Technically Infeasible. Means, with respect to an alteration of a building or a facility, that it has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering a load-bearing member which is an essential part of the structural frame; or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features which are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new construction and which are necessary to provide accessibility.

If the alteration is a new door, that new door must meet ADAAG. The spaces inside & out, if unaltered, are not subject to ADAAG.

The DOJ has a ADA FAQ at
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/pubs/mythfct.txt

The overview is

quote:
MYTH: The ADA is rigid and requires businesses to spend lots of
money to make their existing facilities accessible.

FACT: The ADA is based on common sense. It recognizes that
altering existing structures is more costly than making new
construction accessible. The law _only_ requires that public
accommodations (e.g. stores, banks, hotels, and restaurants)
remove architectural barriers in existing facilities when it is
"readily achievable", i.e., it can be done "without much
difficulty or expense." Inexpensive, easy steps to take include
ramping one step; installing a bathroom grab bar; lowering a
paper towel dispenser; rearranging furniture; installing offset
hinges to widen a doorway; or painting new lines to create an
accessible parking space.

ADA compliance actually is a good idea. It applies to NEW CONSTRUCTION, & it's a good idea to make new construction accessible because it's then not expensive to include in design as it's architecturally standardized for most things (doors, ramps, etc.), & accessible features mean 'mo customers, 'mo money. Accessible seating in a flat floor theater means a couple of spaces or even removable chairs in a few places to accommodate wheelchairs when needed.

Get the ADAAG, get familiar, go to the meetings. There will be a lot of "well, I guess they should know what they're doing"; but if you take your hands off the wheel, you're gonna have a wreck.

quote:
Don`t those shiny Egyptian columns refelct a lot of light?

You're looking at them with the house lights up, & a lot of spill from the footlights (which are being used as a curtain warmer). Even proscenium theaters with gilt proscenia (woo-hoo!) aren't reflective during a movie - think about it, house lights are far down, & the light from the movie is an isolated, masked square further in within the masking. Many theaters (even postwar singles) had movable masking of gold lame' with only a 10" or so strip of black at the edges for masking.

There are legal ramifications of ADA outside of construction, the standard one is that if only orchestra-level seating is wheelchair accessible, but balcony is not, wheelchair accessible seating must made available *at the same price* if balcony seats are sold at lower cost. Just the wheelchair spaces.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-25-2003, 01:31 PM:

William Hooper has touched on a great many things that are true about working with Historic or even "multi-purpose" venues.

Anytime film and live performances are mixed you need a GREAT team to pull it off well. The screen and film part is pretty easy. The screen will be either flown if you have a fly-gallery or a roll down...much more expensive but without fly space there are few alternatives. I suggest that the screen and masking system be flown together so that you don't depend on the other line sets with soft goods for masking...it can be done but keeping it all together makes movie time less of a burden...particularly if it is interspersed with live-show (including load-ins or load-outs). Think about having the screen be movable...that is...if the live show people really need the line set the screen is on...can the screen system be moved to an alternate line set for storage further upstage?

Keep the screen as far down stage as possible this usually is about the 3rd line set after the 1st electric. Normally there will be a debate on where the screen goes...if left to the live-theatre people...you will be so far up stage that the screen width is going to be about only 10-feet due to poor sight lines. You also want to keep your speakers as far downstage as possible...the stage house is like the most poorly tuned speaker cabinet you can find...way too boomy.

A big battle I always face is the surrounds...this is an area, where William touched that has the movie equipment also affecting the appearance of the theatre. I often lobby hard for them to be visible and accepted. There is no substitute for a good surround array. Sometimes you can incorporate them into the decor of the room but have them planned in EARLY. If you have esthetic police in the theatre...they will be the tough ones. If film is an important aspect of the theatre then there should be concessions allowed for them. Film audiences expect them too (to be visible). Again if they can be considered from the get-go...you have a better chance of them fitting in with the decor.

I've done invisible surrounds and they are better than nothing but always a compromise that I try to minimize. Also note, doing it wrong is often more expensive than doing it right. That is...your inexpensive surround speaker my jump 2-3 fold in cost to have one that works in its "assigned" place. Also, you might need additional processing to have the surround (or even the stage channels) perform well in the given space (they are all different).

Things to look at on your stage speakers...if your consultant suggests conventional theatre speakers (direct radiators), wants you to use the cluster speakers above the stage then move on...they don't know what they are talking about. When you are on a stage...think horn loaded systems...you don't want the stage house participating in your sound. The cluster is out due to its location (the sound will be quite disjointed) and it often is best with voice...not so good with full-range movie soundtracks)...as Bill said, you might get away with it for an old time mono film. I also suggest getting the subwoofers off the stage...they can go up in the cloud or down below (in the stage). With some creative audio work you can get these systems to do surprisingly well despite the hostle live theatre environment.

As to architecs...I can't remember the last good one I came across for multi-purpose venues...prior experience seems to mean little...and no guarantee that your venue will turn out well. Before you choose...go and see what they have done and talk to the people that used them...how happy are they...how happy are you with the end result...how much of that was overcomming the bad design?

Below are a semi-recent design I worked on. It is the Kimball theatre in Williamsburg, VA. The contraints were that there were to be no visible speakers yet they were very unhappy with the original, use the cluster, design. The sound was quite disjointed and no surround sound. The CWF wanted to keep the very simple and colonial look of the theatre (as did the people donating the money).

(This is the rear of the auditorium...behind two of the squarish panels on each balcony are surround speakers)

(These are the "slots" where the lighting instruments live...and some surround speakers)

We did some computer modeling (using EASE) to locate the speakers in the "slots" that are about 1/3 and 2/3 down the ceiling and on the "spot light balconies" so that the speakers were behind the fabric and intrude slightly into the balcony area (not a customer area...only the sound board operator and spot light people can see them. It took some DSP to get the room well tuned (very hard surfaces and the time delay had to be set for the various speaker locations for a consistant time arrival). The stage speakers are flown, the screen is a roll-down. Even the stage speakers (my trusty A-5s with new drivers/Mantaray horns) were effectively tri-amped so that the bass frequencies were rolled into the subs below 100Hz to keep them off the stage. The customer was quite pleased.

This is just one example of dealing with an historic room or a difficult room..it is a closely woven thing between the owners of the room and what they want from it and the technical requirements that are put upon it. In the above example, the choice was made to compromise the surround array to avoid seeing them. The side surrounds are some 25-30 feet in the air hidden in the slots but the rear surrounds work with them as a team to pull it off. I have other examples where the surround were located in the tradional places and the results were superior and less costly but the customer didn't mind seeing them. .

There are no easy answers...good luck.

Steve

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-25-2003, 07:45 PM:

Steve said"I've done invisible surrounds and they are better than nothing but always a compromise "
You mean you compromise ?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-25-2003, 11:30 PM:

Funny Gordon...you picked up on that line...I had you in mind when I wrote it.

The full text showed that I always push for visible surrounds in all venues. However, if a venue only has "film capability" and it is primarily a live venue or with historic nature...then yes a compromise is made to satisfy the greater good...note this "compromise" always leads to a more expensive system so it isn't done out of trying to cut corners but to improve the overall experience.

In the theatre listed above...one of the VPs of the CWF declared that it now has a better surround sound than any conventional theatre he has heard...what that means, I do not know (how many theatres has he really heard, how good is his hearing...predisposed to be happy with a system that fits the requirement...etc) beyond he was satisfied.

Steve

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-26-2003, 01:58 AM:

What I think is pretty amusing about the Williamsburg renovation is that, until 1999, they had largeish original 1950s Altec surround speakers in plain view on three interior walls. Apparently no one complained about them in 1954, when they installed CinemaScope and mag sound! (See the pics in the gallery under "Williamsburg Theatre," which were taken pre-renovation.) They ended up doing a pretty nice job, though, all things considered, and picture and sound quality is light-years better than it was when I was working there.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-26-2003, 03:55 AM:

Just to add additional reinforcement to what Steve Guttag said:

quote:
I suggest that the screen and masking system be flown together so that you don't depend on the other line sets with soft goods for masking...it can be done but keeping it all together makes movie time less of a burden...

That's absoultely the case. The more work of masking with unattached teasers & borders, the more time to set up, the more re-tying, time to check, kicking in the legs, the border's not straight, disappointment with a top scalloped edge when a border is used for top masking, the more running out of time with it being 'close enough', the more having to pull down something that was put up for another show, etc. Work, work, work. System design in a theater revolves around the stevedoring work onstage. Work from the maxim "People are lazy". You will automatically bring into consideration things which will cause mechanical problems & must be dealt with, etc. Make it as self-contained & easily operable as possible. A movie is a cheap, easy show, keep it that way. Bring in the screen, roll out the speakers, set the masking, open the doors.

quote:
Keep the screen as far down stage as possible this usually is about the 3rd line set after the 1st electric.

That's always what works best for everything & everyone, film & stage folks. Steve points out the reasons as far as movie sound is concerned, but it's also best for the stage folks. There's not a lot you want to hang downstage. You've got the front of house lights & first electric for lighting that area. After the first electric, the next 2 line sets will be by scripture & technical neccessity legs then a border. Right after that, it's never been a good place for anything except a movie screen. It's too far forward to hang any drop except when someones's just playing the forestage, lights don't need to go there because the 1st electric & FOH lights are there.

A problem with that position & some others is potential damage to the screen. Flying the screen in & out, there's a hazard of catching the screen on lights or flown set pieces. When your theater was built, the screen was hung much further back, lights were also a permanent hang - border lights, in a kind of supended trough, they weren't as wide when aimed (like lights today). You can often see a patched rip in screens at the top &/or bottom where someone has taken in or out the screen or the electric in front or behind, & either the gel frame from an instrument on the first electric has snagged the screen, or a connector from a light on the 2nd electric has snagged the screen. If I Ruled The World, every flown screen would have at the top & bottom a "bumper bar" running the width of the screen at the top & bottom, on the front & back, to knock any lights protruding into the plane of the screen when it goes up or down. It's easy & no cost to notice it, fix the problem & continue, straighten a gel frame back out or re-aim a light. A rip in a screen is ugly, costly & doesn't come back.

Which brings up another point with screen frames, wherever they're hung. THEY'VE GOT TO BE AS SKINNY AS POSSIBLE. I've seen new screens on new frames hung, the designers apparently thought they owned the whole damn stage front to back. It's like they've flown a construction scaffold. They need to go to work. Space is the most excruciating valuable commodity front to back. Everyone thinks their stage is too shallow, they need more linesets, etc. It's in the interest of the screen assembly's survival that it be as close to as flat as a piece of paper as possible, & essential in the operation of the stage.

You mentioned someone had been working with you on movie sound, are you already showing movies? Are you putting in a new screen or re-hanging the new one? In a proscenium theater, your screen will need to be the size of the entire proscenium opening, & will require both horizontal & side masking. People are disappointed if the picture doesn't go all the way to fill up the proscenium openin as much as possible. Scope films need to go all the way to the sides, that means they'll be masked horizontally; 'Academy' films (like Casablanca, etc.) need to go all the way top to bottom, they'll have to be masked on the sides. You should address all your problems with the screen frame & masking at once. Manual masking is a chore, screaming out the port or on the radio instructions to someone onstage, etc. The easier a show is to run, the more often & better it will be run, so if the projectionist has control of the masking & grand drape, it's all better.

Frank Angel had mentioned here earlier his design for incorporating the grand drape in motorized masking at the screen: the narrow piece of'edge' of the masking follows the motorized section & hides behind the edges when they come together. This would also be a good time to point out an appearance issue often missed at retrofitted PAC's - the screen masking isn't neccessarily & really shouldn't be solid black from the screen all the way to the prosc. If you go to a theater, you'll see it's actually just a black edge 6" or 8" wide, the rest is thin drapes complementing the decor. The same should be true for top masking - just a black edge, the rest something decoratively appropriate. Since it's usually just sheet-like, it would be attractive, easy, fun & historically appropriate to create the top masking to masquerade as a lambrequin above the masking edge. Most of the way these big theaters work to create a dramatic appearance is through a mechanism of stressing verticality: ornament placed high up, lights that shine up from below or down from above, etc. The area of your top masking will be a place that people's eyes are directed to, it needs to be appropriate & rewarding.

quote:
Below are a semi-recent design I worked on. It is the Kimball theatre in Williamsburg, VA.

That's NICE! The Kimball has no balcony rail position or box booms to hang FOH lights. So you can see they've got their front of house lighting in a lighting trench in the ceiling. This is a typical solution in auditoriums with flat ceilings, or in that case, a simple vaulted ceiling. You see how it works: you create a trench in the ceiling that is not visible from the audience's "downstage" viewpoint excepting far forward in the orchestra seating.

That's a bit of an optical trick, cutting a trench doesn't work for theaters with ceiling construction &/or decoration that may be ornate: domes, horseshoes, etc.

Domes & horseshoes, if deep enough, can use same angle of putting the stuff downstage for invisibility, but put it up in the dome in an area cut out of the downstage section of the dome. It was done in original designs, & in retrofits.

Here's a little picture of the Tivoli in Downer's Grove, IL from
http://www.classiccinemas.com/History/tivoli.asp

You can't see the fascia on the interior edge of the dome from our (audience) side, but they've cut it out & hung FOH lights there instead of cutting a lightiing trench. They've got no balcony rail, this is used instead & looks better.

It's not new, the Chicago was built that way

The 'portholed' decorative fascia in the dome is FOH lighting across the (unseen) back.

In larger houses that need to attract larger shows, there are never enough lights, lighting positions, follow spots, linesets, etc. Usually they need as many places to hang FOH lights as possible: balcony rail & box booms are standard.

Here's a picture showing lights on the balcony rail & a box boom, cruelly compressed by me from Ed Jurich's collection of Mobile Saenger pictures at
http://www.angelfire.com/al/saenger/

Nicholas' theatre has a problem with flat side walls & little ornamentation. Box booms are usually de-emphasized by an onslaught of surrounding attached ornament. They're too-often just pipes bolted vertically to the wall, but next to a highly-decorated organ grille that looks like a bomb that's gone off behind a merry-go-round, they're not exactly painful. The Mobile Saenger's balcony rail lighting is not very distracting, since there's lots of ornament there, but the box booms look like something the plumbers bolted on the walls. Making its appearance worst is the fact that the interior decoration was reduced to white-painted walls.

The box booms on the decorated walls of the Atlanta Fox are not as painfully distracting & ugly.

For auditoriums where the box booms are very distracting, 'downstage' panels integrated with the decoration are used to conceal box booms. Since the light is going the other way, they can be scrim material & speakers placed behind them.

One of the coolest solutions for concealing box booms is possible if the organ grilles are recessed. Then, the unseen fascia around on the upstage side can be cut away into a trench, & the boom placed there.

Here's the Rialto Square theater in Joliet, from http://theatreorgans.com/il/joliet/Rialto.html

Where are the box booms? Okay, they're not using any of the lights at the moment, but you can see them. The inside, upstage surface of the column on the right side of the organ grille has been cut away (black in the picture), & the boom & lights are in there. Excellent work.

Joe Ducibella came up with that solution, but as he said, it's what Rapp & Rapp built in their later houses.

It's all a matter of looking at it like a bunch of gears, what the machine needs to do, & what's around for functional inspiration & use.

Posted by Nicholas Suchyta (Member # 2050) on 12-27-2003, 12:13 AM:

Does anyone know where i can find more info on the Boise theater? I think that some of the work that they have done with lighting could be beneficial to our restoration project. If you know where i could find more it would be a huge help. All this info will be great to put to the board at the next restoration meeting. Maybe now tehy'll see the light. Thanks

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-27-2003, 02:13 PM:

Follow the yellow brick road....