Voyagers blew our sub!?!

[Marco Giustini]

All of what you said is right, but.... Just for the sake of argument (it's a slow day at work), wouldn't it be in the best interests of the filmmakers and mixers to work in a mixing environment that accurately reflects where these soundtracks will be reproduced, using the type of equipment that a typical theater has?

It's a catch-22 situation. Lower the quality of the studio systems and regular cinemas will be built with even cheaper equipment!

You are the perfect example: Voyagers "blew" your sub and now you're looking into improving your setup. If Voyagers hadn't blown your sub, you wouldn't be here thinking of upgrading!

[Jon Dent]

Well yes and no. I've been asking for dedicated sub amps for a few months now. This situation just ably demonstrated the issue to the owner. But we still have to come up with the funds.

[Steve Guttag]

wouldn't it be in the best interests of the filmmakers and mixers to work in a mixing environment that accurately reflects where these soundtracks will be reproduced, using the type of equipment that a typical theater has?

Let me be clear on this one NO!!

While someone mixing a record has no idea of the environment that the result will be listened to (crappy home stereo, awesome home stereo, ear buds...etc.), cinemas have standards that theatres are willfully ignoring for whatever reasons they choose. The solution is NOT to lower the standards of film mixing to the least common denominator crappy theatre. That just perpetuates the problem. The solution is for theatres to raise their quality standards. With the shake up of C19, perhaps that will happen, to a degree. I'd much rather have a standards group rate theatres for consumers to use as a guide to them than to mix films for crappy theatres. That makes no sense.

If you can't build your theatre to the minimum standards, don't build it. And, if you are of the mind that any theatre is better than none at all...then turn your volume down and get the less-than-optimal show. Problem solved.

[Jon Dent]

I am not of the "something is better than nothing" mindset at all. I avoided theaters for almost a decade due to too many bad experiences. However, I strongly disagree that our decision not to pummel the audience into a stupor is automatically a 'less than optimal' show.

But whatever, different opinions keep the world interesting. "Voyagers" didn't blow our sub, we're saving up for additional amps, we run under 7 and are perfectly content with that, and I honestly think our theaters sounds pretty good given our budgetary limitations as an independent exhibitor in a <10k population town. Hell, we sound better than the multiplex 60 miles away in Grand Forks (and I've had several chances to compare).

[Steve Guttag]

What you seem to be missing in your statement is that how your theatre was constructed and the system as installed/tuned is a contributor to people being "pummel." That isn't the fault of the studio, that is on the theatre. I completely understand you lowering the volume level to a more comfortable range, for your theatre. It is sub-optimal because you have lowered the dynamics of the entire track in doing so. What you are hearing is further away from what the people that made the movie heard and deemed to best represent the movie.

What would probably be a worth while venture is to have an adaptive system that could better optimize a sound system for the space they have. That is, only compress the audio at the top end rather than lower the entire level so subtile effects are not lost. And, most of the time, people notice that now the surrounds are not as loud as they should be. One could then raise the surround level up (who doesn't like surrounds) to overcome this but we're drifting even further away from the original recording.

[Kieran Hall]

Re. the Belgian legislation, I think I read a while back that the hearing damage suffered by the girl watching Inception was found to be caused by her seat being pressed right by a misplaced surround speaker, directly at ear level. Obviously this is very very bad but is a failure of the install, not really a symptom of "movies are just TOO LOUD" as such.

[William Kucharski]

No, they are not. They should be, but most of the time they aren't.

That's not my experience.

I've talked to the studio projectionists at Paramount and Sony, and they both said in their theaters that the directors and producers use to screen their movies before release, the faders are locked at 7 at all times, period.

In that theater, with the fader set to 7, is how they judge whether levels should be changed or if the mix needs work.

Ironically the same people who complain theaters are loud probably go to rock concerts; the last arena concert I was at I measured 120 dB peaks all night long (I took a meter just for fun) and I've measured 117 db peaks at the honky-tonks on Broadway in Nashville.

Theater owners can degrade projection however they like - hey, why not turn down sound to match the low light levels AMC theaters have to prolong lamp life.

If you're happy to lose my business, so be it.

[William Kucharski]

There's a quote that I think encapsulates this absurdity well: "People present during the mix of movies like Tron were advised to wear hearing protection." That right there is a sign that your movie is too damn loud.

Interesting article on the issue: https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...n-cinema-sound

Funny that that comes up again; I have talked to people who were indeed present at the mixing of Tron, and their reaction to that quote is that it is total and unqualified bull.

In fact, no one has been able to find anyone present at those sessions who recalls it even being over-the-top loud.

However, I would think it also depends on the sequence; if you are working on mixing a section that is supposed to be say 100+ dB for impact, OSHA regs say you should wear hearing protection; if you're going to spend three hours tweaking the mix of the launch sequence in Apollo 13, it would only be responsible to do so.

That doesn't mean the overall production is "too loud."

[Carsten Kurz]

Ironically the same people who complain theaters are loud probably go to rock concerts;

Most people visiting our cinema certainly don't visit rock concerts playing at these levels. I spoke to some film sound mixers, members of our national association, and none of them mixes towards 7. Because they experience their movies being played much too soft in cinemas that way, and directors and producers complain.
Most of them do not even use the Dolby fader system, but choose an arbitrary dB reference for dialog. Many of them do not use a cinema processor with a Dolby fader at all. Maybe two or three times a year we get a movie (usually big budget) that we can play at 6.5-7.

It all started with trailers being edited and mixed for the most attention, because these mixers seemed to think that their trailer was the only thing being played before the main feature. Staff immediately brought playback levels down and left the fader there for the feature.

The trouble also is that nowadays, all ads and trailers are not mixed UP TO max SAWA and TASA levels, but AT max SAWA and TASA levels. After sitting through 30min of ads and trailers, patrons are deaf already.

There are chains with policies in place to not play at higher settings than e.g. '5.5'.

People are different. Customers complaining is a task every business has to tackle appropriately. Ignoring complaints is not an option.

[William Kucharski]

Most people visiting our cinema certainly don't visit rock concerts playing at these levels. I spoke to some film sound mixers, members of our national association, and none of them mixes towards 7. Because they experience their movies being played much too soft in cinemas that way, and directors and producers complain.
Most of them do not even use the Dolby fader system, but choose an arbitrary dB reference for dialog. Many of them do not use a cinema processor with a Dolby fader reference. Maybe two or three times a year we get a movie (usually big budget) that we can play at 6.5-7.

Definitely a difference between international and the US.

Everything that comes out of the major studios is mixed to 7 as, as I mentioned, that's how they're screened for studio execs and the people making the film while making the film.

I can't speak from personal experience for Disney/Fox, but as mentioned I can for Paramount and Sony unless something has changed drastically since late 2019.

I made a personal point of grabbing this shot from the booth at the big Paramount Theater on the Paramount lot for just that reason.

[Frank Cox]

Define 7. Putting huge speakers and powerful amps into a small room and setting the fader to 7 will rip the roof off. Put the same setup into a stadium and you might not hear it at all from the "cheap seats".

[Harold Hallikainen]

I think 7 is supposed to result in SMPTE pink noise (about -20 dB FS) resulting in an SPL of 85 dB (C) at the "reference listening position" which I think is either 2/3 way back or in the center of the seating area (don't remember which). So, a small room takes less power to do that (assuming the same speaker efficiency).

Harold

[Carsten Kurz]

There is certainly some fluctuation in measurement techniques, acoustical room treating, reverberation/resonances, etc., resulting in '85dB pink noise at 7' is not the same everywhere. Even pink noise sources are not all the same.

Also, some multiplexes simply can not play at 7 because there is too much bleed into adjacent auditoriums. As such, it is pretty useless if movies are played at 7 in studio screenings, it that would suggest cinemas to do the same. It is certainly an interesting or useful exercise for people professionally involved. But not for wide audiences. They pay for being entertained, not forced.

[Jon Dent]

I think 7 is supposed to result in SMPTE pink noise (about -20 dB FS) resulting in an SPL of 85 dB (C) at the "reference listening position" which I think is either 2/3 way back or in the center of the seating area (don't remember which). So, a small room takes less power to do that (assuming the same speaker efficiency).

That's correct but 85dB is perceived differently depending on the room. In a large theater with a well EQ'ed system it's not too bad. In a home environment 85dB is far, far too loud, which is why 75dB is usually used for calibration there (or used to be).

Our theaters would probably be classified as 'low mid sized' at about 50ft deep. The system has been EQ'ed (but I don't know when or by whom or their methods) but I'll admit we don't have 'ideal' treatment of the room. An 85dB test tone from the CP750 will definitely get your attention.

Now everyone's got me thinking we should re-EQ the room, but nobody around here has a mic multiplexer to make it easier. And if we're short $800 for an amp we're sure as hell short the $2k for one of those.