International Review of Educational Cinematography (Jul-Dec 1929)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

only 16 expressed a preference for the least reverberant condition, while 73 preferred the most reverberant. It was not possible to carry the experiment to still longer reverberation periods. It is interesting to know that the reverberation time of 0.64 is not far from what one would predict from extrapolating the graph of Fig. 1 to the volume of this particular studio. From my own observations and experience and what I have been able to gather from the experience of others, I am inclined to believe that what we consider good auditorium conditions will come to be recognized as not far from good recording conditions. This of course does not mean that recording studios do not as a rule need some absorbent treatment. As a matter of fact they do. When we remember that in an auditorium 213 to 415 of the total sound absorption is supplied by the audience, and that there is usually no audience in the recording room, it is obvious that the deficiency must be made up by special absorbent treatment of some kind. In fact, in large stages the amounts of absorbent treatment necessary to give good audience room conditions will be rather formidable. For example a room with a volume of 500,000 cubic feet, would normally have an audience of 2500 people, with an absorption of 11,500 square feet of perfect absorption. At least 23,000 square feet of felt with a coefficient of 0.50 is required to reduce a stage of this size to good audience room conditions. Now 500,000 cubic feet would be a small motion picture stage according to present practice, so that it appears plain that to provied proper acoustical conditions on the very large stages now used for the silent motion pictures requires a considerable outlay for sound absorbents. It is apparent that from the standpoint of economy, it is the part of wisdom to provide in the initial layout for the necessary acoustical treatment. Frequently it is possible through the exercise of a little ingenuity to utilize materials for the purposes which are much cheaper than the usual types of materials now used for an acoustical correction in auditoriums. In the latter, requirements of appearance and decoration add appreciably to the cost of the materials employed. Speaking entirely from the standpoint of an outsider knowing only incidentally of the requirements, other than acoustical, of a motion picture stage, I would venture the suggestion that possibly the requirements of sound recording would call for radical departure from the present plan of having very large stages designed to accommodate simultaneously a number of sets, to the plan of having a number of smaller separate stages acoustically insulated from each other. Certainly the problem of the control of reverberation in moderate sized rooms is much simpler than in extremely large rooms. « The Effect of Absorbent Treatment on Tone Quality Practically all musical tones are complex. That is, they consist of a fundamental tone with its series of harmonic overtones. 479