The motion picture almanac (1931)

388 The MOTION PICTURE ALMANAC 1931 SOUND* The rapidity with which the reproduction and projection of sound in synchronization with motion pictures has been promoted during the relatively short period of its existence has been and is nothing less than astounding. Our ability to sit comfortably in the motion picture theatre of today and hear the silent shadow, not infrequently representing people who have answered the Last Roll Call upon earth, apparently talking to us, singing to us or producing instrumental music of marvelous beauty, with every semblance of actuality, is something parallel to a great monument of finest marble — or perhaps even of sold gold — to the designing and construction engineers who have brought forth this marvel of the ages. The motion picture theatre has available for use twelve or more different sound systems, at least two of which maintain a corps of highly efficient service engineers who make periodic, systematic examinations of all their installations, and at all times are available to the exhibitor or projectionist for emergency calls. These two corporations are Western Electric Company and RCA Photophone, Inc., both of which put out equipment in several different forms. The price varies with the form or type of equipment. The highest grade system of one or the other of them is used in practically all of our large, deluxe theatres, the same being, of course, the most expensive and best sound reproduction and projection systems extant. In less expensive form the systems of these two corporations are used in very many of our smaller theatres. In addition to Western Electric and RCA Photophone systems there are three less elaborate ones in use in thousands of the smaller theatres, namely the DeForest system Phonofilm, put out by General Talking Pictures Corporation; the Pacent, by Pacent Reproducer Corporation and the Universal Sound System, by a company of that name. In addition to these three widely used systems there are several others which have attained some degree of favor, as follows: The Powers System, put out by the Powers Cinephone Corporation, the Mellaphone, made by the Mellaphone Corporation, Rochester, New York; the Royal Ampli SMPE REPORT (Continued from page 384) 1926 of 11,445 houses, seating 5,283,000 persons. A preliminary survey made by the Motion Picture Division of the U. S. Department of Commerce indicated that there were over 2,000 concerns in the United States using motion pictures for business purposes. Film exports fell off slightly for the year 1930 as reported by Golden, compared with 1929, although the actual valuation increased. Footage and valuation were as follows: 1930—274,351,000 linear feet valued at $8,118,000. 1929—282,215,000 linear feet valued at $7,622,000. Of the total footage exported, 186,436,000 feet, or 67 per cent, represented sound pictures. Domestic sound picture equipment sales for 1930 totalled $32,635,000 according to Electronics, and export sales amounted to $8,250,000 which made the total equipment sales equal $40,885,000. tone, the name of the sponsors of which is not at the moment at hand; the Phototone Talkafilm, by Simplimis, Inc.; the Kinetone, by S 6? S Enterprises, Inc., and the Goetz System, by Goetz Moviephone, Inc. This completes the list, save for possibly some few others that have not as yet had sufficient usage to become known except to those using them. It would be presumptuous to make comparison of the basic merits of these various systems, except in the most broad way. It would be improper to make such an attempt, for the simple reason that it is doubtful that any one man has as yet acquired a sufficiently thorough knowledge of the relative excellence of them all to enable him to form a sound judgment as to the matter of sound reproduction and projection and dependability and economy in performance. It seems very right and proper, however, to warn exhibitors and projectionists against the acceptance of unsupported statements with regard to sound systems or apparatus. It also seems quite advisable also to suggest to exhibitors and projectionists that in the purchase of sound reproduction and projection systems there are three basic points to consider, first, the relative excellence of results which may be attained from the system under consideration, as compared with other available systems; second, the ability of the system under consideration to operate economically as to power requirements and repair and replacement bills; third, just what is going to happen if there is no "service" provided and the system lets down and may be put into successful operation again only by consultation with some technical man located, possibly hundreds of miles away. These are all matters of vital importance, and unless they be very carefully considered it is entirely possible that regret and loss will follow. The exhibitor should also keep carefully in mind the fact that it is constant excellence in sound results that brings in money at the box office, or lack of it fails to do so. With these thoughts in mind it may well be reasoned that high additional first cost need not necessarily be considered an extravagance; also that money paid out for service may be an asset instead of a liability. It is not what the cost is, but what the outlay brings in at the box office cash drawer. In fact, if an additional expense results either in a better quality of sound or in more economical, dependable action, then it certainly is what cannot possibly be considered as other than a wise, profitable investment, except that of course both installation and operating cost must be kept within the possibilities of available patronage. The matter of sound recording is not within the legitimate field of this writer's activities, hence that field will be passed over with the notation that recently there has been what seems to be a very great step taken toward perfection. This improvement consists of the reduction of ground noise to a point where, provided the theatre equipment be in perfect condition, it is conspicuous by almost total absence. Put in another way, unless there be sound which was recorded by intention, then there is to all intents and purposes no sound at all. The improvement is, your writer can personally testify, very great. However, there is one point that cannot be too highly stressed. It applies equally to any and all makes of apparatus. It is the human element. Every sound system must of course be handled by and cared for by some man or men. It is self evident that unless this man or these men give the apparatus expert care and attention, both in its handling when in use and in the item of maintenance, it will not deliver perfect results. This is a rather tremendously important item, and one to which many exhibitors give entirely too little attention. Assuming the auditorium to be acoustically perfect and the sound equipment itself be in perfect condition and of high grade basic excellence, if that equipment be in charge of and handled by a man who thoroughly understands it, and who has the necessary ambition and energy to apply his knowledge at its full value, then we may assume that the sound in that theatre will be just about 100 per cent perfect. On the other hand, no matter how perfect the auditorium may be acoustically, regardless of how basically perfect the equipment itself may be, if it be handled by men who lack expert knowledge, or have knowledge but lack the energy to apply that knowledge, then the sound will not be perfect. It will be imperfect exactly in proportion to the imperfection in knowledge of the man in charge. Remembering that perfection in sound, coupled with perfection in projection of the motion picture, means maximum results at the box office, exhibitors and managers will do well to give very serious consideration to this. Exhibitors who desire to get the greatest possible excellence in motion picture projection and in sound reproduction, must remember certain facts. First, it is impossible to have perfection in results unless the equipment itself be kept in first class condition. That should appeal to the exhibitor and motion picture theatre manager as incontestable and indisputable, yet there are a great many projectionists producing relatively poor results for no other reason than that the manager compels them to use worn projector and sound equipment parts after the time the projectionists have asked for replacements. It would really seem that this ought to appeal to exhibitors as being a practice which in the very nature of things must be very costly in the end. Were this matter laid before the courts it would be so decided on both counts. Yet we find exchanges supplying films more or less smeared with oil, and we find theatre managers accepting that sort of service, well knowing that perfection cannot be obtained in either the screen image or in the sound, if the sound be carried on the films. We also find the exchanges delivering films containing mechanical imperfections which it was the duty of the exchange to remove. It is absolutely absurd to expect high grade sound or high grade screen images so long as this practice continues, nor is it any excuse for an exchange to say it is the projectionist himself who inflicts the damage. It is the business of the exchange, so far as possible, to repair all damage inflicted by its customers and if the damage be continuously excessive, the exchange should take up the matter with the theatre management for adjustment. That is not argument. It is just plain common sense. Summing this whole thing up, we now have available a considerable number of sound systems capable of delivering very close to perfection in results, but in order to obtain perfection that equipment must be expertly cared for and handled, and must be serviced with films and records in as nearly as possible perfect condition. 'Contributed hy F. II. Richard*©*