Showmen's Trade Review (Oct-Dec 1949)

Every Theatre Needs the Best In Projection and Sound Even Smallest House Can Afford It and Will Profit By It, Council Insists "In every theatre of every size the quality of the projection and sound equipment should be given first consideration, regardless of cost. "No compromise with quality is permissible at any point. That has been one of the troubles with this business — putting a dollar ahead of the quality of the show. "The smallest theatre can afford equipment of the best quality. It doesn't have to pay as much as the larger house. It doesn't need the same size light source to fUl its screen, or equally large amplifiers to fill its auditorium. "But people who go to the smallest theatre are entitled to see and hear as good a show as those who go to the largest. "Even the smallest theatre can afford to give it to them, and will profit by doing so." In these words one member of the Projection Advisory Council summed up the opinion of the overwhehning majority of the Council members, who this month discussed quality vs. cost of projection and sound equipment. This Councilor practices exactly what he preaches. He is Supervisor of Projection and Sound for a large circuit that includes both de luxe large-city show-cases and some exceedingly old shooting galleries. He follows a consistent policy of giving his audiences in every theatre the best show science can provide. His circuit is highly successful. The majority of the Council members participating in this month's meeting agreed with him absolutely. Price Difference Trivial "The difference in price between the best equipment as compared with poorer apparatus is so small," added another member, "that we see no justification for not putting the best in all of our theatres. "Furthermore, the best is not always the most expensive. There are instances where second-price equipment actually gives better performance. Sometimes the only difference between the second-price and the first-price item is in gadgets that we don't want anyhow. "But we never buy on price. What we are looking for is the best performance regardless of price. We like to save money, but top performance comes first. If there are two or three different makes of apparatus that will all give top performance, naturally we pick the best buy for our money, but we do not compromise with the quality of our show in any theatre. For instance, we would not think of putting anything except the best projection lens in even our very smallest house." The majority in support of these views was stronger than two-thirds of all the members participating. The Council considered the question of what kind of projection equipment to in COUNCIL MEMBERS ROBERT P. BURNS Balaban & Katz Corp. COL. FRANK CAHILL Warner Brothers Circuit G. CUTHBERT Famous Players Canadian C. A. DENTELBECK Famous Players Canadian ROCCO DILIONE Walter Reade Theatres HARRY J. GLENN Wm. K. Jenkins Theatres IRL GORDON Skirball Brothers Theatres PAUL HARRINGTON Ruffin Amusement Co. C. HORSTMANN RKO Theatres A. C. INCE Griffith Theatres LESTER ISAAC Loew's Incorporated L F. JACOBSEN Balaban & Katz Corp. NATHANIEL LAPKIN Fabian Theatres L. E. POPE Fox Midwest Amusement HARRY RUBIN Paramount Pictures LEONARD SATZ Century Circuit J. C. SKINNER Interstate Circuit BILL TONEY Tri-States Theatre Corp stall from the points of view of (a) most important theatres; (b) the less important and (c) least important theatres. They considered such detailed items as arc lamps, generators, rectifiers, projector heads, soundheads, amplifiers, loudspeakers, screens and lenses. The overwhelming majority of the members are agreed that there are no such things as less important or least important theatres when it comes to clioosing equipment; and no such thing as less important or least im portant equipment items. On this last point some members offer a slight qualification with respect to screens only as will be noted further on. Other typical majority comment; "It is just as important to give good projection and sound in the smallest theatre we have as in the largest, and patrons are just as conscious of the quality of projection and sound in the one theatre as in the other. There is no substitute for quality. Regardless of the importance of the theatre, quality should be the first consideration. I do not feel that any theatre is more important or less important, but try to keep the standard of projection and sound the same regardless of size of the house or of what admission is charged. "After selecting equipment on the basis of quality, naturally we are then interested in buying quality at the lowest possible cost. "The only exception I make is screens. Rather than the most expensive screen I prefer to buy a good standard screen at less money and replace it more often. Cleaning and refinishing screens is expensive, never restores the screen to its original quality, and tends to lessen the size of the perforations and thus affect the higher frequencies of sound." One Standard for All Theatres still another member of the majority adds; "Our circuit has one standard for all theatres and we endeavor to maintain them all accordingly. No matter what projection or sound equipment we buy for any of our houses, we consider qualitj' only and cost no object." On the other side of the question, there is a small minority view summed up by one Councilor as follows; "In the most important theatres, top quality equipment only on all items, as long as the price asked is the norma' market price for it. 'A' houses must present pictures in the best possible manner and quality should not be sacrificed in any respect. In less important theatres I use top quality lamps and screens to assure a good picture, but can get by if necessary with rebuilt projectors, lenses, soundheads, amplifiers, and loudspeakers. In the least important theatres I use the cheapest equipment throughout, except for a screen of best qualitj\" And roughly intermediate in opinion between the majority and the minority is the Councilor who explains his system as follows; "All equipment is bought on a quality basis with attention to reliability, expected span of use. interchangeability and good {Continued on Page E-13)