Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Hello Joe What Da Ya Know?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Hello Joe What Da Ya Know? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Hello Joe What Da Ya Know?

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-11-2000 04:07 PM

Hey Guys,
Actually upgrading cinema processors would be an easy but time consuming thing to do. This sort of upgrade would be more noticable in lower priced processors as Dolby already uses really high grade components in critical areas of its circuitry.
John, The CP-200 is just old design that was state of the art in its time. If new retrofit cards are installed in a 200 they can sound as good as a CP-65 regardless of how the audio is switched.
Mark

| IP: Logged

Oscar Neundorfer
Master Film Handler

Posts: 275
From: Senoia, GA
Registered: May 2000

posted 05-11-2000 07:35 PM

Joe wrote:
I personally don't feel that there has been any "audiophile" calibur sound processors yet. Any manufacturer want to prove me wrong? I would welcome it.

Well, Joe, my bet is that you haven't heard a properly set up Panastereo yet.

------------------
Oscar Neundorfer
Chief Engineer
SMART Devices, Inc.

oscar@smartdev.com

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-12-2000 04:16 AM

You're right, Oscar! I would definitely love to hear it and play with it. I hear nothing but good things about them, but I would definitely like to judge for myself in my own theater where I know what other sound processors sound like. That way it would be fair.

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 05-12-2000 10:07 AM

Mark wrote: "The CP-200 is just old design that was state of the art in its time."

I can't agree completely with this. While the idea of a CP200 was state of the art (and is still more flexible than anything ever made, so I would say still is) I was thinking of the way the signal "travels" around the chassis. A real audiophile designer would never send audio signals through a ribbon cable. Even 25 years ago. (That's about about when the use of ribbon cable became really popular.) A trick to reduce the noise (with ribbon cable) is to run a ground between each signal, yet Dolby did not even do that. The backplane should have been a 4-layer with ground planes, not a 2-layer. I think the (plug-in) PC boards are designed better, but any used for audio should also be 4-layer (the preamp was not.)

But I also understand the designers had a different design goals in mind. I would guess that the design goal order was:
(1) works with (then) existing Dolby cards,
(2) reliability,
(3) flexibility (to run different film formats,)
(4) audio signal noise considerations

others- (in no order): time-to-market, cost, support effort required, etc.

Do I think that they didn't care about noise because it's #4 on the list? No, I'm sure it was an important factor with a lot of thought, but when push came to shove, #1,2,3 won.

Do I think a CP200 sounds bad? No, of course not. I think it and a CP65 sound great.

But, do I think it was designed with the same attention to the audio signals as, say, a Carver amp or a Nakamichi deck? No. I think that Joe R. knows what I mean.

Does any manufacturer want to give us a copy of their PC board graphics (gerber files) so we can see how switching and audio signals are routed?

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-12-2000 12:52 PM

John,
I know exactly whay you are thinking. I agree that running audio through ribbon cables is taboo. The thing that irks me is that a number of companies still do it....especially for interconnecting digital processors to analog processors(DTS comes to mind). Even if its got a ground between each run or not its still a hokey way to do it, and guarantees that crosstalk will be higher, and noise immunity will be lower.
I do think that the idea of an all audiophile system is a bit strange though as there really are not any speakers that come to mind for use behind a screen that are of audiophhile caliber. You would also have to have a large bank of Levinson, Krell, or equivelent power amps and miles of interconnects and speaker lines. The cost would be unrealistic.
I really think what Dolby did in the 200 during design was to go for practicallity with what was available at that time.
Mark

| IP: Logged

Michael Barry
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 584
From: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-12-2000 01:11 PM

It would be interesting if someone like Dan D'Agostino of Krell manufactured a cinema processor. Then you could use their pure class A amplifiers, and have a very formidable front end...(www.krellonline.com)

Or perhaps Julien Vereker of Naim Audio might be tempted...(www.naim-audio.com)

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-12-2000 05:15 PM

Yea, Krell would ne nice, but I would prefer rows and rows of Audio Research Refrence 600 tube Monoblocks! Another question.......What would you use for speakers????????
Mark

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 05-12-2000 10:40 PM

Although, here I am talking about S/N ratios, and the people in the row behind me are chewing with their mouths open, burping, etc. making noise way higher then the worst processor....

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.