|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: SDDS
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 11-08-2003 05:56 PM
I am quite prepared to believe that SDDS is capable of sounding better than it did when I heard it, but it has other problems. It was launched after both SR-D and DTS were becomming established, DTS was helped by getting two 'big' titles (Jurasic Park and Schlindler's List) in its early days, and it was more expensive than the competing systems. Also, less titles were released in it, certainly most of the prints I see do not have it, but it has to be said that I handle mainly Art House material, it may be more common on other types of films.
Given these disadvantages, it would have needed some really significant advantage if it were to compete successfully with the other formats, and it didn't have one. Some people preferred the sound of SDDS, but others didn't, and any difference was minor, it could do 8 channels, but few films were released that way, and few theatres could play it.
There really wasn't any great enough advantage to SDDS to make people choose it over a better established, more widely used and cheaper system.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-08-2003 09:30 PM
Robert D. LaValley said
"I'm partial to DTS myself."
_________________________________________________________________
I used to be very partial to SRD but I've actually learned over the last year and a half or so not be really partial to any of the three systems. All have their own set of unique problems that we have to live with no matter what, and all three will be around for quite some time, including Sony with at least 10 more years support for existing units. And all three sound excellent when they are properly working.
One thing that I think is important is not to be bitten by the Digital is better bug. That bug is much like the plague. From my personal experience with many things digital, not just film equipment, the true fact is that digital rarely means better, it actually attempts to and sometimes suceeds at nothing more than being more convenient.
In reality there are no all digitally based Cinema processors on the market that compare audibly, or from a specification standpoint, with the very best of the analog processors from the last 5 years, or available today. Its easy enough to hang any three or a combination thereof of the outboard digital soundtrack processors onto a good analog processor. Best of all it can be done cost effectively. I've also found that the better analog processors generally sound better due to less secondary stages of digital processing taking place...such as "A", or "B" chain, then D to A back to analog, etc. and the added artifacts these stages sometimes generate. Granted, some manufacturers have done an admirable job manufacturing all digitally based Cinema Processors and these units have their place in the field, just don't expect the very best performance out of them that can be had.
Mark
[ 11-08-2003, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-08-2003 10:05 PM
Well said, Mark!
I have a CP45 -- yes, a CP45 -- that rivals the DTS system that runs through it but, as Mark pointed out, digital is more convenient from a maintenance standpoint.
In the eight years since I've had that DTS system, I have had to do an RXO on the reader because the LED finally died. Meanwhile, any analog system requires periodic checkups for level-setting, LED replacement and the occasional re-alignment.
Also, there is no error correction for analog so print wear is a potential quality-control issue. You can't "hear" signs of print wear with digital until it gets to the point of reversion(s) to the analog track. With maybe two or three exceptions, all of our digital presentations have played without defaulting to analog, which means there was a perceived uniformity in the auditoria.
I don't think you get that level of consistency with analog because the systems are continually drifting, and at different rates.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-08-2003 10:38 PM
Michael,
Just a short statement regarding my experiences and coments using outboard digital processors DA-20 DTS6D, etc. with really good analog Cinema processors...Cp55, 65, CSP1200 etc. VS. using all digital Cinema processors (CP500, CP650, 6AD, USL etc.). Not really meant to be a statement regarding any maintainance issues....digital and analog all have maintainance issues we HAVE to accept and live with.
Try for instance comparing a DFP3000 or a CP650 with a DA20 feeding a CSP1200, or CP65. Either of the latter blows the 650 or DFP right out of the water!!
Brad, You need to get a CSP1200 and do some A-B listening!! Easy to A_B DTS and SRD at the touch of a button. Sorry the 200 is good, but not quite in the same league as the 1200.
Mark
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic