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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » What's a Dolby Cat 280 Card? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: What's a Dolby Cat 280 Card? Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-21-2003 10:02 PM                     The Copycats may have little harmonic or I.M. distortion but the increase in other distortion thats created by not properly decoding the SR tracks is a whole other situation in itself. There is clearly NO defense for using them. Mark  |  IP: Logged Chris Trainor Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Greenville, RI, USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-22-2003 03:18 AM                        John, I havn't seen many dolby SRA5's for sale but the UltraStereo clone has been around a bit. I actually had 4 of them a couple of years ago. Nearly identical to the SRA-5... just toss Dolby cards in and go. I think I paid like $50/ea for empty chassis. (now the 280's were a different story)... I used some copycats in them and while tolerable I could tell the difference between my fully upgraded cp50 with the 280's and the 55 with the copycats... the 50 sounded better by far. But then again, I had the easy ability to do a side by side comparison on them. --Chris  |  IP: Logged Oscar Neundorfer Master Film Handler Posts: 275 From: Senoia, GA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-22-2003 09:28 AM                        I am sure I will hate myself for getting into this, but I feel a little masochistic today, so here goes. Darren had voiced his opinion about comparing the Dolby 280's and CopyCat 280's. He said, "I have done side by side test with Dolby 280's and copycat 280's on optical and 70mm Mag, optical sounded the same,..." Then Mark says, "Darren, Thats actually a very wrong opinion..." Mark, I beg to differ, but an opinion is not a fact and is neither right nor wrong when it comes to subjective impressions of sound (or similar issues). It is what it is, an opinion. You may disagree with said opinion, and you may think your opinion to be "correct", but that does NOT negate the other person's opinion or make it wrong. Mark then said, "In a somewhat extended listening test of that ptocessors <MOD 7> different noise reduction schemes we determined that the SR(or copycat) circuit that was built in was basically unlistenable." Again, an opinion with which I will differ. Different, yes. Inaccurate in certain ways, yes. Unlistenable, no. But as I said above, my opinion does not negate yours. Steve said, "I'm not being too hard on the copy cat...if you can't hear the difference...either you are deaf or your system sucks so bad that you can't hear it. If you want to play the film wrong...just skip the copy cat all together." Steve, just to make sure I understand, you are saying that you would rather play a SR soundtrack totally unencoded than to play it through the CopyCat circuit. Is that correct? I have listened to unencoded SR prints, and I would find your position difficult to justify. Nevertheless, I respect your opinion and defend your right to it. I am neither deaf nor have I heard the CopyCat through sucky systems (well, at least not all were sucky). Yes I can hear the differences. It is not SR. It has never been intended to be SR. We have always called it an emulator. It is a very inexpensive (and patent infringement free) circuit that was designed to give a "reasonable" playback of an SR soundtrack. I understand that many of you will listen to it, make comparisons to the REAL SR (CAT 280), and come away with a bad opinion. That is OK. Nonetheless, I would venture to say that for the majority of non-golden-eared people who go to the movies, it does a good enough job to be acceptable. If you do not agree, that is OK with me. I don't really want to turn this into a protracted back and forth battle. The CopyCat is what it is, no more and no less. It is in widespread use and is (apparently) providing a satisfactory playback for those who use it. For others who do not like it, my advice is, as some you have stated here, don't use it.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-22-2003 09:54 AM                    Sticking up for the home team; where is the masochism you promised?  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-22-2003 11:02 AM                     His masochism, Steve K., is to encourage a public discussion here that will very likely be quite critical of his company's product, especially a discussion where strong opinions are likely to be thrown about and it has the potential to turn into a very ugly flamefest. Having seen similar situations in the past, I can only admire his bravery, and hope it doesn't mean he's about to depart. Hopefully everyone who responds to Oscar can do so politely and we can keep to a technical discussion. It sounds to me like Oscar is saying that SR through the CopyCat should sound better than SR through a type-A decoder, and not as good as SR through an SR decoder. That doesn't sound farfetched to me, but I've never personally listened to a CopyCat. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-22-2003 11:40 AM                    Yeah yeah...we know that. We were hoping for whips and chains!  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-22-2003 11:43 AM                     I think Oscar's point was also along the lines of "something is better than nothing" specifically in response to the claim that a theatre might do better to consider using NO decoding in lieu of using the Copycat product. Steve G. wrote: quote: If you want to play the film wrong...just skip the copy cat all together. And then Oscar: quote: Steve, just to make sure I understand, you are saying that you would rather play a SR soundtrack totally unencoded than to play it through the CopyCat circuit. Is that correct? I have listened to unencoded SR prints, and I would find your position difficult to justify.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-22-2003 12:34 PM                     Since the biggest issue to john q public is the clarity of dialogue the copycat does an acceptable job at ensuring dialogue is above the level of the background extended noise of the compressed track Listen to any film with wind or rain or traffic noises with dialogue through either A type or no noise reduction and usually the dialogue is buried under the noise. The copy cat gets the dialogue back to level of clarity  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-22-2003 01:14 PM                     Actually, I my intention was that if you didn't want a good SR decoder, you might as well stick with just A-type...using no NR would be difficult in many processors. However, I neither advocate the Copy Cat nor playing back SR with anything but a good SR decoder. With the Copy Cat or Type-A you are playing it back wrong and audibly so such that one does not need golden ears to notice. I take particular exception to the Copy Cat. (and the 222 SR/A) because they are designed to go into quality processors...effectively taking them from proper playback system (with Dolby-A) to substandard systems that purport to play SR when in fact they have some gizmo that was installed on the "better than nothing" plan. Customers are rarely, if ever, made aware that they are listening to a Non-Dolby piece of equipment and thus have no basis to evaluate the sound of a feature...if it sounded poor...it was just the film. Steve  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-22-2003 01:18 PM                        Steve hints at an interesting point: can a theatre with, say, a CP200 with Copycat SR cards legally advertise that it is equipped with "Dolby Stereo SR"? Somehow, I doubt that Dolby would be very happy about this, but it's definitely a grey area (unlike advertising "Dolby Stereo" for a house equipped with an Ultra or Smart processor, which is a clear trademark violation). This is, obviously, just a minor curiousity that has nothing to do with actual sound quality. I've never heard/seen the Copycat cards.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-22-2003 08:19 PM                     "Unlistenable, no. But as I said above, my opinion does not negate yours." _________________________________________________________________ Oscar, I appreciate your input on this forum as does everyone else here. I wish other manufacturers had the balls to stop by here with constructive input like you have done ever since you first posted here!! This is hardly meant to turn into a flamming type of thread either. But there are those of us that like to do things right and those that don't. There were three present and two if them not super critical listeners at the initial listening of the MOD 7. Everyone agreed that the SR was unusable in its present state, it was hardly solely just my opinion. We still used the units on the job in Wyoming and they also pretty much agreed and will stick with the type A as the reversion from digital. It normally runs DTS most of the time in this $2.00 location. Hey man, I know you work hard on these designs and I certainly do give you credit where credit is due, you're an excellent engineer. I also don't expect Dolby like performance for the price of the MOD 7 and neither did our customer. But as SR goes the MOD 7's Copycat simply is not passable. I have no major complaints about the rest of the unit though. I realize that you can only give us so much for the price. However, I would like to see terminals for an outboard SR unit like the Panastereo adaptor. With the option of a good SR ADAPTOR that would turn an adaquate processor into a dynamite little processor and allow those of us that prefer to do things correctly to do so. It has excellent decoding, excellent eq facilities, and a pretty darn good preamp and sounds VERY clean otherwise. Lets face it SR is without doubt the trickest of the NR schemes for anyone to mimick.... and so far Panastereo is the only one that has suceeded... actually surpassed Dolby in that regard. Mark  |  IP: Logged Oscar Neundorfer Master Film Handler Posts: 275 From: Senoia, GA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-23-2003 06:31 AM                        Hi Mark, Thanks for the kind words. I have tried to be acccessible and honest on this forum for any problems or complaints or (one would hope) compliments regarding SMART equipment. I know you well enough to know you would not make such statements about the sound quality without good reason. The fact that others were present who, as you describe them, are not super critical listeners, and all came to the same conclusion makes me think something could be wrong with the MOD 7 you have. As a baseline from which to judge, have you heard other SMART processors, such as the MOD IIB or MOD IIC (which have the same nr circuitry) and if so, did you come away with the same conclusions as you did with the MOD 7? If you have heard other of our processors and heard the same thing, then one would suppose the MOD 7 is operating "normally". If not, then we may want to take a look at your MOD 7 for possible repairs. You also mentioned the possibility of an outboard SR processor. I have not looked at the price numbers, but I kind of doubt one would want to buy the lowest priced processor in the market and then spend a lot of money to upgrade it as you suggest. But, I could be wrong. I am wrong at least 10 to 20 times a day Jhawk said, "and hope it doesn't mean he's about to depart. No, I am not going anywhere. If I am going to be in this market, then I have to take the bad along with the good. I just don't want this to turn into a huge battle. I have heard our product enough with many different soundtracks to know that it is not as bad as Mark was describing and is not as good as the real SR.  |  IP: Logged Peter Hall Master Film Handler Posts: 314 From: London, UK Registered: Dec 2000 posted 12-24-2003 04:04 AM                        We feel that the use of the CC Cards is totally justified if the client otherwise cannot afford SR. Yeah - if you can afford the real thing then buy it, but if not then the CC cards are a hell of a lot better than A type. We started using them for upgrades when the client had only A type, or in one case where the client wanted to skip SR and jump straigth to SRD.. - without the CC cards the default to optical was brutal to say the least.. We set up a blind test with a couple of CAt280s and a couple of CC280s - didnt let the client know which they were listening to - the client himself liked the CC cards better, his engineer 50 / 50. Running a reel of trailers the difference in sound was apparent but argueable (according to the client) as to which was better, however yes on the jiffy film the sweeps made the differences more obvious. Rang a site with two identical screens, one CC 280s and one Cat280s - the operator was unsure which screen had the CCs in and suggested that if there was a performance difference then the threefold price difference more than negated this. Strangely have had no negative comments from sites re the CC280s however did get a couple of negative comments back from a site with CP65s and a set of CC350s - (Pete- is this the site you refer to ??) - is there a difference ? My feeling is that the lightweight amps and non horn loaded stage speakers on this site are not up to SR or any reproduction with bandwidth and headroom beyond that of a 78 RPM record, and that any improvement in the sources here would show up inadequacies further down the line.. A 1.5" dome tweeter is not ideal for punching thru a perforated screen. Nor is an 8" bass For the record, a set of Cat280s (without a frame or installation) costs more here than an entire SMART ModV11. CC Cards list at under half the price of the 280s, and frames are readily available second hand. (We've also used Cat (I think) 364 NR frames for these) It's fine to be a purist but with screen numbers increasing beyond admission numbers, theatre owners have to make realistic decisions. Does a big sign advertising "genuine Dolby SR" really put more bums on seats than say an extra sub or installing the correct no of surrounds ? Some years ago we managed the development of a pile of screens and early on took a decision to omit curtains and install SRD with the funds freed up - a few purists moaned about the lack of tabs but most preferred us to screen the film in the format it was made rather than see some tasteful moquette for 5 minutes before the adverts. I'd argue that if funds are limited the use of CC vs SR cards is a wise economy if the funds are better needed elsewhere (we have seen plenty of sites with plastic based seats, outdated washrooms and no CCTV in the carpark - I'd be curious to ask what the audience would prefer ??) We'd love to install 3 way THX systems in all screens, and continue to do so when the budget allows, but the trick is to be able to deliver the best all round performance when budgets are limited. A ModVII + a DTS6 costs only a bit more than a CP45 - which would you choose ? (assuming disk availability)  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-24-2003 03:21 PM                     Peter... While I certainly don't want to drag this thread on it seems like you come across as the sort of dealer that would rather sell his customer something rather than nothing when selling him nothing would do just about as as well. Me, I would rather sell my customer nothing for now with the hopes that he will be able to afford the CORRECT something a bit later down the road....and this has almost always proven to be true. Personally, I believe approaching a customer from that standpoint is not only more honest but it will also make for a happier customer in the long run... and can advertise that fact as well. Mark @ CLACO  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-24-2003 05:31 PM                     Mark I think Peter did that as he was clear in his post the customer choose which he used after listening to them Myself on most tracks out there these days the CC do a good job Installed tomany Smart processors for them not to be doing a good job as none have come back just requests for more  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.