|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Dolby CP950
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-10-2019 08:10 PM
I think I've used internal crossovers maybe once.
Since the CP950 has the booth monitor function too, that sort of changes the tipping point for me since, from a wiring standpoint, things are, once again, coming out of the right box and I'm not sending 2-4 separate cables from a processor, to the monitor to the amps.
If the crossovers in the CP950 are adequate, I could see using them, particularly with the Multi-channel Amplifier.
Carsten brings up a sore spot for me (and others) where Dolby abandoned the multi-channel analog input. It forces the CP950 into the cookie-cutter room that needs no non-DCinema frills.
Until now, our solution for new installations that have film and DCinema has been using a product like the QSC DCP 300. The DCP300 has two analog inputs. One can handle 8-channels and the other handles 6-channels or combined can handle even more, for the full 70mm system with a CP200. The DCP300 was convenient in that you could "splice" it in right after an existing film processor so it became your monitor, crossover and the DCinema content would come in right there and not have to flow through the analog chain. Set the "Film" preset to alway jump to 0dB and let the film processor's volume control still be the film volume control.
I think, going forward, Q-SYS will be our solution since it is so versatile just about any number of analog or digital inputs one could want/need. Heck, on the DPA-Q amps, you can get them with analog inputs for relatively low cost. If QSC ever develops A and SR emulators, I could see skipping the cinema processor entirely and just develop a suitable A-Chain block to use the mic inputs. I suspect that the DCP line is probably on the decline. The DCP200 is discontinued as is the EXP expansion frame since Cobranet, as reliable as it is (never had a single failure with Cobranet) has given way to Dante. The future is with Q-SYS for QSC (and AES67).
I don't think there will be enough venues putting in film/retaining film to warrant Dolby to change anything but I think they will lose sales, none the less, due to the lack of analog inputs as we used to use them for Blu-rays in most of our installations (probably 80% of our CP750s are using the multi-channel analog inputs). I consider its omission on the CP950 a blunder and one where they didn't find out from their dealers what features the liked/didn't like on the existing products.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-11-2019 07:16 AM
I presume that your plan would be to use some of the AES inputs for your analog audio. The problem is, I need, at least 10 channels (5 pairs) for 7.1 movies with ADA audio so perhaps 6-channels could be left over for other things. I'd rather if a company like Odyssey came out with a product like that it would be analog to HDMI. Then it plugs into a great many things, including the CP850, CP950 or whatever.
Note, the IMS3000 is also a Dolby sound processor Atmos processor so yes, with the CP950 handling Atmos, they are pretty well covered for Atmos and standard audio (5.1/7.1).
I heard an interesting complaint of the CP950 is that the connectors, right down to the power cord are just about swapped compared to the CP750, making a CP750 to CP950 swap potentially frustrating.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 09-11-2019 07:29 AM
Right, while they say the CP950 is a drop-in replacement for the CP750, they went from the THX/CP750 balanced DB25 pinout to the TASCAM style pinout. The CP850 uses the same dual DB25 pinout. Makes some sense to go that way.
Making an analog input extension through HDMI is no so easy - HDMI knows no audio-only mode, and it would block the single HDMI input (most are probably okay with a single input for their Bluray/DVD players or settop boxes).
AES/EBU ADCs are easy to make. The device would need an RJ45 input from the server, so it could wire through either HI/VI-N or Backsurrounds (depending on server routing), and wire in the AES/EBU of the 6 ADCs. So all 16 inputs on the CP950 could be fully utilized with zero pain. The CP950 has a flexible matrix routing to accomplish everything needed. As this deals with HI/VI-N, and 7.1, Odyssey should be tempted to make a product - their business with the previous analog/hybrid processors addons wil certainly not increase.
Other than that - AP25 sales will probably see a decent boost - or, a slower decline. I was just talking to a cinema operator opting towards an AP25 for exactly that reason.
A question not raised/answered on the webinar is that of matrix decoding on AES channels. As it obviously does that on the BNC AES and HDMI in, the code is there, so, it would probably be easy to enable it in software only for the server channels as well. Dolby may consider it an exotic feature, very similar to an external analog multichannel input, though...
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 09-11-2019 08:11 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
If the CP950 can be made Atmos-capable simply by adding a card, how does the price of adding that card to a CP950 compare to the price of a CP850 with Atmos capability out of the box?
I meant to ask that question when I did the webinar, but forgot.
My guess would be that either they're going to phase out new sales of the 750 and the 850, leaving the 950, the 950+ (version with Atmos card and bigger PSU) and the IMS3000 as the only cinema processors in their product line offered new; or that they're going to tweak the pricing such that you'll pay a significant premium for the flexibility of upgrading a 950 to a 950+ after initial installation. In other words, they will set the pricing such that if you know that you are, or likely will be, putting Atmos in, it will make sense to buy an 850 or an IMS3000 out of the gate.
quote: Bobby Henderson
If the CP950 with Atmos capability and the new Dolby multichannel amplifiers can dramatically lower costs and make installation easier that could lead to a lot more theaters installing Atmos.
Most of the cost of retrofitting a room with Atmos is the cost of buying a big rig full of speakers (plus, possibly a crap ton of acoustic panels) and hiring guys to hang them from the ceiling. You're going to need more power amps, too. My guess would be that the cost of the audio processor is 10-15% of a typical project cost. Every little helps, but I can't see this new processor making the difference between pulling the trigger on an Atmos install and not.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 09-11-2019 08:58 AM
They didn't mention real figures, but at least were open enough to say that the CP950+ will come out at lower cost than the CP850, including ATMOS hardware and license. Keep in mind, MDA SMPTE bitstream spec is finished, we will see more competition - the CP950/IMS3000 will not remain the only available solution for object based audio, so, the price needs to come down considerably (and not only for the processor). QSC is most certainly around the corner with a Q-SYS centered MDA solution (aside from their existing small scale IMS based solution). Barco does have a solution already (APX/AuroMAX). GDC as well. With the AP25 supporting AES67, I could imagine they are also working on something. The CP950 ATMOS extension will be available not before mid-next year, and I am sure Dolby will consider the competition at that point in time before they settle pricing.
@Mark - with the ATMOS upgrade card for the CP950, a new stronger power supply also needs to be installed. Let's see if Dolby learned their lesson from the CP750.
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-11-2019 10:01 AM
quote: Leo Enticknap
Most of the cost of retrofitting a room with Atmos is the cost of buying a big rig full of speakers (plus, possibly a crap ton of acoustic panels) and hiring guys to hang them from the ceiling. You're going to need more power amps, too. My guess would be that the cost of the audio processor is 10-15% of a typical project cost. Every little helps, but I can't see this new processor making the difference between pulling the trigger on an Atmos install and not.
IIRC, the original price of a Dolby CP850 was around $35,000 and then dropped to the upper $20K range (which is still pretty expensive). Film-based digital sound processors cost only a fraction of that price.
Any commercial theater surround sound system is going to require a lot of speakers and other features (like wall treatment, acoustic panels, etc) to do the job right. Atmos adds another two rows of speakers on the ceiling, plus at least 2, 4 or more sub bass cabinets on or into the ceiling. It's basically a 50%-60% increase in surround speaker cabinets, which is pretty significant. Although (unfortunately) I tend to see smaller, lower powered speakers installed on the ceiling in most Atmos systems, despite the fact more powerful speakers are needed overhead because those are more difficult to hear, especially in rooms with high ceilings.
I don't know how Dolby's new line of multichannel amplifiers compare in performance with the traditional lines of amplifiers from other companies that tend to support maybe 1, 2 or 4 channels of audio. Still, the idea of putting 16, 24 or 32 channels worth of amplification into a single rack mount box seems like a great idea. I don't know the pricing of these amplifiers. Hopefully there is a considerable discount between a single 32 channel amp versus buying a whole bunch of separate amps to support the same 32 channels of amplification. That could make a big difference on the cost equation of installing Atmos or not. It could also make the difference between a theater installing Atmos with a minimal number of amplifiers and audio object rendering capability versus installing Atmos with a full tilt configuration with up to 128 channels worth of amplification.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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