Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Amps and Processors

This is topic Amps and Processors in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000283

Posted by Stephen Jones (Member # 16) on 10-05-1999, 02:10 AM:

What amps and processors do you all prefer or hate?Well amps I prefer are Altec Lansing and Qsc as I find that they deliver a good clean sound. As for valve jobs I liked the Western Electric and R.C.A I dont remember the model numbers as it was a very long time ago that I used these valve amps.The worst amp that I used was few years ago before the theatre I was working at changed to Digital sound they were made by a theatre supply company under the name V.T.S,they were always failing it was either power supply problems or cicuits just completely shorted,each time they were repaired another problem surfaced.I remember turning one on at the start of the day and it fizzed and caught fire,Iwas clad to see the back of them.I had the pleasure of using that type again just recently and nothing changed the center chanel amp kept going into overload causing the out put to drop kept it going to the end of my shift reported it to the permant projectionist, what the problem was that caused it I dont Know as that was my last shift at that theatre.As for processors I prefer the Dolby C.P65 as I find it to be a very versatile unit and can be used with Dolby Digital and D.T.S without any problems,I prefer the 65 to the 500 which still has its problems. The worst is the Eprad prcessors the model I used was the starlet always had problems doing the levels and the amount of cross talk coming through the surround was also a problem I was glad when they were relaced with the C.P 65s when the twin was converted to multiplex.

------------------

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-05-1999, 05:14 AM:

Amps gotta be QSC. I use mainly the 1500a, which has a fair amount of power (not tons) but enough to get the job done.

As for the processor, I'm going to have to go with the CP65. It has a cleaner sound than the CP500 and can easilly accomodate all digital formats without redigitizing the incoming 6 track signal, as the CP500 does with DTS, which will degrade the quality. I don't care too much for the CP200 either. It sounds good, but it is really weird and requires so many external modifications and boxes just to get it to do what 1 CP65 can do. Just looking at the thing you'd think it was 40 years old. The only thing I don't like about the CP65 is that it pads the surrounds in digital mode. That really sucks for Dolby Digital. I guess Dolby had to put something in there to make it cheesy. However this doesn't affect DTS since the levels are set seperately. So it's livable. This is probably why I prefer the surround presence of DTS over SRD... I can hear them!

I don't care for Ultra Stereo processors. The stuff looks and feels cheap and you can tell that it sucks just by listening. They sound harsher and more hollow than the Dolby processors. And their level pots and EQ pots are really "twitchy".

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-05-1999, 09:59 AM:

Where I work, we have had a fair amount of problems with QSC amps. I don't know exactly what broke in them but that little green/red led goes to red, then back to green. Cools down, then comes back on, I guess. There are 32 here (an 8-plex.) We go through about 4 a year, which I feel is too much. Just MOHO.

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 10-05-1999, 10:44 AM:

I like QSC amplifiers---they are the best. There have been a few that have been defective right out of the box, but QSC has been quick to replace them.

I have been fortunate to install/use the new DTS digital processor called the DTS-6AD. Looks alot like a CP-500 and installs fast! Sounds good, too. It really makes those surrounds come to life! The only thing I don't like is that it uses all DB-25 computer connectors for the input/outputs---I hate making those connectors up. It would be nice if DTS would make the cable/connector up, say 6 feet long with stripped/tinned wires at one end.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-05-1999, 10:54 AM:

Ilike the QSC USA serries amps the best they are powerfull and have had very few failures
I don't like the DC serries from QSC as the input seems less sensitive
My favorite processor is the Panastereo as it has inputs for all digital systems plus mag and av and 2 nonsync sources. It also has the most transparent sound I have heard. The next best is the CP200 as there is nothing it can't do if you understand the beast. The CP65 is okay but has a higher background noise level.
The CP45 is the worst
The Ultrastereo's are relativly good and have had very few problems

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-05-1999, 02:58 PM:

There's only 2 amps I'll put in. That is the QSC "mx" series and the Ashley line. I don't much care for the QSC "USA" line. I've had nothing but problems with them.

Dolby is clearly the best processor. However the CP45 is junk. I strongly dislike the CP65 purely for the padding down of the DA20. If it weren't for that and the lack of full magnetic capabilities, I would highly recommend it as my favorite. However, I'd take a CP200 with an aux rack any day for my personal preference. A good second is the CP500, although there are a few quirks with these and the sound can be a little harsh if the eq is not done carefully.

I've never liked Ultra Stereo very much, although if I couldn't have a Dolby, this would be my second choice. I've never worked with the Panastereo line, but anyone who has to resort to putting a sexy woman with a gun on their ads to sell a product must need all the help they can get. Plus, for those cosmetically minded, the Panastereo units just look cheap. (Hey, you wanted honesty, right?) I've never been happy with SMART processors, although I will admit I've never had the chance to work with their top unit.

(Please note before any flaming begins that I am not stating the Panastereo and SMART top of the line units are bad. Again, I've never worked with them.)

The Sony analog processors are junk. This is to be expected from the makers of SDDS, though.

While we're discussing equipment, it's JBL speakers all the way for me. There is no other option in my book.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-05-1999, 03:30 PM:

Regarding speakers: amazingly, I was recently talking with a sound guy who does a lot of recording and film sound postproduction work, and for whom I have a lot of respect. The "JBL vs. Altec vs. everything else" topic came up. He really doesn't like the Altec stuff very much, but he likes JBL even less. His preference for a theatre installation would be Klipsch or (at the high end) the Stage Accompany speakers. I thought that it was kind of odd that someone who is obviously very critical of sound quality would prefer 1950s Altec horn systems (admittedly, with the original crossovers removed and replaced with a bi-amped system) to 1990s JBL horn systems. I agree that they sound different, but I haven't really had the chance to do a proper A/B comparison myself.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-05-1999, 07:06 PM:

Ken! I am really curious about the DTS-6AD. A manual is coming soon, correct? I know it has 3 digital audio outs on the back, so you can easilly pirate soundtracks DIGITALLY. I don't really like the way the volume knob display is set, it is too small (the numbers) but I bet you can get used to that.

Posted by Rick Long (Member # 213) on 10-05-1999, 10:22 PM:

Regarding processors: the only ones I've played with to any extent are Dolby. I like the 200 for its versatility, but prefer the performance of the 240 optical preamp over the older 108, so the CP65 would probably be my pick. (The jury's still out on the 500's, only because I have not had time to experiment with them as much).

Regarding amplifiers: two of the requirements we like for theatre amps (assuming the electrical parameters are within spec.) are; no front-panel volume control that unauthorized personel could alter, and some measure of output level indication (the second is not absolutely essential, but is, at least, reassuring during a performance).

Both of these requirements have been met by the amps I have been using over the last few years:

Ashley - The older FET-200 and FET-500 models were extremely reliable, having a very low failure rate. The newer FTX-1501 and FTX-2001 have not proved quite as reliable.

QSC - The first thing I liked about the 1222 and 1622 models was carrying them up to the booth. The switching power supplies make for a very light-weight unit. In five months of use, I have only encountered one failure so far.
During a routine service check of one installation, recently, while running pink noise into Left channel (CP-200 with T.H.X.) I found no Left channel bass. Input plug substitution with Left-Extra proved the problem to be with the Left amplifier. Turning the fader up to near 10 brought the bass channel to life. It stayed good, after reducing the level to 7, but only for about half an hour. I changed the amp.
Front-panel controls are sealed by a cover secured by an allen screw.

Speakers - JBL or EAW.

Posted by Stephen Jones (Member # 16) on 10-06-1999, 12:31 AM:

As for speakers I prefer J.B.L for behind the screen and subs as well,for surrounds I like the Krix speakers.With regards to the panastereo processors I have used these for a short time but have found them good, on a par to C.P500 but the Dolby processors are just that much better than the Panastereo which by the way was developed by Panalogic here in Oz,dont like panalogic automation all that much.

------------------

Posted by Mathias Andersson (Member # 169) on 10-06-1999, 04:02 AM:

Talking about speakers, we use one of the latest front speaker systems.... the Electro-Voice Variplex. I must say I love these 3-way speakers very much. Clearer sound than this is hard to get...

Dolby CP500 isn't very impressive when it comes to pure sound quality. Then I prefer the good old CP65.

We use the only swedish THX certified amps around, they are called Lab 1000t. Powerfull (550W 4 ohm FTC) but slim (only 2 units high) and absolutly perfect for our 215 seated auditorium.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-06-1999, 07:43 AM:

Regarding processors: I'd put in an honorable mention for the lowly CP-50. The original configuration isn't so great, but there aren't too many pieces of 1970s equipment that can be upgraded to sound just as good as 1990s equipment by swapping a few cards.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-06-1999, 08:34 AM:

Under speakers I like the KCS stage speakers from Spain and for economy jobs Studio Lab in Toronto builds escellent surrounds and decent stage speakers I have had very little problems with the USA serries of amps except in one theatre that was hit by lightning

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 10-06-1999, 08:31 PM:

Amps: Anything with tubes in them... theres no contest! <grin>

OK now for reality... I have installed just about everything you can think of amp-wise, and my favorites are the QSC 1000-series (1400, 1700 et al) although I have had little problems with the USA series either. I like BGW and Crest as well.

Processors: Just anything Made from Dolby save for the CP-100 and older CP50s, I prefer the CP55,65,200 and 500 the best.
Ultra*Stereo 200 series are also almost as good as the Dolbys and save for a couple of bad power supplies that caused a mysterious hum in two of them, they have been a very good unit for the money, and can handle 6-channel sources 'right out of the box' ( try that with a CP50!)

I have no experience with the Panastereo or Sony, so I cannot make any comments about them. Some of the other Smart units range from pretty good for a basic 4-channel processor, to 100% pure CRAP!

With Kintek being out of business, I try to avoid them for a retrofit install, but still come across a few of them in my travels.

Worst processor? Easy. Eprad STARSCOPE and its brethren. DAMN these things suck!

Speakers? I prefer JBL, but really like Altec, EV, and Apogee as well...

Until later...

Aaron

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-06-1999, 11:21 PM:

I have a unique opportunity working at a college performing arts center because I can pick up extra hours as a stage hand from time to time. When I do, I get to talk to a lot of people like sound engineers, etc. One guy told me an interesting story....

The company that makes Crest Audio and , if I remember right, the one that makes QSC, has been bought by the company that makes Peavy amps. In the process they have moved their factories to a 'central' location and in the process have been going through a lot of quality control problems. The story goes that one of the P.C. boards in the amp is on an 'edge connector'. Well, when they retooled the factory, they started making the printed circuits just a hair too wide. So what did they do? They BUCKLED the cards to fit them into the edge connector slot! Hence, all of the bad amps.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-07-1999, 01:41 PM:

QSC has always built their amps in house in fact they are just building a new facility. Peavey also built there amps in house
gord

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-16-1999, 09:53 PM:

Ok for amps....there is QSC...As I like to say, we sell QSC, and fix Crown (and recone speakers powered by Ashley). After almost 20 years of QSC (literally hundreds if not 1000s) only 4 failures of which 2 were recent DCA series that had defective ribbon cables internally (probably the cause of the other poster's intermittent channel problem). The MXa series is my standard...they are tanks with the MX-3000a being pure heaven (it is actually the same amp as the EX-4000 with a different front panel).

For speakers...properly updated Altec A-4s in the right theatre just can't be beat. Updating includes, retuning the cabinet/ports, updating the drivers (to 515-16G)...we can now recone 515Bs and later to Gs. And chucking the multi-cell for a Mantaray...the BEST CD horn out there. I have placed referbed Altec A-4s and A-5s in place of misplaced JBL and EV and always received thank-yous. The Altec 288/299 driver is much less harsh than the JBL 2446 and a whole lot less harsh than EV DH-1a. The horn load of the Altec covers up a lot of poor theatre acoustics by not bouncing the sound off the walls. By retuning the cabinets and updating the drivers, 40-16KHz without any major EQing is very doable and flatter than their direct radiator counterparts in a "tough" room.

The down side is that EVI just announced that the 299 and the Mantarays are to be discontinued. If you have Altec's in your theatre, try and get the horns upgraded to Mantarays before they are gone...you won't belive how much better they will sound. I'm not kidding, the MR-94B and the MRII594A are the best CD horns in their size class period.

My pick for the typical "mall theatre" is the ever trusty JBL-4675.

I would say that EAW is the speaker company to watch though for the future. They have a nice mix of horn and direct radiator speakers and are decent sounding.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-16-1999, 09:54 PM:

Ok for amps....there is QSC...As I like to say, we sell QSC, and fix Crown (and recone speakers powered by Ashley). After almost 20 years of QSC (literally hundreds if not 1000s) only 4 failures of which 2 were recent DCA series that had defective ribbon cables internally (probably the cause of the other poster's intermittent channel problem). The MXa series is my standard...they are tanks with the MX-3000a being pure heaven (it is actually the same amp as the EX-4000 with a different front panel).

My pick for the typical "mall theatre" is the ever trusty JBL-4675.

I would say that EAW is the speaker company to watch though for the future. They have a nice mix of horn and direct radiator speakers and are decent sounding.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-22-1999, 06:24 PM:

Oh I forgot to mention processors...

The Dolby CP-200 tops my list. It is extremely flexible...very usable as-is and is upgradable to be the equal or better of any in the Dolby line-up.

Steve