Russ
 

All of the Ultra auditoriums had (roughly) the same amount of hiss. All of the Dolby auditoiums were also identical to eachother in regards to hiss. You can't hear the hiss when there is noise in the room or people talking, non-sync music playing, just stating that there is more hiss than the Dolby's. I really don't think this is such a big issue. I'm sure the amps themselves contributed to the hiss, but that's a different review.

I'm fairly certain that these units meet factory specs. But you can take comfort in knowing that I reviewed exactly what Ultra sends out, meaning you will get the same thing (if they still make these units... I think they have gone the way of the digital processor like the CP500, etc).

Also, my reviews certainly are NOT written just so everyone can agree with them.

In my younger and more naive days, I always recommended that amps be run wide open, and then the processor gains should be set for the proper auditorium level. The SOLE reason for doing this was so that if an amplifier died, it was very easy for anyone to replace since there would be no concern about setting the new amp's gain. Just turn it all the way up, and there you have it. This was even more of a concern for biamp systems where the gains needed to be precisely set.

However, most processors have additional stages AFTER the fader, and these stages will always contribute SOME noise although it may be very little. If an amplifier has enough gain, this noise will be amplified to the point of audibility.

Techs from the field began to tell me that this was not the optimum way to do things. So later on I started recommending that amplifier gains be set 6 to 10 dB lower and then turning up the processor ouput levels to achieve the proper levels. The hiss decrease is sometimes dramatic by doing this. The gain STRUCTURE has been changed to put the optimum amounts of gain at each point in the system. The equipment has to be looked at as a system where the parts are optimized to work together as well as possible.

And regarding the comment about amps hissing, generally speaking amps are pretty quiet devices with S/N ratios around 100 dB or better, but do not be fooled, ALL electronic equipment has noise regardless of who makes it. The trick is to make sure every part of the system works at its best with every other part.

Now I will grant you that some equipment may be measurably and audibly more noisey than others, but for the most part, current products are pretty good in respect of noise. It is best not to think that you can simply treat all equipment the same in terms of setup procedures, however. Be flexible a bit and learn what works best for each type of equipment you have, and then there should be less opportunity for complaint. I have talked with several techs who take this approach, and it is amazing what good performance they can get out of any manufacturer's equipment.

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

oscar@smartdev.com
 

I really like Joe's reviews for their practical "real-use" comments, which I think (ultimately) are of more use.

Question for Joe: Do manufacturers give you stuff to test (that you send back), or are you doing your reviews on equipment that is being installed or is already installed?
 

Anyway, I understand why you guys would appreciate official specs and performance numbers. I am a tech head and love seeing those same numbers on paper, even if they don't make a noticeable difference in the real world. But keep these two things in mind:

1)These are not lab tests. These are all tested in the real world, working in a real booth and playing real films, not just test noise patterns, etc...

2)I do not have all of the equipment to administer such tests, cannot currently afford it, and do not currently have the time to perform those tests if I did have the equipment.

Other than that, I hope everyone enjoys the reviews and finds them valuable.

As far as leaving the amp gains wide open, I do agree with Oscar, but many times it isn't feasable. In our big house we cannot meet the analog subwoofer level with our CP500's out put cranked to the max. Even with the amp gains maxed out, it still falls short. Of course, digital subwoofer level is easilly acheived. If I could have my way, all amp gains would be set to 12 o'clock, but I can't do that. I also like standardization.

I think in the type of review as Joe does it really is one man's opinion based on personal experience and it should be taken as such. It isn't a quantitative analysis as you would expect from a magazine review.

In the case of Ultra-Stereo's JS series, I have found without exception what I would term excessive hiss, regardless of gain structure. Just walking into the auditorium, you get assaulted by hiss as compared to say a current CP-500 or CP-65. The early CP-500's had the same problem.

As far as distortion goes, I have yet to be in an auditorium Ultra Stereo equipped and not been able to tell that it was an Ultra processor (on analog...harder to tell for digital).

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 

Josh
 

You can hear the hiss when the auditorium is quiet. They do have trouble switching between formats w/ DTS. AND they do blow a lot of power supply cards. I've only had one bad format card, though.

I like them but I DO wish we had Dolby. To me it's like buying a cheap computer, or something like that... You CAN get a Pentium chip in a Packard-Bell, but wouldn't you rather have something like a Gateway? (Or whatever)

Same goes for processors... Yes, Ultra*Stereo has SR decoding but wouldn't you rather have the original?

PS: What do those Goldberg platter reels cost?
 

Joe, Let me know if you ever want SN and distortion figures taken on a unit. I'd be glad to do it for you.
Mark

They have a couple of different standards, and one of them was for testing audio amplifiers. They claimed to use a sort of "real-world" testing methology.

But, in my opinion, it was just a way to make amp manufacturers wattage numbers look higher. For example, if you wouldn't join IHF, you would rate your amp in RMS and get, say, 100 watts. The same amp rated under IHF would be, like 130 watts. So on the front page of an advertising brochure, one manufacturer would put 100 watt, another 130 watt. A dumb consumer wouldn't likely read the fine print, and buy the 130 watt unit. The term "IHF" was a registered trademark, so you couldn't do it yourself.

Funny...right while I'm typing this, I'm thinking of THX also....

Well, maybe I shouldn't be so hard... there is some method to IHF but, people had been using RMS ever since a tube was invented. IHF wasn't any improvement, so why use it. I looked at Amazon for their standards book and see it's out of print, so maybe they went totally away...
 

One thing I wanted to do was compare projector sound heads. I wanted to compare the wow and flutter on a soundhead where there is no tension on the film at the sound drum (like a AA-2 or a Cinemecannica) with a tensioned type (like a Century or a Simplex.)

Did you ever try anything like that? Do you think one would be better, or both be about the same?
 

Typically, the guys from the dollar house just bring a set of clamps, clamp it up and put it in the trunk of their car. It's not pretty but it beats breaking it down just to rebuild it 30 minutes later. I was just wondering if it was possible to 'play' the print onto the reel, screw it back together and THEN put it into the car. It would have a lot more protection that way. A shipping case would give even MORE protection.
 

I meant what kind of equipment do you have acces to in terms of something I might review? Obviously you have access to the Ultra. But what other sound processors/amps/etc...? What if I were to review the new Dolby CP650?
 

And I feel that many processors' audio signals are routed poorly (not shielded, run next to noisy signals like relay power, etc.)
 

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
 

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?
 

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