Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What's a Dolby Cat 280 Card?

This is topic What's a Dolby Cat 280 Card? 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=005666

Posted by George May (Member # 1060) on 12-21-2003, 04:23 AM:

I've been running a mobile cinema with CP-55 with Type A noise reduction for a few years. I'm now thinking of upgrading to SR using a Cat 222SR/A card to replace the plain Cat 222. I've heard the Cat 280 card being mentioned as a cheaper equivalent to the 222SR/A, but I can find out no details about it.

Can anyone help?

Thanks, and a Happy Christmas to you all.

George

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-21-2003, 05:20 AM:

The Cat 280 is a single channel SR card, basically an SR version of a CAT 22 A type unit, which it can replace in older procesors, such as the CP-50. Alternativly, it can be used in a SRA-5 unit with any processor which does not have built-in SR, including your CP-55. The Cat 280 cannot be used internally in the CP-55, you would have to use them in a SRA-5, which is a 1U high rack mount unit, usually mounted just below he processors. SRA-5s can be picked up quite cheaply, if you can find a pair of Cat. 280s to go in it at a reasonable price, it could be a good way to go, many people say the 222 SR/A does ot give as goo a result.

Of course, The SRA-5 would be an extra bit of kit to lug around, which might be a disadvantage in a portable situation, but they are not very heavy.

The Cat 280 is designed for both cinema and pro-audio use, and can encode or decode. For cinema use must be locked into decode mode by a minor modification.

Thse cards are not compatible with the Cat 350 SR cards used in the CP-65.

The NR cards used in the older, i.e. pre-CP-500 are:

Cat. 22: Single channel A-type encode/decode, defaults to decode mode, and does not need to be modified for cinema use. Used in CP- 50, 200 and, I think, 100.

Cat. 280: SR (only version of Cat. 22. Can be used in the same processors, or in a SRA-5.

Cat. 222: Two channel A-type, used in the CP-55 and 65.

Cat. 350: Single Channel SR (only) card, used in the CP-65 as originally designed.

Cat. 300: SR and A-type version of the Cat 350, mainly used for pro-audio, but also in a rather obscure configuration of the CP-65 where, along with a Cat.222, it could provide four channels of A-type NR for 35mm 4 track magnetic prints so encoded, format 22, I think it was, or one of the 70mm formats.

Cat 222 SR/A: SR and A-type version of the Cat. 222. Decode only, designed to be used in a CP-65, as a cheaper alternative to a Cat 222 and a pair of Cat 350s. Uses somewhat different processing of SR, but I'm not sure exactly what the difference is.

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 12-21-2003, 06:10 AM:

Contact Peter at Future Projectionis (www.fproj.com), he will be able to supply you with a SRA-5 im sure, CAT 280's are expensive, a CopyCat280 is better value, and gives the same results.
Cat222SR/A cards are expensive and the SR decoding is not as acurate as the 280's. As 4 cards are fitted into one on the 222.
The Cat280 cards are big beasts.

Darren

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-21-2003, 10:13 AM:

The CAT 280 is one of the best sounding SR cards out there, but Panastereos SR is as good and perhaps even a bit better. They've also just come out with an outboard SR adaptor that makes use of their card and it would cost alot less than using an SRA-5 unless you can find one for a song....
BTW: The Panastereo SR card is also a record/play card for those thata re not aware. Don't even consider a Copycat card! Not even a close replica of proper SR devoding.
Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 12-21-2003, 10:21 AM:

Seconded on the clone 280's YUCK!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-21-2003, 01:11 PM:

The copycats are not that bad oon 90% of the soundtracks outthere

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-21-2003, 02:02 PM:

Oh for christsakes Gordon...the Copy Cats are pure junk! They are what they are...they fit and have some of the properties of the SR system. If you can't easily hear the difference in your system then your system is also junk (or your ears are).

The Cat. 280 is the best SR card I've personally heard. The Cat. 300 or 350 also have no known anomolies with optical or magnetic (dubber or 1/2-track audio recorders) sources that I've heard.

I have not done as critical a listening test to the CM-353 that I would like but it seems to do a fine job so in the above situation, I'd favor an SR-35 processor from Panastereo as a new solution that will work with just about any processor out there (including the DTS-6AD, by the way). Note, the Pana SR-35 is not compatible with the CP-200 since it does not handle the different levels between Type-A pass through and a 3-dB boost for SR. This isn't an issue for the CP-55 since Type-A does not pass through. Pana may have fixed this by now (I tried it last April)

I'm sure a Dolby 363 system can also be kludged in.

Of course one may find the SRA-5 system with Cat. 280s. and that is pretty tough to beat in performance.

Steve

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-21-2003, 02:23 PM:

I didn't say they were identical but they do a tollerable job

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-21-2003, 02:42 PM:

Define tollerable. They emit sound...so...they have little to no resemblence to SR decoding...why not just leave the "A" decoders on line...they too emit sound...either way it is just plain wrong.

Steve

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 12-21-2003, 04:13 PM:

i wouldnt be too hard on the Copycat 280's, as Gordon said 90% of the films there fine, and in modern cinemas, digital is in use 99% of the time.
I have done side by side test with Dolby 280's and copycat 280's on optical and 70mm Mag, optical sounded the same, for Mag the Dobly 280 has the edge in the HF. Also the level out of the Copycat seems higher than a Dolby 280.
Darren

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-21-2003, 04:43 PM:

Darren,
Thats actually a very wrong opinion and one of the main reasons that reverting back to analog is so noticable in theatres. Poor A chains, wrong or no correct noise reduction....it all leads to a customers wanting to rent the DVD next time around.

We recently had a customer want to install the cheapest stereo processor made in a temporary location so we went with the Smart Mod 7. In a somewhat extended listening test of that ptocessors different noise reduction schemes we determined that the SR(or copycat) circuit that was built in was basically unlistenable. The Type A was actually better when playing back an SR film and when playing type A back, the decoding, although hardly perfect, was actually acceptable. In this case the fallback from DTS was setup to go to type A and we reccomended to our customer NEVER to use the SR(copycat) at any time....at all, period. Thank God 95% of the time it'll be running DTS anyway!
Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-21-2003, 05:19 PM:

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.

How on earth do you or Gordon come up with the 90-95% compatible crap? Because it is not a complimentary decoder to that which encoded the track it is 100% incompatible. This is pretty cut and dried.

I'm not just picking on one manufactuer here either...see my other rants on Dolby's Cat. 222 SR/A....closer but also no cigar. Dolby-S + Dolby-S does not equal Dolby SR. Forget complex music and voice signals...just run frequency sweeps on a fake SR card versus the real thing and the differences become apparent...hence I recommend for a CP-55 to use a good SR system...SRA-5 with Cat. 280s (preferred) or SR-35 with CM-353.

Steve

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-21-2003, 08:07 PM:

A note of clarification; the Dolby Cat280T is the Cinema-specific card which they expect you to use. The plain Cat280 is the pro audio version, and requires a trivial modification to work properly in a cinema processor (cut a jumper); search in this forum to find the details.

Cat280 cards seem to be much more prevalent on the used market, for obvious reasons. Just to give you an idea, I was able to find them as cheaply as USD$125 as of August 2003.

Are SRA-5s really available? I was somehow under the impression that they were not. Is this a US/UK difference?

[EDIT: Originally I hypothesized that the Panastereo SR35 supported the Dolby Cat280 card, as well as the Panastereo
CM353; Steve G. thinks I'm wrong, and I was never sure, so let's assume he's right. Ray?]

Oh, if you're into do-it-yourself, dealers selling used Cat280 cards (not T) probably also have the standalone single-channel frame for it, used in pro audio (cat 363 maybe? Can't remember). They're probably really cheap and you can get them and then wire them up to the CP55 by hand...theoretically.

--jhawk

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-21-2003, 09:00 PM:

John,

I don't think the SR-35 can physically fit the Cat. 280. The CM-353 is a single board whereas the Cat 280 is a double board card and much thicker. Also I don't think they have a +24 rail to power a Cat 280. The CM-353 runs off of a bi-polar +/- 15 supply.

Steve

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-21-2003, 09:02 PM:

Well a lot depends on the circumstances of the customer a copy cat is better at handling a SR print than running it in a type
I have used them in a CP200 and note much of what Darren has
Also it has far less distortion than th 222SR/A does

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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

Posted by Chris Trainor (Member # 9) on 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

Posted by Oscar Neundorfer (Member # 458) on 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.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-22-2003, 09:54 AM:

Sticking up for the home team; where is the masochism you promised? [Confused]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 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

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-22-2003, 11:40 AM:

Yeah yeah...we know that. We were hoping for whips and chains! [Eek!]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 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.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 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

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 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.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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

Posted by Oscar Neundorfer (Member # 458) on 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 [Big Grin]

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.

Posted by Peter Hall (Member # 695) on 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)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 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

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-24-2003, 05:40 PM:

Forget comparing the CC with the real thing. How about a CC vs. a 222-pretend-SR/A card or the various digital implementations of SR decoding. Or a CC vs. A playback. Remember at one point Dolby was suggesting that A playback was actually a good thing for lesser theatres as the low level sounds would not be dropped back as low as the original recording which might be beneficial when there is high ambient noise.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-24-2003, 10:11 PM:

Perhaps a fair analog comnparison would be the USL SR card against the CC card. The digital processors would all need to be listened to against the 280T card for at least some basis for the comparison.
Mark

Posted by Peter Hall (Member # 695) on 12-25-2003, 04:54 AM:

Christmas day .. but...

Mark - we are the sort of dealer who responds to our customers needs. A 100 seat provincial second run house asks us to make the sound better, with a budget of X. What would you do ?? Tell them that they need to spend 5x and go for brand names and Digital, or offer solutions within their budget with a clear upgrade path for the future ?? There is no doubt from the customers standpoint that CC280s and sub bass are a good start, and we'd suggest it is more effective to install CC cards, sub and amps up to Digital standard to generally improve and upgrade the system to produce a definite improvement in sound. Or would you tell them that it's all or nothing and leave their clients listening to A type, PA type surrounds and no sub ?

Again, we'd love to install SRD THX JBL and Martin Audio on every site (as we do when we can - we remain the UK's THX dealer and have installed more top end screening rooms and premiere West End venues than enyone else) but also can work with a client with a limited budget to provide a cost effective, audible or visible improvement for their customers.

Merry Xmas ! Now, where was I, didn't I have my hand up some bird's arse...? Far more important that arguing over some dam SR cards...

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-25-2003, 12:23 PM:

Mark you had to see that one coming...

You have Gordon and Peter here that have sold their customers on a "solution" for SR...the CC 280 and other sub products....there is NO WAY they can ever claim they are anything but acceptable. Imagine if you sold something to a loyal customer that trusts you and then you turn around and claim it is junk or even just less than you had claimed. You'd loose your customer(s) and reputation. Yours was a very poor argument since it could only end in conflict.

Oscar has very nicely stated his position that what he maufacturers is not the real thing, that it is indeed inferior but that he has customers that find it to be acceptable...as cases in point...you have Gordon and Peter...Oscar only needed one person to be satisfied to make his claim. I gurantee that he could produce more than just Oscar and Peter too...there are many exhibitors and installers that find no problem with SMART equipment.

As to customers that have been sold SMART equipment that later feel that they were "undersold"...I have received calls from even Gordon's customers about their later disappointment when they realized what they ended up buying (without me explaining it to them). It may have been accurately represented but it wasn't the real-deal. Actually with stupid statements like 90% compatible...I question the accurate representation but I've already covered that. Customers don't often go to the dealer they are disappointed with when it comes to equipment choices.

I can actually appreciate the line of thinking that if one installs a reliable digital system (2 out of 3 can make this claim) that saving money on the analog back-up system to apply it somewhere else has a certain amount of sense.

I, however, do NOT accept the notion that a customer does not have enough money to afford a decent sound processor or NR cards. I have NEVER sold a Copy Cat and all of my customers have SR...this includes 1st run, screening rooms, mom-n-pops, sub-runs...you name it. The only knock-off, non-Dolby version of SR I've sold are the Panastereo CM-353s in CSP-1200s. I've upgraded a couple Ultra-Stereos (not sold by me) with their SR emulator (it doesn't track great either).

If your theatre is so marginal that the cost of a quality projection and sound system is too much...please...go out of business (my opinion)...you are not that far from it to begin with...in the cost of operations...projection is not that big and it has the longest service life. That is cost/year for projection sound is almost free. A substandard theatre actually brings down the reputation of the entire industry. If you ever have a theatre where a CC card outperforms the genuine SR...then that is really indicative of how poor the quality of the theatre's sound system really is...with SR, only the proper decode will restore what is actually recorded...you can't "improve" upon that...you can only degrade. Again, this is cut and dried...not an opinion situation.

As to the curtain thing that was raised...I don't agree with the money to be spent elsewhere arguement. I've yet to find a theatre that went belly up on the curtain expendature. In fact, the curtained theatres seem to have the longest life. Their screens stay in better shape. Also, as William Hooper pointed out in another thread, what you are selling is not just the movie, it is the theatre. If all you've got to offer is a rectangular box with a white wall at the end...why bother going to YOUR theatre? If you are the only show in town then why not wait until the DVD? If it is only a 100-seater...you are not going to get the big community experience anyway.

If, on the other hand, you put on a show then why bother with the DVD? Anything at home will pale in comparision to the theatre experience. The theatres I service with curtains routinely out perform their curtainless theatres. Is the curtain the reason? Maybe not...those theatres normally have more than just a curtain...they have a nice lobby, Marquee, styled interiors carpets...and put on a show...including having top-shelf picture and sound...which one of these items can you get away with not doing and then notice when the attendence drops? Also you have to factor what product is out there so it is a tough one.

Your accountant can certainly show that if you buy SMART processors and omit the curtain that you've spent less than you might have...what you accountant can not show is the gain/loss of tangible items like curtains, improve sound, acoustics, picture quality...heck even balconies. On the spreadsheet, they can only go in the negative column...their affects on attendance are not direct. Yet how come, in my part of the world, does an Uptown routinely dwarf other screens in all categories? Is it the screen? Maybe. Is it the balcony? Maybe. Is it the sound? Maybe. Is it the location? Possibly but there is not parking yet we sell out 830 seats routinely (and over 1000 seats before the last renovation). Is it the curtain? Maybe...we get comments when it isn't working about the disappointment...it certainly is more dramatic a performance when this curtain starts to reveal a screen that is big and deeply curved that seem to go on forever. If we were to pull out the Cat. 280s and put in CC280s would we loose customers? Maybe, maybe not but it would definately chip away at the perceived quality of the theatre since the overall sound quality would be degraded...how much to the end user is an impossible question to answer.

So, my beef is not with SMART...they are supplying what some exhibitors are wanting...my beef would be with exhibitors that would present a show in such a 2nd or 3rd class manner (if they'll cut on things like SR...they are cutting all over the place) and with any dealer/technican that would claim that it is just as good or even the "percentage of compatible" lies. Those are either deception or incompetentcy for they are measurably inferior and audibly easy to tell. The exhibitors that are looking to "cheap-out" are predisposed to believe they got good value. They have the Ghostbusters line of "we are ready to believe you" already. They sleep quite well charging their customers the full admission price for a performance that warrents a discount.

Note we are not even talking about high-end systems here...no THX or DSP based crossovers or fancy speaker systems or other esoterics...this is just nuts and bolts playing the analog track properly...nothing fancy there. This is just the basics and we haven't even gotten to the b-chain!

Happy Holidays!

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-25-2003, 06:27 PM:

Steve,
Gord and Peter can go right ahead and sell them either at their suggstion to their customers, or at their customers request if they want to. But I refuse to. In Peters case I felt there was a statement that was there if you sort of read between the lines. And as for this being a clash I hardly think so:). Nothing here has been at all heated...its just a simple case of selling the customer the right or wrong device and in my past experience customers that are not in the know and are new to the buisness so to say have always appreciated being honestly guided on this sort of stuff as in the long haul ot does dave them money. I certainly don't take any comments personally, nor would I ever hold a grudge against anything anyone ever said or expressed on this site. It is here for the good of discussions like this and I also know that Gord knows me well enough to know the same.

Today its pretty easy to sell a system with proper SR. I can't think of a system in the past 10 years I've sold that was not...excepting the recent 4 Smart mod 7's. That particuluar location was reopened only temporarily so of course the customer wasn't going to spend for the best. Under that sort of circumstance I might make an exception and did in this case to prevent other far worse equipment from being installed. In this case it might have been either home type decoding equipment or another el cheapo untried digitally based processor. The customer wanted new equipment and the location was way too far away to deal with software issues and digital glitches and in this case I very definately sold them the more reliable option. I can only reccomend some unproven item after it is at least first was proven locally. Fortunately we do have theatres that allow us to go in and do exactly that.

I simply believe that either making the customer hold off a while or by juggling other items around a bit on the ticket to help the customer end up with the better option at the start is the correct thing to do. Our customers have always appreciated that and returned to us again and again and that tells me that we are certainly doing right by them.

Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 12-27-2003, 05:57 PM:

Steve, the copycat vs 280 was carried out in a THX theater on a 35mm print of Minority Report if I remember correctly, and a 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia, not a run down flea pit, or badly aligned system at all.
(For the record we run genuine Cat 280's)
As Gordon mentionied, a copycat for SR is better then no SR.
And for the cost, which is a big issue for many of the smaller cinemas around, the copycat is a suitable SR card, just like a Cat222SR/A!? niether maybe the real artical.
Many cinemas install Smart proccessors, dont here a major uproar against this?

Anyway I think we've all decided a genuine SRA5 and 280 cards are the way to go.
SRA5's are around in the U.K. on the second hand market, just need to know the right firms to buy from.
Future projections are the best start.
(www.fproj.com)
02073580606

Peace!
Darren

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-27-2003, 06:10 PM:

Mark I doubt that your employer would refuse to sell one if a customer came in asking for one.
I too have used the CC in cp200's for mag 70 screenings with no complaints and in fact some comment to the contrary on LOA screening

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-27-2003, 06:13 PM:

I like mono optical....

>>> Phil

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-27-2003, 06:17 PM:

Phil is that mono optical academy style or full range and which variable area or variable density and push pull or unilateral track
we really need to know

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-27-2003, 07:01 PM:

The mono optical works great with his mono ocular vision har har [Big Grin]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-27-2003, 07:02 PM:

Gord why would I ever sell a CC280 when I've always been able to sell a high-quality version...Cat. 280, Cat. 300, Cat. 350 or CM-353?

There is no excuse for the CC280 to be sold...I've nothing against SMART for making it though...just those that would use it (kinda a wierd philosophy). Again, this isn't a SMART thing...all of the low-line cheap SRs are in the same category...this should NOT be taken as a SMART bashing thread.

Steve

Steve

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-27-2003, 07:04 PM:

Gordie... I like it all! AND! I want it ALL NOW!!!!! [beer]

Actually, I think the Westrex system is far superior to the RCA varible density.

>>> Phil