Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: DTS-XD10P!

This is topic DTS-XD10P! 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=006300

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 06-24-2004, 01:21 AM:

DTS-XD10P
Cinema Audio Processor, 8 channels analog, 8 channel digital (AES/EBU) inputs, A/SR-type noise reduction.

This must be new. Not on DTS website though. Does anyone heard about this? It is on the latest price list of DTS. I guess its a NEW processor supporting 8 Channels on DTS as well. That must really be the bollocks!!!! Do you think it can accept a second Digital unit like Dolby Digital DA20 for example??
Comments?
D

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-24-2004, 06:19 PM:

I just hope it's built better than the DTS-6AD. I haven't exactly seen/heard the best reviews about that previous model.

Also, only eight channels? I thought the XD-10 player could do as many as 10 channels. That involves an upgrade of an internal card. The stock XD-10 units out of the box can do 8 discrete channels. I was told the scaleable nature of the XD-10 would allow a lot more channels (well above 10) with add in cards if a particular application demanded it, such as a unique special venue show. If the XD-10P only supports up to 8 channels, then you can forget about seeing 10-channel theatrical or even special venue soundtracks anytime soon. It just throws up a brick wall.

IMHO, cinema equipment companies need to make new cinema processors able to handle as many as 12 channels. That would cover the bases for most every "next generation" sound format being demonstrated, such as the "10.2 Surround" process Tomlinson Holman has exhibited.

The infrastructure has to be put together for commercial movie theaters to rise to a higher level of audio presentation quality. And a lot of that starts with items like the cinema processor. Too much of the industry had adopted the "it's good enough" attitude and allowed a lot of movie theaters to just wind up sounding terrible and giving more viewers added excuses to do more movie watching only on DVD. If there are ways commercial theaters can fully distinguish themselves apart from home theater with audio equipment there might be more emphasis on upholding good presentation standards. Give the theaters something to put up on the marquee to brag about. DD-EX could not do the trick because the average person couldn't figure out what the hell it meant. If you say something simple like "10 channel surround" or "12 channel surround" people will see that as being a leap above the average 5.1.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-24-2004, 07:47 PM:

I agree with that. What will get the attention of the home theater enthusiasts who have largely given up on commercial cinema is a higher number than 5.1. If you hang signs saying Dolby Digital 10.2 (or whatever) that will be noticed and understood.

"Hey, that number is HIGHER than mine!"

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-24-2004, 10:42 PM:

The unit was shown at ShoWest. Of course, there isn`t much to see. We will have to wait and see, sorry, hear how it performs. The one problem I immediately saw is that it didn`t have an operator-accessible optical level function. You can only set the optical level from a notebook or palm PC. Maybe they changed this in the meantime. Even though with LEDs, you don`t have to set the level as often as with exciter bulbs, you still have to do it. The argument that many operators don`t do it anyway is not valid for me.
Apart from the fact that we can`t have a notebook or palm in the location just for that purpose, I wouldn`t want people to start playing with the setup anyway.
There is an interesting alternative to the unit. But I am not in the position to divulge what I know. Mabye the manufacturer wants to tune in and tell you more.

Posted by Larry Zuverink (Member # 1483) on 07-15-2004, 03:08 PM:

I believe this it is 10 channel. We might be a beta tester for the unit. I should find out next week if it is going to happen. If it does I'll be sure to post my comments

Posted by Larry Zuverink (Member # 1483) on 08-02-2004, 12:48 PM:

Of coarse open your mouth before you know and look what happens. I was talking to a enginner and the XD10p(I was told it will be XD10D) and he said it is a 8 Channel. I still haven't heard when we are getting the Beta unit.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-02-2004, 05:04 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Too much of the industry had adopted the "it's good enough" attitude

I don't know that this is exactly fair. Many theatres have undergone upgrades to digital from mono or some funky version of stereo. I'm sure that a lot of those theatres don't sound "quite right" but I'm willing to bet that the sound is improving as a result of these upgrades.

My point being that widespread upgrades suggest that there is anything but a "good enough" attitude.

If anything, I would fault the producers/distributors for a lack of blockbusters (or even good movies). The oversaturation of prints in circulation and the steady decrease in clearance time between cinematic and video releases are also responsible for cash-flow problems some exhibitors are experiencing.

We also have technology like the "back surround" channel that isn't really being used very widely at all. And I am sure I need not remind anyone here that 8-channel is nothing new. In fact, 8-channel has been tried and is now dormant, if not dead.

So why do we want more channels when we aren't using the ones we have at our disposal?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-02-2004, 05:38 PM:

I understand your point about how a great deal of movie theaters have done serious upgrades for digital sound. In the early 1990s you could only find that kind of thing in large cities, often with theaters that had 70mm projection capability. Now some of the smallest towns have digital sound. Cordele, OK is a town of only 2,000 or so residents, yet their restored Washita Theater is THX certified and has Dolby Digital playback via a CP-500.

Still, I maintain the exhibition industry by and large has indeed adopted a "it's good enough" attitude. The standards of show quality, even in the largest of cities has dropped by quite a bit. In the early 1990's, digital sound was a big deal and it seemed like the theaters back then did more work to keep sound systems maintained and well tuned. If they had digital sound, they wanted audiences to know it. In recent years I have visited high profile theaters in places like Denver, Colorado Springs, Dallas, Oklahoma City and Tulsa often leaving the show either unimpressed or even let down.

The situation didn't used to be like this. Back in 1995, I could visit a number of commercial theaters in the Dallas area and expect very good to downright great presentation quality. What I'm talking about is bright image quality and surround sound with the appropriate amount of "slam" to it. Now, the only place in the Dallas area offering that is Brad's screening room. The Northpark 1-2 has been closed for years, and other places that used to be good (like the UA Galaxy 9) have kinda gone to crap.

What seems to happen these days is you'll get a nice new theater with most things pretty well adjusted when it opens. Six months to a year later everything has been allowed to slip into mediocrity. And some places kind of suck even when they open. The Hollywood Spotlight 14 in Norman, OK (the Oklahoma City area's first theater with stadium seating) has never been good. In Colorado Springs, the new Cinemark Carefree Circle theater has really nice decor and a cool IMAX 3D theater. But everytime I see a regular movie there the sound just sucks. I could perhaps understand the problem if it were in an old theater. But this place is still new!

Over the years I expected quality to actually get better in commercial cinemas, particularly with the pressure being applied from DVD, HDTV and home theater. But in my opinion I have seen things just kind of go in reverse. Too many people who call the shots just don't care about stuff like bright projection and highly dynamic sound. They'll get the logo on the marquee, but not get the "oomph" out of the format's capability.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-02-2004, 06:50 PM:

The original premise of THX Certification was supposed to help deal with this, and in fact it did help a great deal, at least until the certification process was corrupted, and later abandoned, by many theatres. "We have digital sound now -- There's no longer a need for that THX gimmick." [Frown]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-02-2004, 07:41 PM:

Okay Bobby, I think I understand your point and I can even agree with what you're saying...but I don't think adding more channels is the answer.

I will agree that 5.1 represents a vast improvement over 4.1 but I could not honestly say that 6.1 is having that same kind of impact and, by extension, I would then argue against introducing an 8- or 10-channel format.

I could be wrong but my presumption is that most people would perceive a difference if we suddenly had fewer than five channels...but I don't believe they would really appreciate more channels than the five we have at present.

I think that a lot of theatres are justified in believing that an upgrade to digital (5.1) audio is plenty "good enough." I think that one is a no-brainer because you can readily hear the difference and justify the modest expense of the upgrade.

My theory is that any new format is bound to be a hard-sell unless there is (a) self-evident improvement in the experiential quality versus that of the current standard; (b) a commitment on the part of studios to consistently release product in the new format and (c) competitive forces (i.e., "everybody else is upgrading"). And then there are also issues pertaining to cost, reliability and ease-of-use.

But before we even go there, my arguments against a 70mm revival also apply in this case: Let us first master the current technology before we start in with our demands for something more complicated.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-02-2004, 09:22 PM:

I really hope they don't call it the "XD10P" if it's just a processor. It seems like it'll be bound to cause lots of confusion with the "XD10."

--jhawk

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-02-2004, 11:09 PM:

I think that is indeed DTS' intentions for naming. I agree, it is very confusing. At least with the old machines, the DTS-6AD still played the DTS CDs along with being a cinema processor. The XD10 and XD10P serve very different purposes.

Dolby's older products had naming conventions that made sense. It was easy to tell the "CP" in CP-200, CP-65, etc. meant cinema processor and that the "DA" in DA-10, DA-20 meant something along the lines of "digital audio". What does "XD" mean? Xtreme Digital? That's not really saying anything. I would think Xtreme would belong more on a performance skateboard, snowboard or dirtbike (or maybe even a parachute -it would be really "xtreme" if the f**ker didn't open).

To get back to the 10 or 12 channel thing, there is some credible evidence posed by experts like Tomlinson Holman that a commercial movie theater would indeed benefit from such capability.

I do agree that it is daunting to get movie studios to create special 8 channel mixes for movies, much less get them to do something more advanced. But you have to start somewhere. The very least thing cinema products companies can do is build up the infrastructure so someone can do it. All it takes is for one really good movie to show off the format and more filmmakers will jump on board.

I also think the added capability will allow those few cinemas that give a damn to further separate themselves from the legions of mediocre theaters as well as have some numerical marketing to hammer on all the home theater people who think commercial cinema is dead.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-02-2004, 11:49 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
All it takes is for one really good movie to show off the format and more filmmakers will jump on board.

Not that argument again!

Of course, my concern (and prediction) is that IN PRACTICE it will only be the one "really good movie" with none of the other filmmakers "jumping on board."

quote: Bobby Henderson
To get back to the 10 or 12 channel thing, there is some credible evidence posed by experts like Tomlinson Holman that a commercial movie theater would indeed benefit from such capability

Maybe I'm too much of a skeptic but I can't help wondering: Who ELSE would benefit?

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 08-03-2004, 12:29 AM:

As to naming conventions : I think the DA stands for Digital Adapter, could quite possibly be wrong. I always loved Component Engineering for their names. FM-35 (Film Monitor - 35 mm), TA10 (Theater Automation), MS100 (Monitor System), etc.

- Mike

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-03-2004, 05:22 PM:

Manny, do you think 70mm Dolby mag would have caught on without the release of "Star Wars" or other films that movie's lead in 1977 (such as the holiday '77 release of "Close Encounters")? I argue presentation formats are very title-driven. 70mm Dolby would have had a much harder time gaining acceptance if the only titles to show it off were films like the late 1976 remake of "A Star Is Born".

"This is Cinerama" was the top money making movie of 1952. Without its success we would not have seen quite so much rush to develop so many widescreen formats.

In the early 1990's the biggest installation orders for digital sound systems were made to play back the really big movies supporting it. The bulk of Cinema Digital Sound processors were sold in support of "Terminator 2." "The Lion King" helped sell a lot of Dolby Digital players. Of course, we know DTS got off to a very good start riding the coat tails of Spielberg for the release of "Jurassic Park."

Nothing is going to sell movie theater hardware more than a breakthrough film making good use of the new format. Even questionable formats (like low rez DLP) get a huge bit of help when they are hyped in conjunction with a "Star Wars" prequel.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-03-2004, 05:57 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Manny, do you think 70mm Dolby mag would have caught on without the release of "Star Wars" or other films that movie's lead in 1977 (such as the holiday '77 release of "Close Encounters")? I argue presentation formats are very title-driven. 70mm Dolby would have had a much harder time gaining acceptance if the only titles to show it off were films like the late 1976 remake of "A Star Is Born".

I agree with you, Bobby. But I think those days are gone. The business model has changed.

And your example is not given within the proper context. For instance, you neglect to even mention that the 70mm mag format represented a SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT over 35mm optical. You also fail to acknowledge that there are factors other than sound reproduction which contributed to the success of STAR WARS and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. Even on a 35mm optical system, these films would have looked and sounded different from any other films of the day and THAT is a major factor in their success. Compared to other films, these films were doing INSANELY HUGE business -- unheard-of grosses up to that time -- and even the mono houses were enjoying great success with these titles.

quote: Bobby Henderson
"This is Cinerama" was the top money making movie of 1952. Without its success we would not have seen quite so much rush to develop so many widescreen formats.

No. Two reasons for widescreen innovations were (1) the perceived threat posed by television and (2) each studio applying for patents for their competing widescreen and 3-D formats.

quote: Bobby Henderson
In the early 1990's the biggest installation orders for digital sound systems were made to play back the really big movies supporting it. The bulk of Cinema Digital Sound processors were sold in support of "Terminator 2."

I'm glad you brought this up. CDS was the first of the digital audio formats to come and go, followed by SDDS. One begins to understand why exhibitors are reluctant to embrace new formats. I'm predicting a backlash.

quote: Bobby Henderson
"The Lion King" helped sell a lot of Dolby Digital players. Of course, we know DTS got off to a very good start riding the coat tails of Spielberg for the release of "Jurassic Park."

Just like 70mm mag did in it's time, these formats represented a HUGE IMPROVEMENT over 4.1 optical in many ways. Remember my test:

quote: Manny Knowles
My theory is that any new format is bound to be a hard-sell unless there is (a) self-evident improvement in the experiential quality versus that of the current standard; (b) a commitment on the part of studios to consistently release product in the new format and (c) competitive forces (i.e., "everybody else is upgrading"). And then there are also issues pertaining to cost, reliability and ease-of-use.

My experience tells me that people can appreciate the difference between 4.1 Analog Matrix and 5.1 Discrete Digital audio. I don't think we tend to notice or "miss" a 6th, 7th or 8th channel. One wonders whether theatres are being bombarded with phone calls requesting EX/ES info on EX/ES releases. That is unheard-of in my experience, and nobody ever inquired if a film was being played in SDDS-8. All they want to know is whether we're playing it "in digital" or maybe "in THX" (even though most people don't seem to understand what this means).

We have had situations where an entire screen channel went dead and nobody in the theatre noticed. But even when surround channels are functioning normally, there's always that one guy in the audience who comes out to complain about how the surrounds aren't working. Nowadays, customers only seem to care about overall volume and the presence of surrounds...and "kick-ass" bass response.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Nothing is going to sell movie theater hardware more than a breakthrough film making good use of the new format. Even questionable formats (like low rez DLP) get a huge bit of help when they are hyped in conjunction with a "Star Wars" prequel.

There's that old adage:

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

I really don't think too many exhibitors are going to rush out and buy more audio (or video) components simply because "George says so."

[ 08-03-2004, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Manny Knowles ]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-03-2004, 06:05 PM:

Manny, from "Phil's Rules to Live By":

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, FUCK YOU!

>>> Phil

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-03-2004, 07:06 PM:

Okay phil [Phil Hill]

what happens on the third time

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 08-03-2004, 10:39 PM:

IMHO, there is no chance for 10 channel systems in regular commercial venues. The finances of most of the chains are disasters and perhaps more importantly, the studios won't spend the money for 10-channel mixes.

Don't forget what the studios did in the late 60s and 70s before the Dolby baby-boom format. They released 70mm 6-track releases where the center left was nothing more than a mix of the left and center and center right was nothing more than a mix of center and right. In other words, they mixed for 4-track and spread that to six channels. IMO, even if 10 channel systems became popular, they'd probably mix the same way.

Like it or not, theatrical releases have become not much more than marketing for the DVD releases.

Has any customer ever perceived the difference between a 6 channel and 8 channel SDDS mix? I've listened for it and I'm not even sure I perceived any difference.

In the 1960s, the Russians did a lot of research into multichannel sound in theaters. There's a classic work that's been translated into English. If memory serves, once you got above 6 channels, perception fell way off.

I've always liked Tom Holman's work (and I still own one of his Apt-Holman preamps), but I've never understood why the same guy who thought that the multichannel sound field in theaters should be diffuse would also want to increase the number of channels. I fail to see how it could be perceptible in a diffuse sound field and even if it was, would it be used for anything beyond ambiance, bird sounds, munitions sounds and flyovers?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-03-2004, 10:46 PM:

quote: Martin Brooks
...would it be used for anything beyond ambiance, bird sounds, munitions sounds and flyovers?

Don't forget the "Voice of God". [Wink]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-04-2004, 12:15 AM:

Perhaps 10 channels has its best chance coupled with a premium picture format as well, e.g. IMAX or DMR-style 5/70 (another decade and change until the DMR patents expire?)...

--jhawk

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-04-2004, 11:29 AM:

Actually prior to the advent of Dolby baby boom many 70mm prints had nothing recorded on Lc and Rc at all

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 08-05-2004, 09:00 PM:

quote: John Pytlak
quote: Martin Brooks
...would it be used for anything beyond ambiance, bird sounds, munitions sounds and flyovers?

Don't forget the "Voice of God".

Well..now that you mention it, I remember seeing Woodstock in 70mm 6-tk discrete and Chip Monck's voice (he introduced all the acts) was always mixed to the surrounds and it sounded great. This could be the same except "higher".

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 11-29-2005, 02:01 PM:

It has been 480 days since the last post.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 11-29-2005, 02:01 PM:

Ok. A year and some months later bringing the thread back up. I am sure some have installed the damn thing! How will you rate it. Any problems e.t.c? I have requests for two cinema upgrades and thinking of throwing in this little fella. It's either this or the CP-45.
So any comments?
D

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-29-2005, 02:42 PM:

I have had one for over a year. No problems. Easy and quick to install and set up from the notebook. I would take the XD10P. One advantage is that it has 2 non-sync inputs, one with 2-channel and one with matrixed 4-channel outputs. So it easy to hook up alternative event equipment and you can fine tune the setup in the software. A final decision would depend on pricing for the two units also, but I don't know how that is for you where you are.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 11-29-2005, 03:12 PM:

Hmmm.
Interesting. I would really love to get my hands on one and try to mess arround with it. It seems quite easy to set-up. Can the Non-Sync inputs be used to get sound from a 16mm projector or would I need a phono to line mixer to do that?
D

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 11-29-2005, 04:20 PM:

Micheal, you are joking, aren't you?

Demetris/Michael, please feel free to PM me about this.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-29-2005, 08:24 PM:

Two things to remember when discussing multi channel audio:

1. My understanding is that DTS discs are made from Dolby-produced masters; thus 5.1 is about it.

2. Remember also that DTS is 5.0, having no discrete subwoofer "channel."

Any other formats will require some form of additional mix.

Louis

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 11-30-2005, 06:13 PM:

Hello,

To clarify on the above points:

a) The DTS transfer is not done from a "Dolby-produced master." The DTS encode is done on the uncompressed 6-channel printmaster. Typically this is the same mix that is run through Dolby's codec to create the Dolby Digital track, but DTS is working from the uncompressed source (compressing it into the DTS format of course), not the Dolby master.

b) It's true that there are only 5 channels on the DTS disc, however the output from the DTS unit is 5.1 channels. Mixers today are quite familiar with the filters that DTS uses to fold the LFE channel into the surrounds and back again, and typically mix accordingly so that information is not lost.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 12-01-2005, 04:08 PM:

Well,
DTS Sounds better!!. Oh my. The Dolby/DTS war will start soon!
D

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-01-2005, 08:34 PM:

The only potential DTS vs. Dolby war left is what will play out on whatever next-generation HD-quality video disc format manages to get released. Or I might say IF the disc format(s) get released.

Audio formats aren't the problem there. Hollywood and its stupid hard-on for DRM schemes are the problem. They want DRM systems that spy on users and even open security holes on computer systems. Hopefully the lawsuits against Sony (the biggest suit being from the Attorney General of Texas) might persuade Hollywood to rethink those plans.

DTS and Dolby Digital are written into the standards for both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. DTS has their various formats, including 24/96 lossless. Now Dolby has two formats for HD video discs, Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby True HD.

Of course the aggravating thing is these high bitrate formats will only be widely available on home video (maybe, if Hollywood can get the DRM stick out of its butt). The commercial theater systems are stuck with their decade old standards.

Even the new DTS XD-10 appears to be a solution in search of a problem. It's been a couple years since the product was introduced. Still, not much in the way of "next gen" discs have been available to feed these new players. Hardly anything 8-channel and/or lossless compressed. I was hoping for something 10-channel so the player could live up to the number in its name.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-01-2005, 10:05 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The commercial theater systems are stuck with their decade old standards

Well, the one good part of Digital Projection is that it comes with uncompressed audio!

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 08-24-2006, 12:21 AM:

Finally I got my hands on one of this little thingys. I was actually quite impressed by the sound quality of the analog playback and the distinction between the channels. Of course BACP reader plays the major part here. He he he. Anyway my opinion is that it is a very good processor for analog playback and it easily beats the CP 45 down to every cent. We installed it for a college cinema venue using 12 JBL surrounds along with the screen channels and a 4641 sub and the place rocked! Of course architecture of the place takes a huge part but I was impressed as most of the equalisation needed frequency cut and almost no boosting and with no bigger difference than 3db frequency to adjacent frequency. The subwoofer was so so sweet in that place it made my heart cry knowing that this venue only shows European and cultural cinema so they will rarely test the full potential of the system. Has anyone else used the DTS XD10P in their installations and what are your opinions?
Best Regards
D

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-24-2006, 03:21 AM:

OK this thing is actualy the JSD-80 with DTS stamped on it. Ultra-Stereo manufactures these for DTS. You can even use the JSD-80 software to set it up.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Even the new DTS XD-10 appears to be a solution in search of a problem. It's been a couple years since the product was introduced. Still, not much in the way of "next gen" discs have been available to feed these new players. Hardly anything 8-channel and/or lossless compressed. I was hoping for something 10-channel so the player could live up to the number in its name.

The two things that I like about this unit is that you load the movie on a hard drive instead of using the discs and you can delete the trailers off of the drive.

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 08-24-2006, 03:47 AM:

However, the DTS version uses different software, it doesn't have the global delays for example.

We've had no luck with these things whatsoever, everyone we've installed has had problems.

Oddly enough, we've installed one solitary USL unit, which worked first time and has been reliable thus far.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 08-24-2006, 09:14 AM:

What kind of problems Pete?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-24-2006, 09:38 AM:

I heard that the XD-10P is going to be short lived and soon discontinued.... Anyone else hear this?

Mark

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 08-24-2006, 04:00 PM:

"XD-10P is going to be short lived and soon discontinued"

I live in hope!

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 08-25-2006, 12:42 AM:

Pete you have been criticising the unit but you have not stated what problems you encountered with the units. I am really keen to know.
Best Regards
D

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 08-25-2006, 02:06 AM:

Then please check your email!

Posted by Mike B. Smith (Member # 2829) on 08-25-2006, 12:00 PM:

From the source, the XD10P is NOT going to be discontinued at this time. The XD10P has been very popular in sales for DTS and along with the XD10 have been received very well by the industry, Problems or questions with any equipment may come up from time to time. This site provides a large number of very experienced and knowledgeable people that can answer and share solutions for everyone, but if there is a design issue or something else that can be corrected by the manufacture, contact the manufacture! Many people favor one sound company over another and that’s fine, my current concern is to help correct any problems or issues anyone may have with DTS equipment. If you have suggestions for improvement, operation issues, installation problems what ever it may be, you can contact DTS customer service or if you prefer contact me direct

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-25-2006, 12:10 PM:

quote: Mike B. Smith
If you have suggestions for improvement, operation issues, installation problems what ever it may be, you can contact DTS customer service or if you prefer contact me direct

Good advice. Hopefully, if the help you give/get is useful to others, it can be posted here on a public forum too.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-25-2006, 01:07 PM:

quote: John Pytlak
Good advice. Hopefully, if the help you give/get is useful to others, it can be posted here on a public forum too.

I will second what John has said. It has always been an unfortunate policy of DTS to hide what ever problems it has and not present them in a forum situation so the techs can nip problems in the butt before they strike [thumbsdown]

.

A good lesson of what customer service should be can be had from both Dolby and Smart Devices [thumbsup]

. They also seem to prefer a forum type of thing so other service oriented people are aware of potential problems and how to solve them. [thumbsup]

Posted by Mike B. Smith (Member # 2829) on 08-25-2006, 11:45 PM:

Let me clarify my last post since it seems to be slightly misinterpreted. By given my contact information I was providing a direct source to DTS, some posts have complained DTS being non-responsive. This by no means was meant to bypass this site, I encourage continuing to post questions or problems regarding DTS. If something is not working it’s best to be open about it and try to get it resolved, sharing issues and solutions is a good thing for everyone, in most cases questions are answered correctly and professionally on this site, however complaining about a unit not having a certain feature is not going to get it corrected, contacting a manufacturer and letting them know your concerns may get you somewhere. Last DTS does not have a policy to hide problems.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-26-2006, 12:05 AM:

Film-Tech policies...

*Email addresses may not be posted here. They have been removed from the previous posts. (People may obtain such info through the member's profile.)

*The solution to any complaint posted to these boards needs to be posted here so as to assist in the future when people are searching the archives after business hours trying to fix a problem. This can be either by the member who had the problem, or by a representative of the manufacturer if they got involved.

FYI, Mike is the one person at dts who has always been helpful to me, whereas nobody else there has ever come through. If anyone has a problem with the format that is not resolved through the forum, I strongly urge you to contact him specifically to get a solid resolution.