Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Dolby Cat.No.280T switch

This is topic Dolby Cat.No.280T switch 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=007280

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-21-2005, 05:16 PM:

What's the switch on the Cat.No.280T card (in the back, in one corner near the edge connector) for?
The cards are currently in a CP50. I guess they should also feel at home in a CP55 or CP65?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-21-2005, 05:34 PM:

No, the '65 takes Cat. 350 (SR) or 300*
(SR and A) cards. The 280Ts are for the '50 and '200.

The '55 does not take normal SR cards internally, but you can use Cat 350s in an SRA5 unit. I think it may be possible to modify it to take a Cat. 222SR/a, as with the '65, but I'm not certain about this.

I don't know what the switch is for.

I think this will be my 1111th post.

Edited because I'm half asleep, and typed nonsense the first time.

* Only used in conjunction with a Cat. 222 to get four channels of 'A' type for certain mag formats.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-21-2005, 07:10 PM:

The switch has to do with the Pro side of things. There are different frames the Cat. 280 will fit into...the switch as no bearing on Cinema applications so you may ignore it.

The Cat 280 is used in the SRA-5, not the Cat. 350 or other Cat. 300 series cards. The Cat 222SR/A will not work in an SRA-5, thank goodness. It only will pollute the CP55 and CP65 processors.

Posted by Ken Jacquart (Member # 369) on 06-21-2005, 11:50 PM:

Plus, the Cat. No. 280 card has more headroom which is required for magnetic playback... but who is doing that these days?? Yes, I would take the 280 over the 222SR/A for SR.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-22-2005, 02:29 AM:

Steve, I did say I was half asleep when I wrote that! You're right about the SRA5 taking 280 not 350 of course.

As for the 222 SR/A, when I said that I thought 'it' could be modified to take one, by 'it' I meant the '55 not the SRA5, but re-reading what I wrote yesterday, it could be read as meaning that it could be used in the SRA5; thank you for clearing that up.