quote: Dave Macaulay

---

A CP45 is a good basic processor. The SR decoder is "true Dolby SR" and sounds much better than most competitors' SR emulation.

---

quote:

---

If I had it to do over, I'd have saved-up a little longer and started with the top system, but that's just because I am kind of a sound nut... at the time I had to balance my economic situation with my huge desire to get us into the 20th century, soundwise.

---

quote:

---

Buy the better tool!

---

Uncle Don
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-15-2006, 07:23 PM:
 
Surround EX on the Pana is easy...use the Pana SP23...in fact, if you don't have CP650, use the Pana SP23...it is the best one out there...it even has meters on the front for calibration and is offered with 1/3rd octave EQ. So even for just 5.1 audio, the SP23 offers 1/3-octave EQ.

As emulators go, the Pana CM353 is definately the best...some claim superior to the Cat 280.

I agree that the Sony SR emulation is horrid as is DTS' 6AD. Im not a fan of the JSD-80/XD-10P's SR emulation though it is better than the 6AD's and Sony's. The only digital SR that I've liked is the CP650s...it is suprising very good.
 

---

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 05-16-2006, 12:50 PM:
 
I agree with Steve on the CP650, it does sound richer on all fronts compared to earlier digital processors. We're on a 6-AD in our big house now, I wish Reading would have never installed it. If all goes well, it might migrate up to our smallest auditorium one day & SRD would replace it. As far as I know, we have the only SA-10 setup with DTS in town, unless Regal installed one at some point, even if nobody gets to use it frequently.

In case you run into them, the older Smart stereo units, which only measure a fraction of the rack space of other processors, do well for small auditoriums. I'd rather have an Ultra Stereo or CP-50/55 for the EQ capabilities, but our front-surround Smart is a basic, decent unit, even on one amp. They appear to be the only original sound equipment, so they've lasted.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-17-2006, 02:52 PM:
 
If you're going to do analog then you should do it right. You can get really good-sounding results. For analog, I would go with a CP-650SR or a CP-65.

And here's where I return to my role as insensitive prick...

My fear is that if your budget is driving you to compromise in the rack, then you'll probably compromise in the room, too. And, you know what? Those compromises tend to be permanent. And I'm not just talking about the loudspeakers. What is your plan as far as isolation and reverberation, for instance?

Dollars to donuts: no moveable masking..?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-17-2006, 03:22 PM:
 
Manny! Glad to see you back here! ...AND you're still not insensitive!
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-17-2006, 03:51 PM:
 
Going back to your original question: Yes the CP-45 is plenty good enough, even with the 222sra card. I also would hope you buy good speakers and most certainly bi-amp. Later you could add subs & digital when the budget allows. Louis
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-17-2006, 07:36 PM:
 
If on a budget I would go for a used USL JSX with the 1/3 octave eq as it can accept a dts or srd adpater
also I don't know any second run theatres in canada that currently have issues getting disks on time
 

---

Posted by David Ingalsbe (Member # 2433) on 05-18-2006, 04:17 AM:
 
Well this is a crazy thought I know but a cp500sr would be another way to start. they have been hooking up to everything that we can though at it and the prologic decoder is as good as the dma8. Downside is every option requires an add on board.
 

---

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 05-18-2006, 07:06 AM:
 
Our theatre (second run/art) has trouble getting DTS disks. Lots of times the main projectionist has to run around and find a theatre with the disks and copy them. Or when we complain to the distributor about it (like Alliance Atlantis) they get pissed off at us for asking about the disks. Smaller distributors are even worse, I think sometimes they just don't buy the rights to DTS, the prints may have the code but they don't come with the disks.
 

---

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 09-06-2006, 05:35 PM:
 
Thanks for all the feedback.

So, just out of curiousity (because I don't really understand lenses, although I'm getting better, and not too much about sound systems besides the basics), is a stereo system a left channel behind the screen and a right channel?

So, as far as my understanding works:
Soundhead to processor
processor to left and right amps
left and right amps to left and right screen systems (respectfully).

Now, this is just a work in progress (you know how I am), but I've been working on a business plan, layout, equipment, where to finance, yada yada yada. The rooms would be wired for expansion to digital.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-06-2006, 06:40 PM:
 
You need to add a center channel with amps. And yet another amp for the subwoofer channel. Don't go without a sub. (Two is better.)
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 09-06-2006, 08:32 PM:
 
I would invest now in decent sound. Fact is a lot of your potential customers could have 5.1 sound in their home theatres and after coming to watch a film in stereo never come back.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 09-06-2006, 08:41 PM:
 
Dolby stereo is really just stereo but played back through 4 channels, left, centre, right and surrounds, in the real world you must sit aproximatly in the middle of the two speakers (stereo)to get a true sound stage, from that position a phantom center and surround is created. If you move away from the center listening position the effect is lost.

In a cinema this translates to a very small number of seats that would get acceptable sound. the further you sit from the middle the more unballanced the sound becomes, ultimately creating the situation that if you sit on the left of the auditorium, the dialogue will apear to be coming from the left of screen!

Dolby bought and adapted the Sansui home quadraphonic system for cinema, so that quality stereo sound could be enjoyed in the majority of the seats in a cinema.

Now Quality of sound is most dependant on the speaker system! and how they are installed to interact with the unique room acoustics. Most electronics/ amps / modern processors have almost no recordable distortion. The speakers though are the proverbial tin can on a string.
High quality sound can be achieved through a simple 2 way passive speaker system. If you create a quiet place for the speakers to operate from by lining the back stage with fiberglass or polyester will also create a dramatic improvement to dialogue intelligibility / natural sound of the cinema. Angling the Horn to minimize echo / getting that right is also a key to great sound. Quality surround speakers that simply sound good especially in the midrange! these speakers point directly into the ears of the audience and color the sound. the number of cinemas with crap sounding surrounds still surprises me.

Bi amping / 3 & 4 way systems / genuine SR Cards / can then add to this. but are to some degree subtle compared to the basics.

Dolby with cat280 cards and Panastereo are to me the finest sounding analoge processers.

My relivent experience to this is that my company Cinepro has custom built several complete cinema speaker systems and have modified many more in Sydney, Australia. Companies who have purchased my products include, Hayden, Dendy, Hoyts, Valhalla, Chauvel, United, Palace and John Wilsons GALAXY traveling cinema.

Also Wings on your speakers can help control the air and help the formation of a perfect bass wave and deepen the bass response, think 1"mdf timber wings that are crossbraced with 2x4 that are 4 ft wide, this will dramatically increase your sub bass response from your conventinal speaker system

beware of non solid surfaces or materials in the cinema, thin materials can shake / absorb the bass and even create rattles.

Left and right only configeration is extremly rare in cinemas, cut down systems usually are centre only with surround, I do not recomend this though!

[ 09-06-2006, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Cameron Glendinning ]
 

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 09-09-2006, 10:30 PM:
 

quote: Andrew McCrea

---

So, as far as my understanding works:
Soundhead to processor
processor to left and right amps
left and right amps to left and right screen systems (respectfully).

---

If you really really just want a left channel and a right channel, then you don't need a processor, you just need to connect the soundhead to the amps. (somehow) there is no processing needed to get a left and right signal from 25mm film, it is recorded right on the film that way.

However, trust me and what the others have said - You really don't want to do it like that.

In the year 2006, you need to install Dolby SR, with a nice basic Dolby processor as the others have mentioned above. That will give you left, center & right screen channels and a mono surround channel, and an all over better sound quality because you have the dolby processing.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-10-2006, 06:24 AM:
 
Cameron said "Dolby stereo is really just stereo but played back through 4 channels, left, centre, right and surrounds, in the real world you must sit aproximatly in the middle of the two speakers (stereo)to get a true sound stage, from that position a phantom center and surround is created. If you move away from the center listening position the effect is lost"

Not true Dolby stereo optical is a 4 channel encoded matrix system. It is not a two channel with a improved stereo image
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 09-10-2006, 08:03 AM:
 
Ok Gordon, yes there are 4 channels derived from a stereo source.
On a regular stereo amp it is also possible to create a surround channel simply hook up a speaker from the amp pos of the right and the negitive from the speaker to the pos of the left and presto a surround channel 85% as acurite as a Dolby one (no delay)

Early cheap cinema processers like eprad combined l + r for the centre

Now why if I am wrong? how can you play a regular CD mixed only for stereo through a prologic decoder and get a centre and surround channel even though the recording was not mixed for it?
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-10-2006, 08:22 AM:
 
actually a cd played back through a prologic decoder doesn't "decode" it properly
and the L-R channel is not actually the surround channel persay but the source of the surround control
As for Eprad they did use the L+R as the centre channel as did the early dolby units

I would recomend that you read the wilcox patent for the 4:2:4 matrix as used by Dolby that is the most current patent on the encoding process that follows on after the patents of schriber and tate

the original concept for center channel was a 3db gain riding (cat 110 for the cp50 and the pentoptical module for the cp100) enhancement of the original phantom center channel described back in the 50's in a SMPTE journal artical on a 3 channel optical system

The surround channel was originaly as you mentioned a adaptation of the Sansui QS system and was a sum of the Lb and Rb channels
this was the cat 116

To increase the channel seperation they quickly adopted the tate set of chips that were adapted from the schriber SQ matrix that CBS had used (I think if memory serves it was the New Orleans Matrix was the mix parameters that were used

There are many other decoders that work all are based on the core of sum and difference but even in the sweet spot of a room the logic gain riding is still needed
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 09-10-2006, 09:40 PM:
 
Gordon is totally correct of course!!! I was trying to simlify it a little too much to put it in context of this tread so that a cinema would not have only a left and right speaker backstage. When you play a regular cd through a prologic the stereo effect is sort of crushed to centre ect.
amp output
Surround positive> + L - - R + <surround neg

my original post is too confusing, try above sometime for a cheap surround channel, yes you do wire up the left and right channel off the same amp.

Please only at home, the effect isnt for the big screen

[ 09-12-2006, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: Cameron Glendinning ]
 

---

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 09-13-2006, 01:04 AM:
 
I've got a similar situation to the OP.

We are an analog stereo house, that is real stereo not "cinema stereo", just one pair of speakers behind the screen, one stereo amp, a pair of ASR-40s (we run changeovers), and a mixer the readers are both plugged into. The audio is switched using the power supplies for the LED readers.

At a leisurly pace (ie several years) we'd like to upgrade this system to something more standard, L/C/R + surround(s) + sub, but wont be able to do this in one go, but I'd figure a good place to start with would be installing a processor. If we got more speakers and/or amps then we'd have nothing to drive them with, whereas with a processor we'd at least get noise reduction as an opening gambit.

What we be a sensible processor to go for? Its got to be available, affordable, and happy to generate just stereo so we dont lose the center and surround audio, and work with changeovers, ie two sync inputs and switching betwixt same. Ideally if it can then go L/C/R only as a step to surround(s) and sub that would be excellent. Old tech, ie repairable would be nice too
 

---

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 09-13-2006, 07:36 AM:
 
You have to have more then a left & right system now a days....

Buy yourself a used CP55 or 65 with split surrounds and get yourself setup for a good 5.1 analog system. A CP55 will run you around ($600.00) then buy a SRA5 w/ two CAT 280T cards ($500.00) you can find cheap CAT 280's on ebay and change them to 280T's. Put in some new red light readers ($800.00) and your off and running.

Sound is in fact more important then picture!! people will accept an "ok" picture but not bad sound.
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 09-13-2006, 10:30 AM:
 
How about having a KINTEK system fall in your lap for free? Have one hooked up as my current stereo system. rattles the windows easy.

Would hook it up to my Holmes 8, but it dont run no more.
 

---

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 09-15-2006, 11:05 AM:
 
Ack, Kintek. We still have the reacks for them. Heck, we still have the kintek amps, and monitors. The tech pulled our kintex processors a couple of years ago, mainly because ours were Mono-surround, and upgraded to CP55's and CP65's, and Smart Mod2B's for the 2 houses remaining mono-surr. He said he's even seen the old Kinetk's catch fire, literally. Worse, he said that it had happened here, even showed me the singed area in the sound rack. Scary.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 09-27-2006, 08:28 PM:
 
I'm going to disagree with the other posters here. Unless you're in a situation where there is no other theater around for at least 30 miles and you feel that consumers will attend your theater regardless of the quality of presentation just because they want to go out and there are few other entertainment options available locally, I think that you need to install digital sound now, not just Dolby analog.

Some will protest and say that a properly presented Dolby-SR analog print can sound as good or better than a digital print, but on average, a digital print is going to sound brighter, cleaner and have far more dynamic range.

People have had CD quality sound in their homes for over 20 years. The U.S. is converting to HDTV at a steady pace and all of those HD channels (and DVD formats) broadcast in 5.1 digital.

IMHO for any theater to survive, you have to provide a better experience in the theater than people get in the home. Dolby analog has been around for 30 years. Why would you install 30-year-old technology now?

You need to look at your proposed business from a consumer value proposition perspective. You need to list all the reasons why a consumer would attend your theater. What are you providing that they can't get elsewhere, including the home theater experience?

Also, I don't know how much you've studied about the economics of running a movie theater, but generally, from a financial perspective, movie theaters are food concessions that happen to show movies. So I would not forgo hot dogs at launch - you need to sell as much food as you can. If you can't afford a hot dog broiler, boil the things like New York street vendors do or if local building regulations permit it, buy a cheap home oven, buy franks in a blanket from some supplier and bake 'em. People love those and I've never seen movie theaters provide it.
 

---

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 09-27-2006, 09:57 PM:
 
"Starting off with Stereo"

Andrew Im jealous youve got one up on me
I should start a sister thread "Starting off with Mono"
I have a Devry stuck in mono land. My goal is to convert this to stereo one of these days. If anyone has any ideas please let me know.

Thanks!!
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-27-2006, 10:12 PM:
 

quote: Martin Brooks

---

there is no other theater around for at least 30 miles

---

We're in that situation but I still would never install non-digital sound. If we had the space to add a second screen, we would, and it would have digital sound too. Our sound system has its limitations (mostly in the speakers, right Mark?) but I've had many teenage customers go off to college in every big city I can think of and they always come home and tell me our sound is better than the theatres where they went. (Personally, I give the credit to our wood floor, but digital's bass range makes that better too.)
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-27-2006, 10:41 PM:
 
Mike,

Your speakers performed alot better than I expected them to after they were biamped. New speakers would help somewhat but your sound there is darn good as it is... the wood floor defnately has something to do with it! I would lean more to doing something with both a baffle wall and the balcony surrounds at thr next stage. With the addition of a baffle wall the conductors on the express freight passing by would be hearing the Dolby Train Trailer come through very well!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-28-2006, 12:16 AM:
 
In around 1998 a guy who owns a theatre a couple hundred miles from here called me and asked me "if that stereo sound is all it's cracked up to be." I told him the same thing as mentioned above, about how people have better sound in their homes and cars, etc. and that he'd better not only install stereo, but digital sound too if he wanted to stay in the movie business. He did install DTS not long after that conversation, and he's still in business today. (I like to think I saved his bacon!)
 

---

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 09-28-2006, 11:24 AM:
 
The last time I went to an all-digital theater around the Minneapolis metro & saw a presentation with working digital sound (no reversions, no blown speakers) was the Grudge at Crown's Block E-15, in 2004. They benefit greatly from being the only local multiplex with Kinoton heads, in that respect.

Working with only USL JS-220's & an Altec loudspeaker in the analog houses at Lakeville, the result was a modestly wide dynamic range from center-surround. Those Altec's had the ability to wash the entire screen with sound, even from a single screen channel.
 

---

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 09-28-2006, 07:22 PM:
 
Sound is created in an alnalog wave, and your ears detect it as an analog wave. So it'd make sense that analog sould be superior, given perfect media and sound handling equipment, and that the media did not wear. Since this isn't pssible, digital provides for easier control, true copying (100th generation copy sounds just as good as the master), and error correction. "Hear it for the first time, everytime." Sound familiar? Film wears when you do 5 shows a day, 7 days a week, and runs that can last for months, no matter how well you try to take care of it. Digital doesn't care, to a point, about dirty film and dirty soundhead optics. And because of limitations of the analog sountrack's realestate of the film, dynamic range can suffer.

I'd definatly say go digital. DTS, or SR-D. I prefer DTS, personally, but there are those that are die hard Dolby Digital fans. If you have premium quality analog eqipment, and the track on film is recorded in extremely good quality, and you stay on top of your equipment, sure analog is great, and sometimes superior. But practically digital, hands down, and to boot has descrete channels. Analog has them matrixed and the emmersion doesn't "feel" as deep., though I'm sure one of the guys on here could help you fix. If you go didgital, don't neglect the analog, since not all films have digital tracks, and if your digital goes out, that analog back-up will sure save your bacon.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 09-29-2006, 09:09 PM:
 
I'd agree with the "go digital now" sentiments...though anlogue can sound very good if done right, DVD has been around for some time now and things have moved on generally. You could have gotten away with it a few years back, but not now IMHO.

It's always interesting too that the compromises are always targeted at the projection and sound equipment in these projects. But aren't these costs relatively small in the context of the overall building costs? I mean does it mean that much to save say, $10,000 if the whole kaboodle costs say, $1,000,000?
 

---

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 09-30-2006, 12:30 PM:
 
It is so sad that theater owners want to invest an extreme amount of money on the appearance of their theaters and don't give a damn about the heart of the theater. I am not saying Andrew is doing that but the go Digital now issue is a must. Don't even give it another thought. It is sad that people with a decent home cinema system have true 5.1 Digital sound which in most cases sounds much better even at the best equalised analogue cinema. Two things for my opinion. Bi-Amp and Digital. If cost is a problem, buy a B-stock DA-20 or DTS6D if you can find any. Do not spare expenses on the projection booth, the heart of the theater, and your presentation. You could chop a platter system and install a Tower to save some cash, put some descent 2 way screen speakers e.t.c. Good combination might be the 2 Way screen array JBL speakers (considering you will go bi-amp) with 3310's surrounds which is quite an inexpensive way to go. Still you will need the least 5 amps to drive the three screen speakers, your surrounds and the subwoofers. If possible, install 2 subwoofers. Good bass always makes a booming impression. Image quality is the next main thing. Whatever lamp your technician suggests to install to provide a good image, go for it. Do not try to cut down the cost on the projection lamp as that will not give you a bright shining image. From that on some tiny touches give a very good impression on the presentation and the "film done right issue". I always loved the way in one of our cinemas down here, where we installed a black thick curtain, and the film starts with the logo of the theater printed on 35mm for 15 seconds and appears beautifully on the screen which hides behind the curtain. Screen curtain gives a cosiness (don't know if I spelled it right) inside a theater. Frame always right, splice correctly and Long may you survive!
D
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-30-2006, 02:09 PM:
 
Probably the best single piece of info I read in this thread...

quote: Martin Brooks

---

IMHO for any theater to survive, you have to provide a better experience in the theater than people get in the home.

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Speakers have a characteristic called "sensitivity," which is measured in dB/watt at one metre. Given the dimensions of the room, the efficiency of the speaker, any sound absorbing characteristics of the room, and the desired maximum SPL, you can calculate the necessary amplifier power.

---