Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Which sounds better DA20/CP-65 or CP-500

This is topic Which sounds better DA20/CP-65 or CP-500 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=008242

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 09-07-2006, 09:43 PM:

Subject says it all. Which method of producing Dolby Digital will sound better?

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 09-07-2006, 09:49 PM:

CP 650 [thumbsup]

/ 500 / da20 all good

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 09-07-2006, 09:50 PM:

In my opinion, I think the CP-500 sounds better. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-07-2006, 09:57 PM:

I've always liked the sound of the CP-500 alot. For a first generation digital based unit Dolby did a very good job, its also been an amazingly reliable unit. It seems to have the right combination of analog and digital features. The CP-650 is still the best sounding of the Dolby Processors and it tracks a digit lower on error rate although its debatable if that makes ANY audible difference in an average print. It does however mean that a given used-worn print might play back more reliably.

The very best SRD combination I've listened to is the DA-20 on a Panastereo CSP-1200. No holds barred these are the best commercial units you can buy.

Then there is the DTS Lossless playback system that utilizes an XD-10.... that and the CSP-1200 are an amazing combination to say the least. Only a few of these players exist today as far as I know.

Mark

In rank of best sound....
CSP-1200 with DA-20
CP-650
CP-500

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 09-08-2006, 12:54 AM:

I liked our CP-500's at the wynnsong. Haven't had much more experince. I do know I like the panastereo's we had too. Mod 2B&C's are ok, but my home system sounds better.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-08-2006, 01:04 AM:

#1 CP650
#2 DA20 with CP65
#3 CP500

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-08-2006, 09:04 AM:

My list agrees 100% with Brad's. Louis

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 09-08-2006, 05:56 PM:

The CP-650 has a very versatile set of features. Mainly, the automation & format capibilities of the CP-500, but with better performing analog sound.

The CP-65 is a reliable performer & the DA-20 is a standard for Dolby Digital. The CP-65 will give a bit extra padding to the surrounds' level in Dolby Digital, but a properly calibrated system will still sound satisfactory.

I, personally love the display of the CP-500. Very intuitive & easy to see from a long modern booth hallway [thumbsup]

The analog performance is just too shabby for my tastes with the 500. I run a CP-65 with SR right now & I'm totally pleased with what I hear. [Smile]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-08-2006, 08:47 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
My list agrees 100% with Brad's. Louis

Yea, but you two are still only standing on one foot.... Mr CP-45 [Wink]

. Seems that MR Guttag and I are the only two here that have both feet firmly planted on the booth floor.

Mark

Posted by Kevin Raisler (Member # 1761) on 09-08-2006, 08:56 PM:

I prefer the 650 over the 500.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 09-08-2006, 10:30 PM:

quote: Steve Scott
I, personally love the display of the CP-500.

me to!

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The very best SRD combination I've listened to is the DA-20 on a Panastereo CSP-1200.

This is what I currently work with in our big house (460) seats, combined with top of the line Krix 2 way speaker system, sounds very sweet indeed.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-08-2006, 10:38 PM:

I think the Panastereo CSP1200 does have the quietest and cleanest sound but it was not on the choosable list given.

My choices on that list would be CP650, CP65/DA-20 and then CP500 in terms of sound quality.

I am not a fan of the CP500's sound at all...it is noisy and harsh as digital goes. Its reliability is notorious. That said, the CP500 is quite flexible and allows one to create formats on the fly that only the CP200 could do before.

The CP650 is a very pleasing sounding unit. The SR emulation is as good as any I've heard. It is very much a reliable unit. We have only had power supply failures...as opposed to having most every CP500 card causing some sort of trouble over the years.

The DA-20 certainly does well on digital though I don't feel that it is necessarily as good as the CP650. The DA-20's CP card has had issues throughout its life and has caused false format triggers or had processors ignore digital/analog pulses. There are some three field bulletins relating to modications to this card to short out resistors or removing components for improved performance. A big fault of the DA20 is that it does NOT switch to analog until the last "bit" comes out of the buffer...thus timing is a big issue to avoid noticable drop outs on the transistion. Dolby supplies CAT410 modules for use with CP65s to bypass the debounce circuit for the DA20 only...this minimizes the transistion. However, the CP65's audio muxes lack the necessary feedback to avoid the Cat 242's characteristic "SNAP" as it switches formats.

The CP65 does NOT lower the surrounds for digital...it raises it for analog...symantics for sure but that IS what is happening. The CP65 plays its surrounds at 82dBc/side like other processors but it adds a 3dB boost for analog to help with Cat 150 decoding. I don't agree with this circuit and it is possible to defeat it by modifying the Cat 441 card. The Panastereo CSP1200 also has this circuit. The CP500 and CP650 provide for one to boost optical surrounds too. Personally, I find this level diference causes and audible cue that the sound format has changed.

So, given the processors allowed by the subject header...

CP650
CP65/DA20
CP500

Steve

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 09-09-2006, 11:07 AM:

But unlike Coke and Pepsi, I'll bet no one could tell the difference in a blind test in the same auditorium. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Alexander Smith (Member # 1769) on 09-09-2006, 11:19 AM:

Which sounds best? The one with the Monster(TM) brand cables!

Oh, never mind...

:-)

Alex.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-09-2006, 12:15 PM:

CP650
CP65/DA20
CP500
out of the choices
better choice
CSP1200/DA20

I find the CP500 a harsh sounding processor and noted for reliablility issues

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-09-2006, 04:16 PM:

quote: Jim Bedford
I'll bet no one could tell the difference in a blind test in the same auditorium.

You'd be wrong too.

When one works with products a bunch...you start to notice their characteristics that "give them away." This can be good or bad.

Steve

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 09-09-2006, 04:23 PM:

True, but I think most people don't have as much screening room (or high level cinema setups in general) experience as you do where you have the opportunity to do real A/B comparisons, so a lot of people just say "DTS sounds better than Dolby Digital" because they may know one shitty location with SR*D and one decent one with DTS or the other way around. That is not a good basis for comparison. Plus many people don't hear nearly as well as they think they do, and blind testing often produces some illuminating and embarassing results even for people who fancy themselves "audiophiles".

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 09-09-2006, 04:34 PM:

I can't comment on comparison of sound, but I can say that I had almost no problems with the DA20's I used to work with at AMC. Of course we used them with an ultra-stereo processor. We also used cat700 white light readers and as long as the bulbs were good we never had problems tracking. I cannot say the same about the 650/cat701 combination we used in out big houses. Of course that could have been an installation issue.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-09-2006, 06:34 PM:

Michael,

To expand on your comments...when I was at the Uptown and running changeovers...we had both DTS and Dolby Digital. I would sometimes get a patron that would help themselves into the booth to ask which digital system was in use because they much preferred one over the other...normally DTS because it has less compression...yadda, yadda, yadda.

First, it is interesting that they chose to ignore the signs that said "PRIVATE" and came on in anyway...

Next I would tell them that I would periodically switch which digital system was in use...and that I wanted them to tell me which was better sounding.

Since both systems were using the same CP200 in the same theatre on the same film...it is a pretty fair test for any given film.

I think without exception, IF they had a preference (many could not tell the difference at all), they chose the Dolby Digital reels as superior sounding...which really annoyed the ones that were pre-biased for another format.

However, as to telling them apart...it has been awhile with me but during the DTS-6D/DA-20/SDDS days...I could tell you with better than 90% certainty which was playing. I could also tell you if EV speakers were in use or not (...particularly a DH1 driver or the DL15W drivers...they also have a sound all their own). I have had to walk out of some theatres that had a particularly offensive combination. We weren't into the film more than 5-minutes and I had picked out their system and had to leave while holding my ears.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 09-09-2006, 07:50 PM:

Indeed, I believe the blind comparison might stump one who was comparing the 650 & 65, but the 500 has a much brighter, sometimes harsher sound quality. But when A-chain levels are kept within spec & fader presets controlled, the 500 can produce a good-sounding, not overdriven sound.

But plenty of the new builds around here from the late 90's did and sometimes still do suffer from their operators' inattention to fader levels, moreso than the previous set of 65-based builds, a great deal of which benefitted from only having one fader setting; which was mostly set a bit quieter than spec.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-09-2006, 09:35 PM:

steve scott said "But when A-chain levels are kept within spec & fader presets controlled, the 500 can produce a good-sounding, not overdriven sound"

no mater what the cp500 will sound harsh compar to an identically calibrated cp65

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 09-10-2006, 12:23 PM:

The CP500 was good during the period it was introduced. The DA20 is no more due to ROHS / EU restrictions. I recently did a private screening with a client supplied CP650 and a penthouse and discovered the location had a CP45 set in the bi-amp mode [Confused]

I ended using the CP45 as a glorifed crossover via auxilary input and a quickly made custom kit of cables and let the CP650 do the rest [Cool]

You do what you need to do and it sounded excellent [Wink]

Now where is the thread which DTS product sounds better [Smile]

Posted by Alex Grueneberg (Member # 2652) on 09-12-2006, 01:51 AM:

I've always liked how my auditoriums with the DA-20/dfp-c3000 combo sound, when SDDS isn’t available. Not sure if that's what the tech heads would agree with though. Right behind that is the Da-20/Cp65 combo. Then a Cp500 (although, I agree with Steve the display is great in a large booth.)

Oddly, I recently discovered one of the connection cables connecting a Da-20 to a Cp-65 had the left surrounds and right front channel flipped. My tech refused to believe me, until I proved it to him with the channel identifier test loop. Scored some major points on that one! We took the cable apart and it turned out it was actually soldered incorrectly by Dolby them selves [Roll Eyes]

. Auditorium #6 had been running like that for nearly six years. Don't worry Dolby, I still love you.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 09-12-2006, 01:59 AM:

I wonder if Dolby even supplied the cable. But whoever did, the really embarassing thing is that this was not detected during the installation and setup. These things should not, but can happen, that is why they should be checked during installation and corrected.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 09-12-2006, 10:02 AM:

I recently cleaned up and modified a new sound system for a performing arts center in which the sound consultant specified left / right stage channel ( like a home theatre ) for 35mm and left / right surrounds reversed based on his riser drawing using the stage to audience as a reference [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Alex Grueneberg (Member # 2652) on 09-12-2006, 12:21 PM:

The first movie I screened in #6 (The lake House) I could immediately tell something was fishy. I just don't understand how no one else noticed it for so long. And the cable was supplied by Dolby.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 09-12-2006, 04:58 PM:

quote: Richard Fowler
I recently cleaned up and modified a new sound system for a performing arts center in which the sound consultant specified left / right stage channel ( like a home theatre ) for 35mm and left / right surrounds reversed based on his riser drawing using the stage to audience as a reference

That is pretty funny. Apart from the surround screwup, even a better home theater should have a hard center. Everyone should know that and why that is who has anything to do with sound systems of any kind. I wonder who the "sound consultant" was. Maybe they hired somebody really cheap, a self-appointed sound "expert" of which there are so many and got what they paid for.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-12-2006, 06:42 PM:

Sorta off-topic, but Comcast, and prior to them AT&T Cable, has been broadcasting the local FOX affiliate KLSR with the left and right audio channels reversed for like 10 years. I notice it every time I watch the analog FOX channel. Car passes left-to-right, the sound pans right-to-left. Apparently nobody notices but me (btw, this is on multiple TVs). Not viewers, not Comcast, and not the station's own engineers. [uhoh]

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 09-12-2006, 07:23 PM:

The arts center is in good shape with the help of sharp on site management and coordinating with the staff live sound tech...he had his own issues with delays and crossovers on his part of the system [Frown]