Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Dolby CP950

This is topic Dolby CP950 in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=003643

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-03-2019, 07:43 PM:

Thought this launch deserves its own thread, given that this is likely to be a widely sold and installed audio processor. It's been on display at the Dolby booth at Cinemacon. My thoughts:

PROS

- Booth monitor and crossover built in
- Web UI that is very similar to that of the CP850 (so only a small learning curve for installation techs, and no separate PC app needed for tuning, etc.)
- Can be made Atmos-capable by adding a card
- Has HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 pass-through for alternative content audio
- Same ballpark price as the CP750

CONS

- No analog inputs
- HDMI input cannot decode DTS
- Possibly, early adopter bug discovery if you buy now; might need to go through a few firmware update cycles before it's a "set and forget" proposition

IMHO, this will be a very attractive proposition for mainstream 'plex screens (significantly more functionality than the CP750 for a similar price), though the lack of any analog inputs will make it less suitable for arthouse venues and installations that combine d-cinema with other projection sources.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-04-2019, 09:41 AM:

In the Dolby "ecosystem," which all are migrating to the same web-ui, there is the DMA (Dolby Multichannel Amplifier) so installation could be as simple as running a single Ethernet cable from the CP950 to the DMA...done. The DMA is available in 16, 24 and 32-channel variants and is only 4U tall with a crap-ton of redundancy.

So, for a straight up 5.1/7.1 system, that has no need for multichannel analog sources, it probably will win the battle on size of sound system in how compact everything is.

Naturally, the CP950 has analog outputs to feed traditional cinema sound topologies too...16 channels of them so crossovers up to tri-amp are covered.

It should also be noted that the CP950 has the tuning power of the CP850 (swept sine wave via up to an 8 mic plex) complete with the ability to do a manual tuning, again like the CP850

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-04-2019, 03:39 PM:

What I don't really get is why they put BLU Link support into it, but seemingly no direct support for Dante.

At least if they'd put in the latter, the lack of analog audio ports could probably be easily solved via a simple and relatively cheap DAC interface with Dante support.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 04-04-2019, 04:34 PM:

I believe ATMOS Connect is BLU link, so that support was probably brought over from the CP850. It's possible to license FPGA code that accepts I2S or I8S audio and drops it onto BLU link.

Harold

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-04-2019, 04:48 PM:

They really built a processor with no analog input? That is going to bite anyone who does festival screenings or special events in a venue with this type of processor. I'm guessing that there is no 35mm film support, either?

I guess that this could be worked around with a separate ADC, but that is annoying.

(No doubt, this is probably a perfectly fine product for the average multiplex, but even those places do rentals and other events at times.)

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 04-04-2019, 05:48 PM:

If it wasn't for the lack of analog inputs I would really love this processor. Even so when using the Dolby DMA like Steve said would be a simple little set-up.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-04-2019, 06:13 PM:

I wouldn't have put Dante on a product like the CP950. They are already AES67/Blu-link. Having Dante in there would have added a licensing cost for very little benefit. However, there is a decent point on the potential to bring in analog via an AES67, if they had the code/ability to do it.

But, if it were me, there would have been the analog multi-channel input and it would have been pretty complete product for what it could be.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-05-2019, 02:11 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
They really built a processor with no analog input? That is going to bite anyone who does festival screenings or special events in a venue with this type of processor. I'm guessing that there is no 35mm film support, either?

It does have a stereo non-sync input. No 35mm support either, but that was somehow to be expected.

quote: Harold Hallikainen
I believe ATMOS Connect is BLU link, so that support was probably brought over from the CP850. It's possible to license FPGA code that accepts I2S or I8S audio and drops it onto BLU link.

Yes, Atmos Connect is BLU link, or at least it's based on it (I don't know if they've extended it with their own proprietary stuff).

There are some pretty expensive processors out there that can get you from analog to BLU link right now. Still, more doable than to build your own interfaces. I guess since even the ARM processor on a Raspberry Pi could do most of the legwork needed in software, there is not even a need for an FPGA in there. [Wink]

My biggest problem with BLU Link is that it's yet another proprietary protocol, with no readily available specifications and most likely quite some licensing costs.

quote: Steve Guttag
But, if it were me, there would have been the analog multi-channel input and it would have been pretty complete product for what it could be.

I guess that's something almost everybody agrees upon. But that's why I went looking for a decent alternative to get those channels into the machine.

I don't know about licensing costs for Dolby, but it looks like they don't like to pay for any licensing where possible. They also skimped on the DTS licenses.

But I'd say that such a licensing powerhouse like Dolby, would probably have sufficient bargaining power to get the licenses for their devices rather cheap. Also, we're not really talking about consumer-grade equipment here, were every dollar you save can make the difference between profit or loss.

AES67 might even be a better solution than Dante or BLU Link, since it's an entirely open standard, but right now, the amount of products available for it are still a bit lagging and for whatever reason often even more expensive than Dante products...

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-05-2019, 03:08 AM:

Again, I don't think the missing DTS decoding is a real issue anymore, as long as it DOES have HDMI LPCM multichannel audio capability. Many, if not most of todays Bluray-Players and other devices can decode all Dolby and DTS codecs to LPCM. This is typically done by autonegotiation between source and sink (No DTS-HD Master decode->Switch to Multichannel LPCM).
That was no option for the CP750, as it only had SPDIF/TOSLINK connectivity which can not convey multichannel LPCM.

If the CP950 comes at the same price as the CP750, and includes an upgrade path to ATMOS, I guess it's not such a bad choice, given that it offers internal crossovers, which saves quite a bit of additional gear and setup cost for external crossovers, monitor, etc..

- Carsten

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-05-2019, 07:32 AM:

I'm a bit puzzled why people think having crossovers in a CP is such a big deal. That, to me, just increases wiring and often limits you do the basics of crossovers (LR-24 at some frequency that hopefully you know). Many/most amplifiers have crossover options for them that cuts your wiring down and likely is at least as good a crossover as in a typical CP.

If I'm particular about my crossovers, I'll want to have them external or part of a DSP system of my preference. I can only think of one maybe two installations in the past where I used internal CP crossovers and eventually pulled them out and went a more traditional way.

To each their own, I guess.

As for HDMI...it is a dangerous connector/format. I don't believe most Blu-ray players come out of the box ready to switch to LPCM though it may be a configuration so I do predict instances of no-sound. But as others have said, Dolby not licensing DTS is to be "expected." The Blu-link output is configurable to be AES67 so you are not locked into that format. The return is just Blu-link. Too bad it isn't configurable too as an AES67 input.

Posted by Greg Routenburg (Member # 1742) on 04-09-2019, 03:20 PM:

I can only think of one occasion in the last 3 years that I've needed a 6ch analog input on a processor so I'm not heartbroken that it's missing. Having said that, if I needed such a beast, I'm wondering if the two RJ45 AES inputs (AES 1-4 & AES 5 - 8) could be assigned to different formats in the processor individually. If so, you could theoretically use 3 stereo SPDIF ADCs and balancing transformers to create a 6ch analog input through one of the AES ports. I know the two standards aren't identical but they usually play nice unless there is something really sophisticated happening but that's not the case here.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-10-2019, 08:20 AM:

Is there a recommendation already for a suitable 6/8ch ADC to input analog surround sound from e.g. a traditional 35mm processor into the CP950?

Yes, one could think of using three separate cheap S/P-DIF converters - but these are not clock synced, and may cause issues. While multichannel audio converters are quite often seen in the music/audio production domain, those with multiple discrete AES/EBU outputs are hard to find and prohibitively expensive. Music production settled mostly on ADAT or DANTE for multichannel interfaces. Does Dolby already suggest something? As it seems, the ATMOS Connect/AES67 input on the CP950 is not functional?

The AJA ADA4 would be a candidate, but it only offers 4 analog input channels, so two would be required for 5.1.
.

- Carsten

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-10-2019, 08:39 AM:

What about passively mixing the outputs of the CP950 and the film processor together before feeding the amplifiers?

One venue where I work occasionally does something like this. They have a CP650 for 35mm optical/digital and D-cinema and a CP200 for 35/70 mag. These outputs are mixed together and then feed the QSC monitor/crossover and amplifiers. The LE/RE from the CP200 are also sent to the monitor/crossover. This seems to work fine, and the sound quality is good. The only downside is having separate faders and sound changeover systems for mag and optical/SRD.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-10-2019, 08:45 AM:

Many will probably use the internal crossovers of the CP950, so, the speaker configuration then is specific to the 950. We just have that issue on a german forum (connecting a CP500 for film), and, you would either go full passive, or the filmsound processor would need to do the same active crossover to enable this (e.g. CP500/650). You would also need to calibrate/EQ both systems separately. Unless you use external active crossovers. There are certainly multiple ways to solve the issue, but, none is cheap or easy or elegant.

I think this will come up quite often now that the CP950 hits the streets. Quite a few sites will probably try to add a pre-existing CP65/DA20, CP500 or CP650 for filmsound to a CP950. I can see the rollyes of the Dolby sales people, and the reluctant nodding of their engineers when they hear 'And what about our film sound?'

- Carsten

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-10-2019, 12:00 PM:

quote:
- Booth monitor and crossover built in
- Web UI that is very similar to that of the CP850 (so only a small learning curve for installation techs, and no separate PC app needed for tuning, etc.)
- Can be made Atmos-capable by adding a card
- Has HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 pass-through for alternative content audio
- Same ballpark price as the CP750

If the CP950 can be made Atmos-capable simply by adding a card, how does the price of adding that card to a CP950 compare to the price of a CP850 with Atmos capability out of the box?

I think Dolby Atmos has been rolling out to movie theaters at a very slow pace in part because of the really high cost of the CP850. Dolby slashed a few grand off the price a couple or so years after the CP850 was first released, but it was still really expensive. Combined with other factors (like needing to buy a shit-ton more amplifiers) Atmos turned into a very cost prohibitive equation for most theaters.

If the CP950 with Atmos capability and the new Dolby multichannel amplifiers can dramatically lower costs and make installation easier that could lead to a lot more theaters installing Atmos.

quote: Carsten Kurz
Again, I don't think the missing DTS decoding is a real issue anymore, as long as it DOES have HDMI LPCM multichannel audio capability. Many, if not most of todays Bluray-Players and other devices can decode all Dolby and DTS codecs to LPCM.

Just about any Blu-ray player will feature basic internal DTS decoding for output to a non-surround playback device, such as the built-in speakers of a HDTV set. It's similar to how Dolby Digital was handled in many DVD players. Not all Blu-ray players are capable of 5.1/7.1 LPCM output of decoded DTS-HD Master Audio streams. It's an important point to consider since DTS-HD remains the dominant audio format on Blu-ray. But that's only if the given theater plays any alternative content off Blu-ray disc.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-10-2019, 01:02 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I'm a bit puzzled why people think having crossovers in a CP is such a big deal.

I have only used internal CP x-overs three times that come to mind. All three were in CP-500's and were back around the turn of the century (1999-2000). This was before the QSC monitor x-over existed and typically the octal plug in modules for the QSC USA amplifiers were used. I had no issues with the internal CP x-over at all. They worked great on the 4675's that were already at one site. I am pretty sure the other sites had 4675's. We did a baffle wall at the two sites in Oregon. If I was limited on rack space I'd do the same today. But external x-overs today are far more advanced and flexible.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-10-2019, 08:10 PM:

I think I've used internal crossovers maybe once.

Since the CP950 has the booth monitor function too, that sort of changes the tipping point for me since, from a wiring standpoint, things are, once again, coming out of the right box and I'm not sending 2-4 separate cables from a processor, to the monitor to the amps.

If the crossovers in the CP950 are adequate, I could see using them, particularly with the Multi-channel Amplifier.

Carsten brings up a sore spot for me (and others) where Dolby abandoned the multi-channel analog input. It forces the CP950 into the cookie-cutter room that needs no non-DCinema frills.

Until now, our solution for new installations that have film and DCinema has been using a product like the QSC DCP 300. The DCP300 has two analog inputs. One can handle 8-channels and the other handles 6-channels or combined can handle even more, for the full 70mm system with a CP200. The DCP300 was convenient in that you could "splice" it in right after an existing film processor so it became your monitor, crossover and the DCinema content would come in right there and not have to flow through the analog chain. Set the "Film" preset to alway jump to 0dB and let the film processor's volume control still be the film volume control.

I think, going forward, Q-SYS will be our solution since it is so versatile just about any number of analog or digital inputs one could want/need. Heck, on the DPA-Q amps, you can get them with analog inputs for relatively low cost. If QSC ever develops A and SR emulators, I could see skipping the cinema processor entirely and just develop a suitable A-Chain block to use the mic inputs. I suspect that the DCP line is probably on the decline. The DCP200 is discontinued as is the EXP expansion frame since Cobranet, as reliable as it is (never had a single failure with Cobranet) has given way to Dante. The future is with Q-SYS for QSC (and AES67).

I don't think there will be enough venues putting in film/retaining film to warrant Dolby to change anything but I think they will lose sales, none the less, due to the lack of analog inputs as we used to use them for Blu-rays in most of our installations (probably 80% of our CP750s are using the multi-channel analog inputs). I consider its omission on the CP950 a blunder and one where they didn't find out from their dealers what features the liked/didn't like on the existing products.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-11-2019, 07:03 AM:

There is an interesting Dolby Webinar recording on VIMEO with an attached Q&A round.
According to that, the CP950 is not just a more flexible replacement for the CP750 (the CP750 is outphased now). With the availability of the ATMOS extension card next year, the CP850 will be EOL'd, and the CP950 and the CP950+ (ATMOS) will be the sole standalone cinema processor from Dolby, and probably for a long time.
The CP950(+) will be the CP650 equivalent for the post-transitional DCI era. As such, it would be good to have a simple multichannel analog extension. I mean, it's not so complicated to make 3-clocksynced Stereo-ADCs with AES/EBU outputs in a 1HE device. I'm sure a company like Odyssey will come up with an economical solution.
One would wish Dolby went a bit further back then and added digital outputs to the DMA8+ ;-)

- Carsten

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-11-2019, 07:16 AM:

I presume that your plan would be to use some of the AES inputs for your analog audio. The problem is, I need, at least 10 channels (5 pairs) for 7.1 movies with ADA audio so perhaps 6-channels could be left over for other things. I'd rather if a company like Odyssey came out with a product like that it would be analog to HDMI. Then it plugs into a great many things, including the CP850, CP950 or whatever.

Note, the IMS3000 is also a Dolby sound processor Atmos processor so yes, with the CP950 handling Atmos, they are pretty well covered for Atmos and standard audio (5.1/7.1).

I heard an interesting complaint of the CP950 is that the connectors, right down to the power cord are just about swapped compared to the CP750, making a CP750 to CP950 swap potentially frustrating.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-11-2019, 07:29 AM:

Right, while they say the CP950 is a drop-in replacement for the CP750, they went from the THX/CP750 balanced DB25 pinout to the TASCAM style pinout. The CP850 uses the same dual DB25 pinout. Makes some sense to go that way.

Making an analog input extension through HDMI is no so easy - HDMI knows no audio-only mode, and it would block the single HDMI input (most are probably okay with a single input for their Bluray/DVD players or settop boxes).

AES/EBU ADCs are easy to make. The device would need an RJ45 input from the server, so it could wire through either HI/VI-N or Backsurrounds (depending on server routing), and wire in the AES/EBU of the 6 ADCs. So all 16 inputs on the CP950 could be fully utilized with zero pain. The CP950 has a flexible matrix routing to accomplish everything needed. As this deals with HI/VI-N, and 7.1, Odyssey should be tempted to make a product - their business with the previous analog/hybrid processors addons wil certainly not increase.

Other than that - AP25 sales will probably see a decent boost - or, a slower decline. I was just talking to a cinema operator opting towards an AP25 for exactly that reason.

A question not raised/answered on the webinar is that of matrix decoding on AES channels. As it obviously does that on the BNC AES and HDMI in, the code is there, so, it would probably be easy to enable it in software only for the server channels as well. Dolby may consider it an exotic feature, very similar to an external analog multichannel input, though...

- Carsten

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-11-2019, 08:11 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
If the CP950 can be made Atmos-capable simply by adding a card, how does the price of adding that card to a CP950 compare to the price of a CP850 with Atmos capability out of the box?

I meant to ask that question when I did the webinar, but forgot.

My guess would be that either they're going to phase out new sales of the 750 and the 850, leaving the 950, the 950+ (version with Atmos card and bigger PSU) and the IMS3000 as the only cinema processors in their product line offered new; or that they're going to tweak the pricing such that you'll pay a significant premium for the flexibility of upgrading a 950 to a 950+ after initial installation. In other words, they will set the pricing such that if you know that you are, or likely will be, putting Atmos in, it will make sense to buy an 850 or an IMS3000 out of the gate.

quote: Bobby Henderson
If the CP950 with Atmos capability and the new Dolby multichannel amplifiers can dramatically lower costs and make installation easier that could lead to a lot more theaters installing Atmos.

Most of the cost of retrofitting a room with Atmos is the cost of buying a big rig full of speakers (plus, possibly a crap ton of acoustic panels) and hiring guys to hang them from the ceiling. You're going to need more power amps, too. My guess would be that the cost of the audio processor is 10-15% of a typical project cost. Every little helps, but I can't see this new processor making the difference between pulling the trigger on an Atmos install and not.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-11-2019, 08:42 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
Every little helps, but I can't see this new processor making the difference between pulling the trigger on an Atmos install and not.

It's meant to make it easier to upgrade to Atmos down the road. Just plug in a module.

How long till the power supplies start to fail?

Mark

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-11-2019, 08:58 AM:

They didn't mention real figures, but at least were open enough to say that the CP950+ will come out at lower cost than the CP850, including ATMOS hardware and license. Keep in mind, MDA SMPTE bitstream spec is finished, we will see more competition - the CP950/IMS3000 will not remain the only available solution for object based audio, so, the price needs to come down considerably (and not only for the processor). QSC is most certainly around the corner with a Q-SYS centered MDA solution (aside from their existing small scale IMS based solution). Barco does have a solution already (APX/AuroMAX). GDC as well. With the AP25 supporting AES67, I could imagine they are also working on something. The CP950 ATMOS extension will be available not before mid-next year, and I am sure Dolby will consider the competition at that point in time before they settle pricing.

@Mark - with the ATMOS upgrade card for the CP950, a new stronger power supply also needs to be installed. Let's see if Dolby learned their lesson from the CP750.

- Carsten

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-11-2019, 10:01 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
Most of the cost of retrofitting a room with Atmos is the cost of buying a big rig full of speakers (plus, possibly a crap ton of acoustic panels) and hiring guys to hang them from the ceiling. You're going to need more power amps, too. My guess would be that the cost of the audio processor is 10-15% of a typical project cost. Every little helps, but I can't see this new processor making the difference between pulling the trigger on an Atmos install and not.

IIRC, the original price of a Dolby CP850 was around $35,000 and then dropped to the upper $20K range (which is still pretty expensive). Film-based digital sound processors cost only a fraction of that price.

Any commercial theater surround sound system is going to require a lot of speakers and other features (like wall treatment, acoustic panels, etc) to do the job right. Atmos adds another two rows of speakers on the ceiling, plus at least 2, 4 or more sub bass cabinets on or into the ceiling. It's basically a 50%-60% increase in surround speaker cabinets, which is pretty significant. Although (unfortunately) I tend to see smaller, lower powered speakers installed on the ceiling in most Atmos systems, despite the fact more powerful speakers are needed overhead because those are more difficult to hear, especially in rooms with high ceilings.

I don't know how Dolby's new line of multichannel amplifiers compare in performance with the traditional lines of amplifiers from other companies that tend to support maybe 1, 2 or 4 channels of audio. Still, the idea of putting 16, 24 or 32 channels worth of amplification into a single rack mount box seems like a great idea. I don't know the pricing of these amplifiers. Hopefully there is a considerable discount between a single 32 channel amp versus buying a whole bunch of separate amps to support the same 32 channels of amplification. That could make a big difference on the cost equation of installing Atmos or not. It could also make the difference between a theater installing Atmos with a minimal number of amplifiers and audio object rendering capability versus installing Atmos with a full tilt configuration with up to 128 channels worth of amplification.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 09-11-2019, 12:06 PM:

The multichannel amps definitely make installing an Atmos rack simpler. There are limitations, of course. There's one power supply per unit and the power budget has to be managed: you can't expect all channels to output their rated power simultaneously. I think possibly the DAD program takes care of the power budget?
Servicing them is something of a pain. The amp modules come out the side... so all connectors get removed than the thing has to be removed from the rack, slide rail removed (if used), and side panel removed to replace a failed amp module.
The front panel light show is nice but it only alerts on a problem, you look at the webGUI for any real diagnostics.
With a digital connection from an 850 or 950 you assign inputs to channels and set up bridging in the webGUI. Pretty easy and the setup can be archived in case the whole amp or a control board needs to be replaced.
There are powerful cooling fans, as loud as you would expect. Maybe speed controlled, I don't recall. Cleaning them might be "fun".
The 32 channel model MSRP is around $12K.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-11-2019, 01:45 PM:

Wait...they went to the Tascam pinout for the CP950? That's annoying. So, we have the DB25 cinema unbalanced pinout (DTS), the DB25 cinema balanced pintout (DMA8), and now the DB25 Tascam pinout (CP950). Not to mention the weird CP650 arrangement, which depends upon what cards are installed.

How many damn cables/adapters do I need to make and carry now just to make the average "film" festival happen?

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-11-2019, 03:32 PM:

I guess the CP950 will not make you happy under festival conditions anyway.

- Carsten

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-11-2019, 08:15 PM:

quote:
@Mark - with the ATMOS upgrade card for the CP950, a new stronger power supply also needs to be installed. Let's see if Dolby learned their lesson from the CP750.

Nope! Its a Dolbly tradition. Started way back with undersize diodes in the CP-50 power supply.