|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: SDDS eq
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"
Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 03-02-2003 03:54 AM
I don`t want to start another SDDS vs. Dolby discussion here, but - I am not sure what Brad meant, in my eyes (or ears), the SDDS EQ is vastly superior to the CP500. I can ask Brad at ShoWest what exactly he meant, but I suppose he just wasn`t used to the sound of the DFP-D3000 which has a far clearer sound than the CP500 which is also way noisier. Many people react to clear sound in the higher frequencies negatively, because they are not used to it. The diffuseness that a lot of equipment has in the higher frequencies is often perceived, or rather mistaken, as "warmer sound".
I have had a setup where the SDDS processor was installed as a source into the CP500, I reconnected it to come after the CP500, and it was much, much, much better.
I also had setups with a CP500 as input to the DFP-D3000 which is the better way to do it.
Antonio, which SDDS processor will you be using?
Whichever it is, download the SDDS tech-notes. Among them you will find two which specifically address how to connect to CP500, both variations.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-02-2003 04:07 AM
The SDDS internal pink noise generator is high frequency deficient. So assuming you EQ a Dolby vs. a SDDS the same, the SDDS will always sound "brighter" or "cleaner" when A/B compared because the tech turned up the high frequencies trying to get a desired response on his RTA. If you like your sound trebly and bright, then go for it. I don't. If you take (for example) a dts or SRD track played back through a CP65, and then switch in and out to an SDDS player with it's own internal calibration, the same SPL also is much "louder" appearing and harsh. It's those frequencies which brings about complaints. This is why most every tech I know when setting up an EQ internally in a SDDS processor calibrates the levels at 75db, not 85db. You just have to play SDDS lower because of that treble boost or customers will complain. With the DFP-2000 only having a fader 10db down from reference, MANY theaters simply couldn't turn it down low enough when calibrated at 85db. However that same track plays well at 85db (or close to it) on a Dolby processor (particularly the older ones with cat64B cards).
I've set up two SDDS units in my screening room "double stacked". One was EQ'd inside the SDDS processor and the other was left "flat" and ran through the Dolby's EQ. Both were calibrated to have as close of a response and level to each other as possible. In the end though, every single person I gave an A/B test found the one EQ'd by the Dolby processor to sound superior to the internal SDDS EQing. Do the test for yourself.
I've never been a fan of digital EQing. It's hard to put into words, but there is a certain harshness, almost metallic sound to it. A SDDS ran into a CP200 or CP65 will have much better sound than an SDDS signal calibrated inside a CP500 or inside the SDDS player itself. (One of these days I've got to get my hands on a Panastereo and play with it.)
Another test you can do is to take a CP65 with a properly calibrated reverse scan reader and compare the SR track to the SDDS (calibrated inside the Sony processor) track. The discreteness isn't there, but it certainly is easier to listen to. Digital is not always better.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"
Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 03-02-2003 01:48 PM
Brad, thanks for explaining that. It will be interesting to talk about this in more detail at ShoWest. It is no secret to the members of this forum that I am a big fan of the SDDS process. I indeed like the SDDS bright sound because it is gives better definition to details which comes from more clarity in the high harmonics.
That does not mean that I like the brighter sound generally better. If I listen to old magnetic soundtracks, I like the mellowness of the sound too. It sounds kind of "homely". And it fits the recording style of the era as that was sensitively adapted to the properties of the technology available.
But for modern sound equipment, I think crisp, clear sound is much better. You can still use soft, round sounds on the soundtrack if you like. The SDDS process will not brighten them up. But some other equipment will mellow all sounds and therefore limit the range of reproducable tone colours.
Antonio, yes, you can use the 2500 internal EQ for external input sources. If you want to do that is up to you. However, you should install the equipment with the DFP coming after the CP650. If you set it up with the DFP as external input for the CP650, I will come to Italy and set your beard on fire.
And please, read the manuals and tech-notes carefully. In my experience, the SDDS equipment works very well, but many technicians have not not read the documentation carefully, and that is the cause of many problems with the equipment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-02-2003 02:46 PM
quote:
The SDDS process will not brighten them up. But some other equipment will mellow all sounds and therefore limit the range of reproducable tone colours.
Nope, you've got it backwards. Because the SDDS has defective P/N, the reproduction of SDDS is NOT what was intended to be heard. This is the same thing as people to get a graphic EQ and make a "V" out of it even with relatively flat speakers because of personal preference.
And speaking of that, why does SDDS not offer course bass and treble on their EQ? That makes a huge difference when calibrating to get things as close as possible before jacking with the individual controls. Any processor that does not have this will never sound as good as one that does because the individual controls end up being slid further to try and get the desired response.
I must also disagree with you regarding the CP650. I have found them to sound quite good, probably the best processor on the market (that I have tuned) that does processing in the digital domain.
Antonio, remember if you place the SDDS *after* the Dolby, you also lose control of your formats. That meaning that anytime SDDS is detected, that format will literally take over and play SDDS in the auditorium. I have always had a huge beef with that. I want control of what is to be played in the auditorium, not some machine that assumes what I want to be played! ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
In my screening room I have a CP200 as well as a DFP-3000. The 3000 does nothing but reproduce SDDS. It does a fantastic job of this and I would not have it any other way. Because I have an Aux rack, I still get the full 8 channel sound.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-02-2003 03:54 PM
Yes Michael, but if you want to run something in SDDS, then something in SR or another format, then go back to SDDS, the 2000 and 2500 cannot be controlled without major wiring issues. It's on or off and that sucks.
Also, since the P/N does not match, anytime the digital drops out, the tone of the room will be altered and the revision becomes obvious. Had Sony just sat down and made a DA20 kind of SDDS player, the format would be MUCH more saturated in the market. Instead they came along too late and were too pricey because of all the unnecessary circuitry and that is what is killing them. The format will not be around in the long run.
I will agree the 3000 was well thought out. There are still issues with it though. Let's say you want SDDS to be the primary format and you have a dts player hooked into AUX 1. When the SDDS drops out and switches for a few moments into dts, there is a literal drop out in sound for a few milliseconds which is not acceptable. There is a newer board that can be used in the unit that offers cross-fading to cover this up, but most everyone with a DFP-3000 has the older board with the dropout.
In my screening room, SDDS is my preferred format (but only because of the way I have it wired). Even with that being said, I rarely run it because even after having the Sony techs personally calibrate my readers, I still have that obnoxious BUUUzzzzUUUzzzUUUzzzUUUzzz from the sprocket on the reader that is so loud you can hear it in the auditorium. With the older 2000 series readers you could thread one perforation less tension and assuming it was calibrated to be threaded like that would track flawlessly. There is no way to get around the reader noise with the 3000. Even assuming the projection room wall was 100% soundproof and the audience could not hear the reader noise, it's enough to drive a projectionist insane. If Sony would fix just one thing, I really wish they would find a way to quieten down their reader!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Wouldn't it work? As I told you I'm not familiar with an SDDS, I'll never try to set up by myself and as I wrote!! 
Printer-friendly view of this topic