my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » What's a Dolby Cat 280 Card? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: What's a Dolby Cat 280 Card? George May Film Handler Posts: 60 From: Bath, United Kingdom Registered: Nov 2001 posted 12-21-2003 04:23 AM                        I've been running a mobile cinema with CP-55 with Type A noise reduction for a few years. I'm now thinking of upgrading to SR using a Cat 222SR/A card to replace the plain Cat 222. I've heard the Cat 280 card being mentioned as a cheaper equivalent to the 222SR/A, but I can find out no details about it. Can anyone help? Thanks, and a Happy Christmas to you all. George  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 12-21-2003 05:20 AM                     The Cat 280 is a single channel SR card, basically an SR version of a CAT 22 A type unit, which it can replace in older procesors, such as the CP-50. Alternativly, it can be used in a SRA-5 unit with any processor which does not have built-in SR, including your CP-55. The Cat 280 cannot be used internally in the CP-55, you would have to use them in a SRA-5, which is a 1U high rack mount unit, usually mounted just below he processors. SRA-5s can be picked up quite cheaply, if you can find a pair of Cat. 280s to go in it at a reasonable price, it could be a good way to go, many people say the 222 SR/A does ot give as goo a result. Of course, The SRA-5 would be an extra bit of kit to lug around, which might be a disadvantage in a portable situation, but they are not very heavy. The Cat 280 is designed for both cinema and pro-audio use, and can encode or decode. For cinema use must be locked into decode mode by a minor modification. Thse cards are not compatible with the Cat 350 SR cards used in the CP-65. The NR cards used in the older, i.e. pre-CP-500 are: Cat. 22: Single channel A-type encode/decode, defaults to decode mode, and does not need to be modified for cinema use. Used in CP- 50, 200 and, I think, 100. Cat. 280: SR (only version of Cat. 22. Can be used in the same processors, or in a SRA-5. Cat. 222: Two channel A-type, used in the CP-55 and 65. Cat. 350: Single Channel SR (only) card, used in the CP-65 as originally designed. Cat. 300: SR and A-type version of the Cat 350, mainly used for pro-audio, but also in a rather obscure configuration of the CP-65 where, along with a Cat.222, it could provide four channels of A-type NR for 35mm 4 track magnetic prints so encoded, format 22, I think it was, or one of the 70mm formats. Cat 222 SR/A: SR and A-type version of the Cat. 222. Decode only, designed to be used in a CP-65, as a cheaper alternative to a Cat 222 and a pair of Cat 350s. Uses somewhat different processing of SR, but I'm not sure exactly what the difference is.  |  IP: Logged Darren Briggs Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: York, UK Registered: Dec 2001 posted 12-21-2003 06:10 AM                        Contact Peter at Future Projectionis (www.fproj.com), he will be able to supply you with a SRA-5 im sure, CAT 280's are expensive, a CopyCat280 is better value, and gives the same results. Cat222SR/A cards are expensive and the SR decoding is not as acurate as the 280's. As 4 cards are fitted into one on the 222. The Cat280 cards are big beasts. Darren  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-21-2003 10:13 AM                     The CAT 280 is one of the best sounding SR cards out there, but Panastereos SR is as good and perhaps even a bit better. They've also just come out with an outboard SR adaptor that makes use of their card and it would cost alot less than using an SRA-5 unless you can find one for a song.... BTW: The Panastereo SR card is also a record/play card for those thata re not aware. Don't even consider a Copycat card! Not even a close replica of proper SR devoding. Mark @ CLACO  |  IP: Logged Pete Naples Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1565 From: Dunfermline, Scotland Registered: Feb 2001 posted 12-21-2003 10:21 AM                     Seconded on the clone 280's YUCK!  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-21-2003 01:11 PM                     The copycats are not that bad oon 90% of the soundtracks outthere  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-21-2003 02:02 PM                     Oh for christsakes Gordon...the Copy Cats are pure junk! They are what they are...they fit and have some of the properties of the SR system. If you can't easily hear the difference in your system then your system is also junk (or your ears are). The Cat. 280 is the best SR card I've personally heard. The Cat. 300 or 350 also have no known anomolies with optical or magnetic (dubber or 1/2-track audio recorders) sources that I've heard. I have not done as critical a listening test to the CM-353 that I would like but it seems to do a fine job so in the above situation, I'd favor an SR-35 processor from Panastereo as a new solution that will work with just about any processor out there (including the DTS-6AD, by the way). Note, the Pana SR-35 is not compatible with the CP-200 since it does not handle the different levels between Type-A pass through and a 3-dB boost for SR. This isn't an issue for the CP-55 since Type-A does not pass through. Pana may have fixed this by now (I tried it last April) I'm sure a Dolby 363 system can also be kludged in. Of course one may find the SRA-5 system with Cat. 280s. and that is pretty tough to beat in performance. Steve  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-21-2003 02:23 PM                     I didn't say they were identical but they do a tollerable job  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-21-2003 02:42 PM                     Define tollerable. They emit sound...so...they have little to no resemblence to SR decoding...why not just leave the "A" decoders on line...they too emit sound...either way it is just plain wrong. Steve  |  IP: Logged Darren Briggs Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: York, UK Registered: Dec 2001 posted 12-21-2003 04:13 PM                        i wouldnt be too hard on the Copycat 280's, as Gordon said 90% of the films there fine, and in modern cinemas, digital is in use 99% of the time. I have done side by side test with Dolby 280's and copycat 280's on optical and 70mm Mag, optical sounded the same, for Mag the Dobly 280 has the edge in the HF. Also the level out of the Copycat seems higher than a Dolby 280. Darren  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-21-2003 04:43 PM                     Darren, Thats actually a very wrong opinion and one of the main reasons that reverting back to analog is so noticable in theatres. Poor A chains, wrong or no correct noise reduction....it all leads to a customers wanting to rent the DVD next time around. We recently had a customer want to install the cheapest stereo processor made in a temporary location so we went with the Smart Mod 7. In a somewhat extended listening test of that ptocessors different noise reduction schemes we determined that the SR(or copycat) circuit that was built in was basically unlistenable. The Type A was actually better when playing back an SR film and when playing type A back, the decoding, although hardly perfect, was actually acceptable. In this case the fallback from DTS was setup to go to type A and we reccomended to our customer NEVER to use the SR(copycat) at any time....at all, period. Thank God 95% of the time it'll be running DTS anyway! Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-21-2003 05:19 PM                     I'm not being too hard on the copy cat...if you can't hear the difference...either you are deaf or your system sucks so bad that you can't hear it. If you want to play the film wrong...just skip the copy cat all together. How on earth do you or Gordon come up with the 90-95% compatible crap? Because it is not a complimentary decoder to that which encoded the track it is 100% incompatible. This is pretty cut and dried. I'm not just picking on one manufactuer here either...see my other rants on Dolby's Cat. 222 SR/A....closer but also no cigar. Dolby-S + Dolby-S does not equal Dolby SR. Forget complex music and voice signals...just run frequency sweeps on a fake SR card versus the real thing and the differences become apparent...hence I recommend for a CP-55 to use a good SR system...SRA-5 with Cat. 280s (preferred) or SR-35 with CM-353. Steve  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-21-2003 08:07 PM                     A note of clarification; the Dolby Cat280T is the Cinema-specific card which they expect you to use. The plain Cat280 is the pro audio version, and requires a trivial modification to work properly in a cinema processor (cut a jumper); search in this forum to find the details. Cat280 cards seem to be much more prevalent on the used market, for obvious reasons. Just to give you an idea, I was able to find them as cheaply as USD$125 as of August 2003. Are SRA-5s really available? I was somehow under the impression that they were not. Is this a US/UK difference? [EDIT: Originally I hypothesized that the Panastereo SR35 supported the Dolby Cat280 card, as well as the Panastereo CM353; Steve G. thinks I'm wrong, and I was never sure, so let's assume he's right. Ray?] Oh, if you're into do-it-yourself, dealers selling used Cat280 cards (not T) probably also have the standalone single-channel frame for it, used in pro audio (cat 363 maybe? Can't remember). They're probably really cheap and you can get them and then wire them up to the CP55 by hand...theoretically. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-21-2003 09:00 PM                     John, I don't think the SR-35 can physically fit the Cat. 280. The CM-353 is a single board whereas the Cat 280 is a double board card and much thicker. Also I don't think they have a +24 rail to power a Cat 280. The CM-353 runs off of a bi-polar +/- 15 supply. Steve  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-21-2003 09:02 PM                     Well a lot depends on the circumstances of the customer a copy cat is better at handling a SR print than running it in a type I have used them in a CP200 and note much of what Darren has Also it has far less distortion than th 222SR/A does  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.