Dolby Processor CP950

[Steve Guttag]

I hate supplying PCs or other consumer items...I don't wan't to be on the support side of such things. I did it for Barco touchpanels...we called them "Barcocom" and were low-cost Linux machines. They worked...okay...I guess.

[Leo Enticknap]

For some Q-Sys applications there is no choice. QSC does not make a portable touch panel (i.e. one that is designed to be handheld, rather than mounted or anchored to a surface), and/or one that is wifi equipped.

If reliability and portability are both very important, I'd suggest an iPad running the UCI viewer app. They are overpriced, but very solid in operation, and the batteries will last for 8-10 hours at a time.

[Harold Hallikainen]

I think all these UI systems should just be HTML. With the current version, javascript, web-sockets, etc., you can get a pretty good UI on non-proprietary hardware and under a variety of operating systems. I'm a big fan of web user interfaces and not such a fan of a different application for everything. An application has to be pretty special to make it to my phone.

[Greg Routenburg]

With the KDMs for immersive audio, regardless of whether they are processed in one media block of two, there is still going to need to be two components to the KDM so that it can be controlled separately from the feature. I'm good with having everything in one box but it would be great if it could be made modular for replacement purposes. Obviously the media block needs to be all one piece for security purposes but it would be nice to have the other bits replacable separately. Take the JSD-80 as an example of a modular DSP unit. They split it up into three circuit boards along with a powersupply and back plane. That was a great design because if the input stage of the processor failed, you weren't needing to change everything. It also allows for an upgrade path because if you wanted to say, support the latest version of HDMI, you'd only need to change the module that does the input processing. By having all of your eggs in one basket like the CP750, it's motherboard or bust. I haven't looked into the guts of a 950 yet so I'm not sure how it was done. By having the future Atmos module though, it's in keeping with that general idea.

I'm with Harold on Web UIs. I think they're the way to go. With so much of the projection equipment in a theatre being operated from a distance these days, it's perfect if you can have that interface available on pretty much any device with a web browser.

[Steve Guttag]

For sites needing something portable, I have indeed had them purchase their own iPAD and load the QSYS app to it. I then configure it so it pulls the right UCI up. So far, so good. With web ucis being a reality (though not as stable as I'd like), the day of the UCI available where ever is pretty much here.

[Marcel Birgelen]

For simple web-kiosks, we've been using RaspberryPis for quite a while now. We've built a bunch of ".deb" packages on top of Raspbian which we deploy and allow us to start Chromium in "Kiosk mode" and any other compatible app at startup. We also monitor if this app is still running and we've built in some stuff to allow us to manage those little boxes remotely.

For touch screens, we generally use some Elo-compatible touch screens which are generally unproblematic. We've had one case where we had to use the already built-in touch-screens, which actually required me to bring over an i386/AMD64 device driver to ARM... that was a pretty bad exersize at some low-level device driver hacking...

I think all these UI systems should just be HTML. With the current version, javascript, web-sockets, etc., you can get a pretty good UI on non-proprietary hardware and under a variety of operating systems. I'm a big fan of web user interfaces and not such a fan of a different application for everything. An application has to be pretty special to make it to my phone.

While I like the idea of a "Web UI", what I don't like is what kind of mess it all has become. It's a convoluted web of HTML, JavaScript and CSS, coupled together with more or less half-baked frameworks for UI components, single-page-app rendering and whatnot. Heck, nowadays you tend to write "CSS" in a scripting language that gets compiled into the actual CSS...

Another problem is SSL certificates, as browsers cry foul nowadays if you don't have a valid SSL certificate for your web application. Which is fine for public properties, but can be a pain if you deal with internal devices that either can't get a valid SSL certificate or are almost impossible to manage.

I've found web applications to be pretty hard to debug too, and while the idea behind websockets is great, for some reason Samsung branded phones seemingly don't want to work with them. But yeah, it beats writing an app for Windows, MacOS, iOS and Android in pure time-to-market...

As for DTS-X. I really am not looking forward to another format war like DTS, Dolby, SDDS of yore. The immersive market, for now it seems, is such a small market (percentage wise) to have multiple systems. Another thing I really don't like about DTS-X is that it is more wild...there is nobody steering that ship. Someone could put in a 16-channel system like GDC's SX-4000 and another could put in an ATMOS type system and both are called DTS-X, with no distinction and nobody really governing it all. With Dolby ATMOS, for now, at least, there is a degree of uniformity as Dolby keeps their fingers in it. Personally, I wish they had kept their standards higher and not allow culling/pairing for the same reasons I don't like DTS-X's current deployments. How is a patron to know that they are in a 2nd class system and therefore judge all to be of the inferior type? As it is, I've told our customers to "do it or don't." That is, if you want to save money, just put in 7.1. If you want Dolby ATMOS, go full bore so that it makes a distinct impression as being a better alternative and worth the extra expense.

We've had this discussion before in one form or another.

As a technical minded person, I always look at it from the technical perspective. I can understand that Dolby choose to market ATMOS as a new theatrical experience, yet on the other hand they started to put ATMOS stickers on almost anything out there that wasn't cinema related but makes sound, so that's that for consistency's sake...

For me, ATMOS, DTS:X, etc. is much more a delivery format. The interesting thing about those formats is that they're designed to scale. They scale from one speaker to a zillion so to speak. The delivery format itself doesn't ensure the best possible playback. I can easily downmix any given 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack to L/R stereo for example.

I guess that now is about the worst time to come with such a proposal, but I repeatedly came up with the argument in the past, that in my very humble opinion, we could really use some kind of cinema certification. Something that ensures a technical base-line for any given room and some extra certifications if a cinema goes beyond that. Such a certification could also ensure that the room has been equipped with sufficiently powerful, discretely controlled speakers to make sense for the immersive audio formats being played in that auditorium.

[Steve Guttag]

Yeah...we've always needed a "THXish" type certification. However, money seems to always get in the way. THX has high standards and did have theatres build a notably superior theatre (acoustically). How many cinemas were designing and checking for RT60 then. Now that THX is essentially gone, how many theatres design/check RT60 now? Then go on down the line for NC, STC...etc. About all that has stuck is what Dolby did with the 85dBc = reference = -20dBFS = 0.0 = 0dB...and the "X-Curve." But money always gets in the way.

THX wanted to make money, as any business would, but they would pass on theatres that clearly didn't meet criteria, they allowed in-house techs to certify their own theatres...which you can't do. What tech would sacrifice their job by failing their own company? We were/are certified for THX and never sent in a certification/recertification that wasn't on the up-and-up...even for our own customers but we took the same approach as I mentioned for Dolby ATMOS...do it or don't. Dolby has clearly lowered standards to get/sell the ATMOS product (pairing/culling of surrounds). To paraphrase what Joe Redifer put in his THX spoof, Dolby ATMOS, we'll certify anything. I'm not saying that Dolby will certify bad cinemas but as you note, tablets, soundbars...whatever consumer piece can get Dolby ATMOS just like THX would certify many home receivers to the point it dilutes the branding and, at best, confuses the customer. When a customer, theatre owner, in this case, invests in a pricy piece of technology that has advertising or "Marquee Appeal" and someone can boast the same thing but spending a fraction of the cost because they put in a fraction of the system, it is a disincentive for putting in a proper system as the entire brand is diluted. So what next: "Dolby ATMOS Ultimate, we did it properly" ?

[Sean McKinnon]

Has anyone participated in the QSC Certified Theatre Program?

[Steve Guttag]

Sort of...I've gone through the motions but if they are strict to their rules, it would not have been all screens in the complex. A problem I see is that what is "QSC" to consumers? There is no brand recognition on the consumer world. As such, I'm not sure it is worth the effort unless you have a complex that meets it all or they are willing to just "certify them all."