Welcome to the new Film-Tech Forums!
The forum you are looking at is entirely new software. Because there was no good way to import all of the old archived data from the last 20 years on the old software, everyone will need to register for a new account to participate.
To access the original forums from 1999-2019 which are now a "read only" status, click on the "FORUM ARCHIVE" link above.
Please remember registering with your first and last REAL name is mandatory. This forum is for professionals and fake names are not permitted. To get to the registration page click here.
Once the registration has been approved, you will be able to login via the link in the upper right corner of this page.
Also, please remember while it is highly encouraged to upload an avatar image to your profile, is not a requirement. If you choose to upload an avatar image, please remember that it IS a requirement that the image must be a clear photo of your face.
Thank you!
Is the CP950 DB25 1-8 analog output pinout directly the same as that of CP750 ?
Can someone please help me with the CP950 DB25 analog output pinout if it's different from CP750
Pinouts are different: CP950 follows Tascam pinout (like CP850). You can find the pinout table in the user manual (you can download the manual from the processor itself, in the downloads section of the system menu).
The short answer on the CP950 is NOTHING is the same as the CP750...not even the power cord is on the same side! It is almost as if they went in with Odyssey Products to deliberately make an incompatible processor so Odyssey could sell adapter boards. I seriously don't know what was going through their "minds" when the CP950's pinout was conceived.
Tascam pinout really is a good choice. I can find a Tascam DB25 to 8xXLR at most music stores, in a pinch. Change is not always wrong.
Not a fan of the CP950, 850 is pretty good.
Oh please...the THX pinout has only been in use for decades...they are easy to make and Odyssey Products can provide the cables if you can't make them yourself. For this, at this late stage we change outputs. Furthermore, what is with the female output connector?
I've got mixed feelings on the CP950 and definitely see it having growing pains. The booth monitor sounds decent. The lip-sync delay is goofy, particularly for non-DCP sources. The UI has been easy to teach and hasn't confused people. That said, I would not have the meters in AES pair representation but in channel order...e.g. I would use Left Center Right, not Left, Right, Center. Those are user displays, not technician ones.
Pinouts are different: CP950 follows Tascam pinout (like CP850). You can find the pinout table in the user manual (you can download the manual from the processor itself, in the downloads section of the system menu).
Thanks I’ve downloaded the updated user manual and the DB25 pinouts are well stated
For analog and digital DB25 connectors, everyone is moving to AES59-2012 (which is the same as Tascam). On female connectors, the standard says "Connectors mounted on equipment shall be female (socket) type. Connectors on free cables shall be male (pin) type." "NOTE equipment-mounted connectors may be difficult to replace in case of damage, and female connectors are substantially less likely to suffer mechanical damage. The risk of deformed pins in a cable-mounted male connector is offset by the ability to repair or replace a cable at lower cost. "
The short answer on the CP950 is NOTHING is the same as the CP750...
I seriously don't know what was going through their "minds" when the CP950's pinout was conceived.
Funny thing is that at Dolby training (at least at the one I went to in France) the main point was «cp950 is the perfect and fast replacement for 750». Different pinout, differents inputs, no 6chan analogue...
Switching to the TASCAM layout confused me too, but this happened with the CP850 already. I guess it could make sense if you look at the greater picture of "standardization", but for this niche application, you could equally argue that Dolby somewhat set the standards for those kind of interconnects.
Also, the lack of analog 6CH input also is a mystery to me, it's like Apple dumping the headphone jack, but in this case, Dolby doesn't really sell the necessary "adapters" themselves...
The CP950 could've been the ideal drop-in replacement for those currently stuck with an ageing CP750 and want to be able to upgrade to Atmos at one time. The TASCAM / CP750 pinout issue could' be easily fixed by providing a simple conversion adapter as part of the standard offering. The lack of a 6CH analog in, is a bit more complex. Potentially losing surround sound for "alternative content" is somewhat backward for a device that's supposed to be an upgrade.
Its an 8-channel analog, BTW. As for standardization...we HAD one...CINEMA. For balanced audio, the THX standard...been in use since the 1980s. We have a cinema manufacturer that will make you cables (as well as dealers, including us) if you can't/won't make them yourself. WTF does Tascam have to do with cinema? And yes, I think the omission of the multi-channel analog input was a design mistake, in my opinion. I don't think they asked many dealers about their needs. Probably 80-90% of our CP750s have something connected to that input. It immediately excludes the CP950 from many of our future systems. It was a chief reason the CP850 was excluded from all of our systems (we didn't have any Atmos theatres prior to the release of the IMS3000 and that seems to be getting our ATMOS processing as it keeps the theatre uniform, ATMOS or no, if the complex is using the IMS to begin with. Really, the CP850 will be reserved for our GDC w/ATMOS complexes. I suspect though, that the CP850 will give way to the CP950 once it gets its ATMOS card.
I like alot of what I see on the CP950's front panel but strongly dislike how they handled the rear panel and it's a mix bag on the software part. I wish they had an emulator so one can work with it off line (same with all of the other Web UI stuff).
Again, if I run into a problem where a cable is damaged or missing, I can immediately buy a Tascam snake at a local music store and be on screen soon compared to waiting for an Odyssey cable to arrive.
I use Odyssey products A LOT. Their cable sets are a lot cheaper than a music store product, but not nearly as durable - which isn't an issue in a cable tied in a rack never to be abused.
Standardization is worthwhile, just look at Odyssey's pinout lists for analog and digital DB25 connections. Having a standard for pinout and sexing is hard to argue against.
The Tascam pinout has become the standard for pro and prosumer audio gear. Cables, snakes, and breakouts are commonly available at music stores.
I have nothing against the THX and DMA8 pinouts: the unbalanced Doremi and DA20 pinouts are not so good... just for being unbalanced.
So if I were making professional cinema sound stuff and want to use DB25 for 8ch analog audio, I would have to pick a pinout. And Tascam (or AES59-2012, thanks Harold) is the best choice IMO.
Regarding the CP950, a multichannel analog input is missed and eliminates it from consideration on many installations. The webGUI interface takes quite some getting used to and some "features" help a tech make serious mistakes in setup. The RTA still doesn't. work (this may have changed). ATMOS is not coming soon (maybe 2 years?). And yes, the connector pinout change makes retrofits slightly more difficult but that was the case with the CP750 which changed from previous Dolby usage to the THX balanced pinout.
Myself, for the CP950, if I had had any influence, I would have pushed for the DB25 analog input, physical macro buttons, a way to alter the monitor mix from the front panel, and several changes in the web GUI... particularly locking the fader at 7 for EQ adjustment. A way to apply an EQ profile to all macros with one click would be pretty sweet as well.
I'm with you on most of your changes though I'm not having the problem with the front panel needing the physical buttons. People are so used to their phones now that the swipe/tap thing is seemingly natural.
I completely don't buy your argument to the Tascam standard. if you are SO worried about damaged cables and needing one...carry one or two with you...simple enough. That is FAR FAR less to ask than to switch an entire industry and to make a product completely incompatible with what likely came before it. For example, it guarantees that if you had a CP650 or CP750 in there that there is no chance of the cable matching. Also, shame on Tascam for having an output connector with female pins...only hacks do that. It would be another reason to avoid it. We had a standard, it had been around for a LONG time and was well established. Note, I can't remember needing a cable in a hurry and I've been doing this for over 40-years now. Then again, if I'm on an installation, I'll have the materials I need, including what it takes to make the cable. It just seems silly that on the off-chance YOU might need to buy a high-price cable that 100% of the upgrade installations will not have what they need. Carry around some premade cables, or some breakout boards if you can't handle making DSubs. That's not meant to be a put down but a suggestion if the sole reason for wanting the Tascam pinout was the the Dsub hurdle part of making cables.
I'm happy we moved away from unbalanced too. I used to tell the other trades in a multi-purpose venue that cinema was the last bastion of unbalanced pro-audio. But wait, we also operate at a 300mV (-8.2dB) reference level too! Why? Because we're cinema! (The 300mV part was part of the Dolby buss level thing so there is some reason there). -8.2dBu is close enough to -10dBV (closer than it would appear since they are based on different voltages) so it is close enough. The unbalanced pinout was really just a happenstance based on the CP200's ribbon cables. If you take the JM11/JM21 ribbon cable and squish a DB25 connector, you get that pinout (minus the Subwoofer).
Last edited by Steve Guttag; 02-13-2020, 11:56 AM.
It's also worth mentioning that the built-in booth monitor doesn't have an amplifier monitoring function. When I've needed to troubleshoot a sound problem with a less experienced theatre manager, being able to narrow down a speaker failure from an amplifier failure using the booth monitor has been invaluable. I haven't had the chance to play with a 950 yet outside of CinemaCon so I can't speak for it's usability in the field but from what I saw it looked alright.
The pinout thing is inconvenient but not a deal breaker for me. As Steve said, it's easy enough to make a new DB25 connector. The manufacturers have been rapidly trying to distance themselves from all things analog, be it film inputs or external analog inputs, for a while now. I suspect that it's largely, although not exclusively, so they can sell more stuff. They'll tell you that digital is cleaner and less prone to interference and noise but it all comes down to marketing. I predict that it won't be long before analog outputs are eliminated entirely, forcing installers to abandon old amplifiers for new ones. It's not in the manufacturer's best interests to allow people to continue to use old stuff. There's no money to be made in that.
I dunno, the CP950 double-downed on analog outputs...there are two sets of them so one can do the crossover thing in the CP950 (but one must use the DAD program to take advantage of it). I agree, there should have been a provision for monitoring the amplifier outputs. We are quickly getting down to QSC and Odyssey for cinema booth monitors. In the Digital world, we're heading towards Q-SYS a lot and you can monitor both processor and amplifier out...plus actually hear it! (the USL/QSC CM-8E also provides for hearing the audio from either).
Tweet
Comment