Dolby Processor CP950

[Tony Smith]

Hi Folks
Just to say Hello , new here , I started and have worked for many years in Television Broadcast, now that industry only needs very few technical people, so most of us are out to grass.I have found that the cinema which has has gone through major changes over the last 10 years, I still have a role to play, starting as a satellite installer and hook up to the main old cinema infrastructure, so new inputs can be part of the program along with the other use that the electronic projectors can be put to.

I enjoy the challenges that cinema calls up, though a lot of DCP type equipment is tied up by special selected companies which are only allowed to do the "Water marking " to stop folks copying material , so most of my work is at none DCP cinemas, like village halls and smaller theatres that wish to add satellite etc to their program, which is good move.

I do run across , what I call cinema kit in some of these, like Dolby decoders, mostly CP650's with the DMA8 addon units, which I can find "set up" and schematics for, have also done some work, on Dolby CP750's info on these is very little but most problems I can work out.

All this is to ask if you folks can help me with a Dolby CP950 I ran across the other day, bought from a DCP agent who is hitting bad times due to Covid 19, but no back up or user manuals help at all, so they asked me.

This unit I have made friends with,understand and can go through all the menus called up normally on the touch screen, got it working on satellite feeds via HDMI, it will be fed via matrix switcher for other inputs, all via HDMI, e.g Blu Ray, also taking a H.I feed for theatre hearing system.

My question is , the set up of this for cinemas, is it all done by the units software from Dolby, or is it done via hidden menus and laptop? I see the PCB has no trimpots, only one for Microphone input level, so not like the older versions of Dolby decoder.

Any help would be very good, can understand if you think this is a bit cheeky, to come on first to ask for help, but I hope to help others as time goes on.

Tony Smith

[Leo Enticknap]

It is driven primarily by a web UI. Using the touch screen, set its IP address to whatever you like, then run an Ethernet cable from your laptop into the CP950's command Ethernet port. Set a static IP address for your laptop in the same subnet, then enter the CP950's IP address into your browser.

Forum rules prevent me from posting the factory default login and password. If you need it, email cinemasupport [at] dolby.com.

[Steve Guttag]

The CP950, as Leo pointed out, from a tech's perspective is really done from the WEB-UI. The touchscreen is primarily an end-user interface and resembles a "phone" type look/feel. There is yet another aspect to the CP950, depending on the installation in that how you configure its outputs may involve "DAD"...yet another software utility obtained from Dolby that will let you configure how all of the outputs are utilized; what crossovers, if any, are to be used, and if you want to use any auto-EQ. If you are just using a straight up 7.1 system using the default channel configurations with the one DB25 output, then DAD is not required and you can tune via WEB-UI.

[Harold Hallikainen]

Something we did in a product that ended up being OEM'd to another company is to use a web browser for the front panel UI. All UI, whether front panel or remote was handled in HTML/javascript. Simplified stuff quite a bit in that the same code ran everything. Also in several products I had the web UI POST commands to the command interpreter that was also used for TCP commands and system configuration (configuration flash memory held ASCII text commands that were passed to the command interpreter on power up). I REALLY LIKE doing stuff once and avoiding different code that does the same thing.

Harold

[Leo Enticknap]

I hope folks from Dolby reading this won't take the following remarks the wrong way, but I think that Dolby made a strategic mistake in not designing the 950 to be a plug-and-play replacement for the 750, including the ability to upload 750 settings backup files into it to avoid the need to retune. If they had, it would have been a very attractive piece of hardware. But the reality is that the connectors are in different places on the back panel, the pinouts are different, incoming automation commands are not identical (meaning that it won't necessarily work with an existing server or Crestron/AMX/Savant etc. automation system) ... in short, replacing a 750 with a 950 is a major upgrade project rather than a one-hour swapout. If the latter were possible, the 950 would offer some immediate advantages (notably no more need to install a PC app to drive the thing - that's now in a web UI), and offer the end user an easier upgrade path to Atmos. But the tech hours needed to do that upgrade with the 950 in its current form means that it makes more economic sense to replace the power supply board and motherboard on the 750 as and when needed. I guess the crunch time will come in 2025, when Dolby pulls spare parts support for the 750.

Since the 950 was launched, I have not installed even one of them. All the new installs I've done since then have used either 850s or Q-Sys (or both, for Atmos installs) as the audio processor.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Leo, I totally agree and I really don't understand it, it's like they really want to push people directly to Q-Sys, at least those who don't want to buy into Atmos...

Why was it so hard e.g. to get a 6-channel analog input? Even if it would've been an additional option in the form of an expansion card?
Why not trying to put connectors roughly in the same spot as the CP750? I can't believe it's a "real estate" problem on the motherboard.
Why not allowing for easy export/import of the CP750 settings? I can understand that the CP950 comes from a different place, yet creating an import function that restores 95% of all previous settings would make so much sense...
Why not having a "compatibility mode" for the TCP/Serial API when it's seemingly impossible to create a consistent API between releases?

[Steve Guttag]

With respect to copying old files to new...maybe. it is a bit of a stretch to think that the DSP settings would translate between DSPs that are a decade apart in design. QSC didn't make BASIS files work with QSYS, for instance or the JSD80 files don't upload into JSD60 processors...that is an unfair dig that probably does the customer a disservice. Since you are set up for ATMOS, you can use DAD to get a pretty decent AutoEQ that is probably BETTER than the file you were going to copy.

Now as for compatibility with the CP750...since Dolby bills it as a "drop in replacement" that is where I take great exception. It is anything BUT a drop-in replacement. They went out of their way to make it not compatible with anything that came before on the Dolby badge (except maybe the CP850 but who is replacing CP850s with CP950s?) Swapping power supply sides so the power cord was definitely an "in your eye" sort of move...I'm sure it wasn't intentional but at the same time they probably didn't think it a big deal for an upgrade...wrong. The lack of an 8-channel analog input, in my opinion is a colossal failure. They really want you to use a CP950 with a DMA but have also very much tied one's hands on inputs without those analogs. And I don't care what anyone else says, they should have stuck with the THX pinout on the outputs!!!!

I've installed two thus far. One to replace an aging CP650 that was robo-sounding with increasing regularity and another replaced a failing JSD80. To the CP950s credit, neither have failed though one had issues with the BNC input...it didn't want to sync (digital wise, not lip-sync) until lip sync was increased to something like 100msec...which is a bit long.

I can see using the CP950 in certain applications with certain customers but you have to ensure that those multichannel analog inputs won't be needed and I could see a CP950/DMA combination making for a VERY fast installation taking up very little space (though the DMA is deep). Compare that to a QSYS system...QSYS is MUCH more flexible and quite possibly less expensive (depends on screen count and how things are set up). QSYS isn't perfect either but, for the most part, I can have it "my way." I just need to get an econo UI going for the mainstream theatres...touchpanels are too expensive and if the user is good with a WEB UI...we're already there.

[Harold Hallikainen]

Speaking of the CP950, any word on the immersive audio module? We considered making something like that, but it was just not economical. We found we could share hardware between the immersive audio/security portion of the system and the remaining sound processor. Putting it all on one chip reduced hardware costs. We did develop a secure immersive sound processor that was then OEM'd to another company. The final integration was moving the renderer into the server/media block. We did that several years ago, first using pre-rendering ( https://patentimages.storage.googlea...CA2861471C.pdf ), then with real time rendering. In the latest implementation (CMS-5000), all server, media block, and renderer run on a single quad ARM core. Dolby has done similar (moving the renderer into the MB/server) and added equalization.

I think these are steps in the right direction (moving everything into one box). I like the Einstein quote "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

I often say the ideal design has zero parts. I keep working towards that.

Harold

[Steve Guttag]

Harold, Dolby just issued a new price list (and they don't do it that often) and the ATMOS module isn't on it so probably not before 2021. I have no idea if COVID shut down such development or not. I'm sure demand has plummeted this year.

As for all things in 1-box. There are better and worse places to put things too. Thus far, all of our ATMOS systems have used the IMS3000. It does remove the CP850 from the design for notable cost savings and more simplistic operation. The IMS3000 also brings an HDMI2.0 input whereas the CP850 is an HDMI 1.4. I suspect that once the CP950 has an ATMOS module, the CP850's days will be numbered pretty fast.

A downside to putting all of ones eggs in a basket is that the life cycle of a server is not the life cycle of a sound processor. Servers are probably 10-year (or less) items. Sound processors can go longer so why saddle the cost of the sound in there each time? Now, if Q-SYS could render ATMOS internally, that might make some more sense though I suspect, cost wise, it will be similar as it is just a enablement that allows the IMS3000 to decode ATMOS, not additional hardware. Likewise for the CMS-5000, once it is ready for prime-time. I don't even see it on the web site anymore...maybe QSC is doing some sole-searching on it...I honestly don't know. I'm sure COVID-19 isn't helping matters. It might be a cool Q-SYS "accessory" someday. Then again, what if QSC were to move away from QSYS? What happens to those that have invested into it as the infrastructure that goes beyond sound. It does a lot and is doing more all of the time (control, video and moving into "NOC" like features).

[Harold Hallikainen]

Thanks Steve! There's a large cost in a media block and an external rendering system requires a second media block (the original IMB plus an OMB). It's also nice to have all the content in one box (the server) and not have to transfer it out to another box for decryption, rendering, and synchronization. So, internal rendering is a whole lot easier, especially now that a single multicore CPU can handle it along with everything else. Q-SYS is perfectly capable of rendering immersive audio, but does not have the required security. I think adding it would be pretty expensive.

This, of course, is just my opinion and is quite possibly wrong!

Harold

[Marcel Birgelen]

Having it all in one box certainly makes stuff easier and cheaper, but I guess we'll never see something like DTS:X support from the likes of Dolby. If the CMS-5000 could support both ATMOS and DTS:X, just depending on the licenses you put on there, it could be a nice selling point...

I guess, having a 1U box or a module that could do the decrypting, decoding and rendering would also still be acceptable. With Q-Sys, you could possibly even swap it between individual theaters that way.

Yet, I guess given the situation right now in the industry, I don't expect much new in the pipeline for the coming year...

[Steve Guttag]

Harold, you are probably right...keeping it all in the mediablock cuts down on KDMs too so that is probably the best place to handle immersive audio rendering. 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.

With the new SMPTE standards, it should be feasible for other server companies to be able to license and render Dolby ATMOS so hopefully Dolby will do that but I guess time will tell. I could see a problem with the likes of GDC and Barco or Christie having an issue of if they are rendering a full immersive system in their IMBs that they don't have a solution beyond Q-SYS, at this point and may not want to be so tied to a 3rd party like that. Dolby's IMS3000 has an in-house solution with the DMA and, of course has Q-SYS. QSC, obviously, has their in-house with Q-SYS but seem to be stuck at getting a functional IMB to market. It will also face the challenge of breaking into established markets where people are happy with their existing IMBs and legacy.

[Carsten Kurz]

When you follow ISDCF immersive audio discussions, the SMPTE standard for immersive audio bitstream already allows interchange of ATMOS and 'generic' SMPTE bitstreams. As a matter of fact, they are already endorsing the removal of 'ATMOS' from the DCNC audio labeling in favor of 'IAB'. So, all the other previous, so to say 'Interop' formulations of object based sound like ATMOS, DTS:X, MDA, Auro-3D, will become brands only but be compatible just as 5.1 or 7.1 is now.

https://www.isdcf.com/site/dcnc-appe...configuration/

- Carsten
Bildschirmfoto 2020-08-24 um 12.39.13.png

[Tony Smith]

Hi Folks
You are very well up in the tech side of things certainly as to the new CP950 Dolby processor, as our use of it is mainly for satellite alternative input feeds and Blu Ray, I think we just need the basic decoding which I thought coming in from the venues was Dolby Digital 5.1 encoded, but I see the two rear surround tracks as well,(7.1) not sure if they are just the same a surround tracks, or internally generated in the CP 950, like the sub woofer track.
I can see no mention of Meta data, is this not still part of the mix for EQ talk to the dolby decoder, be it maybe fixed for speech and music encoding?

As Dolby E is used for satellite feeds, which is locked to the television frame or field rate for your area region, and still using 1080i not 1080p, does the CP 950 "auto mute" over any picture disturbance, similar to older Dolby processors.

Tony Smith

[Leo Enticknap]

...[Q-Sys] touchpanels are too expensive and if the user is good with a WEB UI...we're already there.

You don't need to use QSC's touchpanels. Many of the Q-Sys installs we do use a touchscreen monitor hooked to a cheap PC, or a no-name Chinese Windows tablet to run the UI. I configure them to launch the UCI Viewer app on startup with the UCI full screen and maximized, and the mouse pointer hidden. The end user basically doesn't know that they are using a Windows PC. They work just as well as QSC hardware, in my experience.