Stephen

I agree that Eprad are not a sophisticated processor in todays environment, but I would argue the Starlets, Starscopes and Super Starscopes on a per unit installed basis have proven to be the most reliable processor over the last 20 years. Don't get me wrong, our circuit is 95% Dolby now with most being CP500, but also CP65, CP55, CP200, CP650 and a few Smart, Ultra Stereo and Panastereo.

We now have only one 4-plex running Eprads and they were installed in 1979 and have not skipped a beat. They are being pulled out as I speak and being replaced by CP65's.

Our circuit has all three digital formats with Dolby Digital by far the most common. Majority are basement readers, but still a few Cat 700's, even a Cat 699!

Whatt are your opinions on the Smart MOD II and Panastereo? The Smart system kinda sucked, but it had one hell of a great booth monitor!

We have Ultra Stereo processors and Odyssey interface panels.

If I had my druthers I'd buy the CP-65 but I have no problem with the JS series. I actually kinda' like them. That's probably because I work with them so much I can parctiaclly set one up with my eyes shut. Yes, I know that people frown on the idea of doing an A-chain by throwing in a piece of Dolby Tone and making noise BUT if you were the last guy to work on that projector, this makes an excellent "quick check" to see if everything's working properly. Once I get them set up the way I like them I find that I only have to do a full PM on them about once or twice a year. I'd be willing to say that the same goes for the CP-65s, but again I don't have enough experience with them to know all the little "tricks".

When it comes to the CP-500s, I think they are OK but I only have about a dozen or so of these, compared to over 100 of the USL. I don't have very many problems with these but when I do, It takes me a lot longer to fix it.

The DSP-60s are my least favorite for three reasons:

I only have about 10 of them so it's another "experience" issue.
When they need repairs you often have to replace "bigger chunks". (Whole boards instead of just one card.)
I'm just not convinced that they sound as good as other processors

As far as digital sound systems, I prefer DTS but SR-D is a close second... very close. I think the sound of the DTS is just a bit better (but that's just MY opinion -- YOU should make up your OWN mind)

What really pushes me over the edge toward DTS is that "care and feeding" procedures are so much simpler. Once you have it set up, you hardly ever have to take the cover off to work on it. To tell the truth, if it weren't for those dang disk drives failing I'd probably NEVER have to take the cover off of a DTS!

If you want to give a check up to a SR-D system you need a 'scope and a computer. There's just a lot more overhead involved. If I could be assured of more knowledgeable, professional people running the equipment instead of the average "popper jockey" this would be less of an issue for me. On my last "tour of duty" to the theatres that have SR-D there were only one or two people who even knew what the readout on the front panel meant.

I know there are people here who will disagree but the only thing I DON'T like about SR-D is the basement readers. There are so many more things that go wrong with them and they take a lot more time to set up and keep running right. With the people I have to work with in the booth, this is a significant issue. In the theatres that have the CAT 701s I hardly have any trouble.

Lastly there's SDDS. I'm just going to leave it at that...