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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » DTS-XD10P! (Page 1)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: DTS-XD10P! Demetris Thoupis Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1240 From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus Registered: Apr 2001 posted 06-24-2004 01:21 AM                     DTS-XD10P Cinema Audio Processor, 8 channels analog, 8 channel digital (AES/EBU) inputs, A/SR-type noise reduction. This must be new. Not on DTS website though. Does anyone heard about this? It is on the latest price list of DTS. I guess its a NEW processor supporting 8 Channels on DTS as well. That must really be the bollocks!!!! Do you think it can accept a second Digital unit like Dolby Digital DA20 for example?? Comments? D  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 06-24-2004 06:19 PM                     I just hope it's built better than the DTS-6AD. I haven't exactly seen/heard the best reviews about that previous model. Also, only eight channels? I thought the XD-10 player could do as many as 10 channels. That involves an upgrade of an internal card. The stock XD-10 units out of the box can do 8 discrete channels. I was told the scaleable nature of the XD-10 would allow a lot more channels (well above 10) with add in cards if a particular application demanded it, such as a unique special venue show. If the XD-10P only supports up to 8 channels, then you can forget about seeing 10-channel theatrical or even special venue soundtracks anytime soon. It just throws up a brick wall. IMHO, cinema equipment companies need to make new cinema processors able to handle as many as 12 channels. That would cover the bases for most every "next generation" sound format being demonstrated, such as the "10.2 Surround" process Tomlinson Holman has exhibited. The infrastructure has to be put together for commercial movie theaters to rise to a higher level of audio presentation quality. And a lot of that starts with items like the cinema processor. Too much of the industry had adopted the "it's good enough" attitude and allowed a lot of movie theaters to just wind up sounding terrible and giving more viewers added excuses to do more movie watching only on DVD. If there are ways commercial theaters can fully distinguish themselves apart from home theater with audio equipment there might be more emphasis on upholding good presentation standards. Give the theaters something to put up on the marquee to brag about. DD-EX could not do the trick because the average person couldn't figure out what the hell it meant. If you say something simple like "10 channel surround" or "12 channel surround" people will see that as being a leap above the average 5.1.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 06-24-2004 07:47 PM                    I agree with that. What will get the attention of the home theater enthusiasts who have largely given up on commercial cinema is a higher number than 5.1. If you hang signs saying Dolby Digital 10.2 (or whatever) that will be noticed and understood. "Hey, that number is HIGHER than mine!"  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 06-24-2004 10:42 PM                        The unit was shown at ShoWest. Of course, there isn`t much to see. We will have to wait and see, sorry, hear how it performs. The one problem I immediately saw is that it didn`t have an operator-accessible optical level function. You can only set the optical level from a notebook or palm PC. Maybe they changed this in the meantime. Even though with LEDs, you don`t have to set the level as often as with exciter bulbs, you still have to do it. The argument that many operators don`t do it anyway is not valid for me. Apart from the fact that we can`t have a notebook or palm in the location just for that purpose, I wouldn`t want people to start playing with the setup anyway. There is an interesting alternative to the unit. But I am not in the position to divulge what I know. Mabye the manufacturer wants to tune in and tell you more.  |  IP: Logged Larry Zuverink Film Handler Posts: 98 From: Caledonia, MI, USA Registered: Nov 2002 posted 07-15-2004 03:08 PM                     I believe this it is 10 channel. We might be a beta tester for the unit. I should find out next week if it is going to happen. If it does I'll be sure to post my comments  |  IP: Logged Larry Zuverink Film Handler Posts: 98 From: Caledonia, MI, USA Registered: Nov 2002 posted 08-02-2004 12:48 PM                     Of coarse open your mouth before you know and look what happens. I was talking to a enginner and the XD10p(I was told it will be XD10D) and he said it is a 8 Channel. I still haven't heard when we are getting the Beta unit.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-02-2004 05:04 PM                     quote: Bobby Henderson Too much of the industry had adopted the "it's good enough" attitude I don't know that this is exactly fair. Many theatres have undergone upgrades to digital from mono or some funky version of stereo. I'm sure that a lot of those theatres don't sound "quite right" but I'm willing to bet that the sound is improving as a result of these upgrades. My point being that widespread upgrades suggest that there is anything but a "good enough" attitude. If anything, I would fault the producers/distributors for a lack of blockbusters (or even good movies). The oversaturation of prints in circulation and the steady decrease in clearance time between cinematic and video releases are also responsible for cash-flow problems some exhibitors are experiencing. We also have technology like the "back surround" channel that isn't really being used very widely at all. And I am sure I need not remind anyone here that 8-channel is nothing new. In fact, 8-channel has been tried and is now dormant, if not dead. So why do we want more channels when we aren't using the ones we have at our disposal?  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-02-2004 05:38 PM                     I understand your point about how a great deal of movie theaters have done serious upgrades for digital sound. In the early 1990s you could only find that kind of thing in large cities, often with theaters that had 70mm projection capability. Now some of the smallest towns have digital sound. Cordele, OK is a town of only 2,000 or so residents, yet their restored Washita Theater is THX certified and has Dolby Digital playback via a CP-500. Still, I maintain the exhibition industry by and large has indeed adopted a "it's good enough" attitude. The standards of show quality, even in the largest of cities has dropped by quite a bit. In the early 1990's, digital sound was a big deal and it seemed like the theaters back then did more work to keep sound systems maintained and well tuned. If they had digital sound, they wanted audiences to know it. In recent years I have visited high profile theaters in places like Denver, Colorado Springs, Dallas, Oklahoma City and Tulsa often leaving the show either unimpressed or even let down. The situation didn't used to be like this. Back in 1995, I could visit a number of commercial theaters in the Dallas area and expect very good to downright great presentation quality. What I'm talking about is bright image quality and surround sound with the appropriate amount of "slam" to it. Now, the only place in the Dallas area offering that is Brad's screening room. The Northpark 1-2 has been closed for years, and other places that used to be good (like the UA Galaxy 9) have kinda gone to crap. What seems to happen these days is you'll get a nice new theater with most things pretty well adjusted when it opens. Six months to a year later everything has been allowed to slip into mediocrity. And some places kind of suck even when they open. The Hollywood Spotlight 14 in Norman, OK (the Oklahoma City area's first theater with stadium seating) has never been good. In Colorado Springs, the new Cinemark Carefree Circle theater has really nice decor and a cool IMAX 3D theater. But everytime I see a regular movie there the sound just sucks. I could perhaps understand the problem if it were in an old theater. But this place is still new! Over the years I expected quality to actually get better in commercial cinemas, particularly with the pressure being applied from DVD, HDTV and home theater. But in my opinion I have seen things just kind of go in reverse. Too many people who call the shots just don't care about stuff like bright projection and highly dynamic sound. They'll get the logo on the marquee, but not get the "oomph" out of the format's capability.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 08-02-2004 06:50 PM                        The original premise of THX Certification was supposed to help deal with this, and in fact it did help a great deal, at least until the certification process was corrupted, and later abandoned, by many theatres. "We have digital sound now -- There's no longer a need for that THX gimmick."  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-02-2004 07:41 PM                     Okay Bobby, I think I understand your point and I can even agree with what you're saying...but I don't think adding more channels is the answer. I will agree that 5.1 represents a vast improvement over 4.1 but I could not honestly say that 6.1 is having that same kind of impact and, by extension, I would then argue against introducing an 8- or 10-channel format. I could be wrong but my presumption is that most people would perceive a difference if we suddenly had fewer than five channels...but I don't believe they would really appreciate more channels than the five we have at present. I think that a lot of theatres are justified in believing that an upgrade to digital (5.1) audio is plenty "good enough." I think that one is a no-brainer because you can readily hear the difference and justify the modest expense of the upgrade. My theory is that any new format is bound to be a hard-sell unless there is (a) self-evident improvement in the experiential quality versus that of the current standard; (b) a commitment on the part of studios to consistently release product in the new format and (c) competitive forces (i.e., "everybody else is upgrading"). And then there are also issues pertaining to cost, reliability and ease-of-use. But before we even go there, my arguments against a 70mm revival also apply in this case: Let us first master the current technology before we start in with our demands for something more complicated.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-02-2004 09:22 PM                     I really hope they don't call it the "XD10P" if it's just a processor. It seems like it'll be bound to cause lots of confusion with the "XD10." --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-02-2004 11:09 PM                     I think that is indeed DTS' intentions for naming. I agree, it is very confusing. At least with the old machines, the DTS-6AD still played the DTS CDs along with being a cinema processor. The XD10 and XD10P serve very different purposes. Dolby's older products had naming conventions that made sense. It was easy to tell the "CP" in CP-200, CP-65, etc. meant cinema processor and that the "DA" in DA-10, DA-20 meant something along the lines of "digital audio". What does "XD" mean? Xtreme Digital? That's not really saying anything. I would think Xtreme would belong more on a performance skateboard, snowboard or dirtbike (or maybe even a parachute -it would be really "xtreme" if the f**ker didn't open). To get back to the 10 or 12 channel thing, there is some credible evidence posed by experts like Tomlinson Holman that a commercial movie theater would indeed benefit from such capability. I do agree that it is daunting to get movie studios to create special 8 channel mixes for movies, much less get them to do something more advanced. But you have to start somewhere. The very least thing cinema products companies can do is build up the infrastructure so someone can do it. All it takes is for one really good movie to show off the format and more filmmakers will jump on board. I also think the added capability will allow those few cinemas that give a damn to further separate themselves from the legions of mediocre theaters as well as have some numerical marketing to hammer on all the home theater people who think commercial cinema is dead.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-02-2004 11:49 PM                     quote: Bobby Henderson All it takes is for one really good movie to show off the format and more filmmakers will jump on board. Not that argument again! Of course, my concern (and prediction) is that IN PRACTICE it will only be the one "really good movie" with none of the other filmmakers "jumping on board." quote: Bobby Henderson To get back to the 10 or 12 channel thing, there is some credible evidence posed by experts like Tomlinson Holman that a commercial movie theater would indeed benefit from such capability Maybe I'm too much of a skeptic but I can't help wondering: Who ELSE would benefit?  |  IP: Logged Michael Cunningham Expert Film Handler Posts: 186 From: Anchorage, AK Registered: Nov 1999 posted 08-03-2004 12:29 AM                     As to naming conventions : I think the DA stands for Digital Adapter, could quite possibly be wrong. I always loved Component Engineering for their names. FM-35 (Film Monitor - 35 mm), TA10 (Theater Automation), MS100 (Monitor System), etc. - Mike  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-03-2004 05:22 PM                     Manny, do you think 70mm Dolby mag would have caught on without the release of "Star Wars" or other films that movie's lead in 1977 (such as the holiday '77 release of "Close Encounters")? I argue presentation formats are very title-driven. 70mm Dolby would have had a much harder time gaining acceptance if the only titles to show it off were films like the late 1976 remake of "A Star Is Born". "This is Cinerama" was the top money making movie of 1952. Without its success we would not have seen quite so much rush to develop so many widescreen formats. In the early 1990's the biggest installation orders for digital sound systems were made to play back the really big movies supporting it. The bulk of Cinema Digital Sound processors were sold in support of "Terminator 2." "The Lion King" helped sell a lot of Dolby Digital players. Of course, we know DTS got off to a very good start riding the coat tails of Spielberg for the release of "Jurassic Park." Nothing is going to sell movie theater hardware more than a breakthrough film making good use of the new format. Even questionable formats (like low rez DLP) get a huge bit of help when they are hyped in conjunction with a "Star Wars" prequel.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

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.