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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Difference Between DTS-6 and DTS-6D (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Difference Between DTS-6 and DTS-6D Joshua Waaland Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: Cleveland, Ohio Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-03-2005 06:51 PM                     What is the difference between a DTS-6 and a DTS-6D besides two cd drives? I have a DTS-6 and I already have the latest chip installed. I thought if I bought a face plate and the upgrade kit, that I would esentially have a DTS-6D. Am I smoking crack or is this feasible? Thanks. Josh  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 11-03-2005 07:30 PM                        I always thought you injected crack. Functionally there's not much difference between the two players. The 6 has a better output stage than the 6D. You can add a third drive to the 6 if you have drive envy. Either three slimline drives in the existing two bays, or one externally.  |  IP: Logged Joshua Waaland Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: Cleveland, Ohio Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-03-2005 07:53 PM                     Actually I think you can do crack both ways can't you? I looked at the back of my unit and at the drawing in the DTS-6D manual I have, and I did notice that the outputs and inputs were different. The DTS-6 doesn't have a automation connection for one thing. Do any films have three discs or is the third drive just for a trailers disc?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-03-2005 08:08 PM                     Josh, The automation connections are through that large connector on the back. The original DTS ribbon cable had three breakouts, 2 are genereally used unless its set up on a CP-200... 1 b.o. for audio, and 1 b.o. for automation. I believe the dts 6 manual is in the manuals section. The 6 uses Jensen output transformers!! These are about the best transformeres in the buisness. The 6D uses fairly high end Burr Brown op amps for its output stage and an independent +/- 12 volt switching supply(that was failure prone at one time)just for the analog stages. Mark  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 11-03-2005 09:46 PM                        I've been meaning to look into it for years. You always hear about people smoking crack, but never hear people saying that they must be injecting crack. Yeah, the third drive is normally for the trailer disc. 99.5% of features are two disc only. 99.5% of the main stream three disc features can be made to fit on two 700MB CD-Rs. So, if you don't need the trailer disc you'd be fine with a two disc player.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-03-2005 10:06 PM                     Adding a 3rd drive to a dts6 Reauthoring 3 disc movies onto 2 CDR discs  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-04-2005 04:31 AM                     When "Gone With the Wind" re-release by NewLine (the catastrophic, anamorphiced IB release) came out in 1998, there were 3discs for this release-being the release was 224 minutes. Only thing that I noticed between the "6" and the "6D" were the useage of the 2 spin caddy drives (which were built like a tank), a 386SX20 momboard, then the upgradable firmware chip. "6D" units went to the 486SX25 processor with the 16 spin Toshibas and more memory, but still had the "AT" board in both of them. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Joshua Waaland Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: Cleveland, Ohio Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-04-2005 06:05 AM                     So I guess I was "injecting" crack then Daryl. There are many more differences than I thought. Monte brought up a good point in that the DTS-6 was a 386 and the DTS-6D was a 486. I believe I remember Brad saying one time that the DTS-6 had a better sound to it than the DTS-6D. Is that true Brad? Is this due to the differences in output that Mark pointed out?  |  IP: Logged Stephen Frazza Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Nutley, NJ, USA Registered: Mar 2004 posted 11-04-2005 12:33 PM                        Crack is made to be smoked. In its normal state it is not water soluble. You need something acidic to break it down to be able to inject it. Lemon juice or vinegar is most often used. Although some needle exchanges do pass out bags of ascorbic acid to make it safer. Hope that helps Daryl  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-04-2005 01:47 PM                     quote: Joshua Waaland DTS-6 had a better sound to it than the DTS-6D. The slower 2 spin speed of the caddy drives could transfer data almost on a "real time" basis with the "6" units than with the 16 and 32 spin drives for the "6D". Thus, the data transfer from the higher spin drives had to be slowed down considerably along with the newer SCSI cards that had to go with these faster spin drives, thus probably going through the "lossy" data loss of the stored data in the cache. With the faster drives, came the faster processor for the DOS based units. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-04-2005 02:28 PM                     the major sonic difference was the high quality jensen output tranformers on the dts6  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-04-2005 03:33 PM                     Monte wrote, "Thus, the data transfer from the higher spin drives had to be slowed down considerably along with the newer SCSI cards that had to go with these faster spin drives, thus probably going through the "lossy" data loss of the stored data in the cache." Huh? Data stored in a cache is not "lossy." When we speak of something as being "lossy," we mean it actually loses information. Examples for laymen: An image compression algorithm that compresses an image by saying, "99% of the image is black, so just treat the whole thing as black, humans won't know the difference." This is "lossy." You cannot recover the 1%. An image compression algorithm that replaces each run of black pixels with a count (aka "run-length encoding"). i.e. "The next 2000 pixels are black." This is non-lossy. You can recover the exact original image. Lossy compression is frequently more space-efficient. What word did you mean to use? --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-04-2005 04:51 PM                     quote: John Hawkinson What word did you mean to use? ..a word that could possibly meaning in an area of where data stream is going so fast (from the faster spin drives) and has to be slowed down for the data to be accessed in sync. Course, where I mentioned the word "probably", it mentions that the information is not an accurate term, but in a suggestive (or guessing) tense. That's were outside help comes into play. thx-Monte  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-04-2005 04:58 PM                     monte said "..a word that could possibly meaning in an area of where data stream is going so fast (from the faster spin drives) and has to be slowed down for the data to be accessed in sync." buffering of data should not introduce any loss of data it is just a queing up process  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-04-2005 06:25 PM                     This subject reminds me of all those "jitter" topics, where people would describe a CD player or DVD player as if it were behaving in terms of an analog device. The data either gets through or it doesn't. Data packets and memory buffers certainly see to that. If things like jitter were corrupting digital audio sound quality then by that logic it would be completely impossible to read or write computer data from CDs or DVDs with any reliability at all. Also, if a DTS-6 player were sounding better than a DTS-6D unit the difference in audio quality could only be happening from aspects in the players after the audio has been converted into analog form.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

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.