DATAPORT to conventional or OLD QSC Amplifiers

[Steve Guttag]

Christos,

No. QSC has kept the even footage cables however, the recent political tantrums and counter results have cause some products to go on "order-pause." The Dataport cables are on that list (as are just about all of the conventional A/V speakers (ceiling, surface mount...etc.). The only cinema speakers affected, thus far are the flyable subwoofers (SB 118F and SB 218F). The DPM and DCA lines will have lives together, I would think. Note, the ISA line has been discontinued too (before tariffs). The CX line of amps was discontinued a year ago. So, the DCA amplifiers will be the sole user of Dataport connectors.

The DCA line and dataport is getting pretty "long-in-the-tooth," as they say. Then again, they are solid and great sounding. We just sold some more this past week (and Made in USA).

I wonder. How many people are actually using the DPM line of cinema processors?

[Christos Gartaganis]

We have installed a good amount of DPMs around the country since 2018. They are very reliable and still equipped with an 8-channel analog audio input which many customers need for special applications (eg projection of 35 mm prints). Too bad the CP950 lacks this handy option. The sound quality is very good and the built-in crossover works equally well. It will also decode DTS-HD audio via the HDMI input.

[Steve Guttag]

I must admit, the DPM line has not been a winner for us. It is the first product a client invited us to never sell them again. I think it is just too "canned" and too QSC-centric. You are either into intrinsic correction or you are not. The user interface is a bit clunky and nobody really likes the dB scale fader. That said, I think it was a mistake to discontinue the DPM-100 series as it covered a lot of the landscape of passive/bi-amplified 5.1/7.1 theatres. It forces people into a more-expensive model that has features that they don't want/need (5-screen channels, tri and quad-amped). Given that Q-SYS is QSC's "top-of-the-line," that is where I think the potential DPM-300H client could have headed and had MUCH more flexibility.

I agree on the CP950 omitting the multi-channel analog input. I think that was a mistake, even if they made it an option. I even suggested that they figure a way to allow the DMA (amplifier) utilize its analog input as a means to feed the CP950 but alas, they tell me, the hardware within the signal path is not there to allow for it. Again, a missed opportunity since the DMA will have the connector and D-A converters there sitting unused.

Without a doubt, for those systems, of ours, that are needing more sophistication and analog inputs, Q-SYS is our goto now. In fact, we normally have an abundance of analog inputs available since they are on every amplifier channel. I'd rather have the original option of getting the "n" amplifiers without analog inputs and save the $$$.

Another processor I see getting a bit of traction over here is the Trinnov OV-2. No dataports (though Dargco could take care of that) but it does have multi-channel analog. It also omits the HDMI input but has S/PDIF.

[Carsten Kurz]

I could never live without HDMI on the processor. Yes, more projector/IMS HDMI inputs will decode HDMI audio now, but still...
I would probably prefer to buy another AP25 just to have a spare.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Imagine an AP25 with IAB sound support and AES67 out...

[Ryan Gallagher]

Yeah leaning heavily on the features of our AP20, I think Q-SYS is what is being considered in the eventual refit path, while still preserving analog inputs for 35/70, and flexibility for all the alternative input configurations we encounter. AP25 would be tempting but understand they might be targeting ATMOS too. (Why is a bit more of a mystery). I say that cause our ratio of ATMOS bookings in a classics/festival house is likely to be sub 5% of all films for the foreseeable future.

[Steve Guttag]

I could never live without HDMI on the processor. Yes, more projector/IMS HDMI inputs will decode HDMI audio now, but still...
I would probably prefer to buy another AP25 just to have a spare.

Q-SYS has their DCIO-H for HDMI support and an Extron SSP200 can add HDMI support (all of the way up to Dolby ATMOS and DTS-X) to any system with sufficient analog inputs. It isn't cheap but it covers a lot of ground (it also has optical and coax inputs.

I think another issue is how many screens actually need HDMI inputs and does one want to spend for that capability (beyond what the IMB/IMS has for the birthday party rental performance. Does any site need more than say 3 fully decked out HDMI decoding systems in most any sized plex? It is one of the things that drew me towards Q-SYS. You can right-size it to the needs of the venue and it can adapt as the needs may change. And now, with AV over IT...you can really minimize spending money on equipment that just sits and waits for the day it might be used and merely move it about to where it is needed while only buying what you will really use.

[Christos Gartaganis]

The DCIO-H is not a cheap interface, yet it comes with many useful features. By the way, what is the maximum number of screens a single Q-SYS Core Nano is able to support ?

[Steve Guttag]

I agree. The DCIO-H, particularly post-cinema division, has become pricey. I think the DCIO feature set was rather good as I've used just about all of the I/O it affords. I wish it had some GPIO buttons and LEDs on the front so one could skip the UCI for most cinemas (theatres have lived with buttons and LEDs for years).

As for the Nano, without the scaling license, I'd say 2-3 screens, depending upon your input channel count and with the scaling license, 4-6 screens. If you have a DCIO-H, which means you are going to use all 16-channels of the AES3, the 2-channels for the TRS jack and one for the Mic, you are up to 19-channels, without any multi-channel analog. So, you can see where the 64-channels of a stock Nano will limit you to 3-screens VERY fast and likely stop you at 2-screens. With the scaling license, you bump it out to 128-channels (plus double the processing power) so everything doubles. It is more powerful than the Core 110 (same channel count but better/newer DSP). The core 110 only brings the analog I/O and, I believe more AEC, but I would have to check that.