#11414 - 05/22/03 04:40 PM
Re: Krell HTS, Lexicon MC-1, Outlaw 950
|
Deputy Gunslinger
Registered: 02/25/03
Posts: 6
Loc: Tulsa, OK.
|
Hello all, since all the discussion in this forum about logic 7 and the fact that the MC-1 does not have 5.1 inputs what do you guys think about using a Harman Kardon AVR-525 or an AVR-7200 as a preamp and how does the Logic 7 work on these is it the same as the Lexicon witout all the adjustments and does it work on DD and DTS as well, let me know what you think
Thank You
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11415 - 05/22/03 05:24 PM
Re: Krell HTS, Lexicon MC-1, Outlaw 950
|
Desperado
Registered: 01/23/02
Posts: 765
Loc: Monterey Park, CA
|
Originally posted by opieie:
does the Logic 7 work on these is it the same as the Lexicon witout all the adjustments and does it work on DD and DTS as well The LOGIC7 on H/K receivers is similar to the one on earlier Lexicon processors like the DC-1, DC-2 and MC-1 (L7 was completely re-written for the MC-12 and MC-8 to take advantage of the new SHARC DSP engines). Two big differences: the LOGIC7 on H/K receivers has three modes (Film, Music & Enhance) but offers none of the adjustments found on Lex pre-pros. L7 on H/K receivers works ONLY on 2-channel sources; no 5.1 L7 modes like on Lex pre-pros. The latest H/K receivers do have the "triple crossover" that was apparently developed by Outlaw for the 950 and can be found on newer Cirrus DSP chips (used in H/K receivers). If you listen to a lot of 2-channel material in surround, the AVR-7200 might suit you better because it offers three (3!) matrix decoders: L7, Neo:6 & PL II. If that's not a priority for you than I'd go for the 950; it's a great value! Good Luck, Sanjay
_________________________
Sanjay
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11416 - 05/22/03 06:02 PM
Re: Krell HTS, Lexicon MC-1, Outlaw 950
|
Desperado
Registered: 08/19/02
Posts: 430
Loc: charlotte, nc usa
|
sanjay, notice this time, i've directed this post to you so you aren't confused. i struggle to understand your opinion in this post, let alone see any point to it. maybe you would be kind enough to do a paragraph-by-paragraph post in reply to these 2 files: http://www.dtsonline.com/media/uploads/pdfs/dtsposition.pdf http://www.dtsonline.com/media/uploads/prfs/dolbyrvu.pdf dolby: the benevolent, best technology purveying, apolitical, most consistently professional, most innovative surround format czars. i prefer 900 ton gorilla. dolby is established as the standard for DSS, DTV, DVD and HDTV, yet dts is preferred by a clear majority of people who care about sound. surround music, surround music video and soundtracks...name the largest selling titles, they are dts. to tell us that they've acheived this by cheating, or 'boosting the LFE 10db', or threatening the life of a journalist (who we've never heard of) is pointless. get it? that means there is no point. maybe you should school guys like tom jung who have obviously succumbed to dts' (and apparently Sony's) underhanded, misleading, bogus, criminal rise to a distant #2 in a field of 2. after all, those guys have much more impact (as obvious players) on the consumer's loss in this conspiracy. jeff...still waiting to hear the where and when of this bet you've proposed. i never refuse easy money.
_________________________
"Time wounds all heels." John Lennon
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11417 - 05/22/03 07:42 PM
Re: Krell HTS, Lexicon MC-1, Outlaw 950
|
Desperado
Registered: 01/23/02
Posts: 765
Loc: Monterey Park, CA
|
Originally posted by bossobass:
sanjay,
notice this time, i've directed this post to you so you aren't confused. Was I confused last time? If your last post wasn't directed at me, why did you start it off with a quote by me? i struggle to understand your opinion in this post, let alone see any point to it. Don't struggle. My opinions are clear as are my points (which are nothing more than replys to your statements): read them over and refute any you can. (go ahead, I'll wait) dolby: the benevolent, best technology purveying, apolitical, most consistently professional, most innovative surround format czars. i prefer 900 ton gorilla. I agree: Dolby has a good track record, both for their business dealings and products. But as your last sentence displays, no good deed goes unpunished. dolby is established as the standard for DSS, DTV, DVD and HDTV, yet dts is preferred by a clear majority of people who care about... Have any data to back this up? It's obvious that DTS is preferred by you, but I have yet to see any evidence that DTS is preferred by any "majority" anywhere. They, along with their boosters at WSR, are great a whipping a very vocal minority into a frenzy, but that's it. When VSDA surveys DVD buyers on popular features, DTS doesn't even register as a significant statistic. What majority are you talking about? to tell us that they've acheived this by cheating, or 'boosting the LFE 10db', or threatening the life of a journalist (who we've never heard of) is pointless. Regarding the threatened journalist, don't take my word for it: please e-mail the editor of the magazine and verify the incident (police complaints are a matter of public record). And why is it "pointless"? Because I can compentently refute your statements with solid examples? You asked about bass boost: I provided an example. Goosed up volume levels? See Soundhound's comments in this thread, or measure the difference for yourself (I did on my 'Crimson Tide' laserdisc, using a voltmeter at the line level outputs of my pre-pro; both the bass and surround channels were boosted on the DTS tracks. Funny how that works, as Soundhound said). You can "believe dts is a better company that produces better product" but I've provided plenty of examples to the contrary (you are free to point out which any that are factually incorrect). maybe you should school guys like tom jung who have obviously succumbed to dts' (and apparently Sony's) underhanded, misleading, bogus, criminal rise to a distant #2 in a field of 2. after all, those guys have much more impact (as obvious players) on the consumer's loss in this conspiracy. Sony is underwriting Jung's SACD releases, as they are with many small audiophile labels that are releasing SACDs. I don't doubt that Jung prefers SACD, but considering where his funding is coming from you'll have to forgive me for taking his opinion with a grain of salt. If you're interested in playing the name game by tossing out Tom Jung, then I'll toss one out myself. I recently interviewed the principals of 5.1 Entertainment (who, along with Warner Brothers, are the most prolific in relaeasing DVD-A titles). 5.1 Entertainment dropped the DTS tracks from their DVD-A titles primarily because they couldn't hear any sonic benefit compared to the DD version. Ditto Warner Brothers. maybe you would be kind enough to do a paragraph-by-paragraph post in reply to these 2 files: Actually, I'll let a real writer address points raised in the links you provided. He's done a better job than I could hope to. The following article was written by Stuart M. Robinson, owner of SMR Home Theater sites, HighFidelityReview.com, and contributing writer to several British audio journals (BTW, the threatened journalist was a colleque of his). Format Wars: Dolby Digital vs. Low Bitrate DTS
Without doubt, the most hotly debated topic in home theatre for the last few years has been whether or not struggling upstart Digital Theater Systems’ DTS CODEC really is superior to AC-3, produced by the omnipresent force that is Dolby Laboratories.
When DTS soundtracks first appeared on Laserdisc and music disc, DTS used any number of psychological tricks to fool listeners into believing what they heard was superior to Dolby Digital. Surround levels were boosted by 3dB, LFE levels adjusted similarly and soundtracks produced from creatively ‘adjusted’ master tapes. DTS also played up what many perceived as a huge technological advantage, namely the mild compression ratio of DTS running at 1.536Mb/s, compared to Dolby Digital’s more aggressive 384 or 448kb/s, which in itself is a questionable argument given that bitrates only tell half a story, the complexity and effectiveness of the lossy CODEC comprising the remaining 50%.
Once DTS software became more accessible and their ‘accidentally-on-purpose’ level errors corrected, more balanced comparisons between the two formats were possible. The fog cleared yet further when DTS encoders were allowed out into the big wide world and soundtracks produced without hands-on ‘assistance’ from DTS, who have in the past been accused by some artists of ruining their music mixes.
The experiences of Warner Bros. have often been cited as a landmark event, they were one of the first major studios to obtain a DTS encoder in order to produce, from the same master tape, Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks for five DVD titles: ‘Twister’ (re-release), ‘Interview with the Vampire’ and the three ‘Lethal Weapon’ movies. Using a standard calibration routine (a 1kHz tone known in the industry as a ‘Dolby tone’) the two encoders were carefully level-matched, but Warner engineers were amazed to find that the resulting soundtracks did not have the same output levels. Upon investigation it was discovered that the DTS encoder added a 0.6dB gain to programme material, even though it imparted no gain whatsoever when calibration tones were used.
While 0.6dB may not sound a lot, it’s important to note that whenever two products or audio CODECs are evaluated under controlled conditions, their levels must be matched to within 0.1dB, otherwise the louder of the two will be perceived as being superior. DTS have always denied that this 0.6dB boost exists, but I have seen clear independent evidence of DTS soundtracks being 0.5 – 0.6dB louder than their Dolby Digital counterparts (taking into consideration any dialog normalization offset).
‘Twister’ and ‘Interview with the Vampire’ slipped through the net as had many releases before them, but the three ‘Lethal Weapon’ movies were encoded by Warner with the 0.6dB DTS encoder boost taken into consideration and to date, are perhaps the best region 1 DVD discs to use when comparing the two rival sound formats.
But the times they are a-changing. Due to the demand for supplementary material and the space constraints of DVD, the DTS bitrate has been cut to 754kb/s, a greater than 50% reduction. No longer is the argument that DTS must be superior due to its modest level of compression entirely valid and therefore, the importance and effectiveness of the DTS CODEC is greatly increased.
Buried within their own press release text, DTS state that: “Even to discerning listeners, the differences caused by the reduction of the bitrate in the DTS stream remain inaudible…” but the writer does concede that the 754kb/s data rate “…may, but not necessarily [degrade the audio presentation]”.
It’s at this point that the battle really heats up because in July 2000, Dolby obtained a DTS CAE-4 encoder and CAD-4 decoder for in-house evaluations. In October 2000, after much prodding from certain members of the press, Dolby proceeded to make public extracts of their evaluation of the CAE-4 encoder’s performance in a short paper entitled ‘Dolby Evaluates DTS’.
Interesting as the paper may be, the original July 31st Dolby inter-office evaluation memorandum contains far more detail than was released publicly and makes for fascinating reading – Dolby’s technical measurements highlight “significant distortion” in the output of the CAD-4 encoder at its 754kb/s rate. Those distortions include high frequency instability, low frequency noise, transient pre-noise (also known as pre-echo) and large amounts of distortion within signals recorded a few tenths of a decibel below full scale. Dolby also found additional design errors, in CD encoding mode the headphone monitoring output “warbled” and in both CD and DVD encoding modes it produced excessive clipping when signals exceeded -12dBFS.
Dolby also noticed that while the DTS bitstream is capable of three frame sizes – 512, 1024 and 2048 samples – with a higher value equating to a greater level of performance, in DVD mode, due to DVD-Video specifications the DTS encoder was reduced to operating with a 512 sample frame size and therefore produced a bitstream with the least performance potential.
Even the instruction manual became a source of concern when it was discovered that at the rear, ‘Appendix A’, text describing the DTS bitstream, had been plagiarised word-for-word from ‘Annex B’ of Dolby’s ATSC AC-3 document – DTS had simply replaced every instance of “AC-3” with the word “DTS”.
While ‘borrowed’ text may be an amusing sideshow, of far greater importance are Dolby’s evaluations of the DTS encoder’s performance when producing a 754kb/s bitstream for DVD. Dolby used Audio Precision software to generate plots detailing swept frequency response, multi-tone frequency response, white noise response, sine wave distortion and transient response. All the frequency response tests concluded that in normal operation the DTS encoder was flat to 19kHz and above, but when it produced a 754kb/s bitstream, high frequency response fell away sharply at 15kHz and content beyond that point contained amplitude modulation artefacts. There were also problems in LFE channel response; it was steadily attenuated as the frequency increased, -1dB at 50Hz, -3dB at 90Hz and -6dB at 120Hz.
When evaluating sine wave distortion, once again the high-bitrate CD and DVD encoding modes faired well, but the 754kb/s mode produced substantial noise just below the sine wave frequency. Dolby claim this could lead to “…audible low frequency distortion”.
Another area of concern was that of transient pre-noise, which is generally considered to be audible if it exists for longer than 5ms prior to the onset of the transient. In 754kb/s DTS pre-noise existed as much as 10ms prior to the onset of Audio Precision’s test tone burst. Dolby did not however, find that their particular sample of the DTS encoder produced the 0.6dB gain Warner Bros. had uncovered in the past.
Dolby then proceeded to subjectively evaluate the performance of the DTS encoder and found it produced audibly inferior results to those obtained from a Dolby Digital encoder, but as there are no details of the test material used, the nature of the tests or the listening panel, it would be unfair to draw any conclusions from them.
While one could also dismiss Dolby’s objective findings as being biased, and for obvious reasons, both the frequency response issues and pre-noise problems of 754kb/s DTS have been independently confirmed more than once. When directly compared, a Dolby Digital encoder producing a bitstream as low as 192kb/s suffers less pre-noise than a DTS encoder at 754kb/s, and at 448kb/s Dolby Digital boasts a ruler-flat frequency response between 20Hz and 20kHz.
As you can imagine, DTS have been thoroughly annoyed by all this and on November 21st 2000, released a paper dismissing Dolby’s findings. They stress that given 48kHz signals, “…DTS has response to 24kHz at 1.536Mb/s and response to 19kHz at 754kb/s”. They’re quick to point out that unlike Dolby Digital encoders, the DTS CAE-4 does not couple high frequencies (the combining of channel information) when programme material becomes particularly demanding. DTS also address the LFE response issue, stating that “…the response of the CAE-4 encoder is: flat to 100Hz, -3dB at 116Hz, -6dB at 125Hz”.
No other technical issues are addressed in the DTS rebuttal, perhaps because they were responding to Dolby’s public release of information not the original Dolby evaluation document, but DTS suggest, as have I, that Dolby’s subjective findings, given their understandable bias and the lack of test details should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Not to be outdone, in the week of March 12th 2001 Dolby issued yet another statement in an attempt to clarify some of their findings and refute the counter-claims from DTS. Many of the points made within are clearly well-founded; Dolby note that DTS has not provided any technical measurements to back up their claims and proceed to take issue with the wording of the DTS rebuttal. “Response to 19kHz at 754kb/s” does not take into consideration the high-frequency attenuation that begins at the 15kHz point and as Dolby so rightly state, frequency response is usually quoted at -3dB points not across the entire range of frequencies produced, no matter how small their amplitude. The latest Dolby paper contains yet another example of the LFE roll off and, in an unusual move, includes a frequency response plot from actual programme material, in this case the DVD ‘Peg’. I have seen similar plots produced from 754kb/s DTS DVD soundtracks by independent parties that reinforce Dolby’s claim.
Clearly any performance gap that may have existed between Dolby Digital and DTS due to the substantial difference in bitrates is no longer a factor when comparing the two, so we must concentrate on the performance of the CODEC and the material encoded. As 754kb/s DTS soundtracks are demonstrably technically inferior to their 448kb/s Dolby Digital counterparts, we can expect to see a shift away from an unqualified belief that a DTS soundtrack will always be superior. This has been borne out of late by the region 1 releases of ‘Jurassic Park’ [ASIN: B00004U8JU (DTS) ASIN: B00003CXAT (Dolby Digital)] and ‘Dinosaur’ [ASIN: B000050MN3] upon which the Dolby Digital soundtrack clearly outperforms the DTS alternative.
We must however, remember that both Dolby Digital and DTS are lossy formats and the performance of both is governed by perceptual CODECs that may or may not be best suited to the same material, or for that matter the individual listener. Just as some prefer vinyl to Compact Disc (even though the former is clearly inferior on all levels), one may also prefer DTS at 754kb/s, even with the inherent encoding artefacts and frequency response errors.
Evaluating the two within your own system is fraught with any number of pitfalls, but my advice is this: 1) Match the output levels of your system as closely as possible (using a voltmeter at loudspeaker level if you have one). Remember that Dolby Digital soundtracks often have attenuation applied automatically by the dialog normalization bitstream instruction therefore if no dialog normalization compensation is used, DTS will often be preferred simply because of the higher playback volume. 2) Use a DVD upon which the Dolby and DTS soundtracks are known to originate from the same master tapes – any of the region 1 ‘Lethal Weapon’ movies [ASIN: B00004RFFY onwards] produced by Warner Bros. for example. The soundtracks of some movies have clearly been mastered differently. The region 1 release of ‘U-571’ [ASIN: B00003CXHJ] contains half-bitrate DTS LFE that is 4dB louder than the 448kb/s Dolby Digital LFE, even though the levels of the remaining channels are all but identical, and this will undoubtedly result in a preference for the DTS version. 3) Enlist the help of a friend to switch between the two and ensure that he/she does nothing to indicate which soundtrack is which (be sure to disable on-screen displays or turn off your monitor completely).
Most scientifically conducted blind testing where the dialog normalization feature of AC-3 is taken into consideration – as against casual ‘sighted’ home evaluations – conclude that DTS and Dolby Digital do indeed sound ‘different’, but that listeners cannot categorically state that one is superior to the other. Factor into the argument the differences in source material encountered in the home (it is a mistake to think that DTS and Dolby Digital soundtracks are always produced from the same master) and their respective fidelity, and what we’re left with is an uncertain and ever-changing conclusion.
As a side note, it’s worth pointing out that following the experiences and evaluations at Warner Bros. their engineers did not feel that the inclusion of a DTS soundtrack upon any subsequent DVD titles was a worthwhile exercise. Read into that what you will…
Finally, may I suggest that it’s high time we began selecting software on the grounds of availability and supplemental material, rather than on whether or not a DTS soundtrack is present? Perhaps one day we’ll see an end to this entertaining debate, probably the same day pigs learn to fly…
© Stuart M. Robinson 2001
‘Home Cinema Choice’
What Video Interactive Publishing Best, Sanjay jeff...still waiting to hear the where and when of this bet you've proposed. i never refuse easy money.[/B][/QUOTE]
_________________________
Sanjay
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#11418 - 05/22/03 08:14 PM
Re: Krell HTS, Lexicon MC-1, Outlaw 950
|
Desperado
Registered: 02/23/03
Posts: 327
Loc: NJ, USA
|
Originally posted by bossobass:
sanjay,
notice this time, i've directed this post to you so you aren't confused. Between the two of you, I wouldn't lay odds on Sanjay being the one who's confused.
i struggle to understand your opinion in this post, let alone see any point to it.
I imagine that there's a lot of things you struggle to understand, such as the use of the SHIFT key. Don't be obtuse, lad. Of course he's not going to waste his time doing a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis. You think he's like you, with nothing better to do with his time? I do note, however, that failing to come up with any actual evidence, you simply posted a link to DTS's site. Doesn't say much about your ability to make a case. Unlike SoundHound and Sanjay who both produced actual evidence, you on the other hand have merely pointed us towards DTS's marketing literature. I could point you to similar material on the Bose web site, if you're looking for new speakers...
dolby: the benevolent, best technology purveying, apolitical, most consistently professional, most innovative surround format czars. i prefer 900 ton gorilla.
Yes, and I hope you'll pardon us for not taking you too seriously until you learn to speak English like the rest of us. If you want to call Dolby Labs to a "900 ton gorilla" without supporting what, if any, reason makes this analogy apt, that's your right. And it's our right to dismiss you as a crackpot and ignore you.
dolby is established as the standard for DSS, DTV, DVD and HDTV, yet dts is preferred by a clear majority of people who care about sound.
Oh really? The clear majority, you say? I presume you can point us to a non-biased census that shows this....?
surround music, surround music video and soundtracks...name the largest selling titles, they are dts.
Even if that were the case -- and I'm not convinced it's so -- name the largest selling speaker manufactuer; it is Bose.
to tell us that they've acheived this by cheating, or 'boosting the LFE 10db', or threatening the life of a journalist (who we've never heard of) is pointless.
Who you have never heard of. I suspect I know the journalist to whom Sanjay is referring.
get it? that means there is no point.
Much like talking to you, I suspect.
maybe you should school guys like tom jung who have obviously succumbed to dts' ...
It's "DTS's". The posessive of a singular noun always ends in apostrophe-'s', even if the noun already ends in 's'.
... (and apparently Sony's) underhanded, misleading, bogus, criminal rise to a distant #2 in a field of 2. after all, those guys have much more impact (as obvious players) on the consumer's loss in this conspiracy.
Um, what the hell are you babbling about now?
jeff...still waiting to hear the where and when of this bet you've proposed. i never refuse easy money.
And I'm waiting for a coherent, intelligent statement from you. I suspect we both have a long wait ahead. Dude, face it: you're wrong. We've presented mounds of evidence showing you that you're wrong, and the only thing you've been able to present is hyperbole and links to DTS's marketing literature. You can babble on as long as you like, but until you actually provide some hard evidence, you really shouldn't expect us to take you for anything other than a nutcase who's trying to convince himself that all the extra money he spent on DTS titles wasn't wasted. Oh, and by the way, take a look at your keyboard. You see that key to the left of the 'Z' key? Well, if you hold it down while you type a letter, you get to access a special easter egg hidden on the keyboard: 43 extra characters for free!! Jeff [This message has been edited by D'Arbignal (edited May 22, 2003).]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11420 - 05/22/03 10:55 PM
Re: Krell HTS, Lexicon MC-1, Outlaw 950
|
Desperado
Registered: 01/23/02
Posts: 765
Loc: Monterey Park, CA
|
Originally posted by soundhound:
So we're all agreed then: triodes sound better than pentodes Finally, someone understands what I've been trying to say all along.  Sanjay
_________________________
Sanjay
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#11421 - 05/22/03 11:41 PM
Re: Krell HTS, Lexicon MC-1, Outlaw 950
|
Desperado
Registered: 02/23/03
Posts: 327
Loc: NJ, USA
|
What was the middle part again, you know, the one about the thing?
Jeff
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11422 - 05/22/03 11:54 PM
Re: Krell HTS, Lexicon MC-1, Outlaw 950
|
Desperado
Registered: 01/23/02
Posts: 765
Loc: Monterey Park, CA
|
You mean the One Thing to rule them all?
Sanjay
_________________________
Sanjay
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11423 - 05/22/03 11:57 PM
Re: Krell HTS, Lexicon MC-1, Outlaw 950
|
Desperado
Registered: 02/23/03
Posts: 327
Loc: NJ, USA
|
Originally posted by sdurani:
You mean the One Thing to rule them all?
Sanjay I hear Spike Lee's making a remake of that movie called, "She's Got to Hobbit." Jeff
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
302
Guests and
1
Spider online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
8,717 Registered Members
88 Forums
11,331 Topics
98,708 Posts
Most users ever online: 1,171 @ 11/22/24 03:40 AM
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index