Understood. I'll try to police my posts a little better in the future. Sorry you had to intervene.

Jeff

Me bad.

Me sorry.

For punishment, NO spanking for me.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

Don't beat me....I like DTS. I guess I was just duped into it with all the hype and audio trickery. But, in the end I put this little flat disk into the thing that makes it go round and round and sound comes out, and I like it.

On the serious side, I would like to add that I think that DTS, regardless of what you think about the format, has stimulated the Home Theater market. You get DD with everything it seems, but DTS is something special for the HT. Yes, its mostly a marketing ploy, but people are buying it and liking it, even if it has it's weak points.

P.S. You will never hurt my feelings by adding a few db to the LFE.

[This message has been edited by MeanGene (edited June 07, 2003).]

Why would I beat you? Your answer is extremely refreshing. You don't claim that there's any inherent technical advantage in DTS, you don't quote any of their marketing literature: you just say that you prefer DTS.

To me, that's the perfect post. You're sticking to facts, not hype. I certainly can't dispute what you prefer!

Jeff

A few thoughts on this one and other posts.

The quote below/above (?) assumes that there is a need to actively process SACD or DVD-A information. This may be true for DVD-V, as it intermixes multichannel encoding in the stero signal.

For SACD, read listening to music, there is no need to do ANY processing. In fact, if you have SACD, you are probably thankful for a digital format that sounds like analog. Pushing it to a processor, regardless whose, is killing the resolution of the format, and thus taking all the fun out of the experience, especially when it comes to the low level acoustical information that, with SACD at least is present in full resolution in all (6) channels.

With DVD-A, only the front channels are in the higher resolution, the others are in lower resolution... This in itself is ashame, because the high resolution is especially needed for the lower level acoustical information (another reason beyong sound quality to 'need' a higher resolution). It is only in the application of the movie encoding in the multichannel disks when you need processing. I am not aware of any DVD-A disks that use such an encoding (as you may end-up with... 10 channels of information? Nice platform for experiments here, btw).

For DVD-V disks, the encoding is there in the stereo channels, and thus you would need a decoder to get it folded out to the 5.1/6.1/7.1/10/2 (haha, the last one not yet).

In another post it was suggested that the lexicon would fold-out the stereo tracks on an SACD to 5.1. This means that the multichannel on the SACD is ommited. Regardless of the quality of the processor, this would be a waste. Especially in classical recordings, special care is taken to make 2 and 5 channel SACD portion with dedicated balancing for each. I would never suggest taking a balance made for stereo through a lower resolution digital process to squeeze it into 5 channels using - IMHO suspect algorithms - while a fully balanced multichannel version is available at full difital resolution, that has a direct - artistic - link to the performers and balance engineers.

The fact that the formats are not made available in a digital form to go straight to the processor comes directly from the copy-protection side, and thus the music industry.

Hope this angle is constructive.


Snarf

Jeff, sorry, did not read all above... wrote this days ago but then the connection terminated and, well you know...


Anyway, it seems that you need the processing to align the timing of the loudspeakers etc, otherwise you'd connect the SACD straight to the amps. Well, if yu could, I would :-)

Most classical recordings assume some kind of ITU/EBU 773 alignment of the loudspeakers (center at 0 deg, L/R at 30deg, surround at 110-120deg, depending horizontal dispersion). If that is how you set your loudspeakers, the only alignment you need is level, whcih you could do at the amp. The sub is a different story, and, yes, some subs are slow (not really good ones...), so pick a fast sub). And the move your sub around so you get the best alingment in the room, as far as room modes is concerned, and see if you need to reverse the phase to maximize your output (etc. the Rel approach, so to speak).


I am not aware of a srround processor that can handle DSD yet, but I cannot imagine it wouldn't become available. The connection may be a light pipe, if that is the least likely method to be 'ripped' in the digital domein (or is it?).


Snarf

So how would you achieve bass management and time alignment for these formats? Or are you suggesting that listeners: 1) buy truly full range speakers for every channel, including the centre; 2) If you can't do full range speakers, then forego the bass content in some or all of the channels; 3) place all the speakers equidistant from the listener (can only be done for one spot); or 4) forego time alignment? Really? What are the resolutions of the front channel vs the other? Can you name some DVD-A titles that don't have 96/24 PCM data in all 6 channels? No need to unfold 5.1/6.1 soundtracks on DVD-V, as those are discrete multi-channel formats as opposed to being encoded "in the stereo channels".

Best,
Sanjay

1. Would be desirable, yes. Note that the LFE is meant for LFE and that there should be no music content. So, if you indeed have 5 full range loudspeakers, you could omit the sub.

If the engineer worked per code of the book for 5.1, there should be no need for base management if you listen to music alone with full-range loudspeakers. And that is my angle exactly.

2. Then use the sub. If you use the Rel method, you do not need a processor, assuming you can live without the low coming from the content in the surround channels. The rel connects Hi-Z to the loudspeaker output of the amplifier for the main channels.

3. Don't all loudspeaker arrangements have one mathematical center spot? What is the alternative? Put the speakers at random differing distances? What would that gain? It is sometimes possible to put the surround further behind, and at a slightly larger distance, depening room geometry and wall treatment without loosing the 'glue' between the front and the back , but I'd be carefull with that, especially when you listen to recordings that try to pan the sound between front and back. Our localization mechanism does not really jive with that in this arrangement.

There will always be one ideal listening area, and I think that the ITU/EBU arrangement is a decent compromize in realizing an acceptable size sweet-spot area. It is my experience that 5 channel music recordings have a much wider sweet spot than stereo.



What about all of them? Look at the code book. DVD-A cannot provide HD in all channels for its rated play length. My recollection of the DVD-A presentation at the latsest AES was that they typically provide a mix of 96/24 and 48/24, and then you may just need to hope that it is not lossy coded as well.


Snarf

BTW: Got confused a bit on what you 'attacked' me on. I am not against bass management at all, I understand we need it, especially since we cannot expect engineers to know what to do with the LFE (note hat some of these guys put the bass of the music program also in the LFE, leading to interesting disasters). My previous comment was on using a digital processor to do your base management and thus using something that is of a much lower order in a high-resolution signal path. I'd say, did Outlaw not make a fine product to solve that? $249, if I'm not mistaken ;-)

Snarf

So you're recommending people buy full range speakers for every channel? Which speakers give flat frequency response from 20Hz to...well, however high SACD and DVD-A go? If I omit the sub, what do I do with the contents of the LFE channel on my DVD-As, SACDs, DTS music discs, DVD-V concert titles, etc.? Simply disregard it? Bass management has nothing to do with how closely the engineer sticks to the "code of the book for 5.1". Instead it has to do with the playback set-ups in people's homes, where very few truly full range speakers exist. Why would I want to compromise a DVD-A or SACD title by discarding the low frequencies of the centre and surround channels? Are you saying that the bottom end of those channels is disposable? Also, if I use the REL method and my sub is a different distance away from my main speakers (very common in most homes), I can't compensate for the difference in distance by using time alignment. No one gains anything by purposely placing different speakers at varying distances from the listener. However, in the real world, there are very few speaker set-ups where every single speaker is the same exact distance away from the listener. That's why almost every receiver and pre-pro made today has a time alignment feature. Rather than reading specs in the code book, why don't you look at actual DVD-A titles that have been released. I have yet to run into a DVD-A that doesn't have 96/24 data in ALL 6 channels. And why should I "hope that it is not lossy coded as well"? The point of DVD-A is to avoid lossy compression altogether, that's why they use MLP encoding (Meridian Lossless Packing). Where did I "attack" you? Could you quote the offending passages? (Note that I haven't edited any of my posts). We obviously have differing views of how knowledgeable recording engineers are. The ICBM doesn't do time alignment. And besides, it does process the signal. Or does the term "processing" no longer apply to analog signal manipulation but only to digital signal manipulation?

Best,
Sanjay