If you think that's all that Logic 7 does, you really ought to read up on it more.



So when a good multi-channel SACD recording passes my way, then you can convince me it's hot stuff and worth fainting over. Until then, I'm more than happy with what I've got, and as the old adage goes: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.



And that elusive point would be ...? Please clear it up for someone as obviously unenlightened as myself. You're being far too clever for someone as evidently stupid as me to keep up with you.

Jeff



[This message has been edited by D'Arbignal (edited May 21, 2003).]

Challenge accepted. Get a hold of the Fellowship of the Rings, and listen to its 2-channel mix using Logic 7 on a properly set up MC-12 system that uses the full 7 channels and 3 subwoofers. If that doesn't blow away any multi-channel experience you've had to date, consider the round yours.

Jeff

But as Soundhound and I have been pointing out, unless you know for certain that both the DD and DTS on that disc are from the same master, level matched, and without any special boosting that DTS might "accidentally" do, it's really impossible to make a fair comparison.

Jeff

Jason, He's not missing the point at all. Keep in mind that MC-12 owners can compare a processed SACD/DVD-A 5.1 signal to pure analog bypass on the fly, by pushing one button. Jeff's pronouncement wasn't made in a vacuum; if he says he prefers the redigitized signal then he's saying so after two years of living with this feature.

Is the redigitizing audible on the MC-12? Yes, even with its 96/24 A-to-D converters. But the sonic degradation is so negligible, and so outweighed by the benefits of processing, that most MC-12 owners choose to process their multi-channel SACD/DVD-A sources rather than listen in bypass.

What LOGIC7 does with 5.1 signals is more subtle than radical. It doesn't do any logic steering up front (3 channels, 3 speakers, nothing to steer). The processing happens in the surrounds where 2 channels are steered over 4 speakers. Some surround content sounds better from beside the listener, other sounds seem more appropriate coming from behind the listener; and L7 does a pretty good job of making this decision (using cues in the other channels).

For the record, I have to agree with Jeff. Given a choice between 'bypass' and 'process', it's no contest: I'll choose the processed signal on every SACD I own. It's a decision I've arrived at after listening both ways.

Best,
Sanjay

Ver ry good misss terrr annn derr sonn. Agreed: there is always the chance that a recording engineer will arbitrarily create a surround mix that suits my tastes to a tee, and it will sound better than a matrix decoded 2-channel version. However, in the real world, that hasn't happened yet. Excepting a couple of SACD titles, I haven't found discrete multi-channel mixes that sound as good as matrix decoded 2-channel music. While a "good" multi-channel SACD always has the potential to sound better than a matrixed CD, I have yet to see that potential realized with music. It would be pointless, as we'd both walk away prefering different things. All that the challenge would do is re-confirm our personal preferences. Nothing more.

Best,
Sanjay

Sanjay,

As usual, you've managed to summarize what I've been trying to say much more eloquently and succinctly that I could have in a million years. You da' man!

Jeff

Thanx Jeff.

There are times when I really should keep my mouth shut. (Or my fingers quiet for that matter ) I knew I would provoke a reaction and that your responses basically lived up to what I expected.

You're right, I do need to "read" up on Logic 7.

"Dark Side of The Moon" is the best multi-channel mix I've heard yet if you're looking for a good mix. That's just my opinion.

I guess my point entails more than I wrote out. I apologize for that. I also apologize if you took any of the post personally for that was never my intention. I don't doubt your knowledge of your system or of any of Lexicon's products. Your posts are very informative and well written. (As opposed to the gibberish mess mine usually end up being.)

This was my sole point. Adding an extra digital conversion after a SACD source has been decoded to analog, to my knowledge, defeats the purpose of having a hi-res source in the first place. That's all.

Your also right that my point doesn't apply to every SACD. Some may be more noticable than others. I probably am relying on too much on theory. Again, sorry.

You may now proceed to repost my post in its entirety and disassemble it as you see fit. Have fun.

Jason,

My apologies if my post came across a little rough. I was still irked by Steves's slights, and I guess I took it out on you a little. I shouldn't have, and I'm sorry.

Right now, my current system only supports DVD-A, and even that is more of a side effect than by design. I simply chose what looked to be the best DVD video player, and it happened to have DVD-A capability.

The DVD-As I've listened to have been nice enough, but nothing particularly special compared to a quality CD plus Logic 7. Perhaps, as you say, it may be that the capabilities of both formats just haven't yet been tapped fully.

I've heard great things about the DSOTM recording, but just a caveat: from what I've read, there was a production error in a number of the discs that cause them to fall apart quickly from use. You should check out the SMR site for more details.

Again, I apologize for being sharp with you. I appreciate your opinion, and think you've acted like a mench. I should follow your good example.

Jeff

b][/QUOTE]It would be pointless, as we'd both walk away prefering different things. All that the challenge would do is re-confirm our personal preferences. Nothing more.

Best,
Sanjay[/B][/QUOTE]

not only would it not be pointless, it's THE point. if a direct comparison in the same room won't sway either side, why do people think a forum post is going to? to have the opinion that logic 7 is better than direct multi sacd is fine with me, but inferring that it's better as a matter of fact is pointless and begs a challenge.

BTW, the comments about there not being enough software or enough good multi sacd production available are growing quite old. there are well over 500 titles available. actually, many of them are quite good surround mixes. if someone owns 1 or 2 dozen sacds, he or she hasn't scratched the surface.

i'm with jason. double conversion is degrading and pointless. you end up with pcm, not dsd. a 20 bit dts-cd sounds as good.

the only way you can compare bypass to double converted 'on the fly' is if you have 5 full-range speakers, or outboard analog BM.

dts vs dd. to say that any dts version sounds better because of some sort of EQ manipulation makes no sense. if it was EQ only, then logic would lead you to say the DD version was poorly EQ'd. in every case of a soundtrack that's offered in both formats, i've found the dialog to be clearer and the surround effects to be more head turning.

i happen to believe dts is a better company that produces better product and i'm glad there is ANY competition for the 900 ton gorilla that is dolby labs.