For regular music CD's, I have been comparing DTS NEO:6-M to PLII-M to straight stereo in order to decide on a surround mode that sounds most like stereo, but adds a good and realistic ambiance. Initially I found DTS NEO:6-M to sound more like stereo than PLII-M. So I stuck with it. This was when I had my mains crossed over at 80 Hz. Then I crossed my mains over at 60 Hz and then finally, at 40 Hz. I decided to test the three modes all over again, and this time, I found I liked them all better, but especially, regular stereo, and PLII-M. In fact, I liked PLII-M better than NEO:6-M.

I understood that if you turn on just the surround channels and turn off the mains and the center, that DPL-IIM won't frequency shift the music to sound like something else, whereas DTS NEO:6-M does. However they do it, both PLII-M and NEO:6-M sound pretty darn good to me.

Since I set up my system with the mains crossed over at 40 Hz, a couple of other casual listeners I've had over, have also liked PLII-M better than either NEO:6-M or straight stereo. But then I invited over a friend who is a professional in the music industry who uses his ears for his living and whose ears I trust more than mine, to my surprise (!) he preferred straight stereo. DTS NEO:6-M came in second and PLII-M came in third. He said he could hear where PLII-M was cutting out the full frequency range. PLII-M sounded less full to him than straight stereo. It's part of how Dolby Pro-Logic II works, he says.

Dolby PLII is very very good, much better than Dolby Pro Logic and to people like me, it sounds fabulous. But some people who listen to music professionally, apparently can tell what is being psycho-accoustically eliminated by Dolby (even though I could not), and for people who can tell these things, straight stereo sounds better.

The other advice I got from this person in the music industry, was to always play symphonies very loud, as loud as they sound in a concert hall. Now, I realize it's not always possible or practical to do that, but he says that's the best way to hear (as close as possible) what a symphony is supposed to sound like, at home.

Now in straight stereo, when it's played loud, there is plenty of ambiance in my listening room, so maybe in a loud room, there's less reason to add ambiance via PLII and NEO-6.

I'm still experimenting, but those are my thoughts, as of now!

[quote]Dolby PLII is very very good, much better than Dolby Pro Logic and to people like me, it sounds fabulous. But some people who listen to music professionally, apparently can tell what is being psycho-accoustically eliminated by Dolby (even though I could not), and for people who can tell these things, straight stereo sounds better.

The other advice I got from this person in the music industry, was to always play symphonies very loud, as loud as they sound in a concert hall. Now, I realize it's not always possible or practical to do that, but he says that's the best way to hear (as close as possible) what a symphony is supposed to sound like, at home.

Now in straight stereo, when it's played loud, there is plenty of ambiance in my listening room, so maybe in a loud room, there's less reason to add ambiance via PLII and NEO-6.[quote] I'm gonna catch up with ya...? maybe? See you sooon!



------------------
Take Care,
merc

Good Night...

[This message has been edited by merc (edited September 14, 2002).]

Will,

Merc makes some interesting points. But allow me to toss my humble opinions into the hat. Have you tried any of PL II-M's adjustments? You can dial it in so it is just barely perceptible over regular stereo playback (if that's what you're looking for). None of these matrix decoders are designed to be heard with some of the speakers turned off. The psychoacoustic tricks they play with content steering relies on you hearing all the channels. For example: when I've listened to only the surround channels of Neo:6, PL II, Circle Surround and even Logic 7, I've noticed dialog sometimes appearing back there; a phenomenon that seems to vanish when all channels are playing. I'll pretend you didn't just say that last part. Well then he must be right: according to his ears, Neo:6 will sound better to you than PL II.

Aw come on Will, you know better than to accept someone else's particular tastes over your personal preferences! Ah, so he knows how PL II works, which then tells him how it will sound, and thus he ends up hearing what he was expecting. Why is the needle on my surprize-meter not moving? Will, from the few exchanges we've had on the net, you seem to be more open minded than your golden eared friend, at least to the extent that you're listening with less baggage. If you prefer stereo over PL II and prefer PL II over Neo:6 then so be it. Quit trying to undermine your own preferences. Besides, you can change your preferences some time down the road. The Surround Police won't bust you for changing your mind.

Personally, I switch back-and-forth between PL II and Logic 7 processing, depending on the material I'm listening to. So when they visit you, switch to straight stereo. Until then, listen to what YOU like. So when this person comes around, you can blast the volume. Until then, listen at a level that YOU are comfortable with. Nice trick, but raising the volume is no substitute for a good matrix decoder. And, like any good matrix decoder, PL II will allow you to make the surround presentation as subtle or as exciting as you please. Keep doing what you're doing; experimentation will eventually help you hone in on the sound you like.

Also keep in mind that each CD can sound different from the next. (No standardized volume and stuff, like on movies.) Therefore, different CDs may require different decoding or parameter adjustments. But that's OK; the various matrix decoders in your 950 are simply tools for you to use with the appropriate material. And that includes not using them when you so desire.

BTW, listening to music in surround can take some getting used to for some people. Hang in there and you'll eventually settle on what how you like it. As for the matrix decoders themselves, I prefer PL II by a very wide margin over Neo:6. The latter sounds too lame and artifacty to me.

Finally, I'm probably more used to music in surround than many posters here because it's been like a decade and a half since I've listened to 2-channel music over just 2 speakers. It comes down to individual preferences, but I find a 2-speaker presentation so far removed from any sonic event that I've personally experienced that I actually find it slightly distracting. Again, that won't apply to most audiophiles; just this heretic's personal opinion.

Best,
Sanjay

P.S. When you say "straight stereo", do you mean as opposed to the stereo you find in West Hollywood? Doh! (Sorry, couldn't resist. )

sd

I really would like to try that. Do you know how to adjust the 950, in order to make its PL II sound barely perceptible over regular stereo playback?

But when a concert is played in stereo loud enough, the sound sure seems to bounce all over my listening room. It's not like listening to stereo with low volume. There, music is flat by comparison, and only at the front of the room. There, there's not much surround sound ambiance.

Well maybe. But maybe his ears are better educated than mine, and he knew what to listen for. Ears, even my uneducated pair, can get educated, I think, with time. I think he said the full timbre of the symphony was not coming through in DPL-II but it was coming through in stereo. Well, I didn't hear it, but maybe I have yet to train my ears to hear it. I'm going to listen some more, and see what there is to hear. Incidentally he seemed to think more of the full spectrum of the music was coming through in DTS NEO:6 than in DPL II. I on the other hand, thought DPL IIsounded better than DTS, which was just the opposite. Likewise I also thought DTS sounded better than loud volume stereo (but just barely). Again, just the opposite.

So now I wonder if DPL II (and to a lesser sense, DTS NEO:6)is a euphonic, artificially pleasant substitute sound for reality. I wonder if, as I hear it more, I'll be able to distinguish the artificial pleasantry from the stark reality, better. Perhaps DVD-A and SACD surround modes sound better, more realistic, than DPL II in part because they are surround modes that contain the FULL spectrum of sound. Yes, I know DPL II removes sound in a psycho-accousticly kind & gentle manner, but it nevertheless removes sound. We all know that now. And some ears apparently, are actually able to detect what's missing.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited September 14, 2002).]

I have a friend better educated in the science and history of art. There is no doubt that his education is formal and his eye is trained. Regardless of my respect for his expertise, he will never succeed in convincing me that Picasso is a genius, and that by viewing and studying this artists collective works, I will come to appreciate ‘art’ as expressed to the highest pinnacle possible or fullest range achievable.

I stubbornly persist in my ‘less qualified’ conviction, that there is no accounting for some people’s taste.
Refusing to capitulate while glibly replying that 3 yr. olds have renderings more worthy of the expense and trouble of a good frame shop.

Happy to remain in possession of (as my friend sees it) a certain ignorance and display of naivete determined to continue in my appreciation for Michaelangelo and Da Vinci while remaining leery all La psychologie de la Forme as expressed by a cubist.

I agree with Will.
We can learn, continue to educate ourselves, openly consider expert advice and adjust our choices over time with application of new tools and awareness.
I agree with Sanjay.
Regardless of training or level of expertise the choice of the viewer/listener in the science of art and music, is at the end an emotional conviction and response reflecting either that this pleases me or this does not please me.

Maybe he plays Contrabass, and sits right in front of the brass section, and is therefore deaf....

My dedicated HT room was constructed using the "live end/dead end" technique, where the front of the room is well dampened, carpeted, and has no reflective surfaces. The rear of the room, while not extremely reflective, has much less acoustic treatment, except for a bass trap up near the ceiling. This makes "straight" stereo sound more enveloping and helps make the surrounds more diffuse in movie playback. The 950 is going to replace a Fosgate Model Three processor I used to use for it's "rock" matrix processing of non-sympnonic stereo music. I will be happy if one of the settings on the 950 yields a surround experience as good as on my dear departed Model Three.



[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited September 14, 2002).]

He plays violin for the symphony.

Ohhhhh.. so he's deaf from the French Horns blasting in his ear!

Really, musicians make very lousy judges of good sound. I've run into it many times, as I deal with recording orchestras in my work.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited September 14, 2002).]

i hesitate...but the truth is, i have never been a fan of dolby labs. in the days of cassette tapes, i chose to tolerate the hiss rather than engage dolby noise reduction (the saddest excuse for nr ever).

then there was dolby pro logic. 5 channel stereo mode was better than this joke of a format.

then came dolby digital. thank goodness digital theater systems (which is a hiher res format) came along. otherwise, i think dolby would have milked pro logic for years longer.

the fact is, dolby labs is concerned with market share and profits. they have never, to my knowledge, been concerned with the quality of music to the end user (me and you) more than being the biggest.

for example...bob carver's autocorrelator in the early seventies was vastly better noise reduction than dnr, but who heard it to compare?

when you are as big a company as dolby, you can offer less and advertise it as more and get away with it.

dts 5.1 music only cd's led to dvd-a and sacd. dolby doesn't care about music only formats, or did anyone hear that they will soon announce their version of a high-res music only format? PL II is only to keep shelf space with dts' neo processing modes.

every company that wishes to bring a prepro to market has to deal with dolby labs, lucasfilms ltd. (whom dolby has joined with for thx ex, which is the same format as dd ex), digital theater systems, and now cirrus logic.

every chip encorporated to decode these formats carries license fees and complex paperwork, which is why the prepros are so expensive. most asian electronics companies won't offer to build one oem for this reason.
(outlaw, of course has done it through a malaysian manufacturer against all odds, i think, and at a very low street price. that's why i laud them and own a 950). my point is, dolby will employ every trick they've learned over the years to own the lion's share of these fees.

dts is owned by spielberg, katzenberg and geffen, so they could encode the movies they produced or believe me, they never could have gotten dts off the ground.

PL II is nothing more than PL with full range signal to the surrounds, or, keeping a dead format alive to nettle dts.

we all would have received our 950 a long time ago were it not for dpl II. it should really have been the mode for pro logic, but back then dolby had no competition, and so, released it as we all know it to be now...really a bad format.

i don't listen to pro logic II. it's my silent protest. forgive my rant.