I listened to the Mussorgsky symphony again, both in raw stereo and PL II, both times at a comparably loud (nice and loud) volume. Yes, there is more resolution as you suggest, with raw stereo. There's also I think more dynamic range and crispness with raw stereo. PL II processing of the symphony on the other hand is sweeter sounding and maybe less harsh. PL II may be easier on the ears, to many people. But with slightly less resolution and crispness.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited September 19, 2002).]

Will, Haven't noticed the difference in dynamic range, though it wouldn't surprise me as it does seem reasonable. And yes, the processing shaves off that last little bit of crispness and air from raw stereo playback. As I've said before though, I consider the loss of ultimate resolution negligible in light of what PL II processing brings to the listening experience. If you want the impression of getting that resolution back, try carefully raising the treble. Seriously. Someone told me to try it when I used to have a Lexicon MC-1; it's truly surprising how much a slight treble boost sounds like additional detail. Try it.

Best,
Sanjay

I invited Soundhound over a few days ago and we listened on my setup to a selection of CD's including classical symphonies (Mussorsky and Handel), contemporary opera (Sarah Brightman/Andrea Bocelli), modern pop with lots of psycho-accoustic effects (Janet Jackson), and 10 year old country (Wynonna Judd). He listened to cuts from the CD's in both DPL II-M and raw stereo (with subwoofer). After the subwoofer phase was adjusted, he told me that he preferred stereo over DPL II, at least on my system playing these particular selections, for all the selections played. He also compared DPL II-M and DTS NEO:6-M on a few CD's and again, at least on mysystem playing these particular selections, he preferred DPL II-M over DTS NEO:6-M. I'll let him report on the specifics. I value Soundhounds opinions because he is both a University trained musician and an experienced sound engineer.

My system is 5.1 not 7.1 as follow:

Player: Toshiba RP-91
Pre/pro: 950
Amp: Sunfire Cinema G
Front Spkrs: Von Schweikert VR 4 Gen II
Center Sprks: Von Schweikert
Rears: PSB Stratus Silver

Another thing Soundhound told me, when he was here, is some psycho-accoustic effects are best played back in regular two channel stereo. The added "direction-enhancing" (for want of a better word) effects won't work as intended he says, after passing through DPL II or DTS NEO:6 decoders. I'll leave it to Soundhound to explain the specifics of why this is.

Will

As yet another who has worked in the sound industry for years. I must make an obsevation, I have always worked as a sound engineer doing live music, I have friends who work as studio engineers. What I have learned don't let a live sound engineer mix your cd (unless it is live), don't let a studio engineer mix you live. We look at things very differently and never let a musician mix anything. I do not play an instrument other than my board it gives me a different perspective.A Musician will favor what they are used to, studio engineers will take the ambiance out of the mix, and guys like me will add effects to create ambiance. What I have noted with my 950 is I don't have to turn it up so loud to get the desired effect, I love it my ears and neighbors were tired. I like the PLII-M best for most things but it really depends on how the CD was mixed.

Hello Loudpipes,

That's interesting. As was mentioned earlier, some psycho-accostic ambiance effects are more realistic when played back in straight stereo. Other ambiance effects are specifically optimized for DPL.

When you add ambiance, do you try to make it sound good in straight stereo, or do you try to make it sound good in DPL, or both?

Will

[QUOTE]Originally posted by loudpipes:
[B]...and never let a musician mix anything.
________________________________________

OUCH! that was a low blow, my friend. it may be time for a 'musicians who produce' thread.

For me I find much better channel seperation across the fronts using NEO6M than DPLII. DPLII seems to suck the sound into the middle sounding almost monaural, where NEO6M seems to direct more the mains. For TV watching NEO6M is definitely more of an enhancement.

For music, sometimes to take the edge of less than perfect recordings I'll try NEO6M when I'm not seriously listening (i.e. background music). But for serious music listening any of the surround modes end up sounding lackluster and ends up being haphazard in the overall musical presentation and balance (I know there's a better expression for that).

Just my 2 c's.

Are you talking about DPLII-M or C? The front channel separation in DPLII-M is completely adjustable as mentioned above by sdurani. On my system, due to placement limitations, by center speaker is on top of the screen, significantly higher than the mains. I played around with the center width setting and it had the interesting effect of pulling the center channel down as I approached phantom center. I think it is one or two notches below full phantom. But even with center fully on it is not the extreme stereo collapse that happens with old DPL.

I was referring to DPLII-C and M (but not with settings changed on the M. I tried tinkering with the variable settings for the PLIIm and ended up with settings that worked well for one area, not the other and visa versa.

Finally stopped tweeking and just stayed with the off the shelf settings. In this case NEO6 for TV and games.