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.

Will, Well I've never used the 950 but I know how to adjust PL II-M on my processor. Shouldn't be any different on the 950. Follow:

First, adjust the DIMENSION parameter; this changes the ratio of the front sound to ambience. As you adjust this parameter from Rear to Neutral to Front, you will move further forward in the virtual listening room, lessening the amount of surround information you hear. Set this to Front.

Next, adjust the CTR WIDTH parameter; this changes the spread of the centre image. The Min setting has all the centre channel info coming from the centre speaker only. You want the opposite setting. As you move towards the Max setting, the centre info will be moved more and more out to your front left & right speakers. At the Max setting, you have a phantom centre; sound only comes from the front left & right. This then is the setting you want, as it is what you would get by playing a stereo source in 2-channel mode.

Make sure you have turned PANORAMA to the OFF setting; you don't want the front image wrapped around your head. Then drop the volume of the surrounds as low as possible. At this point you'll have sound coming from the front left & right speakers only. Just like 2-channel.

Now, slowly start to raise the level of the surrounds; at some point you'll hear your front speakers (for want of better words) 'bloom' into the listening space. Somewhere around this level (+/- a few db) is what you're looking for: i.e., you won't actually be aware of the surround speakers themselves, but you'll notice the contributions they are making.

It's basically like listening to stereo, with a subtle "extra"! BTW, no need to stop there; keep experimenting with the surround volume till you find a level that makes the music sound most pleasing to YOU. Don't worry about whether it "should" be heard that way or not. If you like that loud "bounce all over" the room sound with your music, then go for it. Personally, I prefer to use surround processing to create an ambient soundfield; allows me much greater control of what I hear, at any volume. There is a big difference between learning from his experience vs letting him judge what sounds pleasing to you. He's not the one that's going to be listening to and living with your system; you are. I mean, what's next: if he says Handel sounds better than Dr.Dre, does his experience make him right? It's fine to let yourself be educated by his experience (if, in fact, he really knows what he's talking about), but don't allow that to dictate your judgement about what you find pleasing when it comes to something as personal as music. Last time I listened to PL II, I didn't hear anything missing (except maybe some comb filtering, which is reduced by the use of a centre speaker). Some people report hearing less bass with surround processing engaged. Not surprising, especially if you are using large fronts and smaller surrounds & centre. With 2-channel playback, you have 2 speakers reproducing bass, midrange and treble. When you switch surround processing on, you now have 2 speakers producing the bass, but 7 speakers producing midrange and treble. Naturally, it can sound different. While bass management is (in theory) supposed to properly re-route low frequencies from those other channels so you don't lose any bass content, in real life it doesn't always work quite so perfectly. But this problem can be adjusted away with good calibration tools, and is a far cry from any "full timbre" that is supposed to be missing with PL II processing. Well, if it's any consolation, my experience is much closer to your's than his. And, as I said before, I can't get past the artifacts and poor steering I hear with Neo:6. What reality? Our sound systems are artificial constructs; 2-channel and 7-channel are both valid ways of listening to music, but they're no substitute for any reality that I've ever experienced. Not even close. And the recordings you're listening to are studio concoctions (even many "live" recordings), that aren't very good representations of the way we experience sonic events (not that I expect 2 channels of sound to actually do this).

Since each of these listening methods is an "artificially pleasant substitute sound for reality", you're free to pick your own poison without fears of one being more accurate than another. I can't stress enough that the point of the 950 is to give you the tools to extract maximum listening pleasure from your music (and movies). It won't reproduce reality but, if carefully used, it will please you. There's nothing "stark" about a real life music performance. On the contrary, I find it warm, enveloping, palpable and exciting; sorta like what I hear with multi-channel playback. I think that now that you've been listening to music in surround, you might be finding traditional 2-speaker playback a little dry, a little "stark" and (dare I say) a little "artificial", in comparison. DVD-A and SACD are all over the map. I've heard very good, very natural and gorgeous sounding discrete multi-channel surround mixes. But I've also heard mixes at opposite ends of the spectrum: some so subtle that you wonder why they even bothered with surround sound, and other mixes that have instruments spread around to the point that you're spinning your head like Linda Blair. Needless to say, surround sound should enhance the content, not distract the listener (something that too few DVD-As and SACDs do, unfortunately). Well, "we" don't actually know that. Unlike you, I haven't taken your friend's opinion as fact. On the contrary, with PL II engaged I actually hear more; at least as far as ambience and presence are concerned.

BTW, a couple of questions, if you don't mind. First, is this your first prolonged exposure to PL II? Second, and a bit more personal, are you experiencing pangs of guilt or any other weird feelings for enjoying processed 2-channel music over straight stereo? Just curious.

Best,
Sanjay

soundhound, Exactly my experience.

Best,
Sanjay

I had one of those autocorrelator units. I worked well enough with rock, but it messed with the sound of orchestral strings very badly.

I wouldn't be too hard on Dobly (sic), as analog tape hiss would be really worse in multitrack situations than any pumping or other artifacts from noise reduction. I do agree though, that listening carefully, and with some instruments such as solo piano, noise modulation becomes intrusive because of using noise reduction. But look on the bright side; one early proposal was to use Dolby ON TOP OF digital to get more S/N ratio!! Yikes!!!!

BoB:

You're entitled to your attitude about Dolby Labs but, in fact, they didn't develop DPL2. The technology was created in the analog domain by Jim Fosgate -- the surround synthesis pioneer who created the original Tate/Fosgate decoder back in the 1980s.

The Dolby Lab programmers implemented Jim's tech in the digital domain under his guidance. And to his specs.

Everyone it entitled to dislike DPL2, of course; but I wanted to make it clear that one of the giants of audio, IMHO, actually created DPL2 and it represents his magnum opus in this area. It is MUCH MORE than just DPL with full-range surrounds.

Maybe so. But this musician says real symphonies have unpleasant harshnesses and odd sounding overtones in them. He wants to hear these things. But he says, Dolby eliminates the harshnesses and overtones because Dolby (and perhaps many people) consider these to be unpleasant.

I agree with you, though, that Dolby makes the sound, sound good.


I'm sorry. He agrees with you about DTS NEO sounding more artificial than DPL II. I misquoted him before.

I'm sorry, but this guy is sounding like a real crackpot. Yes, sitting right in the middle of a performing orchestra it sounds A LOT different than sitting out in front of the orchestra, or in a recording. But harsh overtones is NOT one of the things you will hear. I have, and do mingle amongst live, performing orchestras, and it just sounds glorious, sensuous, and bloody loud. Really, I don't know what this 'expert' is trying to prove, but my advise would be to let him just listen to his 'harsh' orchestra (which may not be saying much about the players!) as he pleases, and not tell you how YOUR music should sound.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited September 16, 2002).]

This musician would probably agree with you that a well recorded symphony is glorious, sensuous and bloody loud. But he says DPL II modifies the sound. Perhaps to me, the modifications make it sound better. But to him, it sounds like parts of the symphony's overtones are removed.

If I have a good stereo recording that represents how an orchestra sounds, and if DPL II sounds sweeter, more pleasing to my ears, I wonder if maybe DPL II is changing the reality of the experience, by deliberately eliminating certain overtones in the sound, in particular, some of the harshness. If that's one thing DPL II does, it would make the sound more euphonic, sweeter, nicer, more pleasing, subtly less disconsonant, subtly less harsh.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited September 16, 2002).]

soundhound, Thank you for saving me the trouble.

Best,
Sanjay

Will, Are you hearing this yourself? A matrix decoder is, naturally, going to make the recording sound different than listening with a 2-speaker-only playback. Heck, even just using extra speakers (without any additional processing) will change how it sounds. Obviously you are enjoying some of the changes that PL II brings to a recording but, amongst the changes that you are personally hearing, can YOU actually hear overtones being removed? Or, are you going by his observations? But in my experience, those aren't the changes that PL II brings to a recording. When I play harsh sounding CD via PL II, I hear a harsh sounding recording in surround sound. When I play a smooth sounding CD in PL II, I get a smooth sounding surround presentation. I do notice changes, even slight tonal ones, that PL II can sometimes effect; but I've never heard PL II remove harshness or add sweetness to a recording. YMMV.

Best,
Sanjay

Well ok. But have you ever heard DPL II remove some overtones, and in so doing, make the sound more pleasing?

I'm going by his observations. I do need to experiment with it some more.

I may be misrepresenting what he's saying but he's not a crackpot. He is opinionated however.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited September 16, 2002).]

If I have a good stereo recording that represents how an orchestra sounds, and if DPL II sounds sweeter, more pleasing to my ears).][/B][/QUOTE]

This is really a different issue than I was talking about, but I have listened to all types of music through DPL (NOT DPL II) , on my Fosgate Model III. It worked very well for me on all music but classical. It didn't remove anything really, but I had to turn off the center speaker and let the main left and right play unaltered because the servo steering to the center speaker played havoc with the imaging. The surround on my Fosgate DID have some pitch shifting thing going on to 'stereoize' the mono surround channel. It did sound pretty bad, especially for something like piano. Most other types of music played OK and I didn't notice the pitch shifting. I have not heard DPL II yet, and my unit is on it's way, so I get to see how it does soon. But anyway, if it sounds good to you, that is what counts no matter what anybody else likes!!

________________________________________
[/QUOTE]
I may be misrepresenting what he's saying but he's not a crackpot. He is opinionated however.
_________________________________________

will: long live "opinionated". it motivates others to respond and through the responses, we all learn new info and more about our own opinions.

soundhound and sanjay: having been a musician since '66 and a member of afm since '72, i certainly generally agree with you on the quip about us. i would like to repeat the word 'generally' though as there have been some great producers who are musicians (bass players included).

boblinds: thanx for the heads up on mr. fosgate. i looked up some bio info that i was unaware of... very interesting.

"Us" would have to include me too, as I am a university trained musician (composition and piano). I was an "audiophile" for about 15 years before going heavily into music though, so maybe that helps me to see both sides of the fence. But in any event, a musician's ear training is NOT in sound quality. It is in things like hearing harmonic relationships, pitch, remembering a melodic like and being able to write it down. Things having to do with MUSIC. Sound reproduction is something totally different. Also consider that performing musicians hear music from the perspective of inside the orchestra or band all the time, and not necessairly from a concert hall perspective as much. That skews the sound that they are used to, and their expectations of how a recording should sound.

soundhound,

You're quite correct about the musician's perspective being in the ensemble rather than in front of it. The other part of that is that the musician is performing at the same time he/she is listening. Personally, I'd love to hear my band live but it'll never happen. Someone else would be playing bass so it wouldn't be my band anymore.

I imagine being seated near the front of the symphony lets violinists hear much of the symphony, but from a perspective not quite as grand as from the conductor's grand stand.

I guess the conductor hears it all, from close up and in front. And it must be a similar experience for those first violinists who sometimes conduct.

I can see where playing could be a distraction from listening to the music and comparing how it sounds live to how it sounds in a recording. But maybe a musician could compare live versus recorded in passages when he/she isn't playing, since there are probably passages in the music where the musician doesn't actually play.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited September 16, 2002).]

Will, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Can you give me an example of a particular recording or CD, and what specific overtones I'm supposed to hear missing when I switch to PL II. That would really help.

Most of the differences I've heard could be better described as a change in balance: e.g., switching back & forth between stereo playback and PL II processing, I hear more bass with stereo. But, as I explained earlier, this has more to do with a change in the number of midrange/treble transducers being used. I also hear a little more vocal clarity and better soundstaging with PL II.

Also keep in mind that many subtleties are going to be swamped out by the fact that you are going from 2 speakers to 7 speakers. That's a huge change, and one that will likely make it difficult to pick out subtle tonal differences.

Besides, who cares what I hear. The point I've been trying to make in this thread is to get you to accept (and trust) what YOU are hearing.

Best,
Sanjay

I am a conductor -- well, used to be -- conducting opera, symphony and some touring musical theater. Then I was a classical music critic for 10 years and heard more live concerts than most people would hear in two lifetimes.

The conductor's vantage point also gives a skewed impression of the sound produced (though not so much as orchestra members, INCLUDING first violinists. I was one....) Part of the skill of being a conductor is learning how to balance an orchestra and get the right sound for "the house."

I also hear some timbral shift in DPL2 that I don't hear to the same degree in DTS Neo:6. But face it, all recorded music is an illusion, so these didactic arguments about "realism" are more heat than light.

I think everyone should just accept the "lie" they like best and stick with it. For my part, I go back and forth from Bypass, to DPL2 to Neo:6 depending on how I feel that day with that source material.

[This message has been edited by bobliinds (edited September 16, 2002).]

...wow.

such a talented assembly in this thread. i don't remember reading a more interesting flow of thoughts in a long, long while.

i must say.......thanx

Hi Boss o Bass,

I wholeheartedly agree!

Hi Sanjay,

Well, he listened mostly to the first few tracks of the London Digital recording of Pictures at an Exhibition by Mussorgsky, played by the Chicago Symphony (Solti). He had me raise the volume quite loud. As to what specific overtones he found missing, I don't know. I have to experiment with this myself to see if I can understand better the difference. However there is a difference. I can say that loud stereo sounds different than loud PL II, to me.

Sanjay, I wonder if the clarity you hear in PL II over stereo is because PL II may be removing certain overtones.

Hi bobblinds,

Me too, except I use stereo not Bypass since I keep my mains as small. With bypass with mains on small, there is double bass. And since DPL2 and Neo:6 are digital, I figure might as well use digital in stereo too.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited September 17, 2002).]

Actually, I hear LESS clarity overall with processed sound (PL II or Logic 7), compared to bypass. In fact, this goes for most signal processing, audio or video. For example: even the top of the line Faroudja video scalers still soften the image slightly compared to how the video signal looks with the processing bypassed. However, since all A/V is a compromise of one sort or another, you have to decide if the processing is worth the slight (and I mean very slight) loss of resolution.

In the case of Faroudja line doublers, I'd gladly sacrifice the last little bit of clarity to get a smooth image with no scan lines. Same with matrix decoding for 2-channel audio sources; any slight loss of resolution is more than compensated for by the added immersion that PL II brings to the presentation. In both cases, the audio and video described above, the processing is worth it because it me feel more emotionally involved in the source material.

And isn't that the point of this whole hobby?

So anyway, let me explain what I meant by my statement (quoted above). I listen mostly to rock/pop music. The "vocal clarity" I was referring to is in some part probably due to the fact that the voices come from only one speaker, thereby reducing any comb filtering problems that might occur with mono information (vocals/dialogue) playing over 2 speakers. I've done a lot of switching back & forth between Bypass (2-speaker playback) and Process (7-speaker playback), and have consistenly preferred the way voices sound with the processing turned ON. The surround speakers may also be contributing to the almost-palpable quality I hear in the voices. They sometimes sound like they're physically coming "into" the room.

Same with the "better soundstaging" I mentioned. With bypass, the soundstage seems to extend out past my speaker, though not by a whole lot. And, if I move around in the listening area, the central portion of the soundstage kinda "travels" along with me. I guess that's unavoidable when you're relying on so much on phantom imaging. However, with Processing engaged, the imaging is rock solid and stable; I can slide all over my couch and any sounds I hear seem to stay where I left them. As for soundstage size: wow, where do I begin. This is where I really appreciate what surround processing do for music. The soundstage not only extends way, way out past my speakers; but there's also tremendous front to back imaging. And I don't mean gimicky fly-overs. I mean I've heard sounds image a few inches in front of my face as well as being fooled into thinking that sounds were coming from way behind my centre speaker. I hear some of this with high quality 2-speaker playback, but never to this extent.

Best,
Sanjay

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.