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