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).]