Maybe that comparison does not always apply to DPL II? As I recall, Soundhound, when you were here, you said on my particular system, you preferred DPL II to DTS at least for those tracks we compared. Although you preferred straight stereo to either DTS or DPL II, in all cases.

Will

I just got the 'Blue Man Group' DVD-Audio, (wow BTW) and digging around I notice it offers a person the chance to subjectively or objectively (if one has the tools) compare DD, DTS and the 'Master' (although not a digital master) since it has all three onboard.

Just keep in mind that the three versions might not be made from the same source (i.e. are the Dolby and DTS versions made from the analog master directly, or from the 24 bit PCM master). They might have done some subtle tweaking for the different versions in the mastering stage, in level or EQ for example. Note that at least until recently, for the DTS version of movie soundtracks, they used the 35mm 6 track magnetic film print of the soundtrack as their source. Dolby Digital masters are made on the dubbing stage, after the film is mixed, and directly from the mixing console (they actually send a guy with the 'Dolby Box" to the stage and plug him in). Not only does the DTS magnetic film version introduce it's own 'colorations" (Good ones, I'd say), but DTS used it's own proprietary low frequency equalization for it's 35 mm playback machines, boosting the low frequencies somewhat. This can, and does introduce audible differences between versions.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited October 10, 2002).]

Will:

DPL II can vary from DD 5.1 in it's resolution on a DVD.. The DPL could actually be a straight PCM 48k print of the soundtrack on the DVD (they might not have made the film in 5.1 in the first place, for example), which could sound better. There are many, many variables on how they can do it, and unless one has intimate knowledge of how exactly something was done, it is all speculation, and direct comparasons come down to individual preferences.

We listened to many sound segments that were not from a DVD, over a wide gamut of musical tastes, but you preferred DPL II to DTS, at least with all the sound segments we listened to, at least on my particular 950-based home theater.

Don't know if your conclusion with the sound segments you heard here, necessarily applies to other sound segments or to other home theaters.

Just curious - were you comparing PLII on a CD to DTS:NEO6 on a CD, or were you comparing PLII to a DTS CD?

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

Whew - this is getting confusing! We listened only to regular CDs. My preferences were straight stereo, then PL II, then DTS Neo 6, If I remember correctly. The preference for straight stereo is strictly a personal thing with me, especially with classical music since I'm used to having the orchestra arrayed in a particular way, with an interplay between sections happening in a way that is more 'natural' and 'continous" for me. The matrix schemes distort this balance for me; PL II is just a bit better at keeping the intent of the original imaging _for me_. Also, with popular music, especially that mastered and mixed in a ProTools (or something similar) enviornment, there are a lot of plug-ins available now that use psyco-acoustic principles to create 'virtual surround' and 'virtual imaging' where instruments can pop up anywhere around the listener, as determined by the person doing the mix. When listened to in anything other than straight stereo, most of these effects are simply steered to the surround speakers, distorting the intent of the artist and or mixer.

Of course, real surround recordings of acoustic music get around all this and capture the ambience and spaciality of the music as it should be. I just wish they would have either eliminated the .1 LFE channel, or made the LFE stereo. In my experience, having a mono sub screws up the imaging of the other speakers unless positioned and set up just-so. Even then, mono bass can't do justice to low frequency instruments like pipe organ. Oh-Oh.....there's that soapbox again (-:

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited October 10, 2002).]

Really though I thought the theory was to allow 5 full range (bass too!) and a single dedicated LFE, at least for HT stuff. I see no big problem with this as long as the recording engineers don't assume a 5 sat/1 sub system and downmix or limit the '5' for us at mixing time. I always thought of the .1 as a 'boom' channel for HT, and also in systems where any of the '5' are not bass happy it is a possible place to steer that excess baggage, but I would hate to think someone is intentionally limiting the '5' part 'at the source'.

I believe you are right on, charlie. This is/was the intent of Dolby Labs.

Charlie:

I'm not quite sure I follow your drift, but anyway... I think having 5 full range speakers is the way to go for SACD and DVD audio in multichannel, and having a "boom channel" for movies is the way to go, also....but.....It's just that multichannel music discs are such a new medium, and there's no real standards on how to devide up the bass. I think that the .1 LFE is pretty useless for music (personally) and that all the speakers should be full range (the .1 not used for anything). But most people have smaller satellites, and therefore that .1 raises it's ugly head, and the temptation to use it by the mixers of the music discs, forcing their bass management on you. What to put there?? That's the problem. I just think that with a mono subwoofer, there's just no elegant way to do it (I'm talking about music discs only here) that does not mess with the imaging. I myself don't make use of the LFE at all, even in movies (you might know this already from previous threads). I re-direct the LFE and all the bass from the other speakers to the front left and right mains, and the bass is re-directed by an electronic crossover at 60hZ to stereo subs which sit next to their respective left and right main speakers. I guess my point in all this is that I'm approximating full range speakers all round, while keeping stereo bass ambience, and still getting the punch from the LFE track in movies. Geez - I think I'm rambling on again...........

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited October 10, 2002).]