Jeff, you've got to remember to turn those surround amps ON. I keep reminding you but you always forget!

Sanj

(turns on surround amp)

Well, whatdya know? It turns out that the surrounds are supposed to be louder than the mains.

Never mind.

Jeff

Jeff wouldn't have this problem if he used TUBES

No, I'd have a whole bunch of other problems instead.

Jeff

But you'd have to consider it like a "high maintenance woman" : a lot of trouble, but worth it!!!!

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited July 26, 2003).]

Well I have owned tube equipment as well as solid state equipment for over 35 years in this hobby, and I have been fortunate and blessed enough that both were reliable so cost did not eat me up as much as the few "high maintenance women" (to be known as HMW in the rest of this post) that I had. Now I never had high cost audio equipment at the same time as I had HMW, I wonder if there is a connection. Since I traded in my last "HMW" for a more reliable conventional model woman (CMW) over 30 years ago I came closer to my audio goals for a brief period of time until the one of the accesories that the CMW came equiped began working after lying dormant for years.This was to have the greatest impact on my audio life style. It seem the CMW came equiped with a clock of some sort (labeled in future BC.) This clock went off and never shut up as CMW approached 30 and thus resulted in 2 female "high maintenance children" (HMC). The cost of HMC started immediately and continued to effect the audio expenditures at crucial times, with cheerleading, softball, volleyball, proms, cars, colleges, weddings and many others. All of these had a major impact on audio expenditures eliminating all gains I had saved on the HMW trade in. As I neared retirement and thoughts of the great Home Theaters and wonderful new tube gear I could now afford were floating through my head when another fly in the ointment occured. It seems that my HMC inherited the BC from their mother and we were blessed with 4 high maintenance grand children (here after known as HMGC). Now the HMGC are not a total expenditure but as they spend as much if not more time here as home it did have a impact. Cost for the HMGC by the CMW is way out of line with the cost for new audio gear and I can only assume this will get worse as at least 2 of the HMGC will have BCs. At least this time around I did get a few boys so I can start the training and love for audio all over again.

I have a similar issue with DLPII. Many of my TV stations have no surround content yet others have nice content. I thought it was the way my cable company was transmitting the audio portion even though all stations I get are in stereo. Is there a difference in stereo "quality" from cable TV that would have some with surround content and some not when using DLPII?

Absolutely! Many TV stations, cable or not, are broadcasting a mono signal. This is bad news for the PL II and Neo:6 modes on your 950. Like any matrix decoder, they work by analyzing a stereo signal, sending common (L+R) info to the centre channel and steering the difference (L-R) signal amongst the surrounds. A mono signal will all bunch up around the centre speaker. Is this what you're hearing when you find a station with "no surround content"?

Best,
Sanjay

Exactly, all the sound is "bunching" in the center. The thing that confuses me is that my TV says the signal is stereo. Can the TV be tricked by thinking a signal is stereo but it is really mono? All my major network channels do not sound good in DLPII.

I was considering satellite but the delayed channel lock issue I have read about bothers me.