Gentlemen,

Curious if any publications or anyone over on SMR has a comparison between Logic 7 and PLIIx? It appears that Logic 7 has near limitless tweakability, whereas PLIIx has its limits.

If Logic 7 is not a significant improvement for digital processing, then rival units with PLIIx seem to be a better value than the Lex. My only experience with Logic 7 is at a dealer and in a very high end theater, and the demos were impressive. I have yet to get a real comparison of the two together though.

I haven't seen anything comparing the two over at SMR. That site hasn't updated much in recent years - in fact, the newest article is from January 2003. There may be something floating around their forum, of course.

The 'Secrets' website did a comparison of matrix decoders/processors around the time PLII was introduced. Relevant reading because it compares the version of LOGIC7 being discussed in this thread. (Since that time, L7 has been completely re-written to take advantage of the greater processing power of the SHARC DSP engines on the MC-12/8/4 platform.) You can check out the article here (scroll down a ways). Keep in mind that the author adjusted the PLII processor but left the L7 processor at its default settings. Still worth the read. L7's extensive tweakability is handy but I don't think it's something that the casual user will get into. Plus, the adjustments are not really needed for 2-channel movies, where all you want is clean extraction of centre and surround information.

The adjustments are useful primarily for music playback, but only for users who listen to 2-channel music via surround processing. Music production isn't standardized the way movies are, so it's handy to give users some control of the surround processing. While not as tweakable as L7, PLII/IIx has the important adjustments properly covered: the user decides how much centre content and surround content is extracted. What more do you need? What constitutes a "significant improvement" will vary from person to person, since it is purely subjective. One person's idea of 'night and day difference' is another person's subtle change. Plus, some will view the difference as an improvement while others will not. And then there's personal taste: is chocolate a significant improvement over plain vanilla?

Both processes are functionally similar. For Lexicon owners, it wasn't a question of "value" since there was no choice: i.e., this functionality wasn't available elsewhere. Lex processors allowed users to convert 2-channel and 5.1-channel material to 7 outputs for eight years before PLIIx came along with the same capabilities. A good place to compare them would be on one of the newer H/K receivers (AVR-435/635). As someone who has lived with PLII and L7 for the last 4 years, I make regular use of both (really waiting for the promised PLIIx upgrade). There are some audible differences I've noticed over the years. PLII is more stable than L7, so its decoding is less prone to being tripped up. This is really useful with TV/cable audio, which can have all sorts of anomalies. L7's decoding is more agressive then PLII, so the results sound more exciting. This is most noticeable to me when listening to music; switching back to PLII is always a bit of a letdown. So I use PLII for 2-channel movie/TV playback and L7 for music listening. (These observations hold for PLIIx since the processing wasn't improved from PLII, just extended to more output channels.)

If you don't use surround processing for music listening, I don't feel there's much need for proprietary processing from companies like Meridian and Lexicon. PLIIx delivers everything you'd need to process 2-channel and 5.1-channel material. To get a different flavor of surround processing, you'd have to spend significantly more. And there's no guarantee that you'll find the other processing to be better (personal preference again). To that end, I think rivaling units with PLIIx do represent a better value.

I fully agree with Sanjay, saying it is personal preference on deciding which surround processing to be chosen.

Last night I tested the "Super speedway" dvd disc on DTS straight 5.1,DTS Neo:6 and then DTS + PLIIx, at -12dbs.
You know what, my preference priority is exactly the same listed above. Appears to me that DTS straight 5.1 produced the most distingtive sound separation and positioning and the bass was stronger and tighter. DTS Neo:6 came 2nd, as the sound was not as focused and the bass was weaken a bit. The DTS + PLIIx had the weakest bass among these 3 modes.
In my opinion, we would get the best sound quality and bass from the mode that the disc offers. Extra surround processing somehow would degrade the sound quality a bit. NEO:6, L7 and PLIIx are meant for 2-channel source.

Kwok,

Why would switching processing change the amount of bass? I mean, it's not like you changed the bass management between different processing. Right?

Sanjay, I didn't change volume nor any other thing at the configuation manual , but only flipped those surround modes. It appears to me the DTS Neo6 and DTS+PLIIx that change 5.1 to 7.1, do no littel good to SOUND QUALITY other than giving us 2 extra back surround.
My room is not small, but +15 feet wide x +30 feet long. I am using Paradigm studio 100 front, CC450 center, studio 20 as side and atom at the back. I set front L/R to large and others to small with crossover 100 Hz at center and 100 at side and 150 at the back. I still say that applying the surround mode that the source provide would be the best surround mode to choose.

Kwok

Sanjay,

Thanks for the lengthy response. Yours was a very unbiased response. I realize you are well versed and respected in the multi-channel community.

I enjoy multichannel music when it sounds most like 2 channel. By that I mean, you get a fuller ambience but not the feeling music is being reproduced from the sides or behind you. I also like what Mr. Fogg pointed out a while back and I have been experimenting ever since. He noted that utilizing the center chanel speaker improves vocals.

I figured that the ability to tweak Logic 7 would allow you to adjust how "aggressive" the surround speakers performed. Therefore getting past the over aggressive surround of many processed recordings.

Last year I spent averal hours in Dennis Erskine's home theater showroom here in Atlanta. He uses Lexicon equipment. The experience with movies was quite a revelation. Ever since then I have lusted for an MC-12 and multiple subs. He played some music demos which I suppose were good as well, but I was so stupified by the movie demo I really don't remember.

So thanks for helping me get on the right track and getting over my lustful ways....

In North America things usually tend to be priced to exactly what they worth. I will be very, very, very..... surprise if this 990 processor even comes close to the Lexicon MC-1 (taking into account the age of the MC-1) as pretended in this review. Expect the Outlaw 990 to sound exactly like an $1100 processor nothing more.

I asked a rather rhetorical question a week or two ago that may bear repeating here. What does an $1100 processor sound like? Is there a defining metric that we can apply to equate list price to every person's perception of a product's sonic characteristics? Steven Simon's been around the online home theater community for a long while and has used an MC-1 off and on for years now. I happen to trust his opinion. He searched around a fair bit before settling on the MC-1 several years ago, then switched to a Model 950 for a year or so I believe before switching back to the MC-1, and now it appears that he may have found something that can give him the features of a current-generation processor and the sound he has come to expect after using the MC-1. The 990's processing is a couple generations farther along than the MC-1's, which is likely to help for certain cases. The 990 is also an $1100 processor based on the chassis of a $1500 processor with several feature upgrades added. As I've said before, we need to be very careful classifying gear purely by pricetag alone.

I never thought of it like that. You may really be on to something.