DTS Neo 6 vs. Dolby Pro Logic II (CONSOLIDATED THREAD) (1 Viewer)

[Evan M.]

Lewis, Lewis, Lewis...there you go again with the insults. I can go nuts copying and pasting things and putting them out of context but I will be stooping to a level that I would rather not go to. Deficient is not my word it is a word. I suggest you find the meaning of it. I never insulted DSP processing. Or the people who use it. I simply said that there may be a defficiency in their speakers which may not lend to a good stereo experience. Is that really that bad. Only one other person reacted to it. I further explained it and have not heard anything else by him. You on the other hand attacked me. I use DSP very often. In fact I just finished watching a movie useing one. Agiain you are assuming what I am talking about and insulting me without trying to ask me questions on why I feel that way. I write a "novel" to respond to your statements because that is how I can best do it without taking things out of context but you again insult me. You again insult me by calling what I prefer as being "plane Jane stereo". Why do you do this and then tell me you like "a good intellectual debate". You then end it by saying "welcome to the ignore list".....very nice. I am sorry it had to turn out this way. I was actually enjoying the banter until I started getting insulted. At any rate, (I like to end on a positive if you do not mind) take care and enjoy your system, it seems like a nice one from what you have posted in you sig.

To any moderator reviewing this:
I am sorry this thread turned out this way. If you could please close the thread I think that may be the best bet. All educational value got thrown out the window a long time ago unfortunately.

 

[douglas-b]

I've been messing with PLII and Neo:6 since I bought this reciever. The only time I was impressed was the other night I put my Tombstone dvd in...older version that was recorded in Pro Logic....PLII kicked in and it was like listening to 5.1 It however does not have that affect on a stereo signal while listening to my satellite signal that is broadcast in stereo. It sounds "boring" and muffled. I just listen to it in stereo.

 

[BrianAe]

I also have gone back to listening to stereo for TV viewing. After much experimenting I have discovered that source is a big factor in how good PLII and NEO6 are. For TV shows on DVD, I usually go with PLII.

 

[Roger Dressler]

Evan wrote:

Roger, if stereo is obsolete then why is it still recorded that way? I know this was not your words but those of David Greisinger but I assume you agree with him.

Yes, I do.

Stereo is used because it is ubiquitous, economical, efficient, well understood, popular, and well ingrained. That doesn’t mean it is ideal, or that it wasn’t an understood compromise even when it was invented. It was hard to deliver more than one channel of sound with good fidelity for decades, and even harder to deliver two, but eventually LPs, FM stereo, cassette tape and finally CD did so. But the benefits of a center speaker have been demonstrated over the decades, first in the 1930’s. Now that digital media are unbounded by the physical constraints that locked previous formats to 2-ch sound, surround sound can finally take hold.

Having said that, one of the key attributes of stereo is that it can deliver spatial information by means of the gain/phase relationships of the two channels that impart the sense of space you are appropriately recognizing in 2-speaker playback. What is able to be done with a surround decoder is to map that same spatial information over additional speakers. Surround decoders do not act in an arbitrary way—rather, they are preordained to behave in a programmed way by their algorithms. Yes, their behavior is based on the aesthetic choices of their designer, and you can see some similarities and even more differences among the various surround decoders now available. Some also offer adjustments so you can tailor the result to your liking.

One of the adjustments they all have is the on/off switch, and I take no issue with anyone who prefers to hear stereo material on 2 speakers. I was like that for many years myself, and as I sometimes encountered a surround mode that “hooked” me for a while, I eventually tired of the effect—usually a period of several months for the shine to diminish in the better cases—and back to the purity of stereo. But I have been listening to PLII for almost 4 years now, and have yet to hear a surround decoder that is more faithful to the source in terms of spectral balance, and maintains the relative proportions of the original elements of the mix (instruments, vocals, reverb), and thus is able to reflect the essence of the music rather than impart “an effect” on top of it. It was these qualities which originally attracted Dolby to Jim Fosgate’s designs.

I am admittedly biased on PLII as you realize, so I will now conclude these remarks by saying that most mixing engineers I’ve discussed it with have told me that they mix in stereo because that is the medium of commerce—it pays the bills. They prefer to mix in surround (discrete) because it makes it much easier to convey music in a palpable and involving way, and to reveal inner details that are plain buried in a stereo mix. Now that we can hear the differences between the stereo version and the 5.1 version, particularly of those re-mixes done with participation of the original artist, we can see that what we heard in stereo was not the penultimate expression of what they “intended.”

 

[Evan M.]

Roger, to sum up your post with one word .....Excellent!! Thank you for taking the time to write what I thought to be one of the best posts on this forum. It was educational and very eloquent. I appreciate the fact you took the time to read my posts, saw where I was coming from, and replied in a very constructive and well thought out manner. Although I can not deny the fact that I greatly prefer stereo I will approach DPLII, for music, with more of an open mind than I may have before. I did give it a lot of time originaly but maybe like you I got tired of the effect. I will have to dub around with it some more as I purchased some good c.d.'s that could benefit from it. Again thank you to contributing to this thread that seemed to get flushed down the toilet awhile ago . Maybe the moderators should not close it after all.......

 

[Rick_Brown]

Thanks, Roger and Evan for getting back to the point.

Evan, as I said to you earlier, I listen to all of my stereo music in PL-II. I have noticed that much of the time I'm not even aware that the surrounds are "on". Often I have to actually walk over to a speaker to be sure that they are working. However, if I turn the rears off the sound immediately collapses forward.

If you decide to experiment more with PL-II, I'd suggest making sure that you don't turn the surrounds up to high - the fronts should still dominate, in my opinion.

 

[cabreau]

I bet Evan M. and Lewis both feel like Adam Sandler on the airliner in "Anger Management". LOL.
If I had the nice Boston Acoustic fronts that Evan M. has, I'd listen to all my music in stereo. But he's right about the music sounding better DSP when the fronts cannot produce the full range of sound (like my Studio 20's compared to a set of Studio 60's or 100's). But since I only have Studio 20's and not Studio 100's, I listen to all my music in PLII-Music. I've tested it against the Neo6-Music, Logic7-Music, Stereo and 7-channel stereo and I find the DPII-Music to sound better for some reason. Preference maybe?
Anyway, tougher than the choice of DSP or no DSP was trying to figure out the damn PHASE ALIGNMENT on my sub. There's nothing about it in the manual.
For T.V., definitely Logic 7-Cinema, hands down.
Silly me, I always thought that DTS was made by Dolby. Can someone explain the difference?

 

[Evan M.]

cabreau, thanks for the support LOL.
Rick, "thanks for getting back to the point" LOL - yeah sorry bout' that. I guess I got a little "side-tracked .
I will try to listen to dplII a little more tonight with music. I do use it often with t.v. like I said but for some reason it just never quite did it for me with musice. I will also check to see my rear surround level as I often will dub around with that with different sources. I guess the thing that I do not like about dplII is that it puts it in 5.1 in a way that the center dominates much of the music because I lsten to music that tends to feature vocals and the instruments seem to get relegated to the other speakers. I know this is what is supposed to happen but it just sounds fake to me. If I go to a jazz show the trmpet player is never standing behind me yet often dplII will often put things in bizzarre places. Maybe this makes sence maybe it doesn't but I am trying to best explain what my ears are telling my brain......not always easy . Thank you for sticking along with the thread and offering advice.

 

[gene c]

Cabreau, DTS stands for "Digital Theater Systems" and is a direct competetor of Dolby Labs. And Evan. Sometimes when I listen to music in DPII (or DTS, sorry Roger!) I turn off the center channel. This eliminates the vocal centralization problem I think you were referring to. Gene

 

[Roger Dressler]

Evan,

Thanks for the kind words. Bottom line--this is all about fun. If that ceases to be the case, we are doing something wrong.

To control the strength of the center speaker in PLII Music mode, adjust the C Width control to taste. You can even turn it all the way off but the center signal will come out L/R instead.

 

[Patrick CF]

Wow! What a thread this has become.

I thank Roger Dressler and Jeremy Anderson for their insightful posts on the first page of this thread.

I have sampled some more of my favourite CD's using stereo, Dolby ProLogic II, and DTS Neo 6. When hearing the same song and switching between the different modes during playback, Neo 6 definitely makes the high notes louder and clearer in the front and surround speakers when compared to ProLogic II and even stereo to a certain degree. However, after using Neo 6 for a longer period of time, I agree with Jeremy that it started to sound harsh and unnatural at times. After giving ProLogic II a longer try, I do find that it provides a very natural sound from all 5 speakers. The highs notes/vocals coming from the front speakers and centre speaker are still slightly softer/muffled when compared to plain stereo mode and Neo 6, but it doesn't bother me anymore.

Funny, when I first started this thread, I was convinced that Neo 6 sounded much clearer (and better) from all the speakers. However, after hearing more CD's on my new receiver, I find Dolby ProLogic II to be quite acceptable and Neo 6 emphasizing the high notes too much. Maybe I'm being brainwashed by the posts here, or maybe this is just the natural progression that people go through in that the initial impression that louder is better is not necessarily the case.

Regarding Roger's suggestions about adjusting some parameters to optimize ProLogicII:
a)I don't have a SPL meter yet. I have calibrated roughly by setting the distance of all the speakers fairly accurately and used my ear to equalize volume levels from all speakers.

b)All my speakers are set to "small" and my receiver's crossover frequency is set to 100Hz.

c) My centre and front speakers are all sitting on top of a hutch, just below a Plasma TV. The surface of the hutch does extend a few inches in front of the speakers. Would this amplify mid bass as you've implied?

Unfortunately, I don't think I can adjust any parameters in my receiver regarding Dolby Prologic. I've read the instructions, and I couldn't find anything regarding that. It's funny, because an old Sony receiver from my parents' place had all these adjustments regarding Phantom mode, Wide mode,phase delays, etc, etc. My current Sony STR-DA1000ES doesn't have any of these adjustments. Is this an oversight by Sony's ES line?

 

[Evan M.]

I played around with DPLII last night quite a bit to see if I could convince myself that I can get used to it with music and here were some of my findings: I tried with a variety of music styles...from live peter Gabriel, to Norah Jones, Sting, Phish, metallica, Classical and choral. First off DPLII is way ahead of neo 6 in my estimation. DPLII was much more detailed and a little more "in your face. I like the way DPLII sounded with the live Peter Gabriel but I had a feeling I would because of the ambient sound that a live event has. I greatly preffered stereo for Norah and Sting. I felt stereo did a better job of playing back the detail in the voices. With DPLII things seemed to get lost in the front soundstage. Almost like it was having touble figuring out where to put the voices so it put them a little in each and then kind of chnged it at diffrent parts of the songs. For Metallica I of cours prefer stereo. You can't screw around with metal....it has to be in your phase and not screwed with . For Phish I was actually pleasently suprised at how good DPLII sounded. I liked it about the same as stereo as it did a remarkable job of separating the music without making it sound fake. For classical music I prefer stereo all the way. I love the way a good classical recording will create an amazing sound stage. DPLII seemed too fake again. Chorus I prefferred DPLII a bit because I felt like I was in the middle of the chorus..... Pretty cool.
All in all I still prefer stereo greatly but after tinkering with DPLII for music I can see what the buzz is about. I still think DPLII is AMAZING for tv and any other vidio source for that matter. Very cool stuff there. So although I still stick by the words I have written before I do again at least have a better understanding of what DPLII can do for music.

 

[Roger Dressler]

Patrick wrote:

Unfortunately, I don't think I can adjust any parameters in my receiver regarding Dolby Prologic. I've read the instructions, and I couldn't find anything regarding that. It's funny, because an old Sony receiver from my parents' place had all these adjustments regarding Phantom mode, Wide mode,phase delays, etc, etc.

Pro Logic normally has no user adjustments, but before the standardization of speaker setup menus and bass management, PL offered Normal, Wide, and Phantom settings for the C speaker. All of this has been replaced by the speaker setup menu. So it's essentially still there, but somewhere else.

 

[Rick_Brown]

Wow, Evan, you certainly have an open mind. I commend you for doing these kinds of listening tests rather than just sticking to one viewpoint.

You know, I've been listening in surround now for more than 25 years as I was an early adopter of quadraphonic. My brain is now so hard-wired for surround that I'm not even sure if I can stand to listen in stereo only but I'm going to try and give it a go this weekend.

 

[Evan M.]

Thank-you for the compliment Rick. I try to be open to new things when it comes to HT, however I tend to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to music. I guess being a musician and being related and having many friends in the music field may have done that to me. We like to keep things simple, as accurate music reproduction is the key. Not that DPLII or other DSP can't be accurate it just gives me too much to comprehend . At any rate, I have enjoyed this thread (beleive it or not ) as it has taught me several things.

 

[JimmyK]

My preference of using stereo or some DSP mode is highly dependant on the material being played. Generally speaking, I find that music that is highly processed to begin with, such as pop, often benefits from using a DSP mode such as DPLII (I prefer DPLII, center channel off, over DTS Neo6). However, I generally prefer stereo for jazz, acoustic, or classical. Then there are recordings that I listen to both ways depending on my mood at the time.
Of course there are exceptions. But generally speaking, the better the original recording is to begin with, the less likely I'm inclined to use DSP modes.
As far claims that stereo can only produce a "front" soundstage, I've heard some excellent recordings (mainly classical) that give a very convincing illusion of "being there". But then again, I've heard some terrible recordings that stereo or DSP couldn't help.
Bottom line, don't be afraid to experiment and make your own decision on what you prefer. After all, it's you that's listening to your system, not the rest of us posting our opinions on the HTF.
JimmyK

 

[Jeff W.]

I've also done a bit more experimentation with PLII vs Neo. I found that PLII was "crisper" - maintained the highs better in the surrounds. Neo sounded a lot softer / more diffused - then again it was using the 6th back-surround channel, and that speaker in my setup is in less than the ideal placement. I played around with the center width too, but found I liked the default (3) about the best. I couldn't hear any difference at all with "Panorama" on or off, curious.

All in all I think PLII and Neo have their uses. With some music, they sound OK. With other music, particularly those with strong vocals, they just added a time-delayed "echo-y" sound that I didn't like. On my setup .. YMMV of course.

 

[cabreau]

I'm not familiar with center width. But then again, I haven't really played around with my speaker settings when the receiver is set to Logic7 music, Dolby PLII Music, etc. Do you get different options when you are in Music vs. Cinema modes?

 

[Jason Brent]

I usually listen in a DSP mode. But on certain recordings, I do enjoy 2 channel. I think I would enjoy it more if I had better equipment/and or room.

That said, in my new room, speaker placement is NOT ideal, and there is a very wide seating arrangement. Playing music in a DSP mode is a must. Having the center channel greatly helps in front soundstage. Otherwise when you're sitting just a little off center, the whole thing collapses to that side.

I usually like the L7 music mode on my HK 525. But with the HK, I cannot set the center to large. My sub is temporarily not in the system now (another story), so I have everything set to large. This greatly helps out.

I too have noticed an exageration in the bass with DPLII, which is welcome in my present situation.

 

[Lewis Besze]

I bet Evan M. and Lewis both feel like Adam Sandler on the airliner in "Anger Management". LOL.

Yeah, the thought crossed my mind.