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

[ChrisLazarko]

I find DPLII too muffle the sound too much for my taste, and while Neo6 wasn't bad i'm happy that with my reciever I have the option of Logic7, which I use for everything. I find Logic7 to do a much better job at taking a stereo track and making it into a 5.1 track.

I also found the DPLII used the rears just a bit too much in some cases where it shouldn't, Neo6 a little less on the same material, while Logic7 seemed to do the best job in my opinion.

I listened to all of this with my Harman/Kardon AVR-225 and AVR-230 at my house.

 

[John S]

I did some testing yesterday as well....

I like my redbook stereo CD's in stereo best, no if's and's and but's about it. Not that I thought either DPLII or DTS sounded muffled at all. It was just altered from what the recording engineer internded was all.

 

[Evan M.]

I agree with what John said completely. Stereo is what is was recorded in, why change it? I may dig myself in a hole with my next comment but here goes.....I think that if people prefer surround modes over stereo (unless SACD) then what people are hearing is a defficiency in their speakers and not an actual preference. (this is for cd listening only by the way). Your mains are supposed to create a soundstage where you can sit in your listening area and almost be able to imagine where the musicians are located on stage in front of you. DPLII, Neo and logic 7 process it and puts it where the chip tells it to. They do a good job of this but it sounds fake to me after hearing it for a few minutes. To liken it to food.....give me real chicken then the processed stuff any day!! Agin this is only my opinion, I cannot back it up with mathematical equations so don't blast me:b .

 

[Rick_Brown]

I think that if people prefer surround modes over stereo (unless SACD) then what people are hearing is a defficiency in their speakers and not an actual preference.

Well, Evan, that sentence surely passes as an opinion that can't be backed by mathematical research!

I listen to mainly pop and rock music. The idea that there is any kind of a coherent soundstage on a CD that has been mixed from 16, 24 or more monophonic tracks panned across the soundstage by whim is a non-starter.

I have very fine speakers, thank you very much, but I still "prefer" surround - PL-II is my preference for stereo music.

 

[Evan M.]

Yeah I had a feeling that was going to ruffle a few feathers . You bring up a good point in how types of music will effect everything too. I think pop music is a bad example of creating a soundstage with 2 speakers as it is mainly synthesized tracks and "special effects" which will benefit from surround modes. I will have to disagree with you on the rock music front (we listen to rock, jazz, funk, metal and classical) because if it is a well done and recent (digital) recording then a soundstage with 2 speakers is easily created. If it is an older and not well done recording then much of the deffieciencies will be with the recording and not with the speaker or amp. Again you have a preference and I too have one. By my "speaker" comment I was only stating an unproven theory that I have of why I may feel 2 channel is superior. It is one that I do beleive to be true as I have heard some spectacular equipment which put me "there". Surround modes just do not convince me enough. They are great for t.v. however.

 

[John S]

Rick Brown:
Well, it was the engineer's whim, so stereo or even all channel stereo will recreate his whim more accurately is all.

If music was recorded in DPLII (Which may actually happen as Dolby finally released the software as a valid format for recording studios to use), I would want to listen to it in that format for sure, or DTS, or DD 5.1, or whatever it really was mixed in by the engineer's whim.

On the other hand you are 100% correct, you have sound modes, and I say use them, that is why they added them on the processor you have for sure.

Can you give me some titles that you really feel are shown off by DPLII music? I'm game to give this more evaluation for sure. Like maybe your top 3 titles you feel benefit the most by DPLII Music?

 

[Steve Winkler]

Don't know if you like Santana at all, but I really enjoy listening to his Shaman album in Pro LogicII Music.

Cheers,

Steve

 

[Roger Dressler]

Jeremy, that was a very insightful post. I think you understand PLII's intent very well. I also agree that some adjustment of the C delay can bring some benefits particularly for Music mode which shares vocals across L/C/R (depending on the setting of C Width). I found that adding 2 ms delay is often quite useful in opening up the center quality. (To do this in typical decoders, you tell the speaker setup that the C speaker is 2 feet closer than it actually is--the decoder adds 2 ms delay to compensate.)

John S wrote: >>If music was recorded in DPLII (Which may actually happen as Dolby finally released the software as a valid format for recording studios to use)>Can you give me some titles that you really feel are shown off by DPLII music?>Stereo is what is was recorded in, why change it?

 

[Jeff W.]

Of course it's going to depend on your equipment, and your listening room, and most of all, personal preference.
I have large 20-20khz tower speakers for my front L/R, so native stereo mode music sounds very good. My receiver also has 192khz DACs for the front L/R whereas all the other channels have only 96Khz DACs, so that's going to affect the sound.
For music, 2-ch pure stereo sounds best, especially if I'm sitting in the sweet spot listening in the dark (the way music should be heard However I do often use "all-channel" stereo mode, if I'm sitting at my desk in the adjacent room, or walking around, or when I have company over, as it fills the larger space a little better.
Personally the "fake" surround processing modes sound just like that, fake and processed. The only reason I use them at all is for watching TV, and then I use the "movie/cinema" modes simply because it places dialog squarely in the center channel, where it belongs. Also many TV shows and sporting events are processed for surround and they do sound pretty good (Monday Night Football and ESPN football in particular).

 

[Lewis Besze]

Your mains are supposed to create a soundstage where you can sit in your listening area and almost be able to imagine where the musicians are located on stage in front of you.

Did you forgett something? Why don't you set your mains up in the back yard, see what kinda soundstage you get.
The room is very important to stereo much more so then for surround,as all spatial info that recorded onto[ mixed I should say]those two channels,will rely on the room speaker relation, to be conveyed to the listener. However since it's still coming from only the front speakers, it's effets will be limited compared to even DSP,[ let alone MC] where it can be emitted from the "right" speaker.

 

[Evan M.]

Lewis, do not take this the wrong way but what on earth are you talking about? I think it is common sence by those of us in this forum that room environment is important to sound but nothing you said will convince me that your frontspeakers are not supposed to create a soundstage. As a previous poster said, in two channel if you are sitting in the "sweet spot" the sound is wonderful and a soundstage is created. I am sure you also realize that a sweetspot is also very essential to proper home theater calibration since everything will be adjusted to your listening positions. As a musician and someone who knows and is related to several musicians I cannot remember a time when during a show, speakers were set up behind me and beside me. They are always set up in fron of you to the left and to the right. And like stereo and HT the best place to sit is always dead center and a bunch of yards (or feet for HT)away so to get the fullest sound from the SOUNDSTAGE.
I apologize for not mentioning in my original post that room set up and its' importance but I just assumed that people would take that as common sence. My bad on that one.
If you get a chance please post back and mention why you think my "speaker difficiency" comment is "nonsence". So far everyone has just said they have good speakers and that it is nonsence but nobody has tried to convince me I am wrong. I want to be wrong, beleive me, this way I can stop upgrading my damn equipment and my wife won't hit me .

 

[Evan M.]

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 know we have SACD now but lets be realistic, it hasn't exactly taken off as people thought it would. So for now lets still talk about "normal" digital recorded c.d.'s. I am not trying to be a pest, I am still just waiting to hear a good argument as to why stereo, if set up well, is not as good as processed surround modes. You also use a lot of pop music as examples of dplII shining. I do not think that is a good example of my theory of a soundstage as most of the sound you are hearing is fake or sythesized to begin with. I am sure they are great in dplII for that reason. Led Zeppelin? Gotta disagree with you on that one unless you are referring to the live album then I can see it. But as a huge Zephead I think it is sacriligious to listen to Zeppelin in anything but stereo. Jimmy Page, a master of sound, has remastered older Zppelein stuff to shine in stereo. I trust what he does to his own music over what any inventer of surround modes does.

 

[Shiu]

Evan, why apologize? Of course two speakers can create a sound stage.

 

[Evan M.]

LOL, thanks for the support Shiu, I was just apologizing for not mentionin before that room environment is essential to music listening.

 

[Shiu]

Don't you think sometimes people forget that we only have two ears! LOL

 

[Lewis Besze]

As a musician and someone who knows and is related to several musicians I cannot remember a time when during a show, speakers were set up behind me and beside me.

There are many larger venue's that uses true surround sound, the Pink Floyd Show I saw in Oakland was in surround,and that was in 1993! DTS also "sponsored" Yes's tour in '98 I believe.
When there is a live show however[non amplified]the accoustics of the venue becomes more important. If this performance was captured[recorded] and played back on 2 ch only, all the spatial information which originally was "all around you" now eminates from the front 2 speakers only,which is a comprimse of the format[stereo] regardless how good your speakers are.Surround sound can reproduce live events much more realistically.Some DSP's are good however only true MC surround can do the job right IMO.
So before you "thrash" other people's speakers first you might wanna reckognize the fact that "Stereo" was a compromise from day 1, and it's time to move on to next "phase".

 

[Evan M.]

Lewis, in the "tone" of your comments it sounds as if you are trying to challenge the fact that I am simply saying your front speakers, if up to the task, should be able to create a soundstage. If you re-read my posts I think it is obvious that is all I am saying. You start telling me to put my speakers outside and see what kind of soundstage I get. You then tell me that live music is best if put in a surround format. If you read all of my posts again (not just the ones to you) you would have seen I agree with this. I bring up the live venue thing to only show people that at MOST shows it is in stereo. Of course there will be exceptions but not all bands have the money of a Floyd and Yes.
You then tell me that I "thrashed" other peoples speakers. When did I do this?!? Do not make me out to be a person trying to start a flame war please and I would hope that in the future you will not misquote me or others because that is a big no-no on this forum. I said people maybe hear deficiencies in their speakers and not actually having a preference. All speakers are deficient to a point. That is why speakers keep getting made and are getting very expensive. Companies are in constant search for their version of the "perfect sound". This is why upgrading is soooo much fun. There probably will never be the perfect speaker. Everyones speakers will be defficient at something. All I was saying was that maybe if they had different, not better, speakers that that may make them appreciate stereo more. My speakers do not sound great with classical but they sound great for jazz and rock. So they would be deficient in that area. Does that ruin my self esteem? NO. Just like I am sure if peoples speakers arent up to task for stereo repruduction does not ruin their self-esteem. They prefer surround as you do so continue to enjoy it because that is what you prefer. I do not prefer classical so much as my wife does so it does not hurt my feelings any.
Now please explain to me why stereo is a compromise. You only bring up live albums which I agree with you. I and many others do not like live music on c.d. (Iwould rather be there ) So if in the studio, they are recording it for stereo and thus making a compromise? And then us listening to it in its original form is also making a compromise? I do not get this one. And what is the "next phase"? How many next phases will there be untill they "perfect" it? There was pro-logic, neo 6, DPLII, circle surround, logic 7,etc...If these are the next phase I will have to wait I guess as I do not want to play a guessing game on which format the recording will sound best in when I know it will sound good in stereo. Yes I do experiment but although these formats are good they are not perfect. And by perfect I mean they are not used in creating the music originaly. They are effects to change the way the music was meant to be heard.
Whew.......that was a lot to say . Agian Lewis, I have nothing at all against you. I am just trying to understand your stance. As I said earlier I want ot be wrong but so far nothing is showing me that I am.

 

[Lewis Besze]

As I said earlier I want ot be wrong but so far nothing is showing me that I am.

Your reasoning is quite wrong and it has been shown in my posts.The fact that you prefer stereo isn't wrong or right,it's a choice.

 

[Evan M.]

Lewis, time to take a deep breath. You are turning this into an arguement and not a friendly debate.

"They all do to some degree"

This is the first time you mention that stereo speakers will create a soundstage. At least I am getting through.

I also agree with you that rock concert do a lousy job at sounstaging (most concerts for that fact), I was just bringing up the point that the speakers are ALMOST always in front of you to the left and to the right. Why do I feel like I keep repeating myself.

You then quote the word thrash in your post. I NEVER SAID THRASH. I SAID DEFICIENT. Therefore you did misquote and that IS a NO NO. The reason I said it would ruffle feathers is because nobody like to hear the word deficient when referring to their eqipment. I do not know why you take so much offence to this however. The word Deficient does not mean bad or thrash. It means that it is lacking someting. In this case maybe the speakers are lacking the ability to create a good soundstage. This is not an insult on anyones speakers. I am not backpeddling, I am explaining the meaning of my statement. Agian, please read the words I write and do not assume the meaning.

Yes there is a lot of track laying in a studio. But when it is "mixed" onto a c.d. it is mixed in stereo. Surely you understand that.

Now Lewis, read the title of the thread, in a nutshell it asks which do people prefer, DPLII, neo6, logic7 etc. Why would you even bother joing in this thread if you are only talking sacd? Again re-read my posts. You even quoted me on one I said "I think if people prefer surround modes over stereo (UNLESS SACD)......I clearly agree that sacd is good because it is recorded and mixed in that format. Why do you still assume everything without carefully reading my posts. If you read my posts you will clearly see that I am referring to the dsp formats mentioned. Why else would I post on this thread. You have proven nothing Lewis other then you have not read my posts carefully. You then take parts of my thread which shows them out of context.

I enjoy a good debate but what you are doing is argueing and clearly misinterpreting. You are right, me liking my stereo is a choice. I was explaining why I like stereo. You then basicaly tell me to move on to the next phase. That is pretty insulting. If I have made my choice why would I want to move on? An then why do you insult my choice by saying it is a "compromise" and that I should move on. The meaning of a debate is to persuade. You say my reasoning is wrong and that you proved it is your posts....Where has it been shown in your posts? All I read is a lot of misquoting, assuming and insults. You have proven nothing other than these things. In the future I would hope you would use better debate tactics so it does not turn into an arguement. Again, debates are fine on this forum but argueing is a "no no". Please relax in you posts so this educational thread does not get closed.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Take a deep breath? Isn't that right!
Talk about miss quoting here,you don't even quote me you simply misinterpret anything I say.
It is you who insulting people who happens to like those DSP processing over "plane jane stereo" by claiming that their speakers are "deefficient"[ your word],over their own preference,so don't tell me I miss quoted you,one other picked on this too. Anything I wrote was a direct response on one of your own sentence,which I copied and pasted,so how could I misquote you? Unlike you who writes a novel instead, about how you feel about my posts.I also like good intelectual debate,but you simply not offering anything to debate about.
Welcome to the "ignore list".