Logic 7 audio is like a Director Cut's Pan & Scan video? (1 Viewer)

[John Morris]

Wow, this is cool! Where did all the Mods come from?
Okay, so let me see if I understand the most common opinion here. It is okay to alter or modify the DVD or movies original format if it enhances the viewers viewing experience, in the viewers opinion. This of course includes any alteration of both audio or video?
Does this sound right?
Oh, and BTW, my recorded copies of Indiana Jones, TOD & ROTLA are in glorious 1080i (converted from 720p)video with DD 5.1 audio and that's how I listen to them.

 

[John Morris]

Original video content"?

Yeah, just like it comes on the DVD... usually 480p with DD or DTS audio soundtracks. What did you think I meant... like it is in the can?

 

[RAF]

Do you prefer discrete 6.1 over discrete 5.1?

Ricky,
I think this really has to do with the quality of the source material. While there aren't that many discrete 6.1 titles out there yet, just about all the ones I've listened to so far are very impressive. However, there are many, many 5.1 discs that I own that also blow me away.
A little of this might be related right now to the "newness" of 6.1 software. I would assume that extra care is being taken to make sure that those DVDs which are produced with 6.1 (DTS or DD) have impressive soundtracks. (Especially since most if not all of these also have 5.1 tracks for easy A/B comparisons).
I remember when SACD was introduced there was a long discussion regarding how much better SACDs were than redbook CDs. Some valid arguments were made that suggested that at least part of the sound improvement might actually be due to the care with which the inital SACD products were made, and some wondered whether this quality level would be maintained as SACD became more mainstream.
As I said previously, I usually prefer to listen to most of my media in the format for which it was intended. However, this evening I found my first exception to this. I have a copy of the musical Oliver on DVD which I was queuing up for this weekend (the grandkids are coming over). This is one title (a Best Picture Oscar) that really needs some reworking both in video (it's non-anamorphic) and sound (the DD 5.1 mix is very, very poor. Obviously it was remixed and the result has all manner of poor imaging). I decided to try out a couple of the alternative processing modes on the 950 and I finally settled in on "PL2 CESC" which is the 950's use of some Cirrus 7.1 matrix magic for Cinema. In A/B'ing this particular soundtrack in straight 5.1 and in the Cirrus Enhanced Surround mode the audio was noticeably clearer and more dimensional with PL2 CESC engaged.
But in the majority of cases so far, I usually like to stick to the original format mode for the best fit with the sound source.

 

[Dan Brecher]

Oh, and BTW, my recorded copies of Indiana Jones, TOD & ROTLA are in glorious 1080i (converted from 720p)video with DD 5.1 audio and that's how I listen to them.

Right...so tell me that didn't enhance your experience you HDTV owning $f!%*^#
Dan

 

[Glen_L]

If I didn't know a movie was originally filmed in widescreen and then was to watch a P/S version of it, I'd likely notice the framing and cropping problems. It really does detract from the presentation of the film.

If I didn't know what audio format a movie was recorded in, and post processing were to make the sound more involving or pleasing to my ears, I wouldn't find that objectionable. If technology can genuinely enhance the movie experience, then I'm all for it.

 

[Philip Hamm]

So DPL1 and DPL2 are not considered DSPs because they are licensed Dolby standards? Well, Dolby made the mistake of not licensing Jim Fosgate's 6axis in the mid 90s, much superior to DPL1, and avoided the mistake recently by licensing Mr. Fosgate's new invention...calling it DPL2.
If Lexicon licensed Logic7 to Dolby, it'd probably be called DPL3...and all of a sudden no londer a DSP?!

I don't have DPL II or anything "7" and haven't really had much interest in learning about it so I'll refrain from commenting on it.
However, DPL I.... Many 2.0 movies (including the majority of my collection since I have so many LDs) are specifically mixed to implement this one industry standard specific processing mode. (as far as I know nothing to date has been mixed specifically for DPL II) So yes, DPL is technically a "DSP Mode", however, it is an industry standard which is intended by the material producers when mixing, so it's OK. I use stereo only for stereo music since DPL steering seems to hurt stereo music.
Very little has been mixed specifically for THX-EX and DTS-ES and even if it was my room doesn't allow for those formats anyway. And "Logic 7" and other 7 channel processing modes are for the most part unintended by the producers.

 

[Steven Simon]

Great Thread....

I think Dan makes a great point here. All of these different modes are there for are using. Better to have more choices than less. I think this boils down to our own particular tastes and ears for audio listening plain and simple, but giving a consumer an ability to enhance source material can only be a positive approach in my book.... While also giving them the ability to listen in original source as well....

 

[AVspec]

Has anyone compared Logic-7 to DTS-ES descrete? and if so which was prefered?

 

[Steven Simon]

Mark,

This would be a tough one. To my knowledge there are only a handful of dvd's that are encoded with DTS-ES Discrete.....

 

[John Morris]

Right...so tell me that didn't enhance your experience you HDTV owning $f!%*^#

Hehehehe
Okay, time for me to come clean and explain how this thread happened. It all started with my weekly call to Blockbuster's HQ to complain about their policy of stocking, for rent, only the P&S version of a movie, and NOT also the letterbox/widescreen version.
This time, after I gave my name and phone number, I found myself talking to a guy who really knew his A/V stuff. First, he told me that if they really wanted to do so, BB could stop me from using their logo, in part or in whole, as part of my protest signature. He then went on to re-iterate BBs policy but said that they do not support NOT carrying widescreen movies but that that decision is REALLY made by the studios when they release two video formatted DVDs. I said, oh boy, I've heard this all before. This whole BB thing is merely a power play by BB to force the studios to produce one DVD of a film with both OAR and P&S versions on it. I said my usual thing about that type of DVD not being able to then fit extras on it, and he said: "So what! 90% of our customers don't care about the extras but do care about watching the film in the full screen version." I then made my usual statement about BBs portrayal as a lover of movies and as such, they should be supporting renting DVDs so that their renters can enjoy the movie the way that the originating artist intended. They should be renting the theatrical movie and not the "made for TV version". He laughed and asked:"So, I guess that you never watch a movie using Logic 7 or DPLII, or use some EX matrixing to expand a 5.1 soundtrack to a 7.1 soundtrack. I said sure I sometimes did that but what did... he interupted me and said: "Well, do you think that the originating artist intended for the film's audio to be changed to some other audio format so that you can enjoy it more in your house?" I was stunned, stumped and unusually speechless.
Anyway, my reason for starting this thread was to see how other folks can rationalize their preference to alter the audio format of a film playback while demanding that the same films video format not be changed, regardless of the viewers video format preferences.
Unfortunately, I don't think I have yet found an arguement which can overcome the BBs rationale. My only thought is to agree with him and then add: "At least by stocking both video formats, we all can choose to watch each film in accordance with our audio AND VIDEO viewing preferences." Hopefully, I can have my arguement memorized by next weeks call...

 

[Michael Reuben]

Quote:

That's because BB borrowed your starting point, which is the wrong one. The simplest answer to BB has been stated here many times: There's a big difference between alterations that are imposed on the translation to home video (such as panning and scanning) and those that can be applied or removed by the individual user at the flick of a switch. The argument works fine once you stop trying to defend the "purist" view, which may be a noble battle but is always a losing one.
M.

 

[Adil M]

I just had to state, very good thread.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

So, who thinks that John should be required to turn in his HTF membership for getting outsmarted by a Blockbuster employee? (just kidding, John)
BTW, great thread.

 

[Ricky T]

RAF,

On the Gladiator DVD, do you prefer the 6.1DTS track over 5.1DD track? And 6.1DD-EX over 5.1DTS on the Phantom Menance DVD? If so, I think you would prefer 5.1 Logic7 over straight 5.1. If you ever get a chance (store or friend's HT), you should listen to this comparison with your own ears. As mentioned before, Lexicon owners have had 6.1DD-EX for a long time, and most prefer their 6.1 capable DVDs in 5.1 Logic7.

Phillip,

Your 2.0/DPL sources can benefit from these other surround modes in a 5.1 setup. Take a Harman Kardon AVR520/320 receiver owner with a 5.1 setup and lots of 2.0/DPL laser discs. He can choose between DPL1, DPL2, and Logic 7 (scaled down channel version without some Lexicon enhancements and adjustments). I seriously doubt DPL1 would get any air-time against DPL2 and Logic 7. In fact, many HK owners prefer the Logic 7 (with more active rears) over DPL2 for movie sources such as DSS.

And properly adjusted DPL2 can actually make an average 5.1 speaker setup sound like higher-end 2 channel music playback (by creating the front soundstage to listener's exact preference). Maybe you can get the next gen Sherwood prepro sometime next year and reap the benefits of DPL2 over DPL1 (as well as other improvements)!

Happy Listening!

Ricky

 

[RAF]

Quote:

John,
Interesting that this Ball i mean Blockbuster employee would make that statement. On my last trip out to Hollywood I talked to several studio executives who are giving a different version of this story. There is tremendous pressure placed on even the most cooperative studios (those embracing the DVD format in ways that people here always espouse) to come out with P&S versions. One large studio that had abandoned P&S entirely is now releasing some product in both formats because, according to them, large buyers like WallMart,et. al. are demanding P&S versions.

 

[Ricky T]

RAF,
Now that you have DPL2, do you use DPL1 anymore?
On Monday night (after the Sunday session), I rearranged my room 90 degrees to the left to get the proper acoustics: symmetrical layout, left and right walls, nice space behind me to properly place the two rear speakers. Before the change, my rears were behind and touching my couch, pointed up at the ceiling and the room was not symmetrical, and the space behind me was the "missing" right wall. Yet the sound was still very good.
The acoustics are now much better. Even my subs have better response (I calibrated them down). I'm in Logic Seven Heaven (hey, that rhymes!). The past two nights, I couldn't help staying up past 1AM watching DVDs, and drinking Bailey's on ice. Oooohhhh, the sound is sooo goooooooooddddd.......

 

[Richard Burzynski]

"Well, the upside to the likes of Logic 7 and DPLII is, unlike the Pan & Scan process, one is attempting to enhance the overal experience as best they can."
In my HT, a pan&scan version IS an enhancement (to me) - I get a bigger (more movie theater-like) size picture on my TV, at the expense of an occasional "talking nose."
Ok, now Dan and the rest of you can beat me up.

Rich B.
Side Note to Ricky:
I didn't know you stock Bailey's! Be prepared for my next L7 demo please.

 

[John Tompkins]

{quote}

In my opinion (and this is probably not shared by many others, but who knows) this whole issue of rear processing modes and the differences created by either proprietary processing or time delay issues, etc. is overblown - at least in my mind and experience

RAF, I have to wonder after reading this statement. If you dont really care about surround back processing then why not just get a GREAT 5.1 pre-pro on the used market such as meridian etc. It seems to me that one of the biggest reasons that people are high on the 950 is exactly because it does have all the new back channel processing.

 

[John Morris]

Interesting that this Ball i mean Blockbuster employee would make that statement. On my last trip out to Hollywood I talked to several studio executives who are giving a different version of this story. There is tremendous pressure placed on even the most cooperative studios (those embracing the DVD format in ways that people here always espouse) to come out with P&S versions. One large studio that had abandoned P&S entirely is now releasing some product in both formats because, according to them, large buyers like WallMart,et. al. are demanding P&S versions.

Robert: No, actually what you've reported jives perfectly with what BB's policy is converning P&S vs Widescreen DVDs. I probably did not word my description as carefully as I should have, so here it is again as explained by the BB guy.

- If both a Widescreen DVD and a PS DVD is available, BB will only stock the PS DVD for rental.

- If a film DVD is released with PS on one side, and Widescreen on the other, BB will carry that DVD.

- If a film DVD is released only on a Widescreen format, then BB will carry the Widescreen format.

So, BB is trying to say that they are not against carrying the widescreen version but that the decision as to whether or not they carry the widescreen version is solely up to the studio when they decide what will be on the DVD(s). BB is trying to force the studios to produce only DVDs which have one side Widescreen and the other side PS. Those seem to be the only Widescreen DVDs that BB will carry for rental anymore unless a PS version is not available at all.

Essentially, BB is forcing us OAR guys to choose between extras and widescreen.

 

[BruceD]

JohnT,
I don't know about everybody, but I don't think the back processing is the reason. Raw Sound quality is the biggest reason, certainly is my reason, as well as the Triple Xover digital bass management, a true analog bypass with analog bass mangement, and DPL-II.