Not impressed with Pro Logic II (1 Viewer)

[joe logston]

i thank wend after they perffect multi-channel software & hardware (the two channel guys)they will come around to multi-channel espeially the software gets better, why would they buy a receiver with pro logic 2 any way. guys dont give up on it.

sorry on the frist post i lost some of the message

thanks

 

[Gil D]

DPL II is great and the Music mode is adjustable on the 3802 - hopefully it is on the 2802. Like Chris Zell said you need to adjust the parameters. Panorama can expand the front to the mains or collapse towards the center.

I use stereo, direct and DPL-IIM interchangably.

 

[Vlad D]

Randy G, John Royster - no, I'm not a descendant of Vlad Dracul (the Impaler) but growing up I did have a fascination with him and the whole Dracula legend. With a name like Vladimir, how couldn't I?
Jeremy Anderson , joe logston, Chris Zell - I haven't given up on PLII just yet. I am going to play around with the PLII parameters and see if there's a difference. I meant to do this today but my wife had a laundry list of things for me to do today, , so maybe later. I'll let you know if there's a difference.
Thanks guy,
Vlad "D" Impaler

 

[mctague]

While not hearing DPL II yet (though a summer-time upgrade will get me there), I would tend to place blame on the quality of the center speaker. Most centers can't keep up with their accompanying mains IMHO. What causes this, I don't know, maybe cabinet size or different design goals, whatever.
I imagine most music lovers are not interested in buying 2 centers to replace their mains. Only movie people do crazy stuff like that

 

[Wes]

Prologic II was designed by Jim Fosgate for his love for music primarily. It just happened it works well for movies also. And I have sat through several demos at Jim's house (mostly music) and I am here to report that PLII played correctly is Center Channel driven. The correct speaker set up would be 100% matching speakers so the Center channel is not the weak spot but the main channel. I don't think with a inexpensive receiver based PLII and a typical 5.1 surround set up PLII will knock anybody's socks off. Jim Fosgates speakers had (8) 10 woofers, (2) mids and (1) tweeter "per channel" that stood aprox 6ft tall. His center woofs were hidden behind the screen. I also feel the same as Jim that the main singer should be placed in the center channel and should sound as if they are standing right in the room in front of the main seating. I personally have not heard too many center channel boxes on top of TV's that can create this image.

Wes

 

[Chip E]

Quote:
""I've got the Onkyo 696, no real speaker calibrations done, and I use DPLII (music) for most music. In some cases it is center-heavy, but generally it provides a nice enveloping sound. Likewise, I use DPLII (movie) for all TV watching.
It's all just a matter of taste."
This seems very strange too me. I have an Integra 6.2 (the brother to the 696). My 6.2 has no DPLII Music mode, just Movie.
I thought to have the full compliment of DPLII (ie: Music AND Movie mode) you needed to move to at least the Onkyo797,Integra 7.2? Just for the record.... i'm not overly impressed by PLII either.

 

[Earl Simpson]

I listen to CD's and DBS(Non Dolby) in 5/7 channel stereo with 7 full range speakers(awesome). I am not impressed with dolby 2 and think its a feature that I could have done without and something like more than a single equalizer for all channels would have been a nice touch. But Hey! It works, so far, and sounds great.

 

[Rick_Brown]

My understanding was that DPL-2 is NOT a DSP, but rather simply an improvement upon DPL. I thought a that a DSP was a phony derived sound, usually with added artificial reverb and whatnot, like "stadium" or "club", etc. Right? BTW, I love DPL-2 for music, but I have no center speaker, just phantom.

 

[Mark Gurney]

After all this discussion on DPLII, it made me want to sit down and re-evaluate DPLII since my last experimentation. When I initially played with DPLII, I used the Music Mode for music and Movie Mode for movies, even though I did notice you could adjust the Music mode, but not the Movie. Again, I sat down and listened to various CD's in Stereo, 5 Channel Stereo and DPLII (Music Mode).

While sitting in my "sweet spot", the spot that I normally watch movies on the couch, I could adjust DPLII (Panorama On, Dimension 4, Center Width 3 or 4) to make music sound very natural. Voices seemed to be coming from the center, but not soley from the center channel speaker. Basically in my opinion, DPLII, after much more tweaking, gives standard Stereo mode a run for its money when listening somewhere around the "sweet spot" in my living room.

The only problem with this is my listening practice. When I listen to music, most of the time I am somewhere else in the house, doing other things, not sitting at or around my "sweet spot". In this case, DPLII doesn't work so well as you might guess. Conclusion? Unless I am sitting down listening to music, 5 Channel Stereo stills seems to be my best option.

Lastly, I poppped in some Star Wars LD's and started playing around with DPLII, but this time, in the Music mode. This allowed me to changed settings to my liking. While DPLII Movie mode did very well with the Stereo only soundtrack on these orginal SW LD's, I felt too much of the front stage was comming through the center channel and front mains and rears were not used as much as they should have been. Modifying with Music mode really opened up the sound stage giving the sound that I liked. Now I feel I have to watch these LD's again, the improvement was that great.

So the point to my babbling? Try fiddling with DPLII again if your weren't impressed (especially for music) and use only the Music mode, playing with your three available settings. You might find that DPLII isn't so bad, much like I did!

Mark

 

[David John]

I find that 2 channel music sound best in 2 channel playback.
I have a yammi rx-v1200 and when i sit in the sweetspot, i hear sound coming from all around.
I think that too many people are wooo-ed by DSPs and false surround creation.
With a clean receiver and good speakers, you shouldn't need processing to create room reflections and reverberations.
You hear with 2 ears and stereo recordings played back correctly will have the effect of hearing sounds from not only the front soundstage, but also from around the room.
I personally haven't found one DSP from any manufacturer that does any justice to music. I have heard some 5.1 recorded music that does sound very good, but I'm not sure it's any better than a well recorded stereo track.
To me good surround sound is important for movies where it compliments the visual presentation to bring you into the moment.
Music, however, is a different story. Close your eyes and do a test with NO processing, and then with your favorite DSP and see which sounds more natural. If the music was recorded well, I think you'll be surprised at which you'll pick.

 

[Rick_Brown]

"I think that too many people are wooo-ed by DSPs and false surround creation.
With a clean receiver and good speakers, you shouldn't need processing to create room reflections and reverberations."
Again, David, DPL2 is NOT a DSP. It does not create false sound and it does not add fake room reflections and reverberations. DPL2 only provides what was on the CD in the first place. The real reflections, the real reverberations. No artificial reverb is added like other, real DSP's.
I don't argue with anyone who prefers 2-channel to surround, but please let's not mis-characterize DPL2.

 

[SidH]

I must also very respectfully disagree with David. Although I do quite a bit of listening in plain old stereo, I believe there is nothing inherently more "natural" about it than dsp post-processed sound.

One can talk about the way a recording was *intended* to sound, but a recording engineer has no idea what equipment will be used to play back his/her creation, nor the kind of listening room. The same recording played over the exact same equipment in my living room will undoubtedly sound much different than in yours.

If anything, dsp-produced soundfields level the playing field somewhat since they minimize the effect of room interactions.

Some people like a brighter sound, others go for warmer. Some favor the discolorations introduced by tube equipment. Why not other perceived acoustical properties such as envelopment, spaciousness, or liveness?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I agree that there are recordings that just sound better in stereo. On the other hand, there are some recordings that I like to "liven up" a little. And sometimes I will listen to the same recording on one occasion in stereo, and on another, with dsp processing - and like hearing it both ways.

 

[JohnDG]

Lastly, I poppped in some Star Wars LD's and started playing around with DPLII, but this time, in the Music mode. This allowed me to changed settings to my liking. While DPLII Movie mode did very well with the Stereo only soundtrack on these orginal SW LD's, I felt too much of the front stage was comming through the center channel and front mains and rears were not used as much as they should have been. Modifying with Music mode really opened up the sound stage giving the sound that I liked. Now I feel I have to watch these LD's again, the improvement was that great.

Mark,

What settings did you end up using for the LDs? I've tried DPLII Music, but I don't seem to be able to get the surrounds as active as the DPLII-C defaults.

jdg

 

[John Royster]

Can someone please explain how PLII is NOT DSP? seems to me the two channels go through some form of digital signal processing to get 5 channels of sound. Another vote for "it just plain doesn't sound right"
Kindof like listening to mono movies with NO dolby recording at all. You're leaving the processor to makeup or disect sound from a source.
Hopefully I have already helped the original poster so now I can get on a soapbox with my high horse ready.

 

[Larry B]

John Royster:

Another vote for "it just plain doesn't sound right"

The bottom line (IMO) is this: We live in a (relatively) free country, and each of us is allowed to listen in whatever mode is most enjoyable. However, for those of us who are into high-end audio (that includes me ), the goal of which is the accurate reproduction of the original event, forcing 2 channels of recorded music into 5 (or 7) channels is anathema, as it so deviates from the original event.
Larry

 

[Chris Zell]

LarryB,

I would argue your last point:

"The bottom line (IMO) is this: We live in a (relatively) free country, and each of us is allowed to listen in whatever mode is most enjoyable. However, for those of us who are into high-end audio (that includes me ), the goal of which is the accurate reproduction of the original event, forcing 2 channels of recorded music into 5 (or 7) channels is anathema, as it so deviates from the original event "

The original event is not a 2-channel event, so IMO, forcing it into 2 channels in the first place deviates horribly from the original event. Putting it back into 5 or 7 channels is an attempt to get closer to the real event. Now we can argue about the success of different schemes for this mapping to more channels, but I truly believe that more channels will be better if done properly. Perhaps the only way to really do it properly is to record it multi in the first place. But even with 2-channel sources, a judicious (usually low level) addition of center and surround channels enhances the experience. When I switch back to 2-channel from subtly done multui, it sounds kinda boring. There are a few aspects that are occasionally degraded, but the overall effect is preferable to me in almost all cases.

Like you said, to each his own.

Cheers,

Chris

 

[John Royster]

LOL
I can see why we debate so much about cables and separates vs receivers and everything else. Peoples ears and interpretations can be just so blantantly different.
I can't for the life of me figure out why anybody would want to listen to music with a center channel or surrounds for that matter. Kind of defeats the whole purpose of a soundstage (yes I frequently compare my system to orchestras, live jazz and rock concerts) Not only that it just sounds less defined. Most imaging and depth is lost when listening in those modes in my modest 3802/big Polks from way back setup.
So, guess I've had a revelation that what sounds like crap to somebody can sound pretty good to somebody else. I don't understand it, but hey there's really no "right" answer.
I will be interested in trying out 2-channel and 6 channel SACD however. We'll see if I change my mind then.

 

[Larry B]

Chris:

But even with 2-channel sources, a judicious (usually low level) addition of center and surround channels enhances the experience. When I switch back to 2-channel from subtly done multui, it sounds kinda boring. There are a few aspects that are occasionally degraded, but the overall effect

is preferable to me in almost all cases.

Because you are discussing your impressions, I can't tell you that you are wrong. However, I can say that my own impresssions differ considerably from yours. Expanding on what John stated above, it is generally accepted that the use of center channel destroys the soundstage. However, I will add that its perceived benefit may (and in fact, probably does) depend in large measure on the associated equipment. Am I correct in assuming that you are using an HT receiver or pre-pro for music? If so, I whole-heartedly recommend your trying out a decent, dedicated 2-channel preamp (with some decent amplification). My guess is that you will hear a soundstage (with just 2 speakers) that will far surpass anything your HT rig can produce.

Larry

 

[Dzung Pham]

Isn't it possible to use a phantom center when in DPL2? That way the center channel signal is added to the signal for the FL and FR speakers and the actual center channel speaker is turned off. It seems to me that the center channel speaker is mostly useful only for off-axis listening. For music listening in the sweet spot, I would think that using the phantom center would be better.

 

[SidH]

it is generally accepted that the use of center channel destroys the soundstage.

That is true enough, since it is a by-product of the intended function of the center channel: to keep movie dialogue up front and center where it belongs.
But Larry, what do you think of DSP processing that does *not* use the center channel? Have you heard it?
I am very familiar with Yamaha soundfield processing, and the music modes (at least on my DSP-A3090) do not use the center channel. When this works well, the width of the stereo soundstage stays the same but the depth increases remarkably, and the sense of presence can be greatly enhanced. While this can take some judicious initial tweaking, it's not terribly difficult to achieve.
BTW, I also have a separate, stereo only high-end (at least IMO) setup that I love to listen to when the kids will let me (not often these days :frowning.