|   DPL-II Who Cares? | Gladtrix
Aug 14, 2001 10:59 AM | | I thought that the technology progression was as follows (from low to high):
Dolby Surround
Dolby Pro Logic
Dolby Digital
So why does DPL-II matter to anyone? Is it an improvment over Dolby Digital? If not, why should I care if I get it?
To further explain my perspective on the matter (which may be wrong), I offer this analogy for clarification.
Hypothetically, let's say that the last version of MS-DOS back in 1992 was 7.5. Since then, they obviously have Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, NT 4.0, Me, 2000, XP, etc.)... An entirely new type and better OS. Releasing DPL-II (in my mind) is like releasing a MS-DOS version 9.0. In otherwords, who cares?
Since all of you audiophiles are really excitied about DPL-II I know I must be missing something obvious, and my above analogy must be wrong. Therefore, would you please enlighten me.
Cheers |
| re: DPL-II Who Cares? | Adam
Aug 14, 2001 11:12 AM | | DPL II is supposed to be this amazing way to take your 2 channel movies in VHS, Laser DIsc, etc and bring them to new life by using a mixing algorithim that is supposed to simulate to Dolby Digital. Personally I found it worthless and gimicky. I own 1 VHS movie, no VHS player, no laser discs, and my TV watching consists of the Simpsons and ESPN. For me DPL II was not worth it.
Some love it some could care less. I wouldn't compare to MS-DOS 9.0 it's more like Windows ME, which wasn't really an upgrade over Windows 98 SE although it did allow for some new features. |
| re: DPL-II Who Cares? | bigwally
Aug 14, 2001 11:20 AM | | DPL-II is simply a new and very effective way to decode 2 ch sources into a 5 ch mode. If you don't watch broadcast television or have any VCR tapes that you still enjoy, you shouldn't care. As far as 2ch music processing goes with DPL-II, I haven't used it for that yet but I'm looking forward to checking it out. |
| I feel like you do....... | Terrence
Aug 14, 2001 12:08 PM | | I thought this technology came too late. Just a bit of history, Dolby was actually presented a 5:2:5 matrix by Tate systems that had the same static channel seperation as DPL II some thirty years ago. Tate systems was a company started by Peter Schrieber and Jim Fosgate. Ironic isn't it. We could have had a matrix decoder with stereo surrounds years ago in the form of DPL. But it didn't happen because of Dolby, and now they want to introduce it to us some 30 years later, in a refined form. If there were no 5.1 digital formats, I could see its value. But now, I just don't.
I personally do not want a decoders interpretation of channel assignments when viewing two channel Dolby Stereo. If the original intent is a mono surround, then I would stick to a mono surround, because that is how it was mixed by the engineers, and approved by the directors.
I have said this before, A well tweaked system based around Dolby Stereo can be, and is IMO sonically better than DPL II on any of the mid fi receivers it has currently been released in. I personally like Jim Fosgate's analog version of DPL II. The digital version sounds like "digital" to me.
Terrence |
| I feel like you do....... | Rick B.
Aug 14, 2001 12:17 PM | | "If the original intent is a mono surround, then I would stick to a mono surround, because that is how it was mixed by the engineers, and approved by the directors."
Why do you believe that the original intent of the director was a mono surround? Was it mono in the movie theatre? If the same movie is released on DD does it have a mono surround? For that matter, did the director approve a pan and scan, or a widescreen or a high-definition or an anomorphic video, or...? We accept compromises all over the place, don't we? And most of us accept them willingly when it gives us a better experience. |
| My answer...... | Terrence
Aug 14, 2001 1:51 PM | | "Why do you believe that the original intent of the director was a mono surround?"
Easy question to answer. Any movie made before 1990(with the exception of 70MM 6 channel split tracks or stereo surrounds) and released in the Dolby stereo, or Ultra stereo had mono surrounds. This is what DPL II would be used for. To decorrolate a mono surround channel, to a psuedo stereo one. The decoder does this without the approval of the sound engineer/sound designer. Which direction information is placed in the rear channels, is decided by the decoder. A computer, not a human. Sorry, I do not want a computer to make a decision on my mixes without my approval. What if I didn't want it that way?
"If the same movie is released on DD does it have a mono surround?"
If a stereo soundtrack was included, yes, it had mono surround. If it was released in DD, then what purpose would it serve to use DPL II?
"For that matter, did the director approve a pan and scan, or a widescreen or a high-definition or an anomorphic video, or"
Absolutely they did. If you understand the studio culture, no film in any form can be released without the approval of the producer, or director. Almost all P & S transfers are approved by the DP. He is the one who decides how to frame P & S versions. Any video transfer, regardless of the format is approved by the director or the DP.
A few of the movies that could be used with DPL II I worked on. When I worked on them, I used a palette of 3 front speakers, a subwoofer, and an array of surround speakers projecting a mono signal. At no time in that process had I ever heard these mixes in split surround configuration. I didn't create them that way. This to me is akin to watching a movie intended to be projected in black and white, colorized. Whether that is an improvement is subject to opinion.
"We accept compromises all over the place, don't we? And most of us accept them willingly when it gives us a better experience."
Once again, whether its an improvement, or not, is based on subjective opinion. Nothing more. I prefer the approved intent, others may like the decoders interpretation of the mix, because thats exactly what it is.
Terrence |
| I feel like you do....... | bigwally
Aug 14, 2001 12:27 PM | | You may not be watching enough TV. :-) This thing is IMO a tremendous improvement over DPL. We'll see how this whole thing shakes down, but if I were upgrading right now I personally wouldn't consider a receiver/pre-pro without it as I do watch a fair amount of TV.
I can understand why those who just upgraded into equipment without this feature would be skeptical, but it sort of surprises me to see this coming from you Terrence. Have you A/B'd it against DPL in a typical mid-fi setup with both, while watching typical broadcast/satellite/cable DPL programming? |
| Don't be surprised BW | Terrence
Aug 14, 2001 3:03 PM | | I look at this like a director of a black and white movie, headed to turner broadcasting. I know when they get it, they will alter it by adding color to the picture(they used to do this you know). When I shot the film, I had details in the the gray area's that where lost when colorized. This is not how I wanted my movie to be projected.
I look at this subject just like that. As a engineer, I am watching(or better listening) to my mixes being reinterpreted by a decoder. Stuff I intended for the front right channels only, is being remixed by the decoder to float into the right surround too. A surround channel that I designed to be subtle and barely noticed, now emerges calling much attention to itself as sound twirls back and forth between channels. All of this decided by the decoder.
Now in saying that, I would have no problem with DPL II, if it had a encode/Decode process that would allow me to monitor what was being played back. That way I could make sure that it is correct.
You are right BW, I do not watch much television. I do however have about 4,300 laserdiscs. Many of them with Dolby stereo tracks. Would I want to use DPL II on these? Hell no! My systems are perfectly capable of delivering a very satisfying listening experience without it.
"Have you A/B'd it against DPL in a typical mid-fi setup with both, while watching typical broadcast/satellite/cable DPL programming?"
No, because that would not represent my viewing habits. I did however A/B it in a high end system using the pcm tracks of laserdisc's. My opinion, It did a very fine job of creating spaciousness, and a very convincing split surround. But I also detected a bit of " digital phaseyness" also. I could have lived with Jim's analog version. But the digital "chip" version sounds "digital". I found it too busy for my taste. I found myself distracted because of all the information being steered to the rear.
To me, this boils down to sound designer intent vs DPL II's intent. For me, it is just that simple.
Now, show the brudda some love. I'm feeling neglected because I have been made obsolete by a chip.
Terrence |
| Don't be surprised BW | bigwally
Aug 14, 2001 5:07 PM | | T-Man, you certainly have a different perspective going into this than the rest of us and I understand your view. For me it's a lot simpler as I'm a layman with this stuff. For a typical receiver or pre-pro such as I might own, it's the first DSP generable listening mode that I've found useful since Denon came out with 5ch stereo, no more no less. From a purist standpoint I can see "why not", but from my casual listening situation and share of TV viewing it's an enhancement.
"I do however have about 4,300 laserdiscs"
!!!!!Holy cow!!!!! Excuse the off-topic foray but that does makes me feel better about the 200 or so stereo cassette tapes I own.:-) New technology is both a blessing and a curse.
"I'm feeling neglected because I have been made obsolete by a chip."
LOL.. I know you're kidding but I feel that pain. A computer can do 80% of my job better than I can and I know it. Thank goodness for that last 20%! |
| The more I hear about.... | nick4433
Aug 14, 2001 1:14 PM | | DPL-II and what it can do to a 2 channel sourceconvinces me that a receiver should have it. Personally I am very happy with DTS-Neo and I was watching a TV broadcast yesterday (Newton boys(?) on ABC) and had the DTS-NEO turned on and it did a marvelous job. I am sure DPL-II would do the same.
Somewhere in the future all digitally broadcast movies and prime time programming may be in 5.1 audio and until then if DPL-II or DTS-Neo can enhance the sound and make it more appealing then why not?
If I were to buy a receiver today I'd definitely get one with DPL-II or DTS-Neo. |
| re: DPL-II Who Cares? | Woochifer
Aug 14, 2001 1:36 PM | | DPLII is nothing more than a revised matrixing scheme to extract a surround effect out of a two-channel stereo signal. The difference between DPL and DPLII is that some of the directional information that used to go only to the mains now gets steered back into the surround channels. Under DPL, the surround channel was a mono signal. As much as Dolby's marketing machinery would like you to believe that DPLII is a revolutionary step forward, the source signal is still a standard two-channel analog feed, and there's only so much you can do with that.
I don't know about audiophiles getting excited about DPLII; I read a magazine article indicating that DPLII can do some pretty bizarre things to the tonal quality. Of course, a lot of audiophiles are not fans of home theatre to begin with, but I do agree that matrixing schemes can degrade the sound quality because of the processing and signal steering that's involved. The surround effect itself can be impressive, but you just need to go into the deal knowing that extracting surround sound out of a two-channel signal is a trade-off. Whether it's worthwhile depends on you. If you mostly watch TV, cable, satellite, or stereo VHS, then DPLII might be a worthwhile feature. But, if you mostly watch DD or DTS sources, DPLII is pretty irrelevant.
Dolby Digital and DTS for home use were a huge leap forward because you got a true discrete multichannel output. The 70mm magnetic, DD, and DTS 6-track soundtracks you heard at the theatre could now be fully reproduced at home. DPL and DPLII are not true multichannel formats because they merely extract information from a two-channel feed. |
| But sir..... | Terrence
Aug 14, 2001 3:23 PM | | "DPL and DPLII are not true multichannel formats because they merely extract information from a two-channel feed."
DPL is a multichannel format. Its coding scheme is proprietary, and that makes it a format. Since DPL II presently has no encoding process(though they do have an encoder) it as used now, is not a format. It order to be a format, you have to have a coding process. DPL does meet that criteria. DPL II does not.
Keep in mind, that two channel feed that carries the other two channels, stems from 4 channel discrete stems combined into two channels, and extracted back into 4 matrixed channels. Multi is defined as many, or more than one. At two discrete channels, DPL at minimum does qualify as a multichannel format in the strictest sense.
Terrence |
| Terrence, a question please... | Smokey
Aug 15, 2001 3:29 AM | | Hi T and Woo
>Since DPL II presently has no encoding process(though they do have an encoder) it as used now, is not a format. It order to be a format, you have to have a coding process. DPL does meet that criteria, DPL II does not.
Could you elaborate more on that please. What would happen if true Dolby Surround ( Center and mono Rear riding on Left and Right channels ) signal is fed to DPL-II? Do you mean that DPL-II is not even able to decode at least even four true discrete channels ( like DPL does ) out of Dolby Surround soundtrack. If that is the case then--boy does DPL-II sucks!!
. |
| A comprehensive DPL-II tech link. | bigwally
Aug 15, 2001 7:27 AM | | Smokey, sorry to interject but this will answer your question. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_8_1/dolby-prologic2-3-2001.html |
| That link was "secret"-You betrayed their trust! | Debra
Aug 15, 2001 3:03 PM | | No, seriously, thank you---that is absolutely the most comprehensive source I have ever seen on the subject. |
| Thanks BigWally for the link. | Smokey
Aug 15, 2001 3:04 PM | | Man, I was looking for a two liner answer and here you dump me a truck load to read (:^)).
Thanks you for the read. I will read it tonight and might be back with couple of more question. Thanks again. |
| No more questions for you Smoke.... | Terrence
Aug 16, 2001 3:59 PM | | You are over your budget!! hehehehe
Terrence |
| No more questions for you Smoke.... | kelsci
Aug 17, 2001 2:05 AM | | 13 years ago at the time DPL was making the scene, I created a 5 channel Dynaquad circuit. I still use it today. I noticed that I had rather good LCR seperation. I was astonished that some films created stereo seperation in the surrounds. In DPL listening to the same specific sounds, they would be heard from the front left and right speakers as that was what the DPL chip was designed to do. I would certainly like to hear these same recorded sound effects in DPL2 and listen to their reproduction particulaly as to what speakers they would come out of. It would be quite interesting if DPL2 reproduced those rear channel sounds similar to the Dynaquad circuit. |
| My old quad system decoded stereo surround! | Rick B.
Aug 17, 2001 9:28 AM | | I had a quadraphonic set-up right up until a few years ago, which had a sophisticated (for quad) decoder: Sansui QSD-2. If I set it to "synthesized surround" mode, it decoded pro-logic movies pretty well, with separation in the surrounds. This would have been similar to dynaquad, as both used out-of-phase effects for the rear channels. |
| My old quad system decoded stereo surround! | kelsci
Aug 17, 2001 3:01 PM | | The first Dolby Surround movie was a remake with Barbara Streisand of A STAR IS BORN. That first movie was based on Sansui's QS system. I remember for a time in the 80s that Sansui pushed an outboard decoder with QS logic claiming better performance than Dolby Surround decoders. This was at a time before the added center channel of Dolby Pro-Logic was introduced. Dolby Pro-Logic is still Dolby Surround but a center channel was added to center dialogue, but I think it also enhances the reproduction of Dolby Surround. Since you claim you heard separation in the surrounds with the QSD-2, it probably had logic circuits that performed some steering aspects giving the dynaquad effect that I experienced. |
| My old quad system decoded stereo surround! | Rick B.
Aug 20, 2001 9:45 AM | | Yes, indeed my Sansui unit had logic steering circuits, and, for QS Msatrix Quad LP's, they claimed 20 db separation in all 4 channels for "directional sounds". What I mean is it couldn't separate 20 db if both rear channels were being driven relatively equally, but it did have great separation when one channel was being driven with a discrete sound(s). DPL-II is the first surround format to make me finally not miss my old Sansui unit for listening to music CD's. Cheers! |
| |
