The first time I went to imax it was flat out way too bright.
De facto, sure it is. Have you seen a piece of multichannel consumer audio gear that doesn't have a DPL2 decoder built-in? Most (including both of mine) have DTS Neo6, too. I've actually never played with it. Tonight I'll probably do some reading on it to see what the differences are.
As is some music, often to good effect. The DVD-A of R.E.M.'s "Green" is a really, really good example of a good-sounding discrete multichannel mix. Particularly "You Are the Everything"
"Too much unneeded processing" sounds like an audiophile problem rather than an actual one. Unless one can point to specific, audible instances of processing artifacts, who cares how much processing there is? That's what I'm interested in, what's audible. As for the adjustibility,
And you're inconsistent on the one hand saying that mastering engineers are too conservative with multichannel mixes and on the other saying being able to dial in what one wants in DPL2 is a bad thing.
I don't know any albums mixed specifically for DPLII or really know of any movies. De facto De schmackto. Whats the defacto brand of speaker in an US store now? Bose or something? Wont catch me using it. The one time I tried Neo6 there were about 1000 times the artifacts of an mp3 encoded by a 10 year old computer illiterate.
You ever compared some of them to running the regular stereo through a decoder? Same thing in I'd dare say a majority of the cases the stereo beats the surround. Some are better than others and I am a little picky about these things though.
There are tons of instanced of audible artifacts with logic based decoders - I know I have reverse engineered, modeled, and experimented with them. The most common complaint is "pumping". But you can get swooshing and all sorts of weird stuff. And basically if you can do the same thing with less processing then why bother with phase shifts and all this nonsense which only serves to make a better *measurement* of the separation of the channels. Your right kinda sounds like an audiophile problem to me.
Er dialing in what you want is all good in theory if you can ever actually find what you want. They don't give you anything to measure the channels with so I kind of doubt most people have any idea where they are setting relative levels when they mess with the "panorama" knob or whatever clever name they come up for a variable feed on a sum and difference network,
Last edited:
You're either being dense or intellectually dishonest, shifting the scope of the argument from de facto standard from "decoding scheme used in consumer electronics to extract 'surround' information from a stereo source" to "albums mixed for."
Wow, that's really useful.
Of course, I am being entirely sarcastic.
How about posting some actual, you know, music. Album, track, and location, where one could listen for such effects. Simply claiming blithely that they exist does nothing useful.
And a 10 year-old computer illiterate (do such people even exist, at least in the developed world?) could still hit "yes" when iTunes asks if s/he wants to import and get MP3 encoding as good as some mad computer genius could, so that insult doesn't even make sense.
You'd dare say wrong, from my experience. Hence my specific request for program material that highlights the alleged-maybe-real problems.
Again, very useful. (Yes, I'm totally kidding again.)
Now tell me some music that is especially affected by these tons of audible artifacts so I can take a listen and see if there's any truth to what you assert. Because you haven't made a cogent argument, just thrown out a bunch of baseless assertions.
I really don't have to validate any of my opinions sorry. You can experiment with the stuff too as with most anything YMMV of course. I have seen someone say Neo6 was awesome all I can say is that the version I heard was absolutely terrible. Some versions of DPLII are better than others as well. Maybe Fosgate's tube version is the "real" version of DPLII. See does any of this sound like something that is a repeatable standard for music? When every decoder sounds different and has variable controls? It's just not for me. I like my decoder you just run the stuff through it and you get surround.
I really don't have to consider any of your opinions without that validation, either. It shouldn't be hard to validate if it's as obvious as you claim. But if you're just indulging in hyperbole for effect then you can expect it to be treated with the contempt it deserves.
... just the thing for a "10 year old computer illiterate"...
Merry Christmas? Bah, Humbug.
Was I being hyperbolic? If you like DPLII then fine thats cool. I was giving my subjective opinion on what is wrong with the current decoders like DPLII and Neo6 - heavy handed processing that is unneeded. And I am NOT exaggerating about the Neo6 you might have a really bad version on your PC right now in Cyberlink DVD. It really does sound terrible much worse than any lossy encoder I have ever heard. No exaggeration or hyperbole. And please don't think I am mad or emotional I am being pretty dry about this stuff.
In other words, you claim audible artifacts but can't actually point to any music that makes them show up. Which means more likely than not you can't actually hear the things you claim to be able to hear. Typical audiophile. Next are you going to go off on how magic tubes and expensive wires are?
I win. (See paragraph above.)
And "versions?" It's a goddamn piece of computer code.
Well I am not trying to invalidate your opinions. And I don't see where I am saying that your opinions are wrong in any of these threads. Truth be told with a lot of these things we are talking about I am actually thinking that more than one person is "right" in there opinion. Maybe if you give me a specific. I am really not trying to come off as some know it all I just have personal preferences and opinions on certain things.
And Pallas you might want to read up a little on how DPLII was invented. Fosgate made the prototype all tube based. It was then up to the engineers at Dolby to port his analog invention to DSP. Further more if you are intimately familiar with linear phase shift networks or basically any means to achieve a linear 90 degree phase shift then you will see that no two are alike and not one of them is perfect. Therefore each computer code will most likely have deviations in it depending on how they implement it. You lose.
And Pallas you might want to read up a little on how DPLII was invented. Fosgate made the prototype all tube based. It was then up to the engineers at Dolby to port his analog invention to DSP. Further more if you are intimately familiar with linear phase shift networks or basically any means to achieve a linear 90 degree phase shift then you will see that no two are alike and not one of them is perfect. Therefore each computer code will most likely have deviations in it depending on how they implement it. You lose.
It wasn't in this thread, but another. You were very quick to write-off some data that I had referenced (my own I might add) by simply disagreeing because that was not your opinon. Holding an opinion based on no data (which you stated you will do) which lies in direct contradiction to existing data is not very intelligent. You cann't support your position by simply claiming that "I don't believe everything that I read". That may be true in many cases, but not when what you should have read is solidly substantiated with science.
Its a big problem in these forums that people hold opions with no supporting evidence that clearly contradict the available evidence - thats called religion and it has no place in audio.
Its a big problem in these forums that people hold opions with no supporting evidence that clearly contradict the available evidence - thats called religion and it has no place in audio.
Are you talking about asymmetrical phase distortions?! I gave you a couple of chances to double check that. I also double triple, quadruple tested myself in the mean time. You really think I am wrong? I think I am 100% right about the subject and I REALLY didn't want to call you on it. I stopped myself and sort of gave you examples before I decided to give my own lighthearted examples where I double and triple checked that I wasn't making some sort of mistake. I would have appreciated if you took a listen and maybe just told me where my mistake was if you saw one. But I was left in the dark. I still think I am right and I have posted proof of it which you can easily repeat yourself. I think I was a little offended by the "wasting your time" comment and your assumption that I haven't read any papers on the audibility of phase changes. It was simply that I did not know how FAR you could push the concept.
Last edited:
I'll be honest with you I did not follow it closely, but I will say this: there are a multitude of ways to screw this kind of test up, not that you have, but one has to consider the possibilities and "prove" the validity of what they are doing. Then, if you did find that this was an audible issue, then it would contradict a whole array of other similar tests that have shown the opposite and where proven to be valid tests. So if your results ARE correct, then noone is going to accept them until you do the same level of care and trials as were doen for the contrdictory results. And that hasn't happened.
So I don't even know what it is you are claiming, but I know that your methodology is so weak that I'm not about to reject my results and accept yours.
By "waste your time" I menat just what I said above. No one but you is going to accept the test as you have performed it.
Before I would ever "listen" to anything I'd have to see the math behind it and then check that the examples implimented precisely what was being claimed - AND NOTHING MORE! Otherwise I could be listening to something completely unrelated to what was claimed and coming to a completely false set of conclusions.
People simply do not seem to understand that poor testing methods are not "better than nothing" - very often they are "worse than doing nothing" because they give you false data.
All I got from you was basically that you do real tests and your opinions are therefore objective. You say I stick my head in the sand in light of objective proof (can cut the hypocrisy with a knife) yet you didn't even bother to take a listen to my examples. I have read paper after paper on the subject so I think your assumptions about how I spend my time were uncalled for frankly.
Would you call a polarity inversion an "all pass filter"? Would you listen to your speakers with mix match polarity? Seems kind of obvious to me I am objectively correct or either we are talking about two completely different things.
Further more would you actually argue that by altering the phase relationships of the speakers you are not altering the arrival times at the ears of the listener? Seems like you are to me. And do you really think I need a controlled test with subjects to prove to myself such an elementary truth in psychoacoustics. God if I had to work like that I would never get anything done.
Would you call a polarity inversion an "all pass filter"? Would you listen to your speakers with mix match polarity? Seems kind of obvious to me I am objectively correct or either we are talking about two completely different things.
Further more would you actually argue that by altering the phase relationships of the speakers you are not altering the arrival times at the ears of the listener? Seems like you are to me. And do you really think I need a controlled test with subjects to prove to myself such an elementary truth in psychoacoustics. God if I had to work like that I would never get anything done.
Last edited:
http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/p...isalignment-of-acoustic-signals---Kunchur.pdf
Some reading since you seem to respect that more than my "real world" examples.
Some reading since you seem to respect that more than my "real world" examples.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.