DTS? Dolby this that and another thing?

[PaBowHunter340]

Can someone explain the differences to a lay person? DTS? Dolby HD and the other options? DTS NEO? Very confusing.

[Mr Peabody]

DTS and Dolby are both companies who do encoding for movies and at least with Dolby a few other areas of broadcasting. DTS-MA (MA for Master Audio) & Dolby Tru-HD are found on the Blu-ray format and after decoding are supposed to be the same as the original master soundtrack or sometimes referred to as "lossless" because nothing is lost, it's the same as the original. DTS and Dolby both had 5.1 formats on DVD, sometimes even 6 or 7.1. Each have other sound options like your mention NEO6 but I'd have to look them up to see what all they do. DTS & Dolby both have informative websites.

[bfalls]

I believe NEO6 is a DTS version of PLXII. It derives 5.1 channels of sound from original two channel input.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

DTS and Dolby are both companies who do encoding for movies and at least with Dolby a few other areas of broadcasting. DTS-MA (MA for Master Audio) & Dolby Tru-HD are found on the Blu-ray format and after decoding are supposed to be the same as the original master soundtrack or sometimes referred to as "lossless" because nothing is lost, it's the same as the original. DTS and Dolby both had 5.1 formats on DVD, sometimes even 6 or 7.1. Each have other sound options like your mention NEO6 but I'd have to look them up to see what all they do. DTS & Dolby both have informative websites.

Mr. P, Neither Dolby nor DTS encodes anything any more. They sell professional encoders/decoders and that is it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I believe NEO6 is a DTS version of PLXII. It derives 5.1 channels of sound from original two channel input.

Neo6 actually creates 6 channels from 2.

[markw]

Neo6 actually creates 6 channels from 2.That would be akin to alchemy, creating gold from lead.

I'd say "simulates" more channels in order to keep all available channels busy would be a more appropiate description.

[Mr Peabody]

Don't they still create the encoding/decoding programs or formats, whatever the correct term might be?


Mr. P, Neither Dolby nor DTS encodes anything any more. They sell professional encoders/decoders and that is it.

[PaBowHunter340]

Ok fellas,

I need some help making my final decision on a receiver. I can get an Onkyo 717 for about $550. Or I can get a Marantz SR5007 for $850. I'll be using the system mainly for watching movies. Which route do you think I should go?

[Mr Peabody]

The Onkyo is a good buy. I have a 515 and after firmware I still occasionally have to unplug it to reset to get the video to pass again. Even at that I don't think the difference would be worth $300.00. The Marantz is a good receiver just trying to put myself in your shoes to see if I'd spend the extra.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That would be akin to alchemy, creating gold from lead.

I'd say "simulates" more channels in order to keep all available channels busy would be a more appropiate description.

I don't think your analogy is quite correct here. Gold and lead are too different types metals. Your analogy changes one to another, and that is not what Neo6 does. Neo6 takes the phase and frequency of signals already in the left channel, cancels them out of that channel, and steers them to the left side channel. It is not transforming anything from one thing to the next, it is just moving what is already there - thereby creating another channel.

Creation

The action or process of bringing something into existence: "job creation".

Simulate

Imitate the appearance or character of

I would say that Neo6 is more like creation than it is an imitation.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The Onkyo is a good buy. I have a 515 and after firmware I still occasionally have to unplug it to reset to get the video to pass again. Even at that I don't think the difference would be worth $300.00. The Marantz is a good receiver just trying to put myself in your shoes to see if I'd spend the extra.

I agree with this. I don't have the same problem with my Onkyo TX-NR3010 as you do, but the 515 and the 3010 are quite different animals. But I agree, there is nothing in the Marantz compared to the 515 that would warrant a $300 dollar increase.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Don't they still create the encoding/decoding programs or formats, whatever the correct term might be?

Yes, but that is basically all they do.

[markw]

I don't think your analogy is quite correct here. Gold and lead are too different types metals. Your analogy changes one to another, and that is not what Neo6 does. Neo6 takes the phase and frequency of signals already in the left channel, cancels them out of that channel, and steers them to the left side channel. It is not transforming anything from one thing to the next, it is just moving what is already there - thereby creating another channel.

Creation

The action or process of bringing something into existence: "job creation".

Simulate

Imitate the appearance or character of

I would say that Neo6 is more like creation than it is an imitation.I'll stand by what I said.

You can't get more than two "real" channels out of two. If you really think you can "create" real multiple channels, you're falling for your industrys own marketing BS.

Period.

End of discussion.

You can fake (or "simulate") more "channels", but you can't create real, discrete, ones. But, yes, it does let people think they are getting "real" multi-channel sound out of a two channel source so they don't feel they wasted their money on all those amps and speakers.

[bfalls]

Neo6 actually creates 6 channels from 2.

DUH! Second mistake I've made in my lifetime. A divorce remedied the first. Thanks for correcting the second:-)

Sit T, after spending 44yrs in this hobby and 12yrs in the industry your assertions ring true to me. I don't always agree with your delivery, but the information makes sense. Some arguments against appear to be for the sake of arguing. With the same points going round and round, I'm getting dizzy. Please! Sombody! Stop the madness!

[bfalls]

Sorry, the "Stop the Madness" rant is for the "New Setup Doesn't Sound the Way it Should". Got my thread confused. Dam#, third mistake! Better stop while I'm ahead. Does it count if you correct yourself??

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'll stand by what I said.

You can't get more than two "real" channels out of two. If you really think you can "create" real multiple channels, you're falling for your industrys own marketing BS.

Period.

End of discussion.

You can fake (or "simulate") more "channels", but you can't create real, discrete, ones. But, yes, it does let people think they are getting "real" multi-channel sound out of a two channel source so they don't feel they wasted their money on all those amps and speakers.

Not quite the end of discussion because of course you are glossing of necessary detail.

Mark, you can stick to your point if it makes you feel better. However, if you do a signal analysis of what is happening with both PLII and Neo6, those additional channels are in fact discrete channels. It is not a mirror of what is in the front channels. It is information cancelled out of the front channels and steered to the side channels. Side information is cancelled out of the side channels, and steered to the rear. This is done by bandwidth(high frequencies use one steering speed, mids another, and the bass a much slower speed. If it were nothing more than a simulation, then the same signals would be found in each channels with equal amplitude, a little reverb, and no equalization would be needed. There would also be no effective spread of the sound around you either, as it would sound like all channel stereo. It would sound like a giant ball of mush, and neither of these decoders have that effect.

[markw]

Well then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I've heard Neo* "try" to "create" separate channels from two channel sources and, while it's great for a party mode to get sounds out of all available channels to fill a room, it falls woefully short of "creating", from a two channel source, anything like discrete channels from native, multi-channel DD/DTS sources.

If you really think it does, well, I guess our standards of what's acceptable "multi-channel" sound differ significantly. But, then again, I'm not a pro in that field. I only know what my ears tell me.

...later

*and DPLIIx

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I am okay with that.


I've heard Neo* "try" to "create" separate channels from two channel sources and, while it's great for a party mode to get sounds out of all available channels to fill a room, it falls woefully short of "creating", from a two channel source, anything like discrete channels from native, multi-channel DD/DTS sources.

Neo at least was not designed to sound like DD or DTS. PLII on the other hand can compare very accurately with both, and this I heard for myself at PLII introduction demo at Dolby Labs.


If you really think it does, well, I guess our standards of what's acceptable "multi-channel" sound differ significantly. But, then again, I'm not a pro in that field. I only know what my ears tell me.

...later

*and DPLIIx

It is not just your ears. But your room, your setup(are your speaker set up to Dolby, DTS or THX recommendations)), your rooms acoustics, and various other things that can impart differences on what folks hear.

[Feanor]

The phase cancellation/extraction thing goes 'way back. I had a DynaQuad adaptor back in the day; it was a passive device without additional amplification for the two rear channels. It did work more or less well depending on the recording. HERE (http://www.the-planet.org/dynaco/Misc/Quadaptor.pdf)'s a Dynaquad explanation & instruction manual.

Eventually DynaQuad was succeeded by Dolby Pro-Logic, Dolby Pro-Logic II, IIx , etc., which all worked on phase content to my knowledge. Music, films, etc., were stereo sometimes "encoded" especially to make the phase difference extraction more predictable and accurate to the recording engineer's intentions. The Dolby versions added separate amplification for each channel.

I suppose Neo6 is an extension of the same principle.

[markw]

I remember Dynaquad. ..and SQ and QS 4-channel recordings from the 70's.

There were actually some recordings "encoded" so there were four intended channels and these did a fair job of creating the effect. Too bad speaker technology wouldn't really allow four decent sized speakers in a most living rooms so most had to live with smaller speakers. They sometimes produced "interesting" effects from unencoded sources in some cases but I would not say they "created" new channels from two.

And, my VHS-tapes were encoded in "Dolby Surround" which actually "encoded" four channels in a stereo soundtrack and was evntually tweaked to become Dolby Pro Logic and did a pretty fair job of sending these four channels where the engineers wanted them to come from, at least until DVD's and digital soundtracks with 5.1 discrete channels became da schnitz.

All these were designed to be enjoyed in the average living room without any special contortions. Granted, one could follow certain recommendations to get even more from it, but to require one to design their living space to accomodate a sound system, is what killed quad back in the 70's. Little speakers were unsatisfying, subwoofers were still beyond the horizon, and good sounding tiny, aesthetically pleasing, speakers were not yet plentiful and affordable.

At one time, automobiles required much more attention (crank the engine, adjust the spark, use a choke, light the headlights with matches, change tires every few miles, suffer no insulation from the weather, etc...) than todays vehicles. If they were to remain so hard to maintain and use, i doubt they would have reached the popularity they share today.

If modern systems required that rigid devotion to enjoy the effect of multi-channel sound, you betcha Joe Sixpack would jump ship. As it how stands, "real" multi-channel sound can be easily enjoyed, to some extent, in almost every living space without having to have a specifically designed room.

That's like saying one needs to sit in one chair, in one specific location, with ones head in one particular position, and not move in order to appreciate the effect of something. Aside from some geeks and those into auto-erotic asphyxiation, Joe sixpack ain't gonna buy into that.

So, if what you're saying is that if I set up my room according to specs you recommend , and acoustically treat it in the way you recommend, I'll be able to hear DTS Neo create six distinct channels from two, i guess I'll just take your word for it 'cause it's never happened in any other environment I've been in and I ain't gonna redo my living environment for something this silly.

But, it did fill the room with non-objectionable, amorphous sounds that were great for parties.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So, if what you're saying is that if I set up my room according to specs you recommend , and acoustically treat it in the way you recommend, I'll be able to hear DTS Neo create six distinct channels from two, i guess I'll just take your word for it 'cause it's never happened in any other environment I've been in and I ain't gonna redo my living environment for something this silly.

Nope, not what I said. Go back and read post #18 again.

[markw]

I did. I gotta admit you lost me with all your verbose defense of Neo, but it didn't convince me, or anyone else methinks. DTS Neo still doesn't "create" six channels from six no matter how you try to spin it. And that, my friend, was my initial statement.

I don't know, or care, where you went with it, but I'm still sticking to what I said initially. It DOES create "stuff" fo fill the otherwise unused channels for parties but, for anything near critical listening, nah!

Simulates multiple channels? Perhaps.

Creates? No fargin' way. I ain't deaf.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I did. I gotta admit you lost me with all your verbose defense of Neo, but it didn't convince me, or anyone else methinks. DTS Neo still doesn't "create" six channels from six no matter how you try to spin it. And that, my friend, was my initial statement.

Oh stop trying to spin and deflect. Post #18 was very clear, and if you just read the $hit instead forcing your opinion down our throats, then you would have got the point. DTS Neo does not create six channels from six, it creates six channels from two.


I don't know, or care, where you went with it, but I'm still sticking to what I said initially. It DOES create "stuff" fo fill the otherwise unused channels for parties but, for anything near critical listening, nah!

I already acknowledged that you can stick with your overly simplistic non-technical perspective. That is your right.

It does not create stuff to fill in otherwise unused channels, those channels didn't exist before decoding. Stuff is a non-precise not technical term with no relationship to this discussion.

Who said it was for critical listening? Were are you getting this stuff? And thank you for admitting it "creates" whether you want to call it stuff or whatever.


Simulates multiple channels? Perhaps.

Creates? No fargin' way. I ain't deaf.

Here is the problem with your simplistic narrow minded perspective. Each signal in each channel is discrete. The matrix is designed to work that way. That is how it is able to discretely steer signals to specific places around our heads.

If it were doing nothing more than repeating or simulating, then the effect would break down quickly, sound smeared, and mushy. If it were a mere simulation, then it could not place objects in specific points in space like it can - it would all just be a giant mush of sound.

Your game of semantics is boring as hell.

There is no one size fits all with Neo6. There are different codes and DSP's at different price points and performance levels with Neo6 on them. There is Crystal Semiconductor, Motorola and Analog Devices, and each of them use a different code and DSP's for programming Neo6 that will get you different results. There are also custom solutions designed for specific processors(like mine) that can be programmed for greater accuracy, steering speed, more multiband processing(the silicon solutions only use three bands of multiband steering, mine custom software design uses six, no chips here). You could have heard Neo6 on mid priced chipset, that does not have the accuracy or processing abilities that my software based solution has.

In other words, we could be hearing drastically different implementation of Neo6. That is a fact, not opinion.

[markw]

Whatever. ...and a sieve does a great job when you need to bail out a boat.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Whatever. ...and a sieve does a great job when you need to bail out a boat.

I guess this vapid empty response is all you have, and that is okay. It is hard to draw money from a empty account.

[markw]

I guess this vapid empty response is all you have, and that is okay. It is hard to draw money from a empty account.Uh huh...

When you say neo creates "real" six channels from two, you're essentially saying that masturbation is the same as having "real" sex with another person.

Trust me, some of us know the difference ...with both.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Uh huh...

When you say neo creates "real" six channels from two, you're essentially saying that masturbation is the same as having "real" sex with another person.

Trust me, some of us know the difference ...with both.

Mark, step back from the ATM, you don't have any money. You comments are so far off topic, it becomes meaningless BS.

[markw]

Mark, step back from the ATM, you don't have any money. You comments are so far off topic, it becomes meaningless BS.If you really think that neo creates six realsitic sounding channels, you better stop. You'll go blind.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If you really think that neo creates six realsitic sounding channels, you better stop. You'll go blind.

Do you have anymore stupid comments to make? I am not interested in your subjective idea of realistic, nor your stupid uneducated comments. The channels were not there before decoding, and the existed afterward as discrete information. Do you understand what discrete means, or is this beyond your technical knowledge?

[markw]

Do you have anymore stupid comments to make? I am not interested in your subjective idea of realistic, nor your stupid uneducated comments. The channels were not there before decoding, and the existed afterward as discrete information. Do you understand what discrete means, or is this beyond your technical knowledge?Wow. I've got some records from the early 60's that proudly flaunt "Electronically rechanneled for stereo". I guess they are discrete, too. A lot of stereo records played through SQ/QS/Dynaquad produced interesting effects, too. I guess they, too, were "discrete", right?

Likewise, so would the original Dolby Surround that was on VS tapes, although I'll grant you that that actually might qualify since they were intentionally "encoded" into a two channel signal with the intent of being played trough a complimantary decoder in order to extract those channels. Please note: They were initially recorded to be separate channels.

No, friend. My definition of "discrete" would be that which was initially recorded in several distinctly separate channels, such as REAL, digital DD or DTS, or even basic two-channel stereo.

I guess this linguistic failing of yours might explain your inability to grasp the intrinsic difference between "simulate" and "create", too.

Seriously, you're taking this neo thing way too personally. You didn't invent it, did you?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Wow. I've got some records from the early 60's that proudly flaunt "Electronically rechanneled for stereo". I guess they are discrete, too. A lot of stereo records played through SQ/QS/Dynaquad produced interesting effects, too. I guess they, too, were "discrete", right?

dis·crete (d-skrt)
adj.
1. Constituting a separate thing. See Synonyms at distinct.
2. Consisting of unconnected distinct parts.

Even in rechanneled for stereo, there is common information in the two channels. Not so discrete. SQ/QS/ and Dynaquad also had common information between channels, hence why separation was so poor - so not discrete. Neo6, does not have common information in each channel, it is cancelled out of channels, and used to create other channels, hence why its separation is so much wider than stereo, SQ/QS and dynaquad.

Discrete is defined by channels separation PERIOD. Dynaquad had 3db of separation between channels, and Neo6 in its best implementation(not your cheap $hit) has 40-50db separation. This is considered discrete by any measure.


Likewise, so would the original Dolby Surround that was on VS tapes, although I'll grant you that that actually might qualify since they were intentionally "encoded" into a two channel signal with the intent of being played trough a complimentary decoder in order to extract those channels. Please note: They were initially recorded to be separate channels.

More ignorance 101. Did you know that both DTS and Dolby Digital automatically include mixdown algorithms in their bitstreams that are designed to exclusively work with PLII, PLIIx and Neo6, as well as Circle surround? No you didn't, your not that bright or educated technically.


No, friend. My definition of "discrete" would be that which was initially recorded in several distinctly separate channels, such as REAL, digital DD or DTS, or even basic two-channel stereo.

That is not the definition of discrete at all. Re-read above.


I guess this linguistic failing of yours might explain your inability to grasp the intrinsic difference between "simulate" and "create", too.

Create

To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort:

Seems to me stupid that Neo6 is producing 6 channels from 2. It is causing 6 channels to exist from 2. Fits perfectly within the definition of create.


Seriously, you're taking this neo thing way too personally. You didn't invent it, did you?

Not so much taking it personally as just trying to counter your uneducated overly simplistic BS and ignorance. Your are using your ignorance to broad brush detail out of the picture. That is not a strength, it is a profound weakness.

[markw]

Say what you will, T, but I've heard these "simulators" in action and, trust me, they do NOT "create" a realistic image. Pleasing and room filling, perhaps but anywhere near realistic, no.

IOW, using my ears to listen is far more convincing than reading your words with my eyes.

Bet you're a big fan of artifical fllavorigs, too.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Say what you will, T, but I've heard these "simulators" in action and, trust me, they do NOT "create" a realistic image. Pleasing and room filling, perhaps but anywhere near realistic, no.

Sorry, but listening test done by Dolby, DTS and Smart would completely disagree with your subjective non factual opinion. Their white papers on those listening test(which are quite old, but can be purchased from AES) showed that these matrixed processors could replicate the spatial characteristics of the 5.1 DTS and Dolby lossy mixes with with a high level of accuracy(not on a 1:1 ratio, but almost undetectable differences when A-B'd blind) when properly implemented. I attended the demo of PLII at Dolby labs(which has a system and room that is far better than yours), and PLII was able to closely duplicate the spatial presentation of the original 5.1 mix. So who do I listen to, a single guy on the internet with a lower mid price chipset implementation of Neo6, and room of suspect quality. Or my own ears in a system and room that is highly tweaked for a 5.1/7.1 presentation, has the most advance implementation of DPLII - oh and just happens to agree with the test subjects.

Realistic is a subjective non-definable non-technical word that is based on personal perception, and quite frankly based on the quality of the implementation of the processing. Yours is obviously not very good, but is quite the opposite of mine. Realistic image is strictly defined by the strength and weaknesses of your room, your setup, your ears, the proper tuning of the system, and removing all acoustical abnormalities. Based on your comments, you have not addressed any of the technical issues at all, and yet you want to advance your personal opinion as fact. Boooooooooo, go try and spin and deflect to somebody else, it ain't working here.

When is the last time you had your ears checked? When is the last time your cleaned them? Do you know which chipset your processor uses? As I said before, different chipset yield different levels of truthfulness to the original. The better the processing(which is not your case) the closer the spatial characteristic were to the 5.1 original. Is the matrix process perfect? No, all of the matrixes had some occasional artifacting according to my experience, and the white papers as well.


IOW, using my ears to listen is far more convincing than reading your words with my eyes.

And if you knew ANYTHING about psycho-acoustics, and how the ear/brain works, you would know just how unreliable the ear really is, and how different ears will hear different things. Can your ears accurately measure frequency response? Nope, fail. Can it accurately measure amplitude? Nope, fail. Can your ears define sound quality for me? Nope, fail. Do you really think your ears are perfect? If so, then you are a fool.


Bet you're a big fan of artifical fllavorigs, too.

And you would be dead wrong, like you are with every comment you post.

It looks like you have run out of places to hide your overly simplistic, non-technical subjective nonsense. But just like a cockroach, I am sure you will find a crack to spin and redefine words and meanings, since you have done so with every post. All I will do is turn on the lights, and watch you scramble for the floor boards with your subjective opinion.

[markw]

Well, I guess surimi is as good as lobster, at least until one tries the real thing.

Here's a pretty simple test some might be able to perform for themselves. I was.

1) Play the 5.1 SACD version pf Pink Floyd's "Dark side of te moon" on a 5.1 multi-channel system.

2) Play a two channel version on a system using Neo.

3) Shut up and listen.

Heck, just try it with a two-channel analog feed from a DVD player through neo compared to the digital 5.1 soudtrack.

That, my friend is the difference betweem "real" and "simulated".

If you actually believe neo comes close to te 5.1 version. you're verging on blindness and hairy hand syndrome. And, like taking a dump, that's something you should really engage in privately, not here in public.

Get back to me when you try this simple test. Actually, I encourage anyone to try it for themselves.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, I guess surimi is as good as lobster, at least until one tries the real thing.

Here's a pretty simple test some might be able to perform for themselves. I was.

1) Play the 5.1 SACD version pf Pink Floyd's "Dark side of te moon" on a 5.1 multi-channel system.

2) Play a two channel version on a system using Neo.

3) Shut up and listen.

Heck, just try it with a two-channel analog feed from a DVD player through neo compared to the digital 5.1 soudtrack.

That, my friend is the difference betweem "real" and "simulated".

If you actually believe neo comes close to te 5.1 version. you're verging on blindness and hairy hand syndrome. And, like taking a dump, that's something you should really engage in privately, not here in public.

Get back to me when you try this simple test. Actually, I encourage anyone to try it for themselves.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. I already outlined prior listening tests. Besides brightness, SACD does not have the necessary metadata that works with Neo6, DPL II, or circle-surround. Only DTS and Dolby format variants do.

Do you really think your 11 year old receiver with a single 24bit processor handling ALL decoding will sound the same as 16 cascaded dual quad processors with a 64bit floating precision, that has had its source codes updated 4 times this year alone to increase the precision, clarity, and speed of the processing? If you do, then you are not just playing stupid here, you really are.

[markw]

Yadayada yada. OK, it produces six chsnnels. But six channels of what? Certainly not what any sentinent being would confuse with anything the original artists would have intended. But it does utilize those otherwise wasted channels to fill the room with sound.

..kinda like surimi: Taint too bad if you don't know any better.

TTFN.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yadayada yada. OK, it produces six chsnnels. But six channels of what?

What do you think? Dog poop? It produces six channels from two original channels. And if the mixdown metadata is there, it will closely mimick a 5.1 track.



Certainly not what any sentinent being would confuse with anything the original artists would have intended.

How do you know, are you one of those artist who have carefully auditioned and evaluated Neo6? I don't think so. Throwing BS against a wall and seeing what sticks is a poor way of making a point.


But it does utilize those otherwise wasted channels to fill the room with sound.

Wasted? Those channels didn't exist before decoding. You can't waste something that was not there is the first place.

.
.kinda like surimi: Taint too bad if you don't know any better.

TTFN.

And I would imagine of your surimi was made in 2001, it would taste that good anyway.

I am going to ask you again. Do you really think your single chip 24bit version of Neo6 processing(which by the way contains version 1.6) on a chip manufactured in 2000 will be the same as my system which has probably 1,000 times the processing power, and had it code updated just two months ago?(updated to version 7.0)

What you hear from Neo6 and DPL II strongly depends on what source code is used, which chip design is used, the processing power of the chip(the Denon 2802 chipset was not that powerful, and was replaced by a two chip design in the 2803).

So you are not hearing the same Neo6 I am hearing, which means you cannot define how good it is for me, or quite frankly anyone else that does not own the same receiver purchase in the same time period.

These are facts, not subjective opinion. Do you understand the difference?

[markw]

Give it a rest, dude. You're making a fool of yourself and embarrassing your profession. People have ears and can hear for themselves. All your huffing, puffing, and pounding your chest won't fool them.

You do realize you're defending, to the death, something that has about as much impact on sales in the AV industry sales as cup-holders do for automotive market, don't you? It's a handy gimmick, everyone has them, and they throw it for free, and it's worth every penny. Personally, I find cup holders more useful. :D

But, I must say, you're providing good entertainment for the viewers.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Give it a rest, dude. You're making a fool of yourself and embarrassing your profession. People have ears and can hear for themselves. All your huffing, puffing, and pounding your chest won't fool them.

Your pitiful ignorance of the technical nuts and bolts of technology is making you look ignorant when you respond to my comments. Therefore, you look much more silly. I am going to ask this again, have you ever heard of psychoacoustics? I bet not, it is beyond your scope of scientific understanding. Your ears argument fails terribly when you understand this concept. Your ears are only as good as your equipment(which is old as hell), and the room it sits in(which is fraught with acoustical issues) which leads to a subjective opinion and not fact.




You do realize you're defending, to the death, something that has about as much impact on sales in the AV industry sales as cup-holders do for automotive market, don't you? It's a handy gimmick, everyone has them, and they throw it for free, and it's worth every penny. Personally, I find cup holders more useful. :D

Actually, I am just pointing out just how stupid you are when it comes to responding to technical issues. Your a simpleton, so if it is not simple, you deflect. I am thoroughly convince that Hurricane Sandy washed out the last brain cell you have left.


But, I must say, you're providing good entertainment for the viewers.

Deflect, deflect, deflect,deflect, deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect, spin spin spin spin. That is all you do Mark.

So I am going to ask you again, and watch you still not response because it is beyond your scope of technical education. Do you really think your 11 year old mid priced receiver processor sounds anything like mine when decoding ANYTHING. Do you really think what you hear in your L-shape room(which is acoustically impossible to treat) can compare with what I hear in my rectangular acoustically treated room? ANYTHING?

If you refuse to answer the question, STFU!

[markw]

It's good enough to get all I need from neo. I get my REAL multi-channel from sources that are recorded with it as it's native format and I don't need it for stereo sources. IMNSO, nobody does. Stereo is made to be played in stereo. Anything else is mental masturbation, of which you seem to be quite defensive.

Yeah, it's the cupholder of the AVR world.

QED

...bye

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It's good enough to get all I need from neo. I get my REAL multi-channel from sources that are recorded with it as it's native format and I don't need it for stereo sources. IMNSO, nobody does. Stereo is made to be played in stereo. Anything else is mental masturbation, of which you seem to be quite defensive.

Once again, you cannot tell somebody what they hear, and you cannot tell somebody else how to playback a stereo recording. What you do is what you do, what you hear in your non optimized room with your old equipment is what you hear. What I hear in my acoustically optimized room with equipment of FAR FAR better quality will be quite different than..ahem...yours.


Yeah, it's the cupholder of the AVR world.

QED

...bye

All this, and he still won't answer a straight question. Folks, don't look behind the curtain, the Wizard of Oz is a fake.

[E-Stat]

Simulates multiple channels? Perhaps.
Artificially derived or synthesized channels using any number of DSP based schemes always sound synthetic to me. Cool sounding for about two minutes.