DPL II & DPL IIx

Printable View

  • 05-20-2007, 11:27 AM
    Ace H
    DPL II & DPL IIx
    Would the "average" person be able to hear a difference between DPL II and DPL IIx?
  • 05-20-2007, 04:34 PM
    canuckle
    Well, DPL II turns 2-channel stereo into 5.1 while DPL IIx turns 5.1 into 7.1.

    So yes, DPLIIx will sound different because you'll have sound coming out of your rear channels.
  • 05-20-2007, 05:28 PM
    westcott
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ace H
    Would the "average" person be able to hear a difference between DPL II and DPL IIx?

    Caknucke is right but he left one important fact out. There is not a lot of material with 7.1 information so you may not be able to tell a difference in most instances because there is no information to translate.
  • 05-20-2007, 06:50 PM
    markw
    Actually, I don't think there's any native 7.1 material out there. Some 6.1 and a boat load of 5.1 but no 7.1 as far as I know.

    Plus, it doesn't magically turn two channel into 5.1 channels. It "interpolates" sounds and assigns them to different channels according to some algorithm. IOW, it's an artificial construct.

    But, ultimately, it wouldn't be a valid reason for me to upgrade.
  • 05-20-2007, 10:13 PM
    PeruvianSkies
    Correct...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markw
    Actually, I don't think there's any native 7.1 material out there. Some 6.1 and a boat load of 5.1 but no 7.1 as far as I know.

    Plus, it doesn't magically turn two channel into 5.1 channels. It "interpolates" sounds and assigns them to different channels according to some algorithm. IOW, it's an artificial construct.

    But, ultimately, it wouldn't be a valid reason for me to upgrade.

    And I highly doubt that we will ever see anything in native 7.1. The fact that discrete 6.1 is hardly used or promoted indicates to me that 5.1 is sufficient enough for most people and since you can use your receiver settings to create a phantom middle rear channel even on material that does not have an encoded middle rear, should allow those with 6.1/7.1 capabilities to remain happy while the rest of us enjoy 5.1 just fine. I don't think there is much advantage to discrete 7.1 outside of maybe a movie theater, but that's typically only in the case of SDDS.
  • 05-21-2007, 04:34 AM
    Ace H
    Thanks. I have a Denon 7.1 receiver on the way. I posted the question because I was wondering if I should get the extra two speakers (for DPL IIx) down from the attic.
  • 05-21-2007, 06:04 AM
    GMichael
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ace H
    Thanks. I have a Denon 7.1 receiver on the way. I posted the question because I was wondering if I should get the extra two speakers (for DPL IIx) down from the attic.

    That depends on your room size and layout. If your seating is against the back wall then 7.1 is a total waste. If you have 5 or more feet behind you, it can be nice to have the extra speakers to fill in that space. But as others have said, It's just a made up field that doesn't add a huge difference. I like mine. Others would have no part of it.
    If you don't have the room for them, I believe that some of the Denon 7.1 AVR's will let you use those two extra amps to bi-amp your front mains. Does this improve that sound? Again, it depends on who you ask. Some say of coarse it does, while others will say h.ll no. But it's an option you can play with.

    EDIT:Or you could use those 2 extra amps to run stereo into another room, or even outside.
  • 05-21-2007, 08:41 AM
    recoveryone
    Getting back to the original question, DPL II and DPL IIx is what Mark said, a mode that takes 2 channel sound and artifically create a 5.1/7.1 sound field. Which could yeild some nice results or odd ones, depending on the source of the 2 channel....T.V. VHS tape, CD music, Radio and others. I would not recommed using with descrete sources 4.1/5.1 and 6.1. You would be altering the intendend mix by the engineer. but that just me IMHO.
  • 05-21-2007, 02:41 PM
    canuckle
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by westcott
    Caknucke is right but he left one important fact out. There is not a lot of material with 7.1 information so you may not be able to tell a difference in most instances because there is no information to translate.

    There's no 7.1 material short of about 2 HD discs at present. But that's irrelevant because you use DPL to create 5.1 or 7.1 from sources with less channels. 6.1 material on dvd's is not discrete, it contains matrixing information for a rear channel.

    The fact remains, if you use DPLII you get 5.1 channels. If you use DPLIIx you get 7.1 channels. There's no real difference in the sound, just the number of speakers that get used.
  • 05-21-2007, 10:48 PM
    pixelthis
    In other words its totally useless. I have a "7.1" receiver but like most of the breed the rear
    center uses two speakers, however there are 7 line ins so a HD player with seven channels would work, but I have played 6.1 with and without rear center speakers and the "fake " rear center created without speakers is just as good
  • 05-21-2007, 10:52 PM
    PeruvianSkies
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    In other words its totally useless. I have a "7.1" receiver but like most of the breed the rear
    center uses two speakers, however there are 7 line ins so a HD player with seven channels would work, but I have played 6.1 with and without rear center speakers and the "fake " rear center created without speakers is just as good

    One advantage with a 7.1 receiver is that most of them you can use the extra two channels and run the receiver in bi-amp mode for your front left/right speakers instead of using those two channels for surround purposes.
  • 05-21-2007, 10:58 PM
    pixelthis
    AND YOUR WIRING HAS TO BE MORE COMPLICATED THAN BALKAN POLITICS.
    And dont get me started about "bi-amping, bi-wiring, or other fantasies largely favored in europe
  • 05-22-2007, 05:03 AM
    GMichael
    See what I mean? I rest my case.
  • 05-22-2007, 07:39 AM
    kexodusc
    Speaking as someone who has a rather large room, I'm very happy that my receiver has PL IIx. I cannot recall ever hearing one example where a 2-channel source was processed and it sounded "worse" than PL or 2-channel. In my case it creates a somewhat pleasant surround experience. And it does a waaaaaaaay better job that Pro-Logic ever did.

    As for the benefits of 7.1, I always recommend people get 5.1 done right and done reasonably well first, but again, I have about 10 feet behind my head in my room, and those 2 rear speakers sure add a lot towards creating a complete surround environment. This was made incredibly obvious to me when I sold off a pair of surrounds during an upgrade and went back to 5.1 for a brief period. Again, even applying the processing to a 5.1 track is almost always an improvement. Sometimes it makes little difference, but I've never encountered an example where it made it worse. I have to manually engage that every time I setup a DVD, and I'm always fiddling around with quick a/b comparisons. In my case it was money well spent.

    As GM said, in a smaller room where you're positioned much closer to the rear wall, I don't think you'd benefit much, and in fact could make things worse.
  • 05-22-2007, 11:45 AM
    kelsci
    On post #5, I agree with P.S. that phantom center back sounds can be reproduced with just the general surround left and right speakers. However IMO positioning of these speakers will determine how much center back surround information will be heard whether it is discrete 5.1 or DPL-2 5.1.

    On post #7, GMichael is correct that if you have no back wall to hook up a sixth and or seventh channel you would be wasting your time trying to do so. The sixth and seventh channels are going to have to be recessed some distance back from the standard left and right surround speakers to do any good.

    On post #8, the question of the intended mix of the engineer comes into play. DPL-2 may very well bring out a true intended MATRIX mix that an engineer did in his studio. One may be able to find this out if they still are using vinyl and have SQ quad records(see my comment on STAR TREK below).

    I find DPL-2 movie to be a waste. IMHO it is best to go for adjusting the DPL-2 music modes features of width and dimension in your system. Leave Panorama OFF.

    I have heard one system that gave almost the same spacial ques. It was a five channel dynaquad system I created years back. Since it is a wiring scheme, I have wired a two to five five channel dynaquad system on my current system and then rewired back to listen to DPL-2 music on the same recordings. The spacial ques are nearly the same.

    My original 5 channel dynaquad system did not seem to reproduce a center back surround sound. It appears that the design of the speaker system I used to obtain that sound prevented center back surround information from being reproduce. DPL-2 music will reproduce center back channel information phantomly if it is there. If it is there, it may not be there accidentally, but put there intentionally in the matrix mix. Obviously, Dolby Labs in experimenting with DPL-2 music must have heard center back surround information phantomly in their labs, so they added the sixth X channel on to it could be reproduced out of an actual channel much like D.D. EX and DTS-ES Matrix.

    I have heard DD-EX on a sixth channel over another system so IMHO DPL-2X should definetely work for those who have the facilities to hook up the sixth and/or seventh channels. Depending on the recording, this might sound real good.

    On my system, the AMC broadcast of THE EXORCIST recently, sounded fantastic in DPL-2X MUSIC mode. The original series STAR TREK episodes have added stereo tracks with definite directional surround sound in the rears. I was listening to an episode GALIEO 7. Sounds were rumbling back and forth over the rear surround speakers across the board.
    In one case on another episode, a torpedo was fired to the right and I could hear it pass my on the rear right speaker.

    IMO DPL-2 is "digital dynaquad" and like dynaquad reproduces sounds that are not heard in a stereo mix but in some cases meant to be heard in a matrix producing circuit with stereo surround and center back information in the rear channels.
  • 05-22-2007, 03:23 PM
    Ace H
    My Denon 7.1 A/V Receiver should arrive tomorrow, Wed 5/23/07. The Denon receiver I'll have DOES allow me to choose surround back, zone 2 or Bi-Amp. I'm not at all familiar with Bi-Amp. I have two extra Yamaha speakers capable of handling 100 watts. If I choose to go the Bi-Amp route what will this do?

    Just curious, can you use WIRELESS speakers for surround back?
  • 05-22-2007, 08:51 PM
    canuckle
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ace H
    I'm not at all familiar with Bi-Amp. I have two extra Yamaha speakers capable of handling 100 watts. If I choose to go the Bi-Amp route what will this do?

    You don't need extra speakers to bi-amp, you need speakers capable of being bi-amped. If you don't have 4 binding posts on the back of them, then you're outta luck.
  • 05-23-2007, 04:11 AM
    GMichael
    Look at the back of your two front main speakers and tell us if they have 4 binding posts each.
    You won't need the extra speakers for this.

    What size room do you have?
    How much room is behind where you sit?
    What speakers are you using?
  • 05-23-2007, 07:59 AM
    Ace H
    I DON'T have 4 binding post each. My Mains are JBL S38.

    Just what does biamping do to speakers capable of this?
  • 05-23-2007, 08:48 AM
    westcott
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ace H
    I DON'T have 4 binding post each. My Mains are JBL S38.

    Just what does biamping do to speakers capable of this?

    Allows for more power and\or more amps to be connected to drive the speaker.
  • 05-23-2007, 07:05 PM
    bobsticks
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by westcott
    Allows for more power and\or more amps to be connected to drive the speaker.

    ...but evidently only if you're delusional or European.
  • 05-23-2007, 09:18 PM
    pixelthis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bobsticks
    ...but evidently only if you're delusional or European.

    absolutely
    (And maybe some places in australia)
    I have tried the bi-wiring with b&w 602s2' so I know what I am talking about, just a lot of hassel, extra complication, etc.
    And if your speakers dont have 4 binding posts (like my klipschs do)then consider yourself lucky, there are jumpers between the posts for "normal" operation, they come off all of the time.
    A friend completely lost the highs in one of his speakers and was freakin out once, the first thing I did was check the jumpers on the bmw speakers, they had come loose.
    Bi-wiring is largely favored in europe , especially england, which isnt surprising considering
    the english once made a car with holes in the oilpan to save weight:ciappa:
  • 05-24-2007, 05:37 AM
    GMichael
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    absolutely
    (And maybe some places in australia)
    I have tried the bi-wiring with b&w 602s2' so I know what I am talking about, just a lot of hassel, extra complication, etc.
    And if your speakers dont have 4 binding posts (like my klipschs do)then consider yourself lucky, there are jumpers between the posts for "normal" operation, they come off all of the time.
    A friend completely lost the highs in one of his speakers and was freakin out once, the first thing I did was check the jumpers on the bmw speakers, they had come loose.
    Bi-wiring is largely favored in europe , especially england, which isnt surprising considering
    the english once made a car with holes in the oilpan to save weight:ciappa:

    I agree that Bi-wiring is likely not to make much difference. But we were talking about Bi-amping. This I believe can make a difference more often.

    Sorry to the original poster. If your speakers don't have the 4 posts then you can't do it. What it would have let you do it to have one amp drive the mids and highs while another amp drives just the base. This lets both amps work a little easier.

    You could still use those extra amps to drive speakers in another room.
  • 05-26-2007, 12:55 AM
    pixelthis
    YOU GET A LOT MORE use outta em that way, bi-amping and bi-wiring (tried both)
    are just audiophile hoodoo, from the guys who think the single end triode is the end-all be-all.
    You'd need bi-amping to run a clock radio speaker off of their crappy tube amps
  • 05-26-2007, 04:44 AM
    GMichael
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    YOU GET A LOT MORE use outta em that way, bi-amping and bi-wiring (tried both)
    are just audiophile hoodoo, from the guys who think the single end triode is the end-all be-all.
    You'd need bi-amping to run a clock radio speaker off of their crappy tube amps

    You don't bi-amp your clock radio? Oh man, you don't know what you're missing.:ciappa: