DTS? Dolby this that and another thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

.

Quote:

---

.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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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.