DTS? Dolby this that and another thing?

[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.

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.

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.