how long have you owned you AV receiver?

[paul_pci]

I never bought into DPLII for one simple reason: there are no sources out there that are encoded specifically for DPLII. This means that DPLII is no different than any other DSP mode. It might sound better than the others, but it's still another layer of processing on top of a specific decoding scheme that makes the quality of the playback a lot more random.

DPL is different in that it decodes two-channel Dolby Surround soundtracks that were specifically mixed with DPL decoding in mind. The DPL scheme entails an encoded monophonic bandwidth-restricted surround track folded into the two-channel mix, along with extracted center channel info. That's really all that gets encoded into a Dolby Surround soundtrack.

Whatever DPLII adds with the channel steering and redirecting main channel info into the surrounds is conceptually the same as what one of those room simulating DSP modes does. In my listenings, DPLII can definitely add to the immersive effect, but depending on how the Dolby Surround soundtrack was mixed, it can also create some very bizarre sounding effects as well.

In general, I prefer to stick with straight DPL for TV viewing, yet even there the quality of the surround effect and center channel redirecting will vary. But, at least it won't steer dialog or other sounds clearly intended for the front channels into the surrounds.

Five-channel stereo is too gimmicky for my long-term listening enjoyment. Dolby Surround soundtracks with a lot of ambient cues have out-of-phase signals folded into the mix, and in five-channel stereo mode, those just sound horrible. And having voices all around with no imaging coherency or directionality defeats the whole purpose of surround sound. Might as well just plug in a pair of Bose 901s if you want that same "mono everywhere" effect. Some music sounds decent in five-channel stereo, but as with DPLII, the playback quality varies too much for me to keep it on for very long.

Yes, I've heard bizarre sound effects from Dolby tracks using PLII, mostly with DVD extras (voices coming from rear speakers, nothing from the center). But what is different, correct me if I'm wrong, is that with PLII, the rearr matrix is not mono, that is you can and will get different sounds from the left and right rears where in original PL you get a mono sound split to the two speakers. Again, for watching, tv, I really enjoy it. It's also of course necessary for gaming, my PS2, for instance. And those are really the only two sources I'll use PLII for.

[Woochifer]

Yes, I've heard bizarre sound effects from Dolby tracks using PLII, mostly with DVD extras (voices coming from rear speakers, nothing from the center). But what is different, correct me if I'm wrong, is that with PLII, the rearr matrix is not mono, that is you can and will get different sounds from the left and right rears where in original PL you get a mono sound split to the two speakers. Again, for watching, tv, I really enjoy it. It's also of course necessary for gaming, my PS2, for instance. And those are really the only two sources I'll use PLII for.

Yes and no. DPLII works by steering sound from the mains into the surrounds. This creates directionality in the surrounds. The rear matrix itself is encoded into the Dolby Surround soundtrack, and by definition it is bandwidth-restricted and monophonic. DPLII mixes that monophonic surround track with full bandwidth sound from the main channels to create a simulated directional effect. It can sound quite good if the soundtrack is right. But, it can also sound pretty bizarre if the conditions are somewhat off (i.e. TV broadcasts with abnormal channel separation or balance, and mixes with a lot of directional dialog).

In general, I don't like to mess around too much with two-channel sources. (I went straight from stereo to 5.1 when I made the jump to home theater) I use DPL decoding with TV viewing because that's how most TV shows and two-channel movie soundtracks are encoded. I prefer to hear things as they were intended to be played back. There's only so much that can be done with a two-channel soundtrack, and if I had DPLII in my receiver, I would probably use it. But, as such, I don't feel like I'm missing out by not having it either.

[paul_pci]

Yes and no. DPLII works by steering sound from the mains into the surrounds. This creates directionality in the surrounds. The rear matrix itself is encoded into the Dolby Surround soundtrack, and by definition it is bandwidth-restricted and monophonic. DPLII mixes that monophonic surround track with full bandwidth sound from the main channels to create a simulated directional effect. It can sound quite good if the soundtrack is right. But, it can also sound pretty bizarre if the conditions are somewhat off (i.e. TV broadcasts with abnormal channel separation or balance, and mixes with a lot of directional dialog).

In general, I don't like to mess around too much with two-channel sources. (I went straight from stereo to 5.1 when I made the jump to home theater) I use DPL decoding with TV viewing because that's how most TV shows and two-channel movie soundtracks are encoded. I prefer to hear things as they were intended to be played back. There's only so much that can be done with a two-channel soundtrack, and if I had DPLII in my receiver, I would probably use it. But, as such, I don't feel like I'm missing out by not having it either.

Cool.

[shokhead]

Yes and no. DPLII works by steering sound from the mains into the surrounds. This creates directionality in the surrounds. The rear matrix itself is encoded into the Dolby Surround soundtrack, and by definition it is bandwidth-restricted and monophonic. DPLII mixes that monophonic surround track with full bandwidth sound from the main channels to create a simulated directional effect. It can sound quite good if the soundtrack is right. But, it can also sound pretty bizarre if the conditions are somewhat off (i.e. TV broadcasts with abnormal channel separation or balance, and mixes with a lot of directional dialog).

In general, I don't like to mess around too much with two-channel sources. (I went straight from stereo to 5.1 when I made the jump to home theater) I use DPL decoding with TV viewing because that's how most TV shows and two-channel movie soundtracks are encoded. I prefer to hear things as they were intended to be played back. There's only so much that can be done with a two-channel soundtrack, and if I had DPLII in my receiver, I would probably use it. But, as such, I don't feel like I'm missing out by not having it either.

Thats what i said untill i got it and used it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hey Sir T,

Don't you have Dunlavy's? I saw a IV and V on audiogon the other day if you're interested.

I have 5 SC IV in storage awaiting their new studio home. The last thing I need right now is more speakers!!

[hershon]

I appologize if I'm mixing you up with lensman who seems to have dissapeared but you have a Denon 3805 that you needed an amp for if I'm remembering this right. Why again, if that was you did you need an amp for this system?

I have 5 SC IV in storage awaiting their new studio home. The last thing I need right now is more speakers!!

[BadAssJazz]

I have a Denon 3802 that I've had for 3 years now. Love it. It does everything that I need it to do and I've never had any problems with it at all.

...but...

I'm in the process of upgrading other components and since little brother accidently melted his Onkyo receiver, I've decided to pass the 3802 down to him. But I am struggling with that somewhat. I don't think that I will find a receiver that really blows away the performance of the 3802 for less than $1K -- no matter how many new features you tack on. I am considering the Marantz sr8500, but waiting for sticker shock to wear off. For $1500 I could be in Kauai for a week ... or home theater Nirvana for the entire year. Decisions, decisions....

[JoeE SP9]

I have never owned a receiver. I will probably never buy one. I will be buying a new processor quite soon. Surround has never been that important to me. My rig is mainly for music.

[Seanc0500]

...and are you still satisifed?



how about you?

I bought a Yamaha HTR-5150 back in '99 and I still love
it. It's got 5.1 DD and DTS.
Its clean solid power is underutilized by my current mediocre
speaker setup.
I plan on keeping this for years. For my needs right now, it
has plenty of inputs and outputs and I like the remote, as it has
the capability of controlling all my other components.

[vr6ofpain]

~8 years. A Kenwood Pro logic receiver. It works decently, sounds alright, and I love the remote (very simply by todays standards, but does all functions). KR-7080 or something like that. It is a 100x3(FCR), 30x2(surr). Going to have to upgrade at some point. I obviously want DD, but I really am interested in Pro Logic II for possible music surround (intrigues me). I have got a kick out of different DSP surround modes different receivers have had, but never though any were great. Some worked well for live recordings, or if you wanted a different feel with your music, but none were every "right". I think PL II might be what I wanted.

[hershon]

I have never owned a receiver. I will probably never buy one. I will be buying a new processor quite soon. Surround has never been that important to me. My rig is mainly for music.

Music aside, if you watch TV or DVD movies, there's a night and day difference in sound hearing it in surround sound. If you don't notice it, good for you but I'd think almost everyone does. It's also like watching HDTV and not watching HDTV. Huge difference.

[JoeE SP9]

Music aside, if you watch TV or DVD movies, there's a night and day difference in sound hearing it in surround sound. If you don't notice it, good for you but I'd think almost everyone does. It's also like watching HDTV and not watching HDTV. Huge difference.

Please note: The Lexicon CP1 processor is a surrround sound processor. I have been experimenting with surround sound from the days of SQ/QS, Benchmark Delay and Dynaco Quadaptor. It is just not that important for listening to music, for me. I have a pair of Acoustat Model 1's for my rears which currently see little or no use. They are set up in my listening room. When I purchase a new surround processor I anticipate giving them a lot of use although they will be used almost exclusivly for TV or DVD movies. I do have quite a few movies on VHS. I will probably not replace them but keep them to watch. After all they do have Dolby soundtracks. VHS: I know how many of you feel about the format. I still listen to and purchase vinyl and have no intention of giving up that habit either.

[hershon]

Whatever makes you happy.

Please note: The Lexicon CP1 processor is a surrround sound processor. I have been experimenting with surround sound from the days of SQ/QS, Benchmark Delay and Dynaco Quadaptor. It is just not that important for listening to music, for me. I have a pair of Acoustat Model 1's for my rears which currently see little or no use. They are set up in my listening room. When I purchase a new surround processor I anticipate giving them a lot of use although they will be used almost exclusivly for TV or DVD movies. I do have quite a few movies on VHS. I will probably not replace them but keep them to watch. After all they do have Dolby soundtracks. VHS: I know how many of you feel about the format. I still listen to and purchase vinyl and have no intention of giving up that habit either.

[shokhead]

I know what you mean. My fricken horse still works great and gets killer mpg.

[Lexmark3200]

I have had my Onkyo TX-SR600 for a good three years now, and still love it; the feel of the controls, the weight of the damn thing, the solid aluminum faceplate....it has everything we pretty much need right now in terms of decoding capabilities, including DD, DD EX, DTS, DTS ES and Pro Logic II....my parents even have the same receiver here in their house in Vegas, and it fills their massive media room with 10 foot vaulted cathedral ceilings with 5.0 sound (they have no sub).

[bjornb17]

i got my HK AVR130 in july 2004 and still going strong.