Dolby Surround (2014) vs Dolby Pro Logic II

[kfbkfb]

Delos made a Dolby Surround (original meaning) test CD:
https://delosmusic.com/recording/surround-spectacular-the-music-the-tests/
It would be interesting to try these original DS format test signals
and see how the test signals are rerouted by the new DS decoder(s).

Kirk Bayne

 

[Wunlow]

I've always preferred DPL-2's Music mode, as it offers more flexibility compared to DPL-2 Movie and is the same matrix decode (..at least when Parorama is turned off.)

DPL-2's slight variances and optional adjustments are detailed here: https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_8_1/dolby-prologic2-3-2001.html

 

[ssully]

It's a cryin' shame, but having lived with it for a few months now, the 'new' Dolby Surround Upmixing just isn't as good as good old DPLII. (Don't take my word for it...Roger Dressler , who helped launch Dolby surround products for 25 years, agrees)
DSU seems geared to be 'idiot proof', for 7.1 systems, and biased toward movie soundtracks. None of which applies to my situation.

A real loss because new AVRs now tend to discard DPLII in favor of DSU.

So if, like me, you want new-type feature sets (built in wifi, control of Audyssey via an app, etc) you have to forego old-type Dolby upmixing quality.
(Harman's Logic 7, another contender, also seems to be extinct in new AVRs)

 

[stormchaser]

With my Marantz AV-7704 in a 7.1.4 setup, I have Dolby Surround and I like it for some situations, but I THINK I like it less than what DPL II provided. I should note that I never heard DPL IIz. What I find is that I bounce back and forth between the Auro 3D upmixer (for a more structured soundfield and tighter bass) vs. DS for a more aggressive "effects" sound. At times though, the DS upmixer really does overdo the reverb in ways that sound really offputting.

 

[ashr1565]

Has anyone given this a go with games? Slightly offtopic I know but my Playstation 2 and Nintendo Wii libraries are chock full of Prologic II/x stuff and that matters to me. If anyone's tried old console games with Prologic via this new Dolby Surround thing I'd be curious about the results.

 

[jaybird100]

It's a cryin' shame, but having lived with it for a few months now, the 'new' Dolby Surround Upmixing just isn't as good as good old DPLII. (Don't take my word for it...Roger Dressler , who helped launch Dolby surround products for 25 years, agrees)
DSU seems geared to be 'idiot proof', for 7.1 systems, and biased toward movie soundtracks. None of which applies to my situation.

A real loss because new AVRs now tend to discard DPLII in favor of DSU.

So if, like me, you want new-type feature sets (built in wifi, control of Audyssey via an app, etc) you have to forego old-type Dolby upmixing quality.
(Harman's Logic 7, another contender, also seems to be extinct in new AVRs)

What tends to make the situation worse is that, for those of us who enjoy music in quad, and would want to connect a separate processor to one of the new receivers, it's all but impossible. No multichannel analog inputs are provided, so if I wanted to connect my Surround Master to a new receiver, I can't. Pro Logic II could do a very credible job of decoding QS, but didn't do so well with SQ. The new Dolby Surround has nothing at all to do with the matrix-based PL II. A serious F-up by the industry.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

What tends to make the situation worse is that, for those of us who enjoy music in quad, and would want to connect a separate processor to one of the new receivers, it's all but impossible. No multichannel analog inputs are provided, so if I wanted to connect my Surround Master to a new receiver, I can't. Pro Logic II could do a very credible job of decoding QS, but didn't do so well with SQ. The new Dolby Surround has nothing at all to do with the matrix-based PL II. A serious F-up by the industry.

You are totaly right on all points. It is a challenge to construct a system of analog/digital connections in the present tense. At some point a person decides to leave the past behind or forgo the benefits of the future. I am so lucky to have a very good blend that suits me fine.

 

[jaybird100]

Delos made a Dolby Surround (original meaning) test CD:
https://delosmusic.com/recording/surround-spectacular-the-music-the-tests/
It would be interesting to try these original DS format test signals
and see how the test signals are rerouted by the new DS decoder(s).

Kirk Bayne

Totally different. No correlation.

 

[jaybird100]

You are totaly right on all points. It is a challenge to construct a system of analog/digital connections in the present tense. At some point a person decides to leave the past behind or forgo the benefits of the future. I am so lucky to have a very good blend that suits me fine.

I have no problem with moving forward, for those who can benefit from it I really don't see the need in my case. I'm more of a music guy than movie, although I do enjoy movies in surround, but my 72 year old ears find a simple 5.1 system more than adequate. For music, I prefer to turn the center off altogether, and certainly don't need speakers over my head. My big beef is that some of us have perfectly wonderful DVD-A and SACD players that we simply wouldn't be able to connect to most of these new breed receivers. I also still enjoy quad vinyl, and would want to be able to connect my Surround Master to the system. Most of the new receivers won't accommodate that. I can't imagine it would add that much to the cost of a receiver to add those connections back in. So when it comes down to choosing between the past and the future, I'll live in the past, thank you.

 

[kfbkfb]

Regarding the Delos test CD, I was thinking of mapping where the sounds
are sent by the new DSU system (there's quite a lot of "old" Dolby Surround
content available, it could be useful to know how different DSU is from DS).


Kirk Bayne

 

[jaybird100]

These tend to be overlooked, and some of them are really good! This is one of my favorites.

However, these are encoded in the original Pro Logic system, not PLII, which I believe means they were mixed with wide stereo in the fronts and mono rears. I have an early Pro Logic Decoder (AudioSource SS-3) in my setup and it only has three balance controls: FL, FR, and Rear Center.

Most of Tomita's quad titles were reissued as Dolby CDs in the early 90s. I think these are simply the quad mixes with the rears summed to mono.

Not so. If you listen to Dolby Surround CD's through PL II, or even a Surround Master, there is very clear and, er, logical separation across the rear speakers. The summing of the rears in the original Pro Logic was done in the decoder, along with the 7 kHz brick wall. PL II removes those restrictions.

 

[furui_suterioo]

Regarding the Delos test CD, I was thinking of mapping where the sounds
are sent by the new DSU system (there's quite a lot of "old" Dolby Surround
content available, it could be useful to know how different DSU is from DS).


Kirk Bayne

Would be also interesting to see what it does with QS test tones, although I wouldn't expect much given that the new DSU is not part of the original DS family. Seems like Atmos would be better promoted without Dolby reintroducing the name of an older format, it just causes format confusion which we all know is bad, it should be called something more to the effect of "Atmos Upmix Mode" to clear things up and display the Atmos name.

 

[MidiMagic]

Note that they never changed the DS encoding on any medium. When you take the 2-channel output of a record, a cassette, a CD, or a DVD, you are getting the same encoding (unless they cheaped out on what they put on the recording - I have a few DVDs with mono in the 2-channel output).

My original LP of "The Story of Star Wars" is in the same Dolby Stereo they put on the film. It plays the same on my Dolby Surround and on my Dolby Pro Logic II decoders. It also plays almost the same on a Dynaco Diamond and on my UQ-1 when set for QS (the surround delay is missing, so the side image is not fixed).

I have many other LPs and CDs of movie soundtracks in Dolby Stereo because the sound was taken directly from the film.

 

[ssully]

I have no problem with moving forward, for those who can benefit from it I really don't see the need in my case. I'm more of a music guy than movie, although I do enjoy movies in surround, but my 72 year old ears find a simple 5.1 system more than adequate. For music, I prefer to turn the center off altogether, and certainly don't need speakers over my head. My big beef is that some of us have perfectly wonderful DVD-A and SACD players that we simply wouldn't be able to connect to most of these new breed receivers.

They must be rather old DVDA and SACD players. HDMI has been able to pass both formats for ages now.

 

[tcdriver]

I have no problem with moving forward, for those who can benefit from it I really don't see the need in my case. I'm more of a music guy than movie, although I do enjoy movies in surround, but my 72 year old ears find a simple 5.1 system more than adequate. For music, I prefer to turn the center off altogether, and certainly don't need speakers over my head. My big beef is that some of us have perfectly wonderful DVD-A and SACD players that we simply wouldn't be able to connect to most of these new breed receivers. I also still enjoy quad vinyl, and would want to be able to connect my Surround Master to the system. Most of the new receivers won't accommodate that. I can't imagine it would add that much to the cost of a receiver to add those connections back in. So when it comes down to choosing between the past and the future, I'll live in the past, thank you.

It is true that most of the new receivers do not have multi-channel inputs, there are some that do. The Marantz SR- series receivers do have multi- channel input. One does not have to choose between living is the past or future. One can have both old and new formats.

About a year ago, I was shopping for a modern receiver that could play Dolby AMOS and also my legacy multi-channel music. I bought a Marantz unit. I also purchased a new Sony UBP-X800M2 disc player that can play CD, DVD-V, DVD-A, SACD and Blu-ray (with Dolby ATMOS, dts:X and AURO-3D). There are no analog outputs on this Sony player, just one HDMI connection between disc player and receiver. QS and SQ LP records are played through an Involve Audio Surround Master V2 that feeds the analog inputs to my Marantz receiver. I can now have the best of the past and current formats.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

I also purchased a new Sony UBP-X800M2 disc player that can play CD, DVD-V, DVD-A, SACD and Blu-ray (with Dolby ATMOS, dts:X and AURO-3D). There are no analog outputs on this Sony player, just one HDMI connection between disc player and receiver. QS and SQ LP records are played through an Involve Audio Surround Master V2 that feeds the analog inputs to my Marantz receiver. I can now have the best of the past and current formats.

If you have a Sony player with only HDMI ouputs, how do you play the multitude of digital stereo 2ch CD, SACD 2 ch, matixed digital discs, to the Involve? I guess I am confused because it seems you can only feed LP records to the SM & leaving so much more behind?

 

[kfbkfb]

So...has anyone tried using L,C,R,S "encoded" Stereo content processed thru the new DSU system (S is just a signal that's 180 degrees out of phase between L and R), original DS will send that type of signal to the Back/Surround speaker(s).


Kirk Bayne

 

[tcdriver]

If you have a Sony player with only HDMI ouputs, how do you play the multitude of digital stereo 2ch CD, SACD 2 ch, matixed digital discs, to the Involve? I guess I am confused because it seems you can only feed LP records to the SM & leaving so much more behind?

Good question. Currently, I only use the Surround Master V2 to play legacy QS and SQ records or to synthesize multi-channel music from standard two-channel stereo phonograph records. I also have a Harman Kardon CD/DVD-A/SACD player, with analog outputs, that I could use to feed the Surround Master, however; I prefer to use the matrix decoders in the Martantz over the Surround Master to synthesize multi-channel from two-channel sources.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Good question. Currently, I only use the Surround Master V2 to play legacy QS and SQ records or to synthesize multi-channel music from standard two-channel stereo phonograph records. I also have a Harman Kardon CD/DVD-A/SACD player, with analog outputs, that I could use to feed the Surround Master, however; I prefer to use the matrix decoders in the Martantz over the Surround Master,View attachment 59741 to synthesize multi-channel from two-channel sources.

Good answer. The SM v2 is excellent for playing legacy QS/SQ records, gotta agree with you there. I don't see a Marantz listed in your profile "about" so I don't know about its stereo to surround modes it might have. Certainly there are folks that swear by proprietary surround synth modes like Lexicon or the Fosgate / Harman Kardon.
My oldish Anthem pre/pro has DPL II X, Neo 6, & Anthem Logic, none of which sound as good to me as stereo to surround via the Surround Master. I might suggest, just as a test, switch cables & use some digital sources for the SM. The better quality in, the better quality out on the SM. There's people here that have bought switchers so they can route all their program sources into the SM, even if it's a digital source.

If you give it a shot, I'd certainly be interested to hear your opinion.

 

[tcdriver]

Good answer. The SM v2 is excellent for playing legacy QS/SQ records, gotta agree with you there. I don't see a Marantz listed in your profile "about" so I don't know about its stereo to surround modes it might have. Certainly there are folks that swear by proprietary surround synth modes like Lexicon or the Fosgate / Harman Kardon.

The Marantz SR 7013 has several surround modes some of which up-mix to use all the speakers in my 5.1.4 music system.

Marantz SR 7013 has several sound modes:

My oldish Anthem pre/pro has DPL II X, Neo 6, & Anthem Logic, none of which sound as good to me as stereo to surround via the Surround Master. I might suggest, just as a test, switch cables & use some digital sources for the SM. The better quality in, the better quality out on the SM. There's people here that have bought switchers so they can route all their program sources into the SM, even if it's a digital source.

If you give it a shot, I'd certainly be interested to hear your opinion.

Thank you for your comments. I may give that a try.