Why can't new equipment play old material

[ssully]

They removed Pro Logic II because no new product is being released that uses it, and they don't care about the users who have libraries of VHS tapes and laserdiscs that use that format. A sad, but true, fact. Plus, it saves them money not to include those chips. We're the ones who lose out. As for the new system doing a decent job of upmixing encoded material, there's a difference between upmixing and decoding. The new system is different enough from the Pro Logic II, that you won't get anything close to what was intended. An external decoder, such as a Surround Master, could do the job quite well. Problem is, most new receivers and processors don't have the multi-channel analog inputs needed to connect the SM. That's the main reason why I won't update my receiver.

the solution at the other end, of course, is for Surround Master to add a digital out that supports multichannel lossless (HDMI) . But that costs them money too. (Personally, I'd pay the extra).

or, software that correctly decodes Dolby encodes , in a laptop or desktop, with HDMI out to AVR.

 

[ssully]

I am listening to Dolby Surround on TV right now as I type. So there is still "product" out there. I get Dolby Surround commercials and (a few) recordings on the radio. Like the change from CD to DVD to BluRay, they want you to buy the recording again.

Sorry, when you write 'Dolby Surround', do you mean the original Dolby Surround, from 1982, that predated Dolby Pro Logic? The one that was 3-channel: Front Left/Front Right/mono Surround format, and bandwidth-limited in the surrounds?


Or do you mean the 2014 Dolby Surround?

 

[Owen Smith]

Sorry, when you write 'Dolby Surround', do you mean the original Dolby Surround, from 1982, that predated Dolby Pro Logic? The one that was 3-channel: Front Left/Front Right/mono Surround format, and bandwidth-limited in the surrounds?

Or do you mean the 2014 Dolby Surround?

Dolby Pro Logic only changed the decoding, and similarly Pro Logic II only changed the decoding. The encoding for both of those was the same original Dolby Surround from the late 1970s as per the original Star Wars film.

Yes it's confusing. We have originally Dolby Surround, and the new one which is more properly called Dolby Surround Upmix. One might think Dolby deliberately made it confusing.

 

[jimfisheye]

You could "brute force" the issue and capture an HDMI signal from a rogue piece of gear with a hardware decoder in it.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1201804-REG/magewell_pc_100_xe_1080p_video_capture.html
But jeeze, ya know...
Can we just buy a download and purchase a media player app?!
(Well, right now Dolby says "no!" to that for encoded Atmos.)

 

[ssully]

Dolby Pro Logic only changed the decoding, and similarly Pro Logic II only changed the decoding. The encoding for both of those was the same original Dolby Surround from the late 1970s as per the original Star Wars film.

Right. 4 channel encoding on the soundtrack, but only 3 channel decoding at home, until DPL appeared.

I'm still wondering what Dolby Surround 'on TV right now' means.

Yes it's confusing. We have originally Dolby Surround, and the new one which is more properly called Dolby Surround Upmix. One might think Dolby deliberately made it confusing.

Good luck even finding a mention of Dolby Surround on its website these days. It's all Atmos, Atmos, ATMOS.

 

[Owen Smith]

Good luck even finding a mention of Dolby Surround on its website these days. It's all Atmos, Atmos, ATMOS.

Dolby lost the original format war for Blu Ray audio, DTS HD MA won that one. Dolby have fought back with Atmos and appear to be winning this time, it's getting far more attention than DTS:X. And personally I feel it's almost entirely down to the names, Dolby True HD is a crap name and so is DTS:X.

 

[MidiMagic]

Windows ME - they couldn't have made a worse choice to change to if they'd tried. Microsoft didn't even want to do ME, they got their arm twisted into it by the industry demanding one more 16 bit kernel based version of Windows. I can't make my mind up whether Microsoft did a crap job deliberately to ensure there would be no calls for another one after that, or they cared so little about it and under funded it that it came out crap by accident.

That's your own managers and IT department stupidity, not Microsoft's fault. They could have worked with you to work out what was possible, what new PCs had the right card slots (ISA slots I suspect) and whether there was any scope for running things on Windows 2000 or XP or on VMs.

But given all the direct driving of hardware you were probably doing, because on Windows 3.1 there often weren't any drivers or if there were they only worked on DOS/3.1, there may have been no upgrade possible. It's a problem for the entire industry, things move on and your old gear becomes unusable. Connecting everything over USB does appear to be a step forward on that front.

The executives wanted all of the computers they owned to be identical.

Bit they didn't want too pay for upgrading the lab equipment. They said we bought the "wrong" equipment. Never mind that the "right" equipment did not exist and would not for two more years (time needed to make the equipment work with new operating system).

XP appeared about the time the new cards for ME were ready. There was also no USB then.

Again, this equipment was computer controlled in real time. The new Windows cards did not work in real time, but an approximation of it because Windows took its own timeslixces.

 

[MidiMagic]

Right. 4 channel encoding on the soundtrack, but only 3 channel decoding at home, until DPL appeared.

I'm still wondering what Dolby Surround 'on TV right now' means.


Good luck even finding a mention of Dolby Surround on its website these days. It's all Atmos, Atmos, ATMOS.

You could add a center channel speaker. And some of the 1982 decoders had center channel outputs (mine does). I have a DS and a PL I.

I am listening to Dolby Surround on TV right now on the History Channel. My PL decoder is decoding it correctly.

 

[MidiMagic]

Sorry, when you write 'Dolby Surround', do you mean the original Dolby Surround, from 1982, that predated Dolby Pro Logic? The one that was 3-channel: Front Left/Front Right/mono Surround format, and bandwidth-limited in the surrounds?


Or do you mean the 2014 Dolby Surround?

I have a PL (I) decoder. The encoding of original Dolby Surround did not change from 1977 to now.

 

[Owen Smith]

I have a PL (I) decoder. The encoding of original Dolby Surround did not change from 1977 to now.

I never liked PL (I), the rears were so poorly served. It only became usable for me when PL II came out. This may be because a lot of UK TV is not properly encoded, but also I don't like mono rears.

 

[barfle]

Doesn't much matter. I don't have any, anyway.

I have 58 Edison Diamond Discs, and about 100 more 78s. But no cylinders.

 

[barfle]

My posts to this thread are intended to indicate that audio and video formats are born and die, some of them leaving those who boight into them with orphan media. The list is very long, and I’ve only touched on it. Even if I posted everything my old brain remembers, there would be plenty of formats left out.

I’m sympathetic to those who purchased discs, reels, cylinders, files, bar codes, etc. that no longer have the support of their creators. But expecting manufacturers to support a format they concluded is a failure isn’t realistic. I once manufactured equipment to, in effect, put “chapters” on VHS tapes and allow a user to access those chapters with a simple keyboard. If someone wants support for one of those boards, they’re SOL.

 

[Owen Smith]

I’m sympathetic to those who purchased discs, reels, cylinders, files, bar codes, etc. that no longer have the support of their creators. But expecting manufacturers to support a format they concluded is a failure isn’t realistic.

But original Dolby Surround was a huge, decades long success and has a vast catalogue of material encoded in it. It makes legacy quad formats releases look miniscule in comparison. Frankly unless you never bought a DVD, almost everyone will own something that is original Dolby Surround encoded.

 

[barfle]

But original Dolby Surround was a huge, decades long success and has a vast catalogue of material encoded in it. It makes legacy quad formats releases look miniscule in comparison. Frankly unless you never bought a DVD, almost everyone will own something that is original Dolby Surround encoded.

I probably should have included the word “obsolete” in my post. Yes, I’m sympathetic, but it appears their support of that format wouldn’t be profitable.

 

[ssully]

I have a PL (I) decoder. The encoding of original Dolby Surround did not change from 1977 to now.

Let's clarify:

The old Dolby 'surround' in cinema was 4 channel encoded and called 'Dolby Stereo'. At home, this could at first be decoded to 3 channel only, using Dolby Surround (1982). This was upgraded to Dolby Pro Logic in 1987, so the original 4 channels were now decoded to 4 channels. (in no case was it what we call 'quad' though: the 4th channel was the Center, the surrounds were mono)

As per the wiki page:

Dolby Surround is the earliest consumer version of Dolby's surround sound decoding technology. It was introduced to the public in 1982 during the time home video recording formats (such as Betamax and VHS) were introducing Stereo and HiFi capability. The name Dolby Surround described the consumer passive matrix decoding technology; the professional, active-matrix cinema technology bore the name Dolby Stereo. It was capable of decoding Dolby Stereo four-channel soundtracks to three output channels (Left, Right, Surround). The Center channel was fed equally to the Left and Right speakers. The Surround channel was limited to a 100 Hz to 7 kHz frequency bandwidth, as dialog from the center channel could leak into the surround channel - there was as little as 3 dB of separation between LCR and Surround channels.[2]

In 1987 the decoding technology was updated and renamed Dolby Pro Logic.

A Pro Logic decoder/processor "unfolds" the sound into the original 4.0 surround—left and right, center, and a single limited frequency-range (7 kHz low-pass filtered[2]) mono rear channel.

Any DPL version from 1987 on could authentically decode the 4 channel legacy 'Dolby Stereo' encodes. The new DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) has no legacy decoders, is what people are saying.

 

[atrocity]

But original Dolby Surround was a huge, decades long success and has a vast catalogue of material encoded in it. It makes legacy quad formats releases look miniscule in comparison. Frankly unless you never bought a DVD, almost everyone will own something that is original Dolby Surround encoded.

THIS!!!

I understand why modern equipment doesn't have SQ or QS or any of the other quad formats: They never sold in numbers making it worth their time.

But when old Dolby Stereo movies are STILL being released on DVD and Blu-ray with the original soundtracks on top of the millions (or more likely BILLIONS) of discs in collections around the world, eliminating the decoding is something that can never, ever be forgiven. It's pure, 100%, uncut assholism.

 

[atrocity]

I probably should have included the word “obsolete” in my post. Yes, I’m sympathetic, but it appears their support of that format wouldn’t be profitable.

I'm saying this in total ignorance, but with modern chips I just can't believe that it would cost them much of anything at all.

 

[atrocity]

Well, my Technics 1200mk2 won't play Edison Diamond Discs.

Sure it will. Get the right stylus for your cartridge and do some simple wiring magic.

 

[ssully]

THIS!!!

I understand why modern equipment doesn't have SQ or QS or any of the other quad formats: They never sold in numbers making it worth their time.

But when old Dolby Stereo movies are STILL being released on DVD and Blu-ray with the original soundtracks on top of the millions (or more likely BILLIONS) of discs in collections around the world, eliminating the decoding is something that can never, ever be forgiven. It's pure, 100%, uncut assholism.

These DVD/BR soundtracks haven't mostly been repurposed to Dolby 5.1 (either AC3 or lossless)?

 

[Owen Smith]

I probably should have included the word “obsolete” in my post. Yes, I’m sympathetic, but it appears their support of that format wouldn’t be profitable.

How can it be unprofitable? There's nothing to spend on Dolby's part, the existing decoders already exist. Ray Dolby himself came to despise Dolby the company in his old age, and I can see why.