Thread: SACD Stereo: it doesn't make sense

Posts: 109
Page: prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11

Post by hiredfox July 19, 2015 (101 of 109)
Disbeliever said:

....when as far as I know ...

We must all be aware of our limitations. I suspect my rash claim count is somewhat lower than yours without having to bore colleagues with a long list of evidence references.

Post by Iain July 19, 2015 (102 of 109)
Luukas said:

One more thing about the surround decoder: I think that it places the listener to the platform of the conductor. The instruments sounds all around you; there aren't a little reverb from the surround speakers.
Summary: when you use the surround decoder, the virtual sitting place is the same as the standing place of the conductor.

It doesn't sound that way on my system. Frankly, I can't tell much difference between multi-channel sound derived from quality, high resolution input by Dolby ProLogic II and real multi-channel sound.

It's all down to OEM implementation of Dolby ProLogic II and your system configuration.

Post by Iain July 19, 2015 (103 of 109)
Euell Neverno said:

Well, at least you didn't get kicked off like obnoxious Astral.

LOL!!

Obnoxious is an understatement. Insane would be the word I would use.

Post by samayoeruorandajin July 19, 2015 (104 of 109)
What's insane is someone stalking you on other forums.

Post by Kal Rubinson July 19, 2015 (105 of 109)
Iain said:

It doesn't sound that way on my system. Frankly, I can't tell much difference between multi-channel sound derived from quality, high resolution input by Dolby ProLogic II and real multi-channel sound.

It's all down to OEM implementation of Dolby ProLogic II and your system configuration.

Gad! ProLogicII is generally unlistenable and inferior to stereo, imho. There are better surround synthesizers but none are comparable to well-done discret MCH.

Post by Iain July 19, 2015 (106 of 109)
Iain said:

Quite right.

On my sytem, I use either of the following DSP to decode 2-channel source material to 5.1 multi-channel output:
a) Dolby ProLogic IIx-Music
b) Dolby ProLogic IIx-Cinema

... for the appropriate input format. They work well for what they are; after all, you can't make a silk purse from a sows ear. : )

BTW, higher quality input source material will produce better results from the appropriate DSP.

Kal Rubinson, I'll refer you back to post 5 on the first page of this thread.

Sounds as though you're listening to an old verson of DPL II. The newer implementations of it are significantly better. You should try them when you get a chance.

Frankly, I find 2-channel music unlistenable.

Post by rammiepie July 19, 2015 (107 of 109)
Iain said:

Kal Rubinson, I'll refer you back to post 5 on the first page of this thread.

Sounds as though you're listening to an old verson of DPL II. The newer implementations of it are significantly better. You should try them when you get a chance.

Frankly, I find 2-channel music unlistenable.

Iain, Kal and I both utilize the Meridian 861 v.8 which I will concur sounds better on stereo sources in DIRECT or STEREO mode than synthesized Dolby Prologic II or whatever.

I have a receiver in my bedroom and when I utilize any of the faux surround modes, it sounds fine to my ears but for 'critical' listening on my main system utilizing the Meridian, a quick changeover from direct to faux surround is ALWAYS in favor of DIRECT when playing stereo sources (I'm using the Marantz SA11S3 for SACD stereo).

And the difference isn't subtle as the DIRECT mode allows the point source to go directly to the processor without ANY digital manipulation. Makes sense to me.

As I've also posted MANY times before, the Meridian has an uncanny ability to even make lowly (and I mean lowly) Dolby Digital 2.0 or 5.1 sound pretty amazing so it has nothing to do with the processor but rather with "messing" with the original stereo signal to synthesize rear channel info.

Post by Kal Rubinson July 19, 2015 (108 of 109)
Iain said:
Sounds as though you're listening to an old verson of DPL II. The newer implementations of it are significantly better. You should try them when you get a chance.

Nah. I have tried those and almost everything except dts-X. None satisfy. (I do like Auro3D for movies at times.)

Post by rammiepie July 19, 2015 (109 of 109)
Kal Rubinson said:

Nah. I have tried those and almost everything except dts-X. None satisfy. (I do like Auro3D for movies at times.)

Kal, are you still utilizing the Meridian 861 v.8 or have you since moved on?

Page: prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11

Closed