Dolby ProLogic II
Mike Goryl
ProLogic II receivers and anywhere that I can purchase one.
Mike
Paul Burgess
August.
Can anyone confirm that?
Paul
Mike Goryl wrote in message <9ec475$rkq$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
Matthew Duncan
> I understand Denon are due to release a Prologi II receiver some time in
> August.
> Can anyone confirm that?
Yes. They will release successors to the 1601 and the 1801 - the 1602 and
1802. Unsure about the models further up the line.
Matt
Richard Malpass
improvement over DP1 with satellite broadcasts through the rear channels
being in stereo giving a more open sound stage.Seems also to have more
LFE,all compared with previous Onkyo 484.
Richard
ViNNY
news:3b0d56ac$1...@news.intensive.net...
Does the Onkyo have DTS Neo:6, and if so, how do the two compare?
-Vin
Espen Braathen
ViNNY <vi...@vinnyworld.zzn.com> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:9eoquk$fvfr$1...@ID-90189.news.dfncis.de...
DTS Neo:6 is mainly available in DTS-ES gear as its used for the rear center
surround channel decoding.
And as I have hear both: They simply don't compare. Period.
The only thing comparable to Pro Logic II is Logic 7 from Lexicon (also
found in some Harman/Kardon gear).
Esp1
max christoffersen
> And as I have hear both: They simply don't compare. Period.
>
> The only thing comparable to Pro Logic II is Logic 7 from Lexicon (also
> found in some Harman/Kardon gear).
>
>
> Esp1
Errrr..Lexicon's Logic 7 is now a benchmark of multi-channel decoding
accuracy???...
Can you spell slippery slope?..
Max Christoffersen
Paul Reading
coming from?
I would have thought the Mclaron would be your best bet PLII and a DAB
module support for the latest version of DTS announced last week. Buy the
Mclaron and you chances of going with the flow seem to be the greatest.
Timothy Morris
the phase information already present in current Dolby (and to a lesser
extent stereo) soundtracks.
PLII music is interesting when listening to any of the radio stations on Sky
digital. The surround speakers only come alive when the algorithms find some
information to process. If the information isn't there in the first place
they remain silent.
Tim.
"Paul Reading" <paul.r...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:B73715BF.33302%paul.r...@lineone.net...
Mike Goryl
Where did you purchase the Onkyo and what price did you pay.
Did you have chance to listen to the new Kenwood PLII's
Mike
"max christoffersen" <max...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:9epjj3$ash$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
Espen Braathen
max christoffersen <max...@wave.co.nz> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:9epjj3$ash$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
> "Espen Braathen" <esp...@online.no> wrote:
>
> > And as I have hear both: They simply don't compare. Period.
> >
> > The only thing comparable to Pro Logic II is Logic 7 from Lexicon (also
> > found in some Harman/Kardon gear).
> >
> >
> > Esp1
>
>
> Errrr..Lexicon's Logic 7 is now a benchmark of multi-channel decoding
> accuracy???...
Read my lips Max: "The only thing comparable to Pro Logic II is Logic 7 from
Lexicon."
> Can you spell slippery slope?..
Nope. Now get lost you little fart.
Esp1
Nigel Ince
>
> Errrr..Lexicon's Logic 7 is now a benchmark of multi-channel decoding
> accuracy???...
>
> Can you spell slippery slope?..
I dont know whether he can or cant, but like myself, im sure he can spell
'ignorant, narrow minded fucksplash'
Cheers
Nige
max christoffersen
>>
>> Errrr..Lexicon's Logic 7 is now a benchmark of multi-channel decoding
>> accuracy???...
>
> Read my lips Max: "The only thing comparable to Pro Logic II is Logic 7 from
> Lexicon."
>
>> Can you spell slippery slope?..
>
> Nope. <
Didn't think so.
Max Christoffersen
max christoffersen
> The whole point of PLII is that is generates a steered surround signal from
> the phase information already present in current Dolby (and to a lesser
> extent stereo) soundtracks.
>
> PLII music is interesting when listening to any of the radio stations on Sky
> digital. The surround speakers only come alive when the algorithms find some
> information to process. If the information isn't there in the first place
> they remain silent.
>
> Tim.
The same can be said of stock DPL with music. And your conclusion drawn from
this premise is still flawed.
DPL2 is a surround format that was never used in the theatre or in the
recording process for music.
Where there is no *specific* encoding and artistic intent, there can only be
happy accident.
Intended encoding requires intended decoding. DPL2 does not achieve this
basic audio objective.
DPL2 is not an encode-decode format.
If it is, show me the theatrical release that used it.
Max Christoffersen
Timothy Morris
from
> this premise is still flawed.
>
> DPL2 is a surround format that was never used in the theatre or in the
> recording process for music.
>
> Where there is no *specific* encoding and artistic intent, there can only
be
> happy accident.
>
> Intended encoding requires intended decoding. DPL2 does not achieve this
> basic audio objective.
>
> DPL2 is not an encode-decode format.
>
> If it is, show me the theatrical release that used it.
>
>
> Max Christoffersen
Who obviously cannot grasp how phase alters depending on how the sound
actually reaches the microphone, and has never been welcome in this UK
newsgroup.
Why don't you fuck off and go back to trying to impress people by telling
them that you have "pro" equipment installed?
Tim.
max christoffersen
> Who obviously cannot grasp how phase alters depending on how the sound
> actually reaches the microphone, and has never been welcome in this UK
> newsgroup.
>
> Why don't you fuck off and go back to trying to impress people by telling
> them that you have "pro" equipment installed?
>
> Tim.
I am acutely aware of how phase operates Tim. Are you claiming that
broadcast advertisers who also find that Dolby decoding provides rear
channel effects are doing so with intent (and with the input of Dolby
experienced producers?).
It is about artistic intent Timothy.
Finding that phase actually creates an effect in no way implies the effect
is *intended* to be there.
It is merely a happy accident.
Such happy accidents *can* sound great: but it can also sound totally unlike
what the artist themselves intended and either way with no intent - there is
no accurate reproduction of the artistic music or soundtrack as it was
created.
Seeing as you couldn't answer the question first time, I'll ask again: show
me the film that is specifically produced and encoded for replay and
decoding using DPL2.
Struggling for the facts again Timothy..why dont you try another
back-down-about-face approach ala your asinine A-1 amp argument.
Max Christoffersen
Johannes Weiman
> basic audio objective.
>
> DPL2 is not an encode-decode format.
The same can be said for Pro-Logic. It is only a decoding standard, the
titles are encoded in Dolby Surround.
/Johannes
max christoffersen
----------
In article <ZUQR6.226$WW6....@newsb.telia.net>, "Johannes Weiman"
The difference here is that the Dolby theatrical release platform is
mirrored by the domestic equivalent.
There is no theatrical equivalent with DPL2.
Again: if there is no intent to produce a soundtrack with stereo surrounds,
then to 'recreate' this soundfield in the domestic environment, must surely
be inaccurate?
What original performance are we recreating here?
Max Christoffersen
Chip
I take your point Max, but aren't you being a bit too purist about this? If
we were talking about a Telarc recording of Elgar's violin concerto, then
maybe.
But all this reference to a "performance" when the film soundtrack is added
afterwards and completely "synthetic" anyway, is a bit irrelevant, isn't it?
Its not unreasonable when the aeroplane flies overhead from left to right
and front to back that it should also pan from RL to RR, no? The fact that
this wasn't in the original recording has got bugger all to do with it. The
original recording had got nothing to do with the event anyway.
Chip.
max christoffersen
>>
>> Max Christoffersen
>
> I take your point Max, but aren't you being a bit too purist about this? If
> we were talking about a Telarc recording of Elgar's violin concerto, then
> maybe.
>
> But all this reference to a "performance" when the film soundtrack is added
> afterwards and completely "synthetic" anyway, is a bit irrelevant, isn't it?
Not in my view.
I think we have now strayed so far from what is actually on the soundtrack
that anything goes. I'm saying enough (and have been saying it for some
time) is enough. Surely the aim is to create an illusion of reality: and for
many the 'imaging rich' domestic environment means we can go further towards
that aim than the movie theatre itself. We have so much infortmation on the
soundtrack it seems strange to me that we now want to continue to add
'ehancements (read distortion) to the signal. The future is not about random
effects, but direct control.
> Its not unreasonable when the aeroplane flies overhead from left to right
> and front to back that it should also pan from RL to RR, no? The fact that
> this wasn't in the original recording has got bugger all to do with it. The
> original recording had got nothing to do with the event anyway.<
True. But artistic intent is what film is about isn't it?
For me, this debate boils down to what is your reference for HT performance?
is it the theatre? The dubbing stage? Reality? What?
What ever *you* decide is the reference will dictate what your priority is.
My view is that the Director wants us to beleive we are passive spectators
to a real event. If the soundtrack does not sound realistic, then the
illusion and the prospect of suspension of disbeleif is not achieved.
That surely is artistic/cinematic aim number 1.
On the DPL2 busines, it's really a very simple issue: what are we recreating
*accurately*?
What is the cinematic reference we are replaying here?
Lemme tell ya: none.
Max Christoffersen
Timothy Morris
"max christoffersen" <max...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:9g4eeq$mg4$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
> >> What original performance are we recreating here?
> >>
> >> Max Christoffersen
> >
> > I take your point Max, but aren't you being a bit too purist about this?
If
> > we were talking about a Telarc recording of Elgar's violin concerto,
then
> > maybe.
> >
> > But all this reference to a "performance" when the film soundtrack is
added
> > afterwards and completely "synthetic" anyway, is a bit irrelevant, isn't
it?
>
> Not in my view.
>
> I think we have now strayed so far from what is actually on the soundtrack
> that anything goes. I'm saying enough (and have been saying it for some
> time) is enough. Surely the aim is to create an illusion of reality: and
for
> many the 'imaging rich' domestic environment means we can go further
towards
> that aim than the movie theatre itself. We have so much infortmation on
the
> soundtrack it seems strange to me that we now want to continue to add
> 'ehancements (read distortion) to the signal. The future is not about
random
> effects, but direct control.
Max, you really need to spend some time talking to DSP engineers, and
listening to PLII decoded sources. I think that you are doing what you
accuse Stuart of so often. While I agree that over-engineered DSP that puts
you say in the middle of an orchestra rather than the concert hall has no
place in a high quality replay chain - DPLII does enhance the experience in
the home.
Providing steered rather than mono surrounds from what information is
actually encoded in the soundtrack does benefit the films I frequently pick
up on Sky Digital that come with a Dolby Surround encoded sountrack
(remember this IS a uk newsgroup) - and it isn't guesswork or distortion.
Pick up the phone and speak to Meridian, they will tell you. The algorithms
don't add any steering unless they can pick up cues in the programme
material. If the information isn't there then you'll still get mono
surrounds.
>
> > Its not unreasonable when the aeroplane flies overhead from left to
right
> > and front to back that it should also pan from RL to RR, no? The fact
that
> > this wasn't in the original recording has got bugger all to do with it.
The
> > original recording had got nothing to do with the event anyway.<
>
> True. But artistic intent is what film is about isn't it?
Yes but the director was limited to a mono surround track when he made the
recording.
If you said to him I can use PLII to create steering in the rear surrounds,
and it works pretty well, yes or no. I bet that in the majority of the cases
they will say yes.
>
> For me, this debate boils down to what is your reference for HT
performance?
> is it the theatre? The dubbing stage? Reality? What?
>
> What ever *you* decide is the reference will dictate what your priority
is.
> My view is that the Director wants us to beleive we are passive spectators
> to a real event. If the soundtrack does not sound realistic, then the
> illusion and the prospect of suspension of disbeleif is not achieved.
So you are arguing against yourself for the sake of being able to tell your
friends that you are a purist. PLII improves the experience in the home, so
the soundtrack sounds more realistic not less. If the director is trying to
simulate arrows flying overhead from RL to FR, he will use a combination of
rear to front and left to right panning. the PLII algorithms will pick up on
this and introduce that L to R panning in the rear speakers as well. Which
is more realistic?
>
> That surely is artistic/cinematic aim number 1.
>
> On the DPL2 busines, it's really a very simple issue: what are we
recreating
> *accurately*?
>
> What is the cinematic reference we are replaying here?
>
> Lemme tell ya: none.
But what has that got to do with anything? Your Nirvana of recreating the
local movie house in minature in your back yard, complete with porno-flick
speakers overdriven by inadequate amplification has nothing to do with what
99% of home-cinema enthusiasts want.
If PLII can improve the experience in the home (or in the local multiplex
for that matter), then why should it not be used?
Tim
max christoffersen
> Max, you really need to spend some time talking to DSP engineers, and
> listening to PLII decoded sources. I think that you are doing what you
> accuse Stuart of so often. While I agree that over-engineered DSP that puts
> you say in the middle of an orchestra rather than the concert hall has no
> place in a high quality replay chain - DPLII does enhance the experience in
> the home.<
I'm not saying it can't 'enhance the experience': I am saying it can not do
so accurately. Show me the DPL2 encoded software.
> Providing steered rather than mono surrounds from what information is
> actually encoded in the soundtrack does benefit the films I frequently pick
> up on Sky Digital that come with a Dolby Surround encoded sountrack
> (remember this IS a uk newsgroup) - and it isn't guesswork or distortion.
> Pick up the phone and speak to Meridian, they will tell you. The algorithms
> don't add any steering unless they can pick up cues in the programme
> material. If the information isn't there then you'll still get mono
> surrounds.<
It is either there with artistic intent or not. It is exactly the same as
putting a 5.1 disc thru a '6.1' decoding processor or a stereo ad on TV thru
a Dolby processor; This can work and work well: the fact it does work well,
does not imply intent and does not imply accurate replay to the soundtrack.
Show me the DPL2 encoded software. We had it before with Dolby Surround with
'Mancini In Surround'...so show me the DPL2 equivalent that shows artistic
intent as Henry Mancini did. Got none? Surprise surprise.
>> Its not unreasonable when the aeroplane flies overhead from left to
> right and front to back that it should also pan from RL to RR, no? The fact
> that > this wasn't in the original recording has got bugger all to do with it.
> The original recording had got nothing to do with the event anyway.<
>>
>> True. But artistic intent is what film is about isn't it?
>
> Yes but the director was limited to a mono surround track when he made the
> recording.<
Correct. Which means there is no artistic intent.
> If you said to him I can use PLII to create steering in the rear surrounds,
> and it works pretty well, yes or no. I bet that in the majority of the cases
> they will say yes.
Bet-schmet. The fact is they did not create the soundtrack or music to be
heard in this way. They had no knowledge of it as a recording process. Nor
is it authentic recreation of the film as it was heard. I assume you watch
WS right?...then why change the surround decoding process if it is not true
to the theatrical release? I guess you like Terminator in fake surround..?
>> For me, this debate boils down to what is your reference for HT
> performance? is it the theatre? The dubbing stage? Reality? What?
>>
>> What ever *you* decide is the reference will dictate what your priorityis.>>
My view is that the Director wants us to beleive we are passive spectators
to a real event. If the soundtrack does not sound realistic, then the
illusion and the prospect of suspension of disbeleif is not achieved.<
>
> So you are arguing against yourself for the sake of being able to tell your
> friends that you are a purist.<
I'm not a purist I use professional gear and tactile transducers remember?
> PLII improves the experience in the home, so the soundtrack sounds more
realistic not less. If the director is trying to simulate arrows flying
overhead from RL to FR, he will use a combination of rear to front and left
to right panning. the PLII algorithms will pick up on this and introduce
that L to R panning in the rear speakers as well. Which is more realistic?<
Which is more accurate to what is actually on the soundtrack? You use purist
equipment Timothy - you are adding distortion not information.
>> That surely is artistic/cinematic aim number 1.
>>
>> On the DPL2 busines, it's really a very simple issue: what are we> recreating
*accurately*?
>>
>> What is the cinematic reference we are replaying here?
>>
>> Lemme tell ya: none.
>
> But what has that got to do with anything?<
Everything. See WS point above: Do you wish to replay something that is
sonically inaccurate to the original theatrical release? If you don't, you
may as well watch P&S at the same time.
>Your Nirvana of recreating the local movie house in minature in your back yard,
complete with porno-flick speakers overdriven by inadequate amplification
has nothing to do with what 99% of home-cinema enthusiasts want.<
I'm not 99 per cent of HT enthusiasts. And I am not trying to recreate a
movie house. Your profoundly superficial understanding of my HT is on show
Timothy as is your understanding of a HT approach outside your own
experience and performance envelope.
> If PLII can improve the experience in the home (or in the local multiplex
> for that matter), then why should it not be used?<
It should be used. But it should be used in the full knowledge of what it is
actually doing.
Your description demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of artistic
intent in the recording process.
What DPL2 is doing is providing a decoding enhancement where no artistic
intent is present. If you like it great! But it's not accurate to the cinema
soundtrack, nor source music material that was designed, produced, recorded
and intended for two channel replay.
In short; you are adding aural candy-floss for your own amusement. Something
I thought someone with Meridian and AudioLab equipment would find contrary
to the ethos of high-end audio and HT performance.
So what is *your* reference Timothy?
Max Christoffersen
Timothy Morris
>
> In short; you are adding aural candy-floss for your own amusement.
Something
> I thought someone with Meridian and AudioLab equipment would find contrary
> to the ethos of high-end audio and HT performance.
>
> So what is *your* reference Timothy?
>
>
experience I'll use it, if it doesn't I won't!
Watching a P&S version of a Widescreen movie doesn't. Steered surrounds with
Dolby Surround does.
Tim.
max christoffersen
----------
In article <tijvavf...@corp.supernews.com>, "Timothy Morris"
<timothy...@iomartdsl.co.uk> wrote:
Welcome to the slippery slope.
I could have guessed.
As I say OAR for video but not for sound.
Priceless.
Max Christoffersen
Timothy Morris
Everyone I've come across who has tried PLII likes it. You seem to have some
academic "purist" viewpoint. If steered surrounds had been available to the
director when he mixed the sound track he would have used them. Rather than
just being opposed to it on principle try it you might like it. Just because
I have nice amplification doesn't mean to say I can't have an open mind.
Yours seems ridiculously closed in.
Why don't you go back to hanging round on the US forums instead of annoying
me?
He would not however have immediately decided to frame the entire film in
4:3 in that we are in agreement.
max christoffersen
That you are quite incorrect in your assessment of DPL2 and are posting
misleading information (again).
> Everyone I've come across who has tried PLII likes it.<
Sure everyone likes DSP too:
>You seem to have some academic "purist" viewpoint. If steered surrounds had
been available to the director when he mixed the sound track he would have
used them.<
Fact is S/He didn't.
> Rather than just being opposed to it on principle try it you might like it.
Just because I have nice amplification doesn't mean to say I can't have an
open mind.<
I have only said DPL2 should be used with the full knowledge of what it is
doing. If you like it, go with it! But I have asked four times now for
evidence of an intended DPL2 soundfield, ala Henry Mancini's 'Mancini in
Surround' which was recorded and produced specifically for the surround
soundfield. You have none.
> Yours seems ridiculously closed in.<
Not at all. I am saying very clearly here: use it and enjoy it: but
understand it is not an accurate rendering of what the artist intended you
to hear. You try to cover this up with a lot of 'would-have', 'should-have'
'could-have'....shyeeeeeeaaa riiiiiight.....
Fact is they didn't. Yours is not an encode-decode process. Isn't it
somewhat odd that all the DPL2 reports are referring primarily to music?
Name me an artist who has ever recorded with the intent of using a centre
channel when recording to two channel masters.
> Why don't you go back to hanging round on the US forums instead of annoying
me?<
Why don't you either avoid my posts or answer the question: show me the
encoded DPL2 soundtrack ala Mancini's Mancini in Surround?
Max Christoffersen
AudioEnz
max...@wave.co.nz wrote on 16/06/2001 8:02 AM:
> But I have asked four times now for
> evidence of an intended DPL2 soundfield, ala Henry Mancini's 'Mancini in
> Surround' which was recorded and produced specifically for the surround
> soundfield. You have none.
This is a silly request, as Dolby Pro Logic 2 is not an encode-decode
process. Max already knows this, so his demand is somewhat silly.
Michael Jones
Editor, AudioEnz
--------------------
New Zealand's online hi-fi and home theatre resource
http://www.audioenz.co.nz
Stewart Pinkerton
>"max christoffersen" <max...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:9gce6q$lat$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
>>
>> In short; you are adding aural candy-floss for your own amusement.
>Something
>> I thought someone with Meridian and AudioLab equipment would find contrary
>> to the ethos of high-end audio and HT performance.
>>
>> So what is *your* reference Timothy?
>>
>>
>My reference is simple, if it improves my movie watching or listening
>experience I'll use it, if it doesn't I won't!
Timothy, you simply don't understand, dear boy. Max is orivy to the
intentions of every movie director on the planet, so if he says that
DPLII goes against the artistic intent of the director, who are we
nere mortals to disagree? He may be a technically incompetent jerk,
but he is omniscient, y'know..............
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
>in article 9gdso1$ri$1...@news.wave.co.nz, max christoffersen at
>max...@wave.co.nz wrote on 16/06/2001 8:02 AM:
>
>> But I have asked four times now for
>> evidence of an intended DPL2 soundfield, ala Henry Mancini's 'Mancini in
>> Surround' which was recorded and produced specifically for the surround
>> soundfield. You have none.
>
>This is a silly request, as Dolby Pro Logic 2 is not an encode-decode
>process. Max already knows this, so his demand is somewhat silly.
Or just another exhibition of Max's total ignorance of audio....
>Michael Jones
>Editor, AudioEnz
Darn, and you're still publishing his 'reviews'? :-)
AudioEnz
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 16/06/2001 10:23 AM:
> Darn, and you're still publishing his 'reviews'? :-)
max has plenty if useful things to say. Unfortunately, you continue to have
nothing useful to say.
Stewart Pinkerton
>in article 3b2a898f...@news.freeserve.net, Stewart Pinkerton at
>pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 16/06/2001 10:23 AM:
>
>> Darn, and you're still publishing his 'reviews'? :-)
>
>max has plenty if useful things to say. Unfortunately, you continue to have
>nothing useful to say.
Your humble opinion is noted. I shall continue to dispense sensible
advice, and Max will continue to rave about things he doesn't
understand, while being deafened by one of the most horrendous HT
sound systems I've ever seen described on any newsgroup.
AudioEnz
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 16/06/2001 6:32 PM:
> Your humble opinion is noted.
Thank you for noting my humility...
> I shall continue to dispense sensible
> advice
So when will you start doing this? :-)
max christoffersen
>> advice
>
> So when will you start doing this? :-)
He won't, so I will.
If you wish to read what DPL2 inventor Jim Fosgate has to say about DPL2,
read here:
http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/Forum17/HTML/000031.html
This may get us back on track.
Max Christoffersen
Stewart Pinkerton
>in article 3b2afb4...@news.freeserve.net, Stewart Pinkerton at
>pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 16/06/2001 6:32 PM:
>
>> Your humble opinion is noted.
>
>Thank you for noting my humility...
>
>> I shall continue to dispense sensible
>> advice
>
>So when will you start doing this? :-)
Ah well, none so deaf as those who will not hear..... :-)
Pip
...
> Fact is they didn't. Yours is not an encode-decode process. Isn't it
> somewhat odd that all the DPL2 reports are referring primarily to music?
> Name me an artist who has ever recorded with the intent of using a centre
> channel when recording to two channel masters.
Isn't this a different issue? The "artist" uses whatever is available - or
leaves it down to a technician to do so - in order to create a certain feel.
If all you have is black and white film, you use black and white. If you
can't use sound, you create a silent film. Once the colour and sound are
available, you use them, except if you have specific intentions, like Silent
Movie and Young Frankenstein.
The artistic intent is rarely defined by the technology. The artist merely
uses whatever is available to give the best end result, so they're very
likely to want to enhance it wherever that's possible. Artists generally
aren't interested in technology, that's a technologist's/engineer's thing.
They just want the best results. If the results are better, the artist is
very likely to be happy with it - though I'll refrain from any absolutes:
there are always exceptions to any rule. Including that one.
Pip
Espen Braathen
AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:B750D63C.2BC6E%in...@audioenz.co.nz...
> in article 9gdso1$ri$1...@news.wave.co.nz, max christoffersen at
> max...@wave.co.nz wrote on 16/06/2001 8:02 AM:
>
> > But I have asked four times now for
> > evidence of an intended DPL2 soundfield, ala Henry Mancini's 'Mancini in
> > Surround' which was recorded and produced specifically for the surround
> > soundfield. You have none.
>
> This is a silly request, as Dolby Pro Logic 2 is not an encode-decode
> process. Max already knows this, so his demand is somewhat silly.
You are both silly.
The encoding algorithm for Pro Logic II _does_ exist.
Esp1
Espen Braathen
AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:B751232E.2BC9F%in...@audioenz.co.nz...
> in article 3b2a898f...@news.freeserve.net, Stewart Pinkerton at
> pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 16/06/2001 10:23 AM:
>
> > Darn, and you're still publishing his 'reviews'? :-)
>
> max has plenty if useful things to say.
Eh, beep. I belive the word you are loking for are "useless". His newsgroups
postings to date not contained anything substantial or usefull.
So the sentence should read: "Max has plenty of useless things to say".
AudioEnz - The place for useless things (TM)
Esp1
Espen Braathen
Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:3b2afb4...@news.freeserve.net...
I totaly agree!
Esp1
Espen Braathen
max christoffersen <max...@wave.co.nz> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:9gf203$9tn$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
>
> so I will.
Get lost? Oh, please do!
Esp1
Espen Braathen
AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:B7515F82.2BCAE%in...@audioenz.co.nz...
New Zealands crapiest site judging by the low fi content written by Max The
Expert.
Maybe you should do some EDITING.
Esp1
Espen Braathen
Timothy Morris <timothy...@iomartdsl.co.uk> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:tikpnla...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> What is your problem Max?
Apparently he has plenty of problems.
> Everyone I've come across who has tried PLII likes it. You seem to have
some
> academic "purist" viewpoint. If steered surrounds had been available to
the
> director when he mixed the sound track he would have used them. Rather
than
> just being opposed to it on principle try it you might like it. Just
because
> I have nice amplification doesn't mean to say I can't have an open mind.
>
> Yours seems ridiculously closed in.
>
> Why don't you go back to hanging round on the US forums instead of
annoying
> me?
There must be a forum down under were he can discuss HT with the Kiwi's?
Esp1
AudioEnz
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 17/06/2001 10:17 PM:
>> So when will you start doing this? :-)
>
> Ah well, none so deaf as those who will not hear..... :-)
Okay then Stewie, when are you going to start to hear? Perhaps then you'll
also start making some sense in your newsgroup postings.
Michael Jones
Editor, AudioENz
Stewart Pinkerton
>"max christoffersen" <max...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:9gdso1$ri$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
>...
>> Fact is they didn't. Yours is not an encode-decode process. Isn't it
>> somewhat odd that all the DPL2 reports are referring primarily to music?
>> Name me an artist who has ever recorded with the intent of using a centre
>> channel when recording to two channel masters.
>
>Isn't this a different issue? The "artist" uses whatever is available - or
>leaves it down to a technician to do so - in order to create a certain feel.
>If all you have is black and white film, you use black and white. If you
>can't use sound, you create a silent film. Once the colour and sound are
>available, you use them, except if you have specific intentions, like Silent
>Movie and Young Frankenstein.
Yes, but the fun trivia question is - who spoke the only words in
'Silent Movie'?
>The artistic intent is rarely defined by the technology. The artist merely
>uses whatever is available to give the best end result, so they're very
>likely to want to enhance it wherever that's possible. Artists generally
>aren't interested in technology, that's a technologist's/engineer's thing.
>They just want the best results. If the results are better, the artist is
>very likely to be happy with it - though I'll refrain from any absolutes:
>there are always exceptions to any rule. Including that one.
Ah, but you forget the crucial point - Max is privy to the intent of
every director on the planet, so if he says that DPL destroys the
artistic integrity of the soundtrack, then that simply *must* be
true.....
Stewart Pinkerton
>in article 3b2c7ca6...@news.freeserve.net, Stewart Pinkerton at
>pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 17/06/2001 10:17 PM:
>
>>> So when will you start doing this? :-)
>>
>> Ah well, none so deaf as those who will not hear..... :-)
>
>Okay then Stewie, when are you going to start to hear? Perhaps then you'll
>also start making some sense in your newsgroup postings.
I've been making sense for decades. There are of course some who
cannot understand the difference.............
Hey, you're the guy who publishes Max's ravings, so maybe the rules
are different in Kiwiland!
AudioEnz
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 18/06/2001 9:30 AM:
> I've been making sense for decades. There are of course some who
> cannot understand the difference.............
>
> Hey, you're the guy who publishes Max's ravings, so maybe the rules
> are different in Kiwiland!
We're still waiting for you to *start* making sense Stewie.
I note with interest that you are unable to be published as a writer on
hi-fi, except through the unmoderated forum of a newsgroup. I guess the new
saying should be "those who can do; those who can't moan on a newsgroup"
Michael Jones
Editor, AudioEnz
Stewart Pinkerton
>in article 3b2d2000...@news.freeserve.net, Stewart Pinkerton at
>pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 18/06/2001 9:30 AM:
>
>> I've been making sense for decades. There are of course some who
>> cannot understand the difference.............
>>
>> Hey, you're the guy who publishes Max's ravings, so maybe the rules
>> are different in Kiwiland!
>
>We're still waiting for you to *start* making sense Stewie.
>
>I note with interest that you are unable to be published as a writer on
>hi-fi, except through the unmoderated forum of a newsgroup.
Well, there's always the moderated and much more informative forum of
rec-audio.high-end, where I've had hunders of posts over the last five
years or so. Besides, why would I want to *write* about hi-fi, when
it's much more interesting to *do* it?
I note that we don't see anything of Max or you on rec.audio.high-end,
but I guess that would be pretty obvious!
BTW, this is a *UK* newsgroup, so why are you here anyway, instead of
alt.home-theater.misc or other general HT and audio newgroups?
> I guess the new
>saying should be "those who can do; those who can't moan on a newsgroup"
Quite so, and I've been 'doing' for thirty years or more, not just
scribbling about those who do, and starting up some nerdy website
because I can't get published in a *real* ragazine............
Espen Braathen
>
> Quite so, and I've been 'doing' for thirty years or more, not just
> scribbling about those who do, and starting up some nerdy website
> because I can't get published in a *real* ragazine............
A hit below the waist line, however a got hit never the less...
The advent of the web has made anybody a editor and publisher these days.
What I find so amusing about this particular home made e-zine on "assorted
electronics" are their so called "tests" (and I quote direct from their site
here) is:
"These articles are available for use by retailers, distributors or others
in promoting their products."
My good, no shame down under: We write for our advertisers and not our
readers!
Esp1
AudioEnz
esp...@online.no wrote on 19/06/2001 9:41 AM:
> The advent of the web has made anybody a editor and publisher these days.
While it's easier to publish today than ever before (both in print and on
the web) my hi-fi magazine publishing predates the web by many years. I
produced print magazines on hi-fi and on home theatre (before it even had
that name) since 1986.
I've moved to the internet for several reasons:
€ I'd lost interest in the mechanics of producing a print magazine.
Magazines are damned hard work, as anyone involved with magazine production
would be able to tell you.
€ The economics of internet publishing are more attractive to my business
plan
€ I have a higher readership through the AudioEnz web site than I did
through my print magazines
So your implication that I'm merely a magazine editor and publisher because
of the internet is incorrect.
> What I find so amusing about this particular home made e-zine on "assorted
> electronics" are their so called "tests" (and I quote direct from their site
> here) is:
>
> "These articles are available for use by retailers, distributors or others
> in promoting their products."
>
> My good, no shame down under: We write for our advertisers and not our
> readers!
Reviews reprints are available from most hi-fi magazines (I can't think of
one hi-fi magazine that I'm aware of that does not offer reprints in some
form) including both those that fawn over their advertisers (such as the
unlamented Stereo Review and its current incarnation) or the magazines that
appear somewhat antagonistic to advertisers and hi-fi manufacturers 9such as
The Abso!ute Sound).
So currently your strike rate is a bag fat zero.
max christoffersen
>> Fact is they didn't. Yours is not an encode-decode process. Isn't it
>> somewhat odd that all the DPL2 reports are referring primarily to music?
>> Name me an artist who has ever recorded with the intent of using a centre
>> channel when recording to two channel masters.
>
> Isn't this a different issue? The "artist" uses whatever is available - or
> leaves it down to a technician to do so - in order to create a certain feel.
> If all you have is black and white film, you use black and white. (Snip)
>
> Pip
Not quite.
This illustrates my point. This argument always comes down to a: "would
have; should have; could have; might have; if they only knew about it"
argument.
Which implies that if existing technology was available at the time it would
have been used; therefore applying today's replay standards to their work is
just what the artist would have wanted had they been able to use it.
Fact is they didn't use it.
Some however want to make up for what they see as a technical failing of the
art.
Which is exactly the argument used for colouration of B&W film.
Only film enthusiasts see film as an *authentic* piece of work. It is
independent, self sufficient and complete. It requires the replay as close
as possible to the original.
That argument does not appear to apply any more to music. The argument here
says that despite The Beatles White Album being an authentic, independent,
self suffcient and complete piece of work in two channels we want to
'colourise' it into 5 channels or more.
All we can know for sure is what we have and what we have is a stereo
recording recored with the very same authenticty as black and white
Casablanca.
If it is not acceptable to view Casablanca in colour: I fail to see what the
audio equivalent of colouration is OK when listening to The White Album.
Max Christoffersen
Pip
>
> This illustrates my point. This argument always comes down to a: "would
> have; should have; could have; might have; if they only knew about it"
> argument.
Actually, no. It was merely illustrating the point that the artist generally
doesn't care about the technology. The artist cares about getting something
across, and has to rely on the engineers to do the best they can. An artist
will generally not specify what capacitor has to be used in a mixing desk,
whereas it might be a major issue for the engineer. The artist cares about
how it looks/sounds when it comes out.
>
...(snip)
>
> Only film enthusiasts see film as an *authentic* piece of work. It is
> independent, self sufficient and complete. It requires the replay as close
> as possible to the original.
The "authentic" piece of work you refer to can be accidental and little to
do with the intent. A good example of this is "If..."
(http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0063850) where the black and white sequences were
hailed as great pieces of artistic inovation, hammering home a statement.
Actually, the film makers had just run out of money, and black and white was
cheaper.
Artists want a good piece of work. They're more interested in the work than
the technology. If the technology makes their work better, they're generally
happy. If the artist heard a mix-down of sound on bad speakers and approved
it, she'll probably be happy for people to use good speakers instead as long
as the sound is better. If she's made something to be shown on a screen
three metres high, she'll probably not insist that it can't be shown on a
television 50cm high. Even film enthusiasts can't take things to that extent
if they've got DVD players.
And which is the "authentic" version of BladeRunner or Brazil or Cinema
Paradiso?
You have some valid points, Max, and you're right about colouration not
improving black and white classics (or at least, I agree on that). But I
think you're going too far in applying the technology restriction to
directional sound. If it improves things, enjoy it. If it doesn't, turn it
off.
Pip
max christoffersen
> You have some valid points, Max, and you're right about colouration not
> improving black and white classics (or at least, I agree on that). But I
> think you're going too far in applying the technology restriction to
> directional sound. If it improves things, enjoy it. If it doesn't, turn it
> off.
>
>> Pip
I'm not actually making a point about 'enjoying it' Pip. We can enjoy
anything any way we like. And I agree turn it on or off the choice is yours.
But people also enjoy colourised film.
All I am saying is that for the term 'high fidelity' to have any worth, then
authenticity must be part of the term fidelity.
And replaying non-encoded material thru a decoder is not authentic.
I have just been listening to the discrete mix of The Corrs In Blue. Now
that experience has been a revelation. For the first time I could listen to
a studio recording with a defined multi-channel soundstage that was
deliberately encoded.
I see no difference in colourised film and decoded soundtracks where no
encoding applies.
You may also find the interviuew with Gary Rydstrom about 'remaking' the T2
sountrack of interest. (p89 WSR October 2000 - I think!)
By point Pip is this: if you want to listen to high fidelity and claim high
fidelity replay: then my dictionary defines fidelity as: "loyalty;
exactitude; close correspondence with the original; accuracy in reproducing
sound." (Penguin English)
To play non-endoded material thru a decoder specifically designed to
faithfully replay encoded material achieves none of these objectives.
That is not to say you can't enjoy it - you can. But you can not claim
accuracy or high fidelity at the same time.
As I have said: where there is no encoding there can only be happy accident.
Max Christoffersen
Stewart Pinkerton
>By point Pip is this: if you want to listen to high fidelity and claim high
>fidelity replay: then my dictionary defines fidelity as: "loyalty;
>exactitude; close correspondence with the original; accuracy in reproducing
>sound." (Penguin English)
>
>To play non-endoded material thru a decoder specifically designed to
>faithfully replay encoded material achieves none of these objectives.
What you fail to Understand, Max (surprise!) is that Dolby ProLogic II
was specifically designed to work well with non-encoded material.
Hence, your 'fidelity' argument is mere flim-flam based on your
failure to understand yet another technical process.
The really hilarious thing is that it was you who provided the pointer
to Jim Fosgate explaining how DPLII was tweaked to provide this
performance. Shame that you can't read plain English.......
>That is not to say you can't enjoy it - you can. But you can not claim
>accuracy or high fidelity at the same time.
You can't claim accuracy or high fidelity with *any* film soundtrack!
>As I have said: where there is no encoding there can only be happy accident.
Luckily for the rest of us, Jim Fosgate has more talent in his little
finger than you have in your entire body. Stick with projectors Max,
you know jack shit about audio!
Pip
>
> All I am saying is that for the term 'high fidelity' to have any worth,
then
> authenticity must be part of the term fidelity.
>
> And replaying non-encoded material thru a decoder is not authentic.
By that definition, playing it through any sort of electronic equipment is
not authentic to the original sound. Which, I hope you'll agree, is not a
great way to be able to persuade people of the merits of the statement.
> I have just been listening to the discrete mix of The Corrs In Blue. Now
> that experience has been a revelation. For the first time I could listen
to
> a studio recording with a defined multi-channel soundstage that was
> deliberately encoded.
>
> I see no difference in colourised film and decoded soundtracks where no
> encoding applies.
Let me alude to it, then. When a film is shot in black and white, the angles
and lighting are set up within the parameters of how best to display the
feel of the shot within that medium. Colouring it in later would mean that
the angle and lights are not at their optimum for that emotional impact.
When recording sound, you're again trying to capture a mood. The mood in the
case of sound for films is one of enhanced reality (generally). As soon as
you record, you are losing the "authenticity" of the original, and you play
around with the mixing desk to try to make sure you build it back up.
Putting some positional information in place is just that, an enhancement of
the authenticity that was lost as soon as the sound hit the microphone.
> You may also find the interviuew with Gary Rydstrom about 'remaking' the
T2
> sountrack of interest. (p89 WSR October 2000 - I think!)
>
> By point Pip is this: if you want to listen to high fidelity and claim
high
> fidelity replay: then my dictionary defines fidelity as: "loyalty;
> exactitude; close correspondence with the original; accuracy in
reproducing
> sound." (Penguin English)
Which is a good definition to be used for adding positional information.
Thank you for that.
Remember, you're not trying to recreate the original theatre sound, you're
trying to recreate what happened before the microphone (with live action
sequences) or the illusion of what happened before the microphone (to take
notice of special effect noises).
> To play non-endoded material thru a decoder specifically designed to
> faithfully replay encoded material achieves none of these objectives.
Except if it does do just that, giving better positional information, and
hence adding greater fidelity to the original sound (or effect).
> That is not to say you can't enjoy it - you can. But you can not claim
> accuracy or high fidelity at the same time.
But, by the word of the Penguin, you can do just that.
> As I have said: where there is no encoding there can only be happy
accident.
But since all the sound is encoded in certain ways, the accidents may be
more deliberate and frequent than expected.
Pip
max christoffersen
>>To play non-endoded material thru a decoder specifically designed to
>>faithfully replay encoded material achieves none of these objectives.
>
> What you fail to Understand, Max (surprise!) is that Dolby ProLogic II
> was specifically designed to work well with non-encoded material.
> Hence, your 'fidelity' argument is mere flim-flam based on your
> failure to understand yet another technical process.
>
> The really hilarious thing is that it was you who provided the pointer
> to Jim Fosgate explaining how DPLII was tweaked to provide this
> performance. Shame that you can't read plain English.......
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
I've read the piece Stewart - and other interviews with Fosgate at the same
site regarding the same issue. You should know it is always me that provides
follow-up souurce material, instead of ill-informed self deluded
'engineering opinion.'
While DPL2 was designed to replay surround material, the platform itself
doesn't yet exist as an encode-decode system Stewart. Espan has already
confirmed the encode code has been written but there is no encoded material.
That leaves us exactly where I said we were: playing non-encoded material
thru a decoding processor; which is like suggesting the Beatles White Album
was recorded with the intent of replay thru a centre channel and split rear
surrounds - do show me where there is any reference to George Martin using
this platform at Abbey Road.
The 'engineer' fails again to understand the difference between a surround
sound platform and a surround sound process...
Dear me.
The Mine of Misinformation is open for business.
Max Christoffersen
max christoffersen
>> As I have said: where there is no encoding there can only be happy
> accident.
>
> But since all the sound is encoded in certain ways, the accidents may be
> more deliberate and frequent than expected.
> Pip
Maybe - maybe not...it's still a maybe.
As I said: It always comes down to woulda-coulda-mighta-shoulda....
All we know for sure is what we have: with the Beatles White Album we have 2
channel with The Corrs we have 5.1.
Any attempt to try to replay information and claim artistic integrity from a
replay platform that wasn't invented at the time of recording is stretching
it beyond credibility to me.
Artistic intent in my view often is tranformed into subjectivelistener
intent/preference - and you can see that often in arguments like this that
often end in a:"I like it like this: therefore the artist
would-have-could-have-should-have-might-have...
But I'm happy to agree to disagree Pip; good points well made!
Max Christoffersen
Pip
> Maybe - maybe not...it's still a maybe.
>
> As I said: It always comes down to woulda-coulda-mighta-shoulda....
>
> All we know for sure is what we have: with the Beatles White Album we have
2
> channel with The Corrs we have 5.1.
Here, I think, is our main point of contention: you seem to be stating that
the engineering capabilities are what should be preserved for authenticity.
My viewpoint is that the music is the thing, and any ways of getting it
closer to its "original" sound actually add to its authenticity.
This goes even further when talking of films, where there's an attempt to
create an atmosphere. The engineers have to do the best they can with what
they've got. And what they've got changes over time.
> Any attempt to try to replay information and claim artistic integrity from
a
> replay platform that wasn't invented at the time of recording is
stretching
> it beyond credibility to me.
>
> Artistic intent in my view often is tranformed into subjectivelistener
> intent/preference - and you can see that often in arguments like this that
> often end in a:"I like it like this: therefore the artist
> would-have-could-have-should-have-might-have...
>
> But I'm happy to agree to disagree Pip; good points well made!
Okay then. I'm still greatly looking forward to hearing it for myself. So
far, it's all just theoretical surmising for me.
Pip
max christoffersen
> the engineering capabilities are what should be preserved for authenticity.
No I am saying the original musical performance should be.
> My viewpoint is that the music is the thing, and any ways of getting it
> closer to its "original" sound actually add to its authenticity.
Only when you know for sure what it is: and all we know for sure is we have
a two channel recording. if you have more than that show me. Where
multi-channel sound is concerned we need a multi-channel encoding to
preserve and deliver that original performance. But multi-channel from two
channel masters?..there is no original multi-channel perforance...as I said,
we have Mancini in Surround and what else?...
> Okay then. I'm still greatly looking forward to hearing it for myself. So
> far, it's all just theoretical surmising for me.<
Yes it is: but as I said from the outset: know what you are listening to and
why it is important to understand what it is and what it isn't.
Multi channel synthesizing of the stereo Beatle White Album and later replay
on a speaker/surround platform that was developed at the time of recording
is not closer to the authenticity of the original performance, it is further
away.
Max Christoffersen
Stewart Pinkerton
>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>>To play non-endoded material thru a decoder specifically designed to
>>>faithfully replay encoded material achieves none of these objectives.
>>
>> What you fail to Understand, Max (surprise!) is that Dolby ProLogic II
>> was specifically designed to work well with non-encoded material.
>> Hence, your 'fidelity' argument is mere flim-flam based on your
>> failure to understand yet another technical process.
>>
>> The really hilarious thing is that it was you who provided the pointer
>> to Jim Fosgate explaining how DPLII was tweaked to provide this
>> performance. Shame that you can't read plain English.......
>I've read the piece Stewart - and other interviews with Fosgate at the same
>site regarding the same issue. You should know it is always me that provides
>follow-up souurce material, instead of ill-informed self deluded
>'engineering opinion.'
Yup, but you never understand what is being said...............
>While DPL2 was designed to replay surround material, the platform itself
>doesn't yet exist as an encode-decode system Stewart. Espan has already
>confirmed the encode code has been written but there is no encoded material.
>
>That leaves us exactly where I said we were: playing non-encoded material
>thru a decoding processor; which is like suggesting the Beatles White Album
>was recorded with the intent of replay thru a centre channel and split rear
>surrounds - do show me where there is any reference to George Martin using
>this platform at Abbey Road.
As ever, you totally fail to understand the point. Fosgate worked on
DPLII to enhance *existing* stereo tracks such as The White Album.
Your pathetic whining about 'artistic intent' is, as ever, entirely
without any reference to the expressed intent of any of those record
and sound track producers - it's just your deluded pretension to
artistic knowledge. Well, let's face it, you wouldn't get far
pretending to *technical* knowledge, now would you? :-)
--
max christoffersen
> DPLII to enhance *existing* stereo tracks such as The White Album.
> Your pathetic whining about 'artistic intent' is, as ever, entirely
> without any reference to the expressed intent of any of those record
> and sound track producers - it's just your deluded pretension to
> artistic knowledge. Well, let's face it, you wouldn't get far
> pretending to *technical* knowledge, now would you? :-)
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
I am acutely aware of what Fosgate was trying to achieve with his surround
processing.
He, however is not the artist Stewart.
Max Christoffersen
Stewart Pinkerton
How do you know? Were you *there* at the original performance? Of
course not. Now STFU and stop whining about things you know nothing
about.
--
Stewart Pinkerton
>> As ever, you totally fail to understand the point. Fosgate worked on
>> DPLII to enhance *existing* stereo tracks such as The White Album.
>> Your pathetic whining about 'artistic intent' is, as ever, entirely
>> without any reference to the expressed intent of any of those record
>> and sound track producers - it's just your deluded pretension to
>> artistic knowledge. Well, let's face it, you wouldn't get far
>> pretending to *technical* knowledge, now would you? :-)
>I am acutely aware of what Fosgate was trying to achieve with his surround
>processing.
Yes, of course you are, Max. You are privy to the artistic intent of
everyone on the planet, aren't you, Max? In your own tiny mind, at
least..............
>He, however is not the artist Stewart.
Nor are you................
You do however persistently claim absolute knowledge of the artistic
intent of the original recording. Do the voices tell you? :-)
--
Pip
> No I am saying the original musical performance should be.
And I thought we'd agreed to disagree...
> Only when you know for sure what it is: and all we know for sure is we
have
> a two channel recording. if you have more than that show me. Where
> multi-channel sound is concerned we need a multi-channel encoding to
> preserve and deliver that original performance. But multi-channel from two
> channel masters?..there is no original multi-channel perforance...as I
said,
> we have Mancini in Surround and what else?...
And, as has been said, as soon as you put a sound through a microphone, you
are changing it. My point of view is that the sound is created outside the
microphone, and the engineers have to do their best to preserve the mood of
it. Engineering changes, so the way to do it changes. People do not listen
to sound on the same sound system it was created on, so you instantly have
changes. Over time, those changes can be for the better, as amplification
and speaker technology improve.
Your statements seem to imply that it's the engineering that should be
preserved. That if the engineers used a certain method, it should be left as
it was, so that digitizing the sound is a bad thing (which, admittedly, has
been the case with the limited sampling rates of CDs, though the convenience
and ability to get a reasonable sound at a lower cost balances that to some
degree). But without digitizing the sound, we'd be watching silent movies
for anything not recorded on digital tape. And blank screens for films not
recorded digitally.
As I hope you can see, the equation doesn't balance.
> Yes it is: but as I said from the outset: know what you are listening to
and
> why it is important to understand what it is and what it isn't.
Whenever I listen to stereo, I'm not listening to the original, so I'm happy
enough with that situation. The stereo is merely trying to recreate a mood.
It's an engineering thing. When engineering improves, I'm happy with that as
well.
> Multi channel synthesizing of the stereo Beatle White Album and later
replay
> on a speaker/surround platform that was developed at the time of recording
> is not closer to the authenticity of the original performance, it is
further
> away.
It is not closer to the authenticity of the original engineering, but has
the potential to be closer to the authenticity of the original performance.
Not "IS closer", as I have no reference. But it has the potential to be.
Weren't we going to agree to disagree over where the authenticity lies, in
the engineering or the performance?
Pip
max christoffersen
> It is not closer to the authenticity of the original engineering, but has
> the potential to be closer to the authenticity of the original performance.
> Not "IS closer", as I have no reference. But it has the potential to be.
> Weren't we going to agree to disagree over where the authenticity lies, in
> the engineering or the performance?
>
>
> Pip
Yeah I'm happy to: but you placed the wrong emphasis on my argument. I am
after the original performance. The music is what matters.
Max Christoffersen
max christoffersen
> course not. Now STFU and stop whining about things you know nothing
> about.
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Stewart you are typically way out of your depth.
If you are going to debate this issue, at least bring some new perspectives
or some facts to the table.
As I said all we know is what we have: we have a 2 channel recording. Please
show me where multi channel recording and production techniques were used
with the White Album.
Therefore it is not a multi-channel encode-decode recording is it?
Still having problems understanding the difference between a surround sound
process and a surround sound platform?...
Dear oh dear....the 'engineer' is open for business...
Max Christoffersen
Espen Braathen
>
> As ever, you totally fail to understand the point. Fosgate worked on
> DPLII to enhance *existing* stereo tracks such as The White Album.
> Your pathetic whining about 'artistic intent' is, as ever, entirely
> without any reference to the expressed intent of any of those record
> and sound track producers - it's just your deluded pretension to
> artistic knowledge. Well, let's face it, you wouldn't get far
> pretending to *technical* knowledge, now would you? :-)
Since I have personally talked to Jim Fosgate; He's main interrest is to
play back his enormous LP collection in surround sound. He has made his
various surround decoder algorithms in the last decade for this purpose
alone. Since Fosgate is analog engineer, the Pro Logic II prototype was
built with tubes and this unit is what he uses for his own listeng these
days(the unit is now also being sold comericially).
The Pro Logic II process (there are no relations to Pro Logic besides the
name) is designed to decode 2-channel stereo music into a realistic surround
sound soundfield without questionabel artifacts (these comes mainly from the
steering action in these types of decoders).
As for all decoders working with a phase/level relationship to determine the
position of the sound in the soundfiled; its possible to make a
complementary encoder as well, however Dolby has no intent to do so. The
encoder is "simple" as only the phase and level of the signal is altered
(similiar to ordinary Dolby Surround encoding).
(Papers presented by Dolby last October does contain the encoding parameters
for both a 5 and a 6 channel encoder; PLII decodes six channels like
Fosgates previous Six-Axix process; however the back "EX" surround channel
is downmixed into the left and right surround channels in all current
products to give a 5 channel output. It must be decoded since its used in
the creation of the other channels. Future products might present all 6
channels to the listener.)
Esp1
Espen Braathen
Pip <P...@cwci.the.kinky.underwear.net> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:cLiZ6.78219$662.323596@news1-hme0...
>
> It is not closer to the authenticity of the original engineering, but has
> the potential to be closer to the authenticity of the original
performance.
> Not "IS closer", as I have no reference. But it has the potential to be.
The beauty of Pro Logic II is that is does NOT alter the sound; it just
redistributes the _original_components into is rightfull position in the
soundfield (i.e. sending the reverb to the surrounds, placing the center
mixed signal into the center channel, etc).
This is unlike most other processes found in HT gear that usually relies on
some sort of DSP or DAP operations.
Esp1
AudioEnz
esp...@online.no wrote on 25/06/2001 11:26 AM:
> This is unlike most other processes found in HT gear that usually relies on
> some sort of DSP or DAP operations.
Not wanting to be pedantic, but Pro Logic II's implementation in AV amps and
receivers will be done via DSP (digital signal processing).
Max's position on leaving the integrity of the original signal alone is the
logical basis behind the development of high fidelity sound reproduction, of
course. Pinkerton's ramblings have more to do with his need to attack Max at
any and every opportunity, rather than having a sensible argument to put
forth.
Personally, I'm in favour of keeping the integrity of the original recording
intact (I also dislike the "colourisation" of b/w films for the same
reason).
Yet I've found the the Hafler method of ambience extraction (sending the out
of phase signal - which is basically room/hall ambience with most acoustic
recordings - to the rear) to be quite intoxicating.
Pip
>
> Yeah I'm happy to: but you placed the wrong emphasis on my argument. I am
> after the original performance. The music is what matters.
And the music has no channels but comes from all around. If we're agreed on
that, it's just a matter of taste whether we'd want to listen to an
artificial two channel reproduction or an artificial 6 channel one.
Pip
Stewart Pinkerton
>> How do you know? Were you *there* at the original performance? Of
>> course not. Now STFU and stop whining about things you know nothing
>> about.
>Stewart you are typically way out of your depth.
>
>If you are going to debate this issue, at least bring some new perspectives
>or some facts to the table.
I always do - you never understand them.............
>As I said all we know is what we have: we have a 2 channel recording. Please
>show me where multi channel recording and production techniques were used
>with the White Album.
>Therefore it is not a multi-channel encode-decode recording is it?
>
>Still having problems understanding the difference between a surround sound
>process and a surround sound platform?...
>
>Dear oh dear....the 'engineer' is open for business...
Yup, and the idiot Kiwi still doesn't understand what DPLII does.
Espen explained it, I've added to it in my reply to Mikey, no doubt
you'll still fail to understand...........
--
Stewart Pinkerton
>, "Pip" <P...@cwci.the.kinky.underwear.net> wrote:
>
>> It is not closer to the authenticity of the original engineering, but has
>> the potential to be closer to the authenticity of the original performance.
>> Not "IS closer", as I have no reference. But it has the potential to be.
>> Weren't we going to agree to disagree over where the authenticity lies, in
>> the engineering or the performance?
>>
>
>Yeah I'm happy to: but you placed the wrong emphasis on my argument. I am
>after the original performance. The music is what matters.
Exactly - and that's what DPLII is attempting to *do*, from the
information contained in the 2-channel recording. You don't even
understand how brain-dead your above comment is, in this context, do
you?
Stewart Pinkerton
>in article KDuZ6.4613$_96.1...@news3.oke.nextra.no, Espen Braathen at
>esp...@online.no wrote on 25/06/2001 11:26 AM:
>
>> This is unlike most other processes found in HT gear that usually relies on
>> some sort of DSP or DAP operations.
>
>Not wanting to be pedantic, but Pro Logic II's implementation in AV amps and
>receivers will be done via DSP (digital signal processing).
This is true, although I think Espen is referring to the panoply of
artificial DSP 'overlays' for which Yamaha is particularly notorious,
rather than the DPLII ethos of regenerating the *original* acoustic
content of the performance. How this is implemented is less important
than the actual algorithm.
>Max's position on leaving the integrity of the original signal alone is the
>logical basis behind the development of high fidelity sound reproduction, of
>course.
No, it isn't. It seems that you two share a similar level of ignorance
of this matter. High fidelity reproduction is an attempt to recreate
the original *performance*, what Harry Perason calls The Absolute
Sound. The recording is merely the transfer medium, not the Holy
Grail.
> Pinkerton's ramblings have more to do with his need to attack Max at
>any and every opportunity, rather than having a sensible argument to put
>forth.
Quite the reverse. Max's whining about artistic intent and the
'authenticity' of the original recording are simply yet more evidence
of his technical incompetence. Note Espen's description of what Jim
Fosgate is doing with the signal - he's attempting to *restore* the
elements of the original performance by extracting the relevant
information from the *reduced* information in the simple two-channel
recording. Max of course has no idea how this ptocess might work, so
keeps maithering on aout tw-channel being the 'authentic performance',
when in fact it's simple the original *signal*, not the performance at
all.
>Personally, I'm in favour of keeping the integrity of the original recording
>intact (I also dislike the "colourisation" of b/w films for the same
>reason).
Good - so is Jim Fosgate. He takes it one step further of course, he
attempts to keep the interity of the original *performance*, despite
the damage done by two-channel recording of that performance.
>Yet I've found the the Hafler method of ambience extraction (sending the out
>of phase signal - which is basically room/hall ambience with most acoustic
>recordings - to the rear) to be quite intoxicating.
I have also used this in the past, but it's a pale imitation of DPLII
processing.
AudioEnz
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 25/06/2001 6:41 PM:
> No, it isn't. It seems that you two share a similar level of ignorance
> of this matter. High fidelity reproduction is an attempt to recreate
> the original *performance*, what Harry Perason calls The Absolute
> Sound. The recording is merely the transfer medium, not the Holy
> Grail.
While the recording is the transfer method, it is the only thing we have to
reproduce. Recordings vary all over the place so the best we can hope to do
is to reproduce the original recording as closely as possible.
This has always been the basis of high fidelity sound reproduction - to
reproduce the original recording with a high degree of fidelity (hence the
term high fidelity of hi-fi for short)
> Quite the reverse. Max's whining about artistic intent and the
> 'authenticity' of the original recording are simply yet more evidence
> of his technical incompetence.
Max has been expressing the original intentions of high fidelity sound
reproduction. If you weren't so obsessed with insulting Max all the time
you'd realise this.
Stewart Pinkerton
>in article 3b36d853...@news.freeserve.net, Stewart Pinkerton at
>pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 25/06/2001 6:41 PM:
>
>> No, it isn't. It seems that you two share a similar level of ignorance
>> of this matter. High fidelity reproduction is an attempt to recreate
>> the original *performance*, what Harry Pearson calls The Absolute
>> Sound. The recording is merely the transfer medium, not the Holy
>> Grail.
>
>
>While the recording is the transfer method, it is the only thing we have to
>reproduce. Recordings vary all over the place so the best we can hope to do
>is to reproduce the original recording as closely as possible.
That's one approach, but Fosgate offers an option with DPLII. Easily
switchable, so you can use whichever version of the recording you
think gets you closer to the orginal performance.
>This has always been the basis of high fidelity sound reproduction - to
>reproduce the original recording with a high degree of fidelity (hence the
>term high fidelity of hi-fi for short)
No, that has *never* been the basis of high fidelity *sound*
reproduction. As well as Harry Pearson's definition, there's also one
of the most famous manufacturer's slogan - Quad, for 'the closest
approach to the original sound'. Not the original *recording*, the
original *sound*.
>> Quite the reverse. Max's whining about artistic intent and the
>> 'authenticity' of the original recording are simply yet more evidence
>> of his technical incompetence.
>
>Max has been expressing the original intentions of high fidelity sound
>reproduction. If you weren't so obsessed with insulting Max all the time
>you'd realise this.
Max has been rambling all over the shop, viz his latest gem: "I am
after the original performance. The music is what matters." I believe
that's exactly what *I* said re 'The Absolute Sound'.
Now, since Max wasn't *at* the original performance, how can he know
that Jim Fosgate gets it wrong in his attempt to recreate that
original soundfield from the cues peresent in the limited two-channel
recording?
Who to believe, Max or Jim Fosgate? Gee, that's a tough one.......
BTW, I don't think I've *ever* insulted Max. However I describe him
still seems to be a compliment when you see his next post!
>Michael Jones
>Editor, AudioEnz
>
>--------------------
>New Zealand's online hi-fi and home theatre resource
>http://www.audioenz.co.nz
Highly recommended to all those who think that high fidelity sound
reproduction has nothing to do with fidelity to the original sound!
AudioEnz
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 26/06/2001 4:37 AM:
> No, that has *never* been the basis of high fidelity *sound*
> reproduction. As well as Harry Pearson's definition, there's also one
> of the most famous manufacturer's slogan - Quad, for 'the closest
> approach to the original sound'. Not the original *recording*, the
> original *sound*.
As it is represented on the recording being reproduced. That is why
manufacturers have striven for equipment that does not alter the original
signal - in days of old this meant reducing distortion below audible levels
in amplifiers (remember Leak's "Point One" series of amps, Stewie?) and
speakers with at least a moderately flat frequency response
Of course, this is based on the idea that the recording engineers captured
the "original sound" for the reproduction equipment to reproduce.
Reproducing anything other than the original recording is called distortion.
And that is what Stewie Pinkterton is advocating.
Stewart Pinkerton
>in article 3b376887...@news.freeserve.net, Stewart Pinkerton at
>pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 26/06/2001 4:37 AM:
>
>> No, that has *never* been the basis of high fidelity *sound*
>> reproduction. As well as Harry Pearson's definition, there's also one
>> of the most famous manufacturer's slogan - Quad, for 'the closest
>> approach to the original sound'. Not the original *recording*, the
>> original *sound*.
>
>As it is represented on the recording being reproduced. That is why
>manufacturers have striven for equipment that does not alter the original
>signal - in days of old this meant reducing distortion below audible levels
>in amplifiers (remember Leak's "Point One" series of amps, Stewie?) and
>speakers with at least a moderately flat frequency response
>
>Of course, this is based on the idea that the recording engineers captured
>the "original sound" for the reproduction equipment to reproduce.
And Fosgate's work is an attempt to release the original recording
from the technical constraints of a mere two channels.
>Reproducing anything other than the original recording is called distortion.
>And that is what Stewie Pinkterton is advocating.
Mikey, I find it hard to believe that you are as dumb as Max.
There is a simple switch between straight two-channel and DPLII, so
any listener is free to choose which he feels is more true to the
original *performance*. Extracting cues present in the original
two-channel recording, in order to generate additional channels more
nearly representing the original soundfield, isn't 'distortion', it's
expansion. If you don't understand this, then I suggest you close down
your website before it becomes an even bigger laughing stock.
The only valid question is whether Jim Fosgate's DPLII algorithm
actually does provide 'the closest approach to the original sound',
and any listener can decide that for himself at the flick of a switch.
If you don't like DPLII, then switch it off - nothing has been lost,
since it's only a processor, the original recording remains
undisturbed.
>Michael Jones
>Editor, AudioEnz
>
>--------------------
>New Zealand's online hi-fi and home theatre resource
>http://www.audioenz.co.nz
Highly recommended to those who believe that high fidelity sound
Espen Braathen
> AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> writes:
>
<snip>
>
> >Michael Jones
> >Editor, AudioEnz
> >
> >--------------------
> >New Zealand's online hi-fi and home theatre resource
> >http://www.audioenz.co.nz
>
> Highly recommended to those who believe that high fidelity sound
> reproduction has nothing to do with fidelity to the original sound!
From a thread on rec.audio.high-end where editor Jones recently posted a
advertisement for his web-zine:
Espen Braathen <esp...@online.no> wrote in
meldingsnyheter:9h82a...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> wrote in
> meldingsnyheter:9h5a0...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > the latest issue of AudioEnz magazine is now online at
> > http://www.audioenz.co.nz
>
> Hm, let me quote a pharagraph from a receiver test at said page:
>
> "I suspect that one of the reasons that the AVR-2801 sounds so good
> is because it follows many traditional audiophile practises. For
> example, the 2801 has a hefty mains transformer with separate
> windings for the various sections, helping isolate inactions between
> the various parts of the receiver. The power amp section includes
> discrete power output devices, instead of the cheaper op-amps, in
> order to produce a better sound."
>
> Personally, I have never seen a receiver which uses "op-amps" as the
> output stage.
>
> The author might be refering to integraded output stages, but to
> claim that these "op-amps" automatically results in inferior sound is
> a rather simple conclusion. The same thing can be said about real
> op-amps vs low level signal handling by discrete components doing the
> same job.
A lot more could be said about the reviews at audioenz, however its fair to
said that most of the text is unrelated to the actual performance of the
product (of which litle is actually described).
Esp1
AudioEnz
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 26/06/2001 9:58 AM:
> Extracting cues present in the original
> two-channel recording, in order to generate additional channels more
> nearly representing the original soundfield, isn't 'distortion', it's
> expansion.
Stewie,
what you have described above is called "ambience extraction". It's a
well-known technique used by many listeners since David Hafler publicised a
way of sending the out of phase information to additional speakers to the
rear of the listener.
But ambience extraction only works properly with simply mic'd recordings.
And for these recordings the Hafler method can give a very convincing
rendition of being in the original hall.
But most recordings - even for classical music - are not simply mic'd. There
still (usually) is certain degrees of out of phase information that, with a
method similar to the Hafler method, will send sound to the rear.
But this has nothing to do with any "original soundfield".
> And Fosgate's work is an attempt to release the original recording
> from the technical constraints of a mere two channels.
From what I've read about Fosgate's work on DPLII this is indeed the case.
But it still has nothing to do with the original soundfield.
> Mikey, I find it hard to believe that you are as dumb as Max.
> If you don't understand this, then I suggest you close down
> your website before it becomes an even bigger laughing stock.
There's a good rule of thumb that someone will only turn to insults if they
do not have a valid and coherent argument. Which leads to a question: will
Stewie ever be able to respond to a message from Max or myself without
adding an insult?
Stewart Pinkerton
>in article 3b37aff0...@news.freeserve.net, Stewart Pinkerton at
>pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 26/06/2001 9:58 AM:
>
>> Extracting cues present in the original
>> two-channel recording, in order to generate additional channels more
>> nearly representing the original soundfield, isn't 'distortion', it's
>> expansion.
>
>Stewie,
Yes, Mikey?
>what you have described above is called "ambience extraction". It's a
>well-known technique used by many listeners since David Hafler publicised a
>way of sending the out of phase information to additional speakers to the
>rear of the listener.
Well, that's *part* of what DPL II does, certainly.
>But ambience extraction only works properly with simply mic'd recordings.
>And for these recordings the Hafler method can give a very convincing
>rendition of being in the original hall.
>
>But most recordings - even for classical music - are not simply mic'd. There
>still (usually) is certain degrees of out of phase information that, with a
>method similar to the Hafler method, will send sound to the rear.
That's true, and is one reason why Jim Fosgate spent years working on
the DPL II algorithm. You think perhaps he understands the content of
the recordings a little better than you do?...............
>But this has nothing to do with any "original soundfield".
>
>> And Fosgate's work is an attempt to release the original recording
>> from the technical constraints of a mere two channels.
>
>From what I've read about Fosgate's work on DPLII this is indeed the case.
>But it still has nothing to do with the original soundfield.
It has to do with *reproducing* the original soundfield as closely as
possible. As previously noted, you can easily switch it off if you
feel that the unprocessed two-channel recording gives you a better
sense of 'being there'. There's no encode process, so the original
signal is not damaged in any way.
>> Mikey, I find it hard to believe that you are as dumb as Max.
>> If you don't understand this, then I suggest you close down
>> your website before it becomes an even bigger laughing stock.
>
>There's a good rule of thumb that someone will only turn to insults if they
>do not have a valid and coherent argument. Which leads to a question: will
>Stewie ever be able to respond to a message from Max or myself without
>adding an insult?
After you, dear boy, after you................
>Michael Jones
>Editor, AudioEnz
>
>--------------------
>New Zealand's online hi-fi and home theatre resource
>http://www.audioenz.co.nz
Highly recommended to those who believe that high fidelity sound
AudioEnz
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 26/06/2001 6:24 PM:
> It has to do with *reproducing* the original soundfield as closely as
> possible.
Stewie,
still you cannot grasp the basics of this.
In all recordings except for simply recorded acoustic work (mainly some
classical recordings) the original soundfield is the stereo soundfeild.
Your suggestion that wrapping rock and pop recordings around to the rear
channel(s) has anything to do with an original soundfeild remains ludicrous!
> Which leads to a question: will
>> Stewie ever be able to respond to a message from Max or myself without
>> adding an insult?
>
> After you, dear boy, after you................
Well Stewie, I'm not the one who feels the need to denigrate and insult.
I'm not the one who feels the need to cry "liar" every time he feels
threatened. And I'm not the one who feels the need to add comments under
people's signatures. That is you.
max christoffersen
> The only valid question is whether Jim Fosgate's DPLII algorithm
> actually does provide 'the closest approach to the original sound',
> and any listener can decide that for himself at the flick of a switch.<
The fact is you add colouration/distortion to the stereo replay chain the
minute you add any form of processing to the original signal. It is the
audio equivalent of film colourisation; many audiophiles subscribe to this
view. The 'original sound' is being transformed thru a contemporary process
of sound manipulation/processing and replayed thru a speaker platform that
did not exist at the time it was recorded. "The microphones simply weren't
there" (apologies to Gary Lambert...) It remains a two channel recording
with synthesised extras..That's all. Ambience extraction is always more
welcome than ambience addition, however, the issue here is that there is no
evidence that the recording engineer had the intent of recording in this way
to allow for a future replay format that could take advantage of out of
phase information, It is no more true of The Beatles than it is of Joe
Satriani: try listening to Flying in a Blue Dream and listen to the
assertive rear surrounds and wacky surround effects. There is *no* intent.
There is tho some intertesting surround effects from a stereo recording; the
fact these translate into some interesting musical effects is totally
irrelevant. There is no intent.
> If you don't like DPLII, then switch it off - nothing has been lost,
> since it's only a processor, the original recording remains
> undisturbed.<
And it is 'disturbed' (thanks Stewbie) the minute you turn it on.
The fact remains that is not an encode decode process. And as above, this
argument always comes down to (as it has here). "I like it - therefore the
original performers would have too.."..
Wrong.
All you know is *you* like it. And this can not be extrapolated out to be:
"The Artist intended it like this." Every time this argument comes up: this
is where it always leads. But you can not claim authenticity as part of
fidelity simply from your subjective assesment. Neither you nor Fosgate are
the artist.
Secondly, the ambience extraction argument relies on the view that the
ambience is specifically an intended part of the 2 channel recording process
specifically employed for the later use of surround sound decoding (ie a
quasi form of pre-surround sound encoding). Wrong: out of phase information
can and has been employed for other reasons (widening the stereo imaging),
but there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that this is how the
performance was *intended* to be replayed or heard when used thru
multi-channel speaker platforms (see Joe Satriani above).. In fact the
reverse is more likely to be the case: and most importantly the microphones
*never* heard it like this. They weren't there.
Remember: no intent = audio accident.
If you like ambience extraction techniques and there are several (Lexicon,
Meridian and some of Yamaha's soundfields employ a level of phase
extraction) and prefer it, great. But as I said where there is no encoding,
there can be no decoding and that leaves only happy (or unhappy) accident;
listen to Satriani's 'Strange'. The evidence is all there.
Show me the intent.
There is none.
The fact remains we can only know for sure what we have. And what we have is
a two channel recording.
That's all.
And no amount of post recording replay processing is going to make up for
the fact that it is not a discrete multi-channel recording; nor will
ambience recovery provide a more accurate rendering of the stereo
performance when the multi-channel replay/ambience recovery platform wasn't
even invented at the time of recording, production, mixing and mastering.
BUT.....Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells however may be a more interesting case
(as would be Dark Side of the Moon) for the obvious reasons of the
multi-channel intent expressed by the artists themselves at the time of
recording.
Max Christoffersen
Stewart Pinkerton
>in article 3b3828b1...@news.freeserve.net, Stewart Pinkerton at
>pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk wrote on 26/06/2001 6:24 PM:
>
>> It has to do with *reproducing* the original soundfield as closely as
>> possible.
>
>Stewie,
>
>still you cannot grasp the basics of this.
I grasp them just fine, you're the one who seems to think that the map
is the territory!
>In all recordings except for simply recorded acoustic work (mainly some
>classical recordings) the original soundfield is the stereo soundfeild.
No Mikey, the original soundfield is the original soundfield. Hey,
maybe you *are* as dumb as Max....................
>Your suggestion that wrapping rock and pop recordings around to the rear
>channel(s) has anything to do with an original soundfeild remains ludicrous!
You really are getting into Max's lying and distorting mindset, aren't
you Mikey?
I said no such thing, indeed I was careful to say that you should
switch between the 'raw' 2-channel and DPL II options to decide which
gave you the better impression of 'being there'.
>> Which leads to a question: will
>>> Stewie ever be able to respond to a message from Max or myself without
>>> adding an insult?
>>
>> After you, dear boy, after you................
>
>Well Stewie, I'm not the one who feels the need to denigrate and insult.
>I'm not the one who feels the need to cry "liar" every time he feels
>threatened. And I'm not the one who feels the need to add comments under
>people's signatures. That is you.
Oh, that would be why you refer to 'Pinkerton's ramblings', would it
Mikey? Besides, I'm simply commenting on your pathetic self-promotion,
which isn't a 'signature'. I don't feel threatened Mikey, I'm not the
one who's trying to grub a living by conning inexperienced punters...
>Michael Jones
>Editor, AudioEnz
>New Zealand's online hi-fi and home theatre resource
>http://www.audioenz.co.nz
Highly recommended to all those who like their (content-free)
'reviews' written by liars and weasels..............
Stewart Pinkerton
A load of self-serving huffing snd puffing about 'artistic intent',
amounting to a big fat zero.
Max, you have *no* idea what was the artistic intent in *any*
recording, so why don't you STFU and let people decide for themselves
whether DLP II works as intended?