DPL vs DD 5.1
TheKeeper
on the rear sound? that's doesn't seem like such a major thing
to me, I'm sure someone will tell me otherwise . . . . . . .
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Simon Brown
effects rather than just ambience. This allows proper transitions of sound
(e.g. from left front to left rear, instead of left front to both rears).
Also DD (from my own experience) just sounds clearer, and the sound is far
more dynamic than DPL.
The best way for you to find out is to hear it for yourself. Arrange a demo
at a local hi-fi store.
TheKeeper <ncookN...@textile.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:0168216f...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
BosunBear
Simplistically it is true that the rear channels get stereo for effects, but
the placing of the sound around the whole soundstage suddenly becomes truly
awesome.
OK, you still only have the 5 speakers, but once they've been set up and the
amp 'tuned' it really does sound as though you've got 20. The sound is all
enveloping. Each effect is so accurately placed it's spooky.
In case you haven't guessed, I'm a convert!!
David
Clive Jones
TheKeeper <ncookN...@textile.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>Is the only difference between DPL and DD 5.1 the extra channel
>on the rear sound? that's doesn't seem like such a major thing
>to me, I'm sure someone will tell me otherwise . . . . . . .
No.
Dolby Digital 5.1 is "discrete multichannel". That is, each of the
five directional channels is independent of the others.
Under Dolby Pro-Logic, not only is there just the mono (or steered
mono) surround channel - the fact it has to be extracted from a
two-channel mix using phase tricks means it's doesn't enjoy full
separation from the front channels, full dynamic range or full
frequency response. The centre channel is similarly not independent of
the front left/right pair.
The .1 channel is lifted in level with respect to the main five
channels on playback. This allows for far more bass energy in cinema
soundtracks, where needed.
All these do make a substantial difference - do a comparative
listening test and hear for yourself.
The downside is that Dolby Digital is a lossily-compressed format. In
theory it can therefore show compression artefacts, when compared to
an uncompressed PCM digital soundtrack. I've never double-blinded it,
but I'm pretty sure I've heard better clarity in voices from PCM
soundtracks on laserdiscs than the Dolby Digital equivalent before
now.
--Clive.
Buggy
Clive Jones wrote in message <8evl0m$8...@konan.nsict.org>...
>In article <0168216f...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>,
>TheKeeper <ncookN...@textile.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>Is the only difference between DPL and DD 5.1 the extra channel
>>on the rear sound? that's doesn't seem like such a major thing
>>to me, I'm sure someone will tell me otherwise . . . . . . .
>
Nah.....DPL sux, DD 5.1 and DTS rock!!!!
Clive Jones
>Nah.....DPL sux, DD 5.1 and DTS rock!!!!
I think you'll find that I (and others) have already said that - but
in more detail, and in English.
--Clive.
Craig Crane
other. This is in contrast to the 2 channels that DPL is derived from. Even
shite mags like HCC tell you that. So, with these discreet channels in
place, you get a much more holosonic experience. Plus, 5 of the 5.1 channels
are full bandwidth. The center channel and surrounds on DPL are limited in
their bandwidth, to the point where the surrounds have the same frequency
response of a household telephone.
--
http://www.btinternet.com/~acbarrett/craig.htm
"Simon Brown" <Simon...@cerebros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:957547502.3720.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Yes it IS a major difference. The rears actually get used for proper
sound
> effects rather than just ambience. This allows proper transitions of
sound
> (e.g. from left front to left rear, instead of left front to both rears).
>
> Also DD (from my own experience) just sounds clearer, and the sound is far
> more dynamic than DPL.
>
> The best way for you to find out is to hear it for yourself. Arrange a
demo
> at a local hi-fi store.
>
> TheKeeper <ncookN...@textile.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0168216f...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
> > Is the only difference between DPL and DD 5.1 the extra channel
> > on the rear sound? that's doesn't seem like such a major thing
> > to me, I'm sure someone will tell me otherwise . . . . . . .
> >
Steve Roberts
TheKeeper <ncookN...@textile.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote in article
<0168216f...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>...
> Is the only difference between DPL and DD 5.1 the extra channel
> on the rear sound? that's doesn't seem like such a major thing
> to me, I'm sure someone will tell me otherwise . . . . . . .
That was my thought as well... until I upgraded my Yamaha Pro-Logic amp to
an RXV-795a. The difference was astonishing. The stereo rears make
placement really precise and you get some really good use of rear effects
these days - witness the 'bullet time' sequences in 'The Matrix', with
bullets going to both sides of you.
The biggest difference I found was the bass response, which was
phenomenally different. I demoed this to a friend of mine, switching
between the digital 5.1 from the DVD player and the mixed down Pro-Logic
version coming out of the DVD player analogue outputs. The difference was
so astonishing that he went out and bought an amp himself the very next
day!
Definitely go for it if you have the money - and make sure you get a DTS
capable amp because it blows Dolby Digital away! : )
Steve