Is DTS Neo basically the same as PLII

[Jeff Westwood]

I have been playing with the sound options on my Onkyo receiver and Teac
DV-B300 and it would seem that I get similar psuedo surround sound when
outputing stereo from the DV-B30 and selecting either DTS Neo or PLII. I
assume (probably wrongly) that both systems decode the same information
contained in the stereo broadcast? If they are similar, is there any reason
to choose one over the other?

Thanks in advance

Jeff

[Roger T. Ward]

Yes, NEO:6 is the dts equivilent of PLII.

Which one do you use, well thats up to you, to each his own as they say.
Listen and judge for yourself. I refuse to get into that petty dts vs. dolby
debate, its a waste of time.

"Jeff Westwood" <jeff_westwood@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fc93a0d$0$1754$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> I have been playing with the sound options on my Onkyo receiver and Teac
> DV-B300 and it would seem that I get similar psuedo surround sound when
> outputing stereo from the DV-B30 and selecting either DTS Neo or PLII. I
> assume (probably wrongly) that both systems decode the same information
> contained in the stereo broadcast? If they are similar, is there any
reason
> to choose one over the other?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Jeff
>
>
>

[Jeff Westwood]

Thanks Roger

They are very similar, but I tend to lean towards NEO.

Cheers

Jeff Westwood

"Roger T. Ward" <hypnotoad8128@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fc96807$0$14056$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Yes, NEO:6 is the dts equivilent of PLII.
>
> Which one do you use, well thats up to you, to each his own as they say.
> Listen and judge for yourself. I refuse to get into that petty dts vs.
dolby
> debate, its a waste of time.
>
> "Jeff Westwood" <jeff_westwood@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3fc93a0d$0$1754$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> > I have been playing with the sound options on my Onkyo receiver and Teac
> > DV-B300 and it would seem that I get similar psuedo surround sound when
> > outputing stereo from the DV-B30 and selecting either DTS Neo or PLII.
I
> > assume (probably wrongly) that both systems decode the same information
> > contained in the stereo broadcast? If they are similar, is there any
> reason
> > to choose one over the other?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[king.paul]

Actually the 2 are not equivalent.
PLII uses much more compression than DTS - thus DTS has a cleaner sound. The reason most DVDs don't carry a DTS soundtrack is because it is much larger.

The other interesting thing to note here is that your Teac STB is a standard definition decoder and as such cannot receive Dolby Digital soundtracks - they are only broadcast on the High Def channels (sometimes).

So you are hearing basically the same thing because both DTS and PLII are simulating 5.1 channels from just 2 (stereo).

[º¿º]

I do not agree. Dolby Digital is used in SD and is broadcast by 10 & 2 that
I know of definitely. It is Dolby Digital 2.0. Dolby Digital is a
compression standard and can come in various forms from 1.0 to 5.1 etc.


"king.paul" <king.paul.1h57xo@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
news:king.paul.1h57xo@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>
> Actually the 2 are not equivalent.
> PLII uses much more compression than DTS - thus DTS has a cleaner
> sound. The reason most DVDs don't carry a DTS soundtrack is because it
> is much larger.
>
> The other interesting thing to note here is that your Teac STB is a
> standard definition decoder and as such cannot receive Dolby Digital
> soundtracks - they are only broadcast on the High Def channels
> (sometimes).
>
> So you are hearing basically the same thing because both DTS and PLII
> are simulating 5.1 channels from just 2 (stereo).
>
>
> --
> king.paul

[SA000584]

I do not agree. Dolby Digital is used in SD and is broadcast by 10 & 2 that
I know of definitely. It is Dolby Digital 2.0. Dolby Digital is a
compression standard and can come in various forms from 1.0 to 5.1 etc.


"king.paul" <king.paul.1h57xo@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
news:king.paul.1h57xo@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>
> Actually the 2 are not equivalent.
> PLII uses much more compression than DTS - thus DTS has a cleaner
> sound. The reason most DVDs don't carry a DTS soundtrack is because it
> is much larger.
>
> The other interesting thing to note here is that your Teac STB is a
> standard definition decoder and as such cannot receive Dolby Digital
> soundtracks - they are only broadcast on the High Def channels
> (sometimes).
>
> So you are hearing basically the same thing because both DTS and PLII
> are simulating 5.1 channels from just 2 (stereo).
>
>
> --
> king.paul

Neo 6 is a little better than PLII, however I dont think it has anything to do with compression as both use the same stereo signal. King Paul may be talking about DTS vs Dolby Digital. Neo 6 has an added advantage in that it decodes the back surround channel(s). Dolby has now released PLIIx which also decodes the back surround channel(s) to get 6.1 and 7.1 from a stereo signal. Most new receivers now have the PLIIx.

[king.paul]

[QUOTE=º¿º]I do not agree. Dolby Digital is used in SD and is broadcast by 10 & 2 that
I know of definitely. It is Dolby Digital 2.0. Dolby Digital is a
compression standard and can come in various forms from 1.0 to 5.1 etc.


Wouldn't you agree that DD 2.0 is stereo - not surround?

[Andrew Reilly]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:34:07 +1100, king.paul wrote:
> Actually the 2 are not equivalent.
> PLII uses much more compression than DTS - thus DTS has a cleaner
> sound. The reason most DVDs don't carry a DTS soundtrack is because it
> is much larger.

This is complete nonsense. Neither PLII nor Neo6 apply any compression to
the signal that they receive, and neither has anything (necessarily) to do
with the soundtracks present on DVDs.

> The other interesting thing to note here is that your Teac STB is a
> standard definition decoder and as such cannot receive Dolby Digital
> soundtracks - they are only broadcast on the High Def channels
> (sometimes).
>
> So you are hearing basically the same thing because both DTS and PLII
> are simulating 5.1 channels from just 2 (stereo).

Yes, and they both do it somewhat differently. Indeed, they both have
several "modes", in which they do it even more differently.

--
Andrew

[Michael]

It's a stereo signal that's been encoded with surround information, to allow
the appropriate decoder to generate surround sound.

"king.paul" <king.paul.1h69fn@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
news:king.paul.1h69fn@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>> Wouldn't you agree that DD 2.0 is stereo - not surround?

[Andrew Reilly]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:07:09 +1000, Michael wrote:

> It's a stereo signal that's been encoded with surround information, to allow
> the appropriate decoder to generate surround sound.

No, it's just stereo. Stored in a compressed format, just like MP3, only
different.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the two channel source was mastered
with the intention of being decoded by a Dolby Prologic (or PLII, now)
decoder, in which case there might be some spatial information in there
anyway. This is actually incredibly likely if it's content that
originated in the days of ProLogic or VHS tape. Whether it has content
like this is independent of the DD2.0 encoding, though.

> "king.paul" <king.paul.1h69fn@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:king.paul.1h69fn@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>>> Wouldn't you agree that DD 2.0 is stereo - not surround?

--
Andrew

[Michael]

There is a difference in that DD2.0 can have a flag to indicate to the
decoder that there is surround mix encoded into the two channels. It's a
hit and miss affair on DVDs though, much like the nomenclature DD 2.0
itself. It could even be DD2.0 mono, as well as DD2.0 stereo and stereo
with surround.

"Andrew Reilly" <andrew-newspost@areilly.bpc-users.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.13.12.10.09.500733@areilly.bpc-users.org...
> This is actually incredibly likely if it's content that
> originated in the days of ProLogic or VHS tape. Whether it has content
> like this is independent of the DD2.0 encoding, though.