I can select either... They do seem different. I dare say that DPLIIx seems a little more 7.1-ish than EX which seems more 6.1-ish.
Did that even make sense?
![]()
Did that even make sense?
-
Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.
Dolby EX vs Dolby Pro Logic IIx
I believe by default my Yamahas (RX-V657 and RX-V2700) use the Dolby EX decoder for 7.1 output for DVDs with a Dolby Digital or Dolby EX soundtrack.
I believe IIx can also decode those sources, but I can't remember whether it lets me select that or not.
What do other 7.1 receivers do?
Do people have a personal preference for IIx or EX given a choice, and when playing movies with Dolby Digital soundtracks? (Assuming you have a 6.1 or 7.1 speaker setup)
I believe IIx can also decode those sources, but I can't remember whether it lets me select that or not.
What do other 7.1 receivers do?
Do people have a personal preference for IIx or EX given a choice, and when playing movies with Dolby Digital soundtracks? (Assuming you have a 6.1 or 7.1 speaker setup)
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Yes. I think it does. Because IIx is supposed to be able to extract two channels from 5.1. EX extracts only one channel from 5.1 I belive.
It might be simpler to select the decoder on Yamaha receivers if the user interface made more sense
![]()
What's wrong with having a single button that said DSP Mode and another which said decoder
![]()
It might be simpler to select the decoder on Yamaha receivers if the user interface made more sense
What's wrong with having a single button that said DSP Mode and another which said decoder
2
The important question is whether Pro Logic IIx is designed to specifically detect the encoded rear channel information in an EX-encoded soundtrack, and steer it to the rears. Or is it just designed to spread a plain 5.1 soundtrack through 7.1 speakers?
As I understand it, IIx is designed to handle EX soundtracks, and is the preferred decode mode for 7.1 speakers for both 5.1 and EX content, but I've not seen any authoritative statement on that from Dolby, either in their IIx or EX FAQs.
Certainly using EX decode mode for a non-EX soundtrack is wrong. IIx is the correct choice for that.
As I understand it, IIx is designed to handle EX soundtracks, and is the preferred decode mode for 7.1 speakers for both 5.1 and EX content, but I've not seen any authoritative statement on that from Dolby, either in their IIx or EX FAQs.
Certainly using EX decode mode for a non-EX soundtrack is wrong. IIx is the correct choice for that.
Wrong??? I don't think there is a worng choice. I run EX over a lot of 5.1, performance is generally great. EX is post processing, I don't see it as wrong at all. Use it when you want.
Even DD EX can be configured for 7.1, but both rear speakers get the same content, where as DPLIIx provides unique signal to the rear speakers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER /forum/post/0
I can select either... They do seem different. I dare say that DPLIIx seems a little more 7.1-ish than EX which seems more 6.1-ish.
Did that even make sense?![]()
Even DD EX can be configured for 7.1, but both rear speakers get the same content, where as DPLIIx provides unique signal to the rear speakers.
Yeah, some of the UI or remotes are of horrible design. In old days, they use to do user surveys and implement some good ideas, now I guess no one has time or budget for these and every company tries hard to cut costs. Many owner's manual are not easy to read either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/0
It might be simpler to select the decoder on Yamaha receivers if the user interface made more sense![]()
What's wrong with having a single button that said DSP Mode and another which said decoder![]()
Yeah, some of the UI or remotes are of horrible design. In old days, they use to do user surveys and implement some good ideas, now I guess no one has time or budget for these and every company tries hard to cut costs. Many owner's manual are not easy to read either.
The former. When the PLIIx circuit detects correlated mono info in the surround channels, it sends those sounds to both rear speakers. In those instances it behaves like EX decoding, running both rear speakers as dual-mono, for localization directly behind the listener. The advantage with of course is that PLIIx can switch to stereo rears in order to image sounds that are intended to be heard behind the listener, but away from the centre line.
Write to Dolby directly; this way you get an authoritative statement from the horses mouth.
While PLIIx is preferable, I don't see how using EX decoding on non-EX sources is wrong. The only sounds that are extracted and sent to the speakers behind the listener are the ones that would have phantom imaged back there anyway.
Sanjay
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMO /forum/post/0
The important question is whether Pro Logic IIx is designed to specifically detect the encoded rear channel information in an EX-encoded soundtrack, and steer it to the rears. Or is it just designed to spread a plain 5.1 soundtrack through 7.1 speakers?
The former. When the PLIIx circuit detects correlated mono info in the surround channels, it sends those sounds to both rear speakers. In those instances it behaves like EX decoding, running both rear speakers as dual-mono, for localization directly behind the listener. The advantage with of course is that PLIIx can switch to stereo rears in order to image sounds that are intended to be heard behind the listener, but away from the centre line.
Quote:
As I understand it, IIx is designed to handle EX soundtracks, and is the preferred decode mode for 7.1 speakers for both 5.1 and EX content, but I've not seen any authoritative statement on that from Dolby, either in their IIx or EX FAQs.
Write to Dolby directly; this way you get an authoritative statement from the horses mouth.
Quote:
Certainly using EX decode mode for a non-EX soundtrack is wrong. IIx is the correct choice for that.
While PLIIx is preferable, I don't see how using EX decoding on non-EX sources is wrong. The only sounds that are extracted and sent to the speakers behind the listener are the ones that would have phantom imaged back there anyway.
Sanjay
The problem with using EX all the time is that it will collapse the surround field. What if the surround at a point is actually mono? It will collapse to the rear speakers, and you'll get nothing from the sides; quite a different effect from the imaging if it were coming from both sides. This is the same basic problem as things collapsing to the centre channel at the front. You lose the "surround" effect originally intended.
In an EX encoded film, phase differences between left and right surround are used to ensure that those channels aren't collapsed into the rear unwantedly.
Presumably if PLIIx does EX extraction, it does it in a more intelligent way than EX so as to not oversteer to the rears with non-EX material.
In an EX encoded film, phase differences between left and right surround are used to ensure that those channels aren't collapsed into the rear unwantedly.
Presumably if PLIIx does EX extraction, it does it in a more intelligent way than EX so as to not oversteer to the rears with non-EX material.
Keep in mind that certain source material can be encoded with an EX flag or PL2x flag..
Stereo back surrounds can significantly enhance the soundstage..
Thats why EX is usually available in an AVR that has DPL2x..
The user can select which mode delivers the desired end soundstage..
Also thats the value of DD PL2X..
As well as Logic 7 7.1 postprocessing found in some of the HK AVRs..
Stereo back surrounds can significantly enhance the soundstage..
Thats why EX is usually available in an AVR that has DPL2x..
The user can select which mode delivers the desired end soundstage..
Also thats the value of DD PL2X..
As well as Logic 7 7.1 postprocessing found in some of the HK AVRs..
Is there such a thing ? ? ?
Ed
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code /forum/post/0
or PL2x flag..
Is there such a thing ? ? ?
Ed
Only if 100% of the information in the L/R surround channels is correlated mono.
Then those specific sounds will be heard from behind you. Any surround informaton that isn't mono will remain at your sides. This is consistent with how those sounds would have phantom imaged when using only 2 surround speakers.
5.1-speaker set-ups tend to have the surrounds slightly rearward of the listening area, causing dual-mono content to image behind the listener, which is where EX decoding places them.
The same thing happens up front: play a mono CD using 2 speakers and everything will phantom image in the centre of the soundstage, which is where a matrix decoder would place those same sounds.
No, the small phase shift is to allow the mixing engineer the choice of placing mono content behind the listener or at the sides. Correlated mono sounds go to the rear speakers, decorrelated mono sounds remain at the sides.
Since stereo information isn't extracted by the EX decoder anyway (whether on an EX encoded soundtrack or not), it always stays at the sides and doesn't collapse to the rear. So it is perfectly fine to use EX decoding on regular 5.1 material.
Sanjay
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMO /forum/post/0
The problem with using EX all the time is that it will collapse the surround field.
Only if 100% of the information in the L/R surround channels is correlated mono.
Quote:
What if the surround at a point is actually mono?
Then those specific sounds will be heard from behind you. Any surround informaton that isn't mono will remain at your sides. This is consistent with how those sounds would have phantom imaged when using only 2 surround speakers.
Quote:
It will collapse to the rear speakers, and you'll get nothing from the sides; quite a different effect from the imaging if it were coming from both sides.
5.1-speaker set-ups tend to have the surrounds slightly rearward of the listening area, causing dual-mono content to image behind the listener, which is where EX decoding places them.
The same thing happens up front: play a mono CD using 2 speakers and everything will phantom image in the centre of the soundstage, which is where a matrix decoder would place those same sounds.
Quote:
In an EX encoded film, phase differences between left and right surround are used to ensure that those channels aren't collapsed into the rear unwantedly.
No, the small phase shift is to allow the mixing engineer the choice of placing mono content behind the listener or at the sides. Correlated mono sounds go to the rear speakers, decorrelated mono sounds remain at the sides.
Since stereo information isn't extracted by the EX decoder anyway (whether on an EX encoded soundtrack or not), it always stays at the sides and doesn't collapse to the rear. So it is perfectly fine to use EX decoding on regular 5.1 material.
Sanjay
Yes, but a phantom image sounds quite different to a single source. There's a far more spacious effect when the mono sound is coming from spread-out sources. In the case of mono surround, the surround was probably originally intended by the mixer to be a surround, not a rear effect. Maybe it wasn't, but you don't know.
By applying EX processing, you're getting something quite different from what the original mixing engineer would have heard.
Yes. But if he wasn't EX encoding, then you've gone and made the choice for him - all mono effects get forced to the rears, rather than being true surrounds, as they would have been in the cinema or in the mixing studio.
Maybe you enjoy that effect, and maybe it works well with some titles, but it's not authentic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/0
Only if 100% of the information in the L/R surround channels is correlated mono. Then those specific sounds will be heard from behind you. Any surround informaton that isn't mono will remain at your sides. This is consistent with how those sounds would have phantom imaged when using only 2 surround speakers. 5.1-speaker set-ups tend to have the surrounds slightly rearward of the listening area, causing dual-mono content to image behind the listener, which is where EX decoding places them.
Yes, but a phantom image sounds quite different to a single source. There's a far more spacious effect when the mono sound is coming from spread-out sources. In the case of mono surround, the surround was probably originally intended by the mixer to be a surround, not a rear effect. Maybe it wasn't, but you don't know.
By applying EX processing, you're getting something quite different from what the original mixing engineer would have heard.
Quote:
No, the small phase shift is to allow the mixing engineer the choice of placing mono content behind the listener or at the sides. Correlated mono sounds go to the rear speakers, decorrelated mono sounds remain at the sides.
Yes. But if he wasn't EX encoding, then you've gone and made the choice for him - all mono effects get forced to the rears, rather than being true surrounds, as they would have been in the cinema or in the mixing studio.
Maybe you enjoy that effect, and maybe it works well with some titles, but it's not authentic.
A phantom image sounds like a single source. That's why vocals sound like they're in the middle of the soundstage even without a centre speaker.
The mixer heard it on an array of speakers wrapped around the entire mixing stage. That result is not possible at home with 2 surround speakers unless you decorrelate the mono surround channel and use diffuse speakers (like dipoles). You're also talking about a special case which is quite rare these days: a soundtrack with a mono surround channel. For mono content that is part of stereo surround channels, which is the norm with modern movies, there will be left-right-rear imaging that will be consistent with EX decoding.
On a home 5.1 set-up, a mono surround channel is not going to wrap all the way around the listener like it does in the theatre. Mono sound coming from 2 surrounds would end up imaging in between those speakers, which would localize behind the listener, consistent with EX decoding.
Sanjay
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMO /forum/post/0
Yes, but a phantom image sounds quite different to a single source.
A phantom image sounds like a single source. That's why vocals sound like they're in the middle of the soundstage even without a centre speaker.
Quote:
In the case of mono surround, the surround was probably originally intended by the mixer to be a surround, not a rear effect.
The mixer heard it on an array of speakers wrapped around the entire mixing stage. That result is not possible at home with 2 surround speakers unless you decorrelate the mono surround channel and use diffuse speakers (like dipoles). You're also talking about a special case which is quite rare these days: a soundtrack with a mono surround channel. For mono content that is part of stereo surround channels, which is the norm with modern movies, there will be left-right-rear imaging that will be consistent with EX decoding.
Quote:
But if he wasn't EX encoding, then you've gone and made the choice for him - all mono effects get forced to the rears, rather than being true surrounds, as they would have been in the cinema or in the mixing studio.
On a home 5.1 set-up, a mono surround channel is not going to wrap all the way around the listener like it does in the theatre. Mono sound coming from 2 surrounds would end up imaging in between those speakers, which would localize behind the listener, consistent with EX decoding.
Sanjay
You're correct here, but the point is that basically no 5.1 films have mono back surrounds. Using EX processing almost always yields pleasing results. There are some exceptions to this where the surrounds are actually in mono, and this dumps it to the rear and you have no coherency between the rear and the front, you just have the front, then a big hole to the sides, and then the rear. This is distracting and not desireable. But again, there is only one 5.1 film that I've ever run across and that is Last of the Mohicans. The mix is 5.1, but my guess is that they just use the original pro-logic mix as "5.1" so the rears are completely in mono.
I also think that Scratch may also be this way, but I forget I may be incorrect about that.
In any case, for those extremely rare instances where the surrounds are actually mono then I leave it as 5.1. But again, this is rare, and pretty much across the board I use EX processing for basically everything else because it usually always sounds better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMO /forum/post/0
Yes, but a phantom image sounds quite different to a single source. There's a far more spacious effect when the mono sound is coming from spread-out sources. In the case of mono surround, the surround was probably originally intended by the mixer to be a surround, not a rear effect. Maybe it wasn't, but you don't know.
By applying EX processing, you're getting something quite different from what the original mixing engineer would have heard.
You're correct here, but the point is that basically no 5.1 films have mono back surrounds. Using EX processing almost always yields pleasing results. There are some exceptions to this where the surrounds are actually in mono, and this dumps it to the rear and you have no coherency between the rear and the front, you just have the front, then a big hole to the sides, and then the rear. This is distracting and not desireable. But again, there is only one 5.1 film that I've ever run across and that is Last of the Mohicans. The mix is 5.1, but my guess is that they just use the original pro-logic mix as "5.1" so the rears are completely in mono.
I also think that Scratch may also be this way, but I forget I may be incorrect about that.
In any case, for those extremely rare instances where the surrounds are actually mono then I leave it as 5.1. But again, this is rare, and pretty much across the board I use EX processing for basically everything else because it usually always sounds better.
"Keep in mind that certain source material can be encoded with an EX flag or PL2x flag.."
I also ask, is there such a thing?
Isn't that tantamount to there being PLIIx encoded source material?
I also ask, is there such a thing?
Isn't that tantamount to there being PLIIx encoded source material?
Come on - are you seriously telling me you can't tell the acoustic difference between a phantom image and the output from the centre speaker? The difference in width is obvious, even in the middle of a complex mix. In a proper surround music mix, it's possible to create quite different results by choosing which of the 3 front speakers are used to create centred vocals. If you can't detect this, then I'm not going to lend much credence to your insistence on there being no problem using EX all the time...
![]()
Dolby PLII Music mode acknowledges this and lets you adjust a "centre width" parameter to control the amount of use of the centre channel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/0
A phantom image sounds like a single source. That's why vocals sound like they're in the middle of the soundstage even without a centre speaker.
Come on - are you seriously telling me you can't tell the acoustic difference between a phantom image and the output from the centre speaker? The difference in width is obvious, even in the middle of a complex mix. In a proper surround music mix, it's possible to create quite different results by choosing which of the 3 front speakers are used to create centred vocals. If you can't detect this, then I'm not going to lend much credence to your insistence on there being no problem using EX all the time...
Dolby PLII Music mode acknowledges this and lets you adjust a "centre width" parameter to control the amount of use of the centre channel.
Haven't you fooled anyone into thinking that your centre speaker was on when it wasn't?
Not on my system: mono sounds image dead centre, with no smearing across the front soundstage. I have heard systems though where the L/R speakers were deliberately not toed in so that dialogue appeared wider. But that is a set up preference, not something inherent to phantom vs hard sounds.
Getting back to EX decoding: the surround field collapse you describe is something I've only experienced with soundtracks where the surrounds were 100% correlated mono. With practically all 5.1 soundtracks, I get plenty of sound out of the side speakers.
If you've tried EX decoding on non-EX soundtracks, does all the sound end up in your rear speakers?
Sanjay
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMO /forum/post/0
are you seriously telling me you can't tell the acoustic difference between a phantom image and the output from the centre speaker?
Haven't you fooled anyone into thinking that your centre speaker was on when it wasn't?
Quote:
The difference in width is obvious...
Not on my system: mono sounds image dead centre, with no smearing across the front soundstage. I have heard systems though where the L/R speakers were deliberately not toed in so that dialogue appeared wider. But that is a set up preference, not something inherent to phantom vs hard sounds.
Getting back to EX decoding: the surround field collapse you describe is something I've only experienced with soundtracks where the surrounds were 100% correlated mono. With practically all 5.1 soundtracks, I get plenty of sound out of the side speakers.
If you've tried EX decoding on non-EX soundtracks, does all the sound end up in your rear speakers?
Sanjay
I don't recall all of them...
But Pirates of the Carribean & Blade 3 have the Ex flag..
Many AVRs do not identify the incoming digital stream but the later HK AVRs such as the 745.. So many times the user has no idea what format the native stream, they see the Dolby Digital indicator but it culd be 2.0, 4.0, 5.1 or 6.1...
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz /forum/post/0
"Keep in mind that certain source material can be encoded with an EX flag or PL2x flag.."
I also ask, is there such a thing?
Isn't that tantamount to there being PLIIx encoded source material?
I don't recall all of them...
But Pirates of the Carribean & Blade 3 have the Ex flag..
Many AVRs do not identify the incoming digital stream but the later HK AVRs such as the 745.. So many times the user has no idea what format the native stream, they see the Dolby Digital indicator but it culd be 2.0, 4.0, 5.1 or 6.1...
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
AVS Forum
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
WilliamR
882 Replies
BASSAHOLIC
469 Replies
bass addict
398 Replies
Recommended Communities
