http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/ Engadget HD Comments for Engadget goes behind the Dolby logo http://hd.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://hd.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
Just so I'm clear, does this meant that decoding Dolby TruHD, whether in the player or the AVR will yield the same result in terms of the ones and zeros? But once you get into hardware quality, such as D/A converters, and post processing, the digital signal will vary depending on those factors?

I'm still debating on upgrading my Denon 3805 rather than continuing to use the 7.1 inputs and have the Samsung 2500 decode the signal...

Thanks Dude]]>Jul 8th 2009 1:41PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 8th 2009 1:55PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 8th 2009 2:05PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
I just picked up a 4310 from Magnolia at Bestbuy for $1750 I didn't have a hard time getting them to offer me that price. So far I have been VERY impressed with the unit. It was a bit more then I wanted to spend especially considering I was looking at a 3808 as well. The Multi EQ XT does a great job. I am currently 5.1 but I think I am going to fill in the front heights and use PL IIz since I don't have space behind the viewing area for a 7.1

]]>Jul 8th 2009 2:47PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/

I would recommend that you keep your existing 3805 and invest in a better blu ray player. I have several denon receivers and have found that it's always not the best to change receivers just because there are new codecs etc.

I would recommend the pioneer bdp51d or the 05d or the elite series in that range. Their onboard decoding capabilities are second to none. You can use your existing analog inputs on the receiver. I also find that the Wolfson DAC also does a very respectable job for playing audio cd's as well - in fact, i would go far enough to say that these players do a job at par with the $1500 plus range of cd players. Bass management is possible as well.

All the best. ]]>Jul 8th 2009 4:18PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
The video processing in most receivers is a little behind. I for instance didn't really care too much about that since all of my content will coming in at 720 or 1080 already.. However, the room correction stuff such as Muti EQ XT is a sizable step up from even the regular Mutli EQ. All off the Audacity stuff is also a big help. ]]>Jul 8th 2009 4:38PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
Thanks!]]>Jul 8th 2009 5:00PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 8th 2009 2:15PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 8th 2009 3:00PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
C]]>Jul 8th 2009 3:34PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 8th 2009 3:40PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
Here is a post I read a long time back, ( circa 2005) about Brightside before they were bought by Dolby
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr/1]]>Jul 8th 2009 4:21PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 8th 2009 6:11PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2007/02/27/dolby_buys_brightside_technologies_hdr_lcd/1

Brightside/Dolby hold all the patent rights for local dynamic adjustment of backlighting. So essential they are the same I guess. ]]>Jul 8th 2009 7:43PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 9th 2009 11:32AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
If I had some cash now, the first thing I'd think about doing would be buying a new receiver and some speakers. Having better knowledge of what some of these Dolby terms mean is very helpful. Till then, I'll keep rocking out with my crappy (in comparrison) $200 Sony 5.1 system in a box. ]]>Jul 8th 2009 5:08PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 8th 2009 6:08PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
All this "surround" stuff is a huge bunch of FAIL, just like it's predecessor Quad. If you ever want to meet a real surround technology, look up Ambisonics. It's not new, but it's way superior to anything (yes, anything) in both the consumer and pro markets now.

Granted, you can use Ambisonics on pretty much any speaker array and the z.1 ones are no exceptions (given that you have the correct decoding matrix, and this is better than anything Dolby could ever come up with), but native Ambisonics setups will always sound better, and they have a huge sweetspot too. The effect is even noticeable from outside the speaker ring. Just try someday an Ambisonics hexagon, or even better, an Ambisonics cube (that's full-sphere surround). You'll hate non-Ambisonics setups for the rest of your life :-)

Sorry for the rant, but this topic makes me upset... The consumer audio market is currently so full of BS..]]>Jul 9th 2009 1:48AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
We can cry over the fact that a certain format does or doesn't succeed and refuse to hop on the bandwagon out of principal, or we can take the route that offers improvement -- even if it's non-ideal or technically the "best". I'd never begrudge someone their choice, and I admire when consumers "vote with their dollars," but I choose to take the improvements as they come. Works for me; may not work for you -- and that's cool!

]]>Jul 9th 2009 2:17AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://research.egrsoftware.com/conferences/2008/aes2008/

So after I pay down some more short/mid term loans for building out my facility here is to crossing my fingers that I can finally attract some funding.. Let me just say that trying to do a surround audio start up takes patience.. ]]>Jul 9th 2009 3:07AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
Ambisonics as a projection technology can use any current discrete format recording from mono, stereo, quad, 5.1, 7.1, X.N, and project it into an array of any number of speakers. "synthetic Ambisonics" is an underdeveloped area of research and there is tons of applications to games / real 3D audio; not this fake crap Creative Labs marketing stuffed down everyones throats for the past 15 years... So, there is a whole lot more usefulness behind the scenes than just a recorded format.

Err.. Want an Ambisonic demo on a 24.8 setup? I've got a Quake 3 class game engine using it for audio; plus some music/movie projection. Lots more soon enough.. :)]]>Jul 9th 2009 3:33AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
And Steven, "vote with their dollars" is not really valid in this specific case.. Ambisonics never got fair play, the consumers didn't vote for it because they didn't even have the option

It's such a shame that the best technology doesn't always win the market..]]>Jul 9th 2009 4:30AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 8th 2009 6:09PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 8th 2009 7:20PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 8th 2009 11:03PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
the thing that caught my eye in the article is that Dolby HD does not scale down...ok, i need some clarification on that one. When playing a boo-ray through my optical connect, and the movie has a dolby HD track, so what am i hearing? what am i missing? If it's not scaling then exactly what is coming through the speakers, because i dont see a regular dolby 5.1 option on any of those boorays.

anyones?]]>Jul 9th 2009 3:04AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
DTS masters their tracks about 4 dB higher than Dolby does. That is what makes it perceptually louder and more bass heavy. If you play them back at the exact same amplitude you might have a hard time telling one from another.

That's why some receiver manufacturers have a circuit built in the knocks that 4 dB out of the DTS signal, it is jiggery-pokery and not sound audio engineering.]]>Jul 9th 2009 9:49AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
DTS tracks dont just sound 'louder'- they are exponentially more FULL. Again, it's rare that a Dolby track- like transformer booray- sounds extremely good. Turning up the volume doent turn it into the same thing.

I've tested the codecs against each other MANY times with dvds that have dual encodes..its not even a comparison. But to each is own..as long as I see DTS-MA all over the place i am a happy camper. And I'm dude for a receiver upgrade...oh baby!!! Sorry neighbors!]]>Jul 9th 2009 11:33AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
Admitted, I'm much more of a video nut than an audio one, but to me, sound coming from the rear, left, right and what not seems unnatural. I like my sound to come from the direction of my screen, I couldn't even be bothered with stereo.

Just wondering if I'm alone in this...
]]>Jul 9th 2009 5:54AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
For one thing, I've tried to get my mom into HT for years. She gets video - she sees the value in a nice HD set and can tell a good signal from a crappy one. But for years I've argued over the necessity of a good surround setup to no avail. Then it dawned on me - she's partially deaf in one ear. She can barely tell if someone's talking on her left or her right, let alone pick out a discreet set of channels with panning and all the wizardry in modern surround audio processing.

So there's a clinical reason for you, and then I've run into plenty of people who just flat-out don't like surround. I guess you're one. Me, I'm an audiophile and a videophile, so I've got the full package. But if you're happy to just have those tin can things embedded in the side of your HDTV, then that's fine too.]]>Jul 9th 2009 4:05PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
The ones who think of multimedia as "they are here" (ie. the TV brings the movies to your living room, the music player brings the music to the house). In this case, yes, the natural thing is for all sound to come from the screen. This people chooses their equipment according to what is appropriate for the room.

And the ones who see multimedia as "I am there" (ie. "I'm not in my living room, I want the experience to be comparable to being there in real life", "The musicians are not here, I'm in a concert hall"). In this case, the natural thing is for sound to come from everywhere.This is the people that builds the room according to what is appropriate for the equipment, and the fact that the display does not cover the whole horizon is a flaw, not a feature.

Not that this is all there is to it, but if you are one of the former, it might just be the reason you don't care about sound..

PS. There's also the third kind... Those who only extract the information and don't care about how it's presented. They're those who couldn't tell the difference between QVGA and 1080p if their life depended on it... But I suspect there aren't many of them on EngadgetHD :-P]]>Jul 9th 2009 7:41PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 9th 2009 12:05PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 9th 2009 7:26PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
Mackie HR824s in the top setup with some smaller monitors I'm also going to assume are also Mackie.

Below that is some kind of full JBL pro monitor setup.

And below that looks to be some Event 20/20bas, the speakers I use with my computer.

I've listened to two of the three pictured, and these types of pro studio monitors are extremely revealing, very tight, less emotional, and don't hide defects in the source material. So good recordings sound good, and bad recordings sound horrible, which is the whole point of studio monitors, to make the final mix sound good on any system.]]>Jul 9th 2009 8:20PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 9th 2009 7:51PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
Sweepstake: How many meters of monster cable does Dolby use?

Prize, a free bottle of Monster Wifi-Enhancing air freshener. ]]>Jul 9th 2009 8:06PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 9th 2009 8:23PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 9th 2009 9:18PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
That said, it's not terribly noticeable, and outside a home theater or the like, 92 kbps works fine.]]>Jul 9th 2009 10:49PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
When I read your message it looks to me like you've confused bitrate with sample rate...]]>Jul 10th 2009 12:35AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 10th 2009 12:15AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
I'm not even close to an audiophile. My ears have been ruined by years of power tool usage. But I can tell the difference between 92kbps and 256kbps quite easily on some music. The thing is that MP3 and others are very good at reproducing sound that is easily broken down in to repeatable forms. Guitar, piano, even the human voice compress and uncompress well enough at 96kbps to please most people. But when you get to sounds that are not so easily broken down it all fails at lower bit rates. For me it's most noticeable in percussion and other "white noise" sounds. Try listening to rainfall at 96kbps and you'll likely hear it. ]]>Jul 10th 2009 1:35AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
Was they?]]>Jul 10th 2009 5:40AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
I am aware of the video capabilities. I was talking with respect to sound. I have never used Audacity or the Multi EQ because i am used to doing my eq via my ears. Congratulations on the 4310.

Justin,

I highly recommend that you check out the pioneers. Or if you are really up for it, go for the denon blu ray players -- they are better than the sub-par quality that one gets with brands like samsung, lg etc. ]]>Jul 10th 2009 6:37AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 13th 2009 12:48PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 10th 2009 10:29AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 10th 2009 10:40AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 13th 2009 12:14PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/Jul 10th 2009 11:10AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
So many standards creates consumer confusion. I get it, but trying to explain it to "everyone else" has become tiresome. They never stop calling... NO I WILL NOT FIX YOUR HOME THEATER.

DolbyAutoHD FTW]]>Jul 10th 2009 11:17AM