Upmixing - where are we at? Have people compared upmixers?

[Sal1950]

It seems to have such a quantum leap in technology and even in approach, that it is hard to credit PLII as being anything more than a 'spiritual father'. But I am the last person to claim any deep insight into these technologies.


In the Audioholics interview with Roger Dessler, Roger makes it pretty clear that DSU is next-level stuff and PLII/x was a crude beginning, technologically speaking. IIRC he said, paraphrased, that DSU really knows how to deconstruct a sound into its different components compared to PLII handwaving; the way it deconstructs across 20 frequency bands is like having 20 decoders in parallel; it has an amazing ability to discretely isolate and position sounds. And the interview was not particularly neglecting music.

When I, many years ago and filled with excitement for the potential of MCH to enhance music, tried PLII/x both (Movie) and (Music) with music, I couldn't reach for the off button fast enough (with rare exceptions). The adjustable centre spread was definitely helpful, but it wasn't long before I settled back into straight 2CH for 2CH music.

Whereas, trialling DSU+CS for 2CH music for 6 months, so far, I am pretty close to 50/50 depending on the recording itself. I cannot predict which way I will end up going in the long term, and I am still gradually expanding my speaker configuration, but the journey this far with DSU+CS on music is positive regarding ambience and mixed regarding program material, rather than firmly negative....and highly recording-specific. (In fact, if people aren't concluding that their positivity or otherwise about any upmixing technology varies greatly with the recording, and their impression of its success is fixed for all recordings, then something is wrong. And when comments are posted along those lines, I tend to think it's a safe bet that some non-sonic bias is unconsciously driving them.)

cheers

Spot-on post Newman. Personally I'd like a upmixer to attempt a creation of a real discrete multich source, a impossible task really, but the latest DSU in my new Marantz AV20 is doing that in the best manner I've experienced so far. I've been running a multich rig here since the early 70s and have a bit of experience having just about every processing codec that's come down the line. Over the last decade I used to often switch around between DSU, DTS and Auro 3D to find which was the best with any one particular recording. For a while Auro 3D was a strong leader but the latest DSU coding has been at the head of the pack for most all sources.

The results, of course, vary by mix. What I mean is that the processing consistently returns results that I prefer to unprocessed 2 channel. I've been listening that way for 27 or 28 years now and don't go back to 2 channel in my listening room. That was not the case with other processing methods, they didn't consistently give results that I preferred to 2 channel.

You confused me here, what method are you referring to? DSU, L7, or something else ?

 

[sfogg]

For processing that consistently returned results that I preferred to 2 channel Logic 7,Trifield and for the last 6 months QuantumLogic Immersion. Watch the link on how QLI works, it is pretty much doing what you want an upmixer to attempt. This Powerpoint gives some of the behind the scenes functionality of L7 in how it adjusts its processing based on an analysis of the source. The first 13 pages is about how to L7 encode 5 channels down to 2, the surround processing/upmix info starts at page 14. That analysis and adjustment is where its consistent results comes from and what made the center steering on the MC-12 version of L7 so consistently good even with it on its strongest setting.

Not really sure where I'd put DPLII Music on that scale. It does pretty well, but I always evaluated it in terms of vs. L7, not against stereo as I was already in the music in surround camp when DPLII came out.

Things like DTS Neo 6 could have weird steering on some things. Fosgate's earlier processing modes (can't remember all the names) were hit or miss and worked well on some albums and didn't on others.

 

[sfogg]

I would also add Lexicon's Panorama to that list of effective processing. Panorama is a cross cancelation technique that also added some ambiance with side/surround channels. That was what originally got me interested in Lexicon's as I had been playing around with a Carver Sonic Holography generator. The Carver required you to reposition your speakers for best effect. Lexicon's Panorama had test signals that you used to adjusted its processing to your speaker layout. It was wild adjusting it so that you only heard your left or right speaker playing but if you moved you realized both were actually playing.

It was stunning in how well it worked but you ended up with you head needing to be locked in one position.

 

[dlaloum]

It seems to have such a quantum leap in technology and even in approach, that it is hard to credit PLII as being anything more than a 'spiritual father'. But I am the last person to claim any deep insight into these technologies.


In the Audioholics interview with Roger Dessler, Roger makes it pretty clear that DSU is next-level stuff and PLII/x was a crude beginning, technologically speaking. IIRC he said, paraphrased, that DSU really knows how to deconstruct a sound into its different components compared to PLII handwaving; the way it deconstructs across 20 frequency bands is like having 20 decoders in parallel; it has an amazing ability to discretely isolate and position sounds. And the interview was not particularly neglecting music.

When I, many years ago and filled with excitement for the potential of MCH to enhance music, tried PLII/x both (Movie) and (Music) with music, I couldn't reach for the off button fast enough (with rare exceptions). The adjustable centre spread was definitely helpful, but it wasn't long before I settled back into straight 2CH for 2CH music.

Whereas, trialling DSU+CS for 2CH music for 6 months, so far, I am pretty close to 50/50 depending on the recording itself. I cannot predict which way I will end up going in the long term, and I am still gradually expanding my speaker configuration, but the journey this far with DSU+CS on music is positive regarding ambience and mixed regarding program material, rather than firmly negative....and highly recording-specific. (In fact, if people aren't concluding that their positivity or otherwise about any upmixing technology varies greatly with the recording, and their impression of its success is fixed for all recordings, then something is wrong. And when comments are posted along those lines, I tend to think it's a safe bet that some non-sonic bias is unconsciously driving them.)

cheers

Well, my PLII perspective may be influenced by rose tinted spectacles.... as I have not had a PLII capable processor in my setup for 4 years now.

My L7 perspective perhaps even more so - as I sold my Lexicon MC1 around 2008... at which point I transitioned to PLII... and found it to be a step down.

I will say that Jim Fosgate spent decades tweaking and adjusting his analogue surround setup, specifically for music, and then a further decade in the digital realm... in the early days of HT, Fosgate was the main proponent and had little competition, and even when some of the majors jumped into the burgeoning HT / Surround marketplace, the Fosgate processors were still considered the top product for quite a few years... (eventually dethroned by Lexicon...)

The DSU development had a lot of engineering capability thrown at it (Dolby has the resources) - however the focus / evaluation of the end result (and the tweaking / adjustment that ensued) appears to have been primarily HT focused rather than music (for obvious reason) - certainly in its early versions, about 10 years back, it was not a particularly satisfying upmixer for stereo...
My own comparisons (in showrooms) did not tilt towards DSU - PLII was clearly better for music.

Having said that - I now use DSU as my main upmixer for stereo music - although it is very hard to ascertain what updates/changes are made over time to the underlying decoders/mixers in an AVP/AVR - It is very evident that Dolby has been updating and improving the mixer over time... sadly such updates are not provided back to us consumers by the manufacturers - firmware updates fix bugs, but do not update the underlying decoder software versions (unless the bugs lie therein).

Latest generation of AVR/AVP's appear to have received a noticeable (yet mostly undocumented!) performance improvement from the house of Dolby.

I do wonder whether my enjoyment of DSU for stereo music is partly down to incremental improvements, and the fact that I have updated my AVR/AVP - thereby coincidentally, purchasing the latest version of Dolby decoder.

Communities like this one, should be pushing Dolby and the Manufacturers to clearly publish the software versions and associated updates for their decoders....

 

[bmc0]

In the Audioholics interview with Roger Dessler, Roger makes it pretty clear that DSU is next-level stuff and PLII/x was a crude beginning [...]

My interpretation of what Dressler said is a bit different. In particular, it seemed quite clear that he preferred the PLII family over DSU for upmixing 2-channel music.

 

[Newman]

Thanks for the comments guys, very illuminating.

...DSU development had a lot of engineering capability thrown at it (Dolby has the resources) - however the focus / evaluation of the end result (and the tweaking / adjustment that ensued) appears to have been primarily HT focused rather than music (for obvious reason)

If that is still true today I would be disappointed, because today, in the world of streaming for TV shows, movies and music, the AV stuff is largely in native MCH or Atmos, so there is less need than ever to focus DSU on 2CH shows and movies. If Dolby are looking at the consumer-driven need for upmixing of 2CH content in today's market, in focusing their most recent DSU updates, they would realise that they are really doing it for music consumers, including music video content. The major streaming platforms for bringing movies and shows to consumers are natively in surround, except for legacy material.

...Communities like this one, should be pushing Dolby and the Manufacturers to clearly publish the software versions and associated updates for their decoders....

Would be nice but unlikely, because you and I don't pay Dolby directly, that's the manufacturers, whose engineers probably do get such information. Ah well.

My interpretation of what Dressler said is a bit different. In particular, it seemed quite clear that he preferred the PLII family over DSU for upmixing 2-channel music.

I don't think so. It seemed like that at first when he wished for PLII to be added back in the latest players, but, from memory, over the next couple of minutes it became clear that his reason for that wish was only because he thinks 'the more the merrier' for upmixing technologies, based on his experience that there is so much inconsistency in recording and production techniques, that every upmixing tech will come out on top for at least a few recordings/movies/shows. There is no one silver bullet.

And that's fine, in principle, but jeepers, we have already got Straight, Dolby, DTS, Auro, Multi Ch Stereo, and Virtualizer to pick from. Even with that list, I am not running through all of them, every time I play stereo content, to find out which one I like for that particular track or album or show, so I don't think it will help me much to have even more options.

My general approach is to, at most, flick between native 2CH and one option, and for me that one option is DSU+CS. I don't have front height channels yet, but when I do, will probably investigate AURO-3D too. Then, knowing me, I will pretty soon trim that back down to one option. And although that is just lazybones me, I am probably not alone either.

cheers

 

[Sal1950]

My interpretation of what Dressler said is a bit different. In particular, it seemed quite clear that he preferred the PLII family over DSU for upmixing 2-channel music.

I think your reading into it what you want to believe.

 

[Magnus]

I think DSU is a waste of time for music, but it's the only 'new' game in town that attempts to move instruments around. Sony 360 could possibly make some headway, but they mostly seem interested in doing nothing. Auromatic at least retains the original mix layout and only adds reflections. You get a mixed bag with DSU. Sometimes it sounds okay and so stones it just sounds like a marshmallow popped and oozed liquid around.

What is great about Logic 7 is it sounds like discrete 7.1, but it only uses phase so if it's got no out of phase trucks, you won't get anything interesting, just room reflections if there are any. But contrary to the statements of some, if I use it with something new with out of phase tricks (e.g. Peter Gabriel's Dark Side I/I Mix or Tori Amos' Ocean to Ocran, it absolutely moves discrete sounds into the room and around on a very natural sounding fashion. I have a hard time telling those two albums in Logic 7 from the Atmos mixes played without overheads.

 

[bmc0]

I think your reading into it what you want to believe.

Unlike you and @Newman, I've never used (or even properly heard) either upmixer, so I doubt I "want to believe" anything in particular.

Here's a relevant post by Roger Dressler. In another post, he said:

Bottom line, I'll not be using DSU for 2-ch music. DSU really needs a Music mode, perhaps with tweakability.

In the interview video in question, Dressler's Auro-Matic slide reads (emphasis mine):

My Favorite music upmixer when PLIIx is not available

Still think I've misinterpreted his statements?

 

[Newman]

Unlike you and @Newman, I've never used (or even properly heard) either upmixer, so I doubt I "want to believe" anything in particular.

Here's a relevant post by Roger Dressler. In another post, he said:

Those posts were from 2014, which he refers to in the 2022 interview as his early experience with DSU being strongly bright in the surrounds, and goes on to say in 2022 that later versions of DSU had this cleaned up: it wasn't there any more.

And in the second post you linked, he literally says he is biased in favour of PLII because he was so closely involved in its origins. This is a very important point, very honest of him to remind us, and fair reason for us to downrate his impressions of PLII in particular.

In the interview video in question, Dressler's Auro-Matic slide reads (emphasis mine):

Still think I've misinterpreted his statements?

OK, ya made me look. Indeed the slide does say that. Although the comments on his slides seem to be about the early DSU, which he 'updates' in the live discussion.

But back to the big picture. Near the end of the discussion on DSU he says, "...especially in the case of upmixing, there is no right or wrong way to do it, it's all about taste and preference and having several options is a great idea if you can stand it." When we combine those wise words with the fact they repeatedly mentioned that (Dolby at least) keeps updating its software behaviour and we don't even know it's happening, and that has presumably/possibly been happening since 2022 too....then my best conclusion is we are almost being advised to do our own listening and pay scant attention to the (inevitably sighted listening) opinions of others, even the doyens, who kindly admit to their biases and say it changes with individual taste and preference and each recording. In fact, delving too much into the (outdated?) opinions of others does little more than create non-sonic biases in us that will influence us inappropriately.

cheers

 

[Sal1950]

Unlike you and @Newman, I've never used (or even properly heard) either upmixer, so I doubt I "want to believe" anything in particular.

Well you now found a different interview to (kinda) support your statement, he said his #2 fav is Auro, but good job.
I see Gene agrees with me on DSU and the use of center spread, that's it's mostly beneficial to have ON with music. 19:00
Would it be nice to have it adjustable, sure, the more adjustments the more people you can please, but we don't so?
Beyond that we are dealing with opinions and preferences of which Mr Dressler has and is entitled to his.

In particular, it seemed quite clear that he preferred the PLII family over DSU for upmixing 2-channel music.

I would be very surprised if he didn't, it was partly his baby, certainly he'd prefer it over anything else.
Bottom line on all of this is opinion and we mostly all are entitled to ours.
Only problem here is you "never used (or even properly heard) either upmixer" so you can't really have an opinion on the sound of any of them.

In the interview video in question, Dressler's Auro-Matic slide reads (emphasis mine):
Still think I've misinterpreted his statements?

As I stated earlier Auro was also mostly my #2, at times #1, but time moves one.
As it stands today, the current DSU is the best upmixer I've experienced since 1971.

 

[bmc0]

Near the end of the discussion on DSU he says, "...especially in the case of upmixing, there is no right or wrong way to do it, it's all about taste and preference and having several options is a great idea if you can stand it."

I think we're talking past each other a bit. Arguably, my point about Dressler's personal preference isn't that relevant to the discussion, but your post seemed to imply that Dressler personally finds DSU to be a drastic improvement over PLII for 2-channel music. As far as I can find, this doesn't reflect his opinion/preference—that is what I was trying to communicate.

I agree with the quoted statement, and I have not stated anything contrary.

Well you now found a different interview

As far as I know, what I posted is the only Audioholics interview with Roger Dressler.

Only problem here is you "never used (or even properly heard) either upmixer" so you can't really have an opinion on the sound of any of them.

And where exactly did I express my personal opinion on their sound?

 

[Sal1950]

Here's a relevant post by Roger Dressler. In another post, he said:

My error, you made it sound like it was from another thread.

And where exactly did I express my personal opinion on their sound?

Your certainly very outspoken on the topic you have no involvement it or products you never heard?

 

[Magnus]

I'll settle this. PLIIx and DSU both suck for music.

The only acceptable music upmixers are Auromatic (for multi-row home theater playing stereo) and, Logic 7, the best music upmixer ever made (just as good as PLIIx for movies as well).

 

[Miker 1102]

I'll settle this. PLIIx and DSU both suck for music.

The only acceptable music upmixers are Auromatic (for multi-row home theater playing stereo) and, Logic 7, the best music upmixer ever made (just as good as PLIIx for movies as well).

I agree. I use the auromatic. DSU is awful. Anyone who pushes that is kidding themselves.

 

[Sam Ash]

@

I'll settle this. PLIIx and DSU both suck for music.

The only acceptable music upmixers are Auromatic (for multi-row home theater playing stereo) and, Logic 7, the best music upmixer ever made (just as good as PLIIx for movies as well).

@Magnus - can you describe the difference between Auromatic and L7.

 

[Sal1950]

I'll settle this. PLIIx and DSU both suck for music.

The only acceptable music upmixers are Auromatic (for multi-row home theater playing stereo) and, Logic 7, the best music upmixer ever made (just as good as PLIIx for movies as well).

I agree. I use the auromatic. DSU is awful. Anyone who pushes that is kidding themselves.

Uh huh.

 

[Chr1]

As Mr Dressler said, and which was quoted earlier:

"...especially in the case of upmixing, there is no right or wrong way to do it, it's all about taste and preference and having several options is a great idea if you can stand it."

ie. Taste in upmixers is subjective.
I find it weird that most of this thread is dominated by praise for old/outdated technologies, and disdain for the new.
Reminds me of the many threads where people simply deride "modern" music because it's not their taste. Or praise vinyl.
I think that it would be odd if upmixing technology had got worse, rather than better. My 2c.

But each to their own and all that.

 

[Sal1950]

Reminds me of the many threads where people simply deride "modern" music because it's not their taste. Or praise vinyl.
I think that it would be odd if upmixing technology had got worse, rather than better. My 2c.

+1 Amazing how viewing with rose colored glasses can't recognize the color distortion. LOL

 

[Magnus]

+1 Amazing how viewing with rose colored glasses can't recognize the color distortion. LOL

Amazing how someone who hasn't heard Logic 7 in ages thinks it's just for live music and can't image discretely from the surround speakers.