- Thread Starter
- #681
Interesting - what was L16 based on? (and yes I heard the many reports on it being broken too...)
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Upmixing - where are we at? Have people compared upmixers?
- Thread starter dlaloum
- Start date
- Joined
- May 11, 2025
- Messages
- 212
- Likes
- 174
Developed in house. Trying to find the post again. Sounds like an earlier beta version of firmware hard L16 enabled in one of the SDPs and it didn't work well at all. Then later versions just took the option out completely. Edit: Then put it back again but doesn't work well.
Still crazy that they don't put L7 into it or QLI.
Last edited:
Fosgate had Panorama on the Model 4 and the Model 3a as well. I actually bought the vst for use in DAW and Jriver years ago.
Wavearts sells the actual Panorama Plugin.
- Joined
- May 11, 2025
- Messages
- 212
- Likes
- 174
Lots of things are called Panorama but that doesn't mean they are the same. Panorama in the Model 4 or 3A (or DPL2) basically was a bit of a wrap around from L and R channels into the surrounds.
What Lexicon called Panorama was something entirely different. It was inter-aural cross cancelation processing. It tried to make it so that your left ear only heard the left speaker and your right ear only heard the right speaker. It does this by generating acoustic cancelation signals to null the output from the left speaker at your right ear and then vice versa. Carver's Sonic Holography tried to do this too. Lexicon took it further by generating additional subtraction signal to essentially null the correction signals so you couldn't hear them too.
The Lexicon used test tones to setup the processing to match your speaker layout and listening position. You basically adjust a control so that it sounds like just the left or right speaker is playing. But if you move out of that listening position you realize both speakers are actually playing.
When Panorama is setup well, and you are in the proper listening position the soundstage pretty much explodes in how much detail it has, depth and width. It is very impressive and it does it with just two channels. If you have more channels it will use them to help fill in lateral sounds.
Chr1
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,442
- Likes
- 2,567
I wish that there was a practical and objective way to distinguish between these various upmixers, as it seems to me that most of this thread is just people's subjective opinions... Which like most threads where this is the case, just ends up being a bit of a repetitive echo chamber of very little practical use to other people.
Anyhoo, I guess that I will just continue to view it in the same way as other similarly subjective threads. Of interest, but not really particularly educational.
Any suggestions for improvement in this regard?
Anyhoo, I guess that I will just continue to view it in the same way as other similarly subjective threads. Of interest, but not really particularly educational.
Any suggestions for improvement in this regard?
- Joined
- May 11, 2025
- Messages
- 212
- Likes
- 174
Compare them back to back and report on differences heard on how they process a song. It takes a lot of time to do this as you need to establish a strong baseline and it is extremely helpful to have a way of switching back and forth between processing modes quickly.
This is what I posted on AVS Forum comparing L7, DPLII and QLI back to back on one song.
Spending a bit more time comparing QLI-32 to L7 and DPLIIx Music. Using one track that has really captivated me on the QLI-32. Cyndi Lauper and Sarah McLachlan - Time After Time. Listening in stereo it sounds pretty good but this track just gets haunting with good surround processing and also shows off some of the differences between them.
Starting with DPLIIx Music. I put it back to all default settings.
Panorama Off
Center Width 3
Dimension Neutral
Surround Delay 10ms
With Center Width 3 it uses the center a bit more as a fill while leaving the central material in L/R too. If you sit central you don't notice this as much but more off center and the vocals shift to whichever you side you are sitting on. Lowering Center Width <3 makes this less and less as it harder steers the center but if you go all the way down to Min it also narrows the front soundstage quite a bit.
On center you can hear a little bit of funkyiness when they are both signing 'time after time' (around 1:46) the apparent width shifts slightly, it gets wider during that part and then shrinks again. If you set Ctr width to min that is pretty much gone but you end up with what kind of sounds like pools in the front sound stage. L, C and R without it being a seamless whole.
The surrounds give a bit more of a sense of space but it somewhat uneven in it almost feels like it comes and goes at different portions of the song and even happens within lyrics. A little distracting once you hear it, it is subtle but noticeable when comparing against the others.
Moving to L7 Music at default. If you shift off center the vocals move too but a bit less then DPLIIx at default. Changing Front Steering the Film (from Music) pretty much stops that without shrinking the front soundstage or giving the pools of sound that Cnt Width 0 in DPLIIX gives you. On the MC-12 I tended to use Film for music as this is one area the MC-12s steering really changed, it got more stable on music with the strong steering of Film. On the earlier processors Film was a little too aggressive on music. It isn't perfect on film though, at the end of the line of 'suitcase of Memories' (48 seconds) it kind of gets wider right at the end of memories. Subtle but noticeable if you listen for it. Center set to Music doesn't do that. (DPLIIx doesn't do that either) Film also tends to reduce the width of vocals between Cyndi and Sarah.
Vocals sound different, more body or solidity and more clarity too. Just sound a bit more real. Surrounds are more open and doesn't have the on/off almost pumping sound that DPLIIx had. They are a bit more active. The front stage is more continuous even with steering set to film. More natural than DPLIIx with stronger front steering.
QLI (in Alternative Processing) is again quite a bit different.
Again the impression of more detail is there. Vocals just have more subtly to them and everything also sounds simpler or less conjested. I still think this is due to the processing striping out first reflections and reverb so that the L/C/R is just playing direct sound so it really is simpler in a sense both in the speakers are reproducing simpler sounds and that the reverb is coming from the proper directions and not also part of L/C/R. There is quite a bit more of a sense of depth up front and height as well. Think that is the first reflections coming off stage height L/C/R channels. Moving off center the vocals don't change much but it sounds different than in the others because of the increased depth still holds together off center. I don't hear any of the little front steering quirks in PLII or L7. Which makes some sense since QLI isn't really using steering.
The surrounds are more active. L7 with soundstage on rear and the surround rolloff turned off is a little closer though more of a flat plane unless I use the extra processing to bring the heights into play. The surround info on QLI sound very natural with none of the on/off of PLII.
On this song there is nothing that really just gets discretely moved around in the surrounds, it is all just the hall sounds in the recording.
- Thread Starter
- #690
Hard to get objective with upmixers.... I don't think anyone has proposed a viable way of measuring them (at least not anything outside an academic paper...)
- Joined
- May 21, 2021
- Messages
- 433
- Likes
- 293
There differences in the standard upmixers are audible. Auro 3d adjusts the bass and keeps the front image more than any other. Dolby Surround mixes more to the surrounds and allows for center spread to preserve the stereo image. All stereo is self explanatory. This thread is consistently taken over by people who say the old upmixers were better. Its irrelevant, honestly. The truth I have learnsd is if you have an excellent master for 5.1 music it sounds incredible upmixed on DTS. I am currently playing Steve Wilson 5.1 and Atmos mixes. It simply does not get better and blows away 2 channel music. Some things can be sibjective and true. .
Chr1
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,442
- Likes
- 2,567
I wonder if it might be useful to list links to any relevant technical comparisons that are available online.
For example, about a year ago on this thread, I added a link that compared DTS NEO: X (my upmixer of choice), to various other upmixers. Though not exactly a deep dive, it is somewhat more technical and objective than just the authors purely subjective opinion.
I would be interested to know if anyone has any other sources for such comparisons.
(Perhaps it may warrant a separate thread.)
Link to DTS NEO: X review posted earlier here
For example, about a year ago on this thread, I added a link that compared DTS NEO: X (my upmixer of choice), to various other upmixers. Though not exactly a deep dive, it is somewhat more technical and objective than just the authors purely subjective opinion.
I would be interested to know if anyone has any other sources for such comparisons.
(Perhaps it may warrant a separate thread.)
Link to DTS NEO: X review posted earlier here
Last edited:
What you're essentially saying is you want an objective review of lime Jello....
Tastes a bit like lemon & orange mixed together.
The Wavearts does the same thing with HRTF head models and a bunch of other things. IMHO uBacch is the best implementation that I've heard (better than Carver Sonic Holography, Polk's SDA, Lexicon, Fosgate) it's just incredible.
The miniDSP HTx is a 7.1 channel (LPCM) surround sound audio processor which gives the advanced user complete flexibility over up-mixing and down-mixing. Please check out our Signal Flow Library to learn more about the possibilities.
No one has claimed otherwise. One problem is that preference is prone to bias. A proper comparison of upmixers would mask the identity of the algorithm.
Huh?
Traditionally, upmixing is applied to two-channel sources. You're talking about upmixing 5.1 to larger configurations? Yes, that's done, too.
Purely anecdotally, I have rarely, rarely seen upmixing aficionados favor DTS's upmixers.
I still prefer to upmix some of the original 2 channel mixes, versus Wilson's surround remix.
It's well known that Neural X's weakness is 2-channel to multi-channel. It does MUCH better with 5.1 and 7.1 sources, particularly in regards to overhead placement, often sounding indistinguishable from Atmos/X mixes from 7.1 sources in particular. It's one reason I don't worry about Disney 3D discs only having 7.1 downmixes. Neural X restores then very well to an Atmos level mix.
That's why I think it would be particularly interesting to try Logic7 expanded to Logic "30" on a Trinnov Altitude processor using the digitized 7.1 inputs. It may be the only processor capable of doing just that.
That's why I think it would be particularly interesting to try Logic7 expanded to Logic "30" on a Trinnov Altitude processor using the digitized 7.1 inputs. It may be the only processor capable of doing just that.