2009 $750 Receiver Comparison Guide

[Pyrrho]

Which Onkyo model does have that feature? Does the TX-SR706 has that?
Preouts (7.1-channel analog outputs) for all channels?

I have no idea about Onkyo, as I do not like their receivers because they cannot properly decode DPL encoded sources. You can find the information you seek at their web site.

[Pyrrho]

I would love to hear your take on it, with explanations and the full shawbang.
Is it possible? I'm surprised here, because I don't recall to ever heard such thing before. Please, tell me about it?

To save myself some typing, here it is from an earlier posting:

Unless Onkyo has changed their ways, I personally would never buy one of their surround receivers. The reason has to do with the fact that with Onkyo there is only DPL II and DPL IIx, but no plain DPL. Why does this matter? Be patient, this will take a bit of explaining:

"Matrixing" is a troublesome word, in that it is used to describe two different processes. The kind of matrixing that is done with Dolby Pro Logic (and the center rear channel in Dolby Digital EX and the matrixed version of dts-ES) is where they take, in the studio, more channels than the finished product can contain, and mix them down in a special way to fit on those fewer channels. To make life simpler, let us confine our discussion for the moment to Dolby Pro Logic (hereafter referred to as DPL).

With DPL, they have 4 separate channels in the studio. The front right, front left, front center, and rear (also called "surround", which is why it is "S" in the quote below). These four channels are then mixed together down to two channels in a special way:

The L and R inputs go straight to the Lt and Rt outputs without modification. The C input is divided equally to Lt and Rt with a 3 dB level reduction (to maintain constant acoustic power in the mix). The S input is also divided equally between Lt and Rt, but it first undergoes three additional processing steps:
• Frequency bandlimiting from 100 Hz to 7 kHz.
• Encoding with a modified form of Dolby B-type noise reduction.
• Plus and minus 90-degree phase shifts are applied to create a 180 degree phase differential between the signal components feeding Lt and Rt.

From:
http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/z...ic_Decoder.pdf

Your DPL decoder at home reverses this process to give you 4 channel sound from a two channel source. This whole scheme was developed for theaters to use, so that there would only need to be two channels of sound on the film. There was not room on the film to easily add more channels, and also, this way, they could use existing projectors with two channel readers, which then feed the signal to a special decoder. But it also is perfect for two channel VCRs and 2 channel sound on analog TV.

Now, of course, they can do sound differently than when DPL was invented, and they can keep the channels totally separate from each other. Dolby Digital and dts (in their 5.1 versions) do just that.

Basically, the matrixed Dolby Digital EX and the matrixed dts-ES mix the rear center channel in the right and left rear in a manner similar to how the front center channel is mixed into the front right and left in DPL.

Now, finally, we can get to the other idea of matrixed sound, and that is where you make up channels that never existed in the original recording studio. This is what happens, for example, when you apply DPL IIx to an ordinary two channel CD. The recording studio did not have a mix for 7.1 sound; they had a two channel mix. The processing that is done at home in this case moves sound that was intended for the front right and left speakers to other places. Hence, it re-directs, or mis-directs, the sound to other places. Now, whether this creation of previously non-existing channels is a good thing or a bad one is a matter of preference. But it simply is not what was originally mixed, whereas the result of using DPL on a DPL encoded movie soundtrack is not creating any new channels that did not previously exist, but is only recreating what was in the mixing studio before it was forced onto only two channels.

So, if one uses DPL II or DPL IIx on a soundtrack that was originally encoded as DPL, one is re-directing, or mis-directing, sound to where it originally was not intended to be. Whether you like the result or not is what should determine whether you do this or not. But do not imagine that you are simply decoding the sound; you are processing it in a way that was not intended when it was originally recorded. It is like using "Hall" or "Studio" or some other DSP mode to process the sound in a way that is, hopefully, pleasant.

With Onkyo (unless they have changed their ways), you can only use DPL II or DPL IIx. So Onkyo receivers cannot properly decode DPL encoded sources. Most other brands give you a choice and allow you to decode DPL sources with DPL, or to process it with DPL II or DPL IIx, if one prefers.

From my own use of both DPL and DPL II, I have found that on some occasions, they sound almost identical, sometimes DPL sounds subjectively better, and sometimes DPL II sounds subjectively better. The thing is, DPL II sometimes, to me, sounds very "wrong", and DPL never sounds terribly wrong, when decoding a DPL source. These obviously are my personal opinions, and, again, if you like the results of creating previously nonexisting channels, feel free to do so. But my experience should not be a shock, because DPL II redirects front high frequency information to the rear (because with DPL encoded sources, there is no high frequency information in the rear, so the only way the rear can be "full frequency" is to redirect or misdirect front sound to the rear).

Because I value the ability to actually decode such things, I would never buy, nor would I ever recommend buying, a receiver that cannot properly decode DPL. With other brands, one has a choice and can compare and decide for oneself whether to use DPL or DPL II (or the newer variants). But with Onkyo, proper decoding is not an option.

[MDS]

Which Onkyo model does have that feature? Does the TX-SR706 has that?
Preouts (7.1-channel analog outputs) for all channels?

Onkyo doesn't offer pre-outs until the 7xx series and above. It's been that way for at least two decades. I think their philosophy is that it is a feature that is not needed by the masses and leaving it out on the lower models allows them to reduce the price.

But my experience should not be a shock, because DPL II redirects front high frequency information to the rear (because with DPL encoded sources, there is no high frequency information in the rear, so the only way the rear can be "full frequency" is to redirect or misdirect front sound to the rear).

You've mentioned this several times but I still do not understand the big deal. PLII is fully capable of decoding Dolby Surround encoded material, just like ProLogic, and ProLogic also 'creates non-existent channels' if the material was not surround encoded. PLII just does it better.

The only real difference is that PL is bandwidth limited for the surrounds and is only 4 channels. So the PLII algorithm will attempt to make the surrounds full range and also use cues from the audio to send independent information to each of the surrounds instead of the identical bandwidth limited signal to both surrounds at the same time like PL. Maybe you can notice a subtle difference on older material but is that really a reason to avoid any particular receiver - because it doesn't include an older, out of favor matrix decoder?

[Pyrrho]

Onkyo doesn't offer pre-outs until the 7xx series and above. It's been that way for at least two decades. I think their philosophy is that it is a feature that is not needed by the masses and leaving it out on the lower models allows them to reduce the price.



You've mentioned this several times but I still do not understand the big deal. PLII is fully capable of decoding Dolby Surround encoded material, just like ProLogic, and ProLogic also 'creates non-existent channels' if the material was not surround encoded. PLII just does it better.

The only real difference is that PL is bandwidth limited for the surrounds and is only 4 channels. So the PLII algorithm will attempt to make the surrounds full range and also use cues from the audio to send independent information to each of the surrounds instead of the identical bandwidth limited signal to both surrounds at the same time like PL. Maybe you can notice a subtle difference on older material but is that really a reason to avoid any particular receiver - because it doesn't include an older, out of favor matrix decoder?

No, DPL II does NOT decode DPL material properly. In the studio, there are 4 channels for a DPL source. Read the paper from Dolby mentioned above. DPL II gives 5 channels. This means, there is something different with DPL II that is not in the studio with DPL encoded material. Also, with DPL, the sound of the rear channel is frequency limited. This means, there is no high frequency content recorded for the rear channel. So, any processor that puts high frequency content in the rear that is outside those limits is getting that high frequency content from other channels. With DPL II, front channel information is redirected to the rear to make the right and left rear different from each other, and to add high frequency content. This is not decoding; this is a DSP processing mode that is changing where the sounds are directed.

Now, if you like this added processing, fine, use it as much as you like. But it is not merely decoding; it is redirecting sounds to channels where they were not originally intended to be heard.

In order for something to be "de-coded", one must end up with the original, not something different. The original with DPL is 4 channels, not 5, and it has no high treble in the rear.

See also:

http://www.dolby.com/professional/ce...-logic-II.html

Pro Logic II is primarily a DSP mode, not a "decoder".

[MDS]

In order for something to be "de-coded", one must end up with the original, not something different. The original with DPL is 4 channels, not 5, and it has no high treble in the rear.

I said all of that...regardless you just seem overly bent out of shape about it. It's the equivalent of complaining that a modern receiver no longer supports Quadrophonic or that we should yearn for the days of 8 track because we miss the tell tale click when the tape switches sides.

4 channels with a band-limited '4th channel' for the surrounds was pathetic even in its heyday so I just don't agree that a modern decoder that doesn't exactly preserve the faults of the past should be dismissed.

[Adam]

...or that we should yearn for the days of 8 track because we miss the tell tale click when the tape switches sides.

Actually, I miss having a song fade out in the middle and then fade back in after the tell tale click. I still remember wanting to hear Foreigner's Break It Up all the way through...if only once.

[Soundman]

In this lineup, I like the Marantz SR5003. I've seen it for as little as $519.99 with free shipping!

[Pyrrho]

I said all of that...regardless you just seem overly bent out of shape about it. It's the equivalent of complaining that a modern receiver no longer supports Quadrophonic or that we should yearn for the days of 8 track because we miss the tell tale click when the tape switches sides.

4 channels with a band-limited '4th channel' for the surrounds was pathetic even in its heyday so I just don't agree that a modern decoder that doesn't exactly preserve the faults of the past should be dismissed.

There are plenty of DVDs that have Dolby Pro Logic soundtracks on them, so this is not exactly an ancient format that one is unlikely to actually encounter. And, as I have repeatedly stated, if you like altering the original to add extra channels, and to redirect front channel information to the rear, then you are free to use such processing. But it is good if one knows that that is what one is doing, rather than simply decoding what it there and what was heard in the recording studio.

Likewise, if someone likes using "hall" or "studio" on 2 channel sources, it is absolutely okay for someone to do that if they want; that is, after all, the point in having such processing modes. But they should realize that what they are doing is not recreating the original sound heard in the mixing studio. That is the point of what I am saying. Listen how you like, but do not be deceived about what it is that you are doing to the signal, and do not deceive yourself into believing that processing is always the same as decoding.

[Pyrrho]

Wow! First, Thank you for the time and effort you took to explain this to me.
I didn't even know about this. No Dolby Pro Logic decoders on both my Onkyo receivers!
And you are absolutely right too.
* ["If you're not using any surround back speakers, Dolby Pro Logic II will be used instead of Dolby Pro Logic IIx."] * -> From page 76 of my Onkyo AV Receiver TX-SR805's Instruction Manual. What do I know!!! And I'm the first one insisting at recommending others to read their instruction manual!!! Beats me royally! I'm out of my bowl of chicken soup! And I'm just about to pi my pants!

The most funny thing about this, is when Onkyo came into the scene with their flagship receivers back in the late 80s, early 90s; they were some of the very best receivers at decoding Dolby Pro Logic. They were praised by excellent reviews all over for their superb surround matrix decoding. By the way, Dolby Pro Locic make it's first apparition in home receivers back in 1987. I know, I got the first one, the Pioneer VSX-9300s (without the center channel power amp). Remember that one?

And now, with my very two lovely Onkyo TX-SR805 and TX-SR876, and 20 years later, I don't even have Dolby Pro Logic decoding in both of them!

Talk about a shock wave here man! That's a serious jolt to digest!
What to do, what to do?
Return both of them, and ask my money back? Or go to their head office, in Japan, and ask to speak to their chief engineer? Or shoot first, and ask questions later?
Well well well... I'm at lost! I don't know where to direct my outrage.
Any volunteer? Anyone like to sacrifice himself?
Did I heard someone?

I think I'd better start writing a letter to the Pope right now!

Well then, anyone else care to comment on this?

What you should do depends entirely on whether or not you care about being able to properly decode DPL. If you do not care, then you need not do anything. But it is good to know what one is doing to the signal when applying DPL II to a DPL source is processing it in a manner that is not decoding it. You can listen how you like, but it is good to know when one is hearing things as originally intended, and when one is not. That is the point.

You can also use "hall" or "studio" on all of your two channel recordings, if you wish. But when doing so, it is good if one realizes that one is not recreating what was in the recording studio.

[Soundman]

I would stretch just a bit more for the SR6003.

* By the way Soundman, how are you? Everthing's good now? The 6001's on his way.

Good point, but I was comparing the receiver's in this lineup, just seemed like the best price/performance. But in reality, one may end with something completely different... like me.
...Oh, and yes the 6001's on the way.