Dolby digital plus backwards compatibility?

[yepimonfire]

I just bought a used receiver that only supports legacy DD and DTS, I don't have it in my possession yet so I can't test it out. I will be hooking up an Amazon Fire stick to it, which can only output DD + or Pcm 2ch, so there is no way to output a legacy stream. Can a legacy decoder natively decode the legacy core or must it be output on something like a Blu Ray player?

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[DD66000]

I would think the receiver would just down res the signal.
fwiw: DD+ is next to useless...almost nothing to be gained in the back channels(if you have them).
I've watched/listened to the same movie via DD+ stream and DD, no improvement with plus. Input stereo signal into my Oppo 105D produces a DTS neo6, which is far superior to DD+.

 

[lovinthehd]

I would think the receiver would just down res the signal.
fwiw: DD+ is next to useless...almost nothing to be gained in the back channels(if you have them).
I've watched/listened to the same movie via DD+ stream and DD, no improvement with plus. Input stereo signal into my Oppo 105D produces a DTS neo6, which is far superior to DD+.

Some receivers not equipped for it made strange sounds when handling DD+; there's a long thread over on avsforum about the problems some avrs had with DD+. DD+ has a higher bit rate than DD and can offer 7ch instead of just 5. Neo:6 is similar to Dolby Pro Logic IIx/z, it's not a codec format, it can matrix a 2.0 signal to 5.1, 5.1 to 7.1 etc.

"DTS Neo:6, like Dolby's Pro Logic IIx system, can convert 2.1, 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1 content sound to 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1 channel systems. A 7.1 system's 2 rear speakers are mono. Neo:6 is a multi-band decoder, unlike Dolby Pro Logic II's broadband logic steering, meaning that the decoder can enhance more than one predominant signal at a time — provided each predominant signal lies in a different frequency band than the others. The number of bands steered varies in each Neo:6 implementation, with the first decoders steering in 12 separate bands and later units steering up to 19." (wikipedia)

 

[DD66000]

I know exactly what neo6 is.....I'm saying DD+ via say Netflix, leaves much to be desired....no better than DD....and the resulting sound, using neo6 is superior to DD+ and I never had any problems as in strange sounds, so that's not it.

I just have zero reasons to use DD+, just doesn't cut it.
Then again, I've never had much use for anything Dolby.

When Steven Spielberg was making Jurassic Park, he did not like what Dolby was offering up....Steven then went to Digital Theatre Sound and DTS was created...and every flavor of Dolby that comes along is always out done by the DTS competing format.

 

[lovinthehd]

I know exactly what neo6 is.....I'm saying DD+ via say Netflix, leaves much to be desired....no better than DD....and the resulting sound, using neo6 is superior to DD+ and I never had any problems as in strange sounds, so that's not it.

I just have zero reasons to use DD+, just doesn't cut it.
Then again, I've never had much use for anything Dolby.

When Steven Spielberg was making Jurassic Park, he did not like what Dolby was offering up....Steven then went to Digital Theatre Sound and DTS was created...and every flavor of Dolby that comes along is always out done by the DTS competing format.

Well, from what you wrote it sounded like you were comparing DD+ to Neo:6 and they're not comparable in that sense as they're different technologies. If you don't like things Dolby, that's your preference. I use both DTS and Dolby techs, sometimes one sounds better than the other. YMMV.

 

[DD66000]

It really makes little difference about how similar or different two technologies are....only the result, as in do you like what you hear. And I've always preferred DTS over Dolby.

 

[lovinthehd]

It really makes little difference about how similar or different two technologies are....only the result, as in do you like what you hear. And I've always preferred DTS over Dolby.

It makes a difference; they're not equivalent technologies, they should be kept separate as they are different things. If you prefer one's end result over another, good for you.

 

[DD66000]

You can only equate things similar...DD, DD+, D TrueHD are nothing like DTS, DTS MA...Like SACD is nothing like DVD-A.

If they were the same, they'd sound the same.

 

[lovinthehd]

You can only equate things similar...DD, DD+, D TrueHD are nothing like DTS, DTS MA...Like SACD is nothing like DVD-A.

If they were the same, they'd sound the same.

Not my point, it's comparing a sound mode to a codec that I object to. If you think DTS is superior at all times that's your preference. Bluray is better than either SACD or DVDA for that matter

 

[yepimonfire]

Quite frankly in standard 5.1 and 7.1 mixes I can't hear a difference between any of the codecs. Dolby digital is more often than not 640kbps. Since the lfe is band limited it obviously does not require the same amount of data as the full band channels. Ripping blu-ray has shown me its nearly impossible to hear any compression artifacts with DD until you go below 384kbps at 5.1. DD+ is a significantly higher but rate and much better compression algorithm.

No matter how you slice it, assuming the mix being mastered identically and the bit rate being high enough to achieve transparency there should be no difference in sound quality.

I've never heard a 2.0 to Neo 6 or PLII up conversion sound as good as a discrete 5.1/7.1 mix regardless of the format. Damn convincing? Yes, but not as good.

There are however, major differences between Neo 6 and PLII, as both matrixes process sound in an entirely different way, Neo 6 being a bit more complex in its approach.

 

[yepimonfire]

You can only equate things similar...DD, DD+, D TrueHD are nothing like DTS, DTS MA...Like SACD is nothing like DVD-A.

If they were the same, they'd sound the same.

How do they sound different?