Hey, whaddya know? Dolby Pro Logic II is pretty good.

[Eug]

I know this is old tech, and most people here would be using optical/coax or HDMI for audio, but sometimes the old tech is actually pretty decent.

I had purchased an old closeout Sony STR-DG500 back in 2007 or something for $130. It had no HDMI ports, but I didn't care because it was for a secondary system with only 3 speakers (left, centre, right), and I had enough HDMI ports on my TV. Fast forward to 2013 and now I'm out of HDMI ports and coax and optical inputs for Dolby Digital and DTS, now that I've added a WD TV Live Streaming Media Player to that system, which already had a PVR, Blu-ray player, and an old HD DVD player.

Because I rarely use the HD DVD player, I put that on component (and it still looks great). For audio I put it on an unused SACD analogue stereo input.

For the room, 2.0 sounds bad because of the odd speaker placement, far away from the TV. For Dolby Pro Logic, I've never been that impressed with it, and indeed, it wasn't so good. But turn on Dolby Pro Logic II, and it actually sounds really good with good separation and appropriate voice audio in the centre.

So, no need for a system upgrade just yet. Jim Fosgate, I thank you.

 

[Eug]

BTW, for a 3.0 speaker setup I'd be hard-pressed on a superficial short listen to tell you if a track was Dolby Pro Logic II or Dolby Digital, unless I had heard the track before.

In contrast, it's usually a lot easier to tell if a track is using the original Dolby Pro Logic. The centre channel separation is not as good and it may sound muddier. Both of those problems are gone in DPLII.

I don't have any rear surround speakers in this setup, but I see in reviews that the difference may even be larger for the surrounds.

 

[vshah]

i've always hated prologic I or II. it always seems to collapse the soundstage down to the center speaker. I've always played stereo sources direct and relied on good stereo imaging to deliver a convincing phantom center.

 

[Eug]

I've never been able to get a good phantom centre until the speakers are close to the TV and you're seated right in the middle of them.

Regardless, on a 3.0 system, II sounds way better to me than I (at least for movie material). I collapses down to centre but in a more muddy way.

Pro Logic II also offers a centre width control setting, although that is optional.

 

[Aikouka]

I've found Dolby Pro Logic II (and DTS Neo) to work decently on videos, but it is awful with music. It did add surround to the music, which is what I was looking for, but it also added a terribly tin-like sound to it.

 

[Eug]

Yeah for music I generally just use stereo. That said, Jim Fosgate built Dolby Pro Logic II partially for his own music so I guess he likes it for that.

 

[Howard]

i've always hated prologic I or II. it always seems to collapse the soundstage down to the center speaker. I've always played stereo sources direct and relied on good stereo imaging to deliver a convincing phantom center.

Only works well for one listener at most.

 

[wirednuts]

i still rock pro logic II. for movies, i cant tell the difference from the new digital dts stuff.

for music, i dont like it. but i dont like music in surround mode no matter what dsp its using- digital or analog.

nothing beats plain old stereo for music. you still get the surround effect. for low volume, sometimes ill do the 4 speaker studio mode, which just fires up the rear speakers too. fills in the sound at low volume.

 

[13Gigatons]

Was cranking some Led Zep and the AVP always defaults to Dolby Pro Logic II in music mode. It sounded better then Logic 7, a bit more natural.