Dolby 5.1 program on ABC

[EvanOnTheGC]

Worked well in QLD.

5.1 kicked in right at the start and went back to 2.0 at the start of the credits (as steveb noted).

One minor glitch. The DD signal went silent from the middle of the promo for "The Christmas Truce" right through the News Update to the start of the concert.

Looking forward to watching it when I get time.

Evan :->

[tonymy01]

Didn't work in Sydney this time (last time with Oils it worked). The channel went silent 3 times before it started during the advert breaks, but 2+0 was all it was... :-(

[Vagabond1503559575]

Worked perfectly in Sydney for me on 20. Flicked over to 2 a couple of times, 5.1 there as well. Couldn't tell the difference between the two streams.

[tonymy01]

Worked perfectly in Sydney for me on 20. Flicked over to 2 a couple of times, 5.1 there as well. Couldn't tell the difference between the two streams.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe I didn't watch it for long enough... the first min didn't show anything.. well not DD5.1. My amp was showing dolby 2+0 (as it always does) for ABC.

[Santa1503559644]

At 10:01 my Sony Amp was showing 5.1 in Perth

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just checked my recording and at the very end the SD AC3 PID was 2/0. HD was 5.1.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've got the same here. Unfortunate for the SD viewers - hopefully they will do the Oils concert correctly

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen to that!!!

[kootaberra]

Worked perfectly in Sydney for me on 20. Flicked over to 2 a couple of times, 5.1 there as well. Couldn't tell the difference between the two streams.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe I didn't watch it for long enough... the first min didn't show anything.. well not DD5.1. My amp was showing dolby 2+0 (as it always does) for ABC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Digital encoder problem.

[betty boop]

so whens the next 5.1 event on the abc. I missed this one somehow.

[kootaberra]

so whens the next 5.1 event on the abc. I missed this one somehow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

9th Jan 3.30pm. Oils on the water. SD 5.1, no HD.

[Spoonfed]

"how can we sleep while our beds are burning..............." damn u brisbane summer haha

apointments in da fone

whats funny is while we are struggling to get any 5.1 on DTV with plenty (well its standard) on DVD, i have an oils DVD thats only 2ch yet can get 5.1 on ABC haha.

[betty boop]

so whens the next 5.1 event on the abc. I missed this one somehow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

9th Jan 3.30pm. Oils on the water. SD 5.1, no HD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"how can we sleep while our beds are burning..............." damn u brisbane summer haha

apointments in da fone

whats funny is while we are struggling to get any 5.1 on DTV with plenty (well its standard) on DVD, i have an oils DVD thats only 2ch yet can get 5.1 on ABC haha.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

cool - love the oils !

love it spoonfed - nice bit of irony !

[kootaberra]

If its not too late and you are listening to the Sher show on the ABC, throw your de-coder in Pro-Logic, sounds good. (PS I'm still at work).

[kootaberra]

If its not too late and you are listening to the Sher show on the ABC, throw your de-coder in Pro-Logic, sounds good. (PS I'm still at work).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That should read Cher ?? Dumcoff I is!

[kootaberra]

The next decent Dolby surround program goes to air on the ABC on the 3rd of Feb.

It's called "One night with Rod Stewart". It was done in full HD last Oct in London by the BBC, alas we get a SD, Dolby Surround only copy.

The audio when de-coded sounds great. Its a mixture of the old songs and new ones. Even one of the "Stones" turns up for a "jam".

[kenneth1503559512]

Is it going to be flagged as 5.1? If so, will the ABC Canberra equipment work?

[kootaberra]

Is it going to be flagged as 5.1? If so, will the ABC Canberra equipment work?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No Kenneth, when I say Dolby Surround, I mean the listener will have the option of selecting Pro-Logic de-code.

It is easy to do than en-code as Lt/Rt etc ect. The normal audio tracks have the information on them. No change in any part of the transmission pathway around Auss.

[kenneth1503559512]

Is it going to be flagged as 5.1? If so, will the ABC Canberra equipment work?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No Kenneth, when I say Dolby Surround, I mean the listener will have the option of selecting Pro-Logic de-code.

It is easy to do than en-code as Lt/Rt etc ect. The normal audio tracks have the information on them. No change in any part of the transmission pathway around Auss.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, I mis-read (not that it matters much anyway as I am not a big Rod Stewart fan).

[rpage]

The next decent Dolby surround program goes to air on the ABC on the 3rd of Feb.

It's called "One night with Rod Stewart". It was done in full HD last Oct in London by the BBC, alas we get a SD, Dolby Surround only copy.

The audio when de-coded sounds great. Its a mixture of the old songs and new ones. Even one of the "Stones" turns up for a "jam".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its not Dolby surround if its dd2.0 as you can get the same pro-logic quality from mpeg stereo. If it aint in true 5.1 then it shouldn't be touted as "decent Dolby surround"

[kootaberra]

Its not Dolby surround if its dd2.0 as you can get the same pro-logic quality from mpeg stereo. If it aint in true 5.1 then it shouldn't be touted as "decent Dolby surround"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are wrong. Dolby surround can be encoded on any VHF stereo transmitter using the normal stereo tracks. It can be refered to as Lt/Rt (right total/left total).

Dolby surround can also be recorded with Dolby Digital. It can be called DD 2/0 or DD Lt/Rt. The DD 2/0 will be BETTER as the Mpeg is compressed audio wise, thus less dynamic range. This is where you MAY think the Mpeg is better, as it can sound "punchier".

When it comes to DD 5.1 then it is called Dolby Digital 5.1. It is quite often called 5.1 Dolby surround. Dolby documents don't call DD 5.1 suuround, but use Dolby Digital 5.1.

The main difference is Dolby surround is a legacy of analogue TV/Film and can be recorded on a HI Fi VHS and any thing better. The 4 (or 5 tracks in Pro-logic II) are phase multiplexed onto the 2 normal tracks. Dolby surround also has no LFE channel, the de-coder does what is is called LFE management and "steers" the low frequencies to the Sub.

Dolby Digital is only a digital format which has 6 discreet digital tracks, (5.1). THX can also be recorded within Dolby Digital and also 6.1. The differnce is the extra track is phase multiplexed because DD has a max of 6 tracks. DD can also have 6 mono programs of different countries.

[rpage]

Its not Dolby surround if its dd2.0 as you can get the same pro-logic quality from mpeg stereo. If it aint in true 5.1 then it shouldn't be touted as "decent Dolby surround"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are wrong. Dolby surround can be encoded on any VHF stereo transmitter using the normal stereo tracks. It can be refered to as Lt/Rt (right total/left total).

Dolby surround can also be recorded with Dolby Digital. It can be called DD 2/0 or DD Lt/Rt. The DD 2/0 will be BETTER as the Mpeg is compressed audio wise, thus less dynamic range. This is where you MAY think the Mpeg is better, as it can sound "punchier".

When it comes to DD 5.1 then it is called Dolby Digital 5.1. It is quite often called 5.1 Dolby surround. Dolby documents don't call DD 5.1 suuround, but use Dolby Digital 5.1.

The main difference is Dolby surround is a legacy of analogue TV/Film and can be recorded on a HI Fi VHS and any thing better. The 4 (or 5 tracks in Pro-logic II) are phase multiplexed onto the 2 normal tracks. Dolby surround also has no LFE channel, the de-coder does what is is called LFE management and "steers" the low frequencies to the Sub.

Dolby Digital is only a digital format which has 6 discreet digital tracks, (5.1). THX can also be recorded within Dolby Digital and also 6.1. The differnce is the extra track is phase multiplexed because DD has a max of 6 tracks. DD can also have 6 mono programs of different countries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Technically you are right, but in the real world, average people consider "surround sound" as 5.1 not 5.1 L\R or 2\0. If it aint 5.1 full channel sound then how can you say its surround, you can get just as good a sound from plain old stereo in pro-logic mode.

I guess if anyone is stating a program will be transmitted in Dolby surround I should disregard it as I am only interested in "Dolby Digital" then, as every program is transmitted in "surround" (stereo). I really dont hear the sound quality difference between mpeg and AC3 2\0. maybe my equipment isn't good enough.

[Neon Kitten]

Technically you are right, but in the real world, average people consider "surround sound" as 5.1 not 5.1 L\R or 2\0. If it aint 5.1 full channel sound then how can you say its surround, you can get just as good a sound from plain old stereo in pro-logic mode.

I guess if anyone is stating a program will be transmitted in Dolby surround I should disregard it as I am only interested in "Dolby Digital" then, as every program is transmitted in "surround" (stereo). I really dont hear the sound quality difference between mpeg and AC3 2\0. maybe my equipment isn't good enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all.

"Dolby Surround" is an encoding method, as qepm explained. All two-channel material is NOT equal, and is NOT all encoded in Dolby Surround. You can try decoding any two-channel material through a Dolby Surround decoder, and most of the time you'll hear *something* throuhg the rear channels - but if it wasn't mixed in Surround and encoded as such, what you're hearing was not what the program's producer intended you to. This also applies to those who, for some inexplicable rfeason, play their stereo audio CDs through a Dolby Surround decoder...

When a network advertises a program as being in Dolby Surround, that's their way of telling you to turn on that "Pro-Logic" decoder and hear surround sound the way all of us did for years before Dolby Digital came along on home equipment. Some networks use the Dolby Surround flag in their Dolby 2.0 streams when applicable; I do wish this would be common practice across the board.

Finally, there is no inherent sound quality difference between MPEG 2.0 and Dolby 2.0 (not that the layperson would hear, anyway), though if the network decides to apply dynamic range compression to the audio before it hits the MPEG encoder you'll hear a difference in the result. Dolby Digital's big advantage is its ability to include metadata such as the presence of Dolby Surround encoding, the dialogue normalization level, recording room and level info etc etc etc, which is used by the decoder on playback. Misuse of the dialnorm value by those doing the encoding can result in audio which is substantially more quiet than it should be.

[rpage]

Technically you are right, but in the real world, average people consider "surround sound" as 5.1 not 5.1 L\R or 2\0. If it aint 5.1 full channel sound then how can you say its surround, you can get just as good a sound from plain old stereo in pro-logic mode.

I guess if anyone is stating a program will be transmitted in Dolby surround I should disregard it as I am only interested in "Dolby Digital" then, as every program is transmitted in "surround" (stereo). I really dont hear the sound quality difference between mpeg and AC3 2\0. maybe my equipment isn't good enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all.

"Dolby Surround" is an encoding method, as qepm explained. All two-channel material is NOT equal, and is NOT all encoded in Dolby Surround. You can try decoding any two-channel material through a Dolby Surround decoder, and most of the time you'll hear *something* throuhg the rear channels - but if it wasn't mixed in Surround and encoded as such, what you're hearing was not what the program's producer intended you to. This also applies to those who, for some inexplicable rfeason, play their stereo audio CDs through a Dolby Surround decoder...

When a network advertises a program as being in Dolby Surround, that's their way of telling you to turn on that "Pro-Logic" decoder and hear surround sound the way all of us did for years before Dolby Digital came along on home equipment. Some networks use the Dolby Surround flag in their Dolby 2.0 streams when applicable; I do wish this would be common practice across the board.

Finally, there is no inherent sound quality difference between MPEG 2.0 and Dolby 2.0 (not that the layperson would hear, anyway), though if the network decides to apply dynamic range compression to the audio before it hits the MPEG encoder you'll hear a difference in the result. Dolby Digital's big advantage is its ability to include metadata such as the presence of Dolby Surround encoding, the dialogue normalization level, recording room and level info etc etc etc, which is used by the decoder on playback. Misuse of the dialnorm value by those doing the encoding can result in audio which is substantially more quiet than it should be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you must be a fast typer or have far too much time on your hands. I wasn't expecting such a long reply. I see what you are getting at, I will keep giving "dolby surround" a chance, hopefully my ears will tell me its good, not just the tech specs of what an improvement it is over stereo. I wonder how much of an improvement pro-logic II would be over old pro-logic with the Dolby Surround?

But I would prefere that more was transmitted in Dolby Digital.

[bruiser333]

I wonder how much of an improvement pro-logic II would be over old pro-logic with the Dolby Surround?

My understanding is the main difference between Pro-Logic and Pro-Logic II is that with the former, the rear L/R is mono, while with PLII it is stereo.

As to what improvement that offers, I couldn't say as my A/V Receiver is Pro-Logic only...

[Neon Kitten]

you must be a fast typer or have far too much time on your hands.

Heh A bit of both, actually, as I'm a freelance writer!

I wasn't expecting such a long reply. I see what you are getting at, I will keep giving "dolby surround" a chance, hopefully my ears will tell me its good, not just the tech specs of what an improvement it is over stereo.

The improvement over stereo is easy to spot; you have a centre channel and a surround channel to listen to. Note that the surround channel in Dolby Surround is severely bandwidth-limited and is of course mono.

I wonder how much of an improvement pro-logic II would be over old pro-logic with the Dolby Surround?

Well, for a start it offers stereo surrounds. It's a bit of a stop-gap, though, between the original surround format and 5.1 discrete formats.

But I would prefere that more was transmitted in Dolby Digital.

The best way to specify what you mean is to say "Dolby 5.1" or similar. There's plenty of Dolby Digital available on SD digital at the moment, but it's almost all 2.0 stereo or surround

[kootaberra]

Technically you are right, but in the real world, average people consider "surround sound" as 5.1 not 5.1 L\R or 2\0. If it aint 5.1 full channel sound then how can you say its surround, you can get just as good a sound from plain old stereo in pro-logic mode.

I guess if anyone is stating a program will be transmitted in Dolby surround I should disregard it as I am only interested in "Dolby Digital" then, as every program is transmitted in "surround" (stereo). I really dont hear the sound quality difference between mpeg and AC3 2\0. maybe my equipment isn't good enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all.

"Dolby Surround" is an encoding method, as qepm explained. All two-channel material is NOT equal, and is NOT all encoded in Dolby Surround. You can try decoding any two-channel material through a Dolby Surround decoder, and most of the time you'll hear *something* throuhg the rear channels - but if it wasn't mixed in Surround and encoded as such, what you're hearing was not what the program's producer intended you to. This also applies to those who, for some inexplicable rfeason, play their stereo audio CDs through a Dolby Surround decoder...

When a network advertises a program as being in Dolby Surround, that's their way of telling you to turn on that "Pro-Logic" decoder and hear surround sound the way all of us did for years before Dolby Digital came along on home equipment. Some networks use the Dolby Surround flag in their Dolby 2.0 streams when applicable; I do wish this would be common practice across the board.

Finally, there is no inherent sound quality difference between MPEG 2.0 and Dolby 2.0 (not that the layperson would hear, anyway), though if the network decides to apply dynamic range compression to the audio before it hits the MPEG encoder you'll hear a difference in the result. Dolby Digital's big advantage is its ability to include metadata such as the presence of Dolby Surround encoding, the dialogue normalization level, recording room and level info etc etc etc, which is used by the decoder on playback. Misuse of the dialnorm value by those doing the encoding can result in audio which is substantially more quiet than it should be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Neon.

Maybe Rpage may have a problem with his/her gear. Using Dolby Pro-Logic sound s fine. Remember Dolby Digital only came into use in the film industry in the late 80s. A lot of fine movies before that were presented in "surround".

For TV stations it is MUCH easier to run Dolby surround 100% than switching back and forth.