Ok I would like to upgrade to DPL II but I am not shelling out for a new reciever, I like the one I have.

I would like to find a use for those 5.1 inputs other than gathering dust and I would like to get a standalone decoder.

Problem is I haven't seen many and the ones I have seen cost more than a reciever.

Am I basically SOL?

From what I understand there are DVD Players that will be intruduced that have a built in decoder for DPL II similar to current DD decoders that are built into the player. This will certaintly be less than a new receiver.

As I remember outboard DD decoders were quite costly when they were being made.

Maybe I'm confused, but what would be the purpose of having an onboard DPL2 decoder on a DVD player? DPL2 is format for enhancing 2 channel encoded material to a sort of simulated 5 channel output. The vast majority of material that would be enhanced by DPL2 would be VHS, CD, MTS(TV Stereo). It would be a waste to have it on a DVD player, which is already a 5.1 channel format. One idea, if you are itching to use those 5 channel inputs is to do a home-brew surround EX matrix system if you still have an old regular pro-logic receiver laying around. a nice FAQ on the subject

There are many DVDs with soundtracks encoded in less than 5.1 (2.0, 3.1, etc.) that would stand to benefit from an on-board DPL2 decoder.


Home-brew surround EX requires pre-outputs as well as pre-inputs.

I wouldn't say its a waste having DPLII built into the DVD player, but you would certaintly not be able to use it for broadcast, satallite, cable, VHS, video games, LD, etc... But I'd wager that at least half the DVDs out there are in a format less than 5.1 and would benefit from DPLII

You just gotta consider your viewing habbits

for an outboard decoder check with Copper Box www.copperbox.com

I would assume that if a person feels that a stand-alone DPL2 decoder is a bad value because it cost more than a new receiver with DPL2, he would also figure buying a new DVD player with such a feature would likely be a waste of money since it would benefit only the few DVDs released in 2 channel while a receiver with DPL2 would benefit these same DVDs and every other format that exists:VCR, CD, Tape, Laserdisc, TV,LPs, 8-tracks etc. Lets be asolutely honest: a DVD player with on-board DPL2 might be a nice feature to have, but is ultimately superfluous. I love DPL2. But if I was in the market for a new DVD player, there are many other features that would take precedence over DPL2 since it will benefit a relatively small number of DVDs and be redundant if I get a new receiver with DPL2 to get enjoyment out of what the format was actually invented for.

Quote:

Home-brew surround EX requires pre-outputs as well as pre-inputs.

I actually just got chastised in another forum for believing this. Apparently, all you need to a speaker to line-level converter to accomplish this trick. Here's one I was pointed to for $46. If this works, (and I'm going to try, since my system only lets me do the trick for DD and this will let me do it with DTS-I was an early adopter and had a stand alone DD converter lying around) it's well worth it.

I totally agree with the above post, I had just mentioned the built in DPLII on DVD players as I had heard it was coming and would likely be cheaper than an outboard DPLII decoder.

When it all comes down to it though, if DPLII is that important to you, then you have to get a new receiver to take advantage of it

Not a complete waste, but just not really a good investment. Does anyone actually watch nothing but DVDs? Not listen to music? Watch TV? Have some VHS tapes still in their collection or tape something off TV? I can't be the only one whose porfolio isn't what it was last year. If I'm going to spend my hard-earned cash, I'd rather get more value for my money.

You raise a good point about this "solution" limiting DPL2 solely to dvd playback. I would only disagree on one point: I don't think that the number of dvds DPL2 would benefit is relatively small. I think there are a significant number of them.


Another good point about the speaker to line converter. I would be very concerned about the potential for sound quality degradation if I were going this route, and would at the very least want to be able to return the converter if I wasn't happy with the results.

All a converter does is impedence match...Line out is expecting a high impedence whereas speaker out is low impedence. You can actually build one of these with a couple of resistors. I don't think distortion should be an issue.

BTW, my earlier link seems to not go where I intended (Darn frames). Just enter "speaker to line level" in the search field and it will bring it up.

For the record the main reason I want DPL II is for my existing laserdiscs.

Then you probably need to consider a new receiver as right now(IIRC)there are no standalone DPL II decoders.

I can say after using it that DPL II is well worth having. I have hooked my LD up to an Onkyo with DPL II and it sounded pretty nice.

There are a lot of DVDs with only 2.0. We watch a lot of foreign discs and many of them are 2.0. It makes a big difference.We've not been fans of DSP modes in the past, but DPL II is in a world by itself.

I very much agree. I can't stand DSP and its "theater, concert hall, rock hall, etc." echoey gimmicks. Whether its worth chucking a perfectly good receiver, I don't know. A receiver with DPL2 can be had for $300 or less.
I'm not sure what I said that implied there are not many "less than 5.1" DVDs. What I meant is that compared to the totality of media out there (VHS, laserdiscs{with a FEW exceptions}, CDs {with even fewer exceptions}, tapes, cable TV, LPs) that are 2 channel, there are relatively small amounts of DVDs in 2 channel format. This one segment of media just seems too insignificant to purchase an enhancement for which it wasn't even invented to enhance. Especially when one is trying to get value from the products one buys. (refusing to replace a perfectly good receiver seems to imply wanting to get value from one's goods)
Only reason I wanted to make this clear is so I don't sound like one of these "less-than-informed" people complaining because Citizen Kane is not in the "original widescreen."