I have always hated Dolby Pro-Logic ... especially since it is supposed to be the second or third generation of Dolby Surround technology. I have never been able to understand how it could still be worse than the "ancient" quad matrix that it evolved from, but then again Dolby Labs are all about the mass-market ... (e.g. Dolby B); they are NOT about performance. PL II does seem like an improvement however, but it still doesn't come close to a Tate or a Variomatrix decoder.
On an impulse, I bought a Harman Kardon AVR-100 receiver on eBay for about US$80 to use in my bedroom with a Pioneer DV-45A and an HDTV satellite box. Since the Pioneer has DTS decoding, I only really needed a Dolby Digital decoder for HDTV ... BUT it is too old to have Pro-Logic II.
Just for grins, I tried the Pro-Logic mode on a few stereo CDs and broadcasts. I was shocked at how much surround information came out of the rear. I wonder if it is because H-K's Pro-Logic borrows from the Fostgate technology they purchased. I dragged out a few Dolby Surround CDs and a few (known to be QS) ones, and I continued to be impressed.
The receiver actually SOUNDS better than the more modern Yamaha (6.1-ch) receiver with PL II that it replaced, AND it is a LOT simpler to operate. Being on the down-side of 50, I get very frustrated with components with hundreds of very small, very hard to read buttons. This old bugger has a very well-planned front panel, and even the remote control is well-done. I have not owned an H-K piece for decades, but this one is a keeper.
Mike.
On an impulse, I bought a Harman Kardon AVR-100 receiver on eBay for about US$80 to use in my bedroom with a Pioneer DV-45A and an HDTV satellite box. Since the Pioneer has DTS decoding, I only really needed a Dolby Digital decoder for HDTV ... BUT it is too old to have Pro-Logic II.
Just for grins, I tried the Pro-Logic mode on a few stereo CDs and broadcasts. I was shocked at how much surround information came out of the rear. I wonder if it is because H-K's Pro-Logic borrows from the Fostgate technology they purchased. I dragged out a few Dolby Surround CDs and a few (known to be QS) ones, and I continued to be impressed.
The receiver actually SOUNDS better than the more modern Yamaha (6.1-ch) receiver with PL II that it replaced, AND it is a LOT simpler to operate. Being on the down-side of 50, I get very frustrated with components with hundreds of very small, very hard to read buttons. This old bugger has a very well-planned front panel, and even the remote control is well-done. I have not owned an H-K piece for decades, but this one is a keeper.
Mike.
