Even with an extra day this year, Bluray still went 0 for 22 in February, by my count.

I don't expect the older titles like Wall Street or Breaker Morant to feature 7.1, but what about movies like Across the Universe or We Own the Night?

If Lionsgate can get it done why the heck can't Sony Pictures?

This is from Kenneth Browns' Highdefdigest review of War...

"Say what you will about the movie and the picture quality, the audio package on this release is outstanding. Lionsgate has delivered a thundering PCM 7.1 surround track that literally shook my home theater. Dynamics kick things into overdrive with powerful LFE pulses that compliment the track's crystal clear, high-end fidelity. Dialogue is clean and well-prioritized across the front speakers, while the surrounds offer a litany of ambient support that crafts an immersive soundfield. Even the film's music is a compelling part of the experience, with the soundtrack's rap songs integrated into the soundfield to completely envelop the listener.
If you have a 7.1 system, you're in for a real treat. I flinched three separate times in the opening warehouse battle alone, thinking that something was falling behind my head. Pans aren't transparent, they're invisible -- I could never lock on a specific speaker as the source, and could hear small echoes from every point in the soundfield. While I've enjoyed 7.1 tracks before, I can't recall one that struck me as being this convincing."

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1189/war.html

Im with you brother!

Im with you brother!

Thanks! I was beginning to fear the 1 in 7.1 stood for the number of people interested in it.

I am frustrated with the lack of 7.1 tracks. I made sure I had 7.1 YEARS ago and I just don't get why there aren't more available by now.

I am frustrated with the lack of 7.1 tracks. I made sure I had 7.1 YEARS ago and I just don't get why there aren't more available by now.

Currently 19 movies with real 7.1.

I wouldn't mind the lack of 7.1 movies if they would only bring out movies with 12.1 or better 12.2 :D

Currently 19 movies with real 7.1.

Apart from the one above, can you give us any idea of the others?

Seggers

I got the info at blu-ray statistics.

I think Amir made a comment not too long ago that interest in 7.1 had come and gone, or words to that effect. The powers that be may have already decided for us, they just haven't bothered to tell us yet.

Maybe it's the studios, maybe it's Dolby, a "business decision" as Talkstr8t might put it.

Apart from the one above, can you give us any idea of the others?

Seggers

Here is a list of Blurays by audio format

http://mysite.verizon.net/ruvic/bluray-audio.htm

It has been hard enough for installers to convince people to install 5.1 little lone
7.1 and the way homes were built and continue to be built other than dedicated
home theaters room layouts don't accommodate the extra speakers.

It has been hard enough for installers to convince people to install 5.1 little lone
7.1 and the way homes were built and continue to be built other than dedicated
home theaters room layouts don't accommodate the extra speakers.

Totally agree. However, I don't think 7.1 is all that hard or expensive to include on a bluray, and I would certainly prefer that to some interactive game, or unwatched extras, like the Making of Weekend at Bernies III.

I think Amir made a comment not too long ago that interest in 7.1 had come and gone, or words to that effect. The powers that be may have already decided for us, they just haven't bothered to tell us yet.

Maybe it's the studios, maybe it's Dolby, a "business decision" as Talkstr8t might put it.

Reminds me a bit of quadraphonic. Remember that?

But just think of the fact that 7.1 will probably be available on disc not ota or
cable/sat if these were available it would have been the norm so i think 5.1
will be the mainstay unless some came out with a surround speaker that would
take the 2 rear channels and disperse them accordingly.

Sigh. Why is it that whatever cool technological advance is made, somehow the average consumer manages to negate the advance and make the rest of us settle for "the common denominator"?

If non-gasoline vehicles start to actually become more than a niche, they will soon enough revert once the fad is over unless oil/gas prices actually start to impact daily purchasing habits (i.e. over $6 a gallon, maybe $10/gallon, IMHO).

SACD, DVD-A killed by mp3s. Now youre' telling me 7.1 was killed by those that can't appreciate even the benefits of 5.1. HD via cable and satellite is getting compressed all to heck to save bandwidth. Next we'll be settling for 720p encodes on BD because the studios realize the average consumer doesn't actually care about 1080p and the extra space on the disk can go to ringtones and more previews.

aaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhh

shinksma

Sigh. Why is it that whatever cool technological advance is made, somehow the average consumer manages to negate the advance and make the rest of us settle for "the common denominator"?

If non-gasoline vehicles start to actually become more than a niche, they will soon enough revert once the fad is over unless oil/gas prices actually start to impact daily purchasing habits (i.e. over $6 a gallon, maybe $10/gallon, IMHO).

SACD, DVD-A killed by mp3s. Now youre' telling me 7.1 was killed by those that can't appreciate even the benefits of 5.1. HD via cable and satellite is getting compressed all to heck to save bandwidth. Next we'll be settling for 720p encodes on BD because the studios realize the average consumer doesn't actually care about 1080p and the extra space on the disk can go to ringtones and more previews.

aaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhh

shinksma
Were you ever able to get a true 7.1 on anything other than hd-dvd and blu-ray.

This is lame....when we have to watch a POS movie like War so we can ohh and ahh at the AQ we are sad.

how many people are 7.1 equipped or willing to go 7.1 ?

if HDM is niche, 7.1 is the niche of the niche.

2008 will be a bad year for 7.1, as will be 2009

Were you ever able to get a true 7.1 on anything other than hd-dvd and blu-ray.

There are quite a few 6.1 encoded SD-DVDs, and 7.1 systems are more common than 6.1 systems (and the 7.1 rears create a nice "phantom rear center" that works better for multiple listening positions, IMHO).

But yeah, my complaint is that it is a niche technology primarily used by niche formats, and that is probably going to remain that way for a while. And the common consumer's lack of appreciation for such elements means it will never gain enough traction to even be an asterisk in the history books of AV.

I think a large minority or perhaps even majority of AVSers are 7.1 equipped, but I think for the average consumer the market penetration is abysmally low.

IMHO,

shinksma

7.1? 5.1 is good enough.

I think a large minority or perhaps even majority of AVSers are 7.1 equipped,


a poll ! a poll !

All you have to do is look at htib those are all 5.1 thats what the masses buy,It is
ironic that every receiver made now is 7.1 and almost every high end speaker
company shows their complete line in 5.1 if you want 7.1 just add 2 more of what
ever rears they have. I would rather have discreet 5.1 than a matrix 7.1 imo.

Best way would be to have TrueHD on releases.

They just add more extra data to the 5.1 mix.

Are there any movies with 7.1 soundtracks (not discs but movies)? How many?

7.1 is great for a speaker setup, but there's no point releasing a 7.1 track for a movie that was only 5.1.

Even most theaters are only 5.1 (if that).

-edit

I found some info on IMDB, not as clear as I'd hoped it would be, but they list:
13563 - Dolby Digital (5.1)
3064 - DTS (5.1)
224 - Dolby Digital EX (6.1)
92 - DTS-ES (6.1)
1745 - SDDS (8ch but only 2 surround)

They list a bunch of others, but basically I'm not aware of a single movie that has an 8 channels soundtrack, at least not in the way we typically arrange our 8 channel setups. I think it's fine, better even to just put the theatrical 5.1 mix on the disc and let us (optionally) apply processing to extract the two surround backs.

Are there any movies with 7.1 soundtracks (not discs but movies)? How many?

Not many. The movies need to be remixed for 7.1, and most studios aren't doing that. That list of potential New Line titles a month or so ago was a list of titles being remixed for 7.1, so it looks like NL at least will do it. Other than that, it's just Lionsgate for now. Perhaps Lionsgate does it since they are a small studio that wants their titles to stand out in some way.

However, Disney will apparently release Sleeping Beauty with a 7.1 track, so maybe things will change.

As for most receivers being 7.1, I think that's more for processing current sources, and for providing two extra channels of amplification that can be used for another zone or for bi-amping. From there, it's not hard at all to implement the capability for actual 7.1 sources.

7.1? 5.1 is good enough.

Guess you haven't experienced 7.1 discrete.

As an installer most clients use the 2 channels for the patio or pool area most of the
time or they are just not used at all.

There are no movies that were made in 7.1

There are/were a few movies made in 6.1

Almost all movies are made in 5.1

7.1 makes zero sense for movie companies.

I am with you... where is 7.1? Its been in AVRs for 7 years now... something like Blu ray should definately use it.

Even if there are 0 movies made in 7.1?

As many years as its been around and only a handful of movies i believe it will go
the way of quadraphonic.

Even if there are 0 movies made in 7.1?


Well then they need to start making them. Wasnt LOTR EE 6.1 or 7.1?

I wouldnt mind at least 6.1 matrixed over my rear two speakers.

Where are you going to put the 7th channel in a theater?

Screen channels = 3

Left Surround, Back Surround, Right Surround = 3

There are only three walls in a theater.

Guess you haven't experienced 7.1 discrete.

How many ears do you have ?

Guess you haven't experienced 7.1 discrete.

Has anyone? There aren't any 7.1 movies, just some titles that were remixed for BD. And IMO with DPL IIx, Logic 7 and the like, there's no point going through the effort to remix a movie for BD release.

How many ears do you have ?What does that have to do with the number of channels/speakers used?

Sanjay

I think this is really another example of audio getting the short shrift. I'm actually quite amazed that we're even getting lossless audio on Blu-ray.

Now personally, I'm quite happy with 5.1, and even if I wanted 7.1 it would be impossible for me to implement due to the layout of my viewing area. The main question is, though, how many current movies are being made in 7.1? Is that the new "norm"? I don't think it's reasonable to expect a studio to go back and remaster all movies for 7.1, if they weren't originally created that way. It would have to be extremely difficult to create a 7.1 soundstage from a stereo source. Remastering to 5.1 makes more sense to me, since that's by far the majority surround sound configuration out there, and it would be easier to localize dialog to the center and add some rear channel effects, then call it a day.

Now, if a movie was originally created in 7.1, there's absolutely no excuse not to put that soundtrack on the disc.

I think this is really another example of audio getting the short shrift. I'm actually quite amazed that we're even getting lossless audio on Blu-ray.

Now personally, I'm quite happy with 5.1, and even if I wanted 7.1 it would be impossible for me to implement due to the layout of my viewing area. The main question is, though, how many current movies are being made in 7.1?

0

Is that the new "norm"?

Nope, even 6.1 is the exception.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a studio to go back and remaster all movies for 7.1, if they weren't originally created that way. It would have to be extremely difficult to create a 7.1 soundstage from a stereo source. Remastering to 5.1 makes more sense to me, since that's by far the majority surround sound configuration out there, and it would be easier to localize dialog to the center and add some rear channel effects, then call it a day.

I don't see any point remastering at all, algorithms like DPL IIx on most every modern reciever do a very good job at expanding stereo and 5.1 to 7.1, so I don't see the point in putting 7.1 on the disc if the movie didn't have it to begin with.

Now, if a movie was originally created in 7.1, there's absolutely no excuse not to put that soundtrack on the disc.

Agreed, but there just aren't any.

To my knowledge 7.1 (4 surrounds) is a home theater thing and most or not all the titles that have it are simply remixed from 5.1 or 6.1.

There is/was 8 channel setups for commercial theaters. SDDS-8 and I think Cinerama or one of the other large formats. It involved 5 screen channels though (L, LC, C, RC, R).

Where are you going to put the 7th channel in a theater?

Screen channels = 3

Left Surround, Back Surround, Right Surround = 3

There are only three walls in a theater.

Then they should give us 6.1!(Do they do that?)

I'll take 6.1 matrixed over the back 2

how many people are 7.1 equipped or willing to go 7.1 ?

if HDM is niche, 7.1 is the niche of the niche.

2008 will be a bad year for 7.1, as will be 2009

I am 7.1 equipped (see photos in signature).

Even 5.1 tracks sound great using pro logic IIx to engage all 7.1 speakers.

Every blu-ray I play is 7.1 in my theater, even on the disc as 5.1.

Then they should give us 6.1!(Do they do that?)

I'll take 6.1 matrixed over the back 2

From Wiki:

Dolby Digital EX is similar in practice to Dolby's earlier Pro-Logic format, which utilized Matrix technology to add a center and single rear surround channel to stereo soundtracks. EX adds an extension to the standard 5.1 channel Dolby Digital codec in the form of matrixed rear channels, creating 6.1 or 7.1 channel output. However, the format is not considered a true 6.1 or 7.1 channel codec because it lacks the capability to support a discrete 6th channel unlike the competing DTS-ES codec.

So Dolby 6.1 is a giant leap backwards . . . to Dolby Pro Logic.:(

From Wiki:



So Dolby 6.1 is a giant leap backwards . . . to Dolby Pro Logic.:(

Say what? I think you read that wrong.

I always felt like 7.1 was a gimmick to get people to feel like their receivers weren't good enough, so they would go out and buy another one.

I'd rather see more 5.1 PCM uncompressed.

Say what? I think you read that wrong.

5.1 is discrete channels.

6.1 adds a matrixed channel - the technology of the 1980's.

I didn't read it wrong.

And I agree that 7.1 is a gimmick to sell more expensive receivers and more speakers to consumers because no movie has a 7.1 soundtrack.

We all want OAR . . . but we accept "fiddled with" soundtracks?

:confused::confused::confused:

5.1 is discrete channels.

6.1 adds a matrixed channel - the technology of the 1980's.

I didn't read it wrong.

And I agree that 7.1 is a gimmick to sell more expensive receivers and more speakers to consumers because no movie has a 7.1 soundtrack.

We all want OAR . . . but we accept "fiddled with" soundtracks?

:confused::confused::confused:

That still doesn't explain how its a giant leap backwards. DD EX is still 5.1 discrete with a matrixed 6th channel. No where near Pro Logic which is 2 discrete channels which are matrixed to 5.1. Not to mention that the "technology of the 80's" has advanced quite a bit since the first days of Dolby Pro Logic (Dolby Pro Logic II was introduced in 2000, and Dolby Pro Logic IIx in 2003).

I remember when "Surround Sound" was just a gimmick.

We all want OAR . . . but we accept "fiddled with" soundtracks?

Apples and oranges.

5.1 is discrete channels.

6.1 adds a matrixed channel - the technology of the 1980's.

Adds is the important word there.

I didn't read it wrong.

You obviously don't understand the technology though if you think it's worse than 5.1. You know movies are actually produced with DD EX.

We all want OAR . . . but we accept "fiddled with" soundtracks?

I agree with that in principal (ie why I don't see a point to 'remastering' 5.1 to 7.1), but I view DPL IIx and expanding from eg 5.1 to 7.1 like scaling video, we don't watch DVDs at 720x480 in the center of our displays, we scale it to match our display's resolution. All the image is in the same relative location on the screen, but it's been spread out over the available pixels to create a better presentation.

Expanding 5.1 to 7.1 is no different. All the sounds still come from where they're supposed to. The front 3 channels are left alone, and in the rear if a sound is hard-panned to the left surround it comes from there, DPL IIx or not, hard-panned to the left sounds come from the left either way. Sounds that would phantom-image to directly behind you with 5.1, come from behind you with processed 7.1, and the same for sounds anywhere in between.

The difference between 5.1 and 7.1 is that with 7.1 you don't have to rely on being in the minuscule sweet spot to get the right imaging, the surround field is more stable and well defined.

That still doesn't explain how its a giant leap backwards. DD EX is still 5.1 discrete with a matrixed 6th channel. No where near Pro Logic which is 2 discrete channels which are matrixed to 5.1. Not to mention that the "technology of the 80's" has advanced quite a bit since the first days of Dolby Pro Logic.

5.1 went from matrixed (really 4.1) to discrete. Goin to 6.1 - instead of adding another discrete channel like DTS-ES did - they matrixed the back surround channel - used the tech of the 1980's to do it.

Understand now?

I remember when "Surround Sound" was just a gimmick.

It was never a gimmick. The early days were an attempt to give the consumer what he had been hearing in the theater for many years . . . multitrack stereo.


Apples and oranges.

So you are saying that the OAR of a movie shouldn't be touched but it is OK to change the soundtrack from what was played at the theater? . . . . :confused:

5.1 went from matrixed (really 4.1) to discrete. Goin to 6.1 - instead of adding another discrete channel like DTS-ES did - they matrixed the back surround channel - used the tech of the 1980's to do it.

For the record, only a very few titles use DTS-ES Discrete 6.1, most DTS-ES titles use a matrixed rear like DD EX.

Understand now?

I still don't see how it's a step back.

It was never a gimmick. The early days were an attempt to give the consumer what he had been hearing in the theater for many years . . . multitrack stereo.

That's really no different than DD-EX or DTS-ES. Now DPL IIx and Logic 7, Dolby/Lexicon realized they could take things a step further than what's possible in the theater.

So you are saying that the OAR of a movie shouldn't be touched but it is OK to change the soundtrack from what was played at the theater? . . . . :confused:

Expanding from 5.1 to 7.1 isn't changing the soundtrack any more than scaling the video to match your panels resolution is.

5.1 went from matrixed (really 4.1) to discrete. Goin to 6.1 - instead of adding another discrete channel like DTS-ES did - they matrixed the back surround channel - used the tech of the 1980's to do it.

Understand now?



It was never a gimmick. The early days were an attempt to give the consumer what he had been hearing in the theater for many years . . . multitrack stereo.




So you are saying that the OAR of a movie shouldn't be touched but it is OK to change the soundtrack from what was played at the theater? . . . . :confused:

I understand PERFECTLY how DD EX works, it seems you are not the one who understands. You still have not explained how it is a "giant leap backwards".

Surround sound was said by many to be a gimmick, (note that I am not actually saying that it was, it seems you didn't understand that from my post) and that nobody would have the room or money to even bother adding more than two speakers to their audio setup. Same things now being said about 7.1.

So you are saying that the OAR of a movie shouldn't be touched but it is OK to change the soundtrack from what was played at the theater? . . . . :confused:

That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that comparing the two is like comparing Apples to Oranges.

I always felt like 7.1 was a gimmick to get people to feel like their receivers weren't good enough, so they would go out and buy another one.

I'd rather see more 5.1 PCM uncompressed.

Professionals disagree:

http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/tools/tech/8400.html

"Tim Hoogenakker, who has been mixing 7.1 titles including Ultimate Avengers, Dr. Strange and Belly at POP for the better part of a year, was skeptical at first, but now agrees with Biles. “I didn’t think much of it until I got started,” he says. “Now, [I understand] there are things you can’t do with 5.1, like hard sound effects, [or] an airplane flying from front to back, side to side. “It’s really kind of indescribable how inside the picture it puts you.” Hoogenakker says it also brings new depth to sound design, allowing it to fill in the 90-degree angle from the dialog source."

So you are saying that the OAR of a movie shouldn't be touched but it is OK to change the soundtrack from what was played at the theater? . . . . :confused:

http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/tools/tech/8400.html

"While 7.1 may be a home video phenomenon initially, some feel it will hit cinemas soon enough. “The Digital Cinema specification already supports 7.1 and the retrofit of two additional speakers and amplifiers isn’t that difficult for most theaters,” says Steve Venezia, Dolby’s manager of DVD and broadcast support. “History also seems to say that we’ll keep increasing the number of channels.”

As many years as its been around and only a handful of movies i believe it will go
the way of quadraphonic.

Not likely:

http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/tools/tech/8400.html

For the record, only a very few titles use DTS-ES Discrete 6.1, most DTS-ES titles use a matrixed rear like DD EX.

Yes - I understand that there are only a handful of 6.1 soundtrack movies.

I still don't see how it's a step back.

AC-3 was the first use of 5.1 discrete movie soundtrack for use in the consumers home. It was an improvement over matrixed due to channel seperation. By adding a 6th channel and resorting to once again using an old technology to do it . . . this is lost to you?

That's really no different than DD-EX or DTS-ES. Now DPL IIx and Logic 7, Dolby/Lexicon realized they could take things a step further than what's possible in the theater.

Why?

Expanding from 5.1 to 7.1 isn't changing the soundtrack any more than scaling the video to match your panels resolution is.

Sure it is. There were only 5.1 channels in the theater presentation. And scaling has nothing to do with Original Aspect Ratio. THAT was the comparison.

http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/tools/tech/8400.html

"While 7.1 may be a home video phenomenon initially, some feel it will hit cinemas soon enough. “The Digital Cinema specification already supports 7.1 and the retrofit of two additional speakers and amplifiers isn’t that difficult for most theaters,” says Steve Venezia, Dolby’s manager of DVD and broadcast support. “History also seems to say that we’ll keep increasing the number of channels.”

You can believe that all you want but the facts say that they have DECREASED the number of channels over time . . . from the original 8 of Cinerama to 5 that we have today.

AC-3 was the first use of 5.1 discrete movie soundtrack for use in the consumers home. It was an improvement over matrixed due to channel seperation. By adding a 6th channel and resorting to once again using an old technology to do it . . . this is lost to you?

Completely lost on me. First of all, they are not using old technology. Just because they are Matrixing that 6th channel, does not make it "technology of the 80's". As said before and ignored by you, matrixing technology has advanced much since the first days of Pro Logic. They are NOT using the same technology.

Please explain how 5.1 discrete + 1.0 matrixed is WORSE than 5.1 discrete. You are losing no information (which is what happens when you alter OAR which is why the comparison is apples and oranges), not to mention you can turn the 6th channel off and still have the 5.1 discrete mix. According to your logic, including umcompressed PCM tracks is also a "giant leap backwards" as PCM is many many years older than Dolby Digital and DTS or even Pro Logic for that matter.

Please explain how it is a "giant leap backwards".

Completely lost on me. First of all, they are not using old technology. Just because they are Matrixing that 6th channel, does not make it "technology of the 80's". As said before and ignored by you, matrixing technology has advanced much since the first days of Pro Logic. They are NOT using the same technology.

Please explain how 5.1 discrete + 1.0 matrixed is WORSE than 5.1 discrete. You are losing no information (which is what happens when you alter OAR which is why the comparison is apples and oranges), not to mention you can turn the 6th channel off and still have the 5.1 discrete mix. According to your logic, including umcompressed PCM tracks is also a "giant leap backwards" as PCM is many many years older than Dolby Digital and DTS or even Pro Logic for that matter.

Please explain how it is a "giant leap backwards".

I have and you keep ignoring my posts. Matrixed Soundtracks were the tech of the 1980's. Discrete was the tech of the 1990's up to today. Dolby took the cheap way out to add the 6th channel. I don't care how sofisticated the matrix is - it is not as good as discrete when it comes to channel seperation.

And the thread is about 7.1 which we know does not exist in a commerical movie theater.

I have and you keep ignoring my posts. Matrixed Soundtracks were the tech of the 1980's. Discrete was the tech of the 1990's up to today. Dolby took the cheap way out to add the 6th channel. I don't care how sofisticated the matrix is - it is not as good as discrete when it comes to channel seperation.

And the thread is about 7.1 which we know does not exist in a commerical movie theater.

I truly believe you do not understand what you are talking about, which is why this will be my last response in this thread.

Matrixing is NOT tech of the 80's. Matrixing to 5.1 maybe, but matrixing from 5.1 up is NOT, whether you want to understand that or not.

Furthermore, you still have yet to explain how 5.1 discrete + 1.0 matrixed is worse than 5.1 discrete. All you keep going on about is how matrixed soundtracks are old technology, but DD EX is NOT a matrixed soundtrack. It is a 5.1 DISCRETE soundtrack with a matrixed surround added. If DD EX were 6.1 matrixed channels (meaning all 7 channels are matrixed) you would have a point, but it is not. DD EX is in NO WAY a step backwards, like you claim.

Dolby took the cheap way out? Are you kidding? Atleast, I hope you are.

Anyways, I've had enough of this, as it is obvious you will just never understand (or chose not to) the flaw in your logic.

You can believe that all you want but the facts say that they have DECREASED the number of channels over time . . . from the original 8 of Cinerama to 5 that we have today.

Apparently the new standard will be 20 channels for digital cinema:

"SMPTE’s DC28 digital cinema committee has produced a specification, SMPTE 428M, which outlines a total of 20 audio channels. Of those 20, seven are the current Surround EX 6.1-channel configuration, and 13 provide additional capabilities: four new channels drive speakers that expand upon existing surround arrays, providing more directional control to the back and sides of the theater. Two more flank the center speaker (and have been used before in SDDS and 70mm formats). The remaining seven channels drive totally new speaker locations: a wide pair at the front, four vertical channels for an added sense of height, and a second LFE channel (7.2, 10.2, etc.). The plethora of channels has spawned a new round of naming conventions: Lvh (left vertical height) and so on."

Vertical height channels? What a waste. We need channels on the floor and on the ceiling. :D

It was an improvement over matrixed due to channel seperation.If channel separation overrides everything else for you, then you should play back EX/ES soundtracks using only 5.1 speakers. Likewise, you should listen Dolby Surround encoded soundtracks using only 2 speakers (to match the number of discrete channels).

For me, channel separation isn't as important as wrap-around envelopment, imaging stability and precise directionality. The surround field is not 2 points of sound located where the L/R surround speakers are placed; there's an entire soundstage in between that wraps around the listener. You can rely on phantom imaging to localize sounds across this soundstage, but it becomes impossible to maintain any sort of imaging stability outside the sweet spot (you move, the phantom images move with you). Same problem with rear vs side imaging, since one pair of surround can't be in two places at once (at your sides and behind you). And how do you surround a group of listeners using only 2 speakers? I don't care how sofisticated the matrix is - it is not as good as discrete when it comes to channel seperation.Who said it was? Maybe you're missing the point of surround processing: it's not for situations where you already have the additional discrete channels, it's meant to be used when you don't. Why would anyone use PLII on a stereo soundtrack if the same soundtrack was available as discrete 5.1? Likewise, why extract surround-back information from a 5.1 track if a 7.1 version is available.

It's analogous to the video scaling that stanger89 mentioned earlier. Imagine telling people that you 'don't care how sophisticated the video processing is - it is not as good as 1080p video when it comes to actual resolution'. Who claimed it was? It completely misses the point of using a video processor (which generates extra pixels that never existed in the source material). But unless my entire collection of music and movies suddenly becomes discrete 7.1 (and 1080p), I'll have a use for audio and video processing. Dolby took the cheap way out to add the 6th channel.What was the expensive way? What would have been your solution to deliver 6.1 channels to theatres equipped for 5.1 discrete?

Sanjay

I wonder how many people that do not use an external amp with a receiver for 7.1
realize how much power they don't have, Almost all the reviews i have read the
flagships seem to hit their advertised watts per channel in the 5.1 mode but take it
out to 7.1 and it falls considerably short.

War and 3:10 to Yuma were spoiling me on 7.1 Lionsgate is the shining example of how to handle AQ, though. Both of those have incredible PCM tracks.

How many people are 7.1 equipped or willing to go 7.1

I'm almost equipped but I'm NOT willing to go 7.1, even with a 7.1 pre/pro. There would have to be a steady stream of releases to make me go there and that's not going to happen. I'm not going shuffle my surround speakers to the sides for a few 7.1 movies, either.

5.1 is perfecly good for me, and I've been an advid HT buff before 'AC-3' came out.

M

I'm almost equipped but I'm NOT willing to go 7.1, even with a 7.1 pre/pro. There would have to be a steady stream of releases to make me go there and that's not going to happen. I'm not going shuffle my surround speakers to the sides for a few 7.1 movies, either.

5.1 is perfecly good for me, and I've been an advid HT buff before 'AC-3' came out.

M

The masses are probably 5.1 and i have been since its been available most
of my co's clients are 5.1 and some went towers all around i could only
imagine the bill for 7 revel salons not to mention 2 more halos.

I wonder how many people that do not use an external amp with a receiver for 7.1
realize how much power they don't have, Almost all the reviews i have read the
flagships seem to hit their advertised watts per channel in the 5.1 mode but take it
out to 7.1 and it falls considerably short.

It doesn't really take that much power to hit normal volume levels. If you figure "normal" conditions for home movies are an average 87dB/W/m speaker, 10' from the listenner, and they listen and -10dB from Reference level, you only need 25W/ch peak. If you've got really efficient speakers (eg Klipsch, 94dB/W/m) then you only need 5W/ch peak.

.... DPL IIx or not, hard-panned to the left sounds come from the left either way. Sounds that would phantom-image to directly behind you with 5.1, come from behind you with processed 7.1, and the same for sounds anywhere in between.FYI the encoding (virtual) of complex soundfields are NOT just simple amplitude weighting in all cases. i.e.

1) Virtual Surround Panning (VSP) simulates a defined acoustic space and positions the sound source within this space using the channel pan control. Surround impression is guaranteed by generating early reflections with the appropriate directionality and time delays on all speakers.

2) These reflections, which are absent with normal panning, are the key to localizing the mono source within the surround field. VSP also gives better directional imaging by adding phase and frequency spectrum information to the existing amplitude difference between channels.

I wonder how many people that do not use an external amp with a receiver for 7.1
realize how much power they don't have, Almost all the reviews i have read the
flagships seem to hit their advertised watts per channel in the 5.1 mode but take it
out to 7.1 and it falls considerably short.

I dont' think that's true with the Onkyo 805 and up -- being THX Ultra 2 Certified, they are required to meet certain power specifications.

I'm almost equipped but I'm NOT willing to go 7.1, even with a 7.1 pre/pro. There would have to be a steady stream of releases to make me go there and that's not going to happen. I'm not going shuffle my surround speakers to the sides for a few 7.1 movies, either.

5.1 is perfecly good for me, and I've been an advid HT buff before 'AC-3' came out.

M

The availability of 7.1 discrete content should have little bearing on the decision on whether to move from 5.1 to a 7.1 setup. It really is more dependent on your room.

If your room does not have seating right up against the back wall, and has sufficient width as well (so you can spread the rear speakers apart), adding 2 rear surruonds will create greater envelopment for all 5.1 tracks.

Trust me, I have 7.1 speakers. Although the vast majority of content is encoded at 5.1, I always play it all back with all speakers engaged utilizing Pro Logic IIx to expand 5.1 to 7.1.

I have compared a 5.1 track played as 5.1 in my system, and with Pro Logic IIx engaged to derive rear surrounds. There is no question, its much better with Pro Logic IIx (i.e., played as 7.1).

The content is not what's relevant. It is what's appropriate for your room -- can your room work with and handle a 7.1 setup.

I don't play HDTV that's dolby 2.0 as stereo either. It all gets played as 7.1.

FYI the encoding (virtual) of complex soundfields are NOT just simple amplitude weighting in all cases. i.e.

Of course, phase, amplitude, correlation are all involved, probably more as well. I was just explaining the result, not writing a technical paper on how that result is accomplished (besides I never said anything about amplitude).

My point is that a 5.1 mix may have contrived early reflections, time delays, ect. that correlate to nominal surround perspective (orientation). These are based on standard surround speaker location per production guidlines. PLIIx is inadequate for these mixing paradigms.

I dont' think that's true with the Onkyo 805 and up -- being THX Ultra 2 Certified, they are required to meet certain power specifications.

I believe that spec is for 5.1 .

I believe that spec is for 5.1 .

I'm comfortable with the fact that my 7.1 receiver produces plenty of power when playing 7.1 tracks.

Ultra 2 was specifically designed for 7.1 systems. So I'm sure the certification means something in that regard.