I was reading an interesting article in the latest WSR, and interview with three engineers with MiCase Multimedia (responsible for creating the multichannel mixes for New Line Cinema's DVD releases). It's a long and interesting article, but this segment toward the end caught my eye:

.....

MCM Biles: ....The back panel of the Denon receiver has left, center, right, sub. We won’t worry about those channels, because they are the same for 5.1 and 7.1. Then it has surround left and surround right, which are hooked up to our sides at plus and minus 90 degrees from the center channel. And then it has surround back left and surround back right, which are hooked up to our rears at plus and minus 135 degrees from the center channel. You play a 7.1 mix, everything comes out where it should properly. Now, the rub is, if I play a 5.1 mix, such as Fantastic Four

WSRReber: With the same connections.

MCM Biles: The same connections. My surround channel information comes out of my surround left and surround right outputs, which are my 90-degree sides, and does not come out of the rears.

WSRReber: Well, that’s wrong

WSRRichelieu: So that’s the problem

WSRReber: That’s a big problem

MCM Biles: That is a huge problem.

.....

Though he was talking about the Denon, I got the impression it was a design "defect" in all or most 7.1 AVRs. I have an Onkyo 905, and I will listen for myself.

Thought this was an interesting topic - with all the tweaks we do to get things just right, these engineers seem to be claiming that, of, by the way, your surround information is coming out of the "wrong" channels when using a 7.1 setup.

Of course, I thought that in a 5.1 set-up, your surrounds should be at the sides, if slightly behind the listening area, so I'm not sure I'm following why the Mi Casa engineers are stating the surround channels in a 5.1 should come out of the rears....Any thoughts on this?

That is correct behavior. The (side) surrounds (not the rear surrounds) are channels 4 and 5. With 5.1 soundtracks, I would say that anyone with a 6/7.1 setup should use some sort of DSP to get all the surrounds in on the action else the "surround" info will only come from the sides. Now, the Dolby recommendations (for whatever they're worth :rolleyes:) for 5.1 do specify the surrounds at 90° to 135° (or maybe it's 120°), but, honestly, I couldn't stand it if my surrounds weren't at least a little bit behind me.

If these guys are supposed to be "in the know", they're not.

That is correct behavior. The (side) surrounds (not the rear surrounds) are channels 4 and 5. With 5.1 soundtracks, I would say that anyone with a 6/7.1 setup should use some sort of DSP to get all the surrounds in on the action else the "surround" info will only come from the sides. Now, the Dolby recommendations (for whatever they're worth :rolleyes:) for 5.1 do specify the surrounds at 90° to 135° (or maybe it's 120°), but, honestly, I couldn't stand it if my surrounds weren't at least a little bit behind me.

If these guys are supposed to be "in the know", they're not.

Might be worth picking up the issue for a read...I'm not disputing what you're saying, but given what they do for living, it was interesting how they felt the current implementation is not optimal.

It appears, using Dolby's speaker set-up diagrams, that in the 7.1 config, the sides are literally too "precisely" at the sides, and that 5.1 discrete in a 7.1 speaker set up would be "more accurate" to use the rears for the surround info. This must be the basis for their position...

For s__ts and giggles, I will reverse my sides and rears and play some discrete 5.1 material

But yes, your point is well taken - using some matrix surround mode to get all channels playing is probably best anyway (DPLIIX Movie and Music modes are quite enveloping with my 905...

Might be worth picking up the issue for a read...I'm not disputing what you're saying, but given what they do for living, it was interesting how they felt the current implementation is not optimal.Just goes to show you how useful the "magazines" can be. No, I won't be picking up an issue to read. Cancel your subscription. :D

It's simple enough for you to confirm what happens with 5.1 material on your own system, is it not?


For s__ts and giggles, I will reverse my sides and rears and play some discrete 5.1 material.You already know the outcome.


For movies, this is not really an issue, as very most likely a matrixing DSP would be being used with 5.1 material in order to utilize the rear speakers (else, except for +5.1 material, there wouldn't be much of a reason to have the rear speakers there). For true 5.1 channel music, if you did not wish to apply a DSP in order to utilize the 6th and 7th speakers, I can see this being an issue, as the surround channels would be coming from the sides. There are some receivers that allow the use of 2 different pairs of side surrounds; one for movies and one for music. This actually solves two problems as it allows the use of dipole/bipoles for the side surrounds for movie use and direct radiating monopoles for music use as well as offering 2 different placement options.

Just goes to show you how useful the "magazines" can be. No, I won't be picking up an issue to read. Cancel your subscription. :D

No! It's a good magazine, even if this article is debateable!:)


It's simple enough for you to confirm what happens with 5.1 material on your own system, is it not?

Yes, of course - with a direct 5.1 soundtrack, surround information is coming from the sides, not the rears, of my 7.1 set-up. Their "claim" is it should really be from the rears (unless I'm reading the article incorrectly)


You already know the outcome.

Ah, but why do we tweak...to find out things we thought we knew!


For movies, this is not really an issue, as very most likely a matrixing DSP would be being used with 5.1 material in order to utilize the rear speakers (else, except for +5.1 material, there wouldn't be much of a reason to have the rear speakers there). For true 5.1 channel music, if you did not wish to apply a DSP in order to utilize the 6th and 7th speakers, I can see this being an issue, as the surround channels would be coming from the sides. There are some receivers that allow the use of 2 different pairs of side surrounds; one for movies and one for music. This actually solves two problems as it allows the use of dipole/bipoles for the side surrounds for movie use and direct radiating monopoles for music use as well as offering 2 different placement options.

Yes, if you're matrixing a 5.1 to a 6.1 or 7.1 soundfield, it's likely moot. But I think the argument (and some I know prefer this manner) it to play the soundtrack in it's true discrete format, without any signal processing. If one were to choose this playback approach, even with films, the point they raise could be an issue if one otherwise "buys into" their premise that the surround soundfield will be "better" from angled rear set of speakers rather than directly at one's side. Not doing too much tonight, so I'll experiment...!

No! It's a good magazine, even if this article is debateable!:)It's NOT debatable, as you already have confirmed. Your receiver is just like all the rest, including the one they were reviewing. Maybe it was a Friday afternoon. :D


Their "claim" is it should really be from the rears (unless I'm reading the article incorrectly).The reasoning may be sound (sorry:o), but it's not the reality.


But I think the argument (and some I know prefer this manner) it to play the soundtrack in it's true discrete format, without any signal processing. If one were to choose this playback approach, even with films, the point they raise could be an issue if one otherwise "buys into" their premise that the surround soundfield will be "better" from angled rear set of speakers rather than directly at one's side.Well, this HAS been argued here in the past. It was not really the speaker placement that was a big concern, but that sort of purist attitude (not that it's not legitimate) towards playback that was the issue. Most of the decent matrixing DSPs that would be used in this case (such as DPLIIx) are applied AFTER 5.1 processing, do not affect the other channels at all, and do not diminish the quality of the side surround channels. It's hard to understand why someone would have rear surrounds and not want to use them, especially since a majority of movies (yes, this is changing) are only 5.1 in the first place. DPLIIx, from my understanding, although not truly discrete, still sends completely different matrixed info to each of the 4 surround speakers.

It appears, using Dolby's speaker set-up diagrams, that in the 7.1 config, the sides are literally too "precisely" at the sides, and that 5.1 discrete in a 7.1 speaker set up would be "more accurate" to use the rears for the surround info. This must be the basis for their position....In theory, they might be right but the current standard is what is used in mastering current recordings. If some people wish to have the side channel info come from the rear speakers, it is encumbent on them to re-wire their systems. Otherwise, they need to get Dolby, ITU, etc., to change the standards and changing the standard is opening a can of worms.

In theory, they might be right but the current standard is what is used in mastering current recordings. If some people wish to have the side channel info come from the rear speakers, it is encumbent on them to re-wire their systems. Otherwise, they need to get Dolby, ITU, etc., to change the standards and changing the standard is opening a can of worms.

Kal, thanks for stopping in. Other than the friendly debate with sivadselim, the soothing sounds of crickets was filling this thread...:)

Actually, the next segment of the article went on to talk about have a standardized interface in AVRs were you could route the signal according to your speaker setup...at the risk of Gary Reber slapping me in the head for posting a bit more of the article....

MCM Biles: That is a huge problem. I have thought about making a suggestion to the manufacturers—there are so many setup menu pages in this receiver, it’s like reading a textbook on your screen as you’re setting it up. It’s like going to Jerry’s Delicatessen, there are so many choices, I don’t want to eat anymore. So my suggestion would be to have a menu page—for those of you reading this in the manufacturing of A/V receiver world—have a menu page that says, “When I’m playing a 5.1 mix, do I want my rears to come out of the surround left and right channels or the surround rear-left and surround rear-right channels?” It’s a simple A or B situation that would alleviate a lot of stress.

WSR Reber: Or relabel the surround left and right channels as side left and right channels and deliver the signals accordingly. But again, it requires consumers to know that to find out if there is an option they must select and then knowing what to do.

MCM Biles: Do you drive a car? Do you build the car? No.

WSR Reber: They all work pretty much the same.

MCM Biles: They do, but they’ve been at it for decades. They’ve already got menus for what they call “amp assign,” which is, you can set up the two extra amplifiers to be either Zone 2 or Zone 3, which is a whole other issue, or they can be 7.1. So really what these systems are is they’re giant 5.1 receivers with a 7.1 afterthought. They’re not really built from the ground up. They are thinking about 7.1 backward compatible to 5.1, is what I’ve seen. A few other simple menus would help. I mean, to me, what you just touched on there is actually one of the biggest issues that I have with this particular receiver. Now I don’t want to sit here and bag on Denon because I’m pretty sure that Yamaha is the same way, and I’m pretty sure that Sony is the same as well, and I think the nomenclature on the back of the box should change, and it shouldn’t be surround back left and surround back right, it should be left center right, left surround, right surround, extra channel A, and extra channel B. And in a menu you get to pick, where are your extra channels? Are they at 90 degrees? Okay, there. Are they at 60 degrees off center? Okay, they’re there. No, are they way in the back at 150? They’re there. And solve it that way. Or the other option, where, when you play a 5.1-channel disc, you get to pick which of those outputs it goes to.

I advocated something like that once but, if you read this forum, you know that more options will probably result in more consumer confusion.

This is the reason I went from a 7.1 to a 5.1 system.
I got tired of moving my "side" speakers every time I
wanted to listen to SACD or DVD-A.
One of these days I'll have to get an Oppo or a newer
receiver/pre-pro and go back to 7.1.

I advocated something like that once but, if you read this forum, you know that more options will probably result in more consumer confusion.

I think we may have long since slid far down that slippery slope....:)

Interesting you've had a similar (and earlier) thought in this vein.

Other than the friendly debate with sivadselim................:confused: What debate?


Actually, the next segment of the article went on to talk about have a standardized interface in AVRs were you could route the signal according to your speaker setup......

"yadda yadda"Would be nice. Just make them completely "plastic".

The 4th and 5th channel connections ARE labeled side surrounds on some receivers. But the 4th and 5th channels are routed there no matter what they're called.

If these guys have a handle on it, it can't be TOO complicated, can it? :D :p

Actually, I DO often wonder how the hell the average joe figures it all out (or if he even does).


Pastrami on rye for me; spicy mustard, please.

This is the reason I went from a 7.1 to a 5.1 system.
I got tired of moving my "side" speakers every time I
wanted to listen to SACD or DVD-A.
One of these days I'll have to get an Oppo or a newer
receiver/pre-pro and go back to 7.1.What will a new player or new receiver help with? You'll still have the same issue.

:confused: What debate?


Ok, friendly "conversation" then....:)

Kal's post is interesting however....

Kal's post is interesting however....Oh, yeah? Which one? :confused: :p

Oh, yeah? Which one? :confused: :p

I advocated something like that once but, if you read this forum, you know that more options will probably result in more consumer confusion.
__________________
Kal Rubinson
.

Kal's post is interesting however....Oh, yeah? Which one? :confused: :pI advocated something like that once but, if you read this forum, you know that more options will probably result in more consumer confusion.Yeah, and the people here are the small percentage of ones who are at least motivated and curious enough to even go online to find an answer. Think of the ignorant masses who will never visit an online AV site for help. :eek:

I think their idea of a very user-friendly menu that walks the uneducated consumer completely through a setup regimen, starting from the very beginning, is not a bad idea at all, provided it is done absolutely properly and literally fool-proof. May be a tough order, though. They could offer a bypass for those of us who don't need/want to go through all that.

I'm sure this has been considered/debated by the manufacturers.

I think their idea of a very user-friendly menu that walks the uneducated consumer completely through a setup regimen, starting from the very beginning, is not a bad idea at all, provided it is done absolutely properly and literally fool-proof. May be a tough order, though. They could offer a bypass for those of us who don't need/want to go through all that.

I'm sure this has been considered/debated by the manufacturers.

The controls being postulated would be for the most advanced user seeking the most accurate/refined configuration of their system, not the uneducated, who could care less about speaker position, height, angles, etc.

Whether it's practical to implement is one issue, or whether more advanced Audyssey or Trinnov room EQ's do/would incorporate some aspect of these spatial conditions in their analysis, is another. But the simple, original point was that a company who make their living creating these soundfields for a major Hollywood studio's DVD releases opined something I thought was worth a dialog. Smart people with years of experience can certainly still exhibit errors in judgement, but given their vast experience (check their filmography at their site, http://www.micasamm.com/), I would give them some benefit of the doubt...

The controls being postulated would be for the most advanced user seeking the most accurate/refined configuration of their system, not the uneducated, who could care less about speaker position, height, angles, etc.Nope. My thinking is exactly the opposite. It is precisely the novice who needs the most help. And I think you are mistaken that they "could care less about speaker position, height, angles, etc.". I think they do at least realize if not understand that stuff. Or once they knew that WAS important, they'd care. It is the actual operation of the processor that is befuddling.


But the simple, original point was that a company who make their living creating these soundfields for a major Hollywood studio's DVD releases opined something I thought was worth a dialog. Smart people with years of experience can certainly still exhibit errors in judgement, but given their vast experience (check their filmography at their site, http://www.micasamm.com/), I would give them some benefit of the doubt...Once you posted the rest of the "conversation" the context of what they were saying became more clear. They were never mistaken nor did they believe the receiver was mistaken. They thought the sound coming from the sides was a "big problem". They sort of have a conversation like the Car Talk guys. I forget what that is called, literarily, where you learn from the dialog between 2 characters. Kal will know. :D

Nope. My thinking is exactly the opposite. It is precisely the novice who needs the most help. And I think you are mistaken that they "could care less about speaker position, height, angles, etc.". I think they do at least realize if not understand that stuff. Or once they knew that WAS important, they'd care. It is the actual operation of the processor that is befuddling.


Once you posted the rest of the "conversation" the context of what they were saying became more clear. They were never mistaken nor did they believe the receiver was mistaken. They thought the sound coming from the sides was a "big problem". They sort of have a conversation like the Car Talk guys. I forget what that is called, literarily, where you learn from the dialog between 2 characters.

I'm not saying the novice or uneducated couldn't use the help, but many are just happy to get their wife to allow them to put two more speakers and a subwoofer in the room. The refinement they're proposing is likely only of interest/accessibility to the enthusiast (surround signal routing, degrees off-center, etc.) Not novice level controls, and I think Kal was referencing as much when he talked about the layers of AVR menu complexity already being too dense.

Sort of akin to this: Enthusiasts want individual crossovers that the novice wouldn't miss nor know how to set.

And yes, I indicated as much in the first post, that I didn't feel they were picking on Denon specifically, but the "mistake" they were calling out was something afflicting all AVRs - which is why I summarized generically, "...these engineers seem to be claiming that, oh, by the way, your surround information is coming out of the "wrong" channels when using a 7.1 setup."

It's a good read....:D

I'm not saying the novice or uneducated couldn't use the help, but many are just happy to get their wife to allow them to put two more speakers and a subwoofer in the room. The refinement they're proposing is likely only of interest/accessibility to the enthusiast (surround signal routing, degrees off-center, etc.) Not novice level controls, and I think Kal was referencing as much when he talked about the layers of AVR menu complexity already being too dense.I was commenting upon the idea your two friends presented. Something that asks "How many speakers do you have?", etc.. That's why I said:

"I think their idea of a very user-friendly menu that walks the uneducated consumer completely through a setup regimen, starting from the very beginning, is not a bad idea at all, provided it is done absolutely properly and literally fool-proof. May be a tough order, though. They could offer a bypass for those of us who don't need/want to go through all that."


Sort of akin to this: Enthusiasts want individual crossovers that the novice wouldn't miss nor know how to set.Not true. First of all, the idea of individual crossover settings is pretty fundamental and not that complex. But it is precisely the fact that the novice doesn't know how to set it that he/she needs help. I don't need any help with that. I'm not talking about options. I'm talking about help for the novice in using all those options that we want. Because, ultimately, we and the novices are going to both use the same pieces of equipment.


And yes, I indicated as much in the first post, that I didn't feel they were picking on Denon specifically, but the "mistake" they were calling out was something afflicting all AVRs - which is why I summarized generically, "...these engineers seem to be claiming that, oh, by the way, your surround information is coming out of the "wrong" channels when using a 7.1 setup."I thought you were saying that they were saying that the receiver was "wrong". It's not a "defect", really. It is dictated by how the DVDs are engineered in the first place. A "consequence" would be a better term.

having the sound coming out from the surround back channels at 135° would be "wrong" too, if that's what they were getting at. it's supposed to be at 110°

I don't see the issue though - why not get the receiver to process the signal (PLIIx, or whatever flavor of processing they like) and route it to the 4 speakers

This is the reason I went from a 7.1 to a 5.1 system.
I got tired of moving my "side" speakers every time I
wanted to listen to SACD or DVD-A.Why? What discs are not mastered for the standard ITU configuration?

having the sound coming out from the surround back channels at 135° would be "wrong" too, if that's what they were getting at. it's supposed to be at 110°

I don't see the issue though - why not get the receiver to process the signal (PLIIx, or whatever flavor of processing they like) and route it to the 4 speakersI agree. The issue is not one of accuracy as the quoted notes imply but one of preference. That's why I do not think it is such a big deal.

As for those with 7.1 systems, who want to use their bigger rear surrounds rather than their smaller side surrounds in 5.1, they simply need bigger side surrounds.:cool:

BTW, the Meridian channel setup, with its drag-and-drop interface, would be a good model for such setups. Now, all we need is an OSD with a gyromouse built into all AVRs.

This is the reason I went from a 7.1 to a 5.1 system.
I got tired of moving my "side" speakers every time I
wanted to listen to SACD or DVD-A.
One of these days I'll have to get an Oppo or a newer
receiver/pre-pro and go back to 7.1.
Why? What discs are not mastered for the standard ITU configuration?
He is referring to having to move his side speakers, which he probably has at 90°, rearward for 5.1 music. It is what this thread is about; the fact that for 5.1 sources, surrounds @ 90° is not so sporty.

having the sound coming out from the surround back channels at 135° would be "wrong" too, if that's what they were getting at. it's supposed to be at 110°Well, there really is no "wrong" way if room constraints dictate where your surrounds must be located. Many people with 5.1 setups have to place their surrounds on the rear wall or in the rear corners. I've heard many setups like this and they sound fine.

There are some other recommendations besides the ITU recs (Grammy, for example) that place the surrounds more rearward. The "135°" figure didn't fall out of nowhere. I've seen it in someone's recommendation.

^
Actually, the "135° figure" is one end of the range that Dolby recommends for the rear surround speakers (not the surrounds). That's probably where you saw that number. The Dolby recommendations for speaker placement are simple and straightforward, FWIW:
surround speakers at 90° to 110°, in either 5.1 or 7.1 system (i.e., whether or not the system includes rear surrounds)
rear surround speakers at 135° to 150°, in 7.1 system

Dolby recommendations for speaker layouts here:
http://www.dolby.com/consumer/home_entertainment/roomlayout2.html

The Dolby page (unfortunately) don't include any discussion. I think it would be helpful to have their views on: does the recommended setup vary in any way depending on user preference for movies vs. music? What "compromises" should be considered first if you can't meet the guidelines due to your room shape and layout?

I agree with sivadselim's comment
Many people with 5.1 setups have to place their surrounds on the rear wall or in the rear corners. I've heard many setups like this and they sound fine.
further, I will be in that group when I finally get surround speakers connected in my new house; due to the irregular, open room design, the only possible wall mounting position for the surrounds is approximately 125° to 130°. I think it's clearly better to place the surrounds at >110° (further back from Dolby rec) than <90° (even slightly in front of listener), if those are the choices.

Also, I found a rather wordy podcast transcript on the Dolby site, where one of the yackers did indicate a preference for locating surrounds toward the back of the 90° - 110° range:
Jack: Now if you refer to the diagram on our website, you'll see what we recommend on the website to have them between 90 degrees and 110 degrees from center. That either means directly to your left and right—to your sides—or as much as 110 degrees back from center. That's to your sides but a little bit back there behind you.

I actually prefer 110 degrees because, hey, they call them surround speakers. Make sure they're behind you!
http://www.dolby.com/dolbycast/transcripts/home-theater-speaker-placement.html

[deletia]

Though he was talking about the Denon, I got the impression it was a design "defect" in all or most 7.1 AVRs. I have an Onkyo 905, and I will listen for myself.

Thought this was an interesting topic - with all the tweaks we do to get things just right, these engineers seem to be claiming that, of, by the way, your surround information is coming out of the "wrong" channels when using a 7.1 setup.

Of course, I thought that in a 5.1 set-up, your surrounds should be at the sides, if slightly behind the listening area, so I'm not sure I'm following why the Mi Casa engineers are stating the surround channels in a 5.1 should come out of the rears....Any thoughts on this?

This I would say is a 'backwards compatibility' problem. The nice diagram that came with my centre channel speaker does have slightly different angles for the 5.1 vs 7.1 surround channels (maybe go with the new Denon PrePro that has two sets of surround channels so you can switch), but, it does seems like the suggestion of putting placement into the decoding of the channels would be good. But, which does't help 'older' 5.1 stuff like DVD-A and SACDs.

I'm likely going to go 6.1 since my condo is really too small to need two rear channels, but, then still I've got to figure out the best placement for multi-channel audio and surround soundtrack. I will likely weight it towards 5.1 multichannel (SACD/DVD-A) since surround channels are usually intended to be more diffuse (i.e. monopole vs dipole).

^
Actually, the "135° figure" is one end of the range that Dolby recommends for the rear surround speakers (not the surrounds). That's probably where you saw that number. The Dolby recommendations for speaker placement are simple and straightforward, FWIW:
surround speakers at 90° to 110°, in either 5.1 or 7.1 system (i.e., whether or not the system includes rear surrounds)
rear surround speakers at 135° to 150°, in 7.1 system

Dolby recommendations for speaker layouts here:
http://www.dolby.com/consumer/home_entertainment/roomlayout2.html

The Dolby page (unfortunately) don't include any discussion. I think it would be helpful to have their views on: does the recommended setup vary in any way depending on user preference for movies vs. music? What "compromises" should be considered first if you can't meet the guidelines due to your room shape and layout?

I agree with sivadselim's comment

further, I will be in that group when I finally get surround speakers connected in my new house; due to the irregular, open room design, the only possible wall mounting position for the surrounds is approximately 125° to 130°. I think it's clearly better to place the surrounds at >110° (further back from Dolby rec) than <90° (even slightly in front of listener), if those are the choices.


Looking at the Dolby diagrams it seems like the 7.1 is just splitting off the 5.1 surrounds, and it does look like the surround channels are a bit close to the listeners' positions;).
Again it does seem like letting the Processor do the DSP for wherever you have the speakers setup would be a good 'simple' way to do it, since why not utilize the greater speed and capacity of current processors. But, does this mess with all the new 'automatic EQs', or do they do their own calculations (of the speakers themselves) first, effectively correcting for speaker placement (need to read through the Audyessy thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=795421))?
And then what about ProLogic and does DPLIIx also take the difference between 5.1 & 7.1 into account?
I also found that my speakers (as recommended) work best with the fronts and surrounds aimed a bit past the listener (0.5 m), so even the type of speaker may also bias the placement, need to look at the front kit list/layout in WSR for how they "work the compromise".

I'm surprised any enthusiasts still read that mag...it went into the crapper years ago IMO. And Gary Reber is either seriously delusional or has some "different" hearing, given the stuff he rambles on about. Just my two cents.

"Huge problem?"....nah

I personally read several magazine, to get different points of view - I'm no defender of Reber or WSR, but the "engery" for the "big problem" description really comes the Mi Casa engineers, which Reber picks up on.

To distill it, they seems to be saying this. In a typical 7.1 speaker set-up, 5.1 discrete audio that has't been matrixed into 7.1 by your AVR, will have surround channel information emanating from the sides rather than the rears, which they feel they would be the more correct of the two options. This may imply that when they mix 5.1 soundtracks, they are assuming the surrounds are more rearward than sideward. Is that their unique and non-standard way of doing things, or is that a common method used by many of Mi Casa'a contemporaries? Who knows, but the point of my interest was only that it challenged a basic configuration conception which is healthy to do periodically. Doesn't automatically make them correct, but given their industry background and track record, it worthwhile to think that one out.

I think most of us can appreciate the easy trap to fall into when one is deeply involved with anything - when fixing and tweaking, you start to explore increasingly esoteric options when sometimes, metaphorically, "does red go to positive?" is the better initial inquiry...

He is referring to having to move his side speakers, which he probably has at 90°, rearward for 5.1 music. It is what this thread is about; the fact that for 5.1 sources, surrounds @ 90° is not so sporty.It is OK for music a fits, barely, within the ITU spec but requires more careful balance and setup. One of my 5.1 systems has the surrounds at 90deg and they are fine.

Is that their unique and non-standard way of doing things, or is that a common method used by many of Mi Casa'a contemporaries?

Must be them, because their method does not match up with Dolby, DTS, or ITU guidelines for surround placement.

This may imply that when they mix 5.1 soundtracks, they are assuming the surrounds are more rearward than sideward. Is that their unique and non-standard way of doing things, or is that a common method used by many of Mi Casa'a contemporaries?Yes, 5.1 soundtracks are most likely mixed with the surround speakers, at the very least, at least slightly rearward, as they are intended to be reproduced by 5.1 setups; 5.1 setups which may have the surround speakers anywhere from 90° on up depending upon where the user is able to place their surrounds. Most users with 5.1 systems, if they are able to, will likely have their surrounds at least slightly rearward in order to provide a more rearward surround field, which, logically, makes sense.

In a 7.1 setup the (side) surrounds, representing channels 4 and 5 of the processor, will very often be @ ~90°, and not rearward, as the 6th and 7th rear surround speakers will provide the necessary cues to provide a rearward surround field. However, when listening to a 5.1 soundtrack in such a setup, the surround info, representing channels 4 and 5, will originate at the sides @ ~90° in this configuration, and the surround field will sound much less rearward than if the 4th and 5th speakers were located more rearward as they might be in many 5.1 systems. For many, understandably, this may not seem to be ideal. Consider it a side-effect:o, if you will.

And that is ALL that they are commenting upon.

But it is a direct result of the way 5.1 movies are engineered and it is the way surround sound processors have, historically, been designed; a result of the way that surround sound evolved. The 4th and 5th surround channels came before the 6th and 7th rear surround channels. There is no gross "defect" in the way that processors are designed. The 6th and 7th speakers were added well before any 7 channel matrixing DSPs existed and they simply represented another pair of speakers reproducing identical info to the 4th and 5th speakers. And once the DPSs did evolve, they extracted or matrixed rear surround info and cues from the 4th and 5th channels. Yes, depending upon the user's exact layout, it might be nice to be able to direct the surround info to the rear surrounds in a 7.1 setup when listening solely to a 5.1 soundtrack. However, depending upon the user's layout, that could also place the surround info directly behind the user which is also "incorrect". So, which is worse? Surround info @ 90° or approaching 180°?

Sanjay can probably shed more light upon this subject. But, basically, it is "much ado about nothing".

But, basically, it is "much ado about nothing".That's how I see it too. Biles is simply describing his personal preference for surround speaker placement, not any industry standard.

To some extent I agree with him. The surround field isn't supposed to be all at my sides nor all behind me, but instead a combination of both. So if I were doing a 5.1-speaker layout, I'd have the surrounds strike some sort of compromise between side and rear placement. Of course, that compromise angle is something that will vary based on room logistics, preference, speaker type, etc.

Sanjay

I've experimented with a number of setups (some owing to placement restrictions, others because I had time and space to do various set ups) and I've always gone back to the ITU diagram that I've seen that recommends a 110 degree placement for the surround speakers. In my current room, I cannot physically replicate an ideal ITU setup but I can get very close to it using the speaker delay settings in my receiver. I find it offers the best arrangement for MCH audio as well as a very good arrangement for 5.1 movie soundtracks. Movie soundtracks sound a bit better at 120 degrees, again, in my room, but that compromises MCH music too much (I privilege music over movies in my setup, though I like both a lot). My room does not allow me a convenient way to set up 7.1 and it is too small for me to consider it worth the effort.

Just my 2 cents.

It is OK for music a fits, barely, within the ITU spec but requires more careful balance and setup. One of my 5.1 systems has the surrounds at 90deg and they are fine.

This is my preferred option for SACD/DVDA as well. For some DTS-CD & Dolby 5.1 Music DVD ie: Anything with ambient/electronica like AERO, Alan Parsons (both), Paul Macs Venus & Mars ,etc , I like to use the 7.1 setting/speakers for a novel effect sometimes. For movies 7.1 is used in most cases with speakers set back at around 165 Deg.

whew, well at least its not "a huge problem"

This is the reason I went from a 7.1 to a 5.1 system.
I got tired of moving my "side" speakers every time I
wanted to listen to SACD or DVD-A.
One of these days I'll have to get an Oppo or a newer
receiver/pre-pro and go back to 7.1.

What will a new player or new receiver help with? You'll still have the same issue.



Why? What discs are not mastered for the standard ITU configuration?



He is referring to having to move his side speakers, which he probably has at 90°, rearward for 5.1 music. It is what this thread is about; the fact that for 5.1 sources, surrounds @ 90° is not so sporty.

It is OK for music a fits, barely, within the ITU spec but requires more careful balance and setup. One of my 5.1 systems has the surrounds at 90deg and they are fine.

Yes, due to room constraints, the sides were at 90° I prefer them at 120°-135°. Some discs like DSOTM and especially Kraftwerk's Minimum-Maximum,
I feel sound best, almost directly behind. It gives that headphone effect. Of course, that's just me.

I think the Oppo can matrix directly to 7.1. When I get a new pre/pro or receiver with HDMI, I'll definitely go that route.

I think the Oppo can matrix directly to 7.1. I see. You use a multichannel analog connection, same as me. Yes, I think the 980 has 7.1 analog outs, which it must utilize somehow, but I'm not sure what sort of DSP capabilities it might have. Email them and see what they say.

I think the Oppo can matrix directly to 7.1. When I get a new pre/pro or receiver with HDMI, I'll definitely go that route.Although I have not tried it, I don't think so. From the 980 manual, it says that the 7.1 setting will only let it output what is on the disc. All the processing it does is PL II which, it says, is active only with a 5.1 setting.

The Oppo 980 & 983 have DD EX decoding, which can extract a mono surround-back channel from 5.1-channel tracks. Not quite 7.1 processing, since both rear speakers are playing back the exact same content.

Sanjay

The Oppo 980 & 983 have DD EX decoding, which can extract a mono surround-back channel from 5.1-channel tracks.So, the soundtrack doesn't have to be specifically DD EX encoded???

So, the soundtrack doesn't have to be specifically DD EX encoded???Any decoder will usually work best with encoded material, but EX can be applied to any 5.1 material and still yield good results. The circuit simply looks for correlated (in-phase) mono information in the L/R surround channels and sends that content to the speakers behind the listener, which is where those sounds would have phantom imaged anyway.

Sanjay

Any decoder will usually work best with encoded material, but EX can be applied to any 5.1 material and still yield good results. The circuit simply looks for correlated (in-phase) mono information in the L/R surround channels and sends that content to the speakers behind the listener, which is where those sounds would have phantom imaged anyway. So, if you set that player up for "7.1" it just automatically applies DD EX to any DD5.1 material? What about SACD and DVD-A?

The Oppo 980 & 983 have DD EX decoding, which can extract a mono surround-back channel from 5.1-channel tracks. Not quite 7.1 processing, since both rear speakers are playing back the exact same content.

SanjaySanjay, where do you see that? I just went through the manual and neither DD EX nor any reference to rear channel synthesis is apparent.

Sanjay, where do you see that? I just went through the manual and neither DD EX nor any reference to rear channel synthesis is apparent.http://www.oppodigital.com/dv980h/default.asp

Yeah, it isn't mentioned in the manual at all. I'm under the impression that DD EX is applied when there is a DD EX "flag" in the media.

So, if you set that player up for "7.1" it just automatically applies DD EX to any DD5.1 material? What about SACD and DVD-A?Page 42 of the 980's manual mentions that the "7.1CH" setting enables 7.1 channel "decoded" output, which makes sense since none of the delivery media that the 980 plays (DVD, DVD-A, SACD) can carry 7.1 channels of audio. Since the feature is listed as DD EX, I don't know if it can be applied to other codecs (DTS) or other formats (DVD-A, SACD). Sanjay, where do you see that? I just went through the manual and neither DD EX nor any reference to rear channel synthesis is apparent.The overview pages of the 980 and 983 list "7.1 Channel audio with Dolby Digital Surround EX decoding" as a feature. I own an Oppo 970, not their 980 or 983, so for those latter two models I going by what is written on the website and in user manuals.

Sanjay

This is the document in which the Recording Academy's Producers & Engineers Wing recommends 110°-150° for 5.1 "music" surrounds, with 135°-150° being optimum (Dolby's "rear-surround" range).

http://www.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording_Academy/Producers_And_Engineers/5_1_Rec.pdf

This is the document in which the Recording Academy's Producers & Engineers Wing recommends 110°-150° for 5.1 "music" surrounds, with 135°-150° being optimum (Dolby's "rear-surround" range).

http://www.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording_Academy/Producers_And_Engineers/5_1_Rec.pdf

I could be reading this wrong, but this appears far more rear-ward, and sheds some light on Mi Casa's opinion....

I could be reading this wrong, but this appears far more rear-ward, and sheds some light on Mi Casa's opinion....
Yes. As I noted, the P&E recommendation for music for the single pair of surrounds present in 5.1 is actually as far back as Dolby recommends for rear surrounds.

I could be reading this wrong, but this appears far more rear-ward, and sheds some light on Mi Casa's opinion....Remember that this is a 5 channel MUSIC recommendation. Not exactly what Mi Casa was discussing.

And, again, it's not really their "opinion" as much as it is an observation; and not really such a profound observation. Many of us would probably find that 5.1 media recreated in a 7.1 channel setup that has the side surrounds at 90° is not satisfying.

This is the document in which the Recording Academy's Producers & Engineers Wing recommends 110°-150° for 5.1 "music" surrounds, with 135°-150° being optimum (Dolby's "rear-surround" range).

http://www.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording_Academy/Producers_And_Engineers/5_1_Rec.pdf

I like to have my "corner" speakers of a 5.1 system to be set up in a square with ideal seating position in the center of the square, which results in the (rear) surrounds to be at 135 deg.

Edit: And yeah, that also results in the fronts being 45 deg to either side, not the 30 deg typically recommended to form that mystical equilateral triangle. IMHO the 30 deg each side thing works with stereo sources, but with 4.x or 5.x mixes, the stereo imaging stuff gets thrown out the window a bit anyway. Maybe a 7.1 system should be set up as a sextet of those equilateral triangles: fronts +/- 30 deg, sides +/-90 deg, rears +/- 150 deg, plus the center, equidistant from listener.

I'm pretty sure this is how the speakers are recommended in a couple of (early?) DVD-As and SACDs, specifically the Flaming Lips Yoshimi disk comes to mind, and maybe Floyd's DSOTM SACD.

I like it that way since it places the speakers equally around me, and I always thought it the best placement for music that did a lot of wandering around the rear soundfield, of which the Lips DVD-A has a lot, of course.

I always thought of the 110 deg placement as a compromise recommended for folks who did not have a lot of room behind the couch (typically against the wall), and that compromise has now become the defacto configuration.

Just my two cents worth, IMHO in other words,

shinksma