Headline: Theta [Text View] - Page 3

DougWinsor

09-18-08, 10:31 PM

Quoted in full to illustrate the issue as well as some reasonable responses. Facts are facts and opinion is opinion. Both are generally welcome here. The problem comes when a factual question is asked and, instead of saying "dunno" or, even, "irrelevant," people become elaborately defensive. If something is, in fact, proprietary, it is likely that it is patented (and, therefore, public) or no one is told how it works so that the developer's advantage can be maintained. The latter, of course, leaves open the logical possibility that there is no "there" "there." That's why questions must get asked. Simply saying that something is proprietary says nothing unless one gets real information or one has faith in the holder of the secrets. Either position is OK with me.

So there still is no proof of what is and is not "proprietary" for theta, I thought as much. All I see are more assumptions.

Refute what? No one has been able to tell me what makes that mode 'proprietary' to begin with.

I would not expect the theta owners to know.

I certainly don't want to feed the animals by responding to that statement, so he'll remain nameless. Although, the benefits of having this option should be noted.

I find the use of Center Channel Spread to be of indispensable use.
It helps create a much larger sound stage, a description that many use lightly, for everything from a new power cord to...you name it.
But in this instance, that is exactly what it does and in a not very subtle fashion if you don't want it to be.
And, it in no way, shape or form, turns the 3 channels in question MONO!
That, is simply not the case.
Anyone that thinks that, has just never heard it used, no question in my mind!

With certain program material, allot... NO, too much of it in fact, they may as well have just recorded it in mono using only the center channel.
Without the use of the center spread feature, that's precisely the way it would sound.
Thankfully, it does not have to. It's a truely wonderful feature.
One of my favorites!

So you do not like the idea of seperate channels for surround sound? Or do you like it simply because theta offers it oh and what makes this different then PLIIx and the center spread?

As I said, the proof of the proprietary nature of Theta's derivation of rear channels and center spread is in the hearing. If you don't listen to the CB III there is nothing that can be done to prove it to you. You can either disbelieve it or take it on the faith of 1) Theta's claim or 2) the reports of others who have heard it. It is up to you to decide what to believe.

Really? One would only state this if they had no idea on how to defend or back up what they are saying.

Sanjay was asking about proprietary steering. So just sounds different doesn't answer that question. For example running a center channel 2dB louder or quieter then another processor would sound different and have nothing to do with proprietary steering. Mixing some of the center channel into L/R would sound different but wouldn't be steering. Copying the same signal to multiple outputs would sound different but again wouldn't be steering.

I agree.

John, as usual, you are misleading us, aren't you. The NAD T175HD doesnot do HDMI 1.3 audio decoding or LPCM processing from Blu Ray or HD DVD, does it? If it does, please give the web link with the specs. Thanks.

The NAD T175 does do LPCM over HDMI and there are many threads out side of this section of the forum.

Steve Bruzonsky

09-18-08, 10:32 PM

Says Steve with 492 posts with the word "Theta" in it!

I have a lot more Theta posts than that I bet. And a lot more posts without Theta. And I do not sell Theta. Nor do you. You just sell NAD in nearly every post you make. HA!!!!!

Steve Bruzonsky

09-18-08, 10:35 PM

No, John is right about the new HD versions of the T175 and the M15, as mentioned in Kal's Stereophile CEDIA report: http://www.stereophile.com/news/090508cedia1/

WOOPS!!! NAD deserves credit for that one. Not John. But yea, he's right this time!!!@@@ Sounds like a really nice product in its price range.

Alimentall

09-18-08, 11:31 PM

Did he plagiarize that, too?

Yes, King George III said it first :)

Philip Brandes

09-19-08, 02:59 AM

Yea, what the heck do I know???

Back in the CB1 days, Theta was the only company for some years with Circle Surround. Sounds "proprietary" to me.

It is indeed proprietary--to SRS Labs, who are the 3rd party developers and licensors of Circle Surround. All Theta did was pay the license fee and add this off-the-shelf processing to their products.

Theta cannot have made any proprietary enhancements or changes to Dolby, THX, DTS, or Circle Surround processing as this would violate their license.

Theta has never to my knowledge had an in-house psychoacoustic specialist with any credentials in the field of developing surround algorithms, unlike companies with a legitimate claim to "proprietary" technology (for example, Meridian's Bob Stuart or Lexicon's David Griesinger, or, back in the day, Citation's Jim Fosgate who went on to develop PL II).

To put Theta's Y-splitting channel content in the same league with actual pioneers in surround processing is simply revealing an embarrassing ignorance of this topic.

Cheers,
Philip Brandes

tyree91

09-19-08, 04:00 AM

Steve Bruzonsky

09-19-08, 09:14 AM

It is indeed proprietary--to SRS Labs, who are the 3rd party developers and licensors of Circle Surround. All Theta did was pay the license fee and add this off-the-shelf processing to their products.

Cheers,
Philip Brandes

My recollection is that for a few years Theta was the only surround processor company with Circle Surround at least here in the U.S.
So at the time it was quite an innovation. Especially as I was able to take two channel PCM or Dolby Digital and expand it with Circle Surround as well.
I recall that I think Sherwood within 2-3 years then had Circle Surround in their receiver line.

Steve Bruzonsky

09-19-08, 09:16 AM

It is the overall SQ, and it is top designers including Jim White and Dave Reich, along with Theta's proprietary DAC Cards, (and those are proprietary,) that have kept Theta at or near the fore for over 10 years in this regard. In addition Charlie Hanson of Ayre and Richard Vandersteen have had consulting roles in Theta Designs. Hopefully the new HDMI upgrade will continue Theta's legacy. Regards, Norm

Overall sound quality? Imagine that being important to a non-Theta owner in a Theta thread!

sfogg

09-19-08, 09:24 AM

Steve Bruzonsky

09-19-08, 09:42 AM

"My recollection is that for a few years Theta was the only surround processor company with Circle Surround at least here in the U.S."

Long before Theta had it there were processors with Circle Surround in them. Rocktron (who developed Circle Surround before it went to SRS) had them for example and that was long before the CB existed.

"Especially as I was able to take two channel PCM or Dolby Digital and expand it with Circle Surround as well."

Being able to take a DD2.0 source and expand that surround processing isn't original to Theta. A DC-1 released in '95 could take DD2.0 and expand that out to a full 7 channel with four independent surround channels for example. It could do the same with DD 5.1 sources too.

Shawn

A DC-1 didn't use Circle Surround, it used Lex's own proprietary technology.
And of course the Citation 7.0 surround processor used Jim Fosgate's 6-Axis to do this nicely but that was analog only processing.

I had thought that Rocktron developed Circle Surround and encoders for the pro market as some Circle Surround CDs were issued - but I didn't realize they had actually made some surround processors or receivers.

http://www.rocktron.com/frameset1.html

sfogg

09-19-08, 10:02 AM

"A DC-1 didn't use Circle Surround, it used Lex's own proprietary technology."

Of course. It could also do DD2.0 decoding them post-processing this using DPL or THX modes too.

"And of course the Citation 7.0 surround processor used Jim Fosgate's 6-Axis to do this nicely but that was analog only processing."

No, the Citation couldn't do this at all because it couldn't start by decoding a DD2.0 source. Like you said it was analog only. And they were really only 5 channel processors, not 7. The second pair of surround outputs was a duplicate of the side which would be phase inverted or not depending upon if it was in a music or movie mode to switch their dual-drive surrounds from bi-polar to di-polar. My Fosgate Model 3A had the same feature in it but didn't have 6 Axis, it had the predecessor which Fosgate called the 70mm (or 70mm Wide) mode.

"but I didn't realize they had actually made some surround processors or receivers."

Yup. When I first went seperates for surround sound I had considered one of them but ended up going with the Fosgate Model 5 instead. I think Gemini also made a few Circle Surround processors and of course the Smart EX was really just a Circle Surround decoded as well.

Shawn

tyree91

09-19-08, 01:04 PM

Philip Brandes

09-19-08, 02:37 PM

Philip, Jim White was one of the principal designers at Theta during this period. Jim is the founder, chief designer, and current owner of Aesthetix which manufactures high end tube preamps and phono stages as well as a hybrid power amplifier. His designs have gained world wide acclaim from listeners and the audio press alike as well as an international market. While he may not qualify to you as a psychoacoustic specialist, he is clearly a brilliant young engineer, and his hand, among others at Theta is certainly reflected in the excellent sound of Theta's products. Whether certain steering modes are proprietary to Theta is not the important issue here. It is the overall SQ, and it is top designers including Jim White and Dave Reich, along with Theta's proprietary DAC Cards, (and those are proprietary,) that have kept Theta at or near the fore for over 10 years in this regard. In addition Charlie Hanson of Ayre and Richard Vandersteen have had consulting roles in Theta Designs. Hopefully the new HDMI upgrade will continue Theta's legacy. Regards, Norm

Your laundry list is irrelevant to the post you were allegedly responding to. Engineering DACs and preamps has nothing whatsoever to do with developing proprietary surround processing. None of these people has any credentials in psychoacoustic theory. That is why Theta's surround expertise consists of plugging in off-the-shelf decoding chips (and even then it took them 6 years to catch up to the rest of the industry before they finally delivered PL II).

I am making no assertions whatsoever about "overall sound quality" or any other audiophile red herrings that have nothing to do with the discussion about proprietary processing. I have often said the Theta is a fine-sounding processor, and in fact I have never said otherwise. But to tout Theta's "proprietary" processing as being in the same league with the genuine accomplishments of Meridian, Lexicon, or Fosgate is just plain nonsense.

Cheers,
Philip Brandes

Steve Bruzonsky

09-19-08, 03:01 PM

But to tout Theta's "proprietary" processing as being in the same league with the genuine accomplishments of Meridian, Lexicon, or Fosgate is just plain nonsense.

Cheers,
Philip Brandes

What I care about is that the mode is in the processor, it works, and it sounds great!!!@@@

Arguing about what's "proprietary" is secondary and semantic.

Although Theta's center spread works with every sonic mode in the CB3.
Out of curiosity, does any other surround processor use anything like center spread for every sonic mode available in that processor?

Personally, in my system I don't need to use center spread for movies and tv.
But for two channel or two channel expanded via surround mode, I will use center spread provided I sit in the middle.

tyree91

09-19-08, 03:25 PM

Your laundry list is irrelevant to the post you were allegedly responding to. Engineering DACs and preamps has nothing whatsoever to do with developing proprietary surround processing. None of these people has any credentials in psychoacoustic theory. That is why Theta's surround expertise consists of plugging in off-the-shelf decoding chips (and even then it took them 6 years to catch up to the rest of the industry before they finally delivered PL II).

I am making no assertions whatsoever about "overall sound quality" or any other audiophile red herrings that have nothing to do with the discussion about proprietary processing. I have often said the Theta is a fine-sounding processor, and in fact I have never said otherwise. But to tout Theta's "proprietary" processing as being in the same league with the genuine accomplishments of Meridian, Lexicon, or Fosgate is just plain nonsense.

Cheers,
Philip Brandes
I guess you skipped this part: "Whether certain steering modes are proprietary to Theta is not the important issue here. It is the overall SQ."

sfogg

09-19-08, 03:31 PM

sfogg

09-19-08, 03:39 PM

Steve,

"Out of curiosity, does any other surround processor use anything like center spread for every sonic mode available in that processor?"

I don't think so. Seems kind of odd for something like DD5/1 to want to take a discrete center channel and mix that into L/R though. Great vocals vs. vocals with comb filtering. Things that should be front and center for off center listeners are now not so front and center....etc...etc.

That is assuming a center channel of the same caliber as the L/Rs. In a compromised system perhaps this might be more useful.

"But for two channel or two channel expanded via surround mode, I will use center spread provided I sit in the middle."

For two channel expanded via a surround mode there are modes that offer adjustments for how much the center channel is steered out and also for how it is extracted. For example DPLII Music offers the Center Width parameter. If you are just in turn using the Theta's center spread to unmix the derived center channel with DPLII Music you might want to try just turning down the center width parameter to reduce how much of a center channel DPLII Music steers out in the first place.

Shawn

thebland

09-19-08, 03:39 PM

I guess you skipped this part: "Whether certain steering modes are proprietary to Theta is not the important issue here. It is the overall SQ."

Yes, but that skirts the Theta owners claims of proprietary this and that... Proprietary modes are the discussion... SQ is for another day and thread.

tyree91

09-19-08, 03:46 PM

"It wasn't until the Casablanca I that I could consider getting my decoders out of my two channel preamps' tape loop, and actually use the processor as a preamp."

And for me after hearing what the Lexicon could do with music I had no desire to go back to two channel listening again. It dramatically changed the way I enjoy music.

Shawn
Shawn, I still listen to most music in two channel, but for live recordings, and concert video the surround modes are very nice. A James Taylor DVD comes to mind; Live At the Beacon Theater. You have a choice of Dolby Digital or Stereo PCM. I find the PCM version much more musical, and with the available surround modes, Dolby PLx or Circle Surround, DTS Neo, others, the concert venue can still be reproduced nicely. Whether propretary or not I'm sure Theta, Lexicon, Halcro, et al add to this disc and other live recordings with their surround modes. Regards, Norm

tyree91

09-19-08, 03:52 PM

Yes, but that skirts the Theta owners claims of proprietary this and that... Proprietary modes are the discussion...
Jeff, as the OP I was just trying to use Personally Proprietary Steering to try to get the discussion back where it belongs , Theta's new HDMI upgrade and SQ of HT Pre/Pros which is what the $20K forums should be about when it comes to the Audio side of HT. Regards, Norm

bigbrother52

09-19-08, 04:47 PM

That is assuming a center channel of the same caliber as the L/Rs. In a compromised system perhaps this might be more useful.

"But for two channel or two channel expanded via surround mode, I will use center spread provided I sit in the middle."

For two channel expanded via a surround mode there are modes that offer adjustments for how much the center channel is steered out and also for how it is extracted. For example DPLII Music offers the Center Width parameter. If you are just in turn using the Theta's center spread to unmix the derived center channel with DPLII Music you might want to try just turning down the center width parameter to reduce how much of a center channel DPLII Music steers out in the first place.

Shawn

That is all very true but I would venture to say that most people do not have a center channel speaker of quite the same caliber as their main fronts.
Even if they do, as noted, PLII center width is just for music. I suppose in this case, the use of either Dolbys adjustment or Theta's for center width might just be a matter of taste and the Dolby may very well be better for music.
Regardless, the Theta feature is there for movies and although you might find the center to not be so very up front and center anymore, with your room and your speakers, I think with the vast majority of different rooms and different speakers, this feature is of great use. Not that I have been in a vast majority of rooms.

Also remember Shawn that this can be adjusted from a very slight movement to the sides, to as far out as one wishes. So it's still possible to keep the center, front and center while still moving a portion of it out to the sides.
And it's use for the very poorly recorded movie where everything does seem to come from the front center when you know that it all should not, there it's of great use. I'm sure personal preferance plays hard into this.
That is my experience with it, using speakers of different qualities over some time.

sfogg

09-19-08, 05:27 PM

"That is all very true but I would venture to say that most people do not have a center channel speaker of quite the same caliber as their main fronts."

Most people don't spend $10K+ on a surround processor either.

"Even if they do, as noted, PLII center width is just for music. I suppose in this case, the use of either Dolbys adjustment or Theta's for center width might just be a matter of taste and the Dolby may very well be better for music."

The point I was making was it seems very odd to start out with no center channel of information (2 channel music) use something like DPLII to steer out a center then turn around a mix that steered center back into L/R where it started out. If one doesn't want a center speaker (or less of a center) on music just turn down center width in the first place.

"And it's use for the very poorly recorded movie where everything does seem to come from the front center when you know that it all should not, there it's of great use."

Mixing a mono channel into L/R is still going to image from front and center for a central listener with the addition of comb filtering. For off axis listeners it will image as sort front and a little fuzzy between center and whichever side they are listening from.

"I'm sure personal preferance plays hard into this."

Probably. For those that are just so accustomed to the sound of stereos comb filtering I can see how they might like this since this would add that in. For those that don't like that sound (doesn't occur naturally on vocals) they wouldn't.

Shawn

bigbrother52

09-19-08, 06:08 PM

"Most people don't spend $10K+ on a surround processor either."

And therein lies a major cause of all the other craziness around here. ;)

Steve Bruzonsky

09-19-08, 08:51 PM

Yes, but that skirts the Theta owners claims of proprietary this and that... Proprietary modes are the discussion... SQ is for another day and thread.

What do you care about sound quality? Anyone who says they are into movies and not music in their system really doesn't????

thebland

09-19-08, 09:20 PM

What do you care about sound quality? Anyone who says they are into movies and not music in their system really doesn't????

I care about music, but I am in a firm believe that one system cannot be a reference audio system AND a reference theater. Nothing more..:)

DougWinsor

09-19-08, 09:49 PM

It is indeed proprietary--to SRS Labs, who are the 3rd party developers and licensors of Circle Surround. All Theta did was pay the license fee and add this off-the-shelf processing to their products.

Theta cannot have made any proprietary enhancements or changes to Dolby, THX, DTS, or Circle Surround processing as this would violate their license.

Theta has never to my knowledge had an in-house psychoacoustic specialist with any credentials in the field of developing surround algorithms, unlike companies with a legitimate claim to "proprietary" technology (for example, Meridian's Bob Stuart or Lexicon's David Griesinger, or, back in the day, Citation's Jim Fosgate who went on to develop PL II).

To put Theta's Y-splitting channel content in the same league with actual pioneers in surround processing is simply revealing an embarrassing ignorance of this topic.

Cheers,
Philip Brandes

Good job in shooting down the theta assumptions.

Philip, Jim White was one of the principal designers at Theta during this period. Jim is the founder, chief designer, and current owner of Aesthetix which manufactures high end tube preamps and phono stages as well as a hybrid power amplifier. His designs have gained world wide acclaim from listeners and the audio press alike as well as an international market. While he may not qualify to you as a psychoacoustic specialist, he is clearly a brilliant young engineer, and his hand, among others at Theta is certainly reflected in the excellent sound of Theta's products. Whether certain steering modes are proprietary to Theta is not the important issue here. It is the overall SQ, and it is top designers including Jim White and Dave Reich, along with Theta's proprietary DAC Cards, (and those are proprietary,) that have kept Theta at or near the fore for over 10 years in this regard. In addition Charlie Hanson of Ayre and Richard Vandersteen have had consulting roles in Theta Designs. Hopefully the new HDMI upgrade will continue Theta's legacy. Regards, Norm

Way to dodge the question.

My recollection is that for a few years Theta was the only surround processor company with Circle Surround at least here in the U.S.
So at the time it was quite an innovation. Especially as I was able to take two channel PCM or Dolby Digital and expand it with Circle Surround as well.
I recall that I think Sherwood within 2-3 years then had Circle Surround in their receiver line.

Wait for it again steve.

Long before Theta had it there were processors with Circle Surround in them. Rocktron (who developed Circle Surround before it went to SRS) had them for example and that was long before the CB existed.

Being able to take a DD2.0 source and expand that surround processing isn't original to Theta. A DC-1 released in '95 could take DD2.0 and expand that out to a full 7 channel with four independent surround channels for example. It could do the same with DD 5.1 sources too.

Again nice job in shooting down more of steves assumptions.

I don't think so. Seems kind of odd for something like DD5/1 to want to take a discrete center channel and mix that into L/R though. Great vocals vs. vocals with comb filtering. Things that should be front and center for off center listeners are now not so front and center....etc...etc.

I agree but as we have seen the theta owners do not like or want discrete channels.

That is all very true but I would venture to say that most people do not have a center channel speaker of quite the same caliber as their main fronts.

More assumptions from the theta gallery. I would agree that a lot of center speakers can not compete but that is only in the sub 50-60 hz region. Now that the theta assumptions have been shot down the owners all of a sudden try and switch to the argument of sound quality, something that is completely subjective.

bigbrother52

09-19-08, 10:10 PM

I think the larger isssue to be made is that tyree91, remember him, the guy that started the thread to begin with! He had a few things to say.

Let's recap for a moment shall we. tyree said...

I guess you skipped this part: "Whether certain steering modes are proprietary to Theta is not the important issue here. It is the overall SQ."

to which thebland remarks...

Yes, but that skirts the Theta owners claims of proprietary this and that... Proprietary modes are the discussion... SQ is for another day and thread.

Really!! See I thought the guy starting the thread was talking about...well let's see what he said in reply to the last quote...

Jeff, as the OP I was just trying to use Personally Proprietary Steering to try to get the discussion back where it belongs , Theta's new HDMI upgrade and SQ of HT Pre/Pros which is what the $20K forums should be about when it comes to the Audio side of HT. Regards, Norm

Then of course, we have Doug who loves to jump on the bandwagon, who says...

Now that the theta assumptions have been shot down the owners all of a sudden try and switch to the argument of sound quality, something that is completely subjective.

So...unless we've been hijacked, the discussion IS about SQ and not for another day or another thread.
And the subject has not been switched all of a sudden....DOUG.
Try to follow along.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled nonsense.

Steve Bruzonsky

09-19-08, 10:19 PM

I care about music, but I am in a firm believe that one system cannot be a reference audio system AND a reference theater. Nothing more..:)

You are wrong. One system can be darn excellent at both. My system/room on audio is better than most two channel systems that folks demoing my system have heard. If your system sucks on music then it ain't near as good as you think on video!

audioguy

09-19-08, 10:34 PM

If your system sucks on music then it ain't near as good as you think on video!

That's probably true !!

thebland

09-20-08, 07:48 AM

You are wrong. One system can be darn excellent at both. My system/room on audio is better than most two channel systems that folks demoing my system have heard. If your system sucks on music then it ain't near as good as you think on video!

Excellent in both, I agree in system can be an excellent performer for movies and serious audio... But I said reference sounding. So, no way for both an ideal audio environment and an ideal video environment all in one system/room. Impossible.:)

faberryman

09-20-08, 08:55 AM

...no way for both an ideal audio environment and an ideal video environment all in one system/room. Impossible.:)
I suppose the minute you put a screen in a room, the laws of acoustics change?

Bulldogger

09-20-08, 09:44 AM

[QUOTE=Steve Bruzonsky;14678328]

I have a 5.1 (3 subs chained) system, so I really haven't paid attention to side channels, though I understand they are derived and nothing real proprietary here I would think. Same I would think goes for rear center channel. I don't know that sides or center rear use anything particularly proprietary. SDurani may be right about this.
[QUOTE]

Steve, I was referring to the above quote. The first generation CB had proprietary processing that derived a center and surround channels from two channel material. A couple of reviews actually seemed to thank Circle Surround was not needed. Here's a quote," As mentioned above, a Circle Surround option is available for extracting ambience from 2channel recordings, but I heard little difference between this and Theta's own Matrix mode. Perhaps with more channels in play, the results would be different, but if you're going for the classic 5.1 setup, save your money. Theta's Matrix is good enough." THIS IS NOT SRS LABS PROCESSING BUT A PROPRIETARY MODE. It is similiar to hafler sum/difference circuits. "The Theta-developed analog matrix and digital matrix modes that originally came with the review unit were also just ho-hum. Essentially, they are Hafler sum/difference circuits." This an early review http://www.vxm.com/21R.129.html You can do some further checking. Theta has always used it's own proprietary modes. This is NOT in question. Yeah there may be a lot of ignorance of it's use but it's always existed. Here's another mention of Theta's "Matrix," in a Secrets of Hometheater and Hifidelity! "For CDs, you have to select the type of processing you want. For example, just plain vanilla stereo, or Pro Logic, or Theta's version of Matrix." There are several references to Theta's proprietary matrix modes in the older reviews. Personally I use DD Prologic II but I am not to either tell anyone that the proprietary mode does not exist and to instruct them as to which they should prefer. Case closed for me.

Bulldogger

09-20-08, 09:53 AM

Excellent in both, I agree in system can be an excellent performer for movies and serious audio... But I said reference sounding. So, no way for both an ideal audio environment and an ideal video environment all in one system/room. Impossible.:)

Still that's no excuse to just give up and chose inferior equipment. The student has surpassed the teacher here. You need to follow Art's led. Art's audio and video set-up look excellent. I have never heard his speakers but expect that Seaton knows what he's doing. You should stop wasting your money jumping from surround processor to surround processor and get Mark Seaton back over so that you can have some better components. I'd suggest the Dolby Lakes model Art uses and at least the same speakers. Here's a quote from the Stewart Filmscreens WP on AT screens,"Now we turn our attention to the audio portion of the cinema experience. One
of my favorite comments about the relationship between audio and visual
is that you can never fully appreciate a superb picture without experiencing
great audio. In exhaustive tests over the years, cinema audience members have
been shown great images with mediocre audio and vice versa with mediocre
visuals and outstanding audio. In exit interviews after the tests, respondents
gave higher marks to the sessions with outstanding audio and actually criticized
the picture in the samples with mediocre audio." Take note.

thebland

09-20-08, 10:23 AM

You're wrong again (but still heavily biased). Movie sound in Art's and my own room are certainly reference in movie sound. But if I was an audio guy, I would leave the microperf and baffle wall out of my music room plans... Don't you think?... Or perhaps show me where a designer of of reference audio listening spaces where the designer recommends putting speakers behind a microperf for the ultimate in reproduction of a Sheffield Labs or Delos recording:D....:rolleyes:.

thebland

09-20-08, 10:25 AM

I suppose the minute you put a screen in a room, the laws of acoustics change?

I'm sure Jonathan Scull recommneds Microperfs for his friends with sophisticated music systems... Well, Stewart says its OK...:o

Bulldogger

09-20-08, 11:22 AM

Philip Brandes

09-20-08, 11:29 AM

I guess you skipped this part: "Whether certain steering modes are proprietary to Theta is not the important issue here. It is the overall SQ."

I guess you skipped all the rest of the discussion in which absurd claims were made about Theta's "proprietary" processing. The "skipped part" you reference here contains no useful information, it is simply an assertion of preference dressed up as "absolute truth" as an end run around factual discussion, a cheap rhetorical ploy you are clearly content to parrot. Nevertheless, regardless of what you may personally prefer about surround modes, the fact remains that it is ridiculous to assert that Theta has contributed anything comparable to companies that have actually invested in the personnel and expertise to develop true proprietary surround processing.

Any more red herrings you'd care to toss in?

Cheers,
Philip Brandes

Steve Bruzonsky

09-20-08, 11:32 AM

You guys are missing the point. Any hometheater room where music is flat and uninvolving has just move theater type sound and not top quality audio and video sound.
When someone like The Bland tells you that music doesn't sound good in his theater but movies do, thats a cop out!!!@@@

Alimentall

09-20-08, 11:33 AM

You can do both at reference levels, but then it won't look like a 'home theater' that everyone wants. I don't view any of the systems I've seen as being possible of true reference quality sound, but they sure are pretty. The whole 'inwall/onwall' speakers thing just doesn't do it for me.

thebland

09-20-08, 11:48 AM

From the distance I'm at Art room looks superior for audio than yours, not the same level. Your room is more like a Dance hall or Discotech. Need to get yourself one of those mirror balls.

You made my point. Like the Theta proprietary speak that you obviously have no clue about, you make judgements on sound (or rooms) without ever having visited either... This coming from a guy who makes cut outs and pastes them to his ceiling for better sound??!!!

Why not ask someone who has heard both rooms...like Art? Or is guessnig still your best way of audio and video judgement???:D

sfogg

09-20-08, 11:52 AM

It isn't that the differentiator is music or movies for a room it is if the room is for 2 channel playback or surround playback. You need different attributes in a room depending upon the above. For 2 channel you need the room to add some ambiance to the playback or music will sound lifeless. With surround the surrounds reproduce that ambiance directly so the room does not need to supply it.

Shawn

thebland

09-20-08, 12:09 PM

Agreed.. For me, I am speaking of 2 channel... and if multi-channel, I'd find placing 3 speakers in a line behind a microperf / baffle wall not 'ideal' for a reference music room. But, obviously, Bulldogger and others do...

Mikenificent1

09-20-08, 12:15 PM

Digtital out from the Casablanca to either (a)external DACS or (b) to external digital room correction then to external DACs. I did not want to use analog out from the CB, then use a room correction device to convert to digital (all room correction systems do their thing in digital except traditional EQ devices) and then back to analog. Plus, by using external DAC's I was not bound by timing, availability, pricing or quality of Theta DACS.

I would suspect that the new HDMI CB will not allow utilizing external DACs AND take advantage of the new high end audio coding.

What are you using for volume control for all 7 channels?

Alimentall

09-20-08, 12:22 PM

I recommend for anyone who hasn't tried this - take 5-7 identical monitors, even cheap ones, (and some matched subs) and set up each one with the face of all the speakers 2.5' or more from any wall in the prescribed pattern appropriate for the number of speakers. Then play movies and multi-channel music on it. There are things that happen with this setup that just don't happen with even the 'best' multi hundred $thousand home theaters.

DougWinsor

09-20-08, 12:23 PM

So...unless we've been hijacked, the discussion IS about SQ and not for another day or another thread.
And the subject has not been switched all of a sudden....DOUG.
Try to follow along.

The theta owners brought up the point and started to bash lexicon products so you can blame them/yourself for that. But once it was discussed that theta has nothing proprietary the theta owners tried to back track and change the subject to sound quality.

You are wrong. One system can be darn excellent at both. My system/room on audio is better than most two channel systems that folks demoing my system have heard. If your system sucks on music then it ain't near as good as you think on video!

Yes, lets all trust what steve says since he was correct about theta's proprietary software. Wink wink nudge nudge say no more. Honestly steve you should be in a monty python skit.

You're wrong again (but still heavily biased). Movie sound in Art's and my own room are certainly reference in movie sound. But if I was an audio guy, I would leave the microperf and baffle wall out of my music room plans... Don't you think?... Or perhaps show me where a designer of of reference audio listening spaces where the designer recommends putting speakers behind a microperf for the ultimate in reproduction of a Sheffield Labs or Delos recording.....

I can see it now, 2CH only systems with microperf screens or maybe they already do this at the audio asylum.

I guess you skipped all the rest of the discussion in which absurd claims were made about Theta's "proprietary" processing. The "skipped part" you reference here contains no useful information, it is simply an assertion of preference dressed up as "absolute truth" as an end run around factual discussion, a cheap rhetorical ploy you are clearly content to parrot. Nevertheless, regardless of what you may personally prefer about surround modes, the fact remains that it is ridiculous to assert that Theta has contributed anything comparable to companies that have actually invested in the personnel and expertise to develop true proprietary surround processing.

Any more red herrings you'd care to toss in?

Cheers,
Philip Brandes

I really think the theme song for theta should be ACDC - Shot down in flames.

You made my point. Like the Theta proprietary speak that you obviously have no clue about, you make judgements on sound (or rooms) without ever having visited either... This coming from a guy who makes cut outs and pastes them to his ceiling for better sound??!!!

Why not ask someone who has heard both rooms...like Art? Or is guessnig still your best way of audio and video judgement???

I also found it funny how he was judging your room on looks.

Steve Bruzonsky

09-20-08, 12:49 PM

Steve Bruzonsky

09-20-08, 12:50 PM

Mikenificent1

09-20-08, 01:05 PM

You made my point. Like the Theta proprietary speak that you obviously have no clue about, you make judgements on sound (or rooms) without ever having visited either... This coming from a guy who makes cut outs and pastes them to his ceiling for better sound??!!!

Why not ask someone who has heard both rooms...like Art? Or is guessnig still your best way of audio and video judgement???:D

Great point! Anyone who makes the assumption of how a room sounds based on pictures is laughable at best. I will say though that all those leds from your equipment in the back of the room HAS to be killing contrast and black levels.

thebland

09-20-08, 01:23 PM

Great point! Anyone who makes the assumption of how a room sounds based on pictures is laughable at best. I will say though that all those leds from your equipment in the back of the room HAS to be killing contrast and black levels.

Electrical tape!! I did check that and noticed reds were OK but Blue and Green LEDs are really powerful. My sub DSP and Gefen HDMI switch have very bright Blue LEDs and it can light up my screen when all lights are down. So, I have electrical tape over them.

thebland

09-20-08, 01:35 PM

Jeff, how do you like the sound of The Eagles HD DVD or Blu Ray in DTS-HD multi-channel in your home theater. Does it sound like in a movie theater? Or does it sound a lot better than a movie theater?

I gotta tell you, live concerts like Queen or Celine Dion are very excellent sounding. Full dynamics and bass. No, complaints. With peaks well over 120 db, the theater can give you the 'you are there' feeling..

But that is a multi channel, multi-track soundtrack designed for being played loud.

But, to critically listen to the transients of a Harp, or piano, the room gives ita less than 'airy' sound. The best recordings are carefully mic'd and recorded. I'm sorry but an acoustically treated theater with a perforated screen over the speakers won't cut it for an audio reference. Likely the screen over all the speakers and the lack of space around the speakers doesn't help either but is critically important for a home theater. I have a significant baffle wall to minimize reflections of the screen, too...

Bulldogger seems to think a 14' screen is no issue when reproducing a basson or flute, but he just guesses anyways.. I'd rather judge a reference recording in a dedicated room like Mike Fremer's or Sculls, rather than in an ideal theater environment like mine or Art's. The transparent screen just doesn't do it for me when tring to get the best musical reproduction... (no offense, Art;))

faberryman

09-20-08, 01:58 PM

...regardless of what you may personally prefer about surround modes, the fact remains that it is ridiculous to assert that Theta has contributed anything comparable to companies that have actually invested in the personnel and expertise to develop true proprietary surround processing
I have re-read the posts and nobody asserted that.

Alimentall

09-20-08, 02:52 PM

Darn!!! You and I agree!!! WOW!!!!

Even a lawyer is right twice a day ;)

faberryman

09-20-08, 03:56 PM

I'm sure Jonathan Scull recommneds Microperfs for his friends with sophisticated music systems... Well, Stewart says its OK...:o
Who said anything about microperf screens?

thebland

09-20-08, 04:16 PM

Who said anything about microperf screens?

Bulldogger... In his ludicrous claim that a reference theater can sound as good as a reference movie room. I disagree.... He quoted Stewart above in bolstering his argument... He feels a Microperf draped over some Wilsons takes nothing away from their precise sonics!!! :D

faberryman

09-20-08, 04:34 PM

So, no way for both an ideal audio environment and an ideal video environment all in one system/room. Impossible.:)
Why not?

thebland

09-20-08, 04:57 PM

Go back and read the thread..

Philip Brandes

09-20-08, 05:09 PM

I have re-read the posts and nobody asserted that.

Actually, that is what has been asserted numerous times in this thread. To quote a few examples from Bulldogger:

"Not true. While Theta has a Circle Surround, it also has proprietary processing which allows it to run 12 channels with two sides, two rears, a rear center, LCR and four subs. You have several options to derive the various post prosessing channels. The ones you mention are indeed part of the list but so too is Theta's proprietary processing. It's not mentioned much but Theta does indeed have a proprietary processing capability."

"I think that just about anyone who has read the owner's manual of the CB, knows that Theta has proprietary processing."

"The Casablanca is a 12 channel processor though not all channels are being used discretely,now. It is possible that they could be used so."

Extracting content for additional channels using proprietary processing is precisely what distinguishes Meridian, Lexicon, and Fosgate from off-the-shelf products. Asserting the same for Theta, given what they actually do (and don't do), is a misleading attempt to establish equivalency in this respect. Theta's "12-channel" capability is no way comparable to what those other truly innovative developers have achieved in this regard.

If you're going to re-read posts to try to make a point, it takes a bit more than simply scanning the words. You also need some understanding of what they mean.

Cheers,
Philip Brandes

faberryman

09-20-08, 05:19 PM

Actually, that is what has been asserted numerous times in this thread. To quote a few examples from Bulldogger:

"Not true. While Theta has a Circle Surround, it also has proprietary processing which allows it to run 12 channels with two sides, two rears, a rear center, LCR and four subs. You have several options to derive the various post prosessing channels. The ones you mention are indeed part of the list but so too is Theta's proprietary processing. It's not mentioned much but Theta does indeed have a proprietary processing capability."

"I think that just about anyone who has read the owner's manual of the CB, knows that Theta has proprietary processing."

"The Casablanca is a 12 channel processor though not all channels are being used discretely,now. It is possible that they could be used so."
Now where exactly in those quotes has anyone asserted "that Theta has contributed anything comparable to companies that have actually invested in the personnel and expertise to develop true proprietary surround processing"? All that has been asserted is that Theta has some proprietary surround modes.

Philip Brandes

09-20-08, 06:45 PM

Now where exactly in those quotes has anyone asserted "that Theta has contributed anything comparable to companies that have actually invested in the personnel and expertise to develop true proprietary surround processing"? All that has been asserted is that Theta has some proprietary surround modes.

No, the claims have been specifically about extracting content up to 12 channels. Once again: Extracting content for additional channels using proprietary processing is precisely what distinguishes Meridian, Lexicon, and Fosgate from off-the-shelf products. Asserting the same for Theta, given what they actually do (and don't do), is a misleading attempt to establish equivalency in this respect. Theta's "12-channel" capability is no way comparable to what those other truly innovative developers have achieved in this regard.

I really can't say it any more clearly than that. If it's not clear then I suggest you take some effort to familiarize yourself with what surround processing entails. Unlike the zealots who try to make a universal truth out of their personal preference for one aspect of a product, I have never claimed that surround processing is the only thing that matters. However, I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that surround processing is one factor that could be taken into account when selecting a surround processor. And in that respect, it's useful to have an apples-to-apples comparison, rather than a misleading one.

Cheers,
Philip Brandes

Steve Bruzonsky

09-20-08, 06:54 PM

Why not?

Because The Bland has never heard a top dog audio and home theater setup, so he believes it is not possible!!!

faberryman

09-20-08, 07:02 PM

Asserting the same for Theta, given what they actually do (and don't do), is a misleading attempt to establish equivalency in this respect.
You are the one who has assumed that a claim that Theta has a proprietary surround sound mode "is a misleading attempt to establish equivalency." Having made that assumption, you proceed to attempt to knock it down, and at the same time attempt to discredit the poster who never made the claim you assume to begin with. It's silly. Try reading the post for a change instead of reading into the post and jumping to conclusions, particularly the conclusion that the poster is dissing your beloved processor and that you must defend its honor by dissing his processor.

faberryman

09-20-08, 07:07 PM

Theta's "12-channel" capability is no way comparable to what those other truly innovative developers have achieved in this regard.
No poster has ever claimed it was.

Steve Bruzonsky

09-20-08, 07:09 PM

I gotta tell you, live concerts like Queen or Celine Dion are very excellent sounding. Full dynamics and bass. No, complaints. With peaks well over 120 db, the theater can give you the 'you are there' feeling..

But that is a multi channel, multi-track soundtrack designed for being played loud.

But, to critically listen to the transients of a Harp, or piano, the room gives ita less than 'airy' sound. The best recordings are carefully mic'd and recorded. I'm sorry but an acoustically treated theater with a perforated screen over the speakers won't cut it for an audio reference. Likely the screen over all the speakers and the lack of space around the speakers doesn't help either but is critically important for a home theater. I have a significant baffle wall to minimize reflections of the screen, too...

Bulldogger seems to think a 14' screen is no issue when reproducing a basson or flute, but he just guesses anyways.. I'd rather judge a reference recording in a dedicated room like Mike Fremer's or Sculls, rather than in an ideal theater environment like mine or Art's. The transparent screen just doesn't do it for me when tring to get the best musical reproduction... (no offense, Art;))

I can play any music from soft to loud and it sounds and feels great period.
Piano sounds natural at whatever loudness level. And this applies whatever source I play, the vibrancy and transparency.

Of course, my theater is designed not to accomodate 50 folks - 6 leather recliners, floorstanding speakers out from the walls, front speakers rear are more than 6 feet out from the front wall, and room is 18' 3" wide X 25' long and 12' high.

Ask some forum lurkers Thezaks (he demoed my theater yesterday) & Vic C (Vic did the screen, projector and ISCOIII and Cineslide physical install along with my dealer Mark Haflich).

Multi-channel music soundtracks, sure they can be played loud,but in a top notch musical system they should sound good played a various volume levels. I listen based on my mood from soft to loud.

The Bland's comment about playing multi-channel music loud reminds me about two years back I was in a real high end home theater and audio store and their front room system had an expensive projector, $90,000 a pair speakers up front and less but still expensive speakers around the room,
and plenty of other of what some would consider audiophile home theater gear. I am not going to mention the brand because to be fair, the issue could be room and setup more than gear. Anyway, he puts on some DVD-A and cranks it up and tells us we are gonna love it. It was - flat,uninvolving, loud.
And that's exactly what you get in systems where they say that its reference movie sound but not so good on music!!! (No, I wasn't in Jeff's home theater. HA!)

faberryman

09-20-08, 07:40 PM

Go back and read the thread..
I have. As best as I can tell, the basis for your assertion that "no way for both an ideal audio environment and an ideal video environment all in one system/room. Impossible." is that an ideal video environment has to be set up like yours and use a perforated screen.

thebland

09-20-08, 07:43 PM

Most audio stores have poorly designed rooms.. It is amazing they sell anything.

Were the speakers behind a microperf?

For me, a theater cannot be a reference theater without a perf screen... Nothing like voices coming from the floor or left and right pans and noises coming off screen.

thebland

09-20-08, 07:49 PM

I have. As best as I can tell, the basis for the assertion that "no way for both an ideal audio environment and an ideal video environment all in one system/room. Impossible." is that an ideal video environment has to be set up like yours and use a perforated screen.

Exactly... though the equipment can vary, a microperf screen is mandatory, a dedicated room, engineered from the ground up as a theater only (not multi-purpose room) with DSP and EQ. Many here at AVS have rooms that fit these criteria.

Before I built my house addition and had the theater room designed and engineered, I studied all possibilities... And it made no sense to NOT use a microperf screen. I sit back ~18 ft from a 14' wide screen. Most of my field of view is filled. It's pretty slick. Can't see a speaker or wire anywhere...

Steve's got a great multipurpose room... but it falls short for a reference theater. But still very nice.

Steve Bruzonsky

09-20-08, 07:50 PM

Most audio stores have poorly designed rooms.. It is amazing they sell anything.

For me, a theater cannot be a reference theater without a perf screen... Nothing like voices coming from the floor or left and right pans and noises coming off screen.

I didn't see on Wikipedia the definition of "reference home theater" that it must have a perforated screen. You better help them edit their definition.:D

For me, a reference audiowise home theater has piano sounding like piano.
If yours doesn't then its a great CEDIA home theater but not reference audiowise. SORRY!

faberryman

09-20-08, 07:56 PM

For me, a theater cannot be a reference theater without a perf screen...
Thank you for saying "For me..." It's refreshing, and now I understand why you don't think you can have a single room/system that's reference level for both audio and video. I'm not sure that I agree with you that a perforated screen is essential to a reference theater, but at least I know where you are coming from. Aesthetically pleasing, but in my opinion, not essential.

Nothing like voices coming from the floor or left and right pans and noises coming off screen.
Do I understand you to be saying that you don't like "left and right pans and noises coming off screen"?

faberryman

09-20-08, 08:01 PM

Can't see a speaker or wire anywhere..."
I like to watch movies in the dark so I don't see speaker wires anyway.

Steve Bruzonsky

09-20-08, 08:06 PM

I like to watch movies in the dark so I don't see speaker wires anyway.

Me. too.

Jeff is entitled to his opinion on what works best for him.

Me, I want a theater that works for me and has top notch audio and video, not one and not the other. That means speakers out into the room, Theta monoblocks, etc., Aerial speakers, etc., :Da dark room, and no need to be so big to fit in 50 neighbors!!! And need for a perf screen for my heart's desire.

Jeff does have a nice theater. But I want my sound to be musical regardless of the source, and what sounds fine to many folks for home theater is flat and uninvolving to me. (I wish my bod was flat and uninvolving. Oh well!)

faberryman

09-20-08, 08:10 PM

Jeff does have a nice theater.
It does look like a fun place to watch movies.

Alimentall

09-20-08, 08:17 PM

I don't think a theater can be 'reference' quality if it *does* have a perforated screen. That's a compromise for both video and audio. Your brain will move the sound to match the on screen action.

Steve Bruzonsky

09-20-08, 09:23 PM

I don't think a theater can be 'reference' quality if it *does* have a perforated screen. That's a compromise for both video and audio. Your brain will move the sound to match the on screen action.

Twice in a day we agree. WOW! But don't think you'll pull a third and get me to switch from Theta to NAD. HAAAA!

Steve Bruzonsky

09-20-08, 09:30 PM

I don't think a theater can be 'reference' quality if it *does* have a perforated screen. That's a compromise for both video and audio. Your brain will move the sound to match the on screen action.

I owe you an apology. You do post without mentioning NAD gear. HA!

I was reading your quote and expecting to find "I don't think a theater can be 'reference' quality it it *does not* have NAD gear."HA!!!!

thebland

09-20-08, 10:29 PM

We all have nice theatwrs here in this forum...but what would the fun be if we didn't all claim 'mine is better than yours'??? :D

All is good.

Just watched Speed Racer with the family... DD soundtrack on it.. MNo lossless. Boy, a good soundtrack but a bit harsh at the tip top and just missing that 'air' you get with a lossless track.

Steve Bruzonsky

09-20-08, 10:36 PM

Philip Brandes

09-20-08, 11:33 PM

You are the one who has assumed that a claim that Theta has a proprietary surround sound mode "is a misleading attempt to establish equivalency." Having made that assumption, you proceed to attempt to knock it down, and at the same time attempt to discredit the poster who never made the claim you assume to begin with. It's silly. Try reading the post for a change instead of reading into the post and jumping to conclusions, particularly the conclusion that the poster is dissing your beloved processor and that you must defend its honor by dissing his processor.

To assert or even imply that Theta offers any proprietary surround processing at all is misleading. They do not.

In my posts, I have gone out of my way to avoid making this about "my beloved processor." I simply don't believe in blurring the distinction between manufacturers who truly advance the state of the art and those who simply plug in off-the-shelf solutions. It is a disservice to readers who, unlike yourself, might be interested in actual qualitative differences between surround processing.

Based on your previous posts in which you shrug off every attempt at rational discussion about surround processing it's obvious you have no interest in the subject. However, that's no reason to undermine the very legitimate questions that have been raised for those who do.

Not all surround processing is created equal. It is not, as you claim, simply a matter of disbelief or taking on faith--there are in fact very audible differences in surround processing technologies.

Nor are all surround processing modes "proprietary" just because a manufacturer slaps their name on it. From the reports posted here, the "proprietary" Theta mode is simply an implementation of Hafler-type algorithms that have been used since the 1970s to extract ambient information for the surround channels while leaving the front left and right untouched. It's offered under various names by any number of manufacturers (Anthem calls it Anthem Logic, for example)...nothing wrong with that, it's a perfectly legal marketing tactic. But it should not be confused with technologies that really do advance the state of the art.

Theta has never had any in-house expertise in this area. And in case you missed it the first three or four times I said it, this does not make Theta a "worse" or "better" fit in absolute terms. There is a big difference between "dissing" a product and simply pointing out factual information about a capability it lacks. But apparently that difference is too complicated for you, given the sliding scale you use to give a pass to some "dissing" comments that has no grounding in any objective reality while arguing ad nauseum to blunt fact-based criticism of unwarranted and misleading claims.

Cheers,
Philp Brandes

faberryman

09-20-08, 11:59 PM

From the reports posted here, the "proprietary" Theta mode is simply an implementation of Hafler-type algorithms that have been used since the 1970s to extract ambient information for the surround channels while leaving the front left and right untouched.
Do you know this to be a fact, and if so how? Or are you simply relying on information "From the reports posted here" and passing it along as fact? You seem to be under the misapprehension that only "technologies that really do advance the state of the art" can be proprietary. No one here has claimed that Theta's surround modes advance the state of the art, only that they are proprietary. I am simply trying to determine how it is that posters like yourself know for a fact that Theta's implementation surround modes is not proprietary.

Alimentall

09-21-08, 12:07 AM

Steve Bruzonsky

09-21-08, 12:47 AM

Theta's modularity and quality has always trumped Lexicon's proprietary surround modes, especially with Lexicon's reputation for falling short of the best from other companies. If you look at it, the extra surround mode was all Lexicon had up its sleeve. One trick pony.

Darn! That's three we agree on in one day!!! Keep it up.

You know that Theta is back as a powerhouse now that ATI has acquiredx Theta and has come out with the Gen VIII DAC upgrade and soon the CB3 HDMI 1.3 audio upgrade. Lex luver Phillip Brandes was quiet these past months on the Theta front, likely wishing that Theta's CB3 would remain pre-HDMI technology and no threat to his beloved Lexicon. Now his Lexicon is bit with the dust!!! Fancy smancy more proprietary sound modes aside, Theta sounds much better and that's that! But what does he care? Its the algorythms that get him excited!!!@@@:o

Alimentall

09-21-08, 01:05 AM

Steve Bruzonsky

09-21-08, 01:19 AM

The only thing Philip loves more than his Lexicon is the sound of his own voice. At least your posts are interesting to read. Fortunately, he says the exact same thing in every post, so you can skip right over to the end. The plot line is a bit tired.

Four times in a day we agree!! World record!

Even The Bland ditched his Lexicon for Halcro. But Philip (we should call him Phil, it really ticks him off, I know, I made that "mistake" and he redressed me big time) is Mr. Lexicon Die-Hard Forever.

Isn't Phillip a paid technical writer for Lexicon. He can correct me if I'm wrong. But he writes the following sort of stuff for Lexicon which certainly seems to be what he does for a living as a technical writer.

http://www.smr-forums.com/resources/20070528_183903_MC-12_v3_Instal.pdf

SMR Forums is an "official Lexicon" forum:

http://www.aboutus.org/Smr-forums.com

I wonder who the owner is? Wonder if Phillip might have some ownership interest? Mebbe he can advise.
Sounds like with his strong commercial ties to Lexicon he will always be in their pocket.

Philip Brandes

09-21-08, 01:52 AM

Do you know this to be a fact, and if so how? Or are you simply relying on information "From the reports posted here" and passing it along as fact? You seem to be under the misapprehension that only "technologies that really do advance the state of the art" can be proprietary. No one here has claimed that Theta's surround modes advance the state of the art, only that they are proprietary. I am simply trying to determine how it is that posters like yourself know for a fact that Theta's implementation surround modes is not proprietary.

What I know for a fact is that nothing posted here establishes that anything Theta provides with respect to surround processing is in any way proprietary as opposed to plugging in off-the-shelf technology. Simply making the claim in a forum post doesn't make it true.

Cheers,
Philip Brandes

Steve Bruzonsky

09-21-08, 02:32 AM

What I know for a fact is that nothing posted here establishes that anything Theta provides with respect to surround processing is in any way proprietary as opposed to plugging in off-the-shelf technology. Simply making the claim in a forum post doesn't make it true.

Cheers,
Philip Brandes

Spoken like a paid Lexicon shill!!!

Philip Brandes

09-21-08, 02:35 AM

But Philip (we should call him Phil, it really ticks him off, I know, I made that "mistake" and he redressed me big time)
That is a flat out lie. I could care less what you call me. However, unless you want to let this stand as yet another example of you fabricating reality out of your own fantasy, please provide a link to back up this assertion or withdraw it.

Isn't Phillip a paid technical writer for Lexicon. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
You are quite wrong.

But he writes the following sort of stuff for Lexicon which certainly seems to be what he does for a living as a technical writer.
http://www.smr-forums.com/resources/20070528_183903_MC-12_v3_Instal.pdf
Wrong again, on every count. In the first place, I have never written anything for Lexicon. That document you cite (thanks for the plug BTW) was written exclusively for SMR Home Theatre and its forums, which is independently owned and operated by British A/V journalist Stuart M. Robinson. That document (nor any other SMR product) was neither funded, or influenced by Lexicon in any way. As clearly stated in the copyright info on the first page, it is an exclusive SMR document which was produced entirely by Stuart and myself out of a desire to help our members install the MC-12 V3 upgrade when it was first released. I’m glad you were impressed enough to point to it.

SMR is an all-volunteer site. I am a moderator there, and a journalist for our site and sister site High Fidelity Review covering AV technology and trade shows (which you well know, since you have accosted our reporters at CES). However, I have never received a dime for any of my A/V writing nor my involvement with the site. Nor do I have any ownership interest--Stuart is the sole owner and funds the whole operation with his own money. As for me, all of this is just a hobby…I make my living in areas that have nothing to do with A/V.

SMR Forums is an "official Lexicon" forum:
http://www.aboutus.org/Smr-forums.com /QUOTE]
All that means is that it is the only site in which Lexicon participates in the discussion forums, Lexicon has nothing to do with site operation or its administration. Because its employees post there as registered members (just like anyone else) it is the go-to site for accurate information and official announcements regarding Lexicon products. You are well aware of this, since back in the days when you were an AVS moderator you kept trying to get them to participate in your forum and they wanted nothing to do with you. So you are deliberately spreading false information here, which is par for the course with you.

[QUOTE]I wonder who the owner is? Wonder if Phillip might have some ownership interest? Mebbe he can advise. Sounds like with his strong commercial ties to Lexicon he will always be in their pocket.
Amazing to watch you gnaw on your twisted fantasies and puff yourself up to overreaching “conclusions” that have nothing to do with reality. Once again:
I have already told you the who the owner is: Stuart M. Robinson.
I have no ownership interest in nor am I a paid employee of SMR
I have no commercial ties to Lexicon, either strong or weak.
I am not now nor have I ever been “in their pocket”--I am simply a customer who’s happy with their products

Can’t you just talk about your Theta products in an informative way? Why do you feel compelled to wage an unfounded personal smear campaign spreading assertions and innuendos you know to be untrue?

Philip Brandes

sfogg

09-21-08, 09:04 AM

"If you look at it, the extra surround mode was all Lexicon had up its sleeve. One trick pony."

That is laughable.....

Shawn

faberryman

09-21-08, 10:00 AM

What I know for a fact is that nothing posted here establishes that anything Theta provides with respect to surround processing is in any way proprietary as opposed to plugging in off-the-shelf technology.
That's quite a different claim than the claim you made in your previous post:
"To assert or even imply that Theta offers any proprietary surround processing at all is misleading. They do not."
I think you need to take you own advice and remember:
Simply making the claim in a forum post doesn't make it true
applies to your assertions as well.

Theta claims that its implementation of its surround modes is proprietary. Posters here repeat that claim. You and others assert as fact that their implementation is not proprietary but offer no factual basis in support of your claim. Your assertion boils down to this: "Theta is lying. Prove they are not." When Theta owners cannot prove Theta's claim because the information required for the proof is not publicly available, you believe it validates your unsupported claim to the contrary. It is simply fallacious reasoning used to discredit Theta. If you made the more modest claim like: "While Theta's implementation of surround modes may be proprietary, it does not advance the state of the art", you might even have some Theta owners agree with you. As an added bonus, you might even reclaim some credibility.

Michael Grant

09-21-08, 10:07 AM

Theta claims that its implementation of its surround modes is proprietary.At risk of being accused of hit-and-run argumentation (guilty as charged), I should point out that there is a difference between writing your own, proprietary code to implement a standard surround decoder like, say, DPLIIx and developing your proprietary decoder like Logic7. A lack of appreciation of that difference might be the source of some of the conflict.

faberryman

09-21-08, 10:12 AM

Alimentall

09-21-08, 11:22 AM

"If you look at it, the extra surround mode was all Lexicon had up its sleeve. One trick pony."

That is laughable.....

Shawn

Why? That's about the only thing that differentiated it from a B&K. Well, that and 100% higher price.

Besides, Harman bought Fosgate, raided its technology and personnel, folded the company and gave all that to Lexicon. But then a lot of those guys like Charlie that really mattered up and left after awhile. It would be like Microsoft buying Google and claiming to be a leader in search engines.

Alimentall

09-21-08, 11:24 AM

At risk of being accused of hit-and-run argumentation (guilty as charged), I should point out that there is a difference between writing your own, proprietary code to implement a standard surround decoder like, say, DPLIIx and developing your proprietary decoder like Logic7. A lack of appreciation of that difference might be the source of some of the conflict.

"We tweaked it, therefore, it is proprietary" Kinda like when a company asks for a cosmetic or voice coil change on a Seas driver and then calls it 'proprietary'. See also "slightly modified".

That being said, to me, modularity is a bigger leap forward than an increasingly dated 2-channel based surround technology.

Steve Bruzonsky

09-21-08, 11:25 AM

Phil, I haven't even been to CES in five years.

"Accosted" - that's a big word. I don't even recall ever meeting Stuart Robinson or anyone from SMR Forums, though its possible.

Regarding whose SMR financial relationship with what, thank you for clarifying. How would I know? Its not like SMR at its forum has an easy way to find out financial ownership. Back in the days when I moderated the AVS Special Guests forum, I recall talking with someone at Lexicon and they respectfully refused to come on AVS as a Special Guest saying they had an ongoing relationship with SMR and couldn't go on somewhere else (if my memory is any good). And hey, an "official" Lexicon forum, normally in the business world if something is "official" there is some sort of payment, whether for business work and skill, or simply advertising dollars. Web forums are like print advertising in that they are still here for the most part to make some sort of profit.

Phil, how did you know about my contacting Lexicon (not SMR, not Stuart Robinson, not you, thats for sure) about Lexicon being an AVS Special Guest? Talk about a "tight" relationship of you and Lexicon for them to tell you that sort of thing. No wonder you go all out for Lexicon as the Lexicon policeman of the internet.

Anyway,this all gets away from what's really important = sound quality. So let's get back to Theta.

Steve Bruzonsky

09-21-08, 11:27 AM

Philip Brandes

09-21-08, 01:15 PM

Phil, I haven't even been to CES in five years…
"Accosted" - that's a big word. I don't even recall ever meeting Stuart Robinson or anyone from SMR Forums, though its possible.
It was CES 2001, actually. Andre Yew and I were trying to get to the Runco press conference at the Beach and you cornered us at the entrance and launched into a rambling laundry list of your equipment and why you love your Theta. You were three times as loud and obnoxious in person as you are in print. We couldn’t get rid of you. At the time, I told you I thought the Blanca was a fine-sounding processor and a good fit for you, and have never said or written otherwise, though it hasn’t stopped you from the bullying personal invective you’ve resorted to whenever I or anyone else pointed out factual information about differences in surround processor capabilities. This latest attempt to smear me is a new low even for you, however.

Regarding whose SMR financial relationship with what, thank you for clarifying. How would I know? Its not like SMR at its forum has an easy way to find out financial ownership. Back in the days when I moderated the AVS Special Guests forum, I recall talking with someone at Lexicon and they respectfully refused to come on AVS as a Special Guest saying they had an ongoing relationship with SMR and couldn't go on somewhere else (if my memory is any good). And hey, an "official" Lexicon forum, normally in the business world if something is "official" there is some sort of payment, whether for business work and skill, or simply advertising dollars. Web forums are like print advertising in that they are still here for the most part to make some sort of profit.
We all know how much you love to hear yourself talk. Your attempt to restrict the word “official” to the meaning that fits your agenda (“association with payment” is not in any dictionary definition, btw) is amusing, but irrelevant. The SMR site is official in the sense of authoritative, because Lexicon reps post there exclusively.

Phil, how did you know about my contacting Lexicon (not SMR, not Stuart Robinson, not you, thats for sure) about Lexicon being an AVS Special Guest? Talk about a "tight" relationship of you and Lexicon for them to tell you that sort of thing. No wonder you go all out for Lexicon as the Lexicon policeman of the internet.
LOL, there you go again making things up out of your own paranoid delusions. I didn’t hear about it from Lexicon, I heard it from you--it in one of your bloviating, self-pitying online temper tantrums in which you whined about the fact that they had refused your invitation. Care to embarrass yourself any further?

Philip Brandes

Steve Bruzonsky

09-21-08, 01:20 PM

Phillie, you make stuff up!!!!!

No one likes to hear himself talk or write more than you!

Alimentall

09-21-08, 01:23 PM

I swear Philip stares in a mirror as he's typing.

Does anyone know of anything interesting or unique Lexicon has done since Logic7 came out, what, 15 years ago? Seriously?

faberryman

09-21-08, 01:39 PM

...whenever I or anyone else pointed out factual information about differences in surround processor capabilities.
Here we go again... Heads up folks - there is a new definition of fact: whatever Philip Brandes says is fact.

Steve Bruzonsky

09-21-08, 02:50 PM

I swear Philip stares in a mirror as he's typing.

Does anyone know of anything interesting or unique Lexicon has done since Logic7 came out, what, 15 years ago? Seriously?

In all fairness, they were the first "high end" (if you can call them that) surround processor to come to bat with HDMI audio with LPCM processing.

And Lexicon is the only company with a technical writer who posts at each audio or home theater forum on threads regarding other companies surround processors to ensure nothing "incorrect" goes uncorrected.

sfogg

09-21-08, 03:25 PM

"Besides, Harman bought Fosgate, raided its technology and personnel, folded the company and gave all that to Lexicon."

Not even remotely. Lexcion and Fosgate/Citation were in competition with each other when HI owned both. Lexicon simply won. And their technology was their own, not based on anything Fosgate did.

Shawn

sfogg

09-21-08, 03:34 PM

sfogg

09-21-08, 03:34 PM

"No one likes to hear himself talk or write more than you!"

Said the guy with 14,229 posts......

Shawn

sfogg

09-21-08, 03:37 PM

"than an increasingly dated 2-channel based surround technology."

Shows how much you know since the so called discrete L7 does things for multi-channel sources that nothing else on the market does.

Shawn

Philip Brandes

09-21-08, 03:49 PM

InAnd Lexicon is the only company with a technical writer who posts at each audio or home theater forum on threads regarding other companies surround processors to ensure nothing "incorrect" goes uncorrected.

Once again you snidely suggest that I work for Lexicon, which you know to be untrue.

And by the way, I am not a technical writer either. Why don't you just quit while you're behind?

Steve Bruzonsky

09-21-08, 03:57 PM

"Does anyone know of anything interesting or unique Lexicon has done since Logic7 came out, what, 15 years ago? Seriously?"

Bass management flexibility with 3 subwoofer outputs
Bass Enhance
Very flexible setup
Panorama
SPL dependent loudness
Room EQ
LIVE
revised L7 many times
Discrete L7
option of multichannel analog bypass or full processing
Etc...etc...etc.

Shawn

Alimental said Lex hasn't done anything since Logic 7 15 years ago, not me!
That's his opinion.

But really it comes down to how good it sounds in your system. Lex doesn't cut the cake for me anymore. Not even for The Bland, who had one!!! But hey, I guess my Theta doesn't cut the cake for you. ENJOY your Lex. Lets not argue re which of those features are "proprietary" to Lex, what is the definition of "proprietary", or which sounds better (the one we own of course)!