The reason for that, as he's already warned us, is because his examples are "OVER YOUR HEAD(S)"!!! That means he could post an answer, but reading it would melt your eyes.

Sanjay
Like this?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ATRAS6F8L.jpg

Sanjay/tbrunet.....I'm going to relive my old setup and purchase a rear center for 6.1 so you guys can start up another "discussion".

Really.


I am.


Watch me.

Btw, I....have...a......blue....bike. I like.....blue.

The easiest way to solidify your stance (and reputation) is to provide an explanation of "artifacts" with examples. We would all like to comprehend what you strongly defend.I've already explained how these complex soundfields are generated and how artifacts would manifest and how i.e. PLII would corrupt IT.

..and the response I keep getting is "yeah" or "duh" but the distortion is below ones perception, my inlaws couldn't hear anything bad..they said 7.1 sounds better.

Well in my world one dose not get something for nothing. Sounds better is a subjective statement...it means ZERO in my book!

I'm done playing...Good bye!Aw. Don't go away mad, just go away.

So in the end, no examples of upmixing artifacts. Goodbye then.

Sanjay

btw, no one is arguing that "artifacts" exist, ..:eek:

Sounds better is a subjective statement...it means ZERO in my book!

How do you quantify the difference between two audio setups when one setup sounds better than another?

I've already explained how these complex soundfields are generated and how artifacts would manifest and how i.e. PLII would corrupt IT.

..and the response I keep getting is "yeah" or "duh" but the distortion is below ones perception, my inlaws couldn't hear anything bad..they said 7.1 sounds better. I went through this entire thread in search of your explanation. I found paydirt in post #172, which says: >>If you would have read my preceding post, I gave a specific scenario that would result in the corruption of a specific virtual 5.1 soundfield.<< Ok, so now let's have a look at that previous post, #169:

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion "A distortion is the alteration of the original shape (or other characteristic) of an object, image, sound, waveform or other form of information or representation." <<

Can you not see that, contrary to your claim, this is not an explanation about "how these complex soundfields are generated and how artifacts would manifest and how i.e. PLII would corrupt IT"?

Maybe I missed it. So if you have made such an explanation somewhere in this thread, please give the post # in which it appears. Thanks!

I'm riding a big furry tractor!

Sanjay, you're beating a dead horse. You've asked him that question (or a variant thereof) any number of times in this thread. He has steadfastly refused to answer. (Of course, we already know he has no answer, thus his attempts at obfuscation.) If he was a witness at trial, the judge would have ordered him to answer the question, and his ongoing diatribe would result in a contempt order.



Sanjay loves his horse!

.

How do you quantify the difference between two audio setups when one setup sounds better than another?

Some correlates have been determined. Low distortion, good off-axis loudspeaker performance are two. Consult this recent book by Floyd Toole for more information.




http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219733657&sr=8-1


There are also ITU protocols for formal testing of audio 'quality'.

Maybe I missed it. So if you have made such an explanation somewhere in this thread, please give the post # in which it appears. Thanks!This was the preceding technical detail I was referring to and you already knew that;)
These reflections, which are absent with normal panning, are the key to localizing the mono source within the surround field. VSP also gives better directional imaging by adding phase and frequency spectrum information to the existing amplitude difference between channels, if the operator wishes to do so. In addition, VSP may provide late reverberation to the panned signalFWIW the human brain utilizes information contained in the first few reflections from a reverberant environment to contribute to a perception of space.

This btw is a SPECIFIC example of extremely complex perceputal modeling that involves almost random combinations of:

1) zero steering interaction between discrete channels
2) some steering interaction between discrete channels
3) virtual composite linkage between all discrete channels
4) some sound elements are linked by a unique (delay/offset) signature
with just one, or any remaing combination of channels.

This multi dimensional space which is contrived on such a powerful (DSP) encoding algorithm makes it technically impossible to reverse and then reconstruct (especially in real time). I'm not saying one would leave the room screaming from the overwhelming distortion emanating from the contrived PLIIx side and back speakers but one things for sure..It would not be a transparent process and artifacts could indeed be perceived even well above our perception threshold when compared (A/B) in real time with an unprocessed reference.

How could something be perceived well above our perception?

You hear it... or you don't. What do we hear? Any examples? ;)

I would love to do an A/B comparsion and agree that 7.1 has audible/perceivable "artifacts" that are detrimental to one's listening pleasure.

I knew I should have stuck with "Carver Sonic Halography" or the Omnisonix Honeybox. LOL

How could something be perceived well above our perception?
"artifacts could indeed be perceived even well above our perception threshold"

Maybe you could look up the definition of the word threshold:)

I would love to do an A/B comparsion and agree that 7.1 has audible/perceivable "artifacts" that are detrimental to one's listening pleasure.

Please explain Ratman what "artifacts" in 7.1 are audible and/or perceivable ? Thanks !

Regards,

If we go back to the Dressler referenced definition of "distortion" (a definition I would agree with), I'd have to argue any given room will result in far more audible distortion than PLIIx. From that, taking a leap, I'd further suggest a well implemented space plus PLIIx will have far less audible distortion than in any case where the room is being used to "fill the hole" PLIIx was designed to address.

To the totally absurd extension, every subsequent time I play the same note on my Bosendorfer, it is distorted from the previous due to different finger pressure and wear on the felt on the hammer. Thus, each occurance of a masterful rendition of chop sticks can only be a distortion of the previous version. Geeze. Then, again, that is splitting hairs.

If we go back to the Dressler referenced definition of "distortion" (a definition I would agree with), I'd have to argue any given room will result in far more audible distortion than PLIIx.

We agree.

Regards,

Any "imperfect" 5.1 setup in any given room could/will have audible imperfections or distortions.

I know what the definition of "threshold" is... as in the threshold of pain or intolerance. ;)

Maybe you can provide examples of the "perceivable" artifacts when using 7.1 ?

...I'd further suggest a well implemented space plus PLIIx will have far less audible distortion than in any case where the room is being used to "fill the hole" PLIIx was designed to address.Indeed, rooms make poor surround processors. Better to use the real thing.

Sanjay

This was the preceding technical detail I was referring to and you already knew that;)
FWIW the human brain utilizes information contained in the first few reflections from a reverberant environment to contribute to a perception of space.

This btw is a SPECIFIC example of extremely complex perceputal modeling that involves almost random combinations of:

1) zero steering interaction between discrete channels
2) some steering interaction between discrete channels
3) virtual composite linkage between all discrete channels
4) some sound elements are linked by a unique (delay/offset) signature
with just one, or any remaing combination of channels.

This multi dimensional space which is contrived on such a powerful (DSP) encoding algorithm makes it technically impossible to reverse and then reconstruct (especially in real time). Sorry, I was not asking for a description of how VSP works. What I was asking for was your explanation of how PLII would corrupt it. Please let me know which post that was in.

I'm not saying one would leave the room screaming from the overwhelming distortion emanating from the contrived PLIIx side and back speakers but one things for sure..It would not be a transparent process and artifacts could indeed be perceived even well above our perception threshold when compared (A/B) in real time with an unprocessed reference. How would the lack of trasparency manifest itself? What sort of artifacts will be heard? Is this based on conjecture, or have you experienced these results?

BTW, I do all my listening in real time. It's the only way to fly! :p

I do all my listening in real time. It's the only way to fly! :p

Roger, are you certain? You might be caught in some overwhelming distortion of the time/space continuum where these pestilent artifacts manifest themselves as faux transparency.

Sorry, I was not asking for a description of how VSP works. What I was asking for was your explanation of how PLII would corrupt it. Please let me know which post that was in.That apparently is your problem and not mine Roger. I attempted to illustrate how VSP is completely different than “normal” panning paradigms. If you can’t comprehend that please don’t shoot the messenger. As I explained, this is an example of how the entire multi dimensional space is a composite (5.1) one and not simply relative or NORMAL panning between two adjacent speakers done with traditional panning techique.

These complex reverberant spatial cues coupled with other complex ingredients make corruption not only likely but a technical fact.
If we go back to the Dressler referenced definition of "distortion" (a definition I would agree with), I'd have to argue any given room will result in far more audible distortion than PLIIx.Maybe, but that still would not change the basis of my conjecture and distortion would still manifest.

post #229.....Good bye!


but Tburnet.....is still posting :eek: ;)

Only because of Roger Dressler:p

In fact Roger managed to learn a few things about Dialogue Normalization from me as well.. that was a slow painful process to:mad:

These complex reverberant spatial cues coupled with other complex ingredients make corruption not only likely but a technical fact.

And they sound like "what"? Any examples? :confused:

And they sound like "what"? Any examples?
Trying to characterize a 2D or 3D (soundfield) image like a perceived ambient space would be near impossible. Almost like trying to express the sublime with near words.

But one thing is for sure, I think most in this thread are truly underestimating the complexity of encoding these effects. Our HAS has stunning perceptual auditory resolution. Ironically I think this particular sense has nearly zero limitations considering the subtly of ingredients.

That apparently is your problem and not mine Roger. I attempted to illustrate how VSP is completely different than “normal” panning paradigms. If you can’t comprehend that please don’t shoot the messenger. As I explained, this is an example of how the entire multi dimensional space is a composite (5.1) one and not simply relative or NORMAL panning between two adjacent speakers done with traditional panning techique. While you may not believe me, I do understand how VSP is different than normal panning. But what has panning got to do with PLII? PLII and PLIIx decode beautifully even when the source includes natural spatial properties, such as the many stereo recordings made "live and in real time" rather than in a multi-track studio. Maybe you didn't know that. It was in fact the #1 priority when Jim Fosgate designed PLII, as it had to work with his vast collection of vintage vinyl.

Trying to characterize a 2D or 3D (soundfield) image like a perceived ambient space would be near impossible. Almost like trying to express the sublime with near words. You, at a loss for words? C'mon, you can do it. ;)

But what has panning got to do with PLII? PLII and PLIIx decode beautifully even when the source includes natural spatial properties, such as the many stereo recordings made "live and in real time" rather than in a multi-track studio. Maybe you didn't know that. It was in fact the #1 priority when Jim Fosgate designed PLII, as it had to work with his vast collection of vintage vinyl. Everything, your example here is evidence that you don't comprehend the subject matter. The difference being.. VSP has to know how many speakers define the space, their relative angle or orientation toward the reference position, their virtual relative distance from the reference point for it to generate this virtual composite space. It goes way beyond any conventional panning model (PLII) Jim Fosgate would have to consider.
Is this based on conjecture, or have you experienced these results?FWIW subsequent experimental testing of several theories validated Einstein’s conjectures:)

Let the flaming continue!

No flaming. You talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. Anyone can google.

Provide examples. That simple. :)

FWIW subsequent experimental testing of several theories validated Einstein’s conjectures:)

Einstein? Wth kind of system does he run? :rolleyes:
I'd sure like to know what you have for a setup....it must be superfragilisticexpialadocious. See, some of us can use big words too.

Really, tb, you should be in/running for office.....you talk like a politician on trial, skirting around the issue at hand and talking out of your ***.

OTOH, if you're thinking you're a step above a retired ex-Dolby engineer, then I guess we should all bow down.

Let the flaming continue!

From the guy that says and actually believes he is above others online :eek: Got pics of your system, your room? If you care to walk the talk lets see pics?

Everything, your example here is evidence that you don't comprehend the subject matter. The difference being.. VSP has to know how many speakers define the space, their relative angle or orientation toward the reference position, their virtual relative distance from the reference point for it to generate this virtual composite space. It goes way beyond any conventional panning model (PLII) Jim Fosgate would have to consider.
FWIW subsequent experimental testing of several theories validated Einstein’s conjectures:)

Let the flaming continue!

What was this original thread about again???

Everything, your example here is evidence that you don't comprehend the subject matter. The difference being.. VSP has to know how many speakers define the space, their relative angle or orientation toward the reference position, their virtual relative distance from the reference point for it to generate this virtual composite space. It goes way beyond any conventional panning model (PLII) Jim Fosgate would have to consider. Yes, according to Horbach's AES paper, VSP needs to know how many speakers are to be output so it can create the appropriate number of signals. It would not work to tell VSP to output 3 channels if you are mixing in 5.1. :rolleyes:

The "incremental HRTF's" in VSP apply only to the L/R front speakers, and the generated echoes are placed via conventional pairwise panners into the surround channels. I'm no Einstein, but it doesn't sound like it's anything too difficult for PLIIx to handle.

Everything, your example here is evidence that you don't comprehend the subject matter.

It goes way beyond any conventional panning model (PLII) Jim Fosgate would have to consider.


Let the flaming continue!

Thanks for the invitation.

I don't think you know Jim Fosgate well enough to know what he would or would not consider. He's certainly never been conventional in his thinking about any multichannel endeavor he's been involved in. There isn't a person on this forum who hasn't benefitted from his genius, except possibly you.

If you had done 10% of the actual thinking and creating of Jim Fosgate, I'd consider you a brilliant man. Yet you can't even give a quantifiable or qualitative description to your theoretical pet theory. What have you done, really, except delude yourself into thinking that 3" rapier you're holding is really a full length lance that you wield in your personal windmill tilting?

Curiously, Jim Fosgate would probably give you a listen and if you had anything to say, he'd try to learn from it. That's certainly the same courtesy Roger Dressler is giving you. He's an accomplished professional who's made an important contribution to multichannel sound as well.

Yet you will not reciprocate and try to learn anything from him. It's YOUR truth or NO truth. I marvel at Roger's good natured avoidance of your ineffectual 3" thrusts. You should be grateful for his tolerant attitude.

For the record, I love 7.1 via DPL IIx. I don't see the purpose to a philosophical discussion on the topic especially as the discussion appears to stray off topic more often than not.

As with any other audio processing option, people should try it out for themselves, and if they like it, they should use it. If they dislike like it, they should not use it.

When people start bringing up artificial, I wonder what they think about the fact that vast amounts of music contains "artificial" material.

* Synthesizers
* Panning between two mono tracks
* Leslie speakers artificially adding vibrato
* Guitar effects pedals
* Compression
* Reverb/echo

I could name many more, my point is that a lot of sound we hear in music and movies is hardly natural.

When people start bringing up artificial, I wonder what they think about the fact that vast amounts of music contains "artificial" material.

http://www.studer.ch/pdf/swiss_sound/swisssound42.pdf
:rolleyes:
"The perception of the distance in a room is largely determined by the temporal and spatial distribution of the reflections (not just by the ratio of energies from direct to reflected sound, as is often stated in a simplifying manner)."
The "incremental HRTF's" in VSP apply only to the L/R front speakers, and the generated echoes are placed via conventional pairwise panners into the surround channelsThat btw is an oversimplification.. and my statement regarding a defined composite virtual multi dimensional space being contrived from a "complex combination" i.e. of linked and unlinked interaction with all the surround speakers was factual:

http://www.studer.ch/pdf/swiss_sound/swisssound42.pdf
:rolleyes:
"This corresponds to the combination of a frequency-dependent L/R characteristic with a purely amplitude-dependent front/back progression.

"VSP generates an individual number of echoes for each channel and distributes these optimally to all surround speakers as a function of the selected pan position (sound incidence angle)"

"Fig. 4 plots the resulting echo distribution in a channel for 19 different discrete distances, selectable with a «distance» control. For each distance value 30 echoes are distributed to the 5-channel surround arrangement indicated in the center."

http://www.studer.ch/pdf/swiss_sound/swisssound42.pdf
:rolleyes:
"The perception of the distance in a room is largely determined by the temporal and spatial distribution of the reflections (not just by the ratio of energies from direct to reflected sound, as is often stated in a simplifying manner)."
That btw is an oversimplification.. and my statement regarding a defined composite virtual multi dimensional space being contrived from a "complex combination" i.e. of linked and unlinked interaction with all the surround speakers was factual:

http://www.studer.ch/pdf/swiss_sound/swisssound42.pdf
:rolleyes:
"This corresponds to the combination of a frequency-dependent L/R characteristic with a purely amplitude-dependent front/back progression.

"VSP generates an individual number of echoes for each channel and distributes these optimally to all surround speakers as a function of the selected pan position (sound incidence angle)"

"Fig. 4 plots the resulting echo distribution in a channel for 19 different discrete distances, selectable with a «distance» control. For each distance value 30 echoes are distributed to the 5-channel surround arrangement indicated in the center." Yup, the cut/paste tool is in perfect working order. So? No one is disputing that Studer's info is correct.

You make it seem as if the arbitrary choices Studer made to create 30 echoes (not 29, not 31, mind you) from their tapped delay lines using a practical DSP architecture is somehow a magic formulation. Are you concerned that the spatial properties of the final mix will break if the surround channels are reproduced from an additional pair speakers? If this were the case, the sweet spot would be quite small, and the result similarly corrupted for all but the perfect seating location. Were VSP to be so fragile and so easily corrupted, it would not be a useful production tool for very long. Yet, there's no evidence that VSPs synthesized reverb/echoes are any more fragile than real ones.

Let us not forget, thus far, we don't know that the result of spreading the surrounds across more speakers, whether it be via PLIIx, a Y-adapter or the like, is sonically corrupted, only that you theorize this must be the case, with no evidence, neither by means of a real example, nor a theoretical construct explaining the mechanism for the corruption and the expected sonic consequences thereof. Can you not find something to paste here relevant to that?

Key word: relevant.

You make it seem as if the arbitrary choices Studer made to create 30 echoes (not 29, not 31, mind you) from their tapped delay lines using a practical DSP architecture is somehow a magic formulation.

..Can you not find something to paste here relevant to that?Pratically Yes:)

Studers’ (VSP) algorithms are based on stochastic model.

“A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic in that a state's next state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. Stochastic crafts are complex systems whose practitioners, even if complete experts, acknowledge that outcomes result from both known and unknown causes.”

In 4th grader terms... (cause 5th graders are very smart)
What do "artifacts" sound like when using 7.1?
We know tbrunet says "NO! to 7.1". Why?
(Cut and paste not allowed! Speak for yourself.) ;)

Pratically Yes:)

Studers’ (VSP) algorithms are based on stochastic model.

“A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic in that a state's next state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. Stochastic crafts are complex systems whose practitioners, even if complete experts, acknowledge that outcomes result from both known and unknown causes.”
"Key word: relevant." Not.:D

Very interesting thread to say the least :)

One question. Isn't it true that there are several blu-ray movies originally mastered in 7.1? So if you are watching one of these, there shouldn't be any processing, no?

Very interesting thread to say the least :)

One question. Isn't it true that there are several blu-ray movies originally mastered in 7.1? So if you are watching one of these, there shouldn't be any processing, no?

Correct.. The debate isn't about 7.1 source output to 7.1. It's about matrixing a 5.1 source via DSP for 7.1 playback.

Isn't it true that there are several blu-ray movies originally mastered in 7.1?

Sadly there isn't many at all, most of the great action movies are 5.1!!

Since my 7.1 system is the same as my 6.1 system which is the same as my 5.1 system, the answer is yes and no.

Seems to depend on what's playing as to whether it I prefer it one way or another.

Sadly there isn't many at all, most of the great action movies are 5.1!! T'is sad, but true. Stems from the fact that movie theaters are not equipped for 7.1 (using 4 surrounds), not even SDDS. So unless some enterprising video studio wants to spend a substantial amount to remix the surrounds, there's no way to get any. The advent of digital cinema certainly opens the door to 7.1 (and beyond) since the delivery formats are no longer land locked to 35mm digital audio formats. Once theaters get over the 3D craze, they may well look to new audio aspects (hmmm, 3D audio--added vertical sounds??) to get people into theaters.

BD adopted 7.1 more as speculation than need. A good idea.

I would guess it is mostly because technology is so new. I would assume there would be more 7.1 movies next year and after!

I would guess it is mostly because technology is so new. I would assume there would be more 7.1 movies next year and after!

We hoped that would happen with DVD-A or SACD. but the streams have gotten smaller, not larger. We can hope there will be an uptick in 7.1 material.

We do have quality houses like AIX records keeping the MC format alive.

In the meantime, we can be glad that PLIIx and Discrete Logic 7 are around to assist us.

We hoped that would happen with DVD-A or SACD. but the streams have gotten smaller, not larger. We can hope there will be an uptick in 7.1 material.

We do have quality houses like AIX records keeping the MC format alive.

In the meantime, we can be glad that PLIIx and Discrete Logic 7 are around to assist us.

DVD-A and SACD are for music though. I was actually referring to 7.1 in movies. Of course this will also depend if blu-ray prevails or not, but if it does, one would have thought film studios would use the ample potential.

I would guess it is mostly because technology is so new. I would assume there would be more 7.1 movies next year and after!


Why assume that? Surround is nice, but it is not the primary source of audio content. There are no Oscars given for best "surround sound"!

DVD-A and SACD are for music though. I was actually referring to 7.1 in movies.

Thanx for the info....I'm sure filecat knew that.

Of course this will also depend if blu-ray prevails or not, but if it does, one would have thought film studios would use the ample potential.

Prevails? Over what?

I enjoy 7.1 better than 5.1 . Both provide great sound , but I prefer the two back speakers.

Kg

I prefer turkey Spam over "real" Spam.

Of course this will also depend if blu-ray prevails or not, but if it does, one would have thought film studios would use the ample potential.

Prevails? Over what?

I would assume hd_newbie meant that it survives beyond being a niche market, and perhaps even eventually overcomes (or at least competes well with) SD DVD.

I suspect it will be awhile before BD gets above 30% market share (to pull a number out of the air...), but I am seeing more and more non-enthusiasts buying players and movies.

But I would bet they aren't interested in the difference in 5.1 vs 7.1. That is an enthusiast-oriented feature (and for those that have to always say "mine is bigger than yours" - i.e. they have 7.1 only because it has more speakers than 5.1, not because they have a good set-up for it, etc).

IMHO,

shinksma

I would assume hd_newbie meant that it survives beyond being a niche market, and perhaps even eventually overcomes (or at least competes well with) SD DVD.

I suspect it will be awhile before BD gets above 30% market share (to pull a number out of the air...), but I am seeing more and more non-enthusiasts buying players and movies.

But I would bet they aren't interested in the difference in 5.1 vs 7.1. That is an enthusiast-oriented feature (and for those that have to always say "mine is bigger than yours" - i.e. they have 7.1 only because it has more speakers than 5.1, not because they have a good set-up for it, etc).

IMHO,

shinksma

Yep, that was my point in mentioning DVD-A and SACD: they never gained any real traction as formats. BD will probably continue to grow, but as you correctly point out, not for its sonic capabilities.

My primary interest in it--if I ever go that route--is in its audio output, which right now is not much of a focus. There are a couple of companies focusing on 7.1 audio recordings that hold some promise, but the promotion of BD as an audio format, much like DVD-A as the audio cognate of DVD video, is sadly lacking.

We are, after all, more and more a visual society populated with visual learners who are stunted in most of the rest of our senses.

Pratically Yes:)

Studers’ (VSP) algorithms are based on stochastic model.

“A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic in that a state's next state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. Stochastic crafts are complex systems whose practitioners, even if complete experts, acknowledge that outcomes result from both known and unknown causes.”


I tried that a couple of days ago with my boss. "I'm going to spend a wad of cash designing this but the output will be completely random."

The stochastic model is used for complex statistical analysis. The variability of a complex movie soundtrack is quite limited. Let's see . . .you have dialogue, gunfire and music. I am certain that the algorithms would complexly corrupt the spatial cues of white noise though. And that's why I complexiditly vow never to use prologic.

I actually prefer 2.0 to 5.1. I grew up before the invention of surround sound, and it has always sounded more like a gimmick than a significant enhancement to my ears. (Since the picture is entirely in front of me, why shouldn't the sound be as well?)
So you don't even use 3.0 for 5.1 tracks?

I find that unless I'm perfectly situated, the centre channel speaker is by far the most important speaker in my home theatre setup. In fact, for certain stuff and certain seating arrangements I'd almost rather have a 1.0 mono centre alone than 2.0 stereo.

I currently have a 5.1 setup, a 3.0 setup, and a 2.0 setup. The 3.0 setup began life as a 2.0 setup, but the off-centre dialogue in certain seating arrangements drove me up the wall. For the last 2.0 setup, I'd go 3.0 if I could find a good quality centre that can fit under the bezel of my small (26") LCD, but I can't find such a beast.



BTW, HERE (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php?action=search&audio=7.1&sortby=releasedate) is a list of 7.1-channel Blu-rays, sorted by release date (most recent first). It shows 70 titles, but about 9 of them haven't been released yet.

Sanjay
I currently have a 7.1 HDMI receiver, but it it doesn't decode TrueHD or DD+ (or DTS-HD: MA for that matter) over HDMI. It does do Dolby Digital EX, Dolby Pro Logic IIx, DTS-ES, and DTS Neo:6, but nonetheless that list Sanjay linked above doesn't really encourage me to upgrade. To get the full benefit of 7.1, not only would I have to buy more speakers, I would also have to upgrade my receiver, and I would also need to re-do my wire conduits for the speaker wire. (The existing ones are not big enough for another two sets of thick gauge speaker wire.)

My setup does allow for 7.1 speakers as I have the perfect spot for an additional 2 speakers directly behind me, but I do not have the option of putting the surrounds directly to the sides. The surrounds are to the sides, but much further back than Dolby usually recommends for surrounds, just because of the shape of the room. ie. Not 110 degrees, but more like 130-140 degrees IIRC.

With regards to what I mentioned above for the centre channel in the front, I think some of that should apply also to surround back channels, but I don't consider this as crucial. While not having a centre channel for dialogue annoys me a lot, I am satisfied without having the surround back channels. Dialogue is not usually an issue for back surrounds.

Perhaps in a few years when I upgrade my receiver to one that can decode from HDMI, I'll consider getting 2 additional speakers, but I'm in no particular rush to upgrade.

BTW, this also brings up the question of dipoles vs. monopoles in such setups. And what about mixing a pair of monopoles and a pair of dipoles in a 7.1 setup for the surround and surround back speakers?

The variability of a complex movie soundtrack is quite limited. Let's see . . .you have dialogue, gunfire and music.FYI modeling 3D room ambient (characteristics) is quite complex btw.

“Although the random values of a stochastic process at different times may be independent random variables, in most commonly considered situations they exhibit complicated statistical correlations.”

FYI, "complex" means "so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with". So maybe everyone isn't smart enough to understand or deal with this. Except Einstein.

FWIW, I can cut and paste. ;-)

"Okay, in computerize, what is Cut and Paste? Cut and Paste and its good buddy Copy and Paste are computer functions that allow you to move or copy text, images, and even Web information from one location to another location. The Cut function removes the information from its original location, and Paste puts it someplace else. Using the Copy/Paste functions, you can copy information to a new location without removing it from the original location."

BTW Google is really cool. ^_^

"Google Inc. is an American public corporation, earning revenue from advertising related to its Internet search, e-mail, online mapping, office productivity, social networking, and video sharing services as well as selling advertising-free versions of the same technologies. The Google headquarters, the Googleplex, is located in Mountain View, California. As of 30 September 2008 the company has 20,123 full-time employees"

FYI, "complex" means "so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with". So maybe everyone isn't smart enough to understand or deal with this. Except Einstein.More likely PLII:) just in case you want to "understand" the apparent paradox

that list Sanjay linked above doesn't really encourage me to upgradeAnd it shouldn't, since 7.1-channel source material has never had any bearing on 7.1-speaker playback. Lexicon started selling consumer 7-channel pre-pros in 1988, Fosgate in 1986. That's 22 years ago! Consumers wouldn't get discrete 5.1-channel sources for another 8 years (DD 5.1 on laserdisc in 1994).

So without a list of discrete multi-channel material to encourage them, why do you think folks were setting up 7.1-speaker layouts 2 decades ago? For that matter, why do you think consumers and manufacturers have been moving towards 7.1 systems all these years even though 7.1 sources didn't show up until just a couple of years back and still remain a tiny fraction of available soundtracks? BTW, this also brings up the question of dipoles vs. monopoles in such setups.I prefer to use direct firing monopole surrounds all around and only resort to more diffuse surrounds (dipoles, bipoles) if they're going to be distractingly close to any of the listeners (like the folks sitting on either end of my couch).

Sanjay

So you don't even use 3.0 for 5.1 tracks?

I find that unless I'm perfectly situated, the centre channel speaker is by far the most important speaker in my home theatre setup. In fact, for certain stuff and certain seating arrangements I'd almost rather have a 1.0 mono centre alone than 2.0 stereo.

I currently have a 5.1 setup, a 3.0 setup, and a 2.0 setup. The 3.0 setup began life as a 2.0 setup, but the off-centre dialogue in certain seating arrangements drove me up the wall. For the last 2.0 setup, I'd go 3.0 if I could find a good quality centre that can fit under the bezel of my small (26") LCD, but I can't find such a beast.



I currently have a 7.1 HDMI receiver, but it it doesn't decode TrueHD or DD+ (or DTS-HD: MA for that matter) over HDMI. It does do Dolby Digital EX, Dolby Pro Logic IIx, DTS-ES, and DTS Neo:6, but nonetheless that list Sanjay linked above doesn't really encourage me to upgrade. To get the full benefit of 7.1, not only would I have to buy more speakers, I would also have to upgrade my receiver, and I would also need to re-do my wire conduits for the speaker wire. (The existing ones are not big enough for another two sets of thick gauge speaker wire.)

My setup does allow for 7.1 speakers as I have the perfect spot for an additional 2 speakers directly behind me, but I do not have the option of putting the surrounds directly to the sides. The surrounds are to the sides, but much further back than Dolby usually recommends for surrounds, just because of the shape of the room. ie. Not 110 degrees, but more like 130-140 degrees IIRC.

With regards to what I mentioned above for the centre channel in the front, I think some of that should apply also to surround back channels, but I don't consider this as crucial. While not having a centre channel for dialogue annoys me a lot, I am satisfied without having the surround back channels. Dialogue is not usually an issue for back surrounds.

Perhaps in a few years when I upgrade my receiver to one that can decode from HDMI, I'll consider getting 2 additional speakers, but I'm in no particular rush to upgrade.

BTW, this also brings up the question of dipoles vs. monopoles in such setups. And what about mixing a pair of monopoles and a pair of dipoles in a 7.1 setup for the surround and surround back speakers?

Bipoles are recommended for surround speakers and direct firing speakers for rear. I may be wrong, but I think I read this in THX website.

There are different school of thoughts though. If I am not mistaken THX recommends rear speakers to fire directly at the listener whereas Dolby suggests them to face eachother. Confusing!

I would assume hd_newbie meant that it survives beyond being a niche market, and perhaps even eventually overcomes (or at least competes well with) SD DVD.

I suspect it will be awhile before BD gets above 30% market share (to pull a number out of the air...), but I am seeing more and more non-enthusiasts buying players and movies.

But I would bet they aren't interested in the difference in 5.1 vs 7.1. That is an enthusiast-oriented feature (and for those that have to always say "mine is bigger than yours" - i.e. they have 7.1 only because it has more speakers than 5.1, not because they have a good set-up for it, etc).

IMHO,

shinksma

well actually prevails over web-based download services. It seems industry is shifting towards that direction

FYI modeling 3D room ambient (characteristics) is quite complex btw.

“Although the random values of a stochastic process at different times may be independent random variables, in most commonly considered situations they exhibit complicated statistical correlations.”

FYI when the term complex is used such as in "complex analysis" it is describing the set of numbers used in the mathematics.

There is a subset of numbers called complex numbers which can simultaneously describe phase and amplitude in elegant equations in the complex plane. It is the foundation under lying signal analysis.

They used to call them imaginary numbers and it is quite laughable at how some of these cut and paste posts would look if the word complex was replaced with imaginary.


Recreating 3 dimensional spaces isn't mind shatteringly impossible. Many many years ago there was a company Aureal with a video game technology called A3D. It was a very very good HRTF simulator that calculated positional cues in real time in video game speed in 1998 technology. There was one particular level in the video game half life where I must have died 20 times running around these boulders trying to evade a gun equipped helicopter. Looking up while trying to "feel" for where the boulders are is extremely difficult in a virtual space. So to escape the chopper I listened to where it was and ran to the other side of the rock. It was easy to descern when the chopper was in front of me or behind me. After that realization to use the sound to help me the level was completely trivial.

Proof in the pudding.


BTW that soundcard is now worth $30.

...and the headphones were $30 Koss cheapies.

BTW video games are what will drive audiophelia. imagine your music sound being mixed in real time to accomodate your room and your # of speakers (aka you could have hundreds)

Just curious if anyone here prefers 7.1 and what they prefer it for. Now It may be that most audio sources for music like cd's are meant for 2 channel stereo... so the extra speakers might not get utilitzed in this situation... but itsn't it also true that in the future more movies will have 7.1 audio?

Also... are there any movies currently that use true 7.1 audio? and how soon into the future if not?

I have a 21.2 system I prefer over 5.1 or 7.1 :D ;

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=982996&highlight=socio

Recreating 3 dimensional spaces isn't mind shatteringly impossible.I was of course dealing with the art of generating or "modeling" 3D space. Which btw is extremely complex:)

Achieving it (3D ambient) with only conventional panning techniques coupled with discrete effects like reverb, delay or other discrete outboard processing would only result in marginal perceptual realism.

And it shouldn't, since 7.1-channel source material has never had any bearing on 7.1-speaker playback. Lexicon started selling consumer 7-channel pre-pros in 1988, Fosgate in 1986. That's 22 years ago! Consumers wouldn't get discrete 5.1-channel sources for another 8 years (DD 5.1 on laserdisc in 1994).

So without a list of discrete multi-channel material to encourage them, why do you think folks were setting up 7.1-speaker layouts 2 decades ago?
Well, I guess part of my point was that I don't see many people actually using 7.1 speaker setups even today, except a subgroup of AVS types. Not a single person I know with a 7.1 receiver actually has a 7.1 setup. It seems 5.1 setups paired with 7.1 receivers are the norm.


I prefer to use direct firing monopole surrounds all around and only resort to more diffuse surrounds (dipoles, bipoles) if they're going to be distractingly close to any of the listeners (like the folks sitting on either end of my couch).
Yeah, that's what my preference was previously, but the one problem in my current setup is my room is less wide (11') than previous. So, any speakers directly to the side would be very close to the couch.


Bipoles are recommended for surround speakers and direct firing speakers for rear. I may be wrong, but I think I read this in THX website.

There are different school of thoughts though. If I am not mistaken THX recommends rear speakers to fire directly at the listener whereas Dolby suggests them to face eachother. Confusing!
Definitely confusing. I've never been a big fan of THX in general though so maybe I'll just stick with what Dolby recommends... tempered by personal preferences of course.

Not a single person I know with a 7.1 receiver actually has a 7.1 setup.Sorta the opposite for me: I know more people running 7.1 than 5.1. But many of them were early converts to surround sound (years before discrete 5.1 became available to consumers), so they'd already moved to 7.1 while most folks were just discovering 5.1.

Sanjay

I was of course dealing with the art of generating or "modeling" 3D space. Which btw is extremely complex:)

Achieving it (3D ambient) with only conventional panning techniques coupled with discrete effects like reverb, delay or other discrete outboard processing would only result in marginal perceptual realism.

$30 soundcard was pretty good at it. Considering I could very accurately detect which angle the chopper was relative to me I'ld say that fairs a few tiers above marginal. You should check it out, it's alot of fun.

$30 soundcard was pretty good at it.Was the original (game) audio track a binaural recording? Even if it was, my postings are still factual considering I was discussing multi-channel recordings that model and encode many complex perceptual cues. It can’t be done with a $30 dollar sound card. As I indicated above the Studer' VSP model includes early and late reflections with the correct directional and timing characteristics to define a given simulated acoustic space. If the reproduction speaker config and location are not nominal the space would be corrupted.

There is nothing simple or cheap about this process. Studer’ VSP i.e. can (simulate/model) be tuned to match the Royal Albert Hall as closely as possible.

$30 soundcard was pretty good at it. Considering I could very accurately detect which angle the chopper was relative to me I'ld say that fairs a few tiers above marginal. You should check it out, it's alot of fun.


Yup, I still have that A3D chip in the Turtle Beach soundcard installed in my other PC (Windows 98SE computer). Very realistic 3D soundfield from those units.

Sorta the opposite for me: I know more people running 7.1 than 5.1. But many of them were early converts to surround sound (years before discrete 5.1 became available to consumers), so they'd already moved to 7.1 while most folks were just discovering 5.1.

Sanjay



I know more people who run 2 channel television audio as compared with people running 5.1 / 6.1 / 7.1 systems.

Well, I guess part of my point was that I don't see many people actually using 7.1 speaker setups even today, except a subgroup of AVS types. Not a single person I know with a 7.1 receiver actually has a 7.1 setup. It seems 5.1 setups paired with 7.1 receivers are the norm.


I think it depends on the room (see link in my signature). Based on 2 rows, and a large enough room (16 x 20) I use 7.1. I have my receiver set for PLIIx for EVERYTHING -- cable TV, 5.1 tracks, etc. (I don't listen to music in that room) -- so all speakers are used.



Yeah, that's what my preference was previously, but the one problem in my current setup is my room is less wide (11') than previous. So, any speakers directly to the side would be very close to the couch.


I went with Paradigm dipoles/bipoles on the sides, because that is the only side surround option Paradigm provides (and I already owned Paradigm speakers for fronts). Wall mounted direct firing Paradigms would have stuck too far out on the sides. Also, the dipoles/bipoles help with surround sound for the 2nd row.

Yup, I still have that A3D chip in the Turtle Beach soundcard installed in my other PC (Windows 98SE computer). Very realistic 3D soundfield from those units.

The X-Merdian also has a similar 5.1/7.1 3D sound test using a chopper sound as well.

Was the original (game) audio track a binaural recording?

All the sound effects are rendered on the fly. ie the mono sources are defined by a virtual space and mixed as you move around. So say the videogame had a jukebox in a room. The jukebox is a stationary object and I can walk around it and turn around and walk away from it and then turn around and walk towards it, and the audio rendering gives very good positional cues. They had simulations in outdoors and indoors. The indoor one wasn't very convincing but still very coherent with positioning.

After that day I'ld always been an advocate of quality PC gaming audio. If you like to play online, it gives you an unfair advantage if you're using the audio to gather positional data.

The advantage video games have over descrete channels is that when the rendering is on the fly it can accomodate
-different video setups (ie 120" projection screens flanked by L/R and the dinky center under it vs a 37" TV with the L/R 5" away)
-variable speaker counts (2.1/5.1/7.1/30.1)
-variable speaker locations


It's the first reason why I think most surround sound is pretty crumby. In the openning sequence of Man on the Moon, Jim carrey's voice pans in from the Left to the center properly. Most dialogue is just pinned to the center channel, which is fine if you've got a 27" TV but on a projection screen the visual location is rarely directly above the center channel.

They had simulations in outdoors and indoors. The indoor one wasn't very convincing but still very coherent with positioning.Thanks

Sounds like 360 degree binaural panning algorithm. Nothing on the order of complexity i.e. simulating a specific 3D acoustical space and encoding it into a MC production, just like the specific examples given.

Sorta the opposite for me: I know more people running 7.1 than 5.1. But many of them were early converts to surround sound (years before discrete 5.1 became available to consumers), so they'd already moved to 7.1 while most folks were just discovering 5.1.

Sanjay



Get rid of your old fashioned 7.1 equipment. You and your friends are so old hat. PL-2x is so 20th century.

Get into the 21st century with the new and improved PL-2z. Time for you to update to 9.1 (or 7.1 for 5.1 users)!


http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/prologic-IIz.html

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/prologic-IIz-configurations.html

Get rid of your old fashioned 7.1 equipment. You and your friends are so old hat. PL-2x is so 20th century.

Get into the 21st century with the new and improved PL-2z. Time for you to update to 9.1 (or 7.1 for 5.1 users)!
That would be great, I've always been sorry my Yamaha won't drive both the front presence speakers and the rear surrounds at the same time, and I don't want to give up the rear surrounds (or buy the RX-Z11!).

But it looks like we'll see some affordable 9.1 receivers soon (Onkyo TX-SR607 just announced at CES).

Get rid of your old fashioned 7.1 equipment. You and your friends are so old hat. PL-2x is so 20th century.

Get into the 21st century with the new and improved PL-2z. Time for you to update to 9.1 (or 7.1 for 5.1 users)!


http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/prologic-IIz.html

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/prologic-IIz-configurations.html

You can already achieve this and more with "20th century" equipment see the link in post #313.

I have a 21.2 system I prefer over 5.1 or 7.1 :D ;

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=982996&highlight=socio If you have not altered the plumbing since 2002, I think you are not getting the most benefit of the CS-3X units. Your post states: >>I ran the left front & left side surround outs to the left front & right front inputs on one CS3X Jr then used its the SP1 output as left side axis and SP2 output as left overhead. Then did the same with right front & right side surround on the other CS3X for the right side axis and right overhead channels.<<

First, let me tell you what I am assuming from your description.
1) When you say "left side output" I take that as the Ls output of a 5.1 decoder.
2) When you say "left side axis" output I take that as an extra speaker placed on the side somewhere between L and Ls.

If my above assumptions are incorrect, ignore what I am about to say.

To drive the L side axis speaker you should use the C output, so that sounds that are common to L and Ls in the 5.1 source will be output between them. Doing so then leaves you both the SP1 and SP2 outputs to use for overhead speakers. As it is described, you are outputting "L surround" info to the L side and R surround to the L overhead.

If you have some 5.1 content like Mission to Mars that Sanjay noted, you will find that the panned signal ducks out when moving between Ls and L (or R and Rs). Have you noticed that? If so, reconnecting as I described will fix it.

If you have not altered the plumbing since 2002, I think you are not getting the most benefit of the CS-3X units. Your post states: >>I ran the left front & left side surround outs to the left front & right front inputs on one CS3X Jr then used its the SP1 output as left side axis and SP2 output as left overhead. Then did the same with right front & right side surround on the other CS3X for the right side axis and right overhead channels.<<

First, let me tell you what I am assuming from your description.
1) When you say "left side output" I take that as the Ls output of a 5.1 decoder.
2) When you say "left side axis" output I take that as an extra speaker placed on the side somewhere between L and Ls.

If my above assumptions are incorrect, ignore what I am about to say.

To drive the L side axis speaker you should use the C output, so that sounds that are common to L and Ls in the 5.1 source will be output between them. Doing so then leaves you both the SP1 and SP2 outputs to use for overhead speakers. As it is described, you are outputting "L surround" info to the L side and R surround to the L overhead.

If you have some 5.1 content like Mission to Mars that Sanjay noted, you will find that the panned signal ducks out when moving between Ls and L (or R and Rs). Have you noticed that? If so, reconnecting as I described will fix it.

Your assumptions are correct but have have not noticed any drop outs. When I orginally set this up I used a 3D chopper sound test and it picked up the sound in each speaker going around the room thus seemed to be working as intended.

However I see your point and agree the center outs would be the optimum choice for the side axis speakers not SP1. I made the nessesary changes re-ran the 3d sound test and picks up the sounds perfectly.

Thank you for the heads up on my error!

Your assumptions are correct but have have not noticed any drop outs. When I orginally set this up I used a 3D chopper sound test and it picked up the sound in each speaker going around the room thus seemed to be working as intended. It's pretty rare for there to be an identical signal in L and Ls, especially for any extended period of time, so it's understandable it went unnoticed. On top of all this, the error can also be masked if the 5.1 decoder is applying any time delay offsets to the fronts vs surrounds.

Roger, are you certain? You might be caught in some overwhelming distortion of the time/space continuum where these pestilent artifacts manifest themselves as faux transparency.

ROFLMAO! :D

Thoroughly entertaining thread, but the above quote sent me over the edge!

Robert