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 will post a quick comment here and maybe add to it in the morning. There are a bunch of Blu-ray discs that have 7.1 audio. It is a huge advantage over 5.1 and you truly feel engulfed by the sound.

I generally do not use surround modes for stereo music or for mono or stereo movies, but for everything else 7.1.

The difference between 5.1 and 7.1 setups is an easily appreciated greater envelopment by the sound track even with 5.1 and 6.1 sources.

If you can go do some listening to a well set up 7.1 system. You will hear the difference and it only will get better as more BD disks are encoded with 7.1 sound tracks. Try it, you’ll like it.:)

I would imagine that someone who has a 7.1 system as opposed to a 5.1 system, prefers a 7.1 system over a 5.1 system. Right? ;)

If you are on a budget, are not sure if you need a 7.1 system, or cannot accommodate it aesthetically or spatially, then a 5.1 system will work just fine for you. Except for the new codecs, almost everything is encoded as 5.1, and even the new codecs are not yet being fully utilized. Of course, they will be, but even with a 5.1 system you will be capable of reproducing every bit of a true 7.1 soundtrack; the surround channels will just be reproduced by 2 speakers instead of 4.

Just curious if anyone here prefers 7.1 and what they prefer it for.There are three things I prefer about 7.1 over 5.1: precise directionality (left vs right and rear vs side separation is clearer with 4 surround speakers than with 2 surround speakers), greater wrap-around envelopment (4 speakers can literally surround you better than 2 speakers ever could), stable imaging (no matter where you're sitting, sounds at your sides and behind you stay at those locations, because there are speakers there). 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 situationDepends on you. Surround processing can be used to scale the number of channels in the source material to the number of speakers in your set-up. Think of how the number of pixels in a standard def DVDs is scaled to match the number of pixels in your hi-def display. Of course if you don't like how it sounds (or are philisophically against it), then you can always turn it off and listen to the audio using 2 or 5.1 out of your 7.1 speakers. but itsn't it also true that in the future more movies will have 7.1 audio?7.1 source material will probably remain a tiny percentage of audio for the forseeable future, at least compared to 2-channel and 5.1-channel sources. Also... are there any movies currently that use true 7.1 audio?There are roughly 60 Blu-ray titles that have discrete 7.1-channel soundtracks.

Sanjay

There are roughly 60 Blu-ray titles that have discrete 7.1-channel soundtracks.Just curious, Sanjay, is it only newer titles that are being released with 7.1 soundtracks? Are newer soundtracks mastered in 7.1 for theater release and are theaters able to accommodate them, yet, or is 7.1 for HT apps, only?

How are the extra surround channels generated with older titles? How are surround tracks generated at all, 5.1 or 7.1, from older titles that were not even surround, for that matter. Just the standard or usual algorithms or is more effort put into it than that?

The key here is a replay system. Think of it like this...

If you have a recording in 2 channel stereo, you want the ability to replay it the way it was recorded. Then if your system has the ability to process the signal and do more with it, you can try out using 2.1 , 3.1 , 5.1 , 6.1 or 7.1. This is nice depending on your taste and source material.

Now comes 5.1 I'll skip right here. Again you want the ability to replay the material in it's original form. So having a 5.1 system is necessary. Most movies today are in 5.1. So using a 7.1 system for 5.1 is not necessary. You can however use a a second pair of side speakers if you have a dedicated theater with multiple rows of chairs. This most of the time will require a 2 channel amp for the 2nd pair of rears. Some receivers like Denon give you the ability to send surround speakers to another pair of speakers. A-B if you will. But in a 7.1 system , the surround back speakers are in a totally different position.

So lets talk about 7.1. So beating the horse, you need a 7.1 system to replay a source which is 7.1. I'll leave it at that.

So what's the bottom line here?? Depending on the source, you need the correct system to replay it, now one thing is that a 5.1 system will get it done if there is no place to install surround back speakers. What the decoders do is mix the 6th channel info(7.1 audio is really 6.1 mono surroundback in most cases) into the surround speakers.

Good luck with what you do, Personally I have a 7.1 system but only use 5.1.

Dan

So lets talk about 7.1. So beating the horse, you need a 7.1 system to replay a source which is 7.1. I'll leave it at that.But downmixing a 7.1 soundtrack to 5.1 is far more palatable than downmixing, for example, a 5.1 soundtrack to 2.1. So, even though a 7.1 system is definitely necessary for recreating a 7.1 soundtrack, it can still be fairly satisfactorily reproduced by a 5.1 setup.


Personally I have a 7.1 system but only use 5.1.Wow, then you're the person the OP is looking for. Why do you not use your 7.1 system? And if you never use it, why do you have the extra 2 speakers set up?

What the decoders do is mix the 6th channel info(7.1 audio is really 6.1 mono surroundback in most cases) into the surround speakers.
Is there much of a difference when listening to 7.1 mix on a 6.1 speaker layout as compared to a 7.1 layout?

Is there much of a difference when listening to 7.1 mix on a 6.1 speaker layout as compared to a 7.1 layout?It's 1 speaker different. ;)


If you can't accommodate (or afford) 4 surround speakers, IMO, there is no reason to bend over backwards to uncomfortably attempt it OR to worry yourself too much over it. If you can't do it, you just can't do it. Unless you are already well-accustomed to 7.1, 5.1/6.1 can still provide a very satisfactory surround experience.

The only problem I may have with 7.1 is speaker placement. I will not be able to place the speakers directly at the sides... but I can place them slightly forward and to the sides. Hopefully that will be good enough. I have a ps3 and I am getting a new denon receiver so I will be able to set it up.. was just wondering if any new blu rays used it. So about 60 blu rays use it? is it only ones made after a certain date or something?

The only problem I may have with 7.1 is speaker placement. I will not be able to place the speakers directly at the sides... but I can place them slightly forward and to the sides. Hopefully that will be good enough. I have a ps3 and I am getting a new denon receiver so I will be able to set it up.. was just wondering if any new blu rays used it. So about 60 blu rays use it? is it only ones made after a certain date or something?

http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php

The doors... that movie was made a while back. I doubt the 7.1 channels it says are authentic. Which format should I be focusing on ?

The doors... that movie was made a while back. I doubt the 7.1 channels it says are authentic. Which format should I be focusing on ?Did you read Post#10, notig?

Did you read Post#10, notig?

Maybe you are misunderstanding what I am asking right there. I am not asking which format as in 5.1 vs 7.1 I should be focusing on. I have already decided I want to try 7.1. What I meant was which format is true 7.1 ? Which movies are truly 7 channel and not simply just a 5.1 channel that has somehow been manipulated into 7.1 channels. If there are any. There are a multitude of different formats those blu rays are using and I know some of the older movies can't be true 7.1 . TrueHD... TrueHD 24 bit... True HD 7.1... DTS-MA 7.1 etc

Just curious, Sanjay, is it only newer titles that are being released with 7.1 soundtracks?It ranges from the 70-year-old 'Pinocchio' to the very recent 'Hellboy II'. Are newer soundtracks mastered in 7.1 for theater release and are theaters able to accommodate them, yet, or is 7.1 for HT apps, only?7.1 theatrical mixes were only used with one format, SDDS, but the configuration was 5 channels across the front (still only 2 surround channels). Otherwise, theatrical mixes are typically 5.1 or sometimes 5.1 EX (matrix surround-back channel). There is no theatrical 6.1 format (discrete surround-back channel), as we have on DVD.

7.1, as we usually think of it (4 surround channels), is a home theatre concoction. This might be a case where studios are re-mixing theatrical soundtracks based on the emerging popularity of a home theatre speaker layout. Then again, consumers were using 5.1-speaker set-ups a decade before they had any 5.1 soundtracks. How are the extra surround channels generated with older titles?There are a couple of mixing houses (Mi Casa Multimedia and Pacific Ocean Post) that have been doing 7.1 re-mixes for for studios like New Line and Lionsgate. They get separate 5.1 stems of dialogue, music and sound effects. They then use extraction tools, such as TC Unwrap, to steer sounds from each surround channel to new side and rear channels.

While it may seem similar to what we can do at home with PLIIx, the mixing houses have one big advantage: they can steer just the sound effects without dragging the music with it. We can't do this at home, because we get a composite 5.1 soundtrack, where the dialogue/music/effects stems have already been merged together. How are surround tracks generated at all, 5.1 or 7.1, from older titles that were not even surround, for that matter.For really old titles that weren't 5.1 originally (e.g., 'Sleeping Beauty' and the old James Bond films that just came out on Blu-ray), the mixers try to get original stems (mono or stereo) and do a 5.1 or 7.1 mix. If the only thing available is the fully mixed mono soundtrack, then they have to figure out a way to extract certain effects and music cues in order to give them some sort of stereo spread. Just the standard or usual algorithms or is more effort put into it than that?Professionals usually have better (and way more tweakable) audio extraction and manipulation tools than we consumers do.

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

Thanks, sanjay. :)

Maybe you are misunderstanding what I am asking right there. I am not asking which format as in 5.1 vs 7.1 I should be focusing on. I have already decided I want to try 7.1. What I meant was which format is true 7.1 ? Which movies are truly 7 channel and not simply just a 5.1 channel that has somehow been manipulated into 7.1 channels. If there are any. There are a multitude of different formats those blu rays are using and I know some of the older movies can't be true 7.1 . TrueHD... TrueHD 24 bit... True HD 7.1... DTS-MA 7.1 etcAre you only going to be buying/renting those titles that are truly natively mixed as 7.1? :confused:

Which movies are truly 7 channel and not simply just a 5.1 channel that has somehow been manipulated into 7.1 channels.None. There are no 7.1 theatrical mixes, which means that 7.1 on Blu-ray is 5.1 manipulated. Then again, there is no true 5.1 either. Movie soundtracks are built piece by piece using mono (sometimes stereo) sounds that are manipulated into 5.1 channels.

Sanjay

Then again, there is no true 5.1 either. Movie soundtracks are built piece by piece using mono (sometimes stereo) sounds that are manipulated into 5.1 channels.

The following would definitely qualify as a “true” 5.1 mix.

http://euphonix.com/pro/news/img/reviews/psnus_kong_article.pdf
Meyerson Mixes King Kong Score

“All sessions employed a 106-piece orchestra that included six percussionists”

“The Euphonix System F-5 on Todd-AO’s stage 3 provides 132 inputs--all of which are in use during Meyerson’s mix sessions”

“we upload our stems (five sets of 5.1 mix stems) to Digidesign’s secure severs.”

The following would definitely qualify as a “true” 5.1 mix.No. Just the orchestral elements themselves were 60 tracks. Add overdubs, synth and processed sounds, and they ended up with 160 tracks. Some of this had to be pre-mixed, since their board could only handle 132 inputs.

So, it's not like they took a 5-capsule mic and captured a "true" multi-channel surround recording of the orchestra.

The final mix for the score was created the way the rest of the soundtrack was, piece by piece using mono (possibly some stereo) sounds that were manipulated into 5.1 channels. Just as I said earlier.

Sanjay

So, it's not like they took a 5-capsule mic and captured a "true" multi-channel surround recording of the orchestra.
5 mic elements are not necessary to capture 3D ambience.

http://www.soundfieldsurround.com/products/reviews/sps422b_review.pdf
Soundfield 5.1 Recording System

The B-format signal contains all of the directional information of the incident sound wave in three dimensions, and equate to an omnidirectional mic and three orthogonal figure-of –eight mics (all four being coincident with one another).

In other words the B-format output can be recorded on any four track recorder.

5 mic elements are not necessary to capture 3D ambience.I didn't say it was necessary, just using it as an example. The B-format signal contains all of the directional information of the incident sound wave in three dimensions, and equate to an omnidirectional mic and three orthogonal figure-of –eight mics (all four being coincident with one another).Are you saying that one of these mics was used to capture the orchestra for the 'King Kong' score so that it would "definitely qualify as a “true” 5.1 mix"?

Sanjay

No..rather it's an over simplification to couple the fact i.e. an isolated mic defines or determines if a given production (mix) can be considered mono, stereo or "true" muti-channel surround is by definition "misleading".

No..rather it's an over simplification to couple the fact i.e. an isolated mic defines or determines if a given production (mix) can be considered mono, stereo or "true" muti-channel surround is by definition "misleading".So you're saying that the 'King Kong' soundtrack wasn't put together piece by piece using mono or stereo elements? Is that what makes it "definitely qualify as a “true” 5.1 mix" compared to all other movie soundtracks? Or is there some other reason you brought up the 'King Kong' score in a thread about 5.1 vs 7.1.

Sanjay

FWIW it's a "true 5.1 Production/Mix" its not really mono or stereo or 7.1, ect..its


wait for it..




TRUE 5.1:)

FWIW it's a "true 5.1 Production/Mix" its not really mono or stereo or 7.1, ect..its


wait for it..




TRUE 5.1:)What does your pointless tautology have to do with the 'King Kong' score that you brought up?

Sanjay

Originally Posted by tbrunet
The following would definitely qualify as a “true” 5.1 mix.;)
No.

Originally Posted by tbrunet
The following would definitely qualify as a “true” 5.1 mix.;)Multiple posts later you still haven't been able to explain why 'King Kong' qualifies as a a "true" 5.1 mix. Why aren't you answering the question?

Sanjay

Multiple posts later you still haven't been able to explain why 'King Kong' qualifies as a a "true" 5.1 mix. Are you ill?

Alan Meyerson

http://euphonix.com/pro/news/img/reviews/psnus_kong_article.pdf

"I brought in my own reference monitors --B&W Nautilus 802Ds-- which I always mix my scores on. Hence, I have my 5.1 surround in place."

Are you ill?Are you able to answer the question? Surely you're not suggesting that the use of 5 speakers for monitoring is what made 'King Kong' a "true" 5.1 mix. Do other movies use fewer speakers for monitoring?

Sanjay

Go ask Alan Meyerson why "he" did not use seven speakers.

Maybe he didn't want too many envelopment artifacts..

Go ask Alan Meyerson why "he" did not use seven speakers.He's not the one claiming that the score was "true" 5.1. In fact, he clearly says that he took something like 160 elements and manipulated them into a 5.1 mix, similar in technique to how 7.1 mixes are created.

Stop hiding behind Meyerson and take some responsibility for your own pronouncements. Since you made the claim, why don't you explain what makes 'King Kong' "true" 5.1 compared to other movie mixes.

Sanjay

The OP asked the relevant question regarding whether or not 7.1 is really produced from a manipulated 5.1 mix. Your comment Sanjay above states:
there is no "true" 5.1
FYI there's a difference between encoding mono, stereo, quad, 5.1 and 7.1 sound fields.

The OP question was valid. I simply gave and example of a mix that would definitely qualify as 5.1. Whether you like it or not Sanjay the (5.1) encoding actually represent discrete speaker channels. There is indeed a difference between 5.1 and 7.1, with respect to how the discrete channels actually interact perceptually with none or all the other remaining surround channels.

The OP question was valid. I simply gave and example of a mix that would definitely qualify as 5.1.So, based on the OP's question, you're saying there was no manipulation involved in mixing the 5.1 score for 'King Kong', making it "true" as opposed "manipulated"? The article you linked to says the opposite. Try again.

Sanjay

What you just quoted me saying is a fact..you could have even quoted my entire post and it would still be factual.

No reason to "try again"

No reason to "try again"Then how about trying for the first time, since you still haven't answered what makes the 'King Kong' 5.1 mix "true" as opposed to "manipulated". Why are you avoiding the question?

Sanjay

I think you guys are getting awfully worked up over a matter of semantics and arguing at tangents. How about you each explicitly define your understanding of what a "true" 5.1 mix is? I'll bet they're not the same.

I think you guys are getting awfully worked up over a matter of semantics and arguing at tangents.Not getting worked up, since I'm used to these kind of arguments from tbrunet. If you look at his posting history, you'll see that this is the third thread he's followed me into (this week alone) in order to make some inconsequential argument that has nothing to do with the discussion. How about you each explicitly define your understanding of what a "true" 5.1 mix is?Since I was orignally responding to the OP's question, I was using his definition of "true", where the number of channels in a soundtrack is not a result of fewer channels being manipulated into more channels.

Sanjay

How about you each explicitly define your understanding of what a "true" 5.1 mix is?Sure no problem youngho:)

A given specific 5.1 soundfield has been optimized perceptually in real time with the number of discrete surround speakers and in concert with their (speakers) nominal perspective toward a listening position.

Perceptually (5.1) or (7.1) panning is different from simple amplitude-based panning, one can employ DSP to also calculate appropriate frequency and time-based changes as a sound is panned including early reflections that are unique to a discrete channel per given surround format.

So there are “true” 5.1 mixes and there are “true 7.1 mixes.

Above I gave an example of a B-format (W-X-Y-Z) recording system that can produce mono, stereo, 5.1, 6.1, 10.2, ect. soundfields.

I just realized that Iron Man only has 5.1 ..Talk about not paying any attention since I have watched it about 10 times and I use to show off my room to friends and family weekly!!! :eek:

It rocks in my HT Room, still my most exciting movie to date in that room and what this means is that people who argue that 7.1 is better then 5.1 are the same people that are going to be arguing that DACs are different, Flat panel PQ is different, Amps are different...blah, blah, blah.

The truth of it all is pretty simple....If you have a great system then who gives a crap if its 5.1 or 7.1!!....if you do give a crap, I feel sorry for any family or friends you have ;)

Seems like all those 7.1 movies in that Bluray.com link ar DTS MA, are there any Dolby TrueHD 7.1 channel movies available?

...are there any Dolby TrueHD 7.1 channel movies available?'Nightmare Before Christmas' is TrueHD 7.1.

Sanjay

I've played a few games like resistance on PS3 that my receiver reports as 7.1 multichannel input and I can say I like it better than 5.1 mode or PLIIx. The end product is definately more immersive than any of the 5.1 titles I've played, even when PLIIx is applied. To that end I can say that I do prefer the 7.1 more than the 5.1.

I just realized that Iron Man only has 5.1 ..Talk about not paying any attention since I have watched it about 10 times and I use to show off my room to friends and family weekly!!! :eek:What are you saying? That you have a 7.1 setup but you didn't apply PLIIx and were only listening in 5.1?

What are you saying? That you have a 7.1 setup but you didn't apply PLIIx and were only listening in 5.1?

No Im saying I actually did not realize Iron Man isnt 7.1, I have PLIIx set but I havent changed it for awhile so I never looked. :eek: Actually, even though someone said lots of BRs have 7.1. Outside of Hellboy II, what good ones do? Even Batman coming out in December is 5.1.

This is all very suprising to me....the best action movies are not 7.1?? Obviously its not that important and in the end I still wouldnt care if the movie was 7.1.....PLIIx does the 5.1 to 7.1 just fine :D

Yes, there are lots of movies that use more than 5.1. Any Dolby EX movie from the last 5-7 years, for example, and is even encoded on most modern DVDs as well as Blu-Ray discs.

However, almost all movies are mixed and mastered for 6.1, not 7.1. On a 7.1 system, you'll get the same back channel out of both the speakers. If you're building a wide theater, that might be good, as you'll get a "rear sound field" behind most of the audience. However, in a living room sized setting, you may be better off with a 6.1 set-up, with a central rear speaker, for proper localization. That's the set-up I chose, and it works really well for me. It also adds a lot, both to movies and game playing.

However, almost all movies are mixed and mastered for 6.1, not 7.1. On a 7.1 system, you'll get the same back channel out of both the speakers. If you're building a wide theater, that might be good, as you'll get a "rear sound field" behind most of the audience. However, in a living room sized setting, you may be better off with a 6.1 set-up, with a central rear speaker, for proper localization. That's the set-up I chose, and it works really well for me. It also adds a lot, both to movies and game playing.A caveat being that when you apply PLIIx to a 5.1 soundtrack, the matrixed rear surround info is actually NOT identical but is, instead, in "stereo".

PLIIx creates "stereo" back channels that weren't there in the original mix. If you like your electronics to create pieces of sound that weren't originally there, then that's all well and good, and the 7th channel may make more sense. Personally, I don't :-)

PLIIx creates "stereo" back channels that weren't there in the original mix. If you like your electronics to create pieces of sound that weren't originally there, then that's all well and good, and the 7th channel may make more sense. Personally, I don't :-)What do you think goes to your 6th speaker when decoding a 5.1 soundtrack? That channel wasn't there, either. Or do you just not use it?

I'd posit that stereo rear surrounds are actually MORE appropriate for the living room than mono rear surrounds.

Whether creating stereo versus mono back channels is 'correct' or not when there are 2 speakers back there is not really arguable IMO. I would remind you that the side surround channels from which the 2 new back channels are created were stereo. So it makes sense, if you have the capability, to create stereo rear surround info from that side surround info. People with 2 rear surrounds, almost universally, apply PLIIx to EX soundtracks. I've never heard anyone say they actually prefer EX decoding in this instance.

And it's not just the rear surround channels that weren't in the original mix. The side surrounds channels are created anew as well when PLIIx is applied. So?

Do you take issue with a mono or stereo James Bond soundtrack from the 60s being manipulated to produce a 5.1 (or even 7.1) soundtrack for Blu-Ray release?

People with 2 rear surrounds, almost universally, apply PLIIx to EX soundtracks. I've never heard anyone say they actually prefer EX decoding in this instance. Still this does not change the fact that the center back channel is in reality matrixed over the two left and right surrounds, rather than discrete.

In true discrete multi-channel surround formats there's no steering interaction between the channels.

Still this does not change the fact that the center back channel is in reality matrixed over the two left and right surrounds, rather than discrete.

In true discrete multi-channel surround formats there's no steering interaction between the channels.

Yeah, we know that but whats your real point?

Anyone and everyone that has 7.1 system will play the few movies that have 7.1 in 7.1 and they will play the 5.1 movies in 7.1 using PLIIx, who cares if its matrixed becaused you can not get 7.1 otherwise with 5.1 movies, duh! ;)



The OP actually is asking if anyone having 7.1 would rather go back to 5.1 and not have those rear surrounds. All this extra fluff arguement its is meaningless to the question.

I personally do not care, because a great 5.1 systems is AWESOME, a great 7.1 system is AWESOME and those who exaggerate how good 7.1 is or refuse to agree that 5.1 is still great are people that I would never hang with and I make fun of every day in the real world :D :D

NOTE: I Have Hellboy II and the 7.1 is cool! Too bad all the other good action movies are 5.1.

PLIIx creates "stereo" back channels that weren't there in the original mix.Bass management creates satellite and subwoofer channels that weren't in the orignal mix either. Do you not use bass managment in your system, since those filtered channels weren't there in the original mix? If you like your electronics to create pieces of sound that weren't originally there...What "pieces of sound" is the electronics creating? And since they "weren't originally there", where does it get this new information from? It's not like there's a sound effects library built into receivers.

Sanjay

I personally do not care, because a great 5.1 systems is AWESOME, a great 7.1 system is AWESOME and those who exaggerate how good 7.1 is or refuse to agree that 5.1 is still great are people that I would never hang with and I make fun of every day in the real world :D :D



I used a 5.1 system for a long time and loved it. That being said with the increase in surround sound data you get with the 7.1, I'd never want to go back. I havent watched a 7.1 movie yet but the difference it makes strictly in video games amazes me. I wish valve wasnt so down on the PS3. Left 4 Dead would be a great 7.1 title. As far as I know the 360 doesn't support 7.1 audio, I've never seen it go any higher than 5.1.

All that being said, I couldnt tell you what differences I hear with a 5.1 movie in PLIIx vs 5.1 native. Probably just a slightly fuller rear soundstage due to the placement of my speakers. I couldnt justify the cost difference just for that though.

..Anyone and everyone that has 7.1 system will play the few movies that have 7.1 in 7.1 and they will play the 5.1 movies in 7.1 using PLIIx, who cares if its matrixed becaused you can not get 7.1 otherwise with 5.1 movies, duh!There seems to be some confusion regarding if it's possible to get something for nothing.. thats all:)

Since the original mix did not have discrete 7.1 info then in turn PLIIx steering artifacts will be unavoidable.

All that being said, I couldnt tell you what differences I hear with a 5.1 movie in PLIIx vs 5.1 native. Probably just a slightly fuller rear soundstage due to the placement of my speakers. I couldnt justify the cost difference just for that though.

I agree with that! I actually use to wire the side and back speakers in series on my 5.1 setup to create a fuller rear soundstage when I had 5.1 AVRs. It gave me 7.1 ;)

A given specific 5.1 soundfield has been optimized perceptually in real time with the number of discrete surround speakers and in concert with their (speakers) nominal perspective toward a listening position.In that case, your definition of "true" 5.1 contradicts your own example of the 'King Kong' score, since it was mixed using only two "discrete surround speakers" when the mixer knew it would be played back using large arrays of surround speakers. So much for "optimized". Still this does not change the fact that the center back channel is in reality matrixed over the two left and right surrounds, rather than discrete.You're creating your own straw man just to knock it down. Who said surround processing yielded discrete channels? In fact, the only reason people resort to matrix processing is because the number of discrete channels in the soundtrack doesn't match the number of speakers in their set-up. If all our media suddenly turned discrete 7.1 (or however many speakers you use) overnight, why would anyone need surround processing? Since the original mix did not have discrete 7.1 info then in turn PLIIx steering artifacts will be unavoidable.Another straw man. Where did anyone ever claim that matrix processing is artifact free? So what would you suggest as an alternative? Physically change speaker configurations every time a Blu-ray has 5.1 or 6.1 or 7.1 channels?

Sanjay

Theatrical mixes and consumer DVD release (discrete 5.1) surround mixes are different, i.e. X -curve coupled with nominal SPL calibration levels. Alan Meyerson "optimized the mix" for 5.1 and NOT 7.1;)

Theatrical mixes and consumer DVD release (discrete 5.1) surround mixes are different, i.e. X -curve coupled with nominal SPL calibration levels. Alan Meyerson "optimized the mix" for 5.1 and NOT 7.1


Again, why do you post the obvious?

people have 7 speakers in their room so they are going to get sound to come out of those 7 speakers....its that simple.

What do you suggest they do? Use only 5 speakers instead?

Theatrical mixes and consumer DVD release (discrete 5.1) surround mixes are different, i.e. X -curve coupled with nominal SPL calibration levels.Depends on the studio. Some (Sony) typically do nearfield remasters for their home video releases while others (Paramount) usually just port over the theatrical track. Alan Meyerson "optimized the mix" for 5.1 and NOT 7.1;)No one ever said otherwise. What was in question was your claim that it was somehow a "true" 5.1 mix. Your own definition in a subsequent post contradicted your earlier claim, thus answering the question.

Sanjay

Bass management creates satellite and subwoofer channels that weren't in the orignal mix either.

Proper bass management actually does not create a perceptible additional channel, because the bass is intended to be omnidirectional. However, just for reference, I use full-range speakers for all my channels.

I assumed that the difference between deliberate matrix encoding of an existing mix channel like Dolby EX, and synthesized steered channels created by PLIIx would be obvious to most people when pointed out, but apparently not. Some people seem to think that the "more" sound that comes out, the better, no matter what it was that the mixing/mastering engineer heard in the control room. And if it makes them happy, then let them!

Personally, I want to re-create what the mixing and mastering engineers heard, and I take it on faith that they want to re-create what the original sound was in the case of live performance, and that they want to create the best possible listening experience for mostly synthetic recordings like movies. I don't want my playback circuitry to muck with the intended signal any more than it has to, with the ideal being no mucking at all.

Clear enough?

..I don't want my playback circuitry to muck with the intended signal any more than it has to, with the ideal being no mucking at all.

Clear enough?Perfectly!

Just curious, jwatte and tbrunet, did you have a "surround sound" system 15 years ago in the PLII days?

And how do you listen to DD2.0 broadcasts, nowadays?



So what would you suggest as an alternative?Great question. I guess 7.1 receivers, which have been around for several years now, are just a gimmick. Consumers had them shoved down their throats. Development of PLIIx was a huge waste of some engineers' time.


Personally, I want to re-create what the mixing and mastering engineers heard, and I take it on faith that they want to re-create what the original sound was in the case of live performance, and that they want to create the best possible listening experience for mostly synthetic recordings like movies. I don't want my playback circuitry to muck with the intended signal any more than it has to, with the ideal being no mucking at all.So, I take it you listen to 5.1 soundtracks without using your 6th rear speaker, then. Correct?

I guess 7.1 receivers, which have been around for several years now....While 7.1 receivers showed up several years ago, consumer 7-channel pre-pros have been around for over 22 years (Fosgate in 1986, Lexicon in 1988). That's a full 8 years before any discrete 5.1 material available to consumers. So this concept of mapping each discrete channel to one and only one speaker is a relatively recent mindset in the history of surround sound (which goes back decades). By comparison, 7-speaker playback is not as new as most people think it is.

Sanjay

I use full-range speakers for all my channels.Do you use bass management and create new channels that weren't there originally? You didn't answer the question last time. Some people seem to think that the "more" sound that comes out, the better, no matter what it was that the mixing/mastering engineer heard in the control room.You're starting from the false premise that more speakers neccessarily means more sound. It can be the same sound, just mapped to more speakers.

Have you ever watched a standard def DVD on a hi-def display? Did you get "more" image than was originally there? Or was it the same 480 content simply mapped to more pixels.

Likewise, if a sound pans from the left surround channel to the right surround channel, it doesn't become more sound just because the pan travels through 4 speakers instead of 2. Still takes the same amount of time, still moves in the same direction. Personally, I want to re-create what the mixing and mastering engineers heard....That'll never happen. With the room and speakers being the biggest influences on what eventually reaches your ears, you'd need to replicate the studio that each soundtrack was mixed in to "re-create what the mixing and mastering engineers heard". What electronics does to the signal is minor compared to the room does.

Sanjay

Have you ever watched a standard def DVD on a hi-def display? Did you get "more" image than was originally there? Or was it the same 480 content simply mapped to more pixels.
Actually re-scaling images will result in artifacts as well.

Personally, I want to re-create what the mixing and mastering engineers heard, and I take it on faith that they want to re-create what the original sound was in the case of live performance

Is this not the biggest audiophile fallacy ever?

Anyways, do you have 5.1 or 7.1 speaker setup and if so do you turn your back surrounds off for 5.1 playback? Do you teach your kids and your wife that they need to "Press this button" for their playback?

heck, what do you say to your friends and family when they say "HEY, your back speakers are not working" Do you honestly say...."Im trying to re-create the original soundtrack and not color it" :eek: I would love to see the looks after that explanation ;)

Actually re-scaling images will result in artifacts as well.

We live in a world of artifacts, most of us do not care ;) Personally I do not scale my standard TV because side bars are better then a crappier expanded picture

Actually re-scaling images will result in artifacts as well.Thank you captain obvious. Since no video processing is artifact free, what would you suggest as an alternative? Physically change display panels every time you change from 480 to 720 to 1080 sources?

Sanjay

Physically change display panels every time you change from 480 to 720 to 1080 sources?


hehe, my biggest pet peeve is when my wife "zooms" the standard channels and then I have to switch it back on the HD channels.

..That'll never happen.Not even possible with Dolby PLIIx. FWIW jwatte's comment was spot on.. aka fact.

Depends on the studio. Some (Sony) typically do nearfield remasters for their home video releasesPractically 100% of the industry state of the art studios would employ no less than Pro midfields (Genelec, JBL, Dynaudio) or even custom soffit-mounted main monitors. Note Alan Meyerson made use of his personal B&W Nautilus 802Ds.

Sanjay you apparently don’t comprehend the technical difference between 5.1 and 7.1 “mixed soundfields” nor their accurate reproduction;)

FWIW jwatte's comment was spot on.. aka fact.Which comment? Practically 100% of the industry state of the art studios would employ no less than Pro midfields (Genelec, JBL, Dynaudio) or even custom soffit-mounted main monitors.And this random comment has what to do with the fact that some studios remaster for home video and others port the theatrical soundtracks? Sanjay you apparently don’t comprehend the technical difference between 5.1 and 7.1 “mixed soundfields” nor their accurate reproduction;) And you, whose definition of a "true" 5.1 mix contradicts your own example of a "true" 5.1 mix, think you do. LOL.

Sanjay

Which comment? And this random comment has what to do with the fact that some studios remaster for home video..It was in response to your comment regarding "nearfield" reference monitoring.

http://www.grammy.com/pdfs/recording_academy/producers_and_engineers/5_1_rec.pdf
:rolleyes:
Most recording studios have monitors that are set on stands creating a midfield monitoring space.

"Mid-field monitoring is usually preferred for surround mixing. (Unlike nearfield monitors, mid-field monitors are designed to be used free-standing and not placed on top of a console meter bridge.)”

It was in response to your comment regarding "nearfield" reference monitoring.My comment simply separated a nearfield mix (for home video) from a farfield mix (for theatrical release). Irrespective of speaker models used, they're sometimes placed at the edge of the console (within arm's reach qualifies as nearfield) when remastering soundtracks for home video. Stage 17 at Sony is a good example (since I used Sony as an example of a studio that remasters for home video), as is Mi Casa Multimedia (they do 7.1 mixes for New Line).

Are you so completely desperate to argue with me about something (anything) that you're now dwelling on a single word plucked out of my entire post?

Sanjay

..they're sometimes placed at the edge of the console (within arm's reach qualifies as nearfield) when doing the home video remaster. If a given 5.1 mix is produced by utilizing near/midfield monitors setup within "arm's reach", that would be propfessionally incompetant. If Sony Pictures' does this it's laughable.

http://www.grammy.com/pdfs/recording_academy/producers_and_engineers/5_1_rec.pdf
:rolleyes:
Recommendations For Surround Sound Production

If Sony Pictures' does this it's laughable.Laugh all you want, but Sony isn't the only one doing it. I gave another example (Mi Casa), and I'm sure there are others I can't remember off the top of my head. Either way, it qualifies as nearfield.

Sanjay

Laugh all you want, but Sony isn't the only one doing it. I gave another example (Mi Casa), and I'm sure there are others I can't remember off the top of my head. Either way, it qualifies as nearfield.

SanjayMaybe they could talk to.. or even better possibly borrow Alan Meyerson 5.1 (personal) reference monitors;)

Maybe they could talk to.. or even better possibly borrow Alan Meyerson 5.1 (personal) reference monitors;)Why? To satisfy your personal idea of a 'professionally competent' studio? Sony and Mi Casa are doing fine without your validation. Besides, that would leave Meyerson without his fave speakers.

Sanjay

Actually re-scaling images will result in artifacts as well.

I'm not going to waste my time getting into yet another argument with you, but for anyone else reading, be aware that NOT upscaling video also introduces serious artifiacts and is a poor way of reconstructing the original waveform. A 1:1 pixel map using rectangular, equal-intensity across the unit area display elements is among the pooresta and crudest ways to reconstruct the image. The ideal way is to scale to a theoretically infinite resolution. Obviously infinity is not achievable here, so inevitably some artifacts are left in our reconstruction, however, more severe noise issues intrudced by a 1:1 map are actually reduced by significant upscaling of the image.

There are still some people out there who think that one should view the content at the native resolution mapped 1:1, and this is a misunderstanding of the nature of point-sampling and what an image pixel represents, which is a sample, not a little square.

Originally Posted by tbrunet
Actually re-scaling images will result in artifacts as well.
Thank you captain obvious. Since no video processing is artifact free, FWIW there's no end to the confusion of even the simplest facts on this forum.

Responding to what Chris (resident video guru) just posted. No one is arguing the fundamental nature of a pixel, whether it can be technically considered a square or a rectangle or a point is irrelevant.

Or maybe I’m captain profound..No?

Or maybe I’m captain profound..No?No.

Sanjay

Great! I'm going to sit back and observe Chris give you a dissertation on how your response to me was inaccurate.

Waiting with bated breath:p

Sanjay's response is perfectly accurate.

And a source pixel is a point. It has no shape, thus it is not rectangular.

Lets see here then,

1) my original post was 100% accurate, and
2) Sanjay's conformation of the fact being "obvious" was OK

So apparently there was absolutely zero reason for Chris to further validate the obvious.

Although if you managed to note any errors regarding the subject matter of perceptual sound fields that I've made throughout this thread, please share it with us all. Thanks in advance and my comment above still stands Chris!
Waiting with bated breath:p

my original post was 100% accurate, and......and completely pointless, since no one ever claimed that video processing was perfect. You might as well have said that 1+1=2 (asthough anyone had ever said otherwise), so that you could subsequently pat yourself on the back for stating something "100% accurate". What makes your pronouncement especially useless is that you were unable to offer any alternative when asked. At least Chris posted useful information. So apparently there was absolutely zero reason for Chris to further validate the obvious.Except Chris wasn't validating what you said but instead making readers aware that "NOT upscaling video also introduces serious artifacts". The point being that, despite video and audio processing not being flawless, they do offer some advantages over an unprocessed signal. Otherwise, there would literally be no market for manufacturers of video scalers and surround processors.

Sanjay

http://www.isfforum.com/Display-Criteria/Display-Technology/11-Pixel-Mapping.html
:rolleyes:
“First, anytime a signal undergoes processing, there is going to be some level of degradation; usually that degradation is minor, but the effect is cumulative and therefore it should be avoided whenever possible.”

Regarding Dolby specifically...well theres a lot of well known manufactured CE devices that qualify as useless..(aka not transparent) for reference mix monitoring environments.

Sometime last year a Dolby engineer visited our recording studios here at SCAD http://www.scad.edu/ where I’m employed..but this Dolby eng. was primarily hired to commission and calibrate our new Dolby surround processor and (Ls,Rs) speakers and (L,C,R) JBL VERTEC line arrays located at our historic Lucas Theatre. Here:

http://www.scad.edu/venues/lucas/tour.html

This Dolby engineer did not even understand why pink noise recorded at (-20 dBFS) would read and average of (~10 dBFS) on a given standard PPM. I had to explain to him that only a RMS sine wave would measure -20 dBFS on my peak meter:)

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/general/ProductFamily.aspx?FId=9&MId=3
JBL Vertec Line Arrays

http://www.isfforum.com/Display-Crit...l-Mapping.html

“First, anytime a signal undergoes processing, there is going to be some level of degradation; usually that degradation is minor, but the effect is cumulative and therefore it should be avoided whenever possible.”If you were trying to give the impression that the above quote comes from some authoritative organization, then readers should be aware that the Doug Weil (the author/publisher of the site you linked to), doesn't represent the views of the ISF. And in case you weren't aware, the ISF certifies video processors (irrespective of Mr. Weil's view on video processing). Regarding Dolby specifically...well theres a lot of well known manufactured CE devices that qualify as useless..(aka not transparent) for reference mix monitoring environments.What does Dolby have to do with the transparency of consumer electronics? They simply certify that their licensed technologies are operating as spec'd in those devices. Besides, who uses CE devices for reference mix monitoring environments? There's pro gear for that.

You're posting random thoughts from your Googling expeditions without making any cogent point. No one has ever claimed that video and audio processing are flawless. Yet you continue to bring up this strawman, just so you can knock it down. Even worse, you're unable to offer any alternative, despite being asked repeatedly.

So what is your point? That we should all stop using our video scalers and surround processors? If so, then just say it (instead of posting links to JBL speakers).

Sanjay

You're posting random thoughts from your Googling expeditions without making any cogent point.

..instead of posting links to JBL speakersMaybe Dolby should better "train" their own staff. No?

"Sometime last year a Dolby engineer visited our recording studios here at SCAD http://www.scad.edu/ where I’m employed..but this Dolby eng. was primarily hired to commission and calibrate our new Dolby surround processor and (Ls,Rs) speakers and (L,C,R) JBL VERTEC line arrays located at our historic Lucas Theatre. Here:

http://www.scad.edu/venues/lucas/tour.html

This Dolby engineer did not even understand why pink noise recorded at (-20 dBFS) would read and average at (~10 dBFS) on a given standard PPM. I had to explain to him that only a RMS sine wave would measure -20 dBFS on my peak meter" :)

Maybe Dolby should better "train" their own staff. No?Why, was he not able to do the job he was hired for (calibrating the theatre)?

You seem determined to attack Dolby. Did they do something to you personally or your family?

In any case, what does the Dolby engineer have to do with a discussion of 5.1 vs 7.1? You're at wit's end and getting desperate.

Sanjay

You seem determined to attack Dolby. Did they do something to you personally or your family? Not at all..If you don't mind I'm simply attempting to illustrate my professional expertise, which includes a comprehensive understanding of fundamental A/V theory.

Just because two guys on AVS (Sanjay or Chris) suggest subjective perceived advantages of a given process is fine, but please don't attempt to re-write the known laws of physics.

Thanks in advance!

tbrunet, do you just post so you can read your own thoughts? Maybe its just mean but I have found there is zero relevence between your posts and this thread.

What is your true opinion on 5.1 vs 7.1?

I'm simply attempting to illustrate my professional expertise, which includes a comprehensive understanding of fundamental A/V theory.Your posts are having the opposite effect. Just because two guys on AVS (Sanjay or Chris) suggest subjective perceived advantages of a given process is fine, but please don't attempt to re-write the known laws of physics.What "known laws of physics"? Got any specifics?

Sanjay

At least I know more then some "Dolby" engineers;)

So whats your point?

At least I know more then some "Dolby" engineers?Good thing you ended that comment with a question mark. So whats your point?My point is that your above comment has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Ever since you disqualified your sole example of a "true" 5.1 mix by posting your own contradicting definition of "true" 5.1, you've veered off on every tangent imaginable in order to obfuscate the topic being discussed. At this point, the only thing you're left with is resorting to some bizarre form of self promotion. Sad, in an otherwise interesting thread about 5.1 vs 7.1.

Sanjay

after 4 pages has anyone actually perferred going back to 5.1 after they have had 7.1 in place?

I answered youngho's direct question to me here:
How about you each explicitly define your understanding of what a "true" 5.1 mix is?Sure no problem youngho:)

A given specific 5.1 soundfield has been optimized perceptually in real time with the number of discrete surround speakers and in concert with their (speakers) nominal perspective toward a listening position.

Perceptually (5.1) or (7.1) panning is different from simple amplitude-based panning, one can employ DSP to also calculate appropriate frequency and time-based changes as a sound is panned including early reflections that are unique to a discrete channel per given surround format.
.. definition of "true" 5.1, you've veered off on every tangent imaginable in order to obfuscate the topic being discussed.If you find any errors in my definition Sanjay please feel free to list them. Btw it's apparent you don't know the difference between a nearfield and midfield monitoring space. Maybe Sony and Mi Casa should be taking notes?

Also Sanjay you where the one who first made the video scaling analogy. Please, you need to take a logic pill or something.

Count me in as a fan of 7.1.

I'd rather have 7.1 than lossless audio, if I had to choose for HT tracks only.

I answered youngho's direct question to me here:And in doing so disqualified your own example of what you claimed would "definitely qualify as a “true” 5.1 mix". Priceless.

Even worse, you deride processing ("should be avoided whenever possible") but are unable to offer a single alternative. How does someone deal with the fact that soundtracks can be 2.0, 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 discrete channels? How does someone deal with the fact that video is 480, 720 and 1080?

Why don't you answer these questions? Come on, show off that "comprehensive understanding of fundamental A/V theory". Btw it's apparent you don't know the difference between a nearfield and midfield monitoring space. Maybe Sony and Mi Casa should be taking notes?No need for them to take notes, since their use of the term nearfield is the same as mine. Mi Casa's website even labels their home video mixes as "nearfield" (consistent with where their monitors are placed).

You're attempting to deflect the discussion to nomenclature (trivial at that) in order to avoid answering the questions above.

Sanjay

And in doing so disqualified your own example of what you claimed would "definitely qualify as a “true” 5.1 mix".Still waiting for you to list a single error of mine regarding my definition for true “discrete 5.1 soundfield”. So far that list has zero itmes;)

Even worse, you deride processing ("should be avoided whenever possible") but are unable to offer a single alternative.
In the 21 century it should be a no brainer for any high end HT to have the simple ability to listen to a given production in its native form regardless if its 1.0 or 10.2. If you don’t mind Sanjay some audiophiles would like to "avoid the known obligatory artifacts" of Dolby PLIIx. If you feel compelled to listen to a 5.1 mix in 7.1 good for you.

FWIW Dolby should have taken notes from dts since all variations of it are compatible with existing DTS decoders, just like my:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://www.rotel.com/content/manuals_archived/rda985.pdf&ei=7KIqSd2SK9b7tgfMg6XLDw&usg=AFQjCNHydZ97SK2AJnw1PZO7UQQc67czjA

For me via TOSLINK or S/PDIF, dts is by far the more elegant codec considering it’s also mandatory technology for Blu-ray disc.
No need for them to take notes, since their use of the term nearfield is the same as mine.Mid-field (monitor space) monitors emulate what the consumer is likely to have and yet still allow mixing fine detail;)

In the 21 century it should be a no brainer for any high end HT to have the simple ability to listen to a given production in its native form regardless if its 1.0 or 10.2. If you don’t mind Sanjay some audiophiles would like to "avoid the known obligatory artifacts" of Dolby PLIIx. If you feel compelled to listen to a 5.1 mix in 7.1 good for you.

so are you saying you do not listen to 5.1 movies in 7.1?

Why not just say that instead of being extremely pedantic and annoyingly verbose;)

I listen to 5.1 soundtracks in 5.1.

Still waiting for you to list a single error of mine regarding my definition for true “discrete 5.1 soundfield”.I never objected to your definition. It is, after all, your opinion of what "true" 5.1 is, not anything objective. All I did is point out that your definition contradicts your example of "true" 5.1. In the 21 century it should be a no brainer for any high end HT to have the simple ability to listen to a given production in its native form regardless if its 1.0 or 10.2.Yet you're unable to describe the speaker layout that can accomplish that. No surprise there. If you don’t mind Sanjay some audiophiles would like to "avoid the known obligatory artifacts" of Dolby PLIIx.Why would I mind what other people do with their own systems? Or are you asking me for permission on their behalf? Mid-field (monitor space) monitors emulate what the consumer is likely to have and yet still allow mixing fine detail;)What does that have to do with the fact that Sony, Mi Casa and I use the term "nearfield" in a consistent manner? Again, you're attempting to distract by arguing semantics rather than discuss the topic of this thread. It's not working.

Sanjay

I listen to 5.1 soundtracks in 5.1.

Thanks :D

http://home.comcast.net/~schiz/SoundOfMusic.jpg

FWIW Dolby should have taken notes from dts since all variations of it are compatible with existing DTS decoders... Huh? This statement means nothing, FWIW.

Enjoy the Emperor's New Clothes!

“Dolby Digital Plus bitstreams are not backward compatible with legacy Dolby Digital decoders.”

“DTS-HD Audio is a scalable audio format with constant and variable bit rates, higher sampling frequencies, additional channels, lossless audio capability, quality-optimized low bit rate operation and a core decoder that is backward compatible with all DTS decoders in use today.”

Enjoy the Emperor's New Clothes!That's it? After all your condescension and deflecting, all you have left is displaying your DTS fanboyism? Sad. “Dolby Digital Plus bitstreams are not backward compatible with legacy Dolby Digital decoders.”The actual Dolby Digital Plus bitstream itself never needed to be backwards compatible, since its implementation always took care of that. All HD DVD players had DD+ decoders, and all DD+ decoders can convert to legacy DD. On Blu-ray, DD+ is deployed as an extension technology only, always containing a legacy DD core. So, in any situation where Dolby Digital Plus is used, there's always 100% backwards compatibility with legacy Dolby Digital decoders.

You're attempting to distract from the topic of this thread yet again. The random quotes you posted have nothing to do with the discussion.

Sanjay

Sanjay, seriously, give it up. Thomas is not capable of basic english comprehension.

That's it?

..You're attempting to distract from the topic of this thread yet again. Sanjay would you please make up your mind! If wish to stop said distraction, stop quoting my factual post, but then continue ask me for more examples. I simply responded to Roger's comment with one simple example.

If a given individual;) (forum member) prefers the more technically elegant DVD/Blu-ray format well I'm sorry but you will have to except it regardless of how many times you repeat "That's it?"

"One single DTS-HD datastream on a disc can carry everything from standard DTS 5.1 playable on virtually all existing 280 million plus DTS decoders, all the way to lossless for next-generation systems." Here:

http://www.dts.com/DownloadDocument.aspx?q=a7beda1e-cfe6-4ca4-b6b2-cda9554bb6a5

Sorry Sanjay but the "core" DD track is not part of the Dolby TrueHD track either. Also the DD+ solution you mention (above) for Blu-ray seems familiar. No?

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?)

I simply responded to Roger's comment with one simple example.And I simply pointed out that your example was meaningless, since there is no implementation of DD+ that isn't backwards compatible with DD. Typical red herring on your part to distract from the topic of this thread.

Sanjay

And I simply pointed out that your example was meaninglessYour post is founded on the false premise that i.e. an elegant encoding solution (dts) which gives content creators and audio professionals a multitude of scalable options to deliver the best possible audio quality every time is “meaningless”.

Your post is founded on the false premise that i.e. an elegant encoding solution (dts) which gives content creators and audio professionals a multitude of scalable options to deliver the best possible audio quality every time is “meaningless”.Nope. My use of "meaningless" wasn't in reference to DTS encoding but instead in reference to your statement about DD+ bitstreams and DD decoders, since it had nothing to do with the discussion. If a given individual (forum member) prefers the more technically elegant DVD/Blu-ray format well I'm sorry but you will have to except it regardless of how many times you repeat "That's it?"Thank you for demonstrating my point. In a thread about 5.1 vs 7.1 speaker layouts, you're trying to convince everyone that you prefer DTS encoding. Sad that you haven't noticed that no one is refuting your fanboyism.

Sanjay

Nope. My use of "meaningless" wasn't in reference to DTS encoding but instead in reference to your statement about DD+ bitstreams and DD decodersYet my comment is still "fact" like it or not:p

“Dolby Digital Plus bitstreams are not backward compatible with legacy Dolby Digital decoders.”

Try again Sanjay

Since the picture is entirely in front of me, why shouldn't the sound be as well?Because our vision is more directed than our hearing. There's a reason our eyes are in front but our ears are at our sides. We look primarily in one direction (forward), but support what we see by hearing in all directions. Movies reflect this sensory reality.

Walter Murch, the sound designer of 'Apocalypse Now', referred to the fact that our ears are at our sides as a 'back door' to our minds. He would often use sound in very subtle ways to unconciously influence movie watchers. Ever get creeped out by a scene, even though nothing on-screen is out of the ordinary? You'd be surprised how often the sound designer has snuck something into the soundtrack to make you feel uncomfortable.

So the use of surround sound is artistic, not just mimicking the reality of how we hear. Just as movie lighting is artistic, not just used to get a proper exposure.

Despite that, if you find surround sound distracting, then you shouldn't be listening in surround. Understand, however, that for some people it is the opposite: listening in surround more closely mimics how they hear the world in real life, while having all the sound come from up front is the distracting unreality. Personal preference will let you know which type of listener you are.

Sanjay

Yet my comment is still "fact" like it or not:pThere's nothing to like or not like, except to point out that it has nothing to do with 5.1 vs 7.1 speaker set-ups. Do you actually have anything on-topic to say or are you intellectually bankrupt at this point? “Dolby Digital Plus bitstreams are not backward compatible with legacy Dolby Digital decoders.”And Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks are 100% backwards compatible with Dolby Digital decoding, both on HD DVD and Blu-ray. That's a fact too. Still has nothing to do with speaker layouts, the topic you're evading.

Sanjay

Because our vision is more directed than our hearing. There's a reason our eyes are in front but our ears are at our sides. We look primarily in one direction (forward), but support what we see by hearing in all directions. Movies reflect this sensory reality. Empirical data rather suggest a scientific reason which determined the location of the human ear. Seems originally correlated with our sense of balance and sensing atmospheric pressure.

http://www.johnholland.ws/home/humanearevolution
:rolleyes:
“The human ear is a sensory organ both of hearing and balance. The balance apparatus appears to have evolved prior to the hearing mechanism. Early developing vertebrates such as fish have organs of balance, but no cochlea.

Embedded under the skin of a fish, along the length of its head and body, is a series of depressions or grooves known as the 'lateral-line'.

Gradually, the grooves in the head evolved into the structure of the inner ear found in all vertebrates, including humans. It is easy to imagine that nerve cells in the inner ear are adaptations of earlier hair cells sensitive to the motions of liquid”

Empirical data rather suggest a scientific reason which determined the location of the human ear.Was I suggesting a non-scientific reason, such as movie-watching, that determined the location of human ears? Seems originally correlated with our sense of balance and sensing atmospheric pressure.Proto-ears were also used for breathing, but notice I deliberately didn't mention that in my previous post since it had nothing to do with the point about hearing being used to support vision. You're determined to use your Googling expeditions to unnecessarily complicate even the simplest of my statements. Remarkable.

Sanjay

If you understood then you would comprehend it's (ear location) correlation and original primary function. It had nothing to do with sound at all.

It had nothing to do with sound at all.Exactly my point about you attempting to unnecessarily complicate a simple comment I made. I mention ears in the context of hearing and you're determined to interject comments that have "nothing to do with sound at all". It's like being stalked by a random number generator. You follow me from thread to thread, posting comments that are orthogonal to the discussion.

Sanjay

Personally, I want to re-create what the mixing and mastering engineers heard, and I take it on faith that they want to re-create what the original sound was in the case of live performance, and that they want to create the best possible listening experience for mostly synthetic recordings like movies. I don't want my playback circuitry to muck with the intended signal any more than it has to, with the ideal being no mucking at all.

You'd better re-create the mixing stage in your house, then. And use the same loudspeakers the mixing engineer did. Because for sure, your own room acoustics and loudspeaker choices are going to leave audible 'muck' on the playback. Perhaps an even more obvious muck than DPLIIX 'remix' of 5.1 vs discrete mix of 7.1.

Then again, I write as a non-purist who tends to apply DPLII to pretty much every 2.0 source, to render it in '5.1' (with bass steering to my sub for ".1"). Because that sound better to me, when I switch it in and out....DPLII does what it is designed to do, to my ears -- it creates a better illusion of 'ambience' and envelopment. I also like that I can turn it off if I want to, unlike, say, the euphonic distortions of LP/turntable systems.

Actually re-scaling images will result in artifacts as well.

The existence of artifacts or distortion does not necessarily mean they will be perceptible in normal use. Typical examples : perceptibility of 720 vs 1080 dependent on viewing distance; quantization noise of 16 bits vs 24 bits dependent on listening level.

If you understood then you would comprehend it's (ear location) correlation and original primary function. It had nothing to do with sound at all.

That's a great thing about evolution: original function is often co-opted or even usurped by a new function. Human ears are clearly not JUST a latter-day lateral line organ; hundreds of millions of years of evolution have seen to that. Then again,what any of this has to do with your original argument -- that since we watch things in front of us, why do we 'need' surround sound? -- is obscure.

Perhaps an even more obvious muck than DPLIIX 'remix' of 5.1 vs discrete mix of 7.1.

..Then again, I write as a non-purist who tends to apply DPLII to pretty much every 2.0 source, to render it in '5.1' As I've said above many times now ..matrixing new discrete channels will only contribute artifacts. So jwatte's logic is not only technically sound, but your argument regarding the use of specific speakers btw is pointless. FYI:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14583719&highlight=#post14583719
:rolleyes:
http://www.neuralaudio.com/downloads/Rendering-How_it_Works.pdf

Remember, there is a big difference between "matrixing" four channels from the two natural rear channels and "rendering". Rendering guarantees absolute image stability, spectrum preservation and vastly improved discreteness.

Not an ad, just scientific fact.

rob r.

And as I've said many times before thomas, you are a troll, and a fool.

Until you can point to a single error I've made in this thread ..maybe then what you've just posted above would carry some weight.

As I've said above many times now ..matrixing new discrete channels will only contribute artifacts.

Fool.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1057608&page=4
:rolleyes:
I’ll just have to consider the company.. lets see rob r. or Chris Wiggles?

Robert Reams, Co-Founder and Senior Fellow, Emeritus, Neural Audio Corp

As I've said above many times now ..matrixing new discrete channels will only contribute artifacts.


like anyone can hear it or care about it....those that honestly worry about these so called "artifacts" are and always will be out there on the fringe of the AV world. The rest of us normal people just enjoy our 7.1 systems.

btw, if you post it 5 or more times does it make it more true then the previous times? No one ever disagreed the first time either, you just do not get that "artifacts" do not matter to most people and therefore its boring to read that same opinion over and over.

like anyone can hear it or care about it.....Instead of knee jerking why not read the linked AVS thread? Robert Reams probably knows more on this subject matter "matrixing" than anyone on this forum.

Including Chris:p

Instead of knee jerking why not read the linked thread?

Already knew about the thread because T2K was ranting again in it!!


No knee jerk reaction, you are still wasting time in this dead thread....posting the same stuff over and over and over.

The OP asked the question if people went back from 7.1 to 5.1, you and few others have explained why you do not like 7.1 and that is cool....move on. You are simply a troll for not moving on!! I have ZERO problems with possible artifacts that are not truely audible on their own. Heck, No one couldnt even pick out an "artifact" in a sound bite so its such a silly discussion from the start. There is common sense then there is the mundane repetitive "look at me Im so smart" stuff that makes me laugh.

5 pages later you actually posted again that matrixing new channels introduces artifacts....well NO SH$T sherlock thats a given. Did you forget you have posted that already?

Penn,

To Quote You:

"I have ZERO problems with possible artifacts that are not truely audible on their own. Heck, No one couldnt even pick out an "artifact" in a sound bite so its such a silly discussion from the start."

Response:

Actually, it is not as silly as one might suppose. During our tests at the AT&T facility with Dr. Schuyler Quackenbush, much of the content under test consisted of content that was a challenge to properly reproduce in stereo surrounds. The listeners had no trouble hearing the difference between a matrix based system and a rendering based system. The only difference was "how much", and they perfered rendering by a significant margin.

An important point of interest is Neural's encoding system. It has the ability to downmix (much harder than you think), normalize the spatial pedigree of all content elements (including stereo elements) and apply the appropriate positioning in 2-D space. Unlike matrix downmixers, which concatenate the inputs with Bedrosian allpass pairs to achieve depth information, The Neural system is adaptive, that is, it tests the resultant position of the downmix vs. the original...what is mismatched in 2-D is corrected.

The application of this process to stereo surrounds for achieving four channel surrounds is a completely reasonable application as it streamlines the workflow of a facility producing multiple stems of the same product.

As for audibility, the difference is obvious, at least to the mix engineers, our test subjects and about 5,000,000 users. The truth is, when you turn on your TV and are listening to 5.1 DD, there's a good chance you're listening to a stereo program that's been rendered to 5.1

So the facts seem to support rendering.

Does this mean you can't enjoy matrixed surrounds? Of course not. In fact, rendering tends to be much more "truthful" to the original content and hence, not as forgiving. Artificial spreading of channels via matrix upmixing is actually quite pleasent to listen to for surrounds, so it really is up to the listener.

If you're happy, awesome. If you want more accuracy, try rendering.

rob r. (who is still talking too much :D)

During our tests at the AT&T facility with Dr. Schuyler Quackenbush... I believe we must distinguish between two cases. Most people in this thread are discussing within the context of blind upmixing. Since there is no 7.1 source material, the decoding from 5.1 to 7.1 can safely be assumed to be blind--it is not an encode-decode situation.

In addition, upmixing the vast library of stereo source content to 5.1 or 7.1 is also a blind situation.

Rob, you are of course discussing the encode-decode case, where a 5.1 source was downmixed to stereo, then decoded to 5.1. The results from those tests are not relevant to the blind upmix case.

I believe we must distinguish between two cases. Most people in this thread are discussing within the context of blind upmixing. Since there is no 7.1 source material, the decoding from 5.1 to 7.1 can safely be assumed to be blind--it is not an encode-decode situation.

In addition, upmixing the vast library of stereo source content to 5.1 or 7.1 is also a blind situation.

Rob, you are of course discussing the encode-decode case, where a 5.1 source was downmixed to stereo, then decoded to 5.1. The results from those tests are not relevant to the blind upmix case.

Thanks, Roger.

Normally I'd agree with you. However, a non-deterministic condition (such as blind upmixing) removes our ability to compare "apples with apples". By supplying a "control" (in this case content that the origin is known), we can then provide a direct comparison, that is, audition multiple technologies under common conditions (whatever they may be).

Once we are clear as to the outcome, we are then free to make comparisons without the control. In this case, many will discover that rendering delivers superior image stability, even under blind conditions, because there is lower probability of time/frequency contention due to the higher spectrum parse count. That is, more elements will stay put during complex mixes as opposed to a single band system.

Oh, for the OP, I prefer 7.1 over 5.1. Sanjay cited the correct reason (more hard sources allow for greater freedom of audition position without compromising discreteness).

BTW, the term "discreteness" was coined by Dr. Duane Cooper, Urbana.

rob r. (will this guy ever shut up? :D)

Thanks, Roger.

Normally I'd agree with you. However, a non-deterministic condition (such as blind upmixing) removes our ability to compare "apples with apples". That is what makes the discussion of blind upmixing so challenging--and fun! There is no objective "meter" to tell us which one is right or wrong--or better or worse. Tests could indeed be devised where trained listeners evaluate various properties of upmixers, but I've never seen one, in public anyway. ;) Even then, such formal tests would presumably end up ranking them along their chosen criteria, but real-world listeners will still select the one they like best in the end. Taste plays a huge role here, and so does sensitivity to artifacts, which is as variable as taste.

It's like judging artwork.

By supplying a "control" (in this case content that the origin is known), we can then provide a direct comparison, that is, audition multiple technologies under common conditions (whatever they may be).

Once we are clear as to the outcome, we are then free to make comparisons without the control. In the control case, each "technology" uses its own encoder. There is encoder technology and there is decoder technology. This adds another variable to the equation. Consider two encoders. One encoder is "way smart" and the other is "dumb as a stick," just to illustrate the point. As a result, the decode results may vary dramatically even when using the same decoder for both cases. If one works better than the other, may I conclude it's due to a decoder that upmixes better in the blind? Not possible--it's the same decoder. Instead, this test tells us something about the relative merits of the encoders, but we can conclude nothing concrete about what happens when we upmix typical stereo sources.

And how do we know which of these encoders best mimics typical stereo material? That's a whole n'other question. :eek:

Roger,

To quote myself (if that is even legal)

"rendering delivers superior image stability, even under blind conditions, because there is lower probability of time/frequency contention due to the higher spectrum parse count. That is, more elements will stay put during complex mixes as opposed to a single band system."

This is the whole point of the argument, probabilities are an excellent representation of reality.

As far as the encoders, the Neural system is the only adaptive correction downmixer on the market and it produces absolutely beautiful 2-D stereo. The 2-D stereo produced by this encoder from a six bus console or mixing system may be rendered to as many (or few) channels as is deemed practical.

The point of the system isn't to directly encode each channel, rather, convert "N" channels to "M" channels (M=2) and then allow the end user to render to as many channels as they wish, all without the unnecesary burden of complete distribution infrastructure change.

I feel like I'm preaching to the choir, Roger, this was what you accomplished with Dolby...we just made it a better with available technologies.

rob r. (geez, still talking:rolleyes:)

As for audibility, the difference is obvious, at least to the mix engineers, our test subjects and about 5,000,000 users. The truth is, when you turn on your TV and are listening to 5.1 DD, there's a good chance you're listening to a stereo program that's been rendered to 5.1

So the facts seem to support rendering.

Does this mean you can't enjoy matrixed surrounds? Of course not. In fact, rendering tends to be much more "truthful" to the original content and hence, not as forgiving. Artificial spreading of channels via matrix upmixing is actually quite pleasent to listen to for surrounds, so it really is up to the listener.

The difference here is that you are running the tests so of course anyone will hear the differences.

The point I make is that the guy in his house that has 7.1 setup isnt changing anything and all that Matrix sound we talk about here sound just fine to I would say a huge majority. When I posted that we could not hear the 'artifacts' Im talking about people hearing "problems" in the 7.1 matrix. Maybe Im defining what an "aritifact" is differently then others?
I guess what Im saying is in that thousands of movies I have watched at home or in a theater I have never ONCE heard a comment like "Man, I just hate those artifacts". Its just not a real life thing...only on a forum like this do we have such mundane discussions :eek: Its probably a good thing the real world isnt like this forum. It would be funny to walk out of a movie and having to listen to the comments we read on here sometimes ;)

This does not mean that in a test environment when you are playing each to show the difference that people wouldn't notice.

Most people in this thread are discussing within the context of blind upmixing. Since there is no 7.1 source material, the decoding from 5.1 to 7.1 can safely be assumed to be blind--it is not an encode-decode situation.


Correct :D

"rendering delivers superior image stability, even under blind conditions, because there is lower probability of time/frequency contention due to the higher spectrum parse count. That is, more elements will stay put during complex mixes as opposed to a single band system."

This is the whole point of the argument, probabilities are an excellent representation of reality. We, too, have found that multiband upmixing can offer improvements in separation and image stability. Neo6 is an example of this. However, Neo6 and Neural decoders have their own unique sets of sonic artifacts when blind upmixing, distinct from PLII's artifacts. One must decide if they like the whole package of strengths and weaknesses each technology offers. You may insist you like chocolate, but I prefer vanilla. We have to agree to respect each other's preferences.


As far as the encoders, the Neural system is the only adaptive correction downmixer on the market and it produces absolutely beautiful 2-D stereo.

I feel like I'm preaching to the choir, Roger, this was what you accomplished with Dolby...we just made it a better with available technologies. Just as with decoders, the encoders also each exhibit their own strengths and weaknesses sonically. Which is better is again a matter of judging the overall tradeoffs, with and without downstream decoding. Other things in the chain can also affect the overall result. For example, transmitting the downmixed 2-ch signal via a low bitrate codec running at "Internet" or "digital radio" bitrates (say, <64 kbps) can add its own sonic artifacts as compared to listening through a CD, DVD or other high bitrate conditions. These piplines may mask some of the surround system's characteristics, or may exacerbate others. For example, when steering a center channel signal to the center speaker, it has been found that codec artifacts are more audible from the L/R speakers. Do we ascribe this to the decoder?

In this thread, all these extraneous issues need to be set aside, as all we are only dealing with is the case of blind upmixing of existing content.

As I've said above many times now ..matrixing new discrete channels will only contribute artifacts.


Wow, so, it's all that's coming out of my surrounds when I upmix 2.0 to 5.1 is artifacts. I'm gobsmacked. In that case, thank you, Dolby Labs, for developing a technology that makes such nice artifacts.

In the strict sense, turning the original 2.0 into 5.1 in this way is *distorting* the input signal. As such, upmixing can be classed as a forms of deliberate euphonic distortion. As can bass management, digital room correction, or even the use of classical tone controls. Love them *artifacts*.


So jwatte's logic is not only technically sound, but your argument regarding the use of specific speakers btw is pointless.

No, it's not, if we're talking about a studio 5.1 mix. You are not going to be hearing what the mix engineer heard, in a different room and with different speakers. Room and speakers being, of course, two overwhelming determinants of actual reproduction at the listener's ears.



FYI:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14583719&highlight=#post14583719
:rolleyes:

Funny, even assuming you'd linked to the correct post (you didn't) the word 'artifacts' isn't there. Perhaps you should define what you mean by the term. In the strict sense, an 'artifact' is a distortion or error introduced into the original signal. Depending on what your reference is, the new channels produced by ANY upmixing scheme, could be called 'artifacts'. So it's really a matter of how 'euphonic' they are. MUSHRA tests show that listeners preferred Neural's 'distortion' (upmixing) of the 2-channel original, to DPLII's(*). I'd love to give Neural's 2-->5.1 a try. But a two-channel stereo purist/luddite -- and just as mono purists exist, so do they - might consider both of them to be simply unacceptable.


(*with the proviso that I have read some recent work that calls the use of subjective rating scales into question for blind audio tests , i.e.,
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/soundrec/ias/papers/Zielinski.pdf

and the corresponding JAES paper that I have not yet read:
Zielinski et al., "On Some Biases Encountered in Modern Audio Quality Listening Tests-A Review", JAES Vol. 56, Issue 6, pp. 427-451; June 2008 )

Whether one can comprehend it or not there's a valid reason to reproduce complex sound fields in their native state.

The point I was making (jwatte) with respect to the choice of speakers was that variable or ingredient is always a variable for the production and reproduction, but a 5.1 spk configuration used to reproduce a 5.1 mix itself is a no brainer.

Plus some virtual / perceptual soundfields have early reflection signatures that would represent unique channel info (detail) that had zero interaction with the remaining discrete channels.

Robert Reams probably knows more on this subject matter "matrixing" than anyone on this forum.

Oh, for the OP, I prefer 7.1 over 5.1. Sanjay cited the correct reason (more hard sources allow for greater freedom of audition position without compromising discreteness).

Hmmm...

Roger,

On two things we agree:
a) This should be fun.
b) People should use what ever kind of rendering/upmix that they like.

With that being said, I believe that your comment regarding multiband systems, such as DTS's multiband matrix (Neo:6) and Neural's multiband rendering algorithm (Neural Surround), as having their own type of challenges, is also valid.

But let's be more specific. Neural's system is not a matrix in the classic sense. There is no cross subtraction. Even if Neo:6 is multiband, it still involves cross subtraction. Dolby's PL I, II, and IIx all employ cross subtraction and have only one spectral parse.

Why is this important? It's important because: the more commonality between channels, the higher the interchannel correlation. The higher the interchannel correlation, the less immunity to a listening position that is less than ideal. Under the worst of conditions if all channels were playing the same thing, any deviation from equidistance in position would result in comb filtering. Comb filtering is a particularly nasty beast. It destroys spectrum and, perceptually, can easily cause positioning miscues that can cause not only lateral error, but vertical displacement as well. These types of artifacts can be especially disquieting to the professional content creator.

While we do it for fun, they do it professionally. If they don't like it, they won't commit their content to it...equaling death for the format. If they do like it, then content will pour forth to support the format.

There were certain types of style of content that were agreeable to the Dolby matrix format (where all of the channel elements were naturally decorrelated) and those types of content found their way to CD (there is more out there than most think).

OTOH, modern surround mixes are artificial from the get-go and one of the prices that you pay is a lot of interchannel correlation. This is why al lot of "discrete" multichannel mixes sound so bad (especially in a small room).

So the ultimate goal would be to take the best of all: Good transient performance, good separation (Neural's rendering system clusters spectrum as a function of entropy, making transients a non issue, even for a "multiband" system) and reduction of interchannel cross correlation to zero. BTW, reducing ICC to zero ameliorates Hass effect, allowing a listener to be artificially close to a single speaker in the surround system and still get the benefit of the content distribution about the listening area.

So is anybody perfect yet? Nope. Are some better than others? Yep. Do we still have more work to do? Yep.

rob r. (his mouth should be getting tired soon :D)

Roger,
You said:
"Other things in the chain can also affect the overall result. For example, transmitting the downmixed 2-ch signal via a low bitrate codec running at "Internet" or "digital radio" bitrates (say, <64 kbps) can add its own sonic artifacts as compared to listening through a CD, DVD or other high bitrate conditions. These piplines may mask some of the surround system's characteristics, or may exacerbate others. For example, when steering a center channel signal to the center speaker, it has been found that codec artifacts are more audible from the L/R speakers. Do we ascribe this to the decoder?"

Completely true. Zero quantizers (birdies) and displaced (separated from the same image space as the masker) quantization noise become very audible and annoying to the consumer.

Do we ascribe this to the decoder? We shouldn't have to, but we better. Adaptive systems can supply a masker where it is needed (we have filed on this) without significantly affecting the position perceptually. Of course there is a trade off, but people are playing 32kBs HE-AAC content through their surround systems, and it's ugly.

It's much better to sacrifice the crosstalk (adaptively) during a low bitrate event and return the crosstalk performance to normal during more pristene content (PCM).

When there is quantization noise present, you can't afford to separate it from the same image parse as the masker, otherwise, it becomes audible.

rob r. (Aaaak, still talking :D)

Roger,

Regarding encoders:

The Neural "encoder" is an adaptive system. That is, it internally compares the rendering of the "downmix" with the original input and corrects all displacement and spectrum errors. Additionally, it relies on Hilbert Transformation to achieve broadband quadrature. This yields perfectly flat spectrum regardless of image position.

It must be pointed out that the use of Bedrosian allpass pairs get spectrally "bumpy" as you approach an equal balance between the two (as happens during interior panning).

rob r. (does he ever inhale? :D)

Wow, so, it's all that's coming out of my surrounds when I upmix 2.0 to 5.1 is artifacts. I'm gobsmacked. In that case, thank you, Dolby Labs, for developing a technology that makes such nice artifacts. It was our pleasure--and Jim Fosgate's! :p

In the strict sense, turning the original 2.0 into 5.1 in this way is *distorting* the input signal. As such, upmixing can be classed as a forms of deliberate euphonic distortion. As can bass management, digital room correction, or even the use of classical tone controls. Love them *artifacts*. This gets me to wondering...is a Y adapter outputting artifacts from one of the two outputs? :D

Hmmm...
youngho,

It's true. More hard sources allow for greater freedom of movement about the auditioning area.

rob r. (what is up with this guy :D)

It's true. More hard sources allow for greater freedom of movement about the auditioning area.

No, I'm not disagreeing. It's just that tbrunet has been arguing strenuously against 7.1 playback of 5.1 material because of artifacts.

a 5.1 spk configuration used to reproduce a 5.1 mix itself is a no brainer.

I still remember reading a number of JJ's post on rec.audio.high-end years ago. I think he was still working at Bell Labs and used to call himself the Curmudgeon or something like that. How cool!

Hey, I just discovered that my Onkyo receiver has Neural processing. I'll have to try it out this weekend!

Roger,

On two things we agree:
a) This should be fun.
b) People should use what ever kind of rendering/upmix that they like. We agree on this, and a whole lot more.

With that being said, I believe that your comment regarding multiband systems, such as DTS's multiband matrix (Neo:6) and Neural's multiband rendering algorithm (Neural Surround), as having their own type of challenges, is also valid. See, there's another.

It's important because: the more commonality between channels, the higher the interchannel correlation. The higher the interchannel correlation, the less immunity to a listening position that is less than ideal. Under the worst of conditions if all channels were playing the same thing, any deviation from equidistance in position would result in comb filtering. Luckily for PLII, we don't experience that problem very much.

So the ultimate goal would be to take the best of all: Good transient performance, good separation (Neural's rendering system clusters spectrum as a function of entropy, making transients a non issue, even for a "multiband" system) and reduction of interchannel cross correlation to zero. BTW, reducing ICC to zero ameliorates Hass effect, allowing a listener to be artificially close to a single speaker in the surround system and still get the benefit of the content distribution about the listening area. Multiband systems, in order to do their work, are distributing parts of the spectrum of the source channels among the various output channels. The output from all the speakers come back together at the listening position, reconstituting the overall spectrum of the original. It has been my experience that this places extra burden on the playback system. If the speakers do not match well timbrally, or if a listener is not situated such that all the speakers contribute equal loudness, the spectral shaping can become exposed. Some very odd sounds can result. It's just one of the many factors that goes into the "no free lunch" world of surround processing.

While it is unfair to judge based on this, one can learn a lot about the dynamically varying spectral shaping going on in multiband decoders by listening to one of the surround channels by itself. Or both, even. It's a little like artifact training for a codec test. Once you learn the sonic signature, you can more easily detect when it happens. Ooops, maybe it's better not to know!

So is anybody perfect yet? Nope. Are some better than others? Yep. Do we still have more work to do? Yep. We agree here, too. ;)

The Neural "encoder" ... relies on Hilbert Transformation to achieve broadband quadrature. This yields perfectly flat spectrum regardless of image position. Cool.

You may be glad to know that the 90-deg phase shifters used for Dolby Digital downmixing (to 2.0 Lt/Rt) are Hilbert Transforms. It allows the front channels to remain totally untouched.

Roger,

You said:
"While it is unfair to judge based on this, one can learn a lot about the dynamically varying spectral shaping going on in multiband decoders by listening to one of the surround channels by itself. Or both, even. It's a little like artifact training for a codec test. Once you learn the sonic signature, you can more easily detect when it happens. Ooops, maybe it's better not to know!"

Actually, this is a good thing to do, for any type of upmixer. The reason I say this is that the listener can decide for themselves if they like rock steady imaging and separation of rendering. This is also an excellent way to hear the realities of lossy compression schemes, as it allows for spatial separation of the quantization noise from the masker. What makes this important is that the user can often tell if they have a compressed copy of something vs. the .wav original. This is good stuff.

rob r. (still talking too much:D)

Roger,

You are correct, Hilbert transformation does not require you to touch the fron channels. However, if you were to effectively decouple the center channel envelope from the left and right channels, you would want to "touch" the left and right channels.

Hey, I've always wondered if you'd be interested in exploring an "image companding" system. It would be lossless (gozinta=gozouta) and would ease that modulation index on modern FM broadcast. I realize that "everything's going digital" but radio is going to be hybrid for a while (analog blending during multipath). This is even simpler than the FMX scheme proposed by Emil years ago. Another advantage is that it would ease downmix constraints enormously.

Waddaya think?

rob r. (gone, baby, gone :D)

No, I'm not disagreeing. It's just that tbrunet has been arguing strenuously against 7.1 playback of 5.1 material because of artifacts.No even close! I never suggested i.e that PLIIx is utterly useless but rather I merely pointed a few valid scientific facts that illustrate the difficultly in reverse engineering (complex 2D or 3D) ambient soundfields which btw manifest extremely subtle panning signatures ..and as I mentioned above “virtually” (VSP) zero interaction with the remaining discrete surround channels.

People in this thread continue to misrepresent over and over again my fundamental logic / theory regarding why it's possible one would prefer NOT to matrix new discrete surround channels from the original information payload.

Some people prefer tube amps and vinyl records, still that doesn't make these mediums superior when compared to near perfect transparency / reproduction with extremely low distortion and near ideal dynamic range.

theory regarding why it's possible one would prefer NOT to matrix new discrete surround channels from the original information payload.



I think everyone understands why someone would prefer 5.1 vs 7.1....You have posted it over and over and over.

Just remember There are more people that enjoy 7.1 without worrying about the "artifacts" you think you hear.


It seems the arguement is long and dead but you keep arguing for some reason?

Hey, I've always wondered if you'd be interested in exploring an "image companding" system. It would be lossless (gozinta=gozouta) and would ease that modulation index on modern FM broadcast. I realize that "everything's going digital" but radio is going to be hybrid for a while (analog blending during multipath). This is even simpler than the FMX scheme proposed by Emil years ago. Another advantage is that it would ease downmix constraints enormously.

Waddaya think? You mean something like Bob Carver’s Asymmetrical charge coupled stereo detector, where the L-R channel is felt, but not heard? Sounds like a new thread is needed…We’ve been a bit off topic here already with our meanderings, and the OP and participants have been very gracious about it. But this sounds like a step further, unless I totally misunderstand (a distinct possibility!).

I never suggested i.e that PLIIx is utterly useless...You actually went further: ..matrixing new discrete channels will only contribute artifacts.Only contribute artifacts? Describing it is all problems with zero benefits is even worse than suggesting that it is somehow benignly useless. But that's consistent with previous comments you've posted about processing in general: "should be avoided whenever possible". People in this thread continue to misrepresent over and over again my fundamental logic / theory regarding why it's possible one would prefer NOT to matrix new discrete surround channels from the original information payload.Bull. No one in this thread is misrepresenting your position. It is your own words that paint a clear picture of your absolutist stance against processing, which you are now attempting to backpedal from.

What's worse, when asked for an alternative, you go completely silent on the matter. Without processing, what speaker layout do you use to properly play back discrete 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 content? Without processing, what resolution display do you use to properly play back 480, 720 and 1080 content? Since you are such an advocate of mapping each discrete channel to one-and-only-one speaker, could you at least answer the first question? Plus some virtual / perceptual soundfields have early reflection signatures that would represent unique channel info (detail) that had zero interaction with the remaining discrete channels.Got any examples of recordings that demonstrate what you're describing above?

Sanjay

As it says in someone signature line:

"The truth shall set you free...but first it will p*ss you off."

It's apparent the concept of a thread or beating a dead horse is beyond your comprehension Sanjay.. so IF YOU DON'T MIND I'll go ahead a choose the reproduction hypothetical with zero processing 'artifacts' which btw do rise above our HAS perception threshold, regardless of what penngray thinks of empirical evidence on the matter.

Finally, since nearly 100% of my library represent 5.1 mixing paradigms (including LPCM stereo tracks) I see no need to compromise it to satisfy you or AVS?

So... that's how many "for" 7.1 and how many "against"? :)

Roger,

No. This is a proposition for a completely linear system. My apologies to the OP. Please, let's start a different thread on this subject. :)

rob r. (who is talking less but still too much :D)

I'll go ahead a choose the reproduction hypothetical with zero processing 'artifacts' which btw do rise above our HAS perception threshold, regardless of what penngray thinks of empirical evidence on the matter.You can't give any alternative to processing. You won't specify these 'artifacts' you're talking about. You are unable to give a single example of the type of multi-channel recordings you describe. You won't answer any of the questions asked of you. Chris and penngray were correct: your participation in this thread is solely that of a spoiler, with no useful information to contribute.

Sanjay

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? I use PLIIx for everything. Music mode for music, Movie mode for all else. In the spirit of full disclosure, my vote may not really count, as not only did I used to work for Dolby, I am the one who advocated for adopting Fosgate's technology. I liked it then, and I like it now.

You are unable to give a single example of the type of multi-channel recordings you describe.

Sanjay here is a magic black box that does EXACTLY what I’ve described. In fact I installed a D950 consoles at the PBS affiliate (WTVI) in Charlotte, NC.

http://www.vista7.com/e/pdf/vsp.pdf

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

"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 signal"

Sanjay here is a magic black box that does EXACTLY what I’ve described.No one asked you about a magic black box. I simply asked you for an example of a recording that demonstrates what you've been talking about. You must know of even one specific title that validates your claims? Or how about an example of the artifacts that you keep complaining about?

It's easy to name specific recordings that demonstrate the advantages of 5.1->7.1 processing over straight 5.1 playback. Certainly you must have an example of the opposite; something that helped you arrive at your anti-processing stance? Thank you in advance.

Sanjay

No one asked you about a magic black box. Probably a good thing I used that adjective since the extremely complex encoding process is beyond your comprehension. This (VSP) panning algorithm requires seriously 'fast' processing power and attempting reverse engineer this complex 5.1 signature.. then reproduce said 7.1 "defined acoustic space" is NOT possible and would be inferior to the original. So PLIIx, not even Neural can achieve what I've illustrated above. Down stream processing would only corrupt this contrived 5.1 "space".

FYI the console can be configured to produce a discrete 7.1 virtual acoustic space as well. Studer seems to be tying the number of discrete surround channels to the number of spk used for reproduction.:)

Happy Holidays!

So PLIIx, not even Neural can achieve what I've illustrated above.Neither PLIIx nor Neural are attempting to do what your cut-n-paste describes. They're simply mapping 2 surround channels to 4 surround speakers (at least in the context of the discussion in this thread). No "generating early reflections" and no attempt to "provide late reverberation". You're conflating mixing and playback technologies that are orthogonal to each other. Down stream processing would only corrupt this contrived 5.1 "space".Nope. In fact, despite your above claim, you can't describe what that corruption would be nor do you have any examples that demonstrate it. If you're going to argue against the merits of playing back 5.1 material on a 7.1-speaker set-up, you have to back up your position with something. Anything.

Sanjay

Finally, since nearly 100% of my library represent 5.1 mixing paradigms (including LPCM stereo tracks) I see no need to compromise it to satisfy you or AVS?

Its very interesting that you think anyone is asking you to compromise anything :confused:

We are just saying you are making a mountain out of a mole hill on this issue and your only arguement is that using 7.1 creates "Artifacts"....how many times do you want to post that anyways?

"Artifacts" to me would be if we heard "problem" sounds and I would bet that no one is going to spot the "problem" during a playback of any movie. That doesn't mean you have to use 7.1, no one is forcing you too....go ahead and use it.

Just stop posting on here that we are all foolish for doing so, just go enjoy your 5.1 system and I will enjoy my 7.1 system. Its not that big of a deal to you is it?

Already done so clearly several times now. I just illustrated one example (mix paradigm) that would suffer the process. There are more..

Good bye!

I just illustrated one example (mix paradigm) that would suffer the process.

But can you hear it???

I just illustrated one example (mix paradigm) that would suffer the process.No, all you did is say it would suffer. You couldn't even describe specific artifacts nor name a single recording that demonstrates these artifacts when Neural and PLIIx are applied. So zero real world examples.

Sanjay

You couldn't even describe specific artifacts

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."

..and Sanjay if you request another reply from me, please just try to interpret the profound symbolism in following link:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Knight_(Monty_Python)&redirect=no

So... that's how many "for" 7.1 and how many "against"? :)


CUrrent setup is 5.1. If I had two more loudspeakers, I'd use 'em.

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."

yes, we've been over this pedantic point already -- by a strict definition, ANY alteration or 'processing' of the input signal, is a distortion.

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.

Use whatever adjective you wish to describe said artifacts krabapple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DistortionLOL!!! I ask you for an example of the artifacts you've been claiming Neural and PLIIx cause, but instead you link to a Wikipedia definition of the word distortion.

So after all the handwaving, Googling expeditions, attempts at distraction, etc, you can't actually support any of your reasons against playing back 5.1 content on 7.1 set-ups. ..and Sanjay if you request another reply from me just try to interrupt the profound symbolism in following link:)Interpret, not interrupt.

Sanjay

..you can't actually support any of your reasons against playing back 5.1 content on 7.1 set-ups.

"The truth shall set you free...but first it will p*ss you off."

Or make you LOL:p

CUrrent setup is 5.1. If I had two more loudspeakers, I'd use 'em.

LOL!
Darned right! If I had a 7.1 capable receiver/pre-pro, I'd already have two more speakers.

I'd just ignore those pesky artifacts (whatever they may sound like). :D

I'd just ignore those pesky artifacts (whatever they may sound like). :DDolby PLII steering artifacts are well documented.

Any link/reference as it pertains to 7.1 (DPLIIx), how they are presented and what we should expect to audibly hear (or perceive)?

Sanjay here is a magic black box that does EXACTLY what I’ve described. In fact I installed a D950 consoles at the PBS affiliate (WTVI) in Charlotte, NC.

http://www.vista7.com/e/pdf/vsp.pdf

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

"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 signal"
tbrunet,

Something to consider in the creation of any content is workflow.

If the monetization of the content is to be as effective as possible, modern content providers (and broadcasters) consider all of the possible stems necessary to move their content around.

A good example of this is: in the creation of a 5.1 mix necessary for the HD channel transmission, the content source will create a 2.0 LtRt or LwRw stem for the SD feed. If they don't do that, then they will rely on a (mechanical) downmix adhering to ITU BS.775. In addition, it must be possible to interoperate both 2.0 and 5.1 within the transmission plant.

In the absence of a 7.1 emission standard, most content providers assume that 7.1 will result from either blind upmixing or rendering on the consumer side. There is no plant (that I'm aware) that is tooled for 7.1 (no switchers).

Last, but not least, if content is to find its way onto the internet, the pipe it travels through will be stereo. That being the case, any effect on the audio (even though it may be very cool) that compromises the downmix will be met with lots of phone calls (not the good type).

These are (some of) the realities of the business of transporting audio. There is a place for archive quality (which we all love) but seldom is the consumer given convenient and affordable access to such.

It's a frustrating reality, but many of us are working and investing to improve it.

rob r. (who is really just complaining :D)

Or make you LOL:pThat wasn't what made me LOL. Dolby PLII steering artifacts are well documented.Then why are you unable to specify even one artifact when upmixing 5.1 to 7.1? BTW I'm NOT just googling stuff Sanjay!Of course you are, confirmed by the random comments and plagiarized text all throughout your posting history.

Sanjay

..Something to consider in the creation of any content is workflowRob I do understand your comment above about nominal broadcast workflows including Neural’ elegant solution for OTA audio broadcasting, but now I’m employed with: http://www.scad.edu/

where our students have the option of choosing various disciplines i.e. 35mm film & video, gaming, animation, motion capture, sound design ect.

IMO for “true” multi-channel productions I personally don’t subscribe in dumbing down a mix so to satisfy any specific down mixing scenario ..but rather believe in optimizing this true theatrical 5.1 or 7.1 mix for that given format. If a stereo track is needed then include an ancillary track.

I mentioned PBS/WTVI because I actually traveled to Canada (Studer) for a comprehensive D950 demo and later worked very closely with TGS our systems integrator since this was not a turnkey project. Also please note our Dolby E infrastructure which btw is probably one only a few on this scale in the country. BTW I'm NOT just googling stuff Sanjay!

http://broadcastengineering.com/infrastructure/broadcasting_transformation_wtvitv/
WTVI
http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/zz-_Shared_Assets/English_PDFs/About/Newsletters/308_pa_nw_0210_DTVAudioUpdate.pdf
Dolby E

Finally, Rob it's certainly refreshing to note the absence of the word ‘troll’ or ‘fool’ in your reply to me! Thanks:)

.. Of course you are, confirmed by the random comments and plagiarized text all throughout your posting history.
Good luck with this belief. Everything in my post above (#180) is factual.

As a matter of fact Sanjay do you wish to wager ($$) on the validity of "all" details of my professional career I've mentioned in post #180. It seems that you are calling me a liar:p

Linked in post #180

“Design Team
WTVI-TV: Wray Ware, chief engineer; Tom Green, senior maintenance engineer; Brent Kennedy, chief audio engineer; Thomas Brunet, maintenance engineer; TGS: Joe Hickey, senior design engineer; Willy Halla, executive vice president for engineering”

Good luck with this belief.Don't need luck, since your posting history has examples of your plagiarism (Amirm caught you doing it last time) and posting of random links from your Googling expeditions. In a previous thread about DialNorm, you posted a link to a Secrets of Home Theater article that undermined your own argument. If you had actually understood the technology being discussed, as opposed to racing off to a search engine, then you wouldn't have done something like that.

Even in this thread, which discusses 5.1 vs 7.1 speaker playback at home, you're posting random links to studio monitors and mixing consoles and WTVI roster. All because you can't specify even one artifact of upmixing 5.1 to 7.1 that you keep complaining about.

Sanjay

$$Still hiding from the questions. Come on Thomas, you made the claim, now back it up. If the "steering artifacts are well documented", just point out one of them. One.

Sanjay

..and WTVI roster. All because you can't specify even one artifact of upmixing 5.1 to 7.1 that you keep complaining about. If you would have taken the time to read that 'Broadcast Engineering' article I linked which profiled WTVI's digital transformation, seems you failed to note "DESIGN TEAM" and not just the "staff roster";)

FWIW technically I was involved in all phases of that transformation, WTVI sent me Studer's headquater in Canada for good reason, that due to my comprehensive understanding EE fundamentals. The remaining WTVI engineers listed there btw would come to me for technical details as well:)

Hey, does anyone prefer 6.1 over 5.1 or 7.1?

IIRC Tomlinson Holman favors 10.1

The remaining WTVI engineers listed there btw would come to me for technical details as well:)That's sad. Meanwhile, back to the topic of this thread (5.1 v 7.1). You claimed "steering artifacts are well documented". Describe one.

Sanjay

You claimed "steering artifacts are well documented". Describe one.Not only did I describe it..I detailed how a given "true" 5.1 production would suffer the up-mix.

Why don't you let rob r. respond to my post?

Maybe you could learn something in the process. Also whats really "sad" is you don't understand what I've already posted in this thread regarding the "encoding" of these complex virtual soundfields (detailed above).. and you are still unable to explain how PLIIx might in turn reverse engineer what has been embedded in these discrete channels?

There is a place for archive quality (which we all love) but seldom is the consumer given convenient and affordable access to such.This is what I'm really talking about..optimizing the mix (5.1 or 7.1) for high end HT reproduction.

Not only did I describe it..I detailed how a given "true" 5.1 production would suffer the up-mix.No you didn't. You simply said it would suffer, but never said how: i.e., you haven't pointed out a single artifact of 5.1 to 7.1 upmixing. Why don't you let rob r. respond to my post?Am I somehow holding him back from doing so? you are still unable to explain how PLIIx might in turn reverse engineer what has been embedded in these discrete channels?You're starting from a false premise that PLIIx is attempting to "reverse engineer what has been embedded in these discrete channels". The very point of using any 5.1->7.1 processing is when you don't have additional discrete channels. If a soundtrack is already 7.1 discrete, what is the processing going to do? Convert 7.1 to ....7.1?

So there is no 7.1 mix being reverse engineered. If there had been, then there would be no need to use PLIIx to begin with. Instead of recovering embedded content, the processing is doing a blind up-mix of 2 surround channels to 4 output channels. Nothing more complicated than that.

Sanjay

IIRC Tomlinson Holman favors 10.1Interestingly enough Holman's 10.2 demos include tracks that have been upmixed from existing 5.1 soundtracks.

Sanjay

So there is no 7.1 mix being reverse engineered. If there had been, then there would be no need to use PLIIx to begin with.Just stop the madness!

I'm referring to UPMIXING 5.1 to 7.1 using the scenario I've outlined at least 10 times already. What is embedded into "all five" discrete channels including the 2 rear surrounds involves some seriously complicated processing algorithms that require quit a bit of (DSP) horsepower. This 'process' for 5.1 or 7.1 (this 2D acoustical space / production scenerio) is based upon a specified spk configuration.

There's no false premise about anything, try again!

This (VSP) panning algorithm requires seriously 'fast' processing power and attempting reverse engineer this complex 5.1 signature.. then reproduce said 7.1 "defined acoustic space" is NOT possible and would be inferior to the original. So PLIIx, not even Neural can achieve what I've illustrated above. Down stream processing would only corrupt this contrived 5.1 "space". I took a look at Studer's information on VSP. It looks to me like a very flexible and useful production tool. Standard pan potting is indeed very crude, and cannot simulate all the arrival cues one might obtain were a real sound source traveling through a real space. And in today's world of synthesized sound effects, there simply is no real work sound source to be captured. So a tool such as VSP can be invaluable in the arsenal. Maybe FilmMixer can comment on this if he has used it.

In other words, while VSP allows creating sounds that never existed in real life, it does so in a way that is completely consistent with real world spatial recording. It can therefore blend in seamlessly and sound realistic.

Based on my understanding of VSP operation, I cannot see any obvious reason to conclude that its use in a 5.1 sountrack would be degraded by PLIIx 7.1 processing. PLIIx will treat the VSP mix elements exactly the same as other, real, spatial cues and panned effects in a recording.

IIRC Tomlinson Holman favors 10.1

Me too!

rob r. :D

In other words, while VSP allows creating sounds that never existed in real life, it does so in a way that is completely consistent with real world spatial recording.I would reverse this perception. It is (VSP) generating the complete "virtual" 2D or 3D acoustical space. Including early reflections that are unique and align with nominal surround spk number and placement.

How would Dolby PLIIx re-engineer and create (new).. what the Studer would do in a discrete 7.1 production?

Has anyone used DPLIIx (7.1) for any of WTVI's DD broadcasts?
Do you prefer it over DD5.1?
If no, please explain why. I'm curious if it's related to artifacts and exactly how those artifacts present themselves.

Also, does WTVI's DD5.1 sound any different than any other broadcast channel's DD5.1? Let us know your thoughts. :)

What is embedded into "all five" discrete channels including the 2 rear surrounds involves some seriously complicated processing algorithms that require quit a bit of (DSP) horsepower.That's for creating the studio mix, not upmixing at home. The things you've quoted about VSP (generating early reflections, adding phase and frequency spectrum information, providing late reverberations) are part of creating the original mix. Neither PLIIx nor Neural add reflections, reverberations or any other information to the recording.

You're confusing ambience generation using studio gear with ambience extraction in consumer electronics. One isn't competition for the other. PLIIx isn't an alternative to a discrete 7.1 recording; its only use is when you don't have a discrete 7.1 recording.

So far, you haven't been able to support your claim that these complex multi-channel recordings will suffer when upmixed. You just keep saying they will, asthough repetition makes reality.

You talk about these complex multi-channel recordings, but won't name a single title. You claim upmixing artifacts, but can't point to any. Why won't you give specific examples?

Sanjay

I would reverse this perception. It is (VSP) generating the complete "virtual" 2D or 3D acoustical space. Including early reflections that are unique and align with nominal surround spk number and placement. Yes, I said essentially that. What is reversed?

How would Dolby PLIIx re-engineer and create (new).. what the Studer would do in a discrete 7.1 production? Like Sanjay said, PLIIx does not do what VSP does at all. Completely different animals. PLIIx creates no new sounds, delays, reflections, or echos. It outputs only what is in the source.

It depends on how much wax you have in your ears and what type of format are you using. LOL

In my house I have 4 - 5.1 and 1 - 7.1. They all sound good. 7.1 and Blu-ray(if the format is 7.1) is phenomonal.

My receiver gets real creative to convert stuff to 7.1. Sometimes it all sounds the same. It's on you. Have a great day.

K

Hey, you guys act like the surround speakers in PL-2X dominate the soundfield. Try listening to the surrounds with the front, center and subwoofer disconnected. Nothing important is recorded for playback on those channels.

The surrounds are nice, but it is one big who cares to my ears!

WTVI sent me Studer's headquater in Canada for good reason, that due to my comprehensive understanding EE fundamentals.

hehe funny. I took algebra in grade 7. That counts as EE fundamentals too.

It seems you are unaware of the failure of all audio reproduction equipment to be "true". It is an impenetrable barrier from the laws of physics and interior design.
One can build a system on the philosophy of being as close to the audio engineer's ears as possible, but that is not a measure of how enjoyable the experience is nor should it dictate the final design choices.

Hey, you guys act like the surround speakers in PL-2X dominate the soundfield. Try listening to the surrounds with the front, center and subwoofer disconnected. Nothing important is recorded for playback on those channels.May I suggest you listen to Steely Dan ‘Gaucho’ or Sting ‘Brand New Day’ on DTS / 5.1.
PLIIx creates no new sounds, delays, reflections, or echos. It outputs only what is in the source.Exactly..and indeed that would be necessary to relocate these effects (multi dimensonal soundfield) from their original point of origin.

Also my comments are NOT an attempt at or an alternative "competition" to, but rather a specific illustration of 'real world' limitations. This discussion has really come full circle i.e. Sanjay is unable to comprehend what constitues a "true" 5.1 or 7.1 mix in the first place. Studer's VSP i.e. (and there are other examples) can produce/engineer exactly that, a "true" 5.1 or 7.1 mix or multi dimensional soudndfield.

The logic i.e a single isolated input channel strip being simply mono or stereo might possibly explain why a given blind upmix could have the ability to transparently move compex soundfields is IMO the definition of an "over simplification" and is technically misleading.

Over the weekend I replayed Iron-man, Batman, Wanted, Hellboy II in 5.1 AND in 7.1

It seemed that everyone at my house (inlaws/friends for holidays) liked the 7.1 setups better.....I asked them if they could point out the "artifacts" during the 7.1 playback and they gave me a blank look. ;)

Tburnet....its a dead horse you are being extremely pedantic for no reason at all, I have friends like you, I went to University of Waterloo so these guys are pretty scary :eek: I know you are smart but you just arguing a different point of view (OVER AND OVER.....give it up!!). That POV actually has ZERO arguments against it but you still post over and over the annoying POV like you need to convince yourself.

In the end YOU CAN NOT sit in a ROOM and PICK OUT THE ARTIFACT in a 7.1 playback....I could put in an UNKNOWN movie that you had no idea was only 5.1, I would play it back in 7.1 and you would not know it wasnt 7.1.....do you understand something this simple??....I know some of my friends could grasp the simple things, seriously they couldnt!!

Theory is one thing but REAL life IS.......WELL JUST REAL!!!

Exactly..and indeed that would be necessary to relocate these effects (multi dimensonal soundfield) from their original point of origin.Nope. To map 2 channels to 4 speakers it is not necessary to re-generate these effects anew. The information to do that is already in the recording; nothing need (nor should) be added. Sounds that would have imaged at the sides of the listeners and behind the listeners just have to be steered to speakers at those locations.

As proof, anyone reading this thread can demonstrate this for themselves (rather than have to take my word for it). Chapter 11 of the Disney movie 'Mission to Mars', where the mission commander's voice circles the room, is a good example. The voice panning through the surround field is consistent whether using 2, 3 or 4 surround speakers. No artifacts (certainly none that you can name).

Your claim, that it "would be necessary to relocate these effects", is without merit. Evidence of this is the fact that you cannot name a single example of a recording that suffers artifacts when 2 surround channels are mapped to 4 surround speakers. For that matter, you cannot even point to a single artifact. Zero.

Sanjay

I asked them if they could point out the "artifacts" during the 7.1 playback and they gave me a blank look. ;)I asked the same question in this thread, got a similar response.

Sanjay

nope. To map 2 channels to 4 speakers it is not necessary to re-generate these effects anew. bs!

I ate a big red candle.

bs!I can support my claim with a demo that anyone reading this thread can try for themselves. You have nothing to back up your claim. Zip. Zero. Nada. Makes it clear who's slinging the BS.

Sanjay

bs!

OK, that isn't terribly helpful.

I understand that in theory a discrete 7.1 mix that was created very carefully using more than just pan-pots will sound different from a 5.1 mix that is "upmixed" on the fly to 7.1. But my living room doesn't resemble anything like the soundstage of the mixing desk or original recording environment, is not very symmetric, and has uneven surface treatments, so the second-order information from early reflections etc is likely overwhelmed by my imperfect audio environment.

Is there a specific example of a soundtrack that is relatively available that when up-mixed from 5.1 to 7.1 via a PLxII-type processor demonstrates noticable artifacts, even assuming a perfectly acoustically-treated room with super-duper components? And how noticable are those artifacts in the imperfect world of a typical AVSer, or Joe Q Public's rec room?

That's the issue that really matters to me. Real-world application, not how it might sound in a perfect anechoic chamber.

shinksma

I can support my claim with a demo that anyone reading this thread can try for themselves.
Right, is that where you take a "simple" sine wave and make it circle the room?

Right, is that where you take a "simple" sine wave and make it circle the room?Gave the movie title, the chapter number, and what to listen for.

Can you do the same?

Sanjay

I understand that in theory a discrete 7.1 mix that was created very carefully using more than just pan-pots will sound different from a 5.1 mix that is "upmixed" on the fly to 7.1. But my living room doesn't resemble anything like the soundstage of the mixing desk or original recording environment, is not very symmetric, and has uneven surface treatments, so the second-order information from early reflections etc is likely overwhelmed by my imperfect audio environment.
Well according to Sanjay:) all his 5.1 productions are created with nearfield monitoring..that monitoring space would be very easy to simulate.

In the end dont we have so many more problems in most systems to worry about the "artifacts" that simulating 7.1 will produce (even though so far no one can prove their audible, ie....point them out to me!!)

Heck most people have crappy rooms, ZERO treatments, ZERO EQing, etc.....do we really care about "artifacts" or is this the same as a classical musician irking over how people listen to rock 'n roll?

I just think someone like Tbrunet lives in a different world and Im cool with his personal choice not to listen to 7.1 because he can not get over the science telling him there are "artifacts".

What isn't cool is for him to waste 6 pages telling us over and over that we are fools for listening to 7.1 because we are not listening to the track as intended (ie...5.1)

People want to be cool! ;) Tbrunet, you should try to be a cool person and realize that "track as intended" stuff does not fly with the public. We have 7.1 systems therefore we will set them to ALWAYS play movies in 7.1.....are you okay with that?

What isn't cool is for him to waste 6 pages telling us over and over that we are fools for listening to 7.1 because we are not listening to the track as intended (ie...5.1)

..are you okay with thatLook I never said anyone is a "fool". I just gave a valid reason why one may NOT want to compromise this original 5.1 soundfield. Whether are not your inlaws, ect. said it sounds better is not relevant to me.

btw I'm not the first person to "hear" said steering artifacts.

btw I'm not the first person to "hear" said steering artifacts.


Any examples to reinforce your stance that demonstrates those artifacts and/or exactly what we should hear?

Any examples to reinforce your stance that demonstrates those artifacts and/or exactly what we should hear?He didn't say you would hear them, only "hear" them.:D

Look I never said anyone is a "fool".

You definitely are inferring it!

btw, no one is arguing that "artifacts" exist, what everyone is saying is that they will put money on the table to bet that you or anyone else could not pick out the artifact. Meaning you can not tell if a 7.1 movie is truely a 7.1 movie.....its simply impossible to know and hence its completely irrelevant to post "artifactss exist".....people should ONLY care about what is audiable in a online discussion What you do on your own is none of anyone's business.

said it sounds better is not relevant to me.


and on the same point, I doubt anyone cares about what you post so why do you post? Its all about what sounds better to some one, science is great but the end result is pure and simple stuff....How does it sound? is the only question in the end that truely matters and audiences will vary.

Your point about "artifacts are introduced" so far has zero to do with how it sounds to anyone and everyone.

Group,

FWIW, it is possible to expose unnatural sounding elements (some would call them "artifacts", if you will) in content that has been perceptually coded at low bit rates and matrixed or rendered beyond the original two channels.

To test this, try any low bit rate stereo source (HE-AAC at 32kBs is a good example) and upmix or render it to more than the original two channels (say, 5.1). Observe what is in the surrounds:eek:.

This is not the fault of the upmixer or renderer. What has happened is that the masker in the compression scheme has been spatially displaced from the "maskee" (usually zero quantizers and/or quantization that is the result of perceptual coding. The original intent of the perceptual coder was for use with a stereo destination. So, this is more of a "don't do that" than a flaw of either system.

Regarding the history of matrix upmixers: there was a time that matrix upmixers were judged on their ability to rapidly cancel crosstalk without drift and intermodulation.

There were some implementations (analog) that had more drift than others because of the failure to effectively cancel thermal drift (for an analog logging function that would be 3300ppm/degree C) or poor choices in tuning the ballistics of the detector core. Some manufacturers used summing resistors without using substrate matching, the result being less than adequate crosstalk cancellation.

Nowadays, my guess is that we are all listening to digital implementations of said functions. This ameliorates kt/Q thermal issues and allows many implementations to have higher performance detector cores. Summing is now "perfect", so there's no tolerance based error.

Anybody that's paying attention will most likely have heard a "birdie", "squegg" or "ghost" at one time or another. Does it destroy our pleasure? Probably not.

But, on the content production side, individuals are expected to be sensitive to these types of seemingly innocuous errors.

rob r. (.02 of old f*rt :D)

To test this, try any low bit rate stereo source (HE-AAC at 32kBs is a good example) and upmix or render it to more than the original two channels (say, 5.1). Observe what is in the surrounds

Yeah, I would understand that sort of test but we are talking about 5.1 movies converted to 7.1.....its just impossible to pick out the "flaw" during playback so the end result here is that the "flaw" is meaningless wrt audible issues.

Well according to Sanjay:) all his 5.1 productions are created with nearfield monitoring.All my 5.1 productions? When did I go from hobbiest to producer?

BTW, I pointed out earlier that some studios remaster for nearfield (Sony) and some studios port the theatrical soundtrack (Paramount). Where did I say "all"? You're so desperate to distract from your failure to support your claim that you're now resorting to putting words in my mouth. For shame. btw I'm not the first person to "hear" said steering artifacts.By now it's obvious to anyone reading this thread that you've never heard "said steering artifacts", since you haven't even "said" what they are (despite multiple posters asking). Heck, you "listen to 5.1 soundtracks in 5.1", so you wouldn't even know what to listen for.

Sanjay

I understand that in theory a discrete 7.1 mix that was created very carefully using more than just pan-pots will sound different from a 5.1 mix that is "upmixed" on the fly to 7.1.Not only true in theory, but in practice a discrete 7.1 mix will sound different (hopefully better) than a blind 7.1 upmix. But if you already have a 7.1 mix, why upmix from 5.1? So upmixing isn't an alternative to discrete 7.1; it's for when we don't have 7.1.

Sanjay

Not only true in theory, but in practice a discrete 7.1 mix will sound different (hopefully better) than a blind 7.1 upmix. But if you already have a 7.1 mix, why upmix from 5.1? So upmixing isn't an alternative to discrete 7.1; it's for when we don't have 7.1.

Sanjay

Well, yeah, I agree. My point was that if upmixing a 5.1 mix to 7.1 on the fly creates artifacts, those artifacts are only relevant if they can be noticed as true "bugs". What is important (to me) is whether, while engrossed in a movie or music, I would be able to notice the "flaws" from a 5.1 mix upmixed to 7.1 sufficiently that I would forever swear off the upmix and only use a 5.1 mix "au naturale". One way would be to compare the 5.1 mix with a discretely created 7.1 mix and compare both with the upmixed (from 5.1) on-the-fly 7.1 mix. Sort of a tangerines to oranges to orangines comparison. ;)

This point is currently moot in my case, since I have a 5.1 set-ups only, though 2 out of 3 receivers are 7.1. WAF currently ixnays having two more "ugly speakers hanging off the wall".

IMHO,

shinksma

What is important (to me) is whether, while engrossed in a movie or music, I would be able to notice the "flaws" from a 5.1 mix upmixed to 7.1 sufficiently that I would forever swear off the upmix and only use a 5.1 mix "au naturale".Absolutely not. This never was the basis of my original comment(s) BTW.

Still does not change the fact that things would potentially be compromised as in the scenario I've outlined above.

My point was that if upmixing a 5.1 mix to 7.1 on the fly creates artifacts, those artifacts are only relevant if they can be noticed as true "bugs".Agreed, though there are those that are bothered by just the possibility of artifacts, irrespective of whether they actually hear/see them or not. For these folks, "perfect" is the enemy of "good". It doesn't matter how useful the processing is, the fact that it isn't flawless means that they will never use it.

Unfortunately, my entire media collection won't magically become 7.1-channel audio and 1080p video. Short of moving speakers around and swapping out television sets, the only alternative is to process the incoming audio and video signals to match my speaker layout and display resolution.

Sanjay

change the fact that things would potentially be compromised

Okay, for the 25th time.....this is the flaw in your arguement....no one cares about the "would potentially", very few people think that way period! People simply want to know if things "ARE" compromised.

You have argued pages and pages for no reason....everyone has agreed about the "potential" but everyone has also pointed out in the real world its almost impossible to prove there is a compromise with examples....

Conclusion, your opinion is not applicable in the real world.

....no one cares about the "would potentially", very few people think that way period! People simply want to know if things "ARE" compromised.Depends on the complexity of the soundfield. I gave you and everyone a specific example and it was OVER YOUR HEAD(S).

Happy Holidays!

Short of moving speakers around and swapping out television sets, the only alternative is to process the incoming audio and video signals to match my speaker layout and display resolution.If you had a 5.1 configuration you could have the best of both worlds:) Really Sanjay your limited understanding of virtual panning technologies is obvious to me.

BTW your video scenario is different, there one would NOT have the option (like above) to map info 1:1

Happy Holidays!

If you had a 5.1 configuration you could have the best of both worlds:)Not true. How would I listen to the growing number of discrete 6.1 and 7.1 tracks as they were originally mixed? I gave you and everyone a specific example and it was OVER YOUR HEAD(S).Nope. You gave no examples. You simply said that a 5.1 mix would suffer and be compromised when upmixed. But you haven't been able to point to a single artifact or compromise. None.

Sanjay

As I said "over your head"

Good bye!

As I said "over your head"Which example was that? Oh, that's right, you don't have any.

BTW, you never answered how a 7.1 recording can be played back over a 5.1 set-up while maintaining original intent.

Sanjay

Well why not go back to dolby pro logic with the center set at phantom.. You get loud and clear dialog ,, Less speakers means less total distortion .

Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

Stay out of a forum for a little while and look at what you miss. This is more amazing than some of the stuff in the "high end" forum.

Two words of advice: avoid obsession.

IOW, don't let the minute theoretical possibility that an imperceptible event might occur keep you from enjoying something wonderful in the real world.

Well why not go back to dolby pro logic with the center set at phantom.. You get loud and clear dialog ,, Less speakers means less total distortion .


Why not use just one then? :rolleyes:


(I get the 'clearest' dialogue using a center channel, btw.)

Why not use just one then? :rolleyes:


(I get the 'clearest' dialogue using a center channel, btw.)

Your right mono is the best !!! Don't underestimate the stone age.They were right the first time , One big 1960, Altec Voice of the Theatre A7 and a MAC tube amp ..Hooked up to blu-ray ...perfect !!!
Less is better . If you play it loud , it doesn't matter , it bouncing all over the room !!

..IOW, don't let the minute theoretical possibility that an imperceptible event might occur keep you from enjoying something wonderful in the real world.You truly under estimate our ability (HAS) to perceive these complex psycho-acoustic cues (VSP) which were engineered to alter our human perception. To suggest virtually decimating this complex signal(s) into new discrete information and in the next breath imply that these "artifacts" are somehow below our perception is not only misleading but technically wrong.

Sanjay is now morphing his position yet again. First he could not conceive of a *true* 5.1 mix and now he’s improvising another argument..
How would I listen to the growing number of discrete 6.1 and 7.1 tracks as they were originally mixed? FWIW the last 5 pages of back and forth were in reference to said 5.1 PRODUCTIONS.

First he could not conceive of a *true* 5.1 mixNope. Search my posts. Fact is that you contradicted your sole example of a "true" 5.1 mix with your own definition of "true" 5.1. FWIW the last 5 pages of back and forth were in reference to said 5.1 PRODUCTIONS.You're still trying to avoid the question I asked. You said that a 5.1 set-up would "have the best of both worlds". Since you're against using processing, how would you play back 6.1 and 7.1 material on a 5.1 set-up?

Sanjay

Sanjay, you have so effectively impeached him that he has lost whatever credibility he may have had. He has not only contradicted himself, as you correctly point out, but he has failed to answer simple, direct questions posed by you and penngray. Darin had the same experience with him in the projectors forum. He is one of those classic "knows a little about a lot, but a lot about only a little". Rest assured though, he will continue to argue red is green and black is white because evasiveness is his true forte. Also rest assured, the readers of this thread will readily conclude the truth, a concept which eludes him.

There is no such thing as *true* 5.1 or 7.1 productions.. psycho-acoustic effect can only done with traditional panning:p

It's technically just simple mono or stereo sounfields;)

There is no such thing as VSP;)

All Dolby PLIIx steering artifacts are below human perception;)

The real world according to Sanjay

I pooped a Cornish game hen.

There is no such thing as *true* 5.1 or 7.1 productions..More accurate to say that you haven't been able to name one. All Dolby PLIIx steering artifacts are below human perception;)Well, certainly below your perception, evidenced by the fact that you can't point out a single artifact.

Sanjay

Maybe Sanjay's superior mathematical prowess was tapped to model the sub prime loan industry as well?

Darin had the same experience with him in the projectors forum.Yeah, penngray recently pointed me towards some of those 'discussions' he had with Darin, Chris and others in the calibrations forum. Amazing. They do their best to simplify concepts so that us lay people can understand, while he makes every effort to unneccessarily complicate things so that... well, who knows.

Sanjay

Yeah, penngray recently pointed me towards some of those 'discussions' he had with Darin, Chris and others in the calibrations forum. Amazing. They do their best to simplify concepts so that us lay people can understand..Here John Luff (SMPTE Conference VP) seems to agree with my understanding of 'Display Calibration' fundamentals as well.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1038332&highlight=
:rolleyes:POST #253
The simple answer is the if I understand your argument correctly you are right.The issue is the NORMALIZED values before coding vs the input components, assumed to be RGB. The standard defines the encoded color space as well as the transform to 4:2:2 coding.

To understand the standard fully you have to think of it in different terms. First, the input to BT.601 is analog component video (RGB), the same as specified in SMPTE 125M, which also defines 4:2:2 sampling, and is somewhat more clear in presentation. The analog input values are specified in the standard as 1.0 V for luminance and each of the chroma difference signals. Part of the standard requires that prior to quantization the signals (1.0 V for luminance and the matrixed values for Cr and Cb “…(E’R – E’Y ) + 0.701 to – 0.701 and for (E’B – E’Y) a range of + 0.886 to – 0.886 ”) are normalized. Effectively it is those values that are normalized to 1 volt for peak excursions and then encoded using the parameters in the chart below (10 bit samples).

Part of the confusion comes from the fact that it is possible to encode signals using ITU-R BT.601 which would exceed the legal color gamut. That is the reason that white is defined less than full excursion, in addition to reducing ringing on sharp transitions.

John Luff
Television Technology Consultant
SMPTE Fellow
SMPTE Conference VP

Try again Sanjay:)

Here John Luff (SMPTE Conference VP) seems to agree with my understanding of 'Display Calibration' fundamentals as well.Has nothing to do with my comment. Anyone reading that thread will see that others are attempting to clarify while you're attempting to obfuscate. Same tactic you employ in this tread. Try again Sanjay:)OK, point out a 5.1->7.1 upmixing artifact.

Sanjay

Wrong forum... keep on topic.

What artifacts would one hear listening to movies using 7.1? Examples?

LOL... I have to type faster. Sanjay beat me by a few minutes.

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.

... of those 'discussions' he had with Darin, Chris and others in the calibrations forum. Amazing. Then don't bring up subjects that are beyond your comprehension;)

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.

He has steadfastly refused to answer.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

Then don't bring up subjects that are beyond your comprehension;)I didn't. Read the post I was replying to.

Sanjay