Since it will be coming soon, I wanted to start a thread for speculation.

Do you think it will sound better than 5.1 and/or 7.1 or is it just another gimmick?

I am also curious what kind of speakers would work best for the front surrounds? Dipoles or directs?

Does it mean we will start seeing 9 channel receivers now?

Onkyo's upcoming TX-SR607 is supposed to have it. It uses the B zone speaker connections for the front height, so I guess you have to give up two zones if you go 9.1. (BTW, I hate the front HDMI input on that receiver, looks so cluttered.)

No idea whether it'll be worth it or not, but I suspect it'll be used like another pair of surrounds up front. Mostly ambiance and effects. Should help in making the sound stage more enveloping.

Dolby's website is very vague.

For example:

How high do they need to be? Higher than surrounds or same height?

Would it make sense to have a 7.1 with height channels without rear ones or does PLIIZ only work when it is in addition to rears?

I also wonder whether dipoles will be better for front surrounds?

FWIW... The latest Sound and Vision magazine has an article about DPLIIz

I don't know if it's actually new concept. I have a 15 year old Yamaha integrated amp that utilizes the same DSP concept. It has speaker terminals for main, front and surround. It even supports 2 center speakers.

A lot of those Dolby processing modes had predecessors elsewhere. Seven channels were developed in the early-mid 90s, well before ProLogic IIx came along.

There is another thread here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15925037&postcount=1) on PLIIz, but why not have more? I'm very enthusiastic about it, and already thinking about getting more speakers. Using height channels instead of back surrounds is part of Dolby's scheme, as I understand it, and that's what Onkyo's new receiver will provide. But I want 9.1, myself, and I read that the Onkyo receiver will have no analog outputs, which implies no pre-outs for the new height channels. So, that's no way to get 9.1.

There is another thread here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15925037&postcount=1) on PLIIz, but why not have more? I'm very enthusiastic about it, and already thinking about getting more speakers. Using height channels instead of back surrounds is part of Dolby's scheme, as I understand it, and that's what Onkyo's new receiver will provide. But I want 9.1, myself, and I read that the Onkyo receiver will have no analog outputs, which implies no pre-outs for the new height channels. So, that's no way to get 9.1.

in that case you will need to pick between 7.1 with rears and 7.1 with height. interesting

in that case you will need to pick between 7.1 with rears and 7.1 with height. interesting
With the announced Onkyo receiver, yes. But not with PLIIz, in general. I think I was not clear about that.

Do you think it will sound better than 5.1 and/or 7.1 or is it just another gimmick?5.1 and 7.1 attempt to create a ring of sound around you. PLIIz adds the element of height, attempting to turn a two-dimensional ring into a three-dimensional bubble of sound. If set up poorly, it'll sound gimmicky. If dialed in properly, I'm sure it has the capability to sound more enveloping than 7.1. I am also curious what kind of speakers would work best for the front surrounds? Dipoles or directs?I don't think it will make much difference, since the information steered to the height speakers is mostly ambient and generalized. How high do they need to be? Higher than surrounds or same height?Surrounds are intended to give wrap-around envelopment. They're sometimes placed higher than ear level in order to sound more ambient and less distracting, but not necessarily to convey a sense of height.

By comparison, the very purpose of height speakers is to give the illusion of sound overhead. With that in mind, I would place surround speakers a couple of feet above ear level at my sides and behind me, but I would place height speakers as high as possible on the front wall. Listeners should have the unmistakable (not subtle) impression of something above. Does it mean we will start seeing 9 channel receivers now?I hope so.

According the Dolby web site the front Heights can be used along with back surrounds for a 9.1 system but can also be used in place of the back surrounds where back speaker placement is a problem like my situation where the couch is back against the rear wall with no place behind to put the back surrounds. The fronts are not strictly for height sound.


From Dolby:
7.1-channel surround sound has made the home theater experience exceptionally involving and compelling. However, due to room layouts and space limitations, not every setup can accommodate the back speakers of a 7.1 system. Through our extensive research into multichannel listening, we have developed technology that delivers alternative solutions.

Dolby Pro Logic IIz solves these problems by adding front height channels, through a pair of speakers mounted above the left and right speakers in a home theater surround sound system. Dolby Pro Logic IIz:

* Improves on the spatial presentation of current 7.1 surround sound setups
* Provides installation flexibility for setups in which rear surround speakers are not practical

Dolby Pro Logic IIz offers a new dimension in sound, bringing a greater sense of air and presence from any content. Benefits include:

* Realistic and involving surround sound from any music or movie source
* Dramatic alternative listening perspective for installations that can’t accommodate back surround speakers
* Functions with original stereo or multichannel sources
* Requires no special encoding or separate mixing by the content producer
* Simplistic speaker positioning and wiring

Dolby Pro Logic IIz 9.1The added channels also add flexibility for designing a surround sound system with up to 9.1 channels. 9.1-channel AVRs offer even more options, including state-of-the-art 9.1 playback with surround and back speakers and two front height speakers.

Because Dolby Pro Logic IIz is based on proven Dolby Pro Logic IIx technology, it is as easily implemented in AVRs. The height channels become another option on the speaker setup menu. Additionally, game developers now have a powerful tool that opens up the potential for true three-dimensional audio effects. With Dolby Pro Logic IIz, developers can encode specific height information in the z-axis. Players will experience even greater immersion and realism.

Why Height

Extensive listening sessions established that adding a height dimension to a home theater brings a greater sense of realism than would the addition of surround speakers in the horizontal plane to 7.1 systems. People are also far more sensitive to directional cues from sounds occurring in front than from those behind, determining that front speaker placement is ideal.

Expanding on established Dolby Pro Logic II matrix decoding innovations, Dolby Pro Logic IIz identifies and decodes spatial cues that occur naturally in all content—stereo and 5.1 broadcast, music CDs, DVDs, 5.1 and 7.1 Blu-ray™ discs, and video games. Dolby Pro Logic IIz processes low-level, uncorrelated information—such as ambience and some amorphous effects like rain or wind—and directs it to the front height speakers.

Just as with the surround channels in existing Pro Logic IIx technology, the height extensions do not offer any new kinds of program content to drive the height channel outputs. The extensions are designed to more effectively use existing program material when height channel speaker outputs are present. The height extensions can be used to upmix a variety of sources from movies and music, but are particularly well-suited to upmix game content.

According the Dolby web site the front Heights can be used along with back surrounds for a 9.1 system but can also be used in place of the back surrounds where back speaker placement is a problem like my situation where the couch is back against the rear wall with no place behind to put the back surrounds. That is correct.

The fronts are not strictly for height sound. Not sure how you have come to that conclusion. It just means you can use PLIIx's height speakers regardless of whether the PLIIx back surround speakers are running or not.

I don't think it will make much difference, since the information steered to the height speakers is mostly ambient and generalized.

Doesn't this statement hold true for side surrounds in a 5.1 system? I was under the impression same type of information was steered to side surrounds and still many people prefer dipoles for them. I am just curious if having dipoles in height channels will create a more enveloping environment or not.

Doesn't this statement hold true for side surrounds in a 5.1 system?No, since the information in the surround channels can range from indistinct ambience to directional. It's up to the mixing engineer to decide which sound effects will come from all around you and which sound effects will come from a specific direction (left, right, back). Since there is no recorded height information in soundtracks, PLIIz can't get too specific when extracting its height channels. After all, how do we know that the mixing engineer intended those particular sounds to come from above? So it keeps the extracted height info very generalized, attempting to create an ambient bubble of sound rather than have specific sound effects image overhead. I was under the impression same type of information was steered to side surrounds and still many people prefer dipoles for them.Dipoles have nothing to do with how ambient or how directional the surround information is. Instead, dipoles are used to mimic the long arrays of surround speakers you see in commercial theaters, which create a diffuse left-ish vs right-ish effect rather than the pin-point stereophonic imaging we're used to at home. You're not going to be able to recreate this diffuse effect with a pair of monopole surrounds. I am just curious if having dipoles in height channels will create a more enveloping environment or not.Sure, dipoles will give more enveloping results than direct-firing monopoles, simply because you'll be hearing very little direct sound from the speaker and mostly reflected sound off nearby walls. But you have to balance the added envelopment with what PLIIz is attempting to achieve. A diffuse speaker is less directional, so it may end up lessening the height effect you're trying to get. If you want a combination of diffuse and directional, consider bipoles.

Sure, dipoles will give more enveloping results than direct-firing monopoles, simply because you'll be hearing very little direct sound from the speaker and mostly reflected sound off nearby walls. But you have to balance the added envelopment with what PLIIz is attempting to achieve. A diffuse speaker is less directional, so it may end up lessening the height effect you're trying to get. If you want a combination of diffuse and directional, consider bipoles.

I was under the impression that bipoles were more geared for music though. I really appreciate your answers!

I was under the impression that bipoles were more geared for music though.The can be used for anything, depending on your preference. Monopoles tend to send most of their energy towards the listener, so you get comparitively little reflected sound. Bipoles have both sets of drivers in phase, radiating the same amount of energy in all directions, so you end up getting a combination of direct and reflected sound. Dipoles have the two sets of drivers wired out of phase, producing a null (quiet zone of sound) that is aimed towards the listeners, so they hear relatively little direct sound from the speaker and instead hear sound reflected off nearby walls. I've greatly simplified the differences, but those are the main characteristics of each type of speaker. Any of them can be used for music or movies, based on the type of sound you like.

Has anybody heard PL IIz in action yet? I am curious if it can really be used to replace the rear surrounds in rooms with no place to put the rear surrounds.

Thanks.

Has anybody heard PL IIz in action yet? I am curious if it can really be used to replace the rear surrounds in rooms with no place to put the rear surrounds.

Thanks.

I think there is pretty much agreement that PLIIZ is not meant to replace the rear surrounds. It can be combined with rears to provide a more enveloping sound. If you use without rears, then you will get a different kind of surround experience.

I think there is pretty much agreement that PLIIZ is not meant to replace the rear surrounds.
There is? This is the first time I've heard this. Reference please?

There is? This is the first time I've heard this. Reference please?PLIIz doesn't replace the surround-back channels of PLIIx, instead adding a pair of height channels, for a total of 9.1 playback channels.

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

A practical question:

Most people have the L, C and R speakers pulled out into the room at least a little... some more than just a little. The two new high front channels will likely be wall mounted. As such, they will not be in phase with the L, C and R channels. Does Dolby PLIIz account for this and if so how does it do it?

PLIIz doesn't replace the surround-back channels of PLIIx, instead adding a pair of height channels, for a total of 9.1 playback channels.
It may either replace them or supplement them. It will replace them, as an option, in the recently announced Onkyo receiver, since that does not have 9.1 channels. (Note this point in the reference you gave: "Dramatic alternative listening perspective for installations that can’t accommodate back surround speakers".)

... The two new high front channels will likely be wall mounted. As such, they will not be in phase with the L, C and R channels. Does Dolby PLIIz account for this and if so how does it do it?
I'm not sure I see how a phase difference could arise. If the processor decides that a sound came from overhead, it will play it from a height speaker and not through other speakers, so you won't have a sound coming both from a height speaker and also from L/C/R.

It may either replace them or supplement them. It will replace them, as an option, in the recently announced Onkyo receiver, since that does not have 9.1 channels. (Note this point in the reference you gave: "Dramatic alternative listening perspective for installations that can’t accommodate back surround speakers".) I think there's a sematics issue here--you are actually agreeing about the end result, but not on terms. If you mean by "replace" that the back-surround effect is reproduced in an alternative way by the new height speakers, then no, replacement is not possible. But if you mean that the new height outputs are an alternative use for the back speakers/amps, then yes, it replaces them with this new function.

A practical question:

Most people have the L, C and R speakers pulled out into the room at least a little... some more than just a little. The two new high front channels will likely be wall mounted. As such, they will not be in phase with the L, C and R channels. Does Dolby PLIIz account for this and if so how does it do it? I'd expect PLIIz receivers to use the same time alignment method for the height speakers as any others, resulting in coincident arrival from all speakers in the system.

I'd expect PLIIz receivers to use the same time alignment method for the height speakers as any others, resulting in coincident arrival from all speakers in the system.

Thanks. I was thinking out loud. As Greg Lee said, if the signal in the FH channels isn't in the others than it doesn't really matter if the delay isn't perfect. My concern with the delay... if the receiver or pre/pro can only program in delay and the FH speakers are the furthest speakers from the seated position, then all others must be delayed to match phase of the FH speakers. Probably not a big deal, but I doubt Dolby does that, which of course means that is additional processing that the receiver or pre/pro manufacturer would have to design. This basically means that Dolby PLIIz might not be a drop in replacement for Dolby PLIIx. If the phase of the FH speakers doesn't matter than this is all moot.

This basically means that Dolby PLIIz might not be a drop in replacement for Dolby PLIIx.

From looking at the User Manual (http://www.eu.onkyo.com/dl/1334062/Manual_TX-SR577_English.pdf), it appears the Onkyo TX-SR577 includes four separate post processing modes titled DPLIIx_Movie, DPLIIx_Music, DPLIIx_Game, and DPLIIz_Height. [Of course, the distinction might be mostly a matter of semantics...?!]

It may either replace them or supplement them.That's a limitation of a manufacturer's implementation, not PLIIz processing itself. If a receiver has only 7 amp channels, then the manufacturer has to make users choose between surround-back OR height channels. That doesn't mean PLIIz "replaces" surround-back channels with height channels.

Imagine if someone told you that PLIIx "replaces" its surround-back channels with 2nd Zone stereo (which is an option on some receivers). You know that's not PLIIx; instead it's the manufacturer re-assigning 2 amp channels. Same with limited implementations of PLIIz.

My concern with the delay... if the receiver or pre/pro can only program in delay and the FH speakers are the furthest speakers from the seated position, then all others must be delayed to match phase of the FH speakers.Why is that a concern? I doubt that the speaker layouts in most home theatres exceed the time alignment capabilities of modern receiver and pre-pros. Probably not a big deal, but I doubt Dolby does that, which of course means that is additional processing that the receiver or pre/pro manufacturer would have to design.Time alignment is something that is handled by receiver and pre-pro manufacturers anyway, not something that Dolby does. Maybe semantics, but I don't think a simple delay is really considered "additional processing". This basically means that Dolby PLIIz might not be a drop in replacement for Dolby PLIIx. If the phase of the FH speakers doesn't matter than this is all moot.Of course the phase of the height speakers matter. But why would that be any different than any of the other speakers in the set-up?

From looking at the User Manual (http://www.eu.onkyo.com/dl/1334062/Manual_TX-SR577_English.pdf), it appears the Onkyo TX-SR577 includes four separate post processing modes titled DPLIIx_Movie, DPLIIx_Music, DPLIIx_Game, and DPLIIz_Height. [Of course, the distinction might be mostly a matter of semantics...?!]You know that each of those four modes yields different results. For example: one of those modes derives height channels while the other three do not. That's a real difference, not semantics.

My concern with the delay... if the receiver or pre/pro can only program in delay and the FH speakers are the furthest speakers from the seated position, then all others must be delayed to match phase of the FH speakers.The means by which a PLIIx decoder sets the time offsets for the back speakers relative to the rest is identical in hardware and process to how it sets the offset for the height speakers. As a result, PLIIz can indeed be a drop-in option.

Imagine if someone told you that PLIIx "replaces" its surround-back channels with 2nd Zone stereo (which is an option on some receivers). You know that's not PLIIx; instead it's the manufacturer re-assigning 2 amp channels. Same with limited implementations of PLIIz.
It's not the same at all. It's a feature of PLIIz that it provides not only 9.1 with height channels, but also 7.1 with height channels. It's right there and explicit in the Dolby description. I don't understand what you're arguing about.

You know that each of those four modes yields different results. For example: one of those modes derives height channels while the other three do not. That's a real difference, not semantics.

Actually I was responding to a a post which enquired as to whether DPLIIz is a 'drop in replacement' for DPLIIx: Given that the TX-SR577 includes DPLIIz as a product technology feature, but not DPLIIx, that would seem to be the case. However, there continue to be three modes DPLIIx_Movie/Music/Game of the DPLIIz post process, plus the new DPLIIz_Height mode. From Dolby's own statements that DPLIIz is a superset of DPLIIx, I had expected to see four modes DPLIIz_Movie/Music/Game/Height [and NO DPLIIx modes]. Apparently I was confused (not the first time), and - as I said - it's only a question of semantics...

I don't understand what you're arguing about.My point is that PLIIz doesn't "replace" surround-back channels with height channels. It can accomodate fewer than 9.1 channels, but that's due to hardware limitations (not enough outputs, not enough amp channels). So it's not PLIIz replacing anything, it's the receiver manufacturer having to choose how to allocate 7 amp channels.

From Dolby's own statements that DPLIIz is a superset of DPLIIx, I had expected to see four modes DPLIIz_Movie/Music/Game/Height [and NO DPLIIx modes].Ah, that's what you meant by semantics. Rather than keep the name of the superset mode, the nomenclature changes based on speaker configuration. Configure for no height speakers and the PLIIz modes disappear. Configure for one surround-back speaker and the PLIIx Movie mode disappears. Configure for no surround-back speakers and PLIIx modes disappear (only PLII). But all those modes are still in there. Just a matter of activating the appropriate speakers to see them in the menu.

There is talk that the new Denons will include PLIIz processing.....
Best,
James W Barron
snowtrooper1966

If past is any indicator, every single receiver that comes in the market will start including it.

I am suspecting we can eventually start seeing 9 channels in future years.

From my reading of the Dolby description I believe that the front height speakers can replace the back surrounds for ambient sounds such as wind, rain, city noises, etc that do not have directionality. It will not be able to replace the back surrounds for discrete sounds such as a voice or door closing. For those of us that do not have any space behind us for back surrounds it might be an alternative to get better overall surround sound in the room. Would love to hear from people once they start to hear it.

It will not be able to replace the back surrounds for discrete sounds such as a voice or door closing.
I don't think it's fair to say the height speakers can't do discrete sounds, though of course they can't do discrete sounds coming from the back, and your examples of a voice or door closing are not sounds that would usually come from overhead.

I believe this is going to be more focused on the gaming world than for movies. The game guys are pushing 3D sound much more than the movie folks. Even 7.1 is much more important for games than movies.

From my reading of the Dolby description I believe that the front height speakers can replace the back surrounds for ambient sounds such as wind, rain, city noises, etc that do not have directionality. It will not be able to replace the back surrounds for discrete sounds such as a voice or door closing. For those of us that do not have any space behind us for back surrounds it might be an alternative to get better overall surround sound in the room. Would love to hear from people once they start to hear it.


For 5.1 to 7.1-Front_Height expansion, DPLIIz looks likes it will have two different effects depending on the nature of the input material:


For 5.1 source material deliberately coded with front height content [and Dolby says it will teach game developers how to do this], DPLIIz will extract Front Height speaker content [somewhat analogous to the way analog decoders unscrambled matrixed 2 channel into L/C/R/Rear]; I guess that will be mostly discrete, and have low crosstalk versus other surround channels.


For 5.1 source material NOT specifically coded with front height content, DPLIIz will infer Front Height speaker content; I'd guess that the results will be hit-or-miss - like they are if you apply DPLIIx to (say) 2 channels CDs. If the results suck, go back to 5.1, or if you have 9 speakers attached, try DPLIIx(Movie) or DPLIIx(Music).



However, you should not equate Front Height Speakers solely with DPLIIz. If you check the Onkyo TX-SR577/TX-SR607 user manuals, you can see that 7.1 channel source material with front height content will play through the Front Height speakers, without any involvement of DPLIIz, and, of course, the included Front Height speaker content will be discrete.

I really think that matrixed height channels are silly.

When stuff flies overhead in a soundtrack the phase informations seems to create the illusion of height imaging just fine. I have 7.1 all ready, and there are only like 30 movies with more that six channels.

I use Pro Logic 2X on video games for fake 7.1, but not for movies- unless it is specifically mastered for EX but encoded without the flag.

I really think that matrixed height channels are silly.

When stuff flies overhead in a soundtrack the phase informations seems to create the illusion of height imaging just fine. Yes, the height illusion works quite well, especially because the brain is strongly infuenced by the visual cue telling it to interpret it that way. We've relied heavily on this mechanism since surround was invented. I was dubious about height extraction too, until we tried it. And while it's not a day/night difference like stereo-vs-surround, it does add some surprisingly useful "air" IMHO.

I have 7.1 all ready, and there are only like 30 movies with more that six channels. Probably true, and that's why PLIIx was invented--to fill that gap.

I use Pro Logic 2X on video games for fake 7.1, but not for movies- unless it is specifically mastered for EX but encoded without the flag. Cool. Glad you are not so much of a strict purist that you'd only use EX on such content. Do I correctly infer that this means the way PLIIx derives the Lb/Rb outputs compared with EX's mono signal meets with your approval, even though they were not explicitly so encoded?

If so, you have already crossed the line (albeit a fine one) into accepting the contributions of "blind" PLIIx umixing. Just curious--why then you find it objectionable for upmixing regular 5.1 soundtracks? Do you use anything else instead, or just prefer to leave two of your 4 surrounds silent on most programs?

If you do not mind, I have a few more questions regarding your preference for 5.1 playback on 5.1 speakers. I'd like to know about your 7.1 setup's surround speakers. Are they dipole, direct radiator, other, a mix? And where are they positioned wrt to your seat? 90, 110, 135, 160, x deg wrt front-center? Which pair do you use for 5.1, the sides or the rears?

Does your theater/listening room have more than one seat? More than one row of seats? Thanks!

When stuff flies overhead in a soundtrack the phase informations seems to create the illusion of height imaging just fine.But it's a phantom image and not as stable as what actual height speakers can provide. Same reason an actual centre speaker is used instead of relying on a phantom centre image. I have 7.1 all ready, and there are only like 30 movies with more that six channels.There are over 100 titles on Blu-ray with discrete 7.1-channel soundtracks. Some are music and TV shows, but the vast majority are movies. So it's more than "only like 30 movies". Besides, 7.1-speaker playback has little to do with 7.1-channel soundtracks. 7-channel pre-pros were being sold in the 1980s, eight years before there was any discrete 5.1 content available to consumers, and over two decades before there was any 7.1 content. Unless you're a recent convert to surround sound (recent = discrete multi-channel era), the number of 7.1 titles available has little bearing on 7.1 playback. With that mindset, you'd never use height speakers unless there was encoded height information in the soundtrack.

But it's a phantom image and not as stable as what actual height speakers can provide. Same reason an actual centre speaker is used instead of relying on a phantom centre image. There are over 100 titles on Blu-ray with discrete 7.1-channel soundtracks. Some are music and TV shows, but the vast majority are movies. So it's more than "only like 30 movies". Besides, 7.1-speaker playback has little to do with 7.1-channel soundtracks. 7-channel pre-pros were being sold in the 1980s, eight years before there was any discrete 5.1 content available to consumers, and over two decades before there was any 7.1 content. Unless you're a recent convert to surround sound (recent = discrete multi-channel era), the number of 7.1 titles available has little bearing on 7.1 playback. With that mindset, you'd never use height speakers unless there was encoded height information in the soundtrack.


That may be true but I very few NEW releases are 7.1, action movies should all be 7.1....who cares about a love story in 7.1 but for some reason studios miss the boat on this all the time :(

My memory isn't great but the sound & vision writer stated that the improvement going from 5.1 to DPLIIZ, is more of an improvement than going from 5.1 to 7.1 . I found that to be interesting.

That may be true but I very few NEW releases are 7.1, action movies should all be 7.1....who cares about a love story in 7.1 but for some reason studios miss the boat on this all the time :(

Plus, it's not just a question of encoding action movies in 7.1: Most 7.1 movies are probably authored in 7.1-Standard speaker layout - with little height information. Supposedly(!) the DTS decoder's speaker remapping step will translate a 7.1-Standard speaker layout soundtrack into 7.1-Front_Height speaker layout for playback correctly [using the SMPTE coefficients], but that process can't add height detail not in the BD 7.1 mix. If home theater use of Front Height speaker layouts becomes popular, studios will need to decide, on a movie-by-movie basis, which 7.1 authoring speaker layout best preserves a combination of height and surround detail for all common playback layouts.

[And it would probably also make sense to consider authoring concerts and other 'staged' material BDs in 7.1-Front_Wide speaker layout, as Audyssey DSX or some future technology will likely popularize Front Wide speakers eventually!]

I believe this is going to be more focused on the gaming world than for movies. The game guys are pushing 3D sound much more than the movie folks. Even 7.1 is much more important for games than movies.

what do you recommend for height channels? Direct or di-pole?

very few NEW releases are 7.1, action movies should all be 7.1....who cares about a love story in 7.1 but for some reason studios miss the boat on this all the time :( The studios creating the original movie soundtracks actually never make them as 7.1, since zero theaters are equipped to use them. The transition to digital cinemas is one of the key enablers, in that they all can carry at least 8-ch PCM , so that long-time bottleneck is finally gone. But I think the studios you refer to are the ones repurposing the existing 5.1 soundtracks into 7.1 for home use. There the issue is very $imple: Does the cost lead to increased profits? So far, that has not been shown.

Plus, it's not just a question of encoding action movies in 7.1: Most 7.1 movies are probably authored in 7.1-Standard speaker layout - with little height information. Supposedly(!) the DTS decoder's speaker remapping step will translate a 7.1-Standard speaker layout soundtrack into 7.1-Front_Height speaker layout for playback correctly [using the SMPTE coefficients], but that process can't add height detail not in the BD 7.1 mix. You're quite right that DTS's remapper cannot add height--I think that's the reason for their new Neo:X program.

Near as I can tell, based on conversations with DTS, the remapper can do things like mix a side surround signal into either a front or back speaker to try to compensate for side speakers that are not positioned at the exact angle prescribed by the content. Say, moving a 110-deg side signal forward to 90 deg. by mixing some of it into the front. Being that this is where the ear is least able to resolve a phantom image, it seems rather pointless to me, but YMMV. :D

If home theater use of Front Height speaker layouts becomes popular, studios will need to decide, on a movie-by-movie basis, which 7.1 authoring speaker layout best preserves a combination of height and surround detail for all common playback layouts. Your insight is spot on the mark. And with minimal compromise, it's quite easy to create one soundtrack mix that serves 5.1, "std" 7.1, 7.1 height, and even 9.1 to 12.1 playback systems equally well, all deliverd in a 7.1 pipeline. The same problem stalling discrete height mixing is in effect--where's the money?

Post-production studios that cook up the 7.1 remixes we see on BD start from the source elements of the original 5.1 (or sometimes 6.1 EX) soundtrack. Even the most aggressive studio, MiCasa, given the greatest artistic license, found it nearly impossible to create height cues from those existing tracks. Their most demonstrative results were when they added new sound elements to the mix. (These were test mixes, not commercial releases.) So until the original movie studio actually drives the height agenda (such as by means of some hypothetical 3D theatrical sound format), the chance of seeing 7.1 BDs delivering 5.1 + Lh/Rh are pretty slim.

Let's revisit this again in 5 years. ;)

what do you recommend for height channels? Direct or di-pole?

I would try direct if I was going to try it at all.

I will wait unit I hear a real benefit to any of this.

You're quite right that DTS's remapper cannot add height--I think that's the reason for their new Neo:X program.

DTS Advanced/Neo/:X seems unlikely to be a success unless it hits the sub US$600 receiver market in some form. Is that likely [anytime soon] with 11 amps on board? 9 amps? maybe 7 amps [and an option to add 2 power amp channels externally], especially if the receiver does NOT also include DPLIIz. With a strong record of [presence] height speakers, Yamaha did not add DPLIIz to the Spring 2009 receiver line, so maybe they'll go the DTS route for the high end models in the Fall!

I have enough unused [matching] surround speakers and power amps and the willingness to ramp up one or two systems to 11.x, but I suspect a lot of folks will baulk at making the jump from 7.1 to 11.1! And remember that most consumers are still struggling with 5.1! So I have some serious concerns about when we'll see adoption of DTS Advanced/Neo/:X, if ever...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10220826-47.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0

Very small 'puff piece' interview with DTS about Neo X on TechRadar.com (http://www.techradar.com/news/home-cinema/home-theatre-audio/dts-interview-11-1-setups-blu-ray-and-speaking-to-spielberg-591408?artc_pg=3):

"When we showed 11.1, we came up with a concept called 'Neo X' – where 'X' could be any number within reason. 'X' for CES was 11. [...] [11.1] was what we showed. It could be 11, it could be 9, it could be 13, it could be 366. The Master Audio algorithm is very expandable."

I use "THX SURROUND EX" for films because they are mixed for a single back surround.
Xbox 360 games appear to have two folded back channels in the 5.1 stream, hence I feel PLIIX is the better option.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10220826-47.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0Same author also posted this: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10210164-47.html?tag=mncol;title

Amazing that he couldn't hear the effects of PLIIz (even after boosting the level of the height speakers by 3dB) but could easily hear the effects of audiophile fuses (with directional arrows, of course).

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/3152/tech-trends-09-taking-you-higher.html

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/3152/tech-trends-09-taking-you-higher.html

The article, Tech Trends '09: Taking You Higher [Sound&Vision, April/May 2009] (http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/3152/tech-trends-09-taking-you-higher.html), includes this quote:

"Onkyo product manager Brian Sandifer said the receivers will come in two types: 7.1 and 9.1. The 9.1 receivers will have nine amplifiers, for driving a full 7.1 system plus the two height channels."

It will be interesting to see what is the low price point of the nine-amp-receivers [plus, whether Onkyo will allow some lower priced seven-amp-receivers to use an add-on stereo amp to reach 9.1], and, perhaps more importantly, how the rest of the receiver and pre/pro manufacturers will respond.

"Is 9.1 destined to beome the new 7.1? Enquiring minds want to know..."

The article, Tech Trends '09: Taking You Higher [Sound&Vision, April/May 2009] (http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/3152/tech-trends-09-taking-you-higher.html), includes this quote:

"Onkyo product manager Brian Sandifer said the receivers will come in two types: 7.1 and 9.1. The 9.1 receivers will have nine amplifiers, for driving a full 7.1 system plus the two height channels."

It will be interesting to see what is the low price point of the nine-amp-receivers [plus, whether Onkyo will allow some lower priced seven-amp-receivers to use an add-on stereo amp to reach 9.1], and, perhaps more importantly, how the rest of the receiver and pre/pro manufacturers will respond.

"Is 9.1 destined to beome the new 7.1? Enquiring minds want to know..."


If past is any indication, it will be. It will be hard to find 7.1 receivers in the next few years. Well companies need new features to convince us that we need to upgrade our components, don't they?

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/speakers/satellite/atlantic-tech-1400-sr-z-height

If past is any indication, it will be. It will be hard to find 7.1 receivers in the next few years. Well companies need new features to convince us that we need to upgrade our components, don't they?

Yeah, but the 7.1 receivers could be set up for 5.1 (and 3.1, and 2.1 and so on), so I don't see how the 9.1 receivers would be any different. Sure, it'll have features you may never use, but that's been present on audio systems for decades now.

Does anyone know of any higher end pre-pros that incorporate Dolby PLIIz?

Well I can't tell 100% sure if this has even been answered yet.

But we see from DOLBY's website that it can function as a 7.1 plus 2 height, somewhat like a 9.1 but can The ONKYO reciever simultaneously output 10 sound channels? Can you run the 8 surround channels and the the 2 "2nd sound" channels at the same time? or is it one or the other.

Just because the dolby equiptment can suit this purpose doesn't necessarily imply the sr607 can do all 9 and I don't see mention of it on the site... or in this thread, I see alot of dolby dolby, but what about what onkyo says?

drumer, eh?

can The ONKYO reciever simultaneously output 10 sound channels?It can't. The 607 is a 7.1 receiver (7 amp channels). Start with a 5.1-speaker set-up and then choose what you want to do with remaining 2 amps/speakers: surround-back, height, zone2.

Does anyone know of any higher end pre-pros that incorporate Dolby PLIIz?

Not yet, but for high-end, it should be a simple matter of firmware upgrade I believe.

Does anyone know of any higher end pre-pros that incorporate Dolby PLIIz?

First offerings [if any!] should be announced in conjunction with CEDIA EXPO 2009 [September 10-13, 2009, Atlanta, GA.]

[Internet rumors expected August 2009!:cool:]

Cool, that's the info I was looking for...thanks guys!

what do you recommend for height channels? Direct or di-pole?

The question of direct vs. dipole for the front height might be similar to the question of direct vs. dipole for surrounds. If you are looking for discrete sound cues (music & gaming), direct is better, but if you are trying to create an diffuse soundfield (movies) then dipole would be the way to go.

For mixed use, my preference is for dipoles. They are "discrete enough" to directionally focus transient effects (door closing, gun shot) but diffuse enough to create ambient effects (wind, rain, jet flyby).

The question of direct vs. dipole for the front height might be similar to the question of direct vs. dipole for surrounds. If you are looking for discrete sound cues (music & gaming), direct is better, but if you are trying to create an diffuse soundfield (movies) then dipole would be the way to go.

For mixed use, my preference is for dipoles. They are "discrete enough" to directionally focus transient effects (door closing, gun shot) but diffuse enough to create ambient effects (wind, rain, jet flyby).

If I am not mistaken, official recommendation is di-pole now.

If I am not mistaken, official recommendation is di-pole now.Official? Is there any source for this recommendation?

Official? Is there any source for this recommendation?

i shouldn't have said official. i don't think dolby recommends any specific type. this was more so my opinion based on what i have seen such as this:

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/speakers/satellite/atlantic-tech-1400-sr-z-height

At the Dolby Pro Logic IIz (http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/prologic-IIz.html) page,they repeatedly state that IIz is meant to bring about an airy, spacious sense of surround sound. So even though they don't specifically address speaker type, dipole would seem to be a good match to Dolby's stated intentions.

To get the 9.1 sound, could one use a processor with both balanced and

unbalanced amp outputs and use the same rear surround preamp out for 4 speakers, 2 height and 2 rear surround?

Another words, the balanced preamp out for the rear surrounds could go to the amp in the system and then to the rear surround speakers

the RCA jack preamp out for the rear surround speakers could go to another amplifier and then to the height speakers.

To get the 9.1 sound, could one use a processor with both balanced and unbalanced amp outputs and use the same rear surround preamp out for 4 speakers, 2 height and 2 rear surround?No. The balanced and single-ended outputs are driven from the same DAC, so they always carry the same signal.

There is another thread here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15925037&postcount=1) on PLIIz, but why not have more? I'm very enthusiastic about it, and already thinking about getting more speakers. Using height channels instead of back surrounds is part of Dolby's scheme, as I understand it, and that's what Onkyo's new receiver will provide. But I want 9.1, myself, and I read that the Onkyo receiver will have no analog outputs, which implies no pre-outs for the new height channels. So, that's no way to get 9.1.

FYI; It can be done already and then some without the need of PLIIz;

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

And the CS3X Jr mentioned in the thread can take a feeds from the speaker outs so you don’t have to have analog pre-outs, though I think it is better if you do.

Originally Posted by hd_newbie
what do you recommend for height channels? Direct or di-pole?

I would try direct if I was going to try it at all.

I will wait unit I hear a real benefit to any of this.

I would go with di or tri poles; I have some M&K tri poles and did some experiments with them in the system at the link on post #75. I find that the sound diffusion from them is very beneficial to overhead as they make it harder for your ears to perceive sound coming from a distinct spot. Thus it gives you a more natural sound and significantly decreases the chance of being distracted from what you are watching by a particular or seemingly out of place sound from above.

What frequency range would matter for height speakers? Can 200Hz and above speakers work? or do we still need atleast 100Hz and greater?

I just picked up a CS-3X, Jr on ebay for $75.00

http://www.smartdevicesinc.com/smartht.html


http://www.smartdevicesinc.com/pdf/cs3x-rcvr.pdf

This site shows the hook up for this unit.


I'm only using the hook up for the height presence speakers.

Any suggestions on which power amp and how many W/C?

I just picked up a CS-3X, Jr on ebay for $75.00

http://www.smartdevicesinc.com/smartht.html


http://www.smartdevicesinc.com/pdf/cs3x-rcvr.pdf

This site shows the hook up for this unit.


I'm only using the hook up for the height presence speakers.

Any suggestions on which power amp and how many W/C?

Try to use an amp that matches your receivers output and can adequately drive your speakers. I would use di or tri-pole speakers that best match your mains.

NOTE:There is volume pot on the back of the CS-3X you can use to fine tune your calibration.

You will be tempted to turn the volume up loud enough to hear them but don’t do it. What you want to do is calibrate them so that you can’t sit in your sweet spot discern that they are on but can tell when they are turned off. This should keep you from being jolted out of your immersion by any occasional odd sounds that may sent above.

Try to use an amp that matches your receivers output and can adequately drive your speakers. I would use di or tri-pole speakers that best match your mains.

NOTE:There is volume pot on the back of the CS-3X you can use to fine tune your calibration.

You will be tempted to turn the volume up loud enough to hear them but don’t do it. What you want to do is calibrate them so that you can’t sit in your sweet spot discern that they are on but can tell when they are turned off. This should keep you from being jolted out of your immersion by any occasional odd sounds that may sent above.

Well, at this point I have a pair of speakers I haven't been using and I want to try them,
The Canton CD 220. They are Direct Radiating Speakers which many people like for movie surround.

http://www.canton.de/en-produktdetail-cdserie-cd220.htm

They are rated at 50 / 120 watts and the rest of my surround speakers are dipoles rated at 200 wpc and are driven by (2) Rotel 1080s rated at 200 wpc..

If I want to use these speakers I probably should use a Rotel RB-1070 STEREO POWER AMPLIFIER (2 x 130w). I think this amp is powerful enough and will match he other 2 Rotels.

As far as matching the other surround bipoles, this is getting into more money than I want to spend.

And the CS3X Jr mentioned in the thread can take a feeds from the speaker outs so you don’t have to have analog pre-outs, though I think it is better if you do.
That's very interesting, but it's not PLIIz. I would have more confidence in Dolby's version, myself.

That's very interesting, but it's not PLIIz. I would have more confidence in Dolby's version, myself.

I would think both ways should be virtually audibly identical as neither are adding designated height information just matrixing it from the existing track.

Whether or not the PLIIz can do a better job of matrixing height information will remain to be heard. I can tell you the CS3X Jr’s do a good job of sending ambient sound to “special outs” I use for overhead and a perfect job of capturing and displaying the difference between two channels for side axis channels, rear center etc...

http://www.smartdevicesinc.com/pdf/cs3x-rcvr.pdf

This site shows the hook up for this unit. I'm only using the hook up for the height presence speakers.

The page shows the CS-3X, Jr being fed from LS and RS to generate LOHS and ROHS. For LFH and RFH would you feed it from LF and RF instead?

The page shows the CS-3X, Jr being fed from LS and RS to generate LOHS and ROHS. For LFH and RFH would you feed it from LF and RF instead?

Depends on speaker placement; if you are going to mount them above the mains then LF and RF is what you would use, if you are going to place them above the listening position then LS and RS is what you would use.

The page shows the CS-3X, Jr being fed from LS and RS to generate LOHS and ROHS. For LFH and RFH would you feed it from LF and RF instead?

No, I will go from my processor's side surround L & R outs to the CS-3X, Jr's

LS R and LS L input and then from the the CS-3X, Jr's SP1 & SP2 out To the

LFH and RFH separate amplifier and then out to the 2 height speakers.


If I got this wrong anybody, please feel free to explain

I would think both ways should be virtually audibly identical as neither are adding designated height information just matrixing it from the existing track.

I don't understand your reasoning. You think there is just one unique method of deriving height information from other channels? Why would you think that?

No, I will go from my processor's side surround L & R outs to the CS-3X, Jr's

LS R and LS L input and then from the the CS-3X, Jr's SP1 & SP2 out To the

LFH and RFH separate amplifier and then out to the 2 height speakers.


If I got this wrong anybody, please feel free to explain

Again it depends on where you are going to place your height speakers; if you are going to put them directly above the listening position in line with the side surrounds then yes that is the way to do it.

However if you just want to make your front stage taller and plan on placing the height speakers above your mains then use the processors front L & R outs to the CS-3X, Jr's instead.

I don't understand your reasoning. You think there is just one unique method of deriving height information from other channels? Why would you think that?

Because there is only one way to obtain height information and that is to extract it from the existing track. Now the methods used to derive it from the track may be different but I think they will vary so little in will be difficult to audibly discern a difference.

Unless the PLIIz does more like add special delays, reverb or otherwise alters or enhances the derived information prior to displaying it. That will remain to be heard.

Again it depends on where you are going to place your height speakers; if you are going to put them directly above the listening position in line with the side surrounds then yes that is the way to do it.

However if you just want to make your front stage taller and plan on placing the height speakers above your mains then use the processors front L & R outs to the CS-3X, Jr's instead.

Thanks, your hookup makes more sense for what I want to try and accomplish! :)

Here is a thread that I started years ago, I created an "OverHead Channel" set up with the use of a ProLogic receiver!
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/100723/overhead-envelop-channel

My Diagram:
http://prosteering.8k.com/custom.html

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f15/thxesx/Misc/prosteering_3d.jpg

I would love to step up to a new PLIIz receiver!

I would go with di or tri poles; I have some M&K tri poles and did some experiments with them in the system at the link on post #75. I find that the sound diffusion from them is very beneficial to overhead as they make it harder for your ears to perceive sound coming from a distinct spot. Thus it gives you a more natural sound and significantly decreases the chance of being distracted from what you are watching by a particular or seemingly out of place sound from above.

Are Paradigm's surround speakers considered tripoles or dipoles?

http://www.ihoekfrasi.gr/imgs/prods/sm/Paradigm_ADP-590.jpg

Are Paradigm's surround speakers considered tripoles or dipoles?

http://www.ihoekfrasi.gr/imgs/prods/sm/Paradigm_ADP-590.jpgDipole. The woofer does not count as a directional driver.

Dipole. The woofer does not count as a directional driver.

So it is essentially a wide-dispersion woofer to which is tasked to carry the lower frequencies from both opposing sides, right?

I am working on a PLIIZ setup with a new Onkyo Tx-Nr3007 receiver. I'm planning on placing the height speakers on the front wall, above the L/R mains. L/R mains will be at ear level.

I have a 14 foot ceiling...how high should the "height" chanels" be? I can't seem to find anything on this, other than that they should be at least 3 feet above the mains.

Thanks for the info.

Scott

So it is essentially a wide-dispersion woofer to which is tasked to carry the lower frequencies from both opposing sides, right?Yes. Woofers are wide dispersion whether they want to be or not.

So I contacted Dolby to find out how high the "height" speakers should be placed on my wall. First, they referred me to their website (which did not answer the question). When I told them it didn't answer the question, here was there response:

Thank you for your interest in our Dolby Technologies. This information is available only to our licensees. If you are a licensee, please contact licensinginquiries@dolby.com

Best regards,

generalinfo@dolby.com


Ridiculous!

So I contacted Dolby to find out how high the "height" speakers should be placed on my wall.

I don't think there is any correct answer, the height effect is new and I don't think anyone can state how it will work with in any room. If I were you I would go as high as you can go with leaving a foot or so from the ceiling with the speakers angled down towards the main seating area. I have been running a DIY Over Head Channel and have mine directly over the main seating. I have never tried up front but my ceiling is not very high so I think in my theater directly over head would be best! I really think the higher the better!

As with any decent audio system...experiment, experiment, EXPERIMENT! Whatever sounds best to YOU is the correct way to have it...remember, you got into this hobby to put a smile on YOUR OWN face...who cares what anyone else thinks? As long as you like the way it sounds and looks (and the WAF is 100%), then it's the way it should be. I would use temporary mounts/places, listen for a week or two, then try other locations...Once you have all the experimentation and testing done, then mount them permanently...

Thanks for the suggestions. I thought that there would be a technical answer.

Scott

So I contacted Dolby to find out how high the "height" speakers should be placed on my wall. First, they referred me to their website (which did not answer the question). When I told them it didn't answer the question, here was there response:

Thank you for your interest in our Dolby Technologies. This information is available only to our licensees. If you are a licensee, please contact licensinginquiries@dolby.com

Best regards,

generalinfo@dolby.com


Ridiculous! Others have similar problems. This answer was forwarded by Mr. Eggers of Dolby. I hope they post it on their website.

Here are some answers to your questions on Dolby Pro Logic IIz


---for best performance we recommend the height speakers be located as high as physically possible-----and at least one meter above the Left and Right Mains speakers

---the height speakers may be positioned directly above the Left and Right mains, or for even better performance, located wider than the Left and Right mains

---an ideal location for the height speakers would be to position them at a 45 degree position relative to the listener (sweet spot)

---under no conditions should the Left and Right height speakers be positioned in a narrower configuration than the Left and Right mains

---ideally the height channel speakers should match the timbre and frequency performance of the surround speakers

---monopole or di-pole can be used. Our listening tests have been focused more on the use of monopole speakers

---as far as SPL relationships---remember that the height channels are essentially surround channels, so therefore power requirements for the height speakers should match your surrounds

---if you have a 7.1 channel AV receiver equipped with PLIIz you may assign the back surround channel amplifers to the front height speakers; 9.1 or 9.2 AV receivers will have dedicated height channel amplification built in.

Thanks, Roger.

Thank Roger. Perhaps you could tell Mr. Eggers that this info needs to make it onto their website. I'm sure that many people have the same question as I did.

"place them high as possible'....I guess the "heights" are going up about 12 feet high..should be interesting!

Scott

Thank Roger. Perhaps you could tell Mr. Eggers that this info needs to make it onto their website. I'm sure that many people have the same question as I did.Already so advised.

"place them high as possible'....I guess the "heights" are going up about 12 feet high..should be interesting! Maybe there should be a ceiling on the height recommendation--pun intended!

Surrounds are intended to give wrap-around envelopment. They're sometimes placed higher than ear level in order to sound more ambient and less distracting, but not necessarily to convey a sense of height.

Generally speaking, having to actually place surround speakers high to convey height indicates a setup and/or performance flaw. The surrounds could be ear height. Good ones can be, anyway.

Dipole. The woofer does not count as a directional driver.

even though it is

Others have similar problems. This answer was forwarded by Mr. Eggers of Dolby. I hope they post it on their website.

Here are some answers to your questions on Dolby Pro Logic IIz


---for best performance we recommend the height speakers be located as high as physically possible-----and at least one meter above the Left and Right Mains speakers

---the height speakers may be positioned directly above the Left and Right mains, or for even better performance, located wider than the Left and Right mains

---an ideal location for the height speakers would be to position them at a 45 degree position relative to the listener (sweet spot)

---under no conditions should the Left and Right height speakers be positioned in a narrower configuration than the Left and Right mains

---ideally the height channel speakers should match the timbre and frequency performance of the surround speakers

---monopole or di-pole can be used. Our listening tests have been focused more on the use of monopole speakers

---as far as SPL relationships---remember that the height channels are essentially surround channels, so therefore power requirements for the height speakers should match your surrounds

---if you have a 7.1 channel AV receiver equipped with PLIIz you may assign the back surround channel amplifiers to the front height speakers; 9.1 or 9.2 AV receivers will have dedicated height channel amplification built in.


This is pretty much a super-set of what Yamaha has recommended for its Front Presence speakers since the late 1980s -- and presumably for the same 'acoustical science' reasons...

...and I have always purchased 'extras' of whatever speaker I planned to use for surrounds/rears -- and used these 'spares' as the speakers for the Front Presence channels. :cool:

even though it isI was speaking in terms of the box's polar response, not a human's ability to localize it.

Generally speaking, having to actually place surround speakers high to convey height indicates a setup and/or performance flaw.No. Generally speaking, if you want to hear sound from a particular direction, it's always better to put a speaker there rather than rely on phantom imaging. If you want to hear sound at your sides, place speakers at your sides. That's not indicative of a "setup and/or performance flaw" with your front speakers, just the fact that a speaker can't be at more than one location simultaneously. Likewise, if you want to convey a sense of height, better to actually place speakers higher up than have them at ear level.

No. Generally speaking, if you want to hear sound from a particular direction, it's always better to put a speaker there rather than rely on phantom imaging. If you want to hear sound at your sides, place speakers at your sides. That's not indicative of a "setup and/or performance flaw" with your front speakers, just the fact that a speaker can't be at more than one location simultaneously. Likewise, if you want to convey a sense of height, better to actually place speakers higher up than have them at ear level.

Lack of phantom imaging indicates sloppy setup. Unless the room is horrible (in which case adding more speakers is likely to make it more so), there should be imaging that isn't locked to a speaker.

Lack of phantom imaging indicates sloppy setup.Where would you place your front speakers in order to get stable phantom imaging behind you?

Lack of phantom imaging indicates sloppy setup.Where would you place your front speakers in order to get stable phantom imaging behind you?. . . or overhead? :cool:

Where would you place your front speakers in order to get stable phantom imaging behind you?

Ask anyone that knows how to set up stereo speakers. Good stereo is surround sound.

Now, obviously this doesn't replace surrounds, but I don't think the discussion of height speakers has anything to do with mains creating a surround effect. Nice try though.

Ask anyone that knows how to set up stereo speakers.I'm asking you, since you made the claim. How would you set up two speakers in front of you in order to get stable phantom imaging behind you? If you can't answer the question, then just say so (rather than deflecting again). Now, obviously this doesn't replace surrounds...Why not? If "good stereo is surround sound", why wouldn't a stereo pair up front replace surrounds?

I am working on a PLIIZ setup with a new Onkyo Tx-Nr3007 receiver. I'm planning on placing the height speakers on the front wall, above the L/R mains. L/R mains will be at ear level.

I have a 14 foot ceiling...how high should the "height" chanels" be? I can't seem to find anything on this, other than that they should be at least 3 feet above the mains.

Thanks for the info.

Scott

On Audyssey's web site dealing with Audyssey DSX there is also a pair of front hight speakers involved. Their specs. say that the speakers should be at a 45 degree angle in elevation to your ears. I realize that isn't the same as PLIIz but maybe you wanna try it and see what you think.
http://www.audyssey.com/technology/dsx.html

I'm asking you, since you made the claim. How would you set up two speakers in front of you in order to get stable phantom imaging behind you? If you can't answer the question, then just say so (rather than deflecting again).

I also didn't attempt to re-frame the question in order to make a new claim that had nothing to do with the original conversation, unlike you. In other words, I'm addressing the original point.

That said, I made no new claims. It's commonly understood that it's possible to create great imaging beind a listener with a pair of stereo speakers, room permitting, if a two-channel application is in play. My original comment was simply that in lieu of (for example) channels six and seven in the rear of the room as surrounds, one can achieve excellent results with one pair of surrounds. This is limited, as stated earlier, by setup and, to a lesser extent, speaker/gear slection. Why I have to explain this commonly-known maxim to you yet again is a mystery. Additionally, how this has anything to do with gimmicky presence speakers is equally mystifying. Maybe it's a language barrier thing.

Why not? If "good stereo is surround sound", why wouldn't a stereo pair up front replace surrounds?

That obviously was never my point. Go troll elsewhere.

It's commonly understood that it's possible to create great imaging beind a listener with a pair of stereo speakers, ... one can achieve excellent results with one pair of surrounds. ... how this has anything to do with gimmicky presence speakers is equally mystifying. Maybe it's a language barrier thing.
If you can "create great imaging" with 2 speakers, why resort to surrounds? Whoops! ... I guess you need those to "achieve excellent results". All surrounds are unnecessary, but you need 2 of them for excellent results, though height speakers are "gimmicky". Your various pronouncements on these matters, all made without evidence, just don't seem to be pointing toward any coherent position. It's more a thought barrier than a language barrier.

Maybe it's a language barrier thing.Apparently it is a language problem, since you don't seem to have the vocabulary to explain how a pair of speakers in front of you can image behind you or above (thereby rendering height speakers unnecessary). You just keep saying that it will, asthough repetition somehow makes it fact. My original comment was simply that in lieu of (for example) channels six and seven in the rear of the room as surrounds, one can achieve excellent results with one pair of surrounds.OK, where (what angle) would you place one pair of surrounds so that you get stable imaging at your sides AND stable imaging behind you? That obviously was never my point.But you said it anyway, claiming "good stereo is surround sound". And, of course, now you can't back it up. So naturally you're resorting to ad hominem attacks.

If you can "create great imaging" with 2 speakers, why resort to surrounds? Whoops! ... I guess you need those to "achieve excellent results". All surrounds are unnecessary, but you need 2 of them for excellent results, though height speakers are "gimmicky". Your various pronouncements on these matters, all made without evidence, just don't seem to be pointing toward any coherent position. It's more a thought barrier than a language barrier.

Indeed. Thought barriers also include not reading the entire post prior to responding to it.

Although, I suppose we could encrust the room with drivers, and expect we'll get fantastic results with it. Of course, this is as long as the lemmings on various internet chat fora approve; otherwise those future codecs will surely flounder.:rolleyes:

Apparently it is a language problem, since you don't seem to have the vocabulary to explain how a pair of speakers in front of you can image behind you or above (thereby rendering height speakers unnecessary).

I've been in theaters where height speakers are irrelevant, regardless of the starting point. Manufacturers have to reinvent the wheel to fool the average customer into thinking that proper design and acoustics are irrelevant, as long as they can throw more speakers at the problem.

People that focus on two-channel stereo have long known about the fact that a well-placed stereo pair images all day around the listener. The problem with this debate seems to be that Dolby doesn't endorse that idea, not that it doesn't happen all day every day. Why work to solve a problem, when they can simply write new code to throw phantom information above your head.

Go listen to a real system and report back.

You just keep saying that it will, asthough repetition somehow makes it fact. OK, where (what angle) would you place one pair of surrounds so that you get stable imaging at your sides AND stable imaging behind you? But you said it anyway, claiming "good stereo is surround sound". And, of course, now you can't back it up. So naturally you're resorting to ad hominem attacks.

One of the favorite tactics employed by entrenched posters on various fora is to place the onus of proof on a poster they disagree with, as though that poster poineered the idea under scrutiny. Anyone that thinks that great, solid imaging cannot occur anywhere from well-designed two-channel stereo up to and including 5.1 needs to check their card at the door.

People that focus on two-channel stereo have long known about the fact that a well-placed stereo pair images all day around the listener.If that were a "fact", surround sound wouldn't exist. Obviously it isn't a fact since a pair of speakers in front of you are at the wrong location to provide stable imaging/localization at your sides, behind you or above. One of the favorite tactics employed by entrenched posters on various fora is to place the onus of proof on a poster they disagree with, as though that poster poineered the idea under scrutiny.Ah, still nothing specific (zero) to back up your claims. Just more deflecting with comments about the poster instead of the topic.

If that were a "fact", surround sound wouldn't exist. Obviously it isn't a fact since a pair of speakers in front of you are at the wrong location to provide stable imaging/localization at your sides, behind you or above.

Both types of systems have their place, just as HTIBs can co-exist with real theaters, stereo-only systems can dwell in the same homes as dedicated media rooms, and a litany of other examples. Your logic is a stretch.

Again, I would advise listening to a high-end, well-designed stereo-only system in a good environment. In fact, I would recommend doing so prior to embarrassing yourself yet again with an ill-informed post.

Ah, still nothing specific (zero) to back up your claims. Just more deflecting with comments about the poster instead of the topic.

Is it necessary to "prove" that which has been proven since the dawn of stereo just to stroke your ego? Keep dreaming. My time is worth a little more than that.

Out of phase audio produces a soundfield which seems to be sourceless, surrounding the listener. This effect is easily heard by reversing the polarity of one of the two speakers when listening to most stereo audio sources. Audio containing various phases can produce other directional effects. QED.

p.s. That's how "soundbar" speakers work.

Both types of systems have their place, just as HTIBs can co-exist with real theaters, stereo-only systems can dwell in the same homes as dedicated media rooms, and a litany of other examples.This isn't about different types of systems co-existing, it's whether additional channels/speakers result in improvements. The idea behind surround sound wasn't to offer some alternative to 2-speaker playback, it was to overcome the limitations of using only 2 speakers. Even when Bell Labs was inventing 'stereo' in the early 1930s, they found a minimum of 3 speakers (L/C/R) was needed to reproduce a realistic wavefront. So hard sources (actual speakers) have clearer directionality and greater imaging stability than phantom images (which are created in the brain). That applies to a centre speaker (as Bell Labs discovered) as well as height speakers. Is it necessary to "prove" that which has been proven since the dawn of stereo just to stroke your ego?You mean you cannot produce anything to back up your claims. How embarrasing.

This isn't about different types of systems co-existing, it's whether additional channels/speakers result in improvements. The idea behind surround sound wasn't to offer some alternative to 2-speaker playback, it was to overcome the limitations of using only 2 speakers.

I suppose that's one interpretation. Lack of a fulfilled market in the consumer space is another, but I digress.

Even when Bell Labs was inventing 'stereo' in the early 1930s, they found a minimum of 3 speakers (L/C/R) was needed to reproduce a realistic wavefront.

So hard sources (actual speakers) have clearer directionality and greater imaging stability than phantom images (which are created in the brain). That applies to a centre speaker (as Bell Labs discovered) as well as height speakers.

OK, let's drag out fabulous technical advances from the 1930s. Clearly their equipment, database of information, and quality sources gave them the ability to define all things audio for infinity and beyond.:rolleyes::D C'mon, you're disappointing me.

You mean you cannot produce anything to back up your claims. How embarrasing.

What's embarrassing is your obvious attempt to troll, given that with your experience and education, you must be aware of phantom imaging and how great two channels can be standing alone. The lack of acknowledgment of this most basic of audio truths just to further an argument without teeth is really petty.

OK, let's drag out fabulous technical advances from the 1930s.Why not? The conclusions that Bell Labs reached in the early '30s have only been confirmed subsequently. By the early '50s, researchers (Snow, Steinberg, et al) were already referring to 2 channels as a compromise. By the early '70s, the idea that you needed additional speakers (placed away from the front soundstage) to reproduce spaciousness had gone beyond just research and had become available to consumers as multiple/competing versions of surround sound (quad). And by the early '90s, discrete multi-channel (DD, DTS) was here to stay.

The entire history of audio (commercial and consumer) is a demonstration that 2 speakers were never, ever enough.

By comparison, all you can do to back up your "good stereo is surround sound" claim is resort to personal comments about me, such as the following: What's embarrassing is your obvious attempt to troll, given that with your experience and education, you must be aware of phantom imaging and how great two channels can be standing alone.Not when compared to multi-channel. And that's my point.

Decorrelated information in stereo recordings can, under the right conditions, create the impression of sound coming from above the soundstage. But that can't compete with actual speakers physically placed above the soundstage. The latter will have more consistent localization and greater imaging stability, even if you move your head or sit outside the sweet spot. You can't do that with a phantom image created in your brain.

When it comes to localization and imaging, Griesinger said it best: If you need "the voice of god" you better put a speaker where you want it.

I'm buying an Onkyo 607 next week. At first, my setup will only be 5.1, but over the course of the year... I'm wanting to upgrade to 9.1. I have some questions.

Do any movies utilize this new format? Is there even a point in adding the extra speakers at this point?

Should I match my rear, side, and front surrounds? If so, does anyone have suggestions on speakers I should get? I'm not sure what my budget is right now, but the receiver I chose should give you an idea of a price I'm willing to spend. My fronts and center (Polk Audio) were like $250 a piece. I'm guessing I'm about mid range when it comes to quality at this point?

Right now I'm using Sony HTIB surrounds from my old system.

I'm buying an Onkyo 607 next week. At first, my setup will only be 5.1, but over the course of the year... I'm wanting to upgrade to 9.1. I have some questions.

Do any movies utilize this new format? Is there even a point in adding the extra speakers at this point?

Should I match my rear, side, and front surrounds? If so, does anyone have suggestions on speakers I should get? I'm not sure what my budget is right now, but the receiver I chose should give you an idea of a price I'm willing to spend. My fronts and center (Polk Audio) were like $250 a piece. I'm guessing I'm about mid range when it comes to quality at this point?

Right now I'm using Sony HTIB surrounds from my old system.

You can search for movies with 7.1 encoding, there are a fair number of them. I don't believe that there are any in formats with more channels of discrete encoding. I would first try to get the 6.1 or 7.1 system working before trying for 9.1

Matching your surround and side speakers is probably more important than matching the fronts and surrounds. However, staying with a speaker that has similar timbre matching (same manufacturers' line) will probably help keep the panning more realistic.

Paradigm, Def tech, PSB all manufacture decent speakers at reasonable prices. There are many more too.

Do any movies utilize this new format?There are no movies with specific height information encoded into the soundtrack, meaning that wasn't the purpose of height speakers (whether from Dolby PLIIz or Audyssey DSX). Is there even a point in adding the extra speakers at this point?The point of height speakers has always remained the same: to go from a ring of sound (horizontally) around the listener to more of a bubble of sound (by adding a bit of the vertical). Of course, as with any surround processing, it comes down to personal preference. Only worth doing if you like the results. Should I match my rear, side, and front surrounds?That would be a good start, keeping sounds consistent as they move around the soundfield. If so, does anyone have suggestions on speakers I should get?I would stick to smaller, more affordable speakers from Polk. Same manufacturer, similar sound. You don't need deep bass response from the rear/side/front surrounds, since your subwoofer will handle that.

Cool, thanks for the responses.

Of course, as with any surround processing, it comes down to personal preference.
"Of course"? If the goal is high fidelity sound, we should not be looking for what pleases us, but rather what gives the most faithful reproduction.

"Of course"? If the goal is high fidelity sound, we should not be looking for what pleases us, but rather what gives the most faithful reproduction.

No way! I've played a few movies and concerts where the 5.1 DD/DTS decode was so offensive ('accurate' or not!) that the only way I could watch the video was to downmix the audio to 2.0, run it through the dbx and BBE processors I use to 'fix' old, 'bad' cassette tapes . . . and then reprocess it into 7.1 surround using DPLIIx!

"Of course"? If the goal is high fidelity sound, we should not be looking for what pleases us, but rather what gives the most faithful reproduction.Most faithful relative to what? Transcribing the limitations of a movie theater into my home isn't high on my list, FWIW.

"Of course"? If the goal is high fidelity sound, we should not be looking for what pleases us, but rather what gives the most faithful reproduction.

Um, the ultimate goal of a home audio/video setup is to please the user. Otherwise there wouldn't be ways of customizing the setups.

If accuracy is your goal, that's fine, but I'll use my setup the way I please, and if it means processing, so be it. It's not like I'm forcing you to listen to it.

Most faithful relative to what? Transcribing the limitations of a movie theater into my home isn't high on my list, FWIW.

Excellent point.

Most faithful relative to what? Transcribing the limitations of a movie theater into my home isn't high on my list, FWIW.
High-fidelity enthusiasts argue endlessly over what the fidelity standard is. I have an opinion, but probably most would disagree, so why get into it? Mixing stage, intention of director, original performance, whatever, if it's high-fidelity, there should be something to which you're being faithful. I understand that not everyone cares about high-fidelity sound.

Greg,

Personal preference and high fidelity aren't necessarily at odds with each other. As you said, high fidelity enthusiasts continue to argue over what the standard should be. Just because someone has a different goal than you doesn't mean they don't care about high fidelity sound.

I think we all agree on some basic standards (speaker placement, calibration, etc). Where I disagree is the idea that "we should not be looking for what pleases us". That is the only reason I'm in this hobby: to please myself. (I don't want to hear any comments about hand lotion!)

Good recipes provide a starting point and then tell you to 'season to taste'. Likewise, I'm willing to start with some standards, but at some point I'll end up tuning my system to my tastes. Hence my comment about surround processing: there's a variety of choices, each sounds different, you have to choose based on personal preference.

Good recipes provide a starting point and then tell you to 'season to taste'.
But there is an appropriate amount of seasoning to add for authenticity. The right amount is not predictable, so you have to taste to judge --- but that doesn't mean you should simply please yourself. You want to get it right. If I were to discover that my sound system gave inauthentic results, even though it pleased me, I would fix it and try to adjust my taste accordingly.

If I were to discover that my sound system gave inauthentic results, even though it pleased me, I would fix it and try to adjust my taste accordingly.I can't choose what I like. That would be like trying to convince myself I'm enjoying something when I'm not. Besides, my tastes have changed with age, so my system is always being fine tuned as I appreciate different aspects of this hobby. There's no standard for that.

BTW, when you say "inauthentic", how would you measure that?

The right amount is not predictable, so you have to taste to judge --- but that doesn't mean you should simply please yourself. You want to get it right..

Yeah, but what is "right"? In the movie theater where it premiered? The movie theater down the street from me? The audio engineer's monitors? Those all could (and most likely do) sound vastly different already.

BTW, when you say "inauthentic", how would you measure that?
I know a trap when I see one -- I'd have to be a real sucker to try to answer that. But here's an obvious example of what "authentic" would be, in this context: I'd want the depiction of rain on a roof to sound the way rain on a roof actually sounds, not just some mellifluous trickly pattering.

Yeah, but what is "right"? In the movie theater where it premiered? The movie theater down the street from me? The audio engineer's monitors? Those all could (and most likely do) sound vastly different already.
I don't know exactly what is right, soundwise. I think it's important there be some standard, so we have a way of judging whether the taste we exercise is good taste. Else how could we ever acquire good taste if we happen not to be born with it? Long long ago, I disliked anchovies ...

But here's an obvious example of what "authentic" would be, in this context: I'd want the depiction of rain on a roof to sound the way rain on a roof actually sounds, not just some mellifluous trickly pattering.OK, but understand that some would argue that it would be more authentic to reproduce exactly what was heard on the mixing stage, irrespective of whether the rain effect was realistic or stylized. Another example would be gunshots. Real or reel? Do you really want those to sound like they do in real life? That's the problem with choosing a right standard. As Tulpa said, what is "right"?

I don't know exactly what is right, soundwise. I think it's important there be some standard, so we have a way of judging whether the taste we exercise is good taste. Else how could we ever acquire good taste if we happen not to be born with it? Long long ago, I disliked anchovies ...

Then who decides the standard?

Audiologists? Audio engineers? Audiophiles? The common consumer who drives the industry by sheer numbers?

Your "good taste" could be crap to me for all I know. And vice versa. I like my sound a bit detailed, but you might think it's too bright. And I might think your sound is too muddy. I like 7.1 soundtracks, whether they may be matrixed or discrete, and could give a damn if anyone says I should only listen to discrete soundtracks.

... That's the problem with choosing a right standard. As Tulpa said, what is "right"?
Life can be so complex. If finding the truth is difficult, is it reasonable to conclude that there is no truth?

But here, the "truth" is arbitrary, because people have different definitions of it.

Do people want gunshots as they sound in real life? Because they sound almost nothing like gunshots in most movies, but most movies have the stylized gunshots. And that's just one example.

The majority of movie theaters are 5.1. Should we not bother with 7.1 mixed movies at home?

Life can be so complex. If finding the truth is difficult, is it reasonable to conclude that there is no truth?

Allow me to refer to this excellent post:

The minute we take a live performance, in say Meyerson Hall, and run that through some mics, we've compromised the Gold Standard (whatever that is). The minute we take a live scene, run it through a lens and place it on film (or disk), we've compromised that scene.

I would suggest the GOLD STANDARD for audio playback is different from the GOLD STANDARD for video playback. However, when we say "Cinema", "Home Theater", "Movie" (with sound), we're not speaking of Audio or of Video...we're talking about a very specific environment which requires both audio and video to play nicely in the same sand box. The Gold Standard for "Home Theater" or "Cinema" would be different from whatever we'd define the Gold Standard for either audio or video by themselves.

The closest we can come to for a "Gold Standard" for movie playback would be a SMPTE or AMPAS reference screening room. The Gold Standard would therefore be the ability to replicate that environment. If we look at that environment, we have AT screens and speakers behind those screens (and no MTM's). To suggest an "AT" screen degrades Audio and/or Video is not the point of movie playback ... both elements have to considered in total working together. The question is not if just audio or just video is degraded by some horrible act (like speaker grills in front of the drivers); but, rather does the combined environment suffer and miss the mark of the theater experience.

It can be very effectively proven that an AT screen absolutely does not degrade audio playback. It can also be very effectively proven that an AT screen does absolutely nothing to degrade the quality of the video. It can also be proven that they do. The differences between the two proofs lie within the constraints (or lack thereof) applied. When the room, seating distances, subtended angles, human sensitivity to various frequencies, human visual acuity, etc. are applied differently, you have different results.

Once the "gold standard" for movie playback is achieved, it is possible (or desirable) to improve beyond that point either the audio or video. Well, yes. They can be improved (we have to be careful of the definition of "improved"). However, if, in the course of improving the audio, you reduce the video below reference, you've done damage. If you do something to improve the video at the expense of audio, you've moved off the Gold Standard mark. If you can improve either the audio or the video without degrading the other you're on your way to platinum or diamond standard. Whether or not one, or the other, can be improved without degradation to the other will depend on ... well, the room, view distances, subtended angles, number of seats, room physical constraints, etc.

Take Paul Scarpelli's Porsche on ice. A Prosche was never designed to be driven on ice ... it's not its reference or gold standard. Now, if you can modify the Porsche to perform incredibly well on ice without degrading its reference, you have a better Porsche. (Of course a real driving enthusiast would never drive a Porsche ... we all know the best performance car is an airplane. )

Just my POV.

I can't choose what I like. That would be like trying to convince myself I'm enjoying something when I'm not.
What's wrong with that? I've convinced myself I'm enjoying something when I wasn't, and I've turned out to be right!

Greg,

Personal preference and high fidelity aren't necessarily at odds with each other. As you said, high fidelity enthusiasts continue to argue over what the standard should be. Just because someone has a different goal than you doesn't mean they don't care about high fidelity sound.

I think we all agree on some basic standards (speaker placement, calibration, etc). Where I disagree is the idea that "we should not be looking for what pleases us". That is the only reason I'm in this hobby: to please myself. (I don't want to hear any comments about hand lotion!)

Good recipes provide a starting point and then tell you to 'season to taste'. Likewise, I'm willing to start with some standards, but at some point I'll end up tuning my system to my tastes. Hence my comment about surround processing: there's a variety of choices, each sounds different, you have to choose based on personal preference.

Like good, believable phantom soundstaging, or the type that collapses to a certain set of speakers?;)

J/K Sanjay. I think we agree on plenty. It's useful to remind folks though that throwing umpteen speakers in a room isn't necessarily the solution. I find it odd that, all of a sudden, simply because something is included on a receiver that it's a necessary feature.

When manufacturers run out of things to add, height channels are what you get.

I think it's important there be some standard, so we have a way of judging whether the taste we exercise is good taste.There already are standards being used, maybe not for music recording but certainly in the movie industry (SMPTE, THX, etc). We can also calibrate home audio and video to industry reference standards. Where this goes from objective to subjective is when it comes to defining "good taste". This comes down to personal preference, hence my comment on surround processing. If finding the truth is difficult, is it reasonable to conclude that there is no truth?In some cases, yes: there is no one truthful answer ("best" flavour of ice cream?). In other cases, we simply might not have found it yet. For home theatre, the truth may be original intent. But, unless you can reproduce the original mixing environment (gear & room) for each recording, you'll never hear what the filmmakers heard.

Now, this doesn't mean we completely abandon all standards when setting up our home systems. But it does mean the end result will sound different than originally intended. And since this difference is unavoidable, you might as well tilt it towards your preference rather than some arbitrary idea of truth. I've convinced myself I'm enjoying something when I wasn't, and I've turned out to be right!I'd rather be guided by my actual preferences instead of fooling myself into believing otherwise.

It's useful to remind folks though that throwing umpteen speakers in a room isn't necessarily the solution.Sure, I've talked plenty of people out of 7.1-speaker set-ups because their room layout couldn't accomodate more than 5 speakers properly. However, I wasn't advocating adding speakers just for the sake of having adding speakers.

It comes down to: having a source with decorrelated content AND using good quality gear AND making sure the ceiling isn't overdampened AND sitting exactly in the sweet spot in order to hear phantom height imaging, versus everyone in the room being able to hear sounds above the soundstage. Doesn't matter where they're sitting, doesn't matter if it's mid-fi gear.

That's a tangible improvement in localization and imaging stability. Nothing fancy involved, just a pair of speakers placed high above the soundstage (makes it difficult for those sounds to come from any other direction). With such a straightforward premise, the use of which remains optional, I'm amazed at the venom directed towards it. I find it odd that, all of a sudden, simply because something is included on a receiver that it's a necessary feature.None of this stuff is really "necessary". When it comes to music, I can get the most important elements (emotion, melody, rhythm, timbre, reverberation) from one speaker. Check out the Beatles' recent mono box set. The additional speakers are icing on the cake, only there to add spaciousness (soundstage width, depth, height).

New features become "necessary" only when it comes to marketing. Lacking a check-list item, even if the prospective buyer never ends up using it, can often disqualify an item from consideration. Height channels are useful, but no one (not even Dolby) says they're necessary. When manufacturers run out of things to add, height channels are what you get.It seems that way only because manufacturers are now getting around to adding it. It's like saying room correction was added only because manufacturers were running out of features. Fact is that the processing power needed to tame the room's unwanted contributions wasn't affordable until recently. So it's not like they could have added it earlier, even if they wanted to.

Likewise, HT enthusiasts have been talking about height speakers (and rigging their own home-brew contraptions) for as long as content providers have been experimenting with height channels (e.g., multi-channel recordings from Chesky, amongst other labels, that have discrete height content). As with room correction, the processing needed to feed height speakers wasn't available until very recently, when Dolby and Audyssey (and soon DTS) started licensing those technologies to manufacturers. So it's not like they could have added it earlier, even if they wanted to.

Likewise, HT enthusiasts have been talking about height speakers (and rigging their own home-brew contraptions) for as long as content providers have been experimenting with height channels (e.g., multi-channel recordings from Chesky, amongst other labels, that have discrete height content). As with room correction, the processing needed to feed height speakers wasn't available until very recently, when Dolby and Audyssey (and soon DTS) started licensing those technologies to manufacturers. So it's not like they could have added it earlier, even if they wanted to.

Agreed. The LVH/RVH speaker pair is here, presently playing synthesized and/or steered content, but probably discrete content sometime in the future. Use it - or don't use it: 'Consumer's Choice'!

Actually, with the prospect of up to 9 overhead audio channels encoded on UHDTV/SHV broadcasts ['forecast' trial transmission starting: Japan 2015+; Europe 2017-2020; US/Canada 'whenever'!] but with mandatory "high quality" mixdowns to configurations with many fewer speakers, we might more usefully get an early start on questions like "how few overhead speakers are sufficient?" and "which ones?" . . . while there still remains time to influence the direction/features of the decoders that will reach market in 2020+...?! :cool:

Actually, with the prospect of up to 9 overhead audio channels encoded on UHDTV/SHV broadcasts ['forecast' trial transmission starting: Japan 2015+; Europe 2017-2020; US/Canada 'whenever'!] but with mandatory "high quality" mixdowns to configurations with many fewer speakers, we might more usefully get an early start on questions like "how few overhead speakers are sufficient?" and "which ones?" . . . while there still remains time to influence the direction/features of the decoders that will reach market in 2020+...?! :cool:

This is where the cynicism picks up for me again. We run out of wall space to line with speakers, now we need to find the "fifth wall" - above us. Can't wait until we need to arrange our furniture so we don't step on the speakers on the floor under us. Forget speakers that look like drywall; we'll have speakers whose individual transducers are the carpet fibers.:D

It makes sense that the home of hardware is going to start to broadcasting this way.

Actually, with the prospect of up to 9 overhead audio channels......home theatre is going to become a dangerous hobby.

Time for someone to invent "speaker wallpaper" (no fidelity, just sound).

...home theatre is going to become a dangerous hobby.

Time for someone to invent "speaker wallpaper" (no fidelity, just sound).Next best thing: 1 Ltd Digital Sound Projector beaming to the ceiling.

Time for someone to invent "speaker wallpaper" (no fidelity, just sound).

http://www.soliddrive.com/solid-drive.html:(

Actually, with the prospect of up to 9 overhead audio channels...
...home theatre is going to become a dangerous hobby.

Yep! Between eight foot ceilings, and that pesky old gravity thing, I've pretty much decided to avoid ever installing a Top Center (TpC) speaker directly over the listening position!

However, all the other 'future' Top Layer speakers identified/named by IEC and SMPTE seem to be at wall-meets-ceiling locations, and so probably pose a somewhat lesser threat! :cool:

I actually have a question on setting up IIz. I am using klipsch quintet iii's as my heights, meaning i have the ability to face the speaker up, forward, or slightly downward, I know experimenting is best, but what would be the recommendation. Review to follow.

Likewise, HT enthusiasts have been talking about height speakers (and rigging their own home-brew contraptions) for as long as content providers have been experimenting with height channels (e.g., multi-channel recordings from Chesky, amongst other labels, that have discrete height content). As with room correction, the processing needed to feed height speakers wasn't available until very recently, when Dolby and Audyssey (and soon DTS) started licensing those technologies to manufacturers. So it's not like they could have added it earlier, even if they wanted to.

This recap of a DTS Press Release, printed as a 1/25/2010 news item on Twice ["DTS Readies Neo X Announcement"] (http://www.twice.com/article/445783-DTS_Readies_Neo_X_Announcement.php), is mostly notable for its lack of 'hard content': only the code name, no real speaker specifics beyond the addition of front heights, only a 'mid 2010' timeframe, and no AVR manufacturers named. Basically it just 'reinforces' that there will be a real product some day soon! :cool:

I am using klipsch quintet iii's as my heights, meaning i have the ability to face the speaker up, forward, or slightly downward, I know experimenting is best, but what would be the recommendation.I would point the speakers down, towards the listening area. Speakers typically sound best on-axis, even if the content they're playing is subtle and ambient.

I would point the speakers down, towards the listening area. Speakers typically sound best on-axis, even if the content they're playing is subtle and ambient.

Do we not want the sound to "scatter" across the ceiling to optimize the illusion? I would say face them straight ahead, since it seems to me directionality is not what we're after here; rather, more of a "diffusive" effect. No?

Do we not want the sound to "scatter" across the ceiling to optimize the illusion? I would say face them straight ahead, since it seems to me directionality is not what we're after here; rather, more of a "diffusive" effect. No?It's like playing out of phase information on your front L/R speakers. Even if they're toed in towards the listening position, the sound will be diffused with no directionality. Stereophile Magazine put out a disc (Test CD 2) that demonstrates this effect quite well.

The diffusive effect will happen anyway because the height speakers are being fed only decorrelated content. Like what THX used to do during the Pro Logic era: decorrelate the mono surround channel to keep it from creating any sort of imaging or directionality.

So it comes down to whether his particular speakers sound better on-axis or pointing away. Most speakers, at least when it comes to timbre, sound best on-axis.

It's like playing out of phase information on your front L/R speakers. Even if they're toed in towards the listening position, the sound will be diffused with no directionality. Stereophile Magazine put out a disc (Test CD 2) that demonstrates this effect quite well.

The diffusive effect will happen anyway because the height speakers are being fed only decorrelated content. Like what THX used to do during the Pro Logic era: decorrelate the mono surround channel to keep it from creating any sort of imaging or directionality.

So it comes down to whether his particular speakers sound better on-axis or pointing away. Most speakers, at least when it comes to timbre, sound best on-axis.

I'm inclined to agree: Because the useful life of a speaker is much longer than one generation of decoders/AVRs, I have always employed the strategy that placement of any surround speaker should assume that eventually the speaker will need to reproduce [all of] inferential content (i.e., unencoded material), matrix coded content, and discrete channel source material. And just how close we are to all of this, today, would seem to be mostly up to the content providers (viz):

From Dolby's website: (http://www.dolby.com/professional/technology/home-theater/dolby-pro-logic-IIz.html) "Dolby Pro Logic IIz also incorporates an encoding aspect that enables content providers and game developers to maximize the added dimension by creating entertainment with height elements of near-discrete quality."

I have done some skimming through this thread and would like to ask some of you well tuned ear folk a question, if I may.

I'm an upper middle end listener and high end wanna be. I need a receiver upgrade like yesterday.

My question to you is; Would you consider PLZ II a deal breaker for a guy like me when there is a $125 difference in price basically?

FYI looking at refurbished Onkyo's' at Accessories4less.com. An authorized dealer.

I am teeter tottering on a purchase decision and would appreciate your expert opinions.

Would you consider PLZ II a deal breaker for a guy like me when there is a $125 difference in price basically?For $125 difference, it would be a worthwhile feature for me, just to get some consistent and stable height imaging. You can always turn it off if you don't like the effect for certain sources. But it's better to have the option to use it when you want to.

I have done some skimming through this thread and would like to ask some of you well tuned ear folk a question, if I may.

I'm an upper middle end listener and high end wanna be. I need a receiver upgrade like yesterday.

My question to you is; Would you consider PLZ II a deal breaker for a guy like me when there is a $125 difference in price basically?

FYI looking at refurbished Onkyo's' at Accessories4less.com. An authorized dealer.

I am teeter tottering on a purchase decision and would appreciate your expert opinions.


PL-2z is of no interest to me, but what do I know!:rolleyes:


Is PL-2z worth it link here (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10230238-1.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=Crave)


"Put simply, our second round of tests effectively duplicated the first, but this time with three additional people in the room experiencing the same underwhelming results.

A big part of the problem is the mental expectations that come with seeing those height speakers looming over the home theater. There's a discernible placebo effect--your mind wants to hear something coming from them. Indeed, we frequently thought we were hearing sound from the high speakers, only to find out that we were still in standard Dolby Digital mode--the upper speakers weren't even engaged.

That's problem number two: when properly mixed, surround soundtracks are amazingly enveloping. And the fact is that all three of those movies have excellent, state-of-the-art mixes. They sound amazing in 5.1 as is; going from 5.1 to standard 7.1 (rear surrounds) or "height" 7.1 may add a hair's breadth of ambiance, but it's not going to be nearly as impactful as the jump from 2.0 stereo to 5.1 surround."

This isn't about different types of systems co-existing, it's whether additional channels/speakers result in improvements.



Sometimes less sounds better than more. 5.1 plus an overlap MBM is good enough for my ears. I would love to see FR sweeps of all of the adjacent speaker pairs of these 9.1 (or whatever) system setups to see what type of interference anomolies show up.

I may be crazy, but this seems to be the "recommended" way to setup a sound system.

Step 1, use a bit too much "sound treatment" in your rooms to suck the life out of the sound. More is always better.

Step 2, add in extra speakers / processing to put the life back into the sound. More is always better.

Next, go back to step 1 to take care of the latest speaker "issues" that more speakers give you.

Kind of an interesting way to try to develop a market. Say that more is always better, and people will run right out and buy more!

I'm hoping to hear about some tests of non-Audissey implementations and tests where listeners are asked to judge whether the sound is better with height speakers. The cnet tests seem to be testing whether listeners can pick out the sound of the height speakers, which is a little peculiar, since the design intent is for them not to be picked out of the sound mix.

Does PL-2z even work for music?


PL-2z review here (http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/3168/first-listen-dolby-pro-logic-iiz-stop-the-music-page1.html)


"After hearing what PLIIz does for the music in 5.1 movie soundtracks, I expected it to do some pretty amazing tricks with two-channel music from CDs. When I played my usual test tracks and switched back and forth between PLIIz and the standard Pro Logic II Music mode, I quickly found that I preferred the latter, no matter what music I was playing.

An e-mail to Dolby senior technical marketing manager Christophe Chabanne told me why. Chabanne said that PLIIz is based on the Pro Logic II Movie mode, not the Music mode. According to him, Dolby experimented with making a music-specific PLIIz mode, but couldn’t get it to work to the engineers’ standards.

PLII Music mode spreads some of the signal from the center speaker into the left and right speakers, in order to make vocals sound more natural. PLII Movie mode and PLIIz tend to collapse vocalists into the center speaker. It’s an effect that works great with movie dialogue, but it makes singers on stereo CDs sound like they’re stuck in a box. To me, listening to two-channel music through PLIIz just sounded weird and wrong."

Does PL-2z even work for music?PLIIz works best when the source is 5.1 and the surrounds are true stereo. Movies or music.

PLIIz works best when the source is 5.1 and the surrounds are true stereo. Movies or music.
What are "true stereo" surrounds?

John

What are "true stereo" surrounds?

JohnSome stereo surrounds are mostly mono, or completely mono (Out of Africa), just as there are a lot of 2.0 DVDs delivering mono. I'm just saying that the surrounds need to be more independant than that. If the sound is highly correlated, it will not yeild any "z" output.

Hi guys, I just got a 3d tv and was thinking of upgrading my receiver to do hdmi 1.4. I like the new Pioneer vsk-920k. I have been reading about this Dolby Pro Logic IIz feature it has and reading your reviews. I just ordered 4 paradigm cs-60r in wall speakers for 7.1 surround, but i am thinking of placing the rear surrounds as front height instead because my couch back is against the wall so i wouldn't have any/much distance from surrounds and surround backs, therefore maybe get better placement and expericne going with front heights instead of surround backs. I could put them above my Paradigm monitor 11's in the wall about 8' height but i am not sure they angle and the room is narrow with the couch only being 7' from the tv and fronts. 1 more question is will all the cool true hd and 7.1 tracks sound as impressive (or even work) with the front height setup instead of traditional 7.1? Here is the link w w w pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/HomeEntertainment/AV-Receivers/PioneerReceivers/ci.VSX-920-K.Kuro?tab=A

I would love to hear your advice before i set it up and buy this receiver.

I just ordered 4 paradigm cs-60r in wall speakers for 7.1 surround, but i am thinking of placing the rear surrounds as front height instead because my couch back is against the wall so i wouldn't have any/much distance from surrounds and surround backs, therefore maybe get better placement and experience going with front heights instead of surround backs.That is one of the main reasons AVRs include PLIIz. You're on the right track.

I could put them above my Paradigm monitor 11's in the wall about 8' height but i am not sure they angle and the room is narrow with the couch only being 7' from the tv and fronts.If I understand the plan, the heights would be in the front wall, aiming toward the rear of the room. That would be fine. If you want to get more detailed, maybe post a picture of the room, or a diagram of the intended plan.

1 more question is will all the cool true hd and 7.1 tracks sound as impressive (or even work) with the front height setup instead of traditional 7.1? Here is the link w w w pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/HomeEntertainment/AV-Receivers/PioneerReceivers/ci.VSX-920-K.Kuro?tab=A
7.1 soundtracks, of which there are a pawltry few, will sound exactly the same as all the other 5.1 soundtracks in your setup. But yes, they will work equally fine with PLIIz as other 5.1 movies.

Thanks Roger. Do you know of any way to angle in ceiling speakers so they point down and towards the couch, i think they install flush in the wall or ceiling. How important is it that they angle to point to the center where we watch tv? I can't wait to set this up. I will give me review and post pics.

Do you know of any way to angle in ceiling speakers so they point down and towards the couch, i think they install flush in the wall or ceiling. How important is it that they angle to point to the center where we watch tv?Are you talking about the surrounds, or their front heights? If the heights, it's less important to aim them directly as these speakers carry mainly spatial ambiance. No dialog or other pinpoint sounds. So they could be ceiling mounted if that's what you prefer.

If the surrounds, Paradigm states the response even 30-deg off axis is still good to 18 kHz, so it does not require laser accurate aiming. Have you decided where to mount the surrounds?

Anyone know if applying PLIIz to content that reaches my receiver via multichannel analog vs HDMI digital makes a difference (i.e., my BD player is connected to my receiver via 7.1 analog rather than HDMI for audio). Thanks.

Anyone know if applying PLIIz to content that reaches my receiver via multichannel analog vs HDMI digital makes a difference (i.e., my BD player is connected to my receiver via 7.1 analog rather than HDMI for audio).Assuming your receiver converts the multi-channel analogue input to digital, there should be no difference. Once converted, it is JADS (just another digital signal).

Of course it would be better to get the signal via HDMI, since it would avoid the extra D-to-A and A-to-D steps.

I have a 5.1 system with in-ceiling speakers and I cannot make it a 7.1 system because the back wall is right behind the couch.

My question:
Will the PLIIz have an effect if one has in ceiling speakers by adding two more in ceiling for the height?? Or because they are in ceiling, it would be a waste of money?

Your thoughts, please

I have a 5.1 system with in-ceiling speakers and I cannot make it a 7.1 system because the back wall is right behind the couch.

My question:
Will the PLIIz have an effect if one has in ceiling speakers by adding two more in ceiling for the height?? Or because they are in ceiling, it would be a waste of money?

Your thoughts, please

Waste of money. The heights are intended to be mounted in the front wall.

Waste of money. The heights are intended to be mounted in the front wall.

Thanks for the info.

What about the Wides. Any thought there?

I just recently switched from rear surrounds to front heights due to the same room conditions. Since your front left and right speakers are already in the ceiling there would be limited benefit to PLIIz. However if you can take advantage of DSX wides, placement 60 degrees to the left and right of center, I think it would be well worth the effort.

bguzman

I just recently switched from rear surrounds to front heights due to the same room conditions. Since your front left and right speakers are already in the ceiling there would be limited benefit to PLIIz. However if you can take advantage of DSX wides, placement 60 degrees to the left and right of center, I think it would be well worth the effort.

bguzman

bguzman

I would have thought so myself BUT I just received an email from the founder of Audyssey and here is what Chris said...


Hi Jim,
The principle on which the Wides are based requires that they deliver their sound from the side of the listener at 60°. I'm afraid that the ceiling placement will defeat that intent...


Best regards,
Chris Kyriakakis

bguzman

I would have thought so myself BUT I just received an email from the founder of Audyssey and here is what Chris said...


Hi Jim,
The principle on which the Wides are based requires that they deliver their sound from the side of the listener at 60°. I'm afraid that the ceiling placement will defeat that intent...


Best regards,
Chris Kyriakakis

OK, if you want to believe that guy over the two of us:D.

Greetings! I would greatly appreciate advice on placing speakers in my TV/family room. I have several challenges...in addition to being a novice.:o My room measures 19' x 19' with 10' ceiling. The left wall has a fireplace and the right wall is mostly open to the kitchen with 3.5' walls at each end. The home was built with rectangular in-walls on the front wall 16' apart and 7' high. It also has 8" round ceiling speakers cornered 2' from the back and side wall on either end of back wall. Due to furnature and room size/features...recliner is in back left corner under ceiling speaker, sofa against back wall, and loveseat angled across open wall on right side. I have a Denon AVR-1911. I also have a pair of dbx SF1500s that sound great (to my ears). Bose VCS-10 center under 60" LCD. VeloDyne powered sub...

I don't like the effect of the ceiling speakers overhead. I want to hear jets coming from behind before they get overhead. :D I have 2 pair of Bose 161 I'd like to either use instead or in addition to. (Also have a pair of Bose 101, but doubt they suit this environment??) Should I place a pair of 161s on the walls at standing head level in the rear corners? (Or higher/lower?) Or should they go on the side walls 90-110 degrees from center seating?

A friend suggested putting the 161s in the rear corners, and putting the second pair near the ceiling in the middle of the left wall above the fireplace and right wall above the opening...and either not use the in-wall speakers, or somehow connect my Carver TFM-15CB amp to the Zone 2 to power the dbx speakers and connecting the in-walls to the FL & FR. He suggests that would create something "approaching" 9.1...Not sure the AVR-1911 will send the sound from Blu-Ray to the Carver though...

In any case...you have a sense of the "stuff" I have...how would you configure it if it was yours?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!!

I had a chance to FINALLY demo a PLiiZ receiver. It was a Pioneer (VSX-33). I definitely thought it made the front sound stage much larger. It worked well in my application because my TV is mounted above the fire place, and the heights made things sound even more accurate and large.

The weird thing is that when a Blu Ray starts, and the HD codec is engaged, the PLiiZ display is gone. It also seems that I don't notice the PLiiZ effect after an HD codec is engaged. Anyone have any words of wisdom if this is the norm>>

I had a chance to FINALLY demo a PLiiZ receiver. It was a Pioneer (VSX-33). I definitely thought it made the front sound stage much larger. It worked well in my application because my TV is mounted above the fire place, and the heights made things sound even more accurate and large.

The weird thing is that when a Blu Ray starts, and the HD codec is engaged, the PLiiZ display is gone. It also seems that I don't notice the PLiiZ effect after an HD codec is engaged. Anyone have any words of wisdom if this is the norm>>

When a Blu Ray is starting this is normal in my experience. Most of the time previews and the other screens are in mono or 2 ch, but once the movie sarts up PLIIz should be reengaged.

I do know you there is not always content coming out of your height speakers. Where you would see them shine for example would be a rainy scene in a movie the speakers will kick on to give you the effect that the rain is trickling from your height speakers to your front L & R speakers.

I had a chance to FINALLY demo a PLiiZ receiver. It was a Pioneer (VSX-33). I definitely thought it made the front sound stage much larger. It worked well in my application because my TV is mounted above the fire place, and the heights made things sound even more accurate and large.

The weird thing is that when a Blu Ray starts, and the HD codec is engaged, the PLiiZ display is gone. It also seems that I don't notice the PLiiZ effect after an HD codec is engaged. Anyone have any words of wisdom if this is the norm>>

I'm not sure on Pioneers but with my Denon I had to assign the PLIIz processing to each codec and input. Once set up it will engage the proccessing each time I play a Blu-ray. YMMV

bguzman

I have done some skimming through this thread and would like to ask some of you well tuned ear folk a question, if I may.

I'm an upper middle end listener and high end wanna be. I need a receiver upgrade like yesterday.

My question to you is; Would you consider PLZ II a deal breaker for a guy like me when there is a $125 difference in price basically?

FYI looking at refurbished Onkyo's' at Accessories4less.com. An authorized dealer.

I am teeter tottering on a purchase decision and would appreciate your expert opinions.

You can use some older components with your existing equipment to accomplish pretty much the same thing like a Smart Center Surround CS3X Jr (http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_1/smart-theater-cs3x-processor-march-2000.html) for the side axis speakers and or overhead, Or an old Yamaha DSP-1 with a two channel amp for the front wall heights.

I have been using these components to do all this for years now, here is a link to some of the testing I did, perhaps it will give you some ideas;

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

You can use some older components with your existing equipment to accomplish pretty much the same thing like a Smart Center Surround CS3X Jr (http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_1/smart-theater-cs3x-processor-march-2000.html) for the side axis speakers and or overhead, Or an old Yamaha DSP A1 with a two channel amp for the front wall heights.

I have been using these components to do all this for years now, here is a link to some of the testing I did, perhaps it will give you some ideas;

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=982996I have one of those I am not using if I can find it. PM me if interested.

Do all receivers process Pliiz the same? Example, does Onkyo do a better job than Pioneer?

Do all receivers process Pliiz the same? Example, does Onkyo do a better job than Pioneer?The same. The algorithm is well defined and controlled by Dolby.

Is there any receiver / processors available with a real 9 or 11 channel output? I just read the manual of the AV7005 Marantz and it states that you can choose if front wide, front hide or back surround is active. So it is only 7 channels at a time! I would like to have all of them driven simultaneously!!!:(

Is there any receiver / processors available with a real 9 or 11 channel output? I just read the manual of the AV7005 Marantz and it states that you can choose if front wide, front hide or back surround is active. So it is only 7 channels at a time! I would like to have all of them driven simultaneously!!!:(

I have a Denon 4311. For my system, I have a 5.1, added Wides and still have plugins for Heights and surround backs. It is a true 11 channel receiver. Ordered it from 6th Ave. shipped for $1390. Can't beat that!

With PLiiZ engaged, would that make the amp demand be the same as going from a 5.1 to a 7.1?? I ask that because I run a 5.1 set-up, and want to know if I need to plan on paying attention to the wattage ratings of 7.1 for the benchmark tests on receivers. Thanks.

Just wanted to add my experience thus far with PLIIz. Like many others, I have a setup where my couch is against the back wall. Therefore, I added the front heights rather than the rear surrounds.

I have them mounted on the front wall, facing forwards (not angled towards me), approx 3ft above and actually about 1ft outside of the mains. Couldn't get the wife to agree moving wedding pictures, so I couldn't put them directly above my mains.

1) So far I've noticed one significant difference...it has become much more difficult to localize my left/right surrounds, which had been bothering me for over a year. I sit about 6ft away from the right surround and about 9.5ft from the left surround and I was always subconsciously taking note of being able to specifically hear the right surround. I would say this issue is about 90% resolved with the addition of the front height speakers. I'm not sure exactly how or why this has happened, but it's very real. I've actually gotten out of my seat 3 or 4 times to see if my surrounds were still working.

2) In addition, it's seemed to smooth out the front soundstage in a similar way. I still have a strong sense of left and right front soundstage, but it feels more like a wall of sound rather than simply 3 distinct sources.

Now as for #2, I haven't decided if this is a good thing or not. I've only been listening with TV programming in DD5.1. I need to demo with some movies that have more dramatic left/right field effects to see if the directionality is being watered down.

I have a Onkyo 1008 9.2 reciever and it can feed surround backs, front heights and front wides all at the same time however I was shocked to see that you can not have surround backs if you biamp fronts. However you can do that if you use front wides or heights instead of surround backs. Onkyo believes front heights or wides are more important than surround backs. This is interesting since there are now quite a lot of bluray movies out there with DTS 7.1 HD Master Audio encoding and specifically mastered for surround backs.

Can someone explain me what's happening?

I also would like to know when people here are referring to their amazing experiences with front heights which PLIIz they're referring to because there are quite a few choices there like Dolby PLIIz Height, Dolby PlIIz TV Logic, PLIIz THX Select2 Cinema, etc.

Your 1008 can't feed surround back front heights and front wides at the same time. It's only a 9.2 receiver, for it to be able to do all that at the same time it would need to be an 11.2 receiver.

Its not just an Onkyo thing that says that front heights and or wides are more important that surround backs. Audyssey also states that as well but the general consensus is that more enveloping front sound stage is more convincing and better than traditional 7.1 with surround backs. However, with that said I run 7.2 with surround backs as its what works best in my room and what I enjoy best.

A bluray disc mastered in DTS 7.1 HD has lossless sound separately sent to surround backs as intended by the director. Where as PLIIz is an algorithm which processes the coming signal and directs some of it to front heights hoping that it's a specific sound engineers already thought about. I haven't checked in detail but I want to think the processor reads the sound signal forward with some buffer and doesn't cause delays in seperating signals as front heights are farthest away from the listener and every other channel will need to be delayed even more otherwise. Now this is clearly not the purist form of sound from a digital movie.

I think all this is about the fact that most people have their sofas by the rear wall and they couldn't sell extra pair of speakers with 7.1, now they are trying upper front wall which almost every house has free space for :)

A bluray disc mastered in DTS 7.1 HD has lossless sound separately sent to surround backs as intended by the director. Where as PLIIz is an algorithm which processes the coming signal and directs some of it to front heights hoping that it's a specific sound engineers already thought about. I haven't checked in detail but I want to think the processor reads the sound signal forward with some buffer and doesn't cause delays in seperating signals as front heights are farthest away from the listener and every other channel will need to be delayed even more otherwise. Now this is clearly not the purist form of sound from a digital movie.

I think all this is about the fact that most people have their sofas by the rear wall and they couldn't sell extra pair of speakers with 7.1, now they are trying upper front wall which almost every house has free space for :)

Yep I understand exactly what you are saying. I would believe PLIIz would work just as well as PLIIx. I listen to everything in 7.2 no matter if its 2.0, 5.1, or 7.1 source material. I do this by using PLIIx Movie coupled with THX Cinema (I have the Onkyo 808).

And you may very well be right with the whole couch up against the rear wall and not selling enough 7.1 speaker packages. I will say from my experience that the family, friends, and other customers I have dealt with are very against 5.1 if they have a 7.1 or more receiver. They want the surround back speakers on the rear wall no matter what, even if their couch is tight against the rear wall. Go figure.

I think all this is about the fact that most people have their sofas by the rear wall and they couldn't sell extra pair of speakers with 7.1, now they are trying upper front wall which almost every house has free space for :)You think height channels are a scheme devised by the industry to sell an extra pair of speakers to people who have their couch near the rear wall?

Front height speakers is something I'm somewhat interested in (once I upgrade my receiver in the not-too-distant future), but I'm a little confused on whether the sound is derived from the front L/R channels or the surround channels.

I thought it was the front L/R's, that is, until I read the following text from the Dolby website (http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/home-theater/dolby-pro-logic-iiz.html):

Note: For 5.1-channel sources, Dolby Pro Logic IIz height extensions operate only on the Ls and Rs channels; L, C, R, and LFE channels are bypassed.

I'm a little confused on whether the sound is derived from the front L/R channels or the surround channels.

I thought it was the front L/R's, that is, until I read the following text from the Dolby website (http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/home-theater/dolby-pro-logic-iiz.html):It is the fronts for DSX, the rears for PLIIz, and both for Neo:X.

I think perhaps that this and similar questions result from continued ambiguities of terms in both questions and answers. It seems to me that we just want to know how each post processor (DPLIIz, DSX, or Neo:X) treats the content of each "source" channel (L|C|R|LS|RS|LB|RB) during the upmix process from 5.1_Standard to 5.1_Standard+2xFrontHeight (or 5.1_Standard to 5.1_Standard+2xFrontWide), specifically, for each "source" channel, is the channel's content (1) modified during the computation, (2) used in the computation, but unmodified, or (3) ignored by the computation? :cool:

Great, we have the question. Now we just need an answer :)

Exactly which PLzII height mode should I switch to for improving the sound of a bluray movie mastered in DTS 7.1 HD Master Audio? I have 9.2 system with surround backs and front heights. Is Neo X better with DTS Master Audio? Dolby True HD movies are quite rare recently, does that mean NEo X will take over PLIIz?

Thanks for your answers.

Exactly which PLzII height mode should I switch to for improving the sound of a bluray movie mastered in DTS 7.1 HD Master Audio?You have to decide which flavor of ice cream you want. There is no right/wrong/best.

Is Neo X better with DTS Master Audio?No, but it is better with discrete 7.1 sources, as that improves the independence of the height and wide signal extraction.

Dolby True HD movies are quite rare recently, does that mean Neo X will take over PLIIz?Post-processing popularity is independent of the brand of the audio codecs.

Since this thread's been getting a little bit of attention lately...

A bit about my system: I'm running a PLIIz setup with an HTPC with Windows 7, and an Onkyo HT-S5400 HTiB, and I'm using an Nvidia GTX 460 video card with HDMI out to my receiver.

In Windows 7, in order to use HDMI out you have to configure the playback device. The latest Nvidia beta drivers I'm using allow 6 different playback configurations before outputting to the receiver. They include Stereo, Quadraphonic, Surround, 2 different types of 5.1 Surround (side or rear placement of rear speakers), and 7.1 Surround.

http://i.imgur.com/s5laM.jpg (http://imgur.com/s5laM)

My question is, which one should I use if I'm doing PLIIz Height on my receiver? I'm currently using the 5.1 side configuration assuming that the receiver will split the rest of the signal up correctly to the highs, and I do hear sound out of the highs, I just want to make sure this is optimal configuration.

Okay, thanks!

In Windows 7, in order to use HDMI out you have to configure the playback device. The latest Nvidia beta drivers I'm using allow 6 different playback configurations before outputting to the receiver. They include Stereo, Quadraphonic, Surround, 2 different types of 5.1 Surround (side or rear placement of rear speakers), and 7.1 Surround.

My question is, which one should I use if I'm doing PLIIz Height on my receiver? I'm currently using the 5.1 side configuration assuming that the receiver will split the rest of the signal up correctly to the highs, and I do hear sound out of the highs, I just want to make sure this is optimal configuration. Optimally you want the PC to forward the bitstream to the Onkyo unprocessed. I can understand that it wants you yo set the speaker config in case it performs the decoding to feed soundcard analog outputs or even the HDMI with Mch PCM. In that case yes, select 5.1 as I suspect your HTiB is using one pair of surrounds.

Can the Nvidia output the bitstreams? Does the Onkyo ever see "DTS"?

Optimally you want the PC to forward the bitstream to the Onkyo unprocessed.

Right. I got into headphone audio a little bit, a few years back, and this was sort of hammered into me there. :)

I can understand that it wants you yo set the speaker config in case it performs the decoding to feed soundcard analog outputs or even the HDMI with Mch PCM.

Okay, I'm not sure I fully understand this from a technical point of view. Its probably pretty simple, and I just need to do a little more research. Heck, I'm still kinda fuzzy about what Mch PCM is to begin with. Is PCM simply a conversion of an analog signal to a digital one? Are you saying that, if I was doing analog only (or PCM) that Windows itself would split up the sound signal rather than the receiver?

In that case yes, select 5.1 as I suspect your HTiB is using one pair of surrounds.

Okay, cool. Since my rear speakers are physically to the sides rather than behind me, I'm assuming that the 5.1 option I've selected in the screenshot is the preferred option rather than the 5.1 option behind the listener (or does it matter?).

Can the Nvidia output the bitstreams? Does the Onkyo ever see "DTS"?

The DTS and DTS-HD MSTR symbols light up on the receiver depending on the media I'm playing, so I'm assuming so. Sounds great (to my ears) at any rate.

Back to PLIIz, I'm still not sure I completely understand how it works. Are some films just coded to take advantage of PLIIz? Or is there some sort of complex algorithm used to move some of the film audio to the highs? Or is it a combination of both? It seems to me that the sound stage of most media I play through my system is just... bigger, but I've heard some folks say that they experience more of a 3D audio experience where, for instance, helicopters or rain above head sound in certain films like its more above head (rather than at ear level), and though I feel like I'm hearing something like this sometimes, I'm not sure if that's what I'm actually hearing or if its more in my head. Are there any sequences in any films that anyone could recommend that really makes a PLIIz setup shine?

Sorry if my questions are a bit noobish, but figure it can't hurt to ask. :)

I'm still kinda fuzzy about what Mch PCM is to begin with. Is PCM simply a conversion of an analog signal to a digital one?Yes, and vice-versa. Somewhere before a digital signal is converted to analog (thru the DAC), it is converted to PCM. That means DD or DTS bitstreams have to be decoded. The resulting PCM can feed the DAC to make analog, or it can feed through the HDMI into your AVR. That's normally ok when a BD player does it, because they are disciplined enough not to mess with the audio, thus leaving that for the AVR to take care of. But PCs are potentially more invasive--so they might do some bass management and then the AVR wants to do it again, for example. That's why sending bitstreams when possible is the safer choice.

Are you saying that, if I was doing analog only (or PCM) that Windows itself would split up the sound signal rather than the receiver?Yes, if Windows is handling the decoding and presentation of the audio to the speakers, it can only know which speakers exist if you tell it in that speaker setup menu. And depending on how you reply, it might "do things" to the audio that might be fine for speakers connected to the sound card but not so fine for the AVR.

Since my rear speakers are physically to the sides rather than behind me, I'm assuming that the 5.1 option I've selected in the screenshot is the preferred option rather than the 5.1 option behind the listener (or does it matter?).It should not matter but who knows what the Windows processor thinks about that??

The DTS and DTS-HD MSTR symbols light up on the receiver depending on the media I'm playing, so I'm assuming so. Sounds great (to my ears) at any rate.Great! Stick with that whenver possible.

Back to PLIIz, I'm still not sure I completely understand how it works. Are some films just coded to take advantage of PLIIz? Or is there some sort of complex algorithm used to move some of the film audio to the highs?Not the former, but the latter. It looks at the surrounds and extracts certain signals like ambience for the height speakers.

It seems to me that the sound stage of most media I play through my system is just... bigger, but I've heard some folks say that they experience more of a 3D audio experience where, for instance, helicopters or rain above head sound in certain films like its more above head (rather than at ear level), and though I feel like I'm hearing something like this sometimes, I'm not sure if that's what I'm actually hearing or if its more in my head.There's no question that PLIIz's effect depends on the content's mix.

Sorry if my questions are a bit noobish, but figure it can't hurt to ask. :)Never.

Yes, and vice-versa. Somewhere before a digital signal is converted to analog (thru the DAC), it is converted to PCM. That means DD or DTS bitstreams have to be decoded. The resulting PCM can feed the DAC to make analog, or it can feed through the HDMI into your AVR. That's normally ok when a BD player does it, because they are disciplined enough not to mess with the audio, thus leaving that for the AVR to take care of. But PCs are potentially more invasive--so they might do some bass management and then the AVR wants to do it again, for example. That's why sending bitstreams when possible is the safer choice.

Yes, if Windows is handling the decoding and presentation of the audio to the speakers, it can only know which speakers exist if you tell it in that speaker setup menu. And depending on how you reply, it might "do things" to the audio that might be fine for speakers connected to the sound card but not so fine for the AVR.

It should not matter but who knows what the Windows processor thinks about that??

Great! Stick with that whenver possible.

Not the former, but the latter. It looks at the surrounds and extracts certain signals like ambience for the height speakers.

There's no question that PLIIz's effect depends on the content's mix.

Never.

Awesome. This all makes a lot more sense to me now. Thanks so much!