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! :)