ADA Mach 4......WOW!!!! - Page 25 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #721 of 2136 Old 11-12-2010, 03:57 AM
Senior Member
 
ceenhad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Glasgow UK
Posts: 405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelc View Post

[N.B. The other professional who sdesigned and signed off on the speaker placement is a very well known name but does not frequent this forum]...

Are the surrounds running as bi-pole or di-pole?

Neil Davidson - Visit my facebook page
ceenhad is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #722 of 2136 Old 11-12-2010, 04:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceenhad View Post

Are the surrounds running as bi-pole or di-pole?

The surround speakers -- all four of them -- are Triad In-wall Golds...the url is http://www.triadspeaker.com/products/iwg4sur.html

Per the website the speakers operate as 7 speaker di-pole speakers...the exact quote is "...Triad's InWall Gold/4 Surround redefines the high end surround speaker. An impressive seven-driver compliment in a dipole array offers high power handling as well as high sensitivity, for prodigious output..."

With that, what say you?

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
post #723 of 2136 Old 11-12-2010, 06:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelc View Post

to be clear, kindly confirm that the adjustment that you are note are for the GROUP settings relative to the ALONE settings...

Yes. Alone would be the 0 settings.

Quote:


1. As far as the money seat is concerned I did not know when I was building the theatre and I do not know even now which row will be the money seat...the screen -- based on my previous theatre -- is much larger than I am use to and, as such, I am not sure whether the first row or the second row will be more preferred to me...

It indeed complicates speaker layout matters as soon as there are two or more rows of seats. No question.

Quote:


I should also point out that two professional designers [one being Dennis Erskine] BOTH advised that the speaker placement was proper / optimal...perhaps this boils down to proper / optimal for movies versus proper / optimal for music...more on this below...

Consider a commercial theater, or a dubbing stage. Do any of the decent seats not have surround speakers located 90-deg to them? No. As Toole and others have pointed out, best envelopment happens with speakers at our sides.

Also have a look at the attached, which is an Erskine project. The rear four surrounds are in the exact same orientation as yours, but there is an additional pair flanking the front row. That might be a solution, but all this is best left between you, Dennis, and your own ears.

Quote:


2. As far as MUSIC let alone GROUP MUSIC is concerned please note that i) the MOVIE/MUSIC mix will be 90%+ MOVIES / 10%- MUSIC and ii) the ALONE MUSIC/GROUP MUSIC mix will be 99%+ ALONE / 1%- GROUP...the point being that the GROUP MUSIC is not a concern in the least but -- and I think that this most accurately articulates it -- an observation...

Understood. And I agree it is important when designing a theater to take these usage factors into consideration. Only then can the right optimizations and tradeoffs be decided.

Quote:


3. Perhaps it is me...perhaps the situation will change once the room is calibrated...but, at present, I prefer listening from the front row...

Me, too, but the envelopment is admittedly better in the rear, and the extra visceral kick from being on the riser is quite fun there, too. Each row excels in its own way.

Quote:


While the best rebuttal / response would be for Dennis to drop in and explain why the speaker placement is proper / optimal the only explanation or theory can I can offer is that:

1. I advised both the original designer that the theatre would be used primarily [i.e. 90%+] for movies and that the 10%- for music would *essentially* be alone; and

2. The speaker placement / positioning results in the best possible solution/sound for all; that is, i) the actual speaker placement results in the best possible sound for all seats [but still with one sweet spot] whereas ii) your proposed seating placement results in the best possible sound for the front row and the cost of diminished / worsening sound for the back row...*would appreciate your thoughts on this*...

With any luck, Dennis will confirm you have an optimal setup and that what I’ve said is a load of toss. I have to defer to Dennis as he has a breath and depth of experience few can match.

My comments were triggered by your subjective impressions which were very much how I anticipated I would respond to this particular configuration. But even though I think I know what you are hearing based on your description, by no means can I say my interpretation is correct. You mention listening with QuadBypass, which is an ADA mode that I have never heard. I have no idea if that makes all this discussion moot or not—apples in your room to oranges (PLIIx) in mine.

You also said you have used PLIIx and find it “diminishes the sound quality” in some way. Spatially, sonically? I’m curious to know more about that, as I use PLIIx 99% of the time, other than 2-ch stereo (maybe if I had QuadBypass the answer would be more obvious)! PLIIx may not be your preferred music experience, but it might still serve as a basis for this discussion going forward as we have it in common upon which to compare notes. Of course we can use 5.1 music and movie mixes for that, too. Your impressions of movies will be very useful in this regard.

My apologies to the thread--all this is decidedly non-ADA related. Maybe we should take it you your other thread, Joel.
LL
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #724 of 2136 Old 11-13-2010, 04:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Consider a commercial theater, or a dubbing stage. Do any of the decent seats not have surround speakers located 90-deg to them? No. As Toole and others have pointed out, best envelopment happens with speakers at our sides.

Also have a look at the attached, which is an Erskine project. The rear four surrounds are in the exact same orientation as yours, but there is an additional pair flanking the front row. That might be a solution, but all this is best left between you, Dennis, and your own ears.
A few points:

1. The rear for speakers are NOT in the same position as mine as my SR/SL are between the first and the second row of seating...related point, were the speakers in Dennis' project that you posted direct radiating or bipole/dipole noting that mine are dipole...

2. That said, your point is made...

3. Although it would be interesting to test the result of adding an additional set of speakers that is not practical as the room is finished...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Me, too, but the envelopment is admittedly better in the rear, and the extra visceral kick from being on the riser is quite fun there, too. Each row excels in its own way.
Agreed...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
With any luck, Dennis will confirm you have an optimal setup and that what I've said is a load of toss. I have to defer to Dennis as he has a breath and depth of experience few can match.
Although I would hope that this would be the case let's keep our fingers crossed and wait to see what Dennis says...

The only other relevant point that I can add is that on more than one occasion Dennis advised me that my speaker palcement was optimal...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger DRessler View Post
My comments were triggered by your subjective impressions which were very much how I anticipated I would respond to this particular configuration. But even though I think I know what you are hearing based on your description, by no means can I say my interpretation is correct. You mention listening with QuadBypass, which is an ADA mode that I have never heard. I have no idea if that makes all this discussion moot or notapples in your room to oranges (PLIIx) in mine.
The fact -- and let us stay with facts -- is that the "relative imbalance" is caused by the fact that the distance between EACH AND EVERY speaker speakers differs between front row seating and rear row seating and there is simply nothing that can be about that [i.e. EACH AND EVERY THEATRE HAS THIS PROBLEM] (i.e. look at the SRR/SRL in your theatre)!

With that, I do however believe that there are i) best compromise calibrations and/or ii) sweet spot rules calibrations and, between the two, I am leaning towards the sweet rules calibration (and will likely continue with this until Dennis arrives to work his magic) because:

i) I spend the most time in the theatre;

ii) I am more sentitive to sound differences than anyone in my family and/or my friends; and

iii) It is *MY* theatre...

With that, I should add that I spent an hour or so tweaking/raising the SR/SL/SBR/SBL levels from 72dB to 75dB when measured from the front seating position and then watched iRobot as reference material...the sound was much more enjoyable and much more visceral which is why I am following my *sweet spou rules" calibration approach...

Worth also noting are the facts that:

i) People other than me who are seated in the back row might / will actually prefer the heavier Sr/SL/SBR/SBL because for many of them home theatre's such as ours is an experience...

ii) The problem really stems from ADA QuadBypass [which is fantastic for music] meaning the imbalance is much less of an issue for movies...

You mention the difference/issue betwen QuadBypass and PLIIx...this is a very important point because the difference front row/back row difference is MUCH larger in QuadBypass than PLIIx*

* It is important to note that ADA's implementation of PLIIx is less than perfect and need to be fixed at which point in time it would be bestto revisit this statement...it would also be fantatsic were Richard_ADA to jump in and explain wht exactly QuadBypass is doing to create such a large difference...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger DRessler View Post
You also said you have used PLIIx and find it diminishes the sound quality in some way. Spatially, sonically? I'm curious to know more about that, as I use PLIIx 99% of the time, other than 2-ch stereo (maybe if I had QuadBypass the answer would be more obvious)! PLIIx may not be your preferred music experience, but it might still serve as a basis for this discussion going forward as we have it in common upon which to compare notes. Of course we can use 5.1 music and movie mixes for that, too. Your impressions of movies will be very useful in this regard.
A few point to clarify:

1. The comment that PLIIx diminished the sound quality was in respect to 2-channel music; that is, QuadBypass is only available for 2 channel sources; QuadBypass sounds much fuller and richer than PLIIx for 2 channel sources...

The difference is EXTREMELY dramatic with the hope that Richard_ADA will respond to teh above]...

2. Then there are movies where as noted above I watched iRobot with PLIIX engaged [on a dts MA-HD soundtrack] and the sound was engaging and visceral...

3. There is no dounbt that we should use PLIIx as our commom/comparison basis because, as you note, this is common to all...while ADA's PLIIx implementation needs a firmware upgrade for DD-THD sources it is working perfectly for dts MA-HD sources so i) let's keep the comparison limited to dts MA-HD (as this is apples to apples) and ii) let's pick a common disk...any suggestions?

With that, do you have any firther thoughts and/or comments?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger DRessler View Post
My apologies to the thread--all this is decidedly non-ADA related. Maybe we should take it you your other thread, Joel.
Rogers, while generally I would agree with you I have chosen to respond here as we are somewhat focused on ADA's surround modes [rather than speaker palcement] and, as such, think we should keep the conversation here so long as we are talking about surround modes...

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
post #725 of 2136 Old 11-13-2010, 01:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelc View Post

A few points:

1. The rear for speakers are NOT in the same position as mine as my SR/SL are between the first and the second row of seating...

Maybe I am not looking at the correct diagram for your room? What I did was overlay Dennis' room at the same size as yours, with the rear-center target aligned, plopped on the 4 surround speakers, then transferred them to your room. As attached. They seem to overlay almost perfectly.

Quote:


related point, were the speakers in Dennis' project that you posted direct radiating or bipole/dipole noting that mine are dipole...

I had not realized your speakers were dipoles. That will indeed make a difference, too. As for the ones in Dennis' diagram, they appear to be monopoles.

Quote:


3. Although it would be interesting to test the result of adding an additional set of speakers that is not practical as the room is finished...

Hence my reluctance to even bring this up. But now that you have dispelled my misunderstanding about your using dipoles, we'll have to forget a lot of what I already said. The strategy for optimally placing dipoles is probably different, but I have very little experience there, as I always gravitated to direct radiators for timbre-matching reasons.

Quote:


The fact -- and let us stay with facts -- is that the "relative imbalance" is caused by the fact that the distance between EACH AND EVERY speaker speakers differs between front row seating and rear row seating and there is simply nothing that can be about that [i.e. EACH AND EVERY THEATRE HAS THIS PROBLEM] (i.e. look at the SRR/SRL in your theatre)!

Yes--there is no getting away from it totally. Mitigating it is the game afoot. I feel I have found a way to cope successfully using a combination of speaker layout, speaker type, and having two Configs, as described in your build thread.

Quote:


With that, I do however believe that there are i) best compromise calibrations and/or ii) sweet spot rules calibrations and, between the two, I am leaning towards the sweet rules calibration (and will likely continue with this until Dennis arrives to work his magic) because:

i) I spend the most time in the theatre;

ii) I am more sentitive to sound differences than anyone in my family and/or my friends; and

iii) It is *MY* theatre...

Totally agree. If we were both less of the perfectionist bent, a) we could live blissfully with the single "group compromise" room calibration for all occasions, and b) we would not be engaging in this exploration of these issues together.

Quote:


The problem really stems from ADA QuadBypass [which is fantastic for music] meaning the imbalance is much less of an issue for movies...

You mention the difference/issue betwen QuadBypass and PLIIx...this is a very important point because the difference front row/back row difference is MUCH larger in QuadBypass than PLIIx*

Apparently QuadBypass is very strong in the surrounds. Maybe it just duplicates the L/R to the surrounds? Would be fun to listen to the surrounds with the fronts muted to see what's coming out.
LL
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #726 of 2136 Old 11-13-2010, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Maybe I am not looking at the correct diagram for your room? What I did was overlay Dennis' room at the same size as yours, with the rear-center target aligned, plopped on the 4 surround speakers, then transferred them to your room. As attached. They seem to overlay almost perfectly.
I now know what went wrong...the diagram that you were working off was with respect to the penultimate (i.e. not final ) riser seating/sightline...the diagram for the final riser seating/siteline is attached...the exact position of the side speakers is a little difficult to detrmine because *BOTH* speakers and sound panels are behind the fabric wrapped wall but it is my best estimate that the side speakers are behind the front row by 2/3rds of the distance between the front row and the back row (BUT, without a doubt, they are between the two rows)...

I should point out that the largest difference in seating position is not so much the change in the riser dimension (those these did change) but more the elimination of teh bar area...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
I had not realized your speakers were dipoles. That will indeed make a difference, too. As for the ones in Dennis' diagram, they appear to be monopoles.
The SR/SL/SBR/SBL speakers are all Triad In-Wall Golds...these are 7 driver dipole speakers per http://www.triadspeaker.com/products/iwg4sur.html

With the above two differences/points [i.e. the speakers being located behind the front row by 2/3rds of the distance between the front row and the back row, the speakers being dipole] what now is your opinion about their appropriateness and placement...

*While neither the time nor the place [because there is another thread] to get into a debate of the pros/cons of Trinnov EQ one thing that Dennis was crystal clear to me about was that that Trinnov's capability to "reposition speakers" would be of no value to me because mine were optimally palced...woudl be great to have him jump in...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Mitigating it is the game afoot. I feel I have found a way to cope successfully using a combination of speaker layout, speaker type, and having two Configs, as described in your build thread.
We are in complete agreement...I am thrilled for you that you have found a "coping mechanism" and I hope that I too will accomplish / find the same...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Totally agree. If we were both less of the perfectionist bent, a) we could live blissfully with the single "group compromise" room calibration for all occasions, and b) we would not be engaging in this exploration of these issues together.
I could not agree more on both of your points...but, since we are both perfectionist, a) we will have, at a cost of energy and time, the best possible rooms withing our respective constarints and b) we will enjoy this banter...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Apparently QuadBypass is very strong in the surrounds. Maybe it just duplicates the L/R to the surrounds? Would be fun to listen to the surrounds with the fronts muted to see what's coming out.
Very interesting in that...yes, QuadBypass is very strong in the surrounds and provides a truly envelopping listening experience...yes, this is possible, the ADA has a SOLOS feature which allows the user, among other things, to listen to specific speakers eithe rindiviudally or collectively so what you suggest is doable [in fact, I could listen to Sr/SL/SBR/SBL and sub to see what that sounds like]...


PS. Anytime you want to come for a visit, you have a standing invitation and are more than welcome...

 

CohenSiteLines.pdf 22.0126953125k . file

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
post #727 of 2136 Old 11-13-2010, 02:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DanFrancis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Aurora, IL, USA
Posts: 1,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 23
My apologies if this has been covered, but have you used the customization available for quad bypass in the software already?

I believe you can adjust the level and the amount of reverb for the surrounds.

Again, sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious.

Maybe a custom pl2x for music with crowd and a tweaked quad bypass for you.

Dan

Dan Francis
Head of Sales US
C'SEED Entertainment Systems GMBH
www.cseed.tv
df@cseed.tv
DanFrancis is offline  
post #728 of 2136 Old 11-13-2010, 02:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanFrancis View Post

My apologies if this has been covered, but have you used the customization available for quad bypass in the software already?

I believe you can adjust the level and the amount of reverb for the surrounds.

Again, sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious.

Maybe a custom pl2x for music with crowd and a tweaked quad bypass for you.

Dan

Dan:

Thanks so much for jumping in...

This was i) known to me and ii) pointed out by Jeff but, for now, I will leave thinsg where they are because:

i) I want more time with the ADA and my room to truly understand the signature and what I want to tweak; and

ii) In my experience it takes a good amount of time to get things just so meaning that I will until AFTER Dennis calibrates things to customize the QuadBypass settings...

Thanks...

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
post #729 of 2136 Old 11-13-2010, 03:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanFrancis View Post

My apologies if this has been covered, but have you used the customization available for quad bypass in the software already?

I believe you can adjust the level and the amount of reverb for the surrounds.

Again, sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious.

Maybe a custom pl2x for music with crowd and a tweaked quad bypass for you.

Dan

Dan:

One follow up...I checked in the ADA Suite software and see where one can modify i) PLIIx and ii) Cinema / Club / Hall / Arena / Cathedral and Quad Reverb but, where and how, do I modify QuadBypass as I do not see it as:

a) A ssurround mode that be customized; OR

b) A surround mode for which the "base settings" (i.e. size, mix, LF Cut, Reverb time and Damping) are available...

TIA...

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
post #730 of 2136 Old 11-13-2010, 03:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelc View Post

I now know what went wrong...the diagram that you were working off was with respect to the penultimate (i.e. not final )

"Oh. That's different...Nevermind." --Rosanne Rosannadanna

Quote:


The SR/SL/SBR/SBL speakers are all Triad In-Wall Golds...these are 7 driver dipole speakers.

Understood. Now seeing the picture, it's entirely possible the ones depicted in Dennis' theater diagram are the same ones. All that is shown is the box/woofer cross section, as attached, but the mid/tweets could just as well be dipoles as monopoles!

Quote:


With the above two differences/points [i.e. the speakers being located behind the front row by 2/3rds of the distance between the front row and the back row, the speakers being dipole] what now is your opinion about their appropriateness and placement...

My ability to project how your room will sound today is very different from when we started this discussion--I am simply not familiar with dipoles used in quads--never heard that setup to this day -- I don't get out much. All I can do now is rely on your reports in the various seats, and I tend to think that a large dose of your concern about the strong surround bias from the rear seats is owing to QuadBypass. Even if your room had the same 4-ish dB bias as mine in the rear seat, that will make a huge difference in the soundfield balance for music, which is IMVHO the more critical case vs. movies. Based on that, I conclude a simple gain shift (Group mode) along the lines I have done will be fully effective for group movie sessions, and probably for music, too.

Quote:


PS. Anytime you want to come for a visit, you have a standing invitation and are more than welcome...

You're most kind. The same offer is extended to you when next your path takes you to these parts.
LL
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #731 of 2136 Old 11-13-2010, 03:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DanFrancis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Aurora, IL, USA
Posts: 1,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Yup, sorry- I had remembered seeing Quad the other night while working on a S7.1HD, obviously quad reverb isn't the same.

I guess maybe we should reserve some of these observations until the whole setup is calibrated- you might find that it makes a world of difference. The difference between eq'd and non-eq'd at perfectionist2's house was night and day! It was much more impressive after everything had similar FR post eq.

Dan

Dan Francis
Head of Sales US
C'SEED Entertainment Systems GMBH
www.cseed.tv
df@cseed.tv
DanFrancis is offline  
post #732 of 2136 Old 11-13-2010, 04:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanFrancis View Post
Yup, sorry- I had remembered seeing Quad the other night while working on a S7.1HD, obviously quad reverb isn't the same.

I guess maybe we should reserve some of these observations until the whole setup is calibrated- you might find that it makes a world of difference. The difference between eq'd and non-eq'd at perfectionist2's house was night and day! It was much more impressive after everything had similar FR post eq.

Dan
Yup, I could not agree more...no worries on the confusiong between QuadBypass and QuadReverb...am still veruy interested in having RichardADAdescribe waht QuadBypass does...

Thanks..

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
post #733 of 2136 Old 11-13-2010, 04:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Understood. Now seeing the picture, it's entirely possible the ones depicted in Dennis' theater diagram are the same ones. All that is shown is the box/woofer cross section, as attached, but the mid/tweets could just as well be dipoles as monopoles!
I do not think that anything can be determined or inferred from the diagram icons as I believe that they are generic representations of speakers...the reason I say this is that same icons were used fro my front speakers as were used for my surround speakers...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
My ability to project how your room will sound today is very different from when we started this discussion--I am simply not familiar with dipoles used in quads--never heard that setup to this day -- I don't get out much.
All the more reason to come for a visit...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
All I can do now is rely on your reports in the various seats, and I tend to think that a large dose of your concern about the strong surround bias from the rear seats is owing to QuadBypass.
Correct in that QuadBypass is indeed the main issue but, again, let us keep this in perspective because it is *MY* room and it will calibrated for *ME* in *MY* sweet spot...but, when you come for a visit I will, of course, relinquish the seat...

The other thing to be relied on is Dennis' post calibration opiniosn which I will ask him to post...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Even if your room had the same 4-ish dB bias as mine in the rear seat, that will make a huge difference in the soundfield balance for music, which is IMVHO the more critical case vs. movies. Based on that, I conclude a simple gain shift (Group mode) along the lines I have done will be fully effective for group movie sessions, and probably for music, too.
I agree in full with your assessment...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
You're most kind. The same offer is extended to you when next your path takes you to these parts.
Thank you as well noting I think I would find a visit with you to be most enjoyable...

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
post #734 of 2136 Old 11-14-2010, 03:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am curious as to i) which surround sound modes people prefer for 5.1 encoded multi-channel sources in *seven speaker* setups and ii) why they prefer that surround mode [NOTE: I have purposely ommitted the THX variants]: noting that a few of the desciptions in the ADA HD SUite 7.1 manual do not sound correct to but here goes...

1. Discrete Cinema which, based on my understanding, will extract sound from the 5-channel mix and send it to the SBL/SBR channels...
also how are the SBL/SBR created/simulated....


2. Discrete Cinema + EX/ES which, based on my understanding, is identical to Discrete Cinema but will look for the EX/ES flag and i) if there is no flaj then will extract sound from the 5-channel mix and send it to the SBL/SBR channels, ii) if there is a flag will send the EX/ES encoded material on disc to the SBL/SBR channels [i.e. the flags remove the need to extract the sound for the SBL/SBR channels]...


3. PLIIx Movie which, based on my understanding, will extract sound from the 5-channel mix and send it to the SBL/SBR channels...also, how are the SBL/SBR created/simulated...

Curious, the manual states that the 5-channel mix is downmixed to 2-channel and then processed to provide 7-channels...is this correct because i) to the extent it is this would be a horrible surround mode to use and ii) it runs contrary to the description on Dolby's website which can be viewed at http://www.dolby.com/professional/te...logic-IIx.html
...



4. THX Ultra2 Movie which, based on my understanding, will extract sound from the 5-channel mix and send it to the SBL/SBR channels...also, how are the SBL/SBR created/simulated...


NOTES:

a. I have purposely excluded the DTS NEO modes as they do NOT output sound to the SBL/SBR channels...

b. I have purposely excluded the "Room Simulatiom Modes" [i.e. Dmx Cinema, Dmx Club, Dmx Hall, Dmx Arena, Dmx Cathedral and Dmx QuadReverb] because they all -- at least per the manual -- downmix the 5.1 channel material to 2-channel which clearly is NOT optimal...

c. Richard_ADA, an additional question for you, for 2-channel sources why are the PLII modes called/labelled PLII rather than PLIIx because i) they appear to be outputting 7-channels of sound and ii) they should, at least per Dolby's website [see
http://www.dolby.com/professional/te...logic-IIx.html ] should be labelled PLIIx...




Thanks, in advance, to everyone who helps me out by replying...

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
post #735 of 2136 Old 11-14-2010, 09:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 879 Post(s)
Liked: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelc View Post

THX Ultra2 Movie which, based on my understanding, will extract sound from the 5-channel mix and send it to the SBL/SBR channels...also, how are the SBL/SBR created/simulated...

Ultra2 Movie extracts a mono surround-back channel (a la Surround EX) but decorrelates the two rear speakers in an attempt to keep those mono sounds from localizing at the middle of the back wall.
Quote:


I have purposely excluded the DTS NEO modes as they do NOT output sound to the SBL/SBR channels...

DTS Neo:6, as the name implies, is a 6 channel extraction that includes 3 surround channels (left, right, back), with the mono surround-back channel sent to both rear speakers (odd that you're not getting output from those speakers).

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #736 of 2136 Old 11-14-2010, 12:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelc View Post

I am curious as to i) which surround sound modes people prefer for 5.1 encoded multi-channel sources in *seven speaker* setups and ii) why they prefer that surround mode

Naturally, I use PLIIx, having had a hand in its development. It is the only one in my system that keeps the rear outputs as stereo. I find, with monopole surrounds, that mono in the rear speakers layers a thick layer of "in the head" mono stuff almost constantly, which diminishes the spatial effect.

Some processors may also have access to Logic7 or Neural 7.1, and if so, those would be candidate modes with similar capabilities to PLIIx.

Quote:


1. Discrete Cinema which, based on my understanding, will extract sound from the 5-channel mix and send it to the SBL/SBR channels...
also how are the SBL/SBR created/simulated....

Odd to me that a discrete mode would cook extra outputs. Not that there is any industry consensus on nomenclature, my SSP has one Discrete mode in which only the channels in the source are being output. I guess "Discrete Cinema" suggests something more is happening. I'm curious to know what that is.

Quote:


2. Discrete Cinema + EX/ES which, based on my understanding, is identical to Discrete Cinema but will look for the EX/ES flag and i) if there is no flag then will extract sound from the 5-channel mix and send it to the SBL/SBR channels, ii) if there is a flag will send the EX/ES encoded material on disc to the SBL/SBR channels [i.e. the flags remove the need to extract the sound for the SBL/SBR channels]...

Does ADA mention that the EX/ES mode is looking for the flag, or is this your assumption? Indeed, ADA can offer the user an option to apply EX/ES matrix processing only when the source carries the flag. Then when there is no flag, the EX is turned off. If the user wants all 5.1 sources to get the EX treatment, there would need to be a means for users to do that.

OTOH, if ADA is not talking flags, then we can simplify your description of how the mode works. The EX/ES mode processes the Ls/Rs channels into Ls/Cs/Rs outputs. (Exactly the same process whether there is a flag or not.) The Cs outout will feed SBL/SBR speakers as mono if present.

Quote:


3. PLIIx Movie which, based on my understanding, will extract sound from the 5-channel mix and send it to the SBL/SBR channels...also, how are the SBL/SBR created/simulated...

Straightforward PLII logic steering is used. If you really want the morbid details, I have a white paper I can share.

Quote:


Curious, the manual states that the 5-channel mix is downmixed to 2-channel and then processed to provide 7-channels...is this correct because i) to the extent it is this would be a horrible surround mode to use and ii) it runs contrary to the description on Dolby's website which can be viewed at http://www.dolby.com/professional/te...logic-IIx.html
...

That should not be happening under normal circumstances. As ADA is deep into patching PLIIx modes, I'd expect the next code will have all the normal PLIIx modes enabled for all source formats.

However, this downmix/upmix mode is a good option for one particular case. Some TV broadcasts use a 5.1-channel bitstream, but only put audio into the L/R channels. David Letterman is a daily example. Even though it is a standard stereo mix, the 5.1 container prevents any surround processing from being added. PLIIx decodes silent channels into more silent channels. So here ADA's downmix will create a proper 2-ch signal to allow PLIIx to work, same as for a normal stereo signal. Those of us without this clever downmix mode have to set up a parallel input from the STB stereo analog output into the processor to achieve the same workaround.
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #737 of 2136 Old 11-14-2010, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Roger:

Lots to say so here goes...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Naturally, I use PLIIx, having had a hand in its development.

Naturally...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

It is the only one in my system that keeps the rear outputs as stereo. I find, with monopole surrounds, that mono in the rear speakers layers a thick layer of "in the head" mono stuff almost constantly, which diminishes the spatial effect.

Understood...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Some processors may also have access to Logic7 or Neural 7.1, and if so, those would be candidate modes with similar capabilities to PLIIx.

Understood and agree...while I am more than aware of these --as a former Lexicon owner -- I purposely left these out and limited the surround modes to those available in the ADA...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Odd to me that a discrete mode would cook extra outputs. Not that there is any industry consensus on nomenclature, my SSP has one Discrete mode in which only the channels in the source are being output. I guess "Discrete Cinema" suggests something more is happening. I'm curious to know what that is.

Does ADA mention that the EX/ES mode is looking for the flag, or is this your assumption? Indeed, ADA can offer the user an option to apply EX/ES matrix processing only when the source carries the flag. Then when there is no flag, the EX is turned off. If the user wants all 5.1 sources to get the EX treatment, there would need to be a means for users to do that.

OTOH, if ADA is not talking flags, then we can simplify your description of how the mode works. The EX/ES mode processes the Ls/Rs channels into Ls/Cs/Rs outputs. (Exactly the same process whether there is a flag or not.) The Cs outout will feed SBL/SBR speakers as mono if present.

The manual is less than clear on this regard...

The specific wording is as follows:

1. Discrete, LF/RF/C/LS/RS/LB/RB/Sw, DTS or Dolby Digital 7.1 direct from source with bass management

2. Discrete +THX, LF/RF/C/LS/RS/LB/RB/Sw, Above Mode with THX Enhancements

3. Discrete EX/ES, LF/RF/C/LS/RS/LB/RB/Sw, Same as Discrete but uses DTS ES or DD EX flags

4. THX Surr EX/ES, LF/RF/C/LS/RS/LB/RB/Sw. Above Mode with THX Enhancements


The thing that is confusing to me is that when I select Discrete -- as an example -- the ADA indicates that the source input is DD 3.2.1.0 and the output is 3.2.1.2 which suggests that the ADA is, even in discrete, is extracting and sending a signal to the SBL/SBR channels...were that not enough proof/support the QSC 922uz DSP engines also show a signal being sent to the SBL/SBR...

With that, i) what do you think is happening and ii) once again, it would be great for Richard_ADA to djumo in and tell us specifically what is happeneing...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Straightforward PLII logic steering is used. If you really want the morbid details, I have a white paper I can share.

Please...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

That should not be happening under normal circumstances. As ADA is deep into patching PLIIx modes, I'd expect the next code will have all the normal PLIIx modes enabled for all source formats.

Hopefully not only will ADA sort out the PLIIx code but they will also clarify the expalanation / operation of their surround modes...

The specific description of the PLIIx modes is as follows:

1. PL2x Movie, LF/RF/C/LS/RS/LB/RB/Sw, Downmix to 2-Channel & then processed via PL II Movie Matrix

2. PL2x Mve +THX, LF/RF/C/LS/RS/LB/RB/Sw, Above Mode with THX Enhancements

3. PL2x Music LF/RF/C/LS/RS/LB/RB/Sw, Downmix to 2-Channel & then processed via PL II Music Matrix


This is very confusing to me because i) the reference to downmixing and ii) the circular description and, to this end, would appreciate any clarification you can offer...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

However, this downmix/upmix mode is a good option for one particular case. Some TV broadcasts use a 5.1-channel bitstream, but only put audio into the L/R channels. David Letterman is a daily example. Even though it is a standard stereo mix, the 5.1 container prevents any surround processing from being added. PLIIx decodes silent channels into more silent channels. So here ADA's downmix will create a proper 2-ch signal to allow PLIIx to work, same as for a normal stereo signal. Those of us without this clever downmix mode have to set up a parallel input from the STB stereo analog output into the processor to achieve the same workaround.

Understood but, that said, how can one identify these miscoded / misidentified sources...

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
post #738 of 2136 Old 11-14-2010, 02:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,731
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 119
From that PL IIx description, it seems like it takes a 7.1 or 5.1 multi channel recording, down mixes to 2 channels and then matrixes it back up to 7.1!!

Hope not.

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is offline  
post #739 of 2136 Old 11-14-2010, 02:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

From that PL IIx description, it seems like it takes a 7.1 or 5.1 multi channel recording, down mixes to 2 channels and then matrixes it back up to 7.1!!

Hope not.

Bingo, that is exactly the point that I am driving at and questioning...that said, I just watched a dts-MA HD encoded movie and the sound was terrific...

My best guess is that the manual is incorrect in a number of ways...one possibility is that the someone took the 2-channel description and transcribed it,,

Net, net, we need Richard_ADA to chime in...

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
post #740 of 2136 Old 11-14-2010, 02:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,731
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Agreed. But I'd like it double checked.

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is offline  
post #741 of 2136 Old 11-14-2010, 03:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Agreed. But I'd like it double checked.

I fully agree with you hence my comment for the need for Richard_ADA to chime in....

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
post #742 of 2136 Old 11-14-2010, 03:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelc View Post
The specific wording is as follows:

[i]1. Discrete, LF/RF/C/LS/RS/LB/RB/Sw, DTS or Dolby Digital 7.1 direct from source with bass management
This is encouraging. It says nothing about additional processing. And maybe they meant to say DTS HDMA 7.1, Dolby TrueHD 7.1 , and PCM 7.1, since there is no such thing as DTS or DD 7.1.

Quote:
3. Discrete EX/ES, LF/RF/C/LS/RS/LB/RB/Sw, Same as Discrete but uses DTS ES or DD EX flags
This wording leaves some questions about EX operation.

Quote:
The thing that is confusing to me is that when I select Discrete -- as an example -- the ADA indicates that the source input is DD 3.2.1.0 and the output is 3.2.1.2 which suggests that the ADA is, even in discrete, is extracting and sending a signal to the SBL/SBR channels...were that not enough proof/support the QSC 922uz DSP engines also show a signal being sent to the SBL/SBR...
Conclusive that there is certainly something in those rear channels!

Quote:
With that, i) what do you think is happening and ii) once again, it would be great for Richard_ADA to djumo in and tell us specifically what is happeneing...
Only ADA knows for sure.

Quote:
The specific description of the PLIIx modes is as follows:

1. PL2x Movie, LF/RF/C/LS/RS/LB/RB/Sw, Downmix to 2-Channel & then processed via PL II Movie Matrix

2. PL2x Mve +THX, LF/RF/C/LS/RS/LB/RB/Sw, Above Mode with THX Enhancements

3. PL2x Music LF/RF/C/LS/RS/LB/RB/Sw, Downmix to 2-Channel & then processed via PL II Music Matrix


This is very confusing to me because i) the reference to downmixing and ii) the circular description and, to this end, would appreciate any clarification you can offer...
Yes, the downmixing is an issue unless they also add a mode that does not apply downmixing. The downmixing option is useful.

Quote:
Understood but, that said, how can one identify these miscoded / misidentified sources...
By listening, or by observing the QSC meters. Luckily, it is rare.

PLII paper attached. While it does not mention PLIIx, the seeds are in there. Fig 1 shows the stereo input (Lt and Rt) gain/phase when panned around the complete 360-deg circle, and Fig 19 shows the 5 steered outputs PLII creates. In Fig 19, top is 0-deg (C), and from there clockwise are the R, Rs, Ls, and L outputs. This is the standard PLII mode, stereo in, five out.

Now, for PLIIx, let's rename those outputs. Top one is Reserved (not used), then clockwise are Rs, Rb, Lb, and L. And instead of feeding it Lt/Rt stereo, we feed it Ls/Rs from a 5.1 source. One additional thing: the Rs source signal is inverted before feeding the PLII decoder. This is necessary so that when the source's surround channels are in-phase (panned between Ls/Rs), the decoder will steer to the Lb/Rb outputs instead of the Reserved output.

That's essentially it. PLIIx.

 

A New Active Matrix Decoder for Surround Sound.pdf 202.3759765625k . file
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #743 of 2136 Old 11-14-2010, 03:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Roger:

1. Appreciate the paper and will give it a read during the week...

2. Let's summarize and see where we stand:

a) Confusion exists in the application of the ADA surround modes because the text in the manual is not consistent with the implementaion/operation...

b) The areas fo greatest confusion are:
i) Discrete wrt the "creation" of SBL/SBR channels
ii) PLIIx wrt the 2-channel downmixing (in addition the bug discovered by jeff)
iii) Richard_ADA's input is needed to explain teh exact implemenation of the surround modes

If you agree then great...if you do not agree then please add what I have missed so at least there is one simple thread post to "point to"...

Thanks so much...

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
post #744 of 2136 Old 11-14-2010, 03:43 PM
Senior Member
 
Perfectionist2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Joelc -

What manual do you have? Is it the Mach IV manual or another unit?
Perfectionist2 is offline  
post #745 of 2136 Old 11-15-2010, 02:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfectionist2 View Post

Joelc -

What manual do you have? Is it the Mach IV manual or another unit?

It is the manual for the ADA HD uite 7.1 that is dated "Version 4.0 - June 2010"...

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
post #746 of 2136 Old 11-15-2010, 04:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bulldogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Clinton,MS
Posts: 6,653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

To me, the true high end product gets an update once or never. Things happen but updates shouldnt be par for the course.

Actually that mass-market products that do that. You pretty much get the product with no firmware updates. This discussion is not about Theta. There is a thread for that.

Never become so involved with something that it blinds you.
Bulldogger is online now  
post #747 of 2136 Old 11-15-2010, 04:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bulldogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Clinton,MS
Posts: 6,653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

But basically, Dolby TRUE HD 5.1 soundtracks are not able to be matrixed to 7.1 on 'PL IIx Movie' AND 'Discrete' codecs when bitstreamed .

That's major and would be unacceptable to me.

Never become so involved with something that it blinds you.
Bulldogger is online now  
post #748 of 2136 Old 11-15-2010, 04:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bulldogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Clinton,MS
Posts: 6,653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLion View Post

Jeff,

I guess you have to reevaluate your statement of the Ada unit being finally a HDMI prepro that "just works as it is supposed to be". It is funny that this was youir initial assessment and since then it was pretty much a bug report.... Sadly I might add, I am very interested in this unit.

I don't want to sound hysterical or something, but judging from your brief reports now the customer - bug ratio with Ada seems certainly not better than with other brands. I guess the primary clientel of Ada products is just not the one frequenting online forums and they are in majority looking for a preconfigured turn-key solution...therefor less playing around with settings and therefor less complaining and bug reports.

Just my unqualified two cents..

That's my impression as well.

Never become so involved with something that it blinds you.
Bulldogger is online now  
post #749 of 2136 Old 11-15-2010, 04:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bulldogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Clinton,MS
Posts: 6,653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Thanks for the confirmation. Curious as to how & why DTS MA 5.1 is handled one way yet Dolby 5.1 another. But via LPCM, both are 5.1... I would bet it is a simple fix.

Requiring a trip back to the factory for what should be basic functionality for a pre-pro at this price point. It was unrealistic to expect this product not to need some firmware updates. Having to send it back to the factory is crazy.

Never become so involved with something that it blinds you.
Bulldogger is online now  
post #750 of 2136 Old 11-15-2010, 04:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bulldogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Clinton,MS
Posts: 6,653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by barhoram View Post

I'm not certain I understand how a Surround Sound Processor not processing surround properly is a small item?? Am I misssing something here...that's it's number 1 job?

This is HUGE. Unacceptable. It's a question I have asked every company. I asked Halcro the same question. Can our processor take a 5.1 Dolby True-HD or DTS MA track and use DD Prologic to expand it 7.1. I would find any processor including Theta unacceptable if it could not do this. I will not buy and do not understand how anyone else could buy a product such as this if they are doing 7.1 like I do.

Never become so involved with something that it blinds you.
Bulldogger is online now  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off