Is 6.1 Enought Or Should I Go 7.1?? - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 12:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 824 Post(s)
Liked: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ View Post

are there any disclaimers you want to add

None.

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 12:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 824 Post(s)
Liked: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Sanjay, ChrisW, have either of you actually experienced the phenomenon?

Yes, on a few 6.1 set-ups, mostly (though not always) with voices. Sometimes in real life. And a couple of times on my own system:

I'll occasionally stand behind my couch, facing the surround field in order to hear how surround content is steered to the 4 speakers (idle curiosity). I remember once hearing dialogue clearly phantom image from between my rear speakers. When I turned to look at my centre speaker, the dialogue was suddenly coming from there.

The other time is when I first moved into my current house and was calibration my set-up. I didn't realize I was standing directly in front of my right rear speaker. The test tone sounded like it was coming from the right front speaker. Naturally, reflex kicked in and I started checking interconnects and speaker wires, feeling silly afterwards.

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #183 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 01:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

OK...so where are your "correct" references or studies?

Most have been changed on the internet to reflect the new 7.1 reality. However, I feel like a history professor trying to teach 5 year olds who think that history began at conception.

Let's start with easy questions to see if your smart enough to waste my time.

Name a manufacturer that never built a 6.1 DD-EX/DTS-ES receiver. That only made 5.1 and 7.1 models.

I'll give you a freebie that doesn't count also. B&K. Why didn't they? Because the AVR202 5.1 came out just as 6.1 had been finalized, the layouts planned out, etc. They also didn't include component video or a 5.1 analog in. They were convinced that firewire would handle multi-channel, that component video was not a "for sure" standard. So, Sherwood, Yamaha, Sony, NAD, etc, etc were all building 6.1 receivers, B&K missed the 6.1 cycle and went directly to 7.1 with the AVR307 and Ref 30.

Why were they building 6.1 receivers if Dolby and DTS was telling them that it needed to have dual rear centers (later called "surround back")? Answer - because neither Dolby nor DTS was telling them that it was necessary. They were fine with a single rear speaker. But Lexicon people insisted dual rears were necessary and used that as a selling point on their models. B&K followed, as did everyone else. NAD has built more 6.1 receivers than 7.1 receivers. Did they ignore Dolby's 7.1 recommendations? No, because it didn't exist.

I can find the information but I feel like someone trying to explain to an Iranian that the Holocaust happened. How do you deal with that level of ignorance and lack of logic? What do you need to understand the obvious? Did every major receiver company tell Dolby and DTS and THX that they were on drugs and built 6.1 receivers anyway? Or were they just following the convention of the time? C'mon Curtis, you're not that stupid. Wiggles? I don't know. Maybe he is.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #184 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 01:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

With discrete 5.1 literally years away, and discrete 7.1 not even a consideration, the original intent for 7-speaker systems was obviously for playback of 2-channel source material. I mean, what else was there? Despite the products having some sort of 'movie' mode, where the settings were tweaked for maximum channel separation, those manufacturers were primarily interested in using 7 speakers to play back 2-channel music (don't even go there Chris).

This is a good point. 7.1 processors were all done by "surround for music" companies. Surround receiver companies concerned with the movie experience all *began* with 6.1, but Lexicon successfully, along with Meridian, rightly or wrongly convinced others that 7.1 was the way to go. Eventually, everyone switched over. But almost *everyone* began with 6.1 in receivers. Not to save money, but because that's just the way it was. Dolby did *not* come out with 6.1 and push dual rear speakers at the beginning. It just didn't happen. But I doubt they'd say that on their website *now*. Most evidence that I'm right has been "updated". In a sense, people are saying "there was never such thing as dinosaurs and bones don't count as evidence". Well, what else do you want?
Quote:



6.1 systems wouldn't show up till 1999 or 2000, when manufacturers started supporting Surround EX decoding. Consider how long 7.1 was already in existence at that point.

Yes, but it was all proprietary. There was no "7.1 chip" to toss in a receiver, and certainly not from Dolby or DTS who were, according to Chris, supporting 7.1 from the beginning ( ) The only 7.1 products were very expensive except for Yamaha maybe, which isn't 7.1 as we know it.
Quote:



The industry then had a brief flirtation with 6.1 for a few years, but saving money on the extra channel probably turned out to be negligible for manufacturers, so now even entry-priced receivers are 7.1.

Exactly. Entirely different from the "all" of the industry "always" supporting 7.1.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #185 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 02:09 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

I brush them off because they're made up and/or incorrect.

OK, since I provided some of the references, I would like to know which ones are "made up" and which are incorrect. So that you don't need to go searching, here they are again:

Perceptual recalibration in human sound localization: Learning to remediate front-back reversals from The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America -- July 2006 -- Volume 120, Issue 1, pp. 343-359.
Quote:


The efficacy of a sound localization training procedure that provided listeners with auditory, visual, and proprioceptive/vestibular feedback as to the correct sound-source position was evaluated using a virtual auditory display that used nonindividualized head-related transfer functions (HRTFs). Under these degraded stimulus conditions, in which the monaural spectral cues to sound-source direction were inappropriate, localization accuracy was initially poor with frequent front-back reversals (source localized to the incorrect front-back hemifield) for five of six listeners. Short periods of training (two 30-min sessions) were found to significantly reduce the rate of front-back reversal responses for four of five listeners that showed high initial reversal rates. Reversal rates remained unchanged for all listeners in a control group that did not participate in the training procedure. Because analyses of the HRTFs used in the display demonstrated a simple and robust front-back cue related to energy in the 3-7-kHz bandwidth, it is suggested that the reductions observed in reversal rates following the training procedure resulted from improved processing of this front-back cue, which is perhaps a form of rapid perceptual recalibration. Reversal rate reductions were found to generalize to untrained source locations, and persisted at least 4 months following the training procedure. ©2006 Acoustical Society of America

The Role of Dynamic Information in Virtual Acoustic Displays from Advanced Displays and Spatial Perception Laboratory
Quote:


Currently, we have data for base-line performance of localization of spatialized sound using static (non-head-coupled) anechoic (echoless) sounds. Such stimuli tend to produce increased localization errors (relative to real sound sources) including increased reversal rates (sound heard with a front-back or up-down error across the interaural and horizontal axes), decreased elevation accuracy, and failures of externalization (Figure 3.1a). Such errors are probably due to the static nature of the stimulus and the inherent ambiguities resulting from the geometry of the head and ears (the so-called cones of confusion; (Figure 3.1b). The rather fragile cues provided by the complex spectral shaping of the HRTFs as a function of location (Figure 3.1c) are essentially the only means for disambiguating the location of static sounds corresponding to a particular cone of confusion. With head- motion (Figure 3.1d), however, the situation may improve greatly; it has been hypothesized that the listener can disambiguate front-back locations by tracking changes in the size of the interaural cues over time and that pinna cues are always dominated by interaural cues (Wallach, 1939; 1940). The early work by Wallach using real sound sources also suggests that head motion may also be a factor in externalization.

We propose that localization errors such as reversal rates, poor elevation accuracy, and the proportion of non-externalized stimuli will be reduced (relative to baseline conditions using static, non-reverberant synthesis techniques) by enabling head and/or source movement. The methods used were based on standard absolute judgement paradigms in which the subjects' task was to provide verbal estimates of sound source azimuth, elevation and distance. Acoustic stimuli consisted of broadband stimuli (e.g., continuous noise, noise- bursts) which were filtered by a Convolvotron or similar spatial audio system. Each study included six or more adult volunteer, paid subjects with normal hearing in both ears as measured by a standard audiometric test. In general, the experimental designs were within- subjects, repeated-measures factorial designs with at least 5 repetitions per stimulus condition tested over a range of locations intended to sample the stimulus space as fully as practicable.

3-D Audio Using Loudspeakers, William Gardner, Page 106
Quote:


5.1.4 Results

Figure 5.3 shows histograms of judged azimuths at each target azimuth on the horizontal plane, across all subjects, for both headphone and loudspeaker presentation. Error-free localization would result in a straigth line of responses along the y = x diagonal. The histograms clearly show both response variation and front-back reversals. With headphones, almost all the target locations are perceived in the rear. With loudspeakers, most of the front targets are correctly perceived in front, but many of the rear targets are also perceived in front.

Front-back reversal percentages for Horizontal targets and all targets are given in Table 5.1 on page 109. The pattern of front-back reversal is very specific to the individual subject; this is shown in figure 5.4, which is a bargraph of the individual reversal percentages for horizontal targets. With headphones, only Subject D reversed a rear location to the front, and subject D had the lowest percentage of front-back reversals. With loudspeakers, Subject D reversed all rear targets to the front, and reversed none of the front targets. Subjects A and B, on the other hand, have a propensity to perceive the stimulus from the rear.

(emphasis mine)

So John, which of these is "made up" and which is wrong? After reading these, it's *very* clear to me that the human ear can be tricked to hear something behind us as orginating from in front of us. What is less clear to me is what impact this phenomenon has in multi-channel audio systems.

Craig

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #186 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 02:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

OK, since I provided some of the references, I would like to know which ones are "made up" and which are incorrect.

I was talking about Wiggles. We're not talking reversals, but he thinks, apparently, that no one ever did 6.1 speakers or some such absurdity.

I don't think that reversals or miscues as I call them, don't exist, only that it's not as big of a deal as people make it out and was really used as much as a marketing "we're 1 better" tool. I just don't have the issue, but I've never heard the three discs that cause it (except Alan Parsons and I didn't experience it at all)

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #187 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 03:06 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ View Post

Which one was that, the one I asked if that was your answer, but you wouldn't say that it was?



In that case, you should have absolutely no trouble at all naming just one, single, solitary, specific scene from any movie that very clearly demonstrates the reversal, localization problem, or whatever you want to call it, on a 6.1 system, now should you? Which, I might add, you or anyone else still haven't done yet BTW.

Then again, what would one expect from a hypocrite who whines about "personal insults" which he perceives to be directed towards himself, yet apparently feels that it is totally and perfectly acceptable to do so himself.

I did, it was the Karsh Kale concert DVD in DTS that I mentioned, in addition to the Dolby Digital EX trailer. That's TWO. Learn how to count.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #188 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 03:07 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

In every manual of every 6.1 receiver ever made?

I was not aware that Dolby made receivers. Wow. You just learn something new every day don't you?
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #189 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 03:10 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

I was talking about Wiggles. We're not talking reversals, but he thinks, apparently, that no one ever did 6.1 speakers or some such absurdity.

I don't think that reversals or miscues as I call them, don't exist, only that it's not as big of a deal as people make it out and was really used as much as a marketing "we're 1 better" tool. I just don't have the issue, but I've never heard the three discs that cause it (except Alan Parsons and I didn't experience it at all)

I never said that. I said that it had always been RECOMMENDED that a 7.1 array was preferred over a 6.1 array. I own and use a 6.1 AVR myself. I do NOT use a 6.1 array for clearly established reasons, I use a 7.1 array.

Fine, you don't hear any problems. That's great. So why come in here and bitch and moan when people point out some very BASIC principles and reasons why 7.1 is preferred. You can hold any opinion you want. You can put all 6 of your speakers in a line on top of your television for all I care. If you aren't capable or willing or open to understanding basic perceptual concerns, that's fine. I'm happy for you. But I don't care about JOHN. I care about other people on this forum getting accurate, and fair information, to the best of my ability. You can rationalize your own beliefs however you want, just don't come making up history here in the face of actual substantive fact.

I ask you again, when has Dolby ever recommended using a 6.1 speaker array? When has ITU ever recommended that? Ever?
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #190 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 05:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

I was not aware that Dolby made receivers. Wow. You just learn something new every day don't you?

If Dolby recommended 7.1 speakers from the beginning, why was most every receiver available for about two years 6.1? Seriously, answer the question.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #191 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 05:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

I never said that. I said that it had always been RECOMMENDED that a 7.1 array was preferred over a 6.1 array.

Simply not true. It was recommended by *some* companies, primarily Lexicon. Mainly to calm fears that their 7.1 system wouldn't properly play 6.1. They latched onto the reversal issue, popularized and even brainwashed you into think that "they" is the same as "everybody". Talk about susceptible to marketing.
Quote:



But I don't care about JOHN. I care about other people on this forum getting accurate, and fair information, to the best of my ability. You can rationalize your own beliefs however you want, just don't come making up history here in the face of actual substantive fact.

I feel the same way, but since you obviously weren't paying attention to what was happening *then*, you should check your facts before misinforming everyone here. I'm in the business. And you do what, sell anti-Bush t-shirts or something?
Quote:



I ask you again, when has Dolby ever recommended using a 6.1 speaker array? When has ITU ever recommended that? Ever?

I don't know about ITU, but Dolby did. I'm still looking so people don't actually think you know what you're talking about, but in the meantime in

http://www.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording...rs/5_1_Rec.pdf

Which isn't able to be copied, they talk about adding *a* center rear speaker to reduce comb filtering and improve localization. They talk regularly about *a* center rear, not *two* center rears.

Sanjay himself did a report on Circle Surround where they were demonstrating 6.1. Tom Holman only used a single rear in many of his demonstrations. How is this "always"?!?

How much stuff do I have to dig up to prove you're clueless on this one? The progression for home movie reproduction was 5.1, 6.1, 5.1/6.1 over 7.1, 5.1/6.1/7.1 over 7.1 in fairly rapid succession, about every 2 years.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #192 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 06:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cschang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 14,737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Most have been changed on the internet to reflect the new 7.1 reality. However, I feel like a history professor trying to teach 5 year olds who think that history began at conception.

Let's start with easy questions to see if your smart enough to waste my time.

Name a manufacturer that never built a 6.1 DD-EX/DTS-ES receiver. That only made 5.1 and 7.1 models.

I'll give you a freebie that doesn't count also. B&K. Why didn't they? Because the AVR202 5.1 came out just as 6.1 had been finalized, the layouts planned out, etc. They also didn't include component video or a 5.1 analog in. They were convinced that firewire would handle multi-channel, that component video was not a "for sure" standard. So, Sherwood, Yamaha, Sony, NAD, etc, etc were all building 6.1 receivers, B&K missed the 6.1 cycle and went directly to 7.1 with the AVR307 and Ref 30.

Why were they building 6.1 receivers if Dolby and DTS was telling them that it needed to have dual rear centers (later called "surround back")? Answer - because neither Dolby nor DTS was telling them that it was necessary. They were fine with a single rear speaker. But Lexicon people insisted dual rears were necessary and used that as a selling point on their models. B&K followed, as did everyone else. NAD has built more 6.1 receivers than 7.1 receivers. Did they ignore Dolby's 7.1 recommendations? No, because it didn't exist.

I can find the information but I feel like someone trying to explain to an Iranian that the Holocaust happened. How do you deal with that level of ignorance and lack of logic? What do you need to understand the obvious? Did every major receiver company tell Dolby and DTS and THX that they were on drugs and built 6.1 receivers anyway? Or were they just following the convention of the time? C'mon Curtis, you're not that stupid. Wiggles? I don't know. Maybe he is.

C'mon John...you asked for references and were provided many. Now when we ask you for references to support your argument, the least you could do is oblige.

-curtis

Owner of Wave Crest Audio
Volunteer Mod at the Ascend Acoustics Forum
Like all things on the Internet, do your research, as forums have a good amount of misinformation.
Help beat breast cancer!

cschang is offline  
post #193 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 06:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 824 Post(s)
Liked: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

I said that it had always been RECOMMENDED that a 7.1 array was preferred over a 6.1 array.

Same word I've been using: recommended. It's not something Dolby enforced via licensing. Same with PLII. Dolby preferred (and recommended) that manufacturers include all the adjustable paramaters, but never enforced it via license. And indeed some manufacturers included the PLII Music mode with no adjustability. Even with PLIIx, Dolby would prefer manufacturers include their new Game mode, but many don't.

5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 receivers co-existed in the same product line. It's not like 6.1 preceded 7.1, it was simply the budget version of 7.1 (which was usually reserved for flagship models). Some manufacturers, like Pioneer, made mid-level 6.1 receivers with 2 speaker connectors on the surround-back amp. Other manufacturers, like Harman/Kardon, only allowed for 5.1 and 7.1 configurations (there was a thread at AVS a few years ago complaining about the lack of 6.1 configurability with some H/K receivers).

Like I said earlier, 6.1 receivers were a temporary cheat but are now pretty much gone. Modern receivers let you configure as many or as few speakers as you want. Even lower end units tend to be 7.1. For the bottom of the rung model, manufacturers still do 5.1, but not 6.1.

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #194 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 07:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 receivers co-existed in the same product line. It's not like 6.1 preceded 7.1, it was simply the budget version of 7.1 (which was usually reserved for flagship models). Some manufacturers, like Pioneer, made mid-level 6.1 receivers with 2 speaker connectors on the surround-back amp. Other manufacturers, like Harman/Kardon, only allowed for 5.1 and 7.1 configurations (there was a thread at AVS a few years ago complaining about the lack of 6.1 configurability with some H/K receivers).

Not *quite* true, close, but not quite. There were quite a few flagship 6.1 receivers. If need be, I'll go through them, but the NAD T762 was one of them. 6.1 *did* precede 7.1 as a movie reproduction format from the bottom up, while companies like Lexicon and Meridian already had 7.1 and adapted 6.1 as a subset of 7.1. The *slower* manufacturers jumped from 5.1 to 7.1, but may companies went directly to 6.1, then added 7.1 as the tide went that way.
Quote:



For the bottom of the rung model, manufacturers still do 5.1, but not 6.1.

But 6.1 models still exist. Not as top or bottom line models that I can think of, but they exist.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #195 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 07:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

C'mon John...you asked for references and were provided many. Now when we ask you for references to support your argument, the least you could do is oblige.

What *do* you need to hear to accept the obvious? Are you this much of jerk to your doctor or anyone that does anything as a profession? I was there, you were playing with toys. As was Wiggles, apparently.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #196 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 07:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cschang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 14,737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

What *do* you need to hear to accept the obvious? Are you this much of jerk to your doctor or anyone that does anything as a profession? I was there, you were playing with toys. As was Wiggles, apparently.

You're kidding...right? You really do not want to give the same type of information that you asked for?

-curtis

Owner of Wave Crest Audio
Volunteer Mod at the Ascend Acoustics Forum
Like all things on the Internet, do your research, as forums have a good amount of misinformation.
Help beat breast cancer!

cschang is offline  
post #197 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 07:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
No, seriously, what *exactly* do you need to know? I don't know how to operate in the land of illogic, revisionist history and fantasy.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #198 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 07:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cschang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 14,737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

No, seriously, what *exactly* do you need to know? I don't know how to operate in the land of illogic, revisionist history and fantasy.

Of course you do...you are doing it now. Cite the same type information that you asked for and received in support that there is a"reversal" issue, but only to support what you believe to be "correct".

-curtis

Owner of Wave Crest Audio
Volunteer Mod at the Ascend Acoustics Forum
Like all things on the Internet, do your research, as forums have a good amount of misinformation.
Help beat breast cancer!

cschang is offline  
post #199 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 08:17 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Simply not true. It was recommended by *some* companies, primarily Lexicon. Mainly to calm fears that their 7.1 system wouldn't properly play 6.1. They latched onto the reversal issue, popularized and even brainwashed you into think that "they" is the same as "everybody". Talk about susceptible to marketing.

So Dolby, Sanjay, myself, Tomlinson Holman, etc etc etc were all successfully brainwashed by a Lexicon marketing campaign? Really? Not to mention what that insinuates about Lexicon.

Quote:


I feel the same way, but since you obviously weren't paying attention to what was happening *then*, you should check your facts before misinforming everyone here. I'm in the business. And you do what, sell anti-Bush t-shirts or something?

I did check my facts. And they have been backed up more than sufficiently, as Sanjay explained quite well in fact. And no, the website in question is run by Dan Savage, he's a columnist and editor of The Stranger newspaper. We can leave that out of this discussion, as it has nothing to do with anything, it's a humorous website, as is most of Savage's work. But I appreciate the effort you took the opportunity late in an argument to search out information about me and bring that into the discussion. That's quite mature and of course illustrates that your position has merit and can stand on its own without resorting to character attacks.

Quote:


I don't know about ITU, but Dolby did. I'm still looking so people don't actually think you know what you're talking about, but in the meantime in

http://www.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording...rs/5_1_Rec.pdf

Which isn't able to be copied, they talk about adding *a* center rear speaker to reduce comb filtering and improve localization. They talk regularly about *a* center rear, not *two* center rears.

That same document also focuses almost exclusively on 5.1, stating: Because all of these variations are relatively new and currently not well supported, this paper will focus on standard 5.1 techniques and practices."

Quote:


Sanjay himself did a report on Circle Surround where they were demonstrating 6.1. Tom Holman only used a single rear in many of his demonstrations. How is this "always"?!?

How much stuff do I have to dig up to prove you're clueless on this one? The progression for home movie reproduction was 5.1, 6.1, 5.1/6.1 over 7.1, 5.1/6.1/7.1 over 7.1 in fairly rapid succession, about every 2 years.

You could start by digging up a single piece of evidence to prove your contentions, let alone "more."

Once again, when has Dolby recommended using a 6.1 speaker array?
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #200 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 08:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

You're kidding...right? You really do not want to give the same type of information that you asked for?

I seriously don't know what you want.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #201 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 08:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cschang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 14,737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

I seriously don't know what you want.

Do you remember what you asked for?

-curtis

Owner of Wave Crest Audio
Volunteer Mod at the Ascend Acoustics Forum
Like all things on the Internet, do your research, as forums have a good amount of misinformation.
Help beat breast cancer!

cschang is offline  
post #202 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 08:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

So Dolby, Sanjay, myself, Tomlinson Holman, etc etc etc were all successfully brainwashed by a Lexicon marketing campaign? Really? Not to mention what that insinuates about Lexicon.

WHAT?!? No, you are apparently brainwashed or something. Sanjay reported in the past on the existence of 6.1 systems being demoed as high-end demonstration systems (foolish mortals, ignoring everyone!), Tomlinson Holman, crazy man that he is, recognizes that reversals aren't that important and incorporated a single rear speaker into his demos rather than multiple ones. Lexicon drove 7.1. They wrote the position papers, they had the most sway in the industry. They lured people to their side, they pushed it through in the end. But they had a powerful voice.
Quote:



I did check my facts. And they have been backed up more than sufficiently, as Sanjay explained quite well in fact. And no, the website in question is run by Dan Savage, he's a columnist and editor of The Stranger newspaper. We can leave that out of this discussion, as it has nothing to do with anything, it's a humorous website, as is most of Savage's work. But I appreciate the effort you took the opportunity late in an argument to search out information about me and bring that into the discussion. That's quite mature and of course illustrates that your position has merit and can stand on its own without resorting to character attacks.

It explains a lot about how you think, so it works for me. No amount of logic will likely work on you and you're the one that advertises the link, I was just trying to see what system you might have to explain your misunderstanding of the process from 5.1 to 7.1.
Quote:



That same document also focuses almost exclusively on 5.1, stating: Because all of these variations are relatively new and currently not well supported, this paper will focus on standard 5.1 techniques and practices."

So? Just because you think 7.1 is "well supported", doesn't mean 6.1 wasn't the recommended layout. To say that no one ever suggested 6.1 layouts ever is just crazy talk. I've seen the diagrams in print and online. If I'd known people with a huge reality disconnect still existed, I'd have bookmarked or saved them for your benefit.
Quote:



You could start by digging up a single piece of evidence to prove your contentions, let alone "more."

Sounds like a repeat of the OJ trial to me.
Quote:



Once again, when has Dolby recommended using a 6.1 speaker array?

Oh, about 1999/2000, give or take. Prove they didn't if you think they didn't. I remember that they did, before 7.1 became the fad. I ask again, are you *really* this stupid Chris? Really?

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #203 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 08:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

Do you remember what you asked for?

I give up.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #204 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 08:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #205 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 08:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #206 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 08:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #207 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 08:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #208 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 08:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #209 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 08:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cschang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 14,737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

I give up.

Typical....you know you are in a corner, so you play dumb.

But I see you have changed your tune and don't deny that reversal exists.

-curtis

Owner of Wave Crest Audio
Volunteer Mod at the Ascend Acoustics Forum
Like all things on the Internet, do your research, as forums have a good amount of misinformation.
Help beat breast cancer!

cschang is offline  
post #210 of 385 Old 06-24-2007, 08:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

John
Alimentall is offline  
Reply Speakers

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