7.1,9.1,11.1 - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 01:24 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
mystic_sniper28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
looking at that load out the demo seeks over 22 channels..

if I read it right 9.0 height channel, 10.0 central channels, 3 mains and 2-6 subs

so it will either be a 22.4 or 22.6 with a min of 1 primary and 3-4 secondary processors to cater 22.x

3d 13.1 6.1 with 7 height or 7.1 with 6. height

standard 14 channel 7 main, 2 heights, 2 wides and 3 subs

standard 12 channel 7 mains, 2 heights or wides and 3 subs

standard 11 channel 7 mains, 2 heights or wides and 2 subs...


the cost and space required for this setup you would need the cineplex size cinema room..
mystic_sniper28 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 01:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephenbr View Post

Barco uses a Datasat AP20 with an additional module to deliver Auro-3D (the 'AP24') in their cinema set up. It will be interesting to see whether Barco makes it available to the consumer market.

However, without Auro-3D configuration 9.1|10.1 "Octopus encoded" BDs, any "consumer AP20|AP24 processor" would be limited to delivering ["Auromatically"] upmixed multichannel playback . . . which would merely place this technology in competition with (say) Yamaha CinemaDSP, and Harman|Lexicon Quantum Logic Surround. But before there can be any Auro-3D encoded BDs, there must first be movies with soundtracks mixed in (or remixed into) Auro-3D 11.1...?!

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is online now  
post #33 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 02:38 AM
Senior Member
 
dowop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
^ ^ ^
Wow!!!
dowop is offline  
post #34 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 08:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
Manchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

By that logic, watching a standard def DVD on a HD display means "invented" picture content. The number of source pixels have no bearing on the number of display pixels.

Likewise, the number of discrete audio channels in the source material has little to do with the number of speaker used for playback. Consumer 7-channel pre-pros have been around since 1986; discrete 7.1 content showed up in 2006 (20 years later).

In my experience you're wrong. A standard def DVD is a reduction in the source information (typically a 2K DI these days); they are removing information and doing an independent color grading pass to create that deliverable (as well as a Blu-ray) that is signed-off by the requisite creatives/studio/production entity.

By your logic a DVD scaled up to 1080p will look pixel-for-pixel and color-for-color identical to a 1080p Blu-ray, which is not the case. When scaling a DVD up, irrespective of whether it may look better or not, you are displaying "erroneous" information. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do or it won't give a better experience, but it isn't necessarily accurate.

It's a bit different for 7.1, 9.1 and 11.1 because the system is adding/incorporating mixing preferences and the like that didn't exist before and as such is less faithfully recreating the creative intent. Now, given mixers currently don't mix content much beyond 5.1 (yes there is some 7.1 nowadays) the question is whether the up-mixed 7.1/9.1/11.1 is creatively what they would have chosen to do...but given we have no way of knowing (otherwise they would have mixed that way) you do what you think creates the best experience. For me the best experience is trying to recreate the mixing stage as faithfully as possible; for others it's creating a greater sense of immersion...to each their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

But before there can be any Auro-3D encoded BDs, there must first be movies with soundtracks mixed in (or remixed into) Auro-3D 11.1...?!

Bingo; hence why in the multi-channel audio market the professional space is actually lagging the consumer space. There are other "3D sound" initiatives that exist or are in the works utilizing a myriad of methodologies, but until we start mixing with those number of channels natively it may be a better experience, but not necessarily an accurate one.
Manchild is offline  
post #35 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 09:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gertjan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: All over
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manchild View Post

It's a bit different for 7.1, 9.1 and 11.1 because the system is adding/incorporating mixing preferences and the like that didn't exist before and as such is less faithfully recreating the creative intent.

That's open to interpretation IMO. If a mixer intends to have a sound come from directly behind you, a setup with 1 or 2 rear surrounds will do a better job of conveying that than a 5.x system. AFAIK when they are mixing, they are not literally assigning sounds to speakers; instead they are placing the sound in the field around them, and the computers and algorithms figure out how much sounds to play through which channels to produce the desired effect, including using techniques such as matrixing etc. Having more channels to more accurately reproduce the placement in space of the desired effect is not necessarily a disagreement with the creative intent, and could in some cases actually be a better reproduction of the creative intent.

Quote:
For me the best experience is trying to recreate the mixing stage as faithfully as possible; for others it's creating a greater sense of immersion...to each their own.

Yep

"He who asks feels dumb for a few minutes, but he who does not ask remains dumb forever."

Gertjan is offline  
post #36 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 09:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
Manchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertjan View Post

That's open to interpretation IMO. If a mixer intends to have a sound come from directly behind you, a setup with 1 or 2 rear surrounds will do a better job of conveying that than a 5.x system. AFAIK when they are mixing, they are not literally assigning sounds to speakers; instead they are placing the sound in the field around them, and the computers and algorithms figure out how much sounds to play through which channels to produce the desired effect, including using techniques such as matrixing etc. Having more channels to more accurately reproduce the placement in space of the desired effect is not necessarily a disagreement with the creative intent, and could in some cases actually be a better reproduction of the creative intent.

You are correct insofar as that if the mixers themselves had a better setup (e.g. 11.2) they would have a greater palette to create their experience if you will. However, we know they don't today (by and large) and as such we as consumers (and more directly the equipment manufacturers) utilizing this equipment are basically saying "well we know how you'd want it to sound if you had these cool stuff". Maybe that's accurate, maybe it isn't...who knows; but what I do know is that if I play it in the original source format (properly EQed and the like of course) it should be almost exactly what the mixer heard and said "that's what I want my movie/show to sound like".

It's an interesting time in this space, because while professional video is still of greater overall resolution (literal spatial resolution, bit depth, colorspace etc.) and our consumer systems are effectively a subset of that it is the opposite on the audio side of the world where we have greater latitude in our equipment at home than the professionals are utilizing.
Manchild is offline  
post #37 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 10:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 102
The question of "intent" gets a little simpler when it relates to a recording of a live performance--even one as artificially 3D contrived as this one:
Quote:


"Auro 3D audio recording Flagey



We can proudly announce the Auro 3D sound recording in Studio 4 of Flagey (Brussels) of 2 contemporary classical compositions : Concerto for clarinet and orchestra by John Corigliano and Clarinet Concerto for Bb clarinet and Orchestra by Elliott Carter. It is sonically also very interesting because some players need to be positioned on balcony's, high all around the listeners, so and ideal chance to capture this in Auro 3D. The clarinet soloist is Eddy Van Oosthuyse, the orchestra performing is the Brussels Philharmonic, Chief scoring engineer Patrick Lemmens."


Although I expect an Auro-3D recording of this performance will likely only be heard as a theatrical demo, it's always possible it might show up someday on a 5.1_Standard|Auro-3D_10.1 compatible BD . . . if we ever get consumer Auro-3D decoders!

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is online now  
post #38 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 10:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,636
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1229 Post(s)
Liked: 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manchild View Post

A standard def DVD is a reduction in the source information

Not if the source was originally standard def, which there was plenty of prior to hi-def mastering. When you watch a DVD like Pink Floyd's 'Pulse', which was shot on standard def video, are you watching "invented" picture content when viewing on a HD display? There's going to be more of that happening, what with consumer 4K projectors around the corner and no 4K source material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manchild View Post

By your logic a DVD scaled up to 1080p will look pixel-for-pixel and color-for-color identical to a 1080p Blu-ray, which is not the case.

Where did I say that was the case, let alone state that scaling (video or audio) yielded perfect results? My only point was that each source pixel need not be mapped to one and only one display pixel, just as each discrete audio channel need not be mapped to one and only one playback speaker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manchild View Post

It's a bit different for 7.1, 9.1 and 11.1 because the system is adding/incorporating mixing preferences and the like that didn't exist before and as such is less faithfully recreating the creative intent.

As Gertjan says, that's open to interpretation, since some people consider it the equivalent of video scaling. For example: when listening to a 2-channel source, are you changing mixing preferences by having centre imaged content come from a centre speaker instead of phantom imaging at the centre of the soundstage? Same directionality, just greater imaging stability. Likewise for sounds that phantom image behind or above you. Are you adding anything that didn't exist before by replacing those phantom images with hard sources?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #39 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 11:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
Manchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Not if the source was originally standard def, which there was plenty of prior to hi-def mastering. When you watch a DVD like Pink Floyd's 'Pulse', which was shot on standard def video, are you watching "invented" picture content when viewing on a HD display? There's going to be more of that happening, what with consumer 4K projectors around the corner and no 4K source material.

Though most older theatrical/episodic content was shot on 35mm that has more than enough native resolution for HD you're absolutely right...technically more picture inventing coming around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

As Gertjan says, that's open to interpretation, since some people consider it the equivalent of video scaling. For example: when listening to a 2-channel source, are you changing mixing preferences by having centre imaged content come from a centre speaker instead of phantom imaging at the centre of the soundstage? Same directionality, just greater imaging stability. Likewise for sounds that phantom image behind or above you. Are you adding anything that didn't exist before by replacing those phantom images with hard sources?

Agreed
Manchild is offline  
post #40 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 11:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gertjan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: All over
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manchild View Post

You are correct insofar as that if the mixers themselves had a better setup (e.g. 11.2) they would have a greater palette to create their experience if you will. However, we know they don't today (by and large) and as such we as consumers (and more directly the equipment manufacturers) utilizing this equipment are basically saying "well we know how you'd want it to sound if you had these cool stuff". Maybe that's accurate, maybe it isn't...who knows; but what I do know is that if I play it in the original source format (properly EQed and the like of course) it should be almost exactly what the mixer heard and said "that's what I want my movie/show to sound like".

I guess my point was that there's a (theoretical) difference between reproducing their intent and reproducing what they heard in their mixing room Which of those each of us prefer to reproduce in our own setup is, as you mentioned, our own choice of course.

On a bit of a tangent - I seem to remember a discussion around here from a few years ago(?) about how movie theaters typically can't produce low bass (below 35Hz or something like that), purely because of physical limitations (needing to fill a movie theater with authoritative bass below 35Hz would simply take too much power for the average theater.) I seem to also remember (i could be wrong of course) some people in the know to comment that a good number of mixing stages cannot really go down to the low numbers that are routinely thrown around here when discussing subwoofer performance in our own setups. So some of the people here have a more capable subwoofer setup than some mixing stages and theaters. Does that mean that those setups are not accurate or desirable?

From a purist point of view, if you take it to the extreme, you'd really want to have speakers and subwoofers with the same characteristics as those of the mixing stage used for the particular movie you're watching. That becomes largely impractical of course!

As to the accuracy of 6.1/7.1 vs 5.1, i look at it this way:

In my setup i have 3 identical speakers across the front. When i sit in the sweet spot, i cannot tell a difference between when i turn my center channel on or off (in my AVR of course, so that it can properly reroute the center channel info to the FL & FR speakers.) It has happened more than once when i was tweaking my setup that i encountered the situation where i thought my center channel was on and it turned out it wasn't! When sitting in the sweet spot, sounds that are supposed to be centered seem to come from the center of the image whether my CC is enabled or not. But as soon as i move to a seat that's to the side of the sweet spot, things change: Without the center channel, sounds that are supposed to be anchored to the center now shift left or right relative to the image, depending on where i sit. With the center channel enabled the sounds stay anchored to the center of the screen. I think we would all agree that the center channel helps to create a more accurate reproduction of the intent of the mix in that case.

I see the extra surround rear channels in the same way. If you have just 1 listening position that's in the perfect spot, you should not need the rear channels to image sounds in the rear center; the SL & SR speakers should be able to do that just like the FL & FR speakers are able to do it without the front center speaker. However, once you move to a seat to the side of the sweet spot, you have the same problem described earlier for the front stage without a center channel speaker. With the extra rear speaker(s), the sounds that are supposed to be somewhere in the rear are placed closer to the correct spot regardless of seating position. So depending on your situation, more speakers may enable you to more accurately reproduce the intent and what the mixer heard.

As we all know, this hobby is an exercise of making acceptable compromises

"He who asks feels dumb for a few minutes, but he who does not ask remains dumb forever."

Gertjan is offline  
post #41 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 11:57 AM
Senior Member
 
AVTrauma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Glad so many knowledgeable people I have read in other threads are here...

So the question remains, someone is planning their theater...
How far to go? IMHO it would be prudent to anticipate and wire for the ful 11.2. The cost in time/labor/wire would be minimal and pay for itself down the road when and if expanding from the 5.1/7.1/9.1 system currently employed.

It is pretty cool what I've read on the "new psycho-acoustic depth rendering techiques" together with the "Multi-Directional Audio(MDA) format SRS Labs is working on, giving impressive results is surround sound from a single woofer and 2 front spealers only.

As for "future proofing" the 11.1 system, the options easily boogle the mind on the prudent way to accomplish that!
AVTrauma is offline  
post #42 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 12:08 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
mystic_sniper28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
the biggest issue with up-conversion of dvd 1.5 frames per image introduced when you speed 24fps to 30fps back to 24fps..

dvd will never look good on hdmi to this fact.
mystic_sniper28 is offline  
post #43 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 02:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES View Post

Are you sure? The link above to the audssey page has 30 for L, R, 45 for LH RH and 60 for wides

No, but wanted to point out that the fronts are not at +/-45

Noah
noah katz is online now  
post #44 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 06:45 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
SKINSnCANES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVTrauma View Post

Glad so many knowledgeable people I have read in other threads are here...

So the question remains, someone is planning their theater...
How far to go? IMHO it would be prudent to anticipate and wire for the ful 11.2. The cost in time/labor/wire would be minimal and pay for itself down the road when and if expanding from the 5.1/7.1/9.1 system currently employed.

It is pretty cool what I've read on the "new psycho-acoustic depth rendering techiques" together with the "Multi-Directional Audio(MDA) format SRS Labs is working on, giving impressive results is surround sound from a single woofer and 2 front spealers only.

As for "future proofing" the 11.1 system, the options easily boogle the mind on the prudent way to accomplish that!

So I spent a great deal of time today looking at my theater design, moving columns, etc. Im close to convinced Im going to do the 11.1 setup. I don't think it will cost much because the extra speakers don't need to be bigger then bookshelf size (still same speaker brand, tweeter, etc, just only one woofer and tweeter)

Heres my next question, is there a receiver for 11.1?!?! Or do I have to use two receivers? How does that work? I was looking at the Denons but they are only 9.2 not 11.2.

Also, anyone have 11.2 setup with multiple rows? Clearly I can only make this work for my first row. Overflow seating will just have to deal (and most likely be ignorant to all these little details I'm doing anyway...)
SKINSnCANES is offline  
post #45 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 07:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
mcsoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Rowlett, Tx.
Posts: 745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
At this time the most reasonable option for 11.1 is the Denon AVR-4311 plus an external amp. The 4311 receiver has 9 channels of amplification built in, and 11.2 channels of pre-outs. You can get away with simply adding a 2-channel amp to power your mains which is what I would do.
mcsoul is offline  
post #46 of 47 Old 01-04-2012, 07:50 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,325
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES View Post

So I spent a great deal of time today looking at my theater design, moving columns, etc. Im close to convinced Im going to do the 11.1 setup. I don't think it will cost much because the extra speakers don't need to be bigger then bookshelf size (still same speaker brand, tweeter, etc, just only one woofer and tweeter)

Heres my next question, is there a receiver for 11.1?!?! Or do I have to use two receivers? How does that work? I was looking at the Denons but they are only 9.2 not 11.2.

Also, anyone have 11.2 setup with multiple rows? Clearly I can only make this work for my first row. Overflow seating will just have to deal (and most likely be ignorant to all these little details I'm doing anyway...)

I've been using Wides in a 9.3, (3 subwoofers) arrangement for a few months now. I've been using PLIIx DSX and it is the most immersive, cohesive and seamless surround sounstage I've ever experienced in my theater. Sounds that pan no longer "jump" from speaker to speaker; they "flow" through the room.

My Wides are mounted at about 50 degrees because I couldn't get them at 60 degrees. They still seem to work as advertised. You can see pic's of the setup in the link in my signature. I definitely recommend planning to incorporate more than just 5 speakers in your surround system.

Good luck with your build. Enjoy the process.

Craig

PS. While you're planning, plan your subwoofer system also. A multi-sub system will be beneficial. It's easy and cheap to run subwoofer cables to multiple locations now... not so easy later.

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

My System

craig john is offline  
post #47 of 47 Old 01-05-2012, 12:10 AM
Senior Member
 
AVTrauma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I couldn't agree more with the subwoofer comment above... more is definetly better!
Adding an external amp is the only way anyone can do full 11.1/2. If you get a 2 or 3 channel amp, you can use that to run the mains (& center) for the "heavy lifting" and allow the AVR to handle the rest. A 5 channel amp will allow you to use that for the 5 "typical" set-up, while the AVR handles everything else (plus an extra 3 channels remaining for another zone.) The Denon 4311's next successor aledgedly due this year
(4313) should also have DTS:neo x as well as Audessey DSX and Dolby PLllz. The latest Audessy room correction (multiEQ 32) will do a pretty good job of addressing your concerns for the second row seating, just make sure you get the "sweet spot" in your sitting arrangements!
AVTrauma is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

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