Does anyone have a 7.1 system that they actually prefer over 5.1? - Page 6

Roger,

You are correct, Hilbert transformation does not require you to touch the fron channels. However, if you were to effectively decouple the center channel envelope from the left and right channels, you would want to "touch" the left and right channels.

Hey, I've always wondered if you'd be interested in exploring an "image companding" system. It would be lossless (gozinta=gozouta) and would ease that modulation index on modern FM broadcast. I realize that "everything's going digital" but radio is going to be hybrid for a while (analog blending during multipath). This is even simpler than the FMX scheme proposed by Emil years ago. Another advantage is that it would ease downmix constraints enormously.

Waddaya think?

rob r. (gone, baby, gone )

No even close! I never suggested i.e that PLIIx is utterly useless but rather I merely pointed a few valid scientific facts that illustrate the difficultly in reverse engineering (complex 2D or 3D) ambient soundfields which btw manifest extremely subtle panning signatures ..and as I mentioned above “virtually” (VSP) zero interaction with the remaining discrete surround channels.

People in this thread continue to misrepresent over and over again my fundamental logic / theory regarding why it's possible one would prefer NOT to matrix new discrete surround channels from the original information payload.

Some people prefer tube amps and vinyl records, still that doesn't make these mediums superior when compared to near perfect transparency / reproduction with extremely low distortion and near ideal dynamic range.

I think everyone understands why someone would prefer 5.1 vs 7.1....You have posted it over and over and over.

Just remember There are more people that enjoy 7.1 without worrying about the "artifacts" you think you hear.


It seems the arguement is long and dead but you keep arguing for some reason?

You mean something like Bob Carver’s Asymmetrical charge coupled stereo detector, where the L-R channel is felt, but not heard? Sounds like a new thread is needed…We’ve been a bit off topic here already with our meanderings, and the OP and participants have been very gracious about it. But this sounds like a step further, unless I totally misunderstand (a distinct possibility!).

You actually went further:
Only contribute artifacts? Describing it is all problems with zero benefits is even worse than suggesting that it is somehow benignly useless. But that's consistent with previous comments you've posted about processing in general: "should be avoided whenever possible".
Bull. No one in this thread is misrepresenting your position. It is your own words that paint a clear picture of your absolutist stance against processing, which you are now attempting to backpedal from.

What's worse, when asked for an alternative, you go completely silent on the matter. Without processing, what speaker layout do you use to properly play back discrete 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 content? Without processing, what resolution display do you use to properly play back 480, 720 and 1080 content? Since you are such an advocate of mapping each discrete channel to one-and-only-one speaker, could you at least answer the first question?
Got any examples of recordings that demonstrate what you're describing above?

Sanjay

As it says in someone signature line:

"The truth shall set you free...but first it will p*ss you off."

It's apparent the concept of a thread or beating a dead horse is beyond your comprehension Sanjay.. so IF YOU DON'T MIND I'll go ahead a choose the reproduction hypothetical with zero processing 'artifacts' which btw do rise above our HAS perception threshold, regardless of what penngray thinks of empirical evidence on the matter.

Finally, since nearly 100% of my library represent 5.1 mixing paradigms (including LPCM stereo tracks) I see no need to compromise it to satisfy you or AVS?

So... that's how many "for" 7.1 and how many "against"?

Roger,

No. This is a proposition for a completely linear system. My apologies to the OP. Please, let's start a different thread on this subject.

rob r. (who is talking less but still too much )

You can't give any alternative to processing. You won't specify these 'artifacts' you're talking about. You are unable to give a single example of the type of multi-channel recordings you describe. You won't answer any of the questions asked of you. Chris and penngray were correct: your participation in this thread is solely that of a spoiler, with no useful information to contribute.

Sanjay

I use PLIIx for everything. Music mode for music, Movie mode for all else. In the spirit of full disclosure, my vote may not really count, as not only did I used to work for Dolby, I am the one who advocated for adopting Fosgate's technology. I liked it then, and I like it now.

Sanjay here is a magic black box that does EXACTLY what I’ve described. In fact I installed a D950 consoles at the PBS affiliate (WTVI) in Charlotte, NC.

http://www.vista7.com/e/pdf/vsp.pdf

"Virtual Surround Panning simulates a defined acoustic space and positions the sound source within this space using the channel pan control. Surround impression is guaranteed by generating early reflections with the appropriate directionality and time delays on all speakers"

"These reflections, which are absent with normal panning, are the key to localizing the mono source within the surround field. VSP also gives better directional imaging by adding phase and frequency spectrum information to the existing amplitude difference between channels, if the operator wishes to do so. In addition, VSP may provide late reverberation to the panned signal"

No one asked you about a magic black box. I simply asked you for an example of a recording that demonstrates what you've been talking about. You must know of even one specific title that validates your claims? Or how about an example of the artifacts that you keep complaining about?

It's easy to name specific recordings that demonstrate the advantages of 5.1->7.1 processing over straight 5.1 playback. Certainly you must have an example of the opposite; something that helped you arrive at your anti-processing stance? Thank you in advance.

Sanjay

Probably a good thing I used that adjective since the extremely complex encoding process is beyond your comprehension. This (VSP) panning algorithm requires seriously 'fast' processing power and attempting reverse engineer this complex 5.1 signature.. then reproduce said 7.1 "defined acoustic space" is NOT possible and would be inferior to the original. So PLIIx, not even Neural can achieve what I've illustrated above. Down stream processing would only corrupt this contrived 5.1 "space".

FYI the console can be configured to produce a discrete 7.1 virtual acoustic space as well. Studer seems to be tying the number of discrete surround channels to the number of spk used for reproduction.

Happy Holidays!

Neither PLIIx nor Neural are attempting to do what your cut-n-paste describes. They're simply mapping 2 surround channels to 4 surround speakers (at least in the context of the discussion in this thread). No "generating early reflections" and no attempt to "provide late reverberation". You're conflating mixing and playback technologies that are orthogonal to each other.
Nope. In fact, despite your above claim, you can't describe what that corruption would be nor do you have any examples that demonstrate it. If you're going to argue against the merits of playing back 5.1 material on a 7.1-speaker set-up, you have to back up your position with something. Anything.

Sanjay

Its very interesting that you think anyone is asking you to compromise anything

We are just saying you are making a mountain out of a mole hill on this issue and your only arguement is that using 7.1 creates "Artifacts"....how many times do you want to post that anyways?

"Artifacts" to me would be if we heard "problem" sounds and I would bet that no one is going to spot the "problem" during a playback of any movie. That doesn't mean you have to use 7.1, no one is forcing you too....go ahead and use it.

Just stop posting on here that we are all foolish for doing so, just go enjoy your 5.1 system and I will enjoy my 7.1 system. Its not that big of a deal to you is it?

Already done so clearly several times now. I just illustrated one example (mix paradigm) that would suffer the process. There are more..

Good bye!

But can you hear it???

No, all you did is say it would suffer. You couldn't even describe specific artifacts nor name a single recording that demonstrates these artifacts when Neural and PLIIx are applied. So zero real world examples.

Sanjay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion

"A distortion is the alteration of the original shape (or other characteristic) of an object, image, sound, waveform or other form of information or representation."

..and Sanjay if you request another reply from me, please just try to interpret the profound symbolism in following link

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...n)&redirect=no

CUrrent setup is 5.1. If I had two more loudspeakers, I'd use 'em.

yes, we've been over this pedantic point already -- by a strict definition, ANY alteration or 'processing' of the input signal, is a distortion.

If you would have read my preceding post, I gave a specific scenario that would result in the corruption of a specific virtual 5.1 soundfield.

Use whatever adjective you wish to describe said artifacts krabapple.

LOL!!! I ask you for an example of the artifacts you've been claiming Neural and PLIIx cause, but instead you link to a Wikipedia definition of the word distortion.

So after all the handwaving, Googling expeditions, attempts at distraction, etc, you can't actually support any of your reasons against playing back 5.1 content on 7.1 set-ups.
Interpret, not interrupt.

Sanjay

"The truth shall set you free...but first it will p*ss you off."

Or make you LOL

LOL!
Darned right! If I had a 7.1 capable receiver/pre-pro, I'd already have two more speakers.

I'd just ignore those pesky artifacts (whatever they may sound like).

Dolby PLII steering artifacts are well documented.

Any link/reference as it pertains to 7.1 (DPLIIx), how they are presented and what we should expect to audibly hear (or perceive)?

tbrunet,

Something to consider in the creation of any content is workflow.

If the monetization of the content is to be as effective as possible, modern content providers (and broadcasters) consider all of the possible stems necessary to move their content around.

A good example of this is: in the creation of a 5.1 mix necessary for the HD channel transmission, the content source will create a 2.0 LtRt or LwRw stem for the SD feed. If they don't do that, then they will rely on a (mechanical) downmix adhering to ITU BS.775. In addition, it must be possible to interoperate both 2.0 and 5.1 within the transmission plant.

In the absence of a 7.1 emission standard, most content providers assume that 7.1 will result from either blind upmixing or rendering on the consumer side. There is no plant (that I'm aware) that is tooled for 7.1 (no switchers).

Last, but not least, if content is to find its way onto the internet, the pipe it travels through will be stereo. That being the case, any effect on the audio (even though it may be very cool) that compromises the downmix will be met with lots of phone calls (not the good type).

These are (some of) the realities of the business of transporting audio. There is a place for archive quality (which we all love) but seldom is the consumer given convenient and affordable access to such.

It's a frustrating reality, but many of us are working and investing to improve it.

rob r. (who is really just complaining )

That wasn't what made me LOL.
Then why are you unable to specify even one artifact when upmixing 5.1 to 7.1?
Of course you are, confirmed by the random comments and plagiarized text all throughout your posting history.

Sanjay

Rob I do understand your comment above about nominal broadcast workflows including Neural’ elegant solution for OTA audio broadcasting, but now I’m employed with: http://www.scad.edu/

where our students have the option of choosing various disciplines i.e. 35mm film & video, gaming, animation, motion capture, sound design ect.

IMO for “true” multi-channel productions I personally don’t subscribe in dumbing down a mix so to satisfy any specific down mixing scenario ..but rather believe in optimizing this true theatrical 5.1 or 7.1 mix for that given format. If a stereo track is needed then include an ancillary track.

I mentioned PBS/WTVI because I actually traveled to Canada (Studer) for a comprehensive D950 demo and later worked very closely with TGS our systems integrator since this was not a turnkey project. Also please note our Dolby E infrastructure which btw is probably one only a few on this scale in the country. BTW I'm NOT just googling stuff Sanjay!

http://broadcastengineering.com/infr...mation_wtvitv/
WTVI
http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/z...udioUpdate.pdf
Dolby E

Finally, Rob it's certainly refreshing to note the absence of the word ‘troll’ or ‘fool’ in your reply to me! Thanks