Moving past 7.1(5.1) into 9.1(11.2) upgrade your HT room via AudysseyDSX / DolbyPL IIz / DTS Neo:X™ - Page 4

No, Neo:X is a matrix format that will take out of phase sounds and use other comparisons to synthesize the additional channels to go from 5.1 or 7.1 to 11.1 in a similar manner to the way Dolby Pro Logic takes 2.0 to 5.1.

Hi guys, here is a picture of my so far 9.1 denon 4311ci setup, need to figure out the heights still. I am liking the Wides though!

That's a good looking room man! I need to go read your thread on it!

No. IF a soundtrack is Neo:X encoded (there are only 2 so far), then you can use Neo:X as a decoder. However, Neo:X was designed primarily to be applied to non-encoded sources, in which case you would be using it as surround processing.

So are there comparisons between DSX and NEO somewhere? I saw some people didn't care for what DSX does to the levels of the surrounds. Is NEO a better option?

Better for what? They serve rather different purposes, so depending on which goal you want to achieve, either could be best.

In a nutshell:

DSX creates an effect not heard in the original production. Not unlike Yamaha DSP in general philosophy. It creates room reflections, and diffuses and deemphasizes the surrounds. It spreads the L/R cues much wider than intended.

Neo:X is a surround processor that extracts signals in the source (adding no new signals), and drives additional speaker locations to improve either directionality or envelopment. Not unlike PLIIx or PLIIz in general philosophy.

Thanks for the input. I'm trying to figure out if I would want to spend the extra $ for speakers and what I would gain. I have a 4520 and it seems minimal to go to 9.1.

Opinions seem to vary as to how much you gain and which speakers give you the most bang for the buck. Some people seem to like the Front Highs whereas others like the Wides. DSX emphasizes Wides before Highs, but I have not seen which is more emphasized in Neo:X or PLIIz. Personally I am planning to do Highs first because my room is kind of narrow, but it all depends.

PLIIz has no option for wides. Neo:X wide outputs simply feed a speaker with what used to be a phantom image between fronts/surrounds. It can improve some localization of effects for people seated away from the optimal location, but does very little to nothing for folks well located amongst a well-tuned 7.1 system. The heights are similarly subtle as they are for PLIIz, but the content derivation is different. I would take either PLIIz or Neo:X over DSX, as I prefer to listen to what's in the actual source. Just my opinion...

Nicely done. Really like the shelves for aiming the wides at the LP and minimizing the footprint. Seems i recall someone suggesting moving the heights forward (toward the listener) to increase the degrees up. Looking forward to your listening impressions. Thanks for the pics.

They are at exactly 60 degrees!

Nice write up! Question: I am getting my 4520 next week and was planning on moving from 5.1 to 9.1... I was planning on adding front wides and heights without adding additional rears surrounds. Will that work or do I need to run rear surrounds and surround backs?

You don't need surround-back speakers to use wides and heights. Still, you have 9 speakers to work with and you're going to put a full 7 of those speakers up front, leaving only 2 speakers to cover the entire surround field around you? Isn't that kinda lopsided?

Unintended consequences.

Mike, great thread.
Ever give any consideration to placing an absorber (of adequate thickness, etc.), on the mains side of the new wide loudspeaker? It would only make sense to me that the energy formerly tended to via the panel ... now reduced in size, could certainly benefit from absorption rather than the redirection/scattering/reflection that as is the case now.

Thoughts?

I have an 11.1 room.

This has been a very exciting process, I am awaiting my new processor to give it all a go. Currently my Marantz AV8801 is backordered till the end of the month.



The contruction of the room included wiring for 9.3, but recent changes have lead me to create 11 channels.

I hope to be up and running very soon. I will post my results.

I've been reading the thread and its more construction thoughts than reviews. I'm building my theater now and am debating cutting the heights.

My question is how are people liking the experience? And does anyone have a small room? My rooms 17x14 so the speakers will be at the correct angles but the wides will be close to my seat. I assume the receiver will correct it. I'm getting the denon 4520, so going to 9 is based on laziness of not wanting to get another amp for the last two channels

You''ve done well sir.

Ideally you can plan/wire for the heights with the option to use them.

In my theater, when I had the Onkyo 3008 and had to choose between wides/heights - I found that the heights sounded better from the back row. And the wides sounded more immersive in the front row.

I've since upgraded to the Denon 4520 so I could have the best of both worlds and all 11 speakers kicking at once.

What size is your theater?are y

I'm running 9.1 with Height using a 4520Ci in my HT. So far, like many others, I don't really like or care abut DSX. I've been using PLIIz. Haven't use Neo:X much, but feels like they are very close, at least in my case (height only).

We just watched Argo in Neo:X (11.2 in my room) on a Marantz AV8801. I found the scenes with the mobs and crowds to be so involving and expansive that literally became anxious, just for a moment. Certainly the goal of "suspension of disbelief" has successfully been achieved in this case.

Very happy with the results. I will compare tomorrow the same scenes with PLIIz and DSX.

I've pretty much ruled out wiring for width and height channels, especially given the scale of my room (16' x 22' x 9'). I think the technology has the potential of introducing more problems than it solves with the number of speakers firing at the listening position. It seems no $600 receiver is going to have advanced enough signal processing to properly calibrate, align and otherwise deal with that many sound channels.

I'd rather prewire for two pairs of ceiling surround speakers (a la Dolby Atmos http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/dolby-atmos.html#TheatreSetup) than widths and heights, especially for ANYONE that multiple rows of seating. I just don't understand how heights / widths are handled properly for multiple rows of seating. My guess is that they are not handled well at all.

I think your room would be fine to wire. I've done so for a slightly smaller and much lower room.

What problems? Same way all your other speakers are handled for multiple rows of seating. If you've set up your L/R speakers for the front row, then they are not time aligned for the back row, not level matched for the back row, not spread at the proper angle for the back row, etc. If that's not a problem for critical L/R speakers, then I don't see how it can be a problem for more subtle speakers, like heights.

I stated the problem. A $600 receiver doesn't have the acoustic processing "horsepower" to properly deal with the channel signal setup and calibration correctly. Would you not agree?

And I am not sure why extracting non-existent discrete channel information is therefore considered "better" by some simply because it produces some sort of sound pulled out by some calculated algorithm of what the processor thinks should be there. It makes me think of the early days of stereo recordings where studio engineers would intentionally split an instrument into either the left or right speaker just for the Hell of it. Just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be done or adds anything of value to the experience.

I think we can all agree that recreating a realistic depth of field and 360 degree soundstage is the goal of any home theater soundtrack reproduction - and this is WITHOUT regard to how many speakers are required to do it. Tomlinson Holman (THX) promotes 10.2 as the correct number of channels, but even that is subject to debate. The real answer is that IF there is a talented sound designer that can create an enhanced experience through the use of four additional DISCRETE channels, then so-be-it. But given the lack of discrete material, having a processor analyze a signal and extract "something" for the sole purpose of playing "something" and calling it better is a bit ludicrous.