AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Dolby Digital EX is 7.1 or 6.1 ?

Is THX Ex and DD Ex the same ?

A lot of Amps claims to be Ex adding this "Ex" word after the product name. Are they really DD Ex ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,627 Posts
Quote:
Dolby Digital EX is 7.1 or 6.1 ?
It's 6.1 channels of sound (5 discrete and 1 matrix) that should optimally be played over a 7.1 speaker set-up, where the mono surround-back channel is reproduced by 2 surround-back speakers. See this thread for more details.
Quote:
Is THX Ex and DD Ex the same ?
They're close, but there are some differences. This exact question is currently being discussed here .
Quote:
A lot of Amps claims to be Ex adding this "Ex" word after the product name. Are they really DD Ex ?
Instead of going by the product's name or model number, check its specifications or list of features to see if it really decodes EX.


Best,

Sanjay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
I believe the only difference is the THX post process. As you know adding the THX logo also adds cost to the receiver. It doesn't matter if have 2 surround back channels or just 1 coz the surround back channel is in "mono" anyway...which means that you'll get the same sound from both surround back speakers. Notice some DD-EX receivers have 2 back surround channels (which is in parallel) and some only have one.


What do you mean by Amp? are you talking about a "Receiver" with

EX logos or Power Amps?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,627 Posts
Quote:
It doesn't matter if have 2 surround back channels or just 1 coz the surround back channel is in "mono" anyway.
It does matter.


Using a single surround-back speaker has the potential to cause psychoacoustical problems like front/back reversal along the centre line. Even with the surround-back channel being mono, it's always better to use 2 surround-back speakers whenever possible.
Quote:
Notice some DD-EX receivers have 2 back surround channels (which is in parallel) and some only have one.
But also notice that companies that specialize in surround sound (Lexicon, Meridian, Fosgate, etc) specify 5.1 or 7.1 speaker layouts, but never 6.1.


Best,

Sanjay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by sdurani
It does matter.


Using a single surround-back speaker has the potential to cause psychoacoustical problems like front/back reversal along the centre line. Even with the surround-back channel being mono, it's always better to use 2 surround-back speakers whenever possible. But also notice that companies that specialize in surround sound (Lexicon, Meridian, Fosgate, etc) specify 5.1 or 7.1 speaker layouts, but never 6.1.


Best,

Sanjay
Well . . ... of course companies that sell audio equipment are going to want you to buy more speakers/equipment. If you're an audio company living and dying on sales 7.1 will beat 6.1 every time! It's kind of like going to the Doctor! Have you ever heard a Doctor say, "You're in perfect health do not come back for 10 years"? NO! WHY? Because they don't get a fee that way!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,627 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by bone_stock
Well . . ... of course companies that sell audio equipment are going to want you to buy more speakers/equipment. If you're an audio company living and dying on sales 7.1 will beat 6.1 every time!
Right, that makes sense: 7.1 was hatched as a scheme by speaker companies who figured that, since you're buying 6 speakers from them already, selling you just one more would make all the difference. Sure.


So, based on that logic, why did these companies not promote having ALL the surround channels come through 2 speakers; why ONLY the surround-back channel? And how did they settle on 7.1; why not 8.1, 9.1, etc? And finally, if they were really trying to sell you more and more speakers each time, how do you explain the fact that 6.1 systems came after 7.1 speaker layouts had already been in use by consumers?


Best,

Sanjay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by sdurani
Right, that makes sense: 7.1 was hatched as a scheme by speaker companies who figured that, since you're buying 6 speakers from them already, selling you just one more would make all the difference. Sure.


So, based on that logic, why did these companies not promote having ALL the surround channels come through 2 speakers; why ONLY the surround-back channel? And how did they settle on 7.1; why not 8.1, 9.1, etc? And finally, if they were really trying to sell you more and more speakers each time, how do you explain the fact that 6.1 systems came after 7.1 speaker layouts had already been in use by consumers?


Best,

Sanjay
No, No, wise guy! I'm not talking about the desgin of the Dolby people. I'm talking about retail sales. They will try to sell a 7.1 system first because it envolves more money due to more equipment as well as 7.1 being portrayed as higher capability. It's not a "hatched scheme" just plain and simple reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,627 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by bone_stock
They will try to sell a 7.1 system first because it envolves more money due to more equipment as well as 7.1 being portrayed as higher capability.
That's true, salesmen will try to get the most money out of a customer. However, do their motives make 7.1 speaker layouts a bad idea? I mean, if you wanted to hear a EX/ES soundtrack (6 channels at most), which would be the more optimal speaker layout: 6.1 or 7.1?


BTW, also note that not all manufacturers recommend 7.1 over 6.1. The companies I mentioned before (Lexicon, Meridian, Fosgate) all have a long history of specializing specifically in surround sound. They're part of a small group of companies that actually discourage 6.1 speaker set-ups.


Best,

Sanjay

(wise guy);)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by sdurani
That's true, salesmen will try to get the most money out of a customer. However, do their motives make 7.1 speaker layouts a bad idea? I mean, if you wanted to hear a EX/ES soundtrack (6 channels at most), which would be the more optimal speaker layout: 6.1 or 7.1?


BTW, also note that not all manufacturers recommend 7.1 over 6.1. The companies I mentioned before (Lexicon, Meridian, Fosgate) all have a long history of specializing specifically in surround sound. They're part of a small group of companies that actually discourage 6.1 speaker set-ups.


Best,

Sanjay

(wise guy);)
I think in your last sentence you meant to say 7.1? Correct? If so I agree. My own experimentation liked 6.1 better than 7.1. In my particular room (20 x 20) the extra 7th speaker muddied the left to right/front rear transition. I moved the 2 surround back speakers all over the rear of the room, but I never could get it to sound as well as 6.1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by kippjones
My room 25x18, sounds better with the 7.1 vs 6.1 hands down.
To each his own I guess. Up until recently I used to think the more speakers the better, but now I wonder. I've only heard one DD EX movie (We Were Soldiers). Maybe on another movie I would like 7.1 better?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,627 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by bone_stock
I think in your last sentence you meant to say 7.1? Correct?
Nope. I meant what I wrote.


For example, Lexicon has gone on record as saying that their processors should be set up for 7.1 (optimal) or 5.1 (compromise), but never 6.1 if it can be avoided. In fact, they don't even have a provision for 6.1 on their pre-pros.


Best,

Sanjay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by bone_stock
It's kind of like going to the Doctor! Have you ever heard a Doctor say, "You're in perfect health do not come back for 10 years"? NO! WHY? Because they don't get a fee that way!
What if i told you that they actually do make more money by telling the patient not to come back except for a yearly check up ;) The insurance companies pay the doctors X amount of money for every patient that they have that does NOT come in. Yes you read right. They get paid for patients not getting sick :eek: So that was a bad analogy ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Figgie
What if i told you that they actually do make more money by telling the patient not to come back except for a yearly check up ;) The insurance companies pay the doctors X amount of money for every patient that they have that does NOT come in. Yes you read right. They get paid for patients not getting sick :eek: So that was a bad analogy ;)
This is not a Doctor's thread, but it sounds like you're a victim of the establishment and disinformation. However, I don't doubt that Doctor's are compensated for not seeing patients. They already take money out of every pay check wether you see them or not! It's called insurance, legal robbery!
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top