According to www.twice.com Dolby will unveil their 6.1 and 7.1 channel DPL IIx technology at CEDIA. Dolby expects




[This message has been edited by Will (edited September 02, 2003).]

More an extension of current PL II technology than something totally new, IIx will upsample up to 7 independent channels from stereo sources and generate up to 2 additional surround channels (yeah, stereo rears) from discrete 5.1 material. Hopefully, like any Dolby licensed technology, it will eventually become ubiquitous, appearing in even the lowest priced 7.1 gear (as PL II does now).

Pro Logic IIx press release:

http://www.dolby.com/events/CEDIA/PLIIx/

Pro Logic IIx FAQ (very thorough):

http://www.dolby.com/events/CEDIA/PLIIx/faq.html

Best,
Sanjay

sounds intriguing!

------------------
Play it LoUd!!

Will be interesting if the 950 would get this upgrade, as DPL II with the CES mode is potentially very similar.

IIRC DPL II with the CES mode upconverts to 6.1 distinct channels with the 2 back channels being in mono, whereas I think DPL IIx upconverts to either 6.1 or 7.1 distinct channels. Incidentlaly, the twice.com link says

Kevin, How do you figure? PLIIx and CES work quite differently.

PLIIx will take the logic steering that PLII already does and expands it into the 2 surround-back channels. This means if a certain sound is meant to image in the left rear channel, that sound will also be actively supressed in the left side channel for better directionality. You already hear this sort of cancellation with PLII on the front 3 channels, where the centre channel content is supressed in the front left & right channels, keeping them free of dialogue.

Compare that to the simple electrical summing that CES does. Common sounds in the left & right surround channels are simply sent to the surround-back channel, without any active steering or cancellation. Unfortunately, that means any mono sounds in the surround channels will be heard from the sides and rears simultaneously, rather than only the rears.

Add to that the fact that PLIIx will generate stereo rears while CES sums to a mono rear, and the two modes shouldn't sound "very similar".

Best,
Sanjay

I've conceptualized a system that I call "Omnichannel." And I offer it here for free for all to pursue. (Call me the Linux of the home theatre world if you'd like.)

The system consists of an enclosure capable of radiating sound from an essentially infinite number of discrete point sources on its surface. It is also capable of holographically creating a sound point source anywhere within its enclosed volume.

Sound engineers are thus capable of taking any sound / effect and "placing" it on a three dimensional grid.

The system is fully adaptive and will sense the contents of its enclosed volume and adjust for them.

Just as it is able to create point source sound anywhere within its volume, it is also able to create point source lack-of-sound (nulls - but I call them non-audible black holes) as well. So you and your significant other could be in the same room together, you watching an explosive scene from T2 Extreme, while he/she enjoys peace and quite and the company of a good book.

Great sound and marital bliss. Gotta be a winning combo.

Until someone with deep enough pockets picks up on the concept and develops it, I'll just have to be satisfied with the entirely pleasurable sound coming from my model 950 - and not lose any sleep over how pathetically inadequate it will eventually be once Omnichannel hits the market.

Jeff Mackwood

Jeff, Except for your "non-audible black holes", everything else you described was developed 3 decades ago by Michael Gerzon. Ambisonics records and uses vector information to reproduce localization, rather than create it using pan-pot techniques.

Think of a drawing of a circle, stored as Bitmap vs vector. If you print large, the Bitmap image will suffer breakdown; you'll see the individual pixels and jagged edges of the circle. Not so with the vector drawing, which is a set of instructions on how to draw a circle, and will scale itself to any size print.

Similarly, Ambisoncis will scale itself to any size playback: 2 speaker to 5.1 speakers to 64 speakers to as many as your heart desires. The information is stored on 4 channels: main/mono, left vs right, front vs back, up vs down. If you just want stereo playback, you just need the first 2 channels. For surround sound, all the speakers locations can be extrapolated from the first 3 channels. If you want height information too, you can use all 4 encoded channels.

The Nimbus label recorded their entire catalogue of classical music in Ambisonics and Meridian processors have an Ambisonics mode for proper decoding.

Best,
Sanjay

Sanjay,

I'm sure that you noticed the tongue-in-cheek approach in my post - but yes I had some passing knowledge of past real-world attempts.

But to get back to my concept...it does not rely on "speakers" at all. Think of the enclosure as a continuous membrane that is able to produce sound at any point source. Perhaps an infinite number of pixels on a curved / complex surface would be a good analogy. As such it becomes not a 5.1, or 7.1, or even 16.1 system, but rather an infinite.infinite system - which is surely the natural culmination of adding more and more channels. My concept simply gets us there right away - and eliminates all those costly upgrades in between!

Jeff Mackwood

I'll buy that for a dollar! (as they say in Robocop)

Sanjay

Has anyone confirmed that DPL IIx actually gives unique channels for the rears?

Somewhere I think I saw, (SMR or maybe HTF) it does look like DPL IIx supports "stereo" rears.

A couple more thoughts:

If I was Outlaw, I'd see what it would take to do an Eprom (EEprom?) upgrade to the 950, and then charge $50 - 100 for it. If possible.

And then maybe the 950 mk II or the the big brother would presumably include this. (Along with THX Ultra2, although maybe like DD EX vs THX EX, DPL IIx makes THX Ultra2 less "important" as an option.)

And, a final thought, even though as a relatively new owner of an MC-8 (and former owner of the 950), I see DPL IIx as a good thing. If it comes anywhere close to Logic 7, might cause Lexicon to lower its price of admission for Logic 7. I was always surprised that other than the 8000, none of H/K's receivers had it for 5.1 sources. And then personally, I'd wouldn't be surprised to find out it was an accident for the 8000 as well.

Kevin, Yeah, I confirmed it for you over at SMR. The Dolby FAQ (which you were "too lazy to read") says it explicitly. Might need to swap out the Crystal processing chip, and there's no guarantee that the 950's architecture will support a newer processing engine. However, before even crossing that bridge, Cirrus has to release the appropriate chipset.

One thing nice: the two rear outputs of the 950 are not fixed as dual mono (as on some receivers). You can tell this because each is able to produce a different signal when in 7-channel stereo mode. Seems ready for PLIIx, doesn't it! Accidental (and undocumented) feature on the AVR-8000. The 5.1 signal is first downmixed to 2 channels using Dolby Surround encoding, then upmixed via L7 for 7-channel playback. Very different from how it works on your MC-8 (or any Lex processor).

Sanjay

You're saying Cirrus's processing chip in the 950 might not support PLIIx. But the 950 came out just over a year ago and Dolby themselves suggest, in the twice.com page referenced above (and copied below), that many existing PLII products won't need new chipsets, just flash-memory upgrades in order to support PLIIx.


Onkyo, Integra and Meridian aren't using Cirrus chips to do PLII decoding, are they?

Will

[This message has been edited by Will (edited September 04, 2003).]

Will, No, I said that if implementing PLIIx requires a new chip, there's no guarantee the 950's architecture will support it. We will have to wait and see how Cirrus incorporates the new code into existing processing engines. If it turns out that the 950's processing engine can have its flash-memory upgraded, then there's a possibility that the 950 will support it PLIIx.

The Fosgate FAP-T1 pre-pro, which is based built around the same Eastech model that the 950 is, will be upgraded to the FAP-T1 Plus (PLIIx will be part of that upgrade). You might want to keep an eye on how Fosgate handles the addition of PLIIx because it may indicate how a similar upgrade could be done for the 950.

Since the PLIIx announcement just happened, it's better to take a 'wait-and-see' attitude rather than get excited about an upgrade to the 950 that may never arrive.

Best,
Sanjay

Hi Sanjay,

Thanks for the clarification. And thanks for pointing out there is a pre/pro very much like the 950 that will get upgraded to PLIIx.


I'm trying to keep track of the known clones of the 950 pre/pro. There's one from Atlantic Tech, and one from Sherbourne. And I guess there's this one from Fosgate too? Are there other 950 clones lurking out there?

Thanks,

Will

[This message has been edited by Will (edited September 04, 2003).]

Will,

Some more clarification, this time from Cirrus. Rather than issue a new chipset, looks like Cirrus will be incorporating PLIIx into current chip families. If the 950 has a way to change the software on its decoding engine, the upgrade may be possible. Check out Cirrus' press release .

Also, just as an FYI, Charles Wood of Fosgate Audionics talks about the changes made to the Eastech prototype for their FAP-T1 in this thread ; he addresses the similarity of the manuals a couple of posts down.

Best,
Sanjay

Man, what would we do without Sanjay!

The cheap ATI pre/pro is a 950 clone (the 7500 I think), and at least one of the Adcoms is too.

I also suspect there are some others too, but the look and feature set is being morphed enough that it's hard to tell.

H/K 8000: 5.1 to 2.0 to 7.1 for Logic 7: I did not know that...

Sanjay's a great resource here, and there are others here as well!

I only recently became aware how bass management works on surrounds in DPL II. Over on AVS at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=297444&perpage=20&pagenumber=4 Dolby Lab's Roger Dressler wrote

So I asked him the following:

Kevin, Most AVR-8000 owners didn't either. Amazing how 'discrete' a good matrix decoder can sound when people aren't aware they're listening to only 2 channels. Naturally, when folks found out, they heard "night and day" differences. Never fails. Post in peace?

Best,
Sanjay

Typical 5.1 surround sound requires 6 speakers. Most non-audio/video-phile friends I talk with think that having 6 speakers in the typical family room is quite a stretch, and some are resistant to even having that many speakers. I have a very large room (18 ft by 18 ft with 9 ft ceiling) and the 6 speaker setup fills it out just fine - with plenty of good sound localization.

Do the manufacturers pushing more speaker formats have an idea of what (small?) portion of the public wlll buy these 7- and 8-speaker formats? what's next -- a speaker in the center of the room on the ceiling? 2 speakers in the ceiling? a speaker under the chair for that rumble below? a speaker every 6 inches?

Enough already -- this is way, way, way past the point of diminishing marginal improvement.

Actually, in the case of PLIIx, it's the other way 'round. Dolby came out with a 7-channel version of PLII because they noticed that the public was already trending towards 7.1 systems, enough to make PLIIx commercially viable. One can hope. We've got all 4 walls covered (front & back, left & right), so the only place left to go is up: ceiling mounted height channels.

BTW, "a speaker under the chair for that rumble below" (i.e., bass shakers) have been around for some time from companies like Clarke Synthesis and ButtKicker. Why "enough"? You want them to stop innovating and exploring new formats because you can't accomodate more speakers? That wouldn't be fair to those consumers that can. Besides, it's not something you have to buy into.

Best,
Sanjay

I'm afraid I agree. I think Hollywood should concentrate more on making good movies, rather than ones with a zillion channels. If done right, the current system conveys more than enough information for immersion in the action on the screen. Mixing engineers have complained for years about the ever increasing loudness of movies. The current issue of "Surround Professional" has an editorial from an engineer I've worked with frequenty on this very issue.

Do you think they would use additional channels to capture the subtle sound of leaves falling??

I very rarely (actually never) have heard a system in a consumer's home that was even close to fully realizing the full impact of what was mixed into existing 6.1 tracks. Most people have other considerations, for instance wives who don't appreciate the beauty of speakers all around her living room.


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited September 06, 2003).]

Snippets from MIX mag, in a Q & A article with producers:

Rich Tozzoli (David Bowie, AWB, +over 20 more)
Jimmy Douglass (Foreigner, Misssy, Elliot, Marvin Gaye, etc.)
Ken Gaillat (Since '97 has mixed over 200 surround mix songs. Beach Boys, Fleetwood Mac, etc.)

Q: Can you talk about your approach to signal processing of individual tracks or special tricks when mixing surround?

Douglass: You don't have to squash everything into the same small area as in stereo. There is no fighting for space in surround, so I end up using less EQ and compression on individual tracks.

Tozzoli: I use a lot less compression and EQ, but reverb takes on a whole new life.

Caillat: I use less processing in surround. You don't have a choice in stereo. You force everything into that L/R soundfield by selectively boosting or attenuating certain frequencies to enhance those instruments.
It is almost opposite when working within the surround soundfield. For Ex: Acoustic guitars in stereo usually require rolling off bottom end and adding high end, then compressing; in effect, making the guitar smaller. But, in surround, I'll make it bigger to cover the huge space i have now.

BoB: You simply cannot acheive the same results afforded by 5.1 discrete formats by matrixing a stereo mix. The damage is done and cannot be undone.

I agree wholeheartedly with SH.

Let's stop rehashing those 30 year old master tapes into surround discs and matrixing those woefully compressed stereo CDs and start writing and producing for discrete MC audio formats.

What would Lennon, McCartney and George Martin have done with 5.1 discrete?

[This message has been edited by bossobass (edited September 06, 2003).]

Why would the two be mutually exclusive? If film makers don't have access to additional channels, are they're going to compensate by re-writing the script or coaching the actors better? Hollywood should concentrate on making good movies, but I doubt that a "zillion" channels of sound are what's keeping them from doing that.

Sanjay

You missed the whole point I was trying to make - please re-read and digest. Thank You.

I understood what you were trying to say, I simply didn't agree with it. Good movies "rather than" additional channels? It's not either/or.

Best,
Sanjay

I'm afraid you still don't get it. If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand anyway. Sorry...

Don't be sorry, just explain what you meant by "rather than". That can't be too hard, can it?

Sanjay

Like I said, if I have to explain, you wouldn't get it. Simply reflect, read between the lines, and as Steve Jobs says in his fractured grammar: "think different"

Why don't you try to explain what you meant, this way we'll know for sure whether I would or wouldn't "get it". I've articualted my position; it shouldn't be so hard to explain your's.

Thanx,
Sanjay

Maybe I am missing the point, what is so great about PLIIx? I kept reading all the hype about PLII and couldn't wait to hear my cds again, but after a while I grew bored with it and am back listenting to them in stereo, (sorry, didn't mean to use the "S" word). Now we are going to generate two more channels in back, for what purpose? I love technology, and am glad for the experimenting, (keeps Dolby Labs in business), but what is the significance of this "advance?" If the musicians want sound in seven seperate channels because of its artistic significance, then I am all for a supporting format. But to just convert a two channel source, I am not interested.

Speaking of which, I just added some to my home theater. Took me a while to get the levels correct, but now that I have, they do add a little more gutteral feel to bass.

Jeff

But at least you tried it. Just as you grew bored after a while, certainly there were some people who had the opposite reaction: the more they listened, the more they enjoyed. People are moving from 5.1 to 7.1 systems, so PLII was expanded from 5 to 7 playback channels. Dolby responded to a growing market; simple as that. Right. So it's not that you're missing the point; i.e, you understand why it was done but you simply aren't interested in this technology. Fair enough: people who don't like coffee may see the point of why Starbucks introduces a new flavours, but it doesn't mean they're personally interested.

Best,
Sanjay

Jeff, Anything's better than those jumping beans you glued to the bottom of your chair. BTW, which output are you using: sub or LFE?

Sanjay

It wouldn't be too hard to explain, I'm just afraid it would be hard for your to comprehend. Sorry...

For the record, the point was both glaringly evident and elegantly stated.

To me (and every single musician I know), PLII, and any extensions thereof, are only about shelf space.

And that has what to do with Hollywood making good movies? Since it's glaringly evident, please explain the connection (since Soundhound is unable to).

Thanx,
Sanjay

I didn't say I was unable to explain it - I said that you ware unable to comprehend it. If you haven't figured it out by now, I would move on to another subject.

You don't have to say it; your dodging of the question makes it glaringly obvious.

You're right!!! Now please move on. have a nice day

I don't have time to browse through all the publicity swill on this latest Dolby Labs "breakthrough" (sigh). Does anyone know from the material posted so far what involvement Jim Fosgate had in this? (The inventor of DPL2)

boblinds:

It has something to do with making your system sound better, faster, louder, cleaner, meaner, and able to lift at least a couple of "vails" from your soundstage. It will turn even the worst movies into masterpieces...including some of the ones I've worked on! You'll like it...

BTW, has your kitty clawed up the grille on your subwoofer yet???

Bob, Dolby collaborated with Jim Fosgate in order to expand PLII to PLIIx. At the time PLII first came out, Fosgate had mentioned publicly that PLII (like any matrix decoder) was capable of going past 5.1. While adding rear vs side vectoring to the surrounds, Fosgate also made a couple of further refinements.

The first tweak involved a very subtle change to the Centre Width steering control, which may or may not be noticeable to most users. The other change should be more audible. PLII Music mode has a mild shelf filter applied to the surrounds to make them sound a little more subtle than the PLII movie mode (which doesn't roll off the surrounds). Some listeners had complained that this caused the surrounds to appear comparitively dull in Music mode. So now when you're in the PLII Music mode, engaging the Panorama parameter will turn off the roll-off filter. This should make the surrounds appear a bit more detailed and aggressive, which goes hand in hand with the function of the Panorama adjustment.

Since Jim Fosgate was making these refinements anyway, for his all-analogue tube-based processor (which I think is due out late this year or early next year), Dolby asked him to add them to PLII. So, if the Outlaw 950 is upgraded to PLIIx, then its standard PLII modes will also be updated to reflect Fosgate's changes; subtle though they may be.

Best,
Sanjay

Thanks for the info, Sanjay. While I don't think this is a must-have upgrade, I think it makes a lot of business sense for Dolby to enhance their DPL2 to 7.1 support. The extra refinements also make it somewhat more attractive than just getting stereo rear surrounds, as well.

Obviously the rapid acceptance of 7.1 home systems caught Dolby Labs by surprise. I now remember seeing posts by Jim Fosgate in which he mentioned the ability to go to more channels; but, if I recall correctly, Dolby just wanted 5.1 at the time.

Soundhound, even though you tried to implant a post-hypnotic suggestion into my cat the last time you were here, she has not clawed my SVS subwoofer yet. However, I have to admit, I saw her with her feet up on it the other day. Needless to say, I hollered "NO!" loud enough so that folks in Torrance heard it.

[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited September 08, 2003).]

Bob, Agreed. All the competition had already gone 6.1 (Circle Surround II, DTS Neo:6) or 7.1 (LOGIC7). By their own admission , they are a "latecomer to the 7.1 environment". PLIIx makes their offerings more competetive.

Best,
Sanjay

Okay, what's all this talk about the kitty scratching at the SVS? I own one and my cat has never so much as even looked at it. Don't you know that the fabric has been treated with a scratch repellent for anyone who connects it to an Outlaw 950? SVS is even planning on a WAF chemical treatment for anyone who is using PLIIx. What a company!

Neither of my cats have bothered my SVS. The Maine Coon has been known to sit on top of it when it wasn't seeing much heavy use (which I guess speaks well for the strength of the port grille -- Hagrid's still got some growing to do, but he's already close to 15 pounds), but they don't seem interested in messing with the cloth cover. Also, I don't recall ever seeing Hagrid perched on top of the sub when it was really chugging...

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

Just a quick question? Yamaha has a 8.1 reciever and I was wondering if they know something the rest of us don't?? Is 8.1 in the near future. I'm getting ready to upgrade from my 5.1 Yamaha and would like any input you might have??

Thanks
Lasher

Yahama has two new flagship receivers, the RX-Z1 and RX-Z9 . Both have the standard 6.1/7.1 formats to produce a surround back channel -- Dolby EX, DTS ES, Pro Logic II, and DTS:NEO6. The RX-Z1 is listed as an 8.1 receiver -- they appear to be providing a single rear center channel (similar to the rear center channel on the Outlaw 1050, although the 1050 uses a Zoran chipset rather than Dolby EX or DTS ES because neither were available for licensing at the time) rather than the two surround back speakers that have become more typical recently. The surround back speakers are generally mono, anyway (except for a few cases like Logic 7), but most people have reportedly preferred to use two surround back speakers when possible. In addition to that rear center (which gets them to 6.1, of course), they have retained an old Yamaha proprietary processing mode that creates two "front effect" channels. This has been around on some higher-end Yamaha receivers for years now, and is not indicative of an industry-wide development. The RX-Z9, by the way, is listed as being "9.1" -- it provides two surround back channels instead of the single rear center of the RX-Z1.

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

and of course DPL IIx (which coincidentally happens to be the title topic of this particular thread)

Best,

Will

Sdurani,

I think I got it. I'll give you a clue - think about soundhound's user name.

Thanx, but keep the clue. Instead, if your reeeeaaaaally 'got it', explain why Hollywood has to choose between making "good movies, rather than ones with a zillion channels." Any reason why Hollywood movies can't do both?

Best,
Sanjay

C'mon guys, please drop the p*ss*ng match. It does no one any credit. Lots of good info here, let's stick with that.

It's already been done using existing technology. There are DVD-Audios and SACDs that have a height channel (by using the sub .1 channel) or expanded stereo coverage (by using the center and sub.1 channels) as left and right side channels.

Just learned Sherwood Newcastle's P-965 pre/pro/tuner which is supposed to ship late next month, will have DPL IIx and Dolby Virtual Speaker. Even the first units to ship will have that, so there shouldn't be an upgrade issue anymore.

There's some preliminary information on the P-965 and the R-965 receiver, at the top of the www.sherwoodusa.com page. I'm guessing the P-965 will be by far the least expensive pre/pro or pre/pro/tuner with DPL IIx when it comes out.

This may encourage Rotel and Outlaw to offer DPL IIx sooner rather than later, either as an upgrade to their existing lineup or in a new model, in order to stay competitive with the changes in technology over the last 18+ months.

Still, no announcement yet from Rotel or Outlaw, as far as I know...

Best,

Will

Will, I had mentioned earlier in this thread that it would be interesting to see how the Fosgate FAP-T1 was upgraded to PLIIx because the unit was based on the same Eastech prototype as the Outlaw 950. Well it turns out that there isn't going a software upgrade but rather a trade-in deal to a newer, higher priced Fosgate model: the FAP-T1+. How this bodes for the 950 remains to be seen, because it isn't clear whether Fosgate couldn't upgrade their unit or didn't want to.

Best,
Sanjay

I wonder what Outlaw (and Rotel) will do. Since their current (inexpensive) models are over 18 months old, maybe they're better off building a newer inexpensive pre/pro to compete against the Sherwood Newcastle, rather than add one feature, DPL IIx, to their current model.

Who knows when they plan to build a new inexpensive pre/pro. But whenever they do, I'd imagine it might leapfrog the Sherwood pre/pro/tuner, to support "current" features like the digital DVD-A/SACD standard, which will before long I believe, be a "must have" for HT pre/pro's.

Will

Any comments from Outlaw regarding the possibility of upgrading the 950 to PLIIx? yes or no,or are they checking into it?

thanks!

Why does'nt the 950 right now support DVD-A/SACD?

I believe Will was referring to the 950 accepting digital DVD-A/SACD signals instead of the current analog signal

Yes. Nobody has announced an inexpensive pre/pro/tuner with a digital DVD-A/SACD interface, yet. Sherwood Newcastle has however announced an inexpensive model with DPL IIx. The new Sherwood should be available soon.

Still no word when Outlaw will have DPL IIx.

Best,

Will

Anyone try emailing Outlaw and asking?

When and if they want the public to know, they'll tell the public, at a time of their choosing.

I see both of your view points. But saying something like "you ware unable to comprehend" sounds, to me, a bit condescending.

Why not explain one more time to sanjay and be done with it? It couldn't take more of your time (you've already spent a bit of time and effort by saying "you wouldn't get it" repeatedly?)

If you do that, as sanjay said, he will decide if either he gets it or not. I don't see how you can be so certain he would not get it. Are you that much smarter than he?

I, for one, agree with sanjay. Let Holywood do what they do best. stereo, quadraphonic, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, etc., offers options and choices. You don't have to go with any of it. Heck, there are plenty of folks "stereo" is too much. My father being one. He argues that when one listens to music, you should be looking for the nuances of the music, not the sound.

I don't agree with his position, as I think good sound and stage "adds" to the correct interpretation of the nuances the artists are trying to deliver.

But my point is - to each his own. If you don't like it, well, don't get it. Can't be so hard now, could it? Be happy. Why are you bothered so much with 7.1, etc. Are you trying to make us think, look and feel exactly the way you do?

Regards,

Nope, I'm not trying to make people think like I do, although the world would be a much better place if that were the case

My original point was that there is a lot more information in the soundtracks of movies than the vast majority of people realize. Because of inadequate setup and/or compromises in things like speaker placement and acoustics, they are generally not receiving anywhere near the full impact of what is in the soundtrack in it's unaltered state.

I work on the movie mixing stages where major films are mixed and hear film soundtracks as they were intended to sound by the original mixing engineers. The sound is nothing short of spectacular and seamless in it's envelopment, and if the soundtrack "needs something" more, the mixers simply supply that "something" in the mixing process.

The consumer sound industry is marketing driven. As such they push any number of "band aids" to supposedly "fix" movie soundtracks in people's homes. What I take issue with is that these processes are being used pre-emptively without users, because of poor room setup, inadequate speakers or lousy acoustics, even extracting what is there in the original soundtrack. The manufacturers would like the comsumer to believe that these processes are "necessary" to extract the best sound from film soundtracks. Believe me, what is present in most soundtracks sounds better than all the post processing in the world can provide.

If people would take more effort with things like the acoustics of the listening room (admittedly not a "sexy" topic like the newest signal processing scheme) and other factors, they would probably find that most of these post processing schemes would be un-necessary.

I wish more people could hear the sound of films on the mixing stage to see how satisfying they really are. The people who mix films are very dedicated to their craft and spend more time fussing over seeming minute details than most consumers would believe. If a soundtrack is deficient in some aspect, believe me, they take care of it in the film's original mix.

No post processing scheme, not even Logic 7 can provide as good a sound as in the soundtrack in it's unaltered state.

Don't believe me? Try to visit a mixing stage sometime and hear for yourself. Talk to the people who actually mix the films.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited October 23, 2003).]

I believe you!

I was not really arguing that point. I, for one, spend a great deal of time and effort trying to improve the acoustic characteristics of my listening environment (my wife permitting, not always easy to put acoustic foams on the living room walls or pull the speakers 6 feet from the walls. )

I am also in the same school of thoughts as you, as far as various processing modes are concerned; I like listening stereo music in stereo. I like DD5.1 in 5.1, etc. Actually, I have yet to set up the rear 2 speakers to do 7.1 (although my system is capable). Why? 1) well, it is a lot of work to set it up, running wires, etc, 2) I have an uphill, no, un-winnable battle with the wife, and 3) I'm not sure if it's worth it. Like you say, it's got to stop somewhere. I mean, I am running out of room to put all the suff. It's not like I live in a mansion.

I like 5.1 just fine. That's for me.

I guess we are all in violent agreement, as they say on this point . What really got me was your seemingly condescending manner.

If that was not your intention, my humble apologies.

Regards,

[This message has been edited by BleakShore (edited October 23, 2003).]

Contacted Outlaw, Sherborn and Atlantic to see what plans were regarding 950 base unit and DPLIIx ....

Outlaw: sent very well thought out prepared statement stating basically that they didn't have final code from Dolby labs, and without this, they couldn't be sure if it would within memory of Cirrus Processing Chip.

Atlantic: Peter Tribeman personally answered my inquiry. Said basically same thing and elucidated that the Bass Management in these units takes a lot of code space.

Sherborn: Said that discrete 7 channel algorithm was exclusive to Harman, and they had no plans to modify unit. (Not sure if person who replied had really heard of PLIIx before)

So that's it. I think that it's probably going to be some time before we know:

1. Most importantly, whether PLIIx even makes enough sonic difference to be a "must-have" feature ...

2. Whether 950 can be upgraded or if a potential customer who REALLY wanted PLIIx should wait for next model.

cd

While you're waiting, you can always work on the acoustics of your listening room, probably to more benefit than PLIIx or any other post processing

The Sherwood Newcastle's P-965 pre/pro/tuner with DPL IIx and Dolby Virtual Speaker was delayed and isn't out yet. It still lists for just under $1500 and should sell for even less. It should be the least expensive pre/pro/tuner with DPL IIx when it comes out. It's now expected to be out in December.

Outlaw's and Rotel's entry level pre/pro's have been out for over 20 months. So far, neither Outlaw nor Rotel have announced anything with DPL IIx. Not that they have to, since no other entry level pre/pro has DPL IIx. However before long, that will change.

Best,

Will

[This message has been edited by Will (edited November 05, 2003).]

AFAIK, Outlaw hasn't indicated whether they might upgrade the Outlaw 950 to PL IIx someday in the future.

Incidentally the NAD T163 is a new pre/pro/tuner that came out just a few months ago. It sells for around $1200 (SRP is about $1500). It has PL II, not PL IIx. But its firmware is upgradable. So there is lots of talk of upgrading it to support PL IIx. Supposedly NAD is looking into it, but there's no firm announcement one way or the other yet from NAD.

Unfortunately, the new Sherwood Newcastle pre/pro/tuner which will have PL IIx, won't be out in 2003 afterall. It's now expected in early 2004.

Best,

Will

"While we have not ruled out the possibility of a DPL IIx update to the Model 950, its inclusion is unlikely. However, the Model 950 offers cirrus extra surround which will expand DPL II signals to the remaining two surround channels for a surprisingly similar effect!"


Thanks and regards,


Scott

I can't wait until we get to DPLIIxxxxxxx, and a speaker about every 2 inches, or how about instead of sheet rock we just go with four solid walls of speakers? Come on! Why is it I don't see a need past a good 5.1 system? My HT room is 20'X 23', and for the life of me, I can't find a need (nor want) for more than 5.1! Is it because I have plenty of spacing between the listening position and the rear speakers, and those with small little rooms have to cover the back with speakers to get a good distribution, because their couch is up against the rear wall? I am completely saturated with sound as it is, what is it that I'm missing? Why do so many of you need more channels? I really don't get it!

Actually, you bring up the prime reason I found that 7.1 can be an improvement over 5.1, but that it doesn't necessarily work for all rooms.

If your couch *is* up against the back, then 5.1 is probably the best you're going to get, and any attempt to do 7.1 might actually degrade the sound field. (Where are the last 2 speakers going to go?)

But if you *do* have space behind where you sit, then I believe that 7.1 can be a real benefit. The reason why, is that those last 2 speakers in the back fill in a gap in the soundfield you don't even know exists, until it's been removed.

I had a friend over once, and he wasn't convinced of the benefit of 7.1 either. So we picked some movie sequences, and switched back and forth between straight DD in 5.1 and 5.1 DD with the CES mode engaged (7.1), and even he admitted that the benefit was there.

One other fact is that people do not hear as well behind them. So in effect, more speakers are necessary to help out our natural limitations.

And, think of real life. Sounds come at us from all 360 degrees around us. So the absolute best home theater would actually have an infinite number of speakers, all around us.

Wow, all that sarcasm over the addition of just 2 surround speakers? Does going from 5 speakers to 7 really offend your sensibilities that much? I can’t speak for others, but there were three reasons I went beyond a 5.1-speaker set-up: more precise localization, better envelopment, and greater stability in the surround field. Follow:

Using four surround speakers allows you to have sounds clearly localized at your sides or behind you (or both). You don’t get this sort of distinct imaging when using only two surrounds; the best you can hope for is a good compromise between side and rear sound placement. Also, processing like PLIIx isn’t necessary to notice this difference; simple EX decoding and a good soundtrack will let you hear surround imaging to your left side, to your right side, behind you, and everywhere in between.

Why would you want rear vs side imaging in the surround field? Because some surround content (e.g., spatial, ambient effects) usually sound better coming from your sides while other surround effects (e.g., front to back flyovers) sound more realistic when they end up behind you. This sort of localization is not difficult to achieve when you have speakers at your sides and speakers behind you. So why compromise?

Along with the improvement in imaging comes better envelopment in the surround field. Four speakers can, literally, surround you better than two speakers. This allows for a much nicer sense of ambience without any holes in the surround field. Also, four speakers firing simultaneously are capable of creating excellent diffusion in the surround field without having to resort to diffuse speaker designs (like dipoles). It’s nice to have precise imaging and enveloping diffusion simultaneously.

Finally, the best part about a 7.1-speaker set-up is the greater stability you get in the surround field. For example: no matter where you sit on you couch, sounds intended to come from behind you will always appear to come from there; not some side-ish, rear-ish direction. No magic involved, just a pair of speakers physically placed behind you (makes it hard for those sounds to come from any other direction). Again, this is difficult (if not impossible) to do with only two surround speakers, where you’re relying much more on phantom imaging.

BTW, 7.1 isn’t some new concept. If you look at companies who have a history of specializing in leading edge surround processing (Fosgate, Meridian, Lexicon) you’ll notice one thing in common: they’ve all built their technologies around a 7 speaker configuration. That’s some coincidence. All that’s happening now is that the rest of the industry is finally catching up.

Best,
Sanjay

My perceived sarcasm was an attempt at humor about where this is all going. From earlier posts it looks like they are already up to 8.1, so there appears to be no end. I’m a firm believer in the KISS theory, although I would love to see increasingly improved quality of 5.1 systems and programming for them! I don’t detect any holes in sound with my 5.1 system, but it could be I just don’t miss what I don’t have. Maybe it could really be that people are chasing higher quality sound through more channels, rather than through improving the quality of a smaller number of channels? I chose a seating sectional that was a very comfortable pillow back style, because the lower back design would not block any sound coming from the rear of the room from reaching my ears. I can see where people with a high back theater seating could need more speakers just to overcome blockage of sound. Also my full range rear speakers at the rear corners of the room are identical to the mains and aimed so the directional sound of the tweeters intersects just behind the listening position. The sound blends seamlessly, and to my ears I see no reason to add more channels. What is wrong with phantom directly rear or side sound, if it works fantastically and benefits by simplifying and requiring fewer channels? To each his own, and I can see how 7.1 could be a help for some, to over come room and furniture problems. I just think more DSP channels needs to end some where, so that the industry will concentrate on offering better quality. More speakers mean more profits, so they will only end it when people quit Jones-ing for more channels, and just demand higher quality to get them to part with their dollars. I guess I belong in the soundhound camp of thinking! Sanjay does make some good points, but will the same points be pushing for 10.1 in 2 years? Just my humble opinion, so all ya-all outlaws have a good one!

Are the decoding functions on a chip issued by Dolby Labs while the firmware to operate the unit lie in a different chip ? Or does Dolby lease the software and it shares space with the firmware of the 950 ?

Since the 950 is billed as a 7.1 preamp/processor I think the logical extension is to have stereo surround backs as opposed to mono (really just a trumped up 6.1) To that end what would be involved if Outlaw actually decided to incorporate PLIIx into the 950 ?

I'm actually not holding my breath waiting for Outlaw to do it but would like to see a DIY upgrade kit made available (at a cost to 950 owners) that would also fix some of the remaining firmware glitches.

I think it's a win-win as a repackaged 950 (951?) containing DPLIIx might stimulate sales of this quality unit. I'd doubt Outlaw would like to see their "warranty" repairs increase ala DIY interconnects because some hack posts a way to get the job done that doesn't involve the Outlaws.

Mike

Neo,

Don't feel too special about your attempt at humour falling on the occasional deaf ear. Check back to the start of this thread for my September 3 post.

And for what it's worth: I got it - and agree with you.

Regards.

Jeff Mackwood

What is SDDS? 7.1 or 9.1?

Like you, I'm all for keeping it simple. Please understand though that "simple" can mean different things to different people. For me, the simplest way to have imaging to at my sides is to place speakers there; the easiest way to have sound localized behind me is to have speakers there. Not a complicated concept to understand. I see people doing both, especially with the new hi-rez music formats. As larger amounts of storage becomes cheaper, there's no reason you can't have more channels and higher quality in each channel. More speakers wouldn't help high back theatre seating because they'd still block the sound from the rear speakers. High backs are just a bad idea for surround sound. Our ear/brain mechanism is able to localize sounds by comparing the input of both ears. While you can have phantom imaging directly to your sides, it's not very stable because you're essentially using a single ear (the one on the other side of your head isn't helping much).

The solution to having stable imaging directly to your sides is to simply place speakers directly to your sides. (See, I like the KISS method too.) You can be sitting anywhere on your couch, but those sounds will always be coming from your sides.

However, as Kevin explained, this leaves a hole behind the listener. Again, the simple solution is to place speakers there to lock in sounds behind you. Think of it like you do the centre channel up front; you can be anywhere in the room and you'll always hear the dialogue coming from the same direction you see the actors. Personally, I like having that sort of stability in the soundstage. YMMV. I certainly hope so. Just as you've done, I'll accomodate however many speakers I'm comfortable with and stop there.

Whatever the number of channels the future brings, you can be sure that it will be backwards compatible with existing speaker set-ups. For example: every DVD player can output 2-channels of sound irrespective of the number of discrete channels in the source material, from mono to full 5.1. So if you had never gone beyond a 2-speaker set-up, you could still enjoy discrete 5.1 soundtracks. The same will be true of additional channels and folks that have 5.1 set-ups.

Finally, I want to echo what Kevin said about having 360 degrees of sound around us. I tend to think of the four wall of a home theatre as cardinal vectors: left, right, front, back. To that end, we have the front wall fairly well covered: three speakers dedicated to the front soundstage (understandable, since our hearing acuity is at its best up front). With a 5.1 set-up, that leaves us with only two speakers to cover the remaining three walls. And that may be fine for most people, but I hope you understand that I can't really see two speakers providing stable imaging and wrap-around envelopment in all those directions.

Best,
Sanjay

KISS: 1 mono speaker in front of you.

But that's not for me.

SDDS can be 5.1 or 7.1. In it's 7.1 version it is configured differently than most home 7.1 systems, using 5 channels up front and 2 surrounds. The 2 additional front channels go between the usual 3, giving you left-of-centre and right-of-centre speakers.

SDDS-8 is intended mostly for really big theatres with very wide screens, where 3 speakers across the front might be insufficient. Probably overkill for home use (I can think of better uses for 2 additional channels), and Sony has never hinted at bringing it to consumer gear.

Best,
Sanjay