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