OK, so since a centre speaker won't give you the capability you've been proposing, it will have to be some sort of mixer; either outboard or built into your surround processor. Just my opinion, but: (a)The bug should be fixed and not worked around; (b)Spreading (fine-grained or otherwise) a discrete centre channel to three speakers is a bad idea because of reasons mentioned previously; (c)What are people going to documenting in their home theatres? I'm guessing that the hardware is already in place, since discrete centre and surround content can be re-routed to the front speakers (when centre and surrounds are set to 'none'). The only thing you need is some sort of gain stage in the re-routing circuit to vary the amount and/or volume level of sound being re-routed to the front L/R speakers. Basically a mixer, preferably done in the digital domain, placed right after the DD or DTS signal is decoded/unpacked but right before bass management and time alignment. Because home theatre manufacturers and users are not interested in wanting to "experiment with front channel remixing". They just want to watch a movie, where dialogue comes from the screen and not in triple-mono from all three front speakers.

Just my opinion, but: (a)The bug should be fixed and not worked around;

Both should be possible, that is, it should be possible to work around the bug until Outlaw provides an official fix. If variable PLII centre exraction were refactored to full extraction, with variable remixing (available regardless of source format), instead of variable extraction for PLII only, and fixed remixing (to accomodate varying number of speakers), a hack would be available for the end user. To boot, channel to speaker mapping just becomes another M (or M') transformation matrix.

Restricting variable mixing to those modes for which it "makes sense", i.e. as variable PLII extraction and making downmixing separate, makes the documentation more complicated, because one has to say, in effect, "in mode ... you can do ...; in mode ... you can do ... and ..., but not ...; in mode ... you can do ...", the assumption being that the reader can better understand a plethora of special cases instead of a series of orthogonal processing steps, even if some combination of those steps might not make sense.

Personally, I don't buy that line of reasoning. Outlaw could always offer a "novice" and "expert" mode with the "novice" mode disabling possible but likely not useful combinations.

It makes the underlying processing much simpler to code because it becomes an independet set of steps without needing "special cases" to forbid things that don't "make sense". Each step has it's own independent configuration settings, and only "novice" mode has the knowledge to gate "illegal" combinations of configuration settings.

It also could allow customers to define their own set of options for each step, allowing one to eliminate options that one does not use. Of course, always offer factory default "novice" and "expert" (and perhaps "maintenance" modes).

Because home theatre manufacturers and users are not interested in wanting to "experiment with front channel remixing". They just want to watch a movie, where dialogue comes from the screen and not in triple-mono from all three front speakers.

And that is optimized for a particular distribution of on-axis and off-axis listeners/viewers.

I'd like my pre/pro to have connections for seat sensors and remix appropriately depending on where the audience is sitting (the default being, well, as it stands).

While it might be outragous to suggest that Outlaw provide such functionality and hardware interfaces, the combination of the RS232 status and control port, and a dedicated microcontroller with seat sensors could do it if the 990 exposed a control mechanism for it's internal digital mixer. A separate analog mixer, controlled by the microcontroller would work too, but why on earth should I need that when there's a perfectly good digital mixer implementation likely present in the 990?

My overall point is that Outlaw should expose all the internal mixing and switching capabilities of the 990 even though its internal software limits how they are used to "keep it simple". Perhaps only via the RS-232 interface, so novices can't "mess things up by accident".

This opens up control of the unit to hackers, who might develop really useful control software models, some of which might eventually get folded back into internal software upgrades offered by Outlaw.

Win for hackers, win for Outlaw (who get free control software development), and win for future customers.

I suppose that that is the question. I ask because I am only using left and right fronts and no center and I am able to set the center to NONE on my 990.

How, exactly? I've tried to no avail, and I can't believe my unit has buggy or old firmware.

FWIW, my front speakers are set to "small" and I have a sub. No surround speakers (yet) -- I'm basically using the 990 as an analog preamp, DAC, and multi-channel audio decoder.

No one is "restricting" variable mixing. The feature isn't there because there's simply no use for it. You're confusing extraction with mixing. Extraction is already being used in the matrix decoding modes, so allowing it to be variable is easy.

There is no mode that uses variable bleeding of discrete centre content. Since it's not there to begin with, how can it be restricted to certain modes? It doesn't exist, period, despite what you may want to believe.

Also, it doesn't add any complication to the documentation of the modes. Different modes have different features. You just have to deal with it. Outlaw isn't in the business of designing surround processing and lossy compression technologies like PLII and DD (respectively). They're buying those technologies off-the-shelf from Dolby. Likewise with DTS's technologies.

Outlaw can't change how those modes work (even if they knew how to) because those are licensed items and as such have to adhere to the specification of the license. Outlaw isn't holding back; the 990 comes with practically everything Dolby has to offer for home theatre systems. Bleeding discrete centre content to other speakers helps neither on-axis nor off-axis listeners. The triple-mono result induces comb-filtering and smears localization. That's why no one has done it. It's a useless feature and not worth wasting time/resources implementing in home theatre products.

Rather than crunching numbers for a simulation of what you expect to hear, you really ought to try actually listening to the results of what you're proposing. ...and robots that lift the speakers up and down depending how tall or short you are. That would really be useful (and easy to implement). There isn't a mixer present in the 990. Just because you believe that one is there doesn't mean that reality will somehow accomodate you by making a mixer suddenly appear in the 990. Now it's "hackers"? (I feel like I'm in a sitcom but just don't know it yet.) What can I say, except that Outlaw and Dolby and DTS are not manufacturing products designed with software hacking in mind.

You're confusing extraction with mixing. Extraction is already being used in the matrix decoding modes, so allowing it to be variable is easy.

Sigh. Unless said extraction is non-linear, full extraction followed by variable mixing can have the same effect, and allows leverage of an existing mixer.

There is no mode that uses variable bleeding of discrete centre content. Since it's not there to begin with, how can it be restricted to certain modes?

All the pieces are there: extraction, and mixing (how else would one mix to the appropriate number of channels, and implement the variable balance between side and back surround channels if there was not a continuously variable mixer?).

If a variable extraction to centre is available, a fixed extraction to centre is available, and since a mixer exists, it can be used whether the centre is discrete or extracted. It's a simple issue of software refactoring.

Outlaw can't change how those modes work (even if they knew how to) because those are licensed items and as such have to adhere to the specification of the license.

No, but they can refactor bits out of the implementations! I doubt the licenses prohibit this -- they likely include a reference implementation and a suite of tests that the implementation must pass. What is licensed is not likely to be code specific to the processor in the 990, but rather a right to implemented a patented process, along with access to intellectual property to facilitate such an implementation.

Also, it doesn't add any complication to the documentation of the modes. Different modes have different features. You just have to deal with it.

Have you never heard of the benefits of software refactoring? The common aspects of different modes can be refactored. In fact, I'd bet that, in the 990, they are, but that this is hidden from, the user.

If you can refactor a mixer, you can expose it fully, and common mixes to specific number of speakers just becomes a special case of a generic parametrization. The questions are only whether that generic access and the refactoring is exposed via the user interface or if the unit is crippled.

There isn't a mixer present in the 990.

And I say, based on what the 990 does, there is. It just isn't fully exposed. I can't believe that the 990 would used fixed hardware mixing after all that software decoding (which is more computationally intense).

The triple-mono result induces comb-filtering and smears localization.

Well, this is a sensible argument. But you'd get that with partial PLII centre extraction, no?

Actually, with the BG Radia 220i, you do get smearing of localization: the damn thing is more than 32" wide and transmits along its length with a cylindrical dispersion pattern. Centre appears to come from the display, not the centre of the display. You don't get the comb filtering problems with the one speaker alone, but it is possible with a bad (i.e. relatively equal) bleed between separate L, C, and R.

Now it's "hackers"? (I feel like I'm in a sitcom but just don't know it yet.) What can I say, except that Outlaw and Dolby and DTS are not manufacturing products designed with software hacking in mind.

Well, they should. They're already catering to early adopters who think nothing of dropping $1100 to buy something over the Internet. They'd get feature and bug fix prototyping for free.

It can have the same effect, but you'd need a variable mixer - which doesn't exist in the 990. All the pieces aren't there: extraction exists, variable mixing does not. You're looking at the electronic equivalent of a Y-splitter (when centre speaker is set to 'none') and considering that a mixer. It's not. You're starting from a false premise. Since extraction is already occuring, it is easy to make it variable. But mixing doesn't exist, so there is no way to modify (e.g., make variable) something that's not there to begin with.

As I mentioned earlier, you are free to believe that a mixer exists in the 990. But living in an alternate reality will force you to come up with bizzare reasons why this phantom mixer is not being used. To rationalize your position, you'll have to resort to conspiracy theories about 'secret' capabilities and purposely 'disabled' features. OK, so I was close. You called them "hidden" and "crippled" (instead of 'secret' and 'disabled', respectively).

But yes, you are of course correct: certain features were conspired to be hidden from you. Note that others can set their centre speakers to 'none' but you can't. You should have seen the Outlaws gathering at the Grassy Knoll, whispering: "Well, that went off pretty smoothly! Now about this Rene guy..." Early adopters? The surround processing technology in the 990 is mature; nothing there on the bleeding edge (even PLIIx has been around for almost two years).

In any case, as tempting as it is to have "feature and bug fix prototyping for free", I'm glad that consumer electronic companies don't design their products to accomodate hackers.

All the pieces aren't there: extraction exists, variable mixing does not. You're looking at the electronic equivalent of a Y-splitter (when centre speaker is set to 'none') and considering that a mixer. It's not.

Oh, for Pete's sake! If one can code C' = xC, L' = (1-x)C/2+L, R'=(1-x)C/2+R, for x either 0 or 1, one can code if for x between 0 and 1. DSPs and hybrid processors do pretty good fixed and floating point math these days (likely necessary for DD decoding anyway).

The only assumptions I make are that (a) the 990 does decoding and processing in the digital domain, (b) it has fixed and/or floating point capabilities, and (c) it can combine data from independent channels.

What part of the linear algebra are you having trouble with?

You called them "hidden" and "crippled" (instead of 'secret' and 'disabled', respectively).

Yes, because I believe they exist in code that any reasonable programmer would refactor in such an application, but are not exposed to the end user. 'secret' is your word to imply a conspiracy, not mine. I do not believe the lack of access to this funcionality was intended to thwart experimentation, but rather to protect the unsophisticated end user from themselves -- I see no malice in the restriction.

Early adopters? The surround processing technology in the 990 is mature; nothing there on the bleeding edge (even PLIIx has been around for almost two years).

I was referring to the practice of plunking down over a thousand dollars for a product over the internet, sight unseen, on the reputation of the seller.

In any case, as tempting as it is to have "feature and bug fix prototyping for free", I'm glad that consumer electronic companies don't design their products to accomodate hackers.

Actually, increasingly, companies do this.

Outlaw can by offering a test mode which provides greater control capabilities over the unit via it's serial port. This is useful for automated testing in the factory. It would also be useful for hackers.

Note that others can set their centre speakers to 'none'

And I've asked for a description of how (starting from a reset unit). I can't, and no one has responded. I do not believe that the firmware in my unit is somehow different from stock -- that's your conspiracy theory. (It would be nice if there was a way to obtain the firmware version from the unit). Either I'm doing something wrong, or there is a "trick" to specifying two small L+R speakers and a sub.

The part where you calculated that a mixer exists in the 990 when none does. This is like earlier when you calculated that off-centre dialogue would move towards the centre when using a centre speaker (but actual listening demonstrated otherwise).

Of course, you are free to believe things like a mixer exists in the 990 or that "imaging is shot" when using a centre speaker. But given a choice between your "mathematical analysis" and reality, I'll opt for the latter (which doesn't support any of your above claims). Really? Which A/V companies are allowing software hacking of features such as surround processing and/or speaker configuration? Hackers aren't their market.

Really? Which A/V companies are allowing software hacking of features such as surround processing and/or speaker configuration?

Any one based on a Linux platform and conforming to the GPL. TiVo comes to mind, though strictly speaking that isn't an A/V company.

RokuLabs, which makes an HD playback device (HD1000 a.k.a. Photobridge) is another, though the Photobridge (don't let the name fool you, it will play HD MPEG2 video streamed from a PC, PS and TS) only has digital and two channel analog outputs.

Finally, there is a bunch of free (as in GPL) sofware available to do DD decoding on a fast enough PC (not requiring a DSP), though that starts to run up against possible patent violations.

As for adding a centre not destroying dialog imaging, I disagree. I don't want the dialog 1/4 of the way right from the centre creen to appear at the centre of the screen. Stereo miking works fine for the sweet spot.