Right and I'm talking about in order for it to be adopted there needs to be compatible equipment. I just disagree with you and think people will adopt it, but it'll take time.

People building a dedicated room probably wouldn't think twice about 9.1 or 11.1. In fact, I imagine for each row of seats they'd want a side channel. For those with large format projection screens may want height channels if they don't have acoustically transparent screens. However joe consumer that goes to a big box store and buys a system in a box probably isn't think 9.1 or 11.1. So you're right that the average consumer probably doesn't care, but enthusiasts who put their own systems together will care.

Oh it goes further back than 15 years. Fosgate was selling 7.1 pre-pros in 1986; Lexicon followed a couple years with their 7.1 pre-pro in 1988. Keep in mind that 5.1 material wouldn't show up until 8 years later. So this is all extraction from stereo sources.

In fact, the first 25 years of consumer surround sound (starting in 1970) was all based on extraction. It's not until the mid 1990s that we consumers finally got discrete multi-channel and people started predicting the end of matrix processing. As if! Since then we got: EX, ES, PLII, Neo:6, PLIIx, DSX, PLIIz, and now Neo:X (just got a listen to DTS' new 11.1 processing at CES).

One thing to keep in mind, the Dolby and DTS modes extract ambience (using only sounds from the recording itself) while Yamaha DSP and Audyssey DSX generate ambience (add reverb and early reflections that weren't originally in the recording).

Adoption of height channels can begin any time - not only has Yamaha offered it in proprietary ways for years, but Pro Logic IIz products have been on the market for a while now. Granted, a significant number of those products force you to choose between back surround or height, but the compatible equipment is there. The 978 and 998 will be "compatible equipment" just like the Marantz AV7005, no matter what DAC configuration is used.


Dedicated rooms are the best candidates, but they are also a small percentage of the total number of home "theaters" even among enthusiasts. In those cases, extra side channels are a different matter - they're going to get a copy of an existing side surround signal - but combining height and back surround channels in one room is more straightforward.

I'm not saying there aren't cases where the extra DAC channels are desirable - there absolutely are such cases out there. It's just that I think it's going to be a somewhat "focused" market.

Gonk: Based upon what I have seen thus far (not a lot), DSX does not appear to prohibit the use of rear surrounds. Consequently, I would love for you please explain how a product that only has 8 DAC's like the AV7005 apparently does, can claim to be 9.x or 11.x, when it can't output that many channels.

In my uneducated way of looking at things, what Marantz is doing would appear to be a misrepresentation if not an outright rip-off.

DSX does not prohibit rear surrounds - at least the processing mode does not. If you read the AV7005 manual (or, perhaps more easily, the Outlaw guide), though, it explains the processor's behavior when DSX or PLIIz is engaged. Here's the recap as I remember it:

Step 1: Configure as many speakers as you want. You can have 11.x channels set up in the processor's menus if you have the speakers connected.

Step 2: Choose the processing modes that you want to use. You can use Pro Logic IIx, DTS Neo:6, Dolby EX, Pro Logic IIz IIz (if height channels are enabled), DSX Height (if height channels are enabled), or DSX Wide (if wide channels are enabled). I don't think the AV7005 allows a DSX Height+Wide mode. What happens when using IIz or either DSX mode, though, is the back surrounds cease to be used.

It's all about the fine print, and the AV7005 is not the only PLIIz or DSX equipped product out there that includes such fine print in one way or another. Is it right that they appear to be hiding this stuff in the fine print? Not really. From that standpoint, it's nice that the Outlaw guide is more straightforward about how it actually works. I've seen so many instances of important (at least to me) details like this being buried in poorly-written documentation that I'm probably a little numb to it. Starting five years ago or so, we had "HDMI" receivers and processors that only supported HDMI for video switching, but you had to read the manual and look for the lack of instructions on how to configure HDMI as an audio input to know it. (That's why a good number of us were pleased with Outlaw for using DVI on the 990 and 1070/970 - same capabilities, and no doubt about how it worked.) This is just one more example of companies being vague (either intentionally or out of sloppiness or sheer laziness, I don't know which) about a feature's limitations.

Gonk: Thanks for confirming my understanding.

It would seem that a more honest approach would be to provide digital outputs that could be used for the height or wide channels and advertise as 9.x or 11.x ready (with an outboard DAC and AMP). This of course assumes that the DSP supplied with the unit has the horsepower to do all of the calculations to generate the wide and/or height channel signals (and of course that is another area where manufacturers seem to mislead).

Integrating digital outputs (with a great deal of resulting confusion from the typical consumers who aren't familiar with the idea of outboard DAC's) would probably not cost much less than adding additional internal DAC channels, and it would certainly lead to greater first cost for consumers - after all, finding even a $100 stereo outboard DAC is difficult, and most are at least a couple times more expensive than that.

If I were to imagine getting sucked into an episode of The Big Bang Theory dedicated to home theatre / surround sound, this would be it!

Heck I'm a big fan of multichannel sound, but when the talk turns to numbers of channels that none but the fanatical would or could implement and maintain any sense of sound quality (ie. not make it happen via multiples of those little cube speakers) my eyes gloss over real quick.

It gets to the point where, if I was going to try to perfectly simulate the sound environment of a major listening venue through the expansion beyond a 7.1 system, I'd probably go out and buy season's tickets to my local orchestra instead.

Yes my intimate little set-up is probably maxed for space when it comes to adding additional full-range speakers. But even if it wasn't I doubt very much that I would. 5.1 SACD source material for music listening delivers more than a fully satisfactory listening experience. BD source material for 7.1 movie viewing / listening provides all the width, depth, and height sensation than I need.

We all have our passions. But I think I'm in with the vast majority who really don't feel any need for those additional channels.

On the "why would many people bother with 9 or 11 when so few even bother to go to 7" question - the audyssey people present the case on their web site that the extra channels in the front/wide are more important than the extra back channels. They say:

"Wide channels are much more critical in the presentation of a realistic soundstage than the Back Surround channels found in traditional 7.1 systems. Adding surround channels behind the listener has a very small impact compared to the increase in envelopment and soundstage width that the Wide channels provide."

I have a 6.1 setup, and I find their research/claims plausible. I want great, well-positioned dialogue, great in-movie music and background sounds, well-located just-of-the screen effects, etc. Philosophically, it has always seemed to me that going too crazy with back speakers doesn't seem like it will add much - there is only so much you can do with rain effects (and etc.). So I can see folks being interested in adding heights and wides even if they are not already up to 7.1 (e.g., me).

That said, putting those wides out at 60 degrees may be a limiting factor for many - it is kind of a weird angle/positioning.