I've asked Chris at trade shows and discussed it with him at AVS forums, where he had posted for years. My first discussion with him about DSX started over 2 years ago, where he was rather ambiguous about how it worked. Since then he has clarified the process a bit, including the fact that they add reflections.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16418782#post16418782Hence my point about room treatments and EQ complement each other rather than some sweeping generalization that one is superior to the other. Audyssey knows the size of the area that is being "shown on the screen"? I said they used a different approach. Where did I say it was "better". In fact, I specifically said "Whether it is "better" or not is up to each listener. I don't decide that for other people." We discussed how DSX operates: it doesn't use matrix extraction, it generates reflections that are not in the original recording, it only uses content from the front L/R channels (and no other channels) to generate the reflections, DSX cannot be applied directly to 2-channel sources (they have to be matrixed to surround using PLII or Neo:6 first), height reflections are based on what bounces off the proscenium in concert halls, and other details. As for what DSX can and cannot do: it doesn't know the size of your listening room and it doesn't know the size of the rooms being depicted in the movie, as you have claimed. Without knowing the size of your listening room, it can't make it smaller (it has no reference). And since the processing is based on concert hall acoustics, it can only make your room sound larger (unless you know of any concert halls that are smaller than your listening room). Yes, that's an excellent excuse for making personal attacks.

@Logan,
What is your hands-on experience with DSX. Is this something you have actually used or heard extensively. Hearing what Chris (from Audyssey) has to say about a product that pays his bills does not impress me at all. From what I have read, Sanjay is pretty much on target. DSX tries to invent sound where it did not exist before, in an effort to provide an environment primarily designed for gamers so they can hear the sneakies. If DSX is able to change the reflections to simulate a different size room all I want to know is.. How do it know?? It can't invent a signal from out of the blue and have it correspond to what is on the screen unless it knows something no-one else does. Since it uses original information from the decoded codec PLll or whatever, when did it get the signal.

In my opinion no amount of matrixing will ever be better than discrete information. Almost all channels in excess of 5.1 are created out of thin air by the decoders. I hope in 5 years, when you come back, we are all talking about something else.

Ok. I appreciate you getting me up to date with the information you were presented with.

"I have no problem playing back a 7.1 soundtrack over 11 speakers by extracting content from the soundtrack to feed the additional speakers, what I do mind is adding reverb and early reflection to the soundtrack that where never there originally." This is a quote from you earlier on this forum and from quickly going over what Chris wrote back for you he is quick to tell you DSX is not about adding reverb.

About Chris being ambiguous about how it works I don't necessarily know that this is as much true but possible. He is surely not ambiguous about DSX's capabilities now. I'll review the forum thoroughly as soon as I have time. I have told you again and again how your sound stage is able to be made smaller with the speaker timing and you still think that it can not be achieved to sound smaller than your listening room. This can be done because the time that the sound from the two wide channels L/R or L/R height channels can arrive to the listener at any time in reference to the L/R (Center is not involved. Thanks for clearing that up for me). I have a hard time understanding why this is difficult to grasp. The less time between first reflections the smaller the room. Is there really a logical reason why the wide speaker can't be played to signal a wall closer than even the speaker actually is or would I just have to calibrate it with the speaker closer? Are you sure you just didn't understand what was being said by Chris. But I am sorry to ream you if you were trying to give me an honest assessment of what was said.

Actually I never stated that they didn't compliment eachother. You stated Trinnov complements my room more than saving money and using XT32 and building room treatments because I don't need to remap my speakers. Kinda sounds like you are the one downplaying the importance of room treatments. Any-who if I was bill gates I would design a perfect room with room treatments and have very little use for an eq because a perfect room with sound treatments is superior to a non perfect room that has to be adjusted for. But I'm not bill gates and using both will provide great sound and be much more affordable.

"Audyssey knows the size of the area that is being "shown on the screen"? " Yes usually because a good soundtrack has this information already in it that Audyssey picks up on through algorithms. I know that was meant to be a smart al-lick remark by you but usually the movie is filmed at the location of the original audio recording which has this information.

"I said they used a different approach. Where did I say it was "better". In fact, I specifically said "Whether it is "better" or not is up to each listener. I don't decide that for other people."" Very untrue. This is what you said about 11 channel playback with DSX versus Neo:X not about Trinnov and XT32. It is very obvious this is not what you want to have to say about Trinnov by what you have stated in the past.

Listen. Personal attacks are not great but I have a hard time believing your intentions are noble when you time and time again throw out false information and put words in my mouth that aren't what was said at all. I have tried to give everyone the truth and nothing but the truth. If I'm not sure I try and make sure everyone knows that. You can't honestly believe people won't read misinformation after misinformation from you if they read all the information that was presented by us.

I have no hands on experience other than I heard it in a custom theater room on I think a av7005. It was a long time ago but I'm almost positive it was a marantz. It was a new concept to me the day I heard it. It was actually only the heights as a demo but It's all I needed. I fell in love with the sound obviously. And I addressed where audyssey comes up with all this. From audible cues left over from the the recording in the environment that was filmed. I believe material even made like say AVATAR adds this into there sound as to not make it sound fake. All I need to say is it works so who cares how it works. And I am a gamer.

Edit: I think the 7.1 system I have currently does a great job at letting me know where my opponents are. Heights might create a huge advantage but I'm more interested in running around and feeling like I'm running into small rooms and out in to the open. Just more realism. I want to be enveloped in a sound that feels more real. I think I'd lose out on a lot without the reflections that are controversial to some. Of course I've never heard 11.2 but I am anxious. If I ever hear it and I don't like it I'll be the first to let everyone know here.

Edit 2: I think it is not right of me to even say as much as I have about my experience. What I enjoyed most was what felt like a bigger sound stage and it just made me feel there. I wasn't there to shop for receivers though I was there looking into making a move to a projector. After listening is when I asked and was given the info about what the system was running. Everyone should hear it themselves. There's probably a custom stereo shop not too far away from most. And you really should read other people's reviews that were with the system for weeks at a time not a few minutes.

Happy thankgiving

And I guess it's not considered matrixing. I'd like to hear his reasoning on that

If your L/R speakers are 10 feet away, how can you delay the wide speakers such that their sound arrives earlier than the direct sound? At best you can have the sound from the wides arrive at the same time as the L/R speakers, which would give the impression that your main speakers are at the boundry (no delay in their reflection). Please quote where I said that (none of my posts have been edited). If you're relying on a "good soundtrack" to provide accurate spatial cues of the space being depicted on-screen, then how does it help to interfere with that by adding the acoustics of a concert hall on top of those carefully recorded spatial cues in the soundtrack? Do you wan't to hear Gordon Gekko talking in his Wall Street boardroom or do you want to hear Gordon Gekko talking in his Wall Street boardroom as heard in a concert hall with proscenium and side wall reflections?

As for the "algorithms" that you believe somehow know the size of the room being depicted, here is an experiment you can try on your own system when you have a DSX set-up: try feeding it a signal that has no spatial cues, like a series of clicks or dry recording of speech, and see for yourself whether DSX maintains the intended space of the recording or changes the original intention by imposing the sound of a larger space. If it maintains the illusion in the recording, then DSX knows what's in the content. If it gives the impression that the speech is being played back in a wider, taller room, then DSX doesn't know what's in the recording.

In the mean time, here is what Brent Butterworth said in Sound&Vision magazine in his mostly favourable review of DSX: "However, DSX's effect on the dialogue that immediately follows was weird. It didn't impact dialogue that was "hard center"-i.e., coming entirely from the center speaker. However, the voiceover that begins the movie is spread into the other speakers a bit to give it more of a "voice of God" effect. DSX gets hold of this and blows it all out of proportion. The voiceover becomes unfocused and phasey-sounding, almost as if it has a bit of chorus effect added from a guitar player's stomp box. While this worked great on Andy Summers' guitar track in the Police's "Don't Stand So Close to Me," I didn't dig it on a movie voiceover." Understood, which is why I haven't accused you of lying, unlike... well, you edited that from your previous post. But truth isn't fact. You may sincerely believe that PLIIz is capable of encoding discrete channels or that DSX knows the size of the room being depicted on-screen, but that doesn't make those statements factual.

Surround processing can be broken down broadly into two methods: extracting and generating.

"Matrixing" typically refers to extraction. For example: sounds in a stereo recording that would normally phantom image at the centre of the soundstage are extracted and sent to a speaker at the centre of the soundstage. This is common to every matrix processing (PLII, Neo:6, Neural, Circle Surround, Logic7, etc). None of those surround modes ever adds anything to the recording, just matrixes out certain sounds to be steered to additional speakers. Think of matrixing as scaling: the number of channels in the source material need to be scaled to the number of speakers in your set-up.

This is different from room simulation, where you add spatial cues that have been generated to give the impression of being in a larger space. DSP processing from Yamaha and Sony, as well as DSX, fall into this category, since their goal is to give the impression of a different listening room than the one you're really in. This can't be done by matrix extraction, because steering ambient cues to different speakers doesn't change their arrival time (room size), just makes the ambience come from the appropriate direction (around you, instead of in front of you).

A reflection should never meet your ears before the original content. This is impossible in real life. Why would you want to reproduce something impossible in real life? This is not realistic. The straight line is the closest distance from one point to another which is the main l/r speakers. A reflection is two lines in different angles which can never be faster than the straight line. So the program would never want to do this in the first place. I still see a lot of disconnect with your reasoning.

I even went back and read the quote yesterday. I'm on my iPhone but if someone else looked they would of seen it too. It was on page 5 or 6. I'm not lying.

Anyways once your statements of why these things are impossible make sense I don't really feel it's worth doing this back and forth.

It's useful because our brain calculates these reflections automatically and it adds realism. Without the reflections we just lose out on realism. That's it. You shouldn't act like having cues is the same as having realistic reflections.

You quoted one of the very few things DSX is not good at reproducing. Not many movies have the voice of god effect. I'll turn off my DSX if it's going to be going on all movie.

You sound very unintelligent to me. If you have 11 channel DSX doesnt mean you have to have 11 speakers or utilize it. I do.

If you are in a tiny closet a sounds reflection will still take longer to get to you than the source material. Same as a large room. Please use your analytical mind to tell me why the reflection should ever reach your ear before the source material.

You do have your uses though. Thanks for telling me the definition of matrixing.

And about lying. I tell you what the reviewers and people that have dealt closely with PLIIz say they believe will be released. The point of talking about PLIIz was to talk about how it is widely believed dolby is making a move towards at least 9.1 discrete information in video games for those people who are never going to get out of their thinking that 7.1 is it and always will be. I don't care if it caries the PLIIz name. Another case of you swinging the point of a discussion in a way for you to disregard the points I try to make. Telling me PLIIz can't do this might be true but it might be as untrue about what u told all of us about DSX. Dolby doesn't have a ask Dolby forum to make it easy though so if you care that much to find out about it please do and share the email. I for one don't care because the point is not the one I was trying to make.

Yamaha is the only one I'm familiar with that puts you in a constant size room. Sony I'm not so sure. Didn even know that it had any type of system.

So the reviewers of the DSX and DSX itself are lying about what it does? It might of been in my head but I assumed what I heard was this effect after I read about it. You really aren't supposed to notice this. Your brain naturally does this in every room we ever enter with out us being drawn to its effect. It's something we are supposed to just process naturally and after we can be like wow this really feels like I'm in a large room or I feel like I'm in a small room. Not having you attention drawn to the reflections as f they are bothersome. I really just want more qualified people who have had this experience with DSX to take over for me whether I'm wrong or right. Not you who has no experience with it and discredits everything it claims to be able to do without anything but your logic that I believe is flawed unless I'm having a huge brain fart.