How about the 998?

Thanks for the update on the 978. How about some real information on the 998? For those of us that have waited through the fiasco that was the previous dumped processor and now the roll out of the 978 which looks to be a great design. Should we continue waiting fot the 998? Will it be better than the 978 in features excepting the trinnov vs. MultEQ XT32? Will it ever become a reality or should we figure not and just buy the 978? I think most of us are just looking for some real info on the 998.

The original plan for the Model 978 was described as using the same hardware platform (or very similar) with different room correction, and I have a hunch the plan is still in place - although in all likelihood the bulk of their programming effort is focused on getting the Model 978 out the door.

I'd say buy the 978. If done very well, which I expect it will, you'll have all you'll need for quite a while. I think the 978 will have a long product life cycle and the 998 will be quite a ways out in the future.

You can bet the farm on that one.

Truthfully, I have all I need now for quite a while with the 990, as I am using the analog inputs from my blu ray player. All i'm missing is the HDMI which from most posts on the internet looks like is a questionable technology compared to component cables. (HDCP, connectors falling out, issues with long cables runs) I have no issues bypassing the 978 and waiting for the 998 but I'd like some real timelines from outlaw. Are we talking another 6 months, a year, 2 years, 5 years?

I doubt they'll try to make firm predictions on the Model 998 until the Model 978 is done and they can focus more resources on the Trinnov integration - especially since part of me suspects that the biggest reason for the decision to create the Model 978 was uncertainty from developers on how much time they needed to squeeze Trinnov onto a dual-TI platform.


Practically speaking, if it's five years or even two years, the core architecture of the Model 978 platform is going to start looking too dated and they'll likely need to start making changes there, as well. I doubt that's going to be the case, for a number of reasons. Trinnov's engineers have had time to learn more about scaling the code to fit on consumer platforms like this, which is only going to help, and Outlaw's not going to want to miss the chance to make full use of their new hardware. Based on all that, I'd think they'd push really, really hard to keep the Model 998 from being more than 12 months behind the Model 978.

Also, we don't have any detailed specifics on possible differences beyond Trinnov. If they keep the hardware unchanged, they should be able to either avoid or significantly fast-track a lot of certifications, which would also save time...

The 998 has been put on hold until we fully complete and introduce the Model 978.

AVR and processor technologies have changed so much in the last year (and will continue to evolve with new chips, solutions etc) that we have to re-assess every feature that we originally planned. There simply is no other way to overlook this reality.
By economic necessity, anything that we build must serve us for at least two years or more. In that regard, we are quite comfortable with the 978 because it focuses on simplicity and sound quality and affords most of our customers with what they want.

The ongoing features "arms race" has heated up again with the bar being raised (or lowered depending on the way you look at it) every year. With these new "features" comes complexity. We are not saying this is bad. What we are saying is that feature crammed products are not what we are about. Therefore in the near future we have to look at our available choices and take the best shot for our customer base.


Our pulling the plug on the original 998 was the most painful decision we ever made. We had thousands on the "very interested' 'list. Yet had we gone ahead we would have suffered the same fate that the Newcastle 972 AVR has encountered. It would have been a nightmare for you and us.

For those that want the latest in features and options, we carry one of the best "players" in that arena- Marantz. Their parent, (D&M Holdings), is a massive company with large worldwide resources and even they take their time developing new models.

The new Model 978 will be a product that we want for ourselves, just as we all own and love our 990's. The step-up 998 should be good enough that we will want to make the upgrade. That is the bar that we have set for ourselves and we are re-thinking now just what we have to do. It will not be easy

That is a long answer. However, after so many delays that have mostly been out of our control, we prefer to provide you with our straight-forward thinking.

Peter

Thank you very much Peter!

Thanks Peter.

Appreciate the honest assessment - it really does help those of us who do plan purchases to evaluate what is worth waiting for and what is worth "pulling the trigger" on our "plan B"...

For the record, the 978 has moved way up on the "pretty much everything I will need for quite a while" list and the 998 will have to be that much "more compelling" when it comes closer to reality.

Finally, I doubt I am alone in saying that with recent economic realities every expenditure has to be scrutinized a lot harder -- the value that the 978 and associated "package deals" promises to offer faces a very different set of competitors than the "sky is the limit" offerings that were relatively common a few years back...

Don't you mean the 'original 997'?

As you said, the 998 has been put on hold, but has not had the 'plug pulled', correct?

Good catch.

Sorry about that.

Peter

PeterT,

Can you confirm if Trinnov room correction is still planned as a feature of the on hold 998? I understand there are no gaurantees but is it still an intention? Thank you.

Concerning Trinnov, we would certainly like to do it but there are now some uncertainties.
First the implementation of Trinnov in the Newcastle 972 was less than optimal(,along with several other aspects of that receiver) and a lot of work would have to be done to get it up to our standards.
Second,the ADA Trinnov product which is great and a very sophisticated implementation is extremely expensive due to several factors, some of which are costly licensing and NRE fees.

The above could put Trinnov out of reach. It really depends if other licensees can come on board to help lower overall development costs. So while we really like this system, the cost benefit/ratio might not be justified in the 998. We keep looking at this situation and have made no final decision. However we wanted you to know just what challenges we presently face

Our total focus now is to complete the 978 and then we will again visit the Trinnov situation.

Getting back to the original question:


I think Peter's latest post has bumped me into the "no" category. Even if there is a business case for the 998 it sounds like a multi-year development effort to me.

Thanks for the update.

This solidifies my focus on the 978. I believe it will have all I need. I was intrigued by Trinnov, but without it, I'm not sure what the 998 would offer me. I had debated waiting for Trinnov given my odd room configuration, but if the 998 may not even have Trinnov, I'm not sure it would make sense for me to wait any longer.

I wonder if it would be possible for a company like Outlaw to bring out a stand alone version of Trinnov like the old ICBM. Make it HDMI and analog compatible and lots of people would buy one just to see it work on their system. I had thought a while back of getting a used r-972 to try out Trinnov. I would have output my Onkyo 886 to the r-972 input and fed 7 channels out. It could have gotten confusing but it would have been interesting to try.

I waited (and waited and waited) only because of Trinnov. Without it Outlaw sort of becomes the bang for the buck answer again. Not that that is a bad thing. But you were really poised to be a leader, not a "quality for lower price alternative".

That said, I really appreciate the response. As I've mentioned in month past I'm guessing the programming just couldn't come together. Whatever the exact reasons, things are what they are. And I appreciate the realities of the Trinnov costs. Since I really like Outlaw and their business model I will continue to "attempt" to offer suggestions.

My pitch to Trinnov, and any other license holders, is have them analyze how many units they sell at (what is it, $15,000?) and to think long and hard whether they would make more money as a volume proposition. For as stand-alone correction device $999.00 strikes me as cut-off where you could sell them all week long and Sundays too.

Of course, this may be simply unrealistic and an impossibility. If within reach, however, be the first to market this and you could really be on to something. To my ear, the thing that sets today's mid to high end AVR's and processors apart is room correction. Sell this idea and a stand alone "one set of correction algorithms to rule them all" solution could sell well. Then again, it took years for the market to figure out you needed high-def input for a high-def TV to look better than standard def so there is always risk!

Good luck and get that damn 978 out NOW before my wife forces my hand and I find myself in the arms of Integra/Onkyo, or Marantz!

If I am to be honest, I think without trinnov there is no point in releasing the 998. I doubt it will have anything of significant value over the 978. You might as well just move on to the 1198 (or whatever your next major number will be) and to your next major processor release. Calling the 998 an enhanced version of the 978 will sound like a missed boat. Just dump it and move on to your next great thing. At least then we won't be waiting another 5 years for a non existent processor.

I agree. Personally, I don't see Trinnov as any "better" or "worse" than XT32. Just different. So if there aren't any other differences than the flavor of room EQ between the 978 and 998, the 998 becomes pointless.

Focus on the 978. Make a kick ass product. *Then* worry about what comes next.

Even more is that they don't even know that Trinnov will be included. That would mean that the 998 would need to be several notches above the 978 or it wouldn't make sense.

Give up on the 998 and focus on making the replacement receiver based on the 978. If it is a high quality component it could put Outlaw back where they don't need other companies to fill in the product gaps.

There is one aspect of Trinnov that Audyssey has no equivalent for, and that's 3D remapping. I think that's a big part of the reason that Outlaw still has interest in pursuing Trinnov after getting XT32 working.


I think that's exactly what they are doing, which is why details on the Model 998 and its Trinnov component are still scarce.

gonk- "3D mapping" ... something you could easily and quickly explain? (or a link? I've only read one review of the Sherwood AVR with Trinnov ... and it's been a while.)

Or do I get that already with MultiEQ XT and small variations in the height of the microphone as I move it around the room for the different measurements.

Trinnov's 3D remapping attempts to correct for errors in speaker placement. Center channels above or below the screen, surrounds that are not equidistant or are different distances from the rear wall, fronts that are different distances from the display, etc., are all adjusted. The calibration mic is actually a cluster of microphones so each measurement locates the speaker in the room relative to the mic pod (sort of an acoustic GPS). This is used to set speaker distances, but it also can be used to create correctly-placed phantom versions of each individual speaker when 3D remapping is engaged. As with any correction software like room EQ, there are limitations (the effect won't be as effective away from the sweet spot, for example), but the ability to optimize performance in the sweet spot this way is one of the reasons people have been interested in Trinnov.

Ok, I remember that feature now with the Sherwood [edited]. It can potentially move an incorrectly placed speaker to its proper position, virtually (or spatially).

I plan on waiting for the 998, since my room needs Trinnov's 3D remapping correction Hope Outlaw doesn't give up on this technology. Have been waiting since the Sherwood 998 was first announced.

I suspect you'll be waiting much longer then, if not forever. As I have said from the beginning, a successful Trinnov implementation in a consumer-level AVR or pre-pro is a long shot at best. I become more and more convinced of that as time goes on and PeterT's last post on the subject on August 23 (#87670 in this thread) only reinforces my opinion.

With all the research and development Outlaw has spent on Trinnov, it would be great if they came out with a stand alone Trinnov room correction device similar to the ICBM of old. It could be used as an add on between the 978 and an amp. It could be set up to allow programming via a laptop which could save various curves and allow flexibility for the spatial orientation. What would really be cool is if an HDMI output/input loop was installed to allow the interface to be turned on and off as needed.

I think something along the lines of what you suggest may be the only way we might ever see a functioning Trinnov solution from Outlaw. It would likely be expensive but might just fly if it could be offered for considerably less than the astronomically-priced ADA alternatives, especially since it would presumably be platform-independent and could appeal to owners of non-Outlaw AVRs and pre/pros.

Just looking at those devices makes it apparent how hard it must be for Outlaw to integrate Trinnov into a pre-pro. Providing 5, 7 or 9 channels is probably the hardest part, since no matter what level they decide to integrate at, someone will be disappointed. If they go at 5 channels it would serve most of us at the lowest cost. 7 or 9 channels will likely cost a lot more for just a few people.

I finally bit the bullet and bought the Sherwood Newcastle R-972. After owning it for over one month I can safely say I don't regret the purchase one bit. As many of you are probably aware, the R-972 can be used as a pre-amp even though it's a full-fledged receiver. For some time I was put off by that and also by the multitudinous complaints from AVS forum members but it works fine in my setup and produces a very pleasing & spacious sound field in my room. My setup is fairly simple: an Oppo 983 (for DVDs) connected via HDMI and a Sony PS3 (for 2D & 3D Blu-rays) also connected via HDMI. The R-972 handles 3D video + audio over HDMI just fine from my PS3. I can't speak for other 3D sources, however. As always, YMMV.

What receiver or pre/pro did you use before purchasing the R-972 and how would you describe the difference Trinnov made between the two?

I can honestly see Outlaw making the 978 capable of Audyssey dsx into 9.2 or 7.2 channels especially because they now state that it will support pro logic llz. I think one of the benefits of waiting for the 998 if developed is the implementation of 11.2 channels. I just have a feeling that jumping from a projected 7 channel system to an 11 channel system is not going to happen for the 978 but would be possible for the 998. I myself already have the 11 speakers necessary to implement the full benefits of dsx so I will definitely hold out till I find out the deal with the 998 or find that a new marantz pre/pro will have similar sound processing and 11 channels. Some people knock the benefit of adding these channels but I personally like the ability to turn it on or off depending on what source material I'm listening to. It is really exciting thinking of the potential sound quality that would be achieved with a 998 11 channel reciever with the saber DAC's. Of course this is all speculation and wishful thinking. I also think that Trinnov may be necessary for some, but those of us with correct speaker placement really don't need the benefit of 3d remapping as no one should with any type of dedicated or purpose built home theater room. I believe Audyssey has a much greater benefit to me than Trinnov. Perhaps they will introduce Trinnov into there 1198. I for one however would not like to pay for this feature in any pre/pro. Does anyone disagree? Maybe I don't really understand the full benefits of Trinnov.

Maybe someone can also let me know how you can go about applying to be a beta tester for these processors? Thank you

There you go.


http://www.outlawaudio.com/support/faq_beta.html

Thank you very much hifihunter

A little history first. Outlaw originally intended their 997 prepro to include Trinnov. It was to be based on the Sherwood 972 chassis. With delay after delay from Sherwood, they dropped the 997, and went with clean sheet design for their 998. The 998 was to include Trinnov, however, it apparently proved too time consuming and quite difficult. So, without a prepro in their lineup, and time slipping away, they decided to take the 998 chassis and employ Audyssey Multi XT. Then they realized that Multi XT32 would be needed to remain competitive, and the design proceeded using it, with further delays. The 998 may or may not ever come to life, as it looks to be too costly for them to develope without sharing costs. So if the 998 finally is released, it most probably will be locked in to the 978 channel configuration but with Trinnov. What you are wishing for might eventually be on a sucessor to the 978/998 chassis, and that would be several years from now. But first they must get the 978 to market.

I've read a lot about the history of the 997 moving to the 998 then to the 978. Yeah the Trinnov might very well be what they gear themselves toward for the 998. From my understanding though is that Trinnov is going to be a problematic system to implement for an Outlaw processor to say the least. I would think that that is what will take years to develop into their processors and they would focus more on implementing DSX and the XT32 system in their current processors as this is what they are focusing on for the 978. I have to believe adding additional channels and a little better processing capabilities to the technology they are already implementing would be allowing them to offer the 998 within a year rather than a couple years adding Trinnov. I could be wrong though. A 998 with Trinnov would be great for some consumers but a little unnecessary for those of us with proper speaker placement. Perhaps they have had one of their research teams this entire time working on the Trinnov integration even though they have claimed to have put it on the back burner. I believe they would have just went for the Trinnov and the original 998 plan if they were anywhere near being able to produce it. I will say though that I am very excited regaurdless of what they do. Regaurdless Outlaw sounds like they are coming very close to a processor that I will buy and enjoy for years to come even if it takes them a couple years longer than I hope.

PL11z may allow use of 11 channels but most avr/avps only allow using seven channels at a time even if 11 are connected. Since there are no 11 channel amps out there you would need 2 amps to support 11 channels for separates. Although the AVRs support 11 channels they certainly don't have the power of separates. Check closely for the actual ratings. Most rate the output with only 2 channels driven yet state it as if all channels had the same output power. For the most part although there are 11 speaker channels there are only 7 amp channels.

I agree completely. I would never want to drive my speakers with a reciever that was built to drive 9 speakers. I plan on buying seperate amplifiers that are built for anything I put to them once I have a reason to upgrade (excellent processor). The only point I was making with the Denons is it is possible to use them as only processors with seperate amps to drive all 11 speakers but I wouldn't call that ideal or "excellent".

Trinnov is room correction, like Audyssey, which equalizes the sound to give you a smoother/flatter response by minimizing the room's unwanted contributions to the overall sound. However, unlike Audyssey, Trinnov uses a multi-capsule mic in order to map your speakers' locations (distance, elevation, azimuth). This allows Trinnov to do things that Audyssey cannot. For example: Audyssey can correct for varying distances by applying approprate delays to each speaker; Trinnov goes one step further by correcting for varying heights and varying angles. PLIIz tops out at 9 channels max.

Hi Sdurani. I was aware it did some EQ work but from what I hear it is only the low frequencies. And low frequencies are supposed to be excellent with Audyssey. Audyssey also can cover the entire audio spectrum which may be necessary in untreated rooms. I've seen the Trinnov mic and have read about the process it uses to 3d remap the speakers. All I was saying is if your speakers are placed at the appropriate heights and angles then Trinnov is an unnecessary asset and/or expense. It can easily create more problems for your other listeners as the system can only remap for the one listening location. It changes the phase and signal in such a way that it negatively affects the rest of the listeners from what I read. Multiple locations can not be calculated for because of this which which makes sense. However there are reasons that Trinnov is necessary or beneficial I should say. I will recommend it to my parents as they are moving into a house with an array of floor standing speakers and ceiling speakers. I don't believe it will sound great to have your L/R speakers play at ear level while having your center channel above your tv and fireplace on the ceiling. This is the only situation I believe you really need to have the Trinnov system. There are a lot of people who can't have the recommended speaker placements due to their room. I'm not one of those people though as I'm in a rectangular room that allows for correct heights and angles of the speakers so I'll want my money to go towards features that benefit me more.
I'm also aware that the PLIIz is only the height channels but what Xenonman was talking about are the DSX channels. I knew what he meant so I didn't feel the need to correct him but you're right. I don't think PLIIz will really benefit anyone anyways unless Dolby comes out with video games that are programmed with that discrete channel which is likely to happen way sooner than movies. I hear DSX is the way to go regardless with heights because PLIIz is too tame with these channels not allowing much material to play with the heights in fear of playing content not meant to be played above you. Audyssey DSX is more willing to take the chance that unintentional material can be sent to the height speakers so that they can play more material giving the channels a much more significant purpose and effect. And from what I hear it succeeds quite well. Again we don't even know if DSX will be offered on any Outlaw processor but considering the 978 will run Audyssey XT32 and have PLIIz decoding according to the spec sheet I will assume it also has the DSX decoding which is why 11 channels is even up for debate.

As far as the 978 goes 9 or 11 channels won't be part of the processor. An outboard setup might be a work around but the processor won't use more than 7 channels.

It will have a minimum of 9 channels processing capabilities because it must decode the standard back surround speakers and the PLIIz heights. I will assume it also has the wides making it capable of processing 11 channels with DSX. That does not mean I'm saying it processes more than 7 of these 11 channels simultaneously. I agree. It's probably only outputing a mere 7 channels like the av7005 which I believe is a very big mistake. This isn't really a big leap in technology for any cost conscientious buyers that had the previous gen features. I thought they would at least aim higher than what Marantz will probably make for it's successor to the av7005. It feels like they set the bar lower than I'd expect from all the great things I hear about outlaw.

There has been no indication at any time that the Model 978 will process more than 7.1 channels (with the ability to time align and level match dual subs), nor that it will be DSX capable. I remain hopeful however that the shipping version will include 5.1 plus Audyssey wides or heights capability.

If you want to use PLIIz heights with the 978, you will have to forego using the surround back channels.

Edit: Sorry... I see that this issue has already been dealt with in the other thread. I must admit that I don't stop by here nearly as often as I used to.

Hi Logan. I think you might be confusing Trinnov room correction with one of its features (speaker re-mapping). Imagine someone told you that they don't plan on using wide or height speakers, so Audyssey is unnecessary for them. You'd have to explain that Audyssey is more than DSX. Likewise, Trinnov is more than speaker re-mapping. In fact, until someone does a head to head comparison, there's no reason to believe that Audyssey's room correction capability is superior to Trinnov's room correction capabilities. They're well regarded in professional mixing studios for their automated room-EQ. PLIIz is matrix surround processing. If video games come out with discrete height channels, then you won't need matrix processing to extract them. It's like a discrete 7.1 soundtrack: you don't need PLIIx processing to extract rear channels, because they're there in discrete form. That's not quite how they compare.

PLIIz extracts decorrelated (out of phase) info from the surround channels and sends them to the height speakers. Those sounds typically don't image at specific locations in the surround field anyway, sounding instead like they're all around/above you. If PLIIz sounds too subtle, you can always raise their level until you get the right effect.

Unlike PLIIz, which extracts info from the recording itself, DSX generates early reflections that weren't in the original recording and adds them to the overall sound. When the wides and/or heights are activated, the main L/R speakers are reduced by 3dB and all the surround speakers are also reduced by 3dB (the surround channels are also decorrelated, to slightly blur directionality). The net effect of all of this is that the wides and heights are much more noticable.

Having heard both, I can't say I prefer DSX. Besides, I'd rather hear ambience that is in the recording (PLIIz) than generated reflections (DSX). YMMV. I suppose they could do it with 7 speakers. After configuring the basic 5.1 set-up, the remaining 2 speakers can be used for heights, wides or rears (depending on personal preference).

You're correct about the Trinnov but I didn't say that it doesn't provide other features such as equalization. It is more predominant in the low frequency which Audyssey is terrific at and I was just saying I'd rather have Outlaw spend less time for the 998 creating more channels for the rest of the DSX channels rather than a lot more time integrating Trinnov into their system. Trinnov will happen, I'm just saying adding channels and the hardware necessary to read all DSX channels would hit our shelves a lot sooner than Trinnov or Trinnov would have been pursued till the end. Trinnov is a nice option to have but it's going to take longer from what I gather. And I do repect your point about not needing the DSX channels which is why you would want them to jump on that right away. I just need these 11 channels and I REALLY don't want a Denon.
PLIIZ is also capable of being discrete if Dolby created the content from what I've read. Only when it's not presented with discrete content is it then processing using matrix. And yes early reflections are a part of DSX like you say but what I stated about PLIIz is also true. It is a little more tame in my opinion from what I've heard at my stereo shop and the reviewers agree. I happen to like th early reflections also. We can have treated ceilings and walls and still hear the reflections we should hear.
I was not actually informed about the 3db change and how DSX decorrelates the rear speakers. That's very interesting.

I was responding to your previous comments: "Trinnov would be great for some consumers but a little unnecessary for those of us with proper speaker placement" and "if your speakers are placed at the appropriate heights and angles then Trinnov is an unnecessary asset and/or expense"; which make it quite clear that you didn't think Trinnov was anything more than speaker remapping, "unnecessary" if the speakers are placed properly.

As for it's room correction capabilities, see if you can get a listen to a properly set up Sherwood. It might change your mind about whether Audyssey is superior to Trinnov. The comparison makes it obvious which one equalizes the speakers to a more consistent timbre between the fronts and surrounds. I didn't say anything about not needing DSX, just said that my personal preference isn't for any processing that adds things to the soundtrack that were never there to begin with. PLIIz is matrix processing. Discrete channels aren't a result of processing. For example: a soundtrack with 4 surround channels is not a discrete version of PLIIx. Likewise, a soundtrack with 2 discrete height channels is not a discrete version of PLIIz.

Discrete channels are actually encoded in the program material whether it is stereo, 5.1, 7.1 or Quadraphonic. Anything other than discrete channels which are created by the processing are matrixed channels. There is very little actual 7.1 discrete material available which is why we have PLll and other decoder/matrix programs to create the extra channels out of thin air. The same thing applies to the .2 channel as in 9.2 or 11.2. There is only one (.1) discrete track for LFE. Any others are duplicates or are created. If a processor would allow us to deal with the .2 channels separately then we could set two different subs to output different parts of the LFE spectrum. Does anyone know of a processor that allows this feature?

If one has Audyssey xt32 and proper speaker placement Trinnov would have very little added benefit to your system. You're better off installing bass treatments or diffusers in your room. I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer to have Trinnov turned on if it was available to me. I'm saying I could wait 5 more years for Trinnov because I'll be perfectly happy with Audyssey and the benefits of Trinnov are not nearly important to me as the benefits of of a fully capable DSX system. Until Trinnov can pan the sound around me using 3D mapping moving a sound from any of the speakers to the other it is unnecessary for me (not needed but wouldn't hurt to have).
I understand there are many purists out there but there are only a couple directors that I will give the respect of listening to there movies first in the original content. If you have a 7.1 system that is not a discrete playback system either. Only Toy Story 3 is true 7.1 the last time I checked. Every other 7.1 Bluray have the additional channel matrixed themselves. What about for movies that are meant to be fun.. Paranormal or other horror flicks or just video games. Would you really be so adamant about only listening to it in its original 5.1 format. Some movies I agree are a real piece of art and you should listen to them in original format first (Martin Scorsese or James Cameron's as an example) but have some fun in life and add a little. I never understood the whole purist thing because only a handful of material deserves to be listened to in its original format 5.1. Should we not have as much fun tweaking our listening experience and listening room because some people believe the directors of these movies would object. DSX was created by professors and a couple students at USC. It isn't focused around adding unnecessary channels. These people study phycoacoustics and sound at a prestigious college in a state of the art sound room. They noticed what was lacking in our traditional systems and they are trying to benefit our listening experience by adding what sound mixers can't due to the sound mixer's restraints not ours.
From everything I've read PLIIz is capable of being encoded onto a bluray or bluray game which introduces discrete height channel material. We only experience the matrixed PLIIz because Dolby hasn't created any games that are encoded with PLIIz technology.

That is another good point xenonman. 7.2 processors are actually adding the 3 channels from the original content 99% of the time but it is designed to benefit the listening experience. The x.2 is so that we can have multiple subwoofers and equalization so that we can better deal with room resonances from our low frequencies not so that we can have a L/R subwoofer. This would not help as sub frequencies are omnidirectional and you shouldn't be able to place where the sound is coming from anyways. And it doesn't allow for seperating the LFE material from one to the other like you said.
What I actually have heard of people doing and what my local custom installer recommends is having 1 or 2 large 15 - 18" subs with one of the LFE channels produce the very lows and 1 or 2 10 - 12" subs with the other LFE channel to make a better blend into the full range audio spectrum. I'm sure there is actually tweaking you can do to the actual sub eq's and inside the processor setting but I wouldn't try and seperate the material too much if it were me.

There would be little added benefit by cascading two room correction systems. So if one has Trinnov, then there wouldn't be any need whatsoever for Audyssey. As evidenced by your comment above, you are again equating Trinnov with speaker remapping, when its primary function is room correction. You'd be better off doing that irrespective of room correction. Toy Story 3 was the first theatrical 7.1 mix, but not the "only". Other 7.1 theatrical mixes include: Step Up 3D, Megamind, Tangled, Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Tron: Legacy, Little Fockers, Gulliver's Travels, Gnomeo & Juliet, Mars Needs Moms, Thor, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Kung Fu Panda 2, Super 8, Cars 2, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Captain America: The First Avenger, Real Steel, Three Musketeers, Lion King (3D release), Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn, Puss in Boots, War Horse. I've been running a 7.1 system since the early 1990s, several years before discrete 5.1 soundtracks became available to us consumers. So I have no problem scaling all source material, whether 2-channel or 5.1-channel, to a 7.1-speaker layout. You're confusing what I said about DSX with some purist notion of listening to discrete channels using the same number of speakers. 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. And that's what DSX does. By comparison, DTS Neo:X processing supports 11 speakers using extraction only, with nothing generated and added to the soundtrack. Do you understand the difference? DSX adds delayed early reflections to give the impression of being in a larger space. There is nothing to stop sound mixers from doing the same. There is a reason they don't do that. If they are mixing a Tarzan movie, they wan't you to feel like you're in the jungle. They don't want to give the impression of listening to jungle sounds in a large room. So it's not like the can't do it due to "restraints". They don't do it because they don't want to add a layer of artifiality (imposing the sound of a large room on everything in the soundtrack, including outdoor scenes). You're confusing matrix encoding with discrete channels.

I don't see why having Trinnov and not needing Audyssey is any more valid than having audyssey and not needing Trinnov if you have proper speaker placement, so I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Trinnov's main asset over Audyssey is 3d remapping. You are confused because you think this means I'm not aware of Trinnov's other functions. I would rather have a system with audyssey xt32 if that means I can have their DSX. If outlaw was to offer DSX and Trinnov without xt32 I might be on board for that.

Room treatments are still superior to having to adjust the equalizer for any rooms deficiencies or problems. Anyone who tells you different is selling you something. Early reflections will always occur without sound dampeners at the reflection points. Bass will never be as tight without bass treatments. Sound will never be as diffuse without sound diffusers.

Even movies stated as 7.1 are often matrixed themselves. How many of those movies create the two additional channels from scratch without matrix?

Funny I was going to even mention neo x and yes I'm aware of the difference. You talk about it as if it's a better concept than DSX. DSX is trying to give you more not just by adding ambient noices to more speakers around the room. This I have heard doesn't improve the sound very much.

I think you are really misunderstanding DSX. If you are in space on say aliens you should have no early reflections present at all from the decoding. It isn't designed to make your listening room sound larger. In fact often it is meant to make it sound smaller if the film was recorded in a small room. The created reflections are even supposed to be non existent like you say in the jungle. The reflections are created from the original content. It was never intended to create the same reflections without taking into account the size of area it is supposed to reproduce. Also it is impossible for 3 speakers in the front to create this effect as intended so I don't know why you would ever say sound mixers can do this if they would like.

Your confusing PLIIz with only matrixing capabilities. Unless I've been duped by the people who work with Dolby they can make PLIIz encoded games. This is considered discrete directional information.

Actually, their main asset over Audyssey is their approach to room correction, including choice of target curve. That's why 20th Century Fox and the BBC use Trinnov, not Audyssey. The speaker remapping feature is mostly useful around the sweet spot, since the correction relies partially on making use of phantom imaging. So it is a nice feature, but not a main asset, especially if you're going to have multiple listeners. But the usefulness of physical treatments has nothing to do with one room correction vs another. Also, I don't see physical treatments and room correction as being inferior or superior to one another, as each has certain advantages and can complement each other. If I want to notch out a room resonance centered at 47.5 Hz, how would you do that with a piece of fiberglass absorbtion? Matrixed from what? No, I talked about it as a subjective preference, not objective superiority. Whether it is "better" or not is up to each listener. I don't decide that for other people. That's not physically possible. By delaying generated reflections you can give the impression of being in a larger room. But there's no such thing as un-delaying reflections (short of going back in time) to make a room sound smaller. How does Audyssey know the size of the area it is supposed to reproduce? PLIIz is matrix only. No discrete. Rather than take my word for it, ask the people who work at Dolby.

Fox uses Trinnov's very expensive huge computers. That hardly says anything about what Trinnov eq can do when shrinked into what can be used in an Outlaw reciever which is less. I doubt Fox will buy the Outlaw and use that. Even then I'm not knocking Trinnov. Having more channels will make for a better experience than improving on an already great eq system (xt32 which was built from day one for the average consumer). If we can have the best of both worlds great. I also made this point with the remapping and how it is only effective around a single listening position and may hurt the other areas of listening. Even then unless we do a side by side comparison with Trinnov and XT32 we won't know which one we prefer.

The additional channels of 7.1 are often matrixed from the finished 5.1 material. I'm all for 7.1 material though. I just hope we have more truely discrete channels being created. This would help the surround effects tremendously.

About the room correction I was just saying your better off putting your money into room treatments especially diy treatments with rigid fiberglass board for bass control and early reflections than to pay for the Trinnov if it is much more money and you don't need to remap your speakers. If it costs the same and you don't want DSX Trinnov is a no brainer as long as the eq outperforms the xt32.

I am not trying to say neo x is terrible. It is just not designed with as much realism in mind. It might be better for 11 channel music playback. If that's your preference great but I believe it to be a step in the wrong direction with implementing information in front of you for a home theater. In order to understand DSX you must understand how our brain perceives sound. I don't know why you're asking me this and not the designers of this system yourself at askaudyssey.com but I'll give it a shot from what I've read and asked. We know the distance of a sound source and or walls or boundaries by the timing of the original content (straight path to our ears) and the first reflection point (first reflection to reach us from the ground, wall, or ceiling). This timing is very possible to manipulate in either direction with DSX and the additional speakers.. Can you tell me why it wouldn't be possible? From now on maybe everyone should talk to Chris at Audyssey for the technical help in understanding what DSX is capable of and what it doesn't do. I am trying to help out the consumers that arn't familiar with this technology because a lot of you aren't. This is turning out to be a full time job which is what Chris is paid for. He is very helpful and quick with replying to all questions.

It actually does surprise me that DSX can read what type of reflection to reproduce from the original content but it has proven to be effective and work "most" of the time. This is through algarithms but if you need further explanation talk to Chris. Perfection will never happen with matrixing content and attempting these types of things but then again I don't have my own team of individuals to sound mix every movie I watch at home so that it resembles the type of experience I can get from an IMAX movie. I'll take the next best thing at this time with 11.2 DSX. Just hope its not from a Denon.

About PLIIz. Fine. Everybody I heard from lied and there will never a video game with PLIIz encoding. Using PLIIz disengages DSX so I would never use it anyway but I'd really like to hear your source for saying that Dolby can not encode PLIIz onto their own liscensed video games which I have heard time and time again will happen sooner or later.

Edit: I just read how you would like to know how to target certain frequencies. This is exactly what eq's are best for and what I recommend them most for. There are room treatments like bass boxes that are designed to targe individual frequencies like this but I'm not qualified to build one and I don't think it's worth the hours of learning how to build one when the eq's do a great job at this. These also take a lot of floor space and would probably look tacky unless you spent a lot of time and money designing them. These modal frequencies are the worst part of all our rooms. XT32 is actually supposed to be terrific at these low modal frequencies as its filter resolution is very complex. I'm sure Trinnov is excellent at these too which you will surely tell me. This does not at all mean you will not get a significant benefit from treating your corners of your room with 4" thick fiberglass board covered with acoustical fabric that can be made nicely and easily. The bass will be much tighter and will clean the room quicker of standing waves and low frequencies.

I don't necessarily agree that having more channels will make for a better experience. If one wants to populate a room with a bunch of mini monitors to create a motion experience for a game then I can see where that would be better. Musically, I don't see it. I much prefer two channel music over any multi-channel creation out there. I haven't heard any 4 or 5 channel discrete material so it may be pretty good but most music is two channel. I listen to my 990 in a 2.1 setup for almost all music. Is there any good multi-channel material out there which isn't matrixed?

I agree most adult content is this way too with music. If you are listening to rap or hard rock you might like these added channels but any type of serious listening like classical I would never recommend adding any channels.

And about the good multi channel music I don't personally own any but a good place to start would be reading what the reviewers use for these systems as I know they do most often run music that is very impressive in good systems.

True but the reviews I have read are all two channel. Most run through some sort of tube amp into systems No one can afford. The music however is all stereo or mono, no multi-channel. I have two 5.1 systems and a dedicated 2.1 system. The HT systems are great for movies and I can't imagine I am missing anything without 2, 4 or 6 more channels created from an algorithm. I don't game on my systems but if I did I still wouldn't need more than 5.1. It would be cool to use Trinnov to create speakers where none currently exist such as wides or highs from a set of rear surrounds.

As far as the spatial mapping being good for only one position, the same is true of Audyssey. Audyssey simply averages the correction for all the points it contains. Which means it sacrifices the optimum position for the other positions to some degree. It is a tradeoff, and there is no way around it if you have multiple seats. As far as I know, Audyssey doesn't let you save multiple versions of its setup. Trinnov will allow multiple setups to be saved. I don't know how many, but conceivably you could save one for each seat you want to sit in. One of my HTs has a seat which is way off center. Trinnov would allow me to reorient the system so that my favorite chair appears to be the center position. I am not sure how that affects the rest of the seats but it would be good for me. I would expect Trinnov to provide some sort of averaging algorithm for all positions but when its just me in my favorite chair I could have my cake and eat it too.

I read somewhere that a demonstration of the Sherwood 972 in an audio room picked five different styles of speakers in wildly erratic positions and was able to map them to sound as if they were all the same speakers in the correct position, much to the amazement of the attendees.

I've read a few before. If and when I come across them I'll try and send you a link. I want to even say that I read some material in the Sherwood review. Trinnov definitely has some awesome abilities and it's exciting to think what it can provide for us in the future. Think of a left speaker that seems so move itself when panning left or right or even up. But because of the process it uses , changing the phase of speakers, it doesn't seem possible to me to benefit from measuring different locations unless of course this could make the sound more lateral say across a sofa rather than circular around the single listening position. For having multiple locations that you can switch between I think most people have a favorite listening position that they sit at all the time. Also if you don't want audyssey to correct for 32 positions don't measure 32 positions. But yes you're right you can't say listening position 1 only or 1-5 or only 2. This would be a nice feature. I haven't really heard much about how they calculate this whether it be an average or if it just attempts to fix all problematic frequencies. I will ask Chris about this.
The best example I can give for what the DSX is supposed to achieve is turning a standard theater into an IMAX. Even an IMAX movie is recorded in 5.1 then matrixed and tweaked. We won't have the people that would be necessary to take any unwanted information out or in, which is the biggest issue but I hear it is pretty accurate. For serious listening materials you might want to turn off DSX but I imagine most people with it will play it most of the time if not always.

It says a lot, because the approach to room correction doesn't channel from the Trinnov pro models to consumer implementation, just the resolution of the correction. Which of the 7.1 titles I listed do you think were first mixed in 5.1 and then matrixed to 7.1? Why would the studios not mix to 7.1 for 7.1 releases? And you know this how? Have you compared DSX to Neo:X? Because there will be 6 first reflections for each speaker (6 boundries in a room). Unlike Trinnov, which uses a multi-capsule mic to triangulate direction, Audyssey uses a single mic, so there's no way for it to tell direction, which means there's no way for it to know which of the 6 first reflections is from the side wall, making it impossible to replace the room's lateral reflections with ones generated by Audyssey. BTW, I've spoken to Chris, and he's never claimed that Audyssey can figure out the size of the room, only the distance to the speakers. Audyssey can't tell what's in the content. Ask Chris if you don't believe me. PLIIz can do matrix encoding, but not discrete (like you claimed). Again, no need to take my word for it, e-mail Dolby and ask them if PLIIz can do discrete encoding. OK, so much for treatments being "superior" to EQ.

You obviously aren't trying to understand a single thing I've said. All this information is available to you and easy to look up and research. Please use google or ask audyssey.
And why would DSX EVER need to listen to a signal in 3D to calculate room reflections from given speaker locations. This is crazy. You don't mount the speakers in any location. You get out your tape measure and place them as close to the required angles of listening as possible. + or - 10 degrees for all locations will work. Please go to ask audyssey and do a little research there please. I have done this with Trinnov. And to say Trinnov in an outlaw will perform as good as their 13,000 dollar computer is a bold statement. A comparison will only be able to tell so let's throw that assumption out the door for now.
It's very amazing that audyssey can't know yet it does. Wow
I'm coming to find out you're impossible to talk to as you don't take the time to educate yourself in these matters.
And how is changing the original signal ever superior to treating your room. Some treatments are just impractical. I would rather hear All frequencies if possible in the intended original material. When did I ever state you should not have an eq. You are pathetic in your attempts of disecting what I'm saying because you are losing focus on what it is that the talking points are. My focus is 7.2 versus 11.2. Not eq which is your specialty (defending an eq system that doesn't exist yet without glitches on the Sherwood), not 5.1 versus 7.1 blurays (Which have been matrixed many times but only mentioned because 11.2 DSX can create all those channels from even 5.1 as well as introduce discrete 7.1 if available), not room treatments. I don't care what you think about these things because I have done my research which you should do. If you don't like the idea of DSX tell us why but don't claim that what it does is impossible and don't use me as your main reference. Please don't waist my time anymore please.

And wow. The size of my room?? That isn't what is important. The timing of the speakers is what the program manipulates to change the projected size of the room. How would a system equipped with a single mic ever know what the size of your room is unless the speakers are inside the walls?

And not much of what you said has made any sense to me and it has frustrated me as to your disconnect but now I realize part of the problem is how I have failed to explain the reflections. DSX does not use your walls for its reflections. It uses the height channel and the wides for the reflections. The real reflections in your room are still the reflections you don't want to be heard. EVER with DSX or Discrete 7.1 channels (room treatments). These reflections can never be treated with the use of any type of EQ. Every sound creates a first reflection. They say this works well because of the angles they have chosen. These are meant to show the reflections of the three center channels. If it were to use your walls you are correct. It would need 3D technology like Trinnov. As far as I'm concerned if I don't go with Trinnov I'll be missing out. If I don't go with DSX I'll be missing out. I just want DSX because having 11 channels is more important to me. This is no offense to Trinnov. And just because I'm saying if my center channel was in the ceiling then Trinnov is a no brainer, it is not me saying Trinnov's 3D remapping is its only job. But to say Trinnov will be better than XT32 is something we'll have to wait for. We still don't know if it's possible to be glitch free in a system like Outlaw. Time will tell

Edit: a 3d mic will actually not help with this now that I think about it (a real first reflection to the listener off your real walls can't be manipulated, only the speaker timing which DSX uses) so I'm back to no understanding your point about the 3d mic.

I said the consumer version will have less resolution, which means it will not perform to the level of their pro/studio version. However, both versions use the same approach to room correction. It's not like Trinnov uses a different technique when they scale down the processing power. It doesn't. You can confirm it with Chris. I already have. By allowing you to target a specific frequency when needed, which a piece of fibreglass cannot. I listed a bunch of titles that were mixed directly to 7.1 for theatrical release. No matrixing involved. As always, no need to take my word for it. A simple e-mail to the studio will confirm it. That contradicts your earlier claim that Audyssey knows "the size of area it is supposed to reproduce". Unable to support your claims, so now you're resorting to personal attacks.

Wow. You're even more stubborn than me.

Ask audyssey forums are very similar to these forums where they are time and date stamped as to see what information is being talked about currently. I can not find your's and there have only been 3 forum subjects that have been addressed in the last 2 days and only 5 in the last 5 days. None of these have any questions or answers relevant to what's being discussed. Not calling you a liar but can you please send me a link so that I can view this for myself and learn so that I myself am not as ignorant about this technology.

"It sure will! Especially sophisticated first person shooter games where you explore outdoor environments, go through small and large rooms and experience complex sound effects will be enhanced with Audyssey DSX." Direct quote from Audyssey. If this is achieved through other means that the reflections than I am truly sorry for suggesting this to all of the forum readers but I don't see how its possible or reasonable to think it doesn't. This is what I picked up by reading a lot about it so I'm in the process of asking Chris myself so I don't add to any ignorance about this product. It does have this effect which I have heard myself and all the reviews I have read suggest it does a good job and making you feel like your room size is changing. I do not work for Audyssey and am not a professor in this type of material so I will let Chris answer that for you but I really do need to read the question and answer myself so I can assess whether the appropriate question was asked. I have noticed your tendency to focus on the way I say things rather than what I'm saying. I don't care how this feeling is achieved. The fact that it is achieved is all I'm concerned about. Again I would hate for people to discredit the benefits of DSX for any reason other than its real limitation/problems.

Room treatments. I think everyone would prefer a perfect room where eq is not necessary but that is not possible. Problematic frequencies can't be dealt with fiberglass but they can with specially made boxes. This is not practical however. How you equated me saying that the XT32 was sufficient enough that Trinnov eq was unnecessary so put your extra money into room treatments is quite the opposite of me saying eq is unnecessary. If I were to say why do we have to pay for XT32 when all I want is DSX then that is saying I have no respect for an eq's purpose. Please don't put words in my mouth. I make personal attacks at you because you make me speak to you like a little child so as not to be taken out of context. I have waisted so much time with you over these types of small in-discrepancies.

I stated Toy Story 3 was the first 7.1 truly discrete Bluray last time I checked. This was after a lot of material was claiming to be 7.1 which wasn't. I don't care to check with the studios about the current material because I would like it if they were really 7.1. This is not the purpose of me bringing up the fact that 5.1 is still predominantly the material being created. It's that DSX EVEN works with this material creating 11.1. The more discrete information the better.

There is no contradiction here "the size of area it is supposed to reproduce". It's not suppose to reproduce my room so why would it need to know the size of my room? It is suppose to reproduce the size of area that is being shown on the screen. Do you realize the whole purpose of this system is to trick your brain into thinking there are boundaries in different locations without being reminded of the boundaries inside your room. This is done by using these reflection points (speakers, but think of them as the walls or ceilings and their timing) rather than your room. If you prefer your material in 7.2 with wall treatments great. But without wall treatments you will hear this reflection which ruins the sound. If you prefer your 11.2 system with wall treatments great. I really don't know which one is better without wall treatments but I would imagine the extra channels in 11.2 would mask the 7.2 reflections better even though those extra channels would also create reflections. Do yourself a favor and treat all reflections regardless if possible.

Edit: And again with the Trinnov. How do you know it takes a better approach at EQ and how do you know this will sound better than XT32 when it is not even finished with development. Do you work for them? Shouldn't this be for us to decide? The listener. From what I've read from the Sherwood reviews is that is sounds great if it works but it is not groundbreaking. The 3D remapping is however groundbreaking.

The likelihood of the 998 coming to market isn't as good as it was and the Outlaws are not going to redesign it for more than 7 channels. Like it or not there won't be 9 or 11 channels in the 978 or 998.

Me: I would also like to know how DSX is supposed to reproduce say a small room, open area, or large room. Is this achieved through the timing of the reflection speakers or am I completely wrong. Thank you very much. There seems to be quite the debate about how this can be achieved on one of the forums and I would like to be able to provide everyone with accurate information. Thank you

Chris: DSX has absolutely nothing to do with matrixing. It derives from our studies of how sound is reflected and the role of reflections on our perception of space. The two most important reflection directions are (1) the side walls and (2) the surfaces above the performance stage. Measurements in concert halls and other venues (small and large) have provided the basis for our research and for the algorithm that synthesizes these reflections. They must be delivered from certain directions and with specific frequency and time shaping to properly combine with the direct sound coming from the front three speakers.

Me: So DSX really doesn't have any way of making a room sound smaller or larger dependent of the source material is this correct?

Me: If this is true what would the argument for DSX with say someone that treats there walls in favor of no perceived reflection at all be?

I will keep everyone updated. It is my sincerest hope that I have not provided anyone with false information about the use of reflections in DSX. It does still sound terrific though and gave me the perceived sound that I was in different sized rooms. I hope everyone gives it a shot before making any decisions.

I will surely get a system with 11 channels or at the very least 9 so I may have to come back to Outlaw in 5 more years then.



Chris: That's exactly what DSX does: it controls the reflections to make the room sound larger or smaller depending on the content. These are not the listening room reflections. They should be eliminated via room treatments and room correction software (MultEQ). These are synthesized reflections that come from the Wide and Height speakers in a controlled way.

Me: Thank you very much for clearing that up for me Chris. Always appreciate the help.

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.

Next time please add the praise for the DSX system also that was in the same review. Not just it's minor limitations and flaws.

Your brain without reflections doesn't know whether a speaker is 10 ft away like u say or a foot away. Hence the necessity for real first reflection treatments on all walls to be most effective.

I quoted a description of what DSX processing sounds like, turning a single voice into a "chorus effect". Not saying it's good or bad, not telling you to like it or not, just pointing out what the processing does. The voice of god effect that Brent Butterworth described is simply dialogue that's been steered into the L/R channels, which happens on many Pixar films when characters move across the screen. The effect may be easier to hear on vocals, but it will happen to other sounds as well, whether it is drum whacks that panned across the soundstage or a car that drives from left to right. So it doesn't matter how many movies have the voice of god (vocals in the L/R channels), because DSX will create the same effect with any sounds that are in those channels. I have experience with it and so can anyone else. For around $1k, you can buy a used Onkyo 1009 from a retailer with a solid 30-day return policy, like Amazon. The 9 amp channels built-in allow you connect heights and wides. You can then instantly compare DSX to PLIIz to Neo:X on a system that you are familiar with (your system) in a room that you know well (your room) using as much material as you want (including revealing test tracks) over the course of a few weeks. Aside from the cost of return shipping, there's no reason anyone else can't do the same comparison I did. Still resorting to ad hominem attacks. If someone has a different opinion of DSX than you, why do you take it so personally?

Children!

Stop this bickering or go to your rooms NOW!!!

Why are we discussing DSX at such great length in a thread about the Outlaw 998? Did I miss an announcement somewhere that Outlaw may be considering abandoning Trinnov and go DSX [exclusively] instead?

As far as I know, the only reason DSX came up is the use of Audyssey MultEQ on the Model 978. I haven't seen anything from Outlaw that would suggest plans for inclusion of DSX in either product.

Welcome back Gonk!

In case you missed it and in light of our previous musings, you might find this thread interesting.

Just saw this post. I would say that sounds like a lawyer saying, "I can neither conform nor deny that." In other words...yes?

I would bet money on it. Were he not beta-testing, I suspect he would simply have said so.

Btw, I think you meant "confirm".

Yes. Thank you.