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.