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.