What's the difference between 5, 6 and 7 channel Home Theatre.

Joe08867

My home theatre setup is 6.1 surround. I have heard 5 channel but not 7 channel and honestly I am not sure what I am hearing that is different from one to the other.

What is the difference between them all?

Is it more of a volume thing or is there really different info going to each channel?

I am a bit confused by all of it.

Thanks,

skykeys

As far as I know, the difference is, you're just getting more surround channels, so you get a more surround "feel", the more channels/speakers you set up. For movies, the sound is directed into the various channels to support the scenes your watching. So yes, there is really different sound information going into each channel.

Perhaps this is stating the obvious to you - but just to be sure: as an example, if a car is moving from left to right and coming toward you (and eventually behind you) on the TV screen, the sound moves across the speakers accordingly. Think of the opening scene in the first Star Wars movie that was made (Star Wars 4). The sound of the star ship starts from behind you.

I have a 5.2 set up (using two subs, which my receiver supports) and that is enough for me. My room configuration would not support more speakers anyway, and I don't see (hear) the need for more. But, if my family room would have supported a 7 speaker configuration, I probably would have done that. I mean, why not? (other than the extra cost of course).

I am more of an audio sound quality "audiophile" type than a home theater type, though I do enjoy watching movies and TV shows in surround sound for sure. SACD and DVD-Audio discs support 5.x multi-channel surround sound. I think these recordings sound fantastic. Having more channels certainly won't hurt anything, though I don't know how SACD (or DVD-Audio) discs would work with more than 5 channels. Probably the side surround channels don't get a feed, but I don't know that for sure. Most decent Audio Visual Receivers (AVRs) today support either 5.x, 6.x, or 7.x. They have digital signal processing that can simulate surround sound into the various channels from a standard 2-channel stereo source. This type of simulated surround is not as good as the native surround you get from SACDs and DVD-Audio discs, but it's still pretty good, IMHO. However, you'll find that there are a lot of traditional stereo audiophiles out there that would never consider simulating surround, and prefer 2-channel stereo.

Does this help at all?

Regards.

billbillw

Rear channels are the difference. Technically, in 5.1, the surrounds are supposed to go to your sides, slightly behind your ears. Not totally behind you. If placement is 'by the book' , this leaves a hole behind you. With 6.1 and 7.1 the hole is filled in. In my opinion, there is not a whole lot of difference between 6.1 and 7.1, but I do like having that rear channel, especially in my setup (which is 6.1) Prior to adding that 6th channel, I did notice a lack of coherence in the sound field to the rear.

Yes, there should be different info going to those channels. It is not for superior loudness.

Even if there is not a true 6.1 or 7.1 track, PLIIx (or one of the THX modes) can fill in the rear channels nicely.

kuntasensei

The reason 7.1 is better than 6.1 is that a single source behind your head can cause an effect that makes the directionality seem to reverse. So if you have a single speaker in the rear, in certain room configurations, sounds in that channel can seem to come from in front of you, which totally mucks up the sound. I used to have that issue in my room.

With 7.1, however, audio that is supposed to be directly behind you often comes from both speakers so that it images between them, much in the way stereo speakers do in the front soundstage, thus preventing any perceived reversal. Moreover, 5.1 to 7.1 processing such as Dolby Pro-Logic IIx steers sound between the 4 surround channels in a way that adds more directionality.

Also, with DPL-IIx on a 6.1 system, you can only use DPL-IIx Music Mode to process 5.1 sources to 6.1. This means that any sound that is supposed to come from behind you is actually coming from the rear center as well as the side surrounds at lower levels (which helps alleviate the reversal phenomenon, but doesn't eliminate it, especially with matrixed stuff like DD-EX or DTS-ES). With a 7.1 system, you can use DPL-IIx Movie Mode, which does true 4-channel steering for the surrounds and isn't subject to perceived reversal.

wallstreet

With 7.1 the major difference are sounds originating from the front and going straight through you and ending behind you. When the HT is dialed in just right, I always seem to duck when that happens. :^))

Face

What size is your room?

wallstreet

I'm not sure if that question was directed to me, but my room is 15x25.

cheddar

An increasing number of blu-rays actually have 7.1 mastered audio. Meaning that they were mixed in the studio so that all 7 speakers help with locating sound producing objects more precisely as sounds pan around the listener. Digital processing approximates this by using existing surround information from a 5.1 track to produce a 7.1 experience. But with the increasing number of blu-rays, there is now actual discreet information recorded for all 7 speakers and a sub-woofer.

lakesailor

I have played with all three formats and feel that 5.1 is the only way to go unless you have a seriously large room.

Dennis Gardner

Over 95% of all the discs made to date have up to only 5 channels. Even if you do have 6 or 7 channels, a 5.1 disc sends the same signal to all the sides and rears. There are less than 500 titles with ES/EX or even the latest HD stuff utilizing 6/7 channels.

Having sides and rears in a 5.1 may make the transition from front to back in a long/deep room smoother, but that is only due to the large side area that doesn't have active sound and poor setup. Think of the theaters that have speakers all up and down the side aisles. The info is the same in them, but having multiples of them make you sense more depth.

kuntasensei

Dennis, if you have 6.1 or 7.1 with a 5.1 disc, it doesn't send the same signal to the side and rears. The rears are either off completely (in pure 5.1), or with processing modes such as DPL-IIx you get totally different sound from each speaker because it steers audio based on the differences in level and phase between the side surround audio. The majority of 5.1 tracks without EX/ES still work really well with DPL-IIx processing to create rear surrounds, with the only exception being material with mono surrounds since these collapse to the rear surrounds.

McLoki

Dennis Gardner wrote: »

Over 95% of all the discs made to date have up to only 5 channels. Even if you do have 6 or 7 channels, a 5.1 disc sends the same signal to all the sides and rears. There are less than 500 titles with ES/EX or even the latest HD stuff utilizing 6/7 channels.

I hear this often but think a little dose of reality needs to be mixed in with it. While the numbers are correct, most new disks coming out support ES/EX or 7.1 discrete (in the case of blu-ray). I bet in most weeks, the titles with it with it outsell the titles without just based on the fact that current blockbusters will sell alot more disks than older movies without it.

Most people setting up a home theater will purchase older movies not due to the sound (unless they purchase based on a "what do I demo my home theater with" thread) but because they like the movie and they would watch it if the movie was playing through TV speakers let alone a home theater. The movies they purchase going forward though - will mostly support 7.1.

In your own colletion - just counting the movies you purchased in the last couple of months - do most offer a 7.1 option or no? I am guessing it will.

Michael

Joe08867

skykeys wrote: »

As far as I know, the difference is, you're just getting more surround channels, so you get a more surround "feel", the more channels/speakers you set up. For movies, the sound is directed into the various channels to support the scenes your watching. So yes, there is really different sound information going into each channel.

Perhaps this is stating the obvious to you - but just to be sure: as an example, if a car is moving from left to right and coming toward you (and eventually behind you) on the TV screen, the sound moves across the speakers accordingly. Think of the opening scene in the first Star Wars movie that was made (Star Wars 4). The sound of the star ship starts from behind you.

I have a 5.2 set up (using two subs, which my receiver supports) and that is enough for me. My room configuration would not support more speakers anyway, and I don't see (hear) the need for more. But, if my family room would have supported a 7 speaker configuration, I probably would have done that. I mean, why not? (other than the extra cost of course).

I am more of an audio sound quality "audiophile" type than a home theater type, though I do enjoy watching movies and TV shows in surround sound for sure. SACD and DVD-Audio discs support 5.x multi-channel surround sound. I think these recordings sound fantastic. Having more channels certainly won't hurt anything, though I don't know how SACD (or DVD-Audio) discs would work with more than 5 channels. Probably the side surround channels don't get a feed, but I don't know that for sure. Most decent Audio Visual Receivers (AVRs) today support either 5.x, 6.x, or 7.x. They have digital signal processing that can simulate surround sound into the various channels from a standard 2-channel stereo source. This type of simulated surround is not as good as the native surround you get from SACDs and DVD-Audio discs, but it's still pretty good, IMHO. However, you'll find that there are a lot of traditional stereo audiophiles out there that would never consider simulating surround, and prefer 2-channel stereo.

Does this help at all?

Regards.

That is more what I was looking for. I have heard 5.1(Friend) and 6.1(My Setup) and prefered the 6.1 but didn't know why. I wasn't exactly sure what was happening.

I also have a dedicated 2 channel setup for music. I have played music on the HT but it never sounds as good to me. Although I do not have DVDA's or SACD's. Although my reciever does a pretty good job with 2 channel I feel like I am wasting the other speakers. I do like it for parties in the house though. It fills the room without making everyone scream to be heard.

wallstreet wrote: »

With 7.1 the major difference are sounds originating from the front and going straight through you and ending behind you. When the HT is dialed in just right, I always seem to duck when that happens. :^))

I do the same thing. I like the effect when the big flying creaturews in Lord of the Rings fly from behind. I literally jumped the first time. That and Saving Private Ryan. Sounds like the bullets are flying past your head. Look out!!!!

Face wrote: »

What size is your room?

18 X 22. The TV is on the 18 foot wall. Gives a deeper effect this way. And also easier for the Wife factor and general hookup. Although the wife has spoken about us building a dedicated room in our basement at some point. I love that woman!!

I think the room supports my 6.1 well and I have tried it as a 5.1 and it had holes in the sound or should I say not as controlled sound.

billbillw wrote: »

Rear channels are the difference. Technically, in 5.1, the surrounds are supposed to go to your sides, slightly behind your ears. Not totally behind you. If placement is 'by the book' , this leaves a hole behind you. With 6.1 and 7.1 the hole is filled in. In my opinion, there is not a whole lot of difference between 6.1 and 7.1, but I do like having that rear channel, especially in my setup (which is 6.1) Prior to adding that 6th channel, I did notice a lack of coherence in the sound field to the rear.

Yes, there should be different info going to those channels. It is not for superior loudness.

Even if there is not a true 6.1 or 7.1 track, PLIIx (or one of the THX modes) can fill in the rear channels nicely.

My setup is also 6.1. I do like the sound filed more and now that I read this I understand why. Coherence and smoothness. I would like to go up to 7.1 but my room isn't setup for it. It would be difficult to get the speakers where they would need to be. I guess my loudness thoughts were more that it could handle more with more channels. Kind of stupid looking back at it now.

Thanks guys, That has helped alot.

Lawrence Grand

To listen to pure, 2 channel audio only, can I assume it's best to turn off all of the channels except for direct stereo only? I've been playing with my new Yamaha 6.1, and stereo only seems to sound better that way. Thanks.
LG

Joe08867

Lawrence Grand wrote: »

To listen to pure, 2 channel audio only, can I assume it's best to turn off all of the channels except for direct stereo only? I've been playing with my new Yamaha 6.1, and stereo only seems to sound better that way. Thanks.
LG

I agree, I definately prefer 2 channel audio through the fronts only on the HT. My reciever as most has a Panorama setting that allows for a full room of sound. No it isn't audiophile quality but for a group of people mingling and dancing it works well enough.

I use the dedicated 2 channel setup for music 95% of the time anyway.

Dennis Gardner

kuntasensei wrote: »

Dennis, if you have 6.1 or 7.1 with a 5.1 disc, it doesn't send the same signal to the side and rears. The rears are either off completely (in pure 5.1), or with processing modes such as DPL-IIx you get totally different sound from each speaker because it steers audio based on the differences in level and phase between the side surround audio. The majority of 5.1 tracks without EX/ES still work really well with DPL-IIx processing to create rear surrounds, with the only exception being material with mono surrounds since these collapse to the rear surrounds.

DPL processing will give you processed rear channels, but it isn't what the original digital processing intended. It is better than the hall, stadium, club settings offered but not much. DPL has always been a compromise. It isn't really on the disc, it is derived from the processor. Completely different.

I still stand by the shear number of discs with only 5 channels of digital sound at over 95%. Action movies seem to be the only area that differs percentage wise, but even many of them are still only 5 channel sound. HD versions of the new format will most likely change the mix, but simple EX/ES had little effect on what studios have done. Most stuck with 5.1.

skykeys

Joe, I'm glad all of our replies have helped. I just want to reiterate the joys of SACD and DVD-Audio formats for music listening. I LOVE my 5.2 setup. (FYI: two subs makes a surprising difference in both creating more impact and in smoothing out the bass response across the entire room, for both HT and music.)

In terms of pure music listening, SACD recordings are far superior than standard CD recordings; in either 2-channel stereo mode or 5.1 surround. When I am listening to a 5.x SACD recording, it's like the music has a 3-D quality (similarly to the 3-D effect of watching Lord of the Rings). I feel like I'm sitting inside a giant set of headphones; surrounded by sound. Another way to think of is, it's like being in the middle of a circular stage and the musicians are pointed toward the center. It's very cool. And as I already mentioned, the sound quality of SACD (and DVD-A) recordings is far superior.

As Dennis Gardner mentioned, simulating surround by using the receiver's digital processing is not as good as having the real deal. However, IMHO, if your receiver or prepro is a high quality unit, the digital processing should be good enough to make the simulated surround, sound okay. I happen to prefer surround to basic 2-channel in most cases, though not when the 2-channel source is SACD. (Some SACD discs are only 2-channel.) In fact, I have to say, I prefer listening to SACD and DVD-A discs using my Yamaha receiver's "Pure Direct Mode", where it bypasses all of the receiver's internal processing (except the amplifier); SACDs are that good.

Joe08867

skykeys wrote: »

Joe, I'm glad all of our replies have helped. I just want to reiterate the joys of SACD and DVD-Audio formats for music listening. I LOVE my 5.2 setup. (FYI: two subs makes a surprising difference in both creating more impact and in smoothing out the bass response across the entire room, for both HT and music.)

In terms of pure music listening, SACD recordings are far superior than standard CD recordings; in either 2-channel stereo mode or 5.1 surround. When I am listening to a 5.x SACD recording, it's like the music has a 3-D quality (similarly to the 3-D effect of watching Lord of the Rings). I feel like I'm sitting inside a giant set of headphones; surrounded by sound. Another way to think of is, it's like being in the middle of a circular stage and the musicians are pointed toward the center. It's very cool. And as I already mentioned, the sound quality of SACD (and DVD-A) recordings is far superior.

As Dennis Gardner mentioned, simulating surround by using the receiver's digital processing is not as good as having the real deal. However, IMHO, if your receiver or prepro is a high quality unit, the digital processing should be good enough to make the simulated surround, sound okay. I happen to prefer surround to basic 2-channel in most cases, though not when the 2-channel source is SACD. (Some SACD discs are only 2-channel.) In fact, I have to say, I prefer listening to SACD and DVD-A discs using my Yamaha receiver's "Pure Direct Mode", where it bypasses all of the receiver's internal processing (except the amplifier); SACDs are that good.

I agree the receivers version of surround (Hall, Club, etc...) isn't as good as what is on the DVD but for some older DVD's it does a pretty admirable job. I must say though alot of my newer DVD's are real mixed in surround type. Some 5.1 and some 7.1.

As far as music goes I guess I have to go get myself some SACD or DVD-A's. I am more of an old school type though. I still like my Albums. You know records?? My 2 channel seperates are real good for this stuff. My HT receiver wouldn't know what to do with a turntable without a processor hooked to it. Sad really. They ignore the whole format nowadays.

My HT can run SACD so I can try it on that. And if it is good for me I can always add it to my 2 Channel later. I wish I had that bypass feature on my receiver. My 2 Channel lets me go direct and I almost always prefer it on older albums, back when they cared more for how the recording sounded.

Are there any SACD's you would suggest? Take in account I am more of a Classic Rock to Heavy Metal kind of guy. Although I do like good singers too. Kind of an oxymoron huh?

Thanks again guys.

cheddar

Dennis Gardner wrote: »

I still stand by the shear number of discs with only 5 channels of digital sound at over 95%. Action movies seem to be the only area that differs percentage wise, but even many of them are still only 5 channel sound. HD versions of the new format will most likely change the mix, but simple EX/ES had little effect on what studios have done. Most stuck with 5.1.

If you're shooting percentages, then yes, you will get more mileage just putting together a very good 5.1 system for the amount of discreet 7.1 currently available. But certain studios seem to have the infrastructure and commitment to remaster movies in 7.1. New Line, for instance -- so think a nice remaster when Rings is released on blu-ray.

And some of the blu-ray 7.1 released so far, like Pan's Labyrinth, is truly exceptional in terms of audio. So although there are few released so far, there exist some very nice quality ones that will no doubt only increase in number, especially from the studios that seem to specialize in them.

skykeys

Joe08867 wrote: »

. . . You know records?? . . . Are there any SACD's you would suggest? Take in account I am more of a Classic Rock to Heavy Metal kind of guy. Although I do like good singers too. Kind of an oxymoron huh? . . .

Joe, of course I know (vinyl) records. I am 51; grew up with them.

I am in the process of trying to acquire as many SACD and DVD-A discs as I can afford. (Relative to acquiring discs: My first wife died of cancer 4 years ago. That was a horrible and brutal experience. Nuff said. I got engaged recently. My fiance isn't my wife yet, so I have some freedom to do what I want. :cool: I would say, my first wife's death is in part driving my desire to get as much music as I can, while I can do it. Life is short. . . . But, I digress.)

Our music tastes are probably not that different, though I lean more toward Allman Brothers, CSNY, Billy Joel Steely Dan, over say - Black Sabbath or Metalica, as an example. I also like some jazz and classical. I'm a musician on the side, so I like a lot of different styles.

So, of the surround discs I have, I really like all of them. I highly recommend the following SACDs to start you off: Billy Joel's The Stranger and 52nd Street. Steely Dan - Gaucho. (Gaucho is the only SACD version of any Steely Dan album unfortunately. It's excellent, as you'd expect from the Dan.) Elton John's Tumbleweed Connection. (I plan to collect as many Elton John SACDs as I can find, but at the moment it's the only one I have. It's very good.) John Mayer's Heaver Things. (I have John Mayer's Room for Squares on regular CD, but I want to get the SACD version of it because it's a terrific album.) Oh, and, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon 30th Anniversary SACD disc; an absolute must!

The following are DVD-Audio discs, which I also highly recommend: Jackson Browne's Running on Empty. The Grateful Dead's American Beauty.

An SACD I am clamoring to get is the first Boston album. But it's hard to find, and is expensive. What you'll find is, many manufacturers have stopped producing SACD discs, which is a DAMN SHAME. They are more expensive to make, and the whole SACD initiative was not well coordinated. But fortunately, there are lots of DVD players that still support the format, and a lot of discs had been made and are still available. DVD-A discs are still being made. I just picked up a brand new John Mellancamp album, and it came in both CD and DVD-A format.

Speaking of DVD players that support the format, if you need a DVD player to play SACDs (or DVD-A discs), then I recommend the Oppo DV-980H. It's the unit I just got a few weeks ago. It works very well, it's not expensive, and the audio (as well as video) quality is very good. Oppo is actually an American company out of California. (They manufacture in China of course, but so does everyone else.) Oppo is supposed to be coming out with a Blu-ray player soon, though from what I've heard unofficially, it won't make it for the 08 Xmas season.

Once you get set up, please let me know what you think of SACD sound.

Regards.

Joe08867

Actually our taste in music is very similar. You rattled off some of my favorite artists. I am also a musician and singer on the side. I play the drums so Jazz is always a good thing to listen too.

I don't think my current DVD player has SACD ability but I will check it out. I know DVD-A is around but never thought they would be as good as SACD. Now I know I am wrong.

Thanks for the suggestions I will start checking this out. I will let you all know how it goes.

By the way Skykeys, Sorry for your loss. I have lost several people in my life to cancer. All we can do is pray they are in a better place.

Good luck with your engagement and upcoming marriage.

kuntasensei

Dennis Gardner wrote: »

DPL processing will give you processed rear channels, but it isn't what the original digital processing intended. It is better than the hall, stadium, club settings offered but not much. DPL has always been a compromise. It isn't really on the disc, it is derived from the processor. Completely different.

I still stand by the shear number of discs with only 5 channels of digital sound at over 95%. Action movies seem to be the only area that differs percentage wise, but even many of them are still only 5 channel sound. HD versions of the new format will most likely change the mix, but simple EX/ES had little effect on what studios have done. Most stuck with 5.1.

Well, I get what you're saying in theory... but I think you're thinking more in the mindset of 2-channel being processed to 7.1. With 5.1 tracks, the mixers place sounds between the two surrounds by varying the level placed in each channel. For instance, if a sound is supposed to seem to emanate from somewhere over your left shoulder, they may mix 75% of the sound into the left surround channel and 25% of the same sound into the right surround channel so you perceive it as not being completely hard left.

What DPL-IIx Movie Mode with 5.1 material on a 7.1 system does with that information is this: If a sound is 100% in the left surround, it stays there. If a sound is 50% in each surround, it steers the sound to the rear surrounds. If a sound is say 75% in the left surround and 25% in the right, it compares the two channels, measures the level difference, and steers that sound into the left rear surround while leaving some of the sound in the left surround. The amount it removes from the left surround depends on the level difference. By varying the amount steered and removed between the 4 surround channels, it can basically take a soundtrack mixed for phantom imaging between the surrounds and accurately place the sound cues between the 4 surround speakers. As I mentioned before, the only issue that you run into is with older soundtracks (and there are very few of these) that use the exact same sound and level in the two surrounds, in which case all sound collapses to the rears in DPL-IIx Movie Mode. Switching to DPL-IIx Music Mode for these 5.1 tracks, however, leaves this audio in the left, right and rear surrounds, much in the same way that left and right audio is steered to the center channel but remains in the left and right channels with 2-channel material in DPL-IIx Music Mode.

Unlike the listening modes you mentioned previously (i.e. hall, stadium, etc.), DPL-IIx does not add any reverb or attempt to create an artificial environment, even with 2-channel material (where it detects reverb present in the audio and steers it to the surrounds accordingly but does not add more reverb). It simply analyzes the level shift between the surrounds and steers the sound accordingly.

Another advantage is this: With 5.1 tracks intended for matrix 6.1 processing (i.e. DD-EX or DTS-ES Matrix), DPL-IIx is actually Dolby's preferred method of handling the matrixed soundtrack. The reason is that DPL-IIx uses better steering algorithms and creates full bandwidth rear surrounds instead of the band-limited rear surrounds used in legacy DD-EX. Another advantage, as I mentioned before, is that the two rear surrounds vs. the single rear surround in a 6.1 setup will give you better imaging of sounds meant to be directly behind you without any acoustic reversal since hard centered sounds will emanate from two point sources.

So while I agree that it may not be the intended sound from a strictly purist standpoint, because mixers customarily place sounds in varying levels between the surrounds to create phantom imaging between the surrounds in 5.1, DPL-IIx does a very capable job of steering between 4 surrounds so that you get a more cohesive rear soundstage and better directionality of effects.

skykeys

Joe08867 wrote: »

. . . I am also a musician and a singer on the side. I play the drums so Jazz is always a good thing to listen too.

I don't think my current DVD player has SACD ability but I will check it out. I know DVD-A is around but never thought they would be as good as SACD. Now I know I am wrong. . . .

Joe,
Musicians usually make the best and most demanding listeners, and need good quality audio. Glad to hear we're in the same boat. It's a good place to be.

In theory, SACD is a higher quality audio format than DVD-A, and my listening experience bears that out. The differences are minute and subtle, but subtle differences are actually very noticeable and a big deal to folks like you and I.

I just discovered a site that is still creating SACDs. http://www.mofi.com/productcart/pc/home.asp I don't know much about it yet, but I'm going to research it more and find out how they operate. Perhaps there are others?

Also found out that there is a DVD-A version of Steely Dan's Two Against Nature album. There is also a dual disc (CD and DVD-A in same package) of Donald Fagen's The Nightfly.

Regards.

Sami

kuntasensei wrote: »

For instance, if a sound is supposed to seem to emanate from somewhere over your left shoulder, they may mix 75% of the sound into the left surround channel and 25% of the same sound into the right surround channel so you perceive it as not being completely hard left.

Correctly setup 5.1 system will do the same thing; not perceived to be coming from left but behind your left shoulder.

Joe08867

skykeys wrote: »

Joe,
Musicians usually make the best and most demanding listeners, and need good quality audio. Glad to hear we're in the same boat. It's a good place to be.

In theory, SACD is a higher quality audio format than DVD-A, and my listening experience bears that out. The differences are minute and subtle, but subtle differences are actually very noticeable and a big deal to folks like you and I.

I just discovered a site that is still creating SACDs. http://www.mofi.com/productcart/pc/home.asp I don't know much about it yet, but I'm going to research it more and find out how they operate. Perhaps there are others?

Also found out that there is a DVD-A version of Steely Dan's Two Against Nature album. There is also a dual disc (CD and DVD-A in same package) of Donald Fagen's The Nightfly.

Regards.

I agree we make demanding listeners. I hear things in the music others almost never do. My wife will throw on a radio station and ther will be the faintest amount of static and it will drive me crazy until I either get the signal locked or change the station.

Thanks for the link. I really want to try some SACD out. I have been doing some research on the web and SACD seems to be the better format but like other great formats it is probably going away. Figures, I get on the bandwagon to late.

I will be getting that Steely Dan album soon I think. I always felt his music was a good way to check out the sound of something, I think they really cared about the sound of the music and there recording bare this out.

Thanks again for the answers gang. This place rocks.

Eric W

kuntasensei wrote: »

Well, I get what you're saying in theory... but I think you're thinking more in the mindset of 2-channel being processed to 7.1. With 5.1 tracks, the mixers place sounds between the two surrounds by varying the level placed in each channel. For instance, if a sound is supposed to seem to emanate from somewhere over your left shoulder, they may mix 75% of the sound into the left surround channel and 25% of the same sound into the right surround channel so you perceive it as not being completely hard left.

What DPL-IIx Movie Mode with 5.1 material on a 7.1 system does with that information is this: If a sound is 100% in the left surround, it stays there. If a sound is 50% in each surround, it steers the sound to the rear surrounds. If a sound is say 75% in the left surround and 25% in the right, it compares the two channels, measures the level difference, and steers that sound into the left rear surround while leaving some of the sound in the left surround. The amount it removes from the left surround depends on the level difference. By varying the amount steered and removed between the 4 surround channels, it can basically take a soundtrack mixed for phantom imaging between the surrounds and accurately place the sound cues between the 4 surround speakers. As I mentioned before, the only issue that you run into is with older soundtracks (and there are very few of these) that use the exact same sound and level in the two surrounds, in which case all sound collapses to the rears in DPL-IIx Movie Mode. Switching to DPL-IIx Music Mode for these 5.1 tracks, however, leaves this audio in the left, right and rear surrounds, much in the same way that left and right audio is steered to the center channel but remains in the left and right channels with 2-channel material in DPL-IIx Music Mode.

Unlike the listening modes you mentioned previously (i.e. hall, stadium, etc.), DPL-IIx does not add any reverb or attempt to create an artificial environment, even with 2-channel material (where it detects reverb present in the audio and steers it to the surrounds accordingly but does not add more reverb). It simply analyzes the level shift between the surrounds and steers the sound accordingly.

Another advantage is this: With 5.1 tracks intended for matrix 6.1 processing (i.e. DD-EX or DTS-ES Matrix), DPL-IIx is actually Dolby's preferred method of handling the matrixed soundtrack. The reason is that DPL-IIx uses better steering algorithms and creates full bandwidth rear surrounds instead of the band-limited rear surrounds used in legacy DD-EX. Another advantage, as I mentioned before, is that the two rear surrounds vs. the single rear surround in a 6.1 setup will give you better imaging of sounds meant to be directly behind you without any acoustic reversal since hard centered sounds will emanate from two point sources.

So while I agree that it may not be the intended sound from a strictly purist standpoint, because mixers customarily place sounds in varying levels between the surrounds to create phantom imaging between the surrounds in 5.1, DPL-IIx does a very capable job of steering between 4 surrounds so that you get a more cohesive rear soundstage and better directionality of effects.

Excellent post.