Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Dolby Pro Logic IIz Height Channels Which Speakers

I am looking at purchasing the Onkyo TX-NR1007 which adds the option for Front Height Channels.

For Speakers I plan to purchase the M80s, VP150 and QS8s for Rear Channels.

Which Axiom speakers would be well suited to the Front Height Channels?

Is anyone currently running Front Height channels?

Thanks for any help anyone can provide.

I would imagine either M22's or M2's to the best match depending on the size of your room and how much space you have to put them.

DB, since the material which is extracted and sent to the height speakers is diffuse in nature, speakers which are similar in nature, such as one of the QSs, would be most appropriate.

I would also say the Qs4 or Qs8's would be a good choice, that is if your considering Axiom.

The Onkyo TX-NR1007 also has Audyssey DSX which allows you to use two of the following 3 combinations L/R rear, L/R heights, L/R wide without using an external amplifier.

http://www.audyssey.com/technology/dsx.html

For the height channels my preference would also be the QS speakers unless the speakers are going to be very far away like 15 feet or more and then maybe the M2s might work better. I’m just saying 15 feet because from my limited experience that about were I find I prefer direct radiating surround back speakers over multi-polar speakers like the QS. But the QS speakers will give a great combination of direct and diffuse sound which I believe would work best in most cases.

However, if you plan to also try these speakers out as L/R wide speakers then perhaps direct radiating speakers like the M2 or M22 would work best but not really sure since I haven’t read up on them or tried it myself yet. One thing I have read is that people seem to prefer the wide speakers to the height speakers indicating they make a bigger difference.

I just bought eh Onkyo 3007 and have a pair of M22 I could use as wide or height and could also switch my QS8 surround backs to up front to have a listen. However, things are getting very busy at work an I might not have the time very soon.

Cheers,
Dean

Ok this got me curious so I did some looking and found this:

Dolby Pro Logic IIz vs. Audyssey DSX vs. DTS

Playback Learns About Audyssey DSX: Part 3

I’m glad to see this topic come up again. I’ve been researching this since PLIIZ and DSX were first announced. It just happened to coincidentally align with my inclination to add a second set of surround speakers in between the existing set and my mains. I started studying Dolby, THX, Audyssey and DTS. All four of them have their own ideas to where speakers should be placed, the type of speakers used, and the type of sound field that is best. It gets very confusing. It also creates problems if you need to pull wires through walls, floor joists, ceilings….. If you don’t care if wires are strung about and visible, a person could experiment and find a solution that works best for their room or their personal preference. In my case, that just won’t work. Wires strung all over the place look tacky to me and I won’t have it. That means I get to cut sheet rock and do a lot of cussing.

If you read Dolby’s information, height speakers go directly above your mains. The type of speaker they recommend is not clear to me. They recommend neither directional nor non-directional. It appears to be somewhere in between. They speak to “ambient” sound like rain and helicopters, but they also want the speakers to create an imaging that gives the listener a somewhat directional perspective. I think a set of QS speakers would work for this application, but then again, a set of directional speakers would probably work too.

If you read Audyssey’s information, they want you to place height speakers at 45 deg to the listening position and pointed directly to the center (prime) listening position. This tells me that they prefer a directional speaker. They also have width speakers, but they suggest they be placed at ear level and somewhere between the height speakers and the surround speakers. These speakers, from what I can interpret, should be non-directional. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t want a set of speakers at ear level in the middle of my room, I’d prefer to have these closer to my ceiling as my furniture occupies the middle of my room.

DTS has not come out with any height or width processing yet, but I’m certain they will. I have always had a preference to DTS, so I’m hesitant to commit to any particular layout until I see what DTS comes out with. I do know that if DTS could corner the consumer market, you would see a very different speaker layout than you do now. DTS has a strong preference for use of directional speakers, all aimed at the very center of the room (they call the sweet spot), spaced somewhat evenly around the room. You would also see a speaker directly above you in the ceiling, pointing down to the “sweet spot”. Due to the unconventionality of this, and consumer resistance, DTS never did move this model forward. There is also the problem that this layout is more of a benefit to a room where seating is limited to one position, which would not work very well for the majority of consumers.

THX appears to be sitting on the fence and they don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other, but they do seam to prefer width over height. I think THX is waiting to see what the market does before they commit to Dolby or Audyssey or DTS or come up with their own preferred speaker layout. Personally, I don’t pay much attention to THX.

All of this is fascinating! However, it seems as though the audio powers are in the midst of yet ANOTHER major set-up overhaul. Which makes it hard to go out and commit a major investment in a reciever. That happened to me when I bought my Denon 4808... it seemed like it had all the bells and whistles I could ever need for the next 15 to 20 years. However, just a few years after I bought it HDMI was introduced, and it quickly became obsolete there after.

So now I'm in the market for a reciever that will bring me up to date, but now I'm nervous that as soon as I buy one, the powers that be are going to completely revolutionize speaker placement, as well as the software to run them. Making it hard to know if I should still hold off until all of this is settled, or go ahead and make the plunge now and 'damn the torpedos'!!! After all, they'll never have EVERYTHING settled and permanent. This is just the way things are in hi-fi audio.

Since no movies are being encoded with discrete "height" channels, as a previous Yamaha owner, this just looks like the feature of extra "presence" channels revisited and now gone more mainstream as Dolby has something else to license. Sound will be primarily extracted from the existing L/R channels and some from the center in one form or another probably altering the phase a little bit and placed in to these elevated speakers. This even reminds a little of the pre DD and DTS sound days when designated 70mm theaters use to add an extra pair of speakers in the front. Sounds like marketing to me and I am not getting too excited about it.

I am wondering how people are going to react to the idea of adding even more speakers now that they are labeling this a "9.2" set-up?

I thought of your post about using double surrounds along the wall when I was reading this and wondered if you’d tried using the wide channel as the “second” surround channel.



Good insight I hadn’t picked up on that.


I’ve also preferred DTS but very few of my movie DVD soundtracks have it. OTOH most of my concert and music DVS do have DTS. Though I’m starting to see more of it now that I’ve got a Blu-ray player.



I’m planning on doing exactly that as I’ve already got wires running all over the floor trying out different 7.1 speaker positions. I will pull my QS8s from the back and try both QS8s and M22s in both the height and wide positions. I’m already suspecting that for my room (seating is very wide compared to room width while far away from the front) that the QS8s will work best as wide speakers and the M22s as height speakers.

All my wiring will be on the outside of the wall hidden by curtain rods and curtains so even after I find the layout I like, tweaking will still be an option. If I had a small separate amp I could even set up my VP150 as a single back speaker.

One pain is that with more speakers it takes even longer for the receiver to ping all of them for the Audyssey setup routine. Unfortunately things are getting very busy at work and I might not have any time to experiment until the Thanksgiving Holiday.


I figure if I can get three years out of a receiver before the upgrade bug hit’s I’m doing good. Hopefully I can post some opinions soon on how the height and wide channels perform with QS8s and M22s in my setup. Well at least I get a military discount at Lowe’s and 2x2s are cheap so I can make some temporary speaker stands again. Didn’t I swear about a month ago I wasn’t going to buy a “modern” receiver and drag myself into this again.

Cheers,
Dean

Yeah, and it only really matters what the content producers and consumers are willing to work with. Stereo is still the overwhelming standard for music, and 5.1 is still the overwhelming standard for movies. And what percentage of people are actually utilizing a proper 5.1 setup? I really don't foresee an industry-wide shake-up considering how few people will be able to make their rooms accommodate any newer, more elaborate standards.

From what I’ve read the algorithms used for the Dolby and Audyssey height channels are different from what Yamaha did with their “presence” channels. OTOH I could understand anyone’s trepidation since I consider surround back channels to be pretty much a waste of time. Since I’ve already got the extra speakers to try this out and needed an new receiver anyway it’s only going to cost me a little time to try these out so I figure I might as well.

With 2 external amps you can also run the Onkyo 3007 I just bought in 11.2 though I already know that I don’t need surround back speakers if I move my side surrounds farther back so I’m hoping that the wide channels will make up for this giving smoother transitions from front to back while still giving me a balanced rear soundstage.

Also the .2 part of the setup actually benefits me as I can now adjust my Butkicker remotely (not directly at the amp) without also changing the level of my subwoofer.

Which is funny, because on DVDs DTS's compression used an arguably better psychoacoustic model, and lossy compression algorithms than Dolby's. Yet DTS couldn't get much of a foothold. But on Blu-ray both Dolby and DTS have brought lossless schemes which when decompressed present exactly the same information. Now DTS becomes the popular choice. Seems to show who had the stronger marketing campaign.

I will concede, that when the lossless audio isn't available for playback (for non-HDMI, legacy users) the back-up stream for DTS is a 1.5 Mbps lossy track which tops Dolby's 640 kbps offering. Actually this 1.5 Mbps track is what kept DTS off many DVDs, because that's a lot of bandwidth to give up for just an audio track (add to this that a Dolby track was still required to be present because DTS was optional and not every player/receiver could decode it). It wasn't until DTS came up with a somewhat compromised 768k version that studios were more likely to include DTS.

First of all I'll say that I ALWAYS check the sound set-up previous to watching a movie to see if DTS is an option. If so I swithc to it. If not, I hit play.




9.2? Wow, I wonder if that means they'll be relaying different information to each subwoofer? One in the front of the room and one in the back would be really cool if the bass started in the front and gradually made it's way to the rear of the room.

As it's been said, there aren't many people who actually have a correct 5.1 set-up, let alone expecting the masses to run out and buy two subwoofers! What this means to me is that those of us who are up on all of this stuff are going to become more and more the 'kings of the neighborhood'!!! All our friends will wait to see a major motion picture until it hits Blu-Ray so they can come over and watch it in our HT's because they'll sound even better than at the regular theater!

RE: .2 LFE

Be aware that when you see that an audio processor has two (or more) sub outputs, as in a 9.2 spec, most do not allow independent calibration or adjustment of the subs with the processor. The new Denons do not. The sub outputs are common and you will need to manually set sub output on both subs. I was bummed to find this out as I had intended to buy a 4810 and use it as a pre pro for a 11.2 configuration.

Micah, no the ".2" is somewhat misleading in that both sub outputs contain the one LFE channel. As Mike Drew points out, some receivers have a provision for calibrating the two outputs separately as to level and crossover, but even in that case it's still the same LFE content in both.

Bummer. Maybe that'll be the next great break-through. I guess first of all the public will have to show more of a willingness too buy subwoofers to begin with.

Even though both subwoofer channels carry the same information I have found one very nice use for the .2 capability of my Onkyo 3007. I does allow separate level control of each subwoofer channel which is a great convenience when using my Buttkicker. Now I can tweak it’s “volume” w/o having to get up and walk to the amp or mess up the level calibration between the sub and speakers if I do it remotely. Because of the inconsistency between LFE tracks on movies this is huge for me. Only drawback is that I haven’t found an quick way to do it on the Onkyo whereas my older Denon had one button that took me right to the speaker level controls.

I am liking that Onkyo 3007 more and more....(seperate adjustable sub outputs)

FYI the Onkyo 3007 (I assume also the 1007 and 5007) allows separate distance and level settings for the two subwoofer channels.

I’m not sure how the Audyssey calibration works with both subs since I have only one true sub hooked up. The first time through it tries to ping every speaker’s position including both subs separately. However, I’m not sure when it calculates and EQ curve if it pings them at the same time or separately. So don’t how it integrates their output.

I think I need to look at those Onkyo's. Do any have pre-outs for all three: Height, Width and Surround back? I think I looked once before, saw they didn't, then dropped them off my list.

What does the 3007 have for GUI? I love my 3808's GUI, and would hate loose that function.

If you're looking for a pre/pro with IIz, cast a glance over the PR-SC5507P. It's from Onkyo's Pro line. That's something which catches my attention. But I need to finish getting speakers, and then move to external amps, before I consider a pre/pro.

That one has 9.2 pre outs. I'm pretty sure the Denon 4810 is the only thing out yet with full 11.X pre outs.

Yeah, I'm reading the 5507 thread on AVS. Someone pointed out that the new Denon has 11.3 outs. But I don't want an inbuilt amp in my next processor, and Denon's separates are priced in the craziness range. Plus I just recently got to 7.1, figure I'll be ready for 9.2 next year at this time, 11.3 is a ways off.

So... 18 months then?

Better make it 24.

I have two, NHT P5 amps (200 x 5 / 8 ohm). I'd prefer to have a pre, but don't really want to buy a third amp. I figured I'd use the 4810's amp for the SB's or some other configuration. I'm in no hurry either. I'm pretty happy with my system now. Not real sure why I'm even thinking about doing more......

So you have 10 channels of amplification? The Onkyo is perfect, then. You could even pick up a second center to place above the screen. Just pick whether you agree with Audyssey and think the L&R wides are the next logical step, or with Dolby who are going with height next.

I really don't have much more room to go wider--although I'm sure I'll find away in 2 years. So height is right for me.

If I went with the Onkyo, I would not be able to go with an 11 channel set up, useing the H/W/SrB/Sr/C/R/L channels. It only has 9 channel outs. Am I missing something?

No, you're right. It only has 9 pre-outs. You have to pick between wide or tall. But as you have only 10 amplifier channels, you would, as you said, have to buy another amp if you wanted to go to 11 anyway.

I think my head just exploded.

Mine also Ken.

"boom"

Five years ago I thought everything was done imaginable to future proof our 7.4 room during the construction phase but who would have ever thought in their wildest dreams there would have ever been the need for an additional two or four surround sources ... and where will it be in another five years!?

Velcro drywall is the answer!

Velcro Drywall is a great idea!
Figure out how to maintain clean seams without seam filling and I'll invest!

Rick, as I've commented before, the trend is clear: the required number of speakers will increase to the point that there'll be no room for human beings, just an Audyssey microphone at the sweet spot.

That's hilarious! More so because it's true.

The future is in neural implants. Everyone jacks in with their own calibration settings and every seat in the house is in the sweet spot.

In that case, swimming laps at your local YMCA could be the sweet spot!

Naaah, then you'd get Swimmer's Golden Ear.

Glad to see we got a good discussion going about this topic.

I'll probably go with the QS8s for the size and ease of mounting for height speakers.

Off topic: Has anyone used the Onkyo 1007 with the M80s? Looks like it should be fine from the specs?

Dean has the 3007 and manged to get it to go into protect mode after hitting 105db after awhile, which is way louder than anyone really needs to listen. I would think the 1007 would work just as well, but not quite capable of 105db, more like 103 .

So far I’m quite happy with my new 3007. I played my whole 7.1 system at 100dB for half an hour and then the L/R M80s alone for another hour and a half just fine. It got very warm but never to hot to rest my hand on it. After getting tired of wearing ear protection I bumped it up to 105dB and it shut down about 5 minutes later. Also I was playing GOA trance with a very heavy rapid bass beat so it was quite the workout.

It says it’s capable of the mains being bridged but in the manual it warns not to do this with 4 ohm speakers not that I was planning to anyway. Also for some reason none of the X007 series can use both height and wide Audyssey DSX speakers at the same time. Both can be wired up and you can switch between them but you can’t get sound from both simultaneously.

Are you running your mains on "large"? If not, the powered sub would have been doing most of the trance thump....

During the first half hour the L/C/R M80s were set to small at a 40 Hz crossover. For the next hour and a half the L/R M80s were playing in “pure music” or whatever Onkyo calls it’s version of Denon‘s “pure direct” with the subwoofer deselected.

I wasn’t sure which would put a greater demand on the amp section running 3 M80s crossed at 40Hz plus 4 QS8s crossed at 100Hz or running 2 M80s set to large so I mixed it up at little bit. When it shut down at 105dB it was just the 2 M80s set to large which it had already been doing for an hour and a half at 100dB.

New impressions of Audyssey DSX technology recently posted by Sound&Vision here.

I must admit, regardless of the perceived technological differences, this stuff is sure reminding me more and more of a combination of the front "presence" speakers that Yamaha has had for years along with the "side axis" channels that "Sunfire" had in their Pre-Pro and later AVR's. The Sunfire was the platform for the inaugural Pre-Pro/AVR's from Emotiva and they also had the side axis feature. I am surprised the reviewer never mentioned any of that in the article. For some reason, because they are Dolby and Audyssey implementations, they are attempting to make it look like these are innovative concepts in home theater which they are not!

For the sake of making a buck, I guess the patents have expired and all the manufacturers are jumping on the bandwagon.

DSX sounds like it would be fun to play with. Thanks for the link to the article, Dan.

Casey, the technological differences between the Yamaha "presence" speakers and the Dolby "height" speakers are quite easily "perceived" because about the only similarity in the approaches is the position of the speakers.

I asked Chris with Audyssey a couple DSX speaker questions.

ME: What type of speaker should I use for the height and wides; directional or non-directional like the Axiom quad-pole?

Chris: “The Wides and Heights for Audyssey DSX should be direct radiators (not dipoles or... quad-poles--don't know what that is).”

ME: How important is it to have the width speakers the same height as the R/C/L speakers?

Chris: “This is the same requirement for having the front L, C, and R at the same height: pans will sound strange (like smiley or sad faces) if your speakers are not at the same height. Same goes for the Wides.”


Now I need to figure out how I’m going to squeeze all these these speakers into my little 12 X 16 room….. The heights are no problem, but the width speakers are going to pose a problem. I think I’ll just order some M2’s for both the height and width speakers. Either that or use my M22’s I’m using for my center for the width speakers and try one of the VP 150’s. I’ve always wondered if I’d prefer the VP over the M22’s.

I saw your post over there and posted my findings from my listening test. Not to argue with the man himself but IMO there was no contest that the QS8s sounded better in the height role than the M22s did. Howver, I agree completely with his statement about the wide channels.

You have a pair of surround back QS8s so you might want to do a demo for yourself. I wouldn’t belabor the point if I hadn’t heard such a stark advantage in using the QS8s over the M22s in the height role. IMHO, YMMV….and all that.

P.S. I also saw you made a new friend over there. Waiting to see if he takes a shot at me.

Quadpoles tend to confuse people who haven't heard them, since they seem to have characteristics of both bipoles and dipoles.

Remember that Axioms QS series don't have drivers firing out-of-phase, so they work better, in my opinion, to give widely-dispersed sound than traditional surround speakers in positions where out-of-phase speaker designs don't work very well.

Height channel speakers sound like that kind of application.

Anyone try using tadpoles as height channels?

Yep I mentioned over at AVS that the design of the QS8s might be why IMO they worked better than other di or even bi pole speakers might.

So the Q’s are really bi-pole? I suppose I was never curious enough to dig into that and why they were called quad-pole.

So why is it you found the Q’s worked better as heights and directional better as the widths Dean? Did you find more directionally focused sound from the width channels and more ambient, non-directional stuff from the heights?

I am limited with real estate, so I will be limited to either M2’s or QS4’s for the height speakers. There’s no way I can fit the QS8’s up there. I can use anything from the M22 size or smaller for the width speakers.

Ya, I made a “friend”. I just love the generosity and kindness of internet forums. He didn’t even get what I was asking.

Yes. The QS speakers are bi-bi-poles, with all drivers firing in-phase.

Yes that was exactly my experience:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthre...true#Post279710

I should clarify that I preferred the Dolby PLIIz rather than the DSX height effects. In general their effects were similar though DSX height sounded stronger than PLIIz, Dolby had less issues as better described in this review.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/newproducts/3250/first-listen-audyssey-dsx.html



I’m coming to the conclusion that I prefer Dolby PLIIz to both Audyssey DSX height and wide. Both the DSX channels IMO draw to much attention to themselves which actually distracts from the on screen action. don’t’ get me wrong when they’re hitting the mark they both sound great but they do it at the expense of sounding overbearing and drawing your attention away from the screen (hard to do in my rooms as it fills most of the wall). I haven’t checking into whether DSX has various settings ala PLIIx panorama to tweak it‘s performance.

Also I know you were trying to get a better side surround effect due to the length of your seating. IMO the Audyssey wide channels will not help this. They seem to pull most of their information from the L/R channels. So pans across the front sound much wider however I don’t hear it helping front to back pans any if at all. I haven’t tried it but I think running a double pair of side surrounds as you once mentioned will give a more expansive surround effect than adding wide channels.

So basically I’m finding that the DSX height pulls to much sound up high and screws up the front soundstage as often as it helps it. The effect from the wide channels while sometimes helpful for side pans does little for front to rear pans and often inappropriately IMO draws the audio queues to far to the sides. You could get about the same effect just by moving your L/R mains farther apart.

So for now I’m preferring PLIIz. While not coming into play as often and more subtle when it does I think it works better overall in my room (13 x 21 x 8-11 vaulted)

Cheers,
Dean

Or at least bi-pole curious if you get them drunk enough....

I should clarify some things from my ramblings above.



Until they find a way to matrix height channels I think ambient is their best roll. It would be interesting to hear a Dolby version of a width channel.



I think M22s and QS8s are overkill for both rolls. My L/C/R were crossed at 40Hz while the M22s were 80Hz and the QS8s were 100Hz and I’ve found no timbre matching issues which I’m very sensitive to hence the M80 center.

AFAIR you have dual over and under centers? I’m curious how height channels will impact that.

Cheers,
Dean

Pulling the plug on the DSX wide speakers:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=280181#Post280181

Your signature will contain too much equipment for the maximum allowed by the forum!
Keep us posted.

Already hit that limit.

Thanks Dean. You've given me much to ponder over. I think I'll just kick back and wait a few months till more folks play with these two new formats.

I wonder, if you find the wide channels distracting, did you try to lower their trim a bit and see if that makes them less distracting?

No I haven’t tweaked any of the trim settings yet. Each time I’ve run Auto setup and Audyssey for 7.1 it’s been perfect so I haven’t wanted to start second guessing it this time around. I’m enjoying that the auto setup is getting it right and I don’t find the need to change setting every time I change inputs like I did with my previous equipment.

For movies the distracting thing about the wide channels isn’t the loudness but the sometimes the position queues. For example at the opening of Star Wars III as the fighters fly around with the wides turned off the sound follows the fighters perfectly as my L/R mains are exactly at the edge of my screen. With the wides engaged the fighters while on the screen sound like they are 5 feet to the left or right of the screen when they approach the edge. When this happens it’s like the mains are pushed out several feet from the screen.

OTOH, in the scene when the destroyer bots come rolling down the hall from off screen left, as the Jedi get on the elevator, the effect is very cool because I hear them rolling up from off screen (front left) and then onto the screen as the camera pans left and all the audio is perfectly in sync with the action. Another scene where it works is in the Mines of Moria as Gandalf walks off screen right while talking and the audio follows him, again very nice effect. There is also to a lesser degree a nice ambient effect where the whole front soundstage expands out wider. While this doesn’t surround you it does make things more expansive.

Also the effect from the wide channels while best in the sweet spot doesn’t seem to loose much when sitting off to the sides. The soundstage does not collapse to the nearest wide speaker even when it was only 5’ away vs 11’ from the corresponding main.

I really want to like this feature however, unless they can matrix the effect I just don’t see how the algorithm can reliably discern which sounds should be coming from the screen and which ones from off screen. I still haven’t looked to see if there are any adjustments besides trim to alter the wide effect.

Since my Onkyo only does height or wide not both at the same time I would choose the height first, and the Dolby PLIIz over Audyssey DSX. The enhanced ambiance when the bucket falls down the well in Balin’s Tomb is subtle but awesome. By subtle what I should say is that it makes the echo sound so real you don’t even notice it unless you deselect the height channels and then everything then sounds all wrong. I haven’t tried height with games yet.

In a nutshell both DSX modes have noticeable directional queues that are distracting (25%) as well as enhancing (75%). OTOH Dolby’s PLIIz is more understated and while effective only calls attention to itself in it’s absence.

From what Dolby says, the PLIIz is supposed to be even better with games than film. So that's your next mission.

Really, I'm happy to hear this report from you. I'm far from being able to have 11 speakers, but will surely be running 9 before too long. I definitely have more room for heights than widths (9' ceiling, but the room is only 15' wide). So that's were I was planning to go, and feel even more comfortable in that choice now.