Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Audyssey 7.1,9.1,11.1 setup with axiom speakers

I was thinking the same thing about the new receiver...also emotiva new xmc-1 is coming out and I was wanted to see what that had to offer. Also I wanted to wait until manufacturers finish jumping around with all the new tech. IE 3d, hdmi 1.4, audyssey, dolby, etc. besides with all the new tech. prices of lasts years new drops quit nicely

I thought that with the current software the reason that height and width are not options together is because they share too much of the same information, so it would be a waste going to the extra expense with extra speakers and amplification. Don't they both mostly take ambient non-directional information and just reroute it to those height or width channels? I assume the width channels will do less of the ambient information and help more with filling in the gaps in panning, but height channels focus more on ambient stuff.

I believe the first DSX capable receivers were cobbled together using existing 7.1 models by just adding an additional amp/dac for the selectable height/wide output. My Onkyo is hard wired with both those channels together even for the analogue pre-outs.

As far as sharing information both channels are very different. The wide is much more directional in some cases exactly mirroring what’s coming out of the corresponding main. OTOH the height channel is as far as I can tell purely ambient. The effect is as you suspect that the wide channel helps wrap the sound around you better than just mains + surrounds while the height channel fills the room with ambient sound in a way surrounds and rears just can’t manage alone.

How big are receivers going to need to be with 11 channels worth of amps (output transistors, whatever)? I think manufacturers are going to be forced into digital amps just so the things aren't a foot tall.

I think your right which is why this first gen of DSX receivers doesn’t support the full 11.x capability while they figure out how to cram enough crap inside and keep it working.

Time for everyone to start making separates, and the prices of pre/pros to be lower than the equivalent receiver.

The only bad thing about all these extra channels is that they are extracted using software rather than having an extra channels being made when the audio is mastered. Even using current Dolby Prologic to extract five channels from stereo is rarely that convincing (or enveloping). Since current Blu-ray players aren't setup for the extra channels (unless the rear surround channels were used for height or width instead) it won't be any time soon, if ever, that we will get mastered 9.1, 11.1 audio tracks. On the other hand I've read several reviews saying that the height and to a lesser extent width does really add something to certain movies, which I am excited about.

Frankly, guys, the more channels they add, the more they relegate this sort of thing to a niche. Most people can barely set up, much less understand 5.1. Current Sony receivers with 5 amps are plenty for them. How many HTIBs are out there with 7 channels? It's barely worth the effort for blu-ray makers to put in 7.1.

I would tend to agree with your assessment. I suppose some would disagree, but, in my view, unless you had a situation such as when DD and DTS came in to existence in movies with discretely recorded LR and RR channels and later along with the additional channel in the rear, I am not sure what the benefit is other than adding another couple of amps much along the line that Yamaha has done for years with their "presence" channels. This just extracted "out of phase" sound or added delays and/or reverb to give a more "spacious" presentation. I would assume this would also fall in to the category of what PLIIx or Neo6 or Neural THX does when extracting additional channels out of two or adding the additional rear channels to 5.1. I find it kind of funny but some of this stuff is kind of "deja-vu" all over again. Before the rear-center channel came in to existence, SRS labs had a box that in addition to extracting sound from the LR and RR speakers to make a rear center channel, it also could be used to extract sound from the FRONT L/R speakers in which you would add an additional amp and two speakers to mount on the "ceiling" overhead to give more realistic pans from front to back. At the time, it never really caught on.

I guess it all depends on how many more speakers the potential purchaser can tolerate and the potential benefit which is adding more features to the unit and increasing the cost.

I suppose it might change in the next generation of equipment but it is interesting to note the only manufactures that I have seen that have gone this 9.2 and up route have been Onkyo/Integra and Denon. I am not sure how they are doing it but Marantz in their newer 5004 and 6004 AVR's has implemented PLIIz in their second set of front L/R speakers but it is still a 7.1 configuration without the extra pair of amps.

From what I have heard Dolby PLII works great at turning 5.1 to 7.1 (compared to just having a 7.1 soundtrack) since it isn't hard to just fill in the gaps with panning and such. How much of a benefit 7.1 is actually depends on the size of your room though. If you have more than one row it can probably be beneficial, if not it probably isn't so much. By that same token I can see how the front width can help with panning and making a larger front sound-stage. But, with the height channels I get the feeling that just sending the out of phase stuff here might not really do much, especially if I am going to have to spend $400 to $500 to get some QS speakers to do this small improvement.

It's really too bad that somehow 7.1 with four surround channels has become the norm over doing either height or width in the front. All the designers of this stuff say that it is much more beneficial to add more channels to the front than to the back.