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

Hey I don't know if anyone has heard about this new tech. from Audyssey called Audyssey DSX ( Audyssey DSX), but they add additional speakers to the height and widths of a surround sound setup (so far I've heard good things about this). I was just wondering what setups/speakers would some people use if they had the room and money to implement the setups using axiom speakers?

Audyssey recommends always using direct radiating speakers because their system is better at adjusting them for room characteristics.

I have an Onkyo capable of using them and found I liked the following:

Wide speakers: Direct radiating speakers worked best. I presently use M22s to match my M80 mains, however, they are probably overkill and if I didn’t already have an extra pair of M22s I would have only ordered M2s to use as wide speakers.

Height speakers: I found that QS8s worked better than the M22s up high but I think QS8s are probably overkill and QS4s would work fine as height speakers.

grunt, do you have a picture of your room with all of these crazy speakers hooked up?

Here’s the best I could do for now David:

Dean’s DSX speaker layout, for now

I posted them over in my HT room thread just to keep everything together in one place.

nice setup grunt, do you think the added costs for upgrading to 10.1/11.1 is worth it for the added sound effects? Also I was thinking the same thing about using qs8's or qs4's for the heights even though audyssey recommends using direct firing speakers. I also noticed your heights were positioned to the top left-side of the room as opposed to the top of the screen. Did it not matter because of the qs8's or was their other reasons for doing so?

That front sound stage looks crazy cool Dean!

First, unless you need a new receiver now I would wait until a reasonably
priced one ($2,000 preferably closer to $1,500 for me) becomes available
that can do both height and wide channels at the same time as both are IMO
worth having assuming your room can handle their placement. However, I
wouldn't run out an buy a new receiver just to have the height/wide
capability unless you have some room issues you think it might help with.

I think QS4s are more than enough for height speakers as the only thing
coming out of them is ambient sound. The wide speakers need to be a little
more robust and also closely timber matched to the mains because they share
a lot of audio information with them. M22s work fine as wide speakers for
the M80s but I suspect M2s would also. Assuming I order a pair of M2s as
rears I will test that theory out.

My height speakers are on the side walls because that is the angle suggested
by DSX. I know the pictures usually show them above at the outside edge of
the screen but unless you have a huge screen and sit really close there's no
way you can get them at the suggested angle off center. I think Audyssey
also shows them on the front wall because the recommend only using direct
radiating speakers so you would want them pointed at the seating.

And it actually sounds better than it looks.

So it sounds totally insane?

Off the Hook!

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.

Frank Lee Guise -- I think I went to high school with him.

the next setup I will do will be seperates. (hopefully prices will drop) but denon has a receiver that has 12 channels it is the: AVP-A1HDCI(A and its available for 7500 bones way out of my price range especially for a receiver