# 7.1 or 5.1?



## Oleson M.D. (Feb 3, 2010)

My BDP is a first gen Sony BDP-S301. 5.1 analog audio out (HDMI/Optical/Coax). The firmware update enables the player to process Dolby True HD, as well as DTS HD. The player is very good, only a little slow in load times, which is no big deal.

My NAD Pre/Pro has analog 7.1 in & out, no HDMI capability. 

My theater setup is 7.1 ready, but for now the far rear channels are driven by an ambience extractor (Dyna Quadaptor) supplying out of phase signals to the speakers from the front L & R. 

The current arrangement is very good, just wonder how much of an improvement will be gained by going to a Blu-ray player with 7.1 analog out, or perhaps upgrading the NAD pre/pro to something with HDMI switching. The new NAD's run around $2,500. This is more than I am willing to spend.

So far, all of the blu-ray's with True HD that we have purchased/rented have all been 5.1. Have not run across any 7.1 material yet.

And, is this Sony BDP-S301 limited to 5.1 output even via HDMI? Again, it has all of the firmware updates.

Also in our family room is a Panasonic DMP-BD60. Perhaps the easy answer (hard on the wallet, though) is an 
OPPO BDP-83SE.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

Hi Myron, obviously BD players have moved on and offer a wide range of features, luckily or unlucky there is a load to choose from, personally I prefer just my 5.1 setup which to me gives the best sound but if you have the right size room and speakers positioned correctly then you can benefit from the full 7.1 sound.

As far as quality players go the new Oppo BDP83SE is by far one of the best players on the market for all types of media and you would have to spend a lot more to better it, there is the Denon 4010 but you are looking at big bucks for this player when you consider how good the Oppo is, if you have no intention of upgrading the amp to HDMI then I would suggest a good player like the Oppo as it will offer superior quality for the analogue side on both multichannel and stereo output due to the high end DAC's used.


----------



## lsiberian (Mar 24, 2009)

I see this as a waste of money. Most tracks aren't mixed for 7.1 and those that are will be just fine in a 5.1 setup. To even use 7.1 requires your room be capable of it. Save your money for something better. 

Without perceptual research on the subject no one can say which player is better from a audio video standpoint. My suggestion is you keep the player you have and the setup. I see no reason to waste your money on such an upgrade. The actual difference would be minimal. upgrading your pre-pro is the best move IMO. For this I suggest a consumer level receiver. They tend to have the same features as the pre-pro's, but cost much less to do their greater manufacturing volume. Amps are cheap so the cost added by their addition is negligible.


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

lsiberian said:


> To even use 7.1 requires your room be capable of it.


If I'm not mistaken I believe his room would qualify :yes:.

I reckon 7.1 is nice for future proofing if you have the room to make use of it as you do, but I wouldnt consider it a must have upgrade just yet. Personally I would wait a little longer till native tracks become more of the norm, and take advantage of the then technology, which will probably be faster and have other new features yet to become mainstream. For now I think 5.1 is just fine personally, and I think 5.2 is more important than 7.x.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

If the OP is also looking into better SQ via the Analogue connections then there are better players over his existing Sony whether that be 5.1 or 7.1, also players have become of age now and are a lot quicker than previous generations which is important also to some, but PQ and SQ must be the priority and something like the Oppo SE or even Nu Force Oppo would be an excellent upgrade...


----------



## Oleson M.D. (Feb 3, 2010)

Oddly enough, the Sony BDP-S301 is not a bad player by any means. Just a tad slow on loading, and lacks a few features of the newer players. But, it does support True HD Audio in 5.1 analog, as well as HDMI.

My philosophy, as a former musician, is music first. Video, while important, takes second place.

The Oppo certainly would be an upgrade. And I'm looking at other brands (Sony/Panny/Pioneer) as well. But (like my wife tells me) patience is a virtue!


----------



## Oleson M.D. (Feb 3, 2010)

Moonfly said:


> If I'm not mistaken I believe his room would qualify :yes:.


You are correct......the room qualifies! It's 22W X 28D. Dual (L&R) subs up front, plus 
Side Surrounds and Rear Surrounds. All required electronic components are their as well, just lack HDMI in the pre-amp/processor (but have 7.1 analog) and only have 5.1 analog in the BDP. 

And, this room is a DEDICATED Home Theater.......not a media room, not a made over Family Room, plus it also incorporates a 2 channel stereo system as well for pure musical enjoyment.

My guess is that we are getting 90% of the 7.1 effect by utilizing the Dyna Quad II for the rear L&R channels.

The room really ROCKS! That is, if you enjoy concert videos. The Cream's 2005 reunion is a good one.


----------



## maschoemaker (Feb 6, 2010)

I don't think upgrading is neccesary as long as there isn't any 7.1 content.
It might be worth it doing later, but since there are no movies yet, why already buy?


----------



## spartanstew (May 7, 2009)

5.1 is fine for my living room, I would never consider less than 7.1 for my theater. The difference is dramatic with just about any source. Using PLIIx (or other) to matrix even 5.1 tracks into 7.1 is worth every penny for the extra speakers. 

I've switched from 5.1 to 7.1 many times to demo for various people and I've yet to find a single person that didn't notice (and prefer) the difference immediately.

As far as "having the right room" goes, we're talking about home theaters here right? It's not the Living Room Shack.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

Unfortunately stew if peoples HC are in there Living rooms 7.1 might not be viable or the best option for sound and 5.1 will suffice, if you have the room and are able to position speakers correctly then 7.1 may obtain the best results, I have seen and heard custom built HC with 11.2 speakers which sounded stunning but also other DSP's were used to get the height and other channels correctly setup for sound, if you look at the new breed of Onkyo amps and processor they offer 9.2 so there will always be better.

In my room 7.1 just did not work as speaker placement was not ideal and with just my CS29's I get a brilliant surround sound out of 5.1 and would not compromise it due to the restrictions my room has.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
I have never really given much thought to having more than a 5.1 system. Much of this is due to my preference of using Tower Speakers for Mains and Surrounds. And with my current Speakers being fairly expensive, it would be hard to justify spending that much when so few Movies are even Mastered in 7.1.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I personally think if your using two rows of seating then 7.1 has its advantages because you dont have the problem with the rear row being too close to the rear speakers and the front row being to far away and this allows a person to adjust the levels appropriately and everyone gets a good seat rather then just the main listening position.


----------



## spartanstew (May 7, 2009)

recruit said:


> Unfortunately stew if peoples HC are in there Living rooms 7.1 might not be viable or the best option for sound and 5.1 will suffice, if you have the room and are able to position speakers correctly then 7.1 may obtain the best results, I have seen and heard custom built HC with 11.2 speakers which sounded stunning but also other DSP's were used to get the height and other channels correctly setup for sound, if you look at the new breed of Onkyo amps and processor they offer 9.2 so there will always be better.
> 
> In my room 7.1 just did not work as speaker placement was not ideal and with just my CS29's I get a brilliant surround sound out of 5.1 and would not compromise it due to the restrictions my room has.


HC=HT?

Gotcha, I just don't consider a living room a home theater. 7.1 works great in a home theater, but not so much in a living room - that I can concur with. And most HT's have the room and the ability to position the speakers correctly. So, when the OP asked if he should go 7.1 in his theater, my answer is a resounding yes. If he doesn't actually have a theater and is talking about his living room, I'd have to have more details.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

Here in the UK where I live unfortunately our houses are a lot smaller than ones in the US and unless you have a dedicated HC accommodating so many speakers can be a problem


----------



## Jon Liu (May 21, 2007)

All in all, 7.1 CAN be better than 5.1 if you have the room for it. If you don't have the room for it, then 7.1 can be a hindrance. I find that it smooths out the the surround panning quite a bit, but I've also been in situations and rooms where the extra two channels sounded far too directional and distracting. More is not always better, but it definitely can be if you have the space to allow it.


----------



## Oleson M.D. (Feb 3, 2010)

But back to one of the original issues..................what percentage of videos are mastered in 7.1? In time perhaps they all will be, but what is available right now?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I have about 7 BluRay tittles that have full 7.1 audio. You wont find any DVDs with 7.1 however there are some that have DTSEX 6.1 channels.


----------



## Jon Liu (May 21, 2007)

Even though there's not a whole of content actually has discrete 7.1 I still find having a 7.1 set up and having the 5.1 matrixed into 7.1 very necessary (if done right, of course). I don't think all will be available as 7.1 even down the line. For one thing, 7.1 takes up more space on the disc, how much more, I don't know exactly, but I think that until the majority of people start using 8 channels in their system, they won't push for 7.1 on the disc itself. Also, as I said before due to 7.1 not being ideal for every situation, I don't see the majority of people buying into it either.


----------



## spartanstew (May 7, 2009)

Oleson said:


> But back to one of the original issues..................what percentage of videos are mastered in 7.1? In time perhaps they all will be, but what is available right now?


But with PLIIx, that doesn't really matter.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

PLIIx has nothing to do with 7.1 We are talking about the full 7 discrete channel mix. PLIIx only takes the 4th and 5th channels and expands them to the 6th and 7th channels adding a slight delay.


----------



## spartanstew (May 7, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> PLIIx has nothing to do with 7.1 We are talking about the full 7 discrete channel mix. PLIIx only takes the 4th and 5th channels and expands them to the 6th and 7th channels adding a slight delay.


I'm not sure who "we are" is, but the OP asked about expanding his system from 5.1 to 7.1. Several people said it's not worth it because there aren't may discreet 7.1 tracks. In that case, PLIIx has everything to do with it. It does not matter if there are 7.1 discreet tracks or not. When properly set up in a true HT, 7.1 sounds better whether it's a 7.1 track or not. 

And PLIIx doesn't just expand the channels and add a delay. It's much more complicated than that and separates the sounds that are intended to be behind the listener, and places them there - independently.


----------



## chadnliz (Feb 12, 2010)

Oleson said:


> But back to one of the original issues..................what percentage of videos are mastered in 7.1? In time perhaps they all will be, but what is available right now?


IMO that arguement just doesnt matter, its not that there isnt 7.1 material............its that 7.1 is a more enveloping sound even if its a Matrix and the added affect is a big plus. Some dont agree but many know exactly what I am talking about, now if you room is smaller than 20ft long it gets questionable about the value of extra speakers cause the spacing isnt there but above that I dont see how 5.1 will be as good. Yes 5.1 will be and can be very good but 7.1 is much better, I have been doing surround for 20yrs starting with Pro Logic and have worked up to 7.1 in my 14X25 dedicated room. My father moved and went from 7.1 to 5.1 and almost as soon as he moved in and got settled he started complaining he wasnt as happy, we got the extra speakers in and the magic is back.
Again dont get fooled by the actual material output because even if its "created" it is still IMO a superior and more enjoyable presentation, I have not once heard a Matrixed affect that didnt fit the movie, seemed out of place or poorly inserted. My experience with 7.1 started in I think 2000 or 1999 with a Onkyo TXNR 901 reciever, went to seperates from there to a Rotel RSP 1068, then a Lexicon MC8-B and now a Anthem D2V and at this point unless my room needs to get much smaller I could NEVER see going back to 5.1.


----------



## chadnliz (Feb 12, 2010)

Jon Liu said:


> All in all, 7.1 CAN be better than 5.1 if you have the room for it. If you don't have the room for it, then 7.1 can be a hindrance. I find that it smooths out the the surround panning quite a bit, but I've also been in situations and rooms where the extra two channels sounded far too directional and distracting. More is not always better, but it definitely can be if you have the space to allow it.


Yes but when it didnt sound right was it set up and calibrated properely?, I doubt you would check cause that would be silly to do at anothers home if not invited. I am only thinking that some folks like to crank surround affect to improper levels, dont set up the delay correctly, dont have right speakers or in right positions...............or a combo of any or all of these factors.


----------



## 240V (Apr 21, 2008)

7.1 is nice when it works but if the program is 5.1 the "rears" come thru the side speakers. I'm converting back to 5.1 in the living room so the rears are always in the correct place and leave 7.1 to the gaming rig in another room.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

240V said:


> 7.1 is nice when it works but if the program is 5.1 the "rears" come thru the side speakers.


If you use Dolby PLIIx it will expand 5.1 to 7.1 channels or if your receiver is THX certified most of the THX modes will as well.


----------



## 240V (Apr 21, 2008)

Using 7.1 analog direct input those features are unavailable to me and I'm not buying another amp just to enjoy HDMI handshake issues, dropouts and delays. Will keep my 1080i component connected CRT set as long as possible. Someday I will have to but waiting for LCD to catch up.


----------



## conchyjoe7 (Aug 28, 2007)

I've been running 7.2 for about 2 years and have never looked back...5.1 is also excellent. Whatever you have, be happy, but 7.2 was definitely worth it in time and money for me, and as far as sound...Hehehehe! Of course running huge Parasound amps, EgglestonWorks Andra F/L and R, Aerial center, and 4 killer Energy's on the rear augmented by 2 15" 500watt DefTech subs makes for quite the quality/quantity combo. While I know there is better, I do not need anything that costs more than my home...couldn't afford it either. However, that said, it would take that kind of cash to hear an audible improvement IMHO over my rig!
Cheers...
P.S. I still listen to (most) music in stereo through my glorious Andras' and Parasound HCA-2200 mkII only...Mmm good!


----------



## 240V (Apr 21, 2008)

7.1 analog is great for gaming! Recently bought a newer AVR with HDMIeaou 1.3 on it but having to return it because the video processor was dead. I (me, not you) would stick with 5.1 if I did not have so many speakers ha ha. Since recent purchase of Blue Ray player necessitated a rearrangement of connections. Using the 4 towers from the 5.1 rig as speaker stands for 7.1 rig. Best compromise short of moving gaming stuff to another room.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
Eggleston Works makes truly fantastic Speakers and I am with you on Parasound Amplification. I have a HCA-3500 and a HCA-2205AT and could not be happier. Though I do sometimes swap out my Aragon 8008BB for the 3500. Very nice system you have.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## conchyjoe7 (Aug 28, 2007)

JJ...Thanks much for the kind words...I do love my system, and I would love to hear yours. That 3500 is one heckuva beast amp. You need it to feed those MLs properly...VERY VERY nice! I also have a 2205AT for my center and rear amplification, as I imagine you do...good listening.
Cheers...


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
The 2205AT is an awesome 5 Channel Amplifier and truly capable of driving a 5 channels of my ML's.
The crazy thing is the 2205 is ridiculously close in specification to the 4500 Dollar Parasound Halo A51.

The differences are a 2kVA Toroidal Transformer and 150,000uf of Capacitance in the 2205 and a 2.2 kVA Toroidal Transformer and 164,000uf of Capacitance in the A51. The only feature the 2205 lacks compared to the A51 is XLR Connectors.

It really makes the 2205AT one of the best values for 5 Channel Amplifiers on the used market. For between 1000 and 1200 Dollars, you have an Amplifier that offers 95% the performance of the A51.
The 2205 is literally twice as powerful as the Emotiva XPA-5. (1.2 kVA/60,000uf)
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

I had a Parasound Halo A51 amp and it was a beast, the 2205 is a very popular amp and like you say not too far behind the Halo amp...oh and it made an excellent heater in the winter also :bigsmile:


----------



## Andysu (May 8, 2008)

recruit said:


> Here in the UK where I live unfortunately our houses are a lot smaller than ones in the US and unless you have a dedicated HC accommodating so many speakers can be a problem


You seen my room right? So why is it that I can do it for smaller room like mine why do I find it possible for it to work in a 15 foot length 10 feet wide 7 feet 8" high room.

x12 surround speakers has nothing to do with 17.1 its still very much 5.1 or (5.1 with matrix centre back).

Three JBL for each sidewall 

Four for the back wall

Two JBL surrounds at present for overhead surround that gets the signal off the rear matrix from the Pioneer VSP-200 that’s connected to the Kenwood KRF-X9050D AVR.

Its not rocket science there is no conspiracy no area-51 special wiring technique. It’s the way I want it and its proved to work, otherwise if felt it didn’t work I wouldn’t be running it for getting on close to 4 years.

Smaller surrounds located around the room is so easy and cost effective over the overpriced dipolar bipolar loudspeakers.

As for 7.1 my bluray player needs a new AVR so I can listen to this channel layout, otherwise I’m quite content at present with the current way its running, no real major issues with it.

Its like SDDS8 in the cinema how often does an SDDS8 print become available on the same 35mm print? No that much! Most are SDDS6 which is the same layout as regular DolbySR/D and dts unless it’s a special dts70mm with five fronts stereo surrounds and LFE.1.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

Hey Andysu, you certainly have a collection there don't you :bigsmile:

I think in my situation yes the speakers could be placed in the correct places but I would not get away with it by my WAF, I think I am lucky as it is and do not want to push it any further, plus am very happy with the sound the way it is :whistling:


----------



## conchyjoe7 (Aug 28, 2007)

AMEN!


----------



## sga2 (Nov 14, 2009)

Moonfly said:


> If I'm not mistaken I believe his room would qualify.
> 
> I reckon 7.1 is nice for future proofing if you have the room to make use of it as you do, but I wouldnt consider it a must have upgrade just yet. Personally I would wait a little longer till native tracks become more of the norm, and take advantage of the then technology, which will probably be faster and have other new features yet to become mainstream. For now I think 5.1 is just fine personally, and I think 5.2 is more important than 7.x.


How does a room "qualify"? I assume there is a minimum size, below which 7.1 is of very little/no benefit? I am about to drywall my HT project and have it wired for 7.2. Room is 16'Wx15'Lx8.5'H. I'm not about to pull the wires out at this point, but I'm wondering if I should postpone buying the 2 rear speakers (currently have 5.1 setup) and use that money elsewhere. I suppose I'll at least wait until I see movies with 7.1 tracks.

Regards,
sga2


----------



## lsiberian (Mar 24, 2009)

sga2 said:


> How does a room "qualify"? I assume there is a minimum size, below which 7.1 is of very little/no benefit? I am about to drywall my HT project and have it wired for 7.2. Room is 16'Wx15'Lx8.5'H. I'm not about to pull the wires out at this point, but I'm wondering if I should postpone buying the 2 rear speakers (currently have 5.1 setup) and use that money elsewhere. I suppose I'll at least wait until I see movies with 7.1 tracks.
> 
> Regards,
> sga2



It depends on configuration. 7.1 can be better if setup properly in this case it was a good step up because the room the op has is so big. 

If you don't have a couple feet between the back wall and the seating then it's a definite no-go. Though I will say that multiple surrounds do give a better panning experience.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

sga2 said:


> How does a room "qualify"? I assume there is a minimum size, below which 7.1 is of very little/no benefit? I am about to drywall my HT project and have it wired for 7.2. Room is 16'Wx15'Lx8.5'H. I'm not about to pull the wires out at this point, but I'm wondering if I should postpone buying the 2 rear speakers (currently have 5.1 setup) and use that money elsewhere. I suppose I'll at least wait until I see movies with 7.1 tracks.
> 
> Regards,
> sga2





lsiberian said:


> It depends on configuration. 7.1 can be better if setup properly in this case it was a good step up because the room the op has is so big.
> 
> If you don't have a couple feet between the back wall and the seating then it's a definite no-go. Though I will say that multiple surrounds do give a better panning experience.



What he said :bigsmile:


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

Exactly, I would never consider packing an extra pair of rear surrounds in if my seating is very close to the rear wall, and indeed I dont in my own setup. I wouldnt say the room size is the major deciding factor, more rather the layout as well.


----------



## sga2 (Nov 14, 2009)

lsiberian said:


> It depends on configuration. 7.1 can be better if setup properly in this case it was a good step up because the room the op has is so big.
> 
> If you don't have a couple feet between the back wall and the seating then it's a definite no-go. Though I will say that multiple surrounds do give a better panning experience.


My primary seating position is 10ft from screen (5ft from rear wall). Second row is 1ft from rear wall. I guess I'll start looking at rear surrounds again...

Regards,
sga2


----------



## bambino (Feb 21, 2010)

Proper setup is key. Most people are more then happy with 5.1 but if you have the room and your seating is allready 5' from the rear wall (which is perfect IMO) then another set of surrounds placed properly might be pretty nice. But then again you could always save your cash and buy more components:devil:.


----------



## STORMINORMAN (Oct 13, 2009)

Help! Let's see if I understand this correctly _vis-a-vis_ 5.1 & 7.1 and TrueHD, etc. sources...

I want to upgrade to HD sound:

If I have a player that decodes TrueHD with 7.1 analog outputs (i.e. SONY BDP-S550) and my pre-amp has discrete analog 6.1 inputs & 7.1 outputs i.e. (my ROTEL RSP-1066 actually has 10 pre-amp outputs because it has provisions for 2 Center, 2 Subwoofer & 2 Center Rear) I will then be able to use the player to decode and route the now-uncompressed 7.1 HD signals to the preamp and then out to my 7 channels of power amplification to my 7 speakers plus a powered subwoofer (i.e. HD 7.1). I realize I only have 6 discrete inputs but think I can route the Center Rear signal to CR1 & CR2...

I will therefore sucessfully upgrade to HD sound decoded in the BluRay, then sent through analog cables to the preamp and then through 7 channels of power amplifier to my 7 speakers (+ powered sub)?

Am I missing something in this plan? The only component I need to buy is the right BluRay player as I have the 7 channels of amplification, the speakers and the cables?

Thanks in advance for your kind consideration: I thought it best to just add on to this post instead of crowding the board with another thread.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

STORMINORMAN said:


> I will therefore sucessfully upgrade to HD sound decoded in the BluRay, then sent through analog cables to the preamp and then through 7 channels of power amplifier to my 7 speakers (+ powered sub)?


Yes, You will be good to go. :T


----------



## jzac (May 12, 2010)

Stick with a 7.1 or 7.2 setup if you can.....worth the experience. There are a few good flicks encoded in 7.1 setup that will make it worthwhile... enjoy!


----------



## husker43 (Jan 1, 2010)

7.1 is ideal. Have your receiver decode 5.1 to 7.1 as well. 2 subwoofers is even better.


----------



## Wilberfaust (Apr 3, 2010)

Definitely 7.1. Here's how Dolby differentiates the two:
7.1: The *studio standard *for the best in cinema sound, and
5.1: The flagship of true cinema sound *re-creation*


----------



## antr (Jun 10, 2010)

Hi..
A good 5.1 system is normaly good enough, if it's calibrated. However deppending on room size there are advantages to have a 7.1 system. But keep in mind, do not sacrifice quality or you will be disappointed


----------



## viccmw (Dec 15, 2010)

Hi,

Have read through the thread but still would like have opinion/clarification with regards to Bluray that are still mastered in 5.1 (either DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD). So if I have a 7.1 speaker, playing such discs, should I engage the AVR's Dolby Digital IIx processing? (My speakers wired as rear)

What exactly would DD IIx processing do the the lossless audio for the rear speakers? Basically wondering whether the SQ is reduced going from 5.1 to 7.1 using the AVR IIx processing (since there is only 5.1 discrete channel on the disc). Eg. does it affect the Front/Center and Surround as well?

Am not concern with normal Dolby/DTS material with DD IIx processing - just wondering about lossless HD audio format.

Thanks.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

viccmw said:


> Hi,
> 
> Have read through the thread but still would like have opinion/clarification with regards to Bluray that are still mastered in 5.1 (either DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD). So if I have a 7.1 speaker, playing such discs, should I engage the AVR's Dolby Digital IIx processing? (My speakers wired as rear)
> 
> ...


Hello,
Applying PLIIx on top of True HD or DTS HD should not result in a loss in fidelity. I have never run 7.1 as there is next to no material that is encoded in 7.1 and I use Tower Speakers for Surrounds which make 7.1 a bit impractical.

In truth, if ever moving past 5.1, I would be more likely to add Speakers in front for Audyssey DSX. I have listened to a DSX HT and came away quite impressed.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## viccmw (Dec 15, 2010)

Hi JJ,

Thanks for post. Good to know PL IIx does not affect SQ. 

I think more and more 7.1 discrete Bluray disc are coming out - it's the next 'frontier'. The more recent one I watched was Shrek Forever After 

Cheers


----------

