# Audyssey 11.1



## jmillerii43

Has anyone played with Audyssey 11.1 in their home theater? ...What is your opinion?

I am planning a new HT (13'x17') and was thinking about giving it a shot... not that anyone in their right mind needs 11.1 channels, but hey, who really needs a dedicated HT... So I figure what the hay... might as well!

Also, what do people like for speakers? I have some old Definitive Techs Bi that I love... so I was thinking about going with Mythos Ones for L/R/Sur and matching center (maybe something else for the extra 11.1 ch)... they sound absolutely amazing in the showroom! My speaker budget will be $5-10k up front and can be extended over time.

Looking forward to everyone's opinions! Thanks!


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Do you mean Audyssey DSX?


----------



## eugovector

Haven't heard it, but the science and reasoning behind it seems sound. We simply hear better in front of us than behind us, so why not put more speakers there?

For that reason, I'd advise against mixing and matching any if the front, center, wide, height speakers. Depending on your room, speaker choice, sense if aesthetics, it may not be possible to have identical speakers, but you should stick with the same brand, same series as possible for the best chance at matching timbre.


----------



## jmillerii43

I was thinking something smaller from the Mythos line for the high L/R since they have to be towards the top of the ceiling and the Mythos One are floor standing... Or do you think going with a smaller speaker all around to match would be better?


----------



## eugovector

Well, I really like big speakers, but I'm a bigger fan of every setup I've heard that has 3 identical speakers across the front. I have not heard highs or wides in a setup.

Even the Mythos Gem is spec'd down to 60HZ (+/- ?db), so I would personally consider using those for all my speakers coupled with 1,2, or 4 capable subwoofers. That being said, just sticking with as much uniformity as possible, even if it means just staying within something from the Mythos line, should give you results that you'll be happy with.

Anyone want to argue in favor of larger speakers over uniformity?


----------



## Sir Terrence

I would be okay with 11.1 if we mixed in 11.1. However having a processor "making up" directional cues IMO is just a processor being used to distort an event. The fact that it is across the front makes it even worse than in the rear(which I could accept, its just fill).


----------



## eugovector

Sir Terrence said:


> I would be okay with 11.1 if we mixed in 11.1. However having a processor "making up" directional cues IMO is just a processor being used to distort an event. The fact that it is across the front makes it even worse than in the rear(which I could accept, its just fill).


Definitely seeing your point, and once again acknowledging I haven't heard DSX, I will say that matrixing has and continues to serve us well. I'm impressed with what Dolby Prologic II can do to create ambiance from a stereo track, artificial as it may be.

Would I prefer 10.2 discrete? Yes. Am I willing to try DSX in the hopes that it fills the gap until 10.2 gets here? Yes.


----------



## jmillerii43

Sir Terrence said:


> I would be okay with 11.1 if we mixed in 11.1. However having a processor "making up" directional cues IMO is just a processor being used to distort an event. The fact that it is across the front makes it even worse than in the rear(which I could accept, its just fill).



I see your point... basically that it is not recorded in 11.1, so we are relying on the receiver to create the additional channels required out of thin air. I will have to see if I can find a local showroom that has DSX setup. If I manage to find one, I will report my findings! It will be interesting to see if it takes off like Dolby Digital, or falls flat.


----------



## eugovector

Yes, well, it's a complicated bit of thin air, lots of phase analysis and such. There is a good interview here with the dolby folks: http://www.dolby.com/consumer/experience/dolbycast/transcript/11-surround-sound-from-stereo.html

I recall listening to a podcast (not mine) with a great explanation of how this all works, but I can't find it right now. It also featured someone talking about hte history of dolby, but I can't find it right now. Anyone have other resources?

Not sure how similar Audyssey's solution is, but the science and execution of Dolby's methods have proven sound in theory and execution, despite being inferior to discrete channels.


----------



## bambino

This thread has me interested as my room is similar in size and i want to do the same thing.
Might be quite alot of speakers for such a tiny space IMO but it sure would be cool if one could pull it off.:T


----------



## Owen Bartley

I have to say... I'd want to try it out. As gimmicky as it might be, and even with nothing genuinely mixed in 11.2, I can't help thinking how nice it would be to be completely surrounded in sound. Like a nice warm blanket covering you. So is this the generally accepted 11 channel layout?










Truthfully, I really can't imagine how much the rear "presence" speakers would add, but I'd check it out.


----------



## eugovector

Owen Bartley said:


> So is this the generally accepted 11 channel layout?


No, you want more speakers in front of you than behind you. Pretty common sense as, evolutionarily, our species has adapted to more sensitive to directionality and frequency response in front of us, rather than behind us.

Here's Audyssey's DSX setup:
http://www.audyssey.com/technology/dsx.html


----------



## Owen Bartley

Thanks Marshall. Looking at that diagram, I think 9.1 might be my limit... I'd still love to hear it for myself, but it seems like placement would get extremely complicated, and there's a good chance you could make your sound worse if not done right.


----------



## bbecker83

Go for it and not look back.

The acoustic cues that DSX redirects information to new channels, placing it where the sound really was intended. Its more complex than matrixing. For instance with my height surrounds certain instrument, cues or sounds from whether it be movies, music or games comes from the new channel and not the other channels I do hear a lot of shared information to such as ambient, sibilance and acoustic projection. My girlfriend plays at Duquesne University as a Viola/Violin player, and I can tell you that the height surrounds add the necessary depth a concert has that is lacking/anemic in a 5.1 system. I have been to over 60 orchestral concerts in 2 years, many of which are professional such as the Pittsburgh Symphony (in the top 20 or in the world).

If I could I would go 11.1 in a heartbeat and would never hesitate to tell someone to either. If you think 11.1 muddles, smears, or colors the sound you've probably never listened to it and are just speculating :T .


----------



## bbecker83

Owen Bartley said:


> Thanks Marshall. Looking at that diagram, I think 9.1 might be my limit... I'd still love to hear it for myself, but it seems like placement would get extremely complicated, and there's a good chance you could make your sound worse if not done right.


The heights need to be 45degree and just outside the L/R if the room is narrow place the wides closer to the listeners to attain the 60deg angles.


----------



## Owen Bartley

bbecker83 said:


> If you think 11.1 muddles, smears, or colors the sound you've probably never listened to it and are just speculating :T .


Thanks Bob, I was completely speculating, but your review has me intrigued. If the wides are supposed to be 60* out, I wonder if I could build angled walls at the front of the theatre (sort of like /-----\ ) to place them since I'm considering in-walls... or would they still be fine on a flat wall just outside the mains if the angle from the listening position was correct? One of my concerns is having a ton of speakers on stands at the front of the room.

For reference, here's the setup that Marshall pointed me to:


----------



## bbecker83

Owen that shaped room can work, its the right setup to produce a stage like throw of sound. As for the width surrounds I felt these would good options/solutions to Option 1 Option 2

They aren't cheap but cosmetically speaking I can't find a better (on/in-wall) option. If you do the tapered room you can place the width channels a bit closer to the listener to achieve the 60deg angle. I'd say you don't need it to be exactly 60, 55-65 would be a small enough tolerance, considering that off axis response of the speaker is good.


----------



## Sir Terrence

bbecker83 said:


> Go for it and not look back.
> 
> The acoustic cues that DSX redirects information to new channels, placing it where the sound really was intended. Its more complex than matrixing. For instance with my height surrounds certain instrument, cues or sounds from whether it be movies, music or games comes from the new channel and not the other channels I do hear a lot of shared information to such as ambient, sibilance and acoustic projection. My girlfriend plays at Duquesne University as a Viola/Violin player, and I can tell you that the height surrounds add the necessary depth a concert has that is lacking/anemic in a 5.1 system. I have been to over 60 orchestral concerts in 2 years, many of which are professional such as the Pittsburgh Symphony (in the top 20 or in the world).


First, DSX cannot direct anything accurately into the height channels, because no height channels are included within the original mix. It is making this location up. There is no height channels in the mixing studio, and no accomadation for them in the dubbing stage either. No where in any studio signal chain are height channels included, so the processor is randomly sending information to those channels. 

A 5.1 system is usually the system movie soundtracks are created on, and they are not configured like DSX. Even when we mix for 7.1, it does not use DSX recommended speaker positions. DSX does not map 1:1 with any created sound mix. 



> If I could I would go 11.1 in a heartbeat and would never hesitate to tell someone to either. If you think 11.1 muddles, smears, or colors the sound you've probably never listened to it and are just speculating :T .


I have listened to it with soundtracks I have mixed and know well, and DSX and Dolby PLz are hit and misses with accuracy, and are not always representative of the intentions of the sound mixers. This is a fact. Both DPLz and DSX are re-creating new spatial positions within a mix that were never intended in the first place.


----------



## Owen Bartley

Thanks Bob, I'll keep that in mind. I had originally been thinking of using a painted DIY screen, but am reading more about DIY acousticaly transparent screens and think I'm leaning that way now. Seems like the best way to get ideal placement, especially for the centre speaker. It would be much easier to use identical speakers for all 3 main channels if they can hide behind the screen and be right at the optimal height/orientation.


----------



## eugovector

Owen Bartley said:


> Thanks Bob, I'll keep that in mind. I had originally been thinking of using a painted DIY screen, but am reading more about DIY acousticaly transparent screens and think I'm leaning that way now. Seems like the best way to get ideal placement, especially for the centre speaker. It would be much easier to use identical speakers for all 3 main channels if they can hide behind the screen and be right at the optimal height/orientation.


+1 for acoustically transparent screens. They are certainly a bit more expensive, but options like Seymour AV are reasonable. Especially when sitting closer to a large screen, the angle of a bottom/top mounted speakers is just a bit to much for my ears, and I always find myself, at some point, having my attention drawn to the center speaker with highly directional sound.

That being said, painted screen are inexpensive, save space, and perform great when done well. And your ears/speakers may perform differently than mine.


----------



## Sir Terrence

To all of those who want to do DSX, what are your performance expectations of this approach?


----------



## eugovector

I'd like to try DSX with wides for a larger front sound stage and more seamless transition to surrounds.

Right now, I have my 5.1 setup with the fronts positioned a little wider than I normally like. I sit 1.5x the screen diagonal, so I usually have my front pushed as close to the edge of the screen as possible. Any wider and I'll occasionally have the classic case of a car driving across the screen with a hard pan of the sound from left to right. Inevitable the car appears on the screen while the sound is still hard left off screen. Pushing the speakers as close to the edge as possible cuts down on this. Would not be a problem with an acoustically transparent screen and 3 speakers behind, of course.

In my current setup, I've pushed the speakers a little wider than possible to make music a bit more enveloping and, because my front enclosures are pretty beefy, clear some sightlines for those sitting at the extreme right and left in the Home Theater..

Second scenario: watched Star Trek 2009 last night. Great movie, great sound. The Spock Mindmeld scene had the narration swimming around the room, and there were moment where the voice seemed to leap from fronts to rears, and vice versa, where it seemed that a more seamless transition was intended. I haven't watched/listened a second time for more critical evaluation (These days, I'm made a resolution to enjoy more and analyze less). Seems like wides could help with a more seamless transition from Front-Side Surrounds.


----------



## ddingle

Sir Terrence said:


> First, DSX cannot direct anything accurately into the height channels, because no height channels are included within the original mix. It is making this location up. There is no height channels in the mixing studio, and no accomadation for them in the dubbing stage either. No where in any studio signal chain are height channels included, so the processor is randomly sending information to those channels.
> 
> A 5.1 system is usually the system movie soundtracks are created on, and they are not configured like DSX. Even when we mix for 7.1, it does not use DSX recommended speaker positions. DSX does not map 1:1 with any created sound mix.
> 
> 
> 
> I have listened to it with soundtracks I have mixed and know well, and DSX and Dolby PLz are hit and misses with accuracy, and are not always representative of the intentions of the sound mixers. This is a fact. Both DPLz and DSX are re-creating new spatial positions within a mix that were never intended in the first place.


I recall one of the Audyssey founders and principles; Tom Holman demonstrating an 11.1 recording he had made. It was much closer to "live" than I was used to. Probably a long time before we see anything commercially available.


----------



## Sir Terrence

ddingle said:


> I recall one of the Audyssey founders and principles; Tom Holman demonstrating an 11.1 recording he had made. It was much closer to "live" than I was used to. Probably a long time before we see anything commercially available.


It was actually 10.2, and I heard it right after he finished it. As a matter of fact, I was one of the students that helped him tweak the track for the system. 

The difference between that and DSX is that he actually mixed content into a 10.2 configuration, DSX does not do that. It takes recordings with spatial points already set, and resets them using a DSP chip. 

So you know the history of DSX. For more than a decade Professor Holman(sorry that is the only way I know him) was pitching his system to the Hollywood studios, and not one of them accepted the technology despite numerous successful demo of it. "It is too hard to adopt to a commercial theater" was all he heard over and over. However, with Audyssey EQ being successfully embraced, DSX was piggybacked with the EQ processing to get licensing fee's they could not get from getting studios to mix for the format direct. This is the reason DSX is a matrixing format, as opposed to a discrete format he had for his original 10.2 system. 

The idea that DSX improves front to back transitions is pure fantasy. 7.1 discrete and 7.1 derived from PLIIx improves front to back transitions because of the side speakers in the system. Any processing that occurs on the X axis does far more than processing on the Z axis. Processing on the X axis conforms more closely with what is happening in dubbing stages and professional theaters. Z axis processing fits in nowhere in the current recording and playback infrastructure of soundtracks.


----------



## Sir Terrence

> Second scenario: watched Star Trek 2009 last night. Great movie, great sound. The Spock Mindmeld scene had the narration swimming around the room, and there were moment where the voice seemed to leap from fronts to rears, and vice versa, where it seemed that a more seamless transition was intended. I haven't watched/listened a second time for more critical evaluation (These days, I'm made a resolution to enjoy more and analyze less). Seems like wides could help with a more seamless transition from Front-Side Surrounds.


Are you front and rear speakers the same or timbre matched? When I hear about things jumping from channel to channel instead of moving smoothly, that is usually an artifact of speakers with different frequency responses, dispersion and driver characteristics. This can also happen if your front and rear speakers are spread too far apart to effectively join the two hemisphere's together.


----------



## ddingle

Sir Terrence said:


> It was actually 10.2, and I heard it right after he finished it. As a matter of fact, I was one of the students that helped him tweak the track for the system.
> 
> The difference between that and DSX is that he actually mixed content into a 10.2 configuration, DSX does not do that. It takes recordings with spatial points already set, and resets them using a DSP chip.
> 
> So you know the history of DSX. For more than a decade Professor Holman(sorry that is the only way I know him) was pitching his system to the Hollywood studios, and not one of them accepted the technology despite numerous successful demo of it. "It is too hard to adopt to a commercial theater" was all he heard over and over. However, with Audyssey EQ being successfully embraced, DSX was piggybacked with the EQ processing to get licensing fee's they could not get from getting studios to mix for the format direct. This is the reason DSX is a matrixing format, as opposed to a discrete format he had for his original 10.2 system.
> 
> The idea that DSX improves front to back transitions is pure fantasy. 7.1 discrete and 7.1 derived from PLIIx improves front to back transitions because of the side speakers in the system. Any processing that occurs on the X axis does far more than processing on the Z axis. Processing on the X axis conforms more closely with what is happening in dubbing stages and professional theaters. Z axis processing fits in nowhere in the current recording and playback infrastructure of soundtracks.


Actually I am old enough to remember Tom Holman's Advent 300 phono preamp. He also had a early loudness compensation on that receiver. I still have one in my "nostalgia" collection 
I see you are using the 32xt Audyssey. I am anxious to try that out. We have a super upscale theater that I would love to use it with. Currently we are using an NAD M15HD combined with an Audyssey SubEQ. The results are very very good,but it would easy to suggest the 32bit version would allow for improvements
NAD is going to update the M15,but as usual they are slow in getting it done.
Thanks


----------



## eugovector

Sir Terrence said:


> Are you front and rear speakers the same or timbre matched? When I hear about things jumping from channel to channel instead of moving smoothly, that is usually an artifact of speakers with different frequency responses, dispersion and driver characteristics. This can also happen if your front and rear speakers are spread too far apart to effectively join the two hemisphere's together.


Fronts JBL S310ii, Surrounds JBL S26ii. Positioned at a little less than 30 degrees for fronts and about 100 degrees for surrounds. Fronts at ear level, surrounds at 2' above ear level. Front and side whiles treated to be acoustically symmetrical.

Off the top of my head, the surrounds are a little farther from the listening position than the fronts. I'd say the fronts are about 6' away, the sides at ~9.


----------



## eugovector

Sir Terrence said:


> The idea that DSX improves front to back transitions is pure fantasy. 7.1 discrete and 7.1 derived from PLIIx improves front to back transitions because of the side speakers in the system. Any processing that occurs on the X axis does far more than processing on the Z axis. Processing on the X axis conforms more closely with what is happening in dubbing stages and professional theaters. Z axis processing fits in nowhere in the current recording and playback infrastructure of soundtracks.


And how about the Y-axis (height channels)? What's your opinion on processing for those?


----------



## Sir Terrence

eugovector said:


> Fronts JBL S310ii, Surrounds JBL S26ii. Positioned at a little less than 30 degrees for fronts and about 100 degrees for surrounds. Fronts at ear level, surrounds at 2' above ear level. Front and side whiles treated to be acoustically symmetrical.
> 
> Off the top of my head, the surrounds are a little farther from the listening position than the fronts. I'd say the fronts are about 6' away, the sides at ~9.


On your last statement, have you applied delay to compensate for the 3ft distance offset between your seat and the front and rear/side speakers? 

I hope I didn't come across as dissing your speakers, that would have never been my intention.


----------



## Sir Terrence

eugovector said:


> And how about the Y-axis (height channels)? What's your opinion on processing for those?


Unfortunately neither Y or Z is supported anywhere, only X. 

To be honest, the only time a height channel was used in the cinema was a special mix of We Were Soldiers that was exhibited in only one theater in Arizona. That height channel covered directly overhead of the audience, not like DSX does with front height. It was extremely effective in the theater, and I found it very effective in the home as well. My personal post production studio worked with Dolby on that project, and I tested various height positioning, and found that overhead worked the best for the most applications, and could easily be used with any software because its effect was stable and consistent, unlike both PLIIz and DSX. 

One of my small hometheaters has this set up, and one of my large theaters as well. I use 9 identical mini monitors in this set up. A basic 7.1 set up, with two overhead speakers. I use a professional Circlesurround processor which has a height channel output. When a identical signal is placed in all of the surrounds, it will send a bit of that mix upward to the ceiling speakers. Unlike Dolby matrices, it does not cancel out those signal from the other channels, but uses what I call the "filler" technique. IMO, this is the proper implementation of the height channel, not DSX or PLZ. This is just my opinion, but my experience with DSX, PLIIz, and the overhead channel is what buttresses my view on this issue. I think both Dolby and DSX are looking for licensing revenue, rather than looking for a way to better portray height information. 

http://www.dts.com/Consumer_Electronics/Home_Theater/~/media/DA0423A6F64445469C869D9C212A0BDA.ashx

Had Holman come to the studios with this implementation instead of discrete 10.2, he would have won the film community over. This is relatively easy to implement in both the home and the theater, and that was what the studios were looking for, not something that could only be used in a medium to small room. 

Personally(and I have said this before) I think DSX and PLIIz are gimmicks. A speaker that is phase, frequency and time correct does an excellent job of conveying height in any mix, whether it is music or film soundtracks. Since all of the speakers I purchase, or have had custom built are this way, DSX and PLIIz are not effective in my set ups. 

Good speaker design is better than any processing IMO.


----------



## eugovector

Sir Terrence said:


> On your last statement, have you applied delay to compensate for the 3ft distance offset between your seat and the front and rear/side speakers?
> 
> I hope I didn't come across as dissing your speakers, that would have never been my intention.


Hey, I didn't build them, I've just collected them over the years at a good price.

Setup is via Audyssey MultEQ. Also, got out the tape measure, difference is less than I thought: 6' to front/center, 7' to surrounds.


----------



## Jim Holmes

The best place to start is the Audyssey Labs website. DSX is really just an algorithm designed to simulate the first order reflections that occur naturally in a large acoustic space such as a conventional rectangular concert hall. The algorithms are generating a left and right wide reverberant image of the first order reflections coming off the side walls of the concert hall. This is achieved using the left and right fundamental signals. The height speakers are perfoming the same function from a different perspective as if it was the first order relections coming off the ceiling from the stage. It is my understanding that this is what was intended by the designers not to create channels that dont exist. Just a little room ambience to sweeten the small rooms most of us are forced to endure. This technology is probably better suited to music playback than film soundtracks but I recommend it highly. Just like anything else that is simulated, it is not for everyone. I am sure it is not the final answer to this problem but as in all the great works of Tomlinson Holman the TH in (THX) and his associates, there will be more interesting developments forthcoming. 

Cheers, Jim


----------



## Owen Bartley

Interesting. So the goal isn't necessarily to create a more immersive or "lifelike" experience of the material itself... let's say like planes flying directly overhead in We Were Soldiers through a dedicated overhead channel, but to recreate a more "theatre-like" experience by recreating a specific viewing environment. Thanks for that, Jim, I had no idea!


----------



## Sir Terrence

Jim Holmes said:


> The best place to start is the Audyssey Labs website. DSX is really just an algorithm designed to simulate the first order reflections that occur naturally in a large acoustic space such as a conventional rectangular concert hall. The algorithms are generating a left and right wide reverberant image of the first order reflections coming off the side walls of the concert hall. This is achieved using the left and right fundamental signals. The height speakers are perfoming the same function from a different perspective as if it was the first order relections coming off the ceiling from the stage. It is my understanding that this is what was intended by the designers not to create channels that dont exist. Just a little room ambience to sweeten the small rooms most of us are forced to endure. This technology is probably better suited to music playback than film soundtracks but I recommend it highly. Just like anything else that is simulated, it is not for everyone. I am sure it is not the final answer to this problem but as in all the great works of Tomlinson Holman the TH in (THX) and his associates, there will be more interesting developments forthcoming.
> 
> Cheers, Jim


THX like processing redux. Once again trying to simulate something that cannot be simulated, and overlaying simulated room reverberation over our rooms natural(albeit rather short) reverberation. 

Sorry, but Yamaha did this years ago, Audyssey is about two decades late to this game. 

Every concert hall has a unique set of first order reflections based on the design of the hall, and what treatments are on the walls. If those reflections are picked up by the microphones, they are reproduced by the speakers. The first order reflections of Boston Symphony Hall are completely different than Disney Hall in Los Angeles. How this DSP knows a first order reflection from a second order or third order ones is beyond me, which is probably why it sounded so inconsistent when I heard it. So you have first order reflections common to the room itself, and then another set overlayed by the processing. The things these companies do for a licencing revenue stream. :sneeky:

Once again, good speaker design will do everything a processor can do, but cleaner and more natural.


----------



## bbecker83

Audyssey vs Yamaha isn't a good comparison. For one two toally different technologies being used.

DSP = Enhanced Ques from a simulation, in Yamaha' case RTA based analysis of a real locations being used, in addition to source material.
DSX = Source material based ques, spacial redirection, and imaging calculated based on source material alone. What's being used was already there to begin with.

a DSP mode like "Concert", would simulated reverb of a widely projected throw of a sound and reverb, giving delay effect from the source sound to listener.

DSX merely takes already existing reverb, time delay from source to listener. It also clears up the "clutter" iow rather than your main 2ch, 5.1, 7.1 channels producing both source an d reverb ques, you now have all this information separated to several channels so that the main channels aren't creating your source of sound and reverb or spacial ques.

I agree good speakers with proper off axis response and acoustic treat meant can have quite a bit of depth but if you give them some relief from certain tasks you have a greater room for detail.

Also you really need to go listen to a DSX 9.1/11.1 sytem, Blackhawk Down take off/Irene is excellent for heights. SACD of Dark Side of The Moon, also a fav for the heights.


----------



## Sir Terrence

bbecker83 said:


> Audyssey vs Yamaha isn't a good comparison. For one two toally different technologies being used.
> 
> DSP = Enhanced Ques from a simulation, in Yamaha' case RTA based analysis of a real locations being used, in addition to source material.
> DSX = Source material based ques, spacial redirection, and imaging calculated based on source material alone. What's being used was already there to begin with.
> 
> a DSP mode like "Concert", would simulated reverb of a widely projected throw of a sound and reverb, giving delay effect from the source sound to listener.
> 
> DSX merely takes already existing reverb, time delay from source to listener. It also clears up the "clutter" iow rather than your main 2ch, 5.1, 7.1 channels producing both source an d reverb ques, you now have all this information separated to several channels so that the main channels aren't creating your source of sound and reverb or spacial ques.


Where do they get the height cues? Based on your explanation, is comes from the output of the L/R mains. This means the processor is moving cues to places they don't belong, which is part of the problem I have with DSX. It is moving information to places where it does not belong. 



> I agree good speakers with proper off axis response and acoustic treat meant can have quite a bit of depth but if you give them some relief from certain tasks you have a greater room for detail.


A well designed speaker does not need relief from presenting information assigned to it. 



> Also you really need to go listen to a DSX 9.1/11.1 sytem, Blackhawk Down take off/Irene is excellent for heights. SACD of Dark Side of The Moon, also a fav for the heights.


I have, and I was not impressed with it. I have no problem with additional speakers in the horizontal plane, but speakers in the vertical plane have zero support from recorded sources. There are no mikes to capture height information specifically, and no evidence(except for the airiness of the recording) that moving information to that place is exactly what that venue was supposed to sound like. It all sounds gimmicky to me. The fascinating thing for me is that you have people who poopoo 3D video, but will turn around and embrace this. 

As far as movies go, there is zero support for height channels were DSX places them. In the film community there is more support for overhead speakers directly above the audience, and zero support for height speakers in the front of the room. This is why Holman was unable to convince the studios to mix for this format.


----------



## gdstupak

Sir Terrence said:


> A well designed speaker does not need relief from presenting information assigned to it.


But obviously you do support this practice with lower frequencies "......because it reduces the cone movement coming from the main speakers, which gives additional clarity to the mid and upper frequencies."

So is this a different situation?


----------



## Sir Terrence

gdstupak said:


> But obviously you do support this practice with lower frequencies "......because it reduces the cone movement coming from the main speakers, which gives additional clarity to the mid and upper frequencies."
> 
> So is this a different situation?


Very, very different. The LFE is a component of the software. DSX is not, it is a component of the hardware, not the software. Huge difference here. We actually mix with subwoofers, but we don't mix for, or with DSX in mind.


----------



## Kwikas

I know this thread is a little long in the tooth but I'd like to find out if anyone else is using the overhead speaker arrangement that Sir Terrence has. That is, with a speaker(s) mounted in the ceiling above the listening position and if so, are they happy with it?

Is/has anyone used the Smart CS3X jr or the Parasound CSE 6.1 for their over head processing?

Sir Terrence, if you are around here anywhere, can you tell me anything about your Circlesurround processor vs the Smart or Parasound? You mentioned yours is a pro device and I know the Smart and Parasound (built under license by Smart), were both aimed at the consumer HT market. Do the Circlesurround, Smart and Parasound units all extract info using the same algorithms etc? 

Also, how did you ensure there were no hot-spotting issues with your overhead speaker placement? I would assume that several speakers would be better than just one but am interested to find out how you did this. I think you mentioned you have just one....

I'm looking at installing some in-ceilings in my next HT room which is quite large. I'm tempted to go over head rather than front height but am a little concerned about being directly underneath a one speaker audio shower.


----------

