|
|
Post by gus4emo on Apr 8, 2016 15:21:08 GMT -5
Hi everyone, for those of you that use or have used heights and or wides, have you tried both at the same time, or prefer one over the other, what's your experience, I'm contemplating adding wides, have the Denon power the heights and the XPA200 power the wides.
|
|
|
|
Post by gus4emo on Apr 8, 2016 16:10:22 GMT -5
Hello?  |
|
|
|
Post by wilburthegoose on Apr 8, 2016 18:30:38 GMT -5
Don't waste your time if you're talking about Audyssey DSX.
Or Dolby PL IIz.
|
|
|
|
Post by gus4emo on Apr 8, 2016 19:07:15 GMT -5
Doesn't PLIIZ utilize those channels?
|
|
|
|
Post by JKCashin on Apr 8, 2016 22:16:28 GMT -5
It does, but my reading indicates people have been underwhelmed with the PLIIx heights.
Jamie
|
|
|
|
Post by altloff on Apr 11, 2016 23:32:40 GMT -5
It really depends on your room, I have a pretty large room (23x23x9) and I found uses for both pre-Atmos, while I preferred the heights under most circumstances, it really ended up being a content driven choice.
But... at the time I was using a Pioneer that gave me the option of pseudo wides and heights ( I'm not taking about matrixed with PLIIZ) and I ended up running actual height channels and simply duplicating my Surround signal into my wide speakers and running pseudo wides also. (I preferred this over the other way with actual wides and pseudo heights)
Personally I thought PLIIZ did a fairly good job and the only thing I would choose over it is Atmos with Front Heights.
Best actual advise I could give I'd, get some boxes and some speakers wire and experiment for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by gus4emo on Apr 12, 2016 8:13:52 GMT -5
It really depends on your room, I have a pretty large room (23x23x9) and I found uses for both pre-Atmos, while I preferred the heights under most circumstances, it really ended up being a content driven choice. But... at the time I was using a Pioneer that gave me the option of pseudo wides and heights ( I'm not taking about matrixed with PLIIZ) and I ended up running actual height channels and simply duplicating my Surround signal into my wide speakers and running pseudo wides also. (I preferred this over the other way with actual wides and pseudo heights) Personally I thought PLIIZ did a fairly good job and the only thing I would choose over it is Atmos with Front Heights. Best actual advise I could give I'd, get some boxes and some speakers wire and experiment for a while. I've never tried wides, if I do I want to try heights and wides at the same time and look for differences... |
|
|
|
Post by moovtune on Apr 12, 2016 8:57:16 GMT -5
I disagree with Wilburthegoose. I have wides, using Audyssey DSX, and like them very much. In fact it has kept me from upgrading my processor to any kind of Atmos setup because none of them will implement Atmos and wide speakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 12, 2016 13:07:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 12, 2016 13:12:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gus4emo on Apr 12, 2016 13:37:33 GMT -5
I disagree with Wilburthegoose. I have wides, using Audyssey DSX, and like them very much. In fact it has kept me from upgrading my processor to any kind of Atmos setup because none of them will implement Atmos and wide speakers. Thanks, I will try moving from heights to wides, now let me ask you this, if I turn on ADSX, am I turning on full ADSX? Because I don't like what Audyssey does in my basement, believe me I've run it so many times it's not funny. That's why I opted using heights with DPIIz. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 12, 2016 13:39:02 GMT -5
As you can see in the picture I posted, the Barco AP24 3D has the Dirac Live logo on it... so it must be good!  |
|
|
|
Post by moovtune on Apr 12, 2016 14:10:00 GMT -5
I disagree with Wilburthegoose. I have wides, using Audyssey DSX, and like them very much. In fact it has kept me from upgrading my processor to any kind of Atmos setup because none of them will implement Atmos and wide speakers. Thanks, I will try moving from heights to wides, now let me ask you this, if I turn on ADSX, am I turning on full ADSX? Because I don't like what Audyssey does in my basement, believe me I've run it so many times it's not funny. That's why I opted using heights with DPIIz. I don't know actually, if turning on DSX also turns on Audyssey EQ. I always use Audyssey EQ. But you can tell by trying it and seeing if the Audyssey light turns on in the display when you activate DSX. If so, and you don't like Aud EQ, then I guess you're stuck with heights only. |
|
|
|
Post by moovtune on Apr 12, 2016 14:11:52 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. I know about the Barco, but besides being expensive, it's a competing format and not compatible with Atmos (in that the speaker layout is different). |
|
|
|
Post by altloff on Apr 12, 2016 14:14:01 GMT -5
It really depends on your room, I have a pretty large room (23x23x9) and I found uses for both pre-Atmos, while I preferred the heights under most circumstances, it really ended up being a content driven choice. But... at the time I was using a Pioneer that gave me the option of pseudo wides and heights ( I'm not taking about matrixed with PLIIZ) and I ended up running actual height channels and simply duplicating my Surround signal into my wide speakers and running pseudo wides also. (I preferred this over the other way with actual wides and pseudo heights) Personally I thought PLIIZ did a fairly good job and the only thing I would choose over it is Atmos with Front Heights. Best actual advise I could give I'd, get some boxes and some speakers wire and experiment for a while. I've never tried wides, if I do I want to try heights and wides at the same time and look for differences... Like I said, I found it was really content driven as to which I preferred, but I was fortunate in a couple of aspects, my room is large enough to benefit from both, and my receiver at the time gave me the option of doing simple one button switching, back and forth between PLIIz w/ heights to PLIIz w/ wides, I don't know how complicated DSX it's with this, but it really should be pretty obvious once you get things hooked up whether you like them or not, and which one you prefer. Let us know. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 12, 2016 16:35:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. I know about the Barco, but besides being expensive, it's a competing format and not compatible with Atmos (in that the speaker layout is different). Yeah, but the Barco is aimed towards the professional Theater market so it is only logical that it is expensive. At the consumer level, for typical HT use, IMO an important advantage of both Auro-3D and DTS:X is they both are capable to use normal bookshelf speakers or powered studio monitors as heights. Whereas Dolby Atmos requires speakers specifically designed to be Atmos speakers, crippling height speakers freedom of choice. Auro-3D offers the following listening formats: Auro 9.1  Auro 10.1  Auro 11.1  Auro 13.1  |
|
|
|
Post by gus4emo on Apr 12, 2016 16:45:36 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. I know about the Barco, but besides being expensive, it's a competing format and not compatible with Atmos (in that the speaker layout is different). Yeah, but the Barco is aimed towards the professional Theater market so it is only logical that it is expensive. At the consumer level, for typical HT use, IMO an important advantage of both Auro-3D and DTS:X is they both are capable to use normal bookshelf speakers or powered studio monitors as heights. Whereas Dolby Atmos requires speakers specifically designed to be Atmos speakers, crippling height speakers freedom of choice. Auro-3D offers the following listening formats: Auro 9.1 Auro 10.1 Auro 11.1 Auro 13.1 Wow, that 13.1 should be awesome. ...did anyone ever experienced SDDS, I don't know why Sony never released it for home use... |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 12, 2016 17:37:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by altloff on Apr 12, 2016 22:03:55 GMT -5
Plus, with anything besides Yamaha that gets DTS-X, you can make use of wides for more than just object placement like Atmos (DSU doesn't use them at all) |
|
