11.x (e.g. Audyssey DSX)

[Erwin.BE]

Nov 16, 2009 22:02:21 GMT -5 flamingeye said:

Nov 16, 2009 21:56:26 GMT -5 Animo said:

I doubt the MXC-1 will have all the extra channels or Audyssey, but it should support 7.1 and have Emo-Q room equalization. I wouldn't mind the extra channel option on a later generation processor, but right now, in the name of expediency, I would prefer to see the XMC come to market as soon and as inexpensive as possible. Every little nuance will create nothing but delays. Once the XMC is available, I say let Emotiva go crazy and build a Flagship Processor we can all drool over.

Sounds like a plan to me

I second that EMOoootion.
Denon's AVP-A1HDA is often described to be the best available today. But even that is lacking the 11th channel and the most recent PLIIz & DSX formats. But a good reference.
And the announced flagship Rotel RSP-1580 promises 4x4 HDMI matrix.

XMC-1 should provide perfect quality audio performance. When that's achieved, the next flagship Pre-Pro should add more channels (11.2) and full-on 4-zone A/V capability. Non of that crap like "zone 2/3 is analogue sources only" like my Yamaha.

[willdao]

My 2-cents:

Bring on DSX. Audyssey is by far the leader in terms of R & D plus applied engineering for multi-channel sound--and room EQ, for that matter. (I'm not saying that, e.g. Emo-Q probably isn't useful, but I'd much rather have the Audyssey multi-point system. Much. I'd argue the licensing is worth the cost--esp. in terms of having the whole Audyssey pkg., including DSX, onboard)

That being said, the UMC-1 will be on my short list this spring--to tide me over until I can grab a DSX pre/pro. If that is an Emotiva product--AS I HOPE!--perfect. If not, well, I will be extremely disappointed...but will look elsewhere. I'll be building an 11.2 speaker system this spring/summer.

Jump/shift.

Regarding the spelling (ahem, mis-spelling) in the post title, well, I'll fess up: my google for DSX was misspelled exactly perfectly to hit this thread! And, like the OP, I know better! (At least mine wasn't "there or all the world to see!") ;D

Will

[flamingeye]

As for misspelling I think it keeps you all on your toes and makes your brains work harder and keeps you all young , yap that`s what I`m doing and your welcome

[willdao]

Ah, altruism...I knew there was a reason I liked this place! Such selflessness!

[Erwin.BE]

Nov 23, 2009 17:02:07 GMT -5 willdao said:

My 2-cents:

Bring on DSX. Audyssey is by far the leader in terms of R & D plus applied engineering for multi-channel sound--and room EQ, for that matter. (I'm not saying that, e.g. Emo-Q probably isn't useful, but I'd much rather have the Audyssey multi-point system. Much. I'd argue the licensing is worth the cost--esp. in terms of having the whole Audyssey pkg., including DSX, onboard)

That being said, the UMC-1 will be on my short list this spring--to tide me over until I can grab a DSX pre/pro. If that is an Emotiva product--AS I HOPE!--perfect. If not, well, I will be extremely disappointed...but will look elsewhere. I'll be building an 11.2 speaker system this spring/summer.

Will

Will,

You will not forget to let us know how the 11.2 performs, do you? We are starting to build a house next spring, for which I designed a 10.2 (or 11.2) HT system, so your input would be very welcome.

I think the approach from Emotiva regarding pre-pro is something like this (or I hope it is):

UMC: simple but effective, no bells and whistles.

XMC: reference for the audio part, a few bells for audio, no whistles for video: EmoQ, DPLIIz

überXMC: reference for both audio and video: video upscaling to match the big Denons, Audyssey DSX, matrix with independent HDMI outputs, 4 zone capability...

Fingers crossed.

[Nemesis.ie]

Nov 23, 2009 17:27:25 GMT -5 flamingeye said:

As for misspelling I think it keeps you all on your toes and makes your brains work harder and keeps you all young , yap that`s what I`m doing and your welcome

;-)

It's also good for those of us with an eye to the "correctness" to slip up from time to time and show we are human too.

[Nemesis.ie]

+1 for the "XMC+".

Of course it would also be nice to see it by summer/Autumn 2010.

[Nemesis.ie]

Maybe the "super" one should be called XMR-1 to be the perfect match to the XPR-7 maybe with an XPR-4/5 for the extra channels .... I think a 4-channel amp is sorely missing from the lineup.

[Erwin.BE]

Nov 24, 2009 5:34:42 GMT -5 Nemesis.ie said:

Maybe the "super" one should be called XMR-1 to be the perfect match to the XPR-7 maybe with an XPR-4/5 for the extra channels .... I think a 4-channel amp is sorely missing from the lineup.

LOL, 7 + 4 = 11, but otherwise there would be not much point for a 4-channel amp. This is one of the 2 reasons why I prefer 10.2 over 11.1: 5-channel amps are everywhere and 5 + 5 = 10.
The other is one less speaker to pay for. And in many set-ups you would not hear the difference anyway. OK, that's 3 reasons.
On the other hand, the ATI 2000/3000 (200 or 300W/ch) series lets you have any number of channels between 2 and 7.

And I know it would be OK to use a 300W/channel amp for the 200W/8ohm main speakers, but wouldn't the 120W surrounds be in permanent danger? But who knows, maybe the XPR-7 is only the first in a complete XPR-1/2/3/5/7 line-up?

Maybe Emotiva would be so kind to warn me, so I can multiply and reinforce the power-wires in the new house? ;D We have 230 V for domestic purpose (380 V = for industry) and are allowed to use 20 A plugs so that is 4600 W.

For a 10.2 I would settle for a XPA-5 for the Wides/Fronts/Centre. Wides are 120W, but I would prefer the fatter XPA-5 over the XPA-3 for the extra headroom. The UPA-5 would power the 5 remaining Heights/Surrounds/Back.

I ordered a UPA-2 to power zone 2 in my current house. Let's see how good the cheapest Emotiva amp is.

[Nemesis.ie]

Indeed, but there would be other uses - e.g. in a 7.1, you could have an XPA-4 for surrounds and 3 x XPA-1s up front or similar.

[vthokies]

Just got back from listening to a Denon 4810 DSX set up and hear is my conclusions. I will probably get blasted from the DSX lovers but to me it seems DSX is a gimmick to sell new receivers. I came to the conclusion that I would rather and most people would benefit to properly set up a 7.1 system properly and correctly and bypass the new 9.1 or 11.1 or 11.2 or 11.1000 system. To me it collapsed the imaging and made it muddled if that is a word. I had my mind set on the new Denon 4810 (I can buy one for $2100) but decided I would rather spend my money on upgrading my TV or video before spending the extra money on DSX. In my honest opinion Dolby and Audyssey came out with the new codecs so that manufacturers can sell the "NEW THING". If they don't continue to create new formats why would anyone buy new receivers, pre/pros, etc. You can't blame the manufacturers they need to sell new receivers, etc. but for the consumers we are better off upgrading other parts in the system especially speakers, etc. than buying into the new "JELLO" thinking that their sound well be better.

At first I was impressed but I stayed and watched a complete movie with a 11.2 set up and to be honest my 7.2 sounded better and I decided that I will definately stay on the UMC-1 preorder list and upgrade to this pre/pro. But the good thing about my experience today is that I picked up a brand new Audyssey Sound Equalizer for a complete insane price that I will utilize it with my new UMC-1 whenever I can get one.

I have to admit I have gone back and forth with going to the new DSX or PLIIZ but in my opinion until the studios start coming out with movies, music in 9.1 or 11.1 it is a complete waste of money. Let the flame wars begin. ;D

[vthokies]

Now the 1000 dollar question: I have a XPA-3 should I sell it and purchase a XPA-5 and XPA-2 or keep it and buy a UPA-5 and not utilize one channel? Decisions, decisions?

[Nemesis.ie]

Thanks for the write up - any chance of a picture (or even drawing/description) of where the speakers were positiioned and indeed the models of speaker.

Maybe you are just spoiled by your Emotiva speakers <G>.

XPA-5 and 3 for surround if you are not running insane SPL would be my choice I think. Or indeed adding a UPA-5 would seem good and cheaper too.

[Erwin.BE]

Nov 27, 2009 17:18:35 GMT -5 vthokies said:

Just got back from listening to a Denon 4810 DSX set up and hear is my conclusions.
...

I have to admit I have gone back and forth with going to the new DSX or PLIIZ but in my opinion until the studios start coming out with movies, music in 9.1 or 11.1 it is a complete waste of money. Let the flame wars begin. ;D

Hehe, everybody is entitled to his or her own opinions, and to be honest, I only auditioned the front Presence channels ("Height") with my own Yamaha and some left over speakers. No 11.1 DSX yet. Let's not fool one another, this is pretty subtle stuff. The best upgrade from 5.1 is a 2nd SW.

The ideal number of speakers for surround sound is infinitive. One might imagine a hemisphere with the sounds coming from every possible direction. One membrane, something like this:
www.freewebs.com/mdvanzutphen/eden-project.jpg
(If you ever go to Cornwall, UK, don't miss this)

The Wides and Heights are no more "fake" than the Back surrounds from the 7.1 anyway. And is movie not all about make believe?

In order to be as future proof as possible, I will wire our HT for 11.2. I will probably settle for 10.2 with only 1 Back channel. Start with 5.1 and add from there on.

[ratso]

pretty sure that emotiva is doing a smart thing here as i would bet that the new 9 channel, 11 channel, 37 channel formats will all die a slow death anyways. i have looked on these formats as being a marketing ploy anyways (actually i think most of the new codecs are a marketing ploy). when audioholics did that story on audyssey DSX a year ago (10.2) there still isn't even ONE movie using it (okay, according to wikipedia they made a cartoon with it -?- that you can't get). sounds familiar when you look at the latest codecs and then go try to actually find a movie that uses it. the studios simply aren't going to pay a lot of money to encode a movie with a format that only a handful of people will use. also tom andry made a good point: when you look at any A/V forum you generally find most people who say they either aren't going to use extra channels or maybe might try it. it is kind of rare to find someone really gung - ho into hanging even more speakers in their rooms. AND THIS IS IN AV FORUMS. i mean if WE aren't really excited about it and early adopters, who will be? your average consumer? do you really think best buy will have 'theater in a box' systems with 10 speakers in them? i just can't see it succeeding on any level. not to knock the technology as i haven't heard it myself and have a feeling in the right room it might offer an improvement.

[Animo]

Does that right room have seating for 100+?
If that's the case, then maybe I could see using a few more speakers.

[ratso]

hmmm interesting - here's something cool for you guys (at the end). got some of my facts mixed up. audyssey DSX is not the same as 10.2 which is developed by THX. i think DSX doesn't need to be encoded for 10 channel, it can matrix it from existing 5.1 soundtracks (at least i think that's correct, just browsed through their website). but anyways i also found this which you CAN get after all - the only existing encoded 10.2 movie ever made:

matterworks.com/seven_swans/shipping.html

[ntrain42]

Nov 27, 2009 19:45:58 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

The Wides and Heights are no more "fake" than the Back surrounds from the 7.1 anyway. And is movie not all about make believe?

There are a FEW encoded 7.1 discs floating around so I wouldn't call 7.1 fake. It just isn't widespread.

Wides and heights though are unecessary. As i've stated before you can get the same bloody effect from a CORRECTLY set up 5.1 if you know what your doing.

Ive seen so many poorly setup 5.1 systems I lost count many years ago. Even on this forum, I see people where they have their left, center, and right speakers literally on top of each other only a few feet apart and set up very poorly. Its mind boggling the improvements people could make on their basic 5.1 setups if they took the time to optimize placement, put up some room treatments and properly equalize the system to the rooms acoustics..........mind boggling.

[tchaik]

and then there are those of us whose 5.1 or 7.1 setups have to meet 95% of our wives' acceptance factor. my lovely wife has tolerated my surround sound setup to the degree that it fits into her decorating scheme.

9.1 or 11.1?

well i might as well start packing my suitcase.

tchaik..........

[Erwin.BE]

Nov 27, 2009 22:53:00 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

Nov 27, 2009 19:45:58 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

The Wides and Heights are no more "fake" than the Back surrounds from the 7.1 anyway. And is movie not all about make believe?

There are a FEW encoded 7.1 discs floating around so I wouldn't call 7.1 fake. It just isn't widespread.

Wides and heights though are unecessary. As i've stated before you can get the same bloody effect from a CORRECTLY set up 5.1 if you know what your doing.

Ive seen so many poorly setup 5.1 systems I lost count many years ago. Even on this forum, I see people where they have their left, center, and right speakers literally on top of each other only a few feet apart and set up very poorly. Its mind boggling the improvements people could make on their basic 5.1 setups if they took the time to optimize placement, put up some room treatments and properly equalize the system to the rooms acoustics..........mind boggling.

Even the pro's get it wrong sometimes: I auditioned the B&W CT700 5.1 speaker-set 2 times so far.

1/ 1st time was in Holland @ a dealer where it was done OK and with good result. It used the best CT 7.3 (3 way) as the 3 fronts and the smallest 7.5 (2 way) were in the correct spot (120°). SW was between Centre and Right fronts.

2/ But the last time was in Brussels, set up in a meeting room in a hotel, I would say about 15 feet wide and 30-35 feet deep with about 12 feet high ceiling. First mistake was that they put the Surrounds in the back where you would put the Back surrounds. The demo guy (from B&W Benelux, no less) could not tell me why it was done like that. And they used the middle of the range CT7.4 (2 way) as L/R and the smallest CT7.5 as Centre... Not the best choice if you want to demonstrate the system at its very best. And they used the Rotel RSX-1560 receiver, instead of the superior RSP-1570 + RMB-1575 combo the Dutch dealer used. And the SW was in the back, I recall.

All of this with the assistance of the manufactor...