Has anyone gone 9.1 yet?

[Worf101]

And more importantly do you hear a difference and was it worth it. I know that gear manufacturer's have to keep uping the ante or we won't upgrade but this sounds like lunacy. You only got two ears!!! Nobody that I know of has encoded 9 discrete channel of music to a soundtrack (Sir TT will let me know if I'm wrong) WTF is next? 12.1? 14.1? When does the madness stop?

Worf

[ForeverAutumn]

Dude, I haven't even gone 7.1 yet.

[bfalls]

I'm not sure about 9.1, but Tom Holman's TMH setup use a 10.2 channel matrix. It was first introduced in 1996. It requires professional installation. Holman saw it as the next logical step in multi-channel surround, but it didn't catch on with the studios. According to what I've read there is some media available in 10.2.

[GMichael]

I have 7.1 but end up getting 5.1 most of the time.

Next up, 4D, 12.5.

[Swish]

...incorporate another 2 channels/speakers. I suppose if you had a very large space it could make somewhat of a difference, but I'm not buying it. I really don't think the di-poles I have on the sides are superfluous and they create a fantastic wall of sound.

[BadAssJazz]

Dude, I haven't even gone 7.1 yet.

I've done 6.1 and 7.1, but went back to 5.1 when I ultimately realized that no amount of speakers in my living space will ever trump the local metroplex, or in the case of music, a live concert. Never say never, but unless I win the lottery, we'll keep the home theater scale within manageable parameters. 5.1 works just fine for me.

[rakeford]

I'm still at 2.0.

I'm not upgrading until I can get 21.7 with a frequency response from DC to gamma rays +/- 3 dB.

[Swish]

I've done 6.1 and 7.1, but went back to 5.1 when I ultimately realized that no amount of speakers in my living space will ever trump the local metroplex, or in the case of music, a live concert. Never say never, but unless I win the lottery, we'll keep the home theater scale within manageable parameters. 5.1 works just fine for me.

I've never been to a movie theater that sounded as good as my system, and I mean it. It never fails to blow the socks off anyone who hears it for the first time. I did spend a fairly large sum of money for all my components and speakers, but not even close to some of the ridiculous systems out there, and perhaps a few owned by members on this site.

[basite]

I'm at 7.1 on the attic system...

for a home system, I don't really see a need for 9.1, let alone that they have 11.2 available now...

Now with Blu-Ray, there should be support for those extra channels, but I find it hard to find good 7.1 mixes already, so why bother?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Worf,

I set up a Audyssey DSX 11.2 system in one of my medium sized rooms in my Orlando house, and while the effect was interesting, there were some weird things going on. First, with Onkyo's implementation of DSX, you cannot run all thirteen speakers at the same time. So I borrowed a Denon AVR-4810CI from my dealer in Orlando, and used 11 custom mini-monitors, and two H-PAS subwoofers. I set it all up using Audyssey's speaker positioning and set up feature, and it was a bit more complicated than it was with 5.1 or 7.1. You had to tell the AVR that it was calibrating the front heights or the side heights. Once calibrated, I fired up Ratatouille, I am Number Four, Not the Messiah, and Tron 3D.

What I found out is the DSX 11.1 is much more active than DPL IIZ. With DPL IIZ the effect was so subtle, I could barely here any difference between 7.1 and 9.1. What I did hear on occasion with music, is a echoey quality that I found very unattractive. With DSX the effect was quite different. Flybys whether to the sides or front to rear was a bit more compelling(if not a bit more diffused) than 7.1. As a matter of fact, almost everything coming through that processing sounded huge, diffused, and far from what I can tell was accurate. Ratatouille's opening rain scene produced a huge ambient effect that was terrific. But when the voice over came it, it sounded like it was all over the room with absolutely no position distinction whatsoever(yuck, totally not accurate). It sounded better in DSX than it did in PL IIz, that is for sure, but PL IIz did not spread the voice quite as much(still unnatural sounding though). On the action movies, the sound was just too diffused and spread out for me to like. It was gimmicky, and I just didn't like it all that much

Not the Messiah is Monty Python's The Life of Brian as told purely with music and narration. You had a 100 voice chorus, a 110 member London Symphony Orchestra, a pipe organ, two pianos, and a harpsichord. The effect was simply awful. Stuff was so diffused, imaging was nonexistent. Almost every musical instrument had their transient effect blunted, and the natural ambience's of the hall was totally over accentuated. It sounded like a huge sonic "cloud" that had very little to no imaging at all.

When I shut all of the speakers down until I got to 7.1, through those custom speakers I got height imaging from all of the speakers, but razor sharp imaging along all four walls. When all speakers were fed signals, the sound appeared overhead just like it should. Imaging was excellent from every speaker. I decided that 11.1 and 9.1 sounded too "gimmicky" for my taste, and pulled down the extra speakers, and went back to 7.1.

A little history on 11.1 and 9.1. Both Audyssey and Dolby came to Disney to ask us to designed a soundtrack using their codecs. I found out later that they had been to every Hollywood studio before us, and where turned down. We turned them down as well. Since we have "bought into" Iosono 3D audio technology, we decided that was a much better option for enhanced surround sound than these two matrix decoders. Since 7.1 is now an official theater and home theater standard, neither is an option for us to adopt, or the industry as a whole. So instead of either getting the green light and becoming a home theater standard(complete with mixes especially for them), they are releasing these matrix decoders without the industry's blessing.

All I can say is, I hated it, but some just might like it. Its going to boil down to a matter of taste.

Worf, you are right. Nobody has mixed any 9.1 content except Dolby themselves to demonstrate DPL IIz

[pixelthis]

theres one group of people who can't wait for "9.1".
THE SPEAKER INDUSTRY.

[Worf101]

Kinda what I figured. I'm just pissed that if I wanted to upgrade my 905 to something that does HDMI 1.4a I'd have to get something that is ridiculously complicated or expensive if I want to continue to get the power I'm getting from my older receiver. It ain't fair and it ain't right. I'm still running 5.1 and I'm quite happy with it considering the confines of my home. Sigh... such gimmicks.

Worf

[Woochifer]

You just go with whatever discrete tracks are available. Right now, the most you can go is 7.1, and that's how the studios' monitoring rooms are setup. You don't need to go beyond that because anything beyond 7.1 is processed. And processed sound can give you extremely inconsistent results.

The issue with going beyond 5.1 is that you need a lot of space behind the listening position to pull it off correctly. The back surround channels do fill in the gaps in the soundfield, but if the speakers are too close to the listening position or on a different plane from the other surrounds, then they'll do more harm than good to the surround effect.

[BadAssJazz]

Hate to admit it, but I think I've reached the point where enough is enough. I'm not buying a new TV specifically for 3D capabilities, or a new receiver pre-pro simply because of 1.4 hdmi platform, xxx.1 surround channels, or even for the next line of audio codecs. I'm holding the line at 2D, 1.3, and 5.1. Done, finished, no more upgrades, no more nothing...

...um, I mean after the new Marantz pre/pro and amp arrive this Friday, I'm done.

[recoveryone]

IMHO, your room size will dictate the level of upgrade from 5.1/6.1/7.1 and so on. As TT has pointed out the technology is there if put into the right environment. My main system is in a large enough room that the 7.1 setup can make a real impression with all sources (Discrete, DPLIIz and 7 channel stereo). The other 2 rooms are 5.1, my bedroom is just right, but my daughter room (converted media room) is smaller and at times the sound can be one mix bag of sound. The size of the room does not allow for the sound to flow naturally before it clashes with the rears. I have to be very careful with the volume to get a even sound pitch and cut down on the cross mix.

[pixelthis]

Hate to admit it, but I think I've reached the point where enough is enough. I'm not buying a new TV specifically for 3D capabilities, or a new receiver pre-pro simply because of 1.4 hdmi platform, xxx.1 surround channels, or even for the next line of audio codecs. I'm holding the line at 2D, 1.3, and 5.1. Done, finished, no more upgrades, no more nothing...

...um, I mean after the new Marantz pre/pro and amp arrive this Friday, I'm done.

yeah...RIGHT.

When I had my house I DABBLED in 7.1, wasn't worth the trouble,
IMHO.
5.1 is fine, anything more goes in the gimmick box with 3d and
pet rocks.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

IMHO, your room size will dictate the level of upgrade from 5.1/6.1/7.1 and so on. As TT has pointed out the technology is there if put into the right environment. My main system is in a large enough room that the 7.1 setup can make a real impression with all sources (Discrete, DPLIIz and 7 channel stereo). The other 2 rooms are 5.1, my bedroom is just right, but my daughter room (converted media room) is smaller and at times the sound can be one mix bag of sound. The size of the room does not allow for the sound to flow naturally before it clashes with the rears. I have to be very careful with the volume to get a even sound pitch and cut down on the cross mix.

RO,
To a certain point room size is important. I have 7.1 systems in all of my rooms in all of my houses except one room which is a two channel room(too small for even 4 channel). I have 7.1 in rooms as small as 12x15x10, and it sounded terrific. I would say that anyone who says that 5.1 is enough(based on sound not space), has not heard a properly set up and calibrated 7.1 system.

In terms of speaker positioning, I just follow the guidelines I use in the studio when I am mixing home theater soundtracks. 5.1 is great, but having a solid back wall image that envelopes you is much better IMO.

[pixelthis]

RO,
To a certain point room size is important. I have 7.1 systems in all of my rooms in all of my houses except one room which is a two channel room(too small for even 4 channel). I have 7.1 in rooms as small as 12x15x10, and it sounded terrific. I would say that anyone who says that 5.1 is enough(based on sound not space), has not heard a properly set up and calibrated 7.1 system.

In terms of speaker positioning, I just follow the guidelines I use in the studio when I am mixing home theater soundtracks. 5.1 is great, but having a solid back wall image that envelopes you is much better IMO.

BETTER for the speaker industry, IMHO.
7.1 is "nice", but so is a Mustang COBRA, but a GT is cheaper
and works about as well.
Considering most don't even have 5.1(and sound bars is increasing that number) lets sell the basic goodness of 5.1
before getting into the system that ate the HT room.

[recoveryone]

BETTER for the speaker industry, IMHO.
7.1 is "nice", but so is a Mustang COBRA, but a GT is cheaper
and works about as well.
Considering most don't even have 5.1(and sound bars is increasing that number) lets sell the basic goodness of 5.1
before getting into the system that ate the HT room.

I see your point for the average Joe, but the question was pointed in here at us that have been baptized into HT already. It would be a mute point to ask such a question to the general public when we all know that HT is no where, where it should be after 20 years of consumer level access to the masses.


So since we are the ones the troll sites as this to gain and share information about audio and HT, we would be the ones that would still buy that Cobra, because we understand the difference and the value of owning a Cobra.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

BETTER for the speaker industry, IMHO.
7.1 is "nice", but so is a Mustang COBRA, but a GT is cheaper
and works about as well.
Considering most don't even have 5.1(and sound bars is increasing that number) lets sell the basic goodness of 5.1
before getting into the system that ate the HT room.

According to polls done with A/V installers and the general public, sound bars are not going into people's primary viewing areas. They are going into kitchens, bedrooms, and other secondary viewing areas.

It does not hurt to provide context to statements.

[pixelthis]

I see your point for the average Joe, but the question was pointed in here at us that have been baptized into HT already. It would be a mute point to ask such a question to the general public when we all know that HT is no where, where it should be after 20 years of consumer level access to the masses.


So since we are the ones the troll sites as this to gain and share information about audio and HT, we would be the ones that would still buy that Cobra, because we understand the difference and the value of owning a Cobra.

A GOOD point, but consider, would that diff be appreciated
or would it leave a sour taste in the mouth of the purchaser?
ITS EASY to tell the diff between the fake surround systems out there and a true discrete 5.1 system, but the diff between that and 7.1 is a lot more subtle, especially to the newbie.
If those with experience don't always see the difference, would it be a waste to sell it to those who probably just came from the soundbar/htib camp?
7.1 WAS a hassle to install, and overall just produced a distracting background noise. You get more bang for the buck
with 5.1, and IMHO, that is the way to go with most.
5.1 is an easier sell, after using it for awhile and developing
a feel for it, then is the time for an enthusiast to spring for the more sophisticated rig ...IMHO.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A GOOD point, but consider, would that diff be appreciated
or would it leave a sour taste in the mouth of the purchaser?
ITS EASY to tell the diff between the fake surround systems out there and a true discrete 5.1 system, but the diff between that and 7.1 is a lot more subtle, especially to the newbie.
If those with experience don't always see the difference, would it be a waste to sell it to those who probably just came from the soundbar/htib camp?
7.1 WAS a hassle to install, and overall just produced a distracting background noise. You get more bang for the buck
with 5.1, and IMHO, that is the way to go with most.
5.1 is an easier sell, after using it for awhile and developing
a feel for it, then is the time for an enthusiast to spring for the more sophisticated rig ...IMHO.

Wow, you have just proven you cannot really distinguish actual spatial information from noise. Discrete 7.1 actually provides additional spatial information to the rear wall channels. DPL IIx takes information from the left right side surrounds and moves it rearward to the back channels. Neither way adds noise to the original signal.

Pix, you need your ears checked.