Some questions on DIY 6.1, I just want to make sure I'm doing it right. (1 Viewer)

[Wes]

Its all been posted 100 time before on this site! I have replied to about half myself.

Your objective is to just get that rear center channel out of the DPL decoder. THAT IS ALL.

This is very untrue Patric! By doing it the way you and others suggest it will leave the unwanted mono info in the "Discrete 5.1" channels so all your surround channels will play the mono EX sounds. Your EX imaging will be lost completely!!!!!!
Wes

 

[Patrick Sun]

Not necessarily, it's just a matter of balancing the output of that one rear center channel with the other 2 rear channels. We're making mountains out of mole hills here.
This rear surround field is just not the be-all, end-all experience to HT. For goodness' sake, that stuff is behind you! I find myself more in tune with what's going on in front of me, rather than behind me. Sure, the ambience is nice, but this is not something that makes a night-and-day improvement, rather a minor bump in ambience improvement.
If the 6.1 material is there, the 2 rear channels can produce a nice phantom rear center channel quite nicely if you happen to sit in the best seat in the house. I hear the phantom center channel info very easily without the use of a rear center channel.
------------------
PatCave; HT Pix; Gear; DIY Mains; DIY CC; Sunosub I + II + III; DVDs; Link Removed

 

[NathanP]

I always get a sense of "Dryness" when listening with DD 5.1 or DTS, it always seems to be lacking something..
I feel that the extra center channel really adds to the immersive experiance and also adds a better 3-d efffect.
But, If I had a choice, I'd do 9.1 for sure!
Now, THAT'S Home Theater

 

[Patrick Sun]

Too bad you're not old enough to be drinking beer while watching a DVD, that'll clear up that "dryness".
------------------
PatCave; HT Pix; Gear; DIY Mains; DIY CC; Sunosub I + II + III; DVDs; Link Removed

 

[Kendal Kirk]

Beer is not the only substance that will give you the perceived impression of a 9.1 system, but then again you would re-introduce "dryness"

.

 

[Wes]

This rear surround field is just not the be-all, end-all experience to HT. For goodness' sake, that stuff is behind you!

To some the pursute of adding a little better surround experience is worth the effort, and that is why this thread was started to begin with.
Wes

 

[NathanP]

Very good point Wes!
So, I presume you use pseudo ex setup?
How is yours setup?
Yours seems to please you very much, any other tips/tricks you could get me could prove very usefull!
Thanks,
Nathan

 

[Wes]

My EX set up consists of a Pioneer VSXd709s DD/DTS main processor reciver, Surround Preamp out to an Onkyo TX455 DPL receiver set to DPL Normal for EX. The Onkyo is powering two sets of Surround L/R (I have two rows of seating) and the two EX speakers. After having had EX/ES I would not go back to plain 5.1.
This is in a dedicated theater that I built with a 10.2 capability and currently run 13 separate speakers 2 of which are subs.
My HT web site:
Link Removed
Wes

 

[Kendal Kirk]

Wes and NathanP, just to inform, not antagonize . . . . What Pat is saying actually is correct when he refers to being able to hear the phantom (6.1) material in a 5.1 set-up. This is why:
The material that you extract in the DIY 6.1 to get the RC is matrixed material reproduced from a 5.1 signal. It is there in the first place. You are not reproducing/creating a discrete RC channel. And remember, the signal will still be a matrixed reproduction even if you are playing an EX DVD.
Don't get me wrong, I own a 6.1 receiver, love the effect and will never listen to movies in 5.1 again. I would suggest anyone that has the hardware laying around to try it, but don't expect it to blow you away. It is a subtle enhancement that will increase your viewing pleasure.
Now, can we move on to some other topics . . .

 

[NathanP]

Now, can we move on to some other topics

oohhh,
Do we have to?
Alright, here's want I'm gonna do, correct me if I'm wrong!
Go from preouts of receiver to the Line in on the DPL decoder.
And put the left and right rears along with the rear center into the DPL processor.
That okay?
Nathan

 

[Wes]

quote: What Pat is saying actually is correct when he refers to being able to hear the phantom (6.1) material in a 5.1 set-up. [/quote]
I never ever have stated the EX sounds are not already in the 5.1. If you reread my posts I indicate that EX now puts the EX sounds in the back and separates them from the Surround L/R channels. This thread is not about Phantom 6.1 or has it ever been about Phantom 6.1. It is about how Nathan could hook up his Processor to create a correct DIY EX system, and that is the information I have stated!
quote: Now, can we move on to some other topics . . . [/quote]
I'm sorry is we are boring you but this is not the only thread on this forum, so be my guest and brows through the site.
And Yes Nathan that will work great! I hope your processor has enoph power to drive it all OK.
Wes
[Edited last by Wes on November 08, 2001 at 01:00 PM]

 

[NathanP]

Thanks so much Wes!
Your right on!
The Processor's amp is a wimpy 27 watts. But, it has outputs so that I can have a seperate amp for each speakers.
So, I'll go ahead and power the big Sony's (see my website for details) with my 300x2 watt P/A amp.
For the Center, we'll see about that.. 27 watts maybe fine, If not, I've got a 75X4 amp for that.
Thanks so much!
Nathan

 

[Kendal Kirk]

Wes, like I said, I wasn't attacking. . . . just 'typing'. I don't know how to quote. . .so here is a cut/past from your response to Pat:
With my EX set up correctly I can sit to the side of my couches and get a true 6.1 imaging.
I would perceive "True" 6.1 as being discrete EX, while the DIY 6.1 is not "True" 6.1 but a matrixed 5.1 to achieve a RC.
Hey, it works, and sounds as close as you can get to a "true"(discrete) 6.1 without the actual hardware upgrade.
And yes, I guess that I can't even move on to another topic

.
[Edited last by Kendal Kirk on November 08, 2001 at 01:43 PM]

 

[Kevin C Brown]

A couple more thangs:
1) You send the rear L + R channels from your "front end" Dolby Digital/DTS receiver to the line in L + R inputs on the "back end" DPL processor. The "front" L + R outputs from the DPL processor *are* the L + R rear channels. The "front center" output from the DPL processor is your rear center channel.
You do not care about the out of phase info being lost from the DPL processor. (This info is not used by even a real EX/DTS-ES system.)
You only care out the resulting "front" L + R + center outputs on the DPL processor, which are really your "rear" L + R center channels.
2) You *can* simply add the rear channel to the existing L + R rears channels. This is sort of like a "3 channel stereo effect" for the back, and actually is the best (IMO) way for std DD/DTS discs.
(If you try to do DPL processing for a lot of "std" DD/DTS discs, too much of the mono signal in the back gets rerouted from the L + R rears and sent to the center, collapsing the soundstage back there.)
But for genuine THX EX/DTS-ES discs, you do want DPL processing back there, which removes the "in phase" material from the L + R rears, and sends it towards the rear center.
Fun stuff! The "back" becomes the "front" becomes the "back" again...
------------------

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Uh oh...
Kendal- There is no such thing as "discrete" EX. Whether you use a 6.1/7.1 receiver, or a DIY method, the effect is the same: de-coupling the rear center information from the L + R signals.
The rear center signal *is contained within* the existing L + R rears. Doesn't matter whether is extracted in the same component doing the DD/DTS processing, or a separate component specifically "added on" to do that processing.
There is DTS-ES (discrete) and DTS-ES (matrix). DTS-ES (discrete) is the only "format" that contains a discrete rear center channel.
------------------

 

[NathanP]

*Front*back*left*right* I'm getting dizzy!

Yah, I'm gonna use straight DPL processing.
Nathan

 

[Kendal Kirk]

Kevin, I stand corrected. I was using EX interchangably, which is incorrect. Thanks for clearing up the semantics, which left uncorrected is misleading.