DTS Headphone X - Home Theater in Pocket - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 53 Old 01-25-2013, 02:23 PM
wse
AVS Special Member
 
wse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 6,725
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked: 335

Now the question is who will implement this first my bets are on ONKYO :)


My humble Cinema
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
wse is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 53 Old 01-25-2013, 03:42 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,671
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1129 Post(s)
Liked: 2277
I'm betting Creative puts in some of their premium soundcards. It is targeted for mobile devices, which Onkyo is not strong in. It's Samsung that's likely going to make it ubiquitous through phones and tablets. The real question: will Apple put it in the next iPhone and/or iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Now the question is who will implement this first my bets are on ONKYO smile.gif

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is online now  
post #33 of 53 Old 01-25-2013, 04:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brad Horstkotte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 5,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Yeah, if this got into mainstream mobile devices, where, like it or not, most music consumers listen, there could finally be a delivery platform to spur mainsteam multichannel music production - huzzah!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
| Xbox Live: Atomic Hamper
Brad Horstkotte is offline  
post #34 of 53 Old 01-25-2013, 08:37 PM
Member
 
aufVidyZen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 17
The DTS web site mentioned above says:

"The DTS Headphone:X experience first requires surround content to be encoded as a DTS-HD bitstream, with the room information embedded in the stream."

So it is a specific codec that needs to be supported in hardware, firmware, or software. Both when it is encoded and played back.

I have had a Beyerdynamic Headzone 5.1 unit for several years that processes DTS, Dolby Digital, and DD Pro-logic into a virtual 5.1 environment for headphones. It does that pretty well. DTS is the best quality.

Likely the h/w to support Headphone:X will have some sort of "emulation mode" to fall back to if the room information is not encoded. Few movies have the attention to sound design that would warrant this next step. As an amateur recording engineer I c
aufVidyZen is offline  
post #35 of 53 Old 01-25-2013, 10:27 PM
Newbie
 
Mytheroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
how I see it:

Headphone X is a software encoder that encodes DTS-HD to 2 channels. It uses the room information to do this, as well as the actual sound in each track.

How does it do this? The same way our ears change a sound that is behind us to one that is in front. The tone changes based on how much ear flesh the sound waves have to pass through. So if a sound is identical through front left and then rear left, to mimic this in 2-channel headphones the rear left sound is played slightly muffled. The headphoneX also adds in room reflections to mimic a room, though to me this seems odd as speakers have always tried to sound like they aren't in a room.
Mytheroo is offline  
post #36 of 53 Old 01-26-2013, 06:07 AM
Member
 
avada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It looks like to me a concept somewhat more advanced than Dolby Headphone with calculating in headphone position , but with a lot less potential than if it was based on object based audio formats like Dolby Atmos and SRS MDA.
avada is offline  
post #37 of 53 Old 01-26-2013, 11:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 302 Post(s)
Liked: 414
I agree, Headphone:X is far superior to Dolby Headphone.

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

David Susilo is online now  
post #38 of 53 Old 06-28-2013, 08:09 AM
Member
 
avada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by avada View Post

It looks like to me a concept somewhat more advanced than Dolby Headphone with calculating in headphone position , but with a lot less potential than if it was based on object based audio formats like Dolby Atmos and SRS MDA.

Ouch... Didn't realize that SRS was a goner at the time of writing, since none-other than DTS acquired them. Since they're pushing this (their own stuff), I guess they decided to just bury the superior object based audio concept... Fools!
avada is offline  
post #39 of 53 Old 06-28-2013, 10:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,415
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1049 Post(s)
Liked: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by avada View Post

Didn't realize that SRS was a goner at the time of writing, since none-other than DTS acquired them. Since they're pushing this (their own stuff), I guess they decided to just bury the superior object based audio concept... Fools!
You're confusing two different technologies. "Their own stuff" that DTS is "pushing" is binaural downmixing (Headphone:X). The technology that they acquired SRS for was object-based mixing (MDA). Object-based mixing has nothing to do with this promotion. Only a fool would confuse the two.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #40 of 53 Old 06-28-2013, 11:03 AM
Member
 
avada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

You're confusing two different technologies. "Their own stuff" that DTS is "pushing" is binaural downmixing (Headphone:X). The technology that they acquired SRS for was object-based mixing (MDA). Object-based mixing has nothing to do with this promotion. Only a fool would confuse the two.
No-one confused anything. It just seemed like they swallowed MDA and just playing around with even more channels and downmixing, which is lame. Actually I see no mention of DTS and MDA together, there's nothing on the DTS website either (and SRS's no-more). Only old stuff comes up from year ago with SRS.
avada is offline  
post #41 of 53 Old 06-28-2013, 11:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,415
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1049 Post(s)
Liked: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by avada View Post

No-one confused anything. It just seemed like they swallowed MDA and just playing around with even more channels and downmixing, which is lame.
Again, you're confusing two different technologies. The 'Man of Steel' soundtrack tie-in was to promote a binaural technology (Headphone:X), which allows headphone listeners to experience an externalized (outside the head) effect. For the demo, the used a discrete 11.1 mix (like they did at CES) since that lends itself to demonstrating directionality (front vs back, left vs right, up vs down).

I get that you're into object-based mixing in a big way, but this promotion had nothing whatsoever to do with object-based mixing. Despite that, you keep introducing object-based mixing into both Headphone:X threads, when those threads are about headphone (binaural) processing, not object oriented audio.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #42 of 53 Old 06-28-2013, 03:52 PM
Member
 
avada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
And you keep telling me that I'm doing something that I'm not.

Also you keep missing the point.
avada is offline  
post #43 of 53 Old 06-30-2013, 12:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,415
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1049 Post(s)
Liked: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by avada View Post

And you keep telling me that I'm doing something that I'm not.
You kept bringing up object-based mixing in a thread about binaural headphone processing.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #44 of 53 Old 06-30-2013, 02:44 AM
Member
 
avada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

You kept bringing up object-based mixing in a thread about binaural headphone processing.

Yes because object based is best suited for headphones (That's why I criticize them for pushing 11.1 and binaural downmixing), and would be the easiest technically. With speakers its problematic because of crossfeed, variety of rooms of the user, and the fact that more people can listen to it and it only ever be accurate in one position.
avada is offline  
post #45 of 53 Old 06-30-2013, 05:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,415
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1049 Post(s)
Liked: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by avada View Post

Yes because object based is best suited for headphones...
That's like saying lossless audio is good for headphones, when lossless audio is good in general. Likewise, object-based mixing is better in general since you're not limited to channels; you mix once and playback on any speaker layout.

But that has no more to do with headphone processing (the subject of this thread) than lossless does. Remarkable that you cannot separate those two concepts. Like people who used to insist that Dolby Digital meant 5.1 channels, when one had nothing to do with the other.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #46 of 53 Old 06-30-2013, 07:01 AM
Member
 
avada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

That's like saying lossless audio is good for headphones, when lossless audio is good in general. Likewise, object-based mixing is better in general since you're not limited to channels; you mix once and playback on any speaker layout.

But that has no more to do with headphone processing (the subject of this thread) than lossless does.
You're wrong. As I elaborated before, one (headphone) speaker for one ear has its advantages. With multi channel speaker it'll probably never be as accurate because of crossfeed, positioning, and the lack of rooms with reference acoustics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Remarkable that you cannot separate those two concepts. Like people who used to insist that Dolby Digital meant 5.1 channels, when one had nothing to do with the other.
Your baseless insults are starting to get frustrating.
avada is offline  
post #47 of 53 Old 06-30-2013, 09:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,415
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1049 Post(s)
Liked: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by avada View Post

As I elaborated before, one (headphone) speaker for one ear has its advantages. With multi channel speaker it'll probably never be as accurate because of crossfeed, positioning, and the lack of rooms with reference acoustics.
But that has nothing to do with object-based audio, which is about mixing sound using vectors instead of channels. You seem unable to separate that from headphone processing, which is about using HTRFs to externalize the sound.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #48 of 53 Old 06-30-2013, 09:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,415
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1049 Post(s)
Liked: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by avada View Post

I just specified why it's good for headphones.
And I explained why it's good for everything else (mix once, playback anywhere).
Quote:
Originally Posted by avada View Post

Also it needs to include HRTF too process sounds from different directions for headphones of course.
Which is a separate technology (virtualization) that has nothing to do with object-oriented audio (mixing). This thread is about the former, you keep injecting the latter. Don't you understand the difference?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #49 of 53 Old 06-30-2013, 10:28 AM
Member
 
avada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

And I explained why it's good for everything else (mix once, playback anywhere).
Which is a separate technology (virtualization) that has nothing to do with object-oriented audio (mixing). This thread is about the former, you keep injecting the latter. Don't you understand the difference?
No this thread was about Headphone:X and I mentioned how with MDA would be better, and then you started your insulting crap.

"Which is a separate technology (virtualization) that has nothing to do with object-oriented audio (mixing)"
Not when it comes to headphones and you want it to sound properly. Also HRTF is not virtualization its a sound processing method that multi channel virtualization techniques use.
avada is offline  
post #50 of 53 Old 06-30-2013, 12:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,415
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1049 Post(s)
Liked: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by avada View Post

this thread was about Headphone:X and I mentioned how with MDA would be better
Which demonstrates once and for all that you don't understand the difference between a headphone virtualizer technology and a sound mixing approach.

That's why there was zero mention of object-based audio in this thread until you posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avada View Post

Also HRTF is not virtualization its a sound processing method that multi channel virtualization techniques use.
HTRF has nothing to do with number of channels, hence my previous analogy about people confusing DD with 5.1 channels.
David Susilo likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #51 of 53 Old 06-30-2013, 04:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 302 Post(s)
Liked: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by avada View Post

No this thread was about Headphone:X and I mentioned how with MDA would be better, and then you started your insulting crap.

Take a deep breath...and realize that virtualization is mutually exclusive from MDA. They are not related in any way.
sdurani likes this.

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

David Susilo is online now  
post #52 of 53 Old 07-01-2013, 10:43 AM
Member
 
avada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Take a deep breath...and realize that virtualization is mutually exclusive from MDA. They are not related in any way.

They're related if we're talking about headphones. smile.gif Hell, they even need to do the same thing, HRTF process sounds according their spatial position. But multi-channel virtualization you only have a small number of sources to process ( with Headphone:X it's 12.) with a static position, while with object-based audio its indefinite (and the sound sources change).
Why is it so hard for people to understand, that I was just criticizing that they're pushing/releasing virtualization with increased (11.1) channels instead of pushing MDA and a headphone solution for that. Seems like a waste of effort and time, if they'll be pushing MDA later. (or foolishness if they won't)
avada is offline  
post #53 of 53 Old 07-01-2013, 11:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,415
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1049 Post(s)
Liked: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by avada View Post

with Headphone:X it's 12
No it's not.

DTS is using this particular 11-speaker layout because it allows them to demonstrate directionality along the major vectors: left vs right, front vs back, up vs down.

Aside from this demo, Headphone:X processing doesn't care if the source is an old mono recording or a modern object-based mix.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off