Questions for Surround/Trinnov experts pls: when you add speakers, do you reduce volume? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 55 Old 11-25-2013, 08:16 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 30
I was testing Hyde Park on Hudson post processing from Dolby 5.1 to 7.1 PLIIx with Theta CBIII by turning off all channels except the 2 surround sides and surround rears and listen to them. I used chapter 14, when Missy discovered the President messing with Daisy in the little house in the forrest, at time 1:01:00.

I noticed that when processing from 5.1 to 7.1, the "overall" rear field sound level increases in loudness. What used to be produced by 2 speakers in 5.1, becomes 4 speakers in 7.1, and the volume level, SEEMINGLY, has increased as a result. Rear field sound, in this case at 1:01:00 into film, from bird call (left rear/side) and dog barking (right rear/side), has become louder and more distinct.

1. Is my observation correct? Other processors do the same - this methodology is inherent to Dolby PLIIx and not Theta CBIII right?
2. If 1 is true, that should not be the case, should it? You've altered the "intention" of sound engineer by altering relative level of surround to main sound?
3. If 2 is true, when you add speakers, say from 5.1 to 7.1, shouldn't the volume of the new rear group (side + rear) be reduced so that it matches original rear group (side)?
Thanks.

Regards, Can
Theta sound: Powerful and full-bodied, stunning 3D soundstage, spooky imaging in "clean & quiet" soundfield. My system & CBIII HD review & setup help - Post # 3913 & 3914
Give vinyl and tube pre-amp a try - the sound from heaven!
cannga is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 55 Old 11-25-2013, 11:58 AM
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 3,989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 15
This is a great discussion. I would love to know what actually is is done in the Dolby DDPL2X expansion from 5.1 to 7.1. For instance are they just adding delays to rear speakers, volume plus delays, where are the signals coming from ? are they from sides alone, or sides and front?

In my emulation with Curt we added DB and delays to back speakers.
LJG is offline  
post #3 of 55 Old 11-26-2013, 02:18 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJG View Post

This is a great discussion. I would love to know what actually is is done in the Dolby DDPL2X expansion from 5.1 to 7.1. For instance are they just adding delays to rear speakers, volume plus delays, where are the signals coming from ? are they from sides alone, or sides and front?

In my emulation with Curt we added DB and delays to back speakers.

Curt made the added speakers louder? Wouldn't that make the rear sound field now too loud? I would have thought the opposite should be done: when you add speakers to the rear field, you would want to reduce the volume of each speaker so that overall volume level stays the same, to maintain front/rear or main/surround balance? I don't know the answer, just thinking out loud.

For PLIIx 5.1 to 7.1, maybe the pro's could chime in here, but from listening, here is my guess:
1. NO delay is added.
2. The additional 2 surround rear speakers of 7.1 are generated primarily from the 5.1 surround sides. For example, if there is a signal that is seen in both surround sides of 5.1, meaning it's a center signal, that signal is brought to the surround rear. OTOH, if the signal is in right surround side only, it stays there, as a hard right surround side's sound.
3. Volume stays same. In other words, 7.1 rear+side surround is louder than 5.1 side surround as a direct result of the additional 2 speakers.

Regards, Can
Theta sound: Powerful and full-bodied, stunning 3D soundstage, spooky imaging in "clean & quiet" soundfield. My system & CBIII HD review & setup help - Post # 3913 & 3914
Give vinyl and tube pre-amp a try - the sound from heaven!
cannga is online now  
post #4 of 55 Old 11-27-2013, 06:54 AM
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 3,989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I really would love to find out what the actual PL2X expansion algorithms do, and how they do it.
LJG is offline  
post #5 of 55 Old 11-27-2013, 07:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,694
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJG View Post

I really would love to find out what the actual PL2X expansion algorithms do, and how they do it.

+1!

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is online now  
post #6 of 55 Old 11-27-2013, 12:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 784 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJG View Post

I really would love to find out what the actual PL2X expansion algorithms do, and how they do it.
With 2-channel sources PLIIx sends correlated (in-phase) mono information to the centre output and sends decorrelated (out of phase) information to the surrounds. Same as any other surround processing (Neo:6, Circle Surround, Logic7, etc). With 5.1 material, PLIIx sends more mono-ish surround content to the back speakers with the more stereo surround content is sent to the side speakers. Like most surround processing, it steers content based on phase and intensity. Been discussed a decade ago on this forum when PLIIx came out.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #7 of 55 Old 11-27-2013, 02:24 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

With 2-channel sources PLIIx sends correlated (in-phase) mono information to the centre output and sends decorrelated (out of phase) information to the surrounds. Same as any other surround processing (Neo:6, Circle Surround, Logic7, etc). With 5.1 material, PLIIx sends more mono-ish surround content to the back speakers with the more stereo surround content is sent to the side speakers. Like most surround processing, it steers content based on phase and intensity. Been discussed a decade ago on this forum when PLIIx came out.

Sanjay, are you aware of any discussion on relative loudness level of main to surround, voice to sound effect, etc., as you add additional speakers from 5.1 to 7.1? That is my main question for this thread: shouldn't the volume be reduced as you add speakers?

The difference is minor and doesn't bother me in my system, but I found it to be an important consideration, not just for PLIIx 7.1, but also for other soundfield manipulations like Trinnov (?) that may add speakers as part of the manipulation. As you add speakers to the front, to the side, to the height, etc., in all different directions, how do you keep track of these relative loudness levels? How do you keep it close to the original loudness levels of not just the different fields (front, side, rear), but also the different sound (voice, music, sound effect)? Thanks.

Regards, Can
Theta sound: Powerful and full-bodied, stunning 3D soundstage, spooky imaging in "clean & quiet" soundfield. My system & CBIII HD review & setup help - Post # 3913 & 3914
Give vinyl and tube pre-amp a try - the sound from heaven!
cannga is online now  
post #8 of 55 Old 11-27-2013, 03:38 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 784 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

Sanjay, are you aware of any discussion on relative loudness level of main to surround, voice to sound effect, etc., as you add additional speakers from 5.1 to 7.1? That is my main question for this thread: shouldn't the volume be reduced as you add speakers?
I think most receivers and pre-pros "normalize" the overall sound level; i.e., when you switch from 2 speakers to 7 speakers the sound shouldn't suddenly be 3.5 times as loud just because you're using 3.5 times the number of speakers. There might still be differences, but there shouldn't be big jumps in volume level when you turn on surround processing or room correction.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #9 of 55 Old 11-28-2013, 07:06 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

I think most receivers and pre-pros "normalize" the overall sound level; i.e., when you switch from 2 speakers to 7 speakers the sound shouldn't suddenly be 3.5 times as loud just because you're using 3.5 times the number of speakers. There might still be differences, but there shouldn't be big jumps in volume level when you turn on surround processing or room correction.

Thanks Sanjay, but no, I am not talking about a jump in loudness. What I am asking about is a subtle but identifiable increase in *relative* loudness of surround sound to main sound with post processing. For example the dog barking in the rear channel is louder and more distinct in 7.1, versus 5.1, where theoretically, it should not be, no?

BTW, this is related to what I've done per your recommendation (?) in past of trying 7.1. I do seem to like 7.1 better than 5.1, and my next step was to figure out *why* I like 7.1 better, by listening to the surround channels only. With this surround-sound-only test, I noticed two things, one, was the increase in "directional" of sound (certain sound becomes very distinctly rear as opposed to ambiguous side/rear), but two, there is an increased in surround loudness, specifically the rear sound field, where those speakers are located. It is this relative increased in loudness of surround sound to main sound that "bothers" (for lack of better word) me a little bit; is 7.1 "better" simply because the surround is louder relative to main?

My curiosity is not just about PLIIx, but also other processing as well. For example if you are to add height information by adding 2 height speakers to the front left/right channels, in this case going to 9.1 from 7.1, you've made the overall loudness of front l/r channels relatively louder than both center and surround, merely by the presence of the additional 2 speakers. If you don't compensate by reducing volume, you've altered the balance as presented by the bluray disc?

Regards, Can
Theta sound: Powerful and full-bodied, stunning 3D soundstage, spooky imaging in "clean & quiet" soundfield. My system & CBIII HD review & setup help - Post # 3913 & 3914
Give vinyl and tube pre-amp a try - the sound from heaven!
cannga is online now  
post #10 of 55 Old 11-28-2013, 07:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,694
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 116
I don't know... but more is better and more precision.

In my Conversions with Curt regarding my Trinnov adventure, the more speakers added, the more precise the sound field can be giving it more resolution (I am sure I am simplifying). Then again, that seems to be the idea in Atmos with all the layers of speakers working together to make a more precise sound field. Certainly you can better flesh out anything in a sound field if you have more speakers (and software) to help create the image. This is my biggest potential gain in adding Trinnov to my system.

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is online now  
post #11 of 55 Old 11-28-2013, 11:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 784 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

What I am asking about is a subtle but identifiable increase in *relative* loudness of surround sound to main sound with post processing. For example the dog barking in the rear channel is louder and more distinct in 7.1, versus 5.1, where theoretically, it should not be, no?
You're right, it should not be. Just because that sound effect is being reproduced by two speakers doesn't mean it should be louder, it should just phantom image between the speakers, not increase in level. But as with many things in audio, theoretical doesn't always become practical. The system should compensate for reproducing a sound through two speakers instead of one, but sometimes it's only partially successful (it's not twice as loud when switching to twice the speakers, but it is subtly louder).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

...is 7.1 "better" simply because the surround is louder relative to main?
No. There are qualities that cannot be attributed to level differences, like wrap-around envelopment, more precise directionality, and greater imaging stability. 4 speakers can do things that 2 speakers cannot (e.g., be directly at your sides AND behind you simultaneously).

Happy Turkey!

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #12 of 55 Old 11-28-2013, 01:17 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 30
^^^Gobble gobble! tongue.gif Same to you.

Regards, Can
Theta sound: Powerful and full-bodied, stunning 3D soundstage, spooky imaging in "clean & quiet" soundfield. My system & CBIII HD review & setup help - Post # 3913 & 3914
Give vinyl and tube pre-amp a try - the sound from heaven!
cannga is online now  
post #13 of 55 Old 11-29-2013, 10:39 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

I don't know... but more is better and more precision.

In my Conversions with Curt regarding my Trinnov adventure, the more speakers added, the more precise the sound field can be giving it more resolution (I am sure I am simplifying). Then again, that seems to be the idea in Atmos with all the layers of speakers working together to make a more precise sound field. Certainly you can better flesh out anything in a sound field if you have more speakers (and software) to help create the image. This is my biggest potential gain in adding Trinnov to my system.

Are you experimenting with Trinnov to be "like Atmos"? Trinnov and Atmos may seem similar because they both add speakers, but Atmos is an entirely different process, much more sophisticated with respect to surround sound effect, no?

I am (of course) still trying to understand, but it seems Atmos uses object-oriented mixing that layers sound effect in precise location - the info is in the software, and reproduces the sound with speakers in location as specified by software, whereas Trinnov, not sure, but there is no surround sound processing per se involved with Trinnov, no? It's re-mapping, not surround processing, or creation. Placement of sound effect is not nearly as precise with Trinnov as it is with Atmos, I don't think.

Besides location of sound, Trinnov vs. Atmos is also different in a second aspect, and that is the relative volume of sound, main vs. surround, front vs. rear, that I have been asking about. With Atmos, each channel's loudness is of course specified, with Trinnov, when you add speakers to your system, is there a rule to make sure that you have not altered the loudness balance of the different channels, so that for example you have not made the front channel overly loud relative to surround, and vice versa? When you add ceiling speakers to front l/r main speakers, how do you make sure the additional speakers have not made the front channel too loud, etc.?

Very interesting topic and I am actually being deliberately "provocative" cool.gif so I would be corrected and learn from it.

Regards, Can
Theta sound: Powerful and full-bodied, stunning 3D soundstage, spooky imaging in "clean & quiet" soundfield. My system & CBIII HD review & setup help - Post # 3913 & 3914
Give vinyl and tube pre-amp a try - the sound from heaven!
cannga is online now  
post #14 of 55 Old 11-29-2013, 11:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,694
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

Are you experimenting with Trinnov to be "like Atmos"? Trinnov and Atmos may seem similar because they both add speakers, but Atmos is an entirely different process, much more sophisticated with respect to surround sound effect, no?

I am (of course) still trying to understand, but it seems Atmos uses object-oriented mixing that layers sound effect in precise location - the info is in the software, and reproduces the sound with speakers in location as specified by software, whereas Trinnov, not sure, but there is no surround sound processing per se involved with Trinnov, no? It's re-mapping, not surround processing, or creation. Placement of sound effect is not nearly as precise with Trinnov as it is with Atmos, I don't think.

Besides location of sound, Trinnov vs. Atmos is also different in a second aspect, and that is the relative volume of sound, main vs. surround, front vs. rear, that I have been asking about. With Atmos, each channel's loudness is of course specified, with Trinnov, when you add speakers to your system, is there a rule to make sure that you have not altered the loudness balance of the different channels, so that for example you have not made the front channel overly loud relative to surround, and vice versa? When you add ceiling speakers to front l/r main speakers, how do you make sure the additional speakers have not made the front channel too loud, etc.?

Very interesting topic and I am actually being deliberately "provocative" cool.gif so I would be corrected and learn from it.

Hi,

I'm aware they are completely different things... my point was that the Trinnov will get a more life-like and accurate sound field, like Atmos does, but in a different manner. Atmos does it with its own encoding an decoding. My understanding is Trinnov does it with its own algorithms. Both make the sound field better than the typical SSP and typical room correction. The ability to add channels is a great bonus and I plan on adding some.

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is online now  
post #15 of 55 Old 11-29-2013, 01:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 784 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

I am (of course) still trying to understand, but it seems Atmos uses object-oriented mixing that layers sound effect in precise location - the info is in the software, and reproduces the sound with speakers in location as specified by software, whereas Trinnov, not sure, but there is no surround sound processing per se involved with Trinnov, no?
Object oriented audio isn't hard to understand, since video games have been using it for almost a decade. If you hear the enemy coming up behind you and you rotate your first-person player to get a clear shot, the sound of the enemy will have panned from your back speakers to your side speaker to your front speakers.

When creating the soundtrack for the game, which channel did they mix that sound effect to? It wasn't mixed to any channel, it was encoded as an object. During playback, that object (sound effect) was rendered to your speaker layout, with you deciding its location (in real time, no less) using your game controller.

Movies encoded with objects will likewise have sound effects rendered to their intended location, not necessarily where your speakers are. But for anyone who has played video games over the last ten years, that's nothing new.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #16 of 55 Old 11-29-2013, 02:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Curt_Trinnov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Huntington Beach, Ca
Posts: 293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJG View Post

This is a great discussion. I would love to know what actually is is done in the Dolby DDPL2X expansion from 5.1 to 7.1. For instance are they just adding delays to rear speakers, volume plus delays, where are the signals coming from ? are they from sides alone, or sides and front?

In my emulation with Curt we added DB and delays to back speakers.

As Trinnov encompasses more loudspeakers, overall level balance is maintained.  In LJG's case, the rears were increased only a couple of dB. His layout is not particularly conducive to a strong back image, as the chairs are all along the back wall.

 

Re PL2X, Trinnov will not replicate PL2X steering in the front with movie mode that gives a locked dialog channel.  For PL2X, I prefer the better decoders, as they do a better job of tracking minor phase errors. Most Trinnov users keep a processor around specifically for PL2 decoding. 

 

Cheers,


___________
Curt Hoyt
3D Audio Consultant

Trinnov Audio
USA

Curt_Trinnov is offline  
post #17 of 55 Old 11-29-2013, 11:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

Are you experimenting with Trinnov to be "like Atmos"? Trinnov and Atmos may seem similar because they both add speakers, but Atmos is an entirely different process, much more sophisticated with respect to surround sound effect, no?

I am (of course) still trying to understand, but it seems Atmos uses object-oriented mixing that layers sound effect in precise location - the info is in the software, and reproduces the sound with speakers in location as specified by software, whereas Trinnov, not sure, but there is no surround sound processing per se involved with Trinnov, no? It's re-mapping, not surround processing, or creation. Placement of sound effect is not nearly as precise with Trinnov as it is with Atmos, I don't think.

Besides location of sound, Trinnov vs. Atmos is also different in a second aspect, and that is the relative volume of sound, main vs. surround, front vs. rear, that I have been asking about. With Atmos, each channel's loudness is of course specified, with Trinnov, when you add speakers to your system, is there a rule to make sure that you have not altered the loudness balance of the different channels, so that for example you have not made the front channel overly loud relative to surround, and vice versa? When you add ceiling speakers to front l/r main speakers, how do you make sure the additional speakers have not made the front channel too loud, etc.?

Very interesting topic and I am actually being deliberately "provocative" cool.gif so I would be corrected and learn from it.

Trinnov with height channels to my ears is the equivalent of the Atmos base. It is a solid 3d holosonic soundfield, very similar to what HK/lexicon demoed but did not delivered a couple of years back.


Then atmos deploys on top of that the flying Foley pirouettes which cannot be achieved with anything but atmos.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #18 of 55 Old 11-30-2013, 06:21 AM
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 3,989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt_Trinnov View Post

As Trinnov encompasses more loudspeakers, overall level balance is maintained.  In LJG's case, the rears were increased only a couple of dB. His layout is not particularly conducive to a strong back image, as the chairs are all along the back wall.

Re PL2X, Trinnov will not replicate PL2X steering in the front with movie mode that gives a locked dialog channel.  For PL2X, I prefer the better decoders, as they do a better job of tracking minor phase errors. Most Trinnov users keep a processor around specifically for PL2 decoding. 

Cheers,

Just to clarify Curt's post, when he states most Trinnov users keep a processor around specifically for PL2 decoding, he is referring to 2 Channel PL2, not PL2X.
LJG is offline  
post #19 of 55 Old 11-30-2013, 07:53 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Object oriented audio isn't hard to understand, since video games have been using it for almost a decade. If you hear the enemy coming up behind you and you rotate your first-person player to get a clear shot, the sound of the enemy will have panned from your back speakers to your side speaker to your front speakers.

When creating the soundtrack for the game, which channel did they mix that sound effect to? It wasn't mixed to any channel, it was encoded as an object. During playback, that object (sound effect) was rendered to your speaker layout, with you deciding its location (in real time, no less) using your game controller.

Movies encoded with objects will likewise have sound effects rendered to their intended location, not necessarily where your speakers are. But for anyone who has played video games over the last ten years, that's nothing new.

Thanks. Is object-oriented audio the inevitable future of movie sound? Is it considered to be more "efficient" (easier to produce), more precise? Yes, it is mind boggling for me, so used to the concept of stereo imaging, but after 5+ readings :-) I am beginning to get it now.

So strange to think how it's done: each sentence a character speaks is an "object," each foley another object? How complicated it must be. In a game, the sound of, for example, gun popping is repeated over and over, not so in a movie where dialogue (obviously) is not repetitive, there must be millions of "object" for any standard movie?

Regards, Can
Theta sound: Powerful and full-bodied, stunning 3D soundstage, spooky imaging in "clean & quiet" soundfield. My system & CBIII HD review & setup help - Post # 3913 & 3914
Give vinyl and tube pre-amp a try - the sound from heaven!
cannga is online now  
post #20 of 55 Old 11-30-2013, 09:22 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Hi,
I'm aware they are completely different things... my point was that the Trinnov will get a more life-like and accurate sound field, like Atmos does, but in a different manner. Atmos does it with its own encoding an decoding. My understanding is Trinnov does it with its own algorithms. Both make the sound field better than the typical SSP and typical room correction. The ability to add channels is a great bonus and I plan on adding some.

Sure, very different I think; it seems Trinnov remapping is intended for non-ideal or compromised speaker system, where space or physical constraint limits where you could put your speakers. In a room where users could simply put speakers where they are intended to be per Dolby or DTS specs, which I assume yours is, I don't think this aspect of Trinnov is as important. One example is LGJ's system, where as best I could tell (pls correct as needed), there is no space to make rear speakers truly behind listener (because of the rear wall), and here Trinnov is important for that correction.

I was at Trinnov's demo at the Southern Cal High End show a while ago, where a sound is demo'ed to be "place-able"at different places in the room. I had no idea why this was important or necessary, until I realized the application is primarily for system with compromised speaker placement.

As for creating height using Trinnov, which I seem to see as one application, I am continuing to probe by guessing publicly tongue.gif the methodology of how this is created. Is it by Trinnov remapping? With Atmos's height-specific system for example, I would assume airplane sound would come from the ceiling speakers and voice stays on the ground level speakers. With Trinnov's height "creation," sssume it's done by remapping, wouldn't this cause every sound to be elevated, not just the airplane sound?

Regards, Can
Theta sound: Powerful and full-bodied, stunning 3D soundstage, spooky imaging in "clean & quiet" soundfield. My system & CBIII HD review & setup help - Post # 3913 & 3914
Give vinyl and tube pre-amp a try - the sound from heaven!
cannga is online now  
post #21 of 55 Old 11-30-2013, 09:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,694
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

Sure, very different I think; it seems Trinnov remapping is intended for non-ideal or compromised speaker system, where space or physical constraint limits where you could put your speakers. In a room where users could simply put speakers where they are intended to be per Dolby or DTS specs, which I assume yours is, I don't think this aspect of Trinnov is as important. One example is LGJ's system, where as best I could tell (pls correct as needed), there is no space to make rear speakers truly behind listener (because of the rear wall), and here Trinnov is important for that correction.

I was at Trinnov's demo at the Southern Cal High End show a while ago, where a sound is demo'ed to be "place-able"at different places in the room. I had no idea why this was important or necessary, until I realized the application is primarily for system with compromised speaker placement.

As for creating height using Trinnov, which I seem to see as one application, I am continuing to probe by guessing publicly tongue.gif the methodology of how this is created. Is it by Trinnov remapping? With Atmos's height-specific system for example, I would assume airplane sound would come from the ceiling speakers and voice stays on the ground level speakers. With Trinnov's height "creation," sssume it's done by remapping, wouldn't this cause every sound to be elevated, not just the airplane sound?

Poor set up compensation is a great benefit of the Trinnov. But one of man y excellent abilities. It's really, in my opinion and why I am going that way, is to achieve the best possible sonics in your own room. My set up and room are pretty good as it was designed form the ground up. But I am expecting a benefit of great magnitude once I install my new speakers and subs. I hope to minimize the room's impact on the system's sound.

Read this and you'll see some features:
http://www.trinnov.com/tri_news/award-winning-sound-re-recording-mixer-opts-for-trinnov/

Kal's review of the 2 ch version in Stereophile. THe last paragraph is a good summation.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-62

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is online now  
post #22 of 55 Old 11-30-2013, 11:24 AM
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 3,989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

Sure, very different I think; it seems Trinnov remapping is intended for non-ideal or compromised speaker system, where space or physical constraint limits where you could put your speakers. In a room where users could simply put speakers where they are intended to be per Dolby or DTS specs, which I assume yours is, I don't think this aspect of Trinnov is as important. One example is LGJ's system, where as best I could tell (pls correct as needed), there is no space to make rear speakers truly behind listener (because of the rear wall), and here Trinnov is important for that correction.

I was at Trinnov's demo at the Southern Cal High End show a while ago, where a sound is demo'ed to be "place-able"at different places in the room. I had no idea why this was important or necessary, until I realized the application is primarily for system with compromised speaker placement.

As for creating height using Trinnov, which I seem to see as one application, I am continuing to probe by guessing publicly tongue.gif the methodology of how this is created. Is it by Trinnov remapping? With Atmos's height-specific system for example, I would assume airplane sound would come from the ceiling speakers and voice stays on the ground level speakers. With Trinnov's height "creation," sssume it's done by remapping, wouldn't this cause every sound to be elevated, not just the airplane sound?

This is not correct as there is not a correct speaker placement for all surround modes and 2 channel stereo, you have 5.1 Itu recommended speaker locations vs 5.1 Smpte, speaker locations vs 2 channel, how do you accomplish this in a perfect setup? Impossible.

The Trinnov can
LJG is offline  
post #23 of 55 Old 11-30-2013, 12:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 784 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

Is object-oriented audio the inevitable future of movie sound?
The industry will go through a hybrid (channels + objects) approach, like Dolby Atmos, but eventually mixers will probably stop thinking in terms of discrete channels and it will just become habit to place sounds where they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

Is it considered to be more "efficient" (easier to produce), more precise?
Less efficient (since a computer has to constantly calculate how to render the sounds at their intended location using a limited number of speakers) but more precise (since the system is always trying to place sounds at their intended location instead of where your speakers happen to be).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

Yes, it is mind boggling for me, so used to the concept of stereo imaging, but after 5+ readings :-) I am beginning to get it now.
Stereo imaging still comes into play during playback. If a sound effect or dialogue is supposed to image at a location where there is no speaker, then the rendering engine will grab 2 or 3 nearby speakers to phantom image the sound at the intended location. But that already happens nowadays when rendering dialogue on a set-up that doesn't have a centre speaker: the left & right speakers are used to phantom image the dialogue at its intended location (centre of the soundstage).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

So strange to think how it's done: each sentence a character speaks is an "object," each foley another object? How complicated it must be. In a game, the sound of, for example, gun popping is repeated over and over, not so in a movie where dialogue (obviously) is not repetitive, there must be millions of "object" for any standard movie?
Probably thousands, not millions. Atmos can juggle over a hundred objects at any given time, but I don't think movie mixes come anywhere close to needing that.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #24 of 55 Old 11-30-2013, 01:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 784 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

...it seems Trinnov remapping is intended for non-ideal or compromised speaker system, where space or physical constraint limits where you could put your speakers.
Yup, though there is another thing that Trinnov re-mapping is doing.

Forget channels for a moment and think in terms of rendering a soundstage, with width, height and depth. Even on stereo recordings, there are sounds that will image near the edges of the soundstage and other sounds that will image at the middle of the soundstage. On better recordings, there are sounds that will image slightly above the soundstage as well as deep behind the soundstage.

Next step, think of speakers as the pixels you use to create the image of a soundstage. The more pixels you have, the greater the resolution (in the case of audio, it is greater spatial resoultion). This means more precise and stable imaging as you add more speakers. But how to map the energy (not the channels!) in the recording to the number of speakers in your layout?

That's where a re-mapping algorithm comes in. It will figure out where sounds in the recording are intended to appear and use your speakers to create images at those locations. In some cases it might take several speakers to image a sound in three-dimensional space. So the more speakers the re-mapping engine has access to, the better it can do its job. Just like with pixels.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #25 of 55 Old 11-30-2013, 01:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
djnickuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 34
I highly recommend people unsure about object based sound formats check out the latest home theatre geeks.

http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/184
djnickuk is online now  
post #26 of 55 Old 11-30-2013, 04:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,418
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Kal's review of the 2 ch version in Stereophile. THe last paragraph is a good summation.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-62

It was a 16channel unit but I used only 7 channels.


Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is online now  
post #27 of 55 Old 11-30-2013, 05:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,694
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

It was a 16channel unit but I used only 7 channels.

I have to go back and look.. I don't know why I recall two channel listening sessions most clearly - (though the unit was multi-channel)??

Time to cut back on the wine...wink.gif

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is online now  
post #28 of 55 Old 12-01-2013, 09:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,418
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post


I have to go back and look.. I don't know why I recall two channel listening sessions most clearly - (though the unit was multi-channel)??

Time to cut back on the wine...wink.gif

That's OK.  This is one of the few times that my recollection is better than that of a reader (although I did go back and check my docs before posting).  Of course, I did do some listening in 2channel as well.


Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is online now  
post #29 of 55 Old 12-01-2013, 09:06 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJG View Post

This is not correct as there is not a correct speaker placement for all surround modes and 2 channel stereo, you have 5.1 Itu recommended speaker locations vs 5.1 Smpte, speaker locations vs 2 channel, how do you accomplish this in a perfect setup? Impossible.

The Trinnov can

Smpte speaker placement rec. is for professional engineers during mixing, it is not home movie playback application, did I understand this correctly? In what situation (which movie or music) would I want smpte's rec.? And if you are using 7.1 system, what is smpte's recommendation - is there one? Not being rhetoric/sarcastic at all, real questions, which would lead me to the second set of questions below:

When I watch a a 7.1 Dolby disc, I follow Dolby's recommendation for seat placement in my 7.1 system, why is it impossible to be perfect? Or, rather, as perfect as could be to the point that remapping is un-necessary?

Unrelated question for anyone please: What's intriguing to me is if you look at Trinnov's paper, in my case that means by bypassing the 25 pages of mathematical equations and go straight for the one paragraph abstract tongue.gif, the re-mapping seems to be presented as a method to correct for speaker's "misconfiguration" only. Is the "height generation" that I seem to see a byproduct of this very same remapping process?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.trinnov.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/AES6375_Reproducing_Multichannel_Sound_on_any_Speaker_Layout.pdf
Consumers are more and more interested in multichannel sound. However, installing a surround system is still a headache for most users. The ITU recommendations are generally incompatible with homes arrangement and people install their system how they can, which generally results in large spatial sound distortions. This paper presents a system allowing to overcome this problem by adapting multichannel sound to the actual user loudspeaker layout. This system consists of a small calibration microphone measuring loudspeaker characteristics (3D position, frequency response) and a calculation process which remaps multichannel sound over the calibrated layout so as to compensate the measured loudspeakers misconfiguration, including full 3D position.

Regards, Can
Theta sound: Powerful and full-bodied, stunning 3D soundstage, spooky imaging in "clean & quiet" soundfield. My system & CBIII HD review & setup help - Post # 3913 & 3914
Give vinyl and tube pre-amp a try - the sound from heaven!
cannga is online now  
post #30 of 55 Old 12-01-2013, 09:18 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,418
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post
What's intriguing to me is if you look at Trinnov's paper, in my case that means by bypassing the 25 pages of mathematical equations and go straight for the abstract, the re-mapping is initially presented as a method of speaker's "misconfiguration." Is the "height generation" that I seem to see a byproduct of this very same process?

That is how I see it.  The 2D correction is for speaker layout in the horizontal plane and the 3D is a correction (not so much a generation) in the vertical dimension.


Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is online now  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

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