DTS Neo.X - Page 21 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 3Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #601 of 1319 Old 02-21-2013, 04:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Woof Woof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 243 Post(s)
Liked: 123
I use Thiel speakers which are timbre matched in their range. I use Powerpoints for everything other than the front 3 channels which are CS3.7s and MCS1
Woof Woof is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #602 of 1319 Old 02-21-2013, 12:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 3,344
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 371 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

It's only a waste if you start from the false premise that object-based mixes will require full range speakers.
Agreed!

...but it should perhaps be of more concern to the Atmos|MDA "purist" whether or not Dolby Atmos home theater specs might relax the commercial cinema recommendation (but NOT mandation?) that...
Quote:
"For optimal spatial resolution throughout the auditorium, the angular distance between adjacent loudspeakers should be 30 degrees or less, referenced from the midpoint between two loudspeakers at the edge of the central listening area."

- Dolby® Atmos(TM) Cinema Technical Guidelines, 2.2.2 Side and Rear Surround Spacing (link)

This suggests to me that a minimum of 13 middle layer speakers alone will be required (even for a one-person home theater) in order to avoid having a CS|CB speaker! (That's 3 more than the 10 middle layer speakers in the full Hamasaki 22.2 layout. eek.gif)
_

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is offline  
post #603 of 1319 Old 02-21-2013, 01:43 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 12,974
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3561 Post(s)
Liked: 1905
It would be too bad if Dolby and DTS relax their standards too much for home use. They could more easily roll out a robust object-oriented decoder if the more full-featured products (allowing for the maximum assignable speakers/subs) were set up as separate pre-amp/amp combos. The pre-amp has all the DAC's and analog audio outputs needed and then it would be up to the consumer to add as many amps and speakers as s/he could afford. The cost of having the object-oriented decoder and renderer and all those 24 bit DAC's on board would be offset by the fact the processor would have minimal analog A/V switching, and no built-in amplifiers.

Budget line receivers could have, let's say, a fixed amount of amps and then have analog outputs for any additional assignable speakers (the higher the model, the more possible "channels" could be added).

Perhaps a better analog interface between surround processor and amplifiers could be designed to lessen wire clutter.

Completely scalable solutions.

You can have, basically speaking, 64 channel surround with Dolby Atmos currently if the sound engineer was very precise in their object based surround mixing.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
 
post #604 of 1319 Old 02-21-2013, 03:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 3,344
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 371 Post(s)
Liked: 316
We should also remember that (IIRC) the current timetable is to achieve an ATSC 3.0 candidate standard by the end of 2015 . . . and whether ATSC 3.0 should include an object based audio component still seems to be an open issue. I expect Dolby|DTS are suggesting derivatives of Atmos|MDA for inclusion...?!
_

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is offline  
post #605 of 1319 Old 02-21-2013, 04:02 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 12,974
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3561 Post(s)
Liked: 1905
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

We should also remember that (IIRC) the current timetable is to achieve an ATSC 3.0 candidate standard by the end of 2015 . . . and whether ATSC 3.0 should include an object based audio component still seems to be an open issue. I expect Dolby|DTS are suggesting derivatives of Atmos|MDA for inclusion...?!
_

2015?? Jeez! You know they probably won't put out a UHD media format until the ATSC specs are drawn up and ratified. They don't want to cause system incompatibility... I don't think anyway. Unless ATSC 3.0 will take to heart what UHD home media can deliver in 2013/2014 and not the other way around as it used to be. The current HDTV broadcast standard was devised YEARS before Blu-ray came to fruition... and Blu-ray specs were pretty much drawn up to match it... except for the inclusion of 1080p/24 and lossless audio codecs, but the HD video color gamut and bit depth selected were already outdated when the BDA chose them.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #606 of 1319 Old 02-21-2013, 05:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 3,344
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 371 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

2015?? Jeez! You know they probably won't put out a UHD media format until the ATSC specs are drawn up and ratified. They don't want to cause system incompatibility... I don't think anyway. Unless ATSC 3.0 will take to heart what UHD home media can deliver in 2013/2014 and not the other way around as it used to be. The current HDTV broadcast standard was devised YEARS before Blu-ray came to fruition... and Blu-ray specs were pretty much drawn up to match it... except for the inclusion of 1080p/24 and lossless audio codecs, but the HD video color gamut and bit depth selected were already outdated when the BDA chose them.

Apparently ATSC (only) expects to elevate ATSC 2.0 to a “candidate” standard by the end of March and to finalize the standard by end 2013. If OTA 4K2K UHD (with perhaps a provision for expansion to 8K4K later) has to wait until ATSC 3.0 roll-out . . . sometime after 2020(?) . . . then alternative delivery mechanisms for UHD seem likely to appear first...?! cool.gif
_

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is offline  
post #607 of 1319 Old 02-21-2013, 08:45 PM
wse
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2204 Post(s)
Liked: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View PostI doubt the midrange/tweeter assembly weighs 85kgs when the whole speaker weights 72 to start with. I did say the bass part had to go elsewhere. I'd guess 15kgs maximum for that part and perhaps only half of that even.

 

Right, and how do I take them apart!

wse is offline  
post #608 of 1319 Old 02-21-2013, 09:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ambesolman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,628
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1100 Post(s)
Liked: 921
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Right, and how do I take them apart!
"Just give it a little tappy. Tap tap taparoo."
ambesolman is offline  
post #609 of 1319 Old 02-21-2013, 09:52 PM
wse
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2204 Post(s)
Liked: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambesolman View Post"Just give it a little tappy. Tap tap taparoo."

 But of course I never thought of that, will do wink.gif

wse is offline  
post #610 of 1319 Old 02-22-2013, 02:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 2,491
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Right, and how do I take them apart!

Unless you already have a few pair to spare, just tell B&W not to bother with putting them on when ordering? biggrin.gif

Codename - the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #611 of 1319 Old 02-22-2013, 11:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erwinfrombelgium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Flanders, Belgium
Posts: 1,190
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 446 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

Agreed!

...but it should perhaps be of more concern to the Atmos|MDA "purist" whether or not Dolby Atmos home theater specs might relax the commercial cinema recommendation (but NOT mandation?) that...
This suggests to me that a minimum of 13 middle layer speakers alone will be required (even for a one-person home theater) in order to avoid having a CS|CB speaker! (That's 3 more than the 10 middle layer speakers in the full Hamasaki 22.2 layout. eek.gif)
_
360°/30° = 12, not 13 but I get your point. IMO, 9 should be enough. Front half with 30° intermedium gives 7 speakers and 2 to be added in the rear, at 60° intermedium all as the suggested DSX set-up.

Building a 9.3.4 HT: DIYSG Titan LX [LCR] • Cinema 10 Max [6 Surrounds] • Beta 10CX custom [TF+TR] • LLT Mal-x 18" subs [2] • XPR-5 • MM8003 [8ch] • XMC-1 [RMC-1 wanted] • PT AT6000E • 130" Seymour Center XD • Oppo 103EU • WTB: 1 extra Mal-x 18" SW
erwinfrombelgium is online now  
post #612 of 1319 Old 02-22-2013, 01:52 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 12,974
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3561 Post(s)
Liked: 1905
I'd rather the audio companies recommend that the overhead speakers actually be placed overhead just like in the Atmos recommendations, and not high up on the wall. It will then truly give you that x-y-z axis that is being touted.

And if the sound engineers don't come up with an optimal speaker placement standard for home based object-oriented sound (or match the cinema theater placements only without quite so many speakers) and stick with it, it will cause major confusion.

I mean, how many "channel" outputs should manufactures build into their products, etc. etc. etc. ? Will it be branded just like DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD have specific decoder requirements?

Sounds like MDA is geared for open source usage. That could mean a free-for-all if everyone who uses the code has a different set of mixing and output standards.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #613 of 1319 Old 02-22-2013, 02:35 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 25,084
Mentioned: 114 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5140 Post(s)
Liked: 3621
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

This suggests to me that a minimum of 13 middle layer speakers alone will be required (even for a one-person home theater) in order to avoid having a CS|CB speaker! (That's 3 more than the 10 middle layer speakers in the full Hamasaki 22.2 layout. eek.gif)
_
Guess I view it the other way 'round. The whole point of object-based audio is to free you up to from requirements such as minimum number of speakers and standardized placement. Those constraints were for the days of channel-based audio, mixed for specific speaker locations.

With MDA, the mixer doesn't have to be aware of the number and placement of speakers in his studio AND doesn't have to worry about the number and placement of speakers in the theatre, and eventually home theatre. If a sound is intended to image at 60 degrees from centre, then that's where it will image. If the MDA system finds that you have a wide speaker at that location, it will use it; if it finds that you don't, then it will use your front and side speakers to image the sound at that same location. It's taken away the "requirement" to have a speaker there.

Object-based audio is designed for translation: one mix, many speaker layouts. The point being that the recording engineer mix once to service everything from a 60-speaker commercial cinema to the soundbar under your bedroom plasma. That sort of approach liberates you from minimum numbers of speakers and required placement angles, not the other way around.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #614 of 1319 Old 02-22-2013, 03:02 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 10,140
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1872 Post(s)
Liked: 1004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

And if the sound engineers don't come up with an optimal speaker placement standard for home based object-oriented sound (or match the cinema theater placements only without quite so many speakers) and stick with it, it will cause major confusion.
Is it a source of major confusion that there is a vast range of TV screen sizes and resolutions out there? I'm not saying people do not have questions when they shop for a TV, but I'll bet very few fail to come home with a unit and find it satisfactory for their needs.
Quote:
I mean, how many "channel" outputs should manufactures build into their products, etc. etc. etc. ? Will it be branded just like DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD have specific decoder requirements?
While object-based audio certainly opens the door to more speakers, that is not essential to gaining various advantages, which can even be perceived over 2-speaker TVs. Just one example: the ability to alter how dialog is presented, either to make it easier to hear, or to make it go away (sports commentary).
Quote:
Sounds like MDA is geared for open source usage. That could mean a free-for-all if everyone who uses the code has a different set of mixing and output standards.
MDA could become as "open source" as 5.1 PCM is today. Is that a problem? I agree that defining a content pipe does not constrain either the mixing environment or the playback environment. No different than today. The constraining effect comes from free-market forces. If content makers want to sell their wares, they have to make it a compelling experience on systems people can or will want to use.

Current: Deadwood II Theater
Previous: Deadwood Atmos theater [HTOM]
SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4; Anthem AVM 60 7.4.4, MiniDSP OpenDRC-AN
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, KEF Ci200QS surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
JVC RS520; Stewart Cima Neve 115"W x 49"H 2.35 screen
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #615 of 1319 Old 02-22-2013, 05:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 3,344
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 371 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

While object-based audio certainly opens the door to more speakers, that is not essential to gaining various advantages, which can even be perceived over 2-speaker TVs. Just one example: the ability to alter how dialog is presented, either to make it easier to hear, or to make it go away (sports commentary).

Unfortunately I believe many participants in this thread might not distinguish between the relative feasibility of "something like" MPEG standard Spatial Audio Object Coding (SAOC) being used for live TV sports reporting and the considerably more complex task of having a home theater processor render 64 object plus 64 bed "near raw" source content from a theatrical Atmos|MDA release. Both technologies lie on the same 'object audio' continuum . . . but near opposite ends. cool.gif
_

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is offline  
post #616 of 1319 Old 02-22-2013, 05:28 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 12,974
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3561 Post(s)
Liked: 1905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Is it a source of major confusion that there is a vast range of TV screen sizes and resolutions out there? I'm not saying people do not have questions when they shop for a TV, but I'll bet very few fail to come home with a unit and find it satisfactory for their needs.
While object-based audio certainly opens the door to more speakers, that is not essential to gaining various advantages, which can even be perceived over 2-speaker TVs. Just one example: the ability to alter how dialog is presented, either to make it easier to hear, or to make it go away (sports commentary).
MDA could become as "open source" as 5.1 PCM is today. Is that a problem? I agree that defining a content pipe does not constrain either the mixing environment or the playback environment. No different than today. The constraining effect comes from free-market forces. If content makers want to sell their wares, they have to make it a compelling experience on systems people can or will want to use.

But with PCM, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-MA, DTS Neo: X, etc. there are a set amount of channels and a set amount of amplifiers and a set amount of audio outputs for the manufacturer to build off of. Where would they begin with object-based sound?

Even Dolby Atmos has a recommended layout and set amount of speakers that can be controlled and builds a product around those parameters.

Wouldn't there need to be some sort of universal diagram on a movie or music product with object-oriented sound so you know how the mixer set up his/her mix for the best experience? Many have stated that the more speakers you have, the more "resolution" the soundtrack has... you can pin point sounds better in the multidimensional sonic space. But what will be realistic and yet satisfy enthusiasts for home theater use? 9? 11? 22? The MDA mixing lab at SRS (now DTS) uses 22 speakers. Pretty cool, but will A/V manufacturers build this advanced a surround processor for us lowly consumer schmucks?

Another question I have is whether DTS MDA and Dolby Atmos both use a fixed channel bed with a set number of objects? Atmos has 9.1 discrete channels and 128 sound objects with meta data instructions. I've never heard how MDA operates. Are they both using the same mixing principles and technology or is MDA completely object-oriented based with no set channels?

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #617 of 1319 Old 02-22-2013, 07:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
M Code's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cocati, CA
Posts: 11,281
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 816 Post(s)
Liked: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

But with PCM, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-MA, DTS Neo: X, etc. there are a set amount of channels and a set amount of amplifiers and a set amount of audio outputs for the manufacturer to build off of. Where would they begin with object-based sound?

Even Dolby Atmos has a recommended layout and set amount of speakers that can be controlled and builds a product around those parameters.

Wouldn't there need to be some sort of universal diagram on a movie or music product with object-oriented sound so you know how the mixer set up his/her mix for the best experience? Many have stated that the more speakers you have, the more "resolution" the soundtrack has... you can pin point sounds better in the multidimensional sonic space. But what will be realistic and yet satisfy enthusiasts for home theater use? 9? 11? 22? The MDA mixing lab at SRS (now DTS) uses 22 speakers. Pretty cool, but will A/V manufacturers build this advanced a surround processor for us lowly consumer schmucks?

You are missing the primary advantage of MDA...
Today the content providers have to provide multiple mixes depending upon its target output market..
Could be 2.0, 5.1, 7.1, 7.2, 9.2,11.2...
With MDA and its encoded object based master, now the final mixed output would be a function of the preferred channel output format. This provides incredible latitude for the producer, as the content may 1st be released as a 5.1 but 2 years later when 7.2 is popular this is easily produced and released with a minimum of effort. And as more experience is gained, it is feasible that the listener could have more control over the final mix/output to suit his own objectives....


Just my $0.02... wink.gif
M Code is offline  
post #618 of 1319 Old 02-22-2013, 07:47 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 12,974
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3561 Post(s)
Liked: 1905
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

You are missing the primary advantage of MDA...
Today the content providers have to provide multiple mixes depending upon its target output market..
Could be 2.0, 5.1, 7.1, 7.2, 9.2,11.2...
With MDA and its encoded object based master, now the final mixed output would be a function of the preferred channel output format. This provides incredible latitude for the producer, as the content may 1st be released as a 5.1 but 2 years later when 7.2 is popular this is easily produced and released with a minimum of effort. And as more experience is gained, it is feasible that the listener could have more control over the final mix/output to suit his own objectives....


Just my $0.02... wink.gif

I'm aware of the advantages, but I'm just wondering if there will be some sort of industry standard for the time being that says: a surround processor will have X amount of speaker outputs and X amount of subwoofer outputs. I would think the processing power for a very complex soundtrack with real-time rendering, mapping, etc. etc. would be a bit more than the average surround processor today if there were a TON of outputs. There would have to be some limits somewhere. Costs will play a large factor, I'd bet.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #619 of 1319 Old 02-22-2013, 08:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
M Code's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cocati, CA
Posts: 11,281
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 816 Post(s)
Liked: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I'm aware of the advantages, but I'm just wondering if there will be some sort of industry standard for the time being that says: a surround processor will have X amount of speaker outputs and X amount of subwoofer outputs. I would think the processing power for a very complex soundtrack with real-time rendering, mapping, etc. etc. would be a bit more than the average surround processor today if there were a TON of outputs. There would have to be some limits somewhere. Costs will play a large factor, I'd bet.

IMHO..
The biggest issue today is getting the content providers to commit to a standard for object based..
Until the studios step up and validate a standard, the hardware builders hesititate to proceed...
Also the market average surround processor unit pricing needs to be increased significantly to support the additional design/development costs...
Unfortunately the major hardware brands have painted themselves into a corner by driving AVR prices down below break-even points so they are all losing big $..
Higher resource silicon processors are readily available, and are capable of handling MDA but there needs to be enough market demand..

Another factor to consider is the financial business models of companies such as DTS..
Their revenue streams are decreasing as Blu-ray sales/royalties flatten out as digital downloads are increasing.. Thats another reason DTS is pursuing the Phorus hardware business for Android wireless platforms as demonstrated @ WCES 2013..


Just my $0.02... wink.gif
M Code is offline  
post #620 of 1319 Old 02-23-2013, 01:23 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 10,140
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1872 Post(s)
Liked: 1004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I'm aware of the advantages, but I'm just wondering if there will be some sort of industry standard for the time being that says: a surround processor will have X amount of speaker outputs and X amount of subwoofer outputs.
X today goes from 2 to 11, and I think those will still be usable. But what I find exciting about this is that once content starts flowing, a whole range of different ways to render it will bubble up. Not just "lots more speakers" but new forms of spatially adaptive speakers -- something like the more sophisticated sound bars we have today.
Quote:
I would think the processing power for a very complex soundtrack with real-time rendering, mapping, etc. etc. would be a bit more than the average surround processor today if there were a TON of outputs. There would have to be some limits somewhere. Costs will play a large factor, I'd bet.
The degree of soundtrack complexity has no relation to the number of outputs needed, but yes, cost will play its usual key role as the counterbalancing factor against performance.

Current: Deadwood II Theater
Previous: Deadwood Atmos theater [HTOM]
SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4; Anthem AVM 60 7.4.4, MiniDSP OpenDRC-AN
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, KEF Ci200QS surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
JVC RS520; Stewart Cima Neve 115"W x 49"H 2.35 screen
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #621 of 1319 Old 02-23-2013, 01:48 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 10,140
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1872 Post(s)
Liked: 1004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Wouldn't there need to be some sort of universal diagram on a movie or music product with object-oriented sound so you know how the mixer set up his/her mix for the best experience?
We have never precisely duplicated the sound of a dubbing stage at home, and that has not impeded our enjoyment, so I do not see that being a factor going forward. I can confidently predict that if consumers get an Auro3D movie and an Atmos movie they will play them on exactly the same speaker system. wink.gif
Quote:
Many have stated that the more speakers you have, the more "resolution" the soundtrack has... you can pin point sounds better in the multidimensional sonic space.
Yes. I think that fairly explains why we've moved from 1 to 2 to 5 to 7 to...
Quote:
But what will be realistic and yet satisfy enthusiasts for home theater use? 9? 11? 22? The MDA mixing lab at SRS (now DTS) uses 22 speakers. Pretty cool, but will A/V manufacturers build this advanced a surround processor for us lowly consumer schmucks?
If there is market, I expect it will be built. But just like cars, there's a whole lot of ways to get from point A to B. "Satisfaction" is not only very different for different people, but it's also a moving target as our expectations change. I expect a lot of shift in expectations as object-based audio matures over a 5-10 year period.
Quote:
Another question I have is whether DTS MDA and Dolby Atmos both use a fixed channel bed with a set number of objects? Atmos has 9.1 discrete channels and 128 sound objects with meta data instructions. I've never heard how MDA operates.
MDA is a bitstream structure, not bounded by hardware limitations. It can have as many channels or objects as anyone wants to support.

Current: Deadwood II Theater
Previous: Deadwood Atmos theater [HTOM]
SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4; Anthem AVM 60 7.4.4, MiniDSP OpenDRC-AN
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, KEF Ci200QS surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
JVC RS520; Stewart Cima Neve 115"W x 49"H 2.35 screen
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #622 of 1319 Old 02-23-2013, 02:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 2,491
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 265
I hope they design it so you can chain multichannel amps every time you want o add a handful more.

Codename - the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #623 of 1319 Old 02-23-2013, 09:19 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 12,974
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3561 Post(s)
Liked: 1905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

I hope they design it so you can chain multichannel amps every time you want o add a handful more.

That would be useful, I'd suspect.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #624 of 1319 Old 02-23-2013, 09:23 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 12,974
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3561 Post(s)
Liked: 1905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

We have never precisely duplicated the sound of a dubbing stage at home, and that has not impeded our enjoyment, so I do not see that being a factor going forward. I can confidently predict that if consumers get an Auro3D movie and an Atmos movie they will play them on exactly the same speaker system. wink.gif
Yes. I think that fairly explains why we've moved from 1 to 2 to 5 to 7 to...
If there is market, I expect it will be built. But just like cars, there's a whole lot of ways to get from point A to B. "Satisfaction" is not only very different for different people, but it's also a moving target as our expectations change. I expect a lot of shift in expectations as object-based audio matures over a 5-10 year period.
MDA is a bitstream structure, not bounded by hardware limitations. It can have as many channels or objects as anyone wants to support.

Roger,

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter thus far. As for Atmos vs. MDA (don't want to bring up another Dolby vs. DTS debate, that's not what I'm getting at), in your experience, do you believe the MDA approach is a more flexible object audio solution than Atmos in its current state of development for content producers and manufacturers? Or are there advantages to the Atmos approach to object-oriented soundtracks?

Have you heard both and if you have, what are your impressions? Any industry rumblings as to which stands a better chance of getting adopted for home use? Or would both be available?

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #625 of 1319 Old 02-23-2013, 01:00 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 10,140
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1872 Post(s)
Liked: 1004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter thus far. As for Atmos vs. MDA (don't want to bring up another Dolby vs. DTS debate, that's not what I'm getting at), in your experience, do you believe the MDA approach is a more flexible object audio solution than Atmos in its current state of development for content producers and manufacturers? Or are there advantages to the Atmos approach to object-oriented soundtracks?
On the tools side, Atmos has incorporated some extra features that are not yet part of MDA. Those may have been driven by early mixing experiences, and if they become an expected facility, MDA could have them, too. MDA is not a mission to define and sell production tools, so I'd expect various tool suppliers to enter the market covering not only the common basics, but bringing their own expertise to the table.

On the reproduction side, MDA is not bound to any preconceived speaker setups, and technically neither is Atmos. Just that Atmos is advocating a preferred setup at the moment.
Quote:
Have you heard both and if you have, what are your impressions?
Not yet had the pleasure of Atmos. Even though I am in LA regularly, my timing is off! frown.gif
Quote:
Any industry rumblings as to which stands a better chance of getting adopted for home use? Or would both be available?
When it comes to object audio, I think we will eventually see almost as many ways of delivering that as we do channel-based digital audio today.

Current: Deadwood II Theater
Previous: Deadwood Atmos theater [HTOM]
SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4; Anthem AVM 60 7.4.4, MiniDSP OpenDRC-AN
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, KEF Ci200QS surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
JVC RS520; Stewart Cima Neve 115"W x 49"H 2.35 screen
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #626 of 1319 Old 02-23-2013, 01:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Socio's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

@ CES 2011 DTS demoed their new algorithm Neo.x which can output up to 11.1, taking a 2.0, 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 digital audio stream. They can use Front Sides and/or Front Heights in certain combinations. They will have 3 modes, 1 for movies, 1 for music and 1 for games.

Seems more like repackaging old tech in to a more convenient tech package, as I mentioned in this thread http://www.avsforum.com/t/1289714/11-2-receivers you can already do this and way beyond 11.1.

I mean in 11.1 are not height speakers essentially the same as presence speakers available in a 15 year old Yamaha DSP1 that simply give the front stage some depth and front sides speakers display the sound moving from the front to the side surround or side surround to the front for a smother transition in either direction which be done accurately with a Center-Surround 3X, Jr, also old tech?
Socio is offline  
post #627 of 1319 Old 02-23-2013, 03:01 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
M Code's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cocati, CA
Posts: 11,281
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 816 Post(s)
Liked: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socio View Post

Seems more like repackaging old tech in to a more convenient tech package, as I mentioned in this thread http://www.avsforum.com/t/1289714/11-2-receivers you can already do this and way beyond 11.1.

I mean in 11.1 are not height speakers essentially the same as presence speakers available in a 15 year old Yamaha DSP1 that simply give the front stage some depth and front sides speakers display the sound moving from the front to the side surround or side surround to the front for a smother transition in either direction which be done accurately with a Center-Surround 3X, Jr, also old tech?


DSPs processing power and more advanced algorithms have come a very long way since 1995 when the DSP1 came out. DTS NEO X is a post-processing algorithm which does a commendable job in creating additional audio channels, but again it is up to the listener objectives and expectations. We have posted our comments in this thread and others, about our opinions/experiences...

You may be interested in a major market study done about 4 years back, they found that >37% of the AVRs are just connected to (2) loudspeakers not 5.1..confused.gif

Just my $0.02... wink.gif
M Code is offline  
post #628 of 1319 Old 02-23-2013, 05:50 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 10,140
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1872 Post(s)
Liked: 1004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socio View Post

I mean in 11.1 are not height speakers essentially the same as presence speakers available in a 15 year old Yamaha DSP1
No. That is not sound steering but ambience creation, more along the lines of DSX. Neo:X is more like what you are doing with the CS3XJR units, but all tidied up and done with frequency-selective steering.

Current: Deadwood II Theater
Previous: Deadwood Atmos theater [HTOM]
SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4; Anthem AVM 60 7.4.4, MiniDSP OpenDRC-AN
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, KEF Ci200QS surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
JVC RS520; Stewart Cima Neve 115"W x 49"H 2.35 screen
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #629 of 1319 Old 02-23-2013, 11:35 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 25,084
Mentioned: 114 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5140 Post(s)
Liked: 3621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Not yet had the pleasure of Atmos. Even though I am in LA regularly, my timing is off! frown.gif
Better odds next month, with a full four (count 'em, 4) movies being released in Atmos:

March 08: Disney's 'Oz, the Great & Powerful'.
March 14: Danny Boyle's 'Trance'.
March 22: Dreamworks' 'The Croods'.
March 29: 'G. I. Joe: Retaliation'.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #630 of 1319 Old 02-24-2013, 11:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,183
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 868 Post(s)
Liked: 296
The Pioneer SC-1522 (and SC-65) 9.2 AVR has Neo:X and can be connected to 11 speakers, though it can only play on 9 of the 11 at once. In the manual, Neo:X is described as "Up to 9.1 channel sound (surround back and front height or surround back and front wide) ..."

But which is it? Front height or front wide, or maybe it varies between the two?

(If this was discussed above in the thread, I'm sorry that I missed it.)

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Tags
Dts , Denon Avr 4311ci 9 2 Channel Network Multi Room Home Theater Receiver With Hdmi 1 4a

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