DTS Neo.X - Page 25 - AVS Forum
First ... 23  24  25 26  27  ... Last
Receivers, Amps, and Processors > DTS Neo.X
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 07:36 PM 03-25-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Are there any objections to running an array of heights along the ceiling across the MLP stopping at the rear surrounds?
As long as the overhead array is not along the listener's centre line, either directly above or rearward of the listener (forward of the listener is not as bad). A pair of overhead arrays, spread at least 30 degrees from the centre line would be better (improves envelopment and minimizes imaging reversals). The diagram Roger posted is a good starting point; in fact you probably wouldn't gain all that much by adding more height speakers.

zuluwalker's Avatar zuluwalker 08:06 PM 03-25-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

I would think this arrangement would be very effective.

I will look to the diagram as guide. I plan to do this in the next day or so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

If this is a more permanent installation, I would consider placing paired overhead speakers that match with the side and rear wall mounts. Might as well look to the future with object-oriented soundtracks in mind, which can address actual over-head speakers for sound effects like what you describe. Not as easy an install job, but the results will be much better with the latest and greatest audio technology.

I am indeed installing in ceiling, permanent speakers. I will need the placement to be bang on, or close enough to allow for future technologies to not be hindered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

As long as the overhead array is not along the listener's centre line, either directly above or rearward of the listener (forward of the listener is not as bad). A pair of overhead arrays, spread at least 30 degrees from the centre line would be better (improves envelopment and minimizes imaging reversals). The diagram Roger posted is a good starting point; in fact you probably wouldn't gain all that much by adding more height speakers.

But that doesn't mean I shouldn't... hehehe:D

I will map the placement before I cut holes, and check in again.

Thanks everyone for your help.
noah katz's Avatar noah katz 09:19 PM 03-25-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

The diagram Roger posted is a good starting point; in fact you probably wouldn't gain all that much by adding more height speakers.

Roger, Sanjay,

Are you envisioning that the two height speakers on a side are receieving specifically encoded material?
zuluwalker's Avatar zuluwalker 09:20 PM 03-25-2013
Here is an exceptionally crude diagram of my room, please excuse me, I am not an architect.

I have marked some possible in-ceiling positions. I am open to others. Thank you for all your help.



Amp now rests on a short stand so it can be seen from other views.



I sit in the back row most often, in the middle seat farthest from the door. I face towards Sub II, not Sub I.
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 11:41 PM 03-25-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Are you envisioning that the two height speakers on a side are receieving specifically encoded material?
For the moment, whenever PLIIz and Neo:X output stereo heights, that layout will give you some left-vs-right directionality in the heights. Even when the signal is mono, it will still give an impression of sound above you (think of where those four speakers will phantom image a mono signal).

This is different from what is currently being done with height processing from Dolby and DTS, where speakers above the mains help create the impression of a taller soundstage (rather than overhead imaging).

Eventually, I would hope that the four speakers in the diagram would be run independently, even when they're not reproducing different signals. If you send a signal to any pair of height speakers, you can steer the sound left to right or front to back above you. Send the sound towards any single height speaker and you can steer the sound diagonally above you.

As for specifically encoded material, who knows. When I was at CES earlier this year, DTS was demonstrating Neo:X with 4 height speakers (no wides). Maybe Lionsgate will encode some soundtracks with that configuration. But there is no established placement standard at the moment, so this is a good time to have fun experimenting. IF object-based mixes make it to home video, we'll have to see what the suggested layout will be.
Roger Dressler's Avatar Roger Dressler 12:54 AM 03-26-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Here is an exceptionally crude diagram of my room, please excuse me, I am not an architect.
You remind me of Doc Brown: "please excuse the crudity of this model."



Your diagram needs no apologies!
Quote:
I have marked some possible in-ceiling positions. I am open to others. Thank you for all your help.
If you are adding one pair of heights, A is good. If you need B, can you slide then a little more to the rear? I think you will not be too happy to have them directly overhead.

Does the room allow for moving A forward, say even with the wide speakers?
Nightlord's Avatar Nightlord 01:12 AM 03-26-2013
Zuluwalker - not knowing how big your step is, but my initial thought on your diagram would be.... why not a small step on each side of the front chairs to get them centered?

I would also believe the front ceiling speakers should be above front row, making another argument on why it would do better centered.

But if it's rather narrow to get back to second row as it is, then I do understand if you can't/won't do it.
mastermaybe's Avatar mastermaybe 06:53 AM 03-26-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

You remind me of Doc Brown: "please excuse the crudity of this model."



Your diagram needs no apologies!
If you are adding one pair of heights, A is good. If you need B, can you slide then a little more to the rear? I think you will not be too happy to have them directly overhead.

Does the room allow for moving A forward, say even with the wide speakers?

LMAO, thought the very same. It's literally one of my all-time moments in ANY film.

Doc: "Please excuse the crudity of this model- I didn't have time to build it to scale or to paint it..."

Marty: "It's good."

Doc: "Oh thank you, thank you..."

meanwhile the model looks absolutely outstanding, all considered.

It's the ringer on my phone, love it. Sorry, couldn't resist.

James
wse's Avatar wse 09:21 AM 03-26-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View PostI would think this arrangement would be very effective.

Cool :) Except if I bring two more speakers into our family room, I am going  to loose my head!


Nightlord's Avatar Nightlord 09:29 AM 03-26-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Cool smile.gif Except if I bring two more speakers into our family room, I am going  to loose my head!

Make then in-wall, and they're by definition not IN the room. biggrin.gif
zuluwalker's Avatar zuluwalker 09:29 AM 03-26-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

For the moment, whenever PLIIz and Neo:X output stereo heights, that layout will give you some left-vs-right directionality in the heights. Even when the signal is mono, it will still give an impression of sound above you (think of where those four speakers will phantom image a mono signal).

This is different from what is currently being done with height processing from Dolby and DTS, where speakers above the mains help create the impression of a taller soundstage (rather than overhead imaging).

Eventually, I would hope that the four speakers in the diagram would be run independently, even when they're not reproducing different signals. If you send a signal to any pair of height speakers, you can steer the sound left to right or front to back above you. Send the sound towards any single height speaker and you can steer the sound diagonally above you.

As for specifically encoded material, who knows. When I was at CES earlier this year, DTS was demonstrating Neo:X with 4 height speakers (no wides). Maybe Lionsgate will encode some soundtracks with that configuration. But there is no established placement standard at the moment, so this is a good time to have fun experimenting. IF object-based mixes make it to home video, we'll have to see what the suggested layout will be.

I am a big fan of fun. smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

You remind me of Doc Brown: "please excuse the crudity of this model."



Your diagram needs no apologies!
If you are adding one pair of heights, A is good. If you need B, can you slide then a little more to the rear? I think you will not be too happy to have them directly overhead.

Does the room allow for moving A forward, say even with the wide speakers?

The area where I placed speaker options "A" and "B" is a rasied portion of the ceiling. Running around the room, in a U-shape are lowered ceiling tiles that allow me to place 4"puck lights and have access for future wire upgrades, and the water access above in the kitchen. I have no issues placing them within the tiles, but the nature of a cut tile is stays cut, whereas the drywall may be patched or filled incase future improvements in overhead speakers strongly dictate that I shift them over one way or another.

I will provide a second diagram. Thank you for helping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Zuluwalker - not knowing how big your step is, but my initial thought on your diagram would be.... why not a small step on each side of the front chairs to get them centered?

I would also believe the front ceiling speakers should be above front row, making another argument on why it would do better centered.

But if it's rather narrow to get back to second row as it is, then I do understand if you can't/won't do it.

My wife and I are the main audience in the home and find ourselves occassionally joined by either another couple, or only one of us and one friend. That makes the back row perfect for four bodies. The front row is overflow, and I usually end up there in the worst seat to offer better seats to guests. There is not room for a second step, and I would have killed for a more even look too. But a compromise had to be made. The front row is only seats right now, but I have plans for the third chair, and that is why I added it in my diagram. The reason for seven chairs is based on the numbers of people that must be able to attend from my wife's family if they showed up at the same time for a movie...I am wise not to point out that this happened only once in the last two years! rolleyes.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

LMAO, thought the very same. It's literally one of my all-time moments in ANY film.

Doc: "Please excuse the crudity of this model- I didn't have time to build it to scale or to paint it..."

Marty: "It's good."

Doc: "Oh thank you, thank you..."

meanwhile the model looks absolutely outstanding, all considered.

It's the ringer on my phone, love it. Sorry, couldn't resist.

James

Once I saw the quote I realized it too, and laughed hard as well. I watched this movie over and over and over growing up. I had no idea my sense of humor was primed with it. But my wife claims I quote some movies frequently. That is good media right? Part of of world! smile.gif No need to apologize.
Nightlord's Avatar Nightlord 09:33 AM 03-26-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

My wife and I are the main audience in the home and find ourselves occassionally joined by either another couple, or only one of us and one friend. That makes the back row perfect for four bodies. The front row is overflow, and I usually end up there in the worst seat to offer better seats to guests. There is not room for a second step, and I would have killed for a more even look too. But a compromise had to be made. The front row is only seats right now, but I have plans for the third chair, and that is why I added it in my diagram. The reason for seven chairs is based on the numbers of people that must be able to attend from my wife's family if they showed up at the same time for a movie...I am wise not to point out that this happened only once in the last two years! rolleyes.gif

Ok, then there's not a huge reason to fully optimize the sound for the front room. Then consider my suggestions withdrawn again.
wse's Avatar wse 09:36 AM 03-26-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View PostMake then in-wall, and they're by definition not IN the room. biggrin.gif

Yes, except it means making holes in the walls!


zuluwalker's Avatar zuluwalker 09:45 AM 03-26-2013
I did a grid. biggrin.gif


ambesolman's Avatar ambesolman 03:01 PM 03-26-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

I am wise not to point out that this happened only once in the last two years! rolleyes.gif
Good thing you didn't mention it. wink.gif
SoundChex's Avatar SoundChex 03:27 PM 03-26-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

When I was at CES earlier this year, DTS was demonstrating Neo:X with 4 height speakers (no wides). Maybe Lionsgate will encode some soundtracks with that configuration. But there is no established placement standard at the moment, so this is a good time to have fun experimenting.

Given that the Neo:X based algorithm used by the DTS Neo-Fusion post processor in some Samsung HTiBs this year apparently extracts|synthesizes three height channels starting from a (decoded) 7.1 Standard soundtrack, I wonder if you saw|heard any indication that the DTS Neo:X rear heights demonstrated at CES 2013 might have been a dual mono pair?
_
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 06:19 PM 03-26-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

I wonder if you saw|heard any indication that the DTS Neo:X rear heights demonstrated at CES 2013 might have been a dual mono pair?
From what the reps said, all four height channels were independent. There was an old podcast that mentioned how Neo encoded the heights, by splitting that information between each front channel and its respective surround-back channel. Most of the height info went to the front channel, while a lesser amount went to the surround-back channel. I guess if you didn't have height speakers, those sounds might phantom image above the front speakers. If you flip that ratio, sending most of the height info to each surround-back channel, with a lesser amount going to its respective front channel, then you'd have rear heights. Since the matrixing is between each front and surround-back channel, it's not dual-mono (at least with encoded material).
kertofer's Avatar kertofer 09:24 AM 03-28-2013
Have any of you guys seen any of the manufacturers starting to build more systems with Neo:X included or are we still limited to the Onkyo, Denon and Marantz?
gurkey's Avatar gurkey 09:28 AM 03-28-2013
Because of licensing fees this will be restricted right now to the "better" models of those manufacturers. This might keep others like Yamaha away from it.
As far as I remember there will be a new version of Audyssey DSX coming up in the near future (DSX2).
ss9001's Avatar ss9001 10:39 AM 03-28-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by kertofer View Post

Have any of you guys seen any of the manufacturers starting to build more systems with Neo:X included or are we still limited to the Onkyo, Denon and Marantz?

+ Pioneer, they've had it going on close to 2 yrs.
Rod#S's Avatar Rod#S 02:55 PM 03-28-2013
This thread is a great read, excellent stuff. With all of the talk as of late in the thread about heights what do you guys think of wides? Is it a passing trend serving little purpose in most home environments because lets face it the rooms in our homes are not movie theater sizes so the spacing between our mains and side surrounds isn't that great to begin with meaning wides aren't really filling much of a void or gap. To me heights seem to be the area where we get a true advancement in audio envelopment.

Interested in people's thoughts on this.
wse's Avatar wse 03:23 PM 03-28-2013

Atmos and MDA is what I want :)


ambesolman's Avatar ambesolman 05:09 PM 03-28-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Atmos and MDA is what I want smile.gif
+1!
Dan Hitchman's Avatar Dan Hitchman 05:12 PM 03-28-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambesolman View Post

+1!

+2
zuluwalker's Avatar zuluwalker 06:04 PM 03-28-2013
While we're at it, I want it in the form of a firmware upgrade...for like $50! No, wait...for free!
ambesolman's Avatar ambesolman 06:58 PM 03-28-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

While we're at it, I want it in the form of a firmware upgrade...for like $50! No, wait...for free!
Yeah! And for my 4y/o non-networked receiver too!
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 08:15 PM 03-28-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod#S View Post

With all of the talk as of late in the thread about heights what do you guys think of wides?
I think they could be useful, to stabilize imaging I already get between my front and side speakers. But that is a lower priority for me than heights. If I were doing 11 speakers, it would be 7.1 plus 4 heights (to get stable overhead imaging). Only then would I start adding speakers to fill in spaces between my initial 7.1 speakers: first with a pair of speakers between the fronts and sides, then with a pair of speakers between the sides and rears. That would be where I would reach my point of dimishing returns (I'm sure some would keep going while others will have reached that point at 5.1 speakers).
zuluwalker's Avatar zuluwalker 09:54 AM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

I think they could be useful, to stabilize imaging I already get between my front and side speakers. But that is a lower priority for me than heights. If I were doing 11 speakers, it would be 7.1 plus 4 heights (to get stable overhead imaging). Only then would I start adding speakers to fill in spaces between my initial 7.1 speakers: first with a pair of speakers between the fronts and sides, then with a pair of speakers between the sides and rears. That would be where I would reach my point of dimishing returns (I'm sure some would keep going while others will have reached that point at 5.1 speakers).

Where would you like to place these four height speakers?
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 10:08 AM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Where would you like to place these four height speakers?

From the Dolby Atmos thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Nothing final, just preliminary placement. Last time I checked (early June), Dr. Olive was still doing double blind testing to find final placement. Keep in mind they're using the height extraction in their proprietary surround processing (QuantumLogic), since there is no content with actual height information. Things could change once movies with height channels show up.
The attached diagram shows the same idea with the angles shown. I'm assuming 45° elevation for now.

In terms of adding value, these locations do well because they are furthest away from the other speakers. The closer they get to other speakers, the less unique their contributions. Whether that matters psychoacoustically is another matter!


Personally, I would like the heights mounted higher than 45° elevation, to get greater separation between them and the speakers at ear level.
ambesolman's Avatar ambesolman 10:16 AM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

From the Dolby Atmos thread:
Personally, I would like the heights mounted higher than 45° elevation, to get greater separation between them and the speakers at ear level.
I thought they were generally above the mains, but this shows them where I thought the wides go?
Tags: Dts , Denon Avr 4311ci 9 2 Channel Network Multi Room Home Theater Receiver With Hdmi 1 4a
First ... 23  24  25 26  27  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop