DTS Neo.X - Page 37 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1081 of 1283 Old 10-20-2013, 02:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 840 Post(s)
Liked: 782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I'd rather go forward in the pursuit of surround technology, not backward. Leave matrixed audio to the Dolby Surround days. Object oriented surround is definitely a leap in the positive direction. With correct implementation, it can be added to the UHD specs. and we can all benefit.
Going from 5.1 to 5.1 EX wasn't a step "backwards" since it resulted in distinct surround content at your left, at your right, and behind you (which couldn't be done with 5.1 playback).

For folks like Noah and myself, this isn't an absolutist all (discrete) or nothing proposition. Like him, I'd be fine with additional speaker feeds that were matrix derived, considering the alternative is not having those additional speakers at all.

And by matrix derived, I don't mean "the Dolby Surround days". You make it sound asthough surround processing technology has remained absolutely still over the last three decades. Mike's brief experience with the Neo:X demo disc demonstrates otherwise (the additional channels sounded discrete to him).

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1082 of 1283 Old 10-20-2013, 05:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Yes, and honestly I was pleasantly surprised that the matrix wides/heights did sound 100% discrete.
My 2 boys listened to it with me.

It's one thing to read about, another to experience first hand.
Totally discrete, no leakage - that my ear could detect seated.

Now, with that said, it does make me wonder the limitations of that discrete matrix technology.

How much individual full range sound can be encoded and decoded and still be truly discreet with all 7 base channels being driven, then is the wides/heights still full bandwidth and truly still discrete?
Would need 11 channel captured device to truly see.

That would be a true test of this interm technology.

Still, Until you've tried it, don't knock it so hard down.


Sent from my iPad2 64GB using Tapatalk
mtbdudex is offline  
post #1083 of 1283 Old 10-20-2013, 07:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Right on,Sanjay.

How the channels are delivered is up to the folks giving us the technology, and I really don't care as long as it's done well, and Mike's experience indicates that matrixing is just fine.
Scott Simonian likes this.

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #1084 of 1283 Old 10-20-2013, 08:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Woof Woof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 38
While I understand the technical merits of discrete 11.2 (or more) or even sound objects, I also subscribe to the concept of Neo X. It is downwards compatible to everything else in the market and does a very great job of creating a 3D sound field.

I have experienced Atmos in the cinema and while it is impressive during the demo, once the movie started, I didn't think it was a gigantic change from watching in a regular 7.1 theatre. I actually noticed more stuff watching the old Cars 2 in 7.1 Dolby in the cinema than Oz. I also found Oz on my home system (with NeoX) to be more involving.
audiofan1 likes this.
Woof Woof is offline  
post #1085 of 1283 Old 10-21-2013, 05:33 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Going from 5.1 to 5.1 EX wasn't a step "backwards" since it resulted in distinct surround content at your left, at your right, and behind you (which couldn't be done with 5.1 playback).

For folks like Noah and myself, this isn't an absolutist all (discrete) or nothing proposition. Like him, I'd be fine with additional speaker feeds that were matrix derived, considering the alternative is not having those additional speakers at all.

And by matrix derived, I don't mean "the Dolby Surround days". You make it sound asthough surround processing technology has remained absolutely still over the last three decades. Mike's brief experience with the Neo:X demo disc demonstrates otherwise (the additional channels sounded discrete to him).

I can attest to the added channels sounding discrete. Neo:X (9.2 for me with front heights) and a Steelers football game is amazing! You really sound like you are sitting IN the crowd of people at the stadium. It is very well done.
cybrsage is offline  
post #1086 of 1283 Old 10-21-2013, 09:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
Patrick Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Nokomis, Fl. USA
Posts: 586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Fine if you are a Steelers fan but consider being a Niners fan at the Oakland Col. in the middle of the "black hole".
Where is the MONO button???
thegimmper likes this.

Patrick
Patrick Collins is offline  
post #1087 of 1283 Old 10-21-2013, 10:25 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Collins View Post

Fine if you are a Steelers fan but consider being a Niners fan at the Oakland Col. in the middle of the "black hole".
Where is the MONO button???

biggrin.gif Or worse, an Eagles fan and have to be surrounded by obnoxious, drunk, jerks cursing continuously...
cybrsage is offline  
post #1088 of 1283 Old 10-21-2013, 02:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,534
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 507 Post(s)
Liked: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof View Post

While I understand the technical merits of discrete 11.2 (or more) or even sound objects, I also subscribe to the concept of Neo X. It is downwards compatible to everything else in the market and does a very great job of creating a 3D sound field.

I have experienced Atmos in the cinema and while it is impressive during the demo, once the movie started, I didn't think it was a gigantic change from watching in a regular 7.1 theatre. I actually noticed more stuff watching the old Cars 2 in 7.1 Dolby in the cinema than Oz. I also found Oz on my home system (with NeoX) to be more involving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

I can attest to the added channels sounding discrete. Neo:X (9.2 for me with front heights) and a Steelers football game is amazing! You really sound like you are sitting IN the crowd of people at the stadium. It is very well done.

Not that it was a very good movie IMHO, but Gravity's Atmos mix is more of a showcase of object-based audio's potential capabilities than most previous titles (Oblivion being an exception). You could not do what Gravity's sound mixers did with Neo:X. No way, no how. Object audio is a totally different animal, and a superior one at that. I'd go so far as to say it's a game changer.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #1089 of 1283 Old 10-21-2013, 02:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Not that it was a very good movie IMHO, but Gravity's Atmos mix is more of a showcase of object-based audio's potential capabilities than most previous titles (Oblivion being an exception). You could not do what Gravity's sound mixers did with Neo:X. No way, no how. Object audio is a totally different animal, and a superior one at that. I'd go so far as to say it's a game changer.

I must admit to being confused . . . I would expect the results of rendering an object based soundtrack to an 11.1 (7.1 Standard + Front Height Pair + Front Wide Pair) speaker configuration for playback to yield the same output per speaker regardless of whether the rendering is performed on the sound mixer's workstation (for delivery on a DTS-HDMA 7.1/Neo:X 11.1 discrete+matrix encoded BD) or on an object capable AVR in your home theater...?
_

[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 #1090 of 1283 Old 10-21-2013, 02:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 840 Post(s)
Liked: 782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

You could not do what Gravity's sound mixers did with Neo:X.
Then the choice is whether to enjoy some height effects with a Neo:X encoded Blu-ray or no height effects at all while waiting for Atmos to reach consumer gear. Since this isn't an all or nothing proposition for me, I would take some height effect over none at all. You can wait for Atmos.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #1091 of 1283 Old 10-21-2013, 02:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,376
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1085 Post(s)
Liked: 1526
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

You could not do what Gravity's sound mixers did with Neo:X.
Then the choice is whether to enjoy some height effects with a Neo:X encoded Blu-ray or no height effects at all while waiting for Atmos to reach consumer gear. Since this isn't an all or nothing proposition for me, I would take some height effect over none at all. You can wait for Atmos.

 

On that Expendables disc with the 'sound check' I was exceptionally impressed at the way they put sound in my height speakers, with no leakage into any other channels. I'd find it hard to imagine that discrete height channels would be any better. And like you, I'll take that now thanks very much if the alternative is to wait till who-knows-when for Atmos (or even discrete 11.1).

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1092 of 1283 Old 10-21-2013, 02:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ss9001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: metro Atlanta
Posts: 8,545
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

You can wait for Atmos.

I do hope we don't have to wait too long wink.gif for it and DTS MDA. but then, we'll have to wait for the BDA & the studios. but at least the decoders will be in our sweaty hands biggrin.gif

I'm very much looking forward to having Atmos & MDA. I do think it will be "game changing".

Steve
ss9001 is offline  
post #1093 of 1283 Old 10-21-2013, 03:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 840 Post(s)
Liked: 782
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

And like you, I'll take that now thanks very much if the alternative is to wait till who-knows-when for Atmos (or even discrete 11.1).
They'll never let you into the purist audiophile club if you continue to enjoy matrix derived channels that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

I'm very much looking forward to having Atmos & MDA.
Sure, who isn't? It's going to be one of the more exciting changes to this hobby. The question is, what to do until Atmos arrives or until there are more discrete channels? Use surround processing to scale 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks to 9 or 11 speakers? Or just keep waiting for Atmos and/or more discrete channels before going past 7 speakers?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #1094 of 1283 Old 10-21-2013, 04:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ss9001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: metro Atlanta
Posts: 8,545
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked: 286
^^
use NeoX and IIz, of course wink.gif no debate there.
zuluwalker likes this.

Steve
ss9001 is offline  
post #1095 of 1283 Old 10-21-2013, 04:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,534
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 507 Post(s)
Liked: 330
The BDA is supposed to start having some preliminary specs. for UHD media by the end of the year. Let's hope they don't disappoint.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #1096 of 1283 Old 10-22-2013, 02:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,376
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1085 Post(s)
Liked: 1526
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

And like you, I'll take that now thanks very much if the alternative is to wait till who-knows-when for Atmos (or even discrete 11.1).
They'll never let you into the purist audiophile club if you continue to enjoy matrix derived channels that way.
 

 

I'm with Marx on this one. Groucho, not Karl ;)

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1097 of 1283 Old 10-22-2013, 06:25 PM
Just add water and stir
 
zuluwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I'm with Marx on this one. Groucho, not Karl wink.gif

Haha awesome!

Karl has so few friends.
zuluwalker is offline  
post #1098 of 1283 Old 10-22-2013, 09:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 840 Post(s)
Liked: 782
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I'm with Marx on this one. Groucho, not Karl wink.gif
"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #1099 of 1283 Old 10-23-2013, 02:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,376
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1085 Post(s)
Liked: 1526


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Karl has so few friends.
 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I'm with Marx on this one. Groucho, not Karl wink.gif
"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."

 

:)  It has more of a ring to it than “The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope”, for sure :) 

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1100 of 1283 Old 10-25-2013, 02:48 PM
Member
 
bladou20's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I originally posted my impressions of Neo X a few pages back. They were not favorable initially, especially since I thought so highly of PL2Z. My feelings on it changed once I put the width speakers in.
My SC-67 only allows for heights or widths, but not both. My impressions on the width speakers are that they add more than height speakers. I played the new clash of the titans, and noticed immediately that the decoder was functioning differently. Originally sounds moving from the front to rear seemed awkward. They seemed to pan from the front to the surround back channels, practically skipping the left and right surround. This made the rear sound field seem narrow. Now they seem to pan much more naturally. I also noticed sounds that were re assigned to the width speakers. Medusa's tail rattle in the left width speaker for instance, instead of the front left. I replayed it several times while putting my head next to the speaker and the sound was very discrete. I noticed a similar effect in the Mask. Immediately after he robs the bank and twirls out, the twirling seems to fly all the way over to the right width speaker. I do notice the lack of height speakers, but not as much as I thought I would. So I plan to keep this configuration for a while.
bladou20 is offline  
post #1101 of 1283 Old 10-25-2013, 04:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 367 Post(s)
Liked: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by bladou20 View Post

Originally sounds moving from the front to rear seemed awkward. They seemed to pan from the front to the surround back channels, practically skipping the left and right surround. This made the rear sound field seem narrow.
Good to hear you are getting good results. Mind a few questions?

Do you happen to have a DTS demo disc or one of the few Neo:X discs that has the "11.1 channel ID" test? If so, I'd like your impression of the wide speakers on/off when playing the wide channel tests. In both cases, you should get good localization between L/Lss and R/Rss speakers. If it is dramatically better with the wide speakers in use, it might suggest the other channels are not quite optimally calibrated, either time-wise or EQ.

It would help to know what speakers are in use and where they are positioned.

Cheers!
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #1102 of 1283 Old 10-25-2013, 05:28 PM
Member
 
bladou20's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
No problem. I have the Dredd disc and ran the test sounds to try it out. I started out with the width channels enabled and then disabled them. There was not as much of a difference with the right hand side of the room when I switched them off. The left side of the room was a different story. The sound from the left width channel was noticeably further to the side. My room is cramped, especially on the right side, so I wasn't surprised the sound was less discrete.
My room is small. No larger than 20" x 15". I have ascend 340's across the front, with the CBM-170 as the width speaker. They are all below ear level, except the right width speaker which is at ear level. The surround speakers are bipoles and are all about a foot above ear level. So I basically sit no further than 3 or 4 feet from any one of the speakers. I believe the height gap between the fronts and surround was too great for any eq to fix and the width channels helped with it.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I had previously placed the width speakers higher and noticed that the pans from front to back were much more natural. It wasn't until I placed them lower that I noticed sounds being more discrete in them.
bladou20 is offline  
post #1103 of 1283 Old 10-25-2013, 09:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Woof Woof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 38
ps Man of Steel doesn't mention DTX Neo X but I recall Hans Zimmer doing a special on MoS with Neo X processing. Watched it last night and I have to say it does sound good with the full 11.x Neo X processing.
Woof Woof is offline  
post #1104 of 1283 Old 10-26-2013, 01:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 367 Post(s)
Liked: 225
Thanks for the details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bladou20 View Post

The left side of the room was a different story. The sound from the left width channel was noticeably further to the side. My room is cramped, especially on the right side, so I wasn't surprised the sound was less discrete. My room is small. No larger than 20" x 15".
Wow, that is a small room. eek.gif Wait, maybe you meant 20' x 15'. tongue.gif

Cramped?? -- now I'm feeling positively claustrophobic in my 17' x 11.5' theater. But it seems you are sharing your theater system with other functions, a living room for example, and that can indeed impose on the setup. It may not be possible to get symmetrical phantom wide imaging in that case.

Are the surrounds placed optimally or are they maybe a little narrower due to room constraints?
Quote:
Edit: I forgot to mention that I had previously placed the width speakers higher and noticed that the pans from front to back were much more natural. It wasn't until I placed them lower that I noticed sounds being more discrete in them.
Which do you prefer, discrete or natural?
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #1105 of 1283 Old 10-26-2013, 05:52 AM
Member
 
bladou20's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Thanks for the details.
Wow, that is a small room. eek.gif Wait, maybe you meant 20' x 15'. tongue.gif

Lol. Thanks for catching that. I must have been half asleep when I posted that. I was guessing the room measurements from another room when typing that. I measured it and it's actually 13'x 9'.
Quote:
Cramped?? -- now I'm feeling positively claustrophobic in my 17' x 11.5' theater. But it seems you are sharing your theater system with other functions, a living room for example, and that can indeed impose on the setup. It may not be possible to get symmetrical phantom wide imaging in that case.

It's set up in a bedroom, which has a bunk bed and a desk.
Quote:
Are the surrounds placed optimally or are they maybe a little narrower due to room constraints?

No, they are narrower than they should be
Quote:
Which do you prefer, discrete or natural?

I definitely prefer the discrete sound. I didn't know what I was missing until I put them in. Even ambience from matrixed content sounds better.
bladou20 is offline  
post #1106 of 1283 Old 10-26-2013, 11:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 367 Post(s)
Liked: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by bladou20 View Post

No, they are narrower than they should be
I was wondering if that contributes to your description of the rear sound field seeming narrow.

I have found, in my room, that the rear speakers sound narrower than the front speakers when at the same angle. It's an easy test. Play some 2-ch content with obvious L/R cues. Listen in stereo -- notice the sound image width. Rotate your chair 180 degrees. How does the sound image feel?

To me it closes down somewhat, so I have my fronts form a 60 deg angle and the rears form a 90 deg angle. I still get direct rear effects when the sound is equal in both rear channels, but I also feel the rear width better.
Quote:
I definitely prefer the discrete sound. I didn't know what I was missing until I put them in. Even ambience from matrixed content sounds better.
Carry on! wink.gif
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #1107 of 1283 Old 10-28-2013, 05:46 AM
Member
 
bladou20's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I already have my fronts at a 50 degree angle. But after reading what you wrote, maybe I should try putting them out a little further since I sit close to them.

Edit: Probably closer to 50
bladou20 is offline  
post #1108 of 1283 Old 10-28-2013, 05:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,654
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by bladou20 View Post

I already have my fronts at a 60 degree angle. But after reading what you wrote, maybe I should try putting them out a little further since I sit close to them.

For movies - perhaps, but if you listen to music in stereo as well you are already too wide.

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #1109 of 1283 Old 10-28-2013, 11:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 367 Post(s)
Liked: 225
^^ Where is it written that 60 degrees is automatically too wide for stereo?

a) I do not find that in my case

b) One might want to tweak the angle as different rooms and speakers react differently:
Quote:
If the speakers are too far apart, you'll hear a "hole in the middle" effect, where the sound seems to come from both speakers, with a noticeable lack of sound between them. If they are too close together, the sound will be bunched up in the middle, depth and imaging will be lacking, and the sound will not appear to extend outside the speakers' edges.
Per Frank Doris.

c) If one has a center speaker, that can also be employed to help anchor the center image. Stereo content is not confined to 2-speaker playback.

d) Are headphones too wide for stereo? biggrin.gif If not, why not?
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #1110 of 1283 Old 10-28-2013, 11:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,654
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

^^ Where is it written that 60 degrees is automatically too wide for stereo?

HRTF-data clearly shows that you need to keep it at 21-23 degree range to achieve the most believable 'virtual center' imaging.

For cinema use where you do have a center you're not as locked down by this, but I did refer to 2-channel stereo listening if that wasn't obvious.

Uness you have those rare dummy head recordings, you need crossfeed to avoid the "in head" odd presentation. In effect, generating HRTF.

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

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

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