DTS Neo.X - Page 37 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
First ... 35  36  37 38  39  ... Last
Receivers, Amps, and Processors > DTS Neo.X
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 03:00 PM 10-20-2013
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).

mtbdudex's Avatar mtbdudex 06:12 PM 10-20-2013
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
noah katz's Avatar noah katz 08:15 PM 10-20-2013
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.
Woof Woof's Avatar Woof Woof 09:53 PM 10-20-2013
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.
cybrsage's Avatar cybrsage 06:33 AM 10-21-2013
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.
Patrick Collins's Avatar Patrick Collins 10:15 AM 10-21-2013
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???
cybrsage's Avatar cybrsage 11:25 AM 10-21-2013
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...
Dan Hitchman's Avatar Dan Hitchman 03:04 PM 10-21-2013
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.
SoundChex's Avatar SoundChex 03:35 PM 10-21-2013
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...?
_
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 03:37 PM 10-21-2013
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.
kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 03:51 PM 10-21-2013
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).


ss9001's Avatar ss9001 03:57 PM 10-21-2013
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".
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 04:59 PM 10-21-2013
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?
ss9001's Avatar ss9001 05:15 PM 10-21-2013
^^
use NeoX and IIz, of course wink.gif no debate there.
Dan Hitchman's Avatar Dan Hitchman 05:56 PM 10-21-2013
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.
kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 03:47 AM 10-22-2013
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 ;)


zuluwalker's Avatar zuluwalker 07:25 PM 10-22-2013
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.
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 10:41 PM 10-22-2013
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."
kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 03:07 AM 10-23-2013


 

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 :) 


bladou20's Avatar bladou20 03:48 PM 10-25-2013
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.
Roger Dressler's Avatar Roger Dressler 05:50 PM 10-25-2013
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!
bladou20's Avatar bladou20 06:28 PM 10-25-2013
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.
Woof Woof's Avatar Woof Woof 10:32 PM 10-25-2013
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.
Roger Dressler's Avatar Roger Dressler 02:02 AM 10-26-2013
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?
bladou20's Avatar bladou20 06:52 AM 10-26-2013
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.

Roger Dressler's Avatar Roger Dressler 12:35 PM 10-26-2013
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
bladou20's Avatar bladou20 06:46 AM 10-28-2013
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
Nightlord's Avatar Nightlord 06:51 AM 10-28-2013
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.
Roger Dressler's Avatar Roger Dressler 12:25 PM 10-28-2013
^^ 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?
Nightlord's Avatar Nightlord 12:50 PM 10-28-2013
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.
Tags: Dts , Denon Avr 4311ci 9 2 Channel Network Multi Room Home Theater Receiver With Hdmi 1 4a
First ... 35  36  37 38  39  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop