DTS Neo.X

"Honey, we're going to need a whole lot more of them speaker thingys!"


["11.1 'down' . . . 11.1 'to go'. At least we're 'half way' to 22.2...!?" ]

M Code,

Do you know if DTS Neo.X can operate without a center channel speaker (unlike Audyssey DSX which requires a center)?

So far so good.

Did you then activate Neo.x (I can turn the center off on my 4311 but then DSX is unavailable)?

I just noticed you said processor, not receiver.

I imagine you're not at liberty to say what kind, but how about an approximate price range?

How would it jumpstart sales if there's no >7.1 content and no mass audience to decode it?

An AP20 or DL2, perhaps?

Yes. And BD handles 7.1 already. What would Neo:X bring to the party?

I dont know if the mixdown requirements are similar to dolby M Code but apart from the obvious dsp algorithm being applied to 5.1/7.1 etc material this '' content encoded in neo x '' has me intrigued . Is it possible 11.1 remixed discrete soundtracks ;from the vast majority 5.1 mixes; is the aim ?

The paucity of 7.1 titles and studios attitudes to this remixing [cost?] doesnt engender a lot of hope .. Not that I wouldnt like to see such remixes A lot of fans of wide front speakers so fascinating to see developments

Probably a stupid question but can newer receivers such as the Denon 4311 be able to download the newer decoding formats? I only ask because I am buying a new AVR this summer and if Neo X can't be downloaded, I think I'll just wait till the new model comes out.

I would imagine it is doubtful that it can be added via a firmware update.

Cool thanks Easyaspie, I guess I wait till the newer receivers come out!

What does your above claim about studios matrix encoding content in Neo:X in order to jump start lagging Blu-ray sales have to do with blind upmixing in receivers? Receivers already exist with 11.2 pre-outs (e.g., Denon 4311). What would Neo:X bring to the party, except a different flavour of upmixing?

Actually, it's not clear that encoded DTS-HDMA 11.1 content would be matrixed. Remember that the 'architecture' of the DTS bitstream allowed DTS to insert a discrete Center Surround into the DTS DVD encodes . . . which retained backward compatibility with both DTS5.1 and DTS6.1-ES(Matrix) 'earlier generation' decoders. There's no obvious reason DTS cannot include [the components for] alternative 7.1 and 11.1 discrete channel mixes into the DTS-HDMA bitstream, with the 11.1 mix only accessible from a ('next generation', Neo:X) DTS-HDMA 11.1 compliant decoder.

A DTS version probably has a lot more chance than Audyssey DSX of being picked up by most or all manufacturers, and since DTS encoders are already used on most BDs there's a good chance of seeing 11.2 content encoded (matrixed or otherwise) on new disks, which would never happen with the current Audyssey solution.

What I wonder is whether some manufacturers currently using Audyssey DSX will drop it in favour of the DTS solution (why pay two sets of license fees?).

The exact method DTS used for Discrete 6.1 ES already exists in the BD spec for HDMA and TrueHD. Several flavors of 7.1 can be carried, not just the one we see in BD discs thus far with 4 surrounds. For example, a 5.1 plus a pair of heights, or wides (of a few flavors) can be handled. And those channels can be further matrix encoded so, for example, the Lh/Rh speakers could carry 3/4/5 overhead signals while the Ls/Rs carries 4 surrounds, thus yielding a total of 12.1 "channels" in a fully compatible way. In addition, BD can carry several additional discrete channels using TrueHD (maybe HDMA, too) by adding additional substreams. It, too, would be perfectly compatible with existing BD players, since that was already defined at the time of the initial BD spec.

Cool, so why don't we see 12.1 "real" content? No one is mixing like that, and if they did, no decoders would understand it. Classic "chicken and egg" problem.

As for Neo:X, like any matrix technology, it is a means to deliver additional channels when discrete pipes are not available, such as the 12.1 -->7.1 case described above. Neo:X encoding, per JJ's interview with Scott Wilkinson, is a form of downmixing with specific embedded cues to help the decoder find and recover the channels. This most resembles what Neural poetically called "watermarking." In that sense, even though the details differ, it is conceptually like other matrix techniques.

7.1 is available as discrete from BD or even DD+. The paucity of 7.1 titles does not look too encouraging for 9.1 and 11.1 mixes, particularly since no theaters or home gear know how to decode those.

If blind upmixing is what you want, yes indeed I'd expect Neo:X to do that nicely, much better than Neural now that JJ & Jot are on the case.

But that does nothing to drive sales of BD, since upmixing works with any existing content. Logic7 and PLIIx do nothing to drive sales of content of any kind. It will take a lot more than the presence of a new decoder in a small proportion of AVRs to jumpstart the market for BD.

Roger,

What do you want to bet that Audyssey will not allow MultEQ and Neo.X to run concurrently, just like PLIIz? I believe this will be the sole reason that DSX will survive (for the time being anyway).

doug.

Does the BD spec allow for playback of more than 8 discrete channels of audio?

My bad. Its Dolby Volume that Audyssey doesn't allow to co-exist with MultEQ.

Consumer 7.1 hardware came out 20 years before any 7.1 software was released on BD. Plenty of people already had 5.1 speaker layouts years before there was any 5.1 material. So receivers can already do 11.1, but you think this particular flavour of 11.1 matrix upmixing will jump start lagging BD sales? And you believe Neo:X will do this because it "sounds excellant" to your ears?

I don't see the connection between the various claims you're making. Studios aren't compelled to mix beyond 5.1, that has nothing to do with greater BD sales, neither of which have anything to do with post-processing in receivers. They unrelated. Neo:6 going to change all that?

Ok. Based on all the the above, I'm still trying to figure out where that leaves your original assertion?

Looks like a non-starter even based your on own perspective, and on that I fully agree.

I have, as well as their previous 11.1 iterations (which used 2 heights and 6 surrounds, no wides).
That's nothing new: surround processing has traditionally been used to scale the number of source channels to the number of playback speakers. So it doesn't really matter if studios go beyond 5.1 mixes.

But what does any of that have to do with your earlier claim about studios using Neo:X encoded content to jumpstart lagging BD sales? Besides, what would they encode? (Don't tell me there's an 11.1-channel mix of 'The Haunting' that's been sitting on the shelf all these years, just waiting for DTS to come up with the delivery/playback technology.)

It never ceases to amaze me how DTS's technologies somehow manage to gain magical properties. A few years ago, folks were convinced that DTS-HD MA sounded better than the uncompressed PCM it was sourced from. And now matrix processing that will boost BD sales. They make the marketing department at Bose look like rank amatuers by comparison.

Off topic, but if they want to increase Blu-ray sales, get rid of Java.
Making Blu-ray players slower AND dumber
(ex. can't return to where you watching a movie, after a stop/power cycle)
than DVD is just plain stupid.

Now, back to our regular scheduled program.

Certainly is a chicken/egg situation Roger ; the bd distributors down here in Aus are more likely to release a 7.1 US title as 5.1 ; region free chips are very popular for amazon purchases

If this was a driver for sales I wonder when the current hdmi limit of 8ch will be expanded to the 16ch capability ; not for awhile going on the permutations you listed