or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › DTS Neo.X
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DTS Neo.X - Page 36

post #1051 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

3, but what does that have to do with anything? Like asking how many BDs are encoded with PLIIx or PLIIz or Auro-3D.

Neo:X is surround processing, intended to be used with unencoded sources. That doesn't change just because one studio decided to matrix heights & wides into 3 of its home video releases.

You gonna ask Curt how many BDs are encoded with Trinnov remapping?

True but many who have NEO X decoding would ideally like source material mixed to give the best possible result. Even the DTS site displays Expendables 2.

I'd like to know if more NEO X releases are on the way.

In terms of Trinnov processing, the main advantage that I see is the remapping that 'repositions' speakers to their ideal places in the room so as to best take advantage of encodings like DTS NEO X (amongst other things).
post #1052 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

True but many who have NEO X decoding would ideally like source material mixed to give the best possible result.
Sure, but that is rarely (if ever) the case with surround processing. The ubiquitousness of PLIIx wasn't related to matrix encoded soundtracks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Even the DTS site displays Expendables 2.
'Dredd' and 'Step Up: Revolution' also have Neo:X encoded heights and wides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

In terms of Trinnov processing, the main advantage that I see is the remapping that 'repositions' speakers to their ideal places in the room so as to best take advantage of encodings like DTS NEO X (amongst other things).
My point was that Trinnov's method of scaling 5.1 channels to more than 5.1 speakers isn't related to encoded material. The same holds true for other methods of scaling channels to speakers (PLIIz, Neo:X, Auro-3D).
post #1053 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Basic module 8 channels - matches what we have today. Each additional module, another 8 channels ( no one except the extreme enthusiasts will ever buy more than one, already 8 channels is more than WAF will allow for the majority of the population anyway... ).

You're basically just adding surround speakers into the mix for a more precise 3D audio experience (front wides, duplicate sides and backs, duplicate overheads) because 9.1 is the base channel bed configuration (front L/C/R, side left/right, back left/right, overhead left/right, LFE), and anything beyond that is for better sound spread and effects localization for the renderer to map to depending on the metadata positional cues of the original track.

So, they'd have to lay out these modular output units in accordance with that situation. The consumer then has multiple choices depending on how sophisticated he/she wants to go (with plug-in modular units available for even the most basic 5.1 model)...

A) The basic 5.1 layout with backs and overheads blended into the other channels and objects rendered to fixed locations within the 5.1 layout. Additional surround subwoofer outputs as an option via bass management.

B) An upgraded 7.1 layout with overheads blended into the other channels and objects rendered to fixed locations within the 7.1 layout. Additional surround subwoofer outputs as an option via bass management.

C) A deluxe 9.1 layout using all the channel beds and objects rendered to fixed locations within the 9.1 layout. Additional surround subwoofer outputs as an option via bass management.

>>It's possible the renderer could create phantom speaker locations using psycho-acoustic means if there weren't extra speakers in locations it expects to find (like in one of these above scenarios). However, the more physical speaker locations you have, the more precise the presentation. That technique could be used even in the basic 5.1 models.<<

D) The full 9.1 channel plus objects soundtrack is decoded with full object x-y-z mapping. Object-based surround rendering available via outboard output device(s) for receivers (since there isn't enough room otherwise). Some pre-amps may be able add additional outputs beyond 9.1 to their base configuration since the chassis has more room due to the lack of built-in amplifiers with additional, output devices available as needed.

Object soundtrack audio data and renderer control data is made with one proprietary digital interconnect cable vs. the two Ethernet cables used in commercial applications when attaching the base unit and add-on output device(s).

Everything is completely scalable... a totally new approach to surround... something you absolutely cannot get on headphones and ipods or computers! Obviously, the surround processor chips in all these object-oriented soundtrack-friendly products will need to be more sophisticated and more powerful than previously available in consumer gear. Though, if most outdated analog A/V inputs/outputs (like composite, S-Video, and component video) were eliminated, that production cost could shift towards better processing chips.

An audiophile rebirth!
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 9/28/13 at 1:09pm
post #1054 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Roger, so what path do you envision the BDA will likely go down for UHD Blu-ray on the audio side?
As I mentioned a few posts ago, it looks like next BD is about 4k video, with the audio specs remaining as they are.
Quote:
9.1 channels + objects (basically, in the Dolby Atmos layout... 7.1 + stereo overhead channels for height effects and some expanded music ambiance, and optional surround channel subwoofer outputs)?
I expect all of the above except the extra subwoofer signal. That would be a function of the decoder's bass management. And in a home situation there's no need for a separate rear subwoofer since the distances are quite short compared with a cinema. We already bass manage the surrounds just fine, do we not?
Quote:
Use traditional DTS-MA or Dolby TrueHD and then tack on metadata controlled object extension sound files that a software object renderer in a receiver or pre-amp will then map to the appropriate speaker locations of the consumer's choosing?
Yes, that sounds quite plausible.
post #1055 of 1226
That would be a major oversight of the BDA since we probably wouldn't see a new disc format for what... two more years, maybe? Sony and Panasonic have, as mentioned previously, come up with a 300+ GB disc platform. You'd think they could place impressive UHD and object oriented audio on something like this.
post #1056 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

That would be a major oversight of the BDA since we probably wouldn't see a new disc format for what... two more years, maybe? Sony and Panasonic have, as mentioned previously, come up with a 300+ GB disc platform. You'd think they could place impressive UHD and object oriented audio on something like this.
Where's the oversight? As I said a few posts ago, "I think the first and best examples of object audio will be theatrical content on 4kBD."
post #1057 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Where's the oversight? As I said a few posts ago, "I think the first and best examples of object audio will be theatrical content on 4kBD."

But didn't you just say that the next Blu-ray disc format will probably emphasize UHD video and keep the audio the same (the same would be 8 channel lossless)? Therefore, IMHO, a big oversight by the BDA. They'll need more than just video to sell this to the public or it will remain a niche within a niche product. 3D audio, I bet, would go over more dramatically than 3D video did. No glasses, no eye strain, etc.
post #1058 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

But didn't you just say that the next Blu-ray disc format will probably emphasize UHD video and keep the audio the same (the same would be 8 channel lossless)?
The format specs for audio are not changing. The current DTS and Dolby codecs can be used to deliver object audio. The players will ignore the extensions -- thinking they are just regular 7.1 soundtracks, but new AV processors will know what to do. wink.gif
post #1059 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

The format specs for audio are not changing. The current DTS and Dolby codecs can be used to deliver object audio. The players will ignore the extensions -- thinking they are just regular 7.1 soundtracks, but new AV processors will know what to do. wink.gif

However, do you expect that DTS and Dolby might go with 9.1 as a base channel bed, utilizing discrete stereo overhead height channels in addition to the standard 7.1 speaker layout and then add objects on top of that? If the theatrical versions of these formats (MDA and Atmos) have 9.1 channel beds + objects, wouldn't keeping things the same simplify the mixing/rendering process?

Home theater systems, even if not using the extra speakers and subs (beyond 9.1) and pin-point 3D aspect of an object-based sound system, would then have the ability to have the height channels as a bonus. 9.1 can be utilized for multi-channel music mixes as well in order to impart a more seamless sound field IMHO.
post #1060 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

However, do you expect that DTS and Dolby might go with 9.1 as a base channel bed, utilizing discrete stereo overhead height channels in addition to the standard 7.1 speaker layout and then add objects on top of that? If the theatrical versions of these formats (MDA and Atmos) have 9.1 channel beds + objects, wouldn't keeping things the same simplify the mixing/rendering process?

Home theater systems, even if not using the extra speakers and subs (beyond 9.1) and pin-point 3D aspect of an object-based sound system, would then have the ability to have the height channels as a bonus. 9.1 can be utilized for multi-channel music mixes as well in order to impart a more seamless sound field IMHO.

Ugh.

I want to believe!!!

redface.gif
post #1061 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

However, do you expect that DTS and Dolby might go with 9.1 as a base channel bed, utilizing discrete stereo overhead height channels in addition to the standard 7.1 speaker layout and then add objects on top of that?
A 9.1 bed can have different configurations: 7.1 main + 2 overhead; 7.1 main + 2 wides; 5 screen channels + 4 surrounds. The mixers/producers will decide.
Quote:
If the theatrical versions of these formats (MDA and Atmos) have 9.1 channel beds + objects, wouldn't keeping things the same simplify the mixing/rendering process?
No. The cinema and home renderers will be happy to deal with whatever comes.
post #1062 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

A 9.1 bed can have different configurations: 7.1 main + 2 overhead; 7.1 main + 2 wides; 5 screen channels + 4 surrounds. The mixers/producers will decide.
No. The cinema and home renderers will be happy to deal with whatever comes.

I would think, since the vast majority of home theaters do not have a big enough screen (even those with projection systems) to handle 5 screen speakers or LCR + wides, that 7.1 + dual overhead channels would seem like the better base configuration (with bass management options of front and surround subwoofer outputs beyond the LFE channel). Then you can tack on as many extra speakers beyond that as the renderer can map and take full advantage of object based surround.

In fact, the back of the UHD disc case should have an easy to read diagram of which extra speakers beyond the base 9.1 layout were utilized in the object based mix, so you can fully optimize your layout to get the most from the soundtrack (if you so choose). Just so long as the sound engineers don't have wildly divergent speaker schemes, or that will create mass confusion. Or at the very least, in the audio menu of the disc, it will have a 3D visual diagram of the speaker configuration of the original mix, for your edification. This is something they should have done for Blu-ray, but didn't.
post #1063 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View PostA 9.1 bed can have different configurations: 7.1 main + 2 overhead; 7.1 main + 2 wides; 5 screen channels + 4 surrounds. The mixers/producers will decide.
No. The cinema and home renderers will be happy to deal with whatever comes.

Yes bring it on :)

post #1064 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I would think, since the vast majority of home theaters do not have a big enough screen (even those with projection systems) to handle 5 screen speakers or LCR + wides, that 7.1 + dual overhead channels would seem like the better base configuration (with bass management options of front and surround subwoofer outputs beyond the LFE channel). Then you can tack on as many extra speakers beyond that as the renderer can map and take full advantage of object based surround.
The mixes are decided based on theatrical considerations, not home use. There could be an opportunity to reconfigure things when the track is remastered for home use, but I would not count on it, especially since that can be handled by the home renderer.
Quote:
In fact, the back of the UHD disc case should have an easy to read diagram of which extra speakers beyond the base 9.1 layout were utilized in the object based mix, so you can fully optimize your layout to get the most from the soundtrack (if you so choose).
That's why I designed the "channel icons" for DVD to show which channels are utilized. But the idea of object audio is to disconnect from the tyranny of attempting to match the home system to the dubbing stage. The home system can be configured to attain whatever degree of spatial detail over the seating area as desired without worrying about what was used elsewhere, particularly because it will not be practical to put 30-40 speakers in a home system.
post #1065 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post............ the idea of object audio is to disconnect from the tyranny of attempting to match the home system to the dubbing stage.
Agreed  100%
The home system can be configured to attain whatever degree of spatial detail over the seating area as desired without worrying about what was used elsewhere, particularly because it will not be practical to put 30-40 speakers in a home system.
Really! oh come on 30 speakers in a 12 x 14 x 9! :)
post #1066 of 1226
The latest AES Convention in a couple of weeks is going to have a workshop titled:

"Height Channels: Theory, Practice, and "Ears-On" Experience"

http://www.aes.org/events/135/workshops/?ID=3653

Hopefully this is a good sign for the future of 3D audio.
post #1067 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

It will not be practical to put 30-40 speakers in a home system.

Try telling that to some of the members on this and other home theater forums. wink.gif Well, maybe home object-based equipment could go into the 20-30 speaker range at least. biggrin.gif
post #1068 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Try telling that to some of the members on this and other home theater forums. wink.gif Well, maybe home object-based equipment could go into the 20-30 speaker range at least. biggrin.gif

I'm putting 25 speakers in and it's getting rather crowded. I'd say 40 is well out of the question, they'd more or less sit on top of eachother then.
post #1069 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View PostI'm putting 25 speakers in and it's getting rather crowded. I'd say 40 is well out of the question, they'd more or less sit on top of eachother then.

25 how big is the room and what kind of speakers?

post #1070 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

25 how big is the room and what kind of speakers?

Acoustic-wise it's ~340sq.feet Physically the cinema room it's about 230. (Back wall is semi-acoustical-transparent)

Left & right fronts, center, front highs, front wides, 3 surround rights, 3 surround lefts, 2 back surrounds, 4 "voice of god" (planning to use center channel info matrixed out from side surrounds for this).

( Mainly Ino Audio speakers. Front high and wides are Carlsson Ortho-acoustic. )


Here's a visualisation attempt. The art deco pillars may never happen. Back surrounds not shown.
Allspeakers.jpg
Edited by Nightlord - 10/3/13 at 12:09am
post #1071 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

I'm putting 25 speakers in and it's getting rather crowded. I'd say 40 is well out of the question, they'd more or less sit on top of eachother then.

What are using to process? Trinnov or Datasat (though I think Datasat is maxed at 16 channels)? Trinnov has an 'up to 64 outputs' model similar to the MC.. Cool!
post #1072 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

What are using to process? Trinnov or Datasat (though I think Datasat is maxed at 16 channels)? Trinnov has an 'up to 64 outputs' model similar to the MC.. Cool!

It''s planned for neo:x/dsx + own method for voice of god. So.... 12.2 over 25 speakers.
(6 subs, 3 speakers each side surround and 4 for voice of God.)

But having all those speakers in place before upcoming formats will be good. But pulling new wires at that point will be a bitch....
post #1073 of 1226
Got my 2013 DTS blu-ray demo disc this week from DTS marketing rep
IMG_5328.jpg

Did the full Neo:X 11.1 Dredd sound check biggrin.gif
IMG_5330.jpg

It is pretty cool to hear discrete sound from all 11.1 speakers, including the wides
IMG_5326.jpg . IMG_5327.jpg
and heights
IMG_5324.jpg . IMG_5325.jpg

HT%252011.3%2520cover%2520off%2520Pano-b.jpg

Then listening to all these clips Thursday evening was pretty cool as well, my 3 kids really love doing this with me.
IMG_5331.jpg

I'm left wondering why with all the hype for VOG speakers/etc that more people have not adopted Neo:X, and more studios have not released more content in Neo:X.

It's here now, ready here now, not in 2-3 years away.
Has marketing given up? Has the consumer market pushed back?
Whats going on for so slow adoption?

Every time I watch/listen to movies, I'm blown away by the Neo:X processing.

Are we here truly the outliers, the 0.001% of HT public on the cutting edge?
Nobody at my work "gets it", most are in 5.1, just a few have 7.1 surround.


Heck - watching Star Wars III last night was a total treat, we all loved how the 6.1 was up-converted to 11.2 via my Denon 4520
IMG_5334.jpg . IMG_5335.jpg
post #1074 of 1226
It's the fact that Neo:X is not discrete. It's matrixed. The big push is object based surround. It's far more 3D in nature with fully discrete elements... and totally scalable.
post #1075 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

It's the fact that Neo:X is not discrete. It's matrixed. The big push is object based surround. It's far more 3D in nature with fully discrete elements... and totally scalable.

Surely "totally scalable" includes the ability to mix (once!) object content for theatrical presentation . . . and also for delivery as DTS-HDMA 7.1/Neo:X 11.1 discrete+matrix encoded BDs to the home theater owner using a legacy (pre-object decoding) AVR...?

That's the impression I get from this April 8, 2013, DTS press release (link), which states:
Quote:
"Fairlight's 3DAW enables sound designers to truly mix object-based audio in unrestricted 3D space, monitor on any configuration, and output in DTS' proposed future specification – MDA. Additionally, Fairlight's 3DAW will feature the ability to mix soundtracks for DTS Neo:X, a channel-based audio solution designed to support up to an 11.1 speaker system.

The new Fairlight 3DAW . . . is able to generate a diverse range of mixes ranging from stereo, 5.1, 7.1, 9.1+2, DTS Neo:X™, as well as an object-based mix (MDA)."
_
post #1076 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

Surely "totally scalable" includes the ability to mix (once!) object content for theatrical presentation . . . and also for delivery as DTS-HDMA 7.1/Neo:X 11.1 discrete+matrix encoded BDs to the home theater owner using a legacy (pre-object decoding) AVR...?

That's the impression I get from this April 8, 2013, DTS press release (link), which states:
_

Of course! DTS and Dolby are trying to get the industry to mix one object soundtrack and then scale it down to "lesser" formats "automagically." It saves time and money by not having to mix over and over and over again for each format.

The problem is that each format (at least Atmos and Auro3D; DTS MDA doesn't have a recommended layout... yet) have different speaker configurations and that's putting a hamper on widespread adoption. Theater chain owners want one agreed upon layout that sound engineers mix to. Of course, that's when the knives come out and little to no consensus is reached.

I like the Atmos configuration the best because it places the height speakers... overhead... and isn't that far removed from the traditional 7.1 layout making it easier to implement in the home. The older Auro3D config. of height speakers just higher up on the wall as counterproductive. There isn't as much to differentiate side wall vs. height effects.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 10/20/13 at 11:14am
post #1077 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

Are we here truly the outliers, the 0.001% of HT public on the cutting edge?

yep; just too much of a PITA/eyesore for people to bother with, even if they did care enough to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

It's the fact that Neo:X is not discrete. It's matrixed.

Now you're talking about outliers among outliers IMO; I'd gladly take matrixed heights.

Nothing to go on, but I'd think digital matrix-derived channels would be just fine.
post #1078 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

yep; just too much of a PITA/eyesore for people to bother with, even if they did care enough to it.
Now you're talking about outliers among outliers IMO; I'd gladly take matrixed heights.

Nothing to go on, but I'd think digital matrix-derived channels would be just fine.

Ever heard Dolby Atmos? You really will want discrete information.
post #1079 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Ever heard Dolby Atmos? You really will want discrete information.
No he won't. He wants the capability of distinct sound from each speaker, whether it comes from discrete feeds or matrix derived feeds that are well implemented (inaudible leakage). As Mike just found out from listening to the DTS Neo:X demo, when sound come from the left height speaker, it isn't heard from any other speaker. Didn't require a discrete feed to do that.
post #1080 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

No he won't. He wants the capability of distinct sound from each speaker, whether it comes from discrete feeds or matrix derived feeds that are well implemented (inaudible leakage). As Mike just found out from listening to the DTS Neo:X demo, when sound come from the left height speaker, it isn't heard from any other speaker. Didn't require a discrete feed to do that.

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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › DTS Neo.X