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

DTS Neo.X - Page 38

post #1111 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

HRTF-data clearly shows that you need to keep it at 21-23 degree range to achieve the most believable 'virtual center' imaging.
I am aware of that concept with respect to virtualizing an out-of-head image with binauralizers. But I see no problem getting solid out-of-head images with real speakers placed out front, if the speakers are up to it and the room cooperates.

Anyway, with all the variables involved, not the least of which is taste, I think any such hard recommendations must be tempered with user experience/preference.
post #1112 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

But I see no problem getting solid out-of-head images with real speakers placed out front, if the speakers are up to it and the room cooperates.

Anyway, with all the variables involved, not the least of which is taste, I think any such hard recommendations must be tempered with user experience/preference.

Well, I'm not interested in taste, I'm interested in the technical and psychoacoustic fundamentals of minimizing the inherent problems of the stereo-system - how to fool the brain the best to think sound arriving from two points of radiation to sound the same as it would be from a singular source placed elsewhere. H(T)RTF is a huge part of that 'magic' and even though we do have individual variations, the statistic data shows the variance to be within a useful range. Depending on where on the curve you want to do the cutoff, you get 21-23, possibly 25 degrees. NHT had the 21 degree built into them originally, if you remember say the wonderful monolith named 3.3?

I for sure can accept that some speaker/room combinations may have less problems with non-optimal placement, but I don't see that they wouldn't play even better in optimum placement unless there's some other flaw with their frequency response or radiation pattern. I assume they don't in discussions like this, though. In that case I'd rather recommend change of speakers before proceeding.
post #1113 of 1226
^^ Do you have a particular article or paper that discusses how HRTFs play this role in stereo presentation? Thanks.
post #1114 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

^^ Do you have a particular article or paper that discusses how HRTFs play this role in stereo presentation? Thanks.

No, I only study for my own benefit, so I don't keep links and papers when I've read them, but HRTF data has been available for at least 30 years by now. The interesting graph to find looks a little like a bell curve (with 0 degrees in the center) which has a shelf on each side at these specific frequencies... So if you stumble across it some time you know to look one more time at it.
post #1115 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

No, I only study for my own benefit, so I don't keep links and papers when I've read them, but HRTF data has been available for at least 30 years by now. The interesting graph to find looks a little like a bell curve (with 0 degrees in the center) which has a shelf on each side at these specific frequencies... So if you stumble across it some time you know to look one more time at it.
I'm familiar with HRTFs. What I am trying to do is understand the connection between HRTF and phantom center imaging. Regardless of the spread between L/R, the HRTFs are mirror images, so the phantom image will be well represented.
post #1116 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

I'm familiar with HRTFs. What I am trying to do is understand the connection between HRTF and phantom center imaging. Regardless of the spread between L/R, the HRTFs are mirror images, so the phantom image will be well represented.

Then you should know there's a local minimum of cross-correlation around 21-23 degrees. Which is where I (and others) advocate you place your 2-channel speakers. Some prefer the innermost point of where the minumum starts - 21 degrees (Ken Kantor/NHT), some the outer point - 23 degrees( Ingvar Öhman/Guru/Ino) and I believe there was an (older) standard advocating 25 degrees which is just outside the minimum. That's all I can give you by memory, so take it or leave it. (I won't be surprised about the latter cool.gif)
post #1117 of 1226
Hey guys - my HT had it's 15 minutes of fame on the DTS facebook page for Oct-4-2013, I actually missed this until just a few days ago someone when sent me a message about it.

And one guy pointed out the movie screen shot I posted was actually NOT DTS, but TrueHD eek.gif
https://www.facebook.com/DTS.Inc/photos_stream
DTS%2520HT%2520timeline%2520Oct-4-2013.jpg
post #1118 of 1226
Hi,
I have à pioneer sc lx 76 receiver(9.2). I would like to add wide or height channels with à pioneer vsx 923(7.2). Both are dts neox capabel butt will it sound the Same as an 11.2 receiver? Can somebody help me please? I would use à double HDMI out blu ray player to get all 11 channels. Thanks in advance
post #1119 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtos View Post

Hi,
I have a pioneer sc lx 76 receiver(9.2). I would like to add wide or height channels with à pioneer vsx 923(7.2). Both are dts neox capable, but will it sound the same as an 11.2 receiver? Can somebody help me please? I would use a double HDMI out blu-ray player to get all 11 channels. Thanks in advance.

I wouldn't bother. Trying to calibrate and adjust each receiver individually will be quite a challenge. Use the 9.2 receiver and do wides. Best bang for the buck vs. going with heights.
post #1120 of 1226
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtos View Post

Hi,
I have a pioneer sc lx 76 receiver(9.2). I would like to add wide or height channels with à pioneer vsx 923(7.2). Both are dts neox capable, but will it sound the same as an 11.2 receiver? Can somebody help me please? I would use a double HDMI out blu-ray player to get all 11 channels. Thanks in advance.

I wouldn't bother. Trying to calibrate and adjust each receiver individually will be quite a challenge. Use the 9.2 receiver and do wides. Best bang for the buck vs. going with heights.

+1. That would be difficult. If you really want 11.2 surround, sell the receivers you have on eBay and buy a Denon 4520 11.2 receiver. And an Emotiva 2 channel amp. smile.gif
post #1121 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post+1. That would be difficult. If you really want 11.2 surround, sell the receivers you have on eBay and buy a Denon 4520 11.2 receiver. And an Emotiva 2 channel amp. smile.gif

Forget it Parasound will sound much better than Emotiva and it won't smell!

post #1122 of 1226
Quote:
Forget it Parasound will sound much better than Emotiva and it won't smell!

Ha - did you get an amp with B.O. ? eek.gif
post #1123 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View PostHa - did you get an amp with B.O. ? eek.gif

B.O.?

post #1124 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

B.O.?

See your earlier post. You mentioned an amp smelling.
post #1125 of 1226
ICEpower1000asp.jpg
B&O amp biggrin.gif
post #1126 of 1226
Quote:
See your earlier post. You mentioned an amp smelling.

biggrin.gif I don't find my Emotiva smells ( or stinks ). Parasound makes very good amps too ( A V Science sells them ). That said, I've been told by someone that has used both that in my situation - using a 2 channel amp to turn my Denon 4520 into an 11.2 channel system, that I wouldn't hear any difference. It's not like I need to push my amps to get reference level volume in my room ( which is in most cases too damn loud for most people ).
post #1127 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post

It's not like I need to push my amps to get reference level volume in my room ( which is in most cases too damn loud for most people ).

No, of course you may never "need" to push your amps to reference level...it really becomes a question of wanting to do so. biggrin.gif

BTW And screw "most people" too! Go loud for the good people who come to hear true power. Let the cops come, they will be impressed too. Well, maybe they won't. On second thought maybe that loud is best not reached after all.
post #1128 of 1226
A demonstration of the new DTS-UHD decoder at CES 2014 (link to press release) leaves many questions unanswered about just what DTS considers "object-based content" in the Consumer electronics marketplace; however two sentences in the press release suggest (to me) the possibility that DTS might also intend DTS-UHD technology to subsume existing Neo:X processing:

Quote:
"In addition to rendering object-based audio content, DTS-UHD supports complete compatibility for playback of DTS channel based content, providing the best audio experience from any content featuring DTS audio coding"
Quote:
"Customized rendering designed for arbitrary speaker layouts enables consumers to adapt their AV system to their own home environment rather than pre-determined speaker layouts"

This would seem to contemplate Neo:X style upmixing but with an "arbitrary speaker layout" . . . although the AVR manufacturer might have some additional concerns which lead them to impose limitations on precisely how arbitrary a speaker layout they will support.
_
Edited by SoundChex - 1/7/14 at 11:48am
post #1129 of 1226
I don't think there is much debate about the definition of object-based content:

DTS, Inc. has developed Multi-Dimensional Audio (MDA™) an open object-based audio creation and authoring platform to accelerate next-generation content creation. The MDA platform supports both channel and audio objects and adapts to any speaker quantity and configuration. During creation, sounds are directed throughout an auditorium by attaching specific X, Y, Z coordinates to audio objects to describe the location, resulting in highly realistic sound placement in concert with the video portion of a movie.

Above quote from this press release:
http://www.barco.com/en/News/Press-releases/barco-auro-technologies-and-dts-collaborate-in-support-of-proposed-new-open-format-for-immersive-obj.aspx
post #1130 of 1226
I sure hope DTS's definition of consumer object rendering isn't matrix derived channels like Neo:X! F that S! It's the 21st Century, not the 80's. biggrin.gif

Now the next question I have is: have they described what the DTS-UHD codec's specs. are?

Lossless or lossy compression? Core plus extension like DTS-MA or just one file format? Fixed channels plus objects like Atmos (how many?) or pure object streaming? Bit depths and sampling rates?

And the pink elephant in the room: how many speaker and sub outputs are allowed within the Multi-Dimensional Audio object format (in which, I would suppose, DTS-UHD is a subset)?
post #1131 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by erwinfrombelgium View Post

I don't think there is much debate about the definition of object-based content:

DTS, Inc. has developed Multi-Dimensional Audio (MDA™) an open object-based audio creation and authoring platform to accelerate next-generation content creation. The MDA platform supports both channel and audio objects and adapts to any speaker quantity and configuration. During creation, sounds are directed throughout an auditorium by attaching specific X, Y, Z coordinates to audio objects to describe the location, resulting in highly realistic sound placement in concert with the video portion of a movie.

Above quote from this press release:
http://www.barco.com/en/News/Press-releases/barco-auro-technologies-and-dts-collaborate-in-support-of-proposed-new-open-format-for-immersive-obj.aspx

The "100+ audio sources in motion" type of object-based audio supported for theatrical mixing|playback by Dolby Atmos and DTS MDA has some limited relevance in the home|mobile audio playback environments . . . perhaps even directly in the home gaming environment . . . but, outside the theatrical environment, issues of environmental noise, and individual listener hearing capabilities or preferences increase in importance. For the majority of HT users today, once they insert a BD in the player, the BD player and AVR make all remaining playback choices, or at least suggest the "best" playback configuration. With object-based content, there can still be other optional choices, although perhaps fewer for movies. You might increase the volume of just the main|front dialog object, change the relative volumes of the violin and viola sections in a concert, or raise|lower the commentator and|or stadium audience soundtrack volumes at a sports event.

BBC Radio ran a broadcast test in 2012 where the 'news reports' that played in the background of a (radio) play were receiver location dependent! biggrin.gif

And of course, without any DTS-UHD encoded content yet available, the more important question is What can a DTS-UHD processor do with existing|legacy content? cool.gif
_
Edited by SoundChex - 1/7/14 at 1:30pm
post #1132 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I sure hope DTS's definition of consumer object rendering isn't matrix derived channels like Neo:X!
Their CES press release states: >>Object control enables consumers to interact with key objects within the audio mix and adjust them to preference<< That appears to confirm there's object audio involved.

Quote:
Lossless or lossy compression? Core plus extension like DTS-MA or just one file format? Fixed channels plus objects like Atmos (how many?) or pure object streaming? Bit depths and sampling rates?
Probably depends a lot on the delivery mechanism. I would not expect streaming to use lossless, for example.

Quote:
And the pink elephant in the room: how many speaker and sub outputs are allowed
How many are required? Do you need more sub outputs than we use today?

Quote:
within the Multi-Dimensional Audio object format (in which, I would suppose, DTS-UHD is a subset)?
Based on the quote below, it looks to me like MDA is part of the UHD bundle, as UHD has not only object audio but upmixing for current content. But it seems they use the MDA term to refer to the production format, and UHD for the consumer delivery format.

>>DTS-UHD is the first object-based audio format designed for consumer delivery. Object-based audio brings enhanced realism through more accurate spatial rendering, height audio elements, and customizations that adapt to any speaker layout. In addition to rendering object-based audio content, DTS-UHD supports complete compatibility for playback of DTS channel based content, providing the best audio experience from any content featuring DTS audio coding.<<
post #1133 of 1226
So if a film is done in Dolby ATMOS, would it easily be ported to DTS UHD for consumers? Or would it have to be mixed in Auro3D +MDA to be used for DTS UHD?
post #1134 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

The "100+ audio sources in motion" type of object-based audio supported for theatrical mixing|playback by Dolby Atmos and DTS MDA has some limited relevance in the home|mobile audio playback environments . . . perhaps even directly in the home gaming environment . . . but, outside the theatrical environment, issues of environmental noise, and individual listener hearing capabilities or preferences increase in importance. For the majority of HT users today, once they insert a BD in the player, the BD player and AVR make all remaining playback choices, or at least suggest the "best" playback configuration. With object-based content, there can still be other optional choices, although perhaps fewer for movies. You might increase the volume of just the main|front dialog object, change the relative volumes of the violin and viola sections in a concert, or raise|lower the commentator and|or stadium audience soundtrack volumes at a sports event.

BBC Radio ran a broadcast test in 2012 where the 'news reports' that played in the background of a (radio) play were receiver location dependent! biggrin.gif

And of course, without any DTS-UHD encoded content yet available, the more important question is What can a DTS-UHD processor do with existing|legacy content? cool.gif
_

I would assume that any DTS-UHD decoder will have legacy decoding of DTS-MA lossless for Blu-ray and DTS lossy for DVD. This backwards compatibility is just like before. I would also assume they'll offer some sort of backwards compatible track on UHD video media titles that contain a primary DTS-UHD track. Perhaps they are using their proprietary Coherent Acoustics codec to do a lossy core channel-based plus lossless information channel-based extension plus metadata object extension track, but it's also possible it's a soup-to-nuts new compression codec.

We just don't know all the finer details yet and what Dolby's answer will be to DTS's object surround audio for the home announcement. Straight up Dolby Atmos using Meridian Lossless Packing (ala Dolby TrueHD)?

I can imagine that a normal, Blu-ray-like DTS-MA soundtrack would accompany a UHD video title that wasn't blessed with an object based mix.

I know DTS was originally trying to get object audio worked into broadcast and streaming service standards specs. as well. Another given: 4k Blu-ray discs will have to hold quite a bit of data in order to get 10 bit, 4:2:2 UHD video with ITU Rec. 2020 color gamut standards plus high frame rates plus audiophile object audio in one package.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 1/7/14 at 2:03pm
post #1135 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Their CES press release states: >>Object control enables consumers to interact with key objects within the audio mix and adjust them to preference<< That appears to confirm there's object audio involved.
Probably depends a lot on the delivery mechanism. I would not expect streaming to use lossless, for example.
How many are required? Do you need more sub outputs than we use today?
Based on the quote below, it looks to me like MDA is part of the UHD bundle, as UHD has not only object audio but upmixing for current content. But it seems they use the MDA term to refer to the production format, and UHD for the consumer delivery format.

>>DTS-UHD is the first object-based audio format designed for consumer delivery. Object-based audio brings enhanced realism through more accurate spatial rendering, height audio elements, and customizations that adapt to any speaker layout. In addition to rendering object-based audio content, DTS-UHD supports complete compatibility for playback of DTS channel based content, providing the best audio experience from any content featuring DTS audio coding.<<

I'm just wondering how limited object surround for the home will be. Are we looking at around 22 or so outputs (since I doubt we should call them "channels" any more) like Japanese broadcasters like NHK have been demoing? I understand that Atmos has dual subwoofer outputs for the surround speaker locations via bass management besides the standard LFE channel (in case the theater isn't equipped with beefier surrounds). I could live with that. biggrin.gif

Did DTS go into much detail about a firm set of specs. during their demo sessions at CES or was this just a "proof of concept" test like at a car show?
post #1136 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I know DTS was originally trying to get object audio worked into broadcast and streaming service standards specs. as well.

There seems like a good chance that might happen, given the "includes everything" strategy in the New Broadcast 'Immersive' Audio Standard ITU just recently submitted for approval (link) . . . which reads, in part:

Quote:
"In the new approach, the audio landscape that surrounds the viewer is delivered either by supplying more channels of audio that can be ‘rendered’ for use by any additional loudspeakers that may be present, or by delivering audio elements that are ‘dynamically rendered’ into the existing speakers.

The audience can make use of the new sound system with existing stereo and 5.1 channel speakers systems; or they can choose to enjoy more ‘immersiveness’ by installing additional speakers around the room, including elevated speakers. The key to the new system is that the delivered channels and sound elements are fully described by metadata labelling that drives the rendering as well as the reproduction."
_
post #1137 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

So if a film is done in Dolby ATMOS, would it easily be ported to DTS UHD for consumers? Or would it have to be mixed in Auro3D +MDA to be used for DTS UHD?

As a consumer, my questions are more mundane:
  • Will there be DTS-UHD BDs.
  • Will the same BD deliver DTS-HDMA content when played on my existing system, and DTS-UHD content when I subsequently purchase a DTS-UHD capable system.
  • Will I need to purchase both a new BD player and a new AVR to play a DTS-UHD BD, or will my existing BD player be sufficient if I replace my AVR [with one that can decode the DTS-UHD bitstream].

Inquiring minds want to know! biggrin.gif
_
Edited by SoundChex - 1/7/14 at 5:05pm
post #1138 of 1226
The object based audio formats will more than likely be coupled to UHD content. It's not just ultra high def visuals, but ultra high def audio too. I don't think regular Blu-ray disc specs will be adding a whole new audio format into the mix. Besides, it probably takes up more space.

You'll need a new 4k Blu-ray player if the BDA delivers.
post #1139 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

So if a film is done in Dolby ATMOS, would it easily be ported to DTS UHD for consumers? Or would it have to be mixed in Auro3D +MDA to be used for DTS UHD?
Atmos content can be ported to DTS UHD, but whether one calls that easy or not is open to debate. tongue.gif

The film industry is in the early steps of a transitional phase to object audio. It will take considerable time for things to settle into anything that might be called "business a usual."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I'm just wondering how limited object surround for the home will be. Are we looking at around 22 or so outputs (since I doubt we should call them "channels" any more) like Japanese broadcasters like NHK have been demoing?
I think the AVR and processor makers will be exploring that question for several years to come. OTOH, it has nothing to do with how many objects are in the mix. Even a single object can fly all over the room.
Quote:
I understand that Atmos has dual subwoofer outputs for the surround speaker locations via bass management besides the standard LFE channel (in case the theater isn't equipped with beefier surrounds). I could live with that.
You can do that now if you like. In homes, though, we find that the question of how many subs to employ is not based on the number of different bass signals an AV processor can create, but by acoustics/modal issues, SPL, etc. I do not see any of that changing with object audio at home.
post #1140 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

The object based audio formats will more than likely be coupled to UHD content. It's not just ultra high def visuals, but ultra high def audio too. I don't think regular Blu-ray disc specs will be adding a whole new audio format into the mix. Besides, it probably takes up more space.

You'll need a new 4k Blu-ray player if the BDA delivers.
I agree. But as noted previously, the current BD format is technically compatible with object delivery. Whether that will ever be done is a totally different question.
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