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

DTS Neo.X - Page 6

post #151 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Sure, if they don't tell there's not much we can do, especially if they've done it so complicated we cannot reverse-engineer it. But as it's supposed to be able to do something even with non-encoded material, it's bound to be logically tied to the information in the nearest channels, right?

The "blind upmix" mode can be based on the same decoding used in the explicit encode-decode mode, or it can be different. The decoder can know the difference especially when there's metadata involved, such as in the case of MPEG Surround. Or, as in the case of Neural, Neo:6, and PLIIx Movie the decoder runs the same regardless of encoding -- it just does a better job with encoded content.

Quote:


But I guess I'm way too early with my questions... It's just that my current receiver is dead and I would like to buy something that exists now, not in 3 or 8 months from now... and as I believe Neo:X having a big chance of becoming a standard to reckon with during the lifespan of my next receiver, it would be a good thing if I could find out now, that I can find a way to decode it even if what I have to buy can't do it on it's own... (Onkyo 1009 is missing other things I want, so it's not an option. And no one can tell if Denon will make Neo:X available to 4311 by way of firmware upgrade. Pioneer LX-85 might be something to wait for, but I worry about the new classD amps in it and I'd much rather get something with Audyssey XT32&Pro capabilities...)

I'd look at it from the perspective of the room rather than the AVR. What are your goals for the playback environment? 5.1, 7.1, wides, heights?

I've been involved with experimental setups using 7, 9, 11 and 22 speakers fed from purpose mixed content and find that I tend to agree with Holman in that the 1-2-5-10 sequence has merit. In other words, adding a pair of speakers to a full surround system is not particularly compelling. To get a useful height effect, 4 speakers are needed, not two, fed from a height-capable mix.

When JJ was at DTS he explained that Neo:X was not confined to conventional 9.1 or 11.1 speaker setups, and expressed his preference for 7 floor and 4 overhead speakers, which makes perfect sense to me as an optimal use of resources. Unless Yamaha adopts Neo:X, I'm not sure that particular configuration with 4 heights will be supported in AVRs, but I hope so.

The interview with JJ Johnston talking about Neo:X is here as an MP3 file. I recommend downloading the file, then scooting forward to 39:00 minutes for that part of the chat.
post #152 of 1226
when you say 4 overhead speakers you mean to suggest 2 front height and 2 rear height ?
post #153 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

I'd look at it from the perspective of the room rather than the AVR. What are your goals for the playback environment? 5.1, 7.1, wides, heights?

I have been playing 7.1 with dual subwoofers and trippled side surrounds for quite a while. Also a couple of bass shakers in the sofa. The subwoofers will soon be upgraded in quality, capacity and number to four. I can very likely get special cabinets for wides and ceiling mounted highs made at some extra cost. My frontmost side surrounds actually sit at the precise front-wide angle (taking DSX spec for in now) so I've been able to test that a little bit with home lent receivers, although they aren't direct radiating, so I probably did not get the full effect of it. The surrounds are placed in a sort of arc around your ears, highest at the surround backs and almost down to front speaker height at the frontmost. ( Speakers are to you most likely never heard of swedish Ino Audio designed by Ingvar Oehman who might be slightly more know to you for the Guru QM10/QM60 speakers. Surround setup is per his recommendations. )

I also have a couple of matrix decoders lying about which I had been toying with the idea of extracting common signal from surrounds and feed to ceiling mounted speakers to stabilize flyovers for non-center seats.

Quote:


I've been involved with experimental setups using 7, 9, 11 and 22 speakers fed from purpose mixed content and find that I tend to agree with Holman in that the 1-2-5-10 sequence has merit. In other words, adding a pair of speakers to a full surround system is not particularly compelling. To get a useful height effect, 4 speakers are needed, not two, fed from a height-capable mix.

When JJ was at DTS he explained that Neo:X was not confined to conventional 9.1 or 11.1 speaker setups, and expressed his preference for 7 floor and 4 overhead speakers, which makes perfect sense to me as an optimal use of resources. Unless Yamaha adopts Neo:X, I'm not sure that particular configuration with 4 heights will be supported in AVRs, but I hope so.

The interview with JJ Johnston talking about Neo:X is here as an MP3 file. I recommend downloading the file, then scooting forward to 39:00 minutes for that part of the chat.

Thanks, I'll listen to that in a little while.
post #154 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by rana_kirti View Post

when you say 4 overhead speakers you mean to suggest 2 front height and 2 rear height ?

After having listened to the interview - 2 front height, 1 overhead, 1 back height.
post #155 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by rana_kirti View Post

when you say 4 overhead speakers you mean to suggest 2 front height and 2 rear height ?

In a word, yes.
post #156 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

I have been playing 7.1 with dual subwoofers and trippled side surrounds for quite a while. Also a couple of bass shakers in the sofa. The subwoofers will soon be upgraded in quality, capacity and number to four. I can very likely get special cabinets for wides and ceiling mounted highs made at some extra cost. My frontmost side surrounds actually sit at the precise front-wide angle (taking DSX spec for in now) so I've been able to test that a little bit with home lent receivers, although they aren't direct radiating, so I probably did not get the full effect of it. The surrounds are placed in a sort of arc around your ears, highest at the surround backs and almost down to front speaker height at the frontmost. ( Speakers are to you most likely never heard of swedish Ino Audio designed by Ingvar Oehman who might be slightly more know to you for the Guru QM10/QM60 speakers. Surround setup is per his recommendations. )

I saw some discussion about his speakers in another thread. Would love to hear them someday! I noticed their surround page at the website is still under construction.

Quote:


I also have a couple of matrix decoders lying about which I had been toying with the idea of extracting common signal from surrounds and feed to ceiling mounted speakers to stabilize flyovers for non-center seats.

I think you mean taking a 3-ch decoder, feed it with Ls/Rs, the decoder's L/R outputs feed the Ls/Rs speakers and the C feeds the height speaker(s). Just like EX except the "EX" speaker is placed overhead. No?
post #157 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

I saw some discussion about his speakers in another thread. Would love to hear them someday! I noticed their surround page at the website is still under construction.

It may take a while to Guru:ify the surrounds. (Guru is virtually the same as the Ino speakers, but with an industrial designer having the say-so on everything that doesn't effect the sound)

The Ino a2 looks like this:

and that might be a bit of a job to get into a commercial Guru design look.

Quote:


I think you mean taking a 3-ch decoder, feed it with Ls/Rs, the decoder's L/R outputs feed the Ls/Rs speakers and the C feeds the height speaker(s). Just like EX except the "EX" speaker is placed overhead. No?

I have a couple of Smart devices CS-3X jr. Yes, that's the general idea.
post #158 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

After having listened to the interview - 2 front height, 1 overhead, 1 back height.

That would seem to be logical for flyovers. I've just never been a fan of placing a speaker directly overhead.

It's easy to try the effect. Visit a department store with music. Park yourself under one of the speakers. I find that very annoying--the way it images. A sonic shower spigot. Maybe if that one channel is carried by other speakers in an array it might help. Let's just say the jury is out for now on how best portray overhead cues.

And no matter: the smart decoders of the future will not be so rigidly tied to pre-defined speaker layouts, but will discover and utilize whatever speaker are available, wherever they are located.
post #159 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

That would seem to be logical for flyovers. I've just never been a fan of placing a speaker directly overhead.

It's easy to try the effect. Visit a department store with music. Park yourself under one of the speakers. I find that very annoying--the way it images. A sonic shower spigot. Maybe if that one channel is carried by other speakers in an array it might help. Let's just say the jury is out for now on how best portray overhead cues.

Well, even if I extract one "channel" for overhead, I did not say I was going to use just one speaker. 2 or 4 more likely.
post #160 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

I have a couple of Smart devices CS-3X jr. Yes, that's the general idea.

I don't think it will work quite as you hope. It could if you had real 7.1 content, but that's pretty rare, and the signals that come out of 5-to-7 upmixers would not be ideal, as they already take the common content away from the Ls/Rs speakers and send it to the back. But hey, no harm in trying -- that's part of the hobby.
post #161 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Well, even if I extract one "channel" for overhead, I did not say I was going to use just one speaker. 2 or 4 more likely.

Good thinking!
post #162 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

I don't think it will work quite as you hope. It could if you had real 7.1 content, but that's pretty rare, and the signals that come out of 5-to-7 upmixers would not be ideal, as they already take the common content away from the Ls/Rs speakers and send it to the back. But hey, no harm in trying -- that's part of the hobby.

Oh, I'm well aware of that too, but when planning the system I'm not just looking at what's available now, but what will be available. And when buying a new receiver my hopes would be that it'll get me through the next ten years or so. ( It's a pity the industry doesn't have more reasonable pricing on processors, as that's what's changing, not amp channel quality. )

It'll take a year or so to save up the money and convince Ingvar to design ceiling speakers in any case, so the CS-3Xjr:s are in no rush to be put to use, they've been in their boxes for a while as it is.

But it would really suck to be stuck with two channels until early next year to find out if Denon sticks Neo:X in the 43xx-line or not, that's for sure...
post #163 of 1226
But back to Neo:X... what we just talked about was the reason I got the CS-3X jrs... having read Neo:X to be matrixed, that's why I had the new idea that perhaps I could use them to extract highs/wides instead. But I've understood now that no one knows except DTS and they're not sharing in detail... and given that there's no real material for anyone to play with, no geek has reverse-engineered it either.

So I guess the big question is... how much will I hate not having Neo:X in a couple of year's time?
post #164 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

But it would really suck to be stuck with two channels until early next year to find out if Denon sticks Neo:X in the 43xx-line or not, that's for sure...

There is really no question that Neo:X will appear in all the major brand AVRs, particularly as it can be thought of as an upgrade to Neo:6.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

But back to Neo:X... what we just talked about was the reason I got the CS-3X jrs... having read Neo:X to be matrixed, that's why I had the new idea that perhaps I could use them to extract highs/wides instead. But I've understood now that no one knows except DTS and they're not sharing in detail... and given that there's no real material for anyone to play with, no geek has reverse-engineered it either.

Not only are you waiting for Neo:X, but moreover, a particular implementation that fulfills JJ's concept of defining speakers where you want them. That's an additional step because except for Trinnov, there's no room EQ that senses speaker locations. JJ has described technology for that, but it has not been introduced. Sure, you could enter the x-y-z positions manually, but I'm not sure an AVR maker will want to take a step back to let that happen.

Quote:


So I guess the big question is... how much will I hate not having Neo:X in a couple of year's time?

I guess that depends on how well it works for your situation.
post #165 of 1226
Yeah... so I guess... buy a bit cheaper now, hope that Neo:X does not take off too quickly on the discs and be able to plan in next receiver change earlier?
Perhaps a Pioneer LX-73 on a good price as the 75:s are coming in a few months... (Called Elite-something in your end, I guess)

Another thing that would be interesting to know, but which probably no one can answer, would be what would happen if DSX would see a Neo:X encoded set of channels. Would it be able to do something, even if not completely, good - or will it fail spectacularly?
post #166 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

what would happen if DSX would see a Neo:X encoded set of channels

That makes no sense. DSX basically process the L/R channels of a multi-channel source, generating Height and Wide outputs. It doesn't know what's in those channels nor does it "see" any matrix encoded channels.
post #167 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

That makes no sense. DSX basically process the L/R channels of a multi-channel source, generating Height and Wide outputs. It doesn't know what's in those channels nor does it "see" any matrix encoded channels.

You're probably not understanding me, I'm stretching my language boundaries here and I'm not yet in synch with the standard forum terminology here...

It would see the normal channel information + the overlayed matrixed information. It would of course not be meant to be heard like that, it would be expected to be de-matrixed first. But if you don't do that and try playing it as if it was a normal 7.1 track and have DSX activated.

I've been basing my assumptions on how DSX works from that it evaluates both fronts and surrounds for similar sounds - but if you know for a fact it's just looking at fronts that's interesting.

Still does not invalidate my question.... if say I have analog 7.1 out from a BDplayer and those channels are Neo:X studio encoded material and (guessing) part of that matrix involves the front channels - how will the DSX algorithm regard this material? (But as no one knows, this isn't answerable - but still interesting as a question....)
post #168 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

There is really no question that Neo:X will appear in all the major brand AVRs, particularly as it can be thought of as an upgrade to Neo:6.

But the important stuff - for me at least - is not whether the AVRs have Neo:X or not (I'm definitely agreeing with you that they will), but if the discs will start appearing with Neo:X encoded soundtracks. If we're just going to use it as an "expander" to get 9/11 channels of output, then I'll be just as happy with having 11 channel DSX.
post #169 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

You're probably not understanding me, I'm stretching my language boundaries here and I'm not yet in synch with the standard forum terminology here...

It's not a communication problem. Your English is perfect. My point is that it doesn't make sense to overcomplicate the interaction. It's like the old joke: what happens when you throw a blue stone into the Red Sea? Answer: it gets wet. Nothing more complicated than that.
Quote:


It would of course not be meant to be heard like that, it would be expected to be de-matrixed first.

It is meant to be heard either way, just as old Dolby Surround material was meant to be heard decoded or in stereo. Backwards compatibility. Mixers check both ways. If you had a discrete 7.1 track with matrix encoded Heights and Wides, it would be expected to sound fine on a 7.1-speaker layout (even though it could be decoded to 9.1 or 11.1).
Quote:


I've been basing my assumptions on how DSX works from that it evaluates both fronts and surrounds for similar sounds - but if you know for a fact it's just looking at fronts that's interesting.

The sounds that you hear in the DSX Height and Wide speakers comes 100% from the front L/R channels. What you're describing (extracting common information between the fronts and surrounds) is how Neo:X creates its Wide channels.
Quote:


if say I have analog 7.1 out from a BDplayer and those channels are Neo:X studio encoded material and (guessing) part of that matrix involves the front channels - how will the DSX algorithm regard this material?

Same as it regards any other material. Think of it this way: you have a Yamaha receiver and decide to use one of their Cinema DSP modes that uses reverb early reflections to the impression of being in a bigger room. First you play regular stereo material, which has the vocals in both channels. Then you play Dolby Surround encoded 2-channel material, which has vocals matrix encoded into both channels. It's not like the DSP processing knows the difference or gives any different results.
post #170 of 1226
the newly announced Yamaha Aventage 2011 Flagship series has skipped DTS Neo X. They have completely ignored DTS Neo X.

Anyone know if eventually DTS Neo X will make its way into Yamaha AVRs next year or ever or is it that Yamaha doesn't think much of it...?

Yamaha not Impressed....?!?
post #171 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

I have a couple of Smart devices CS-3X jr. Yes, that's the general idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

I don't think it will work quite as you hope. It could if you had real 7.1 content, but that's pretty rare, and the signals that come out of 5-to-7 upmixers would not be ideal, as they already take the common content away from the Ls/Rs speakers and send it to the back. But hey, no harm in trying -- that's part of the hobby.

Hi,

Several years ago I tried this using the CS-3X Jr. It has a pair of stereo outputs that can be routed to two height speakers. Mine were positioned slightly in front of the main listening position. Here's a link to the thread in the archives:

Height Channel

Here's one of my postings on the subject.

Quote:


Hi Jill,

Let me preface my comments by agreeing with Sanjay that this hobby is all about YOUR personal preferences, and obviously sharing my thoughts shouldn't change that.

I tried height channels in my previous home theater. I had a SMART CS-3X Jr and an amplifier left over when I upgraded my setup to a Lexicon processor. An other Lexicon owner who reported good results persuaded me to give it a try. However, as Sanjay can attest, many Lexicon owners feel the Lexicon has such good surround processing, it would be a crime to jeopardize it by adding an add-on surround processor into the mix. We were concerned enough to set up a conference call with a Lexicon engineer. He thought it was worth a try and didn't think it would radically hurt the Lexicon's presentation. Not to be misunderstood, he didn't express an opinion whether height channels worked or not, just that the extraction of the height channels shouldn't unduly hurt the Lexicon's processing.

Since all I needed were a pair of inexpensive speakers for the height channels, I went ahead with the experiment. Now, I had no illusions about the effect. I had been following the threads that Sanjay referenced and I knew that there wasn't any available content in which a movie director deliberately placed appropriate sounds in the height channels. I knew the most I was going get was a simulated ambience effect. Ultimately this knowledge may have effected my overall perception of the effect.

Unlike my friend who said he heard a distinct panning of the sound from the front to sides to overhead to back during a flyover, I never heard this. Obviously as the level to the surrounds increased it was expected that the levels to the height channels, which were extracted from the surround channels, increased. However, I never found the effect to be compelling enough. In my setup, calibrating the height channel's sound levels high enough to be heard, introduced noise that detracted from the experience.

The bottom line was that I found the effect, while not entirely random for the reasons mentioned earlier, they were still too random to my tastes to add to the movie experience. In particular, I found overhead dialog to be inappropriate and therefore objectionable (with the notable exception of the VOICE OF GOD in the Ten Commandments. )

In my newly constructed home theater I chose to omit the height speakers. Echoing DMF's remarks, in this room without height speakers I found the psychoacoustic effects in 'Master and Commander' to be much more compelling that the simulated height effects. However, should a mainstream process evolve whereby directors deliberately place appropriate content in height channels, I would likely go to the trouble of adding the necessary equipment and experimenting again.

Larry

Larry
post #172 of 1226
Ok. Got all 11 speakers timbre matched and 2 subs from same family. 9 channels of external amplification. Now please just gimme an AVR with DTS NeoX and DSX 11.2 already.
post #173 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

But the important stuff - for me at least - is not whether the AVRs have Neo:X or not (I'm definitely agreeing with you that they will), but if the discs will start appearing with Neo:X encoded soundtracks. If we're just going to use it as an "expander" to get 9/11 channels of output, then I'll be just as happy with having 11 channel DSX.

That's a tougher question. In the past, DTS had a content division that created DTS CDs and later DVD remixes for ES Discrete, in the latter case to create discrete 6.1 versions that had not been produced otherwise. Like Gladiator or The Haunting IIRC.

But that proved to be very expensive. Since the movie industry is already embarking on a path toward adding channels, with 7.1 (4 surrounds) becoming adopted, and talk of more circulating the halls of Show West (a cinema industry show), it could be just a matter of time. The formal D-Cinema player specs already define 16-channel capability, so at least that little hurdle is out of the way. The bigger ones remaining are actually doing it -- mixing movies that way, and of course finding way to fund upgrades to cinemas. That all takes considerable time. 7.1 was "low hanging fruit" since all the speakers were already in place, just a bit of new plumbing was needed. Now it gets harder.
post #174 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Quote:


when you say 4 overhead speakers you mean to suggest 2 front height and 2 rear height ?

In a word, yes.

Notwithstanding my personal preferences to avoid placing speakers directly overhead (your own "shower of sound" analogy, undesirable Damoclean|StoredPE consequences, and last-but-not-least 'negative' ergonomics and|or cosmetics), I've somehow got the impression from assorted Holman+Audyssey and SRSLabs+3DAA.Org 'pronouncements and publications' that a second pair of height speakers (perhaps left+right dual mono?) would preferentially reproduce "Center Overhead" sound (perhaps still the top/rearmost part of what DTS is calling a [front] "semi-spherical sound field"?) . . . and that the rear naming-and-placement of that second pair of height speakers is more pragmatic than conceptual...? [Think 3DAA.Org 'reference playback environment'.]

[Roger: Sorry for the over long sentence! But I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter...]
post #175 of 1226
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rana_kirti View Post

the newly announced Yamaha Aventage 2011 Flagship series has skipped DTS Neo X. They have completely ignored DTS Neo X.

Anyone know if eventually DTS Neo X will make its way into Yamaha AVRs next year or ever or is it that Yamaha doesn't think much of it...?

Yamaha not Impressed....?!?

As posted previously....
Yamaha marketing-wise likes to use their own proprietary software such as their YPAO or Presence...
At least until the new software be it Dolby Pro Logic IIZ, Dolby Volume or DTS Neo.X becomes more in demand or a defacto standard. Based upon this it will likely be some time before if ever one will get DTS Neo.X within a Yamaha AVR..

Just my $0.02...
post #176 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin View Post

Several years ago I tried this using the CS-3X Jr. It has a pair of stereo outputs that can be routed to two height speakers. Mine were positioned slightly in front of the main listening position.

Larry thanks for old thread link. To me it sounded like you tried to extract with the CS-3Xjr the overhead from the L/R surrounds is that correct? If that is the case I'm surprised you heard any dialog which was one of your criticisms (cept for voice of God stuff.) I could see that happening if your source was front center/rear center. I have mounts for overhead speakers might try it just to experiment.

Also...for the thread can we use 'height speakers' to designate what PLIIz/DSX calls height (ie front wall speakers above the mains) and those above the listener as 'ceiling/overhead speakers' thx.
post #177 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof View Post
Ok. Got all 11 speakers timbre matched and 2 subs from same family. 9 channels of external amplification. Now please just gimme an AVR with DTS NeoX and DSX 11.2 already.
Heh... you're in even more dire need than I am!

1st four side of the first box for my new subwoofers being glued together in the garage right now.
post #178 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by derek View Post
Also...for the thread can we use 'height speakers' to designate what PLIIz/DSX calls height (ie front wall speakers above the mains) and those above the listener as 'ceiling/overhead speakers'.
...or we might 'try to get ahead of the game' by using the speaker names from the most recent industry standards:

Both SMPTE2036-2-2008, and IEC 62574: Audio, video and multimedia systems – General channel assignment of multichannel audio (TC 100) designate those speakers as:
  • Top Front Left|Right (TpFL and TpFR)
  • Top Center (TpC)
But all the CEMs will no doubt continue to use any name they see fit.

[Think it should be easy to get "industry wide" agreement on 'new' speaker/channel names? Check out the FINAL slide in this presentation from 2007! ]
post #179 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof View Post
Ok. Got all 11 speakers timbre matched and 2 subs from same family. 9 channels of external amplification. Now please just gimme an AVR with DTS NeoX and DSX 11.2 already.
Well, at least you're half way to where you need to be!

A couple of years ago, I realized I owned 22 bookshelf speakers (8x Yamaha AST-S1, 8x Polk R15, and 6x CambridgeSoundWorks Ambiance) which three models were both an acceptable timbre match, and an acceptable cosmetic match. Although they are normally emplaced across three systems . . . in some "hypothetical AV disaster", I could doubtless perform an emergency redeployment to make myself Hamasaki 22.2 ready!
post #180 of 1226
On a related note, I found Thiel Powerpoints an excellent solution for getting to 11 channels. I use Thiel 3.7s for front LR, MCS1 for center, 2 of the their SmartSub 2s (along with the S1 integrator) and then use a combination of PowerPoint 1.2s new for the surround and surround back, and some older preowned PowerPoint for wide and height. The Powerpoints provide a manageable size with a 2 way coaxial design that doesn't sound small and is flexible enough to be placed on the floor in a pinch (without interfering with the main speakers) or better yet: on walls and on ceilings)
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