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

DTS Neo.X - Page 7

post #181 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

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 . . . 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'.]

In that 3DAA slide deck the diagram on page 3 is one way to configure 11.1 speakers. On page 6 the bottom picture shows 4 of the 6 height speakers in the ARL (audio research lab) at SRS, two being lateral to the listening area, and two being behind. It's all open for discussion at this point.

The advantage in having spaced pairs of height speakers straddling the listening area is they can work together to create either phantom images or diffuse images, or even a circular pan overhead.

One of the nice things about the MDA format 3DAA is advocating is that it does not dictate speaker locations. The end user decides where to put them, and the decoder adapts accordingly. If there a single TopSurround speaker directly overhead, it will use it.
post #182 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by derek View Post

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.

Hi Derek,

It's been a long time since I experimented, but yes I was surprised to hear dialog when connected between the surround channels. By all means give it a try. As I mentioned others have liked the effect.

With regard to what DSX calls height speakers, as you probably know Audyssey recommends placing the heights speaker on the front wall at 45 degrees both in azimuth and elevation with respect to the main listening position. However, in discussing practical mounting consideration constraints at the Audyssey thread, the founder and Chief Technical Officer of Audyssey stated that if it was not possible to place heights at the correct angles above the mains on the front wall, that in-ceiling speakers could be used near the front wall. Those in-ceiling speakers with aim-able tweeters were recommended for this application.

Anyway the point is that DSX height speakers are not strictly confined to the front walls, they can be mounted in the ceiling.

Larry
post #183 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin View Post

Anyway the point is that DSX height speakers are not strictly confined to the front walls, they can be mounted in the ceiling.

The correct vector would definitely be more important than sitting on the front wall. The problem with it is that with normal ceiling heights (8 feet here in Sweden), 45 degrees up will put them very close to the seating area which may give problems with relative distance and also put some demands on off-axis response.
post #184 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

The correct vector would definitely be more important than sitting on the front wall. The problem with it is that with normal ceiling heights (8 feet here in Sweden), 45 degrees up will put them very close to the seating area which may give problems with relative distance and also put some demands on off-axis response.

Hi,

The purpose of my comment was to respond to Derek's suggestion that when discussing height speakers that we should try to designate them into one of two categories, front wall or ceiling/overhead. Although according to Audyssey DSX height speakers are intended to be mounted on the front wall they also accept the real-world fact that this my not be feasible and do not have a problem with ceiling mounting. Therefore, it may not be accurate to strictly classify DSX height speakers as front wall types.

With regard to your remarks, it is true with limited ceiling height, placement of in-ceiling height speakers at the correct vector can take them closer to the seating than Audyssey would recommend. They do point out that MultEQ will nevertheless set the correct delay to mitigate this close speaker situation. If the tweeters can be pointed to the primary seating location there should not be any undue off-axis problems.

So in summary in absence of high ceilings we have the option of mounting the speakers on or near the front wall, but compromising the ideal vector. Or conversely if we maintain the proper vector the speakers may be mounted closer to the seating than the ideal. I tend to agree with your statement that maintaining the proper vector might be the lesser or the two evils, but I am guessing since I don't have a DSX setup yet.

Even with ideal room dimensions the problem with any of Audyssey's recommended ideal placement guidelines for the both the heights and wides is that members of the audience who are not seated in the primary seating location never are ideally situated. Of course this is not a unique situation to home theater, folks not seated in the primary seating location will not have the ideal delay setting nor the ideal level setting. Its all about trade-offs and compromises.

Larry
post #185 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin View Post

Although according to Audyssey DSX height speakers are intended to be mounted on the front wall they also accept the real-world fact that this my not be feasible and do not have a problem with ceiling mounting. Therefore, it may not be accurate to strictly classify DSX height speakers as front wall types.

Agreed. If we think of the idealized listening space as a ("unit radius") hemisphere centered on the MLP, then, at least nominally, (most) upper layer speakers should lie along a circle, all points of which are elevated (say) 45° [above the horizontal floor plane] when viewed from the MLP. But real-world room shape usually dictates that few speakers can be placed at their "ideal" location! [Even in this test lab (graphic not photo) only eight of nine upper layer speakers were actually placed 'on the surface of the hemisphere'.]
post #186 of 1226
How would this work with dipoles? I love my radio shack
LX5 IIs, got 16 of them. How well would they work with 9.1
or 11.1?
post #187 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by dclark View Post

How would this work with dipoles? I love my radio shack LX5 IIs, got 16 of them. How well would they work with 9.1
or 11.1?

How do they radiate on-axis?
* If they have a normal level, they are fine for all fronts, including high and wide.

* If they have a dip due to tweeters cancelling eachother directly on-axis - they would make good surround and surround backs... and then I'd recommend using multiple per channel - if you have a huge room 5+3+3+5 configuration would make use of all 16.
post #188 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by dclark View Post

How would this work with dipoles? I love my radio shack
LX5 IIs, got 16 of them. How well would they work with 9.1
or 11.1?

I've found omnipole/dipole based speakers to give too diffused a soundstage, it cancels out any directionality in wide or height speakers.
post #189 of 1226
My experience with omnipolar speakers and dsx wides has been positive. I'm running
ohm walsh 3000's and mirage fs2's. I get a soundstage that stretches from side wall to
side wall,with good depth and good imaging. It could be something unique to my system,
but it works well for me.
post #190 of 1226
I guess I'll give it a try. The LX 5's really give a nice sound stage for music, plus the sweet spot for movies is pretty wide. The freq response is pretty raggy, but with my Pioneer (it has the 1st gen of MCAAC) the equalization really woke them up.
post #191 of 1226
Just getting back to you guys to say that my ponderings have come to an end and I've decided to give Neo:X (and DSX) a miss at this point and go with a Pioneer. It's called LX-73 over here and I think that is the same as your Elite SC-35. It went down a bit in price now that the new models will arrive in slightly over a month's time so it just made sense so stick to that one. Half the price compared to the Denon 4311 + AudysseyPro mic.... seems quite a steal. And that's not counting what 4 extra speakers would cost to implement.

Thanks for all the feedback.
post #192 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Just getting back to you guys to say that my ponderings have come to an end and I've decided to give Neo:X (and DSX) a miss at this point and go with a Pioneer. It's called LX-73 over here and I think that is the same as your Elite SC-35.

Just FYI, the LX75 and LX85 coming this fall will both include DTS Neo:X.

AJ
post #193 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength View Post

Just FYI, the LX75 and LX85 coming this fall will both include DTS Neo:X.

Yes, I know. But they have new power amps and also lower effect per channel... plus they have introduced selectable filters for the DACs which 'turns me off'.

LX73 got hooked up last night and I had a small test with Avatar 5dB below Ref... which is quite loud enough for me.

Quite fun to use the iPhone as remote too.

And I got the LX-73 at 2/3 of what the 75 will cost and probably around half the price of an 85. I can definitely use that money better on a poweramp for new subwoofers and perhaps an antimode.
post #194 of 1226
Hi all,

The characteristics of the new Onkyo TX NR3009/5009 and PR SC5509 can be found here.

Unfortunately no DTS Neo X 11.x, as these products seem to be limited to a "simple" 9.x processing... with the usual combination 5.1 + (W + H) or (W + Rears) or (H + Rears)...

Hugo
post #195 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post

The characteristics of the new Onkyo TX NR3009/5009 and PR SC5509 can be found here. Unfortunately no DTS Neo X 11.x, as these products seem to be limited to a "simple" 9.x processing... with the usual combination 5.1 + (W + H) or (W + Rears) or (H + Rears)...

A likely explanation might be that after selecting the "best" 9.x configuration (i.e., 7.x_Standard+2xFrontHeight or 7.x_Standard+2xFrontWide or 5.x_Standard+2xFrontHeight+2xFrontWide) for any given soundtrack, 'test panelists' did not hear a sufficient improvement in the upmix from an 11.x configuration (i.e., 7.x_Standard+2xFrontHeight+2xFrontWide) which would warrant the cost|weight|wattage penalty of adding two more power amps to the top models.
post #196 of 1226
Instead of all this matrix post-processing BS... why not start mixing a lot more movies with really high quality 24 bit, discrete 7.1 surround instead?

Now that 7.1 has made in-roads into commercial movie theaters (this time after it's already been in home theaters via Blu-ray), you'd think there would be a lot more requests for this kind of advanced audio post production.
post #197 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Instead of all this matrix post-processing BS... why not start mixing a lot more movies with really high quality 24 bit, discrete 7.1 surround instead? Now that 7.1 has made in-roads into commercial movie theaters (this time after it's already been in home theaters via Blu-ray), you'd think there would be a lot more requests for this kind of advanced audio post production.

You have to think BIGGER!

This 2010 AES paper suggests that Samsung is already at work trying to determine the appropriate complexity for HTIB speaker systems capable of 'good' reproduction of downmixed audio from [discrete] 16 channel to 22.2 channel source material--probably for sometime around 2020. (The abstract suggests that 'here' Samsung are perhaps evaluating the addition of just one more Tallboy "combination-middle-and-height-layer" speaker tower to 'something like' their existing DPLIIz capable HTIB systems...?) But whatever the state of the art for HTIB vendors|consumers, shouldn't serious audiophiles be looking just as hard to find satisfactory "quality" speaker configurations for the same time frame?!


[Of course, I have no idea how well this paper was received when it was presented! ]
post #198 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex
A likely explanation might be that after selecting the "best" 9.x configuration (i.e., 7.x_Standard+2xFrontHeight or 7.x_Standard+2xFrontWide or 5.x_Standard+2xFrontHeight+2xFrontWide) for any given soundtrack, 'test panelists' did not hear a sufficient improvement in the upmix from an 11.x configuration (i.e., 7.x_Standard+2xFrontHeight+2xFrontWide) which would warrant the cost|weight|wattage penalty of adding two more power amps to the top models.
Don't add them then. Just enable the preouts!

That's what Denon and even Pioneer have done.
post #199 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof View Post

Don't add them then. Just enable the preouts!

That's what Denon and even Pioneer have done.

Exactly. We are talking about flagship AVRs. Give them all the flagship features, 11.2 DSX and Neo:X being two of them.
post #200 of 1226
OK guys - please don't flame me on this rather basic question! I have not been following this kind of discussion for sometime and I genuinely do not know what the answer is. For the height channel, why put in on the front/rear/side wall and not in the ceiling directly overhead? Afterall, fron speakers go in the front, rear speakers go behind, so why not put height speakers over your head!?! Thanks.
post #201 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin McN View Post

OK guys - please don't flame me on this rather basic question! I have not been following this kind of discussion for sometime and I genuinely do not know what the answer is. For the height channel, why put in on the front/rear/side wall and not in the ceiling directly overhead? Afterall, fron speakers go in the front, rear speakers go behind, so why not put height speakers over your head!?! Thanks.

Because they are "FRONT height" channels
post #202 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Instead of all this matrix post-processing BS... why not start mixing a lot more movies with really high quality 24 bit, discrete 7.1 surround instead?

amen to that!

it's sad there are so few top drawer 7.1 titles. I have several that are technically 7.1 but have so little info in the rears, it's barely perceptable.

ironic that I can hear more back & surround channel info from adding PLIIx to some 2 ch tracks compared to the same disc's 5.1 surround track!

That's a sad commentary on the state of how some engineers seem to use surround. And I'm not just interested in wrapped music while 95% of the rest of the track is still up front coming from the center channel & all I may get to hear from the surrounds is a few russling leaves It depends on the genre, but I've heard action & SF films with disappointing surround use when it would have really added to the viewer involvement.

missed opportunities

For example, Master & Commander was a spectacular EX/6.1 track on DVD. Stunningly realistic and what did we get in Blu-ray? only 5.1 what a cheat! The studio really blew that one.

why worry about faux height when if the studios would just give us more true discrete 7.1, it could be a huge improvement in the experience without all the bull-pucky with adding 2-4 more speakers and buying new receivers & extra amps. Good marketing, I admit that - Bose would be proud
post #203 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

it's sad there are so few top drawer 7.1 titles. I have several that are technically 7.1 but have so little info in the rears, it's barely perceptible.

The good news is that 'correctly' miked recordings of live events will 'automatically' contain the correct balance of content between fronts, surrounds, and heights, and let us see (hear?) just how good the effects can be from genuine surround sound.

Some events shouldn't be missed: Japan's NHK TV filmed the last space shuttle launch at Kennedy in UHDTV (7680x4320 pixels) . . . and the 22.2 channel sound system had to cope with pressure levels exceeding 120dB! Supposedly, the video will be shown at IBC in September, 2011.
post #204 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

Some events shouldn't be missed: Japan's NHK TV filmed the last space shuttle launch at Kennedy in UHDTV (7680x4320 pixels) . . . and the 22.2 channel sound system had to cope with pressure levels exceeding 120dB! Supposedly, the video will be shown at IBC in September, 2011.

That would be awesome!
If it's part of a larger documentary on the shuttle, that would be a must have on blu
post #205 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post
Master & Commander was a spectacular EX/6.1 track on DVD. Stunningly realistic and what did we get in Blu-ray? only 5.1 what a cheat! The studio really blew that one.
M&C was 5.1 EX on DVD and 5.1 EX on BD. Same number of channels.
post #206 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post
you'd think there would be a lot more requests for this kind of advanced audio post production
Why would there be "a lot more requests" for something that doesn't make much difference, if any, to theatrical ticket sales or home video sales? It's the same reason they're not migrating to 96kHz sampling rate, even after more than a decade of digital audio (commercial cinema and home theatre).
post #207 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Why would there be "a lot more requests" for something that doesn't make much difference, if any, to theatrical ticket sales or home video sales? It's the same reason they're not migrating to 96kHz sampling rate, even after more than a decade of digital audio (commercial cinema and home theater).

Exactly so! If there comes a time when theater chains, internet streamers, TV broadcast|cable networks, or [next generation] video disk providers believe that increased corporate net income can be created by moving beyond 5.1|6.1|7.1, only then will content providers [be asked|paid to] make the shift to a higher channel count. Until at time, they have limited incentive to do so . . . and it's hard to see that (sea) change happening for at least another five or so years. [Ok, so let's all 'demand' that new source material have higher channel counts again sometime after 2016! ]
post #208 of 1226
Podcast released on Home Theater Geeks with Fred Maher of DTS discussing their newest formats. Neo X on new Denon products 4th quarter. http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/78
post #209 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by raneil View Post

Podcast released on Home Theater Geeks with Fred Maher of DTS discussing their newest formats. Neo X on new Denon products 4th quarter. http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/78

Would that be the upgraded A1HDC that goes for 7.5 grand??
post #210 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by raneil View Post

Podcast released on Home Theater Geeks with Fred Maher of DTS discussing their newest formats. Neo X on new Denon products 4th quarter. http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/78

Fred did discuss 'superficially' the 'encoding mechanism' he is currently using at DTS to convert an 11.1 source mix to 7.1 (for BD authoring using existing technology). If I understood correctly, he alluded to creation of three matrixed elements: one 'in the L and LS channels' for LW content, a second for RW content, and a third for LH|RH content using (I think?) only the C|LR|RR channels.
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