DTS Neo.X - Page 11

thx andrew, but if i do this i will lost standard 7.1 encodes or not?

ronald

Hi Keith,

Please note, my comments are deductions based on some rudimentary tests. Nothing authoritative.

Let's look at how they derive height signals from 5.1 sources:

Neo:X extracts from fronts and surrounds
PLIIz extracts from surrounds only

Neo:X is frequency selective. It can separate decorrelated from correlated sounds within different frequency bands at the same time
PLIIz, like PLIIx, is based on PLII, which is wideband logic steering, so cannot be "in 2 places at once"

Isolating the height speakers, one can hear more of the activity of the decoders' operation. In many respects there was a lot of similarity between them. In some cases there were small soundtrack cues present in PLIIz that were excluded from Neo:X, and in other cases exactly the opposite happened. Neither struck me as being obviously right or wrong, just different.

Neo:X does a pretty good job of avoiding coherent signal components. However, with prominent transients like a drum hit, it lets out a little "spft" each time. Otherwise, the ambience it extracts is totally without character--no vocals, no direct melody. It seems like both height speakers carry identical content except for being decorrelated.

PLIIz easily avoids dialog or other front-ch leakage since it ignores them. There were cases where PLIIz steering got jumpy and others where little burps of sound came out, neither of which flustered Neo:X. These are direct benefits of Neo's multiband steering. PLIIz height signals also sound like decorrelated mono when running in full 9.1 mode (with rears). When running in 7.1 mode (5.1 + heights) the heights are somewhat more independent (like the surrounds from PLII when decoding stereo sources).

Not sure any of this really helps, as all that matters is how it sounds to the listener. It's all so subjective.

 

That's good enough for me, Roger :)

 

 

Interesting - thanks. One of the reasons I prefer PLIIz to DSX is that the former derives the content from the surround channels and not the front L/R. I have done a fair bit of listening with all the other channels isolated and switching between PLIIz and DSX and I have come to the conclusion (for me at least as it is very subjective) that DSX just puts too much L/R content 'up there' in the Heights.

 

Thanks Roger. Yes, it does help thanks. It helps me to confirm what I am hearing (or not) when someone with your knowledge and background gives me the 'inside' info so to speak and I do find this useful. FWIW, my personal jury is still out on Neo:X and I always seem to drift back to using PLIIz. It's hard to say exactly why - to me it just 'sounds right' - particularly in terms of the overall 'bubble' and front/rear envelopment.  Thanks again.

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Roger. It helps a lot.

And without yet trying them out, at face value, deriving the channels from just the surrounds looks preferable than if it includes info from the fronts. To me, having it front-centric might harm front soundstage & precise imaging. Plus, if it's derived just from surrounds, it might make speaker placement AND speaker choice more flexible. Putting Neo X derived channels not in the same plane as the fronts, seems to me could be a problem and you'd have to be much more careful matching the speakers used with the mains.

My main issue with DSX was that it makes the whole thing far too front-centric. It becomes unnatural IMO and DSX also does something odd to the surround channels too - they seem lower in SPL but it's not just that - the surround envelopment is affected too. I'm sure it's because PLIIz derives the height info from the surrounds that, for me, it works better. As Roger says, there is no right and wrong to this and it is all subjective, but so far, for me at least. PLIIz is the best for heights. I will continue evaluating Neo:X over a wider range of material though.

 

EDIT: it's interesting now - we have three different methods of deriving height information:

 

• DSX derives it from the front R & L channels
• PLIIz derives it from the surround channels
• Neo:X derives it from the front R&L and the surround channels

 

You pays your money and you takes your choice :)

Edited by kbarnes701 - 7/19/12 at 10:16am

@ss9001 (and @Roger if he's there):

 

ss9001 - do you have Transformers Dark of the Moon on Blu-ray?  If you do, give it a try alternating between DSX, PLIIz and Neo:X, and listen to the differences - not just in terms of what is in the height channels, but what is happening to the surround channels.

 

I noticed it right away on the opening logo screen where the stars whizz around the room. In Neo:X there seemed to be significantly more surround activity. FF to the Shockwave scene at Chernobyl, where the Shockwave makes its appearance, coming out of the ground front left of the scene... listen to the surround effects as Shockwave's tail thrashes around the room. Do you notice how much more evident they are in Neo:X?  Go to any of the other great demo scenes from this movie and you will hear the same thing: with Neo:X the surround channels are very different to PLIIz - more surround information seems to be there. It is very exciting - not sure if it is what the Director and Mixer intended, but it's exciting - at least with this movie and maybe others of similar type. Not sure if this would be acceptable on other genres of movie or even if it is long-term acceptable on any genre. It does seem to attract undue attention to the surround channels, but that may also be in Michael Bay's crazy OTT sound mix for this movie.

 

My question for Roger if he is reading is "what would account for what I am hearing in the implementation of Neo:X?". Why would it make such a dramatic difference on the surround channels?

 

FYI, and in case it is relevant, I am running 7.2 (Height channels) and use MK S150s for the front RCL, M&K SS150 Tripoles for the surrounds and M&K LCR 55s for the Height channels. PrePro is Onkyo 5509 and amps are Emotiva XPA-3 + 2 x UPA-2. BD player is Oppo 93.

 

 

EDIT:  I just realised that Transformers DOTM is in 7.1 format - would this make a difference?

Edited by kbarnes701 - 7/19/12 at 11:09am

There is a difference between a decoder with competent "mechanics" that can adroitly perform blind source separation, and one that creates an enveloping bubble or immersive sense of space. I prefer the latter. I am so looking forward to hearing the new Harman QLS Quantum Logic processor, if and when...
It depends on how the height signals are encoded. In PLIIz the heights are the opposite phase signals in Ls/Rs of a 5.1 program. In Neo:X the heights are mapped as the "phantom" image between the front and rear speakers of a 7.1 mix. (FL/Lrs > Lh). The wides are mapped across FL and Ls. So they have to look at FL to decide what's going on, based on that decision. Makes it hard to encode height into 5.1, but maybe they have another way of doing that. All this was explained by Fred Maher in his chat with Scott Wilkinson on Twit.tv #78 at 38 minutes per my notes.

It should not. Your AV processor tells the BD player it has 5.1 + height speakers so it should deliver the 5.1 core of the mix.

I cannot see any reason why Neo:X would deliberately emphasize the surrounds (either the sides or the rears or both if in use). I did not notice that in my tests in the Onkyo TX-NR1009 on a 9.1 setup (4 surrounds), but that does not prove anything. In the case of the wide outputs, I found them 3 dB higher in Music mode than Movie mode, but the front/surround levels were unchanged.

One thing to try is to kill the height speakers (disconnect or turn off amps) and compare with Neo:X on and off. Are the surrounds louder in Neo:X?

Thanks Roger. I can't understand why this should happen. Transformers DOTM has very deliberately emphasised and directional surround info and it is a 7.1 encode (if that makes any difference) so maybe it's not the best movie to try this on.

 

Like you I normally prefer my surrounds to give me a sense of space and ambiance rather than constantly drawing attention to themselves - but again, Michael Bay may have other ideas ;)

 

I will experiment with the height channel amp off and do the switching between PLIIz and Neo:X that way and see what I discover there. That is the method I used to help determine that I preferred PLIIz to DSX. I'll also try another movie with a less agressive surround mix.  Thanks for your help.

 

EDIT:  After further listening tests, I am not hearing this effect with 5.1 encoded material - just 7.1 - and especially so on Transformers DOTM. Is it possible that the 7.1 encode is accounting for what I am hearing. With 5.1 encoded material, I have a distinct preference for PLIIz as it seems to retain the sense of space and ambience better than Neo:X.

Edited by kbarnes701 - 7/19/12 at 1:16pm

I have no explanation for why a 7.1 mix, played on a system with 2 surrounds (no rears) would behave any different than a 5.1 mix, regardless of how bombastic it may be, and regardless of the post-processing.

Does the Transformers disc also have a 5.1 foreign track? Is it properly behaved?

I'll check to see if my copy has an alternative 5.1 track and if it does I will try it and report back. Since posting earlier I have tried several other 7.1 encoded discs and none has the 'surround enhancement' that Transformers DOTM has. The only difference between that disc and the others I have tried is that DOTM is Dolby TrueHD and the others were DTS-HD MA, but I can't see why that would make a difference.

 

If you have the inclination (and the disc) give DOTM a try in Neo:X - you will hear the effect I describe even before the movie starts as the stars on the logo whiz around the room.

 

Kind Regards,

Keith

I have neither the disc (rented from Netflix) nor Neo:X (the NR1009 was forwarded to others).

Bonjour,

In the new Onkyo TX NR 5010/3010 recently published user manual, concerning DTS Neo X, it is indicated that it only expands sources up to 9.1 channels (p.50 US manual).

Now I understand that DTS Neo X is able to completely drive 11.x channels...

So any thoughts concerning this apparent limitation in these latest Onkyos'?

Hugo

PS: I didn't post an image of the manual in order to comply with the script rights. ;-)

LOL!  That would be OK, Hugo - it would class as 'fair use' in your jurisdiction (Europe) and, I believe, in the USA too. There is a grey area over the jurisdiction for the Internet - are you publishing in Europe or the US, or even in another country altogether if AVS is hosted elsewhere, for example.

 

To your point, Neo:X can handle 11 channels for sure. The Onkyo needs an additional two channel power amp to get the 11 channels - perhaps that is where the confusion arises?  Onkyo manuals aren't exactly models of clarity sometimes.

 

A bientot.

Bonjour Keith,

Concerning Onkyo manuals... and the 9.x channels limitation in DTS Neo X...

Onkyo TX NR5010_3010 DTS Neo X user manual extract.JPG 41k .JPG file

Amicalement,

Hugo

PS: Keith, si je vais en prison, il faudra que tu le portes sur ta conscience...
Edited by Hugo S - 7/22/12 at 5:36am

LOL!!  Tu pourras certain que je te visiterai là!

Edited by kbarnes701 - 7/22/12 at 7:42am

 

I'm fairly sure that they say this because, as it stands (without an additional two channel external amp) it is true: the Onkyo only has 9 amps so it can never, on its own, feed 11 channels simultaneously. That is how I interpret the manual, BICBW of course.

 

DTS says the new Onkyos can do 11 channels of Neo:X output.
http://www.dts.com/corporate/press-releases/2012/06/dts-onkyo-deliver-worlds-first-11-point-1-neo-x-receiver.aspx

Bonjour again,

This is also my sentiment. But nevertheless what puzzles me is the wording "... expands... up to 9.1 channels".

So as I have already been "xxx off" by Onkyo when I bought the 5007 thinking it had a full Audyssey DSX capacity and it ended up that this wasn't the case for the W+H configuration... since then I prefer to precisely check all Onkyo's user manuals before any consideration.

Anyway I will be going at this year's IFA in Berlin, I'll though directly check with Onkyo.

Hugo

I agree it's best to check - to get it directly from the horse's mouth. I hope that we are right (in fact I am sure we are really) and that it can do Neo:X in all 11 channels, simultaneously.

Hi there. I'm new here. I did run across this topic and want to give my two cents. Only six receivers can run 11.x channel setup at the same time. Denon 4810, 4311 and 4520. Yamaha rxz11, 3010, 3020. None can run neo x in 11 channel format as of yet. Only one I'm not sure of is new denon 4520. I know it will do dsx in 11 channel but not sure about dts neo x. I have my YouTube channel under Myphotopick. I compared onkyo 5007 to denon 4810. In this video i had 11.2 channel setup for dsx. Home theater part two video I show my current setup for Yamaha 3010 with 11.4 channel setup so you can take a look. Pioneer sc-55 and sc-57 and new sc-67, sc-68 and sc-65 can do neo x but limited by processor to 9 channels at the same time, even though they have 11.2 pre out. Same goes for new onkyo 5010. Denon 4520 will be available in October so my guess is it will support dsx and dts in 11.x at the same time. I hope this helps. Any questions ...let me know .

5010 doesn't do 11.3 with preouts!??

Sorry 5010 does... I meant 5009. They claim 5010 is the first with 11.x dts neo x.

bit of an update.. Talked with pioneer technician today. I asked him how come they introduced sc-68 without being able to do neo x 11.x . He informed me that sc-68 will be able to do that ether out of the box or with firmware update. I asked about sc-57 and he said the chip on the board will not be able to do 11.x so no luck if you have sc-57 ..it will only do 9.x neo x . so as of now pioneer sc-68 and onkyo 5010 are 11.x neo x capable. Still waiting on denon 4520 spec.

One annoyance with the 3010/5010 is that you have to use an external amp for the wides.  Since I use a  6 channel 350w/ch amp to power the 5 main speakers I have use the AVR amps to drive my side surrounds and use the ext amp to drive the wides which are only BA 450's and hope not to blow them off the walls.  I wish they would have made assignable amps, but as a poster noted that they apparently are using the same architecture from the xx09 series that wouldn't allow such.

There is no room left for an 11 channel power amp, if you look inside.
Thus 11 channel preamp, but "just" 9 channel power amp.

I don't think there is enough demand to justify the cost for 11 amps, actually for most a 7 channel amp is not utilized that much due to limited ability or desire to use back surrounds.  I just wish they would have been able to let the user assign which speakers an ext amp was necessary rather than mandating it.  But again, I know I'm in a minority of HT nuts who use the avr as a pre pro so I'm sure Onkyo isn't going to pander to such a small group.

Ok. So I started to dig in a bit and as it stands for now. Four receivers support dts neo x 11.x channel audio with front wide and height at the same time. Denon avr-4520, onkyo 5010 and 3010 and pioneer sc-68. If anyone cares. All are available now except for denon. I'm looking to buy new sc-57 which has 9.x neo x. I can't real use fron wide setup, not enough room. I have 4311 new in box from best buy and looking to exchange for sc-57 but not sure what to do as I also have denon blu-ray 4010 with denon link 4th. Denon 4311 is the last receiver using denon link 4th. I know I can run 11 channel setup with 4311 but audyssey dsx only. Sc-57 has 11 channel out but like I said earlier ..guy from pioneer told me that firmware upgrade will not let it be 11 channel. It's 9 channel chip only.

If you hunt around for my photos, you can see how I placed my wide speakers. They don't have to be to the extreme sides of the front L and R speakers as I originally thought.

They just have to follow the angle recommendations.

So I actually gave them set to be almost like a mirror image of the surround speakers, ie on the side walls.