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

DTS Neo.X - Page 12

post #331 of 1226
The SC-68 is only DTS® Neo:X - 9.1 Channel Surround based on their literature,
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/AV-Receivers/Elite+Receivers/SC-68

Yamaha has no DTS NEOX 11.2 either
http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/aventage/rx-a3020_black_u/?mode=model

The only one is Onkyo TX-NR5010 for now frown.gif
DTS Neo:X 11.4, Dolby® Pro Logic® IIz and Audyssey DSX
http://www.us.onkyo.com/model.cfm?m=TX-NR5010&class=Receiver&p=i


and no pre/pro yet hopefully the Marantz but probably the Integra 82.4
post #332 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post



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.

Like you Keith I prefer Pliiz over DSX. I've noticed some movies on DSX if the vocals ever hit the main speakers sometimes due to panning you get a hall effect sound on the vocal.

Im yet to try dts neo x. Will do tonight.
post #333 of 1226
Just tried the neo x I think for my setup pliiz + thx works the best due to the size of my room.
post #334 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post


Like you Keith I prefer Pliiz over DSX. I've noticed some movies on DSX if the vocals ever hit the main speakers sometimes due to panning you get a hall effect sound on the vocal.
 

Yes, on any occasion where there is dialogue in a left or right speaker, DSX also places it in the height speakers and gives the 'voice of god' effect you describe. It doesn't happen with PLIIz because that derives the Height info from the surround channels not the front R&L. I guess if there was dialogue in the surround channels, we might notice an issue, but dialogue in the surrounds is pretty rare.

post #335 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, on any occasion where there is dialogue in a left or right speaker, DSX also places it in the height speakers and gives the 'voice of god' effect you describe. It doesn't happen with PLIIz because that derives the Height info from the surround channels not the front R&L. I guess if there was dialogue in the surround channels, we might notice an issue, but dialogue in the surrounds is pretty rare.


So the height channels are a copy of the surround/ rear channels?
post #336 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post


So the height channels are a copy of the surround/ rear channels?


Copy isn't the right word - it's not a bit for bit identical copy in the Height channels. The Height information isn't in the original content so it has to be 'derived' or 'created'.

 

PLIIz derives the Height information from the content in the surround channels. DSX derives (and some say creates) the height information from the content in the main L&R channels.

 

Neo:X derives Wide information from the front left/left surround and front right/right surround but I am not sure how it derives its Height information.

 

There are others in this thread who have vastly more knowledge of this than I do, but my simplified explanation of DSX/PLIIz above is correct to the best of my knowledge. Because DSX gets the info from the front R&L channels, I personally find it creates a much too front-centric effect and diminishes the all-important (to me) 'surround sound bubble'. PLIIz, getting the height info from the surround channels doesn't seem to cause this issue for me and preserves the bubble while also giving a nice ambient effect up in the Height speakers. It's not all that noticeable usually, unless you turn it off (which I can do simply by killing the amp that powers the Height speakers) and then you really notice its absence IYKWIM.

 

I have experimented with Neo:X for my Height channels but it does something odd which I dislike. Can't put my finger on it. If you have some 7.1 encoded discs, try swapping between PLIIz and Neo:X and tell me what you hear in the surrounds. Very noticeable on 7.1 encodes with a lot of surround activity - eg Transformers DOTM.

 

All of this is very subjective so everyone's mileage will vary.

post #337 of 1226
Thank you for the explanation Keith. I found the pliiz just blended nicely with the fronts and didn't stand out. Cause I use thx I'm happy with pliiz over the rest of them plus its designed mainly for heights while the other two push wides and heights together ( 11.1 )
post #338 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Thank you for the explanation Keith. I found the pliiz just blended nicely with the fronts and didn't stand out. Cause I use thx I'm happy with pliiz over the rest of them plus its designed mainly for heights while the other two push wides and heights together ( 11.1 )


Agree with you, Frank. If you do get the chance to experiment with Neo:X and a 7.1 encoded disc though, I’d be interested to read what you have to say.

post #339 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


Agree with you, Frank. If you do get the chance to experiment with Neo:X and a 7.1 encoded disc though, I’d be interested to read what you have to say.

Ill have to pop in transformers DSOTM and have a listen hopefully in the next few days. I have tried it with sw ep III and still preferred pliiz over neo x.
post #340 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

It doesn't happen with PLIIz because that derives the Height info from the surround channels not the front R&L. I guess if there was dialogue in the surround channels, we might notice an issue, but dialogue in the surrounds is pretty rare.
PLIIz grabs decorrelated (out of phase) information from the surround channels to feed the height speakers. As you said, dialogue in the surround channels is pretty rare. And even when it is there, it's almost never mixed in out of phase. So the likelyhood of dialogue ending up in PLIIz height speakers is negligible to nonexistent; same with any directional effects in the surround channels. The only thing extracted is ambient, non-localizable surround content.
post #341 of 1226
So for those of you who have a 9.1 do you prefer front wide or front height?

Interesting

"Technical Details
Why use more speakers?

Research in human hearing shows that we can hear many more directions than what current systems provide. We use the direct sound to localize the direction of sources and the reflected sound to perceive the size of the soundstage.

Experiments have shown that human localization is better in front than to the sides or behind. This means that for front-weighted content such as movies and most music, good engineering dictates that we employ more channels in the front hemisphere than the back. Imaging is also better horizontally than vertically and so good engineering also dictates that channels must first be added in the same plane as our ears before going to higher elevations.

Perception is not the only factor. The physics of room acoustics for music have been well studied, and their correlation with subjective impression increasingly understood over the last 30 years. This research has shown that we have strong built-in preferences for the direction, frequency response, and time of arrival of reflected sound. Additional channels and surround sound processing are needed to properly render these components.
Audyssey DSX Configurations


http://www.audyssey.com/audio-technology/audyssey-dsx

7.1 SURROUND: A B | 9.1 SURROUND: A B C | 11.1 SURROUND: A Wides Before Heights

One key finding from the research is that first side wall reflections play a great role in determining subjective impression. The most important direction of reflected sound was found to be ±60° relative to the front. Audyssey DSX provides a pair of Wide channels (LW and RW) at ±60° with appropriate frequency response and perceptual processing to match these requirements of human hearing. These Wide channels are much more critical in the presentation of a realistic soundstage than the Back Surround channels found in traditional 7.1 systems. Adding surround channels behind the listener has a very small impact compared to the increase in envelopment and soundstage width that the Wide channels provide.

The next most important acoustical and perceptual cues come from reflections above the front stage. Audyssey DSX provides a pair of Height channels (LH and RH) that should be ideally positioned at a 45° elevation angle."

Edited by wse - 7/30/12 at 4:09pm
post #342 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

PLIIz grabs decorrelated (out of phase) information from the surround channels to feed the height speakers. As you said, dialogue in the surround channels is pretty rare. And even when it is there, it's almost never mixed in out of phase. So the likelyhood of dialogue ending up in PLIIz height speakers is negligible to nonexistent; same with any directional effects in the surround channels. The only thing extracted is ambient, non-localizable surround content.
Thanks sdurani.
post #343 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

So for those of you who have a 9.1 do you prefer front wide or front height?
Interesting
"Technical Details
Why use more speakers?
Research in human hearing shows that we can hear many more directions than what current systems provide. We use the direct sound to localize the direction of sources and the reflected sound to perceive the size of the soundstage.
Experiments have shown that human localization is better in front than to the sides or behind. This means that for front-weighted content such as movies and most music, good engineering dictates that we employ more channels in the front hemisphere than the back. Imaging is also better horizontally than vertically and so good engineering also dictates that channels must first be added in the same plane as our ears before going to higher elevations.
Perception is not the only factor. The physics of room acoustics for music have been well studied, and their correlation with subjective impression increasingly understood over the last 30 years. This research has shown that we have strong built-in preferences for the direction, frequency response, and time of arrival of reflected sound. Additional channels and surround sound processing are needed to properly render these components.
Audyssey DSX Configurations

http://www.audyssey.com/audio-technology/audyssey-dsx
7.1 SURROUND: A B | 9.1 SURROUND: A B C | 11.1 SURROUND: A Wides Before Heights
One key finding from the research is that first side wall reflections play a great role in determining subjective impression. The mos important direction of reflected sound was found to be ±60° relative to the front. Audyssey DSX provides a pair of Wide channels (LW and RW) at ±60° with appropriate frequency response and perceptual processing to match these requirements of human hearing. These Wide channels are much more critical in the presentation of a realistic soundstage than the Back Surround channels found in traditional 7.1 systems. Adding surround channels behind the listener has a very small impact compared to the increase in envelopment and soundstage width that the Wide channels provide.
The next most important acoustical and perceptual cues come from reflections above the front stage. Audyssey DSX provides a pair of Height channels (LH and RH) that should be ideally positioned at a 45° elevation angle."

My room can only support heights. Heights is not good with Dsx, i guess that's why they wides before heights.
post #344 of 1226
Hi,

As a long time user of DSX (5007/A100/5508/4311) in an 11.2 installation, my experience is that the best DSX results come:

1- for 5.1 encodings: 9.x DSX with 5.x +( W+H)
2- for 6.1/7.1 encodings: 11.x DSX with 7.x+(W+H)

this equals to the use of just a plain DSX W+H processing above the original encoding and with all identical monopole 7 front speakers (Klipsch THX U2 KL650 in my case).

Now I still haven't tested DTS Neo X 11.x ... something that should probably change with the future arrival of either an 4520 or an 5510. wink.gif

Hugo
post #345 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post

Hi,
As a long time user of DSX (5007/A100/5508/4311) in an 11.2 installation, my experience is that the best DSX results come:
1- for 5.1 encodings: 9.x DSX with 5.x +( W+H)
2- for 6.1/7.1 encodings: 11.x DSX with 7.x+(W+H)
this equals to the use of just a plain DSX W+H processing above the original encoding and with all identical monopole 7 front speakers (Klipsch THX U2 KL650 in my case).
Now I still haven't tested DTS Neo X 11.x ... something that should probably change with the future arrival of either an 4520 or an 5510. wink.gif
Hugo

 

The new Onkyo 3010 has ability to do DTS Neo 11.x as well, with use of an ext amp for the wides.

post #346 of 1226
Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlanzy View Post

The new Onkyo 3010 has ability to do DTS Neo 11.x as well, with use of an ext amp for the wides.

Thks, I know. wink.gif

Hugo
post #347 of 1226
I recently visited the DTS Neo:X product page . . . where I noticed a white paper (Effective Date June 2012) "The First Step Toward 3D Audio: DTS Neo:X" (link). Reading through the document, I see that "DTS Neo:X is the first step in our multi-tiered plan to take audio into the third dimension."

Is this perhaps some new and|or secret plan . . . or did I just miss a DTS Press Release somewhere along the way? cool.gif

And I'm assuming here that "multi-tiered" is code for "at least two, but we're still trying to decide whether we should have more tiers than whatever number Dolby chooses for their competitor product, or fewer..."
_
Edited by SoundChex - 8/6/12 at 7:23pm
post #348 of 1226
I can say I am quite pleased with Neo:X using front heights. My room is not wide enough to warrant front wides (only 12 feet, with a 7ft 7 in screen on it), so I am only using front heights.
post #349 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

My room is not wide enough to warrant front wides (only 12 feet, with a 7ft 7 in screen on it), so I am only using front heights.

Room width doesn't matter; you can get suitable angles by putting the wides on the sidewalls.
post #350 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

That's good enough for me, Roger smile.gif


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.

After extensive listening on my professionally calibrated audio system, I too prefer Pliz over Neo:x. Having said that, I find myself gravitating back to THX Cinema for its "theater like" sound. A sound that can only be appreciated with extensive listening and not by quickly bouncing between sound modes. I really do like Pliiz ,but there is that special something about Thx cinema that keeps pulling me back. It is the only mode that truly makes me feel like I'm sitting in a theater. As a side benefit,loud explosions sound less harsh than the other modes. I sure re-eq plays a role in that.
post #351 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Room width doesn't matter; you can get suitable angles by putting the wides on the sidewalls.

Sure it does. I would have to put one of the front wides ontop of a doorway or on the door itself...or withing two foot of the mains....or within two foot of the side surrounds. None of those locations are conducive to side surrounds.
post #352 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifi59 View Post

After extensive listening on my professionally calibrated audio system, I too prefer Pliz over Neo:x. Having said that, I find myself gravitating back to THX Cinema for its "theater like" sound. A sound that can only be appreciated with extensive listening and not by quickly bouncing between sound modes. I really do like Pliiz ,but there is that special something about Thx cinema that keeps pulling me back. It is the only mode that truly makes me feel like I'm sitting in a theater. As a side benefit,loud explosions sound less harsh than the other modes. I sure re-eq plays a role in that.

THX Cinema who has that Onkyo?
post #353 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

I would have to put one of the front wides ontop of a doorway or on the door itself...or withing two foot of the mains....or within two foot of the side surrounds.
That's not a problem with room width but where the doorway is located. If you have your front speakers at ±30° and your sides at ±90°, then there is 60° of separation between them, which is enough separation to split that angle with a pair of wides at ±60°. If that angle falls on the side walls rather than the front wall, then there's no reason you shouldn't be able to mount a pair of speakers there. Unless there is a doorway at that location. In which case, the problem isn't room width.
post #354 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifi59 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

That's good enough for me, Roger smile.gif


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.

After extensive listening on my professionally calibrated audio system, I too prefer Pliz over Neo:x. Having said that, I find myself gravitating back to THX Cinema for its "theater like" sound. A sound that can only be appreciated with extensive listening and not by quickly bouncing between sound modes. I really do like Pliiz ,but there is that special something about Thx cinema that keeps pulling me back. It is the only mode that truly makes me feel like I'm sitting in a theater. As a side benefit,loud explosions sound less harsh than the other modes. I sure re-eq plays a role in that.


You can of course use THX CInema in conjunction with PLIIz - have you tried that?

post #355 of 1226
When I was doing 9 channels I liked Height but with 11 NEO: X takes the cake.
post #356 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

THX Cinema who has that Onkyo?

Yes,Onkyo.Pioneer also. I am not using surround backs in my setup.
post #357 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


You can of course use THX CInema in conjunction with PLIIz - have you tried that?

I should have clarified. That's exactly what I prefer and using.. Thx with PLIIz.
post #358 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

That's not a problem with room width but where the doorway is located. If you have your front speakers at ±30° and your sides at ±90°, then there is 60° of separation between them, which is enough separation to split that angle with a pair of wides at ±60°. If that angle falls on the side walls rather than the front wall, then there's no reason you shouldn't be able to mount a pair of speakers there. Unless there is a doorway at that location. In which case, the problem isn't room width.

Sure the width is a problem. Where would you put them (picture of front of room found below)? Take note that a second subwoofer is going to be placed at the front left shortly, where the subwoofer connection in the stage can be seen.

138a.jpg
post #359 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Sure the width is a problem. Where would you put them (picture of front of room found below)?
At the ±60° locations. Have you mapped those angles to see where they fall on your side walls?
post #360 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Sure the width is a problem. Where would you put them (picture of front of room found below)? Take note that a second subwoofer is going to be placed at the front left shortly, where the subwoofer connection in the stage can be seen.

 

 

The wides ideally need to be at 60 degrees from the MLP. Where would that position them in your room?  If it is slap bang in the middle of the door, you have a problem - not with the width of the room though - with the door. It's difficult to tell from a photo but if the 60 degree position is just to the left of the door you might be lucky with it. I have the exact same problem - door in way.

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