DTS Neo.X - Page 19

VOG will not be 5 feet, that's the whole problem. Say you're ceiling is a lowish but common 8 feet. Your ears are at about 3'4". Then take the speakers physical size into account and you're at less than 4 feet. Not enough to allow for proper blending of highs & mid/lows. Maybe some dipole design might be better suitable for this?

Who decided that? It certainly is possible. That of course is no guarantee it will happen.

So I read about MDA and finally understand what objects means, which is essentially that a sound has extra data associated with it (metadata) for the horizontal and vertical angles from which it emanates; not sure about distance.

But what about the reflections associated with sounds, which come from many directions?

I don't know on what basis, but someone said in another thread said that the metadata can't be put on BD.

It is a problem only if you make it one by using a physically deep speaker and placing it directly above your head. To add to that, there is no surround processing that uses a single height speaker, so you'd really be going out of your way (sending 2 height channels to 1 speaker) to make it a problem.

Instead, you could use 2 or 4 height speakers (small satellites or on-ceiling or in-ceiling), spread away from the centre line (like what's already done rear speakers), and you no longer have a speaker blaring at your head from less than 4 feet away.

Again, if you try, you can make height speakers a problem in typical-sized listening rooms. But why would you deliberately make that effort?

MDA describes position as either x/y/z or azimuth/elevation/radius (they are equivalent).
An object does not have to be a mono point source. Or a mono object can also have associated reflections or reverb carried in other objects or channels.
It is a reasonable assumption at first glance. Luckily it is not a limitation within the context of the lossless codec definitions.

I looked at the DTS website in relation to the NEO:X but I couldn't find anything about the rear height speakers. It looks to me if the person who did up the drawings made a mistake. Maybe the rear heights was just a picture typo.

Which is what I already had stated two posts earlier. Not so sure it would be worth the $1.2k the speakers would cost to try something that's not yet standardized...

This 1/12/2013 soundandvisionmag com article, "CES 2013: DTS Headphone X - Surround sound in your headphones" (link), suggests to me that the rear height speaker pair is primarily(?) related to DTS Headphone:X technology...?!
_

But that's a problem you've created for yourself by choosing to limit yourself to speakers that cost $1,200. For others, a couple of cheap speakers they might have lying around would let them try out the effect before they commit to installing higher priced speakers.

$300. It's for 4. And that's the cheapest in-wall model in the brand.

It's like Yoda says - "Do or do not - there is no try".

I think you are describing height speakers like in my most wanted 13.3 system (9 @ ear level + 4 @ height). I was talking about the extra Voice Of God (VOG) as used in Auro-3D 10.1 format:

http://www.auro-3d.com/system/listening-formats

I think if such top ceiling / VOG channel is desired if the ceiling is not very high, it would be best to use not one but two of them. Both on axis: one 60° upwards in front and the other 60° upwards behind. This way, they will be less noticable for ambient duties and also better suited for back-front panning effects, while being slightly further from MLP...

Anyway, I think we both agree that one directly above our head with normal ceiling heights would be undesirable.

Like this:

Atmos™ 15.3 Surround.pdf 105k .pdf file

If that is Atmos guide is the real deal then the speaker placement is very interesting. It carries closer to what Audyssey is proposing than DTS as far as angles for speaker placement go.

Neat!


As with some others, my personal preference would be to substitute a Height Front Center plus Height Rear Center speaker-pair (or even just a Height Front Center speaker, "Harman QLS 12.x style") for the Top Center Overhead Voice-Of-God|Sword-Of-Damocles speaker...?!

Nonetheless, I think there might be some advantage in having the post processing channel upmix algorithm "conceptually" first derive the Top Center Overhead channel|speaker content and then redistribute that content to 4, 5, or 6 upper layer speakers based on the actual speaker configuration. (This would seem equally appropriate even if the 'starting point' is a 'promised but not yet seen' home theater Auro3D 10.1 soundtrack . . . and of course irrelevant and|or implicitly a part of any playback-time instanced Atmos|MDA computation.)
_
Edited by SoundChex - 2/1/13 at 2:26pm

Ah, simple enough, a direct sound object and reflected sound object(s), the proportion of which would give the distance.

Do we know if 'audio emission direction' is part of an object's attributes? (Think spinning loudspeaker; the sound is louder when the cone is pointing towards you...)
_

the sounds are still captured in the normal way, so it'd be like micing a leslie cabinet. You don't need to tell the software which way the speaker is pointing moment by moment because the differences that causes are captured by the mic(s). If you wanted to accurately capture the sound of the leslie in a particular room at a particular listening location you'd likely need multiple cardiod mics pointed in different directions to capture the fluctuating direct sound and the fluctuations of the reflected sounds caused by the leslie's fluctuations.

The beauty of an object-based delivery system like Atmos or MDA is that the end user can decide how many speakers to use and where to put them. The renderer will use them to best advantage. What may be best practices for certain room types may not apply to other room types, so they would be free to use what works best for the circumstances.

No no, I have to state here that this is my own interpretation. As Roger said in previous post ^^ such a object-based surround sound projector would determine not only how many, but also where all the speakers are. It can determine the angles by taking measurements from several positions in the listening area.

So what I designed is Audyssey 11.x DSX plus where I feel the rear heights would work best: All four "normal" heights are 90° from the next, hence it creates a nice square plane at height so sounds could pan very well between ear level and height. Sounds can pan between them. Atmosphere can be created by all four together. The rear heights also further fill the gap between side and back surround. It would even be possible to use only one back surround since the rear heights would ensure proper envelopment.

Then I added the two top heights (VOG). Just putting them where the gap in the hemisphere is at it largest.

Total is fifteen satellites. But fourteen, with one back surround at ear level only would be just as good IMO. If side surrounds are at 90° from axis and single back surround ofcourse at 180°, then the top rear heights would be perfectly in the middle of them. 45° relative distance is close enough for what is behind us.
Edited by erwinfrombelgium - 2/1/13 at 10:57pm

Auro uses 4 speakers for the VOG channel, with none (zero) placed along the listener's centre line (same with Atmos, no height speakers along the centre line). The one forward might work, but the one behind would be psychoacoustically problematic when it comes to directionality (same reason a single rear speakers is not recommended). Better to spread all height speakers away from the listener's centre line, like Auro-3D and Atmos do.

It's not, despite the use of "Atmos" in the name and even the TradeMark symbol to make it appear official.

Auro actually describes 6 speaker layouts. All of them start with a common 9.1 setup.

9.1 = 5.1 + 4 overhead corners
10.1 = 9.1 + TS (top surround, a.k.a. "voice of god")
11.1 = 10.1 + center height
12.1 = 11.1 + center rear (from the old 6.1 days)
13.1 = 12.1 + center rear height

Seems a little weird to put 7 channels overhead and 6 on the mains, especially since 7.1 is the "new normal" for that. But that's not the purpose of this post, which is simply to say that Auro can include VOG.

Actually, I believe Auro Technologies defines some theatrical configurations in a slightly more complicated manner...

12.1(6) = 11.1 + center rear (from the old 6.1 days) (12 satellite channels + LFE)
13.1(6) = 13.1(6) + center rear height (13 satellite channels + LFE)

and

12.1(7) = 11.1 + Left|Right Rear Speaker pair (13 satellite channels + LFE)
13.1(7) = 12.1(7) + center rear height (14 satellite channels + LFE)

I think the 12.1(6|7) and 13.1(6|7) configurations are really only intended to provide backward compatibility for Auro3D upgrades to theaters already configured as 6.1 Standard or 7.1 Standard speaker setups...?!

Annoyingly (because at the time I didn't think anything of it!!!!) I recently saw a article that mentioned mixing Auro3D soundtracks in an 11.1 configuration which now reminds me of the 'new' DTS Headphone:X configuration . . . which I had then not yet seen...?!
_
Edited by SoundChex - 2/2/13 at 10:17am

I believe Auro3D can use either single speakers or speaker arrays to deliver surround and overhead channel content, as suggested by this mixing console graphic...


_

^^
Correct.
In their 10.1 set-up for home cinema, it's one single speaker as VOG

In their 13.1 set-up for commercial theatre, it's suggested as a four-speaker array, just like the other surround channels. Still one channel like in 10.1

I already corrected it myself, but you appear to be on a mission. Suit yourself.

I added ™ only since that's what Dolby® does and I respect that. I will respect them even a whole lot more if they bring a form of Atmos™ to my home...

Been to 2 theatres in SoCal with Auro3D, and neither appeared to use a single rear speaker nor single overhead speaker. In theory Surround EX could be reproduced using a single rear speaker (it was a mono surround-back channel after all), but in practice this was not done. Which was my point about the VOG: despite being a mono channel, it was mapped to 4 speakers (which were away from the centre line). That is the one commonality between Audyssey DSX, Dolby PLIIz, DTS Neo:X, Atmos, Auro3D: all their VOG avoid a single speaker above the centre line, even when the VOG content is mono.

If there are enough mic's to capture a "normal" soundfield, I don't see why a Leslie would require more.

I don't see how using a name trademarked by Dolby AND adding logos to give the impression of officiality, to label a document that you (not Dolby) generated, shows respect for Dolby. Instead, it is good way to confuse readers (already happened), by blurring the distinction between your creation and official documentation from Dolby Labs. But hey, suit yourself.

a trademark is a trademark, not a copyright. YOu theoretically can't use a trademark that belongs to somebody else regardless of who authored the text in which the mark appears. You'll typically see folks who use trademarked names to describe things in a commercial context include the disclaimer that the marks are the property of the companies who own them. )"Stratocaster, Telecaster and EVH are trademarks of the Fender Musical Instrument Company.") I haven't done any trademark stuff in a long time, but I don't think third parties have any duty to include the trademark notice. Although the holder of the trademark has a duty to police it's use so that it doesn't become generic, like Kleenex did. So I take a certain risk here when I say that tomorrow I'm going to watch the Superbowl. Whether I acknowedge the NFL's trademark or not, they've been notoriously picky especially in recent years to protect the mark, so everybody has to say "the big game" or something.