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

DTS Neo.X - Page 20

post #571 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

a trademark is a trademark, not a copyright....

The important point is that the post, intentionally or not, was deceptive; I was among the deceived and don't appreciate it.
post #572 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

The important point is that the post, intentionally or not, was deceptive; I was among the deceived and don't appreciate it.
Then I sincerely apologize!

I went to see The Hobbit in a new Atmos™ equipped theatre (Vlaardingen, NL, EU) and I simply made an attempt to translate the system into HT.
post #573 of 1226
Atmos inspired 13.1 Home Surround.pdf 121k .pdf file

Limited to 13 satellites.
Nine at or slightly above ear height, including the wides in Audyssey DSX style.
Four are on or in the ceiling, at a 45° elevation. But you'd need high ceilings to make them equidistant as the front speakers. Contrary to DSX, I suggest giving priority to elevation since we're not really trying to expand the soundstage (derived from the front speakers) but rather are trying to produce real height, object based information

The rear heights (in red, SLH and SRH) are positioned at the angle where you normally put the surrounds in 5.1, hence these are filling the gap between surround and back surround. In this case, it makes sense to put the front heights nearer to the front axis. I suggest 37.5° (75° between them).

All this to try to approach a "front-oriented" (as the screen is there) hemisphere...
post #574 of 1226
Sorry if this has been covered before - for heights watching TV (shows, etc), is DPLIIz or NEO:X generally preferred?
post #575 of 1226
From my personal experience and preference: neither.
post #576 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by exm View Post

Sorry if this has been covered before - for heights watching TV (shows, etc), is DPLIIz or NEO:X generally preferred?

I prefer Neo:X. It just sounds better to me.
post #577 of 1226
All this talk about post-processed matrix decoding?

Boys and girls, you want object-oriented lossless, 24 bit soundtracks using something like Dolby Atmos or DTS MDA (of course, whichever one is superior sonically).

Matrix surround steering is absolute bollocks next to discrete object panning and placement and channel beds. Always has, always will (unless they come up with something better than object oriented audio).

You want overhead speakers not just high up on the side and back wall speakers. That's what creates the x-y-z panning effect coordinates of these object oriented formats. It gives the 360 degree dome of sound that audio engineers want to recreate.

They're also scalable since the metadata controlled sound objects can be more precisely placed in the room the more speakers you have and the more plot points the decoder chip knows about.

The easiest way to do this is for manufacturers to start selling lower, mid, and upper tier object-oriented pre-amp/processors (with standard 7.1 channel Dolby TrueHD and DTS MA decoders since not all soundtracks will be object-oriented) and separate amplifiers. More room for more analog speaker outputs on the pre-amp side since the amps (and their bulky binding posts) are not included... and the consumer can select how many separate amps (monoblock or multi-channel) and timbre matched speakers they want to buy. Lower the costs of the pre-amp's accordingly since there are no amps to add to the price.

Obviously, most of these pre-amp's would not have the full 64 speaker output of the commercial units.

Atmos and MDA also are geared for more robust surround speakers than the dinky one's sold currently. The whole idea is full frequency timbre matching for the most accurate soundstage. If the surrounds can't take the bass frequencies, surround subwoofers would take over.

Gone are the days of someone giving advice that the surround speakers don't have to be timbre matched because they don't matter as much. Now they will.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 2/19/13 at 1:14pm
post #578 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by erwinfrombelgium View Post

Atmos inspired 13.1 Home Surround.pdf 121k .pdf file

Limited to 13 satellites.
Nine at or slightly above ear height, including the wides in Audyssey DSX style.
Four are on or in the ceiling, at a 45° elevation. But you'd need high ceilings to make them equidistant as the front speakers. Contrary to DSX, I suggest giving priority to elevation since we're not really trying to expand the soundstage (derived from the front speakers) but rather are trying to produce real height, object based information

The rear heights (in red, SLH and SRH) are positioned at the angle where you normally put the surrounds in 5.1, hence these are filling the gap between surround and back surround. In this case, it makes sense to put the front heights nearer to the front axis. I suggest 37.5° (75° between them).

All this to try to approach a "front-oriented" (as the screen is there) hemisphere...

I would probably recommend 13.2 discrete "channel beds" as well and then allow for as many separately controlled "objects" sound engineers think were necessary as a consensus. Then the pre-amp/processor and object-oriented decoder could have as many "extra" panning channels as technically feasible. The point being that the system becomes flexible and as sonically precise as your wallet can bear. Want 20 speakers? Knock yourself out... the decoder can accommodate them and plot the sound positions more accurately. smile.gif

Having the front five screen outputs be channel beds would, especially, allow for anchored music (score and song stems for movies or other musical performance recordings) to have a wider front soundstage than ever before and become far more realistic. You could also bring back directionalized dialog with greater positioning on and off screen. The ".2" would be two separate bass effects channels.

There would have to be extensive testing as to the optimal location for the channels and speakers for the best x-y-z sound spread for premium home theater use. I too would highly recommend overhead speakers added to the lineup as opposed to Auro and other competing formats. It's more precise and gives you that extra dimension.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 2/19/13 at 2:15pm
post #579 of 1226
Drat... Wonder where the heck those rear 45 degree angles would end up for me... The rest is covered... And if the system wants more speakers, then the three each for SL/SR could be decoupled. tongue.gif
post #580 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

All this talk about post-processed

Gone are the days of someone giving advice that the surround speakers don't have to be timbre matched because they don't matter as much. Now they will.

Those days have gone since mid 90's when the studios introduced AC-3 and DTS during laserdisc days. confused.gif
post #581 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Those days have gone since mid 90's when the studios introduced AC-3 and DTS during laserdisc days. confused.gif

I've seen plenty of "advice" on this forum and others that those looking for said speaker purchasing advice not be concerned about timbrally matching their front and surround speakers... that you could easily mix n match because the surrounds weren't as important to the overall experience.

That clearly is not the case (like you said). You really do want to buy from the exact same speaker make and model line... except for the subwoofer if you don't want to. I too went through the DTS and AC-3 laserdisc era (and it was tough getting a DTS processor at the time). Now, the specifications for object-oriented surround are even more tight.
post #582 of 1226
Yeah, too bad there are too many misguided advice given by the so-called knowledgeable people. I miss the days when the members of this (and many other forums) were truly people in the know.

I've been using not only timbre-match speakers but identical speakers for all channels with the sub and centre from the same brand and lineup family since Dolby and DTS recommend it. biggrin.gif

I welcome Atmos and MDA with open arms. I still have to more pairs of the identical speakers witing to be used tongue.gif
post #583 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Yeah, too bad there are too many misguided advice given by the so-called knowledgeable people. I miss the days when the members of this (and many other forums) were truly people in the know.

I've been using not only timbre-match speakers but identical speakers for all channels with the sub and centre from the same brand and lineup family since Dolby and DTS recommended it. biggrin.gif

I welcome Atmos and MDA with open arms. I still have to more pairs of the identical speakers waiting to be used tongue.gif

What I find troubling about these UHD downloads being bantered about by the studios and RED and Netflix is that in order to keep the file sizes down... object-oriented and, heck, even lossless audio might be dumped or the very last thing considered. Netflix, the most popular streaming site, doesn't even have lossless audio and much of the stuff is only MP3 grade stereo! And I haven't even started on the video quality...

It'll take at least a stamped BDXL disc to deliver the goods. But if they swear off physical media altogether for a worse than DIVX future (just like the way video games are going)...

The PS4's media event tomorrow could be very telling, especially since the PS3 was the opening Blu-ray salvo.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 2/19/13 at 3:33pm
post #584 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

You really do want to buy from the exact same speaker make and model line... except for the subwoofer if you don't want to.

That's oversimplifying it a bit. There's quite a few, probably the majority of, brands that can't keep the timbre-matching even within a model line, so do compare them. Best if to find a brand with such a firm philosophy that they keep the same timbre across all models, not just within a line.
post #585 of 1226
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightlord

That's oversimplifying it a bit. There's quite a few, probably the majority of, brands that can't keep the timbre-matching even within a model line, so do compare them...........]

....especially those of us running JBL Screenarray's up front. That would make matching up the surrounds and overheads rather interesting/challenging.

I understand the point being made by Dan (and generally agree as regards object based audio) but with large JBL 2432h format horns up front, what's a timbre matched surround exactly?
post #586 of 1226
Modern "room correction" makes it significantly easier to achieve good timbre matching across dissimilar speakers (or even identical speakers mounted in different physical situations) than ever before. None of that was contemplated back when Dolby issued its recommendations.

In my case, even though I was mixing in-wall surrounds with L/C/R box speakers, I made sure the driver complements were similar (all 3-way, similar sizes and crossovers). Once the EQ was applied, they blended beautifully. Before that, not so much.
Edited by Roger Dressler - 2/20/13 at 1:48pm
post #587 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post All this talk about post-processed matrix decoding?

Boys and girls, you want object-oriented lossless, 24 bit soundtracks using something like Dolby Atmos or DTS MDA (of course, whichever one is superior sonically).......Atmos and MDA also are geared for more robust surround speakers than the dinky one's sold currently. The whole idea is full frequency timbre matching for the most accurate soundstage. If the surrounds can't take the bass frequencies, surround subwoofers would take over.

Gone are the days of someone giving advice that the surround speakers don't have to be timbre matched because they don't matter as much. Now they will.

 

Yes, that is why I use 802Ds for surround and back speakers, tough to put these babies in the ceiling!

 

Unless I put those in http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Speakers/Custom_Installation/CI_Series/CWM8-3.html

A bit too rich for in walls if yo ask me, plus now all made in CHINA :(

 

An other option would be to use Active monitors all around like these everywhere and be done with amps.

http://dynaudioprofessional.com/bm-series/monitors/dbm50/

http://www.genelec.com/products/aow312b/


Edited by wse - 2/20/13 at 7:12am
post #588 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Yes, that is why I use 802Ds for surround and back speakers, tough to put these babies in the ceiling!

Actually the midrange/tweeter droplets would look wonderful mounted upside down from the ceiling, you just have to put the bass elsewhere. wink.gif
post #589 of 1226
+1 for active monitors. The more speakers, the more this would be true. Ofcourse these would have to be bi-amped with active crossover to be fully beneficial. My modest Emotiva airmotiv 5 are great in my daughter's hobby space, so I wonder if the Emotiva stealth 8 ($750 each) could be all a HT would ever need in cohabitation with a good pre-pro.
post #590 of 1226
Yes, I was speaking in general terms about speakers and timbre matching. It all depends on how complex you want to make it for HT newbies and whether they're willing to really get down-n-dirty with all the in's and out's and subtle nuances. biggrin.gif

I guess I'm old fashioned... I'd rather not have active speakers since having something, well, electrical within the speakers themselves... there's just more to break. If an amp goes bad... I've also lost the entire speaker until it can get repaired. Unless the speaker has dual passive/active modes. That's why I like separates.
post #591 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

All this talk about post-processed matrix decoding?
Sure, this is a Neo:X discussion after all. Same reason there is a whole section of AVS for people to talk about post-processed video upscaling. I'll give up talking about matrix surround processing the day my entire library of music magically gets converted to 7.1 discrete mixes or object-based media. Until then, it is useful technology (hence the reason for this thread).
post #592 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Sure, this is a Neo:X discussion after all. Same reason there is a whole section of AVS for people to talk about post-processed video upscaling. I'll give up talking about matrix surround processing the day my entire library of music magically gets converted to 7.1 discrete mixes or object-based media. Until then, it is useful technology (hence the reason for this thread).

No worries. I'm just thinking ahead. Why choose and buy a bunch of extra speakers based on DTS Neo X or Dolby ProLogic II matrix processing when object-oriented sound may indeed be the future... with far more robust speaker requirements than just for mere ambiance enhancement.
post #593 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Why choose and buy a bunch of extra speakers based on DTS Neo X or Dolby ProLogic II matrix processing when object-oriented sound may indeed be the future... with far more robust speaker requirements than just for mere ambiance enhancement.
Even in this day and age of Blu-ray and HDTV, people choose to buy video processors because they have so much non-HD content. Likewise, despite the introduction of discrete 7.1 soundtracks, people still choose to use surround processing because they have shelves (and hard drives) full of 2-channel and 5.1-channel audio.

With that in mind, until object-oriented soundtracks AND affordable consumer decoders are available, people are choosing to buy extra speakers and go beyond typical 7.1-speaker set-ups. That's always been happening in this hobby: when content was only 2 discrete channels, people were doing quad or 5.1 speaker layouts; discrete 5.1 material shows up, people start doing 6.1 and 7.1 speaker layouts; discrete 7.1 is here, now people are doing 9.1 and 11.1 layouts. Even when object-oriented audio shows up, people will still have large libraries of legacy content, which many will want to scale to their speaker layout.

Video scaling wasn't intended to be used instead of hi-def content, it was for all your sources that aren't HD. Surround processing wasn't intended as a replacement for discrete multi-channel, it was for all your sources that weren't multi-channel. And current height processing (like Neo:X and PLIIz) isn't intended to put off object-based audio, it is for all those sources that don't have discrete height info (until Dolby Atmos and DTS MDA are available). That's why people choose to buy the extra speakers.
post #594 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Even in this day and age of Blu-ray and HDTV, people choose to buy video processors because they have so much non-HD content. Likewise, despite the introduction of discrete 7.1 soundtracks, people still choose to use surround processing because they have shelves (and hard drives) full of 2-channel and 5.1-channel audio.

With that in mind, until object-oriented soundtracks AND affordable consumer decoders are available, people are choosing to buy extra speakers and go beyond typical 7.1-speaker set-ups. That's always been happening in this hobby: when content was only 2 discrete channels, people were doing quad or 5.1 speaker layouts; discrete 5.1 material shows up, people start doing 6.1 and 7.1 speaker layouts; discrete 7.1 is here, now people are doing 9.1 and 11.1 layouts. Even when object-oriented audio shows up, people will still have large libraries of legacy content, which many will want to scale to their speaker layout.

Video scaling wasn't intended to be used instead of hi-def content, it was for all your sources that aren't HD. Surround processing wasn't intended as a replacement for discrete multi-channel, it was for all your sources that weren't multi-channel. And current height processing (like Neo:X and PLIIz) isn't intended to put off object-based audio, it is for all those sources that don't have discrete height info (until Dolby Atmos and DTS MDA are available). That's why people choose to buy the extra speakers.

You missed my point. I've seen a lot of photos of people buying and using smaller speakers and sometimes not timbre-matched sets specifically for the extra front wide outputs for Neo X and Audyssey and PL IIz... object-oriented soundtracks call for the speakers to be as full range as possible (the front five, especially, are supposed to be identically matched). That's a big waste of money right there (in the scenario I mentioned), especially if you're buying the extra speakers solely for those post-processed effects... and not just temporarily using spares laying around the house to try out the new mode on your receiver.
post #595 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post Actually the midrange/tweeter droplets would look wonderful mounted upside down from the ceiling, you just have to put the bass elsewhere. wink.gif

 

I love the idea but at 85kg each I would be worried if they dropped on my head :)

post #596 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I've seen a lot of photos of people buying and using smaller speakers and sometimes not timbre-matched sets specifically for the extra front wide outputs for Neo X and Audyssey and PL IIz...
I've seen that practice since the quad era in the 1970s. Can't blame that on Neo:X/PLIIz or lack of object oriented soundtracks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

object-oriented soundtracks call for the speakers to be as full range as possible (the front five, especially, are supposed to be identically matched).
Matched doesn't mean full range. Atmos introduced bass management to commercial cinemas, which is at odds with your claim that "object-oriented soundtracks call for the speakers to be as full range as possible".

From the Atmos technical guidelines: "However, surround speakers are typically not designed for the reproduction of frequency much below 100 Hz. Dolby has found that the low-frequency performance for surround speakers can be improved by using bass management to redirect the bass information from the surround feeds to stereo subwoofers at the back of the room."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

That's a big waste of money right there (in the scenario I mentioned), especially if you're buying the extra speakers solely for those post-processed effects... and not just temporarily using spares laying around the house to try out the new mode on your receiver.
It's only a waste if you start from the false premise that object-based mixes will require full range speakers.
post #597 of 1226
I'm currently using a pair of spare bookshelf speaker as heights that I have not used in years, my ceiling is only 7FT so the height effect may be a waste in my situation. My room is 12ft W x 7FT H x 30FT D.
post #598 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

I've seen that practice since the quad era in the 1970s. Can't blame that on Neo:X/PLIIz or lack of object oriented soundtracks.
Matched doesn't mean full range. Atmos introduced bass management to commercial cinemas, which is at odds with your claim that "object-oriented soundtracks call for the speakers to be as full range as possible".

From the Atmos technical guidelines: "However, surround speakers are typically not designed for the reproduction of frequency much below 100 Hz. Dolby has found that the low-frequency performance for surround speakers can be improved by using bass management to redirect the bass information from the surround feeds to stereo subwoofers at the back of the room."
It's only a waste if you start from the false premise that object-based mixes will require full range speakers.

They recommend matching speakers. The bass management was added if a retrofitted Atmos theater wasn't equipped with larger, more robust surrounds, which makes sense. The brand new Atmos theaters have some pretty mad stacks of speakers all around. No matter what... timbre matching is a must. I'd also imagine that dipole speakers would not be ideal for object oriented soundtracks either as they would smear the pin point effects locations and imaging the mixers were trying to achieve.
post #599 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

They recommend matching speakers.
This is mentioned in the Atmos guidelines only with regards to the surround field: "The top surround speakers should have the same design characteristics as the side and rear surround speakers for consistent matching of timbre." And even then, they don't call for the same speaker all around since there are two sets of minimum dispersion recommendations: for the surrounds it's 120 degrees horizontally by 55 degrees vertically and for the heights it's 90 degrees by 90 degrees.

The illustrations in the technical guide show relatively small surround speakers while the fronts are shown as stacks of horns, with the text mentioning 2-way and 3-way speakers behind the screen. There is no mention, let alone recommendation, that the front speakers match the surrounds & heights. In fact the guide is quite flexible, taking into account real-world logistics and limitations.

So the goal isn't so much matching speakers as it is matching sound. The same speaker placed in 7 different locations in your room is going to sound (and measure) differently at each location, not to mention at each seat. While it is nice to start off with the same speaker all around, it is not a requirement (as Roger mentioned, modern room correction/EQ can help with timbre matching even when speakers aren't the same).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

The bass management was added if a retrofitted Atmos theater wasn't equipped with larger, more robust surrounds, which makes sense. The brand new Atmos theaters have some pretty mad stacks of speakers all around.
No mention in the Atmos guidelines about bass management being tied to "retrofitted" theatres. Here in the Los Angeles area, there are at least half a dozen Atmos theatres, and none of them have "mad stacks of speakers all around". Just the typical small surround speakers you see in most theatres. Same for the 3 local post facilities equipped for mixing in Atmos.
post #600 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

I love the idea but at 85kg each I would be worried if they dropped on my head smile.gif

I doubt the midrange/tweeter assembly weighs 85kgs when the whole speaker weights 72 to start with. I did say the bass part had to go elsewhere. I'd guess 15kgs maximum for that part and perhaps only half of that even.
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