DTS Neo.X - Page 21

I use Thiel speakers which are timbre matched in their range. I use Powerpoints for everything other than the front 3 channels which are CS3.7s and MCS1

Agreed!

...but it should perhaps be of more concern to the Atmos|MDA "purist" whether or not Dolby Atmos home theater specs might relax the commercial cinema recommendation (but NOT mandation?) that...

This suggests to me that a minimum of 13 middle layer speakers alone will be required (even for a one-person home theater) in order to avoid having a CS|CB speaker! (That's 3 more than the 10 middle layer speakers in the full Hamasaki 22.2 layout. )
_

It would be too bad if Dolby and DTS relax their standards too much for home use. They could more easily roll out a robust object-oriented decoder if the more full-featured products (allowing for the maximum assignable speakers/subs) were set up as separate pre-amp/amp combos. The pre-amp has all the DAC's and analog audio outputs needed and then it would be up to the consumer to add as many amps and speakers as s/he could afford. The cost of having the object-oriented decoder and renderer and all those 24 bit DAC's on board would be offset by the fact the processor would have minimal analog A/V switching, and no built-in amplifiers.

Budget line receivers could have, let's say, a fixed amount of amps and then have analog outputs for any additional assignable speakers (the higher the model, the more possible "channels" could be added).

Perhaps a better analog interface between surround processor and amplifiers could be designed to lessen wire clutter.

Completely scalable solutions.

You can have, basically speaking, 64 channel surround with Dolby Atmos currently if the sound engineer was very precise in their object based surround mixing.

We should also remember that (IIRC) the current timetable is to achieve an ATSC 3.0 candidate standard by the end of 2015 . . . and whether ATSC 3.0 should include an object based audio component still seems to be an open issue. I expect Dolby|DTS are suggesting derivatives of Atmos|MDA for inclusion...?!
_

2015?? Jeez! You know they probably won't put out a UHD media format until the ATSC specs are drawn up and ratified. They don't want to cause system incompatibility... I don't think anyway. Unless ATSC 3.0 will take to heart what UHD home media can deliver in 2013/2014 and not the other way around as it used to be. The current HDTV broadcast standard was devised YEARS before Blu-ray came to fruition... and Blu-ray specs were pretty much drawn up to match it... except for the inclusion of 1080p/24 and lossless audio codecs, but the HD video color gamut and bit depth selected were already outdated when the BDA chose them.

Apparently ATSC (only) expects to elevate ATSC 2.0 to a “candidate” standard by the end of March and to finalize the standard by end 2013. If OTA 4K2K UHD (with perhaps a provision for expansion to 8K4K later) has to wait until ATSC 3.0 roll-out . . . sometime after 2020(?) . . . then alternative delivery mechanisms for UHD seem likely to appear first...?!
_

 

Right, and how do I take them apart!

"Just give it a little tappy. Tap tap taparoo."

 But of course I never thought of that, will do 

Unless you already have a few pair to spare, just tell B&W not to bother with putting them on when ordering?

360°/30° = 12, not 13 but I get your point. IMO, 9 should be enough. Front half with 30° intermedium gives 7 speakers and 2 to be added in the rear, at 60° intermedium all as the suggested DSX set-up.

I'd rather the audio companies recommend that the overhead speakers actually be placed overhead just like in the Atmos recommendations, and not high up on the wall. It will then truly give you that x-y-z axis that is being touted.

And if the sound engineers don't come up with an optimal speaker placement standard for home based object-oriented sound (or match the cinema theater placements only without quite so many speakers) and stick with it, it will cause major confusion.

I mean, how many "channel" outputs should manufactures build into their products, etc. etc. etc. ? Will it be branded just like DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD have specific decoder requirements?

Sounds like MDA is geared for open source usage. That could mean a free-for-all if everyone who uses the code has a different set of mixing and output standards.

Guess I view it the other way 'round. The whole point of object-based audio is to free you up to from requirements such as minimum number of speakers and standardized placement. Those constraints were for the days of channel-based audio, mixed for specific speaker locations.

With MDA, the mixer doesn't have to be aware of the number and placement of speakers in his studio AND doesn't have to worry about the number and placement of speakers in the theatre, and eventually home theatre. If a sound is intended to image at 60 degrees from centre, then that's where it will image. If the MDA system finds that you have a wide speaker at that location, it will use it; if it finds that you don't, then it will use your front and side speakers to image the sound at that same location. It's taken away the "requirement" to have a speaker there.

Object-based audio is designed for translation: one mix, many speaker layouts. The point being that the recording engineer mix once to service everything from a 60-speaker commercial cinema to the soundbar under your bedroom plasma. That sort of approach liberates you from minimum numbers of speakers and required placement angles, not the other way around.

Is it a source of major confusion that there is a vast range of TV screen sizes and resolutions out there? I'm not saying people do not have questions when they shop for a TV, but I'll bet very few fail to come home with a unit and find it satisfactory for their needs.
While object-based audio certainly opens the door to more speakers, that is not essential to gaining various advantages, which can even be perceived over 2-speaker TVs. Just one example: the ability to alter how dialog is presented, either to make it easier to hear, or to make it go away (sports commentary).
MDA could become as "open source" as 5.1 PCM is today. Is that a problem? I agree that defining a content pipe does not constrain either the mixing environment or the playback environment. No different than today. The constraining effect comes from free-market forces. If content makers want to sell their wares, they have to make it a compelling experience on systems people can or will want to use.

Unfortunately I believe many participants in this thread might not distinguish between the relative feasibility of "something like" MPEG standard Spatial Audio Object Coding (SAOC) being used for live TV sports reporting and the considerably more complex task of having a home theater processor render 64 object plus 64 bed "near raw" source content from a theatrical Atmos|MDA release. Both technologies lie on the same 'object audio' continuum . . . but near opposite ends.
_
Edited by SoundChex - 2/22/13 at 5:30pm

But with PCM, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-MA, DTS Neo: X, etc. there are a set amount of channels and a set amount of amplifiers and a set amount of audio outputs for the manufacturer to build off of. Where would they begin with object-based sound?

Even Dolby Atmos has a recommended layout and set amount of speakers that can be controlled and builds a product around those parameters.

Wouldn't there need to be some sort of universal diagram on a movie or music product with object-oriented sound so you know how the mixer set up his/her mix for the best experience? Many have stated that the more speakers you have, the more "resolution" the soundtrack has... you can pin point sounds better in the multidimensional sonic space. But what will be realistic and yet satisfy enthusiasts for home theater use? 9? 11? 22? The MDA mixing lab at SRS (now DTS) uses 22 speakers. Pretty cool, but will A/V manufacturers build this advanced a surround processor for us lowly consumer schmucks?

Another question I have is whether DTS MDA and Dolby Atmos both use a fixed channel bed with a set number of objects? Atmos has 9.1 discrete channels and 128 sound objects with meta data instructions. I've never heard how MDA operates. Are they both using the same mixing principles and technology or is MDA completely object-oriented based with no set channels?
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 2/22/13 at 5:37pm

I'm aware of the advantages, but I'm just wondering if there will be some sort of industry standard for the time being that says: a surround processor will have X amount of speaker outputs and X amount of subwoofer outputs. I would think the processing power for a very complex soundtrack with real-time rendering, mapping, etc. etc. would be a bit more than the average surround processor today if there were a TON of outputs. There would have to be some limits somewhere. Costs will play a large factor, I'd bet.

X today goes from 2 to 11, and I think those will still be usable. But what I find exciting about this is that once content starts flowing, a whole range of different ways to render it will bubble up. Not just "lots more speakers" but new forms of spatially adaptive speakers -- something like the more sophisticated sound bars we have today.
The degree of soundtrack complexity has no relation to the number of outputs needed, but yes, cost will play its usual key role as the counterbalancing factor against performance.

We have never precisely duplicated the sound of a dubbing stage at home, and that has not impeded our enjoyment, so I do not see that being a factor going forward. I can confidently predict that if consumers get an Auro3D movie and an Atmos movie they will play them on exactly the same speaker system.
Yes. I think that fairly explains why we've moved from 1 to 2 to 5 to 7 to...
If there is market, I expect it will be built. But just like cars, there's a whole lot of ways to get from point A to B. "Satisfaction" is not only very different for different people, but it's also a moving target as our expectations change. I expect a lot of shift in expectations as object-based audio matures over a 5-10 year period.
MDA is a bitstream structure, not bounded by hardware limitations. It can have as many channels or objects as anyone wants to support.

I hope they design it so you can chain multichannel amps every time you want o add a handful more.

That would be useful, I'd suspect.

Roger,

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter thus far. As for Atmos vs. MDA (don't want to bring up another Dolby vs. DTS debate, that's not what I'm getting at), in your experience, do you believe the MDA approach is a more flexible object audio solution than Atmos in its current state of development for content producers and manufacturers? Or are there advantages to the Atmos approach to object-oriented soundtracks?

Have you heard both and if you have, what are your impressions? Any industry rumblings as to which stands a better chance of getting adopted for home use? Or would both be available?

On the tools side, Atmos has incorporated some extra features that are not yet part of MDA. Those may have been driven by early mixing experiences, and if they become an expected facility, MDA could have them, too. MDA is not a mission to define and sell production tools, so I'd expect various tool suppliers to enter the market covering not only the common basics, but bringing their own expertise to the table.

On the reproduction side, MDA is not bound to any preconceived speaker setups, and technically neither is Atmos. Just that Atmos is advocating a preferred setup at the moment.
Not yet had the pleasure of Atmos. Even though I am in LA regularly, my timing is off!
When it comes to object audio, I think we will eventually see almost as many ways of delivering that as we do channel-based digital audio today.

Seems more like repackaging old tech in to a more convenient tech package, as I mentioned in this thread http://www.avsforum.com/t/1289714/11-2-receivers you can already do this and way beyond 11.1.

I mean in 11.1 are not height speakers essentially the same as presence speakers available in a 15 year old Yamaha DSP1 that simply give the front stage some depth and front sides speakers display the sound moving from the front to the side surround or side surround to the front for a smother transition in either direction which be done accurately with a Center-Surround 3X, Jr, also old tech?

No. That is not sound steering but ambience creation, more along the lines of DSX. Neo:X is more like what you are doing with the CS3XJR units, but all tidied up and done with frequency-selective steering.

Better odds next month, with a full four (count 'em, 4) movies being released in Atmos:

March 08: Disney's 'Oz, the Great & Powerful'.
March 14: Danny Boyle's 'Trance'.
March 22: Dreamworks' 'The Croods'.
March 29: 'G. I. Joe: Retaliation'.

The Pioneer SC-1522 (and SC-65) 9.2 AVR has Neo:X and can be connected to 11 speakers, though it can only play on 9 of the 11 at once. In the manual, Neo:X is described as "Up to 9.1 channel sound (surround back and front height or surround back and front wide) ..."

But which is it? Front height or front wide, or maybe it varies between the two?

(If this was discussed above in the thread, I'm sorry that I missed it.)