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

DTS Neo.X - Page 24

post #691 of 1226
Roger,

From the reports that were circulating in the press it sure seemed like Dolby was focusing Atmos mainly for theatrical distribution. Has that now changed? Are they now seriously looking at adding Atmos soundtracks to UHD media?

DTS, from their press releases, seemed to be focusing their attention on at-home delivery methods. Of course, the press is not always given the full details of corporate plans and "schemes." smile.gif

Competition is a good thing.

How would object-oriented soundtracks be added to regular, current Blu-ray's without changing the specs? Would there be room enough for both a regular Dolby TrueHD or DTS MA track and an object-based soundtrack? Video bitrates can sometimes be starved as it is without adding extra audio data on top.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 3/2/13 at 9:38am
post #692 of 1226

Dolby Atmos Movies

Find a Dolby® Atmos™ theatre near you, or learn more about Dolby Atmos.

2013 Dolby Atmos Movie Releases

Gravity  (TBD, 2013)

Pacific Rim  (July 12, 2013)

Monsters University (June 21, 2013)

Star Trek Into Darkness  (May 17, 2013)

Iron Man 3  (May 3, 2013)

Oblivion  (April 19, 2013)

Lost Place  (April 11, 2013)

G.I. Joe: Retaliation  (March 29, 2013)

The Croods  (March 22, 2013)

Trance  (April 5, 2013)

Oz The Great and Powerful  (March 8, 2013)

A Good Day to Die Hard  (February 14, 2013)

Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons  (February 10, 2013)

ABCD—Any Body Can Dance  (February 7, 2013)

Race 2  (January 25, 2013)

Mama  (January 18, 2013)

2012 Dolby Atmos Movie Releases

The Last Tycoon  (December 22, 2012)

The Guillotines  (December 20, 2012)

Chinese Zodiac (CZ12)  (December 20, 2012)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey  (December 14, 2012)

Sivaji 3D  (December 12, 2012)

Back to 1942  (November 29, 2012)

Rise of the Guardians  (November 21, 2012)

Life of Pi  (November 21, 2012)

Ah Boys to Men  (November 8, 2012)

Chasing Mavericks  (October 26, 2012)

Taken 2  (October 5, 2012)

Brave  (June 22, 2012)

post #693 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Kevin is right that it is a channel-based format, but it can more efficiently be delivered as objects, since when the channel falls silent, the bitstream stops. Plus it can be much more effectively mapped to "whatever speakers" by using object rendering than other forms of downmixing.
I would like to understand this. Does it mean that channels persist but objects do not, so that a silent channel continues to claim bandwidth, unlike an absent object?
post #694 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

I would like to understand this. Does it mean that channels persist but objects do not, so that a silent channel continues to claim bandwidth, unlike an absent object?
Exactly. Even a silent channel has floor noise, and lossless coding uses bandwidth for that.
post #695 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Roger,

From the reports that were circulating in the press it sure seemed like Dolby was focusing Atmos mainly for theatrical distribution. Has that now changed?
It's not considered good form to pitch new formats to cinema folks while immediately selling it to the consumer. Kind of blunts the draw to going to the cinema.
Quote:
Are they now seriously looking at adding Atmos soundtracks to UHD media?
I did not attend their "invitation only" CES demo of Atmos, but it was reportedly based on BD delivery as a proof of concept.
Quote:
DTS, from their press releases, seemed to be focusing their attention on at-home delivery methods. Of course, the press is not always given the full details of corporate plans and "schemes." smile.gif
Correct. DTS sold all interests in cinema to Datasat several years ago. But you also saw from the Jan 2013 press release that they are working to get MDA adopted as a production standard to accelerate the adoption of object audio creation.
Quote:
Competition is a good thing.
Truer words were never uttered. If only we had competition in government...wink.gif
Quote:
How would object-oriented soundtracks be added to regular, current Blu-ray's without changing the specs? Would there be room enough for both a regular Dolby TrueHD or DTS MA track and an object-based soundtrack? Video bitrates can sometimes be starved as it is without adding extra audio data on top.
The new 3D object capabilities could not be achieved inside current BD players (a new AVR could enjoy the bitstream, though). So existing BD players would reproduce same quality as today, which isn't bad. And while there will be extra payload, it will not necessarily be like doubling the soundtrack. The existing one can be used with objects.
post #696 of 1226
THE HOME THEATER OF THE FUTURE
All inconveniently located speakers are powered by a single conveniently located 48vdc power supply with plenum rated cables where necessary. No electronics at the speakers except crossovers and amplifier. Tuning of the enclosure prior to installation is possible. All speakers will be individually addressed in a Bluetooth 5.0 system (now good for 75 ft.). All manipulation of the audio signal will be done at the head end. Despite Dolby Atmos recommendation for subwoofers away from theater walls, multiple subs will be in wall. All of these precisely located sounds will appear to be coming from exactly where the hologaphic object IS!
VIOLA.
post #697 of 1226
Okay, but just don't call me Viola.
post #698 of 1226
Roger,

If I'm reading you correctly, a normal DTS MA or Dolby TrueHD bitstream could have extensions added, which would include object rendering data. A normal decoder would ignore the extensions, but a DTS MDA or Dolby Atmos decoder in a receiver or pre-amp could read the lossless core + extension information and recreate the original object oriented soundtrack as the movie's sound engineer intended?

But because it might add more "confusion" to the marketplace of the current Blu-ray format, Dolby and DTS will probably wait for UHD to roll it out en masse to introduce at-home object based soundtrack delivery systems? And probably with new, from-the-ground-up object based, high resolution lossless codecs rather than piggy backing on current technology? Would those be fair questions?
post #699 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

A normal decoder would ignore the extensions, but a DTS MDA or Dolby Atmos decoder in a receiver or pre-amp could read the lossless core + extension information and recreate the original object oriented soundtrack as the movie's sound engineer intended?
I don't see how that would be possible, except in the trivial case that the sound engineer intended the objects to be channels. Once several objects have been mixed down to be a channel that a legacy decoder could understand, how could they be unmixed?
post #700 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Roger,

If I'm reading you correctly, a normal DTS MA or Dolby TrueHD bitstream could have extensions added, which would include object rendering data. A normal decoder would ignore the extensions, but a DTS MDA or Dolby Atmos decoder in a receiver or pre-amp could read the lossless core + extension information and recreate the original object oriented soundtrack as the movie's sound engineer intended?
Yes.
Quote:
But because it might add more "confusion" to the marketplace of the current Blu-ray format, Dolby and DTS will probably wait for UHD to roll it out en masse to introduce at-home object based soundtrack delivery systems?
I do not think fear of confusion has even been a limiting factor for these guys...biggrin.gif
Quote:
And probably with new, from-the-ground-up object based, high resolution lossless codecs rather than piggy backing on current technology? Would those be fair questions?
Very fair questions. As to what happens, there are many forces well beyond these companies that will have a say in how things proceed. All I can say is, it's an active topic.
post #701 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

I don't see how that would be possible, except in the trivial case that the sound engineer intended the objects to be channels. Once several objects have been mixed down to be a channel that a legacy decoder could understand, how could they be unmixed?
Very astute question!

There's a process by which the same panning used to render the object to the standard 5.1 (or 7.1) channel mix is performed again in the decoder, with the audio subtracted. This was described in an AES paper by Jot and Fejzo, with a diagram excerpted below:

post #702 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Very astute question!

There's a process by which the same panning used to render the object to the standard 5.1 (or 7.1) channel mix is performed again in the decoder, with the audio subtracted. This was described in an AES paper by Jot and Fejzo, with a diagram excerpted below:


Thanks for that explanation! It's almost as clear as mud. biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif
post #703 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Psychoacoustic panning using sound spatialization methodology and embedded metadata instructions is the backbone of object-oriented mixing. They use information on how humans perceive sound to simulate 3D audio spatial cues. They can make multiple sound effects seem like they're coming at you and then passing around your head... like individual bullets from a gun fired from on-screen, more precisely than traditional linear panning. In the Atmos mix for "Brave," they used that effect for the will-o-the-wisps scenes.
The backbone of object-oriented audio is vector based amplitude panning, where sounds are given vectors and not tied to particular channels or speakers. Spatializer processing can be an option on some object-based audio technologies, though not all; and even then, it doesn't come into play unless the number of speakers shrinks to 5 or less (e.g., stereo set-up or soundbar).

As for 'Brave', there was no spatializer effect being used, just panning to more individual speakers instead of arrays. I heard that soundtrack in three different Atmos-equipped theatres. The Atmos white-paper makes their approach clear: "Another example is a somewhat less-subtle helicopter elevating on the screen and flying over the audience. The use of more discrete surround zones, as in Dolby Surround 7.1, helps achieve the perception of overhead movement, but adding overhead speakers prevents the brain from having to construct a phantom image of the helicopter moving overhead."

So it is not a question of spatialization methodology but adding more speakers to more locations to fill in gaps and lessen the need for phantom imaging. By comparison, spatializer processing is for the opposite situation, when you have so few speakers that you have to rely on phantom images (i.e., imaging where there are no speakers), which is the opposite of what Atmos was doing with 'Brave'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Google "SRS MDA" and "3D audio object oriented coding" for more.
I did, and there was no mention of spatializer processing being the backbone of object-based mixing. The last time I heard a SRS MDA demo, the only time any spatialization processing was used was when we moved from the 12-speaker set-up to a 2-speaker workstation. And even then, they made it clear that it was an option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

They even go into why Dolby Atmos and MDA didn't go with the spatial matrix coding tricks of DTS Neo:X and Audyssey.
IF Atmos and MDA didn't go with spatial matrix coding, then what do you mean by spatialization methodology being the back-bone of object-oriented mixing? You're using these terms rather vaguely. And I don't see what Neo:X (ambience extraction) and Audyssey DSX (ambience generation) have to do with object-based mixing.
post #704 of 1226
If you all do not mind, I am going to shift the topic back to Neo:X tongue.gif

Given this picture, do you all see any place I can put front wides? Relevant info on my speakers are: all surrounds are Axiom Audio M3, M2, or M0 (front heights) onwalls, front three are Paradigm Milleniums.




The location next to the door, at the front of the room, is directly across from the plasma TV. The TV is needed to be able to play the Wii, do exercise tapes, etc (since you are standing in the projector beam). Any ideas, or should I just not bother and stay with only front heights?
post #705 of 1226
Well, no. I'm using Axiom M22s on Axiom stands, and the right one would go about where your TV is. Maybe you can figure out some way to make the TV accessible when needed, but get it out of the way? Like a stand on rollers ...
post #706 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

If you all do not mind, I am going to shift the topic back to Neo:X tongue.gif

Given this picture, do you all see any place I can put front wides? Relevant info on my speakers are: all surrounds are Axiom Audio M3, M2, or M0 (front heights) onwalls, front three are Paradigm Milleniums.

The location next to the door, at the front of the room, is directly across from the plasma TV. The TV is needed to be able to play the Wii, do exercise tapes, etc (since you are standing in the projector beam). Any ideas, or should I just not bother and stay with only front heights?

Nice room are those B&W speakers!
post #707 of 1226
Thanks! I have since replaced the white speaker cable with black and moved the center speaker off the carpet and onto the wall. I also have a cover I made for the TV so it does not reflect.

The front heights (and all my surrounds) are Axiom Audio M series (onwall speakers, I have M3s, M2s, and M0s - the front heights are M0s). The front three are all Paradigm Milleniums. The front L and R are Millenium 200s and the front Center is a Millenium Trio. I am using the outer two speakers in the Trio as a large, singe, 4ohm center speaker. These were the first speakers my wife say which she actually said "they look sexy". Done deal. smile.gif Plus, I bought them during the 6Ave vs Paradigm fiasco. Paradigm said they would honor the warranty and 6Ave wanted to hurt Paradigm (they were in a contentious lawsuit) so 6Ave was selling everything at 50% off.
post #708 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

I just reconfigured my room to take advantage of four B&W 802D and my in ceiling B&W Signature 7NT in ceiling (over the sofa speakers),


I also used a Y XLR to feed the surround speakers the same imput, whoa that was really impressive smile.gif


Can you elaborate what you mean by you used a y xlr ? Do the 802d take xlr? If so then what do you mean by feeding them the same imput? I am sure its quite simple but I am trying to understand what you did, why you did and what you got by doing it if you dont mind. And why are you selling you 802's anyways when you seem to be having so much fun with them?
post #709 of 1226
Why does the movie studio Lionsgate seem to be the only one releasing Neo:X soundtracks for it's movies? Do they own the rights? Is this technology vulnerable to other competitors? Is it too risky for other studios to join in at this time?

http://www.dts.com/consumers/entertainment-audio/new-releases.aspx?q=&at=f44a2081e2bb42718beef1d0a2440475#recentReleases

Thanks!
post #710 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Why does the movie studio Lionsgate seem to be the only one releasing Neo:X soundtracks for it's movies? Do they own the rights? Is this technology vulnerable to other competitors? Is it too risky for other studios to join in at this time?

http://www.dts.com/consumers/entertainment-audio/new-releases.aspx?q=&at=f44a2081e2bb42718beef1d0a2440475#recentReleases

Thanks!

It may have to do with the switch towards object-oriented "rendered" tracks (you can make one metadata encoded bitstream that will conform to all current formats... and it's system scalable, unlike a fixed channel soundtrack). Why should the studios invest in Neo:X decoders when Dolby Atmos and DTS MDA software is being pushed hard?

Lionsgate also has the advantage of trying different soundtrack options because they have fewer titles in their catalog. They need some edge over the competition.
post #711 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

It may have to do with the switch towards object-oriented "rendered" tracks (you can make one metadata encoded bitstream that will conform to all current formats... and it's system scalable, unlike a fixed channel soundtrack). Why should the studios invest in Neo:X decoders when Dolby Atmos and DTS MDA software is being pushed hard?

Lionsgate also has the advantage of trying different soundtrack options because they have fewer titles in their catalog. They need some edge over the competition.

Does that mean that Neo:X is already obsolete? Surely there must be application to the home end user that is substantial and unique from the commercial environment?

Is Neo:X not capable of playing back object-oriented tracks?

Thanks for the quick reply smile.gif
post #712 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Does that mean that Neo:X is already obsolete? Surely there must be application to the home end user that is substantial and unique from the commercial environment?

Is Neo:X not capable of playing back object-oriented tracks?

Thanks for the quick reply smile.gif
No, it's channel oriented. Only atmos and MDA are object based
post #713 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Does that mean that Neo:X is already obsolete? Surely there must be application to the home end user that is substantial and unique from the commercial environment?

Is Neo:X not capable of playing back object-oriented tracks?

Thanks for the quick reply smile.gif
Two different codecs entirely. NeoX is a matrix based system in the same vein as Dolby Prologic. Object based audio is far more sophisticated with control over each discrete sound object in x/y/z 3D "space." You aren't just mixing in a linear fashion.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 3/24/13 at 1:26pm
post #714 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Why does the movie studio Lionsgate seem to be the only one releasing Neo:X soundtracks for it's movies?
Lionsgate is one of the more adventurous home video studios. You may recall the many 7.1 remixes they undertook such as Lord of the Rings.

I suspect Dan is right, it helps them stand out in the market.

Zulu: Yes, Neo:X is perfectly able to deliver content originally mixed for any of the current 3D audio formats, be it NHK 22.2, Auro3D, Atmos, or MDA. The end results would be essentially the same as a conventional Neo:X encode, but it would not require performing a separate mix session to get there. It is relatively easy to map these 3D formats to the Neo:X channel layout.
post #715 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

I just reconfigured my room to take advantage of four B&W 802D and my in ceiling B&W Signature 7NT in ceiling (over the sofa speakers),

I also used a Y XLR to feed the surround speakers the same imput, whoa that was really impressive smile.gif,


Can you elaborate what you mean by you used a y xlr ? Do the 802d take xlr? If so then what do you mean by feeding them the same imput? I am sure its quite simple but I am trying to understand what you did, why you did and what you got by doing it if you dont mind. And why are you selling you 802's anyways when you seem to be having so much fun with them?

I feed the same signal from the SSP-800 using y XLR cables to two separate amps for surround right and left so I have two sets of surround right and left!

I am trying to downsize my surround speakers, so far I only got low ball offers so I will wait patiently, I am in no rush smile.gif
post #716 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Why does the movie studio Lionsgate seem to be the only one releasing Neo:X soundtracks for it's movies?
As one of the smaller studios, Lionsgate has a history of trying to give added value to their Blu-ray releases. As far back as 2006, they were re-mixing 5.1 theatrical titles to 7.1 for home video release. In 2007, of the 13 Blu-rays released with 7.1 sound, a full 9 of them were from Lionsgate. Now that 7.1 has become more common, they're remixing to 11.1 to stay a step ahead.
post #717 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Lionsgate is one of the more adventurous home video studios. You may recall the many 7.1 remixes they undertook such as Lord of the Rings.

I suspect Dan is right, it helps them stand out in the market.

Zulu: Yes, Neo:X is perfectly able to deliver content originally mixed for any of the current 3D audio formats, be it NHK 22.2, Auro3D, Atmos, or MDA. The end results would be essentially the same as a conventional Neo:X encode, but it would not require performing a separate mix session to get there. It is relatively easy to map these 3D formats to the Neo:X channel layout.

Glad to hear it, that excites me for the future. Thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

It may have to do with the switch towards object-oriented "rendered" tracks (you can make one metadata encoded bitstream that will conform to all current formats... and it's system scalable, unlike a fixed channel soundtrack). Why should the studios invest in Neo:X decoders when Dolby Atmos and DTS MDA software is being pushed hard?

Lionsgate also has the advantage of trying different soundtrack options because they have fewer titles in their catalog. They need some edge over the competition.

This type of advantage will force their competitors to play catch up if they continue to push new blockbuster titles and the very latest surround sound technology. Thanks for the info.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Two different codecs entirely. NeoX is a matrix based system in the same vein as Dolby Prologic. Object based audio is far more sophisticated with control over each discrete sound object in x/y/z 3D "space." You aren't just mixing in a linear fashion.

ABC's are fine for me, but if you get the XYZ's and keep smiling I will join you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

As one of the smaller studios, Lionsgate has a history of trying to give added value to their Blu-ray releases. As far back as 2006, they were re-mixing 5.1 theatrical titles to 7.1 for home video release. In 2007, of the 13 Blu-rays released with 7.1 sound, a full 9 of them were from Lionsgate. Now that 7.1 has become more common, they're remixing to 11.1 to stay a step ahead.

I am very pleased to be helping usher in this new technology by buyng it for our home. Hopefully history does repeat itself, and others will follow. In the meantime, my collection has never sounded better!
post #718 of 1226
Are there any objections to running an array of heights along the ceiling across the MLP stopping at the rear surrounds? The heights are playing content that is supposedly from above, so must it come from in front? Why not directly above, or from behind? I am imagining thunder, rain, or an announcers voice.
post #719 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Are there any objections to running an array of heights along the ceiling across the MLP stopping at the rear surrounds? The heights are playing content that is supposedly from above, so must it come from in front? Why not directly above, or from behind? I am imagining thunder, rain, or an announcers voice.
I would think this arrangement would be very effective.

post #720 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Are there any objections to running an array of heights along the ceiling across the MLP stopping at the rear surrounds? The heights are playing content that is supposedly from above, so must it come from in front? Why not directly above, or from behind? I am imagining thunder, rain, or an announcers voice.

If this is a more permanent installation, I would consider placing paired overhead speakers that match with the side and rear wall mounts. Might as well look to the future with object-oriented soundtracks in mind, which can address actual over-head speakers for sound effects like what you describe. Not as easy an install job, but the results will be much better with the latest and greatest audio technology.
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