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

DTS Neo.X - Page 27

post #781 of 1230
I really wanted Sherwood to succeed in bringing Trinnov to the masses. frown.gif
post #782 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

I really wanted Sherwood to succeed in bringing Trinnov to the masses. frown.gif

same here. I heard Trinnov demo at CEDIA Altanta several yrs ago & was blown away of how integrated & seamless it made the soundfield. Of course, this was ADA's $15K add-on unit so outside my budget wink.gif

if Sherwood had come out with a stable, bug-free receiver, I probably would have swapped from Pioneer wink.gif I put a high value on problem-free operation & Pioneer hasn't failed me owning them for many years. as much as I wanted Trinnov, I wasn't going to change to a buggy piece of gear.

I can only hope that Trinnov will partner with another CE company someday & try it again or ADA come out with a $2K processor (not very likely tongue.gif)

as soon as consumer 3D MDA audio is introduced, I'm in for sure! supposedly 2014 could be the year.
post #783 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

The best ones I've heard were the original Sony Cinema DSP modes that simulated the Cary Grant and Kim Novack theaters. Added that sense of scale you get in a real cinema without hyping the sound.

Are they still around in Sony AV?
post #784 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Are they still around in Sony AV?
According to Sony, their current STR-DA2800ES has:
Quote:
HD Digital Cinema Sound™ is a proprietary Sony® soundfield that has been precisely tuned to the Cary Grant sound stage at the Sony Pictures Entertainment studio, where hundreds of Hollywood hits have been recorded.
post #785 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Are they still around in Sony AV?
all here have it except the least expensive one.
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=27925
post #786 of 1230
post #787 of 1230
The Dredd blu ray is Neo:X 11.1 but my NR-1009 is 9.1. Does it mean that I'll not be able to hear Dredd in Neo:X 9.1 at all?
post #788 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Ong View Post

The Dredd blu ray is Neo:X 11.1 but my NR-1009 is 9.1. Does it mean that I'll not be able to hear Dredd in Neo:X 9.1 at all?
If your receiver is 9.1, why wouldn't you be able to hear it in 9.1?
post #789 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Ong View Post

The Dredd blu ray is Neo:X 11.1 but my NR-1009 is 9.1. Does it mean that I'll not be able to hear Dredd in Neo:X 9.1 at all?

There are only 7.1 discrete channels available on Blu-ray.

DTS Neo:X acts like a matrix decoder to extract some ambient cues from the front three channels. If you have a 9.1 receiver, you can decode all the discrete channels available... plus extract either front wide or front height information. If the receiver was 11.1, then you could do 7.1 plus front and height speakers together.
post #790 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Ong View Post

The Dredd blu ray is Neo:X 11.1 but my NR-1009 is 9.1. Does it mean that I'll not be able to hear Dredd in Neo:X 9.1 at all?

The NEO:x matrix decoder codec is really a recent release.
IIRC your NR-1009 does not have that, so while you can listen to it in PLz or Audyssey DSX, not NeoX.

Denons 4520 is their latest AVR and it has NeoX decoder, their only AVR with it so far.

Fwiw; I really like NeoX, even on non NeoX coded material.

Sent from my 32GB iPhone4 using Tapatalk
post #791 of 1230
Any link for new Denon receiver or thread ?
post #792 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoro View Post

Any link for new Denon receiver or thread ?
The official 4520CI thread is in this same forum......search function is your friend, you are a long member here 9k+ posts....


Sent from my 32GB iPhone4 using Tapatalk
post #793 of 1230
This DCinemaToday com April 15, 2013, news item (link) contains an interesting Digital Media Solutions (DMS) press release:
Quote:
DMS Collaborates with DTS to Support DTS Neo: X and MDA Object-­‐Based Audio Playback in the Cinema

DMS, sound specialist for cinema market, providing hardware and technology solutions, is proud to announce it’s collaboration with DTS, Inc. a provider of immersive 3D sound technology, to bring into cinema theaters a reliable and open platform that will support DTS Neo:X and proposed open format for object-­‐based audio, MDA.

[. . . ]

Hard to tell right now whether or not this in anything more than just a 'statement of intent'...?! cool.gif
_
post #794 of 1230
But this is real http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/hardware/cinema/audio-processor/cp850.html

Sorry I placed this link in a few threads but it's worth it.
post #795 of 1230

Indeed it is (although apparently installed currently in something less than all of the 80+ Dolby Atmos theaters!) Which makes Dolby's position on "open standards" pertinent to the issue of a future standards war . . . which gives the appearance of being Dolby vs 'everybody else'...!?

In this HollywoodReporter com April 7, 2013, report from NAB 2013 (link), we see various positions...
Quote:
NAB: Calling for a 'Common Language' for Sound Systems

"Potential chaos -- format wars, cost and confusion" loom for the industry without an open standard, warned John Kellogg, senior director at audio technology developer DTS.

LAS VEGAS -- John Kellogg, senior director at audio technology developer DTS, urged the creation of an open standard for immersive audio, warning that without one, the industry faces “potential chaos -- format wars, cost and confusion.”

That was his message at the NAB Technology Summit on Cinema on Saturday. He argued that with the arrival of numerous immersive and object-based sound systems, “mixing a film seven different ways isn’t really sustainable.”

[. . . ]

Panelist Stuart Bowling of Dolby described Dolby Atmos as "an open platform for third party developers.”

[. . . ]

So I guess we get to wait and see how well all the competing players can "work together". eek.gifcool.gifbiggrin.gif



In the meantime, Barco com put out this press release April 17, 2013, (link):
Quote:
Barco, Auro Technologies and DTS collaborate in support of proposed new open format for immersive object-based cinema sound

Alliance responds to NATO’s plea for universal audio rendering platform to simplify adoption of 3D sound by movie exhibitors

[. . .]

So it appears we must likely await "more simplification" in theatrical 3D audio reproduction "standards" before seeing big changes in 3D audio for Home Theater systems!
_
Edited by SoundChex - 4/17/13 at 2:22pm
post #796 of 1230

Any idea what that unit costs?

Re competing standards, do we (home users) care if the theaters have to deal with them?

As for home use, how would that be any different than the situation now with Dolby, DTS, Audyssey et al?
post #797 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Any idea what that unit costs?

Re competing standards, do we (home users) care if the theaters have to deal with them?

As for home use, how would that be any different than the situation now with Dolby, DTS, Audyssey et al?

Because Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio on Blu-ray offer lossless technologies that are both audio compression codecs serving the same, exact purpose: encoding and then decoding up to eight discrete channels of PCM audio (much like a ZIP file).

Dolby Atmos and DTS MDA use different mixing software technologies and standards for object-based soundtracks... so if there were these two formats available for commercial theaters, you'd have to mix the 3D audio soundtrack TWICE (in this instance 3D means x, y, and z axis steering for height, width, depth... not just sounds existing on a linear plane).

If there was an open source solution that also allowed for object-based 3D mixing (or "rendering")... you'd only have to mix ONCE, and then down-convert that metadata controlled bitstream to any and all current codecs.

IMHO, any potential format could follow Atmos' lead and allow for up to 64 "channels" of full-frequency, 24 bit lossless audio data for the "renderer" to ingest and position in accordance to the speaker layout chosen.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 4/17/13 at 4:57pm
post #798 of 1230
ah right, not just a post-processing codec
post #799 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

ah right, not just a post-processing codec

Correct. DTS Neo:X and Audyssey's competing format are like Dolby Stereo... matrix decoders that pull sounds by phase "cues" out of the discrete channels and position them as "filler" in other speakers.

Object-oriented formats use completely discrete sounds that can be positioned anywhere in the room (in any number of overhead speakers, front screen speakers, side wall speakers, rear wall speakers, subwoofers). Each speaker inputted into the rendering processor becomes a kind of channel that can be individually addressed by the metadata embedded in the bitstream.

In Dolby Atmos' case... there are 64 speakers that can be individually controlled.
post #800 of 1230
Monday, April 15, 2013, press release from Fairlight com au (link):
Quote:
Fairlight and DTS Collaborate to Deliver the Industry’s First Next-Generation 3D Audio Creation Platform to Support MDA

Sydney, Australia: DTS, a pioneer in next generation ultra high-definition audio solutions and audio enhancement technologies, and Fairlight, a leader in audio and video post production solutions, today collaboratively announced the release of Fairlight’s new 3DAW, a 3D audio production platform with native MDA mixing and format support. Answering the industry’s demand for an open next-generation audio format, DTS worked with experts in the content creation community to create the MDA specification.

[. . .]

The new Fairlight 3DAW is available to the industry as a turnkey solution, based on Fairlight’s powerful Crystal Core Media processor and innovative software. It offers audio engineers with a ready-to-go, creative tool to design sound in both object-based or channel 3D mixing methods. The system provides on-screen 3D panning via a plugin, as well as extensive monitoring functions.
3DAW is able to generate a diverse range of mixes ranging from stereo, 5.1, 7.1, 9.1+2, DTS Neo:X, as well as an object-based mix (MDA). [. . .]

Hopefully, a product like this allows for faster|simultaneous creation of of the stems for theatrical 7.1|6.1|5.1 soundtracks and a 7.1 Enhanced for 11.1 Neo:X home theater BD soundtrack...
_
post #801 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

I guess we get to wait and see how well all the competing players can "work together".
Doesn't really concern me whether they work together or not in commercial cinemas. DD, DTS & SDDS all were in use simultaneously in theatres, just as 3 gaming platforms thrive simultaneously in consumer electronics.

I'm more interested in how object-based audio will make it to us consumers. Dolby and DTS use different lossless packing algorithms on Blu-ray, and I don't mind that because they all decode to the same/universal PCM signal.

Likewise, if Dolby and DTS use different meta-data terms to describe object locations, I have no problem with that as long as they can all be "decoded" to a universal set of numbers/coordinates that my pre-pro can understand.
post #802 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Doesn't really concern me whether they work together or not in commercial cinemas. DD, DTS & SDDS all were in use simultaneously in theatres, just as 3 gaming platforms thrive simultaneously in consumer electronics.

I'm more interested in how object-based audio will make it to us consumers. Dolby and DTS use different lossless packing algorithms on Blu-ray, and I don't mind that because they all decode to the same/universal PCM signal.

Likewise, if Dolby and DTS use different meta-data terms to describe object locations, I have no problem with that as long as they can all be "decoded" to a universal set of numbers/coordinates that my pre-pro can understand.

Again, the problem in getting this into the marketplace faster is that sticky word "different." Audio post houses will not want to spend the time, nor will the studios want to spend the extra money for two or more object based mixes because the rendering software will not play nicely with each other.

DTS, Dolby, SDDS, and Datasat worked because they were compression codecs (lossy or lossless) working off of industry standard mixing practices and the same uncompressed PCM audio workflow.

Now, we're set to have competing standards and practices... not good. Confusion is never good in this business. Then, few will actively use this shiny new audio toy. We want everyone to adopt this more advanced technology.
post #803 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Doesn't really concern me whether they work together or not in commercial cinemas. DD, DTS & SDDS all were in use simultaneously in theatres, just as 3 gaming platforms thrive simultaneously in consumer electronics.

I'm more interested in how object-based audio will make it to us consumers. Dolby and DTS use different lossless packing algorithms on Blu-ray, and I don't mind that because they all decode to the same/universal PCM signal.

Likewise, if Dolby and DTS use different meta-data terms to describe object locations, I have no problem with that as long as they can all be "decoded" to a universal set of numbers/coordinates that my pre-pro can understand.

Again, the problem in getting this into the marketplace faster is that sticky word "different." Audio post houses will not want to spend the time, nor will the studios want to spend the extra money for two or more object based mixes because the rendering software will not play nicely with each other.

DTS, Dolby, SDDS, and Datasat worked because they were compression codecs (lossy or lossless) working off of industry standard mixing practices and the same uncompressed PCM audio workflow.

Now, we're set to have competing standards and practices... not good. Confusion is never good in this business. Then, few will actively use this shiny new audio toy. We want everyone to adopt this more advanced technology.

Some on-point issues enumerated in this HollywoodReporter com April 18, 2013, article (link) titled "CinemaCon: Issue Brewing Over Proposed Immersive Sound Standards"

Plus we should remember that consideration of the needs for future broadcast TV audio and music recording industry standards must also play their part in the forthcoming discussions...
_
post #804 of 1230
+1, this is potential HD-DVD vs Blu-ray, how many movies were released in 1 or the other but not both circa 2006 2007?


Sent from my 32GB iPhone4 using Tapatalk
post #805 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

Some on-point issues enumerated in this HollywoodReporter com April 18, 2013, article (link) titled "CinemaCon: Issue Brewing Over Proposed Immersive Sound Standards"

Plus we should remember that consideration of the needs for future broadcast TV audio and music recording industry standards must also play their part in the forthcoming discussions...
_

Will current processor's and receiver's that have Neo:X be capable of any upgrades to the standard once decided on? Or is the likelihood of new hardware to be seen again in the market place. Seems DTS has already done some investment here. But then again, so did Microsoft with HD DVD...
post #806 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Audio post houses will not want to spend the time, nor will the studios want to spend the extra money for two or more object based mixes because the rendering software will not play nicely with each other.
Audio post houses already use different lossless packing encoders that don't play nice with each other (different packing algorithms, different nested structures, different backwards/lossy compatability methods, etc). With all those differences, separate mixes weren't required for DTS-HD MA and TrueHD, just as they won't be for Dolby Atmos and DTS MDA. If a recording engineer wants a certain sound effect to come from 70 degrees left of centre, then either format will let him achieve that. Translating the meta-data (i.e., translating the labels, not the mix) between formats shouldn't keep studios from using both, just as they do now.
post #807 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Will current processor's and receiver's that have Neo:X be capable of any upgrades to the standard once decided on?
Neo:X is matrix surround processing, nothing to do with object-based mixing. Decoding the latter will require new equipment.
post #808 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

If there was an open source solution that also allowed for object-based 3D mixing (or "rendering")... you'd only have to mix ONCE, and then down-convert that metadata controlled bitstream to any and all current codecs.
MDA is proposed as an open format, for exactly that reason.
post #809 of 1230
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Audio post houses already use different lossless packing encoders that don't play nice with each other (different packing algorithms, different nested structures, different backwards/lossy compatability methods, etc). With all those differences, separate mixes weren't required for DTS-HD MA and TrueHD, just as they won't be for Dolby Atmos and DTS MDA. If a recording engineer wants a certain sound effect to come from 70 degrees left of centre, then either format will let him achieve that. Translating the meta-data (i.e., translating the labels, not the mix) between formats shouldn't keep studios from using both, just as they do now.

But if they wanted to have one object mix and have that mix work for both DTS and Dolby versions of this new audio technology... doesn't sound like that's possible. With DTS MA and Dolby TrueHD... those are ways of losslessly compressing the same channel-based PCM master. Encoding is a lot less effort than a multi-stem sound mix for an entire movie.

With competing rendering software in order to mix these types of tracks, it seem like you'd be setting yourself up for unnecessary headaches. Whichever one creates the best audio experience... let that be the open-source for all the others object brands to come... just like PCM was to the recording industry.
post #810 of 1230
Here are a couple quotes of movie industry insiders from The Hollywood Reporter article:

But [Sam Raimi] warned that studios haven’t started to account for the extra time that will be needed should they choose to use multiple immersive formats. “You need to do different mixes,” he said. “It is very complicated to maintain the quality over different formats."


But [Richard King, Oscar winning sound man] admitted to THR that he hopes eventually there will be just one mix when a studio chooses to release in multiple immersive sound formats. “It has created havoc in schedules; we have weeks for extra mixing,” he said. “I think filmmakers would be more comfortable if there is just one version of their film out there.”

If the SMPTE board does recommend a standard for 3D object-based rendering, I hope it doesn't get dumbed down and gives audiences the best and most detailed sonic experience yet (and is high resolution and bit-for-bit lossless when packed for distribution rather than lossy). This should be a giant leap rather than a baby step for movie and music soundtracks.

And it should be available to the home via UHD media, again not dumbed down.
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