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

DTS Neo.X - Page 30

post #871 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

55 Inches from the screen is where the front wide left speaker would sit - but 55 inches is smack dab in the middle of the plasma on the right. 77 inches is at the end of the plasma, so a front wide right could sit there - but 77 inches is smack dab in the middle of the door...
A friend of mine that has a 7.1 layout of all in-ceiling speakers was excited when he found out that the receiver has PLIIz processing. But, with all his speakers in-ceiling, he realized he wasn't a good candidate for adding height speakers.

Likewise, you're not a good candidate for wide speakers, since you have no way to place them symmetrically. Better to stick to your current layout than try to shoe-horn a couple additional speakers only to make things worse.
post #872 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

A friend of mine that has a 7.1 layout of all in-ceiling speakers was excited when he found out that the receiver has PLIIz processing. But, with all his speakers in-ceiling, he realized he wasn't a good candidate for adding height speakers.

Likewise, you're not a good candidate for wide speakers, since you have no way to place them symmetrically. Better to stick to your current layout than try to shoe-horn a couple additional speakers only to make things worse.
Sounds more like a VOG array to me biggrin.gif
post #873 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

A friend of mine that has a 7.1 layout of all in-ceiling speakers was excited when he found out that the receiver has PLIIz processing. But, with all his speakers in-ceiling, he realized he wasn't a good candidate for adding height speakers.

Likewise, you're not a good candidate for wide speakers, since you have no way to place them symmetrically. Better to stick to your current layout than try to shoe-horn a couple additional speakers only to make things worse.
Sounds more like a VOG array to me biggrin.gif
post #874 of 1226
I got it the first time.
post #875 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambesolman View Post

Sounds more like a VOG array to me biggrin.gif

VOG?
post #876 of 1226
Voice Of God.

Object oriented audio will have directly overhead, "assignable" speaker locations, but it's not a part of any current audio format that I know of.
post #877 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View PostVoice Of God. Object oriented audio will have directly overhead, "assignable" speaker locations, but it's not a part of any current audio format that I know of.

 

I see interesting!

post #878 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Voice Of God.

Object oriented audio will have directly overhead, "assignable" speaker locations, but it's not a part of any current audio format that I know of.

Auro 10.1 but maybe you don't consider that a current format.
http://www.auro-3d.com/system/listening-formats
post #879 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by erwinfrombelgium View Post

Auro 10.1 but maybe you don't consider that a current format.
http://www.auro-3d.com/system/listening-formats

Actually I'm hoping that a future Home Theater Auro3D-decoder|Auromatic-upmixer will allow an Auro3D encoded 9.1|10.1|11.1 soundtrack to be (correspondingly!) upmixed|remapped|downmixed into a 10.1 speaker configuration consisting of 5 height speakers "directly above" the 5 standard middle layer speaker locations . . . something akin to the 10 core speaker positions in the much anticipated|rumored Harman|Lexicon QLS-3D 12.x configuration! cool.gif

I've something of an aversion to a Top Center (TpC) aka "Voice-Of-God" "Charleton Heston Channel" "Sword Of Damocles" speaker hanging above my head at the main listening position! eek.gif

...but if pressed, I might accept redirecting the Top Center (TpC) speaker content, 50%|50%, to a dual-mono Top Side Right|Left (TpSiR|TpSiL) speaker pair...?! biggrin.gif
_
Edited by SoundChex - 5/6/13 at 5:33pm
post #880 of 1226
Does DTS:Neo X work with all formats? What I mean is can it upconvert and do all its matrixy goodness to stereo signals, Dolby Digital and so on?
post #881 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by erwinfrombelgium View Post

Auro 10.1 but maybe you don't consider that a current format.
http://www.auro-3d.com/system/listening-formats

Current consumer format that we can listen to in our homes, is what I meant. smile.gif
post #882 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by kertofer View Post

Does DTS:Neo X work with all formats? What I mean is can it upconvert and do all its matrixy goodness to stereo signals, Dolby Digital and so on?

Yes. Just like any other post-processing do-dad in your surround decoder. But, like Dolby Surround encoding with left and right stereo... it can steer the sounds to the various "extra" speakers better if the track was matrix encoded to this specific format in the first place. For DTS Neo:X that would be something like Expendables 2 with 7.1 discrete channels and matrix encoded front wide and height information.
post #883 of 1226
Thanks Dan, that is what I thought but I wanted to double check because I read something earlier today that alluded to it only being able to matrix DTS formats. That did not make sense to me, so I wanted to check.
post #884 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

I've something of an aversion to a Top Center (TpC) aka "Voice-Of-God" "Charleton Heston Channel" "Sword Of Damocles" speaker hanging above my head at the main listening position! eek.gif

...but if pressed, I might accept redirecting the Top Center (TpC) speaker content, 50%|50%, to a dual-mono Top Side Right|Left (TpSiR|TpSiL) speaker pair...?! biggrin.gif
_

I will be testing a top center (rather call it surround ceilingcenter) when I get that far in my build, but I will definitly not use one speaker over main position, rather four speakers more over the other positions and try to arrange the dispersion so the overhead will be heard less in those positions and the other one more for a more stable middle of ceiling presentation in all positions. Will have to invent some movable rig to find the exact positions, I guess.
post #885 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

I've something of an aversion to a Top Center (TpC) aka "Voice-Of-God" "Charleton Heston Channel" "Sword Of Damocles" speaker hanging above my head at the main listening position! eek.gif

I will be testing a top center (rather call it surround ceilingcenter) when I get that far in my build . . .

While we will no doubt be subject to conflicting and inconsistent channel|speaker naming from every interested consumer and CEM, there are already recommended speaker label standards|publications from SMPTE and IEC (SMPTE2036-2-2008 and IEC 62574 respectively) both of which appear to be 'based on' (i.e., starting with and expanding from) the Hamasaki 22.2 speaker configuration (presumably "influenced" or perhaps "strong-armed" by NHK!)

Consequently, rather than go with dividing Home Theater speakers|channels into two categories such as "front wall" and "surround", SMPTE and IEC have elected to go with segregation by height . . . into Top Layer, Middle Layer, and Bottom Layer, so that IEC 62574: Audio, video and multimedia systems – General channel assignment of multichannel audio (TC 100) includes the following two sections:

§2.1 Top Layer
Top (highest) layer of three loudspeaker-layers located at the top of the screen, alternatively at the top of the room. Loudspeaker channels of the top layer are annotated with the letters Tp.
and
§2.20 TpC
Top Center, a loudspeaker position located at the center of the top layer directly above the seating area.

I'm guessing the chances for uniform naming usage by the CEMs is near zero . . . but occasionally I do try my best to keep entropy at bay by reusing the existing 'somewhat standard' names where possible. biggrin.gif
_
Edited by SoundChex - 5/7/13 at 10:56am
post #886 of 1226
I could go with Top Center as a description of placement, no problem. But information-wise it will be Surround Center (matrixed from SR & SL).

Now, what would that standard be calling surrounds in a slighly bent, slanted horseshoe-arc around the listeners be namned? biggrin.gif
post #887 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

I've something of an aversion to a Top Center (TpC) aka "Voice-Of-God" "Charleton Heston Channel" "Sword Of Damocles" speaker hanging above my head at the main listening position! eek.gif

...but if pressed, I might accept redirecting the Top Center (TpC) speaker content, 50%|50%, to a dual-mono Top Side Right|Left (TpSiR|TpSiL) speaker pair...?! biggrin.gif
_

I agree, especially since most ceilings are way too low to provide enough speaker to listener distance. Multiple VOG speakers from one channel is what Auro-3D proposes for commercial cinema BTW, as one can see in their graphics.
post #888 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by erwinfrombelgium View PostI agree, especially since most ceilings are way too low to provide enough speaker to listener distance. Multiple VOG speakers from one channel is what Auro-3D proposes for commercial cinema BTW, as one can see in their graphics.

My ceiling is 10 feet tall, so I would be about the same distance from my front seven feet. For surround sound it works well :)


Edited by wse - 5/7/13 at 4:29pm
post #889 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

I've something of an aversion to a Top Center (TpC) aka "Voice-Of-God" "Charleton Heston Channel" "Sword Of Damocles" speaker hanging above my head at the main listening position! eek.gif
Yup, single worst place to put a speaker.
post #890 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Now, what would that standard be calling surrounds in a slightly bent, slanted horseshoe-arc around the listeners be named? biggrin.gif

You misunderstand. SMPTE2036-2-2008 and IEC 62574 only attempt to define labels for approximate speaker locations and 'functions' (but they do not define complete speaker configurations). Among other uses, this allows for the establishment of a list of commonly used speaker locations which can be coded-and-codified in the CEA-861-E (and successors) standard. An audio sink can advertise its EDID speaker capabilities over an HDMI link using only these speaker codes, which information the audio source uses during decode, remap, and|or upmix-or-downmix processing of the source content to be delivered over the HDMI link. Additionally each delivered MCh LPCM track is "tagged" with the location code of its destination speaker.

So it all has to start with a complete list of allowed speakers.

And a "fun quote" from CEA-861-E, Annex K, Audio Speaker Placement & Channel Allocation Compatibility (Informative):
Quote:
"CEA-861-E does not exactly follow professional broadcast/production industry (i.e. MPGA, ITU, or SMPTE) speaker placement and audio channel allocation standards. Table 102 compares the speaker placements between the SMPTE 320M (the SMPTE2036-2-2008 predecessor) and CEA-861-E standards. There is general agreement between 5.1 channels – although the exact audio channel descriptions and abbreviations are slightly different. All other channels have no direct equivalents."
_
Edited by SoundChex - 5/7/13 at 3:19pm
post #891 of 1226
Interesting post processing only Immersive Audio Processor from Illusonic (link). Ignoring the 'no price shown' issue for the moment, what caught my eye was the available upmix-to speaker configurations show in the user manual (link) . . . and the apparent "convergence" we are (understandably) starting to see in "3D audio using 15.1 or less" speaker setups. biggrin.gif
_
post #892 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

Ignoring the 'no price shown' issue for the moment...
Price is a little over $20K. Was discussed briefly in another thread about a month ago.
post #893 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View PostInteresting post processing only Immersive Audio Processor from Illusonic (link). Ignoring the 'no price shown' issue for the moment, what caught my eye was the available upmix-to speaker configurations show in the user manual (link) . . . and the apparent "convergence" we are (understandably) starting to see in "3D audio using 15.1 or less" speaker setups. biggrin.gif
 

Sweet how much, let me guess SWISS made $30,000?

post #894 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

You misunderstand. SMPTE2036-2-2008 and IEC 62574 only attempt to define labels for approximate speaker locations...

No, you misunderstood - I meant what to call speakers placed inbetween middle and top.
post #895 of 1226
If Dolby and DTS are successful in getting object audio adopted as the means to deliver height enhanced soundtracks, the concept of speaker names becomes less important -- maybe irrelevant. Today the name implies where the speaker belongs, and which channel to feed it. The "base" 5.1 or 7.1 channels will still carry the traditional names even when object audio soundtracks appear. But for the additional speakers, names are not needed because the decoder creates custom signals for each speaker's location, wherever they may be.
post #896 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View PostIf Dolby and DTS are successful in getting object audio adopted as the means to deliver height enhanced soundtracks, the concept of speaker names becomes less important -- maybe irrelevant. Today the name implies where the speaker belongs, and which channel to feed it. The "base" 5.1 or 7.1 channels will still carry the traditional names even when object audio soundtracks appear. But for the additional speakers, names are not needed because the decoder creates custom signals for each speaker's location, wherever they may be.

Let's hope they are :)

post #897 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

If Dolby and DTS are successful in getting object audio adopted as the means to deliver height enhanced soundtracks, the concept of speaker names becomes less important -- maybe irrelevant. Today the name implies where the speaker belongs, and which channel to feed it. The "base" 5.1 or 7.1 channels will still carry the traditional names even when object audio soundtracks appear. But for the additional speakers, names are not needed because the decoder creates custom signals for each speaker's location, wherever they may be.

What will become of Neo:X?
post #898 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

What will become of Neo:X?
It remains as vital as ever in order to handle upmixing of legacy content. And of course besides Blu-ray, it is not clear what other formats will adopt object audio, so it is possible to encode object soundtracks into Neo:X form for more conventional 5.1 delivery.
post #899 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

What will become of Neo:X?
Will remain useful for EVERYTHING that isn't object-based (like all the media you currently own).
post #900 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Will remain useful for EVERYTHING that isn't object-based (like all the media you currently own).

That is a good thing, I am happy right now and would like to continue to benefit with available media. And one day move in this new exciting world of rendered objects.
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