Moving past 7.1(5.1) into 9.1(11.2) upgrade your HT room via AudysseyDSX / DolbyPL IIz / DTS Neo:X™ - Page 5

At the moment, but it's just a matter of time before they are capable. A couple months back Onkyo 818 receivers were being discounted to between $600-700, and they have the acoustic processing horsepower to properly deal with 9.1 channels, using the most advanced version of Audyssey room correction (XT32). With that in mind, the idea of processing just 2 more channels and selling it for a little less than the 818 doesn't seem unreasonable in the near future. Certainly more likely than Atmos technology (that you're planning your set-up around) ever showing up in a $600 receiver any time soon. Height and wide channels are here (have been for the last couple years). By comparison, Atmos is wishful thinking. For the same reason you scale standard-def sources to your high-def television, producing some sort of pixels pulled out by some calculated algorithm of what the video processor thinks should be there (to paraphrase your description). Or are you a purist and only use a 480x720 grid of pixels in the middle of your hi-def display when viewing standard def sources?

Matrix extraction has been a part of consumer surround sound since its inception in 1970 with quadraphonic recordings, and continues to be so even in the discrete multi-channel era, as people scale the number of channels in the source to the number of speakers in their set-up. People who got into surround sound after 5.1 content became available in 1995 tend to be hung up on discrete channels, not sure how the previous 25 years of surround sound could have been possible (let alone successful) with just matrix technology, often making it obvious that their criticisms of surround processing are based on inexperience with those technologies.

The reason some people find matrix extraction useful is because it can help stabilize imaging, improve directionality and provide greater envelopment. For example: extracting a centre output from a stereo signal means that you no longer have to rely on phantom imaging for centre-imaged sounds in the recording. Rather than being locked into a sweet spot exactly between your L/R speakers, you can sit anywhere and still hear vocals image at the centre of the soundstage. Same for phantom imaging between the front and surround speakers: a pair of wide speakers keeps those sounds at the intended location, even when the listeners aren't sitting in the sweet spot. And it is impossible for a single pair of surround speakers to be at your sides AND behind you AND above you simultaneously. To get that sort of envelopment, additional speakers are needed. It wasn't "just for the Hell of it", it was because many studio engineers weren't yet aware of what was possible with an additional delivery channel. They mixed asthough they simply had another channel: some stuff went into one channel, other things went into the other channel. But the moment they discovered what 2 channels were capable of, you started seeing recordings where sounds were mixed to both channels to create a soundstage with imaging at various points across its width. Again, not everyone is hung up on discrete channels, any more than everyone has abandoned standard def sources. People are buying 4K displays even if there isn't any 4K content, just as people using 11-speaker set-ups even if there is no content with that many discrete channels (there are 11.1-channel Blu-rays, like 'Expendables 2' and 'Dredd', but those use a combination of discrete and matrix encoding).

If matrix extraction is "ludicrous", then you apparently believe the same about the first quarter-century of surround sound. Can't share your sentiment, considering I had migrated to a 7.1-speaker layout a few years before there was any 5.1 material available, so I don't have the aversion to matrix technology that you do.

this thread is for those moving past 7.1 as a choice. Am I missing anything?

Do you think TMcG questioning the choice to move past 7.1 is off topic? I don't mind explaining why I think it is worthwhile. He doesn't have to agree with my reasons, but the discussion could help others decide whether moving past 7.1 is a good choice for them.

Sdurani - first, "Vertical stretch" is taking the real, actual pixel data provided by the Bluray player (or other source) and compressing it into using the enitre16x9 panel. This is then optically stretched by an anamorphic lens for proper cinemascope display. There IS noticeably improved brightness and one could argue greater resolution since the 810 lines used to make the original picture are now being digitally "re-photographed" with 1080 lines of resolution. It's certainly not a perfect system, but there is very noticeable improvement over the zooming features typically found. And pixel interpolation for video is a well-established technology used to increase the perceived resolution of a video source. The technology works, but upscaled resolution will never be able to hold a candle to native resolution in a way that is similar to a matrixed audio "something" will never compare to discrete channels.

Yes, like yourself, everyone promotes Expendables 2 and Dredd as the only two movies that are releasing in discrete formats. Congratulations...two mediocre movies used to justify purchase of 2 pairs of extra speakers and the associated amplification and processing...No thank you. And we agree that all but the very high-end preamps have the ability to do a decent job to integrate these four additional channels.

So let's recap:

• Poorly performing receivers that can barely create a signal out of thin air are somehow expected to do a good job of processing that signal in a real-world 11 channel environment
• There are exactly two explosion-based movies that have discrete channel output for widths and heights that were specifically marketed with 11.2 to drive sales of the crappy movie
• The technology is exceedingly unrefined at this point as judged by everyone's opinion, including your own

Not exactly a justification to go beyond 5.1 or 7.1 at this point.

And regarding Atmos...I wasn't saying that I was doing anything with that for my theater build - only that the system made the most sense to me after looking at the technology since it incorporates discrete stereo speakers above the listening position. Properly used, that to me has more potential to add to the depth of sound stage than the height and width speakers.

I guess in the end all you really have to look at is what the professionals do....There are not height or width channels in professional setups - only left, center, right, subs and a bunch of side and rear surrounds. Only IMAX systems with DISCRETE channels have anything close in the professional environment. But considering that's a building-sized half-round screen it is understandable that there would be a separate mix just for IMAX. But in the residential environment the 9.1 and 11.1 technologies are still a LONG way off from prime time.

EDIT: Step-Up Revolution is the third and final movie available in DTS Neo X. Perhaps Zuluwalker can provide some further discussion once he receives his 8801 processor.
Edited by TMcG - 3/20/13 at 7:11am

I found what you had to say very interesting. Informative. But a position that explains away the technology before even trying it, just seems obstinate. No doubt a good discussion can be had about this, but at least from the position of having tried and found favor or not...key being effort to apply. It is not necessary to like or enjoy going beyond 7.1, or even to find it well done, or not.

Whatever happened to DTS-ES 6.1?? Lack of content, matrixed signal and limited (if any) benefit over traditional 5.1.... and that was just for one additional speaker in the room that is easy to set up.

If you are referring to me as being obstinate - don't because you did not understand my point. I clearly said many times that whatever number of channels are needed to create an all-enveloping three-dimensional sound stage is what we should all be striving for. Clearly with the number of different surround matrix technologies available there is no clear winner. I also said that I can appreciate added channels if they are discrete and truly lead to the ultimate goal of a three-dimensional sound stage. If that took just one speaker, then fine - it takes one speaker. If that takes 20 speakers, then fine - it takes 20 speakers. The point is that just because a new surround codec is launched for residential applications doesn't necessarily mean that it is the new "must have" technology. Those early adopters have provided feedback in this and a number of other forums and the result hasn't been very enthusiastic . . . at all in most cases.

In my theater build I will certainly be running two pairs of additional speaker wires into the room with plenty of slack to move through my soffit to anywhere in the room, including the ceiling. By already having a 9.2 system, it is difficult for me personally to rationalize another $5000 in matching speakers and another $1000 in amplification, not to mention the additional DSP channels to implement a system which appears to have a rather limited benefit.

I am guessing that Neo X may go the way of ES unless it really starts to prove its worth with discrete content FIRST.

First off, I apologize for saying you are "obstinate" if you feel that was not your intention. I have misunderstood you.

Second, was Neo:X not designed to make the most of already available 2.0, 5.1, and 7.1 content first, before any new content could even be bought by the typical user? It would seem the intial benefit of such new technology is to enhance the soundfield with more layers.

Certainly I 100% agree with the statement that discrete channels rule the day. But the opportunity to try this, and enjoy the very most from my already purchased content is a good value. Expecting more at this point interms of discrete content for sale is sadly limited, and welcome changes there. It would be fantastic to have more studios on board.

Make sure to give the first 11.2 demo you can find a chance first, then I am happy to hear how it falls short.

With regards to my ability to rationalize any of my new channels...I must admit, that the word "irrational" was used my wife when I explained all this. So maybe don't look for a rational reason why early adopters do the things they do, they do them because they can

One clarification - if the discrete 11.2 content fails to provide tangible additional benefit, then the chances are low any benefit can be derived from non-discreet content. And it wouldn't be enhancing the "soundfield with more layers", it is extracting and reproducing existing layers the audio algorithm thinks should be there. There is no additional content.

For the $6000+ it would cost me in my theater to evaluate 11.2, it's just not worth the expense or effort IMHO, especially with early reviews of the technology. Like you, I plan to have a Marantz 8801 (or its successor), so I would certainly have the capability of doing full Neo-X right off the bat, but I will definitely hold off. Reselling purpose-built theater speaker and the amplifier and the outboard DSP cards would just come at a large financial loss to simply give it a try.

To MTDubex's point about the hardware....it seems the jury is still out on the location and position of height and width speakers. I'm subbed to this thread and will follow along with the feedback, but given the early reviews of the technology in this and other threads this is one area I will be watchful waiting instead of an early adopter. I'd rather dump the extra $$$ into a better projector, a home automation system or even a QSC DSP with professional calibration as making more of an overall difference to my theater's eventual performance. My final comment.

Has anyone any knowledge of "objects" being used in the surround field vs. discrete channels? I am fuzzy on this.

EDIT:
http://www.cepro.com/article/dts_neox_technology_making_3d_audio_a_reality/

I have been following this thread, quietly, to determine if I should incorporate the option for wides and possibly heights in my design. It is, after all, in the Dedicated Theater Design & Construction forum.

The "Wides" are the issue but I think I can arrange for my front columns to just "happen" to fall into the 60 degree range for my front row... But from a design perspective I think that is a potential issue for 2 row theaters. Are "wides" even working as intended when they move from 60 degrees at the front to 35 degrees in the second? Most of the other speakers positions seem to have more variance in their placement options.

My current opinion is I will probably design and wire for it but I will have to see where the budget is to determine if speakers end up at those extra 2(4) locations.

I will try to buy this movie for the weekend. Hopefully I can send my wife to pick it up! I will also watch for it's true level of "family", and pass on.

Am I right in saying we have three titles now?

Expendables 2
Dredd
Step up Revolution

EDIT:
Was Rise of the guardians, not also shown in Atmos theaters? Seems like it would be rich for a Neo:X environment?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446192/

Yes, three 11.2 mixed titles is all I could find. I would think the Hobbit would be another candidate for a more sophisticated mix, but neither the 2D or 3D versions of the movie are planned for DTS-Neo X release, only DTS HD Master Audio 7.1.

Is there an offical DTS Neo:X list, or site, that shows all titles. I can not find it if there is. It is hard enough finding these three titles together on a page.

It would seem likely that there is a resource page for identifying new titles and upcoming movies...but where?

Go to this link on DTS's website and select DTS Neo-X from the drop-down box:
http://www.dts.com/consumers/entertainment-audio/new-releases.aspx?q=&at=f44a2081e2bb42718beef1d0a2440475#recentReleases

sweet

Related - Dolby has a list of Atmos releases, though of course they are not for home use. http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/content/movie/release/dolby-atmos-movies.html

All three movies, Expendables 2, Step up revolution, and Dredd, are all Lionsgate.

More titles to follow with Neo:X will likely follow from Lionsgate? What other studios might come next?

I assume if I watch Lionsgate realease list it will be a possible guide to hopefully new titles.

http://www.lionsgateshop.com/search_results.asp?Type=coming+soon

The DTS rep in that article seems to saying that Neo:X, with it expanded number of channels, is a step towards their eventual goal of object-oriented audio.

In this context, "object" is a sound effect, piece of dialogue, music cue, etc. Rather than mixing those sounds into channels, they are mixed to a location in 3D space and mixed to be a certain size/spread. These sounds are then tagged with the metadata that has location, size, distance and level info. Upon playback, those sounds are rendered to your speaker layout, being sent to the closest speaker (or combination of speakers) to image where the mixer intended. Eventually, this could mean the end of channel-based audio and the need to do multiple mixes. Mixers will create a soundtrack based on where/how they want sounds to appear in 3D space, your home receiver will render those objects to your speaker layout, whether it's 16 speakers or a soundbar.

Dolby Atmos is a commercial version of this approach and the DTS article was hinting at the consumer version that they're probably working on (DTS is no longer in the commercial theatre business). Another example of object-oriented audio is video games. When a growling alien is rushing towards your first person shooter, the growl sound effect is an "object" that is not mixed to any particular channel. By pointing your character in different directions, you can make the growl come from your front speaker, side speaker or rear speaker. It isn't a channel-based mix, but an object being rendered in real time, mixed live via your game controller.

No doubt though that these larger commercial projects and titles will inspire a great uptake in the technology applied in homes. Hopefully translating into more Blu-ray or streaming versions encoded with Neo:X. I am excited by "object rendering" and find it to be interesting topic. I do not game, but can grasp what this already does for gamers. Dolby Atmos takes the experience to a higher level (no pun intended). Having this greater interest level amoung the public in new tech, makes the home theater evermore compelling.

Thanks for the link.

To that end, two useful things that the industry can do is mix more titles in Atmos and equip more theatres with Atmos. It was heartening to see 4 titles released this month, with a couple more next month and 3 more in May. Might be more challenging (expense wise) to add more theatres, but it is happening (7 so far in Canada, though none yet in Alberta).

Interesting, my replies yesterday to TMcG have been deleted while his anti-9.1/11.2 posts (like this one) have been allowed to stay in this thread. My reply to that very post, where I refute his factually incorrect statements and explain why more speakers are helpful, was apparently not allowed.

maybe because he is a "news breaker", it is a question of an old boys club and favouritism?

Indeed. You can see the 15 hour gap in posting in this thread. Glad I saved copies of those posts for future reference.

I went to a demo of various projectors and audio systems at a dedicated facility with some other members of the UK forum (quite a few went over a period of weeks, and the consensus was pretty much the same all round I think), and we listened to the Onkyo 818 with wides in use in one of the demo areas. I'd never thought or considered going beyond 7.1 until I'd heard the demos (with various material, including what we brought ourselves), and it was enough for me to think there and then that more is better in this case. Even without any native material, it was noticeably more immersive than without (we compared), so I would now no longer consider going with a standard 7.1 set up.

I mentioned the demo to a fellow enthusiast who lives too far to make it down to the venue along with my opinion, and he went out and bought an 818 on the back of it. He also prefers the extra channels and he's since upgraded to an Onkyo 5509 and the 818 is up for sale.

I think that for those thinking about it, I would definitely try and demo a decently set up 9.2 or 11.2 and make your own mind up.

Gary

Was this Neo:X or DSX? Where were the speakers (all 9) positioned relative to MLP?

Roger,

I couldn't tell you the details to be honest (it was about 6 months ago), but the speakers looked like they were located pretty much as you would expect per the diagrams we've seen in the thread (I went back and read it after I'd posted). I'd not read the thread, just offered my comments.

The LCR were behind the AT screen, wides off at the sides inbetween the MLP and the screen and toe'd in. The wides seem to fill in the hole between the side surrounds and the fronts. The rears weren't used as the wides were used instead IIRC. Speakers were M&K150s. The room wasn't treated either, just normal furniture - this demo 'room' was more like your normal lounge so people could get an idea of what to expect in a non dedicated light decor room rather than a treated batcave for example.

Gary