or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Home Entertainment & Theater Builder › Dedicated Theater Design & Construction › Moving past 7.1 into 9.1/11.x/3D ObjectAudio in HT via AudysseyDSX/DolbyPLIIz/DTS Neo:X™/Auro-3D
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Moving past 7.1 into 9.1/11.x/3D ObjectAudio in HT via AudysseyDSX/DolbyPLIIz/DTS Neo:X™/Auro-3D - Page 4

post #91 of 819
No, Neo:X is a matrix format that will take out of phase sounds and use other comparisons to synthesize the additional channels to go from 5.1 or 7.1 to 11.1 in a similar manner to the way Dolby Pro Logic takes 2.0 to 5.1.
post #92 of 819
Hi guys, here is a picture of my so far 9.1 denon 4311ci setup, need to figure out the heights still. I am liking the Wides though!

post #93 of 819
That's a good looking room man! I need to go read your thread on it!
post #94 of 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7channelfreak View Post

Does a soundtrack have to be mixed in 11.1 to use DTS Neo:X?
No. IF a soundtrack is Neo:X encoded (there are only 2 so far), then you can use Neo:X as a decoder. However, Neo:X was designed primarily to be applied to non-encoded sources, in which case you would be using it as surround processing.
post #95 of 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

No. IF a soundtrack is Neo:X encoded (there are only 2 so far), then you can use Neo:X as a decoder. However, Neo:X was designed primarily to be applied to non-encoded sources, in which case you would be using it as surround processing.

So are there comparisons between DSX and NEO somewhere? I saw some people didn't care for what DSX does to the levels of the surrounds. Is NEO a better option?
post #96 of 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7channelfreak View Post

So are there comparisons between DSX and NEO somewhere? I saw some people didn't care for what DSX does to the levels of the surrounds. Is NEO a better option?
Better for what? They serve rather different purposes, so depending on which goal you want to achieve, either could be best.

In a nutshell:

DSX creates an effect not heard in the original production. Not unlike Yamaha DSP in general philosophy. It creates room reflections, and diffuses and deemphasizes the surrounds. It spreads the L/R cues much wider than intended.

Neo:X is a surround processor that extracts signals in the source (adding no new signals), and drives additional speaker locations to improve either directionality or envelopment. Not unlike PLIIx or PLIIz in general philosophy.
post #97 of 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Better for what? They serve rather different purposes, so depending on which goal you want to achieve, either could be best.

In a nutshell:

DSX creates an effect not heard in the original production. Not unlike Yamaha DSP in general philosophy. It creates room reflections, and diffuses and deemphasizes the surrounds. It spreads the L/R cues much wider than intended.

Neo:X is a surround processor that extracts signals in the source (adding no new signals), and drives additional speaker locations to improve either directionality or envelopment. Not unlike PLIIx or PLIIz in general philosophy.

Thanks for the input. I'm trying to figure out if I would want to spend the extra $ for speakers and what I would gain. I have a 4520 and it seems minimal to go to 9.1.
post #98 of 819
Opinions seem to vary as to how much you gain and which speakers give you the most bang for the buck. Some people seem to like the Front Highs whereas others like the Wides. DSX emphasizes Wides before Highs, but I have not seen which is more emphasized in Neo:X or PLIIz. Personally I am planning to do Highs first because my room is kind of narrow, but it all depends.
post #99 of 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by kertofer View Post

Opinions seem to vary as to how much you gain and which speakers give you the most bang for the buck. Some people seem to like the Front Highs whereas others like the Wides. DSX emphasizes Wides before Highs, but I have not seen which is more emphasized in Neo:X or PLIIz. Personally I am planning to do Highs first because my room is kind of narrow, but it all depends.
PLIIz has no option for wides. Neo:X wide outputs simply feed a speaker with what used to be a phantom image between fronts/surrounds. It can improve some localization of effects for people seated away from the optimal location, but does very little to nothing for folks well located amongst a well-tuned 7.1 system. The heights are similarly subtle as they are for PLIIz, but the content derivation is different. I would take either PLIIz or Neo:X over DSX, as I prefer to listen to what's in the actual source. Just my opinion...
post #100 of 819
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheezit73 View Post

Hi guys, here is a picture of my so far 9.1 denon 4311ci setup, need to figure out the heights still. I am liking the Wides though!


How close did you get to the 60 degree angle for your wides?
post #101 of 819
Thread Starter 
Here's my build status update:
Tucking the heights all the way up into the corner gives me 35 degree spread and around 32 degrees up.

The wides ended up at 50 degree spread, due to my desirte to keep symmetry of them.
The LH 8" HVAC pipe kept me from going more rearward on the LH side within the 24" span between concrete form studs, now if I went totally rear of that 8" pipe and the concrete stud then on the RH side I get into all my 4 circuits wiring for lights frown.gif
In the 2-3 year upgrade plan, if I do upgrade to a Grafiyik eye for light control then I'd need to re-do the box/wiring there, then I'd move these rearward and be around 62-63 degrees spread.

For now, I'm just within the +- 10 degree tolerance Chris K gave.
Layout:
HT%2520Plan%25202x4%2520Seats-Riser-acoustics%2520Jan-2013_angles.JPG

Some pictures of final install:
_MG_1157.jpg . _MG_1158.jpg

This picture shows the dead flat varnish I coated the re-paint area....looks like I need to put a little more forward, they eyes can't see this or I would have of course done it.
I added that way back in 2008 to help the flat paint burnish issue.
_MG_1163.jpg . _MG_1160.jpg

I lined the sides/back/top of the box with 2" OC703 for resonance control, and to help my bookshelf breath, since it is rear ported.
_MG_1168.jpg

Next up:
Some subjective listening by a small group of neighbors, I'll post those later.
Edited by mtbdudex - 1/25/13 at 7:34am
post #102 of 819
Nicely done. Really like the shelves for aiming the wides at the LP and minimizing the footprint. Seems i recall someone suggesting moving the heights forward (toward the listener) to increase the degrees up. Looking forward to your listening impressions. Thanks for the pics.
post #103 of 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

How close did you get to the 60 degree angle for your wides?


They are at exactly 60 degrees!
post #104 of 819
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjlewie View Post

Nicely done. Really like the shelves for aiming the wides at the LP and minimizing the footprint. Seems i recall someone suggesting moving the heights forward (toward the listener) to increase the degrees up. Looking forward to your listening impressions. Thanks for the pics.

Thx, the side wall in-wall did help minimized the room intrusion, and got rid of speaker stands also.
I gotta take some ETC readings of the fronts/heights before I do any critical listening, if need be I'll add treatments selectively where just needed due to these additions.
I decided to try with the heights tucked into the corners as first pass for heights before moving them towards me along the ceiling....

Now that I'm typing this, I could also "tuck them into the ceiling"- its possible, same as my LH in-wall method, build a box, put it up there, and then tuck speaker into it....
Not sure if my wife would "allow" that - she thinks I'm getting kinda OCD/obsessed enough as is.... rolleyes.gif

Too bad Paradign does not make ceiling speaker directional like these Triad's, I'd use them at a heartbeat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheezit73 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

How close did you get to the 60 degree angle for your wides?


They are at exactly 60 degrees!

Good for you, 60 is the recommendation, while I am at the edge of the tolerance, I hope 50 vs 60 won't matter too much.
After I take ETC and apply treatments - and take ETC with them at 60 deg also, when doing listening I actually have enough speaker cable coiled behind to put them on barstools and back at 60 deg temp as 50 vs 60 degree compare.
Edited by mtbdudex - 1/25/13 at 1:32pm
post #105 of 819
Nice write up! Question: I am getting my 4520 next week and was planning on moving from 5.1 to 9.1... I was planning on adding front wides and heights without adding additional rears surrounds. Will that work or do I need to run rear surrounds and surround backs?
post #106 of 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellisr63 View Post

I am getting my 4520 next week and was planning on moving from 5.1 to 9.1... I was planning on adding front wides and heights without adding additional rears surrounds. Will that work or do I need to run rear surrounds and surround backs?
You don't need surround-back speakers to use wides and heights. Still, you have 9 speakers to work with and you're going to put a full 7 of those speakers up front, leaving only 2 speakers to cover the entire surround field around you? Isn't that kinda lopsided?
post #107 of 819
Unintended consequences.

Mike, great thread.
Ever give any consideration to placing an absorber (of adequate thickness, etc.), on the mains side of the new wide loudspeaker? It would only make sense to me that the energy formerly tended to via the panel ... now reduced in size, could certainly benefit from absorption rather than the redirection/scattering/reflection that as is the case now.

Thoughts?
post #108 of 819
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

Unintended consequences.

Mike, great thread.
Ever give any consideration to placing an absorber (of adequate thickness, etc.), on the mains side of the new wide loudspeaker? It would only make sense to me that the energy formerly tended to via the panel ... now reduced in size, could certainly benefit from absorption rather than the redirection/scattering/reflection that as is the case now.

Thoughts?

Thx FOH , tweaking of acoustic management for the added wide/height speakers is tbd.

My checklist:
1a)Finish my 18" and 15" subs for multi sub strategy
1b) Integrate those
Get that done in March...

I've also got Audyssey Pro Lic, will be borrowing the Pro Mic from a friend
Bring my wifes 21" iMac and REW/gear into the HT for measurement sessions, a balance of using Audyssey Pro, and added acoustic treatments via ETC charts
>>I've got 5 un-used 2' x 4' 2" thk OC703, so pretty good to go for strategic placement of added treatements.

I also have on my check list adding rear wall diffusors, prioritized for the 1st row, as my 2nd row is 20" from the rear wall - too close for diffusor to improve the 2nd row but should not "hurt" vs bare walls.

Possible 2nd/3rd week or April I might be far along enough to truly tackle the acoustic adjustments to the HT......this hobby seems to be ongoing and ongoing....
Edited by mtbdudex - 3/10/13 at 9:13am
post #109 of 819
I have an 11.1 room.

This has been a very exciting process, I am awaiting my new processor to give it all a go. Currently my Marantz AV8801 is backordered till the end of the month.



The contruction of the room included wiring for 9.3, but recent changes have lead me to create 11 channels.

I hope to be up and running very soon. I will post my results.
post #110 of 819
I've been reading the thread and its more construction thoughts than reviews. I'm building my theater now and am debating cutting the heights.

My question is how are people liking the experience? And does anyone have a small room? My rooms 17x14 so the speakers will be at the correct angles but the wides will be close to my seat. I assume the receiver will correct it. I'm getting the denon 4520, so going to 9 is based on laziness of not wanting to get another amp for the last two channels
post #111 of 819
Thread Starter 
This threads purpose was to get people motivated to upgrade - the nuts and bolts of doing that into an existing HT.....
And help/share experiences and lessons learned so others will consider doing so.

I was - and still am - open to the "best" wide/height codec, but over time I seem to be gravitating to NeoX, simply the side/rear surrounds don't get lost at all, while under DSX seems the re-direction of signals reduces the presence of the side/rear surrounds.

I've not had time to truly do A vs B vs C comparison.....for now I have my subjective feelings, I've not seen any major write ups about a DSX/NeoX/PLIIz "shoot out" either.
(leaving for now the totally discrete http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/technology/movie/dolby-atmos.html to different discussion)
post #112 of 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

This threads purpose was to get people motivated to upgrade - the nuts and bolts of doing that into an existing HT.....
And help/share experiences and lessons learned so others will consider doing so.

You''ve done well sir.
post #113 of 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES View Post

I've been reading the thread and its more construction thoughts than reviews. I'm building my theater now and am debating cutting the heights.

My question is how are people liking the experience? And does anyone have a small room? My rooms 17x14 so the speakers will be at the correct angles but the wides will be close to my seat. I assume the receiver will correct it. I'm getting the denon 4520, so going to 9 is based on laziness of not wanting to get another amp for the last two channels

Ideally you can plan/wire for the heights with the option to use them.

In my theater, when I had the Onkyo 3008 and had to choose between wides/heights - I found that the heights sounded better from the back row. And the wides sounded more immersive in the front row.

I've since upgraded to the Denon 4520 so I could have the best of both worlds and all 11 speakers kicking at once.
post #114 of 819
What size is your theater?are y
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcascio View Post

Ideally you can plan/wire for the heights with the option to use them.

In my theater, when I had the Onkyo 3008 and had to choose between wides/heights - I found that the heights sounded better from the back row. And the wides sounded more immersive in the front row.

I've since upgraded to the Denon 4520 so I could have the best of both worlds and all 11 speakers kicking at once.[/quote

What size is your theater?

Have you enjoyed it? Glad you went to 9/11?

My heights are only going to be at 35 degrees but will be higher than the L and R
post #115 of 819
I'm running 9.1 with Height using a 4520Ci in my HT. So far, like many others, I don't really like or care abut DSX. I've been using PLIIz. Haven't use Neo:X much, but feels like they are very close, at least in my case (height only).
post #116 of 819
We just watched Argo in Neo:X (11.2 in my room) on a Marantz AV8801. I found the scenes with the mobs and crowds to be so involving and expansive that literally became anxious, just for a moment. Certainly the goal of "suspension of disbelief" has successfully been achieved in this case.

Very happy with the results. I will compare tomorrow the same scenes with PLIIz and DSX.
post #117 of 819
I've pretty much ruled out wiring for width and height channels, especially given the scale of my room (16' x 22' x 9'). I think the technology has the potential of introducing more problems than it solves with the number of speakers firing at the listening position. It seems no $600 receiver is going to have advanced enough signal processing to properly calibrate, align and otherwise deal with that many sound channels.

I'd rather prewire for two pairs of ceiling surround speakers (a la Dolby Atmos http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/dolby-atmos.html#TheatreSetup) than widths and heights, especially for ANYONE that multiple rows of seating. I just don't understand how heights / widths are handled properly for multiple rows of seating. My guess is that they are not handled well at all.
post #118 of 819
I think your room would be fine to wire. I've done so for a slightly smaller and much lower room.
post #119 of 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

I think the technology has the potential of introducing more problems than it solves with the number of speakers firing at the listening position.
What problems?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

I just don't understand how heights / widths are handled properly for multiple rows of seating.
Same way all your other speakers are handled for multiple rows of seating. If you've set up your L/R speakers for the front row, then they are not time aligned for the back row, not level matched for the back row, not spread at the proper angle for the back row, etc. If that's not a problem for critical L/R speakers, then I don't see how it can be a problem for more subtle speakers, like heights.
post #120 of 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

What problems?
Same way all your other speakers are handled for multiple rows of seating. If you've set up your L/R speakers for the front row, then they are not time aligned for the back row, not level matched for the back row, not spread at the proper angle for the back row, etc. If that's not a problem for critical L/R speakers, then I don't see how it can be a problem for more subtle speakers, like heights.

I stated the problem. A $600 receiver doesn't have the acoustic processing "horsepower" to properly deal with the channel signal setup and calibration correctly. Would you not agree?

And I am not sure why extracting non-existent discrete channel information is therefore considered "better" by some simply because it produces some sort of sound pulled out by some calculated algorithm of what the processor thinks should be there. It makes me think of the early days of stereo recordings where studio engineers would intentionally split an instrument into either the left or right speaker just for the Hell of it. Just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be done or adds anything of value to the experience.

I think we can all agree that recreating a realistic depth of field and 360 degree soundstage is the goal of any home theater soundtrack reproduction - and this is WITHOUT regard to how many speakers are required to do it. Tomlinson Holman (THX) promotes 10.2 as the correct number of channels, but even that is subject to debate. The real answer is that IF there is a talented sound designer that can create an enhanced experience through the use of four additional DISCRETE channels, then so-be-it. But given the lack of discrete material, having a processor analyze a signal and extract "something" for the sole purpose of playing "something" and calling it better is a bit ludicrous.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Home Entertainment & Theater Builder › Dedicated Theater Design & Construction › Moving past 7.1 into 9.1/11.x/3D ObjectAudio in HT via AudysseyDSX/DolbyPLIIz/DTS Neo:X™/Auro-3D