or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Sony 4K SRX-R110 Test at Home
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony 4K SRX-R110 Test at Home - Page 16

post #451 of 472
So Jeremy, are you really targeting a gamma of 1.0? Or are you after something like 2.2? Or a more reference film-like gamma like 2.5 particularly with the JVC 4k unit that has the CR to support it better?
post #452 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

Sure. But then you're not in sales.

Then again - who is, these days?
post #453 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by DefinerOfReality View Post

I encourage everyone to go to the Coca Cola Store in Atlanta, GA to see the fine picture quality they have achieved, both 2D and 3D!

I can ask, but which one is it?
post #454 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

But when the 7 subs arent playing the point 1 signal, they are just extending the basic 7, what do you call it? We are taliking 8 channel bass management.


If Jeffrey says he has 8.8 he is referring to output channels, THIS IS THE CORRECT NOMENCLATURE FOR IT even in Dolby Labs 22.2 experimental system.

Bull$hit Peter ,you or I can call it anything we want but if the source output has only one discrete channel then irrespective of the EQ ,software, or voodoo it is .1. Sorry ,I didn't make that up it is simply what's so.

Art
post #455 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Bull$hit Peter ,you or I can call it anything we want but if the source output has only one discrete channel then irrespective of the EQ ,software, or voodoo it is .1. Sorry ,I didn't make that up it is simply what's so.

Art

I agree with you to a point Art, but it isn't so clear-cut IMO. How does one go about describing 5.1 over a 7.1 array via PLIIx or THX Ultra2? It's not discrete 7.1, but it isn't fair to describe that as just 5.1 either. How does one describe DD EX? It isn't 5.1. It isn't discrete 6.1. It's matrixed 6.1, do you call it something other than 6.1 in a passing description? The source is delivering more than 5.1 channels of audio, yet the discrete channels is only 5.1. What about DTS-ES discrete? That isn't quite fully discrete 6.1 either. I just think that the numerical descriptions aren't as clear-cut as you make them out to be, and if they used in a way where they only describe discrete source channels, then they aren't really the most useful either since such a descriptor is incapable of distinguishing between a 5.1 mix and an EX "6.1" source, or between a stereo source and a surround-encoded source.
post #456 of 472
You are hard headed as a Spanish bull in mating season. When you get a 2 channel signal in directv are you watching 2 in your system or 7.1? You consider your system a 7.1 right?

I am telling you that Roger Dressler reviewed my plans for a steered 12 channel system and said "this is exactly what we do in our 22.2 channel system in the large laboratory room". Roger Dressler head of research at Dolby.

My screenshot of the tact audio shows INPUT CHANNELS and OUTPUT CHANNELS, you are saying that input channels is what counts, fine but how do you discuss system employing more channels of output, either with just low pass information or the more complex ambiance extraction steered matrixes, or the even more complex height extraction matrixes?

We that work with such complex signal manipulations DEMAND THE RIGHT TO USE NUMBER OF OUTPUT CHANNELS as the channel designation, I am willing to compromise with a more descriptive nomenclature like I/O 7.1/10.2 but I am sure not going to let some overworked orthodontist telling me how to run my business because we need to communicate what the system is doing and 7.1 does not cut it.

Can't you Relax? Come down to Prometheus and have a Pina Colada by the pool.


THIS TANTRUM FROM the same person that believes in CREATING additional resolution with the video scaler for the isco. It is textbook case of selective curmudgeonry.
post #457 of 472
Oh geez. I can't believe I'm on peter's side in this conversation. I need to go re-examine my life now.
post #458 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

I agree with you to a point Art, but it isn't so clear-cut IMO. How does one go about describing 5.1 over a 7.1 array via PLIIx or THX Ultra2? It's not discrete 7.1, but it isn't fair to describe that as just 5.1 either. How does one describe DD EX? It isn't 5.1. It isn't discrete 6.1. It's matrixed 6.1, do you call it something other than 6.1 in a passing description? The source is delivering more than 5.1 channels of audio, yet the discrete channels is only 5.1. What about DTS-ES discrete? That isn't quite fully discrete 6.1 either. I just think that the numerical descriptions aren't as clear-cut as you make them out to be, and if they used in a way where they only describe discrete source channels, then they aren't really the most useful either since such a descriptor is incapable of distinguishing between a 5.1 mix and an EX "6.1" source, or between a stereo source and a surround-encoded source.

No no I'm not disagreeing with this but at the same time there simply isn't any real convention. It is true however that the matrixed 6.1 is still by convention (and generally it is understood what one is getting) while the things in this thread get into some pretty unbelievable almost voodoo like hyperbole . Personally ,I'm particularly skeptical regarding the use of .8 designation with a single subwoofer channel.

Art
post #459 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

No no I'm not disagreeing with this but at the same time there simply isn't any real convention. It is true however that the matrixed 6.1 is still by convention (and generally it is understood what one is getting) while the things in this thread get into some pretty unbelievable almost voodoo like hyperbole . Personally ,I'm particularly skeptical regarding the use of .8 designation with a single subwoofer channel.

Art


Ditto.
post #460 of 472
How about we just agree to go by whatever Sanjay says on the topic?
post #461 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

How about we just agree to go by whatever Sanjay says on the topic?



Art
post #462 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Ditto.

Well apparently the Mid Western Elite Dental Professionals Association is unaware of the standards prevalent in the pro audio community.



The AIR 25 offers transparency, consistent speaker performance and outstanding possibilities for optimizing performance in different Acoustical environments. Operating at a staggering sample rate of 192 kHz supported via Dual Wire, the integration with DAWs is seamless. A digital output can be fed directly into the AIR 25 supporting 2.1, 5.1, 6.1 and 5.3 setups. The AIR 25 is developed for both stereo and multi-channel monitoring in demanding production environments including:

* Post Production
* Music Recording and Mixing
* Film Editing
* DVD authoring and Mastering
* 5.1 Production (Audio or Audio for pictures)
* Broadcast
* Edit suites
post #463 of 472
What`s the MSRP of that puppy?
post #464 of 472
going price:

Dynaudio Air 25 - 3-Way Active Monitor with DSP
Add to Wishlist

Weight:
101 lbs.
Our
Price:
$4,445.00





AIR25-DIGMASTER Dynaudio Air 25 - AIR 25 Digital Master



Add to Wishlist



Weight:
101 lbs.
Our
Price:
$4,285.00





AIR25-SLAVE Dynaudio Air 25 - AIR 25 Slave Speaker



Add to Wishlist



Weight:
101 lbs.
Our
Price:
$3,795.00
post #465 of 472
If you're interested in the AIR25, you should check out the Munro series of professional monitors (Dynaudio drivers).
post #466 of 472
Or the new CMX Munro series...
LL
LL
post #467 of 472
So are you guys saying that there is sufficient discrete information extracted from a single subwoofer channel at say 80 to 20Hz that warrants one calling the designation .1 now .8 ? I mean ,why not .27 ? And even if so could anyone tell it was occurring in a film sound track.

Art
post #468 of 472
Hi Art,

.3 means the bass from the .1 and the lowpass from the L and R. .8 is the same plus the lowpass from the center and 4 surrounds.
post #469 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

Hi Art,

.3 means the bass from the .1 and the lowpass from the L and R. .8 is the same plus the lowpass from the center and 4 surrounds.

Interesting ,where did this designation come from and why isn't it designated separately from the primary channel rather within it ?

Art
post #470 of 472
You should ask someone at Dolby, but the convention is used in pro gear, and at EHX that is exactly what Ps audio and Thiel did each speaker had it's own sub, the logic behind it is that home speakers seldom go down to 15hz where there is signal, so they call each of those subs a .1

In addition if you take the 4 surround signals and low pass them you can actually hear a Rear Sub that explodes at different times than the front subs and the .1 do.

The tact processor has a whole screen dedicated to multiple subs something called diversity subs that accounts for the position of all the subs in such a .3-5-8 config.

In helene where we had the rotary sub I thought the correct denomination was 7.1.1
post #471 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

You should ask someone at Dolby, but the convention is used in pro gear, and at EHX that is exactly what Ps audio and Thiel did each speaker had it's own sub, the logic behind it is that home speakers seldom go down to 15hz where there is signal, so they call each of those subs a .1

In addition if you take the 4 surround signals and low pass them you can actually hear a Rear Sub that explodes at different times than the front subs and the .1 do.

The tact processor has a whole screen dedicated to multiple subs something called diversity subs that accounts for the position of all the subs in such a .3-5-8 config.

In helene where we had the rotary sub I thought the correct denomination was 7.1.1

Thanks and I agree with the 1.1 .

Art
post #472 of 472
I think that the ".1" designation originally implied that the sub channel had 1/10 the bandwidth of the full L-R channels.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Sony 4K SRX-R110 Test at Home