Dts:x - Page 41 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 2432Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1201 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 10:31 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 83,955
Mentioned: 739 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22557 Post(s)
Liked: 12278
Quote:
Originally Posted by datman View Post
I'm going to try this on my system. I don't plan to move the speakers from the FH TM position but will change to assignment to FH RH and see how it sounds.

I have been taking pictures of all my settings so if I rerun Audyssey I can switch between the 2.

Am I correct thinking if change my TM to RH even though I didn't move the speaker it will be best to run Audyssey again.

Not "best", but rather "required" if you want to test with Audyssey, as changing the configuration by adding new speaker settings will disable Audyssey.
jdsmoothie is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1202 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 01:31 PM
 
witchdoctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,342
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 754 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSingh View Post
Dolby is the only format that has chosen to go down the "top" speakers route (45 degrees). All other new immersive formats including Auro, MPEG-H and Ambeo (and yamaha's cinema dsp HD3), have chosen to adopt a "height layer" of speakers (30 degrees). DTS claims it's format can adapt to any speaker layout, however it is clear from demo pictures that it was designed on a height layer system.

Now the good news is that height speakers at 30 degrees is still within the atmos tolerances,
Which is why D+M have promoted a universal layout, which uses height speakers and not top speakers, to work with all immersive sound formats. Plus, height speakers are easier to install
Height speakers all around work great for me and were easy to install using 80 inch stands. I couldn't imagine the hassle of cables in the ceiling, etc.
witchdoctor is offline  
post #1203 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 02:36 PM
Senior Member
 
datman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrogers View Post
Yes - you'll need to run Audyssey again.
Thanks irogers and JD. So if I got this right if I change the speaker assignment I have to rerun Audyssey no mater what. I can't run it for each setting and reinsert the numbers for each configuration.
datman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1204 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 03:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
zapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan.
Posts: 1,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Denon 6200

Hello, have updated my Denon with DTS X and with my 7.1.4 sytem I am unable to tell the difference on either format Dolby Atmos Vs DTS X, using four ceiling speakers..
zapper is offline  
post #1205 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 03:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
toofast68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NorthEast Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,670
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 486 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post
Last time I tried, that wasn't my experience.

There was sound in my wides whether the setting was ON of OFF. The difference is, apparently (I haven't checked or verified this myself) that if the setting is off, you get a copy of SR in the wides, and if the setting is on you get in the wides a phantom from SR and FR.

Not sure if this only applies to test tracks or real content, I forgot. But when I checked with the DTS:X 7.1.4 test track there was content in the wides irrespective of the Neural:X setting.
That was my experience as well, on using the DTS:X demo disk, Ex Machina and The Witch Hunter....absolutely 0 change.

Does that mean the intent was a mix to the wides no matter what ? I hope so, but how can we ever tell for sure!
toofast68 is offline  
post #1206 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 03:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
toofast68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NorthEast Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,670
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 486 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapper View Post
Hello, have updated my Denon with DTS X and with my 7.1.4 sytem I am unable to tell the difference on either format Dolby Atmos Vs DTS X, using four ceiling speakers..
Well that is either a really good thing or a really bad thing
toofast68 is offline  
post #1207 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 03:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 3,391
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)
Liked: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSingh View Post
Dolby is the only format that has chosen to go down the "top" speakers route (45 degrees). All other new immersive formats including Auro, MPEG-H and Ambeo (and yamaha's cinema dsp HD3), have chosen to adopt a "height layer" of speakers (30 degrees). DTS claims it's format can adapt to any speaker layout, however it is clear from demo pictures that it was designed on a height layer system.

Now the good news is that height speakers at 30 degrees is still within the atmos tolerances,
Which is why D+M have promoted a universal layout, which uses height speakers and not top speakers, to work with all immersive sound formats. Plus, height speakers are easier to install


At least originally, DTS:X, the MPEG-H Audio Alliance implementation of MPEG-H 3D Audio, and Dolby AC-4 were all designed to be ATSC 3.0 compliant . . . and presumably intended to perform correctly for playback on the 'standard' ATSC [3.0] 7.1+4 speaker layout:



Front Height speaker pair: Azimuth ±45° (±5°)
Rear Height speaker pair: Azimuth ±135° (±5°)
All Front|Rear Height speakers: Elevation +35° (±10°)

Source "Call for Proposals: ATSC 3.0 Audio System" (link)

_

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."


Last edited by SoundChex; 03-04-2016 at 05:11 PM.
SoundChex is offline  
post #1208 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 04:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
zapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan.
Posts: 1,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by toofast68 View Post
Well that is either a really good thing or a really bad thing
It seems that DTS X just copied the Dolby Atmos formula....

Ralph
zapper is offline  
post #1209 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 04:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
toofast68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NorthEast Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,670
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 486 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapper View Post
It seems that DTS X just copied the Dolby Atmos formula....
Well not exactly, I get support for Wides in DTS:X, something Dolby is lacking

Not a fan boy, just stating the facts
witchdoctor likes this.
toofast68 is offline  
post #1210 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 04:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
Csbooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 495 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Well I changed my setup to FH&RH and re-ran Audyssey. I'm pleased to say that I could tell no difference of object placement/aural positioning in regards to content I was extremely familiar with, aside from the Vudu Atmos Demoes (John Wick: The entire ending sequence chase and Gravity: The re-entry sequence).

However, I immediately noticed a difference using DTS:X. Not only was TLWH test tone height callouts only tied to their respective speakers as opposed to being a summation with their base counterparts, but in the beginning of the movie when the witch curses Dolan and then transitions to the airplane, I could clearly hear the overheads dominating the base (the base was still receiving information related to the scene) as I feel it should have when I first listened to it.

When I had my assignment set to TF&TR previously, it seemed about an equal amount of sound was distributed to the top and base speakers. It still seemed as if the plane was above, but not quite as well defined, so that alone is enough for me to stick with a FH&RH setup. Luckily for me, as I said before, my speakers are able to be considered in spec with either assignment.

Just wanted to post this in case it could help anyone!
Csbooth is offline  
post #1211 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 05:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
toofast68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NorthEast Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,670
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 486 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Csbooth View Post
Well I changed my setup to FH&RH and re-ran Audyssey. I'm pleased to say that I could tell no difference of object placement/aural positioning in regards to content I was extremely familiar with, aside from the Vudu Atmos Demoes (John Wick: The entire ending sequence chase and Gravity: The re-entry sequence).

However, I immediately noticed a difference using DTS:X. Not only was TLWH test tone height callouts only tied to their respective speakers as opposed to being a summation with their base counterparts, but in the beginning of the movie when the witch curses Dolan and then transitions to the airplane, I could clearly hear the overheads dominating the base (the base was still receiving information related to the scene) as I feel it should have when I first listened to it.

When I had my assignment set to TF&TR previously, it seemed about an equal amount of sound was distributed to the top and base speakers. It still seemed as if the plane was above, but not quite as well defined, so that alone is enough for me to stick with a FH&RH setup. Luckily for me, as I said before, my speakers are able to be considered in spec with either assignment.

Just wanted to post this in case it could help anyone!
I mean this makes absolutely no sense, unless all DTS:X material is mixed with the intent of FH/RH and that that means it has issues placing the objects outside of their original mix...which is against what DTS:X is supposed to be about.

Problem is all we have is subjective stuff, as far as I know their is no way to know for sure (like using REW for BASS Response) what is supposed to be happening.
toofast68 is offline  
post #1212 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 06:28 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,987
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7251 Post(s)
Liked: 6284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Csbooth View Post
When I had my assignment set to TF&TR previously, it seemed about an equal amount of sound was distributed to the top and base speakers.
That makes sense because, in both formats, the Top layer is above the Height layer. The DTS:X callouts are for Heights, not Tops. When you had your assignment set to Tops, the callouts were re-mapped downward to phantom image where the Heights layer would have been.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #1213 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 07:24 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,987
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7251 Post(s)
Liked: 6284
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbuol View Post
So if people could pick any location for DTS:X and Atmos with just 4 overhead speakers, where would you put them?
In terms of angles, I would put them roughly 45 degrees elevated in front and behind. Or, if you don't want to deal with angles, have the front pair of overheads split the gap between your fronts & sides and the second pair of overheads fill the gap between the sides and rears.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #1214 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 07:57 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aaranddeeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lover's State
Posts: 4,079
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1874 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post
Note:
A known bug, is that as currently implemented with the early releases, this setting defaults to "OFF" (rather than ON as noted in the owner's manual) and so should be manually changed to "ON" if you want all speakers active with any DTS:X audio.
JD, my setting was "On" when I saw it.
My speculation is if you have done factory reset before the Firmware upgrade, then it may have been set to "On" (I had the issue during upgrade and had to do multiple resets).
aaranddeeman is offline  
post #1215 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 09:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
Csbooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 495 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
That makes sense because, in both formats, the Top layer is above the Height layer. The DTS:X callouts are for Heights, not Tops. When you had your assignment set to Tops, the callouts were re-mapped downward to phantom image where the Heights layer would have been.
True, but at least from my subjective opinion, I much preferred the "separation" I felt I was receiving as opposed to the more "cohesive/chunky" sound via the aforementioned assignment and it seemed to me at least that even during actual content there is a compromise as well when set to TF&TR. YMMV with these things as always, but figured I would implore others to test this out as it's worth a shot.

I'm just happy that there's literally no discernible difference to me on my Atmos content. I definitely would have preferred not having to change a thing, but it is what it is.

Also, does all Mfrs label it as DTS: X MSTR? That logo threw me off a little bit lol. Lastly, I tried Neural:X located in the parameter settings (not the selectable surround mode) and personally couldn't tell any difference. I understand what it is supposed to do, but I couldn't tell in any actual content. I'm kind of surprised that there's an option like this that appears to upmix native X material. Is there a consensus whether this feature is even worth it?
mjaudio likes this.
Csbooth is offline  
post #1216 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 09:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
Csbooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 495 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by toofast68 View Post
I mean this makes absolutely no sense, unless all DTS:X material is mixed with the intent of FH/RH and that that means it has issues placing the objects outside of their original mix...which is against what DTS:X is supposed to be about.

Problem is all we have is subjective stuff, as far as I know their is no way to know for sure (like using REW for BASS Response) what is supposed to be happening.
Like we've all said, it's definitely subjective, but I just wanted others to test it out for themselves and see how they feel about it. I personally am a little agitated as well that it appears DTS is doing things a little differently than we all thought in regards to immersive audio. I'm relieved my Atmos won't suffer because of the change in my speaker position assignment however.
mjaudio likes this.
Csbooth is offline  
post #1217 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 09:47 PM
Senior Member
 
datman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrogers View Post
I don't have a pic, but in my case I am only about 1' from the back wall and my TM-positioned speakers are about 1.5' in front of MLP and FH-positioned speakers are at a bit too low an angle for FH (~25 degrees), and after running a number of tests with Atmos test tones and demo material, TF+TR configuration definitely sounds much better than FH+TM (I didn't try FH+RH as I don't yet have DTS:X - but may do so post-upgrade). Top Middle sounds image well roughly midway between the front and "rear" height speakers, and front-to-rear panning is much better. This is definitely notideal as the entire "stage" is shifted forward in the room, but still sounds great; and is just one of the many compromises I had to make in my theater
I also tried this setup tonight. I like FH&RH better but not at first. With this Audyssey setup it moved the sound to much to the surround channels. So I raised the L/C/R and lowered the SS/RS and this sounds very good.

I believe that the RH is much better than TM. All audio type sound better. Even though my RH are way out of specs it still sounds fine. The beginning of Gravity when the voices go around the room just fine. It goes around and over your head. It is a very acceptable compromise for having a small room. I think to much emphasis has been placed on having a perfect high speaker assignment and location match. I think having the bed channels at the sides and on the rear wall at ear level is imperative but the TM just does not work well.

I definitely don't blindly trust Audyssey anymore. I remember the days when I had my THX laser test disc and a SPL meter. I may try the Disney wow disc to see how the bed channels are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by loknload View Post
Where exactly are your front heights located and what type of speakers are they? I've attached a couple of sketches of my room and a pic of where my seating is as well as my surround speakers. One of the compromises I had to make was that I had to move my surrounds to the back wall to pull them down to ear level because of the closet doors on the side of the room (before they were on the side walls up by the ceiling and over the door on that side). They are Energy RCR's and are a bipole speaker with a direct firing woofer and tweeter and then a side firing driver with volume control on each side. They work very well and and it sounds outstanding. I don't know if a pair of rear heights behind the MLP at the wall/ceiling just above the surrounds would work better or a pair of front heights at the front wall/ceiling.
I looked at your photos can you move the seats closer to the TV? My room is much worse than yours and you might find the overall sound is better. What ever speaker location you pick try FH&RH.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post
Not "best", but rather "required" if you want to test with Audyssey, as changing the configuration by adding new speaker settings will disable Audyssey.
Now it makes since why when I tested it before they all sounded the same. One the TM (original setting and still the permanent location) is matixed likely mono signal that I never really heard much. When I switch to TR & RH they unbeknown to me they were switched off.
datman is offline  
post #1218 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 09:55 PM
Member
 
hirevn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Alaska
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post
Just to clarify .....

There has been some confusion regarding just how the new DTS Neural:X setting works. This has nothing to do with whether the DTS Neural:X surround mode is used on standard DTS audio or not, rather this setting applies only to DTS:X audio as noted in the image below.

OFF : the AVR will playback exactly what is in the DTS:X stream - this means however, that unless there is "object" audio directed to every speaker in your configuration, there may be some speakers that are silent

ON: the AVR will send audio to all speakers in the system regardless of what is in the DTS:X stream (ie. DTS Neural:X will be used to simulate audio to any speakers not receiving specific object data).





Note:
A known bug, is that as currently implemented with the early releases, this setting defaults to "OFF" (rather than ON as noted in the owner's manual) and so should be manually changed to "ON" if you want all speakers active with any DTS:X audio.
JD,

I have done the update but don't see these settings in the surround parameters menu on the 7200wa? Was using the witch hunter movie and DTS:X MSTR but none of these settings in the updated manual are showing up in my settings, any ideas?
hirevn is offline  
post #1219 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 10:36 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,987
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7251 Post(s)
Liked: 6284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Csbooth View Post
True, but at least from my subjective opinion, I much preferred the "separation" I felt I was receiving as opposed to the more "cohesive/chunky" sound via the aforementioned assignment and it seemed to me at least that even during actual content there is a compromise as well when set to TF&TR.
FWIW, wasn't commenting on your subjective preference, merely explaining why one setting distributes sound between the Top speakers and base speakers while the other setting keeps them solely in the Heights.
Quote:
I tried Neural:X located in the parameter settings (not the selectable surround mode) and personally couldn't tell any difference.
You'd only hear the difference with Wides.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #1220 of 4119 Old 03-04-2016, 11:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
Csbooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 495 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
FWIW, wasn't commenting on your subjective preference, merely explaining why one setting distributes sound between the Top speakers and base speakers while the other setting keeps them solely in the Heights. You'd only hear the difference with Wides.
Oh sure thing, and I definitely understood/agree that is the reason the test tones behave that way, apologies if I misconstrued my reply to the matter.

Thank you for the clarification regarding the Neural:X Parameter. On the subject of the surround upmixer neural X, I tried out a scene I enjoy in Intersteller where they are driving through the cornfield chasing the air drone and it (X) does a pretty aggressive approach by putting some of the stalk/debris hitting the height speakers in addition to the base portion. To me this is a bit more fitting as you would actually hear the stalks slapping the top of the cab as well.

Changing over to DSU, I noticed that it (Heights) were used more for musical ambience. Both methods were agreeable to me, but I slightly preferred X's way of conducting business

Last edited by Csbooth; 03-04-2016 at 11:05 PM.
Csbooth is offline  
post #1221 of 4119 Old 03-05-2016, 12:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
desray2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,139
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 481 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapper View Post
Hello, have updated my Denon with DTS X and with my 7.1.4 sytem I am unable to tell the difference on either format Dolby Atmos Vs DTS X, using four ceiling speakers..
Then u will be the first person here to say that. Usually there is a difference in terms of the intensity from the height spks.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
desray2k is offline  
post #1222 of 4119 Old 03-05-2016, 01:09 AM
 
witchdoctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,342
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 754 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by toofast68 View Post
Well not exactly, I get support for Wides in DTS:X, something Dolby is lacking

Not a fan boy, just stating the facts
For those of you not using wides you should experiment. Before you buy new speakers just take your rear surrounds and move them to the wide position. Then listen to a movie you are familiar with.
I find they help ALL of the speakers disappear. Sound just envelops you and you really can't identify which speaker is engaged. I would never go back to no wides. After testing it out as above you can decide for yourself.
Lesmor and ambesolman like this.
witchdoctor is offline  
post #1223 of 4119 Old 03-05-2016, 03:32 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 83,955
Mentioned: 739 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22557 Post(s)
Liked: 12278
Quote:
Originally Posted by hirevn View Post
JD,

I have done the update but don't see these settings in the surround parameters menu on the 7200wa? Was using the witch hunter movie and DTS:X MSTR but none of these settings in the updated manual are showing up in my settings, any ideas?
If DTS:X MSTR is displayed on the front panel of the AVR, then you should be able to select the DTS Neural:X "parameter" ---> SETUP - AUDIO - SURROUND PARAMETER - DTS NEURAL:X - ON/OFF. If not, try pressing the MOVIE button and select another surround mode and then reselect the DTS:X surround mode again.
zapper likes this.
jdsmoothie is online now  
post #1224 of 4119 Old 03-05-2016, 05:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
smurraybhm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 4,656
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2307 Post(s)
Liked: 3165
Quote:
Originally Posted by witchdoctor View Post
For those of you not using wides you should experiment. Before you buy new speakers just take your rear surrounds and move them to the wide position. Then listen to a movie you are familiar with.
I find they help ALL of the speakers disappear. Sound just envelops you and you really can't identify which speaker is engaged. I would never go back to no wides. After testing it out as above you can decide for yourself.
A few days ago you were bashing DTS on the Auro thread and proclaiming Auro's dominance via some obscure theatre award. Just to note DTS:X now has 4 releases in the States and Auro nada. So what is it? DTS Neural for the wides or Auromatic which doesn't offer them? Using the upmixers only since Atmos supports wides. Look forward to your response.

There is no perfect display, quit looking for faults and enjoy

LG OLED 65” B7 and 55” C8
Ascend's with RAAL, Love my PSA v1800 and a 7.2.4 speaker config, Oppo 203 and other stuff
smurraybhm is offline  
post #1225 of 4119 Old 03-05-2016, 05:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Quebec City, Canada
Posts: 589
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by toofast68 View Post
Well not exactly, I get support for Wides in DTS:X, something Dolby is lacking

Not a fan boy, just stating the facts
Well, you may not be a fanboy, but you're stating the wrong facts

Dolby Atmos does support wides.

I imagine you meant that the upmixer, Neural X supports wide while Dolby's upmixer, Dolby Surround, does not ?

Steve - Blogger at http://www.nextgenhometheater.com
Home Theater: Marantz SR7010 7.2.4 - Emotiva XPA-5/Outlaw 770 - KEF Q Series 2017 Speakers - SVS PB2000 Subs - JVC DLA-X550R - Samsung UBD-K8500
Living Room: Denon S710W 5.2.1 - KEF/Polk Speakers/Sub - LG OLED65C7P - XBox One X
SteveTheGeek is offline  
post #1226 of 4119 Old 03-05-2016, 05:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
toofast68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NorthEast Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,670
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 486 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveTheGeek View Post
Well, you may not be a fanboy, but you're stating the wrong facts

Dolby Atmos does support wides.

I imagine you meant that the upmixer, Neural X supports wide while Dolby's upmixer, Dolby Surround, does not ?
Oh shoot...yep I must have been tired.

YES - DTS:X Upmixer supports wides vs. Dolby's does not.

Thanks for catching this....
SteveTheGeek likes this.
toofast68 is offline  
post #1227 of 4119 Old 03-05-2016, 05:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Quebec City, Canada
Posts: 589
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by toofast68 View Post
Oh shoot...yep I must have been tired.

YES - DTS:X Upmixer supports wides vs. Dolby's does not.

Thanks for catching this....
hehe no problem

I don't have wides, but my firsts tests of NeuralX are pretty impressive to be honest. I need to continue testing, but it does seem more engaging than Dolby Surround.

Steve - Blogger at http://www.nextgenhometheater.com
Home Theater: Marantz SR7010 7.2.4 - Emotiva XPA-5/Outlaw 770 - KEF Q Series 2017 Speakers - SVS PB2000 Subs - JVC DLA-X550R - Samsung UBD-K8500
Living Room: Denon S710W 5.2.1 - KEF/Polk Speakers/Sub - LG OLED65C7P - XBox One X
SteveTheGeek is offline  
post #1228 of 4119 Old 03-05-2016, 05:56 AM
 
witchdoctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,342
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 754 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurraybhm View Post
A few days ago you were bashing DTS on the Auro thread and proclaiming Auro's dominance via some obscure theatre award. Just to note DTS:X now has 4 releases in the States and Auro nada. So what is it? DTS Neural for the wides or Auromatic which doesn't offer them? Using the upmixers only since Atmos supports wides. Look forward to your response.
Well I call Auro "King of All Upmixers" because in my setup it sounds awesome with music and movies. I am using 13 Paradigm Active speakers which are being driven by over 200 watts of internal amplification per channel run as large full range speakers all around. Active speakers are generally what they use to mix with in studios like Galaxy and The Dub Stage so maybe in my system that is why Auro is superior. If I were using the Atmos upfiring speakers or smaller in ceiling speakers maybe the results would be different.

From what I have seen in this thread Dts-X is not so great for music. I use my wide channels with Audyssey DSX, the older DTS Neo-X and content mixed natively in Atmos. I offered this advice here for people who have Dts-X and have not engaged wide channels yet.

As for Auro and wide channels it is an interesting question. Auro doesn't use rear surround channels either. Some how that upmixing algorithm they use makes it seem like sounds are coming from all around and even behind me even though I know there are no speakers behind me or wide channels engaged. Maybe it is because they use 3 layers of sound when you include the VOG channel. Check out the white paper I attached below.

So, the gist of my post was that if you have Dts-X you may as well check it out with wide channels. It won't take long to switch up rear surrounds to wides and see for yourself.
Then of course you should go out and add Auro-3D but that's another thread
Attached Files
File Type: pdf WhitePaperAuro 111 versus objectbased sound in 3Dpdf (1).pdf (294.3 KB, 62 views)
Macadamianut likes this.

Last edited by witchdoctor; 03-05-2016 at 06:54 AM.
witchdoctor is offline  
post #1229 of 4119 Old 03-05-2016, 07:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sjchmura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 5,505
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2354 Post(s)
Liked: 923
Games with neural up mixing: anyone impressed? Which titles seem best? Halo 5? Battlefield?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DocACE911 on Steam, XBOX, PS4
"Kill Cancer or Die"
Custom Z9 Game Settings For SDR and HDR
Sony 75" Z9, Denon X4200, Definitive Technologies BP7002 + 9.1 ATMOS, PSV 18" sub
Loving Wife and 4 year old Son who tolerate this expense!
sjchmura is offline  
post #1230 of 4119 Old 03-05-2016, 12:43 PM
Senior Member
 
sprins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: mainland Europe
Posts: 218
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjchmura View Post
Games with neural up mixing: anyone impressed? Which titles seem best? Halo 5? Battlefield?
I tried Wolfenstein The Old Blood on my PS4 with Neural:X and compared to DSU. I have to say DSU sounded way better than Neural:X. Especially the Bass was way off (lacking) with Neural:X
sprins is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off