AVS Forum banner

1521 - 1540 of 2318 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,815 Posts
Regarding streaming device for Atmos encoded materials.
I own a NSATV from 2015 16Gb, very happy with it. Nevertheless it transmits only DD+ to the Avr, not exactly Atmos.
I am really satisfied with it all aspects considered.
The only streaming device that can send Atmos to the Avr is Xbox 1X. Actually I think it is always Atmos, even if source material is Dts or Dsu, the Xbox send Atmos to the Avr. Or, otherwise, NO Atmos if you change settings. Cannot be more precise, cause I do not own the Xbox.
Regards
Alessandro

NSATV? DuckDuckGo draws a blank.



I thought the NVidia Shield could bitstream Atmos to a receiver from streaming media. Am I mistaken?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,659 Posts
NSATV? DuckDuckGo draws a blank.



I thought the NVidia Shield could bitstream Atmos to a receiver from streaming media. Am I mistaken?
I would guess NSATV is a bad abbreviation for Nvidia Shield Android TV.

I have no problems playing BD/UHD rips on my Shield with full Atmos glory. It is just that none of the streaming services offer it as a TrueHD stream, just DD+. Still Atmos though, just compressed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
I just truncated a bit earlier, I intended in fact to refer to Netflix streaming service. If you use Tidal music streaming, also, you will get Pcm (at higher bit rate), instead of AAC. Marantz Heos service will give you Tidal at 320Kbps, so not a big problem.
NSATV is also used in GeForce forum, and in other ones, for what I know.
Regards
Alessandro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,815 Posts
Correct, that was me typing the reply way too fast.

Still on the MP50 the channel mixing is done before speaker levels/distances/room correction is applied. Trying to improve on that using 5 AVRs/processors will be a nightmare to calibrate.

No way I can fit all that box and heat into a coat closet under the stairs without a major ventilation project and a rack let alone pay the electric bill to idle all that current. Not interested, thanks. Three receivers is already a stretch. I prefer one, or two maybe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,659 Posts
No way I can fit all that box and heat into a coat closet under the stairs without a major ventilation project and a rack let alone pay the electric bill to idle all that current. Not interested, thanks. Three receivers is already a stretch. I prefer one, or two maybe.
The only single box solution beyond 7.1.4 would be the 8500H for 9.1.4 or 7.1.6.

To reach 9.1.6 you can get away with two boxes if you get a 2015 Denon in addition to the 8500H.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
You can get away with a LOT LESS if you use matrixed surround like the Lyngdorf uses (One 11.x receiver, two active mixers and one 7.1 receiver is all that's needed for matrixed 9.1.6).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,832 Posts
Just throwing out a tip:

IF the point is to summize/monoize/mix a signal of fronts and surrounds to a set of wide speaker, you can do it with one pretty normal AVR. Depending on the use and capability of the AVR, you can use it to just summize/mix the signal or even power them.

Most newer AVR’s have zone2 and zone3 capability, and they can be set to mono function, meaning left and right signal is summed to a mono signal out of either assigned speaker post or the zone2/3 pre-outs.

So if you instead of connecting a left+right signal to zone2, you connect a left front+left surround pre-outs from your main Atmos AVR to zone2 and it sends a summed signal out. Or a "wide" signal.

Do the same for the right front+right surround to the zone3, and the zone2/3 outputs become the wides ;)

No need for extra boxes :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
Just throwing out a tip:

IF the point is to summize/monoize/mix a signal of fronts and surrounds to a set of wide speaker, you can do it with one pretty normal AVR. Depending on the use and capability of the AVR, you can use it to just summize/mix the signal or even power them.

Most newer AVR’s have zone2 and zone3 capability, and they can be set to mono function, meaning left and right signal is summed to a mono signal out of either assigned speaker post or the zone2/3 pre-outs.

So if you instead of connecting a left+right signal to zone2, you connect a left front+left surround pre-outs from your main Atmos AVR to zone2 and it sends a summed signal out. Or a "wide" signal.

Do the same for the right front+right surround to the zone3, and the zone2/3 outputs become the wides ;)

No need for extra boxes :)
And you can do that with all 11.1 channels active in the main system? How do you connect surround pre-outs to an extra zone on the main receiver? Or are you talking about using a Y-adapter to connect them to the second receiver? I really don't follow. Y-adapters are bad news, so I assume you must mean something else. You also can't mix in a dialog lift effect without a mixer if they want that effect.

Meanwhile, a processor reset 'appears' (so far) to have fixed my error fault on the 7010. I just hope it stays that way (first time it powered on without an error including additional power off/on cycles.

My foam isolators have arrived for my front heights (dampens vibration and tilts them downward from the shelf).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,815 Posts
Unfortunately, there is currently no processor on the market (not even Trinnov's Altitude) that applies logic steering (e.g. extracting correlated info between two adjacent channel to create 3rd channel in-between) in its post-processing to increase channel count.
Logic steering is not adding any information so why would anyone integrate it to expand channel count instead of just decoding natively? That's a DIYer thing designed by those of us who are "jeering from the cheap seats" with our PLII megaphones.

Your comment does raise valid questions about bitstream technology however. There are alternative methods of storing 3D sound fields that are potentially more universal and more flexible while maybe being more efficient too.

Surround sound phased microphone arrays that are commonly used in the field to record surround sound effects use a tetrahedral array of 4 mikes to capture a 3D sound sample. They physically demonstrate an important facet of information theory. We only need 4 channels of bitstream to obtain a 3D sound sample. We don't need proprietary physical or logical channels at all to do the job, theoretically. We only need them to simplify the hardware implementation and keep costs down and maybe not even for that.

A spatial sampling stream format can do a similar job and also preserves acoustic phase information throughout space. That's got to be worth something for crossover integration in a real listening room. There seems to be a golden opportunity for a competitive innovator to revolutionize 3D sound that is just lying around for the picking.

Spatial bandwidth of the bitstream can be improved by adding 3D spatial samples to the dataset i.e. more channels. To reduce the storage requirement, we add concentric tetrahedrons around the origin rather than populating a uniform lattice.

We don't need 4 more channels to improve the spatial accuracy though. Adding a single 1D spatial sample (1 channel) at the origin of the existing tetrahedron suffices to double the spatial bandwidth, since mathematically, the origin of the sampler array is just four points of the innermost 3D tetrahedral spatial sample that collapsed into one point at the origin in the limit.

If we need more spatial samples, we can add more concentric tetrahedrons outside the existing 5 channel array.

The mathematical series is 1, 5, 9, 13, 17... With 13 channels, there is enough spatial resolution that nearfield space of a small listening room can be parsed up into 4 physical channels per boundary without aliasing, while leaving 3 channels of a 16 channel stream as spare. Larger spaces i.e. commercial theaters with more channels can add more 3D samples to the stream and obtain the spatial resolution they need to decode more physical channels for that larger space.


Another approach would be to leave the origin unpopulated and double the axial spacing of the concentric tetrahedrons outside the innermost tetrahedron, either as a fixed ratio that remains constant outside that innermost tetrahedron, or maybe as an exponential doubling per additional sample to maximize the enclosed space while sacrificing spatial accuracy near the furthest boundaries of the listening room that are far removed from the MLP and poorly localized anyway. Then the bitstream channel count becomes 4, 8, 12, 16... and fits into digital storage nicely too while still maximizing the spatial bandwidth per sample to fit even very large commercial theaters.


For that matter, the spatial samples in the bitstream can be weighted toward the expected dimensions of the room so that the highest spatial resolution resides at the boundaries where the speakers are most likely positioned, with perhaps one or two samples weighted near the MLP. I don't know, I'm not an expert. You tell me.



Sampling 3D in space with concentric tetrahedrons potentially induces avoidable errors in the geometry by lining up all the samples on a single set of 4 intersecting one-sided axes and leaving voids in space far away from those axes that reduce the accuracy of bit-limited math in a finite digital processor.

The remedy is to spatially invert each successively larger tetrahedron so that the samples are more uniformly distributed in space by populating the other side of each origin-intersecting axis with samples too. It's a symmetrical thing so I suppose the math to implement it probably is simple enough for your average Ph.D.


I don't know if tweaking the virtual physical location of the samples in the encoded bitstream accomplishes anything useful or not but it seems that it might. It probably increases the complexity of the math. I used such methods when calibrating somewhat nonlinear electronics to a linear spec. I weighted the sample density toward the operating areas of the greatest nonlinearity to improve the overall linearity of the final calibrated result.


This 3D spatial sampling scheme of mine must exist in some DSP textbook or information theory tome. The military and NASA must be using it already. I never studied it but I bet that someone has. It's obvious. I'm not bright enough to invent anything original.:rolleyes:

The sub-bass of a phased array bitstream can be steered to the subwoofers at any point in the room same as the bass-limited satellites are. The steering algorithm is separated into frequency bands of FFT, yes? (just guessing here like most of this post ha) We can spatially extract bass-managing phase-coherent crossovers at one stroke for free as part of the decoding process simply by allocating the sub-bass decoding bandwidth to the subwoofers on a per-channel basis.

It is format-agnostic and future-proof because it is a universal solution based more on information theory than historical legacy.

The playback channel count could be atomized and decoded individually per channel with wireless powered speakers, to keep costs and clutter down and to eliminate the expense of obsolescence. The decoders in the powered speakers can all receive the same information-optimized and data-minimized wireless 4N(+1?)-channel bitstream that is being globally broadcast by the AVR.

With some wireless signal triangulation and cooperation via the AVR, the wireless speakers can also report back their unique physical locations to the receiver so they are all aware of each other while figuring out which portion of the sound field they will individually reproduce. Calibration no longer sets speaker distances to compensate for acoustic delay. Nobody has to select a fixed speaker configuration off a menu.


It's all done in wireless with the physical delay measured by radio and the delay of the path through the wireless speaker itself accounted for by a constant that is measured or analytically determined by the manufacturer. Just place a wireless mike at the MLP that also reports its physical location to the AVR and calibration sets levels, crossovers, and EQ per usual. No muss, no fuss.


The implication is that any number of physical or logical program channels of any proprietary digital audio program could be spatially encoded in this agnostic bitstream and then expanded or trimmed in playback to fit any arbitrary need for physical channels in the listening room, without worrying too much about bitstream obsolescence blowing holes in the budget when the tech changes. The only part of the system that needs updating is the part that translates proprietary bitstreams to a generic spatially sampled bitstream. That translator can be a simple and cheap black box with an expensive proprietary license that eventually eliminates proprietary bitstreams when people figure out we don't need no stinkin' physical or logical channels.

A generic spatially sampled bitstream over wireless solves so... many... problems! Or does it? Dunno. I'm not that bright.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,832 Posts
And you can do that with all 11.1 channels active in the main system? How do you connect surround pre-outs to an extra zone on the main receiver? Or are you talking about using a Y-adapter to connect them to the second receiver? I really don't follow. Y-adapters are bad news, so I assume you must mean something else. You also can't mix in a dialog lift effect without a mixer if they want that effect
Sorry if it wasn’t clear, but i meant one extra AVR.

Example:
You have a marantz 7010 and it can do 9.1 on it’s own, and 11.1 with a extra stereo amp. This is the extra amp i am talking about: IF you use a older 5/7/9 channel AVR for this purpose you can use i for more than just the two channels needed.

I believe you do exactly this, right?

So you use your Atmos AVR to power the 7 main channels and one set of heights, and use 2 channels on the extra AVR to expand to 11 channels. Pretty normal.
As we know the pre-outs on your Marantz is always active, so you can connect the front and surround pre-out to for example AV1 and AV2 input on your Yamaha, and use its zone2 and 3 for these «wides».

But instead of connecting the front L/R pre-out from your Atmos AVR to AV1 input on your extra AVR, and the surround L/R pre-out from Atmos AVR to AV2 input on your extra AVR, you connect both LEFT pre-outs(left front+left surround) from Atmos AVR to AV1 input on extra AVR, and both RIGHT pre-outs(right front+right surround) from Atmos AVR to AV2 input on extra AVR.
And then set both zone2 and 3 to mono.
Set zone2 source to AV1 input and it becomes left wide.
Set zone3 source to AV2 input and it becomes right wide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marc Alexander

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
Sorry if it wasn’t clear, but i meant one extra AVR.

Example:
You have a marantz 7010 and it can do 9.1 on it’s own, and 11.1 with a extra stereo amp. This is the extra amp i am talking about: IF you use a older 5/7/9 channel AVR for this purpose you can use i for more than just the two channels needed.

I believe you do exactly this, right?

So you use your Atmos AVR to power the 7 main channels and one set of heights, and use 2 channels on the extra AVR to expand to 11 channels. Pretty normal.
As we know the pre-outs on your Marantz is always active, so you can connect the front and surround pre-out to for example AV1 and AV2 input on your Yamaha, and use its zone2 and 3 for these «wides».

But instead of connecting the front L/R pre-out from your Atmos AVR to AV1 input on your extra AVR, and the surround L/R pre-out from Atmos AVR to AV2 input on your extra AVR, you connect both LEFT pre-outs(left front+left surround) from Atmos AVR to AV1 input on extra AVR, and both RIGHT pre-outs(right front+right surround) from Atmos AVR to AV2 input on extra AVR.
And then set both zone2 and 3 to mono.
Set zone2 source to AV1 input and it becomes left wide.
Set zone3 source to AV2 input and it becomes right wide.
Well, my 12 year old Yamaha doesn't have zones like that (it calls Speaker B terminals Zone 2 and can output both by driving them in parallel) so I don't think it will do that. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,832 Posts
Well, my 12 year old Yamaha doesn't have zones like that (it calls Speaker B terminals Zone 2 and can output both by driving them in parallel) so I don't think it will do that. ;)
Ok, then it is too old, but my 8 year old Yamaha RX-V3067(EU model, don’t know the US version) can do it, and in fact i use that function to mix a wide signal with a front signal/-3dB/delayed and sent to my wides, and it works perfect.

And newer Denon/Marantz can do it too.

I was just mentioning it as a option to using external boxes to mix/summize signals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
Ok, then it is too old, but my 8 year old Yamaha RX-V3067(EU model, don’t know the US version) can do it, and in fact i use that function to mix a wide signal with a front signal/-3dB/delayed and sent to my wides, and it works perfect.

And newer Denon/Marantz can do it too.

I was just mentioning it as a option to using external boxes to mix/summize signals.
If I took say two Marantz 7010s, set one to 5.1 + SB + Top Middle + Rear Height (all connected except front) and took the second one and set it to 5.1 + SB + FW + Front Height (connect front, front wides and front height) and then sent the extra two channels on each (Rear Height on the first one and front wides on the second one) + my front channel, front center and front height pre-out (instead of the front height connection mentioned prior) to a mixer for dialog height to my Yamaha 7.1 multi-channel in, the question is would that get me near perfect true decoded 9.1.6 sound for Atmos & DTS? Or did I miss a combination whereby DTS would phantom image something to a location (i.e. I tried to eliminate scenarios where it would by using the other receiver for that channel where it shouldn't). Based on my testing, it seems like even the Atmos 9.1.6 channel test should pass with no duplicates.

Auro3D would need the first receiver changed to use Front Height instead of Top Middle and if you wanted the side surround in the correct place a speaker selector would be needed to swap rear height with the side height speaker, but two changes and I think you'd be ready to roll in Auro 3D as well (both AVRs would operate in Auro 3D since at least front height is available in Auro on both).

Or did I miss something?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,832 Posts
^^ Consider this: play the Atmos 9.1.6 test tones, and spesifically the 3 sets of overhead test tones.

Your second AVR is setup with 9.1.2. With just one set of overheads, all 3 sets of overhead test tones will sound from your one set of overhead speakers. In your case front heights.

Your first AVR is set ut with 7.1.4. With two sets of overheads, the front height test tones will sound from your top middle. The rear height test tones will sound from your rear heights, and the top middle test tones will phantom between your 2 set of overhead speakers.

Now imaging playing with both AVR’s active. Does it sound like it would work as intended?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
^^ Consider this: play the Atmos 9.1.6 test tones, and spesifically the 3 sets of overhead test tones.

Your second AVR is setup with 9.1.2. With just one set of overheads, all 3 sets of overhead test tones will sound from your one set of overhead speakers. In your case front heights.

Your first AVR is set ut with 7.1.4. With two sets of overheads, the front height test tones will sound from your top middle. The rear height test tones will sound from your rear heights, and the top middle test tones will phantom between your 2 set of overhead speakers.

Now imaging playing with both AVR’s active. Does it sound like it would work as intended?
It sounds like Atmos sucks on purpose. They don't want it within reach of normal people. It's only for the ultra-rich. 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 and even 7.1.4 are all massively compromised versions in even a medium sized room. They could have designed it like SLI video cards (combine two cheaper receivers to make a better version), but no, they want people to pay $30,000 to get simple 9.1.6.

I mean consider THIS.

*ALL* 5.1.2 systems are playing REAR surround information in the FRONT of the room. PERIOD. Does that sound like it's a system that makes ANY sense for properly placed sounds?

*ALL* 5.1.4 systems have NO sounds in the rear of the room beyond a foot or two. PERIOD.

*ALL* 7.1.4 systems will have a HOLE in the middle if the room is too long (e.g. mine is 24 feet long and short of not having ANY seats anywhere near the rear of the room (effectively making the room smaller and putting speakers on or in the ceiling in the front half of the room only).

Only when you get to 7.1.6 are you starting to get to a reasonable system for small to medium rooms. But if the front distance is too long , they end up with poor imaging to the front sides.

So you can either live with having front sounds in your front height speakers and other crap conditions (thus two receivers would at least put them where they belong, even if they phantom a bit) or you can spend a fortune. It's your choice. I just got a $3500 bill for my changes thus far and I'm using a lot of used equipment. Then I go upstairs and listen to my Carver ribbon speakers and they are SO much better than the home theater for music it's unreal (and with NO EQ what-so-ever) and I wonder why it matters so much about surround sounds....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,815 Posts
It sounds like Atmos sucks on purpose. They don't want it within reach of normal people. It's only for the ultra-rich... and I wonder why it matters so much about surround sounds....
I’ve heard a pair of those planars. Even with loose magnets clamping the diaphragms they still sounded better than what I’m using.

Most people don’t even care about surround and view ceiling speakers as extravagant. Supply and demand doesn’t make things affordable until economies of scale kick in and competition heats up. Never happening for 15 channel or even 13 channel. 11 is the most we can expect to come down to earth for the benefit of mere mortals.

It’s economics, not greed and not exclusivity. I’m sure Dolby would love more royalties.

Besides, most people don’t have room for a dedicated theater anyway. Mine will take up living and dining room because I’m bored and an audiophile. It took up my whole apartment with 11 channels before I moved and I knocked over a protruding tower at least 5 times (miracle it still works). Most people won’t put up with that level of invasiveness.

It’s the price of leisure. We work harder for our entertainment than we do just surviving. That’s economics too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,815 Posts
Regarding streaming device for Atmos encoded materials.
I own a NSATV from 2015 16Gb, very happy with it. Nevertheless it transmits only DD+ to the Avr, not exactly Atmos.
I am really satisfied with it all aspects considered.
The only streaming device that can send Atmos to the Avr is Xbox 1X. Actually I think it is always Atmos, even if source material is Dts or Dsu, the Xbox send Atmos to the Avr. Or, otherwise, NO Atmos if you change settings. Cannot be more precise, cause I do not own the Xbox.
Regards
Alessandro
Does dd+ preserve the channel assignments?

It’s probably Netflix doing the transcoding to save bandwidth. That’s.fine for me. I just want the channels. I can’t hear data compression anyway.

If Xbox uses only Atmos truehd then it’s transcoding also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,659 Posts
Does dd+ preserve the channel assignments?

It’s probably Netflix doing the transcoding to save bandwidth. That’s.fine for me. I just want the channels. I can’t hear data compression anyway.

If Xbox uses only Atmos truehd then it’s transcoding also.
Atmos isn't channel based, it is using objects. And yes DD+ support the same number of objects as the TrueHD container. The difference is that the audio is compressed just like DD and DTS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
I’ve heard a pair of those planars. Even with loose magnets clamping the diaphragms they still sounded better than what I’m using.
They were a sonic bargain, really. I got mine on closeout for $1175 shipped from One Call in 1995 ($2000 retail per pair). You need a lot of power and they can be further improved with active crossovers and even better 10" woofers, but their real problem is the WAF (I'm not married so I can do whatever I want in my house). They only take up 14 square inches of floor space, but they're 6 feet tall and so standout in a room. Plus they have to be kept away from the back wall 3+ feet (from the ribbons total).

I didn't find anything else I liked as well until the $6000/pr range and then it was a toss up. The $4500 range Martin Logans didn't impress me due to poor imaging by comparison, for example. I've had to replace a woofer recently and tighten the ribbons on occasion (turns out their tension appears to be adjustable with top/bottom screws); most didn't know that and bought replacements, sometimes out of a different material that change their sound). It worked here, anyway. The slop disappeared and they function like new again.


Most people don’t even care about surround and view ceiling speakers as extravagant. Supply and demand doesn’t make things affordable until economies of scale kick in and competition heats up.
I understand, but they could have easily made these receivers work in tandem without playing games with a simple software change. Put in a menu option to bypass the reassignments that occur when you don't use/have all the speakers and two $1200 receivers could do what only a $30,000 one can do right now and that is uncompromised 9.x.6.

The system actually fights you by folding objects or channels together to compensate so at least "some" speaker plays a sound. But you should not have rear height sounds in the front of the room under ANY circumstance, IMO. It should go to the rear lower speaker instead, if anything like regular 7.1 would do. You could at least work around that and sounds wouldn't be in completely the wrong side of the room just to keep it overhead.

My point is this would have been simplicity itself for them to do in software so I can only assume it's to keep the high end makers happy that they don't offer the capability. Instead, I have to scrounge around with Scatmos or matrix solutions that are less than ideal because I'm not spending $30k for a processor just because my room is a bit long.

Never happening for 15 channel or even 13 channel. 11 is the most we can expect to come down to earth for the benefit of mere mortals.

It’s economics, not greed and not exclusivity. I’m sure Dolby would love more royalties.
I disagree simply because it would have taken NOTHING on their part to gave a menu option to simply disable overhead redirection, which would then allow you to do 9.1.6 with just two 11-channel receivers at half the cost of a model that can STILL only do 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 at most and can't do more than 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 with DTS. They must want that reserved for the $30k Trinnov and the like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
Does dd+ preserve the channel assignments?

It’s probably Netflix doing the transcoding to save bandwidth. That’s.fine for me. I just want the channels. I can’t hear data compression anyway.

If Xbox uses only Atmos truehd then it’s transcoding also.
They (Netflix) sure don't want to be limited. They can send Atmos to
TV OLED LG (modello 2017 o successivi)

TV Sony BRAVIA Android (modello 2018 o successivi)

App Windows 10 (richiede Windows 10 RS3 build 16299 o successive)

Xbox One, Xbox One S e Xbox One X

Atm on the Xbox the trick is that every other decoder format is transcoded into Atmos. Maybe when they come mainstream (I think Atmos is actually limited to the parallel evaluation W10 inscription ) they will solve this.
Best picture and wholesale streamer the Nvidia Shield is, very impressed with the developers following this hardware since early 2015! I believe could be an industry study case.
Does everything I need and if you want you can enjoy some gaming in 4K!
Sorry, but the list is in Italian.
Regards
Alessandro
 
1521 - 1540 of 2318 Posts
Top