AVS Forum banner

821 - 840 of 4251 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Hello, i contacted Denon through their FB page about dts:x firmware issues on x7200wa. They replied me as follows :

Hi Federico,
Regarding the Center channel issue, please try using the MUSIC button on the remote instead of the MOVIE button to enable the Neural:X application. Regarding other issues with DTS:X, we are still investigating and hope to have more information coming in the near future. Thank you.

So, they know about issues and are investigating to fix. We have to wait, good news that they are analyzing the problem.

Br
Fkb
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
This is going to sound like flamebait, but I promise this is an honest question/observation: isn't DTS-everything better than it's comparable Dolby counterpart? It seems to me that DTS-MA > DDHD, DTS > DD, Neo/Neural > Prologic II... Does anyone ever choose Dolby when the DTS option is available?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
There is zero difference between DTS-MA and DTHD in terms of audio quality. Any perceived difference is in the actual mix.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,643 Posts
Manni, or Scott, or anyone else who have experienced the distortion issue from the center channel speaker when playing stereo music content and up-mixed by Neural:X ... could you please help out these two gentleman (from my two quotes)?

They want to replicate that "distortion" issue, and need the exact coordinates:

- Which music album (CD title)?
- What exact settings (Audio mode)?
- What exact speaker's configurations (TF + TR or FH + RH)?
- How many speakers (5.1.4 or 7.1.4)?
- Neural:X engaged but which mode with it (Music or Movie)?
- Audyssey XT32 engaged or not?
- Audyssey Dynamic EQ On or Off?
- Everything that is pertinent in reproducing it...

♦ Here => http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1535197-marantz-av8802-13-2-xlr-pre-pro-official-thread-315.html#post41701185

Is this a real issue, or not...in the sense that can it be resolved from an owner with all the proper settings?
Because before we thought we had several bugs but we didn't; everything was owner's fault in setting everything correctly, as Manni had extensively experimented.

I admit; this is quite complex, and no way that new owners will discover all that stuff by themselves, and they won't read either all the solutions found by Manni and Nalleh and few other high sound explorers.

I have read everything from Manni, went through all the perturbations and issues to finally, along with him, by reading, find no issues now from D&M and dts:X ... The only thing remaining, my last concern @ this point, is the distortion issue.

And later on, the cross-pollination thing...and what the future reserves on that aspect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,559 Posts
This is going to sound like flamebait, but I promise this is an honest question/observation: isn't DTS-everything better than it's comparable Dolby counterpart? It seems to me that DTS-MA > DDHD, DTS > DD, Neo/Neural > Prologic II... Does anyone ever choose Dolby when the DTS option is available?

Seems you have it completely backwards.


For example if I told you a certain codec required 2.4 times the bitrate for similar performance, how would you consider that codec superior? Hint: DD @640kbps vs. DTS @1536kbps.


There is zero difference between DTS-MA and DTHD in terms of audio quality. Any perceived difference is in the actual mix.

TrueHD requires a lot less horsepower to decode, you'll notice even today multiple devices do TrueHD decoding but only offer "DTS passthrough".
Was available from day one on the launch of the HD disc formats. Takes less disc space (more efficient). Metadata for night mode.
5.1 available for 192kHz (Akira). No speaker mapping issues downmixing from 7.1 to 5.1 or upmixing, and that can affect sound quality - one reason it was chosen for the new My Fair Lady.


Unfortunately Dolby was late in getting easy to implement BD authoring packages available to studios.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,001 Posts
Progress!
Manni, thanks again for your thorough tests. Very helpful and I now feel pretty comfortable advising that people with 7.1.4 setups can donwload DTS:X without concern and enjoy whether using TF/TR or FH/RH. The only real caveat appears to be 2ch upmixing with Neural:X.

With respect to the "bleed" of the tones, barring further information it seems safe to conclude that they were encoded as FH+RH locations and the "bleed" is just a matrixing/rendering effort to shift the phantom image when speakers are set to TF+TR instead. And -- similar to the overhead tones "bleeding" back with Atmos test tones -- if it doesn't harm actual program content, who cares?

I decided to investigate why I would get a different result with real content with Atmos in FH+RH and TF+TR amp assign, as this is the thing that made the least sense to me. I never experienced such a thing with the X5200W, and I couldn't get why the DTS:X upgrade would change anything in Atmos with real content.

So I thought about it and came to the conclusion, just as I was about to muster the courage to unhook the X7200WA and re-hook the X5200W to double check the helicopter demo (not something I would really want to do), that the main difference was that on the X5200W, I had run Audyssey in both FR+TR and FH+RH many times. So the distance, levels etc for all speakers had been set correctly during the Audyssey calibration. With the X7200WA, I had only ran Audyssey with TF+TR (the physical layout I was testing) and NOT with FH+RH. I had only enabled the speakers and entered the approximate values for distance and levels I remembered from my X5200W. Now, human error or not, after I ran Audyssey with the FH+RH amp assign, so had these parameters set properly during the Audyssey process, I was back to the usual behavior, which is indistinguishable results between TF+TR and FH+RH amp assign in Atmos on my physical TF+TR layout. I tried the helicopter demo, and I had near identical results in both amp assign, the rectangle was back, the pans were as expected. I double checked with the Gravity clip, and George's voice was panning above and slightly behind my head, in both FH+RH and TF+TR amp assign. All tests were done with Audyssey off, as usual, I only used audyssey to calculate distance/levels for FH+RH as I did for TF+TR. Thanks to Batpig for putting me on the right track with his suggestion.
Awesome, and really amazing how small changes in level/distance can cause such a change.

Your report saved me some effort :) last night I decided I wouldn't do the DTS:X update that appeared as available on my X6200W, since I wanted to comprehensively test things PRE update and then re-test post update to look for these changes. Then, after the wife and kids were asleep and I finally had time, I couldn't muster the energy to spend another hour of my life listening to test tones and helicopters over my head :p so I watched an episode of Game of Thrones instead.

Also a good cautionary tale about how many variables must be controlled to reach good conclusions about things like TF+TR vs. FH+RH. A lot of people probably don't realize what I pointed out -- that even if you turn Audyssey off, when you change speaker config the distance/level settings will NOT be the same for the "new" speakers (even if they haven't physically moved). So I wonder if people who think they hear major differences with things like the Helicopter or Audosphere demos are accounting for this fully.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,001 Posts
This is going to sound like flamebait, but I promise this is an honest question/observation: isn't DTS-everything better than it's comparable Dolby counterpart? It seems to me that DTS-MA > DDHD, DTS > DD, Neo/Neural > Prologic II... Does anyone ever choose Dolby when the DTS option is available?
As you can tell from some of the responses above, outside of some strange DTS fanboy types (who the F is a "fan" of a codec anyway?) you aren't going to find a lot of support for your sentiments.

As others have noted, in terms of straight codec performance there isn't any real quality difference (e.g. between DD and DTS lossy). And in the case of lossless codecs like TrueHD vs. DTS-MASTER, they are literally identical by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't be lossless!

It's too early to judge the immersive codecs of course, but in theory again there should be no pratical difference between Atmos and DTS:X in terms of delivering an immersive soundtrack to an 11ch speaker setup. Like the legacy codecs, it's really just a container or delivery system and the MIX is what's going to matter. That said, right now Atmos has a technical advantage (despite DTS's marketing fluff) in that it can support more objects than DTS:X, and also in a high end Trinnov/JBL system can scale natively up to 34 speaker outputs, whereas this first DTS:X package really only support 11 channels.

So, all that said, the only real meaningful difference is upmixer performance. This is where (pre immersive audio) Neo:X has a real advantage over Dolby's PLII for those who want 11ch expansion. PLII doesn't support wides so the best it can do is 7.1 + heights, and by most accounts the height speakers don't really get much action. But for standard 5.1/7.1 upmixing, anecdotally at least it seems far more people prefer PLIIx to Neo:X.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,409 Posts
Having played with the Witch Hunter test tones - I concluded no difference between designating different Amp Assigns. I thought I must be loopy - then read today's posts.

I wish I had done that first! Normal service resumes - and I decided to watch Crimson Peak in DTS:X.

My system has never sounded so good. Candles, creaky doors, impact, spoons on bowls - no spoilers I hope. I love action films, but the sound in this movie added loads of extra depth and intensity. I watched this in IMAX originally and I don't recall it being this good. And the picture is a test for depth of blacks, colours and details are amazing.

As much as I love Test Tones, this pipped it. Manni - treat yourself to an immersive movie - and thanks for your efforts, it was an interesting read.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,824 Posts
@batpig: Yes I was surprised myself at the difference it made. I really wan't expecting such a significant impact, especially in such a small room, with short distances and fairly similar levels. I can't entirely rule out human error, maybe I did not enter the correct values manually. But the fact is, all was fine after I Audysseyed FH+RH. This is why I recommended that Audyssey should be run with both layouts before switching if off to compare. Lesson learnt.

Glad you made me think of that, I was about to put the X5200W back to double check but really didn't want to, even with banana plugs and fully labelled cables!

I've listened to some Neural:X this afternoon, switching between DSU and Neural:X with the remake of 3:10 To Yuma which is a great mix and LPCM so easy to swap upmixers. I liked both, they are fairly similar on a track like this, although Neural:X did seem to put a bit more sound in the heights. It's a matter or taste which one one will prefer, but I wouldn't mind being stuck with either due to the lack of cross upmixing.

I'll try with tracks having more potential overhead effects over the next few days but I wanted to start with a good mix rather than a mix with lots of helicopters and things flying around.

I plan to listen to more stuff tomorrow, probably a couple of full movies in DTS:X (American Ultra and Ex Machina, I had saved them for a first listen in native DTS:X).

Already very impressed with some of the demo clips on the 2015 DTS:X demo disc, especially the Divergent and the Locked Up clips.

By the way, for those wondering, for me it's not about declaring a better format. I want to be able to play the native mix, that's all. I enjoy Atmos, I already enjoy DTS:X and I even enjoy Auro. The quality of the mix has a much bigger impact for me than the immersive format choosen. For upmixers, it's different because the upmixer create stuff that's not in the mix, so it becomes subjective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
419 Posts
Cool...

Ok so sort of unrelated but not really...since I have REW, is there ANYWAY to try and use REW to take my "hearing" out of the mix, so that I can force true measurement vs. I "hear" a difference ? I know many will say what sounds good is good, but my background forces my brain to want to TEST vs. make assumptions, which as we know in this hobby is always a rabbits hole :)
I'll be honest I will have to look into it. I'm a big Denon fan and have always relied on audyssey so I am not entirely sure what REW AND DIRAC and others are and how to use them though I've seen them mentioned. I will do some research.
It was suggested in a thread I started to use REW. I gave it some thought and it gave me a headache.:confused:

This is what I came up with. REW has to have a calibrated sound-card and mic to work and to calibrate the sound-card you needed to loop the output to the input and not using my HTPC to drive my theater anymore I don't think it can be done the same.

I do think you can use an already calibrated PC and mic and a single channel output from the PC to make all the tests. You would then rotate that output around all the 7.1 analog input channels and record reading for each. I see no way to test any of the high channels.

Also is Audyssey applied to the 7.1 analog input? If not whats the point?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,670 Posts
It was suggested in a thread I started to use REW. I gave it some thought and it gave me a headache.:confused:

This is what I came up with. REW has to have a calibrated sound-card and mic to work and to calibrate the sound-card you needed to loop the output to the input and not using my HTPC to drive my theater anymore I don't think it can be done the same.

I do think you can use an already calibrated PC and mic and a single channel output from the PC to make all the tests. You would then rotate that output around all the 7.1 analog input channels and record reading for each. I see no way to test any of the high channels.

Also is Audyssey applied to the 7.1 analog input? If not whats the point?
Yeah so, no way to really use REW at the moment that I am aware of to send test tones to the HEIGHT CHANNELS, it stops at 7.1 as you suggested.

So for ATMOS / DTS:X testing, my ONLY thinking is was their a way to RECORD the sounds using REW somehow to take the subjectivity out of stuff. Meaning if we play the Witch Hunter test tones and they are Really trying to adapt on the fly to the speaker setup, then in theory REW should hear the same at MLP no matter what...if that makes sense.

But yeah, you need a calibrated MIC and/or way to calibrate your sound card, etc. If you go the USB route with HDMI it is really almost plug and play, but still a lot of jacking around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,746 Posts
From the 30-speaker diagram posted in one of the DTS:X threads, seemed to be around 120 degrees (splitting the sides at 90 and rears at 150).
Ok, that makes sense. I have to think this might relate to wides splitting content meant for the side surround with the side surround. Maybe the object is at 90 degrees but the algorithm assumes the speaker is at 120.

As to measuring with REW as some have mentioned, can you record the waveform of measurements taken from an outside audio source? I've only used test tones with REW, so I'm not sure. But if so, you could hook one speaker up, leave it in one spot physically, but change its designation in the receiver, or change the physical spot in the receiver it's hooked to. Disconnect all other speakers, and keep main volune control constant. This would be easier with external amps because you could just power them off instead of disconnecting, but it's possible either way.

An alternative would be to plug pre outs directly into a device that can measure the waveform.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,081 Posts
Discussion Starter #834
After @Manni01 concluded the tests, I am gonna keep the FH+RH settings for the following reasons.

1. The front speaker angles are 36 degree and rears are 140 degree. Though they fall in both TF+TR and FH+RH, I feel FH+RH is closer.
2. No issue with DTS:X (unlike TF+TR, though none found by @Manni01 except the test tones)
3. With my Scatmos I fell I am covering 5 positions FH+(TF)+[TM]+(TR)+RH. WHere TM is actual physical speaker with center extract and TF and TR are "possible" fantoms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
This is going to sound like flamebait, but I promise this is an honest question/observation: isn't DTS-everything better than it's comparable Dolby counterpart? It seems to me that DTS-MA > DDHD, DTS > DD, Neo/Neural > Prologic II... Does anyone ever choose Dolby when the DTS option is available?

I've always preferred DTS over DD. It just always sounded better to me for whatever reason. But, I'd say Dolby has the upper hand now, and DTS have some catching up to do.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,837 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
If the metadata for the object has snap to speaker enabled it will do that and not render..... snap to the closest speaker based on it's positional metadata, and not use multiple speakers to reproduce...

I am confused! Are you talking about the test tones now, or movie mixing?

If movie mixing, how is that compatible with mixers intent?
Wouldn't that be channel based then?
+1


If a person can hear a difference with the Trinnov, then logically the renderer treats them differently.
With Trinnov it's more complex than that; its remapping allows more speakers than channels (in the old sense) than the source material has.


So this puts a big one to rest: it's absolutely fine to use FH+RH amp assign on TF+TR in Atmos if you're worried about results with TF+TR in DTS:X.
This is great news; Manni, thanks so much for all your investigative work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,001 Posts
I downloaded my update tonight and have been playing around a bit. Mostly casual listening not rigorous testing. I'm still set to FH+TM (7.1.4) and have not noticed any hissing that Schwa heard.

No DTS test tones yet (frankly I'm sick of test tones!) but the 2015 DTS disc sounds great.

Also side note but Neural:X does a perfect extract of the FH signal in the old Neo:X 11.1 channel check on the Dread BD.

Overall sounds fine and dandy, other than 2ch music upmix. Whooo boy.

Definitely hear the muffled/muddy thing others have described. Tons of stuff collapses to center, becomes recessed and sounds like mud.

And if anyone doubts the center channel distortion, whip out Spotify or your favorite music service and play one of my favorite test songs -- "King of Carrot Flowers" by Neutral Milk Hotel. The beginning few seconds exposes the heck out of it, making it convenient to skip back and replay in different modes. It starts with a hard, rythmic strumming acoustic guitar melody. When I listen with Neural:X, it turns from an acoustic guitar into an electric guitar playing through one of those mini Marshall portable amps, but with a blown speaker. WTF?

I could see why Filmmixer feared his CC might be damaged, because it literally sounds like a blown speaker. Crunchy and buzzy. And highly audible even at low volume.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,001 Posts
"We Will Become Silhouettes" by the Postal Service is also turned into a crunchy mess by Neural:X. Again sounds like listening through a blown speaker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: audiofan1

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,643 Posts
... Very helpful and I now feel pretty comfortable advising that people with 7.1.4 setups can donwload DTS:X without concern and enjoy whether using TF/TR or FH/RH.
1. The only real caveat appears to be 2ch upmixing with Neural:X.

2. With respect to the "bleed" of the tones, barring further information it seems safe to conclude that they were encoded as FH+RH locations and the "bleed" is just a matrixing/rendering effort to shift the phantom image when speakers are set to TF+TR instead. And -- similar to the overhead tones "bleeding" back with Atmos test tones -- if it doesn't harm actual program content, who cares?

3. Also a good cautionary tale about how many variables must be controlled to reach good conclusions about things like TF+TR vs. FH+RH. A lot of people probably don't realize what I pointed out -- that even if you turn Audyssey off, when you change speaker config the distance/level settings will NOT be the same for the "new" speakers (even if they haven't physically moved). So I wonder if people who think they hear major differences with things like the Helicopter or Audiosphere demos are accounting for this fully.
1. Yes, it seems to be the only one caveat...from my extended readings.

2. The test tones should represent accurately what is distributed in all the speakers and @ the exact volume level.
The actual Movie (or Music) audio mix is a totally different matter, there is no standard from one studio to the next and from one mix to the next, or if there is, it's not always observed to the letter, and personal preference are to be accounted for as well accidents.
We don't live in a prefect world when it comes to movie soundtracks.
♦ There are so multiple variables; so we do need a set of audio test tones as a guide...definitely.

3. This, is very important, and it's going to come back very often on the platform of these columns (forum threads).
And I bet that a lot of owners will never find out.
Is it indicated somewhere in the Denon/Marantz instruction manuals? ...Or online manuals?

Again, that 3rd point, very important. ...And one that I just finally understood yesterday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Hello all,

I've got an idea to verify if this "bleeding" in TR+TF setup is created by the DTS:X processing or if it is a bug. Who have the possibility should remove one top speaker, locate it at same positon of FH or FR (so, away from the middle of the audio scene), and then run again Audissey calibration. Keeping TR+TF setup. In this way, when running test tone for that "channel", if it still "bleeds", then the reason is a bug of decoding. If not, then the bleeding was a processing result, that consider the contribution of "proximity" speakers.

BR
FKB
 
821 - 840 of 4251 Posts
Top