AVS Forum banner

58721 - 58740 of 58938 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,001 Posts
I always wondered what Dolby Labs was thinking by eliminating Front Wides from their upmixer.
I don't know if you meant "exclude" rather than "eliminate", but to be clear Dolby upmixers have NEVER included Front Wide support. Back in the pre-Atmos days, Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X could upmix to front wides, but Dolby PLII never supported them (nor did DSU from the start). So this isn't a decision they are reversing.

The explanation provided was always something about not wanting to "tamper" with the integrity of the front soundstage by messing with the FR/FL mains. Who knows if that was sincere, but it looks like they are dropping their resistance and acceding to market pressure on this :)


Now, if only they fixed Dolby Surround to have more than two height extraction "channels" spread across the ceiling.
TBH this is not something I've every worried about too much, DSU is so "ambient" with what it puts on the ceiling, it's not extracting discrete sounds like Neural:X, so you're not really getting much directional sense above you anyway (and your brain is going to be tricked by the directional cues in the ear level layer anyway). If all it's throwing up on the ceiling speakers is diffuse, decorrelated sounds, it doesn't feel like there's much need for more precise directionality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,215 Posts
I don't know if you meant "exclude" rather than "eliminate", but to be clear Dolby upmixers have NEVER included Front Wide support. Back in the pre-Atmos days, Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X could upmix to front wides, but Dolby PLII never supported them (nor did DSU from the start). So this isn't a decision they are reversing.

The explanation provided was always something about not wanting to "tamper" with the integrity of the front soundstage by messing with the FR/FL mains. Who knows if that was sincere, but it looks like they are dropping their resistance and acceding to market pressure on this :)




TBH this is not something I've every worried about too much, DSU is so "ambient" with what it puts on the ceiling, it's not extracting discrete sounds like Neural:X, so you're not really getting much directional sense above you anyway (and your brain is going to be tricked by the directional cues in the ear level layer anyway). If all it's throwing up on the ceiling speakers is diffuse, decorrelated sounds, it doesn't feel like there's much need for more precise directionality.

Yes, I should have said exclude. Better choice of words.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,712 Posts
I've read at Audioholics that the reason the DSU center spread option was removed is that it cannot function at the same time as Dolby Height Virtualization and all units that feature Dolby Height Virtualization or firmware updates adding it will have the center spread option removed. Units that don't support Height Virtualization (older AVRs) will leave it intact. Why it cannot be used so long as Height Virtualization is turned off/not used is unclear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,227 Posts
Long time no see all, How's the old gang doing?

Anyone's else's brain melted by the DTS X Pro layout? Haha

The last time I was on this thread I had verified with someone on here that a lot of Atmos movies (like Disney) do the 7.1.4 bed that doesn't make use of front wides.

I'm still using the 7.1.4 setup with the DENON X5200W but am considering expanding to front wides if there is a compelling reason to do so by getting either the Denon X8500 or the new 13 channel.

I'm aware the DSU doesn't utilize the front wides in upmixing but the DTS upmixer does.

In any case, does anyone know if there is a list maintained somewhere of blurays that use the front wides? I did hear on Spare Change that Disney might stop doing the channel limitation because there has been pressure put on the industry.

I'm also curious what you guys think of the DTS new height front center channel? I think that's very cool, as that's one of the blind spots for Atmos (sound coming from in front / above).

I think it would be cool if we had an Atmos 2.0 that would allow for the use of that center channel and maybe expand it so that you could use the in ceilings and wall mounted heights like DTS X pro at the same time... get the best of both worlds. Sounds coming from above *and* up high from the sides. That would require a lot of speakers and amplifiers though!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,227 Posts
I just read the comment above, I take it Dolby might be allowing for front wides with the upmixer?

I wasn't sure what's going on with that because in Audioholics coverage of the new Denon nothing was mentioned about front wides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,559 Posts
I'm also curious what you guys think of the DTS new height front center channel? I think that's very cool, as that's one of the blind spots for Atmos (sound coming from in front / above).
DTS:X Pro is just an upmixer though. It's not a format, and DTS:X discs will still be the 7.1.4 layouts we have now. If Atmos mixers wanted a front/above sound they'd mix an object to hover in space between the 2 fronts and the center. With proper imaging you technically wouldn't need a speaker there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aras_Volodka

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
I've read at Audioholics that the reason the DSU center spread option was removed is that it cannot function at the same time as Dolby Height Virtualization and all units that feature Dolby Height Virtualization or firmware updates adding it will have the center spread option removed. Units that don't support Height Virtualization (older AVRs) will leave it intact. Why it cannot be used so long as Height Virtualization is turned off/not used is unclear.

That sounds like a rational explanation at least. Thanks for sharing. I think they are doing themselves a disfavor by not communicating openly and proactively about things like that. It easily comes across as evil machinations, which can’t be in their interest.
At least this information seems to mean that center spread will not suddenly vanish as part of an update, which is good news for people that are using it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
I've read at Audioholics that the reason the DSU center spread option was removed is that it cannot function at the same time as Dolby Height Virtualization and all units that feature Dolby Height Virtualization or firmware updates adding it will have the center spread option removed. Units that don't support Height Virtualization (older AVRs) will leave it intact. Why it cannot be used so long as Height Virtualization is turned off/not used is unclear.
Yes that is what I heard too, seems illogical & a very poor oversight on Dolby's end, surely they could've retained that Surround Parameter setting if they really wanted to, I suppose the name of the game is to give the consumer less flexibility with each passing year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,712 Posts
I'm also curious what you guys think of the DTS new height front center channel? I think that's very cool, as that's one of the blind spots for Atmos (sound coming from in front / above).
DTS:X Pro is just an upmixer though. It's not a format, and DTS:X discs will still be the 7.1.4 layouts we have now.
It's still a massive improvement for larger home theaters and it cannot be defeated like Dolby "print-through" 7.1.4 soundtracks.

If Atmos mixers wanted a front/above sound they'd mix an object to hover in space between the 2 fronts and the center. With proper imaging you technically wouldn't need a speaker there.
That only works for centered seats like a typical MLP. If you're off-center (e.g. Left couch seat), the sound will pull to the nearest speaker (e.g. Left front height) due to the precedence effect. It's the reason we have a center channel speaker in the first place (a centered MLP doesn't need that speaker either to phantom image correctly).

I think it's a big oversight on Dolby's part to not support center height and top surround for that reason. They have 34 speakers available to improve immersion accuracy for multiple rows and larger rooms and yet direct overhead sounds only image truly correctly for the center seats. Even the cinema version has the same issue.

Maybe it's less noticeable than dialog due to the sheer quantity of dialog used in most films, but that doesn't mean those locations are any less important than say ss#1 or rsl#1), IMO, perhaps even more so since most home theaters are likely to have more than one seat in a single row than more rows of seating (what the latter example locations are typically needed for).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,979 Posts
Anyone's else's brain melted by the DTS X Pro layout? Haha
Fewer speakers than Atmos, so no brain melting. Besides, that layout was published when DTS:X was originally released, so we've had several years to get used it.
In any case, does anyone know if there is a list maintained somewhere of blurays that use the front wides?
IF you do a search, you'll find a couple of threads on titles that made good use of Wides.
I'm also curious what you guys think of the DTS new height front center channel?
Not new (been there since the format was introduced), but useful (improves imaging stability by replacing a phantom image with a hard source). It's in the height layer, so it's nowhere near as critical as the Centre speaker in the base layer. Still, mo speakers = mo better.
I think that's very cool, as that's one of the blind spots for Atmos (sound coming from in front / above).
Atmos has a pair of speakers high up on the front wall for "sound coming from in front / above".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,227 Posts
Fewer speakers than Atmos, so no brain melting. Besides, that layout was published when DTS:X was originally released, so we've had several years to get used it. IF you do a search, you'll find a couple of threads on titles that made good use of Wides. Not new (been there since the format was introduced), but useful (improves imaging stability by replacing a phantom image with a hard source). It's in the height layer, so it's nowhere near as critical as the Centre speaker in the base layer. Still, mo speakers = mo better. Atmos has a pair of speakers high up on the front wall for "sound coming from in front / above".
Thank you, I hadn't been aware because when I saw the first speaker placement diagrams when DTS X was first introduced it seemed ambiguous, for example some seemed to indicate an Atmos layout would suffice while others had an Auro 3D layout.

We haven't had much in the way of DTS X releases though right? I'm assuming it will be some time before we see a DTS X Pro release and when we do it will probably be few and far between.

One of the things I found interesting was that Phil Jones mentioned that the two systems are seamless, that if it works on the DTS X Pro layout then the mix is preserved in an Atmos layout due to object rendering, but I don't know if I buy that... it seems the image would be distorted.

Understood regarding the Atmos high pair in front, but isn't that a little different from a discrete sound as opposed to a sound that's meant to be coming from an in ceiling speaker? (I always thought of that as a trade off, you either have to pick the downfiring vs. projecting) but in this case, with a 13 channel, you can do both? (vs. an 11 channel receiver)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,227 Posts
If you guys got something like the Denon X6700, would you go with front wides or would you put in the high center channel / VOG speaker in ceiling (or the front on wall heights?)

I'm thinking about making the upgrade this winter or winter 2021
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,215 Posts
If you guys got something like the Denon X6700, would you go with front wides or would you put in the high center channel / VOG speaker in ceiling (or the front on wall heights?)

I'm thinking about making the upgrade this winter or winter 2021

Front Wides given that soon both Neural: X (via DTS: X Pro) and Dolby Surround upmixers will have Front Wide extraction without an 11.1 restriction. Between DTS: X basically being 7.1.4 fixed and Dolby Atmos not having a VOG speaker, I would stick with Front Wides. DTS: X Pro will extract FW's and Dolby Atmos tracks sometimes use them too via objects.


Auro3D is pretty much dead except for their upmixer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,979 Posts
I hadn't been aware because when I saw the first speaker placement diagrams when DTS X was first introduced it seemed ambiguous, for example some seemed to indicate an Atmos layout would suffice while others had an Auro 3D layout.
The main 7.1 speaker locations in the base layer are the same for all 3 formats. It's primarily in the height layer where some of the speaker locations differ. Unlike Auro and Atmos, DTS:X does not have speakers high up on the walls. Their lowest height layer is at 45 degrees elevation. That makes the placement closer to Atmos Top Front and Top Rear.



We haven't had much in the way of DTS X releases though right?
DTS:X releases in the US: 52 on BD + 105 on UHD = 133 titles (24 overlap)
I'm assuming it will be some time before we see a DTS X Pro release and when we do it will probably be few and far between.
No such thing. When you see the term DTS:X Pro on any device, it simply means that the device supports more than 11.1 channels of DTS:X/Neural:X playback. It's not a different format but simply an indicator of hardware that supports more than 11.1 playback.
Understood regarding the Atmos high pair in front, but isn't that a little different from a discrete sound as opposed to a sound that's meant to be coming from an in ceiling speaker?
I'm not understanding the question. In-ceiling speakers cannot produce discrete sound? The difference between 2 front height speakers vs 3 front height speakers should be the same whether those speakers are mounted in the ceiling or on the ceiling or high up on the front wall. We're talking about replacing a phantom image between 2 speakers with a hard source (3rd speaker).
(I always thought of that as a trade off, you either have to pick the downfiring vs. projecting) but in this case, with a 13 channel, you can do both? (vs. an 11 channel receiver)
Again, not sure what you're asking. If you want to do 4 height speakers, you can make 2 of them downfiring from the ceiling and 2 of them projecting up using upfiring modules. The ability to do that combination has been around since home Atmos was introduced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,979 Posts
We just found out a tidbit of info that is more directly Atmos related, and will be a very welcome piece of news since people have been complaining about this for years: when the DTS:X Pro firmware update comes, it will ALSO include some updates to the Dolby Surround Upmixer bringing support (finally!) for upmixing to Front Wide speakers AND the single Surround Back speaker. Previously, DSU did not upmix to wides or to a single Surround Back (in a 6.1 base layout).
Just to give some idea of how long these things take to implement. Licensees were informed about DSU supporting Wides back in June of 2018 and confirmed a few months later at CEDIA in September 2018. And here we are 2 years later (and the upgrade is still 6 months away).

Likewise, DTS:X Pro (i.e., the ability to support more than 11 speaker locations) was shown during the first public (CES) demo of DTS:X that used a 22.2-speaker layout (pics were posted at AVS). And here we are 5 YEARS later when implementations are finally happening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
If you guys got something like the Denon X6700, would you go with front wides or would you put in the high center channel / VOG speaker in ceiling (or the front on wall heights?)

I'm thinking about making the upgrade this winter or winter 2021

I think it really depends on your room. My room is not very large at 15.5ft X 10.5ft and so I already have my L and R as wide as possible up front. Front wides for me would not expand the soundstage at all. I am considering the X6700 so I can add a third pair of height speakers giving me a FH, TM, RH setup that would hopefully provide more height separation and increasing the front to back panning in the height layer. The nice thing about this new AVR is that it gives us lots of options! I will probably wait until I see how well the planned December firmware update is received before spending any money as I am pretty happy with my current 7.2.4 system.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,008 Posts
Ha! Now I can speak about it /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

I was referring to the announcement of the new D+M models with DTS:X Pro FINALLY coming to the non-Trinnov price point.

- new model Denon X6700H will have 11 amps, 13ch processing, and DTS:X Pro supporting 9.1.4 and 7.1.6 layouts (including Atmos 7.1.6 with 3 pairs of overheads or Auro 7.1.6 with CH + TS)
- official word that DTS:X Pro is coming to the AVR-X8500H receiver and AV8805 processor

Although not explicitly Atmos, we end up discussing all immersive audio in this thread and I thought it was apropos given the discussion about 7.1.6 layouts. This announcement means that those with 7.1.6 and 9.1.4 layouts can finally have all those speakers make noise with DTS:X / Neural:X no longer limited to 11 channels. And, I also got confirmation that the silly quirk which prevents wides from making noise with a 9.1.2 layout with DTS:X native content should be resolved, so 9.1.4 layouts get an upgrade in addition to 7.1.6.

It also improves IMAX Enhanced, as the discrete CH object (channel 12) can now be produced by the CH speaker, vs phantom imaging between the center + front heights.

This means that we should see DTS:X Pro continue to trickle down to more models, which is exciting for those of us with higher channel count layouts but without Trinnov budgets.

ALSO - a new feature coming with these D+M models is *dual memory presets*, which means that those who want to optimize Atmos vs DTS:X/Auro layouts can now have separate configs with "Tops" vs "Heights" that can be recalled immediately.

The X6700H (which I should have my hands on soon) is going to be a VERY attractive model for moderate budget enthusiasts. Not only does it have 13ch processing, DTS:X Pro, and dual-memory presets, but it has the full "pre-amp mode" which disconnects the amp section making it significantly cleaner as a pre/pro. $2,499msrp for a 13ch pre-amp with 9.1.4/7.1.6 support, Auro3D, DTS:X Pro and IMAX is going to raise some eyebrows.
Do you work for D and M?? Lol

Unfortunately it still has Auddysey-would’ve been interesting if they moved to DIRAC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,979 Posts
It also improves IMAX Enhanced, as the discrete CH object (channel 12) can now be produced by the CH speaker, vs phantom imaging between the center + front heights.
The DTS:X CH speaker is at 45 degrees elevation while the IMAX Enhanced CH object (channel 12) is encoded at 25 degrees elevation, so it will still have to be reproduced as a phantom image floating between the CH and C speakers (but that's better than using FH and C speakers).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,227 Posts
Front Wides given that soon both Neural: X (via DTS: X Pro) and Dolby Surround upmixers will have Front Wide extraction without an 11.1 restriction. Between DTS: X basically being 7.1.4 fixed and Dolby Atmos not having a VOG speaker, I would stick with Front Wides. DTS: X Pro will extract FW's and Dolby Atmos tracks sometimes use them too via objects.


Auro3D is pretty much dead except for their upmixer.
Thanks, I think that makes the most sense too!

The main 7.1 speaker locations in the base layer are the same for all 3 formats. It's primarily in the height layer where some of the speaker locations differ. Unlike Auro and Atmos, DTS:X does not have speakers high up on the walls. Their lowest height layer is at 45 degrees elevation. That makes the placement closer to Atmos Top Front and Top Rear.



DTS:X releases in the US: 52 on BD + 105 on UHD = 133 titles (24 overlap) No such thing. When you see the term DTS:X Pro on any device, it simply means that the device supports more than 11.1 channels of DTS:X/Neural:X playback. It's not a different format but simply an indicator of hardware that supports more than 11.1 playback. I'm not understanding the question. In-ceiling speakers cannot produce discrete sound? The difference between 2 front height speakers vs 3 front height speakers should be the same whether those speakers are mounted in the ceiling or on the ceiling or high up on the front wall. We're talking about replacing a phantom image between 2 speakers with a hard source (3rd speaker). Again, not sure what you're asking. If you want to do 4 height speakers, you can make 2 of them downfiring from the ceiling and 2 of them projecting up using upfiring modules. The ability to do that combination has been around since home Atmos was introduced.
Sorry about the confusion, I think the center height I'm referring to is the setting for IMAX enchanced.

Thanks for the info regarding DTS X, so basically the DTS X discs are automatically rendered to fit a system that has up to 32 speakers it seems kind of like *real* atmos BD's it seems?

I think it really depends on your room. My room is not very large at 15.5ft X 10.5ft and so I already have my L and R as wide as possible up front. Front wides for me would not expand the soundstage at all. I am considering the X6700 so I can add a third pair of height speakers giving me a FH, TM, RH setup that would hopefully provide more height separation and increasing the front to back panning in the height layer. The nice thing about this new AVR is that it gives us lots of options! I will probably wait until I see how well the planned December firmware update is received before spending any money as I am pretty happy with my current 7.2.4 system.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Thanks for the input, I'm still looking for a home but I anticipate that the dimensions would be similar to yours, but I generally place my front L/R right about a foot or two away from the screen, so there's still space for front wides IMO, I kinda overkill everything though haha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,559 Posts
Thanks for the info regarding DTS X, so basically the DTS X discs are automatically rendered to fit a system that has up to 32 speakers it seems kind of like *real* atmos BD's it seems?
No, that's just theoretical if DTS:X actually used objects instead of the 7.1.4 channel mapping it actually uses. They introduced DTS:X Pro to get around the limitation of the source tracks by allowing logic steering to the other locations. It's simulated though, the decoder is guessing where the sounds should go.

The majority of Dolby Atmos releases are all true 24.1.10 capable.
 
58721 - 58740 of 58938 Posts
Top