DSP "All Channel Stereo"

T

Trebdp83

Audioholic Spartan
You’d go into the regular settings menu and go to 2.Speakers>4.Level Calibration and wait for test tones and adjust each channel to your liking and then exit.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Many multich SACDs are quad based, some DVD-Audio discs. Not the tv show particularly, but am curious what it was recorded in....
Stereo broadcasts on TV began in '84, so they may have been recorded in stereo, preemptively. I don't remember when we started seeing TVs with stereo capability or output jacks, but I don't think it was before 1984, when stereo TV broadcasts began.
 
Squishman

Squishman

Audioholic Field Marshall
You guys wonder how the soundtrack was originally recorded or restored, whatever the case may be. But I am thinking about it from the perspective that these avr's are usually supposed to simulate surround sound if the audio is not encoded with it. I am not sure what dsp programs are meant to do that. Maybe any and all? Or just Nueral X?
 
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
You guys wonder how the soundtrack was originally recorded or restored, whatever the case may be. But I am thinking about it from the perspective that these avr's are usually supposed to simulate surround sound if the audio is not encoded with it. I am not sure what dsp programs are meant to do that. Maybe any and all? Or just Nueral X?
Yamaha is the king of DSP effects, after Dolby and DTS, and was a (strange?) selling point back in the day, "you can listen like you were in these famous "we're no longer allowed to say their names" venues with our DSP sound fields. :oops:
 
T

Trebdp83

Audioholic Spartan
You guys wonder how the soundtrack was originally recorded or restored, whatever the case may be. But I am thinking about it from the perspective that these avr's are usually supposed to simulate surround sound if the audio is not encoded with it. I am not sure what dsp programs are meant to do that. Maybe any and all? Or just Nueral X?
Those old Universal Studios shows were not in Stereo and they were slapped on DVDs using Dolby Digital 2.0 tracks. Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X do what they can with them but you can only do so much with that material. Dolby Surround works best with those DD 2.0 DVDs when I play them. Results will vary of course.
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Overlord
You guys wonder how the soundtrack was originally recorded or restored, whatever the case may be. But I am thinking about it from the perspective that these avr's are usually supposed to simulate surround sound if the audio is not encoded with it. I am not sure what dsp programs are meant to do that. Maybe any and all? Or just Nueral X?
Yeah DTSnx and DSU (Dolby surround) are made for that. The way they work is by extracting sound already present in the soundtrack. The short version is it depends on if those sounds are in phase or out of phase so the upmixer “kinda” knows what to do with those sounds. Each upmixer works a little differently than the other so as usual, experimenting is the best way to decide what you want. IME, DTSnx puts some instruments in the ceiling and I find that distracting. On the other hand it does make some action tracks a little more exciting. DSU seems more natural in its sound placements, but there are a lot of factors. Of course native Atmos tracks, providing they use the format, have been excellent and better than upmixers.
Ymmv as is the nature of this hobby.
 
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
Those old Universal Studios shows were not in Stereo and they were slapped on DVDs using Dolby Digital 2.0 tracks. Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X do what they can with them but you can only do so much with that material. Dolby Surround works best with those DD 2.0 DVDs when I play them. Results will vary of course.
Yup, garbage in, garbage out, applies not differently in this case.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
You guys wonder how the soundtrack was originally recorded or restored, whatever the case may be. But I am thinking about it from the perspective that these avr's are usually supposed to simulate surround sound if the audio is not encoded with it. I am not sure what dsp programs are meant to do that. Maybe any and all? Or just Nueral X?
You have to understand what these sound modes are intended to do. The first issue is if that most recordings have a soundfield originating from straight ahead. So the rest is ambient field from wall and ceiling reflections. It is this ambient field that gives the sense of the space you are in.

Obviously the front/forward field is much louder than the ambient field, unless the performers were recorded in a concrete public lavatory.

Now when you make a recording, particularly if you record at some distance, then the mics will pick up the forward field (direct) and the ambient field. This ambient field will be awash in complex phase/time shifts. Remember phase shifts can e expressed in time or as degrees of divergence. The only thing important to understand about this is that they are different ways of expressing exactly the same thing!

Now in a 2 channel recording with spaced or coincident microphones, you will record the forward and ambient fields simultaneously. And they will be reproduced from the front pair of speakers simultaneously.

Now what these up mixers attempt to do, with varying success, is to sort out direction and time, from the phase changes in the ambient field from the first arriving direct field signals. They do this with varying degrees of success.

From my evaluation the only ones worth the time of day are from Dolby. My favorite so far is DDDSur. In my view that is the only one that is any good, and on a lot of sources it is very good indeed.

Now, the ear is not easily fooled, and direct and reverberant field need to match for it to work properly. That means all speakers must be of similar quality and have tonal footprint that matches. So, the idea you can use speakers of inferior quality for the surrounds and rear backs, compared to the front filed is false. Results will be suboptimal if that is the case.

This is where I'm lucky, as I make my own speakers and I'm a hoarder. My rear backs are my studio monitors that musicians, conductors used to use to choose their takes in my recording days. My surrounds are the location monitors I used to use when I was making regular broadcasts for the local public radio station. So all the speakers are tonally very similar indeed. In that regard I am unusually fortunate.

Now the final issue and problem is how the recording was originally recorded. These upmixers work well with classical choral and operatic program, but poorly for works in the popular domain.

In the pop/rock domain, instruments are close miked and artificial reverb used extensively. So when engineers from a session in a local studio come here to check a mix, just the right and left main speakers are used, otherwise it really sounds pretty awful.

In the classical domain using lots of microphones tend to negate a good result from upmixers. I personally never used to do that.

I do know from watching AV classical streams, that there is now a very welcome trend to use less microphones and place spots more distantly.

I would sight the Detroit Symphony Orchestra productions specifically, where they are using straight Decca Tree and soloist spotted gently with the mic at a greater distance than normal. This captures the wonderful acoustic of their hall spectacularly.

When you analyse these issues in WaveLab screens you can see why this is so.

Classical/opera recordings are awash in the ambient field with a screen busy with exotic circular dancing lines. Whereas recordings from the popular/rock domain have lined largely centered up and down. You can tell by looking at the screen that these are essentially a bunch of combined mono recordings, which of course they are. So the upmixer does not really stand a chance.

Since you live close by, I can show you the various upmixers in my Marantz AVP and also show you WaveLab screens on the DAW.
 
Squishman

Squishman

Audioholic Field Marshall
Always great getting the details. I wish I could say I understand it all, but I do not. The Movie/TV DSP options I have on my Onkyo RZ50 are: Theater Dimensional (3.1, I do not use it), Direct, Dolby Audio - Surr, DTS Neural :X, THX Cinema (5 ch, no heights), TV Logic and All Ch Stereo. Is my Dolby Audio - Surr the same as DDDSur? If it is I will likely leave it there most of the time then.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Always great getting the details. I wish I could say I understand it all, but I do not. The Movie/TV DSP options I have on my Onkyo RZ50 are: Theater Dimensional (3.1, I do not use it), Direct, Dolby Audio - Surr, DTS Neural :X, THX Cinema (5 ch, no heights), TV Logic and All Ch Stereo. Is my Dolby Audio - Surr the same as DDDSur? If it is I will likely leave it there most of the time then.
Dolby Audio is what Onkyo use, and I think it is a stripped down basic version of the Dolby upmixer. Details on it are sparse. I would just use straight stereo in your situation. Not having a good upmixer is a penalty of being in the Onkyo universe.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Always great getting the details. I wish I could say I understand it all, but I do not. The Movie/TV DSP options I have on my Onkyo RZ50 are: Theater Dimensional (3.1, I do not use it), Direct, Dolby Audio - Surr, DTS Neural :X, THX Cinema (5 ch, no heights), TV Logic and All Ch Stereo. Is my Dolby Audio - Surr the same as DDDSur? If it is I will likely leave it there most of the time then.
Yes, Dolby Audio - Surround is same. Just different abbreviations.
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Overlord
Always great getting the details. I wish I could say I understand it all, but I do not. The Movie/TV DSP options I have on my Onkyo RZ50 are: Theater Dimensional (3.1, I do not use it), Direct, Dolby Audio - Surr, DTS Neural :X, THX Cinema (5 ch, no heights), TV Logic and All Ch Stereo. Is my Dolby Audio - Surr the same as DDDSur? If it is I will likely leave it there most of the time then.
Yes. It means Dolby surround, or DSU.
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Overlord
Can you provide data to show that Onkyo Dolby Audio is the same as DDD Sur? The information that I can find says it is not.
From page 193(ish) of the manual are these images. I believe that DSur has always meant Dolby surround which is DSU, Dolby surround Upmixer.


 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Can you provide data to show that Onkyo Dolby Audio is the same as DDD Sur? The information that I can find says it is not.
Better if you provide data to support your odd claim
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Better if you provide data to support your odd claim
It is confusing as they were filed under separate patents.

Dolby Audio was filed August 23, 2019. DD Dolby Audio was filed September 27, 2019. I suspect they are similar, but there are two different patents, so I suspect slightly different versions.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
It is confusing as they were filed under separate patents.

Dolby Audio was filed August 23, 2019. DD Dolby Audio was filed September 27, 2019. I suspect they are similar, but there are two different patents, so I suspect slightly different versions.
What? You're reading too much into abbreviations rather than checking out the manuals?
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
What? You're reading too much into abbreviations rather than checking out the manuals?
That is all very well, as they claim to do much the same. The manuals don't tell you what is under the hood. So, I remain puzzled why Dolby filed two different patents. I find it hard to believe they would go to the expense and trouble for filing two patents for the same product. But who knows in this age of corporate silliness?
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
That is all very well, as they claim to do much the same. The manuals don't tell you what is under the hood. So, I remain puzzled why Dolby filed two different patents. I find it hard to believe they would go to the expense and trouble for filing two patents for the same product. But who knows in this age of corporate silliness?
Since Dolby is in charge more than the avr brand in this respect, I find it hard it to imagine they'd differentiate between brands for implementation. Then again you're often a dollar short.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Since Dolby is in charge more than the avr brand in this respect, I find it hard it to imagine they'd differentiate between brands for implementation. Then again you're often a dollar short.
In that case I am a bit more cynical than you. When I see something like this, I suspect money is involved, and there is possibly a difference in the license fee.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top