DTS:X and Neural:X Demo Results on the Denon AVR-X7200WA Receiver

[TheoN]

@Latent, I was pleased with the performance of the front height and rear height configuration that Denon has offered as the unified layout. As Gene alluded to previously, my sense is that this layout will start to become the de-facto standard that people start considering because:

1. It supports all the formats
2. It's a relatively easy installation for many situations (no need to get into the ceiling in situations where you can't) and you can go for on-wall, angled in-ceiling or angled in-wall if needed.
3. It's simply and straightforward and eliminates the confusion you mentioned above.

The really big question is if users go with this format, what are the tradeoffs. In my layout for testing, I have discrete Beale Street Audio in-ceiling speakers for Atmos and discrete in-ceiling speakers to support Auro-3D. I can therefore switch between the two layouts as needed or test between the Denon front and rear height option with both the Atmos and the Auro-3D speakers. Now that we have the firmware, I plan on spending a bit of time doing that and offering my impressions.

 

[Scott M]

TheoN,

Since you do have the identical speakers, installed in the different locations, it will certainly be a great platform for testing the differences in the rendering to different locations. It sure would be nice if someone could author a test disk with something like pink noise doing a smooth pan if different directions around the room. If it also had a graphic showing where the shound should be going, it would be a great way to see how well the speaker layout and rendering mode is matching the original intent. Maybe this is a place for Spears and Munsil to step in??

With my limited time messing with the Dolby demo disk test tones, it is obvious that a fixed location noise is not a very good test. Especially if we don't know if it is set to snap to one speaker or smooth pan between them. It sounds like the use of the snap to speakers is not consistent from track to track, and there may be different settings on different pressings of the disk. Is there any contact who could find out what it right?

In the end, we are all listening to movies and demo clips and saying, yeah, this one sounds good in this setting, but we are not so sure how accurate it really is to what was intended.

While I had time at my friends house, messing with a few different settings on his X7200, using both the Klipsch up firing speakers, and the Niles in ceiling speakers for comparison, we both agreed, that setting the speakers to the correct position in the menu did sound the best, and this really should not be a surprise. But I have to admit in his case, the in ceiling speakers are in the TF and TR position, and the up firing speakers are in the front and back positions. We also did mix it up, We tried the Front up firing and the rear tops, and the opposite, front tops and rear upfiring. All 4 configurations were quite good and more similar in real movie content than we could have ever expected. For pin point sounds, using all 4 true top speakers had the best locations, but for the more spacial sounds, like wind and even music, we both liked the 4 up firing a little better. When I left his place, we actually ended up leaving the system with the top front in ceiling Niles audio speakers in the TF setting for Height 1 and the Klipsch DAE up firing units in the back of the room, properly set as Dolby Rear for the Height 2 output. All 4 height speaker positions are being driven by an older 7.1 AVR using the 7.1 analog inputs. L/R LS/RS outputs. So the x7200 is only driving the 7 channels in the main ring, and the other AVR is driving the 4 tops. We thought about also moving over the back or side surround to balance the load on the power supplies even more, but even at very high levels, nothing seemed strained at all.

With "American Ultra" in DTS-X, the differences between the different speaker layouts was not very big. It did seem to favor using the real tops a bit and setting them as FH and RH may have had more separation. We were having so much fun with "Goosebumps" in Atmos, we almost forgot about DTS. Hopefully by next week we can drop in "Ex-Machina", and see if we can find a copy of "The Last Witchhunter"

Dolby Atmos is ding what we tell it to do. The sound moves as recorded, and maps the speakers as expected. What we are hearing so far with DTS-X is probably a mix with large objects and vague positioning. If they did set it for large objects, then it makes sense. It has to come from 2 or 3 speakers to make the size. It does fill the room and there is a lot of overhead. Until we hear a mix that puts small sounds in specific places, we can't fairly judge how well it can move and place a sound. I can't say we heard the tops go "mono" as some have reported, but the separation between them sure did seem less in TF/TR than it did in FH/RH. At least it will be a little quicker to bounce around the different speaker layouts now, we saved the setup of the system after each Audyssey pass. 5 different layouts, ugh!

 

[Latent]

DTS have released a free application I think that can produce DTS:X positional object audio. This is what is meant to be used by movie sound mixes but there is no reason you couldn't make your own test tracks with it. This will only help for testing DTS:X though. In the ideal world if we had access to the atmos mastering tool as well we could make identical tracks from the same source materiel and position/movement data and have something to test between both systems.

 

[TheoN]

Thanks to DTS, I have the DTS demo disc that has a number of DTS:X tracks. I'm therefore not limited to the few Blu-rays only now hitting the shelves but not everyone else has the disc either.

The Denon user manual states what it assumes the angles of each height speaker will be and there's a range for that angle. For example, Front Height can range from 30 -45 degrees, Top Front (Front Atmos discrete) can be from 30 degrees to 55 degrees, etc. You get the picture.

I want to emphasize something here that I have seen many people miss. The Dolby Atmos installation spec gives you three different placement options for discrete height speakers. They can be placed at the 30 degree, 45 degree of 55 degree mark as specified on page 22 of the Dolby Atmos installation guide at: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf.

Therefore, and here's my point, discrete Dolby Atmos speakers fit right in line with the Front Height spec of the universal speaker layout outlined by Denon and now Marantz. In other words, if you've installed a textbook Dolby Atmos setup, you can still use the unified speaker layout and designate your Top Front discrete Dolby Atmos speakers as Front Height and still be right within the spec (assuming your top front speakers are within the 30 degree to 45 degree window specified).

Today I was shown a few posts that have been making comments about Dolby and DTS Denon, and Marantz, etc. but this very important point has been missed in the discussion. You can designate Dolby Atmos speakers at front height speakers and not mess anything up and not mess up how DTS:X's objects are rendered in space because it's still within spec.

If I'm missing something here, I'd appreciate if someone could point it out.

 

[swest]

Seeing the quality of the posts already made to this thread leaves me a little hesitant to post. Unfortunately, however, I didn't find the answer to my soon-to-be-asked question, so I guess I will have to bring down the level of the discussion...

Recently I upgrade/updated the entire audio portion of my HT, and so I now have a 7.2.4 setup where the 4 surrounds, and 4 Atmos (front height x 2, rear height x 2) are identical loudspeakers.

This has performed quite well with both Atmos/non-Atmos source material.

Given what I thought was the point of DTS-X (i.e., the notion of object-oriented audio format), and the promise that DTS-X would co-opt an existing Atmos layout, I am confused at the apparent lack of a calibration step for the implementation of DTS-X in a given system.

Could someone explain why there is, apparently, no need to calibrate the existing speaker layout for use by DTS-X?

Thanks.

- s.west

 

[TheoN]

@swest in my situation I re-ran an Audyssey calibration post firmware update. I've done this multiple times regardless because I have been calibrating for discrete Atmos and Auro-3D layouts then saving them for reload.

That being said, in a sense there is nothing radically new here (someone please correct me) DTS:X is an object oriented tech but still sits on top of an existing layout. All those layouts have always had recommended speaker angles, etc.

All you are doing with DTS:X is selecting a layout and DTS:X does the calculation. There is no additional measurements that are taking place. The DTS:X system doesn't automatically recognize where your speakers are and calculate angles if that's what you're asking.

Why what you're seeing here in terms of implementation is what are the layouts that the manufacturer supports with any given AVR. What you're seeing here in terms of implementation is that DTS:X will sit on top of the layouts that a manufacturer provides.

 

[Latent]

Thanks to DTS, I have the DTS demo disc that has a number of DTS:X tracks. I'm therefore not limited to the few Blu-rays only now hitting the shelves but not everyone else has the disc either.

The Denon user manual states what it assumes the angles of each height speaker will be and there's a range for that angle. For example, Front Height can range from 30 -45 degrees, Top Front (Front Atmos discrete) can be from 30 degrees to 55 degrees, etc. You get the picture.

I want to emphasize something here that I have seen many people miss. The Dolby Atmos installation spec gives you three different placement options for discrete height speakers. They can be placed at the 30 degree, 45 degree of 55 degree mark as specified on page 22 of the Dolby Atmos installation guide at: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf.

Therefore, and here's my point, discrete Dolby Atmos speakers fit right in line with the Front Height spec of the universal speaker layout outlined by Denon and now Marantz. In other words, if you've installed a textbook Dolby Atmos setup, you can still use the unified speaker layout and designate your Top Front discrete Dolby Atmos speakers as Front Height and still be right within the spec (assuming your top front speakers are within the 30 degree to 45 degree window specified).

Today I was shown a few posts that have been making comments about Dolby and DTS Denon, and Marantz, etc. but this very important point has been missed in the discussion. You can designate Dolby Atmos speakers at front height speakers and not mess anything up and not mess up how DTS:X's objects are rendered in space because it's still within spec.

If I'm missing something here, I'd appreciate if someone could point it out.

My take from reading the dolby atmos home theater install guidlines and the denon manual is as follows:

If you wanted to listen to all three audio formats auro-3D/Atmos/DTS:X and you want to minimize speakers or cable swapping then your best bet is to go with 5-7 ear level speakers and FH/RH (Front Height/Rear Height. You may also need to VOG surround top speaker just for Auro-3D though.

If you only want to listen to Atmos/DTS:X then you have three supported options which have the 5-7 ear level speakers and then three options for heights (FH/RH or TF/TR (Top Front/Top Rear) or 4 Atmos enabled speakers)

When choosing one of the three layouts the AVR will actually output different sound depending on where it thinks the speaker has been placed (which is why you set the speaker type in the AVR to one of the three options above). Each of the three setting has a range of positions the speakers can be placed at and still be within spec but it may have better sound panning the closer it is to the middle of the stated angle range. Their is no option to adjust for the real world angle the speaker is actually in and only the distance to listener and which speaker type is set.

From the Dolby guidelines the recommended layout is TF/TR with Atmos enabled speakers as an alternative option. But if you read down to page 33-35 you will find an alternative optional speaker locations for FH/RH and their specs. So I think from this you can choose to have these as your heights instead and not use the 'Recommended' TF/TR speakers (but if your AVR supported it you could have both if you wanted even though they are quite close to each other). You can also mix and match and have Top Front and Rear Height combos in theory as well. DTS:X talked about scaling any speaker combination to fit the source but I think Atmos can probably do the same thing in effect anyway as it will handle different speaker layouts.

FH/RH specs are for speakers placed directly above the Front left and right speakers at 30 degrees left and right and at a 30-45 degree angle vertically. With the Rears in the same line as Front speakers and angled back between 135-150 degrees. They can also be mounted on the ceiling instead of the wall as long as they are no more than 16th of the length of the room from the front/rear walls. These speakers normally point forward/backwards but may be angled down a bit.

TF/TH specs are for speakers in/on the ceiling that are in the same line as the front speakers as above but angled between 30-55 degrees and 125-150 degrees. These speakers are not restricted to be on or close to the front/rear walls. There is A LOT of overlap between these two specs!!! The distance your listening position is from the front and rear wall may dictate which layout is closest for your room. These speakers also often point down but they may be angled to point direct at listening position I assume. Speakers pointing more horizontal may be better as FH/RH and those pointing more downward may be better as TF/TH but I don't know how important this is.

Atmos enabled speakers have no real angle specs and not so easy to know exactly where to place them. They may not get the same precision when panning sounds but may get more diffusion which may sound better or worse depending on source.

So there is my long summary and as it relates to your point you highlighted in bold Theo, if you have a text book Dolby Atmos setup with ceiling mounted speakers but use them as FH/RH then you might be in the 30-45 angle but they may not be pointing in the right direction (but does this even matter??) and they may be too far away from the front/rear wall to meat the 16th of room length distance from the wall spec.

 

[TheoN]

My take from reading the dolby atmos home theater install guidlines and the denon manual is as follows:

If you wanted to listen to all three audio formats auro-3D/Atmos/DTS:X and you want to minimize speakers or cable swapping then your best bet is to go with 5-7 ear level speakers and FH/RH (Front Height/Rear Height. You may also need to VOG surround top speaker just for Auro-3D though.

If you only want to listen to Atmos/DTS:X then you have three supported options which have the 5-7 ear level speakers and then three options for heights (FH/RH or TF/TR (Top Front/Top Rear) or 4 Atmos enabled speakers)

When choosing one of the three layouts the AVR will actually output different sound depending on where it thinks the speaker has been placed (which is why you set the speaker type in the AVR to one of the three options above). Each of the three setting has a range of positions the speakers can be placed at and still be within spec but it may have better sound panning the closer it is to the middle of the stated angle range. Their is no option to adjust for the real world angle the speaker is actually in and only the distance to listener and which speaker type is set.

From the Dolby guidelines the recommended layout is TF/TR with Atmos enabled speakers as an alternative option. But if you read down to page 33-35 you will find an alternative optional speaker locations for FH/RH and their specs. So I think from this you can choose to have these as your heights instead and not use the 'Recommended' TF/TR speakers (but if your AVR supported it you could have both if you wanted even though they are quite close to each other). You can also mix and match and have Top Front and Rear Height combos in theory as well. DTS:X talked about scaling any speaker combination to fit the source but I think Atmos can probably do the same thing in effect anyway as it will handle different speaker layouts.

FH/RH specs are for speakers placed directly above the Front left and right speakers at 30 degrees left and right and at a 30-45 degree angle vertically. With the Rears in the same line as Front speakers and angled back between 135-150 degrees. They can also be mounted on the ceiling instead of the wall as long as they are no more than 16th of the length of the room from the front/rear walls. These speakers normally point forward/backwards but may be angled down a bit.

TF/TH specs are for speakers in/on the ceiling that are in the same line as the front speakers as above but angled between 30-55 degrees and 125-150 degrees. These speakers are not restricted to be on or close to the front/rear walls. There is A LOT of overlap between these two specs!!! The distance your listening position is from the front and rear wall may dictate which layout is closest for your room. These speakers also often point down but they may be angled to point direct at listening position I assume. Speakers pointing more horizontal may be better as FH/RH and those pointing more downward may be better as TF/TH but I don't know how important this is.

Atmos enabled speakers have no real angle specs and not so easy to know exactly where to place them. They may not get the same precision when panning sounds but may get more diffusion which may sound better or worse depending on source.

So there is my long summary and as it relates to your point you highlighted in bold Theo, if you have a text book Dolby Atmos setup with ceiling mounted speakers but use them as FH/RH then you might be in the 30-45 angle but they may not be pointing in the right direction (but does this even matter??) and they may be too far away from the front/rear wall to meat the 16th of room length distance from the wall spec.

@Latent if there was an awesome badge for the day, you'd get it . Nice.

 

[Vegas Aodio Guy]

Hi Guys great DTS:X article on the Denon AVR-X7200WA Receiver I was just wondering if the same goes for the Denon AVR-X6200W I know it’s the little brother and less watts per channel but is everything else about the same? I have in wall front speakers and in celling rear speakers and just ordered a match set for high middle to get 7.1 or 5.1.2 do you think that will give me the sound I’m looking for? Also How about a review on the AVR-X6200W. Thank You

 

[hatoraid]

Are you sure DTS Neural:X cannot be applied to Dolby Tracks and vice versa? I have a Pioneer Elite SC-95 and I use Dolby Surround upmixer on both legacy Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master every single day. Works fine. Maybe this is a limitation of Denon?

 

[Latent]

I think the situation is some units will apply the DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) fine to DTS sources and some of the newer ones won't. And some may also get changed when the DTS:X firmware is installed to remove the ability to do this so you have to use the DTS Neural:X instead. There is no technical reason it doesn't work just a design choice by the AVR designer.

As to what Denon the situation is all 2014 atmos enabled units can use DSU on DTS and then the 2015 models don't support it. The AVR-x7200WA may be an exception as it is a little older and it may support DSU on DTS but this is then disabled after the latest firmware is installed.

 

[Scott M]

As I understand the issue, it has to do with the DSP processing necessary to decode the streams. In the older Atmos Only units (2014 models) the DTS MA decoding was still active when the Dolby DSU was on board the DSP chip. As DTS worked out the code to make DTS-X work and the new Neural X upmixer, the code piled on top of the DTS MA decoding, and seems to have taken up too much of the DSP resources, so the Dolby code does not run at the same time. So when the x7200 got the upgrade, it lost the ability to run DSU while decoding DTS MA, or any DTS stream for that matter. As for the 2015 models, I can only assume, they (Denon) felt it was better to not take away a feature, so they had the use of the "other brand" up mixer blocked when they shipped, even without the DTS-code installed. Think of this as having a PC with only so much memory and such. You can load and run "Fall Out 4", or you can load and run "Far Cry 4". But you couldn't load them both and use the characters from one in the other game. Both Dolby Atmos and DTS-X are integral to the codec with more DSP needed to process the stream to render the spatial audio. Dolby True HD and DTS-MA before were just packing the data more efficiently, but not really processing and changing it, so they did not need near as much resources. With Just Dolby Atmos on board the 2014 models, there was obviously still room to run the DTS MA codec to extract the packed audio to PCM where the Dolby DSU could up mix it. This seems to no longer be the case when the DTS-MA codec also has the DTS-X processing on top of it looking for it's spacial audio meta data.

Before Dolby Atmos and DTS-X, the codec just turned the stream back into 5.1 or 7.1 PCM data, any up-mixing from the 5.1 or 7.1 source was a separate task. Decoding the spatial audio streams of these new formats out to 11.1 audio feeds takes much more power and the data is all integral to the encoded stream and the codec that is carrying it.

Only time will tell if more powerful DSP's or better coding will restore this functionality in either a new firmware update or a newer model.

There is a work around. If you really want to use Dolby DSU on a DTS track, or DTS Neural-X on a Dolby track, you can change your Blu Ray player to output the audio in PCM mode and either up mixer will be able to work on the pre-decoded PCM audio data.

 

[Mark Quinteros]

New to the forum but longtime fan of the site. hello!

I would also be curious to (like Vegas Aodio Guy) if the AVR-X6200W will support the speaker layout options like its big brother (AVR-X7200WA) - can anyone confirm?

Also I'm new to the 2 channel stereo amplifier thingy (want to get the x7200 or x6200 and run 7.1.4) is there any criteria I could use to pick the right one?

 

[Latent]

the 6200 has all the same speaker layout options and is very similar to the 7200. For the extra money you get better AL32 DSPs (vs AL24), an MHL hdmi port, component out for zone3, 7.1 external input, better remote, extra USB on the back, A little bit more power, L/R amps are split, and custom free amp assign to give you more options to reuse amp channels when some channels are externally powered.

When picking the external power amp you really only need to pick a good brand with the right amount of power you need. You have two basic options to get this extra 2 channels you need. Assign them to your Fl/FR main speakers and get a power amp that is more than capable of driving these speakers to their best (150-250Watts) and you reduce the load on the AVR from driving these main channels leaving more power for the surround channels. Or you get a lower power unit capable of driving say your Rear Height channels which may only need 50-60Watts to drive them well (Depending on the speaker type, efficiency and crossover frequency used).

 

[Mark Quinteros]

the 6200 has all the same speaker layout options and is very similar to the 7200. For the extra money you get better AL32 DSPs (vs AL24), an MHL hdmi port, component out for zone3, 7.1 external input, better remote, extra USB on the back, A little bit more power, L/R amps are split, and custom free amp assign to give you more options to reuse amp channels when some channels are externally powered.

When picking the external power amp you really only need to pick a good brand with the right amount of power you need. You have two basic options to get this extra 2 channels you need. Assign them to your Fl/FR main speakers and get a power amp that is more than capable of driving these speakers to their best (150-250Watts) and you reduce the load on the AVR from driving these main channels leaving more power for the surround channels. Or you get a lower power unit capable of driving say your Rear Height channels which may only need 50-60Watts to drive them well (Depending on the speaker type, efficiency and crossover frequency used).

awesome info - thank you!

 

[Rob_In_Carolina]

I saw the Onkyo press release on the way they are integrating DTS-X and thought -- something is definitely wrong here. The page that really got me laughing is here: http://onkyo-dtsx.strikingly.com/.

Going through the features I though:
Object-Based Audio -- Interesting.
Backwards Compatible -- That's great, nice to keep the old content working and maybe sound better.
Flexible Home Theater Layouts -- Umm, OK, I guess, maybe...
Personalize it -- Nice again, but this has been there for a while.
---------- Then you get to ---------
Flexible: "Because DTS:X doesn't require any specific speaker layout, you can arrange your home theater system however you want." -- The laughter begins
Adapts to your setup: "Object audio enables optimized playback on any speaker layout, with any number of speakers from two to two hundred." -- The laughter has gotten to the point that my wife is wondering what joke I've just found.
Realism -- Still laughing too hard from the previous one to even care here.
Neural:X: "Neural:X is the latest upmixing and spatial remapping technology from DTS which provides a fully immersive output for all types of source content. You can enjoy an immersive audio experience with virtually any speaker layout." -- And now I have tears coming down my face, they've taken the cake.

I don't doubt that Onkyo has made something incredible here, but to claim that you're going to get amazing, theater quality sound and placement using: 3 random speakers, one you got from a yard sale, one is the center channel of a set that someone lost the others to and donated to a charity place and you bought and then third is a subwoofer which was supposed to be used with your computer? I don't buy that one....

I'll be interested to see how this will sound once I finally get a receiver with the DTS-X in it. I have the speakers to handle it (both from a quality and from a setup perspective), but most of the DSP rendered audio I've heard so far comes across as just that -- DSP rendered. They get really close, but not close enough. When I'm watching a TV show and end up hearing the crowd walking behind me more than the person speaking directly in front of me (and the speakers aren't out of tuning spec (e.g. the backs are turned significantly down from the fronts level wise) and if I listen to a DVD where I choose to just take the audio directly as given by the producer it's fine). The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are both good examples of where the encoding really shines on my system and, since I do have 11.2, I've heard the two movies which support it and they sound fine. It's just when the DSPs start getting involved, things don't always sound as I think they were planned to. Maybe that's just the receiver I'm using though and DTS:X on a different brand will really make the sound pop.

 

[Scott M]

I know exactly what you mean. If DTS spent half the time working on their code that they do writing up these crazy announcements, they just might have something to show.

So far, they have a sort of working 11.1 channel based codec, and a few mixes that push a lot into the heights. Their up-mixer puts a lot into the heights, to the point of getting distracting, or even annoying on some content. No content allows the "dialog level control" to work yet, and I doubt it ever will. And the flexible speaker layout is just plain missing. They did not add a single new speaker position option over what the AVR's had for Dolby Atmos. The ONLY thing new, is the ability to use the side heights that are part of Auro, if you already paid for that upgrade.

DTS has had a good run on Blu Ray, and they are using that position to say they are better. But let's get real for a minute. Before Atmos, Auro, and X. Almost all movie soundtracks were either 5.1 or 7.1 channel based with the same expected speaker layout. Dolby and DTS used a slightly different take on getting the PCM data to the home while using less bits. But in the end, the delivered audio, was the same lossless 24/48 PCM audio. There were a few 96K and even a 192K here and there, but the vast majority, was 48K. With DTS HD MA and Dolby True HD the end result of the same data going in is the same data coming back out. They offered a few differences in how they handle the older lossy codec version and in how dialog level and dynamic range control is applied, but in the end, what DTS won was they offered a slightly cheaper and easier to use mastering suite, so the studios jumped on it, in a big way.

With the advent of Dolby Atmos, things have certainly changed. Dolby worked long and hard with the studios to make sure the mixing process works well and does not get in the way of making a movie. It has been greatly accepted by the movie making community. I think the count is closing in fast on 400 titles mixed in Dolby Atmos, in under 4 years since "Brave" opened back in June 2012. DTS is having trouble getting studios to use their mixing system. Giving away the mixing tools for free has not seemed to help that too much either. Good luck finding a theatre setup to play DTS-X. I think they have under a dozen. The one I know of is only playing 13.1 channels. I was hoping to get a chance to hear "Allegiant" in DTS-X but it seems it got pushed out by "Batman vs Superman" a bit too quick. It seems any decent movie is being mixed in Dolby Atmos now. I can't think of any movie that is mixed in DTS-X that is not also going out in Dolby Atmos.

What am I missing???
From where I am looking, it seems DTS is grasping at straws after Dolby totally caught them off guard. DTS was hoping they could hold on to their lead in home BLu Ray, but that lead may start to slide now. There is a bit of a dip in the home versions of Atmos coming out, but hopefully, this will soon end and more of the 300+ Atmos titles will start to show up. I don't have any real information as to why they are so slow to come out, but there are a few speculations. From what I have been able to find out, you can take the Dolby Atmos Cinema mix, and create a home BLu Ray version directly from it, but... It seems that some aspects do not translate perfectly. The spacial relationship from a movie theater to a home theater is a bit different. For one example, at home, the left and right speakers usually sit outside of the screen, in a theater, they are behind the screen, a bit inside of the edges. So if a sound is panned with the image on screen, the sound moves too far at home. So the studios have to decide if they want to do a home theater version or not. The size of objects can also pose a problem. In a large theater, an object may be tagged to be 1/3 of the room, but at home, with just a single speaker on the side, a large object now covers the room, not a portion of it. There may be other things too. I heard some talk that a full on Atmos mix does not down mix too well to the 2.0 speakers built into a TV. And as much as we do not want to hear it, probably over 80% of BLu Ray audio is still being heard through TV speakers. So... Maybe Dolby did leave a small opening for DTS if they can make these things work a little better, but from what I have heard and read from others, they seem even further away than Dolby, by a long shot. As nice as it would be to have a completely automated way to translate the cinema mix to the home format, I do believe that a person with the creative control should make the decisions on any changes and not some math just making it "fit". But needing a skilled person, adds cost to the equation. But right now, the count is 39 Dolby Atmos disks to just 4 DTS-X disks. That is a pretty big margin. And from the reports, the DTS ones are just 11.1 channel based. Not really using objects at all. The only thing they are really doing is managing the down mix in the AVR to your speaker choices. Atmos is real objects, even if it is limited to something like 14 discrete ones right now, at least they can move and pan through the speakers on top of the 7.1 bed channels.

 

[Lobo]

@Cos if you have the chance, you should play around with Neural:Xahin. It's fantastic and a great intermediary step until more native content is out there.

HI Theo,

Just got a new AVR 4200w denon I use to have a pioneer VSX42 , this so i have DTS X ,$1400.
I will start saying Dolby atmos , I dont use 11 speakers dont have the room only for 7.1 setup,.

One day someone show me a cell app call Z+ , where you can use you normal headphones and try DTSX and it did sound very good the voice was so real like it was behind me, since then i waited for this format now I have it and is not as good , I tray my pc for games , blue ray the last witch hunter is DTSX and normal dts hd movies , but not the same is the app and for me expending $1400

Any tips.

Thank you.

 

[Philip Grundner]

I know this is an older article, but my AVR's dts:x upgrade was just released. Marantz SR5010. Your screen shot of the processing modes looks similar to time and I was wondering, is there a benefit to processing native DTS-HD MSTR from a blu-ray into DTS-HD + Neural:X? I have a 5.2 setup. Thanks.