V
Dts Virtual X is for older layouts with 5.1 or 7.1 systems to simulate overhead/height speakers in their absence. Dts Neural X is there for when they are present. Dolby AFAIK do not have this option as yet.
I've read the newest AVRs either have or are supposed to get Dolby's virtual speaker simulator. It's listed on the newest models from D&M, but I think it's listed as firmware update. It'd be kind of a shame for older models to have Virtual X but no Dolby version as it becomes available. It's like being sold half a car for people that use it.
I seem to recall Virtual X still having combination settings (e.g. Virtual X + Neural X versus Virtual X + DTS:X for the same movie) to control discrete X versus just a neural upmix into virtual speakers. It does have a multi-in + Virtual:X option, but when I tried it with a few Dolby 7.1 signals (set KODI to 7.1 multi-channel output), it didn't sound as good as with a DTS one for whatever reason. It could have been just that soundtrack or it could be Virtual X works better with DTS encoding by some technical nuance of which I'm unaware.
Both DSU and Neural X will make use of all the available speakers, however the results can vary between content.
DSU will not use front wides or any other "special" designated speakers to my knowledge. It is limited purely to the home version base 7 bed speakers + 2 overhead channels which are Left/Right overheads using a combined array of whatever overheads you use (i.e. whether 2 overheads or 10 overheads, you get them all playing either the left or right channel overhead channel). In other words, if you have a 34 channel Trinnov Atmos setup, you will still only get 7 bed channels + 2 overhead (using all 10 as an array of 2-channels) unless you engage Trinnov's compensation mode (forget its name offhand that simulates any setup using as many speakers as possible).
Neural X can technically use any available channels, BUT is currently limited to 11-channels plus subwoofer channel and prioritizes the more common channels over the less common (e.g. four overheads instead of two plus front wides). DTS:X Pro (if it ever gets released this year, which is half over already) is supposed to remove that limitation and allow something like a Trinnov to use ALL available channels with Neural X at the same time, turning a 7.1.4 DTS:X movie into up to 32.2. This will give DTS:X a HUGE advantage over Dolby Atmos, which despite all its 'object' claims is still limited to whatever the mix specifies from everything I've read. If the mix doesn't call for Lc/Rc, you don't get them even if an object is present there. It will just pan L/R instead. This was made clear on AVS by a Trinnov owner. He said the majority of home Atmos tracks don't specify Lc/Rc (which he uses between left and center and right and center) so they just sit there silent. He doesn't have a lot of the more unusual surround speakers available to Trinnov so who knows how many tracks will use them for objects?
My point is that Atmos was sold under the umbrella of objects are objects and so no matter how many Atmos speakers you add, the system will use them if an object comes near that speaker in the mix. They neglected to say they will work IF and only IF the film mixing guy includes those speakers in the mix from the start. That's a whole different ball game to Disney just locking objects in 7.1.4 by using locked objects as channels and mixing as if it were a channel system. I was surprised to read that. Why on EARTH would you NOT use the whole 34-speaker setup for every single movie and just move your sound objects where you want them and let the system determine which speakers play as the object moves? I thought that was the entire point of Atmos. So I was surprised to read that Lc/Rc are just silent on many movies for this guy. If an object moves between L/R it should pass through Lc/Rc as a matter of course.....
Again, I don't know if it's just those speakers that are uncommon in Atmos soundtracks or whether some of the side/rear speakers at bed level are also not used in some soundtracks other than Disney. IMO, they should ALL be used based on the object behavior a a matter of course and I do not know why Disney is allowed to lock objects for the sole purpose of defeating the object system and turning Atmos into an 11-channel limited channel system. I do no know why any film mixer (even if their home mixing Atmos studio doesn't have all 34 speakers) would leave any speakers out of a mix when it should be a matter of defining a path for an object in 3D space and letting the system decide which and how many speakers to use. Why limit it? Atmos downmixes to fewer channels just fine and that screws over the high-end Trinnov owners who actually have 34 speakers connected.
I've never read ANY reason WHY Disney uses those limited 7.1.4 print-through soundtracks (Dolby SadMouse) or why Dolby hasn't done something in their license to use Atmos to prevent it. It seems that the reason must be rather nefarious. Filmmixer at AVS said he found out the reason and was surprised at what it was (and specified it had
nothing to do with saving money on making a streaming mix that uses less data or whatever) and yet would not say what the actual reason was as he said that was privileged information that Disney does not want anyone to know, apparently. Well color me stupid. WTF gives Disney the right to screw their soundtracks and then not even answer for it or even let someone else state the reason?
I have no real respect for Disney anymore. They charge more because they CAN (whether amusement park tickets or content). I think Walt would be rolling over in his grave if he knew the sheer levels of GREED that Disney operates at these days. Many Americans cannot afford to go to their theme parks in our own country as it's over $100 per person per day unless you buy a ridiculous number of days per person (which gets the total up). For a family of 4 paying out $400 for ONE day plus food plus gas plus getting to one of only two parks in the country that are not near most other states (e.g. Florida is at an extreme Southern location and California at the extreme West) is out of reach for a family trying to make ends meet.
All EQ systems have their Pros and Cons, their advocates and their detractors. Some even avoid it completely. Personally I would be concerned if the older ARC EQ was significantly compressing the dynamics, as implied, this is not something I have seen reported before.
Yeah, that sounded strange to me too. I have gotten significantly different results from Audyssey just by changing the toe-in on the main speakers slightly (and who knows with so many mic readings what effect having the mic in a slightly different position for each mic could make, especially at higher frequencies that are extremely directional (i.e. I went from shrill sibilance to dead even just by doing it over again). I'm thinking he got a better result when he redid it. Nothing in their release suggests more dynamics.