|
Post by markc on Jun 30, 2020 13:41:08 GMT -5
A depressing afternoon as I went to a large AV store that is now open after COVID lockdown and managed to sneak a listen of the NAD T777-V3 (Admittedly a 7.1 AV receiver), and also a Yamaha Atmos pre-amp CX-A5200.
The demo room was setup with a 7.1.4 speaker layout for Atmos, but I insisted that I would not be installing more than 7.1 and so played with both setup as just 7.1.
The depressing news: On both processors, Neural:X does what you would expect for a 5.1 source in a 7.1 setup. There was almost no audible difference - i.e. the rear surrounds were now working with Neural:X upmixing 5.1 to 7.1 but you had to move your ear to them to confirm. This is normal. None of the volume drop you get with the Emotiva.
The guy insisted on going in to the Yamaha setup to activate the Atmos speakers to show me "how awesome it was" (Why they do this I have no idea - I was quite clear that I only wanted to listen to 7.1 (only because I sneakily wanted to see what Neural:X did on both the NAD and the Yamaha) but after I managed to get him to abandon the Atmos disc for my 5.1 DTS demo and the 5.1 DTS-HD MA upmixed to 7.1.4 was exactly that. Sound from the height speakers and rear speakers and no volume change. Neural:X upmixed and didn't materially change anything.
I am feeling a little guilty about wasting the salesmans time, but I have now managed to switch between Neural:X on/off/on on a Marantz, a NAD, a Yamaha and all is good with them (From an up-mixing point of view at least, which is all I wanted to test really!)
Then I come home home to my wonderful sounding XMC-2 - until I bitstream any DTS to it and let it's implementation of Neural:X trash the sound requiring user input to either increase the volume (and I'm not 100% sure this completely sorts it out) or to forgo upmixing and listen in "Surround" mode with unnecessarily silent rear and ceiling speakers that I would rather have extracted audio sent to.
For me, this is definitive and confirms my first impression. We have something wrong with the way Neural:X is called into use with our Emotiva's. No multimeter is needed to measure or prove. Just an ear. And a finger to deactivate Neural:X when it gets activated, until Emotiva fix whatever is causing the problem.
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Jun 30, 2020 13:46:15 GMT -5
We are suffering a marked room volume decrease, that's with all speakers. Our issue is not because the heights speakers are increasing in volume and the lower bed speakers getting a compensatory decrease. If is more a case of sucking the sound out the room. Again: A 6db decrease in volume is 50% of the signal voltage arriving at the speakers. Hardly trivial. Its notable with the options in the poll that people could interpret things separately ; saying yes to the 6db reduction but not perceiving any muddiness . The 8 votes saying yes is at odds with the number [including yourself];which are experiencing issues with the bed channel only configuration . This is the bane of any complicated poll .I get the impression also that bass management crossover settings are another variable that should be factored for. I hope this is settled with the next firmware one way or the other ;thinking you know if we had THX adaptive correlation this would affect the time and phase of a stereo pair of surrounds ; the sound field wouldnt collapse if you were off axis and you would have a more spacious sound Its good to note that Lonnie will 1 day reverse the dolby cross mixing rules ;with only 2 upmixers there is plenty of scope for say PL2X again or even the shelved emo dsp mode.Its niggles like this that makes you wait for dirac before buying Note that I have volume difference even with Surround mode, depending on what speakers are chosen. The same 6dB difference. Only with DTS. Have tested with Dolby Digital and it does not have any difference in volume whatever speakers I choose or between Surround and Dolby Surround modes. I did send an email to Emotiva about this.
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Jun 30, 2020 14:12:35 GMT -5
A depressing afternoon as I went to a large AV store that is now open after COVID lockdown and managed to sneak a listen of the NAD T777-V3 (Admittedly a 7.1 AV receiver), and also a Yamaha Atmos pre-amp CX-A5200. The demo room was setup with a 7.1.4 speaker layout for Atmos, but I insisted that I would not be installing more than 7.1 and so played with both setup as just 7.1. The depressing news: On both processors, Neural:X does what you would expect for a 5.1 source in a 7.1 setup. There was almost no audible difference - i.e. the rear surrounds were now working with Neural:X upmixing 5.1 to 7.1 but you had to move your ear to them to confirm. This is normal. None of the volume drop you get with the Emotiva. The guy insisted on going in to the Yamaha setup to activate the Atmos speakers to show me "how awesome it was" (Why they do this I have no idea - I was quite clear that I only wanted to listen to 7.1 (only because I sneakily wanted to see what Neural:X did on both the NAD and the Yamaha) but after I managed to get him to abandon the Atmos disc for my 5.1 DTS demo and the 5.1 DTS-HD MA upmixed to 7.1.4 was exactly that. Sound from the height speakers and rear speakers and no volume change. Neural:X upmixed and didn't materially change anything. I am feeling a little guilty about wasting the salesmans time, but I have now managed to switch between Neural:X on/off/on on a Marantz, a NAD, a Yamaha and all is good with them (From an up-mixing point of view at least, which is all I wanted to test really!) Then I come home home to my wonderful sounding XMC-2 - until I bitstream any DTS to it and let it's implementation of Neural:X trash the sound requiring user input to either increase the volume (and I'm not 100% sure this completely sorts it out) or to forgo upmixing and listen in "Surround" mode with unnecessarily silent rear and ceiling speakers that I would rather have extracted audio sent to. For me, this is definitive and confirms my first impression. We have something wrong with the way Neural:X is called into use with our Emotiva's. No multimeter is needed to measure or prove. Just an ear. And a finger to deactivate Neural:X when it gets activated, until Emotiva fix whatever is causing the problem. I agree I have the same experience when I have listen to my friends Marantz, Denon and Yamaha. Do you have a difference when you use Surround mode with DTS when engaging height speakers like I wrote in my earlier posts?
|
|
|
Post by dwander on Jun 30, 2020 19:11:12 GMT -5
A depressing afternoon as I went to a large AV store that is now open after COVID lockdown and managed to sneak a listen of the NAD T777-V3 (Admittedly a 7.1 AV receiver), and also a Yamaha Atmos pre-amp CX-A5200. The demo room was setup with a 7.1.4 speaker layout for Atmos, but I insisted that I would not be installing more than 7.1 and so played with both setup as just 7.1. The depressing news: On both processors, Neural:X does what you would expect for a 5.1 source in a 7.1 setup. There was almost no audible difference - i.e. the rear surrounds were now working with Neural:X upmixing 5.1 to 7.1 but you had to move your ear to them to confirm. This is normal. None of the volume drop you get with the Emotiva. The guy insisted on going in to the Yamaha setup to activate the Atmos speakers to show me "how awesome it was" (Why they do this I have no idea - I was quite clear that I only wanted to listen to 7.1 (only because I sneakily wanted to see what Neural:X did on both the NAD and the Yamaha) but after I managed to get him to abandon the Atmos disc for my 5.1 DTS demo and the 5.1 DTS-HD MA upmixed to 7.1.4 was exactly that. Sound from the height speakers and rear speakers and no volume change. Neural:X upmixed and didn't materially change anything. I am feeling a little guilty about wasting the salesmans time, but I have now managed to switch between Neural:X on/off/on on a Marantz, a NAD, a Yamaha and all is good with them (From an up-mixing point of view at least, which is all I wanted to test really!) Then I come home home to my wonderful sounding XMC-2 - until I bitstream any DTS to it and let it's implementation of Neural:X trash the sound requiring user input to either increase the volume (and I'm not 100% sure this completely sorts it out) or to forgo upmixing and listen in "Surround" mode with unnecessarily silent rear and ceiling speakers that I would rather have extracted audio sent to. For me, this is definitive and confirms my first impression. We have something wrong with the way Neural:X is called into use with our Emotiva's. No multimeter is needed to measure or prove. Just an ear. And a finger to deactivate Neural:X when it gets activated, until Emotiva fix whatever is causing the problem. Absolutely
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Jul 1, 2020 6:02:28 GMT -5
I just got a email from Lonnie where he said the lower volume of DTS is to allow for higher dynamic headroom. It was a little unclear if he meant Neural:X or DTS. I did follow up questions among them why other manufacturers don’t have this difference with Neural:X. Also mentioned that some notice unclear/muddy sound and different volume from upmixed channels compared to the native channels..
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Jul 1, 2020 7:49:39 GMT -5
I just got a email from Lonnie where he said the lower volume of DTS is to allow for higher dynamic headroom. It was a little unclear if he meant Neural:X or DTS. I did follow up questions among them why other manufacturers don’t have this difference with Neural:X. Also mentioned that some notice unclear/muddy sound and different volume from upmixed channels compared to the native channels.. The avoidance is disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by steelman1991 on Jul 1, 2020 11:01:25 GMT -5
Oh I don’t know - the fact that there even willing to comment (though not publicly) is surely a step in the right direction for you guys hsamwel - you happy to reproduce the reply here?
|
|
|
Post by steelman1991 on Jul 1, 2020 11:03:49 GMT -5
I currently have an AV8805 and RMC-1 in my theatre. Happy to conduct tests for you guys that you feel might show the perceived differences and be quantifiable.
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Jul 1, 2020 11:11:36 GMT -5
Oh I don’t know - the fact that there even willing to comment (though not publicly) is surely a step in the right direction for you guys hsamwel - you happy to reproduce the reply here? Many times you get the "hey.. Don't tell anyone" request. There are times you just know things, but unfortunately you have to keep quiet.
|
|
|
Post by markc on Jul 1, 2020 23:50:33 GMT -5
I just got a email from Lonnie where he said the lower volume of DTS is to allow for higher dynamic headroom. It was a little unclear if he meant Neural:X or DTS. I did follow up questions among them why other manufacturers don’t have this difference with Neural:X. Also mentioned that some notice unclear/muddy sound and different volume from upmixed channels compared to the native channels.. This doesn't cut it for me. 5.1 to 7.1 upmixing: The audio is being split across four speakers instead of two, so no extra headroom necessary
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Jul 2, 2020 6:22:15 GMT -5
This doesn't cut it for me. 5.1 to 7.1 upmixing: The audio is being split across four speakers instead of two, so no extra headroom necessary Ide put money on Lonnie just referring to the dts codec ; not upmixing for the reason you say mark . Audioholics like to equate it to the amount of compression used [dd 448mbps being more compressed than dts 1.5mbps ] . One reason dts always was perceived to be better for the lossy codecs [ and prompted dolby to join with meridian to use mlp for dvd-a ] Comments under #5 and #6 in the pros and cons in the comparison chart further down here - www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-digital-vs-dts-a-guide-to-the-strengths-of-the-formats
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Jul 2, 2020 6:24:24 GMT -5
This doesn't cut it for me. 5.1 to 7.1 upmixing: The audio is being split across four speakers instead of two, so no extra headroom necessary Ide put money on Lonnie just referring to the dts codec ; not upmixing for the reason you say mark . Audioholics like to equate it to the amount of compression used [dd 448mbps being more compressed than dts 1.5mbps ] . One reason dts always was perceived to be better for the lossy codecs [ and prompted dolby to join with meridian to use mlp for dvd-a ] Comments under #5 and #6 in the pros and cons in the comparison chart further down here - www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-digital-vs-dts-a-guide-to-the-strengths-of-the-formatsIt's just kicking the can down the road is all.
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Jul 2, 2020 6:38:02 GMT -5
It's just kicking the can down the road is all. Thats 1 possibility but we arent privy to exactly what was said and what was conveyed . I have never liked to second guess people in these circumstances YMMV
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Jul 4, 2020 10:07:25 GMT -5
I just got a email from Lonnie where he said the lower volume of DTS is to allow for higher dynamic headroom. It was a little unclear if he meant Neural:X or DTS. I did follow up questions among them why other manufacturers don’t have this difference with Neural:X. Also mentioned that some notice unclear/muddy sound and different volume from upmixed channels compared to the native channels.. This doesn't cut it for me. 5.1 to 7.1 upmixing: The audio is being split across four speakers instead of two, so no extra headroom necessary When I read his answer again, I do think he means DTS and not Neural:X. However, my question in the email about lower volume was NOT about DTS, I clearly asked about Neural:X. I even put Neural:X in the email title. It almost seems like he igonored every question about Neural:X in context to volume and/or muddiness. I did get answers about missing speakers in different modes, they will look into this. I also got a follow-up answer fom Damon where he acknowledged my issues with lower volume and possible muddiness with Neural:X. Hope this means they atleast will do tests with these issues.
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Jul 4, 2020 11:40:30 GMT -5
I just got a email from Lonnie where he said the lower volume of DTS is to allow for higher dynamic headroom. It was a little unclear if he meant Neural:X or DTS. I did follow up questions among them why other manufacturers don’t have this difference with Neural:X. Also mentioned that some notice unclear/muddy sound and different volume from upmixed channels compared to the native channels.. This doesn't cut it for me. 5.1 to 7.1 upmixing: The audio is being split across four speakers instead of two, so no extra headroom necessary I have asked about this before. DTS ES 5.1 matrix and Dolby Digital EX does not work as expected. Emotiva told me to use Neural:X and Dolby Surround if I wanted upmixing. I tried to tell them that DD EX and DTS ES matrix is not upmixing in the same way. They are supposed to be matrixed to surround back speakers without change to the front speakers as authors intent. Surround mode should handle this, as well as Direct mode IMO. But they are not interested in supporting this. DTS 96/24 doesn’t work either.. DTS ES 6.1 Discreete does work though.. Edit: DTS 96/24 does work in firmware 2.0
|
|
|
Post by BigE on Aug 8, 2020 20:52:05 GMT -5
This doesn't cut it for me. 5.1 to 7.1 upmixing: The audio is being split across four speakers instead of two, so no extra headroom necessary When I read his answer again, I do think he means DTS and not Neural:X. However, my question in the email about lower volume was NOT about DTS, I clearly asked about Neural:X. I even put Neural:X in the email title. It almost seems like he igonored every question about Neural:X in context to volume and/or muddiness. I did get answers about missing speakers in different modes, they will look into this. I also got a follow-up answer fom Damon where he acknowledged my issues with lower volume and possible muddiness with Neural:X. Hope this means they atleast will do tests with these issues. Had some time and wanted to do some testing on xmc-2 running v2.0 firmware. Source 1 xbox1S configured with sound as DTS in settings Test Disc is Eagles Farewell 1 Tour on DVD I missed a few items; nothing major. After creating a spreadsheet, I know what I could go back for, but clearly there's an issue. I also will rerun another day w/ripped Farewll tour playing thru Kodi to Xbox1S and again once I get my Zapitti. Will be interesting to see if it's streaming related or what, but clearly re-booting WAS a problem. I lost LR channels and got rear channels instead. I was excited the rears were playing until I realized I'd lost fronts.
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Aug 8, 2020 21:03:57 GMT -5
When I read his answer again, I do think he means DTS and not Neural:X. However, my question in the email about lower volume was NOT about DTS, I clearly asked about Neural:X. I even put Neural:X in the email title. It almost seems like he igonored every question about Neural:X in context to volume and/or muddiness. I did get answers about missing speakers in different modes, they will look into this. I also got a follow-up answer fom Damon where he acknowledged my issues with lower volume and possible muddiness with Neural:X. Hope this means they atleast will do tests with these issues. Had some time and wanted to do some testing on xmc-2 running v2.0 firmware. Source 1 xbox1S configured with sound as DTS in settings Test Disc is Eagles Farewell 1 Tour on DVD I missed a few items; nothing major. After creating a spreadsheet, I know what I could go back for, but clearly there's an issue. I also will rerun another day w/ripped Farewll tour playing thru Kodi to Xbox1S and again once I get my Zapitti. Will be interesting to see if it's streaming related or what, but clearly re-booting WAS a problem. I lost LR channels and got rear channels instead. I was excited the rears were playing until I realized I'd lost fronts. View Attachmentone day DTS issues will be acknowledged.
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Aug 9, 2020 7:28:55 GMT -5
Had some time and wanted to do some testing on xmc-2 running v2.0 firmware. Source 1 xbox1S configured with sound as DTS in settings Test Disc is Eagles Farewell 1 Tour on DVD I missed a few items; nothing major. After creating a spreadsheet, I know what I could go back for, but clearly there's an issue. I also will rerun another day w/ripped Farewll tour playing thru Kodi to Xbox1S and again once I get my Zapitti. Will be interesting to see if it's streaming related or what, but clearly re-booting WAS a problem. I lost LR channels and got rear channels instead. I was excited the rears were playing until I realized I'd lost fronts. one day DTS issues will be acknowledged. The problem is, WHEN will it get fixed? There are so many bugs and inconsistencies that that I would think the whole code is a huge mess. There can’t be these many bugs if they had control of the code. Otherwise the coders aren’t that good. It’s like they work on the same bugs with every update, fixing, adding new ones, readding old ones all the time. Getting nowhere! For example when people report a bug for HTP-1 it seems the coders find and fix it in some weeks.. Including beta testing. Not years of silence and ”ignoring some bugs” (it feels like). Also not adding new ones with every new firmware. I think ditching the whole code and doing a complete rewrite would be better. Even though taking alot of time. Finding these bugs and general usage seem to take up alot of coder time now.. Almost no new feature for two years. Why so slow when the UI is so simple? No graphics, no color only text.. The OS code can’t be optimized at all. Should be very optimized when coded for ONE platform/chipset. IMO
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Aug 9, 2020 7:32:58 GMT -5
When I read his answer again, I do think he means DTS and not Neural:X. However, my question in the email about lower volume was NOT about DTS, I clearly asked about Neural:X. I even put Neural:X in the email title. It almost seems like he igonored every question about Neural:X in context to volume and/or muddiness. I did get answers about missing speakers in different modes, they will look into this. I also got a follow-up answer fom Damon where he acknowledged my issues with lower volume and possible muddiness with Neural:X. Hope this means they atleast will do tests with these issues. Had some time and wanted to do some testing on xmc-2 running v2.0 firmware. Source 1 xbox1S configured with sound as DTS in settings Test Disc is Eagles Farewell 1 Tour on DVD I missed a few items; nothing major. After creating a spreadsheet, I know what I could go back for, but clearly there's an issue. I also will rerun another day w/ripped Farewll tour playing thru Kodi to Xbox1S and again once I get my Zapitti. Will be interesting to see if it's streaming related or what, but clearly re-booting WAS a problem. I lost LR channels and got rear channels instead. I was excited the rears were playing until I realized I'd lost fronts. I don’t understand your spreadsheet. Is the ”X” meaning that the speaker is active during the sound mode? Why then is your center not active in most sound modes with a 5.1 source?
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Aug 9, 2020 8:34:50 GMT -5
one day DTS issues will be acknowledged. The problem is, WHEN will it get fixed? There are so many bugs and inconsistencies that that I would think the whole code is a huge mess. There can’t be these many bugs if they had control of the code. Otherwise the coders aren’t that good. It’s like they work on the same bugs with every update, fixing, adding new ones, readding old ones all the time. Getting nowhere! For example when people report a bug for HTP-1 it seems the coders find and fix it in some weeks.. Including beta testing. Not years of silence and ”ignoring some bugs” (it feels like). Also not adding new ones with every new firmware. I think ditching the whole code and doing a complete rewrite would be better. Even though taking alot of time. Finding these bugs and general usage seem to take up alot of coder time now.. Almost no new feature for two years. Why so slow when the UI is so simple? No graphics, no color only text.. The OS code can’t be optimized at all. Should be very optimized when coded for ONE platform/chipset. IMO im with you. As I've said in the past, look backwards and forwards. You'll see the same trends. The market needs good competition.
|
|