|
|
Post by amplifieroverkill on Apr 21, 2015 11:41:21 GMT -5
yeah, I am with you guys now that I understand that DTS MA will be able to be played on XMC-1 even if newer sources only in DTS:X. That was my primary concern, and I just freaked out when I was told that DTS MA is going to be a dead format when DTS:X is implemented. DTS headphone X would be an awesome thing to implement though. Even still, it would be nice if the XMC-1 was upgraded someday to DTS:X. Now will DTS:X in 5.1 or 7.1 without height channels be able to offer anything over and above what standard DTS MA is capable of, I guess time will tell. I don't understand how you would get any more presence of space with the traditional 5.1 or 7.1 setups, but then again, I never thought a set of headphones would be able to give you the presence of space in the way DTS headphone X is claiming it achieved. I believe there is a demo on DTS website of the headphone X in action that can be used with any set of headphones or earbuds. A buddy of mine said he tried it with just a cheapo set of skull candys and he said it was incredible how convincing the surround field perception is. I haven't tried it yet, but will and form an opinion of my own. It just seams that everything I hear about this DTS:X is incredible, and I do hope Emotiva pushes for it in an XMC upgrade. I'd use it in a 5.2.2 configuration in lieu of 7.2 if the option became available. I have a pair of 8" emotiva ceiling speakers that I've never installed sitting in my closet for the past 2 years unopened. I was waiting for enough motivation to install them as the rear channels for 7.2, but never got around to it. From what I understand so far though, DTS:X in just standard 5.1 claims to have a more convincing presence of space than traditional DTS MA in 5.1. I don't understand how this could be achieved, and am not convinced it's true, but if it is... XMC would miss out without that upgrade. ATMOS might as well be forgotten in XMC, as it's hardware limited by number of channels and just not realistic. Aura 3D or whatever is just that, whatever. Never heard it before, probably never will, but everything DTS has always been awesome, and I'm a huge fan of DTS over its Dolby counterparts. Just hoping, wishing, dreaming... of a DTS:X enabled XMC. Its funny, I was reading the manual for my uninstalled XMC this morning right after my first post on this thread, and in the introduction section it says "and truly represents state-of-the-art in surround sound processors. The XMC-1 is based on an all new, custom designed hardware platform that delivers cutting edge video performance and true audiophile calibre sound quality. Powerful DSP processors decode the latest surround sound formats;....." Funny that I read that right after griping on here that it doesn't decode the latest formats... LOL, I know, I know, twas written before the release of these. I just want my cake people.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 21, 2015 11:57:57 GMT -5
Dolby Atmos is "an ecosystem" - of which the home Atmos discs and decoders are just a part. Atmos is very cool as a way of mastering "3D surround sound". Let's say that, as a sound engineer, you need to make the sound track that goes with an exploding fireball that zooms from front left to back right, over your head, expanding as it goes. Mastering that effect in Atmos will be lots easier than doing it the old way; and, because of the way the moving objects can be assigned to specific speakers in the theater, it will also almost certainly do a much better job of making sure that what people hear in the theater is just what you intended. Therefore, as a mastering and theatrical format, Atmos is indeed "a step forward". Also, because of how the format works, Atmos makes it easier to turn that "Atmos theatrical sound track" into an "Atmos home disc", and helps ensure that the conversion will be relatively painless. This means you get better sounding discs, with less work for everyone. (And, if you do have the full set of speakers, including height speakers, in your home theater, Atmos should also help you get something in your home theater that sounds pretty close to what you heard in the theater.) Unfortunately, in order to reproduce "height information" in a normal room sort of requires sound sources that are actually up high (ceiling speakers). This isn't a problem for theaters, but it's a bit of a sticking point for home users. And, since home users seem to have an irrational aversion to buying more speakers and installing them in their ceilings, the "bounce speakers" were devised as a compromise. Now, of course you'll be able to play your Atmos discs on an ordinary 5.1 channel system, and they'll work fine. Bear in mind that Dolby doesn't sell speakers; as long as Atmos is a success in theaters, and people can play those discs, Dolby doesn't care whether you use height speakers when you play the disc at home or not. The only reason that matters to "the Atmos ecosystem" is that Dolby is counting on every $129 AVR sold ten years from now including support for Atmos, so everybody will be able to play Atmos home discs - because being able to easily port Atmos over to home discs is one of the main selling points of the Atmos ecosystem... and we all know that eventually everyone will support Atmos anyway (they'll just add it to the already long list of Dolby and DTS formats they support). As I see the current "state of the industry", very few people have "embraced" the idea of installing ceiling speakers, and the "bounce speakers" only work reasonably well for some people, and I'm sure this fact will hinder acceptance (and sales) of Atmos hardware and speakers... which, in turn, will hinder consumer demand for Atmos discs. (How many people do you know who are waiting to buy their favorite movie on disc until it comes out in Atmos?) From the DTS press release, it would seem that, in response to this obvious "push back" against installing ceiling speakers, they have "adjusted" their claims to suggest that DTS-X will "give you a satisfying 3D experience" without installing those pesky height speakers at all. Since that claim doesn't include any actual facts, I guess we'll have to wait and see (and hear) how well they manage to back up that claim. (It certainly seems to me that their press release is positioning DTS-X as "the 3D sound system that you don't have to install extra speakers for".) Incidentally, someone else mentioned Auro 3D as "a competing system"; Auro is actually one of the systems on which DTS-X was based. (DTS-X is also claimed, like Auro, to be a "more open" system than Atmos... although I'm not sure what that will mean in real life yet.) Get the XMC now and enjoy it! Let the industry duke it out for a while (and it will be a long while) before, if ever, it makes sense to bring this format home. Look at how Dolby already shot themselves in the foot with those junk, improperly designed, "modules" meant to bounce stuff off the ceiling and compromise the audio quality of the mains that many of us spent years getting a hold of (the right ones). No real warning to unsuspecting consumers about the pitfalls of them, not the least of which is their ineffectiveness with unusually high ceilings. This is just something Dolby did as a "jump ahead of the competition" marketing strategy. Even at the theaters (if you can find one) it would be interesting to take a poll from exiting theatergoers to get the "Atmos" impression from them. Betcha most who went in not knowing about what was going on with the sound would have not a clue even what you were talking about. Don't get me started on the lack of source material.....the list is endless. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 21, 2015 12:08:21 GMT -5
Atmos discs are claimed to be "backwards compatible" with all standard 5.1 and 7.1 equipment. (Although there are claims that some new features included on some Atmos content discs may not work on older Blu-Ray players.) I'm sure you'll be seeing "Atmos" and "DTS-X" features for everything from headphones to iPhones eventually (remember that both count as "ecosystems", so you probably will be able to buy "an Atmos enabled phone" someday; ditto for DTS-X). From what I understand DTS-x is backwards compatible with DTS-MA,so unless your going to add height channels, you'll still have the same 5.1 or 7.1 playback capability. The one feature that I would like to see is DTS Headphone X. This is software based and allows an immersive experience through headphones. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 21, 2015 12:11:05 GMT -5
I really wouldn't worry.... Lowly Dolby Digital is still supported as a "core subset" by all modern TrueHD discs; ditto for older DTS formats. Note that your new Blu-Ray player can still play regular old DVDs and CDs. (Nobody is suicidal enough to start selling discs that 90% of their potential customers for the next ten years can't play  ) My concern with upgrades on the XMC-1 lies in DTS:X. DTS:X has just been introduced and facts are becoming clearer about the involvement of it in the future of cinema and home theater... ...So back to my actual concern, if films and bluerays adopt this DTS:x codec and DTS MA becomes the forgotten and obsolete codec that no newer movies will have anymore, then my XMC will sound awesome only for the older back catalog of movies. I do not share your concern, at least not for the next 5-10 years, maybe longer. I would not expect disc manufacturers to discontinue using DTS MA with all the disc players and processors out there that use it. While people in the hobby always want the latest and greatest, the vast majority of consumers only replace their gear as needed. To loose sales by releasing titles that only include DTS-X is not going to happen anytime soon. Your decision about returning your XMC-1 has to with how much you want the new technology and are willing to wait for the manufacturers to produce something you're going to like. An upgrade to the XMC-1 might be in the works or not, but if I wanted DTS-X, I would look for something that was designed with that in mind, not an upgrade of my current processor. |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Apr 21, 2015 12:14:20 GMT -5
Hmm like back to the future on compatibility. Marty will have fun. Universal play is so fun. What do you want to hear? Got you covered.
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by Lsc on Apr 21, 2015 16:32:58 GMT -5
Dolby Atmos at the theaters is unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Apr 21, 2015 16:40:35 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken...backwards compatible means. There is a 7.1 nest signal which is basically DTS-MA or dolby true HD. Then there is the extra atmos stuff which is present when you play atmos. The height stuff etc You will hear the nest signal but not necessarily the extra atmos objects if you don't have an atmos capable reciever. I may be wrong though....
Now if the processor was atmos capable, then it should be able to down mix the extra atmo0s stuff into whatever signal you had (even if it didn't have all the height channels). I think that's the key difference. A sort of grey area difference, but I believe you will be missing certain objects if you don't have atmos.
|
|
|
|
Post by scubadiver on Apr 21, 2015 16:54:35 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken...backwards compatible means. There is a 7.1 nest signal which is basically DTS-MA or dolby true HD. Then there is the extra atmos stuff which is present when you play atmos. The height stuff etc You will hear the nest signal but not necessarily the extra atmos objects if you don't have an atmos capable reciever. I may be wrong though.... Now if the processor was atmos capable, then it should be able to down mix the extra atmo0s stuff into whatever signal you had (even if it didn't have all the height channels). I think that's the key difference. A sort of grey area difference, but I believe you will be missing certain objects if you don't have atmos.
I believe you are correct.... The recent Blu-Ray release of "Unbroken" is a Dolby Atmos track. As a matter of habit, before I start any movie, I always go into the "settings" of the disk to make sure the best possible sound mix is selected. If I remember correctly, "Dolby Atmos" is the only option available - you do not have an option for Dolby Atmos and separate options for Dolby HD, Dolby Digital, etc.
The only non-Atmos tracks available were non-English tracks.
FYI - The Atmos track decoded as Dolby HD 7.1 on my UMC-200 flawlessly. |
|
|
|
Post by solarrdadd on Apr 21, 2015 17:06:41 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken...backwards compatible means. There is a 7.1 nest signal which is basically DTS-MA or dolby true HD. Then there is the extra atmos stuff which is present when you play atmos. The height stuff etc You will hear the nest signal but not necessarily the extra atmos objects if you don't have an atmos capable reciever. I may be wrong though.... Now if the processor was atmos capable, then it should be able to down mix the extra atmo0s stuff into whatever signal you had (even if it didn't have all the height channels). I think that's the key difference. A sort of grey area difference, but I believe you will be missing certain objects if you don't have atmos.
I believe you are correct.... The recent Blu-Ray release of "Unbroken" is a Dolby Atmos track. As a matter of habit, before I start any movie, I always go into the "settings" of the disk to make sure the best possible sound mix is selected. If I remember correctly, "Dolby Atmos" is the only option available - you do not have an option for Dolby Atmos and separate options for Dolby HD, Dolby Digital, etc.
The only non-Atmos tracks available were non-English tracks.
FYI - The Atmos track decoded as Dolby HD 7.1 on my UMC-200 flawlessly. Dolby TrueHD is the lossless core of Dolby ATMOS. it's done that way so that if you don't have a receiver/pre-amp that has ATMOS, but your receiver supports Dolby TrueHD, then it reverts to that. of course if you don't have a receiver/pre-amp that supports Dolby TrueHD then you can only get the lossy core of Dolby Digital. i have a 7.1 system and the ATMOS splash screen, despite my NOT having ATMOS sounds amazing when it's played! so even then, the lossless core of ATMOS sounds incredible. it almost sounds as if it's made to sound better than non ATMOS Dolby TrueHD discs, that's just my opinion of course. |
|
|
|
Post by knecht on Apr 21, 2015 18:11:39 GMT -5
The DTS Press Release states DTS:X content is backward compatible with the DTS-HD decoder. I agree it would be good to know if it could be added to the XMC-1. Interesting is the Marantz 7702 won't be getting it but the 8802 will via a firmware update.
|
|
|
|
Post by scubadiver on Apr 21, 2015 18:35:38 GMT -5
The DTS Press Release states DTS:X content is backward compatible with the DTS-HD decoder. I agree it would be good to know if it could be added to the XMC-1. Interesting is the Marantz 7702 won't be getting it but the 8802 will via a firmware update. If I were to bet, my guess is if it was possible to upgrade the XMC-1 via firmware to support it or any other new sound format, it wouldn't/couldn't be free as I believe Emotiva would have to purchase the licensing from Dolby Labs, etc. Again, I'm guessing again, but I'd imagine the business/licensing relationship Denon-Marantz has with Dolby and DTS is significantly different than the licensing relationship Emotiva has with those companies - being that DM is a much larger consumer of those licenses. They might have perpetual licensing allowing them roll out formats to any product at-will where Emotiva might have to ante up licensing fees on a per-product basis. Which is why the 8802 could be upgraded post-consumer purchase. |
|
|
|
Post by solarrdadd on Apr 21, 2015 19:16:17 GMT -5
The DTS Press Release states DTS:X content is backward compatible with the DTS-HD decoder. I agree it would be good to know if it could be added to the XMC-1. Interesting is the Marantz 7702 won't be getting it but the 8802 will via a firmware update. If I were to bet, my guess is if it was possible to upgrade the XMC-1 via firmware to support it or any other new sound format, it wouldn't/couldn't be free as I believe Emotiva would have to purchase the licensing from Dolby Labs, etc. Again, I'm guessing again, but I'd imagine the business/licensing relationship Denon-Marantz has with Dolby and DTS is significantly different than the licensing relationship Emotiva has with those companies - being that DM is a much larger consumer of those licenses. They might have perpetual licensing allowing them roll out formats to any product at-will where Emotiva might have to ante up licensing fees on a per-product basis. Which is why the 8802 could be upgraded post-consumer purchase. i agree. of course, the 7702 may not have the necessary hardware to be able to take advantage of the firmwares software requirements, whatever they may be. i suspect the 8802 would be because of when it was made and that this was built into it with whatever DTS needed before it was released. of course, who knows, until they pony up the actual reasons why the 8802 can but the 7702 can't. |
|
jw
Minor Hero
Posts: 52
|
Post by jw on Apr 22, 2015 12:16:04 GMT -5
I think that dts x might have some real benefits to improve the sound quality of this great preamp even more. I just hope they look into as a upgrade path to this.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Apr 22, 2015 14:45:03 GMT -5
Unfortunately, in order to reproduce "height information" in a normal room sort of requires sound sources that are actually up high (ceiling speakers). This isn't a problem for theaters, but it's a bit of a sticking point for home users. And, since home users seem to have an irrational aversion to buying more speakers and installing them in their ceilings, the "bounce speakers" were devised as a compromise. ... From the DTS press release, it would seem that, in response to this obvious "push back" against installing ceiling speakers, they have "adjusted" their claims to suggest that DTS-X will "give you a satisfying 3D experience" without installing those pesky height speakers at all. Since that claim doesn't include any actual facts, I guess we'll have to wait and see (and hear) how well they manage to back up that claim. (It certainly seems to me that their press release is positioning DTS-X as "the 3D sound system that you don't have to install extra speakers for".) +1 Someone over at AVS quoted DTS's claim that "We moved the sound so you don't have to move speakers". To me, that is 100% marketing BS. Someone said this was meant in a way that if a sound would come from a point where no speaker was present, that sound would be reproduced from nearby speakers, because DTS:X would know where all the speakers are. Again, as you said, it's pointless if you don't have height speakers. The minimal set for any 3D sound reproduction should be 5.1.4 (well, maybe 5.1.3 would work although Atmos doesn't support it). To me, 9.1.6 is the point after which the law of diminishing returns strikes, in a family setting anyway. So I am very pleased the XMR-1 is promised with 16 channels. 12 channels seems a cool figure for the XMC-1 successor. BTW, my XMC-1 arrived today. Got no further than changing the power cord plug to Belgian spec since the better half is watching TV now, but I will connect it as soon as she's done. Sweet UMC-1 can rest for a few months until the HT is ready for the XMC-1. BTW, she says I spend to much money on gear... Mmm, better not mention the price tag of the XMR-1 then!  |
|
|
|
Post by viper6 on Apr 22, 2015 19:14:42 GMT -5
Dolby Atmos is "an ecosystem" - of which the home Atmos discs and decoders are just a part. Atmos is very cool as a way of mastering "3D surround sound". Let's say that, as a sound engineer, you need to make the sound track that goes with an exploding fireball that zooms from front left to back right, over your head, expanding as it goes. Mastering that effect in Atmos will be lots easier than doing it the old way; and, because of the way the moving objects can be assigned to specific speakers in the theater, it will also almost certainly do a much better job of making sure that what people hear in the theater is just what you intended. Therefore, as a mastering and theatrical format, Atmos is indeed "a step forward". Also, because of how the format works, Atmos makes it easier to turn that "Atmos theatrical sound track" into an "Atmos home disc", and helps ensure that the conversion will be relatively painless. This means you get better sounding discs, with less work for everyone. (And, if you do have the full set of speakers, including height speakers, in your home theater, Atmos should also help you get something in your home theater that sounds pretty close to what you heard in the theater.) Unfortunately, in order to reproduce "height information" in a normal room sort of requires sound sources that are actually up high (ceiling speakers). This isn't a problem for theaters, but it's a bit of a sticking point for home users. And, since home users seem to have an irrational aversion to buying more speakers and installing them in their ceilings, the "bounce speakers" were devised as a compromise. Now, of course you'll be able to play your Atmos discs on an ordinary 5.1 channel system, and they'll work fine. Bear in mind that Dolby doesn't sell speakers; as long as Atmos is a success in theaters, and people can play those discs, Dolby doesn't care whether you use height speakers when you play the disc at home or not. The only reason that matters to "the Atmos ecosystem" is that Dolby is counting on every $129 AVR sold ten years from now including support for Atmos, so everybody will be able to play Atmos home discs - because being able to easily port Atmos over to home discs is one of the main selling points of the Atmos ecosystem... and we all know that eventually everyone will support Atmos anyway (they'll just add it to the already long list of Dolby and DTS formats they support). As I see the current "state of the industry", very few people have "embraced" the idea of installing ceiling speakers, and the "bounce speakers" only work reasonably well for some people, and I'm sure this fact will hinder acceptance (and sales) of Atmos hardware and speakers... which, in turn, will hinder consumer demand for Atmos discs. (How many people do you know who are waiting to buy their favorite movie on disc until it comes out in Atmos?) From the DTS press release, it would seem that, in response to this obvious "push back" against installing ceiling speakers, they have "adjusted" their claims to suggest that DTS-X will "give you a satisfying 3D experience" without installing those pesky height speakers at all. Since that claim doesn't include any actual facts, I guess we'll have to wait and see (and hear) how well they manage to back up that claim. (It certainly seems to me that their press release is positioning DTS-X as "the 3D sound system that you don't have to install extra speakers for".) Incidentally, someone else mentioned Auro 3D as "a competing system"; Auro is actually one of the systems on which DTS-X was based. (DTS-X is also claimed, like Auro, to be a "more open" system than Atmos... although I'm not sure what that will mean in real life yet.) Get the XMC now and enjoy it! Let the industry duke it out for a while (and it will be a long while) before, if ever, it makes sense to bring this format home. Look at how Dolby already shot themselves in the foot with those junk, improperly designed, "modules" meant to bounce stuff off the ceiling and compromise the audio quality of the mains that many of us spent years getting a hold of (the right ones). No real warning to unsuspecting consumers about the pitfalls of them, not the least of which is their ineffectiveness with unusually high ceilings. This is just something Dolby did as a "jump ahead of the competition" marketing strategy. Even at the theaters (if you can find one) it would be interesting to take a poll from exiting theatergoers to get the "Atmos" impression from them. Betcha most who went in not knowing about what was going on with the sound would have not a clue even what you were talking about. Don't get me started on the lack of source material.....the list is endless. I have first hand experience with DTS Headphone X, and I can report that the claims to simulate 3D sound with one speaker over each ear (headphones) are NOT exaggerated. I have been exposed to it by downloading two DTS Headphone X encoded soundtracks. Each soundtrack includes a "Demo" that plays after you select the type of playback device used (In ear, on ear, or over ear). The demos play test tones (Hans Zimmer speaking Left Front, Right Front......etc.) for 11 virtual speakers; LF, RF, Center, LS, RS, LR, RR, LF height, RF height, LR height, and RR height. Each virtual speaker could EASILY be located "by ear" in the space where it should be. It is AMAZING. If that can be done with a set of cheap headphones, it seems at least plausible that virtual ceiling mounted speakers can be created by a 5.1 or 7.1 surround system. I am eager to find out. |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,854
|
Post by LCSeminole on Apr 22, 2015 20:37:30 GMT -5
I have first hand experience with DTS Headphone X, and I can report that the claims to simulate 3D sound with one speaker over each ear (headphones) are NOT exaggerated. I have been exposed to it by downloading two DTS Headphone X encoded soundtracks. Each soundtrack includes a "Demo" that plays after you select the type of playback device used (In ear, on ear, or over ear). The demos play test tones (Hans Zimmer speaking Left Front, Right Front......etc.) for 11 virtual speakers; LF, RF, Center, LS, RS, LR, RR, LF height, RF height, LR height, and RR height. Each virtual speaker could EASILY be located "by ear" in the space where it should be. It is AMAZING. If that can be done with a set of cheap headphones, it seems at least plausible that virtual ceiling mounted speakers can be created by a 5.1 or 7.1 surround system. I am eager to find out. There is a DTS:X Headphone 11.1 audio mix track on the blu-ray Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1. It goes through a "Sound Check" for all 11 channels that include: Left Front Right Front Center Left Surround Right Surround Left Front Height Right Front Height Left Rear Surround Right Rear Surround Left Rear Height Right Rear Height Before I actually tried the DTS:X Headphone track, I thought there had to be some type of decoding in the processor to hear it properly. Well I must be wrong, as I've gone through the "Sound Check" that DTS provides on this particular blu-ray and it darn sure sounds like all the different channels are where they're suppose to be when playing through my Sennheiser HD600's. So I'm guessing that all that is necessary is the actual DTS: X Headphone audio mix track and you're in business. Personally I'm quite impressed with it, but then again I've only heard this particular movie, so hopefully DTS:X Headphone tracks will start to appear on future movies that could take full advantage of all the different channels. |
|
|
|
Post by skiman1 on Apr 22, 2015 23:59:51 GMT -5
How many people do you know who are waiting to buy their favorite movie on disc until it comes out in Atmos? Me. |
|
|
|
Post by flak on Apr 23, 2015 6:11:56 GMT -5
Someone over at AVS quoted DTS's claim that "We moved the sound so you don't have to move speakers". To me, that is 100% marketing BS. Someone said this was meant in a way that if a sound would come from a point where no speaker was present, that sound would be reproduced from nearby speakers, because DTS:X would know where all the speakers are. I think that a precise placement of the sound source as you mentioned (in Atmos and Auro as well) assumes that the exact actual positioning of the speakers is "learnt" by the pre/pro either by automatic measurements or manual input... otherwise I imagine that the sound source could be very precisely placed in the wrong spot. I don't know if/how this is done in current and near future home units, do you have a link to this info? Thanks, Flavio |
|
|
|
Post by sme on May 16, 2015 2:46:01 GMT -5
I have watched one official Atmos Blu-ray and several Blu-rays that aren't officially "Atmos" but were originally mixed for Atmos theaters. Most of these image quite well in 3D (including height) on my 5.1 system in a partially treated living room. Before the room treatment, the speakers imaged quite well, but the room treatments brought out many more spatial details. The effect is definitely a lot more convincing in the sweet spot than outside the sweet spot. For listeners outside the sweet spot, discrete ceiling speakers may give more improvement.
The ear doesn't have much to go on to determine height. The shapes of our ears filters the sound arriving from above, emphasizing and deemphasizing certain narrow ranges (notches). We likely learned at an early age that sounds with those notches are located above us. I believe soundtracks mixed with Atmos are downmixed to 5.1 and 7.1 using a model of the ear that introduces height cues. These cues may be hard to hear if the room acoustics are poor, as is almost always the case without treatment. Furthermore, individual ears vary so those with relatively unusual ears (in size and shape) that are unlike the model may not hear those cues as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by muadibe on May 23, 2015 8:32:23 GMT -5
The source blu-rays are being planned for autumn. Several company press releases day they will have products and TV are starting to ship with HDR. Can you please give us an update in this board and how we will get it into our XMC-1. Mine had not shipped yet. Will I get the new board?
|
|
)
