|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 13, 2024 9:27:38 GMT -5
Thanks ttocs and Paul. Will DTS:X Pro or Enhanced Atmos upmix more content to the height speakers, compared to existing DTS:X and Atmos, in an 11.x setup (specifically my 7.2.4)? I am not interested in expansion, just trying to learn whether the new codecs will send more content to my heights. Thanks gentlemen! I don't know what DTS:X Pro or Enhanced Atmos will offer for height channels. So far, I don't like the results of upmixing. I do think that a 7.2.4 (11.2) dtsX style layout is an ideal high position count compromise for HT. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Oct 13, 2024 9:28:51 GMT -5
. . . . how do DTS:X Pro and Enhanced Atmos work? I have only a 7.2.4 setup -- will I hear any difference? My previous understanding was that the new codecs would upmix more content to the height speakers, but now I keep reading that the only benefit is to front wides and going beyond 11 channels. Who is right? Well, dtsX is only up to 11.1, and dtsX Pro is up to 30.2. You've got 11.1 already, 7+4=11 and the LFE channel. So, will dtsX Pro provide a different sound? I don't know, but it may depend on how the show is mixed. Here is a pretty good explanation centering on dtsX and dtsX Pro. Auro is mentioned, and some 7.2.6 layouts are also talked about, and, some differences vs ATMOS. Philip does a really good job of presenting these concepts in an easy to digest way. Is there actually any difference between the current processors and the + processors specifically for Dolby Surround, Atmos, or Upmixer? Do they now allow Dolby content to be upmixed to DTSX, and vice versa? |
|
timg
Minor Hero
Posts: 71
|
Post by timg on Oct 13, 2024 9:52:49 GMT -5
If there's an expansion card available at launch or soon after, then I'll be sending my RMC-1 back for the RMC-1+ upgrade & 2x expansion cards & upgrading my XPA-3 to an XPA-7.
My theater is being built with 11.1.8 including provisions for additional subs in the future. The .1 is an array of 6x 15" 1`Peerless STW-350F in the riser behind the front row with ~3 kW each powered by a FP20k. Out of concern that I may want more or need additional locations to smooth out bass response, I'm leaving a ton of room at the front for some 18-24" subs in between my front speakers (Titan 615LX). I've also installed a FP14k in my rack to power those future subs. Surrounds are a mix of 2x HT-12 and 6x HT-8. Atmos is 4x Volt 10 (F/R heights) + 4x in-ceiling speakers from the previous owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Oct 13, 2024 10:44:34 GMT -5
That question keeps coming up, there are a few issues, most importantly, how would you sync the volume? On the fusions amps, I keep them at 0dB, let the front end handle the rest. I understand the question comes up a lot, makes sense since it would appear visually that it would be an option on this system.And if it keeps coming up, wouldn't that make it more of a viable option? Sounds like more are venturing into the active xo realm. Maybe for a more future model. I do try to keep my questions minimal, didn't mean to rehash. For now, I take the analog xlr to a motu ultralite mk5 I had for my previous studio. Now it handles the conversion for LRC as well as the earthworks mic for calibrations. I did precal of theLRC loudspeakers with Smaart and FIR Designer through that setup to help mitigate any issues. Dirac does a good job of integration, sounds great, was just curious if I'd be able to take that out of the equation with the + upgrade and sell that unit. No worries, I understand it would be an undertaking, just wanted to know. It would also make the unit a much lower priced contender to the $10k+ digital-out models currently available (Storm, AudioControl). Most only want it for front stage, not surround. I speculate that last part selfishly.
Edited for more info
I really see three issues with this. First, I wasn’t actually referring to getting the levels correct, but the fact that the digital output is fixed, so whatever it’s driving would have to have a volume function that could be synced with the other channels, which are being controlled by the G4P. I imagine they could have a ‘variable’ output, like the ‘mix’ analog output on the old UMC, but it’s not there now. Second, the digital output isn’t a copy of the L/R, it’s potentially mixed down, and resampled to 48/24 (depending on the source), elsewhere I called it ‘stepped on’, that may or may not matter to you. I use the digital outs to send whatever’s on my main system, to my desktop/studio DAC so I can listen to the same source, have a volume control (and don’t mind the resample or mix down). I also use it to send a signal to AudioTools on my Mac, for Oscilliscope, RTA, FFT, etc. Finally there’s the issue of ‘copy protection’, there is most likely a restriction about what any company can extract from an HDMI signal, and present unaltered in digital form, this may prevent them from ‘fixing’ the second issue. I’m not familiar with the Storm, AudioControl capabilities you mention, or whether they are restricted by this. I guess a fourth issue would be to convince Emotiva that the time they’d spend working on this would benefit enough users to warrant taking time from something else; but certainly if it’s important to you , you should write up your thoughts and requirements and send it in, mentioning it here will typically not get it on a ‘list’. Personally, I’d prefer a bidirectional USB-C, USB-3.x/4.x addition to the digital connectivity options. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 13, 2024 10:47:11 GMT -5
Well, dtsX is only up to 11.1, and dtsX Pro is up to 30.2. You've got 11.1 already, 7+4=11 and the LFE channel. So, will dtsX Pro provide a different sound? I don't know, but it may depend on how the show is mixed. Here is a pretty good explanation centering on dtsX and dtsX Pro. Auro is mentioned, and some 7.2.6 layouts are also talked about, and, some differences vs ATMOS. Philip does a really good job of presenting these concepts in an easy to digest way. This is an excellent video. Philip is a very good teacher. I like how he differentiates between channels, objects, and speakers/positions. From post one in ‘Official Emofest Notes by KlineMJ’ – emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/1130267/threadLonnie klinemj Regardless how many positions dtsX Pro(30.2) or Dolby ATMOS(24.1.10) will handle, The RMC-1+ will eventually handle 19.5 positions. Both the XMC-2+ and RMC-1+ currently handle 15.1 positions. A few questions that won’t be answered till we know what Emotiva is actually going to produce with the output expansion modules: What switching position ability – as Philip describes for the Denon receiver - will the RMC-1+ eventually have to handle different formats? Will any normal/average processor user add additional speakers to accommodate this option if Emotiva includes this ability? Adding this ability reduces available position count. Will the eventual .5 Sub abilities actually handle the .2 dtsX Pro LFE? How will this affect current thought and advice about general bass management, and multi-Sub physical positions? * IMO - The position requirements for different formats is a cluster. A simple example is 5.1 sources are not compatible with 7.1 speaker configurations; especially with music. And, since the industry can't or won't fix the fundamentals, they just throw more speakers and formats into the mix. The industry continues to create more problems than real solutions for home users. Confusion is a feature, not a flaw. I like the idea for Lonnie to focus on giving us the option for the main unit single sub to also be above center screen height. This seems to be the only special speaker I've heard mentioned from imax enhanced. The normal atmos height and top speakers do well as dual purpose for dts:x. I'd rather him keep it stupid simple though so we have a better chance at getting the 11.5.8 atmos. I don't necessary think adding a center top would dramatically change the experience like marantz and denon offers and using the single sub still leaves a 11.4.8 atmos ability if and when the expansions turn out to work well enough to sell. What is cool about Dts:x is it is multi height layer. This may play well with the atmos 11.1.8 speaker placement because front and rear heights are utilized instead of the tops. I've also heard that most of these DTS:X mixes are done on an atmos renderer and then converted so I'm not sure if that would be a limiting factor. So to sum it up if all goes to plan and Lonnie could add the center screen height we'd have 12.4.8 DTS:X and imax enhanced. Uf ttocs statement about Lonnie hoping 2 sub modules play well together by chance than maybe 12.8.8. I will not be holding my breath for anything over 9.1.6. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 13, 2024 10:49:11 GMT -5
On the fusions amps, I keep them at 0dB, let the front end handle the rest. I understand the question comes up a lot, makes sense since it would appear visually that it would be an option on this system.And if it keeps coming up, wouldn't that make it more of a viable option? Sounds like more are venturing into the active xo realm. Maybe for a more future model. I do try to keep my questions minimal, didn't mean to rehash. For now, I take the analog xlr to a motu ultralite mk5 I had for my previous studio. Now it handles the conversion for LRC as well as the earthworks mic for calibrations. I did precal of theLRC loudspeakers with Smaart and FIR Designer through that setup to help mitigate any issues. Dirac does a good job of integration, sounds great, was just curious if I'd be able to take that out of the equation with the + upgrade and sell that unit. No worries, I understand it would be an undertaking, just wanted to know. It would also make the unit a much lower priced contender to the $10k+ digital-out models currently available (Storm, AudioControl). Most only want it for front stage, not surround. I speculate that last part selfishly.
Edited for more info
I really see three issues with this. First, I wasn’t actually referring to getting the levels correct, but the fact that the digital output is fixed, so whatever it’s driving would have to have a volume function that could be synced with the other channels, which are being controlled by the G4P. I imagine they could have a ‘variable’ output, like the ‘mix’ analog output on the old UMC, but it’s not there now. Second, the digital output isn’t a copy of the L/R, it’s potentially mixed down, and resampled to 48/24 (depending on the source), elsewhere I called it ‘stepped on’, that may or may not matter to you. I use the digital outs to send whatever’s on my main system, to my desktop/studio DAC so I can listen to the same source, have a volume control (and don’t mind the resample or mix down). I also use it to send a signal to AudioTools on my Mac, for Oscilliscope, RTA, FFT, etc. Finally there’s the issue of ‘copy protection’, there is most likely a restriction about what any company can extract from an HDMI signal, and present unaltered in digital form, this may prevent them from ‘fixing’ the second issue. I’m not familiar with the Storm, AudioControl capabilities you mention, or whether they are restricted by this. I guess a fourth issue would be to convince Emotiva that the time they’d spend working on this would benefit enough users to warrant taking time from something else; but certainly if it’s important to you , you should write up your thoughts and requirements and send it in, mentioning it here will typically not get it on a ‘list’. Personally, I’d prefer a bidirectional USB-C, USB-3.x/4.x addition to the digital connectivity options. Mathew Pose's new video just recommended a fixed volume out output for any tactile transducers so they don't get overloaded by system volume choice. At least there's one use for them.. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator 
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,168
Member is Online
|
Post by ttocs on Oct 13, 2024 10:51:21 GMT -5
Is there actually any difference between the current processors and the + processors specifically for Dolby Surround, Atmos, or Upmixer? Yes. But I don't know what is meant by "enhanced ATMOS". Do they now allow Dolby content to be upmixed to DTSX, and vice versa? I don't know. From what I've read, this is a source audio and system setup dependent situation. Reading through the Marantz AV10 manual shows all sorts of caveats about what's available under which conditions. It's a mess to try to figure out in print what's going to "sound good" for any one system setup. Having more or fewer speakers changes what is possible. A short quote from Marantz for one situation, not upmixing per se', but just to show that not all conditions are supported so results will vary: " Auro 3D does not support a Dolby Atmos speaker configuration using Top Front, Top Middle or Top Rear speakers. However, it is possible to support both an Auro 3D and Dolby Atmos application by adding Front Height and Rear Height speakers to a 5.1 configuration." From what I can find, there is no blanket YES to allowing one audio format to be upmixed by the other's upmixer. It depends. LFE2? What I'd like to know, and I've been searching for a long time about it, is, what's up with dtsX Pro and LFE2? It's been written as LFE2, LFE .2, etc, but I really can't find any info on what this means. dts has scrubbed a lot of info from their web site, so now it's just a bunch of pictures and minimal text, no "support" section or white papers and such. Are there really two discrete LFE channels in dtsX Pro? (I don't think so, but can't prove it.) Reading through the Marantz AV10 manual only shows LFE as being .1, not .2 or LFE2. So I'm left thinking that the dtsX Pro diagrams showing LFE1 and LFE2 are simply denoting that there are two subwoofers being shown for example, and not two discrete channels. Anyone with info about this, please share. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 13, 2024 10:56:27 GMT -5
Is there actually any difference between the current processors and the + processors specifically for Dolby Surround, Atmos, or Upmixer? Yes. But I don't know what is meant by "enhanced ATMOS". Do they now allow Dolby content to be upmixed to DTSX, and vice versa? I don't know. From what I've read, this is a source audio and system setup dependent situation. Reading through the Marantz AV10 manual shows all sorts of caveats about what's available under which conditions. It's a mess to try to figure out in print what's going to "sound good" for any one system setup. Having more or fewer speakers changes what is possible. A short quote from Marantz for one situation, not upmixing per se', but just to show that not all conditions are supported so results will vary: " Auro 3D does not support a Dolby Atmos speaker configuration using Top Front, Top Middle or Top Rear speakers. However, it is possible to support both an Auro 3D and Dolby Atmos application by adding Front Height and Rear Height speakers to a 5.1 configuration." From what I can find, there is no blanket YES to allowing one audio format to be upmixed by the other's upmixer. It depends. LFE2? What I'd like to know, and I've been searching for a long time about it, is, what's up with dtsX Pro and LFE2? It's been written as LFE2, LFE .2, etc, but I really can't find any info on what this means. dts has scrubbed a lot of info from their web site, so now it's just a bunch of pictures and minimal text, no "support" section or white papers and such. Are there really two discrete LFE channels in dtsX Pro? (I don't think so, but can't prove it.) Reading through the Marantz AV10 manual only shows LFE as being .1, not .2 or LFE2. So I'm left thinking that the dtsX Pro diagrams showing LFE1 and LFE2 are simply denoting that there are two subwoofers being shown for example, and not two discrete channels. Anyone with info about this, please share. I'd love to know if I interpreted it wrong but we should really thing of enhanced atmos as DSU version 2. Just more content being mixed into wides and back surround sides etc for non atmos content. If it also manages to upconvert bed layer channels (non object) into those speakers on atmos mixes even better but I don't think this is what it does. These additional channels i think are only for objects and a potential ART application for the future... and DSU |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,168
Member is Online
|
Post by ttocs on Oct 13, 2024 10:59:25 GMT -5
Uf ttocs statement about Lonnie hoping 2 sub modules play well together by chance than maybe 12.8.8. I will not be holding my breath for anything over 9.1.6. If two Subwoofer Expansion Modules work well together, then the subwoofer channel count goes to 11 subwoofer outputs, 3 on the main board, and 8 expansion outputs. The three main board subwoofer outputs work the same as our current processors. So with the XMC-2+, DLBC can utilize 3 subwoofers, so for those with 2 subwoofers an XMC-2+ will serve the need. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 13, 2024 11:02:12 GMT -5
Uf ttocs statement about Lonnie hoping 2 sub modules play well together by chance than maybe 12.8.8. I will not be holding my breath for anything over 9.1.6. If two Subwoofer Expansion Modules work well together, then the subwoofer channel count goes to 11 subwoofer outputs, 3 on the main board, and 8 expansion outputs. The three main board subwoofer outputs work the same as our current processors. So with the XMC-2, DLBC can utilize 3 subwoofers, so for those with 2 subwoofers an XMC-2 will serve the need. Yeah sorry I limited it to the potential 12.8.8 because I'd like to utilize all speaker locations possible. To your point any layouts of 17.11 could be* possible but adds speaker choices and multiple layout complexities for programming. And I was wrong it wouldn't be a max 12.8.8 for speaker locations. It would be 11.8.9 in my theoretical scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Oct 13, 2024 11:35:26 GMT -5
Is there actually any difference between the current processors and the + processors specifically for Dolby Surround, Atmos, or Upmixer? Yes. But I don't know what is meant by "enhanced ATMOS". Do they now allow Dolby content to be upmixed to DTSX, and vice versa? I don't know. From what I've read, this is a source audio and system setup dependent situation. Reading through the Marantz AV10 manual shows all sorts of caveats about what's available under which conditions. It's a mess to try to figure out in print what's going to "sound good" for any one system setup. Having more or fewer speakers changes what is possible. A short quote from Marantz for one situation, not upmixing per se', but just to show that not all conditions are supported so results will vary: " Auro 3D does not support a Dolby Atmos speaker configuration using Top Front, Top Middle or Top Rear speakers. However, it is possible to support both an Auro 3D and Dolby Atmos application by adding Front Height and Rear Height speakers to a 5.1 configuration." From what I can find, there is no blanket YES to allowing one audio format to be upmixed by the other's upmixer. It depends. LFE2? What I'd like to know, and I've been searching for a long time about it, is, what's up with dtsX Pro and LFE2? It's been written as LFE2, LFE .2, etc, but I really can't find any info on what this means. dts has scrubbed a lot of info from their web site, so now it's just a bunch of pictures and minimal text, no "support" section or white papers and such. Are there really two discrete LFE channels in dtsX Pro? (I don't think so, but can't prove it.) Reading through the Marantz AV10 manual only shows LFE as being .1, not .2 or LFE2. So I'm left thinking that the dtsX Pro diagrams showing LFE1 and LFE2 are simply denoting that there are two subwoofers being shown for example, and not two discrete channels. Anyone with info about this, please share. I scoured the intertubes and there is no reference to "Enhanced Atmos" in any context ... only IMAX Enhanced. To the second question, there had been - at the time the G3P was introduced - a specific requirement by both Dolby and DTX that processors must prohibit upmix to each from the other. This restriction was lifted 2-3 years ago but was still enforced in our processors. I was just wondering if the restriction was lifted for + models. I understand there would be some speaker definition mismatches. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,168
Member is Online
|
Post by ttocs on Oct 13, 2024 12:36:22 GMT -5
Yes. But I don't know what is meant by "enhanced ATMOS". I scoured the intertubes and there is no reference to "Enhanced Atmos" in any context ... only IMAX Enhanced. Like I said, I don't know what it means. Makes more sense that the person mispoke and meant IMAX Enhanced. Since I'm never interested in upmixing I wasn't interested in questioning what was said since I thought it related to upmixing. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Oct 13, 2024 13:43:30 GMT -5
I scoured the intertubes and there is no reference to "Enhanced Atmos" in any context ... only IMAX Enhanced. Like I said, I don't know what it means. Makes more sense that the person mispoke and meant IMAX Enhanced. Since I'm never interested in upmixing I wasn't interested in questioning what was said since I thought it related to upmixing. In MY head, I’ve always interpreted/surmised/expected, that ‘Enhanced Atmos’ would be the follow up or ‘Next Generation’ of Atmos code, that would properly present more speaker layouts, more accurately handle Atmos decoding, and give the DSU some new sparkle … but that could have been on my application to be a Dolby copy writer ✍️ |
|
|
|
Post by doc1963 on Oct 13, 2024 13:55:22 GMT -5
…To the second question, there had been - at the time the G3P was introduced - a specific requirement by both Dolby and DTX that processors must prohibit upmix to each from the other. This restriction was lifted 2-3 years ago but was still enforced in our processors. I was just wondering if the restriction was lifted for + models. I understand there would be some speaker definition mismatches. Actually, it was Dolby who was solely responsible for concocting that cross mixing restriction. After receiving a lot of criticism from industry insiders, like Gene DellaSalla from Audioholics, they eventually rescinded it. At the time I purchased my Marantz AV8805, it was able to use DTS NeuralX to upmix what some would consider lackluster Dolby mixes and the results were often greatly improved. After Dolby made the move to enforce their restrictions, a firmware update disabled it. Once Dolby had a change of heart, another quick firmware update issued by Marantz instantly re-enabled it. Emotiva “could” have lifted the restriction as well, but never did for reasons known only to them. It would be my hope that the “plus” series processors are not plagued by this outdated crap… |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 13, 2024 13:56:51 GMT -5
Like I said, I don't know what it means. Makes more sense that the person mispoke and meant IMAX Enhanced. Since I'm never interested in upmixing I wasn't interested in questioning what was said since I thought it related to upmixing. In MY head, I’ve always interpreted/surmised/expected, that ‘Enhanced Atmos’ would be the follow up or ‘Next Generation’ of Atmos code, that would properly present more speaker layouts, more accurately handle Atmos decoding, and give the DSU some new sparkle … but that could have been on my application to be a Dolby copy writer ✍️ Perhaps the ATMOS enhancement uses lifts or silicone. |
|
|
|
Post by amaheshw on Oct 13, 2024 17:28:52 GMT -5
…To the second question, there had been - at the time the G3P was introduced - a specific requirement by both Dolby and DTX that processors must prohibit upmix to each from the other. This restriction was lifted 2-3 years ago but was still enforced in our processors. I was just wondering if the restriction was lifted for + models. I understand there would be some speaker definition mismatches. Actually, it was Dolby who was solely responsible for concocting that cross mixing restriction. After receiving a lot of criticism from industry insiders, like Gene DellaSalla from Audioholics, they eventually rescinded it. At the time I purchased my Marantz AV8805, it was able to use DTS NeuralX to upmix what some would consider lackluster Dolby mixes and the results were often greatly improved. After Dolby made the move to enforce their restrictions, a firmware update disabled it. Once Dolby had a change of heart, another quick firmware update issued by Marantz instantly re-enabled it. Emotiva “could” have lifted the restriction as well, but never did for reasons known only to them. It would be my hope that the “plus” series processors are not plagued by this outdated crap… Lonnie, can you help us understand the benefits of DTS:X Pro and Enhanced Atmos, particularly for those of us who have a 7.2.4 setup? Is there indeed upmixing to send more bed layer content to the heights? Are there other benefits? |
|
|
|
Post by jagman on Oct 13, 2024 18:25:55 GMT -5
My understanding is the original Dolby Surround Upmixer in the G3Ps can only upmix non-Atmos Dolby content. The DTS upmixer in the G3Ps can only upmix DTS content that is not-DTS:X. So, if you have 7.1.4 content... which can be pinned Atmos content (either streamed Atmos or Atmos on disks from the house of Disney) or any DTS content... then you are stuck with 7.1.4 even if you have a 9.1.6 system (which means the front wides and top centers don't have sound coming out of them with that content). That was a result of coding done by Emotiva that was never fixed.
Enhanced Dolby Surround is probably Emotiva speak for a Dolby Surround Upmixer that can upmix any content to use all the speakers in your setup (including those surpassing 7.1.4). The new DTS:X Pro Upmixer most likely does the same thing but with its own algorithm. I had read earlier that another goal was to have the ability to have the Enhanced Dolby Surround Upmixer not limited to just Dolby content, and the same for the new updated DTS:X Upmixer. That is particularly interesting because DTS's Upmixer was more aggressive with using the in-ceiling speakers. Having the ability to use either or both with any content gives the end user more control over having more or less come out of the top speakers (i.e. you use the Upmixer that better suits your preference).
It would be lovely to get clarification from Emotiva on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 13, 2024 18:38:24 GMT -5
My understanding is the original Dolby Surround Upmixer in the G3Ps can only upmix non-Atmos Dolby content. The DTS upmixer in the G3Ps can only upmix DTS content that is not-DTS:X. So, if you have 7.1.4 content... which can be pinned Atmos content (either streamed Atmos or Atmos on disks from the house of Disney) or any DTS content... then you are stuck with 7.1.4 even if you have a 9.1.6 system (which means the front wides and top centers don't have sound coming out of them with that content). That was a result of coding done by Emotiva that was never fixed. Enhanced Dolby Surround is probably Emotiva speak for a Dolby Surround Upmixer that can upmix any content to use all the speakers in your setup (including those surpassing 7.1.4). The new DTS:X Pro Upmixer most likely does the same thing but with its own algorithm. I had read earlier that another goal was to have the ability to have the Enhanced Dolby Surround Upmixer not limited to just Dolby content, and the same for the new updated DTS:X Upmixer. That is particularly interesting because DTS's Upmixer was more aggressive with using the in-ceiling speakers. Having the ability to use either or both with any content gives the end user more control over having more or less come out of the top speakers (i.e. you use the Upmixer that better suits your preference). It would be lovely to get clarification from Emotiva on this. I have a height trim control on the remote that gives the end user more control over having more or less come out of the top speakers. |
|
|
|
Post by jagman on Oct 13, 2024 18:40:31 GMT -5
My understanding is the original Dolby Surround Upmixer in the G3Ps can only upmix non-Atmos Dolby content. The DTS upmixer in the G3Ps can only upmix DTS content that is not-DTS:X. So, if you have 7.1.4 content... which can be pinned Atmos content (either streamed Atmos or Atmos on disks from the house of Disney) or any DTS content... then you are stuck with 7.1.4 even if you have a 9.1.6 system (which means the front wides and top centers don't have sound coming out of them with that content). That was a result of coding done by Emotiva that was never fixed. Enhanced Dolby Surround is probably Emotiva speak for a Dolby Surround Upmixer that can upmix any content to use all the speakers in your setup (including those surpassing 7.1.4). The new DTS:X Pro Upmixer most likely does the same thing but with its own algorithm. I had read earlier that another goal was to have the ability to have the Enhanced Dolby Surround Upmixer not limited to just Dolby content, and the same for the new updated DTS:X Upmixer. That is particularly interesting because DTS's Upmixer was more aggressive with using the in-ceiling speakers. Having the ability to use either or both with any content gives the end user more control over having more or less come out of the top speakers (i.e. you use the Upmixer that better suits your preference). It would be lovely to get clarification from Emotiva on this. I have a height trim control on the remote that gives the end user more control over having more or less come out of the top speakers. Is that the trim volume? Funny... I never noticed that before! |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 13, 2024 18:42:08 GMT -5
I have a height trim control on the remote that gives the end user more control over having more or less come out of the top speakers. Is that the trim volume? Funny... I never noticed that before! That's the one.  |
|
