CEDIA REPORT POST #8
OK, now for the DTS:X stuff. I posted this over on AVS in their DTS:X thread, so I am just going to copy and past it, and another post (or two) here:
Super quick DTS:X update from CEDIA today.
I heard a few demos from some really nice setups.
Long story short:
1) DTS:X sounds pretty much like Atmos. I like Atmos, so that is fine by me.
2) DTS:X is currently slated for a January 1st, 2016 release of their final "code" for manufacturers to start sending out as updates. The demos heard today were using "engineering code" which is actually pre-beta anyway. It sounds really good, but I guess that they really want to knock this thing out of the park as a superior upmixer too, and the rendering code is still being tweaked to handle more unique installs.
3) DTS DOES have a recommended speaker layout. Maybe this has been covered here, but there is a layout that is different that Atmos' layout(s). Basically, Atmos likes having a "box" above and slightly outside the listening area with 4 speakers in the corners (generalizing this as I know that there is some flexibility here) and since seating areas are generally in the back half of a room, this makes a "box" in one half of a "rectangle" (the base 7 speakers at ear level). DTS would like to see things in concentric circles, meaning that the 4 overhead speakers would be more centered in the room, and the seating area for at least the primary listening area smack dab in the middle. That is for "ideal" conditions, but the person giving the information admits that most people have multiple rows of seats, don't want to sit that close, etc. A compromise is to bump the front most pair of overhead speakers closer to the screen/TV to help "fill the gap" between the front speakers and the side surrounds/front overheads. Of course, that screws with Atmos' configuration, so all of the demos but one today that had DTS going were in Atmos configurations. JBL had a setup with 14 base level speakers, 11 height speakers, and 4 subs. They used different speakers if they were playing Atmos, Auro3D, or DTS:X and were the only vendor demoing all three formats.
That is about it from my notes that I took on DTS:X today after several demos.
***Someone then posted that the DTS:X and Atmos layouts sounded like they were the same, so I posted this.***
Actually, it was pointed out as being "distinctly different" a couple of times.
Here is my quick version of what was shown in a slide at a tech demo:
Screen is on the left of this image, theoretically. Again, these are somewhat "generalizations" and I know that, I just want to repeat the information that was given to me today.
DTS:X setup was defined using "concentric circles" and one tech even mentioned "think about having a large compass on a piece of paper to draw two circles, one inside the other, and the point of the compass is right over the primary listener, sticking into their head."
To me, that is greatly impractical, and honestly it sounded really good in the Atmos layout in my opinion, so as far as *I* am concerned, an Atmos layout is the way to go to use the same speakers for Atmos and DTS:X, as we all really already knew, but again, just relaying information.
Oh, they also said that having your front 3 speaker on the base level arc'd is even more important with DTS:X.... Kicking the center speaker back even a good solid foot behind the left and right main speakers was talking about (someone asked about that specifically as to how far back was suggested).
***Someone then posted an image of a former DTS setup that had concentric circles - this predates DTS:X by a few years.***
I then posted this:
Yeah, even the guy at the D&M (Denon and Marantz) booth was talking about the concentric circles, but he too said that it is impractical to do it. The guy seems like an audio "perfectionist" so I am sure that it bugged him to some degree that their demo had the speakers in the same location instead of extending the front 2 height speakers forward more.
Oh well. We don't live in a room with circles and 1 listener smack dab in the middle (like in the picture above). I think that it is just a different thought process to both technologies. It was started that Dolby looks at it as 2 sets of "arcs." A "front to back" arc, and a "side to side" arc and they can place objects anywhere in those arcs or below. DTS looks at it as a symmetrical dome or hemisphere and too can place an audio object anywhere inside that dome or below it.
You could argue that both are really a set of arcs, or both are really domes. It is just a matter of where the side to side arcs are or if the dome is a little lopsided towards the back of the room or not.
Last year when Atmos was introduced at CEDIA 2014, one of the demos did a 9.1.4 setup where they had what typically were thought of as "front wides" on the side walls in line height wise with the surrounds, but half way, literally, between the side surround and the from speaker plane. They said that they were getting a lot better Atmos imaging by bridging that gap between the front 3 speakers and the "surround" and "overhead" speakers. I think that is why DTS likes the front overheads a bit more forward as it fills that gap so that it isn't such a jump from the front 3 to the next speaker that can help create the 3D space in front or overhead of the listener.
