Upmixing - where are we at? Have people compared upmixers?

[hex168]

Tried a comparison between Auro-2D, DSU, and stereo last night. It is very difficult to make a comparison, as each upmixer uses different levels across the board, some with exaggerated bass. I used my Radio Shack SPL meter with B weighting to try to get them close.

My impression of DSU is still the same: very weak fundamental signal that is very wet with reverb in the surrounds and heights. Center channel is still too strong even with center spread turned on. Subwoofer level too high. It may sound great with some tweaking, but then my system would be off for video sources, so I would need to maintain different presets.

Auro-2D was better, but instrument location across the front was frequently off--especially with drums. Acoustic bass would sometimes float across the speakers. This really confused the image of the stage. The surrounds received attenuated versions of the LR. Center level and mix was better than DSU.

In the end, I still chose stereo. Maybe I would care more about multichannel if I had better surround speakers?

For some reason, my Denon 4700 does not allow Auro-3D as an option with stereo input. It only displayed an option for 2D, so I did not get to test what Auro mixes for the heights.

Here is what Denon has to say about the various sound modes:

Dolby Surround

This mode uses Dolby Surround Upmixer to extend various sources to natural and realistic multi channels for playback.
Use ceiling speakers such as top middle speakers to realize a three-dimensional sound field.

Auro-3D

This mode uses an Auro-3D decoder to create three-dimensional audio output using the Height Channel. It is ideal for playback of signals encoded as Auro-3D with a Height Channel. If signals not encoded as Auro-3D are input, an Upmixer called the Auro-Matic is used to create highly realistic three-dimensional audio output.

Auro-2D Surround

This mode uses an Auro-3D decoder to create Surround Sound without a Height Channel. It is ideal for playback of signals encoded as Auro-3D without a Height Channel. If signals not encoded as Auro-3D are input, an Upmixer called the Auro-Matic is used to output Surround Sound.

"For some reason, my Denon 4700 does not allow Auro-3D as an option with stereo input. It only displayed an option for 2D, so I did not get to test what Auro mixes for the heights."
Anyone know why the 4700 does this?

 

[krabapple]

Tried a comparison between Auro-2D, DSU, and stereo last night. It is very difficult to make a comparison, as each upmixer uses different levels across the board, some with exaggerated bass. I used my Radio Shack SPL meter with B weighting to try to get them close.

My impression of DSU is still the same: very weak fundamental signal that is very wet with reverb in the surrounds and heights. Center channel is still too strong even with center spread turned on. Subwoofer level too high. It may sound great with some tweaking, but then my system would be off for video sources, so I would need to maintain different presets.

Auro-2D was better, but instrument location across the front was frequently off--especially with drums. Acoustic bass would sometimes float across the speakers. This really confused the image of the stage. The surrounds received attenuated versions of the LR. Center level and mix was better than DSU.

In the end, I still chose stereo. Maybe I would care more about multichannel if I had better surround speakers?

For some reason, my Denon 4700 does not allow Auro-3D as an option with stereo input. It only displayed an option for 2D, so I did not get to test what Auro mixes for the heights.

Here is what Denon has to say about the various sound modes:

Dolby Surround

This mode uses Dolby Surround Upmixer to extend various sources to natural and realistic multi channels for playback.
Use ceiling speakers such as top middle speakers to realize a three-dimensional sound field.

Auro-3D

This mode uses an Auro-3D decoder to create three-dimensional audio output using the Height Channel. It is ideal for playback of signals encoded as Auro-3D with a Height Channel. If signals not encoded as Auro-3D are input, an Upmixer called the Auro-Matic is used to create highly realistic three-dimensional audio output.

Auro-2D Surround

This mode uses an Auro-3D decoder to create Surround Sound without a Height Channel. It is ideal for playback of signals encoded as Auro-3D without a Height Channel. If signals not encoded as Auro-3D are input, an Upmixer called the Auro-Matic is used to output Surround Sound.

Results depend much on what you feed them. E.g. pan-potted studio mixes versus music recorded in an real space.

Not sure what you mean by 'weak fundamental signal', or even 'very wet' reverb-wise, as I don't experience DSU (which I use constantly, following years of DPL II use) that way, including when A/B ing with stereo (which I expereince mainly as a collapse of the embiggened sound field).

I assume you aren't isolating channels and evaluating their sound that way, that would not be representative of the psychoacoustic masking that goes on when we are surrounded by channels.

I have five identical passive Behringer Truth monitors all around, and a pair of identical subs, perhaps that makes a diff. All calibrated and EQ'd with my Denon's Audyssey DSP of course.

Chacun a son gout applies always.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Results depend much on what you feed them. E.g. pan-potted studio mixes versus music recorded in an real space.

Not sure what you mean by 'weak fundamental signal', or even 'very wet' reverb-wise, as I don't experience DSU (which I use constantly, following years of DPL II use) that way, including when A/B ing with stereo (which I expereince mainly as a collapse of the embiggened sound field).

I assume you aren't isolating channels and evaluating their sound that way, that would not be representative of the psychoacoustic masking that goes on when we are surrounded by channels.

I have five identical passive Behringer Truth monitors all around, and a pair of identical subs, perhaps that makes a diff. All calibrated and EQ'd with my Denon's Audyssey DSP of course.

Chacun a son gout applies always.

I typically listen to acoustic jazz, chamber music, orchestral, folk, blues, etc. I tried several selections, including some from Chesky, Blue Coast, Telarc and of course Goat Rodeo. Some were better than others, meaning I found results to be hit or miss. I don't see myself switching sound modes based on what is playing.

Recommend something to me. I will re-test with a good recommendation or two.

 

[Sam Ash]

Tried a comparison between Auro-2D, DSU, and stereo last night. It is very difficult to make a comparison, as each upmixer uses different levels across the board, some with exaggerated bass. I used my Radio Shack SPL meter with B weighting to try to get them close.

My impression of DSU is still the same: very weak fundamental signal that is very wet with reverb in the surrounds and heights. Center channel is still too strong even with center spread turned on. Subwoofer level too high. It may sound great with some tweaking, but then my system would be off for video sources, so I would need to maintain different presets.

Auro-2D was better, but instrument location across the front was frequently off--especially with drums. Acoustic bass would sometimes float across the speakers. This really confused the image of the stage. The surrounds received attenuated versions of the LR. Center level and mix was better than DSU.

In the end, I still chose stereo. Maybe I would care more about multichannel if I had better surround speakers?

For some reason, my Denon 4700 does not allow Auro-3D as an option with stereo input. It only displayed an option for 2D, so I did not get to test what Auro mixes for the heights.

Here is what Denon has to say about the various sound modes:

Dolby Surround

This mode uses Dolby Surround Upmixer to extend various sources to natural and realistic multi channels for playback.
Use ceiling speakers such as top middle speakers to realize a three-dimensional sound field.

Auro-3D

This mode uses an Auro-3D decoder to create three-dimensional audio output using the Height Channel. It is ideal for playback of signals encoded as Auro-3D with a Height Channel. If signals not encoded as Auro-3D are input, an Upmixer called the Auro-Matic is used to create highly realistic three-dimensional audio output.

Auro-2D Surround

This mode uses an Auro-3D decoder to create Surround Sound without a Height Channel. It is ideal for playback of signals encoded as Auro-3D without a Height Channel. If signals not encoded as Auro-3D are input, an Upmixer called the Auro-Matic is used to output Surround Sound.

If possible, see if you can experience DPLIIx somehow in a 7.x configuration.

 

[krabapple]

I typically listen to acoustic jazz, chamber music, orchestral, folk, blues, etc. I tried several selections, including some from Chesky, Blue Coast, Telarc and of course Goat Rodeo. Some were better than others, meaning I found results to be hit or miss. I don't see myself switching sound modes based on what is playing.

Recommend something to me. I will re-test with a good recommendation or two.

I could but it looks like you don't listen to a lot of the music I do. I mean, I could say if you want some wow factor, put on some highly phased Jimi Hendrix, but is that something you'd even enjoy? I do play orchestral, chamber, and jazz tracks as well. As I said, I leave PLII/DSU on all the time, and those genres sound good too (to me). I was enjoying Miles Davis' 'Nefertiti' just the other night.

Apart from choice of input material, you didn't address the other factors I mentioned that could be affecting your experience -- speakers (and of course correct distance/level/EQ matching), whether you are auditioning single channels or not.

 

[FishInLA]

I would love to do some A/B comparisons of the universally beloved PLII against DSU, it's too bad all the hardware manufacturers license only one or the other. And if we must have DSU instead of PLII I wish it had a 2D mode.

 

[Steve Dallas]

I could but it looks like you don't listen to a lot of the music I do. I mean, I could say if you want some wow factor, put on some highly phased Jimi Hendrix, but is that something you'd even enjoy? I do play orchestral, chamber, and jazz tracks as well. As I said, I leave PLII/DSU on all the time, and those genres sound good too (to me). I was enjoying Miles Davis' 'Nefertiti' just the other night.

Apart from choice of input material, you didn't address the other factors I mentioned that could be affecting your experience -- speakers (and of course correct distance/level/EQ matching), whether you are auditioning single channels or not.

Well, you didn't exactly ask me about those other factors...

My front 3 are Revel. All my surrounds are Polk RT series in-wall and in-ceiling speakers, making up a 7.2.2 setup. My Denon 4700 is configured by running Auddyssey, editing the front 3 curves in Ratbuddyssey (all limited to 1KHz), then resetting levels using pink noise, REW, and a UMIK-1. Speaker distances and locations are all within Dolby specs. It is a very well set up system in a dedicated room.

My listening tests consisted of 99% listening from the MLP followed by walking around to see what was coming out of individual speakers for context and comparison.

Hendrix is good. He could be considered blues combined with rock combined with LSD. SRV is also good. I also like a lot of classic rock as well as well-produced pop and other rock. Recommend something that sounds good for multichannel listening.

As I said before, I could probably make a new preset, copy my configuration to it, and tweak everything to be better for multichannel music if I were to become inclined to do so. That would probably consist of decreasing center and sub levels, increasing surround levels, etc.

 

[krabapple]

You could do all that. But curiously I don't seem to find any of it necessary. It just works, once the calibration and room EQ basics are taken care of. With 'classical'/real acoustic space recordings, the result of DSU is 'ambience' or 'envelopment' (which you're experiencing as 'wetness'). With popular music studio creations, it can be anything from just that, to instrumental/vocal sounds coming from sides or back. I even prefer it to some true surround remixes, which are a whole 'nother dimension of 'multichannel music' -- one you shouldn't need to 'tweak' anything for, as there is no algorithmic remixing involved in their playback.

My main issue with levels is that I also like to use Audyssey DEQ, which boosts the surrounds. That's nothing inherent to upmixing, though; it's a DEQ thing.

You've already played stuff you really do like and didn't find it to your taste when upmixed, so if I say 'try upmixing 'Aja' or side three of 'Tales from Topographic Oceans', will it really make a difference? I don't think walking around listening to individual channels does much but bias a listener in a situation like this, and I am constitutionally wary of in-wall speakers (much less matching them timbrally to a first-rate front line like yours), but your system seems very thoughtfully managed, so I think it's just a case of, à chacun son goût

 

[krabapple]

It occurred to me afterwards that there's actually a thread on the QuadraphonicQuad forum where surround sound fans report stereo recordings that sound good when upmixed by various means. Possibly you could harvest specific recommendations among genres there:

Listening to Now (Fake Surround-Specify Method)

 

[risandipra]

Hello. Been a while since the last post in this thread which I recently just read.

FWIW, I use Denon 1700 set as 7.1. My player is Apple TV 4K. Been tried Apple Music Multichannel, as well as Stereo upmixed with DSU. I tweak the EQ per channel, regarding the SBIR calculator, and kinda add some more EQ to the surround channels which emphasize on the upper frequency; and centre on mid frequency. I like the results.

On another set up, I'm still using my old Harman Kardon AVR 5550 AV Reciever using Logic 7 mode. The source is Roon PC:
1. From PC to DAC to stereo amplifier. While pre out from the amplifier goes to AVR as 'source" for centre, surround, and surround back channel. Balancing the level using Logic 7 etc. Kinda like the result.

2. And just today I tried to use the HDMI output from PC to TV to be able to put optical input from the TV to the AVR, and do some fun in the Roon Muse to tweak EQ and put some delay filter. This put grin on my face.

As @Sal1950 said, more or less, you do what you need to do with what you got to achieve the result you want.

What's important sometimes the imperfection still can be enjoyable, moreover if we put less expectation regarding the result.

Enjoy. Have a nice weekend everyone.

 

[rana_kirti]

I think it's been generally well accepted fact by now that Auro 3D is the ultimate upmixer. it's evident from the fact that despite having minimum native releases outside Europe all AVR manufacturers are clamouring to get Auro 3D in there AVR because of the Automatic upmixer. seems now they are getting into streaming too with some sound bar lanches. it's becoming a household name and is essentially now the most demanded feature in an AVR.

 

[Chromatischism]

I think it's been generally well accepted fact by now that Auro 3D is the ultimate upmixer.

As I've noted in my experience, it depends.

It is preferred for stereo TV/YouTube over the others, but I have a -5 subwoofer channel adjustment to remove its silly bass boost. I already have my subs dialed in, thank you.

For movies, I don't use it. There, either Dolby Surround or DTS: Neural X will be the best choice, and it depends on the specific movie and the mood you're in. Generally speaking, DS will sound more spatial, while DTS:X will sound more aggressive with the "wall of sound" type effect. Both are impressive in their own ways.

 

[Sal1950]

I think it's been generally well accepted fact by now that Auro 3D is the ultimate upmixer.

I would have to disagree on that. It was true that Auro 3D used to be the best
of the upmixers. But the current Dolby DSU with it's center spread option has surpassed Auro 3D

 

[Propheticus]

Matter of taste I guess, but for music I prefer Auro 2D over DSU. DSU, in my opinion, puts too many objects behind me in the L/R surrounds that I feel should be in front of me.
Auro 2D puts reverb/echo/'room volume' behind me while keeping the source at the front 'stage'.

 

[krabapple]

DSU is optimized for movie/video listening and is only minimally adjustable.

DPL II had separate Movie and Music (and Game and legacy) modes, and was/is better. The Music mode upmixer was highly user-adjustable.

YMMV.

 

[Chromatischism]

I do agree that the Center Spread setting is desirable with Dolby Surround.

With Auromatic 3D, I need subs at -5.

With DTS: Neural X I don't find I need to make any changes however one could reduce the levels of the surrounds and heights by -1 or so since it is rather aggressive.

 

[keks8430]

Which borders on absurd as a rationale, as a center channel actually stabilizes the center image you hear at the 'sweet spot'.

Right, but that is about the only virtue of the center speaker.
Even then, some prerequisites must be fulfilled to make it work.

In films, well-controlled portions of the dialog are sent to the center and to the front speakers. A center-only sound is fundamentally different from a phantom center, boxier because of the rising directivity with frequency.

Starting from stereo, the center creates more problems. Now the center signal is generated from upmixers, each with algorithms guessing what should go to the center. For DSU, the general recommendation is to have Center Spread on. That avoids the boxy sound by mixing it with the good old phantom center. I think Dolby did offer a way to control the degree, now on or off. Some receivers (Onkyo, ..) have the Vocal setting to regulate this effect. With varying material (2-ch, 2ch Dolby, multichannel) and studio mixing, the result varies and ideally must be corrected differently for each recording.

If you need a loudspeaker layout which gives spatial involvement and works equally for multi-channel film and stereo, 4.x or other center-less layouts might have their place. Works perfectly for me.
-

 

[Chromatischism]

For some reason, my Denon 4700 does not allow Auro-3D as an option with stereo input. It only displayed an option for 2D, so I did not get to test what Auro mixes for the heights.

Do you have your speakers set to height or top? It wants them set to height to enable Auromatic 3D.

 

[Newman]

Right, but that (stabilising the centre image) is about the only virtue of the center speaker.

Not so. Centre speaker allows correct frequency response. Phantom centre causes an audible and less preferred colouration, according to listening tests.

…A center-only sound is fundamentally different from a phantom center, boxier because of the rising directivity with frequency.

“Boxier” is too undefined to even discuss. The reason you gave makes even less sense.

It seems to be agreed that MCH centre channel can sound less preferred, but this is because of naive mixing/mastering methods, typically involving allocating 100% of the desired centre sound to the centre speaker only. Do it right, and it is preferred.

In other words, it’s not the format, it’s the mastering.

 

[keks8430]

In other words, it’s not the format, it’s the mastering.

I would like to agree. But one does not exist without the other, that's Toole's "circle of confusion".
With mastering, loudspeaker setups and levels aligned, there is a good chance to reproduce initial intent.

I should have better restricted my point to stereo music and 2-ch film upmixing.
From my observation, center extraction is not stable, not in level, nor in spread.
Upmixing in my HT with a now center-less layout does not suffer from this.

>Centre speaker allows correct frequency response.
Flat with one speaker and one ear/mic in an anechoic room?
See attached picture from the book Floyd Toole: Sound Reproduction - Loudspeakers and Rooms.
Dialog realism with a center speaker can be "greater", because a speaker's directivity resembles a human speaker's directivity (ibid).
Not so for instruments.

>“Boxier” is too undefined to even discuss. The reason you gave makes even less sense.
Boxier here meant recognizable as coming from a loudspeaker.
Due to a loudspeaker's directivity rising with frequency, it is easily distinguished from a natural sound source not having such directivity.
I can easily recognize the center speaker's distance.
One could then argue over "You are there" vs. "They are here" type realism.

Back to the music..