There are so much info available in the internet when you do a websearch. Google is your best friend.

Examples...
http://www.wikihow.com/Build-a-Sound-Proof-Room
https://acousticalsolutions.com/how-to-soun...ot-block-sound/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8U_BvEq5CI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jevPIJmABA
http://www.rockwool.com/stone+wool+benefits/acoustics

When the wall is chipboard or wood, more soundproofing needed compared to brick/cement wall. Add a layer of wooden wall to the brick/chipboard wall and put "rockwool" insulation inside the space. I think a plywood or hard wood wall (more expensive) makes a better insulation compared to chipboard. You will loose a bit of space in the room when additional "walls" are added. The space between the "additional wall" and the existing wall should be at least 2 inches gap to put thick rockwool.



I think you cannot 100% sound-proof a room except if you are rich enough to get home theatre professionals to do it. Even pros will only get maybe 80% sound-proofing. Even if you can pay lots of $$ to a professional, be careful because there are so-called "pros" who actually do a "bad" job so check properly first. Of course it will be much cheaper for you to design it yourself, buy the materials and then get a carpenter/worker to do it so I understand this is what you want to do.

When you sound-proof your room, you must also think about acoustic treatment too. If its a brick wall, adding a wooden wall will reduce echos and reflections but don't forget the ceiling too. If its brick ceiling, adding acoustic foams will help to reduce sound reflections or you can also do the same thing with additional wooden/chipboard ceiling wall + rockwool.

It doesn't matter whether you are doing it as a Karaoke room, its done the same way for HiFi and Home Theatre... sound-proofing AND acoustic treatment done at the same time. Putting a mat on the cement or tile floor in front of the speakers reduces sound reflection from the floor... that is a simple way of acoustic treatment and its cheap.

I am not expert in sound-proofing or acoustic treatment so I can only say not much on this. I usually research from the internet by searching using Google or Yahoo. I hope the links I gave here helped you a little bit more.

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Sep 28 2016, 04:04 PM

We just cannot simply build an additional wall attached to the existing wall, get an air-pump to suck all the air out until there is a vacuum between the 2 walls. Wooden and brick walls are not air-tight so I believe that air-tight material must be used to hold the vacuum without being squeezed flat by the air pressure outside.

Please let me know how you did it. The wooden wall or brick wall itself is not air-tight so you used many "vacuum insulated panels" attached to the walls ? You buy such panels or DIY ? If DIY, what materials did you use to make sure its 100% air-tight so air will not leak in.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comment..._soundproofing/

Use sealed panel box made from carbon-fibre or thick polycarbonate (plastic) with vacuum inside ?

http://www.va-q-tec.com/en/products-indust...d/products.html

I don't know where to buy such panels and I think its should quite expensive to buy ready-made ones.

I did think about such vacuum between two walled layers. At that time I believed that it should not be easy but I did not do more research on this so I practically stopped thinking about it.

By the way, do you know where to buy vacuumed panel blocks that can be attached to the wall? DIY? Build panel blocks of size (H) 1.5 m X (W) 1.5 m X (D) 8 cm (2 cm internal thickness with 6 cm vacuum space) and then stack many of these panels on the wall ?? Interesting solution but will anyone be able to do it properly? Again, I don't know loh.

Your explanation on how you actually did it will definitely help me and many here. I am dumb in such wall-to-wall vacuum sound-proofing method. Thanks.

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Sep 28 2016, 11:20 PM

That was why I mentioned adding wooden/chipboard wall with rockwool inside which is so much easier to sound-proof. Of course not perfect but at least its better than just using acoustic foams attached to the wall because such foams are not good in isolating sound from "escaping" out. Rockwool is much better than acoustic foams and more easily available. Of course vacuum is THE best but implementing it is never easy loh. The "container" must be hard enough to withstand outside air pressure and must be hard to leak to last many many years. Once inside two walls, its NOT easy to repair any puncture and leaks to get back the vacuum. If there is a very very slight leak, you won't know whether that panel is no longer vacuum after many years. We need to put many smaller blocks of such vacuum panels inside the wall so that the container can stand the outside air pressure. We just cannot build a single 9ft X 10ft container for the same sized wall because its very difficult for such large sized container material to withstand the outside pressure on such big area. For a single very large sized container to withstand the pressure, the inside must have numerous small internal "bars" to hold the container wall to prevent it from being pressed thin or flat.

Actually I did spoke to a few contractors and all told me that it can be done but its very difficult to do it AND its very expensive. I don't know how far its true but those contractors said that its a job that is NOT for DIY AND also, for safety reasons, we are required by law to get an approved architect plan to be submitted to the local town council for approval. They didn't say it and I didn't ask so I think that we "may" probably need to get a Certificate Of Occupation again from the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Board. I am only guessing about the government requirements. Of course we can just choose to do it and don't care whether there is any violation or not so its a "risk" loh. It may be similar to converting a garage into an additional room. What I do suspect is that there will be a lot of inconvenience.

For hakawei question, I think suggesting using vacuum as a possible way will serve to only make it unnecessarily complicated and its the least likely solution for him to do it. Rockwool is definitely not good enough when compared to a vacuum but its better than nothing because using vacuum only creates more other problems to solve and expensive too. I think many of us already know that vacuum is the best but we just never think about it straightaway. I believe that many of us, including myself, did wonder at one time or another, on how it can be done and I am not surprised why many just gave up on this idea.

Simply saying that Rockwool is just "noise reduction" and suggesting using a vacuum without suggesting the best possible method to achieve it will not help to answer his question, and in fact may probably cause even more questions from him. I am talking about the most feasible way to do it, not about the most difficult way to get the best sound-proofing.

I have seen on many many websites and forums on building HT rooms where all of them uses rockwools, reflective metal sheets, sand, and various other "materials" inside two wall layers to sound-proof. Maybe I missed it but I have not yet find any info in the internet that shows me how to construct "vacuumed walls". I appreciate it if you can give me the links.

Here is a link that says something about using vacuum as sound-proofing...
http://www.noisestopsystems.co.uk/how-to-soundproof-a-room
... Read the last sentence in the title "No one will hear you scream in space". It reads... "As this would not be possible use the following techniques to effectively soundproof a room.".. which means that the writer of that article suggested other methods as explained in the rest of that article. So, is that writer correct to say that its not possible to use vacuum? Mmm... I don't know.

Eventhough I won't do it (not possible) and to satisfy my own curiosity, I am doing some research and still thinking on how to do DIY in the cheapest way. Its good that you mentioned vacuum because you have opened up my curious mind again after forgetting about it for many years. Thanks. Mmm... just for fun, I will probably try to ask people who does Home Theatre Room projects to get their viewpoints. I have asked contractors before but haven't ask such Home Theatre Pros before, hehehe. My HT room will never be able to use "vacuumed walls" because I think its just too small.

Oh... almost forgot... what happens when one of your family members "forgot" about the hidden vacuum inside the wall and hit a long nail to the wall to hang a big poster? BANG? POW? Will it sound just like hitting a nail directly to the car tyre? Mmm... that part of the wall will literally collapse with a big hole appearing. Your neighbours will rush out when they heard a loud explosion wondering what happened. If I am sitting there, I may get a heart attack.

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Sep 30 2016, 02:43 AM

I recently bought 1 unit Parasound Stereo Power Amp (125 watts @ 8 ohms per channel) for my 2 Surround Speakers.. so for 125 watts for 1 speaker is not big power. For my Atmos speakers, I am using 1 unit Power Amp (100 watts @ 8 ohms per channel) for my 2 Atmos speakers so its also not big power.

I am using 1 unit Stereo Power Amp (300 watts @ 8 ohms per channel) for my 2 Front floor-stand speakers AND 1 unit Audiolab Monoblock Power Amp (250 watts @ 8 ohms) for my Centre Speaker.

I concentrate my "big watts" Power Amps to my 2 Front Floor-stand and 1 Centre speakers because these speakers play the most important role in audio quality in a Home Theatre. Of course that do not mean the other speakers including the sub-woofer are not important, its just that I put more efforts towards my Fronts and Centre as the most important audio quality to obtain.

More watts do not mean that my room is big and do not mean that I turn up the volume to super loud. With higher amp power for my Fronts and Centre means more "reserve power" that allows my amps to push out sound easily with less effort which provides more control and lesser distortion so that I can "squeeze" a bit more audio detail, better clarity, etc etc... in short will give me better audio quality at low or medium volume.

That's why I am using 250wats and above for my 2 Fronts and 1 Centre speakers. For the other speakers, 100watts to 125 watts should be more than enough loh.

Ok... let's go to why I want to get another Parasound Stereo Power Amp (125 watts @ 8 ohms per channel).

Lets look at the screen picture below of my Audyssey settings...


My sitting position is actually not far away from the main speakers because my room is actually small. My Front speakers are each 9 feet away and my Centre is 8 feet away. I am using a 300 watter to pump my Front speakers which is higher than my 250 watts for the Centre. I am getting around -3.0 db for my Fronts so by right I should get around -4 to -2 db for my Centre. My Centre is only 1 foot nearer than my Fronts BUT the setting gave me -10 db telling me that my Audiolab 250watts Monoblock is more powerful than my 300watts power Amp (for Fronts). I am still baffled as to why Audyssey is telling me that my Audiolab 8200MB monoblock is "more powerful". I am NOT an expert in this "watts and audio calibration" knowledge so I can only simply guess that it may have been the different "Gains" used by the two Power Amps. Judging from the settings, I felt that my Parasound A21 (125 watts @ 8 ohms) for my surrounds should be almost the same "Gain" as my 300watts power amp. That's why I am thinking of replacing my Audiolab with another 250watts power amp. Parasound A21 is 125 watts @ 8 ohms but it can be bridged to become a 1 channel Monoblock at 250 watts @ 8 ohms which I think is a suitable replacement.

I hope this clarifies why the TWO Stereo power amps for my HT system. The second stereo power amp (which is bridgeable to 250 single channel monoblock) is actually for my Centre speaker.

1 unit Parasound A21 Stereo Power Amp (125 watts per channel) for 2 Surround Speakers.
1 unit Parasound A21 Stereo Power Amp (bridged to 250 watts mono) for 1 Centre Speaker.

Anyway, for my Centre, I haven't replace my Audiolab monoblock yet so I am still looking for better 250watts power amp alternatives instead of Parasound A21. Maybe a different 250 watts Monoblock.

Hehehehe... I prefer not use just "one" single 5.1 channel Power Amp and a Sub-Woofer for my 5.1 speakers. I believe I can get better audio quality by using "four" separate power amps... 1 stereo p.amp for my 2 fronts, 1 stereo p.amp for my 2 surrounds, 1 monoblock p.amp for my Centre AND 1 stereo p.amp for my 2 Atmos speakers. Oh, my active sub-woofer has its own builtin amp so no need another amp for it. Yes, before you tell me, I do know that four separate power amps with different brands CAN be a BIG headache to get the proper matching of audio character but I loved that challenge of "fine-tuning" the audio character for the different channels loh.

Lastly, IF you say that a single 7.1 channel Power Amp will give better character matching and "balanced sound" which can give the same audio quality as four separate power amps and cheaper too.... I don't disagree with you... you can be right too. Maybe its just my weird thinking and stubbornness, hehehehe.

There are people who believe Ambiophonics gave much better sound stage and positioning by repositioning speakers closer together. Who am I to say that they are wrong? I am just a single old bloke who love Home Theatre as well as simple Stereo music loh. Ambiophonic, Stereophonic, or are there such things as Quadrophonic and Multiphonic?? Octophonic?? Pentaphonic?? Whatever lah. I am ONLY thinking of Circles, Rectangles, Squares, Pentagons, Heptagons and Octagons. Phew!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiophonics
http://www.ambiophonics.org/

NOTE : "I am expert" corrected to "I am NOT an expert"

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Oct 1 2016, 02:29 PM

X 1 million ! I feel like an ostrich putting its head in the sand. Thanks.

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Sep 30 2016, 11:49 PM

My bedroom/IT room/leisure room is also my HiFi + Home Theatre Room which I stay almost 24hrs everyday because I am OKU. Yes, HiFi + Home Theatre IS my hobby, my life, my entertainment, my companion during my semi-retirement in IT, probably full retirement very soon. Being "bujang lapok" bachelor, this "hobby" + computers/internet helps me to fight boredom and the daily monotonous activities. No worries, still happy go lucky and always wear a smile.

I would say I sit in front of my 2 computers 50% of the time. An additional 1 Intel NUC + 1 MacBook Pro notebook primarily used for listening to FLACs and DSDs on my 2 external DACs and secondarily for playing 4K materials from YouTube, watching MKVs and also browsing the internet on my 4K 3D TV. The funny thing is... never like and totally don't play any computer/online games ! The only thing I DID play in those "ancient" days were computer Pacman and Tetris, AND my Atari (damaged and already thrown away).

Ooops... sorry for going a bit out of topic loh.

NOTE
Hehehe, this was what it looks like in those days from MS-DOS computer...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZb_czxZgFo

What are the source audio that you mostly play from your external bookshelf harddisk? MP3 or FLAC or DSD files?

A slim small soundbar audio quality cannot beat separate bookshelf speakers. Most budget soundbars have much smaller sized drivers compared to bookshelf speakers. I think many people already know that soundbars cannot beat dedicated separate speakers unless its an expensive soundbar which is very wide with much larger drivers. Then why do people still buy soundbars? The answer is simple... convenient, save space as the amp is builtin, much easier to connect with less cables, many are comparatively cheaper than HiFi speakers and at least have much better audio compared to the tiny TV speakers.

When a person can afford to pay a bit more and have enough room space, its always much better not to use soundbars.

I did not say that soundbars are cheap. Examples... the Yamaha YSP-5600 Soundbar sells for USD 1700 and the Paradigm Shift SoundScape Soundbar selling for USD 1500.

The question of whether your KlipschR-15PM are better depends on which soundbar you were using previously. I didn't check the price in Malaysia. Your KlipschR-15PM is selling around USD 500 which should be around RM 2K+. Using a soundbar that costs less than RM 1K is not a good comparison so of course the KlipschR-15PM definitely wins. However, I do believe that your KlipschR-15PM Active Speakers CAN even beat a much more expensive soundbar such as the Yamaha YSP-5600. Stereo imaging, depth and wider soundstage will suffer when the drivers inside are much more closer in a soundbar. Placing your two KlipschR-15PM separated further away around 5 feet will give much better results. The Yamaha YSP-5600 width is 43.25 inches so you will know that the enclosed speakers are much nearer to each other.

Because you are using Active Speakers (with builtin amps), its correct to compare with soundbars that also have builtin amps. Before anyone tells me that using Passive bookshelf speakers with an external Integrated Amp beats them all... of course this will always triumph over the Active speakers & Soundbars. Its just like comparing MP3 to FLAC file so I think its not fair to compare with external integrated amp + passive speakers.

My own personal opinion...
Before soundbars can beat such bookshelf Active speakers (such as the KlipschR-15PM), these are what I think soundbars specification should have...
1) More smaller drivers inside that can compete with the much larger sized drivers of the Active speakers.
2) If possible, use similar sized drivers as the Active speakers.
3) Both the Soundbar and Active Speakers should have the same or similar power and specification because its unfair to compare a builtin amp of 50 watts with another 90 watts amp with different speaker ratings.
4) The separation between the left and right drivers should be the same for both Soundbars and Active Speakers.
5) The internal space of the cabinet for both the Soundbar and the Active Speaker should also be similar/ the same.

The one thing that I will always believe... just talk about the "bass" alone, a tiny sized speaker just cannot beat a much larger bookshelf. A much larger sized Active bookshelf speaker with bigger bass driver and more internal cabinet space gives much better bass control, with solid deep bass. Hehe... Active Speakers gives "boooom" and a soundbar gives "boon". Yes, there will always be people who disagree on this and I suspect machine gun may start firing at me. For people who loves treble more than bass, I think soundbars should be great.

No matter how many times I auditioned the cute small ProAc Tablette bookshelf speakers at CMY, I always felt the "lack" of bass and oomph. Even when they used a tube amp with the ProAc, its still too sharp for my taste. I do know many people who loved it. That's why I can only say what is good for me will never be good for someone else... because every person's ears and brain react differently.

After listening to a few different Klipschs before, overall I felt that it has these good characters.... clean trebles that is not overbright, able to express fine details and spacious soundstage. Your KlipschR-15PM is a great pair of active speakers so you did make a good choice as upgrade. Lots of connectivity including Bluetooth. The small bass-reflex port at the rear enhances the bass. I think you added a large wooden wall behind to reduce audio reflections and improve the sound. Mmm... put small sized thin marble or porcelain tile just behind the bass-reflex ports and test... no harm trying and if you don't like it, just remove.

Just remember that many of my comments in this reply are not facts, just my personal opinions based on my beliefs, preferences and choices.

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Oct 1 2016, 08:41 PM

I think there should be a way to reduce the soundbar bass level using its control switches on the unit. I searched and only found HW-J7501 which have a separate wireless sub-woofer. I think your soundbar model should also come with a wifi sub. I didn't have time to read the manual so if you have not read it, I would advise you to do so. I may be wrong but I believe there will be controls on the soundbar itself which allows you to reduce the bass and also the same for the sub. I won't be able to offer much help on your bass problem.

DTS-MA means DTS Master Audio which is actually a audio format technology used to encode and decode audio with a combination of using lossless and lossy encoding.

DTS (Digital Theatre Systems) is used in DVDs to give better sound quality using less filespace. DTS-HD (Digital Theatre System High Definition) which is used in blurays, improved on the audio quality of DTS. Then... DTSX was introduced to add in another sound dimension above the listener.

Another well-known competitor, Dolby Laboratories, actually came out first with Dolby Digital and then later came out with Dolby Digital Plus. Dolby True-HD came out next and then the latest Dolby Atmos was released. Dolby Atmos (Dolby Atmosphere) came out earlier than DTSX. A lesser known Auro-3D audio (http://www.auro-3d.com/ can also be used in the bluray BUT not many HT amps support this and its "rarely" found in any blurays too. There are cinemas that uses such Aura-3D technology. My HT Pre-Amp supports Aura-3D Engine but at the present time, unfortunately I have not yet seen any movie blurays that uses Aura-3D.

Both Dolby Atmos and DTSX was introduced to make the sound appear as though it envelopes the listener in the room with additional 2 or 4 (or even more) speakers for sound coming from above the listener. For older HT amps, both Dolby Atmos and DTSX are still backward compatible so such older HT amps will decode them as Dolby True-HD and DTS-HD MA because the "additional channel" tracks cannot be read and just ignored.

Because DTS-MA is just an audio format (technology used in blurays & 4K blurays), it CAN be recorded as 2.0, 2.1, 4.0, 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 channels.

WAV, PCM and FLAC are all digital audio technologies which can also be 2 channel stereo, 4.0 and other various channels similar to DTS-MA number of channels.

DTS-MA cannot be said as equivalent to 2.1 channel. DTS-MA can 2.0 ch, 2.1 ch, 4.0 ch, 5.1 ch and others which are all the same audio quality when the same bitrate, sampling rate and bit depth are used.

When you selected DTS-MA to play, its not always 2.1 channels... it depends on whether the film was recorded in how many audio channels AND whether the movie company decide to include other choices.

Example, DTS Demo Disc Volume 20 (2016) Blu-Ray available audio...
English / DTS-HD Master Audio / 7.1 / 48 KHz / 5552 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 /48 KHz /1509 kbps /24-bit)
English / DTS-HD Master Audio / 7.1 / 48 KHz / 7851 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 /48 KHz /1509 kbps /24-bit) << DTSX audio track
English / DTS-HD Master Audio / 2.0 / 48 KHz / 2082 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 2.0 /48 KHz /1509 kbps /24-bit)
http://www.demo-world.eu/2016/01/26/2016-d...mo-disc-vol-20/

From the example... we cannot just say DTS-MA is equivalent to 2.1 channels because DTS-MA also have 5.1 and 7.1 channels too.

Below are a few of the various audio options used depending on whether the bluray (or DVD) have them or not and usually have a Menu for us to choose which available audio option to play...
DTS-HD 2.0
DTS-HD 5.1
DTS-HD 7.1
DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0
DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1

When the encoding quality is the same used for all the channels, then its just a choice of how many audio channels to play. DTS-HD MA is NOT specific to just 2.1 only. Many times, the bluray will have both DTS-HD 2.0 (for Director's Commentary added to the movie track) and DTS-HD MA 7.1 (for just the actual movie track). If they want, they can even choose to use DTS-HD MA 2.0 (Director's Commentary added to the movie track)

Its the same for SACD discs... encoded in DSD audio format.. can have Stereo 2 Channels or 5.1 Channels. CD discs support 2 channels only.

More info...
http://www.differencebetween.net/technolog...dts-and-dts-hd/

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Oct 5 2016, 08:31 PM

Short answer, yes.

Same as DTS-MA, it does have a "core" to allow old AVR to play DTSX or DTS-MA as DTS only.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/DTS...ter-guide/22341

ADDITION
For Dolby True-HD audio.... when bitstreamed to HT amps that do NOT support it, it will be decoded as Dolby Digital.

http://www.audiogurus.com/learn/electronics/dolby-truehd/179
Part of the article... Technical Specs for Dolby TrueHD
Allows companion Dolby Digital (640 kbps) 5.1-channel theatrical mix on 7.1-channel Dolby TrueHD titles.
That last spec is important. Dolby has done a great job with respect to backwards-compatibility. In the case of Dolby TrueHD, the format also includes the ability to allow a Dolby Digital track to ride alongside the lossless encoded tracks, providing legacy surround receivers with the ability to receive 640 kbps 5.1 surround mixes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_TrueHD
Part of the article... Since Dolby TrueHD is an optional codec, a companion Dolby Digital bitstream (2.0 192Kbps or 5.1 448Kbps/640Kbps) must accompany the Dolby TrueHD bitstream on Blu-ray discs. Blu-ray Disc players consider this combination of two audio bitstreams as a single logical audio track

If anyone find any errors here, please do correct me.

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Oct 5 2016, 09:27 PM

AURO-3D and DTS

You did not give any detailed info of your "DTS Demos contains Auro3D tracks". Bluray? MKV file? MP4 file? Not enough info for all your questions so I can only make educated guesses.

Not possible for Auro-3D to be encoded as other formats such as DTS.

DTS from DTS, Inc company.
Dolby Digital from Dolby Laboratories, Inc company.
Auro-3D from Auro Technologies company (Belgium)

Auro-3D recognized as DTS? Really?

Auro can change its own Auro-3D to be recognized as PCM or maybe Auro-2D. But... Auro Tech will have to PAY DTS, Inc licensing fees to include DTS into Auro-3D to allow it to be encoded and "recognized" as DTS. Do you think Auro Tech company will do that? I really do NOT believe Auro Tech will do it !

Same situation for Dolby Digital audio. Do you think Dolby Laboratories will allow its own Dolby True-HD to be encoded and recognized as DTS? NO... its impossible!

If you are playing your "DTS Demos" from a bluray disc, there should be bluray menu that allows you to select either Auro-3D or DTS. So... when you believed that the Auro-3D track was being recognized as DTS, then I suspect your demos are video files (MKV?). If MKV video files, then your "DTS Demos" should have TWO audio tracks... Auro-3D and DTS. If its a DTS DEMO bluray disc released by DTS Inc, I can be 100% percent certain that they will NOT include any Dolby or Auro-3D track inside... so this disc must be a compilation DEMO (not DTS Demo) disc from other companies (not from DTS, Dolby and Auro companies)

When you use any player such as Kodi or others that can "Bitstream", it means the source audio is sent directly out with any decoding to the HT Pre-Amp/AVR. As long as the player can bitstream out the audio type (such DTS, Dolby, Auro-3D), it means the player can support sending raw audio out without decoding. When bitstream happens, its your AVR that received and did the decoding of the audio source. If the player don't support Auro-3D bitstream out, there will be NO sound eventhough the AVR support Auro-3D!

Example, my Oppo 105D bd player support bitstreaming MKV files to my HT Pre-Amp. Due to a bug in its firmware, Dolby True-HD in the MKV file is "bitstream" out as PCM. The latest version BDP10X-83-0715 released in August 2016 restored the ability to bitstream Dolby True-HD out from MKV files.

I assume your HT AVR AND your player (or Kodi) don't support bitstreaming Auro-3D out so what actually comes out depends on your player firmware (or computer plug-in) too. If your player don't support Auro-3D, by right it should "bitstream out" as PCM audio, not DTS. Did you find any info about your player which says that it converts Auro-3D to DTS?

When a MKV file contains both Auro-3D and DTS audio tracks inside, the "default track" can be set to DTS track by the muxing software so the player will auto play DTS, not Auro-3D. That may be why your AVR shows DTS which you assume "Auro-3D recognized as DTS" which is actually playing just the DTS track inside.



Kodi is a open source (GPL) XMBC software media center for the pc. I am not familiar on Kodi. Does it need to have the correct plugin to support Auro-3D bitstreaming? If Kodi don't support bitstream Auro-3D, I think Kodi will NOT convert Auro-3D to DTS (any conversion is actually NOT bitstreaming). IF Kodi support Auro-3D, then DTS will not appear.

If your HT AVR don't support Auro-3D and when such audio is received, then should be no sound. Yes, its possible for the AVR to receive Auro-3D and then convert to DTS but I don't know whether any HT Pre-Amp/AVR can convert Auro-3D to DTS loh. Mmm... so far I have not seen it. Yes, my HT Pre-Amp CAN change DTS-HD Master Audio/Dolby True-HD to emulate/convert to Auro-2D and is NOT the actual audio track inside the video file itself.



Original 5.1 Audio but Yamaha AVR showing 7.1 Audio

I have many years ago owned Yamaha RX-V1900 and Aventage RX-A3020 previously. If you use "Pure Direct", your amp will bypass all its own "sound modes" (such as Concert Hall) and tweaks to preserve the audio as near as original so it will not change 5.1 audio to 7.1 audio. If an audio is bitstreamed to your AVR, the audio is untouched so your player won't change 5.1 to 7.1. When you set your Yamaha to "Pure Direct", your Yamaha will also NOT change 5.1 to 7.1.

An AVR can be set to identify 7.1 as 5.1 by ignoring 2 channels BUT when the audio signal is just 5.1, your AVR can "increase" it to 7.1 by setting to "Multi CH Stereo" so your AVR will show 7.1 on its display panel. What this happens is that your AVR is taking the original 5.1 audio and changing it by select only 2 channels from the Left And Right Front channels and resends it out to the other speakers so the original Centre and all the Surround channels are ignored.

For example, I have 5.1.2 speakers and my HT Pre-Amp is also set the same way. When I play a CD, my HT Pre-Amp will only display 2 channels nut when I pressed my remote Green button, I can change it to "Multi CH Stereo" sound mode and all the 5.1.2 channels will be displayed. When I changed to Pure Direct, the 2 channels will be shown again.



I believe that you have already tried changing the AVR to "Pure Direct" so the original 5.1 will be used, no longer using any sound modes anymore. IF still appear as 7.1... then I suspect that your Kodi player have already changed the original 5.1 audio and sent out to your AVR as 7.1 so check the player that it is not changing anything. When Kodi player is bitstreaming, it will NOT "convert" 5.1 to 7.1

Additional News
http://www.demo-world.eu/2016/05/28/samsun...demo-disc-v2-0/
http://www.auro-3d.com/press/2016/03/denon...m-av-receivers/

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Oct 7 2016, 10:13 PM

I didn't know that the "expand surround" is locked to "enabled" for the current crop of Yamahas as I no longer have any Yamaha now.

Yes, I do agree that pure direct is not a good suggestion to use. I also don't use Pure Direct for my Pre-Amp too (except for my external DAC input and turntable). Your clarification on this will help people who didn't know and may have misunderstood my suggestion of using Pure Direct.

I believe you already know why I suggested Pure Direct so my following recap is NOT directed at you. Teop's question or rather "problem" was that his Yamaha was showing 7.1 audio on its display panel indicating 7.1 eventhough (according to him) the source audio was actually 5.1.

My primary reason to suggest Pure Direct was to ensure as far as possible that his Yamaha did NOT do any alteration or changes to the input source audio. So... using Pure Direct as a method of elimination of possible causes that "changed" the audio to 7.1 channels will at least tell me that his Yamaha was NOT the culprit.

After testing with Yamaha on Pure Direct and IF 7.1 still remained then it will indicate to me that the audio was already 7.1 when received so I can assume by pointing my finger to other possible causes... as explained in my earlier reply.

Hehe.. its never easy to pinpoint the reason for the change from 5.1 to 7.1 channels. For Teop's situation, its just like giving directions by phone to a blind person who don't actually know where he/she is.

Regards.

From what I know, according to feedback from McIntosh, their MX122 Video Board is based on the same Marantz (Denon) board design, similar to the Marantz 8802A Video Board.

What is different (and very important for my choice) is that ALL other components of MX122 are McIntosh own proprietory design with their own AUDIO technology such as the internal DAC, Audio board, Power Supply, etc.

Denon and Marantz companies merged together to become D+M Group in 2002 so both their HT AVR products share almost similar design with the same "Setup Menus". I think Marantz licensed the Video Board design and technology to McIntosh so that's why the "Setup Menus" looks the same. However, the Video Board design is modified to make it compatible and work properly with McIntosh all other components, so this Video Board is manufactured in McIntosh factory with their own quality control.

Hehe... if its ALL the same as Marantz, I would NOT have bought the more expensive MX122 loh, and I would have save $$$ with the 8802A. After auditioning both McIntosh MX122 and Marantz 8802A, my own personal view and taste is that the MX122 AUDIO is much much better.

My MX122 supports Dolby Atmos, Auro-3D. Support for DTSX will come later when the MX122 new firmware upgrade is released.

Dolby Atmos, DTSX and Auro-3D are ALL AUDIO technologies built into the hardware codecs.

My MX122 also supports virtual audio emulation (not true audio channels) which changes the actual audio channels.

When I pressed my remote "Green" button, a menu pop out showing "Movie Sound" category. The different selections changes according to what audio is received.



When playing video with 5.1 audio channels, the pop out menu shows "Dolby Digital" already selected which is the actual sound. I can change this to "Auro-2D Surround" so the original Dolby 5.1 will be changed to emulated (not true) Auro 5.1 channels.

When playing video with (stereo) 2 audio channels, the pop out menu shows "Stereo" already selected which is the actual sound. I can change this to "Auro-2D Surround" so the original 2 channels will be changed to emulated (not true) Auro 5.1 channels, so the centre, surround and sub will ALSO have sound.

If I played bluray with Dolby True-Hd, this will appear as the original selected one. I don't have any Auro-3D bluray to test so I can only assume that the pop out will change to Auro-3D, NOT Auro-2D.

Oh yes, you are right.... sound-proofing actually means blocking or preventing the sound inside the room from "leaking" or going out. No need for me to explain about acoustic treatment in the room as you have already explained it.

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Oct 11 2016, 07:00 PM

I need to correct your statement on the ownership of McIntosh Laboratory.

Its common that many well-known brands changes ownership as time flies.

D&M Holdings bought McIntosh Laboratories around 2003.
Link to old news... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dm...t-74622792.html

D&M Holdings did previously owned the McIntosh Group, the parent company that also owned McIntosh Labs, Audio Research, Sumiko, Pryma and Wadia.

Later, around 2012.... D&M Holdings then sold off 100% stake of the McIntosh Group to... Fine Sounds SpA from Italy.

Here are just 2 references of the ownership change...
http://www.strata-gee.com/dm-sells-mcintos...private-equity/
http://www.cepro.com/article/mcintosh_sold..._of_fine_sounds

Here is the present situation now...

D&M Group
owns Denon, Marantz, Botson Acoustics and HEOS as shown at their website...
http://www.dmglobal.com/home

Fine Sounds Group (Italian Company)
owns McIntosh Labs, Audio Research, Sumiko, Pryma and Wadia.
http://www.mcintoshgroup.com/en-us/brands



Yes, Denon/Marantz and McIntosh may have shared "technologies" many years ago AND may still have some sort of licensing collaboration with D&M Holdings. It depends on who actually owns the various design and technology patents on the Video Board. I don't know, so if D&M Holdings own 100% of the Video Board patents, then I guess that McIntosh should have paid D&M Holdings for using the Video Board technology and then modifying it to make it compatible with McIntosh own Audio Board and other components. That's why I said in my earlier comment... " I think Marantz licensed the Video Board design and technology to McIntosh". I should have said... "I think D&M Holdings licensed the Video Board to McIntosh".

As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter which company owns which HiFi or HT reputable brands. I actually don't know what is the actual story on how McIntosh is able to use similar Video Board component & design. Probably they have some sort of licensing agreements between the two different companies.

Will Denon X7200WA, Marantz 8802A and McIntosh MX122 have the same video quality just because they used the same board design? Speaking for myself only.... no, each one should have some differences in picture quality because its not 100% built the same, its never a photostat copy of the same board.

Actually McIntosh is primarily well known for their Audio and Build Quality. In comparison, the power supply and other stuffs are not as well-known. McIntosh products are hand-made for most parts and this is shown at the rear of my MX122 with the label... "Handcrafted in USA" and only manufactured in McIntosh factory at Binghamton USA.

I did personally listened to the Denon X5200W, Marantz 8802 and McIntosh MX121. Did not audition X7200WA and Marantz 8802A. For me, somehow there is only subtle difference in video quality. Yes, I have the same opinion as you that each sound different side-by-side. Mmm... that means you have personally listened to the MX122?

It is the big difference in audio quality that was the reason why I had chosen MX122. The audio board and other components are entirely McIntosh own design, except for the modified Video Board. IF both the 8802A and MX122 share the same or similar audio and video boards, then I would have chosen 8802A and save $$.

It will be unfair to use Denon X7200WA as a comparison because it is a HT AV Receiver with Pre-and-Power components. Marantz 8802A and McIntosh are both HT AV Pre-Amp. So, AVRs are not in the same class and quality compared to Pre-Amp Separates loh. Unfortunately, the Denon AVP-A1HDCI Pre-Amp is very out-of-date (dinosaur) and Denon still did not come out with any new updated/upgraded Pre-Amp models. It seems to me that Denon is no longer concentrating on the very top-end audiophile market.

Anyway, my MX122 pairing with the MC302 gives it the extra warmth, details and punch needed for my Front floor-stands.

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Oct 12 2016, 03:43 AM

You have the right to disagree and give your personal opinion. Its okay. No offense taken. For me, those companies with primary products do NOT necessarily do a much better job compared to those that don't. You have given a very wide and open opinion which is just based on a set of fixed perception and may not be exploring every possibilities. Even if any company comes out with a product for the first time that is totally different from their main primary ones, I will never straight away ignore such products because I always stay open-minded and will specifically research and explore all its good and bad points without pre-judging anything just because HT is not their primary HT stuff.

I will always try not to be dead set in my views on anything that are based on overall perception of things. An example of a general perception... Most cheap unbranded Made In China HiFi and AV products are bad or inferior compared to the branded reputable ones, and eventhough it may be true most of the time (if using my dead set opinion), I will never ever just simply ignore any product. Of course I will just ignore an unknown RM 150 bluray player because its obvious its a low end budget product. What I am saying is a reasonable comparison based on similar budget and quality.

As far as possible, I will explore its specifications and internal components first such as whether toroidol coil (transformer) is used and its build quality, the internal DAC chip + video chip used, the decoder used for HiFi/HT (Dolby, DTS), the internal PSU, the design, the technology and so forth.

When someone intend to buy any specific product, that person already have set the approximate budget, the required internal specs, the technology wanted (example... with or without Atmos), the build quality wanted and the after sales support. ALL of us ultimately choose ONE specific model and product to buy so, in my opinion, I should look at it in a way that is specific to the product that is targeted AND NOT simply ignoring that specific model just because its not the primary area that the company specialized.

Just because Samsung are very reputable and strong in the Phones and TV department, it does not mean that we should NOT go for their bluray players or HT AVRs. On the contrary, because one should look at each product individual merits. Its true that I may not buy it but I will surely not just ignore it without looking at it first and audition it if possible.

After putting all the necessary homework on the specific one, the final hurdle to go through is our own tastes, preferences and... our EARS !! YES... our EARS make the final decision.

You do know that ALL HT products have the Audio portion. You also do know that ALL good quality HT AVR/Pre-Amps products generally have the same decoder technology for Dolby, DTS and Auro... SO this should be "similar" quality across all those different brands. BUT... there is the final "analogue" path that is very important for HT too... after decoding PCM, DTS, Dolby or Auro, there is the conversion of the signal to analogue output to the Power Amp ! I do connect 2 XLR cables from my MX122 AV Controller to my MC302 power amp so its crucial for me that the analog process is handled beautifully. Bro, that analogue part to the power amp is the area that McIntosh excels !

Granted, McIntosh do not excel in the Video department as they do use Marantz technology for the video board BUT at least its similar quality without losing out. If I based my decision merely on just the video department then of course I won't be stupid enough to buy MX122! I will also not buy MX122 if they used similar technology and parts for both video and audio.

Its the analog process for the HiFi and HT part of the MX122 that, in my opinion, pushes the audio quality to a very very high level. Well... of course there will be people who hated the McIntosh audio character too so I can accept that.

Bear in mind that my MX122 is not merely for HT because I used it for HiFi too. I think I have the best possible quality for my external DACs, CD Player and Turntable too. Hehe, I want to kill two birds with one stone, as the English proverb says. Ya, its debatable whether I have achieved this HiFi and HT balance. Of course a separate Tube Amp will be so much better for my turntable. Mmm.... thinking... feeling a bit itchy here.

Being hand-crafted do not do anything to the audio or video quality but this gives me the comfort of knowing that my MX122 is built to last a long time.... its part but not the primary factor in my decision.

After everything have been said, I am always receptive on what everyone said, including yours so I can learn and digest all information and NOT lock myself to a general fixed perception. I am merely explaining to you what I believed in just and to let you know my thoughts.

Lastly, in many ways, your comment... "HT is a different thing so should go with those primary is doing HT stuff." is generally true and I do partly agree but I do have a somewhat different view which is what I have explained here.

Appreciated your feedback. Regards.



This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Oct 12 2016, 09:03 PM

I do understand, as each person have a budget that he/she can afford. The biggest problem here is that we are always thirsty for improvement in quality so there's no limit on the amount to spend ! Dangerous poison!

I have not audition Audio Research before but I have read and heard of numerous praises of their sound quality. If possible, I will want to audition Audio Research too.

I absolutely do agree that there are just too many factors and variables to determine in achieving the optimum quality. Its a balancing act that we try to achieve but actually we know that it can never be done ! Hehe.

The one thing that I have learned in my experience is NOT to pre-judge anything, NOT fix my mind on any common perception and try as much as possible to explore all reasonable possibilities.

Its not surprising to me that all 3 sounded different as I also felt the same too. What is even more difficult is that each person have very different eyes, ears and taste. Try bringing 10 friends to watch a LED TV at a showroom at the same time, tell them to keep quiet and write down their opinions on the picture quality... then compare the written opinions. Will it be exactly the same? You should know the answer. I think you know what I meant. Two persons who listened to the same song using the exact same system will have different opinions. One friend of mine really hated the Elac FS409 when he auditioned it at a dealer's showroom but I really loved it. So... can anyone say who is right or wrong? After all the necessary research is done based on your requirements... the final decision comes from your EARS.

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Oct 12 2016, 06:05 PM

Oh, when you said "I did not consider the Mcintosh processor due to its price", it was not because of affordability. This earlier simple sentence confused me. You have chosen Audio Research because it has a lower price with your preferred sonic qualities.

You were listening to McIntosh for many years. Which McIntosh and Luxman model were your dad using ? I assume your dad were using the McIntosh for the turntable so which turntable was used ? You said you owned McIntosh before so which model did you own and if sold, what was the reason? Upgrade? Audio Research better all-round performer?

Thanks for replying to my rather inquisitive questions.

You are a really experienced pro. Kudos. I would have loved to listen to your system but its difficult for me to do so due to walking issues.

Interesting. For HT, pairing of a AV Receiver with RCA pre-outs to LS17 pre amp and then to ARC power amp.

Your HT chain... Source (BD Player) >> AVR >> Pre-Amp >> Power Amps >> Speakers.

My HT chain... Source (BD Player) >> HT Pre-Amp >> Power Amps >> Speakers.

* Correct me if I am wrong in your system setup.

I prefer XLR connections between Pre-Amp and Power Amp. I chose to use a AV Pre-amp as the central core of my HT and HiFi system. My personal view is that the AVR audio quality cannot beat a HT Pre-Amp so I decided to go for fully separated Pre amp and Power amps. I decided not use AVR entirely and just add in power amps for any additional channels... a stereo power amp was added for my Atmos speakers. It may not be true but its my believe that having both the pre amp and power amp components in the AVR may compromise the audio quality. Since I am not using any speaker output from the AVR, I might as well straight to a HT AV Pre-Amp.

Anyway, appreciated your insight into your system and setup.

Addition... almost forgot. I believe the AVR still need to decode digital HT Dolby TrueHD/DTSMA/Atmos/DTSX first and then sent analogue out from its pre-outs to the power amp. So I was thinking... using a better HT Pre-Amp will give much better audio decoding compared to the AVR... am I wrong to think this way? If wrong, why? Theoretically, since all HT amps decodes in the standard way for Dolby/DTS/Auro, then the decoding quality should be the same... or not the same? So far I seem to hear differences between Denon 5200W AVR and Marantz 8802 Pre-Amp for bluray audio. Because of "hearing" such differences, I decided not to get the AVR and bought the HT Pre-Amp. Of course, before my purchase, I auditioned the MX121 first as its similar to MX122.



This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Oct 14 2016, 12:04 AM

First, go to the ATM and then go to listen to his live demo and become even more convinced. Next... the transaction. And off you go with the SB2000s.

Your answer with "Let me plan a bit first" already tells me that you are already poisoned, in the process of figuring out a strategy and merely waiting for the right moment to pounce on it.

Remember... the early bird catches the worm! I think you will regret it when someone else took it away from you... so near yet so far, hehehe.

Mmm... is it possible to stack one sub above another?

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Oct 13 2016, 11:54 PM