Dolby Atmos Theatre System - Page 31 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
First ... 29  30  31 32  33  ... Last
D-cinema Equipment and Theaters > Dolby Atmos Theatre System
noah katz's Avatar noah katz 11:17 AM 04-15-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Not sure if it has been linked here before but here's Dolby's guide for mixing an Atmos soundtrack:
http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/Authoring_for_Dolby_Atmos_Cinema_Sound_Manual(1).pdf

Looks like we can't get rid of channel-based speaker layout and setup in an eventually upcoming home version any time soon. The Atmos bed is based on a fixed 9.1 channel layout (L, C, R, Lss, Rss, Lsr, Rsr, and LFE; Lts and Rts).

Shoot, only 9 speakers.

In light of the above, perhaps I need to say that I'm serious; I've got 11 now 7.1 + front wides and heights per DSX (and I think DTS Neo X).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellisr63 View Post

Yes I watched it in the Atmos theater. They also had 3D but not in the Atmos theater.

Perfect, thanks.

SoundChex's Avatar SoundChex 11:28 AM 04-15-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

So do you think that the object-enabled AVRs promised for CEDIA this September are just some sort of con, then?
Industry ploy to sell more speakers.

Unfortunately, while "the world inside AVSForum" might well subscribe to the aphorism: 'You can never be too rich, too thin . . . or own too many speakers!" it is at least remotely possible that the rest of AVR owning mankind might not share that exact thesis..!? Consider the benefits "offered" by DTS's prospective object-based system (link):

Quote:
DTS-UHD Benefits:
  • Environmentally compensated audio rendering allows consumers to hear audio directionality and dimensionality more precise than ever before possible
  • Object control enables consumers to interact with key objects within the audio mix and adjust them to preference
  • Customized rendering designed for arbitrary speaker layouts enables consumers to adapt their AV system to their own home environment rather than pre-determined speaker layouts

The first two items make possible dialog enhancement and favorite team features which are frequently touted as the selling points for object-based audio and which will work with every speaker configuration from 1.0 up.

In a still from the auto race video demo of the Fraunhofer’s Interactive 3D Audio System for TV (link) playing a 7.1 + 4 Height Channels + 4 Objects audio in this Scott Wilkinson report from the floor of the 2014 NAB Show in Las Vegas, TWiT Live Specials 197: NAB Show 2014 Part 1 (link) (play video from 21:21 through 23:45), we see that all four audio objects 'visible' in the demo might be considered dialog enhancement and favorite team options.


So at this time I remain unconvinced that 'just plain folks' who buy an object-audio capable AVR will plan to use it with any more speakers than they would have used with any prior generation AVR...?! cool.gif
_
markus767's Avatar markus767 11:46 AM 04-15-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Industry ploy to sell more speakers.

Of course not. Dolby would never take any money for their technology. All they want is to create a better (audio) world.
markus767's Avatar markus767 11:54 AM 04-15-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Shoot, only 9 speakers.

In light of the above, perhaps I need to say that I'm serious; I've got 11 now 7.1 + front wides and heights per DSX (and I think DTS Neo X).

Basically, the Atmos bed asks for a standard 7.1 speaker layout plus 2 overhead surrounds. Add those two overheads and your home theater is Atmos-ready.
noah katz's Avatar noah katz 01:02 PM 04-15-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Basically, the Atmos bed asks for a standard 7.1 speaker layout plus 2 overhead surrounds. Add those two overheads and your home theater is Atmos-ready.

The Atmos bed *subtracts* from what I have already.

Does Atmos for home max out at 9 speakers or does "bed" mean a basis from which to build i.e. minimum number of speakers?
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 01:10 PM 04-15-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

So at this time I remain unconvinced that 'just plain folks' who buy an object-audio capable AVR will plan to use it with any more speakers than they would have used with any prior generation AVR...?!
Agreed, but for the moment "object-audio" is being conflated with "more speakers" or "height speakers" the way "Dolby Digital" was initially synonymous with "5.1". That perception will change over time as object-audio decoders become ubiquitous the way Dolby Digital decoders did.
markus767's Avatar markus767 01:21 PM 04-15-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

The Atmos bed *subtracts* from what I have already.

Does Atmos for home max out at 9 speakers or does "bed" mean a basis from which to build i.e. minimum number of speakers?

Atmos is a hybrid approach. Channels 1-10 follow the good old channel-based approach with a fixed speaker layout. It's basically 7.1 as we know it plus 2 top surrounds. Channels 10-128 can be mixed to any location in a hemispherical dome. How good and exact those objects are placed is determined by the number of speakers in the playback system.
It's up to the mixer which features he uses. He could use only the bed, only objects or any combination. The consumer doesn't know how a soundtrack is mixed so following the 9.1 bed layout (standard 7.1 plus 2 overheads) will probably be a good starting point for home theaters.
Scott Simonian's Avatar Scott Simonian 02:14 PM 04-15-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

The Atmos bed *subtracts* from what I have already.

Does Atmos for home max out at 9 speakers or does "bed" mean a basis from which to build i.e. minimum number of speakers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Atmos is a hybrid approach. Channels 1-10 follow the good old channel-based approach with a fixed speaker layout. It's basically 7.1 as we know it plus 2 top surrounds. Channels 10-128 can be mixed to any location in a hemispherical dome. How good and exact those objects are placed is determined by the number of speakers in the playback system.
It's up to the mixer which features he uses. He could use only the bed, only objects or any combination. The consumer doesn't know how a soundtrack is mixed so following the 9.1 bed layout (standard 7.1 plus 2 overheads) will probably be a good starting point for home theaters.


Noah. As far as I follow (wrt Atmos@home) is just ^^^^^ that.

What I am hoping is that you will get to keep our 5/7.1 setup (and I'm rooting for the capability to keep the front heights/wides too) and then in addition to that at minimum two overhead "channels". What would also be cool is if this is more like 4 discrete locations or more, even. This would be ideal and keep me happy (and from continually winging on about it tongue.gif) if we all could keep the current 11.1 (front heights/wides+traditional 7.1) AND have and extra overhead layer. Four to six overhead surrounds would certainly be capable of a nice 'sonic bubble'. smile.gif

Oh woops... lol. I mean with this layout there will be still mostly 7-9.1 content and the Atmos or object aware AVR would send any additional object data to the corresponding locations.
wse's Avatar wse 08:35 PM 04-15-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View PostBasically, the Atmos bed asks for a standard 7.1 speaker layout plus 2 overhead surrounds. Add those two overheads and your home theater is Atmos-ready.

Cool that's what I have now :)  Except I would like the four additional high speakers to make it 13.4


thebland's Avatar thebland 09:18 AM 04-16-2014
I wonder if you'll be able to use side-fronts in Atmos?
Scott Simonian's Avatar Scott Simonian 09:26 AM 04-16-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

I wonder if you'll be able to use side-fronts in Atmos?

Exactly. That's sort of why I hope the gear will allow for "wides" or as I would use them in my room as 'forward surrounds' such as documented in the Dolby Atmos whitepaper.


But.... in my room I could probably get away with just moving my side surrounds slightly ahead of me.
TMcG's Avatar TMcG 04:51 PM 04-16-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

I wonder if you'll be able to use side-fronts in Atmos?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Exactly. That's sort of why I hope the gear will allow for "wides" or as I would use them in my room as 'forward surrounds' such as documented in the Dolby Atmos whitepaper.


But.... in my room I could probably get away with just moving my side surrounds slightly ahead of me.

From my conversations with Erskine...they will. For a home theater in the 22' to 28' depth range there would be three sets of sides. The front wides are at a 60 degree angle pointed toward the MLP.
ellisr63's Avatar ellisr63 06:08 PM 04-16-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post


From my conversations with Erskine...they will. For a home theater in the 22' to 28' depth range there would be three sets of sides. The front wides are at a 60 degree angle pointed toward the MLP.
So am I to assume that if you have a 11.2 setup you would just add a 2nd set of side surrounds?
thxman's Avatar thxman 07:07 PM 04-16-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post


From my conversations with Erskine...they will. For a home theater in the 22' to 28' depth range there would be three sets of sides. The front wides are at a 60 degree angle pointed toward the MLP.

I assume 2 overhead per set in alignment? Once Atmos is available, I will be ripping up my theater and getting all new speakers. Looks like it will be hard to stay under $40,000 for speakers alone. 5 fronts (L, LC, C, RC, R), 3 to 4 sets (4 speakers per set) of sides/overhead and 3 back. The 3 back is my hopping that Atmos won't require a stereo set for each back channel. So that is 20 to 24 speakers. At $40k that is only @$1650 - $2000 a speaker. Not a lot of wiggle room.
TMcG's Avatar TMcG 09:35 PM 04-16-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellisr63 View Post

So am I to assume that if you have a 11.2 setup you would just add a 2nd set of side surrounds?

I'm not sure which "11" you would be running in your 11.2. I'll be running 13.2..... LCR, 3 sets of sides, a pair of rears and a pair of VOGs per row of seating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thxman View Post

I assume 2 overhead per set in alignment? Once Atmos is available, I will be ripping up my theater and getting all new speakers. Looks like it will be hard to stay under $40,000 for speakers alone. 5 fronts (L, LC, C, RC, R), 3 to 4 sets (4 speakers per set) of sides/overhead and 3 back. The 3 back is my hopping that Atmos won't require a stereo set for each back channel. So that is 20 to 24 speakers. At $40k that is only @$1650 - $2000 a speaker. Not a lot of wiggle room.

Yes, one pair at the thirds of the room, slightly advanced of the listening position for each row. And I also feel your pain on the speaker package cost beyond a certain point. I'll be adding the front set of sides and two rows of two VOGs to my existing 9.2 setup to essentially reach an Atmos prewire. To take things one step further I'll be prewiring for the layers called for by Auro and DTS UHD just in case I go that route down the road. As far as I can see to this point, it takes the single row of speakers promoted by Atmos and divides them into lower and upper layers with an optimal 30 degree offset between the two layers as referenced from the MLP.
ellisr63's Avatar ellisr63 09:38 PM 04-16-2014
Would the upper speakers need to be full range too, or could I just use midrange horns and tweeters for them?
TMcG's Avatar TMcG 09:45 PM 04-16-2014
I'm taking the approach of an 80Hz crossover for all the speakers except for my LCRs, which will cross over around 60Hz for smoother transition to the LFE.
ellisr63's Avatar ellisr63 09:52 PM 04-16-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

I'm not sure which "11" you would be running in your 11.2. I'll be running 13.2..... LCR, 3 sets of sides, a pair of rears and a pair of VOGs per row of seating.
Yes, one pair at the thirds of the room, slightly advanced of the listening position for each row. And I also feel your pain on the speaker package cost beyond a certain point. I'll be adding the front set of sides and two rows of two VOGs to my existing 9.2 setup to essentially reach an Atmos prewire. To take things one step further I'll be prewiring for the layers called for by Auro and DTS UHD just in case I go that route down the road. As far as I can see to this point, it takes the single row of speakers promoted by Atmos and divides them into lower and upper layers with an optimal 30 degree offset between the two layers as referenced from the MLP.

I was thinking 11.2, plus 2 sets of side heights
SoundChex's Avatar SoundChex 04:15 PM 04-18-2014
The two interviews with "Dolby Dudes" included in this April 17, 2014, Pro Video Coalition 'news report', "PVC at NAB 2014 - Dolby Introduces Us to the Next Generation of Audio" (link), would seem to suggest that the look and feel of the Dolby AC-4 codec is what we can expect for the "Home Theater Atmos Experience".

More 'Key Features|Benefits of Dolby AC-4' details in this April 17, 2014, InBroadcast 'news report', "Dolby AC-4 Comes To NAB" (link).

It's hard to tell just how this will impact packaged|streamed movies . . . and there is no useful info on the 'complexity' of the channels and objects that might be supported...???

So it seems like all that's missing at the moment are the specifics! biggrin.gif
_
markus767's Avatar markus767 05:08 AM 04-19-2014
^
"Dolby is working with leading silicon partners to integrate Dolby AC-4 capabilities into the next-gen chipsets for CE devices by early 2015. The new experiences enabled by Dolby AC-4 will be available on STB, TVs, and mobile devices by the end of 2015."
Dan Hitchman's Avatar Dan Hitchman 09:55 AM 04-20-2014
I hope the AC-4 nomenclature doesn't mean a return to lossy audio (like Dolby AC-3). They ought to call the two consumer object codecs Dolby Atmos Lossless and DTS-UHD Lossless just like their current Dolby TrueHD means lossless compression and DTS Master Audio means lossless as well.

We do need more specifics as to what object audio (Dolby and DTS's codecs) for the home will entail... quality of compression, bit depth/sampling rates supported, how many channel beds, how many objects, what is the maximum speaker amount and their optimal positions... that sort of thing. We're just conjecturing right now since Dolby and DTS are being cagey.
Roger Dressler's Avatar Roger Dressler 12:50 PM 04-20-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I hope the AC-4 nomenclature doesn't mean a return to lossy audio (like Dolby AC-3). They ought to call the two consumer object codecs Dolby Atmos Lossless and DTS-UHD Lossless just like their current Dolby TrueHD means lossless compression and DTS Master Audio means lossless as well.

We do need more specifics as to what object audio (Dolby and DTS's codecs) for the home will entail... quality of compression, bit depth/sampling rates supported, how many channel beds, how many objects, what is the maximum speaker amount and their optimal positions... that sort of thing. We're just conjecturing right now since Dolby and DTS are being cagey.
The trend for codec developers is as exemplified by MPEG-4 Audio Lossless Coding (ALC), where rather than one codec for lossy and another for lossless, all the tools are combined into a unified package. That gives the content creator maximum flexibility in managing their content space or streaming resources.

Having said that, Dolby's press release from NAB link talks about lower bitrates for broadcasting, so it indeed occupies the same space as AC-3.
Rumble Devo's Avatar Rumble Devo 09:39 AM 04-25-2014
Quote:
http://www.forum-film.com/kino-2014/kongressprogramm.html

The "new" IMAX: solutions and commercial models for the German market
What is IMAX today: Technology, film slate, studio partnerships, collaboration with Hollywood's biggest directors and producers
The new IMAX technology: xenon and laser projection, new 11.1 sound

This is speculation but per this article It looks as if the IMAX Gen II sound systems are going to Auro 3D based. With the current Barco projector partnership I can see this happening.
Is there any chance that IMAX and Dolby worked on a custom Atmos configuration for IMAX?

Do any on the industry insiders know about this system?


Thanks.
SoundChex's Avatar SoundChex 11:38 AM 04-25-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumble Devo View Post

Quote:
http://www.forum-film.com/kino-2014/kongressprogramm.html
The "new" IMAX: solutions and commercial models for the German market
What is IMAX today: Technology, film slate, studio partnerships, collaboration with Hollywood's biggest directors and producers
The new IMAX technology: xenon and laser projection, new 11.1 sound
This is speculation but per this article It looks as if the IMAX Gen II sound systems are going to Auro 3D based. With the current Barco projector partnership I can see this happening.
Is there any chance that IMAX and Dolby worked on a custom Atmos configuration for IMAX?

It seems like this question would be pertinent only if IMAX abandons their strategy of using only a single 'laser aligned' speaker for each channel. Perhaps we might wait for more details...?
_
FilmMixer's Avatar FilmMixer 04:31 PM 04-25-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumble Devo View Post

Is there any chance that IMAX and Dolby worked on a custom Atmos configuration for IMAX?


Thanks.

No.
Roger Dressler's Avatar Roger Dressler 04:57 PM 04-25-2014
It has been said the 5.1 playback systems will not benefit from object audio playback. Certainly, on one level, object audio can be rendered to 5.1 and it will sound very much, if not identical, to a normal 5.1 mix. So, there is no benefit other than it is completely compatible. And that's important.

But there are more possibilities than mere parity.

Case 1.
Let's say your TV screen is small, and that it would improve the enjoyment of the presentation if the onscreen sounds (sounds associated with a visible source) were to remain better tied to the screen size, thus avoiding exaggerated lateral cues for sources near the sides of the screen. This can be achieved with object rendering that is informed about the screen size. Then it will know how to map "screen edge" sounds to the phantom locations accordingly. As with any phantom image, it can shift depending on the location of the viewer. However, these phantoms are not built between L and R, but with L/C and C/R, so the error is cut in half. Furthermore, the error is never worse (and usually better) than the displacement error with standard L/C/R playback around a small screen.

Case 2. (reverse of case 1)
Let's say you are using your TV's internal speakers or a soundbar. The front sound stage will be no wider than the screen. If the device has some sort of stereo widener, then it widens everything, even the sounds that should have stayed near the screen. Object rendering allows the widening to be applied selectively, only to the ambience or music, while leaving the onscreen cues tied to the image.

Case 3.
It's night time, and turning down the volume obscures the dialog. DRC can help, but with object audio, DRC is a new ballgame because the dialog can be elevated independently of the rest of the mix. The mind boggles at the number of opportunities this presents for all manner of use cases; high ambient noise, hearing impairments, sleeping kids.

Case 4.
The surrounds are too far to the back of the room. Objects can be remapped by the renderer to adapt. So can the channel beds (I can speak for MDA, anyway). If the speaker to which a bed channel is is assigned is not in the correct location, the renderer will have the option to revert to using that speaker's nominal position, treating it same as an object.

Case 5.
A 5.1 system has no height speakers. Yet there are ways to manipulate sounds to give an impression of height. With object audio, the system knows which sounds are elevated and which are not, and can funnel the elevated sounds to a "virtual height" processor.

The end user decides whether to use any of the above features or not.
Dan Hitchman's Avatar Dan Hitchman 04:57 PM 04-25-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumble Devo View Post

This is speculation but per this article It looks as if the IMAX Gen II sound systems are going to Auro 3D based. With the current Barco projector partnership I can see this happening.
Is there any chance that IMAX and Dolby worked on a custom Atmos configuration for IMAX?

Do any on the industry insiders know about this system?


Thanks.

I would like to know why they didn't go with DTS MDA's object based system since Barco has stated Auro can use it for advanced surround mixing. It would have been a boon to IMAX to have audio tracks as good or better than Dolby Atmos with a speaker system to match.
FilmMixer's Avatar FilmMixer 05:14 PM 04-25-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I would like to know why they didn't go with DTS MDA's object based system since Barco has stated Auro can use it for advanced surround mixing. It would have been a boon to IMAX to have audio tracks as good or better than Dolby Atmos with a speaker system to match.

IMAX has rarely gone outside for solutions.
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 06:18 PM 04-25-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

The surrounds are too far to the back of the room. Objects can be remapped by the renderer to adapt. So can the channel beds (I can speak for MDA, anyway). If the speaker to which a bed channel is is assigned is not in the correct location, the renderer will have the option to revert to using that speaker's nominal position, treating it same as an object.
Indeed DTS was offering channel re-mapping as part of their DTS-HD codecs when they appeared on Blu-ray discs 8 years ago. Coincidentally, Trinnov has been doing 3D remapping for the same number of years, since the first Optimizers started being installed in studios in 2006. So, re-mapping channels is not new and certainly not something that Atmos can't do (not saying that Dolby will do it for their consumer implementation, just that there is no technological reason that they couldn't do it).
smurraybhm's Avatar smurraybhm 08:08 PM 04-25-2014
Thanks Roger - good info delivered in a basic easy to understand way. Something I would want on my next AVR or Pre.
First ... 29  30  31 32  33  ... Last

Up