Dolby Atmos Theatre System - Page 5 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 31Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 08:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,821
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1372 Post(s)
Liked: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

"Primary" and "only" are your words not mine. In fact so is "motive"

"Primary" was your word, I simply repeated it. Doesn't change the fact that you can think of only one reason for inventing this technology: to sell more speakers. But that myopic view is a window into your thinking, not Dolby's. You're accusing them of doing something you would have done, not something they did.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 08:44 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,146
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Guys ...
pepar is offline  
post #123 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 09:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,909
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

I did not see that mentioned anywhere, but I suppose there's no stopping Y splitters if more than 64 speakers need to be used, or perhaps fewer amplifiers. It seemed to me there was a strong case made for individually driving each speaker so as to EQ it and allow it to carry a focused image, when appropriate. Of course it is also possible that any group of speakers can be fed the same signals, just like the good ole days. And that how the "beds" are reproduced. But all that is just a matter of upstream processing, feeding the individual amps/speakers.

>>The process supports rendering of these beds and objects to up to 64 speaker outputs.<<

Roger... I think more important to my semantics point was that you don't have to think about 64 outputs as individual speaker point sources, that was my point... Dolby keeps referring to the "hemisphere" and I like that description.

To Mr. Mehlau's next post about us not having to use beds a lot...

IMO, as long as film is a 2D wall with images being projected onto it (even 3D images) the bed + objects work flow will serve sounds storytelling purpose ...

There is no feasible way (talking about time and money) to create a linear story through sound on a flat 2D proscenium using only object based mixing techniques (i.e. without beds as the foundation.. )

As a mixer, when working on films (a linear 2D medium) the interaction of every element of the soundtrack (i.e. music agains dialog, etc.) requires constant dynamic interaction of all elements all the time.. when you go into object based mixing, it's hard to maintain that work flow... not only is mixing via mouse and a joystick time consuming, it's no fun...

While it may be fun to create an object only mix, I see a couple of other issues with it..

1. It would take a lot of time (both editorially and mixing).. time=money, and this is the film "business"

2. I don't think it would sound "natural" and as we've seen in the reaction to 48fps projection this week, we've created an expectation about how films look and sound.

3. Beds (i.e. traditional stems) will work well for a lot of what you are trying to convey... why create a more difficult solution when you don't need to..

4. Even if Atmos becomes the norm for theaters, we still have to think about other venues where the film will be viewed... and although MDA allows for scalability even down to stereo, you will eventually lose your way if you go too far "outside the box.""

I'm not being pessimistic, or stuck in the past (I was one of those involved from the inception with Dolby Whole Sonic Overhead 11 years ago..) just providing a counter point to Markus' comment...

It's exciting that we are entering into a new way of thinking about sound...

As a side note, I'm hoping to spend some time in the Atmos in the next couple of weeks.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #124 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 09:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,909
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

But is that "up to 64 discrete speaker outputs"?

I hope content creators don't have to use beds a lot. New miking techniques (e.g. Ambisonic soundfield microphone) and better effects processors (up to 128 outs) are probably needed.

Second point I semi addressed in my previous post to Roger..

My understudying is that yes, there can be up to 64 discrete outputs from 128 tracks (which includes both objects and beds...)

And a bed, in my understanding, is handled the same as an object just without dynamic positional metadata and can be router statically to any output (I need to get clarification on this, however.)

The Dolby room in SF has LCR mains, 26 discrete room channels (including 6 overheads) and 2 subwoofer outputs (front and back).
FilmMixer is offline  
post #125 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 10:22 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,146
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 163
So this new technology is not a slam dunk?

Jeff

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post


There is no feasible way (talking about time and money) to create a linear story through sound on a flat 2D proscenium using only object based mixing techniques (i.e. without beds as the foundation.. )

As a mixer, when working on films (a linear 2D medium) the interaction of every element of the soundtrack (i.e. music agains dialog, etc.) requires constant dynamic interaction of all elements all the time.. when you go into object based mixing, it's hard to maintain that work flow... not only is mixing via mouse and a joystick time consuming, it's no fun...

While it may be fun to create an object only mix, I see a couple of other issues with it..

1. It would take a lot of time (both editorially and mixing).. time=money, and this is the film "business"

2. I don't think it would sound "natural" and as we've seen in the reaction to 48fps projection this week, we've created an expectation about how films look and sound.

3. Beds (i.e. traditional stems) will work well for a lot of what you are trying to convey... why create a more difficult solution when you don't need to..

4. Even if Atmos becomes the norm for theaters, we still have to think about other venues where the film will be viewed... and although MDA allows for scalability even down to stereo, you will eventually lose your way if you go too far "outside the box.""

I'm not being pessimistic, or stuck in the past (I was one of those involved from the inception with Dolby Whole Sonic Overhead 11 years ago..) just providing a counter point to Markus' comment...

pepar is offline  
post #126 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 10:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,909
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

So this new technology is not a slam dunk?

Jeff

Markus suggested minimizing the use of beds...

That was specifically what I was referring to... the Dolby production technique suggestions clearly spell out the generalizations (i.e. what works well as an object, what works well as a bed, etc...)

I'm 100% behind this new way of working.. have been since the 3DAA was started a couple of years ago... and before them, Iosono..

As far as a slam dunk, Dolby has the partners and business model to make this much more successful, and prevealant, than any other attempt before (including Auro 3D, Iosono and even Dolby 7.1 (which is doing just fine..))

As mixers, we will have to work out on our end how to endorse to the studios that it's money well spent, and also to our bosses that we should invest in the infrastructure so we can final mix in the format (I'm a firm believer in starting with the object based mix rather than finishing in 5.1/7.1 and then doing a pass after the fact.... in my experience, those tend to sound artificial and not all that organic...)

It will take time... but I'm excited that we finally have a well thought out "system" for advancing sound for film..

Just my .02, of course...
FilmMixer is offline  
post #127 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 12:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,395
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 855 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

So this new technology is not a slam dunk?

Jeff

Depends on how the technology is used.

7.1 doesn't provide enough channels to recreate a real auditory space. More precisely, it can't provide enough information from psychoacoustically desirable locations.

Technologies like Audyssey DSX on the other hand upmix content and play it back from some of those desirable locations. Unfortunately it's just an upmix and there's no discrete information available for those additional speakers. In the end DSX is more like a spatial effect and not a recreation of the real thing.

As far as I can tell "beds" work either way.

With Atmos one can probably recreate most auditory spaces by utilizing spatial information from dozens of psychoacoustically relevant locations. Now, what happens if the next scene in a movie was recorded with just a stereo mic and spatial information is either coming from two locations or from locations that result from upmixing? I guess we'll find out sooner than later.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #128 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 01:16 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,146
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Well, I'd shoehorn in some wides and maybe heights for discrete content placed by the mixer whereas I wouldn't (didn't) for DSX. Ceiling speakers even have me a little giddy.
pepar is offline  
post #129 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 01:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,733
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

some (home theater version) element|channel|speaker 'limitations' might be imposed by (say) the HDMI 2.0 spec

I know you're speculating, but why would the HDMI connection even be aware of channel/speaker count when it comes to object-based soundtracks? Wouldn't the data simply bitstream into the AV receiver and then be rendered to channels based on how many speakers you were using? There can't be a HDMI limitation on the number of channels if that number is decided after the data has gone through the HDMI cable. Maybe a bandwidth limitation.

Yes, my first thought was that we might be able to estimate 'encode complexity' based on audio bitstream 'bandwidth etc' limitations in the HDMI 2.0 spec.

But we could also make some guesses about the 'HomeDATS' marketplace and their implications for the product:

Very few home theaters will need more than 32 distinct speaker channel content, so practical limits of 24.x, 28.x, or 32.x 'discrete speaker' output are unlikely to be a problem . . . and I think that should translate into the possibility of limiting the number of beds in the home encode to 32 or fewer (i.e., less 'disk space' required).

Also, decode+render workload (for objects) looks to increase dramatically with the number of discrete speaker channels employed, so this might make the case for varied performance|price levels of a separate one-external-box 'player+decoder-renderer' or 'game+renderer' delivering multi-channel PCM HDMI 1.4 or 2.0 over cable to a pre-amp or AVR. (This would also allow continued use of currently-in-place AVRs with their existing speaker configurations.)

[Too many unanswered questions right now. Perhaps we'll get some info about future 3D home audio technologies at CEDIA 2012 in the Fall...?! ]

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is online now  
post #130 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 02:06 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,914
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Liked: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

But is that "up to 64 discrete speaker outputs"?

I hope content creators don't have to use beds a lot. New miking techniques (e.g. Ambisonic soundfield microphone) and better effects processors (up to 128 outs) are probably needed.

Yes, it is 64 discrete outputs. It's a defined limit on software/hardware so as to set an upper bound, which has to be done in any real-world system. In a consumer applications, it may be limited to 20, 14, 9, 7, 5, or 2 depending on the platform. I do not see 64-ch as overly constraining.

Deadwood Atmos theater
AV7702 Atmos 7.4.4, SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, B&W CWM8180 surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #131 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 02:31 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,914
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Liked: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

Roger... I think more important to my semantics point was that you don't have to think about 64 outputs as individual speaker point sources, that was my point... Dolby keeps referring to the "hemisphere" and I like that description.

Absolutely right. I think all the proponents (IOSONO, imm, Dolby, and 3DAA) have been saying it's time to forget about channels/speakers and create a sound space.

Quote:


IMO, as long as film is a 2D wall with images being projected onto it (even 3D images) the bed + objects work flow will serve sounds storytelling purpose ...

There is no feasible way (talking about time and money) to create a linear story through sound on a flat 2D proscenium using only object based mixing techniques (i.e. without beds as the foundation.. )

As a mixer, when working on films (a linear 2D medium) the interaction of every element of the soundtrack (i.e. music agains dialog, etc.) requires constant dynamic interaction of all elements all the time.. when you go into object based mixing, it's hard to maintain that work flow... not only is mixing via mouse and a joystick time consuming, it's no fun...

While it may be fun to create an object only mix, I see a couple of other issues with it..

1. It would take a lot of time (both editorially and mixing).. time=money, and this is the film "business"

2. I don't think it would sound "natural" and as we've seen in the reaction to 48fps projection this week, we've created an expectation about how films look and sound.

3. Beds (i.e. traditional stems) will work well for a lot of what you are trying to convey... why create a more difficult solution when you don't need to..

I do not disagree with any of this. But let me offer some thoughts:

If we look at where beds come from, they start life just like any other element: an audio track. In the process of predubbing they are packaged into 5.1 or 7.1 stems. It undoubtedly streamlines the process to consolidate these "objects" (channels) into beds.

However, Atmos defines particular properties for beds, in that these channel-based "objects" get mapped in predetermined ways to the traditional speaker arrays, as GXMnow explained. That makes perfect sense.

To Marcus’ point, I think he is saying that a similar capability can be achieved, while retaining more artistic flexibility (or realism as from the use of soundfield mics), if the sounds destined for beds were handled in alternative ways. I think that may be true, and the only reasons it is not supported in the initial process have to do with minimizing production impact, and that no compelling use case has yet been demonstrated. Nothing says that these things cannot change in future. That’s the beauty of this new object-based environment, it is not limited a priori to some fixed set of capabilities for all time to come.

Deadwood Atmos theater
AV7702 Atmos 7.4.4, SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, B&W CWM8180 surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #132 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 02:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,909
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Absolutely right. I think all the proponents (IOSONO, imm, Dolby, and 3DAA) have been saying it's time to forget about channels/speakers and create a sound space.

I do not disagree with any of this. But let me offer some thoughts:

If we look at where beds come from, they start life just like any other element: an audio track. In the process of predubbing they are packaged into 5.1 or 7.1 stems. It undoubtedly streamlines the process to consolidate these "objects" (channels) into beds.

However, Atmos defines particular properties for beds, in that these channel-based "objects" get mapped in predetermined ways to the traditional speaker arrays, as GXMnow explained. That makes perfect sense.

To Marcus' point, I think he is saying that a similar capability can be achieved, while retaining more artistic flexibility (or realism as from the use of soundfield mics), if the sounds destined for beds were handled in alternative ways. I think that may be true, and the only reasons it is not supported in the initial process have to do with minimizing production impact, and that no compelling use case has yet been demonstrated. Nothing says that these things cannot change in future. That's the beauty of this new object-based environment, it is not limited a priori to some fixed set of capabilities for all time to come.

Agree with all of that... we will need to get used to the new possibilities..

We will certainly have to change things up and down the line to really take advantage of all that object based mixing offers, as both of your point out.. multichannel field recordings are great... but cost money... in the end, it's always a balance of price/performance....

One of the main things I can't wait to see is how the production workflow exists at this point in time... those 128 tracks (be they beds or objects) disappear rather quickly when you need to add reverb, for example, to music, ambiences and dialog... this is going to be quite a fun ride.

Pre dubbing is necessary not only to manage track counts, but as a mixer, it "forces" you to make decisions and commit to them... it's easy enough to unwrap if you need to, but being able to change all things, all the time, in my experience, is conducive to only one goal... never finishing the mix.

There are just things in regards to filmed content that don't lend themselves to object based mixing, and I don't see that changing as long as we're "hamstrung" by a picture being projected onto a flat surface.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #133 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 03:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,395
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 855 Post(s)
Liked: 342
The whitepaper says "[...] beds can be created in different channel-based configurations such as 5.1, 7.1, or even future formats such as 9.1 (including arrays of overhead loudspeakers)."

Is there any more detailed information available yet?

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #134 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 03:25 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,914
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Liked: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

The whitepaper says "[...] beds can be created in different channel-based configurations such as 5.1, 7.1, or even future formats such as 9.1 (including arrays of overhead loudspeakers)."

Is there any more detailed information available yet?

I would think these would be from the formalized D-Cinema specs, such as from SMPTE 428M. This ensures that the beds map to known/supported configurations.

Deadwood Atmos theater
AV7702 Atmos 7.4.4, SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, B&W CWM8180 surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #135 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 03:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,733
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

I would think these would be from the formalized D-Cinema specs, such as from SMPTE 428M. This ensures that the beds map to known/supported configurations.

This suggests one possible use for the Atmos engine is as an on-the-fly 'universal translator': defining an existing known speaker configuration multi-channel PCM input stream (e.g., NHK 22.2, or Auro-3D 11.1) as a bed should permit 'a perfect' "speaker remap" into the in-place speaker configuration defined to the Atmos processor.

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is online now  
post #136 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 06:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

"Primary" was your word, I simply repeated it.

Found it


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

Ah not a primary motive

You're coming off really petty here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

^ correct. The question is: how many loudspeakers does it take to accomplish the goal?

In my 15X17 room for example, I seem to (admittedly, rarely) get extremely convincing panning when it's called for (and properly done). Perhaps in some l o n g e r HT's I could see adding a pair of surrounds, but at what point do you lose the ability to pinpoint speakers that may only be 5' apart and 10-15' away?

this is prolly OT anyway seeing this seems to really bea bout commercial apps.


James

I wonder also how this would work with bipole and dipole speakers. Adding "pinpoints" to immersive type speakers.
Gary J is offline  
post #137 of 1315 Old 04-27-2012, 11:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,821
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1372 Post(s)
Liked: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

You're coming off really petty here.

Not at all. You're getting hung up on petty words because your backpedaling didn't work.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #138 of 1315 Old 04-28-2012, 12:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,070
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by GXMnow View Post

Okay, I am back, had a few long work days.
I also checked with some people at Dolby to make sure I can say these things and was given the ok.

If anyone on here saw "The Incredibles" clip in Vegas, take a guess how many objects were in use?? I will give this at the end of my posts so you have to go down to see it.

The "BED" channels do serve a few purposes. The system config defines what speakers make up each bed. The installer picks which output channel or group of channels are to be used to form each bed. The setup I dealt with, we defined the normal left, center, right, left side, right side, left back, right back, left ceiling, right ceiling, and also defined a front wide left and right. In a different room with an odd number of speakers across the back wall, they did define the center rear, but no contant has called for that as a defined bed. Since the pan off of the screen does work better with side speakers going up much closer to the screen, we actually do leave out the front few speakers from the side beds to better create the normal side surround field. An interesting extra thing is that once the beds are defined, we actually do run an additional EQ pass on any bed that uses more than one speaker. This way, when the group is driven as a single channel, it is the proper frequency response and level. When you group speakers, the way they will add varies depending on the spacing and boudries. This takes care of the issue. Once tuned up a -20 dbfs signal to a single speaker will produce proper response at 85 dbc, and a bed using 8 speakers will also produce the same response at 85 dbc. I am not going to argue response curves at this time, but all channels are using the current X-Curve response. The main LFE stillhas the same +10 in band gain, but any additional subs are only used to fill in for bass management, so will not have the additional gain. Bass managing into the main sub does take this into account and matches the level of the channel it is extending. The current software will only use real speakers to make beds. You can chose any combination of speakers, and this will create a phantom image between speakers, but there is no special processing to try and make a bed where there isn't a speaker. I can not say for sure how a signal sent to a ceiling bed is handled if there are no ceiling speakers. I know it will use the wall speakers, but I do not know if the bed has to be defined with what is there, or if it uses the known positions to create it's own. I will try and get this info next week, but so far all the rooms I have been in had real ceiling speakers so this question did not come up.

As I said before, the software is still going through changes, so a few extra limits have been set for the early tests. All the demo material so far is using a 9.1 bed. 7.1 and the left and right ceiling arrays.

About using nothing but objects...
I will use dialog as an example. The renerer is very accurate, and all the signals and setup info is stored digitally so there should never be any drift, BUT... If you put dialog at a location at the center of the front wall, the renderer will try to locate it right inthe actual center speaker, but I feel this is the same as a Pro Logic center channel as far as accuracy. If there is any error in the setup and rendering, it might have slight crosstalk into Le/Re, or even L, R depending on how close they are or if they might be a bit off center or if the position is entered with less than perfect precision. Using a center channel bed makes the sound always use just the real center speaker, no chance for any crosstalk.

Effects, music, or even a voice moving across the screen will be fading from speaker to speaker anyways, so a tiny bit of crosstalk or even being a phantom image between 2 speakers is not an issue, but for certain things like the dialog, this could be a real issue.

Also, if you just want a nice ambient sound or music spread through the room, the bed array surounds work very well. To get the same spread effect with just objects, you might need a few objects down the length of the desired array. There are many sounds that just work very well in an old style speaker array. But there is nothing forcing anyone to use them, an entire mix can be done with only objects if the mixer wants to do it. Out of 128 objects, we have been setting asside 10 (9.1) for these beds, so you still have 118 dynamic objects, and the production software to come soon will allow defining just a 5.1 bed, leaving 122 dynamic sound objects.

All of the current demos are also using no packing or compression at all. So if an object is used at all, it takes up a full 24/48K PCM track on the hard drive. This will change very soon, at the very least will be zero removal. A track will only be on the drive when it is in use. So when just using beds, just 9.1 will be streaming, or about 12,000,000 bits per sec. When 120 objects are active though, we still jump up to a huge data rate. It can exceed 140,000,000 bits per sec. Everyone on the production side wants lossless so that is the plan. Lossless packing can achieve about 3 to 1 compression on normal audio. Dolby True HD is in this area and I would assume a very similar packing technique will be used, but this will likely be optional, and maybe only invoked when high object counts are in use. Getting the data from the DCI server into the renderer is the possible bottle neck. The Dolby server has Gigabit ethernet for this purpose and should not have any issues even cranking the full 128 uncompressed objects. The DCI spec does already have provisions in it for "aux data tracks" which is what the ATMOS stream will be. So Dolby is not violating the written spec to put this data file along side the existing package files. Dolby will make available any info needed for other server makers to be sure they will be able to stream this data out the ethernet port. It is up to them if they will need to update firmware, or if they will charge for any such upgrade etc.

So, the incredibles clip, with all those sounds flying all over the place, uses only 16 total object tracks. Each track is being used over and over with new sounds every second or so. One second an objec might be the sound of a punch that misses, whizzing by you, but then that track is now the debris bouncing off the mountain as the ship crashes. Then it is the leaves rustling as Dash slides down the vine. Several thousands source elements may be used, but it is rare to need even 50 active objects for any instant. Of course, this clip is using the beds very effectively. Using less effects in the beds will obviously increase the object count, but most feel the currently impossed 128 source tracks is not a problem.

SRS MDA is claiming they are totally unlimited and therefore better than ATMOS as they could render millions of sources to thousands of speaker feeds. This is just plain silly. The 128 source tracks is to be sure there will not be an issue storing and streaming the data in the current server technology. This number could increase with more capable servers and bigger hard drives to support the data needs. More output channels could also be added with a more powerful renderer. Dolby suggests the speakers be 30 degrees apart or less to get a smooth pan. If someone builds a huge theatre and feels they need more than 64, I am sure a renderer can be put together. How many HUGE theatres are left??

As for a home version, yes they are talking about it, and this is a perfect place to have different price points. An AVR with a 10 channel amp and rendering capability would obviously be cheaper than an AV Pre Pro with 32 outputs and rendering ability and separate amps. It is very scalable. Getting the ATMOS data onto a Blu Ray is another discussion.

I totally skipped to the bottom of your response

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #139 of 1315 Old 04-28-2012, 12:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,395
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 855 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by GXMnow View Post

[...] I do not know if the bed has to be defined with what is there, or if it uses the known positions to create it's own. I will try and get this info next week [...]

Thanks!

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #140 of 1315 Old 04-28-2012, 12:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,914
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Liked: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by GXMnow View Post

About using nothing but objects...
I will use dialog as an example. The renderer is very accurate, and all the signals and setup info is stored digitally so there should never be any drift, BUT...

Since the "dialog" track is usually not just a mono signal for the center speaker, but incorporates reverb and voices placed elsewhere, it makes sense to carry it in the bed.

Quote:


SRS MDA is claiming they are totally unlimited and therefore better than ATMOS as they could render millions of sources to thousands of speaker feeds. This is just plain silly.

Did you see such a claim in some MDA document? I would reference their own information if there is any interest in MDA details.

MDA is a syntax specification, not a hardware platform as is Atmos, hence it is not bounded by physical constraints. MDA design acknowledges that in reality many fewer objects will be needed, and that some may even be shed thru the transmission system if either the pipe or the renderer has capacity limitations.

Deadwood Atmos theater
AV7702 Atmos 7.4.4, SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, B&W CWM8180 surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #141 of 1315 Old 04-28-2012, 12:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,395
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 855 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Since the "dialog" track is usually not just a mono signal for the center speaker, but incorporates reverb and voices placed elsewhere, it makes sense to carry it in the bed.

Yes it makes sense from a certain perspective but if that perspective is kept who needs objects anyway? For the occasional buzzing bee flying over your head?

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #142 of 1315 Old 04-28-2012, 01:26 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,914
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Liked: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Yes it makes sense from a certain perspective but if that perspective is kept who needs objects anyway? For the occasional buzzing bee flying over your head?

I guess that question would best be answered by hearing the Incredibles demo where they turn off the bed and played just the objects, as shown at Cinemacon. People said it was a very enlightening thing to hear.

Deadwood Atmos theater
AV7702 Atmos 7.4.4, SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, B&W CWM8180 surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #143 of 1315 Old 04-28-2012, 01:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,395
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 855 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

I guess that question would best be answered by hearing the Incredibles demo where they turn off the bed and played just the objects, as shown at Cinemacon. People said it was a very enlightening thing to hear.

I was thinking of the other way around: switch off the objects and have them mixed in the bed. I suppose the difference would be less striking.

My point being, if the traditional production paradigm is kept, not much will be gained.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #144 of 1315 Old 04-28-2012, 01:39 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,914
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Liked: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

I was thinking of the other way around: switch off the objects and have them mixed in the bed. I suppose the difference would be less striking.

My point being, if the traditional production paradigm is kept, not much will be gained.

If you agree that objects represent a gain, then why would retaining a bed necessarily hamper the result? Presumably the bed is used for sounds that do not benefit from being delivered as objects.

Deadwood Atmos theater
AV7702 Atmos 7.4.4, SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, B&W CWM8180 surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #145 of 1315 Old 04-28-2012, 02:02 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,914
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Liked: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by GXMnow View Post

I do tend to ramble when I am excited about something and want to explain it. I hope at least some people on here like the information I am bringing.

I'm very honored to have your participation in my humble thread. Thank you very much!

Quote:


From my post Quote:
" SRS MDA is claiming they are totally unlimited and therefore better than ATMOS as they could render millions of sources to thousands of speaker feeds. This is just plain silly. "

Roger replied
"Did you see such a claim in some MDA document? MDA is a syntax specification, not a hardware platform as is Atmos, hence it is not bounded by physical constraints. MDA design acknowledges that in reality many fewer objects will be needed, and that some may even be shed thru the transmission system if either the pipe or the renderer has capacity limitations. "

Here is where this claim comes from. May not be straight from someone at SRS MDA (DTS) but obviously someone is trying to stir the pot.

Yes, I saw it just a minute ago. OMG...

Quote:


Dolby started with a wide open clean sheet several years ago ( I want to say 5 years, but I might be off a little ) trying to find a real way to get past 7.1 in a way that could be widely adopted and deployed.

Yes, it was a frequent topic while I was still there (until 2008), but object-based audio was not on the table then.

Quote:


When I found and read my first article on the SRS MDA system a while back, I already knew ATMOS was in the works, and I brought the article to people at Dolby, they were already well aware of it. When there is an amzing jump in technology, it does happen that 2 different groups come to very similar ideas without knowing what the other had been doing. And this is basically what is going on here.

The seeds for object based content delivery are actually quite old, and fully documented in MPEG4 standards a decade ago. That's probably why we also see IOSONO and imm all heading in similar object-based directions.

Quote:


MDA does look promising, but as Roger said, it is not a fully working hardware/software system in the real world right now, with a film being mixed and theatres being equipped.

Just to clarify, what I said is that MDA is a standard, not a product. Certainly not a cinema server. But there is a ProTools MDA Creator and an MDA player, and they have been used in dubbing stages for the same reasons you mention: must be able to work in the real content creation world. No better way to find out than to try it.

Deadwood Atmos theater
AV7702 Atmos 7.4.4, SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, B&W CWM8180 surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #146 of 1315 Old 04-28-2012, 02:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,395
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 855 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

If you agree that objects represent a gain, then why would retaining a bed necessarily hamper the result? Presumably the bed is used for sounds that do not benefit from being delivered as objects.

I did not say it necessarily would hamper the results. I said it could if the old content creation process is kept and the end result is still a 7.1 mix with some additional buzzing bees flying around behind your back.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #147 of 1315 Old 04-28-2012, 02:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,395
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 855 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by GXMnow View Post

I hope at least some people on here like the information I am bringing.

Keep it coming. Very much appreciated.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #148 of 1315 Old 04-28-2012, 02:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
StevenLansing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

However.... IMO theaters largely survive in the US because teeneagers and young adults need somewhere to depart with their disposable income.

I don't think that will change anytime soon.

I fully agree.

Maybe it just because I'm getting older, but I think that's one of the main reasons why I think a lot of todays films(content wise)really suck!!! These movies seem to be geared more to the tween crowd than anything else.

The ATMOS definitely looks to be a really interesting way to render and playback sound.
StevenLansing is offline  
post #149 of 1315 Old 04-28-2012, 02:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,821
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1372 Post(s)
Liked: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by GXMnow View Post

The setup I dealt with, we defined the normal left, center, right, left side, right side, left back, right back, left ceiling, right ceiling, and also defined a front wide left and right.

As for a home version, yes they are talking about it...

Don't know if you're aware, but consumer AV receivers, like the Denon 4311, already output the speaker layout you described above: 3 fronts, 2 sides, 2 backs, 2 heights, 2 wides. As time goes by, there will be more receivers with this capability. So by the time there is a home version of Atmos, there may be more than a few home theatres with 9- or 11-speaker layouts, ready for content.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #150 of 1315 Old 04-28-2012, 05:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by GXMnow View Post

Strictly my opinion here, not from Dolby at all...

I do not feel a dipole speaker would be a good choice for ATMOS.

The main reason for the dipole was to difuse and spread the sound to make it more like an array as used in a theatre. Well, the thing with ATMOS is it can no produce idea point sources all around the room. A dipole speaker would take this point source of sound and spread it to sound like an array again.

Well that is unfortunate. I think there are many dipole and bipole speakers in use in HTs for exactly the reason highlighted. I still think they a good alternative to a proliferation of speakers. Some petty poster may not want to hear that - too bad.
Gary J is offline  
Reply D-cinema Equipment and Theaters

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off