Moving past 7.1 into 9.1/11.x/3D ObjectAudio in HT via AudysseyDSX/DolbyPLIIz/DTS Neo:X™/Auro-3D - Page 19 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 12:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

Thx TMcG, so it appears there is no public available road map to go from Cinema to Home Theater?
That document clearly shows HT small acoustic room is outta scope of its scaled L/W and # speakers.
(1st time I've seen that)

Has Dolby hinted when they will make such material available to HT enthusiasts, to whet our appetite?

I've not seen a road map for Atmos to residential home theater, but I can imagine it being a standard 9.1 (two pairs of side channels), plus a center rear and a pair of VOG speakers to get to 12.1. Atmos doesn't seem to buy into the "height" speakers on the front wall. I think the only question is would there be a third pair of side speakers up closer to the screen, where "wide" speakers are located today. I don't know...just spitballin' here.

All I know is I have a one-man campaign to *will* Dolby Atmos into existence for the residential home theater. After all, if I put it on my marquee it has to come true, right? biggrin.gif




Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

I "hear you" rolleyes.gif on the lower surround array possible being blocked by seats/headrests/etc.....that would vary for each HT overall height, say maybe a 9-10 ft is minimum for dual layer array to be effective?
Who's studying those basic guidelines?

I thought the same thing - that you really need the ceiling height to get acceptable separation. But Auro takes the other approach of lowering the first level of speakers at ear level when seated. The second level speakers are recommended to be 20 degrees to 40 degrees (30 degrees recommended optimal) higher than the first level as referenced from the MLP. So it really doesn't matter concerning the height of the ceiling as much as the degree of separation between the two, with seated ear level being the basis for the lower level. This becomes problematic when the MLP is some distance from the rear wall, thereby requiring the additional ceiling height to get the proper degrees of physical separation. I also don't like the fact that Auro recommends a single over head VOG speaker vs. Atmos which uses a pair at the 1/3 position over the MLP. Having an overhead pair just seems MUCH better to me, especially when you are talking about the distance to bridge the sound gap from the top level side speaker to the center of the theater room.
TMcG is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 12:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,232
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1048 Post(s)
Liked: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

Thx TMcG, so it appears there is no public available road map to go from Cinema to Home Theater?
That document clearly shows HT small acoustic room is outta scope of its scaled L/W and # speakers.
(1st time I've seen that)

Has Dolby hinted when they will make such material available to HT enthusiasts, to whet our appetite?

I "hear you" rolleyes.gif on the lower surround array possible being blocked by seats/headrests/etc.....that would vary for each HT overall height, say maybe a 9-10 ft is minimum for dual layer array to be effective?
Who's studying and establishing those basic guidelines? I hope Barco is, if they want the HT community to get behind their proposal.

Joe - you and I agree on NeoX, as others here have also stated.

Correct. There is no agreed upon standard yet. But if you look at Dolby's Atmos white paper, there clearly are distinct areas that have been added to the surround array of commercial theaters: overhead left/right, wide front surrounds left/right (to fill in the gap between screen speakers and the typical side surround array - aimed towards the main seating locations), back wide surround locations left/right (aimed at the seating locations), and optional center left and center right screen speakers (if the screen size is large enough to handle them). The amount of overhead speakers seems to mirror the amount of side wall surrounds. However, in a home the dual stereo pairs of overheads could augment front screen speakers and surrounds.

Each speaker is wired and amped individually.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #543 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 12:29 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 296
TMcG - you rock! Where there is a will, there is a way.
We are very alike indeed.

Also agree on the Auro ceiling, though I'd experiment with a single speaker vs some array....trailblazers get to do that sorta stuff. biggrin.gif

I should start a separate thread to actually poll and gather people who have "expanded" surround systems beyond the 7.1 norm.
Make a table or google doc to have them input parameters.....now that I typed that, will do it this weekend.
I wonder if the "home" place for such a thread would be in this forum, or the Audio forum , or AVR forum, or speaker forum......

Somehow I like it here, in the construction forum, possible with some posts in those other forums asking members to post their beyond 7.1 set-up here as master holder.

Having it visible here will inspire others to think that way, plant a seed for them to think/see/plan/design/budget/hear beyond 7.1 ...
The bold new frontier!
mtbdudex is online now  
post #544 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 12:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

. . . and optional center left and center right screen speakers if the screen size can handle them.

This would never be needed in a residential setting. Dolby recommends screen widths of 12+ METERS before employing left center and right center speakers.
Quote:
2.1 Number of Screen Loudspeakers
A minimum of three screen speakers is required. For a screen wider than 12 meters (approximately 40 feet), we recommend
the addition of left center and right center speakers.
TMcG is offline  
post #545 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 12:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,232
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1048 Post(s)
Liked: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

I've not seen a road map for Atmos to residential home theater, but I can imagine it being a standard 9.1 (two pairs of side channels), plus a center rear and a pair of VOG speakers to get to 12.1. Atmos doesn't seem to buy into the "height" speakers on the front wall. I think the only question is would there be a third pair of side speakers up closer to the screen, where "wide" speakers are located today. I don't know...just spitballin' here.

All I know is I have a one-man campaign to *will* Dolby Atmos into existence for the residential home theater. After all, if I put it on my marquee it has to come true, right? biggrin.gif




I thought the same thing - that you really need the ceiling height to get acceptable separation. But Auro takes the other approach of lowering the first level of speakers at ear level when seated. The second level speakers are recommended to be 20 degrees to 40 degrees (30 degrees recommended optimal) higher than the first level as referenced from the MLP. So it really doesn't matter concerning the height of the ceiling as much as the degree of separation between the two, with seated ear level being the basis for the lower level. This becomes problematic when the MLP is some distance from the rear wall, thereby requiring the additional ceiling height to get the proper degrees of physical separation. I also don't like the fact that Auro recommends a single over head VOG speaker vs. Atmos which uses a pair at the 1/3 position over the MLP. Having an overhead pair just seems MUCH better to me, especially when you are talking about the distance to bridge the sound gap from the top level side speaker to the center of the theater room.

DTS already has its answer to Atmos in the home: DTS-UHD, which includes object based data. I just haven't heard how the codec is implemented nor has their been a detailed account of their CES demonstrations (if it's lossless and the bit depth and sampling rates available, if it's a hybrid of channel beds + objects or purely an object bitstream, how many speaker and sub locations it can accommodate, etc.).

I can only speculate that for ease and quickness of getting their DTS-MDA object format out for consideration in consumer UHD broadcasts and pre-recorded media, they took a channel bed + objects approach by tacking object extension data files onto their DTS-MA codec. DTS-MA (based on their core + extension Coherent Acoustics format) can have a bed of up to 16 discrete channels. So maybe it's 9.1 plus a certain amount of object files. Atmos has 7.1/9.1 channels + 128 objects, currently.

Dolby demoed Atmos for the home by using, if memory serves, the same approach with TrueHD + added object files. Though Dolby may be more quietly devising a consumer scheme that could answer DTS-UHD later on.

I also have to imagine the sound files would be larger than today's lossless tracks on Blu-ray and that may be why object surround isn't being added to the regular Blu-ray format. With TrueHD and DTS-MA, there are already steps in place for backwards compatibility with legacy surround decoders.

DTS is touting the ability to map a home theater's speaker configuration and steer the sounds to the corresponding locations irrespective of the original mix. So, they don't seem to have one specific object surround layout in mind, though there really should be some "ideal" standardization as there is now. They are also saying that for live events, if broadcast companies can encode announcers and other sounds as objects rather than layering them in regular channels, the listener can have complete control of volume and location of those sounds in their theater.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #546 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 12:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

DTS already has its answer to Atmos in the home: DTS-UHD, which includes object based data. I just haven't heard how the codec is implemented nor has their been a detailed account of their CES demonstrations (if it's lossless and the bit depth and sampling rates available, if it's a hybrid of channel beds + objects or purely an object bitstream, how many speaker and sub locations it can accommodate, etc.).

DTS is touting the ability to map a home theater's speaker configuration and steer the sounds to the corresponding locations irrespective of the original mix. So, they don't seem to have one specific object surround layout in mind, though there really should be some "ideal" standardization as there is now. They are also saying that for live events, if broadcast companies can encode announcers and other sounds as objects rather than layering them in regular channels, the listener can have complete control of volume and location of those sounds in their theater.

I've done everything I can except for show up at DTS's front door step in California to get the recommended speaker layout for DTS-UHD to no avail. It is the only object-oriented codec for which there is no further information available, especially since it is not used commercially.

From DTS's press release:
Quote:
DTS-UHD is the first object-based audio format designed for consumer delivery. Object-based audio brings enhanced realism through more accurate spatial rendering, height audio elements, and customizations that adapt to any speaker layout.

Does this mean that it will work with any old speaker configuration you throw at it? Does "height" mean a ceiling speaker, ceiling speakers or a second level of surround speakers similar to Auro? I know they've demonstrated their technology, but there hasn't been a single word from the press or otherwise about the demo room speaker configuration. It seems like they demonstrated tech from the lab just to get *something* out from a pure marketing perspective while still being months away yet from offering a viable system recommendation for the homeowner to implement in their system. I love how the company makes this big announcement with absolutely ZERO follow-up for more than 6 months.

But I can't imagine a situation where Dolby is simply going to roll over and allow DTS or any others to dominate in the residential market. There's just too much potential opportunity for them not to entertain the notion sooner rather than later.
zuluwalker likes this.
TMcG is offline  
post #547 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 02:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,232
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1048 Post(s)
Liked: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

I've done everything I can except for show up at DTS's front door step in California to get the recommended speaker layout for DTS-UHD to no avail. It is the only object-oriented codec for which there is no further information available, especially since it is not used commercially.

From Dolby's press release:
Does this mean that it will work with any old speaker configuration you throw at it? Does "height" mean a ceiling speaker, ceiling speakers or a second level of surround speakers similar to Auro? I know they've demonstrated their technology, but there hasn't been a single word from the press or otherwise about the demo room speaker configuration. It seems like they demonstrated tech from the lab just to get *something* out from a pure marketing perspective while still being months away yet from offering a viable system recommendation for the homeowner to implement in their system. I love how the company makes this big announcement with absolutely ZERO follow-up for more than 6 months.

But I can't imagine a situation where Dolby is simply going to roll over and allow DTS or any others to dominate in the residential market. There's just too much potential opportunity for them not to entertain the notion sooner rather than later.

According to DTS and Cirrus Logic, the DTS-UHD codec is ready to roll and is already available for their quad core chipsets. They used a Cirrus Logic chip during their CES demo.

I think that height could mean ceiling speakers or higher wall speakers depending on what the consumer is comfortable with. The DTS object mixing lab pictures I've seen show overhead speaker arrays much like Atmos using matching monitor speakers.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #548 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 02:10 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Dan - thx for your info.
Have you looked at pending/approved patent applications and/or pending trademark applications?

I'll go thru the hits and look at relevant ones.....if you've done that may save me some digging/reading.
It's nice when you can see art/prior art in them also, devils in the details.

"Dolby Atmos" - Results 1 - 3:
patentstorm search for Dolby Atmos

"DTS, Inc" - Results 1 - 40 of 96
[URL=http://www.patentstorm.us/search/advanced.html?ptn_no=&inv_nm=&ttl=&isdt_start=&isdt_end=&fldt_start=&fldt_end=&ptn_txt=&asg_nm=DTS%2C+Inc&atn=&examiner=&cls=&int_cls=&doc_type[]=0&doc_type[]=1&sort=0]http://www.patentstorm.us/search/advanced.html?ptn_no=&inv_nm=&ttl=&isdt_start=&isdt_end=&fldt_start=&fldt_end=&ptn_txt=&asg_nm=DTS%2C+Inc&atn=&examiner=&cls=&int_cls=&doc_type[]=0&doc_type[]=1&sort=0[/URL]

"Auro Technologies" - Results 1 - 4
[URL=http://www.patentstorm.us/search/advanced.html?ptn_no=&inv_nm=&ttl=&isdt_start=&isdt_end=&fldt_start=&fldt_end=&ptn_txt=&asg_nm=Auro+Technologies&atn=&examiner=&cls=&int_cls=&doc_type[]=0&doc_type[]=1&sort=0]http://www.patentstorm.us/search/advanced.html?ptn_no=&inv_nm=&ttl=&isdt_start=&isdt_end=&fldt_start=&fldt_end=&ptn_txt=&asg_nm=Auro+Technologies&atn=&examiner=&cls=&int_cls=&doc_type[]=0&doc_type[]=1&sort=0[/URL]

(I've applied for patents in my day job, none granted yet.....)

btw, TMcG I want to call you by first name, I'm "Mike" and you are ?
mtbdudex is online now  
post #549 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 02:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,232
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1048 Post(s)
Liked: 536
Here is the object rendering lab at SRS Labs (now a part of DTS).





I'm guessing that the core of the DTS-UHD codec is DTS/SRS's Multi-Dimensional Audio system, which is DTS's open-source solution for commercial and consumer object audio applications.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #550 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 03:06 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Thx for the visual Dan - looks like good quality bookshelf all around.....hmmmm a paradigm shift in many peoples mindset on HT audio ...
mtbdudex is online now  
post #551 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 04:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

Thx for the visual Dan - looks like good quality bookshelf all around.....hmmmm a paradigm shift in many peoples mindset on HT audio ...

+1

So....

Left
Left Center
Center
Right Center
Right

Left Height
Center Height
Right Height

First left side
First right side
Second left side
Second right side
Third left side
Third right side

Front Left VOG
Front Right VOG
Rear Left VOG
Rear Right VOG

Left Rear
Right Rear
Left Height Rear Corner
Right Height Rear Corner

Subwoofer(s)

By my count that makes a 22.1 system. I'm a bit surprised to see three things. First, the position of the VOG speakers to the front and behind the seating (assuming the seating is the MLP). Second, the lack of a rear center and rear height center with such a comprehensive speaker package AND because DTS was the big proponent of DTS-ES format with its rear center for 6.1. And third, that they have left center and right center speakers with relatively tight spacing whereas Atmos is not recommending these speakers until the screen width hits 40 feet.

They are probably not specifying a 22.1 system but learning how to effectively "collapse" their codec into a smaller speaker configuration more typical of a residential environment while preserving the object-oriented effect.

Thanks again for posting, Dan.

And Mike.....Tim is your answer. wink.gif
TMcG is offline  
post #552 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 04:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,232
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1048 Post(s)
Liked: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post


By my count that makes a 22.1 system. I'm a bit surprised to see three things. First, the position of the VOG speakers to the front and behind the seating (assuming the seating is the MLP). Second, the lack of a rear center and rear height center with such a comprehensive speaker package AND because DTS was the big proponent of DTS-ES format with its rear center for 6.1. And third, that they have left center and right center speakers with relatively tight spacing whereas Atmos is not recommending these speakers until the screen width hits 40 feet.

They are probably not specifying a 22.1 system but learning how to effectively "collapse" their codec into a smaller speaker configuration more typical of a residential environment while preserving the object-oriented effect.

Tim,

22.1 is about the same speaker count as NHK Japan's theoretical home system. Though, there is the possibility of bass managed subs for the surround speakers, as with Atmos. Object sounds can be full frequency. The whole idea is that a sound will be reproduced the same no matter where it is in the room. Timbre matching of all speakers is also key.

There is no center back wall or center back height speaker because our ear/brain organic system tends to get confused and muddled with sounds emanating from directly behind our heads. They sound like they're mainly coming towards our front. That's why the audio formats switched to split stereo back surrounds at about the 150 degree mark in a circumference starting with 7.1 and dumped the single mono center back.

The center left and center right speakers, as shown in the laboratory photos, are usually optional. They may have been playing with sound mixes that called for these extra screen speakers like those in a commercial theater setting. Plus, they kind of act like the wides in DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX, and Dolby Prologic IIz, though can be fed discrete sounds just like all the other speakers in an object mix rather than being matrix derived.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #553 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 05:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,843
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1395 Post(s)
Liked: 1008
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

Also agree on the Auro ceiling, though I'd experiment with a single speaker vs some array....
Array would be better than a single overhead speaker.

Our human hearing perceives direction by comparing the input to both ears, taking into account phase/delays and intensity. If a sound arrives at your left ear sooner and louder than your right ear, then you'll reflexively perceive the sound towards your left. If it arrives at both ears at the same time and equally loud. then the natural reflex is to perceive it directly in front of you. But it might not be.

A single rear speaker behind the listener's centre line is psychoacoustically problematic. Since the sound from that speaker will be heard exactly the same (phase AND intensity) in both ears, it can induce momentary back-to-front reversals. Momentary because we humans make small involuntary head movements to constantly re-calibrate our surroundings. Problem is, movie sound effects can be so fleeting that by the time you recalibrate you'll already have mis-heard some of those sounds as being directly in front of you.

The solution to the reversal problem doesn't get simpler: use 2 rear speakers, spread at least 30 degrees from the centre line. This is why Dolby, DTS and THX all recommended using 2 rear speakers to play back the mono surround-back channel of their EX/ES soundtracks (6 channels, 7 speakers). Note that it was the only channel for which 2 speakers were recommended. Auro also changed their 13.1 layout from 6.1 mains + 6 heights + VOG to 7.1 mains + 5 heights + VOG (the centre-back and centre-back height are gone).

The only speaker placement worse than directly behind is directly above. Again, you'll hear those sounds equally in both ears, but those small head movements won't help this time (no matter which way you face, the sound will remain equally loud in both ears). In commercial cinemas, Auro uses 4 speakers to play back their mono VOG channel. For home, I would use at least 2 speakers, spread apart from the centre line.

2 speakers might be the worlds smallest array, but it's better than a single overhead speaker.
Scott Simonian likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #554 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 06:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,929
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 782 Post(s)
Liked: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

Thx for the visual Dan - looks like good quality bookshelf all around.....hmmmm a paradigm shift in many peoples mindset on HT audio ...
Those are self-powered Blue Sky SAT 6.5 monitors. They work very well. We would have liked the room to have a higher ceiling so everything could be up higher on the walls, but that was an existing sound room.

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 #555 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 07:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,929
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 782 Post(s)
Liked: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

From Dolby's press release:
Hi Tim,

I'll bet that quote is not from Dolby...tongue.gif

Anyway, one of the goals of object audio is to free us from the tyranny that certain channels need certain speakers in certain places. There's a lot of exploration of how to get the best effect from the fewest number of speakers in the most strategic places. SoundChex has done a great job keeping us all up to date on the latest literature on the topic.

I think as a system uses more speakers, the significance of where each incremental unit is placed is progressively less significant. The center speaker needed to be in the middle of the screen to make sense. The L/R at the sides -- either off the sides of a smaller screen, or as wide as 60 degrees. The surrounds ought to be at the sides/rear, but as we go from 2 to 4 surrounds, we have more flexibility. And that is on the azimuth plane where humans have greatest directional acuity. Now, in addition to that 7.1 baseline, which already throws an enveloping bubble of sound both around and even overhead a lot of the time, we want to augment with more height and/or overhead speakers.

Humans, being easily influenced by suggestion, do not need a lot of precision in these off-screen locations to make the point. Audyssey, Dolby, and DTS, among others, have said another wide pair, elevated, would be a good place to start. Want more? Another elevated pair flanking the seating area, and so on. Try to avoid the medial plane (top, center-rear). Stir. Repeat. smile.gif

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 #556 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 08:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,232
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1048 Post(s)
Liked: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Hi Tim,

I'll bet that quote is not from Dolby...tongue.gif

Anyway, one of the goals of object audio is to free us from the tyranny that certain channels need certain speakers in certain places. There's a lot of exploration of how to get the best effect from the fewest number of speakers in the most strategic places. SoundChex has done a great job keeping us all up to date on the latest literature on the topic.

I think as a system uses more speakers, the significance of where each incremental unit is placed is progressively less significant. The center speaker needed to be in the middle of the screen to make sense. The L/R at the sides -- either off the sides of a smaller screen, or as wide as 60 degrees. The surrounds ought to be at the sides/rear, but as we go from 2 to 4 surrounds, we have more flexibility. And that is on the azimuth plane where humans have greatest directional acuity. Now, in addition to that 7.1 baseline, which already throws an enveloping bubble of sound both around and even overhead a lot of the time, we want to augment with more height and/or overhead speakers.

Humans, being easily influenced by suggestion, do not need a lot of precision in these off-screen locations to make the point. Audyssey, Dolby, and DTS, among others, have said another wide pair, elevated, would be a good place to start. Want more? Another elevated pair flanking the seating area, and so on. Try to avoid the medial plane (top, center-rear). Stir. Repeat. smile.gif

Do have a gut feeling for how many individual speaker/sub outputs would be allowed in both the encoding of the object mixes for consumers and the amount allowed from the decoders/renderers themselves? Since DTS says their UHD codec is finalized (using their open-source MDA rendering format, I would assume) and ready for implementation, one would think they (at least) would know the answer. Do you believe they're still considering around 22 as the maximum allowable if the format is indeed scalable and expandable?

Any idea if modularity of these decoders is under consideration in the electronics industry? I wouldn't expect them to come out with a receiver with 20+ amps and output terminals in one box. But I could still envision a receiver or pre-amp/processor with a base amount of outputs to get a good object sound spread with room to expand with an additional, plug-in output unit if desired.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #557 of 893 Old 03-01-2014, 08:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,929
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 782 Post(s)
Liked: 353
^^ Dan, the encoding process has no relation to the number of speakers or subs. The playback renderers are not bounded by anything other than practicality or necessity, but I would think that reality would take effect at home as indeed it has in cinemas, where 30-50 signals is pretty much as many as would make sense, short of Iosono.

The scaling concept you describe could keep the question open, and I hope it happens. Probably not in the immediate future until a case has been made on the value of object audio in the home. Especially since the best case thus far described needs no more speakers at all: the ability to adjust the dialog.

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 #558 of 893 Old 03-02-2014, 06:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Sanjay / Roger - assuming an overhead array of two speakers by any number of rows, what is the recommendation (or your opinion) as far as placement would be concerned for multiple rows or seating, given the psychoacoustic phenomena mentioned above? In a home theater with two rows of seating, does this mean that three rows of two VOG speakers (6 total) would be needed - one set slightly advanced to the first row, one set in between the first and second rows and a third set behind the 2nd row of seats? Or, as shown above in the DTS set-up, should it be two rows of two VOG speakers, but with the spread of these speakers large enough to have both rows of seating contained in the sweet spot with one set of speakers ahead of the front row and one set of speakers behind the rear row?
TMcG is offline  
post #559 of 893 Old 03-02-2014, 09:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,232
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1048 Post(s)
Liked: 536
If you look at the way Atmos is set up... it looks like the overhead speakers mirror the position of the side wall surrounds. Each wall surround has a corresponding height element for physical x-y-z positional coordinate anchor points to simulate a sound in 3D space. Whether or not that will be a configuration allowed by consumer object tracks and decoders is unknowable at this time (multiple side surrounds, multiple back surrounds, multiple height surrounds). No one knows if a consumer object format will be able to echo the commercial venues as previous audio formats have.

Dolby and DTS, as they say, ain't talkin'.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #560 of 893 Old 03-02-2014, 10:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 24,011
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 166
I've modified my plan due to the lack of info. I'm handling this change in formats by installing a 9.5 system right now with side fronts. I'm going to hold off on high speakers until we get some information on formats and particularly some dedicated software. I've got the prewiring for the overhead speakers figured out and will be ready to go when things actually start to happen. Times are changing!

My Home Theater of the Month- Le Petit Trianon

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is online now  
post #561 of 893 Old 03-02-2014, 10:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
erwinfrombelgium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Flanders, Belgium
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

Dolby Atmos commercial spec FWIW.
Dolby_Atmos_Specifications.pdf 1978k .pdf file

Auro is essentially promoting stacked 5.1 with a single overhead speaker. Optional is adding rear center low and rear center high to get to 13.1. I always question why Atmos can generate a convincing object-oriented codec with a single row of speakers around the perimeter of the room and a pair over head (two levels) whereas Auro requires two rows of sides and a single over head speaker (three levels).

Somewhere in their literature, Auro claims their layout has to do with the WAF. If you have room for 5.1, then you have room for their basic Auro-3D 9.1 layout. The speakers from the second layer are right above their respective lower (main) speakers, hence fill the same footprint. High WAF!. After this, you need VOG to close the gap...

And let's not forget, even if Atmos only needs two layers, it needs at least the same amount of channels in total. The height speakers are hanging on the ceiling because the normal surrounds are also elevated in commercial cinema's, they give a 20° example in their specs.

Me, I'd fancy the DSX 11.1 layout with two more height surrounds (a height in each room corner). Each height @ 45° vertical if possible, that should do it. Beyond13.1, diminishing returns apply IMO.
zuluwalker likes this.

Building a HT with 7.2.4 layout and ◤SEOS-24◥ LCR.
erwinfrombelgium is online now  
post #562 of 893 Old 03-02-2014, 12:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 24,011
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 166
A lot of talk and speculation but what's the info on Blu Ray and will HDMI 2.0 be required. Any format is only as good as it's software.
zuluwalker likes this.

My Home Theater of the Month- Le Petit Trianon

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is online now  
post #563 of 893 Old 03-02-2014, 01:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,232
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1048 Post(s)
Liked: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

A lot of talk and speculation but what's the info on Blu Ray and will HDMI 2.0 be required. Any format is only as good as it's software.

Yes, HDMI with a revised 2.0 spec. will be necessary (they jumped the gun before the UHD specs. were fully completed and now must add to it).

Blu-ray, in its current form, is totally out of the picture. They aren't going to add another audio format to the specs. now (probably isn't enough bit throughput bandwidth and storage anyway without severely gimping the video quality further with severe over compression). They want something to entice you to make the switch to UHD media.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #564 of 893 Old 03-02-2014, 01:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

If you look at the way Atmos is set up... it looks like the overhead speakers mirror the position of the side wall surrounds. Each wall surround has a corresponding height element for physical x-y-z positional coordinate anchor points to simulate a sound in 3D space.

In the DTS setup above, the VOG speakers are not in line with the side channel speakers. I wonder if the same can be expected of Atmos in its home version. I've seen a number of different recommendations from Auro for residential - everything from a single VOG to a four speaker array in two rows of two, so it seems like even Auro is still trying to dial in the best approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

I've modified my plan due to the lack of info. I'm handling this change in formats by installing a 9.5 system right now with side fronts. I'm going to hold off on high speakers until we get some information on formats and particularly some dedicated software. I've got the prewiring for the overhead speakers figured out and will be ready to go when things actually start to happen. Times are changing!

So what did you end doing for your prewire of the overhead speakers? How many and what is their placement in relation to the MLP?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erwinfrombelgium View Post

Somewhere in their literature, Auro claims their layout has to do with the WAF. If you have room for 5.1, then you have room for their basic Auro-3D 9.1 layout. The speakers from the second layer are right above their respective lower (main) speakers, hence fill the same footprint. High WAF!. After this, you need VOG to close the gap...

And let's not forget, even if Atmos only needs two layers, it needs at least the same amount of channels in total. The height speakers are hanging on the ceiling because the normal surrounds are also elevated in commercial cinema's, they give a 20° example in their specs.

Me, I'd fancy the DSX 11.1 layout with two more height surrounds (a height in each room corner). Each height @ 45° vertical if possible, that should do it. Beyond13.1, diminishing returns apply IMO.

VOG (Voice of God) speakers = SOW (Screaming of Wife) in most cases I would imagine. biggrin.gif And the corner heights for the other systems may have the same effect for a multipurpose or family room.

The height speakers in a commercial Atmos setup are not hanging from the ceiling, they are about 80% up the height of the side walls in a single array "layer". Everything else is the VOG arrays on the ceiling. No speaker "stacking" like what is being recommended by DTS and Auro. Seems like an easier system to implement with no difference in perceived performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

A lot of talk and speculation but what's the info on Blu Ray and will HDMI 2.0 be required. Any format is only as good as it's software.

HDMI 2.0 will handle up to 32 channels as well as full 60fps 4K video from a pipeline perspective, but who knows what will actually reach the market as sellable media.

100GB optical media and authoring equipment ready for 4K Bluray: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57602583-221/100gb-discs-point-to-4k-blu-ray/

And I would look to this year's CEDIA for the new crop of all equipment in the signal path to have HDMI 2.0 ins/outs.
TMcG is offline  
post #565 of 893 Old 03-02-2014, 02:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,843
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1395 Post(s)
Liked: 1008
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

A lot of talk and speculation but what's the info on Blu Ray and will HDMI 2.0 be required.
No reason an Atmos soundtrack couldn't be added to upcoming BD releases. As for players, IF the audio objects are losslessly packed using TrueHD or DTS-MA, then any HDMI 1.3 player (even one from 7-8 years ago) should be able to bitstream it out to an Atmos decoder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Any format is only as good as it's software.
In that case there is lots of opportunity, since there are almost 40 movies mixed in Atmos (not counting foreign films). It will be up to the studios to decide whether it is financially viable to re-release certain Blu-rays in order to include their Atmos mixes (the surfer movie 'Chasing Mavericks', maybe not, a re-release of 'Gravity', more likely). But it's not like there are 7-8 mixes, there's 35-40 mixes (as of now). So plenty of opportunity when it comes to software.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #566 of 893 Old 03-02-2014, 02:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,232
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1048 Post(s)
Liked: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

No reason an Atmos soundtrack couldn't be added to upcoming BD releases. As for players, IF the audio objects are losslessly packed using TrueHD or DTS-MA, then any HDMI 1.3 player (even one from 7-8 years ago) should be able to bitstream it out to an Atmos decoder.
In that case there is lots of opportunity, since there are almost 40 movies mixed in Atmos (not counting foreign films). It will be up to the studios to decide whether it is financially viable to re-release certain Blu-rays in order to include their Atmos mixes (the surfer movie 'Chasing Mavericks', maybe not, a re-release of 'Gravity', more likely). But it's not like there are 7-8 mixes, there's 35-40 mixes (as of now). So plenty of opportunity when it comes to software.

Plus the fact that older channel-based movies (with surround in mind) can be remixed (as long as the separate audio elements are still available) to add the benefits of object based surround. Mixers are pretty gaga over object audio and the ability to more precisely place you inside a scene's environs. The Hobbit Trilogy got object mixes and so why not The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, etc. etc.? During the spider sequence in The Desolation of Smaug, they placed the scuttling arachnids above you and made it seem like they were traveling over your head in stereo, besides having them move along the side walls. Could you imagine the space battle sequences from the original, unedited Star Wars trilogy in object surround??!!

One sound mixer was commenting that filmmakers would need to rethink their edit pacing, so as not to change the camera's perspective quite so quickly and ruin the 3D soundscape. That's a good thing, in my book, because modern editing is becoming too jumpy as it is. You can't soak up a scene like you once could.

It's a whole new cottage industry! biggrin.gif

I don't think Atmos and other object formats need to be locked to just 3D movies... 2D films can be greatly enhanced as well. In fact, I think 3D audio would be more popular than 3D visuals.
Joseph Clark likes this.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #567 of 893 Old 03-02-2014, 02:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
erwinfrombelgium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Flanders, Belgium
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

VOG (Voice of God) speakers = SOW (Screaming of Wife) in most cases I would imagine. biggrin.gif And the corner heights for the other systems may have the same effect for a multipurpose or family room.

The height speakers in a commercial Atmos setup are not hanging from the ceiling, they are about 80% up the height of the side walls in a single array "layer". Everything else is the VOG arrays on the ceiling.

SOW = LOL smile.gif

The Atmos speakers are only on the side walls if a] The ceiling is very high and b] the lower surrounds are very low.

I went to this one in The Netherlands:
http://www.htforum.nl/yabbse/index.php?topic=128917.0
The heights (AKA Top Surrounds) are hanging from the ceiling.

As per Dolby's specs: The Top Surrounds are @ 45° elevation plus half the elevation of the Surrounds. If the Surrounds are @ 20°, then the Top Surrounds are @ 45+20/2=55°. Hence in many private rooms, where the Surrounds are @ ear level, the Top Surrounds should be @ 45+0=45°. Not very far from Auro 3D's spec then. And the same as DSX' Front Heights.

Building a HT with 7.2.4 layout and ◤SEOS-24◥ LCR.
erwinfrombelgium is online now  
post #568 of 893 Old 03-02-2014, 02:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,232
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1048 Post(s)
Liked: 536
I would think that overhead ceiling speakers would be preferable due to the fact that things traveling above you or sound effects like a thunder storm would actually sound like they were coming from where they're supposed to.

The Dolby Atmos white papers always show the height speakers as on the ceiling above the audience. I've never seen them as sitting right above the side wall surrounds like in Auro3D. In the few Atmos theaters I've been to (not many in Colorado), they're designed that way as well. Again, it just makes more sense.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #569 of 893 Old 03-02-2014, 03:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

...

One sound mixer was commenting that filmmakers would need to rethink their edit pacing, so as not to change the camera's perspective quite so quickly and ruin the 3D soundscape. That's a good thing, in my book, because modern editing is becoming too jumpy as it is. You can't soak up a scene like you once could.

...

Good point. I find quick-cut editing can be downright jarring for surround sound. We've all grown accustomed to it visually, but to have sound jump from place to place to follow the blistering pace of visual edits can be far more disorienting. Of course, a similar point has been made about 3D films needing a slower pace, too, but it's more a case of allowing the viewer to explore the extra space of a third visual dimension. I'm also fine with a return to slower pacing in films.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #570 of 893 Old 03-02-2014, 03:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by erwinfrombelgium View Post

The Atmos speakers are only on the side walls if a] The ceiling is very high and b] the lower surrounds are very low.

If you open the Atmos Pro Cinema technical document, they refer to the wall speakers as "sides" and the overhead speakers as "top". No where in the entire document do they show either two levels of speakers on the wall or all levels up on/near the ceiling. They simply have one level of side speakers on the walls going around the room and two-speaker arrays going the length of the ceiling.
TMcG is offline  
Reply Dedicated Theater Design & Construction

Tags
Emotiva Xpa 5 5 Channel Power Amplifier , Denon Avr 4311ci 9 2 Channel Network Multi Room Home Theater Receiver With Hdmi 1 4a , Sony Vpl Vw1000es Projector , Panamax , Audyssey
Gear in this thread

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