Moving past 7.1 into 9.1/11.x/3D ObjectAudio in HT via AudysseyDSX/DolbyPLIIz/DTS Neo:X™/Auro-3D - Page 25 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #721 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 11:03 AM
wse
AVS Special Member
 
wse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 6,671
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 348 Post(s)
Liked: 333

The ATSC 3.0 3Daudio codec is supposed to be chosen in 2015" 

 

Nothing before that :( I guess that way we can all save to be able to buy a new processor when they come out


My humble Cinema
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
wse is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #722 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 11:22 AM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 13,716
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 448 Post(s)
Liked: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

SRS MDA was a hybrid format like Atmos. An SRS rep confirmed that to me just prior to their acquisition by DTS. I would assume that DTS-UHD retains that characteristic.

A Hollywood sound mixer friend of mine claims that this type of hybrid formatting is necessary, because some sound elements in a movie soundtrack still make much more sense to embed as channels rather than objects. For example, you don't want the musical score or ambient background tones to move around from speaker to speaker when the camera POV changes. Those should remain fixed to specific channels regardless of what happens on screen. Sound effects, meanwhile, are frequently more directional and can be tied to the visible action.

This seems to be the consensus.... according to my industry sound-mixer friend. wink.gifbiggrin.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

The ATSC 3.0 3Daudio codec is supposed to be chosen in 2015"

Nothing before that frown.gif I guess that way we can all save to be able to buy a new processor when they come out

Sounds about right.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

Plan9Reloaded Co-host

Listen to the Plan9Reloaded Gaming and Technology Podcast (may contain NSFW language)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- direct pod link


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- main website

Scott Simonian is offline  
post #723 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 12:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,081
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Liked: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

This seems to be the consensus.... according to my industry sound-mixer friend.

It only makes sense to give mixers the flexibility to embed sounds using a combination of both methods, rather than exclusively one or the other. I imagine that any future sound formats will continue to use this hybrid approach. If a mixer really didn't want to use the 9.1 channel beds, he could always just leave them silent and focus on the objects.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #724 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 12:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 272 Post(s)
Liked: 126
To generalize it even more, the mixer shouldn't have to consider the format it ends up on when doing the mix, that should be possible to generate automatically to different formats when done.

Under construction:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nightlord is online now  
post #725 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 01:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ambesolman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,280
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

To generalize it even more, the mixer shouldn't have to consider the format it ends up on when doing the mix, that should be possible to generate automatically to different formats when done.

...or, preferably, one universal format.
ambesolman is online now  
post #726 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 02:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,777
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambesolman View Post

...or, preferably, one universal format.

Yes, that gives residuals to either Dolby or DTS. wink.gif

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #727 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 02:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,777
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

It only makes sense to give mixers the flexibility to embed sounds using a combination of both methods, rather than exclusively one or the other. I imagine that any future sound formats will continue to use this hybrid approach. If a mixer really didn't want to use the 9.1 channel beds, he could always just leave them silent and focus on the objects.

So, would you say that Dolby Atmos and DTS-MDA (aka DTS-UHD) are pretty much the same thing when it comes right down to it? Or does one format have some added benefit to the mixer and/or listener over the other?

I'm just wondering if both home versions would be taking their TrueHD and Master Audio bit-for-bit lossless codecs and just adding object extensions to them, and whether they would bump both consumer formats' channel beds from 7.1 to 9.1... or if these codecs are from-scratch.

I also hope they do allow for more than, let's say, a 11.1 speaker layout for a much more immersive 3D effect.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #728 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 02:12 PM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 13,716
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 448 Post(s)
Liked: 800
Maybe not one 'format' but more so one agreed upon overall compromise speaker layout.

Later on be it Dolby, DTS, Auro, etc it is up to the processor at home to re-route the signals properly. This is key and by far the standout reason to move to object based audio for home consumer use.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

Plan9Reloaded Co-host

Listen to the Plan9Reloaded Gaming and Technology Podcast (may contain NSFW language)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- direct pod link


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- main website

Scott Simonian is offline  
post #729 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 02:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 243
As a good atmos estimate, im guessing a 5 speaker "X" on a home theater ceiling might work.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #730 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 02:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,777
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Maybe not one 'format' but more so one agreed upon overall compromise speaker layout.

Later on be it Dolby, DTS, Auro, etc it is up to the processor at home to re-route the signals properly. This is key and by far the standout reason to move to object based audio for home consumer use.

I still don't quite see the benefit of Auro3D in the context of moving towards object surround as the SMPTE committee seems to be doing. It's yesterdays news in terms of technological advancement and system scalability.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #731 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 02:22 PM
AnalysisParalysis Analyst
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,669
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 243 Post(s)
Liked: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Maybe not one 'format' but more so one agreed upon overall compromise speaker layout.

Later on be it Dolby, DTS, Auro, etc it is up to the processor at home to re-route the signals properly. This is key and by far the standout reason to move to object based audio for home consumer use.

LOL! I was typing this exact point when your post came through. Just like we have "standard" 5.1 and 7.1 speaker layouts used by all the processing CODECs, so too should there be an optimal speaker layout for object-based surround. I think a lot depends on how many independent channels content providers intend to incorporate in 4K Bluray and high-resolution streaming services. If the max they will ever provide is 13.1, then we're stuck. If they go with the full-blown DTS-UHD setup shown several pages ago, that's a 22.1 system. It'd be nice if they made 22.1 available and then an end-use can configure what speakers they actually have, with the processor making the necessary accommodation to the surround processing.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TMcG is offline  
post #732 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,777
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post

As a good atmos estimate, im guessing a 5 speaker "X" on a home theater ceiling might work.

If Dolby sticks with their recommended speaker layout like commercial Atmos installations, there would be left/right top speakers, but no center mono top speaker. Any sounds concentrated in one location above or behind somebody's head tends to be mistaken as coming from in front of the listener.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #733 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 02:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,081
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Liked: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

So, would you say that Dolby Atmos and DTS-MDA (aka DTS-UHD) are pretty much the same thing when it comes right down to it? Or does one format have some added benefit to the mixer and/or listener over the other?

I don't know enough about DTS-UHD, or Dolby's home version of Atmos, to make that comparison.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #734 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 03:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

If Dolby sticks with their recommended speaker layout like commercial Atmos installations, there would be left/right top speakers, but no center mono top speaker. Any sounds concentrated in one location above or behind somebody's head tends to be mistaken as coming from in front of the listener.

Yeah good point, honestly though I am wiring now for height speakers but no ceiling yet. I suspect its already going to pan really well and be very enveloping... The ceiling speakers I'm still not sure about. I might stick up some temporary speakers on a pair of ladders or something once I get an Atmos unit and then see how relevant the ceiling speakers are in a home environment.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #735 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 04:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,777
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post

Yeah good point, honestly though I am wiring now for height speakers but no ceiling yet. I suspect its already going to pan really well and be very enveloping... The ceiling speakers I'm still not sure about. I might stick up some temporary speakers on a pair of ladders or something once I get an Atmos unit and then see how relevant the ceiling speakers are in a home environment.

The top speakers finish the x/y/z sound location axis patterns, especially for object based surround formats like Atmos and MDA. They create the illusion of height and spatial depth that is the necessary third dimension, which is one of the key benefits of going beyond two dimensional 5.1/7.1 sound. Another reason why the best Atmos installations have mirrored top speakers for every side wall surround.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #736 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 04:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1006 Post(s)
Liked: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I'm just wondering if both home versions would be taking their TrueHD and Master Audio bit-for-bit lossless codecs and just adding object extensions to them, and whether they would bump both consumer formats' channel beds from 7.1 to 9.1... or if these codecs are from-scratch.
The object-oriented part (metadata and rendering) will be from scratch, but there's no reason other parts have to be.

The channel beds and object files aren't going to be delivered to consumers as uncompressed PCM, so some form of lossless packing will be used for Blu-ray, in which case why not use familiar technologies (TrueHD, DTS-MA). For broadcast, cable, satellite and streaming, the audio can be transmitted as lossy compressed DD or DD+. I can't imagine the metadata taking up much bandwidth.

As for structure, the likely approach was posted last year in the Atmos thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

In order to provide a compatible track for, say, some future BD format release, there will need to be a 5.1 or 7.1 complete mix. The "extras" (i.e. objects and other bed channels) will be delivered as extensions, and using the same techniques currently used for lossless codec extensions, the original mix will be reconstituted in the "object aware" surround processor, to whatever degree the available speakers permit.
So it will probably be a 5.1 or 7.1 track with an extension packet containing the objects. Since HDMI 1.3 can transmit TrueHD and DTS-MA, even a BD player from 7 years ago should be able to bitstream the soundtrack.

Current AV receivers will see a complete 5.1 or 7.1 track, containing all the sounds in the soundtrack. Users will have the option to upmix using PLIIz or Neo:X to a 9.1-speaker layout that includes a couple of heights. Newer (object-aware) receivers will recognize the extensions and route the objects to the appropriate speaker(s). Those object sounds will also be inverted and used as out-of-phase cancellation signals to slice them out of the channels.

Same approach was used during the DVD days for the DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 format, which was a complete 5.1 track plus an extension packet containing the discrete surround-back channel, which was sent to the rear speakers with an out of phase version cancelling those sounds from the side speakers. No need to re-invent that approach for Atmos on Blu-ray.
Scott Simonian likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #737 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 04:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HopefulFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,804
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Maybe not one 'format' but more so one agreed upon overall compromise speaker layout.
If the base layout isn't changed beyond what's already accepted and pretty well standardized, then backwards compatibility would seem easier (IMO), and all the height extension can be either matrixed out (PLIIz, etc.) or mapped to height speakers via object data. The beauty of the object system is that it doesn't require a specific layout - so they don't need to settle on one, IMO. Better would be to settle on a few general guidelines, like "include as many elevated speakers as is practical, seeking to leave no more than 45 degrees of azimuth or altitude between speakers." I would think the existing psychoacoustic research could be adequately summarized to generate such a recommendation.

(or basically, what Sanjay said.)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
HopefulFred is offline  
post #738 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 04:42 PM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 13,716
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 448 Post(s)
Liked: 800
Lol, yeah pretty much the same thing. Yes.

Sanjay is much more articulate than I. wink.gif


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

Plan9Reloaded Co-host

Listen to the Plan9Reloaded Gaming and Technology Podcast (may contain NSFW language)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- direct pod link


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- main website

Scott Simonian is offline  
post #739 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 04:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1006 Post(s)
Liked: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopefulFred View Post

]If the base layout isn't changed beyond what's already accepted and pretty well standardized, then backwards compatibility would seem easier (IMO), and all the height extension can be either matrixed out (PLIIz, etc.) or mapped to height speakers via object data.
Now that would be a nice added touch: if you're going to downmix an Atmos track to 5.1 or 7.1 anyway (for backwards compatibility), then might as well matrix encode the height information using PLIIz or Neo:X so that current AV receivers can decode those signals. This way, when you use PLIIz or Neo:X during playback, the height speakers get information that was intended to be heard from above.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #740 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 05:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,823
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 192 Post(s)
Liked: 132
This is all cool but likely 2-3 years for new release Blu Rays in Atmos.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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 offline  
post #741 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 05:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,777
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

The object-oriented part (metadata and rendering) will be from scratch, but there's no reason other parts have to be.

The channel beds and object files aren't going to be delivered to consumers as uncompressed PCM, so some form of lossless packing will be used for Blu-ray, in which case why not use familiar technologies (TrueHD, DTS-MA). For broadcast, cable, satellite and streaming, the audio can be transmitted as lossy compressed DD or DD+. I can't imagine the metadata taking up much bandwidth.

As for structure, the likely approach was posted last year in the Atmos thread:
So it will probably be a 5.1 or 7.1 track with an extension packet containing the objects. Since HDMI 1.3 can transmit TrueHD and DTS-MA, even a BD player from 7 years ago should be able to bitstream the soundtrack.

Current AV receivers will see a complete 5.1 or 7.1 track, containing all the sounds in the soundtrack. Users will have the option to upmix using PLIIz or Neo:X to a 9.1-speaker layout that includes a couple of heights. Newer (object-aware) receivers will recognize the extensions and route the objects to the appropriate speaker(s). Those object sounds will also be inverted and used as out-of-phase cancellation signals to slice them out of the channels.

Same approach was used during the DVD days for the DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 format, which was a complete 5.1 track plus an extension packet containing the discrete surround-back channel, which was sent to the rear speakers with an out of phase version cancelling those sounds from the side speakers. No need to re-invent that approach for Atmos on Blu-ray.

It won't be so much because of today's Blu-ray players (since these new object codecs will probably only be for UHD media and beyond), but because they want the soundtracks to be backwards compatible with decoders that only have DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD included. I would also assume if DTS and Dolby want 9.1 channel beds, the extra height channels will also be extensions (besides the sound objects) to the 7.1 channel base track. I can see the first players would have two different HDMI outputs just like they did with 3D when that rolled out.

DTS's Coherent Acoustics codec gets a little more jumbled because it would be lossy core + lossless data extensions + lossless channel extensions (9.1) + object extensions. Dolby TrueHD would be Meridian Lossless Packing in a 5.1 channel bed + two extra back channel lossless extensions (7.1) + two extra lossless top channel extensions (9.1) + object extensions. Whew! If that's they way they end up handling DTS-UHD and Dolby Atmos for the home.

Personally, I would hate to have to continue the dumbed down broadcast and internet audio with lossy compression. I would much rather they went lossless so there was a consistency of audio quality across the UHD media board. God knows there won't be with video quality.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #742 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 05:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,777
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

This is all cool but likely 2-3 years for new release Blu Rays in Atmos.

I really, really doubt you'll see these new audio codecs added to regular Blu-ray. UHD media and beyond, yes. They want to get you to buy into the next television format. They'll be included from the start in any new UHD media, if the track was mixed with object data in the first place or was re-mixed/re-rendered to pump up certain catalog titles. It'll be regular channel based DTS or Dolby lossless as before if they're only old school mixes.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #743 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 05:24 PM
wse
AVS Special Member
 
wse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 6,671
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 348 Post(s)
Liked: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post..... It'd be nice if they made 22.1 available and then an end-use can configure what speakers they actually have, with the processor making the necessary accommodation to the surround processing.

I agree


My humble Cinema
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
wse is offline  
post #744 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 05:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,777
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

tt'd be nice if they made 22.1 available and then an end-use can configure what speakers they actually have, with the processor making the necessary accommodation to the surround processing.

I agree as well, but they would have to make these object decoding enabled electronics (receivers and possibly pre-amps) modular with data-linked add-on units that can increase your speaker layout for much improved 3D audio as I've talked about before. That's the beauty of object surround... the surround effect gets better the more speakers you add.
zuluwalker likes this.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #745 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 06:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1006 Post(s)
Liked: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

It won't be so much because of today's Blu-ray players (since these new object codecs will probably only be for UHD media and beyond), but because they want the soundtracks to be backwards compatible with decoders that only have DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD included.
No one said the soundtracks would be backwards compatible "because of today's Blu-ray players". Just pointed out that using current packing/compression codecs would have the benefit (intended or unintended) of allowing bitstreaming from even old BD players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I would also assume if DTS and Dolby want 9.1 channel beds, the extra height channels will also be extensions (besides the sound objects) to the 7.1 channel base track.
Yup, anything beyond current 8-channel soundtracks will be carried in the extension packets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I can see the first players would have two different HDMI outputs just like they did with 3D when that rolled out.
Only for 4K players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Personally, I would hate to have to continue the dumbed down broadcast and internet audio with lossy compression. I would much rather they went lossless so there was a consistency of audio quality across the UHD media board.
I'm the other way 'round: when it comes to streaming, broadcast, sat/cable, I'd take an Atmos soundtrack in Dolby Digital rather than 2 channels of lossless. The difference in fidelity is small compared to difference in spatial resolution.
zuluwalker likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #746 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 06:41 PM
Just add water and stir
 
zuluwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post


I'm the other way 'round: when it comes to streaming, broadcast, sat/cable, I'd take an Atmos soundtrack in Dolby Digital rather than 2 channels of lossless. The difference in fidelity is small compared to difference in spatial resolution.

Now this is interesting food for thought.

|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 |
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 |
zuluwalker is offline  
post #747 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 06:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,777
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post


I'm the other way 'round: when it comes to streaming, broadcast, sat/cable, I'd take an Atmos soundtrack in Dolby Digital rather than 2 channels of lossless. The difference in fidelity is small compared to difference in spatial resolution.

There's one teensy problem with that. What if the only way you can watch a particular show or movie is via the internet? One day they may not release a physical product no matter how much the home theater community wants one. Many people would want the highest possible sound quality no matter what and whatever specs. the industry players come up with for UHD broadcasts and internet content should take that into consideration.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #748 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 07:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HopefulFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,804
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Many people would want the highest possible sound quality no matter what and whatever specs. the industry players come up with for UHD broadcasts and internet content should take that into consideration.
I think virtually everyone can agree with that statement as written. The issue is what you define as quality. I think most listeners on most systems would perceive the better spacial resolution that Sanjay is after as a better quality improvement over good old Dolby Digital stereo, say, than Dolby TrueHD, also stereo. Maybe you're taking that as given, in context, not sure. I still think that lossy discrete 7.1 or 9.1 would offer more improvements over 5.1 TrueHD, but I suppose that's debatable, maybe.
sdurani likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
HopefulFred is offline  
post #749 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 07:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1006 Post(s)
Liked: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

What if the only way you can watch a particular show or movie is via the internet?
What if the US gave away the internet and we couldn't do streaming any more? The internet-only hypothetical won't be a reality for a while, what with a 4k disc in the works. In the real world, bandwidth for streaming is limited, so the choice is between a couple channels of lossless or more channels of lossy. You already know my preference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Many people would want the highest possible sound quality no matter what and whatever specs. the industry players come up with for UHD broadcasts and internet content should take that into consideration.
Even if they had the best of intentions to deliver the highest possible sound quality, the required bandwidth cannot be willed into existence. Limited bandwidth means compromising.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #750 of 893 Old 03-17-2014, 07:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1006 Post(s)
Liked: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopefulFred View Post

I still think that lossy discrete 7.1 or 9.1 would offer more improvements over 5.1 TrueHD, but I suppose that's debatable, maybe.
Agreed, even about the "debatable" part. Lossy can reach a point of diminishing returns, where raising the data rate doesn't buy audible improvements. But it can save you enough bandwidth to be able to have many more channels (and objects, hopefully).

Just to remind everyone, the discussion about lossless vs lossy is in the context of streaming, broadcast, cable, sat, etc. Optical discs carry lossless audio, and will continue to do so into the forseeable future (even with object oriented soundtracks).
Scott Simonian likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani 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