Dolby Demos Atmos for Cinema and Home - Page 11 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 88Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #301 of 513 Old 08-22-2014, 05:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,655
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1242 Post(s)
Liked: 956
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
I read into the mind of the author, but if the demonstration of Atmos was not superior to a home setup, that may factor into upgrade decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
I am convinced that the author of the article was not convinced that Atmos provided a significant benefit over his 7.1 system.
Finally. So, just to be clear about what you've been repeating: what was not "convincing" at the demo was a reason to upgrade? Is that correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
What do you think the author is saying?
1) upward firing speakers sound tinny/processed, like low bitrate MP3
2) raising your current surrounds diminishes need for overhead height channels
3) very little differentiates PLIIz matrix processing from an Atmos mix
4) proper setup & calibration is more important than a new format
5) Atmos format needs more suspension of disbelief

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #302 of 513 Old 08-22-2014, 06:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,079
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post
It's going to depend on the intent of the producer. Some music soundtracks are mixed as if you were sitting in an audience listening to performers on a stage. Some place the listener among the musicians. Others are even more elaborate artistic productions, with varying musical effects in all available channels.

One Atmos + Auro audio BD title already has been announced. MAGNIFICAT is to be released in October by 2L.

See Dolby Demos Atmos for Cinema and Home

which links to a preview at
http://www.audiophile.no/music/recor...uro-3d-from-2l

The title is listed on 2L's site on the page
http://www.2l.no/pages/preview.html
I heard a clip from that album and will more than likely order the disc. It's great music.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #303 of 513 Old 08-22-2014, 06:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 609 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post
This is clearly strictly true "globally" if we only examine the question of entropy in an audio-as-information context . . . but that does not foreclose the question of whether a less diffuse perception might not be obtained "locally" at the MLP. I believe it might be possible--at least theoretically--to add "corrective content" to several of the other Height and|or Main layer speakers in order to do this using algorithms similar to those which allow Yamaha and Pioneer to create Virtual Height speakers (using only Main layer speakers).
I suspect that adding corrective signals via an upfiring speaker to help focus the image of another upfiring speaker might be fairly impossible. But it is entirely possible some form of virtual height speakers could be used to enhance or even replace the height bounce. There's such a world of innovation opportunity unleashed by object audio!

Deadwood 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

Last edited by Roger Dressler; 08-22-2014 at 06:54 PM.
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #304 of 513 Old 08-22-2014, 06:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,801
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 272 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Finally. So, just to be clear about what you've been repeating: what was not "convincing" at the demo was a reason to upgrade? Is that correct?


1) upward firing speakers sound tinny/processed, like low bitrate MP3
2) raising your current surrounds diminishes need for overhead height channels
3) very little differentiates PLIIz matrix processing from an Atmos mix
4) proper setup & calibration is more important than a new format
5) Atmos format needs more suspension of disbelief

That is a good summary of the points presented by the author.
For those reasons, he was not convinced that the Atmos is beneficial, though it might be.
Also, that could change with a better demo.


- Rich

Oppo Beta Group

Oppo BDP-105D | Oppo HA-1 | Oppo PM-1 | Parasound A51 | Revel Salon, Voice, Studio | Velodyne HGS-15
RichB is offline  
post #305 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 05:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,759
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1937 Post(s)
Liked: 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
You kept repeating it without knowing what it means. If you did, then you would be able to answer a simple question: what wasn't "convincing" at the demo? Why can't you just name it?
Would it because he wasn't there?
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #306 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 05:08 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,759
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1937 Post(s)
Liked: 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
I am convinced that the author of the article was not convinced that Atmos provided a significant benefit over his 7.1 system.
That may in part be due to quality of his system and the fact that the surround channels are already mounted above ear level.



Based on this, Atmos did not provide a "seamless sound field", which the author finds important.

What do you think the author is saying?

- Rich
How come you attach so much importance to this one guy's report, but ignore all of the other reports which are universally positive? FilmMixer, Sanjay, Scott, myself FWIW, several audio journalists (including the Brit I sat next to who described it in his blog as 'Bloody Brilliant'), Chris Walker, Andrew Jones, and numerous others have all posted very good reports of both the Atmos speakers and the ceiling speakers - yet you attach, it seems., no weight to those reports at all, but 100% weight to the report of this guy you keep quoting. TBH, that smacks of an agenda to me.

As I have said before, until you hear it for yourself and give us your own opinion, pretty much all of your posts are hot air and regurgitation.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #307 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 05:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,759
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1937 Post(s)
Liked: 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
Based on this, Atmos did not provide a "seamless sound field", which the author finds important.

What do you think the author is saying?

- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

1) upward firing speakers sound tinny/processed, like low bitrate MP3
Not on the demos I heard, and not on the one you heard either I am guessing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
2) raising your current surrounds diminishes need for overhead height channels
Shows a basic lack of understanding of what Atmos is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
3) very little differentiates PLIIz matrix processing from an Atmos mix
I have used PLIIz from day one, and I can assure anyone that the Atmos demos I heard were hugely differentiated from what I hear every day from PLIIz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
4) proper setup & calibration is more important than a new format
Doesn't make sense. They are not mutually exclusive. Nobody is denying the importance of proper setup and calibration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
5) Atmos format needs more suspension of disbelief

Seems to me to be the opposite. By creating a more realistic impression of the location in which the action exists, less suspension of disbelief is required not more.

The guy who said those things heard a very different Atmos to the Atmos I heard. And a very different Atmos to the Atmos almost everyone else heard. This would tend to make me discount, or at least question, his report on the basis that it is an outlier. If I read 50 reports and 49 are positive, I don't usually waste much time on the 1 that is negative. I believe this differentiates me from RichB.

Last edited by kbarnes701; 08-23-2014 at 05:19 AM.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #308 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 06:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,801
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 272 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
How come you attach so much importance to this one guy's report, but ignore all of the other reports which are universally positive? FilmMixer, Sanjay, Scott, myself FWIW, several audio journalists (including the Brit I sat next to who described it in his blog as 'Bloody Brilliant'), Chris Walker, Andrew Jones, and numerous others have all posted very good reports of both the Atmos speakers and the ceiling speakers - yet you attach, it seems., no weight to those reports at all, but 100% weight to the report of this guy you keep quoting. TBH, that smacks of an agenda to me.

As I have said before, until you hear it for yourself and give us your own opinion, pretty much all of your posts are hot air and regurgitation.

Regarding the experiences of the NY Demo, being different from yours are of interest to dispassionate folks seeking understanding as to when and how Atmos may be a benefit.

There are impressions that you disagree with that is fine but have the courtesy to take it up with the author and stop attacking those raising those points.
Not much discussion here, just damage control and stomping.

- Rich

Oppo Beta Group

Oppo BDP-105D | Oppo HA-1 | Oppo PM-1 | Parasound A51 | Revel Salon, Voice, Studio | Velodyne HGS-15
RichB is offline  
post #309 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 07:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,759
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1937 Post(s)
Liked: 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
There are impressions that you disagree with that is fine but have the courtesy to take it up with the author and stop attacking those raising those points.
I am intrigued why you feel the need to position yourself as the author's unofficial representative, but then say that any questions must be taken up with the author himself.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #310 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 08:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,801
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 272 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
I am intrigued why you feel the need to position yourself as the author's unofficial representative, but then say that any questions must be taken up with the author himself.
For some reason, this statement does not ring true: "I am intrigued why you feel the need to position yourself as the author's unofficial representative".?

However, sometimes people post things that are very revealing.
It seems you have positioned yourself as the chief Atmos booster who must tamp down perceived threats.
All fires must be put out immediately.

Enemies must be dealt with immediately:

XMC-1 does not do Atmos, it is useless.
Audioholics posts a video questioning Atmos speakers, they are cranks in the pocket of Emotiva, there site is pathetic.
Rich quotes impressions from the Atmos demo, he has not heard Atmos is and full of hot air.

All very unappealing.

- Rich

Oppo Beta Group

Oppo BDP-105D | Oppo HA-1 | Oppo PM-1 | Parasound A51 | Revel Salon, Voice, Studio | Velodyne HGS-15

Last edited by RichB; 08-23-2014 at 09:27 AM.
RichB is offline  
post #311 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 08:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 264
mtbdudex is online now  
post #312 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 09:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,759
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1937 Post(s)
Liked: 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
It seems you have positioned yourself as the chief Atmos booster who must tamp down perceived threats.
All fires must be put out immediately.

Enemies must be dealt with immediately:
Laughable. I don't give a rat's ass whether you or anyone else takes up Atmos at all. It's just that, unlike you, I have heard the Home version, and so I have some idea what I am talking about, whereas all you are able to do is report on the outlier review you keep on mentioning, ad nauseam et infinitum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
XMC-1 does not do Atmos, it is useless.
If you can quote where I said the XMC-1 is useless, I'd be obliged. If you can't, please don't put words into my mouth. This is not the place to discuss the XMC-1 but I didn’t say it was useless. Outdated, underspecified, no room EQ, 7 channels.... sure. But not useless. For a start it can make a useful nightlight for anyone who has kids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
Audioholics posts a video questioning Atmos speakers, they are cranks in the pocket of Emotiva, there site is pathetic.
Again, just making up things I have supposed to have said doesn't strengthen your argument. It just destroys your credibility. My issue with the Audioholics review is that -- and you'll feel right at home here -- they felt able to make credible comment on something they had not heard. In fact, my view can be summed up by this post, here, which you haven't seen. When you have seen it, you will agree that it is rather more measured than your scurrilous misrepresentation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
Rich quotes impressions from the Atmos demo, he has not heard Atmos is and full of hot air.
Does it niggle you a little that you desperately want to comment, but haven’t actually heard it, so you have to resort to parroting someone else's view?
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #313 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 10:05 AM
Advanced Member
 
kokishin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
For some reason, this statement does not ring true: "I am intrigued why you feel the need to position yourself as the author's unofficial representative".?

However, sometimes people post things that are very revealing.
It seems you have positioned yourself as the chief Atmos booster who must tamp down perceived threats.
All fires must be put out immediately.

Enemies must be dealt with immediately:

XMC-1 does not do Atmos, it is useless.
Audioholics posts a video questioning Atmos speakers, they are cranks in the pocket of Emotiva, there site is pathetic.
Rich quotes impressions from the Atmos demo, he has not heard Atmos is and full of hot air.

All very unappealing.

- Rich
I refer to my ex-wife as "RichB". Woof! Woof!

I'm just a caveman. Your modern world frightens and confuses me.
kokishin is online now  
post #314 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 10:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,801
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 272 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Does it niggle you a little that you desperately want to comment, but haven’t actually heard it, so you have to resort to parroting someone else's view?

Not at all. It niggles you that I don't take yours in to equal account.


2/3 demos did not mistake the Atmos speakers for the overhead channels.
If the purpose is to simulate overhead sound, that is more difficult for a speaker bouncing the sound.
Perhaps due to the dispersion characteristics of the sound in the 180 range that tends to Omni-directional.

That does not mean some might prefer it.
It may be that the sound is more dispersed compared to overhead channels.
Possibly, the overhead channels were too direct to blend with the others.


The experience to too limited to draw hard and fast conclusions.
However, if there were aspects from the NY demo where not convincing, then achieving good results at home may not be a slam-dunk.


- Rich

Oppo Beta Group

Oppo BDP-105D | Oppo HA-1 | Oppo PM-1 | Parasound A51 | Revel Salon, Voice, Studio | Velodyne HGS-15
RichB is offline  
post #315 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 10:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,801
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 272 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokishin View Post
I refer to my ex-wife as "RichB". Woof! Woof!
For the record, I wanted to work it out


- Rich

Oppo Beta Group

Oppo BDP-105D | Oppo HA-1 | Oppo PM-1 | Parasound A51 | Revel Salon, Voice, Studio | Velodyne HGS-15
RichB is offline  
post #316 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 10:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
kokishin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
For the record, I wanted to work it out


- Rich
Try working it out with Keith and Sanjay.

I'm just a caveman. Your modern world frightens and confuses me.
kokishin is online now  
post #317 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 10:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,801
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 272 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokishin View Post
Try working it out with Keith and Sanjay.
I try.
Look carefully and you find the aggressor.


- Rich

Oppo Beta Group

Oppo BDP-105D | Oppo HA-1 | Oppo PM-1 | Parasound A51 | Revel Salon, Voice, Studio | Velodyne HGS-15
RichB is offline  
post #318 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 10:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,655
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1242 Post(s)
Liked: 956
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Doesn't make sense.
I know. I was tempted to annotate that list with a few snarky comments (e.g., moving my L/R speakers behind me diminishes the need for dedicated surround channels) but resisted the urge.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #319 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 11:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,655
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1242 Post(s)
Liked: 956
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
I don't take yours in to equal account.
But that's the point: not having heard home Atmos for yourself, you've made a conscious decision to concentrate on the negative rather than take all the published experiences into equal account. Basically, the Audioholics approach. To add to this inequality, you go further in your campaign by inventing an intention that Dolby never ever stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
2/3 demos did not mistake the Atmos speakers for the overhead channels.
You keep repeating this asthough you're exposing a failure of the technology when Dolby never ever claimed that their intent was for listeners to mistake upward-firing speakers for ceiling mounted speakers. The Burbank demo included an on-screen graphic that always showed which set of speakers were operating. Even if I was completely deaf, I would have been able to tell you with 100% reliability which speakers were playing. IF Dolby's intent was to fool listeners, why would they undermine themselves throughout the demo by informing us which speakers were playing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
If the purpose is to simulate overhead sound, that is more difficult for a speaker bouncing the sound.
The purpose is to simulate overhead sound, not mimic overhead speakers. Whatever difficulty you believe that entails, Dolby has overcome it by combining several technologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
The experience to too limited to draw hard and fast conclusions.
But you keep doing exactly that. And when called on it, you hide behind other people's quotes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
However, if there were aspects from the NY demo where not convincing, then achieving good results at home may not be a slam-dunk.
Dolby never said that home Atmos would be a "slam-dunk", as evidenced by the huge amount of coordination they had to undertake between electronics manufacturers and speaker designers and movie studios. The notion that home Atmos was going to be a "slam-dunk" is yet another straw man you invented just so you can knock it down.
PeterTHX and kbarnes701 like this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #320 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 11:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,759
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1937 Post(s)
Liked: 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
Not at all. It niggles you that I don't take yours in to equal account.

LOL!! Yeah, right. Nor FilmMixer, nor Sanjay, nor Scott, nor anyone else who has actually heard Atmos for the home.


As you have nothing to contribute, and have resorted to inventing things I am meant to have said, it is time for me to no longer waste time looking at your posts.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #321 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 11:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,759
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1937 Post(s)
Liked: 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
I know. I was tempted to annotate that list with a few snarky comments (e.g., moving my L/R speakers behind me diminishes the need for dedicated surround channels) but resisted the urge.
In the quest for an ever better AV experience, I have just made a huge improvement to my signal to noise ratio....
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #322 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 11:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
kokishin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
In the quest for an ever better AV experience, I have just made a huge improvement to my signal to noise ratio....
... by utilizing the Ignore List?

I'm just a caveman. Your modern world frightens and confuses me.
kokishin is online now  
post #323 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 12:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,801
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 272 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
not having heard home Atmos for yourself, you've made a conscious decision to concentrate on the negative rather than take all the published experiences into equal account. Basically, the Audioholics approach. To add to this inequality, you go further in your campaign by inventing an intention that Dolby never ever stated:
Actually no, my intent was to quote so folks would not confuse the wording with my intent. Clearly, that did not work.
The guys writing a post was not intend to imply that Dolby was trying to deceive anyone, nor do I.
But, I do think they expected someone to raise their hand.
There is no greater point or secret intent here. That's what happened and that is all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
You keep repeating this asthough you're exposing a failure of the technology when Dolby never ever claimed that their intent was for listeners to mistake upward-firing speakers for ceiling mounted speakers. The Burbank demo included an on-screen graphic that always showed which set of speakers were operating. Even if I was completely deaf, I would have been able to tell you with 100% reliability which speakers were playing. IF Dolby's intent was to fool listeners, why would they undermine themselves throughout the demo by informing us which speakers were playing?
My point for those considering Atmos deployment, is they are NOT the same and not equally good.
Up-firing speakers are simulating overhead sound. IMO, that is more difficult to pull off than actual overhead speakers.
If anyone could create good demonstration of that effect, I would expect Dolby to have done it.
That does not mean the folks don't prefer the effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
The purpose is to simulate overhead sound, not mimic overhead speakers. Whatever difficulty you believe that entails, Dolby has overcome it by combining several technologies.
Overhead speakers produce overhead sound. Presumably in a range (if they go by THX recommendations) from 80 to 180Hz from above.
Is that important, that would be an interesting discussion. If the sound designer put it there, then some might want it there in their home theaters.
The difficulty Atmos speakers entail is based in the dispersion characteristics of small drivers which very wide. Wide enough to be heard directly and not reflected.
Has Dolby actually said how this was done, other than we use DSP's and psycho-acoustics. If you put out 180Hz at a shallow angle, it is coming at you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
But you keep doing exactly that. And when called on it, you hide behind other people's quotes. Dolby never said that home Atmos would be a "slam-dunk", as evidenced by the huge amount of coordination they had to undertake between electronics manufacturers and speaker designers and movie studios. The notion that home Atmos was going to be a "slam-dunk" is yet another straw man you invented just so you can knock it down.
A Straw-man was not intended.

I fully admit to being skeptical about Atmos speakers. Reports of easy detectible differences, preferences aside, are reinforcement.
Some folks who have had demo's declared Atmos and Object oriented sound prior to the demo. It that a better bias?

I have told you exactly how I feel and the reasons behind them. I am out in the open here.

For the record:
I would like to see a fully object oriented sound
I feel that this technology was rushed.
I would like to see fully object oriented solution that benefits 5.1/7.1 systems

Perhaps we will have one, well timed with HDCP 2.2, next year.

- Rich

Oppo Beta Group

Oppo BDP-105D | Oppo HA-1 | Oppo PM-1 | Parasound A51 | Revel Salon, Voice, Studio | Velodyne HGS-15
RichB is offline  
post #324 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 12:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,801
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 272 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
LOL!! Yeah, right. Nor FilmMixer, nor Sanjay, nor Scott, nor anyone else who has actually heard Atmos for the home.


As you have nothing to contribute, and have resorted to inventing things I am meant to have said, it is time for me to no longer waste time looking at your posts.

Excellent.


- Rich

Oppo Beta Group

Oppo BDP-105D | Oppo HA-1 | Oppo PM-1 | Parasound A51 | Revel Salon, Voice, Studio | Velodyne HGS-15
RichB is offline  
post #325 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 12:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,759
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1937 Post(s)
Liked: 2001
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #326 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,894
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 565 Post(s)
Liked: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
For the record:
I would like to see a fully object oriented sound
I feel that this technology was rushed.
I would like to see fully object oriented solution that benefits 5.1/7.1 systems

Perhaps we will have one, well timed with HDCP 2.2, next year.

- Rich
Bandwidth limitations are going to be a real issue for fully object oriented... DTS isn't going to magically overcome the same limitations that Dolby faces regarding delivery, and their solution also supports channels.... even the talk about creating a dialog only object for later processing eats up a good deal of bandwidth.

Why exactly do you feel it was rushed? What information do you have to support that "feeling?" This has been on the books for a long time.. you can even find support documents in the TI DSP forums from December of 2013 where they were well underway on coding and chip developments.

http://e2e.ti.com/support/developmen...8/1082599.aspx

Quote:
Yes, it is a CCS project. But unfortunately I can't submit the whole thing because the source code is under strict NDA. I came up with a workaround and the code was able to build.

Then I encountered another problem after a few successful compilation. Please see error messages below:

>> Cannot Open Info File, No such file or directory : D:/Atmos/dolby_thd/CCS/Release/asm/dec_exec_main_TI.nfo, Aborting
gmake: *** [dec_exec_main_TI.obj] Error 1
My Atmos equipped AVR (no firmware updated needed, Atmos and Dolby Surround on board) arrived this morning... with a July build date.. that's no proof of not being rushed, but just goes to show that things have been going on for quite a while, and the studio demos that we had back in January were proof of concept..

When I had my second demo in February, I asked what the time frame was for release... they said they were going to announce at CEDIA with product on the shelves 4-8 weeks post..

IMO this was wasn't rushed.... it just came to market as planned, and even a little ahead of schedule.

Dolby has stated many times that the codec is very scaleable.. with AC4 coming down the pike, streaming etc, I think they have reached their initial goal of bringing home cinema content to the home without completely reinventing the wheel... and with plenty of room to grow.

Being fully object oriented doesn't have anything to do with it benefitting 5.1/7.1... it's up to AVR manufacturers to design and/or implement a remaking algorithm to do so... 5.1 and 7.1 content can easily be used, as is evidenced by Sherwoods R-972...

DTS might make that a mandatory requirement for UHD... don't know and I'm sure we will find out soon.

Home Atmos, as it exists today, can feed the proper information to such systems from the rendering engine.... Dolby confirmed this at the press event.

I have been an ardent supporter... because I feel the change is that worthwhile, and that it is a true advancement..

And I just put my money with my mouth is, FWIW.

Just my .02...
FilmMixer is online now  
post #327 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 12:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,655
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1242 Post(s)
Liked: 956
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
Actually no, my intent was to quote so folks would not confuse the wording with my intent.
It's not the quoting itself, buy your selective choice of quotes. You've decided not to take various published experiences into "equal account", by your own admission (asthough that hadn't already been obvious).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
My point for those considering Atmos deployment, is they are NOT the same and not equally good.
Who said they ARE the same? Whose claim are you trying to counter by repeating over and over and over that upward-firing speakers are "NOT the same" as ceiling-mounted speakers? When did anyone say they ARE the same?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
Has Dolby actually said how this was done, other than we use DSP's and psycho-acoustics.
The approach has been described in their patent (including a graph of the filter, which has been posted in these forums) and discussed in the Scott Wilkinson podcast interviewing Andrew Jones. Do you feel you're entitled to Dolby's proprietary techology?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
I fully admit to being skeptical about Atmos speakers.
Skepticism doesn't begin to describe the campaign you're waging.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #328 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 01:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Frohlich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 2,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 250
OMG can you guys all cut it out!!!!! I come here to learn about Atmos and all I see is grown men arguing for days on end. How about this...YOU ALL LET IT GO!!!!
Frohlich is online now  
post #329 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 02:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 3,883
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1669 Post(s)
Liked: 511
NorthSky is online now  
post #330 of 513 Old 08-23-2014, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,801
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 272 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
Bandwidth limitations are going to be a real issue for fully object oriented... DTS isn't going to magically overcome the same limitations that Dolby faces regarding delivery, and their solution also supports channels.... even the talk about creating a dialog only object for later processing eats up a good deal of bandwidth.

Why exactly do you feel it was rushed? What information do you have to support that "feeling?" This has been on the books for a long time.. you can even find support documents in the TI DSP forums from December of 2013 where they were well underway on coding and chip developments.

http://e2e.ti.com/support/developmen...8/1082599.aspx


My Atmos equipped AVR (no firmware updated needed, Atmos and Dolby Surround on board) arrived this morning... with a July build date.. that's no proof of not being rushed, but just goes to show that things have been going on for quite a while, and the studio demos that we had back in January were proof of concept..

When I had my second demo in February, I asked what the time frame was for release... they said they were going to announce at CEDIA with product on the shelves 4-8 weeks post..

IMO this was wasn't rushed.... it just came to market as planned, and even a little ahead of schedule.

Dolby has stated many times that the codec is very scaleable.. with AC4 coming down the pike, streaming etc, I think they have reached their initial goal of bringing home cinema content to the home without completely reinventing the wheel... and with plenty of room to grow.

Being fully object oriented doesn't have anything to do with it benefitting 5.1/7.1... it's up to AVR manufacturers to design and/or implement a remaking algorithm to do so... 5.1 and 7.1 content can easily be used, as is evidenced by Sherwoods R-972...

DTS might make that a mandatory requirement for UHD... don't know and I'm sure we will find out soon.

Home Atmos, as it exists today, can feed the proper information to such systems from the rendering engine.... Dolby confirmed this at the press event.

I have been an ardent supporter... because I feel the change is that worthwhile, and that it is a true advancement..

And I just put my money with my mouth is, FWIW.

Just my .02...

That's cool.
Do these first received have the Atmos firmware or will it be available later as an upgrade?


It felt rushed to me because:


- Originally units were announced that would be Atmos ready but requiring a firmware upgrade.
- HDCP 2.2 support is not included on most AVRs (except for Onkyo,) this is a Dolby's issue but it means that those who want 4K are looking at another upgrade.
- There was an expectation was full object oriented, and ended up requiring ceiling channels to provide the benefit.
- You have hinted at more to come in Atmos, so that seems like stuff, they couldn't do in the first release.


The DSP processing power seemed to be a limitation but until recently the bandwidth and storage costs were not discussed.
I mentioned before, that the width of the center channel in a theater is very appealing, so that is why I asked about the voice objects.
Although, I believe I read that as one advantage of object oriented sound.
Perhaps that is reserved for UHD.


Atmos may well be a great addition but, like all things in audio, there are diminishing returns.
For me personally, Atmos ceiling speakers will be a significant challenge and I think I wait for more in home experiences for going down that road.


- Rich

Oppo Beta Group

Oppo BDP-105D | Oppo HA-1 | Oppo PM-1 | Parasound A51 | Revel Salon, Voice, Studio | Velodyne HGS-15
RichB is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
frontpage

User Tag List

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