The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) - Page 32 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1346Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #931 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 10:19 AM
Senior Member
 
simon_templar_32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
Let me take a stab at this.

The Atmos format is object-based, and the objects do contain metadata that positions the objects in 3-dimensional space. The rendering engine knows what your speaker layout is, because you told it so when you set it up, and maps the objects to the best combination of speakers to render that object in your home theatre. But the rendering engine is *approximating* your speaker layout based on Dolby's guidelines - if you tell it you have a 5.1.2 system, it is assuming L,C,R, Left Surround, Right Surround, Left Top, Right Top (or Atmos-enabled reflective speakers to simulate those last two). It does not know if your Left Surround is at 90 degrees or 110 degrees, how high up the wall you've placed your surrounds, or where exactly on your ceiling your height speakers are.

What we've learned from FilmMixer is that Atmos in the cinema environment works much the same way - the rendering engine is making assumptions about speaker placement, assumptions based on Dolby guidelines. Presumably if a theater designed an Atmos auditorium with 64 speakers, but scattered them randomly around the room, Dolby would simply say no, not gonna certify that as an Atmos system.

In other words, the speaker remapping that many people are lamenting the absence of was never a part of the system to begin with.
That's what I was afraid was being said by FilmMixer. Looking back at his posts I can see he was trying to tell people this all along. Doesn't seem probable, to me at least, that future generations would include a whole new set of code aimed at actual "remapping." Frankly, I had gotten the impression from some here that such a "feature" was missing only because of processing limitations of current chips. Seems there was a lot of misunderstanding about Atmos all around.

Last edited by simon_templar_32; 07-13-2014 at 10:22 AM.
simon_templar_32 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #932 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 10:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 786 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
In other words, the speaker remapping that many people are lamenting the absence of was never a part of the system to begin with.
Not speaker re-mapping, like what Trinnov does, just mapping channels and objects to actual speaker locations. Are you saying that the theatrical version of Atmos doesn't render to measured speaker locations but instead has pre-defined locations that theatre owners have to conform the speakers placement to? And here I thought that was a limitation of the initial home version.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #933 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 10:38 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 565 Post(s)
Liked: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Not speaker re-mapping, like what Trinnov does, just mapping channels and objects to actual speaker locations.
Do we know how mapping for channel-based content will work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Are you saying that the theatrical version of Atmos doesn't render to measured speaker locations but instead has pre-defined locations that theatre owners have to conform the speakers placement to? And here I thought that was a limitation of the initial home version.
Not dschulz but from what I've read, yes channel-based audio post Atmos still has the same requirements as channel-based audio pre Atmos

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is online now  
post #934 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 11:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 786 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
Do we know how mapping for channel-based content will work?
Don't know about how the home version will address more speakers than channel beds, but the theatrical system apparently maps channels to only some speakers on the front and side walls, not all speakers (some are for objects only).
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
Not dschulz but from what I've read, yes channel-based audio post Atmos still has the same requirements as channel-based audio pre Atmos
My question wasn't limited to channels.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #935 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 11:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,718
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 344 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Don't know about how the home version will address more speakers than channel beds, but the theatrical system apparently maps channels to only some speakers on the front and side walls, not all speakers (some are for objects only).
Yes. You define what speakers to use for the bed arrays on the walls and back... and it is adjustable.
FilmMixer is online now  
post #936 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 12:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by simon_templar_32 View Post
That's what I was afraid was being said by FilmMixer. Looking back at his posts I can see he was trying to tell people this all along. Doesn't seem probable, to me at least, that future generations would include a whole new set of code aimed at actual "remapping." Frankly, I had gotten the impression from some here that such a "feature" was missing only because of processing limitations of current chips. Seems there was a lot of misunderstanding about Atmos all around.
Interesting; since in the end the sound, object-based or not, is still reproduced by speakers in fixed locations, I suppose there's no reason to have expected Dolby to be more demanding of actual vs. recommended speaker locations.

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #937 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 12:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,718
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 344 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Not speaker re-mapping, like what Trinnov does, just mapping channels and objects to actual speaker locations. Are you saying that the theatrical version of Atmos doesn't render to measured speaker locations.....
No... it does... the RMU and 850 will accurately render objects to the available speakers based on the room configuration file for each room, and the uses the positional metadata to accuracy place the sound where intended in relation to the center of the room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
.... but instead has pre-defined locations that theatre owners have to conform the speakers placement to?
Yes.. Dolby has specifications for where you should place and install speakers in a theater for what they consider optimal playback of an Atmos mix... and won't certify the theater, or sell you a CP-850, unless they approve the design and installation. For better or worse that's the model they chose...

I appreciate it because I've now heard Atmos in 11 different venues and the experience has been fairly consistent.

Realistically in a majority of situations, the variance in theater design is low.... Some are wider, taller or longer... but almost all are rectangular or squarish in shape and can be counted on to conform to the proper playback of 5.1 and 7.1 channel based mixes.

It's a fairly common denominator.

So when you rely on 5 or 7 speakers to create a 360 degree sound field from both channels and object, I don't know how much flexibility can be expected to still get really stable imaging without creating a tiny sweet spot...

The kind of processing to move the audio into the proper positions based on measured information about where the speakers actually are does appear to be absent in these first products... is that true for all of these upcoming AVR's? I don't know.

If it is, is that coming down the road for 5.1 and 7.1 setups?

That's the question... and when >7.1 processors become available and the number of available speakers exceeds the number of channels in the bed (7 in this case) they are going to have to have tools to properly calibrate multiple speakers being used as surrounds (i.e. playback of beds vs. objects...)

For us, and because you have many more array speakers in a theater setting, you can adjust how you want to present the bed arrays in the 850/RMU.

We will also have to wait and see how this is integrated into these first avr's that support 9.1.2....

Even without it today in the home, I can assume that level trims and delays will compensate for a great deal of variance in most rooms...

This might be something Dan and Roger would have much more insight into... I'm purely thinking of it coming from "my world..."

Not an expert on these matters, and definitely not as well versed as you on acoustics and the like.
Hugo S likes this.

Last edited by FilmMixer; 07-13-2014 at 12:58 PM.
FilmMixer is online now  
post #938 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 01:03 PM
Member
 
thestoneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I am in the middle of wiring my HT in a 9.2 set up. Considering the room is wide open, would you wire the room for 9.2.4? The wire is no big deal. (4) more backer boxes is really the only work involved.

My Theater Build

Equipment List: Epson 6030, Panamorph U480, Oppo-103, SVS PB12-NSD, LSA Statement LCR & surround speakers, Def Tech ProCinema 1000 rears & front heights, Grafik Eye 3106....more to come
thestoneman is online now  
post #939 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 01:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
brwsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 539
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 64
I still can't believe we don't have real time monitoring from any avr manufacturer.
I'd happily throw in 2/3/4 mic's to gain that last 1% of SQ.

I'd also like to use it to controll an absolute volume cap. I dread turning down the kids movies when I leave the room, if there was a cap I'd be all over it.

Guess its time to turn/adjust the dynamic range to normal. Might be for the best anyways.
brwsaw is offline  
post #940 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 01:12 PM
Member
 
AidenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by thestoneman View Post
I am in the middle of wiring my HT in a 9.2 set up. Considering the room is wide open, would you wire the room for 9.2.4? The wire is no big deal. (4) more backer boxes is really the only work involved.
Definitely!

Way easier to do it now than later - I'd even think of 11.2.4, just in case......
sls3000 likes this.

Display : JVC X500 Projector | 130" ReAct 2.1 2.35:1 Screen | Panasonic 65VT30 |
Sources : Oppo 103 D Multizone | Apple TV3 | HTPC | Sky HD | Sonos Connect | Synology 24Tb |
Audio : Anthem MRX 510 | KEF R700 | KEF R600c | KEF E301 Sides & Rears | Paradigm Sub 1 |
Control : Harmony Ultimate |
AidenL is offline  
post #941 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 01:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 786 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
Dolby has specifications for where you should place and install speakers in a theater for what they consider optimal playback of an Atmos mix... and won't certify the theater, or sell you a CP-850, unless they approve the design and installation.
Sounds like a distinction without a difference: Atmos will render to measured speaker locations as long as those measurements match pre-determined locations? Comes in your choice of colour as long as you choose red.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
The kind of processing to move the audio into the proper positions based on measured information about where the speakers actually are does appear to be absent in these first products...
And from the theatrical Atmos spec, since they are also using predetermined locations.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #942 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 01:18 PM
Member
 
thestoneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenL View Post
Definitely!

Way easier to do it now than later - I'd even think of 11.2.4, just in case......
Good, because I just bought 250' of additional wire!

The fronts and wides be be so close based on my room dimensions I was thinking they would be all that necessary. I will likely run the wire regardless.

My Theater Build

Equipment List: Epson 6030, Panamorph U480, Oppo-103, SVS PB12-NSD, LSA Statement LCR & surround speakers, Def Tech ProCinema 1000 rears & front heights, Grafik Eye 3106....more to come
thestoneman is online now  
post #943 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 01:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,466
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 471 Post(s)
Liked: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by thestoneman View Post
I am in the middle of wiring my HT in a 9.2 set up. Considering the room is wide open, would you wire the room for 9.2.4? The wire is no big deal. (4) more backer boxes is really the only work involved.
Yes. If you're room cannot handle much more than that, this is a very prudent idea.

Also wire for surround subwoofers that would go towards the rear of the room. Object based surround formats can have full frequency, full throttle audio in all speakers.

At least in a commercial Atmos setting as per the Dolby white papers, the wide surrounds are front side surrounds, angled toward the primary listening space to fill in a sonic "hole"... and they are addressed by objects.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!

Last edited by Dan Hitchman; 07-13-2014 at 01:28 PM.
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #944 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 331 Post(s)
Liked: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
Yes. You define what speakers to use for the bed arrays on the walls and back... and it is adjustable.
I'd like to see that for the home version too, when using a 9.1 set for the mains. One of the limitations of typical 7.1 with surrounds at the sides is that it is not quite as enveloping as it could be. Toole and others advocate shifting the sides a wee bit forward of 90-deg, say 80-deg, to address this. In a 9.1 setup the surrounds could remain at 90-deg while allowing some use of the new wide speakers at 60-deg to fill the array sounds forward (just as happens in a cinema). Then of course all the speakers remain individually addressable for objects.

If I were to go to the trouble to add wides, that would be my requirement to make best use of them. In my current 7.1 system, surrounds at 90-deg, I get excellent "wide" imaging (phantom) so objects panned there already sound like there's a real speaker. So I'm not concerned about object imaging to those locations as much as the bed envelopment aspect. Heck, if the surrounds were placed at 80-deg, that would make the wide phantoms that much more solid.

In contrast, adding new wide speakers in cinemas is essential because it is not possible to rely on phantom imaging there. And that brings me to a final thought. Some folks are pining for 20-channel Atmos processors. But as we know, home-scale systems with 7.1 well-matched speakers can create seamless lateral imaging. In that respect cinemas are catching up with the performance we've had at home since 7.1 was introduced (5.1 and 7.1 from cinema arrays were just never as spatially clean and precise as at home).

Adding 4 more overhead will extend that spatial capability vertically, up the walls an over the top, side-to-side and front-to-back. I think people will be pleasantly surprised with just what can be portrayed by the 7.1.4 layout.
Hugo S and dschulz like this.
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #945 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 01:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 786 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
If I were to go to the trouble to add wides, that would be my requirement to make best use of them.
I'd prefer it go one step further: if I pick up an Atmos soundtrack with a 5.1 or 7.1 bed, I'd like the channels upmixed to all 9 speakers (rather than the wides and rears be for objects only).

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #946 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 01:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 331 Post(s)
Liked: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
No... it does... the RMU and 850 will accurately render objects to the available speakers based on the room configuration file for each room, and the uses the positional metadata to accuracy place the sound where intended in relation to the center of the room.
Sound positions are not referenced to the center of the room, but to the room's walls. If sounds are placed across the back wall, they will stay on the back wall regardless of the form factor of the cinema. That means the sound in the rear corner of the mixing room at 135 deg (relative to the mixer) could be heard at 120 deg in a wider room or at 150 deg in a longer "shoebox" room. And that is as intended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
Realistically in a majority of situations, the variance in theater design is low.... Some are wider, taller or longer... but almost all are rectangular or squarish in shape and can be counted on to conform to the proper playback of 5.1 and 7.1 channel based mixes.
Yes, it is the consistency in cinemas that is very helpful in this regard. The question arises more at home where room shapes and certainly speaker positioning is less well controlled. Should the soundfield be reshaped to fit, or should it try to adapt to maintain what was heard on the stage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
So when you rely on 5 or 7 speakers to create a 360 degree sound field from both channels and object, I don't know how much flexibility can be expected to still get really stable imaging without creating a tiny sweet spot...
The kind of processing to move the audio into the proper positions based on measured information about where the speakers actually are does appear to be absent in these first products... is that true for all of these upcoming AVR's? I don't know.
Such position processing is no universal cure, but is can do some useful things especially across the front if the screen is rather narrower than the L/R speaker width, by rendering the on-screen sounds to the zone nearer the screen, while leaving the ambiance/music beds full width.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
That's the question... and when >7.1 processors become available and the number of available speakers exceeds the number of channels in the bed (7 in this case) they are going to have to have tools to properly calibrate multiple speakers being used as surrounds (i.e. playback of beds vs. objects...) We will also have to wait and see how this is integrated into these first avr's that support 9.1.2....
I look forward to that!
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #947 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 331 Post(s)
Liked: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
I'd prefer it go one step further: if I pick up an Atmos soundtrack with a 5.1 or 7.1 bed, I'd like the channels upmixed to all 9 speakers (rather than the wides and rears be for objects only).
Absolutely! I'll see you and raise you: Not just static remapping, but active surround processing should also be an option for the bed channels.

(Maybe that's what you meant!)
Dan Hitchman likes this.
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #948 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 01:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,143
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 917 Post(s)
Liked: 1465
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

The kind of processing to move the audio into the proper positions based on measured information about where the speakers actually are does appear to be absent in these first products... is that true for all of these upcoming AVR's? I don't know.
But not too important if we can put our speakers where Atmos expects them to be? The part of that puzzle which is currently missing is that home Atmos is using fixed speaker positions but we don't know to what angles the Atmos engine is rendering. The published speaker layout diagrams show a reasonable degree of flexibility in speaker placement, but the rendering engine must be rendering to specific azimuth and elevation angles. If they told us what those angles are, those of us with the ability to place our speakers in the exact right place, could do so. Maybe this info will be revealed later?
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #949 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 02:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 786 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Sound positions are not referenced to the center of the room, but to the room's walls.
So when I see the oft-posted image of an Atmos mix that shows a wire-frame shoe-box with yellow spheres (objects) floating around, the surfaces of the shoe-box are the reference for rendering, not absolute azimuth angles? Middle of the left wall means middle of the left wall, irrespective of where the listener is in the auditorium?

Makes sense in the commercial world, where theatres conform to industry standards and the back corner of the dubbing stage translates to the back corner of my local cinema (irrespective of the size and shape of the shoe-box). Wonder how they will reconcile this for the consumer version, where a living room in a semi-open floor plan might not have a back corner.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #950 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 02:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 786 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Not just static remapping, but active surround processing should also be an option for the bed channels.
Yup, that's what I meant. It occurred to me after reading the TWICE article that mentioned consumer packaging having labels like 5.1.4 or 7.1.4. Made me wonder how a 5.1 bed would play back on my 7.1 speakers.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #951 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 02:29 PM
Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
No... it does... the RMU and 850 will accurately render objects to the available speakers based on the room configuration file for each room, and the uses the positional metadata to accuracy place the sound where intended in relation to the center of the room.
Does the room configuration file contain precise location and angle measurements for each speaker?
dschulz is online now  
post #952 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 02:29 PM
Senior Member
 
simon_templar_32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
So when I see the oft-posted image of an Atmos mix that shows a wire-frame shoe-box with yellow spheres (objects) floating around, the surfaces of the shoe-box are the reference for rendering, not absolute azimuth angles? Middle of the left wall means middle of the left wall, irrespective of where the listener is in the auditorium?

Makes sense in the commercial world, where theatres conform to industry standards and the back corner of the dubbing stage translates to the back corner of my local cinema (irrespective of the size and shape of the shoe-box). Wonder how they will reconcile this for the consumer version, where a living room in a semi-open floor plan might not have a back corner.
Stuff like this makes me wonder about the real value of these upcoming demos where you know that the operators of said demo will optimize everything knowing about all the sorts of issues that are now coming to light.

Beware the Mad Men.
Dan Hitchman likes this.
simon_templar_32 is offline  
post #953 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 02:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 786 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
Does the room configuration file contain precise location and angle measurements for each speaker?
Or maybe not angles but some other system of identifying locations on a wall, like a number line (zero is the middle of the wall, negative numbers in one direction, positive numbers in another direction)?

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #954 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 02:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,466
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 471 Post(s)
Liked: 320
Like the song says:

"Things that make you go hmmmm..."


Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #955 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 03:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,718
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 344 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Sounds like a distinction without a difference: Atmos will render to measured speaker locations as long as those measurements match pre-determined locations? Comes in your choice of colour as long as you choose red. And from the theatrical Atmos spec, since they are also using predetermined locations.
Sanjay... the difference is that there will always be multiple speakers, with a minimum amount of which they determine as necessary to properly play back a track, in theaters for reproduction rather than 1 or 2 point sources in the home..

You can try it to say they are predetermined, but it's really a nit pick...

The measurements match the actual locations...

There is no secret what they have been doing here..

This has never been a totally object based format that renders all of the information....

I feel that you and others are trying to make it seem like it's been sold as something it never was....

Last edited by FilmMixer; 07-13-2014 at 03:26 PM.
FilmMixer is online now  
post #956 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 03:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,718
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 344 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
Does the room configuration file contain precise location and angle measurements for each speaker?
I don't know the answer to the question..

It does know the location for sure..

Angle adjustments are done when installation occurs.. i.e. they physically align the speakers to get them where they need to be. To this point I'm not sure how helpful, or needed, such a measurement would be..
FilmMixer is online now  
post #957 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 03:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,718
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 344 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Sound positions are not referenced to the center of the room, but to the room's walls. If sounds are placed across the back wall, they will stay on the back wall regardless of the form factor of the cinema. That means the sound in the rear corner of the mixing room at 135 deg (relative to the mixer) could be heard at 120 deg in a wider room or at 150 deg in a longer "shoebox" room. And that is as intended.
Roger... I'm always thinking about it from the production side, where I know the middle of my panner is the middle of the dub stage in relation to where the room was calibrated, and where I sit regardless of the rooms shape.. all moves from that point are indeed relative to me (isn't that always the case... )

For me the sound moves outwards from that zero point...

Thanks for the clarification for others...
FilmMixer is online now  
post #958 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 03:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 331 Post(s)
Liked: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
So when I see the oft-posted image of an Atmos mix that shows a wire-frame shoe-box with yellow spheres (objects) floating around, the surfaces of the shoe-box are the reference for rendering, not absolute azimuth angles? Middle of the left wall means middle of the left wall, irrespective of where the listener is in the auditorium?
Yes. Just like 5.1/7.1 channel systems.

I'd like to add that the matter of "irrespective of where the listener is" is the true regardless of the rendering frame of reference being the walls or the angles relative to the MLP (main listening position). If the playback room has the same proportions as the dubbing stage, the sound is identical with either rendering reference. And however the soundfield shifts when one sits away from the MLP also remains identical in either case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Makes sense in the commercial world, where theatres conform to industry standards and the back corner of the dubbing stage translates to the back corner of my local cinema (irrespective of the size and shape of the shoe-box). Wonder how they will reconcile this for the consumer version, where a living room in a semi-open floor plan might not have a back corner.
Physical walls do not matter if the necessary speakers are still present. But if by "no corner" you mean no rear speakers, then indeed it's a challenge.

Once we start talking about different room shapes the frame of reference issue come into play. Two distinct rendering options exist, but definitive answers as to which is "correct" do not. Technologically, it is in fact quite easy to leave the choice up to the end user (system installer) as it is simple change to the renderer setup, but I do not expect such flexibility right away. The same content can easily work in either scenario.
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #959 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 03:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 331 Post(s)
Liked: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
Roger... I'm always thinking about it from the production side, where I know the middle of my panner is the middle of the dub stage in relation to where the room was calibrated, and where I sit regardless of the rooms shape.. all moves from that point are indeed relative to me (isn't that always the case... )

For me the sound moves outwards from that zero point...
And therein lies the crux of the very interesting question. What was your (the mixer's) intent? Is it that the sounds anchor to the walls/corners regardless of room shape, or that they emanate from the apparent directions you experienced? Within the context of your mixing session, there is no distinction -- so the question is meaningless. In chatting with some mixers, they allege that all sounds start life referenced to walls so must remain that way regardless of a cinema's shape. Ok, that obviously works, as that's where we've been for 100 years of cinema sound.

And of course object audio can follow that paradigm perfectly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
all moves from that point are indeed relative to me (isn't that always the case...
Not in a room of a different shape or with a screen of a different size. The sounds emanate from different angles to track the shape of the room/screen. For onscreen sounds, we know this must always be the case in order to maintain the sound match with images. How different would the off-screen soundfield shape have to be before it mattered to you, the mixer? Only you know what you really intended, even though many folks like to talk about "artist intent" as if they somehow could read minds.
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #960 of 5073 Old 07-13-2014, 03:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,718
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 344 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Yes. Just like 5.1/7.1 channel systems.

I'd like to add that the matter of "irrespective of where the listener is" is the true regardless of the rendering frame of reference being the walls or the angles relative to the MLP (main listening position). If the playback room has the same proportions as the dubbing stage, the sound is identical with either rendering reference. And however the soundfield shifts when one sits away from the MLP also remains identical in either case.

Physical walls do not matter if the necessary speakers are still present. But if by "no corner" you mean no rear speakers, then indeed it's a challenge.

Once we start talking about different room shapes the frame of reference issue come into play. Two distinct rendering options exist, but definitive answers as to which is "correct" do not. Technologically, it is in fact quite easy to leave the choice up to the end user (system installer) as it is simple change to the renderer setup, but I do not expect such flexibility right away. The same content can easily work in either scenario.
Roger.. I can only assume that AVR manufacturers will start to look at implementing their own "solution" regardless of what Dolby does... such a rendering "engine" doesn't need to be tied to a codec... the AVR could apply a render independent of what is feeding it's input (Atmos, MDA, 5.1, etc...)

While the new discussion of object based audio certainly sheds a light on it/shows the need for those with less than ideal setups, no one has really produced a product that remedies the issue outside of what you and MDA are proposing/developing, and Trinnov I guess.

I'm not sure why it hasn't happened yet... and I honestly don't know if it is something Dolby is planning on doing or not.... we know the Trinnov Altitude will do so... but I'm talking about products us mere mortals can afford.
FilmMixer is online now  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

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