The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) - Page 33 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1601Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #961 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 03:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
audiovideoholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Murray KY
Posts: 2,367
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 59
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.
I would at minimum! It's just too easy not to.
audiovideoholic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #962 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 04:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
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...)
I'd like to think so, too. But again this is probably one of the many facets we'll see evolve as object audio matures over the years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
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.


Yes, there's nothing worse than solving a problem that does not exist. Do people really complain about distorted soundfields and lust for remapping? To me the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race." That is quite different from achieving unified soundfields on random speaker systems, and I do not think either MDA or Trinnov can do much about that.
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #963 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 04:09 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,066
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 622 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
This has never been a totally object based format that renders all of the information....
So would you agree that this re-mapping feature for channel-based Atmos content a poster came up with has been a fantasy all along?

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 #964 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 04:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ambesolman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,173
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 352
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...



Thanks for the clarification for others...

Guessing you sit at the zero point when you go see a movie? About where is that in the theater?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still πŸ‘Ž
ambesolman is online now  
post #965 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 04:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambesolman View Post
Guessing you sit at the zero point when you go see a movie? About where is that in the theater?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still πŸ‘Ž
Usually one or two rows behind dead center in a bigger room, dead center in a smaller one... or I should say try... I'm a big fan of reserved seating.
ambesolman likes this.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #966 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 04:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 1,463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 690 Post(s)
Liked: 238
I like your line of thinking Roger...

And true, manufacturers like Onkyo/Integra like to have some freeway to maneuver around; sometimes to not the best and other times to a respectable level.
Yamaha and Pioneer are two true troubadours in the pioneering of their own DRC with a twist of theirs.

As for TRINNOV, did you ever try it in your own home, Roger? ...Me, no.

* In time (this winter and later, next year) we'll discover more about Atmos in our homes, and other stuff too.
Right now everyone loves to talk, and have ideas, think about what should make sense, and not, and all the jazz that is in the theaters and not yet @ home. ,,,Us, humans, are a funny species walking in the footsteps of Albert Einstein, more or less, and all the universe that is inside it.

Cheers, and good luck.

Last edited by NorthSky; 07-13-2014 at 04:40 PM. Reason: Typo?
NorthSky is offline  
post #967 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 04:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 837 Post(s)
Liked: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
You can try it to say they are predetermined, but it's really a nit pick...
What I meant by "pre-determined" is what you were describing: "Dolby has specifications for where you should place and install speakers".

I don't know if you see the contradiction in a system that is supposed to adapt to where your speakers are but requires you place speakers where they tell you.

Apparently I must not be the only one to ask this, since one of the questions in the Dolby FAQ is: "If this is not a channel-based system, why are there predefined speaker positions?"

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #968 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 05:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
So would you agree that this re-mapping feature for channel-based Atmos content a poster came up with has been a fantasy all along?
Markus.. you know you have a tendency to rub me the wrong way with some of your posts... but it bears repeating..

Atmos is a hybrid channel and object based format... 7.1 "traditional" channels with the addition of two overhead arrays, supported by 118 object playable through up to 62 discrete outputs, plus full range surrounds and overheads, bass management, real time object renders, auto eq support, fairly predicable backwards compatibility, etc..

If you want to categorize it as "channel based" go ahead.. I think from your posts' tone over the last two years you've disparaged Dolby since they introduced the format.. let it go... we all know what it is...

A "fantasy?"

Fantasy - noun - "the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable."

Imagination is a good thing.. many truly useful things in the world has come from such.

Impossible or improbable? No, but I don't know what Dolby has planned and neither do you. CEDIA should reveal many details.

Fantasy - verb - "imagine the occurrence of; fantasize about."

What his fantasies may or may not be aren't for me to comment on..

It's no more a fantasy than your suggestion the other day that we should replace all of our speakers with omni directional ones and get rid of all the acoustic treatments in our studios...

He's allowed to fantasize... so are you.

Is it imminent? I don't believe so, but that is pure speculation on my part.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #969 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 05:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, Not as far east as Vegas
Posts: 1,351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
Not sure why you advise getting different speakers. "Snapping" of phantom source to the nearest speaker is inevitable once the listener is off axis. That's why the guys at Bell labs proposed a center channel back in the 1930s (!).

As to toe-in and trading for sweet spot widening, it doesn't work. I don't know any speaker that would have the required radiation pattern. See papers by Aarts, Bauer, Kates, Rodenas and others.

What does work is something like this: http://www.sebastianmerchel.de/sweetspotter.html
But again, that's also just a single seat solution.
Different speakers if it's stereo, multichannel lets you have a lot more leeway.

"Bring out yer dead!".."Wait I'm not dead yet!"..(Sound Austrian here) "WRONG !!" (You know what happens next..)
tenthplanet is offline  
post #970 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 05:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
Markus.. you know you have a tendency to rub me the wrong way with some of your posts... but it bears repeating..

Atmos is a hybrid channel and object based format... 7.1 "traditional" channels with the addition of two overhead arrays, supported by 118 object playable through up to 62 discrete outputs, plus full range surrounds and overheads, bass management, real time object renders, auto eq support, fairly predicable backwards compatibility, etc..
Thanks for this information.

It seems that generation-1 Home Atmos in mainstream AVRs is boiling down the objects mapped onto 2 to 4 ceiling channels.
Will this AVRs be firmware upgradable to have more capabilities?

Aren't the current 7.1/5.1 lossless sound-tracks already full range?

The new Pioneer Atmos speakers are crossed at 180Hz so clearly not much bass there and I suspect that most ceiling speakers are not full range.
This is an interesting video with Pioneers chief speaker designer, Andrew Jones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=3c295SyGQag

- 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; 07-13-2014 at 05:49 PM.
RichB is offline  
post #971 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 05:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 837 Post(s)
Liked: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
Impossible or improbable?
Good way to separate it. Improbable? Depends on what Dolby decides to do with the bed channels: map to speaker locations or upmix to number of speakers or nothing at all. Impossible? Six years ago you had a consumer AVR at your home that could remap the contents of entire channels to where your speakers weren't located.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #972 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 05:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
What I meant by "pre-determined" is what you were describing: "Dolby has specifications for where you should place and install speakers".

I don't know if you see the contradiction in a system that is supposed to adapt to where your speakers are but requires you place speakers where they tell you.

Apparently I must not be the only one to ask this, since one of the questions in the Dolby FAQ is: "If this is not a channel-based system, why are there predefined speaker positions?"
Atmos for the cinema was never built to adapt to "where your speakers are..." So you're starting from a flawed [re,ose.

It was designed as a system which is installed in a known environment....

The idea behind the rendering engine and Dolby's use of objects was to be able to scale the movement of sounds based on the available number of speakers, which will be located in optimal positions to maximize translation of the mix from dub stage to theater..

In a cinema with Atmos, it's impossible to use a single surround speaker at 150 and another at 90...

If the theater can't accommodate the recommend setup, it won't be certified...

I think it's ok to demand a standard for playback.

The fact that optimal placement isn't always possible in the home doesn't change the fact that for a great majority of cinemas, it's not only possible, but almost always setup properly from the beginning..

You're creating the contradiction IMO.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #973 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 05:29 PM
Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
Thanks for this information.


It seems that generation-1 Home Atmos in mainstream AVRs is boiling down the objects mapped onto 2 to 4 ceiling channels.



- Rich
Close. The objects will be rendered into the room using all of the speakers. The ceiling channels are needed to be able to to render in x, y and z axes, but all of the speakers (5.1.2, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 etc.) will be in use to render the objects.
RichB likes this.
dschulz is offline  
post #974 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 05:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
Thanks for this information.

It seems that generation-1 Home Atmos in mainstream AVRs is boiling down the objects mapped onto 2 to 4 ceiling channels.
Will this AVRs be firmware upgradable to have more capabilities?
Rich.. as I've speculated on many times, these imminent (August Sept) AVR's are simply updates to the current lineup, which I would infer means that they have limited upgrade potential..

It also takes DAC's, updated room correction, additional rendering DSP... so I think the answer is safely "no."

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
Aren't the current 7.1/5.1 lossless sound-tracks already full range?
The new Pioneer Atmos speakers are crossed at 180Hz so clearly not much bass there and I suspect that most ceiling speakers are not full range.
The soundtracks have always been full range.. the cinema surround systems not.

Atmos added bass management and a new lineup of speaker choices which were much more capable than what was used in the past (for the most part.)

To clarify your last point about the Pioneers..

They cross over to the mains (either the floor standing mains or surrounds) at 180.... that information isn't lost...

Then those speakers are subject to the bass management setup in the AVR...
RichB likes this.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #975 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 05:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fookoo_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Will have to wait and see what the first generation of Dolby Atmos capable receivers actually do and require. If they anticipate a specific location and angular arrangements of speakers, then I would pass, waiting for the second generation version that is capable of utilizing the speakers, wherever they happen to sit. Dumping or radically altering an existing 9.2 setup is not in my near term future.
fookoo_2010 is offline  
post #976 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 05:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 837 Post(s)
Liked: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
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 FilmMixer View Post
It does know the location for sure..
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
Atmos for the cinema was never built to adapt to "where your speakers are..."
I know you don't see the contradiction, but I hope you understand why comments about knowing speaker locations and placing sounds based on positional data can give the impression that it does adapt to where the speakers are. For us non-technical types, when you say "in relation to the centre of the room", that's describing angles (whether you intend to or not).

Anyway, the question in the Dolby FAQ shows they're at least aware of the misconception.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #977 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 06:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post
Will have to wait and see what the first generation of Dolby Atmos capable receivers actually do and require. If they anticipate a specific location and angular arrangements of speakers, then I would pass, waiting for the second generation version that is capable of utilizing the speakers, wherever they happen to sit. Dumping or radically altering an existing 9.2 setup is not in my near term future.
I understand the sentiment...

However, if you current system is so far off what is recommend for proper Atmos playback, you can't really consider it ideal for proper reproduction of the current formats either....

I share Roger's thoughts.....

"Yes, there's nothing worse than solving a problem that does not exist. Do people really complain about distorted soundfields and lust for remapping? To me the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race." That is quite different from achieving unified soundfields on random speaker systems, and I do not think either MDA or Trinnov can do much about that."

Adding object is only going to magnify the "issues" one might have if they are unable, or unwilling, to adjust their setup that is far off from what they specify.

I will add this...

Just because you have a 9.1 setup now that doesn't conform to their "requirements" (loose quotes) do you need to keep running it as such? Surely you have at least two surround channels that can be used in a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 setup.. or maybe 7.1.4 with wides and one pair of surrounds...

I'd much rather have that than upmixed matrix decoding..

I'm just saying'...
FilmMixer is offline  
post #978 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 06:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
I know you don't see the contradiction, but I hope you understand why comments about knowing speaker locations and placing sounds based on positional data can give the impression that it does adapt to where the speakers are. For us non-technical types, when you say "in relation to the centre of the room", that's describing angles (whether you intend to or not).

Anyway, the question in the Dolby FAQ shows they're at least aware of the misconception.
The tone of you posts/point as I understand it is that the lack of free will (i.e. the fact that Dolby specifies where the speakers need to be installed in a said location) undermines the ability for it to adapt to where the speakers are...

Adapting to where the speakers are, even if they must be placed where they told you, isn't a contradiction in my mind...

Some theaters will have 6 overheads, some 10 on each array... Dolby will specify where they must be placed, the toe angle, etc... however it still adapts/renders to them on playback...

It's not giving a false impression...
Dan Hitchman likes this.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #979 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 06:41 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 Roger Dressler View Post

Yes, there's nothing worse than solving a problem that does not exist. Do people really complain about distorted soundfields and lust for remapping? To me the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race." That is quite different from achieving unified soundfields on random speaker systems, and I do not think either MDA or Trinnov can do much about that.
So what are the problems/set of complaints that home-theater Atmos is meant to address?
simon_templar_32 is offline  
post #980 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 06:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
Close. The objects will be rendered into the room using all of the speakers. The ceiling channels are needed to be able to to render in x, y and z axes, but all of the speakers (5.1.2, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 etc.) will be in use to render the objects.

That makes sense.

If you have no ceiling channels is there any Atmos processing of objects ?

- 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 #981 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 06:54 PM
Senior Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
The tone of you posts/point as I understand it is that the lack of free will (i.e. the fact that Dolby specifies where the speakers need to be installed in a said location) undermines the ability for it to adapt to where the speakers are...

Adapting to where the speakers are, even if they must be placed where they told you, isn't a contradiction in my mind...

Some theaters will have 6 overheads, some 10 on each array... Dolby will specify where they must be placed, the toe angle, etc... however it still adapts/renders to them on playback...

It's not giving a false impression...
FilmMixer, i for one, am glad you posted what you have. I am on the construction/remodeling side of commercial cinema and i know well what Dolby as well as Auro have told me about the number of speakers and speaker placement and toe angle. JBL also has it's guidelines as well. I can see years of progress washed away in HT by not having the speakers in the right place. I kind of hate to see Atmos appearing on the consumer side, as there will be plenty of threads hating Atmos over something as simple as poor speaker placement. Dolby's own "white Paper" and set up guides should be referenced material before even considering Atmos. I have posted the links countless times.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #982 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 07:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fookoo_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
I understand the sentiment...

However, if you current system is so far off what is recommend for proper Atmos playback, you can't really consider it ideal for proper reproduction of the current formats either....

I share Roger's thoughts.....

"Yes, there's nothing worse than solving a problem that does not exist. Do people really complain about distorted soundfields and lust for remapping? To me the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race." That is quite different from achieving unified soundfields on random speaker systems, and I do not think either MDA or Trinnov can do much about that."

Adding object is only going to magnify the "issues" one might have if they are unable, or unwilling, to adjust their setup that is far off from what they specify.

I will add this...

Just because you have a 9.1 setup now that doesn't conform to their "requirements" (loose quotes) do you need to keep running it as such? Surely you have at least two surround channels that can be used in a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 setup.. or maybe 7.1.4 with wides and one pair of surrounds...

I'd much rather have that than upmixed matrix decoding..

I'm just saying'...
The hope with Dolby Atmos was that it would do as well as it could, given any speaker setup, ala Dolby Vision and the next generation of high definition displays. Radically altering a setup just to accommodate Dolby Atmos or buying new speakers that allow for Dolby Atmos is simply not in the cards. There is always the possibility of running two different audio systems, utilizing different speakers is a possibility; i.e., separate banks of ceiling speaker and separate height speakers, but that is not likely to occur in the first generation of home Dolby Atmos. The promise of Dolby Atmos in home theaters is certainly alluring, for those who can conform to Dolby specifications. However, I would state that I have heard a lot of mediocre Dolby Atmos mixes in theaters and if the same thing should occur at home, that would be too bad.
fookoo_2010 is offline  
post #983 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 07:21 PM
Senior Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post
However, I would state that I have heard a lot of mediocre Dolby Atmos mixes in theaters and if the same thing should occur at home, that would be too bad.
PM me with the Theater and Movie, please.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #984 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 07:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
Glenn Baumann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Posts: 752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
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.

Roger,

When Toole is advocating that the Side Surrounds be shifted a bit forward of 90 degrees, is that recommendation assuming one is utilizing Monopole (point source) or Dipole (diffuse) speakers?

Also what type of Side Surrounds do you utilize with your 7.1 System?

Thanks!

...Glenn
Glenn Baumann is online now  
post #985 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 07:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 837 Post(s)
Liked: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
The tone of you posts/point as I understand it is that the lack of free will (i.e. the fact that Dolby specifies where the speakers need to be installed in a said location) undermines the ability for it to adapt to where the speakers are...
Right, it's adapting to its own predefined locations (Dolby's words, not mine) not actual speaker placement. It will be interesting to see what the Trinnov Altitude does when it is finally released, whether it feeds positional data to the Atmos engine for rendering to actual speaker locations or whether it needs its remapping algorithm to accomplish that.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #986 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 07:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post
Radically altering a setup just to accommodate Dolby Atmos or buying new speakers that allow for Dolby Atmos is simply not in the cards.
New speakers are a requirement for home theater setups.. that's kind of the point... the format, at a minimum (5.1.2), adds at least 50% more speakers to the surround field..

This isn't something that is all upside with no investment on your part...

And if you have to "radically" alter your setup to conform with the suggested placements of the surrounds, then again I say your system isn't close to reproducing soundtracks as intended by their creators.. which has always been my goal in my setups..

To this point, in your 9.1 setup, how far off the mark can your surrounds be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post
However, I would state that I have heard a lot of mediocre Dolby Atmos mixes in theaters and if the same thing should occur at home, that would be too bad.
How is reproducing said tracks in your home going to change your subjective opinion of the quality of the mix?

It's obvious that the quantity of Atmos mixes is increasing, and with the announcement that they can also deliver it via DD+ has surely increased interest from broadcast content providers..

Last edited by FilmMixer; 07-13-2014 at 10:41 PM.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #987 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 08:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Right, it's adapting to its own predefined locations (Dolby's words, not mine) not actual speaker placement.
Absolutely... there is still latitude on the number of total speakers available.. and as Roger so eloquently explained, the RMU/850 does compensate for not only that, but differences in the shape and sizes of rooms....

I think there has been a general misconception from people that "object rendering" as it applies to Atmos means re-mapping based on any speaker setup and their placements, and that is a part of the system for theaters.

In the end the general take away is that it's going to require some effort on the end users part to implement it properly,

I think the end result is well worth it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
It will be interesting to see what the Trinnov Altitude does when it is finally released, whether it feeds positional data to the Atmos engine for rendering to actual speaker locations or whether it needs its remapping algorithm to accomplish that.
I will try and get that answer for you... give me a couple of weeks.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #988 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 08:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baumann View Post
Roger,

When Toole is advocating that the Side Surrounds be shifted a bit forward of 90 degrees, is that recommendation assuming one is utilizing Monopole (point source) or Dipole (diffuse) speakers?

Also what type of Side Surrounds do you utilize with your 7.1 System?
Both Dr. Toole and I prefer monopoles.
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #989 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 08:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by simon_templar_32 View Post
So what are the problems/set of complaints that home-theater Atmos is meant to address?
Allow me to quote my quote from your quote: >>the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race." << By that I mean the tyranny of requiring a playback system to adhere to the number of channels in the content pipe is over, at least going past 5.1. The consumer can decide if they want 2.0, 5.1, 7-9-11-13...32 speakers, and the sound will scale accordingly. This is true even with as few as one object at a given moment. No need for 22.2 or 32-ch content.

Aside from that, here's a couple other examples where object audio brings value, but of a totally different nature:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Case 1.
Let's say your TV screen is small, and that it would improve the enjoyment of the presentation if the onscreen sounds (sounds associated with a visible source) were to remain better tied to the screen size, thus avoiding exaggerated lateral cues for sources near the sides of the screen. This can be achieved with object rendering that is informed about the screen size. Then it will know how to map "screen edge" sounds to the phantom locations accordingly. As with any phantom image, it can shift depending on the location of the viewer. However, these phantoms are not built between L and R, but with L/C and C/R, so the error is cut in half. Furthermore, the error is never worse (and usually better) than the displacement error with standard L/C/R playback around a small screen.

Case 3.
It's night time, and turning down the volume obscures the dialog. DRC can help, but with object audio, DRC is a new ballgame because the dialog can be elevated independently of the rest of the mix. The mind boggles at the number of opportunities this presents for all manner of use cases; high ambient noise, hearing impairments, sleeping kids.
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #990 of 5801 Old 07-13-2014, 10:19 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 Roger Dressler View Post
Yes, there's nothing worse than solving a problem that does not exist. Do people really complain about distorted soundfields and lust for remapping? To me the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race." That is quite different from achieving unified soundfields on random speaker systems, and I do not think either MDA or Trinnov can do much about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simon_templar_32 View Post
So what are the problems/set of complaints that home-theater Atmos is meant to address?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Allow me to quote my quote from your quote: >>the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race." << By that I mean the tyranny of requiring a playback system to adhere to the number of channels in the content pipe is over, at least going past 5.1. The consumer can decide if they want 2.0, 5.1, 7-9-11-13...32 speakers, and the sound will scale accordingly. This is true even with as few as one object at a given moment. No need for 22.2 or 32-ch content.

Aside from that, here's a couple other examples where object audio brings value, but of a totally different nature:

Case 1.
Let's say your TV screen is small, and that it would improve the enjoyment of the presentation if the onscreen sounds (sounds associated with a visible source) were to remain better tied to the screen size, thus avoiding exaggerated lateral cues for sources near the sides of the screen. This can be achieved with object rendering that is informed about the screen size. Then it will know how to map "screen edge" sounds to the phantom locations accordingly. As with any phantom image, it can shift depending on the location of the viewer. However, these phantoms are not built between L and R, but with L/C and C/R, so the error is cut in half. Furthermore, the error is never worse (and usually better) than the displacement error with standard L/C/R playback around a small screen.

Case 3.
It's night time, and turning down the volume obscures the dialog. DRC can help, but with object audio, DRC is a new ballgame because the dialog can be elevated independently of the rest of the mix. The mind boggles at the number of opportunities this presents for all manner of use cases; high ambient noise, hearing impairments, sleeping kids.
My statement refers to home-theater Dolby Atmos, not object-based audio in general. My points, I guess too hidden under the tongue in my cheek, are twofold. First, that the sorts of laudable things you mention largely can be done without having people drill holes in their ceiling, buy new speakers and new speaker modules, and boldly spend money like no one has spent before. Second, that the sort of missive Dolby employs to tout Atmos for the home (http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-...ing-room-near/) has little overlap with the virtues you mention and does not reflect any "complaints"/"lusts" I hear from my general consumer friends; rather, it provides great examples of the rhetorical tricks the Mad Men use to get inside our heads.

No need to respond. I'm just finding the "hype" in "hyper-change" (http://expo.cedia.net/) to be a bit much.

Last edited by simon_templar_32; 07-13-2014 at 10:28 PM.
simon_templar_32 is offline  
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