AVS Forum banner

Dolby Atmos Theatre System

137K views 1K replies 145 participants last post by  jmd1982 
#1 ·
From the press release :


>>For the first time, Dolby Atmos introduces a hybrid approach to mixing and directs sound as dynamic objects that envelop the listener, in combination with channels for playback. Dolby Atmos enables adaptive rendering to ensure that the playback experience is as close as possible to the creator's original vision in any given environment, irrespective of the specific speaker configuration in the playback environment.
 
#102 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/21953879


I hope so. The article at Digital Trends quoted earlier did say: "More intriguing of course is Dolby’s claim that the ultimate goal is to move Dolby Atmos into home theaters with large-screen televisions."


Early adopters have been using the processing in newer receivers (PLIIz, DSX, Neo:X) to do height speakers for a few years already. This will give them content specifically for those speakers.

Discrete trumps derived every time.
 
#103 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/21953836


And you're projecting that onto Dolby.

Ah not a primary motive but certainly one not lost on the industry in general by any stretch. We shall see eventually when the more mundane AV consumer types are presented with their options. So far they do not appear to even be interested in this thread!

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar /forum/post/21953877


Gary probably has it on a macro ... I've seen it every time somebody talks about a new technology with ... more speakers.

Yes I know you like to keep track of me. Kind of creepy, really.
 
#104 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J /forum/post/21954073


Ah not a primary motive but certainly one not lost on the industry in general by any stretch. We shall see eventually when the more mundane AV consumer types are presented with their options. So far they do not appear to even be interested in this thread!




Yes I know you like to keep track of me. Kind of creepy, really.

I assure you that I make no conscious effort to do so. I go places ... and there you are.
 
#105 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J /forum/post/21954073


Ah not a primary motive but certainly one not lost on the industry in general by any stretch. We shall see eventually when the more mundane AV consumer types are presented with their options. So far they do not appear to even be interested in this thread!

That's fine. No hurry. There's a lot of work to be done throughout the chain before it will mean anything to typical consumers.
 
#106 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler /forum/post/21954310


That's fine. No hurry. There's a lot of work to be done throughout the chain before it will mean anything to typical consumers.

Meanwhile Engadget weighs in .
 
#107 ·
Forgive the resurrecting of the bass management issue, but I just wanted to mention that while GXM is correct that the electrical summation of correlated bass in large rooms (cinema) from 2 spaced subs has a 3 dB buildup error, and from 4 channels a 6 dB error, in a home theater those errors are cut in half, 1.5 dB and 3 dB, respectively. This was independently confirmed by Dolby and THX, and is programmed into bass management gain offsets so that when a system chooses a different number of subs, it compensates automatically. That may help explain why bass management in homes is not really a problem for playback accuracy.


The difference between theaters and homes has to do with the bass wavelengths vs the distance between the speakers. If 2 subs are co-located, the acoustic addition will be the full 6 dB (same as electrical). If the subs are spread 8-12' such as the L/R speakers at home, the buildup is less (~4.5 dB). In a cinema it may be the least. OTOH, the new Atmos diagrams show three subs co-located behind the screen.
 
#109 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer /forum/post/21953104


I have met GXM.


I can assure anyone reading this that he most definitely has reliable information regarding Atmos.

Oh, that wasn't in question at all. If anyone wondered if my post was meant to be sarcastic or in any way questioning GXMnow's credentials, it wasn't (darn text makes it difficult to decipher intent).


Just as I appreciate your input Marc, because it helps me put things in perspective and gain a better understanding of why certain things are the way they are in the industry from your knowledge and insider background from the audio mixing end of the chain, and Roger's background from having been involved in developing and implementing many of the technologies that I'm enjoying today, I was curious as to which part of the chain GXMnow is from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer /forum/post/21953228


Not directed at me but I'll give my opinion.


These advances in tech might keep audiences interested but won't sustain long term growth of the business.


I'm one of those that would lament the decline of the social movie going experience.


However.... IMO theaters largely survive in the US because teeneagers and young adults need somewhere to depart with their disposable income.


I don't think that will change anytime soon.

I would also concur that the moviegoing experience is a social thing. Even if one's home theater has better audio and video reproduction than most commercial theaters, the teens will still prefer to go to a new movie when it debuts in theaters not only for the thrill of seeing it when it first comes out, but also for the social interaction and being able to go out with friends and be away from their parents for a bit.


I have to admit sadly, that I don't really go to the movies as much these days because I've been quite disappointed by the quality (or lack thereof) of the experience with subpar audio and even video depending on the venue (coupled with the fact that 24p judder annoys me). The few times I DO go these days however, it's more for the social experience than it is for the movie itself.


That said though, I sincerely hope that the market for moviegoers does NOT dwindle, as I would wonder about the continuation of productions of epic large scale blockbusters if movie going for some reason, died out. With a continuous resupply of teens and hence new moviegoers though, I don't think that will happen. I DO still recall that it was a different experience to go to the movies with the family vs with a bunch of friends.



Max
 
#110 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by "djbluemax1 /forum/post/0



I would also concur that the moviegoing experience is a social thing. Even if one's home theater has better audio and video reproduction than most commercial theaters, the teens will still prefer to go to a new movie when it debuts in theaters not only for the thrill of seeing it when it first comes out, but also for the social interaction and being able to go out with friends and be away from their parents for a bit.


I have to admit sadly, that I don't really go to the movies as much these days because I've been quite disappointed by the quality (or lack thereof) of the experience with subpar audio and even video depending on the venue (coupled with the fact that 24p judder annoys me). The few times I DO go these days however, it's more for the social experience than it is for the movie itself.


That said though, I sincerely hope that the market for moviegoers does NOT dwindle, as I would wonder about the continuation of productions of epic large scale blockbusters if movie going for some reason, died out. With a continuous resupply of teens and hence new moviegoers though, I don't think that will happen. I DO still recall that it was a different experience to go to the movies with the family vs with a bunch of friends.


Max

Max. Didn't mean to imply any doubters. Just happens I know GXM and if he remains anonymous I can vouch for him.



The adoption of D-Cinema is advanceing at such a pace I think we will see the end of 35mm prints at the end of 2013.


A film I mixed which opens tomorrow on 2800÷ screens has around only 450 35mm prints.


The rapid adoption has had the great side effect that most theaters have taken a fresh once over on the audio side as new digital projectors are installed.
 
#111 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J /forum/post/21954073


Ah not a primary motive but certainly one not lost on the industry in general by any stretch.

Not a primary motive? Nice backpedal. Selling more speakers is the only motive you've assigned to them, as evidenced by your first three posts in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J /forum/post/21941632


Another industry attempt to sell more speakers. aka DSX on steroids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J /forum/post/21942230


Yes more speakers, more amps, more wire, etc. to sell. Each of us get to do our own little cost/benefit analysis as to when enough is enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J /forum/post/21950257


Yes after surround sound, Room EQ and lossless there is not much left to sell besides more speakers.
 
#115 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J /forum/post/0


From what I see this thread has drawn the interest of pretty much just the high end 1 per centers. We shall see.

I am not a one per center by any means, and this thread interests me greatly. The bigger issue is that there's not much for a consumer to add to the discussion other than "cool, can't wait to hear it".


And just to note, we go to the movies twice a month. The sound isn't impressive, and I'd love to have improvements, but quality control at the multiplex leaves me with doubts. I'm fine with having something created to sell me new equipment. I'd hate to think we've reached the pinnacle of what is possible in audio reproduction in theaters or at home.
 
#116 ·
If we are to see a home movie (rather than just a home video game) implementation of Dolby Atmos in the next five to ten years, some (home theater version) element|channel|speaker 'limitations' might be imposed by (say) the HDMI 2.0 spec (scheduled for release in July 2012?), plus whatever Blu-ray spec extensions might come with 4K2K BDs (if indeed such things do appear in 2013|2014).


No doubt there will be some more serious prognostications about home products over the next few months...
 
#117 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex /forum/post/21956390


some (home theater version) element|channel|speaker 'limitations' might be imposed by (say) the HDMI 2.0 spec

I know you're speculating, but why would the HDMI connection even be aware of channel/speaker count when it comes to object-based soundtracks? Wouldn't the data simply bitstream into the AV receiver and then be rendered to channels based on how many speakers you were using? There can't be a HDMI limitation on the number of channels if that number is decided after the data has gone through the HDMI cable. Maybe a bandwidth limitation.
 
#118 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer /forum/post/21955831


Its not actually 64 speakers technically.


But 64 outputs that can feed zones (i. e. a surround zone can still contain more than one speaker. )


I highly recommend reading the white papers on Dolby 's site.

I did not see that mentioned anywhere, but I suppose there's no stopping Y splitters if more than 64 speakers need to be used, or perhaps fewer amplifiers. It seemed to me there was a strong case made for individually driving each speaker so as to EQ it and allow it to carry a focused image, when appropriate. Of course it is also possible that any group of speakers can be fed the same signals, just like the good ole days. And that's how the "beds" are reproduced. But all that is just a matter of upstream processing, feeding the individual amps/speakers.


>>The process supports rendering of these beds and objects to up to 64 speaker outputs.
 
#120 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/21955626


Not a primary motive? Nice backpedal. Selling more speakers is the only motive you've assigned to them, as evidenced by your first three posts in this thread:

"Primary" and "only" are your words not mine. In fact so is "motive" - good word though. Here are so other words -


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J /forum/post/21951175


Do not construe that to mean that I think such evolution should not happen.
 
#121 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J /forum/post/21956996


"Primary" and "only" are your words not mine. In fact so is "motive"

"Primary" was your word, I simply repeated it. Doesn't change the fact that you can think of only one reason for inventing this technology: to sell more speakers. But that myopic view is a window into your thinking, not Dolby's. You're accusing them of doing something you would have done, not something they did.
 
#123 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler /forum/post/21956677


I did not see that mentioned anywhere, but I suppose there's no stopping Y splitters if more than 64 speakers need to be used, or perhaps fewer amplifiers. It seemed to me there was a strong case made for individually driving each speaker so as to EQ it and allow it to carry a focused image, when appropriate. Of course it is also possible that any group of speakers can be fed the same signals, just like the good ole days. And that how the "beds" are reproduced. But all that is just a matter of upstream processing, feeding the individual amps/speakers.


>>The process supports rendering of these beds and objects to up to 64 speaker outputs.
 
#124 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 /forum/post/21956787


But is that "up to 64 discrete speaker outputs"?


I hope content creators don't have to use beds a lot. New miking techniques (e.g. Ambisonic soundfield microphone) and better effects processors (up to 128 outs) are probably needed.

Second point I semi addressed in my previous post to Roger..


My understudying is that yes, there can be up to 64 discrete outputs from 128 tracks (which includes both objects and beds...)


And a bed, in my understanding, is handled the same as an object just without dynamic positional metadata and can be router statically to any output (I need to get clarification on this, however.)


The Dolby room in SF has LCR mains, 26 discrete room channels (including 6 overheads) and 2 subwoofer outputs (front and back).
 
#125 ·
So this new technology is not a slam dunk?


Jeff

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer /forum/post/21957758



There is no feasible way (talking about time and money) to create a linear story through sound on a flat 2D proscenium using only object based mixing techniques (i.e. without beds as the foundation.. )


As a mixer, when working on films (a linear 2D medium) the interaction of every element of the soundtrack (i.e. music agains dialog, etc.) requires constant dynamic interaction of all elements all the time.. when you go into object based mixing, it's hard to maintain that work flow... not only is mixing via mouse and a joystick time consuming, it's no fun...


While it may be fun to create an object only mix, I see a couple of other issues with it..


1. It would take a lot of time (both editorially and mixing).. time=money, and this is the film "business"


2. I don't think it would sound "natural" and as we've seen in the reaction to 48fps projection this week, we've created an expectation about how films look and sound.


3. Beds (i.e. traditional stems) will work well for a lot of what you are trying to convey... why create a more difficult solution when you don't need to..


4. Even if Atmos becomes the norm for theaters, we still have to think about other venues where the film will be viewed... and although MDA allows for scalability even down to stereo, you will eventually lose your way if you go too far "outside the box.""


I'm not being pessimistic, or stuck in the past (I was one of those involved from the inception with Dolby Whole Sonic Overhead 11 years ago..) just providing a counter point to Markus' comment...
 
#126 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar /forum/post/21957986


So this new technology is not a slam dunk?


Jeff

Markus suggested minimizing the use of beds...


That was specifically what I was referring to... the Dolby production technique suggestions clearly spell out the generalizations (i.e. what works well as an object, what works well as a bed, etc...)


I'm 100% behind this new way of working.. have been since the 3DAA was started a couple of years ago... and before them, Iosono..


As far as a slam dunk, Dolby has the partners and business model to make this much more successful, and prevealant, than any other attempt before (including Auro 3D, Iosono and even Dolby 7.1 (which is doing just fine..))


As mixers, we will have to work out on our end how to endorse to the studios that it's money well spent, and also to our bosses that we should invest in the infrastructure so we can final mix in the format (I'm a firm believer in starting with the object based mix rather than finishing in 5.1/7.1 and then doing a pass after the fact.... in my experience, those tend to sound artificial and not all that organic...)


It will take time... but I'm excited that we finally have a well thought out "system" for advancing sound for film..


Just my .02, of course...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top