Roger,

From the reports that were circulating in the press it sure seemed like Dolby was focusing Atmos mainly for theatrical distribution. Has that now changed? Are they now seriously looking at adding Atmos soundtracks to UHD media?

DTS, from their press releases, seemed to be focusing their attention on at-home delivery methods. Of course, the press is not always given the full details of corporate plans and "schemes."

Competition is a good thing.

How would object-oriented soundtracks be added to regular, current Blu-ray's without changing the specs? Would there be room enough for both a regular Dolby TrueHD or DTS MA track and an object-based soundtrack? Video bitrates can sometimes be starved as it is without adding extra audio data on top.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 3/2/13 at 9:38am

I would like to understand this. Does it mean that channels persist but objects do not, so that a silent channel continues to claim bandwidth, unlike an absent object?

Exactly. Even a silent channel has floor noise, and lossless coding uses bandwidth for that.

It's not considered good form to pitch new formats to cinema folks while immediately selling it to the consumer. Kind of blunts the draw to going to the cinema.
I did not attend their "invitation only" CES demo of Atmos, but it was reportedly based on BD delivery as a proof of concept.
Correct. DTS sold all interests in cinema to Datasat several years ago. But you also saw from the Jan 2013 press release that they are working to get MDA adopted as a production standard to accelerate the adoption of object audio creation.
Truer words were never uttered. If only we had competition in government...
The new 3D object capabilities could not be achieved inside current BD players (a new AVR could enjoy the bitstream, though). So existing BD players would reproduce same quality as today, which isn't bad. And while there will be extra payload, it will not necessarily be like doubling the soundtrack. The existing one can be used with objects.

THE HOME THEATER OF THE FUTURE
All inconveniently located speakers are powered by a single conveniently located 48vdc power supply with plenum rated cables where necessary. No electronics at the speakers except crossovers and amplifier. Tuning of the enclosure prior to installation is possible. All speakers will be individually addressed in a Bluetooth 5.0 system (now good for 75 ft.). All manipulation of the audio signal will be done at the head end. Despite Dolby Atmos recommendation for subwoofers away from theater walls, multiple subs will be in wall. All of these precisely located sounds will appear to be coming from exactly where the hologaphic object IS!
VIOLA.

Okay, but just don't call me Viola.

Roger,

If I'm reading you correctly, a normal DTS MA or Dolby TrueHD bitstream could have extensions added, which would include object rendering data. A normal decoder would ignore the extensions, but a DTS MDA or Dolby Atmos decoder in a receiver or pre-amp could read the lossless core + extension information and recreate the original object oriented soundtrack as the movie's sound engineer intended?

But because it might add more "confusion" to the marketplace of the current Blu-ray format, Dolby and DTS will probably wait for UHD to roll it out en masse to introduce at-home object based soundtrack delivery systems? And probably with new, from-the-ground-up object based, high resolution lossless codecs rather than piggy backing on current technology? Would those be fair questions?

I don't see how that would be possible, except in the trivial case that the sound engineer intended the objects to be channels. Once several objects have been mixed down to be a channel that a legacy decoder could understand, how could they be unmixed?

Yes.
I do not think fear of confusion has even been a limiting factor for these guys...
Very fair questions. As to what happens, there are many forces well beyond these companies that will have a say in how things proceed. All I can say is, it's an active topic.

Very astute question!

There's a process by which the same panning used to render the object to the standard 5.1 (or 7.1) channel mix is performed again in the decoder, with the audio subtracted. This was described in an AES paper by Jot and Fejzo, with a diagram excerpted below:

Thanks for that explanation! It's almost as clear as mud.

The backbone of object-oriented audio is vector based amplitude panning, where sounds are given vectors and not tied to particular channels or speakers. Spatializer processing can be an option on some object-based audio technologies, though not all; and even then, it doesn't come into play unless the number of speakers shrinks to 5 or less (e.g., stereo set-up or soundbar).

As for 'Brave', there was no spatializer effect being used, just panning to more individual speakers instead of arrays. I heard that soundtrack in three different Atmos-equipped theatres. The Atmos white-paper makes their approach clear: "Another example is a somewhat less-subtle helicopter elevating on the screen and flying over the audience. The use of more discrete surround zones, as in Dolby Surround 7.1, helps achieve the perception of overhead movement, but adding overhead speakers prevents the brain from having to construct a phantom image of the helicopter moving overhead."

So it is not a question of spatialization methodology but adding more speakers to more locations to fill in gaps and lessen the need for phantom imaging. By comparison, spatializer processing is for the opposite situation, when you have so few speakers that you have to rely on phantom images (i.e., imaging where there are no speakers), which is the opposite of what Atmos was doing with 'Brave'. I did, and there was no mention of spatializer processing being the backbone of object-based mixing. The last time I heard a SRS MDA demo, the only time any spatialization processing was used was when we moved from the 12-speaker set-up to a 2-speaker workstation. And even then, they made it clear that it was an option. IF Atmos and MDA didn't go with spatial matrix coding, then what do you mean by spatialization methodology being the back-bone of object-oriented mixing? You're using these terms rather vaguely. And I don't see what Neo:X (ambience extraction) and Audyssey DSX (ambience generation) have to do with object-based mixing.

If you all do not mind, I am going to shift the topic back to Neo:X

Given this picture, do you all see any place I can put front wides? Relevant info on my speakers are: all surrounds are Axiom Audio M3, M2, or M0 (front heights) onwalls, front three are Paradigm Milleniums.




The location next to the door, at the front of the room, is directly across from the plasma TV. The TV is needed to be able to play the Wii, do exercise tapes, etc (since you are standing in the projector beam). Any ideas, or should I just not bother and stay with only front heights?

Well, no. I'm using Axiom M22s on Axiom stands, and the right one would go about where your TV is. Maybe you can figure out some way to make the TV accessible when needed, but get it out of the way? Like a stand on rollers ...

Nice room are those B&W speakers!

Thanks! I have since replaced the white speaker cable with black and moved the center speaker off the carpet and onto the wall. I also have a cover I made for the TV so it does not reflect.

The front heights (and all my surrounds) are Axiom Audio M series (onwall speakers, I have M3s, M2s, and M0s - the front heights are M0s). The front three are all Paradigm Milleniums. The front L and R are Millenium 200s and the front Center is a Millenium Trio. I am using the outer two speakers in the Trio as a large, singe, 4ohm center speaker. These were the first speakers my wife say which she actually said "they look sexy". Done deal. Plus, I bought them during the 6Ave vs Paradigm fiasco. Paradigm said they would honor the warranty and 6Ave wanted to hurt Paradigm (they were in a contentious lawsuit) so 6Ave was selling everything at 50% off.

Why does the movie studio Lionsgate seem to be the only one releasing Neo:X soundtracks for it's movies? Do they own the rights? Is this technology vulnerable to other competitors? Is it too risky for other studios to join in at this time?

http://www.dts.com/consumers/entertainment-audio/new-releases.aspx?q=&at=f44a2081e2bb42718beef1d0a2440475#recentReleases

Thanks!

It may have to do with the switch towards object-oriented "rendered" tracks (you can make one metadata encoded bitstream that will conform to all current formats... and it's system scalable, unlike a fixed channel soundtrack). Why should the studios invest in Neo:X decoders when Dolby Atmos and DTS MDA software is being pushed hard?

Lionsgate also has the advantage of trying different soundtrack options because they have fewer titles in their catalog. They need some edge over the competition.

Does that mean that Neo:X is already obsolete? Surely there must be application to the home end user that is substantial and unique from the commercial environment?

Is Neo:X not capable of playing back object-oriented tracks?

Thanks for the quick reply

No, it's channel oriented. Only atmos and MDA are object based

Two different codecs entirely. NeoX is a matrix based system in the same vein as Dolby Prologic. Object based audio is far more sophisticated with control over each discrete sound object in x/y/z 3D "space." You aren't just mixing in a linear fashion.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 3/24/13 at 1:26pm

Lionsgate is one of the more adventurous home video studios. You may recall the many 7.1 remixes they undertook such as Lord of the Rings.

I suspect Dan is right, it helps them stand out in the market.

Zulu: Yes, Neo:X is perfectly able to deliver content originally mixed for any of the current 3D audio formats, be it NHK 22.2, Auro3D, Atmos, or MDA. The end results would be essentially the same as a conventional Neo:X encode, but it would not require performing a separate mix session to get there. It is relatively easy to map these 3D formats to the Neo:X channel layout.

As one of the smaller studios, Lionsgate has a history of trying to give added value to their Blu-ray releases. As far back as 2006, they were re-mixing 5.1 theatrical titles to 7.1 for home video release. In 2007, of the 13 Blu-rays released with 7.1 sound, a full 9 of them were from Lionsgate. Now that 7.1 has become more common, they're remixing to 11.1 to stay a step ahead.

Glad to hear it, that excites me for the future. Thanks


This type of advantage will force their competitors to play catch up if they continue to push new blockbuster titles and the very latest surround sound technology. Thanks for the info.


ABC's are fine for me, but if you get the XYZ's and keep smiling I will join you.


I am very pleased to be helping usher in this new technology by buyng it for our home. Hopefully history does repeat itself, and others will follow. In the meantime, my collection has never sounded better!

Are there any objections to running an array of heights along the ceiling across the MLP stopping at the rear surrounds? The heights are playing content that is supposedly from above, so must it come from in front? Why not directly above, or from behind? I am imagining thunder, rain, or an announcers voice.

I would think this arrangement would be very effective.

If this is a more permanent installation, I would consider placing paired overhead speakers that match with the side and rear wall mounts. Might as well look to the future with object-oriented soundtracks in mind, which can address actual over-head speakers for sound effects like what you describe. Not as easy an install job, but the results will be much better with the latest and greatest audio technology.