or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › DTS Neo.X
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DTS Neo.X - Page 32

post #931 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Is there any standard for atmos on bluray even in discussion? If we don't have a media format, that it's no use building receivers...
This may sound odd, but that is the "easy" part. Both DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD were architected for new delivery capabilities such as this. IIRC Dolby conducted a closed door demo of Atmos off a Blu-ray at WCES last January.

Even so, the challenge will be the increased peak bitrates due to added objects. Content makers may choose to wait until the next BD format roll out, as it ought to have higher capacity to handle 4k video. Too early to tell at this point, as the ink isn't even dry on that spec yet.
post #932 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Dolby ATMOS should be the next one for us HT enthusiast, look at he numbers of movies released in theater over the past two years in ATMOS! None in DTS MDA:( I think 2014 might be the year of ATMOS for all of us in our home cinemas

Not to dampen your obvious enthusiasm for home ATMOS|MDA, but I would have thought a much more probable 'near term' audio enhancement is that the BDA (while adding some kind of 4k video functionality) might make provision for another ("quaternary zone") audio extension-beyond 7.1--to include some combination of, e.g., 2 to 7 height channels and|or a pair of front wide channels. Since TrueHD can actually support 14 discrete channels and DTS-HDMA "many more" (plus we expect HDMI 2.0 to support at least 16 channel LPCM) this should fall well within the computational capabilities of 2014|2015 home theater technology and hardware. Legacy AVR DTS-HDMA|TrueHD decoders would continue to produce 2.0, 5.1 and 7.1 downmixes from newer encoded material.

Dolby's published materials suggest that it would be relatively straightforward for the ATMOS rendering engine to deliver multichannel LPCM in the requisite 9+ channel configuration from existing|future ATMOS movie metacode (as they do today in order to produce legacy theater 5.1 and 7.1 DCPs) for subsequent TrueHD encoding...?! cool.gif
_
Edited by SoundChex - 7/20/13 at 7:31am
post #933 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

IIRC Dolby conducted a closed door demo of Atmos off a Blu-ray at WCES last January.
From what I was told at CES, the Atmos decoder was fed by a regular BD-R disc being played by a consumer BD player connected via current HDMI. Feels like one of those 'so close yet so far' type of situations (far = getting Atmos decoding and, more importantly, Atmos encoded soundtracks into the hands of consumers).
post #934 of 1226
Whether it be Atmos or MDA or both utilized in UHD media, I would assume that they'll end up with a hybrid discrete channel beds plus metadata controlled objects format along the lines of Atmos (since music scores and songs would be assigned to specific speakers and object rendering would not be necessary). I wouldn't mind an 11.2 discrete track plus over 100 objects for the home as long as it is at least 24 bit, 48 kHz bit-for-bit lossless with provisions for 24 bit, 96 kHz resolution for music.

That way you can have 9.2 and 11.2 channel receivers and pre-amp/processors as a budget and mid-level baseline (with the ability to redirect and fold the rendered objects and metadata info. into assigned channels), and then if you want to take advantage of precision object-oriented surround, you can add ethernet linked, modular, add-on rendering units that could explode out with up to 64 individually addressable speakers, if you were so inclined, with provisions for multi-channel amplifiers.

Like taking the pro-cinema object oriented equipment and reworking it for consumer-based gear: Modular, flexible, and scalable to whatever your budget and theater room can accommodate.

All of this potential contained in one Atmos or MDA soundtrack.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 7/19/13 at 4:35pm
post #935 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Whether it be Atmos or MDA or both utilized in UHD media, I would assume that they'll end up with a hybrid discrete channel beds plus metadata controlled objects format along the lines of Atmos (since music scores and songs would be assigned to specific speakers and not need object randering). I wouldn't mind an 11.2 discrete track plus over 100 objects for the home as long as it is at least 24 bit, 48 kHz bit-for-bit lossless with provisions for 24 bit, 96 kHz resolution for music.

That way you can have 9.2 and 11.2 channel receivers and pre-amp/processors as a budget and mid-level baseline, and then if you want to take advantage of precision object-oriented surround, you can add ethernet linked, modular, add-on rendering units that could explode out with up to 64 individually addressable speakers, if you were so inclined, with provisions for multi-channel amplifiers.

Like taking the pro-cinema object oriented equipment and reworking it for consumer-based gear. Modular, flexible, and expandable to whatever your budget and theater room can allow.

All of this potential contained in one Atmos or MDA soundtrack.

I endorse this message. smile.gif
post #936 of 1226
+1
post #937 of 1226
+2
post #938 of 1226
+3

Sent from my 32GB iPhone4 using Tapatalk
post #939 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Whether it be Atmos or MDA or both utilized in UHD media, I would assume that they'll end up with a hybrid discrete channel beds plus metadata controlled objects format along the lines of Atmos (since music scores and songs would be assigned to specific speakers and object rendering would not be necessary).
Yes, Atmos and MDA are both on the same page in this respect.
Quote:
I wouldn't mind an 11.2 discrete track plus over 100 objects for the home as long as it is at least 24 bit, 48 kHz bit-for-bit lossless with provisions for 24 bit, 96 kHz resolution for music.
I doubt it will happen like this.
Quote:
Like taking the pro-cinema object oriented equipment and reworking it for consumer-based gear: Modular, flexible, and scalable to whatever your budget and theater room can accommodate.

All of this potential contained in one Atmos or MDA soundtrack.
Exactly.
post #940 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post


I doubt it will happen like this.

What do you envision instead as a viable consumer option? Hear any rumblings?

I hope we're not sliding backwards in regards to audio resolution and the use of lossy audio rather than lossless or dumbing things down from what commercial theaters get. At the start of the home theater renaissance and up to now, it almost seemed like consumer media (at least in pre-packaged physical formats) usually got better audio quality than even the cinemas.

The electronics manufacturers and studios need to start thinking outside the box because their revenues are definitely slipping (maybe some good movies for a change... but that's for another discussion). I'd almost think object based audio would work better in a modular style: a pre-amp/processor with the various surround formats that can be connected to any assortment of separate amplifier configurations depending on how elaborate each home's setup was going to be (here's that flexible and scalable part again). Dump a lot of the analog A/V inputs of yesterday and instead focus on new and innovative digital connectivity. I was even hoping that HDMI would get some sort of face lift because God only knows the current HDMI design completely sucks: from its cable limitations, to its horribly idiosyncratic whole-home connectivity problems, to its crappy, flimsy plugs and ports.
post #941 of 1226
They've never wanted to give us flexible and scalable before, they want to sell us everything in every generation. Otherwise prepros would have been more available, cheaper than receivers and promoted.
post #942 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

What do you envision instead as a viable consumer option? Hear any rumblings?
Remember, the biggest, fattest, delivery pipe we have is Blu-ray. It might get fatter when 4k comes. Regardless, it will not support 100 simultaneous lossless objects.

In addition, it is not bitrate efficient to deliver 11.2 channels, nor is it necessary. 7.1 would be the optimum choice.
Quote:
I hope we're not sliding backwards in regards to audio resolution and the use of lossy audio rather than lossless or dumbing things down from what commercial theaters get. At the start of the home theater renaissance and up to now, it almost seemed like consumer media (at least in pre-packaged physical formats) usually got better audio quality than even the cinemas.
The cinema has one thing that consumer formats do not: boundless capacity. Want 3D, sure, just double the video. Want high frame rate? Double it again. Want more channels/objects? No problemmo. The DCP hard drives can handle it all. BD, not so much.

Something that may not be obvious when talking about audio compression is that object audio is a totally different animal. It offers options that never existed before. Just as an example, consider the 7.1 channels. They can be losslessly coded. So can objects. But objects can also be coded as lossy, and if some object sounds are more demanding than others, they can use different bitrates as necessary to maintain quality. So we could have objects coded losslessly and lossy -- at different bitrates, all on the same movie with lossless channels. None of this was possible before.

The more that objects are delivered with lossless, the fewer objects there will be -- they will just be mixed into the main channels. Which is more lossy, the lossy coding, or the total loss of access to the object? As a consumer, you will get to choose and compare: The entire movie presented as lossless 7.1, or the object presentation with hybrid coding.
Edited by Roger Dressler - 7/21/13 at 10:13am
post #943 of 1226
Well. 1TB flash drives are around the corner if they aren't here already. You don't need discs... And the packages can get smaller... And if you don't like the movie, reformat and get a flashdrive for your comp, cool.gif
post #944 of 1226
Just because it's available doesn't mean it's going to be cheap enough for distribution. 64 GB USB 3.0 flashdrive is still $30. A 50 GB blank disc is only $2.
post #945 of 1226
Well, if Sony says "what's the price on 100 millions units?", then I'm sure it would go down rapiy. cool.gif
post #946 of 1226
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post


The electronics manufacturers and studios need to start thinking outside the box because their revenues are definitely slipping (maybe some good movies for a change... but that's for another discussion). I'd almost think object based audio would work better in a modular style: a pre-amp/processor with the various surround formats that can be connected to any assortment of separate amplifier configurations depending on how elaborate each home's setup was going to be (here's that flexible and scalable part again). Dump a lot of the analog A/V inputs of yesterday and instead focus on new and innovative digital connectivity. I was even hoping that HDMI would get some sort of face lift because God only knows the current HDMI design completely sucks: from its cable limitations, to its horribly idiosyncratic whole-home connectivity problems, to its crappy, flimsy plugs and ports.

The latest AVRs especially the market segment of SRP <$799 have already scrapped the majority of analog audio and video inputs... Common today for a $399 (SRP) AVR to have (6) HDMI inputs. Regarding HDMI connectors no better or worse than the USB ones.. The major problem with HDMI is the lack of mandatory COMPLIANCE VALIDATION... When the dominant major brands such as Sony, Pioneer, Samsung, LG, Direct TV and Apple all choose to do their own HDMI testing all bets are off with interoperability between components. There is an EZ solution, make HDMI compliance mandatory just like a UL or FCC certification.. For example, ever try using CEC with a Samsung display and Pioneer/Elite AVR.. rolleyes.gif

Since the primary AVR brands decided to chase one another for marketshare by selling the least expensive AVR (all rated @ 100W/CH) to Best Buy, Walmart, Target, Amazon, CostCo, they are all losing big money as the higher end step-up AVRs sell fewer and fewer.. Without any profits, there are no $ to invest in the newer R&D technologies..

Just my $0.02... 👍😉
post #947 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Well, if Sony says "what's the price on 100 millions units?", then I'm sure it would go down rapiy. cool.gif

Still not going to be that low. I've dealt with Sandisk and an importer to get (albeit low) 1 million 16 GB units for a 3-year contract (total 3 million units), they can only give 13% off wholesale.

Heck, even a 2 GB SD card that have sold hundreds of millions of units are still $1 wholesale.
post #948 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post


The electronics manufacturers and studios need to start thinking outside the box because their revenues are definitely slipping (maybe some good movies for a change... but that's for another discussion). I'd almost think object based audio would work better in a modular style: a pre-amp/processor with the various surround formats that can be connected to any assortment of separate amplifier configurations depending on how elaborate each home's setup was going to be (here's that flexible and scalable part again). Dump a lot of the analog A/V inputs of yesterday and instead focus on new and innovative digital connectivity. I was even hoping that HDMI would get some sort of face lift because God only knows the current HDMI design completely sucks: from its cable limitations, to its horribly idiosyncratic whole-home connectivity problems, to its crappy, flimsy plugs and ports.

The latest AVRs especially the market segment of SRP <$799 have already scrapped the majority of analog audio and video inputs... Common today for a $399 (SRP) AVR to have (6) HDMI inputs. Regarding HDMI connectors no better or worse than the USB ones.. The major problem with HDMI is the lack of mandatory COMPLIANCE VALIDATION... When the dominant major brands such as Sony, Pioneer, Samsung, LG, Direct TV and Apple all choose to do their own HDMI testing all bets are off with interoperability between components. There is an EZ solution, make HDMI compliance mandatory just like a UL or FCC certification.. For example, ever try using CEC with a Samsung display and Pioneer/Elite AVR.. rolleyes.gif

Since the primary AVR brands decided to chase one another for marketshare by selling the least expensive AVR (all rated @ 100W/CH) to Best Buy, Walmart, Target, Amazon, CostCo, they are all losing big money as the higher end step-up AVRs sell fewer and fewer.. Without any profits, there are no $ to invest in the newer R&D technologies..

Just my $0.02... 👍😉

Just FYI - I work for an auto OE, and cell phone Bluetooth compliance is a royal PIA! So many cel phone manuf, there are so many patches / etc, yet when customers buy our cars with multiple headunits available they don't care excuses just that their cell phone pair correctly and all the commands work.
If not, then we get slammed on JD Powers/etc.

So, loosey/goosey open std's leaves for "interpretation" or reading between the lines at times and then lots of issues.
post #949 of 1226
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

Just FYI - I work for an auto OE, and cell phone Bluetooth compliance is a royal PIA! So many cel phone manuf, there are so many patches / etc, yet when customers buy our cars with multiple headunits available they don't care excuses just that their cell phone pair correctly and all the commands work.
If not, then we get slammed on JD Powers/etc.

So, loosey/goosey open std's leaves for "interpretation" or reading between the lines at times and then lots of issues.

Totally agreed about BT compliance..
We just finished a couple of soundbars with BT that took a few iterations to pass..
Another tough one is THX Ultra 2...

Just my $0.02... 👍😉
post #950 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Remember, the biggest, fattest, delivery pipe we have is Blu-ray. It might get fatter when 4k comes. Regardless, it will not support 100 simultaneous lossless objects.

In addition, it is not bitrate efficient to deliver 11.2 channels, nor is it necessary. 7.1 would be the optimum choice.
The cinema has one thing that consumer formats do not: boundless capacity. Want 3D, sure, just double the video. Want high frame rate? Double it again. Want more channels/objects? No problemmo. The DCP hard drives can handle it all. BD, not so much.

Something that may not be obvious when talking about audio compression is that object audio is a totally different animal. It offers options that never existed before. Just as an example, consider the 7.1 channels. They can be losslessly coded. So can objects. But objects can also be coded as lossy, and if some object sounds are more demanding than others, they can use different bitrates as necessary to maintain quality. So we could have objects coded losslessly and lossy -- at different bitrates, all on the same movie. None of this was possible before.

The more that objects that are delivered with lossless, the fewer objects there will be -- they will just be mixed into the main channels. Which is more lossy, the lossy coding, or the total loss of access to the object? As a consumer, you will get to choose and compare: The entire movie presented as lossless 7.1, or the object presentation with hybrid coding.

So, could you possibly do a 24 bit lossless 7.1 channel bed plus lossless objects utilizing a larger capacity medium than a regular Blu-ray? How large is the data file for an average Atmos track? And are they losslessly encoded? I still would want the best fidelity possible for movie soundtracks and possible music tracks. Not willing to compromise there.

I already assumed that UHD video at higher bit depths and a wider color gamut, plus a high end object oriented audio track would need a far greater bit pool. There are 200 GB Blu-ray discs, for example.

If they go the download only route for UHD content, which is nigh impossible with today's infrastructure and ISP shenanigans (like data usage caps and high costs), I would doubt they'd even consider object based audio due to bandwidth limitations and cloud storage capacity. We can't even get Blu-ray quality 1080p and lossless audio tracks as it is.
post #951 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

So, could you possibly do a 24 bit lossless 7.1 channel bed plus lossless objects utilizing a larger capacity medium than a regular Blu-ray?
Sure. That's what DCP does, and it doesn't even bother with lossless.
Quote:
How large is the data file for an average Atmos track? And are they losslessly encoded?
Dunno. Dunno, but I doubt it. Not needed, and just adds decoder complexity.
Quote:
I still would want the best fidelity possible for movie soundtracks and possible music tracks. Not willing to compromise there.
Of course. But that does not mean lossless is required for every object.
Quote:
I already assumed that UHD video at higher bit depths and a wider color gamut, plus a high end object oriented audio track would need a far greater bit pool. There are 200 GB Blu-ray discs, for example.
Large capacity helps with playing time. It does nothing for thruput. BD is limited to ~50 Mbps for everything, incl all the languages.
Quote:
If they go the download only route for UHD content, which is nigh impossible with today's infrastructure and ISP shenanigans (like data usage caps and high costs), I would doubt they'd even consider object based audio due to bandwidth limitations and cloud storage capacity. We can't even get Blu-ray quality 1080p and lossless audio tracks as it is.
Agreed. So we have to hope for a viable solution in 4k Blu-ray.
post #952 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Large capacity helps with playing time. It does nothing for thruput. BD is limited to ~50 Mbps for everything, incl all the languages. Agreed. So we have to hope for a viable solution in 4k Blu-ray.

Forget the special features, only the movie with the original language it was filmed in + subtitles. If people want special features they can buy the two disc version smile.gif
post #953 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Large capacity helps with playing time. It does nothing for thruput. BD is limited to ~50 Mbps for everything, incl all the languages.
Agreed. So we have to hope for a viable solution in 4k Blu-ray.

Wouldn't a larger capacity Blu-ray format for "4k" content also need the bitrate increased? The BDA would be extremely shortsighted if they left that spec. at exactly the same 50 Mbps data cap. Heck, there are other optical formats with massively more capacity that might be viable and they could still call it 4k Blu-ray, or some such thing.
post #954 of 1226
No, BDA is considering the use of the new codec that is 100% more efficient and doubling the datarate as well. So it is equivalent to quadrupling the current data rate using the current codec.
post #955 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Which is more lossy, the lossy coding, or the total loss of access to the object? As a consumer, you will get to choose and compare: The entire movie presented as lossless 7.1, or the object presentation with hybrid coding.
Given the choice, I would prefer they spend resources on the better mix rather than waste bandwidth on encoding fidelity outside my human hearing.
post #956 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

No, BDA is considering the use of the new codec that is 100% more efficient and doubling the datarate as well. So it is equivalent to quadrupling the current data rate using the current codec.

I think I'll hold off on believing their 100% more efficient spin with H.265 until I can see it for myself. H.264 still had problems, even on Blu-ray, and needed the extra bitrate for rapid motion and more complex imagery that most studios would skimp on giving their transfers. They always contended that the extra data was not needed, which was clearly B.S.

On a side note, why should it take these Mastered in 4k Blu-ray's to finally give us what we should have had before... carefully mastered transfers from the theatrical source data files with maxed out bitrates?? And only Sony is doing it. The same could be said for those darn Superbit DVD's back in the day! Argh!!!!

Right now, I'm interested in the audio specs. for UHD. I hope they don't compromise because they certainly need something that will WOW consumers in order to get them to bite.
post #957 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I think I'll hold off on believing their 100% more efficient spin with H.265 until I can see it for myself.
wink.gif That is not what has been achieved thus far.
Quote:
Right now, I'm interested in the audio specs. for UHD. I hope they don't compromise because they certainly need something that will WOW consumers in order to get them to bite.
What consumers will be wowed by audio? Aren't our quality/effect discussions around here only of concern to a small niche of home theater enthusiasts? "Show me the money" as the saying goes, and I am not convinced audio is a motivating factor for the mass market.
post #958 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Given the choice, I would prefer they spend resources on the better mix rather than waste bandwidth on encoding fidelity outside my human hearing.
+1 I like the hybrid track idea. I'd rather have a lossy object than no object at all.
post #959 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

What consumers will be wowed by audio? Aren't our quality/effect discussions around here only of concern to a small niche of home theater enthusiasts? "Show me the money" as the saying goes, and I am not convinced audio is a motivating factor for the mass market.

Unfortunately you are right, image first sound second frown.gif Look at mp3 quantity over quality
post #960 of 1226
However, if you have a much more enveloping mix than ever before where sound effects and music come from a wide range of locations (even from above) that might be a bit more "ear opening." It might even spur some to actually want to have a few more speakers in their homes, so they get the most out of these object based tracks. You couldn't get anything like this in the 70's, 80's, 90's... until now.

I've heard from friends and some family members who checked out Atmos mixes for Star Trek and Oblivion, and while most weren't that impressed with the movies themselves and thought they were a bit too loud, they came away floored by the object based sound mixes. They hadn't heard anything quite like it before... and they're not as attuned to this stuff as we enthusiasts are.

By increasing the resolution, color gamut, and video bit depth AND delivering an immersive 3D audio experience never before possible... I think that combo might do the trick.

Though, the industry (including the sound mixers, editors, and engineers) must start thinking (and mixing) outside the box and really emphasize these enhancements rather than staying stuck in a rut.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › DTS Neo.X