Dolby Atmos Theatre System - Page 4

In regards to your last point, I agree.

Every near field set up I've used and remasterig room I've been in is setup for bass management. I don't know why the studio you speak of does that but its a shame.

Since we have a standard in place for theatrical distribuuon translation in larger venues is largely not an issue.

Bass management wouldn't, IMO, improve that by any great degree with the current standard and reporduction systems.

However, and this isn't because of Atmos per se, there is a working SMPTE group re-evaluatig not only the standard but how we measure to acheuve said standard.

It is most assuredly an open discussion.

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.

If that is the case, then I wouldn't be surprised if Atmos "trickles down" into our theaters sooner rather than later. This technology will be wasted in commercial theaters where the customer base is a 2-ch, lossy compression crowd that many times is texting during the movie.

Jeff

Everyone needs to remener Atmos is a soup to nuts solution for a new way of creating.soundtracks, primarily at this point for commercial cinemas.

Object based workflow will find its ways into the home even if not from a Dolby product.

I truly believe that this will advance the quality and state of the art for cinema sound. Even if it isnt fully appreciated by the majority of film goers, it will add to the experience and as we've seen, they willing to pay for IMAX, ETX, 3D etc.

I've seen stats on the demographics of ticket sales which confirm your post.

Art

Well, I hope you are right, FM. I still go to the cinema once every 2-3 months and in spite of sitting in what should be the sweet spot, the sound is not that good. And I am going to what is supposed to be a high end theater. They do have a full bar, so maybe theirs is intended for a different "high" ...

BTW, I have always been impressed with IMAX ... right up until I saw a Batman movie where the sound was cranked and distorted. Sad. Now I limit my IMAX to nature films and documentaries.

Jeff

Projecting your motives onto others. New technology is announced that allows mixers to go beyond the limitations of channel-based mixing, allows theatre owners to render soundtracks to as many or as few speakers as they have, allows consumers to experience smoother movement around them and stable imaging above them.

Yet your reflexive reaction, as demonstrated by your very first post in this thread, is to label this as a ploy just to sell more speakers. Since you can't read Dolby's mind, you don't know their motives for inventing this technology. At best, your comments display your motive, the reason why you would have invented this technology (merely to sell more speakers). And you're projecting that onto Dolby.

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

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.

Last night I lay awake pondering the long term implications of 3D audio in movies...
This morning I realize I was just suffering from a mild case of Dolby AtmosFEAR...!

Groan.

Discrete trumps derived every time.

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.

Meanwhile Engadget weighs in.

Wow, 64 speakers.

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.


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.

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:

Originally intended for automotive sound.

Its not actually 64 speakers technically.

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

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

Nice outing.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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