Streaming atmos vs uhd atmos? - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 18Likes
  • 1 Post By sdurani
  • 4 Post By Ryan1
  • 2 Post By confinoj
  • 7 Post By psuKinger
  • 1 Post By lockdown571
  • 1 Post By Ryan1
  • 2 Post By m0j0
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 14 Old 02-25-2018, 06:00 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Smooth9883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Streaming atmos vs uhd atmos?

Hi Everyone,

Is the audio quality the same when you stream Dolby atmos when comparing to a UHD?

Thanks
Smooth9883 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 14 Old 02-25-2018, 06:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
groove93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Statesboro, GA
Posts: 1,811
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 965 Post(s)
Liked: 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth9883 View Post
Hi Everyone,

Is the audio quality the same when you stream Dolby atmos when comparing to a UHD?

Thanks
Streaming Atmos is based on Dolby Digital Plus (lossy) whereas UHD and Blu-ray Atmos is based on Dolby TrueHD (lossless).

I can only speak from personal experience but I can here a difference between the two, not solely based on loudness, but to me the Lossless variant is more spacious a full.

Depending on how your speakers are Calibrated, and how your Atmos set up is configured, (I'm using Klipsch Up firing Atmos Speakers), the DSU or DTS Neural X Audio coming from your Receiver can help similar in ways Dolby Pro Logic Pllx helped with some two-channel or Matrixed Sound formats.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Sony XBR55X900E
Marantz SR7010/Marantz MM7025
Oppo UDP-203 - Nvidia Shield
XBox One X
Klipsch RP-260f - RP-440C - RP140sa- RP-160m - RB10 - Sony SA-WM500
groove93 is offline  
post #3 of 14 Old 02-25-2018, 07:29 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,701
Mentioned: 200 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7069 Post(s)
Liked: 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth9883 View Post
Is the audio quality the same when you stream Dolby atmos when comparing to a UHD?
No, but you might not hear a huge difference, depending on your system, ears, room, etc. Think of Atmos soundtracks as having two parts: the audio (data) and instructions on where to place the audio (metadata). The metadata remains the same for disc and streaming. As for the data, lossless packing is used on disc (where there is plenty of storage space) while lossy compression is used for streaming (to save on bandwidth). Same mix, different audio quality.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 14 Old 06-07-2018, 10:38 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 6
I find it very hard to believe that anyone with decent ears and a system beyond HTiB capability wouldn't hear the difference between Lossless and lossy audio. As the user above me said, yes the spacial and location-based information is the same, but the fidelity of that information is greatly compressed.

I want full 7.1 + object based information. I want spacious, wide, detailed sound without the dynamic range compression that comes with lossy audio.

Streaming is not the future for someone concerned with the full fidelity of the picture and the audio.
GbMaxSE84 is offline  
post #5 of 14 Old 06-07-2018, 11:02 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,701
Mentioned: 200 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7069 Post(s)
Liked: 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by GbMaxSE84 View Post
I want spacious, wide, detailed sound without the dynamic range compression that comes with lossy audio.
Lossy compression algorithms usually don't reduce dynamic range, instead they work by reducing resolution.
Riekopo likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #6 of 14 Old 06-07-2018, 11:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,206
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by GbMaxSE84 View Post
I find it very hard to believe that anyone with decent ears and a system beyond HTiB capability wouldn't hear the difference between Lossless and lossy audio....
I find it hard to believe that people still think that they can hear a difference between high-bitrate lossy and lossless, if all other things are equal (such as listening to the identical mix, volume matched).

I guess it's the same people who hear differences between 16 and 24 bits, and who wax poetic about "spacious, wide, detailed sound" from Pass Alephs and Krells compared to other properly performing amps, or can hear the difference between silver and coper speaker wire. Thee wouldn't be a whole "audiophile" industry if such people didn't exist.

Think about it: if in double blind tests people cannot tell the difference between 192kbps AAC and lossless, in stereo and in controlled environment, why do you think they can tell the difference when multiple channels are involved, most carrying ambient sounds, in living rooms where the average noise floor is generally much higher than what you get with a good pair of headphones or in a studio?

It is entirely possible that sometimes the content provider has different mix for streaming than on disk, or that imperceptible differences in amplitude affect one's preferences -- humans perceive as "better" identical track played at as little as 0.1db higher amplitude.

Cheers.
Ryan1 is offline  
post #7 of 14 Old 06-07-2018, 12:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
confinoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Shaker Heights, OH
Posts: 1,970
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1224 Post(s)
Liked: 1029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post
I find it hard to believe that people still think that they can hear a difference between high-bitrate lossy and lossless, if all other things are equal (such as listening to the identical mix, volume matched).

I guess it's the same people who hear differences between 16 and 24 bits, and who wax poetic about "spacious, wide, detailed sound" from Pass Alephs and Krells compared to other properly performing amps, or can hear the difference between silver and coper speaker wire. Thee wouldn't be a whole "audiophile" industry if such people didn't exist.

Think about it: if in double blind tests people cannot tell the difference between 192kbps AAC and lossless, in stereo and in controlled environment, why do you think they can tell the difference when multiple channels are involved, most carrying ambient sounds, in living rooms where the average noise floor is generally much higher than what you get with a good pair of headphones or in a studio?

It is entirely possible that sometimes the content provider has different mix for streaming than on disk, or that imperceptible differences in amplitude affect one's preferences -- humans perceive as "better" identical track played at as little as 0.1db higher amplitude.

Cheers.
For whatever reason mixing of the LFE track seems to be quite variable and typically best on blu ray or UHD disc based codecs so usually lossless. A lot of us in the sub forums with capable subs notice a significant difference from different sources mostly streaming vs disc. I don't think codec plays a huge role as bass frequencies should not be very difficult to encode so seems to be more the mixing. For example LFE is often significantly lacking on Apples itunes mixes compared with the disc even when volume matched. With very capable subs I care about this the most so unless mixing practices change I typically prefer the disc based audio. As an aside Vudu's mixes tend to be much better (in regards to LFE) and much closer to disc. Now they do use a significantly higher bitrate than iTunes so it does make you wonder a bit if that's playing a role.
Adamg (Ret-Navy) and dfa973 like this.

LG OLED65C7P (Chad B Calibrated) | Denon X4300H | Tivo Roamio OTA | Nvidia Shield | ATV 4K | Oppo UDP-203 | Plex server
5.2.4 | Front Klipsch RP-160M x2 | Center Klipsch RP-450C | Surrounds Klipsch RP-150M x2 | Atmos Klipsch RP-140SA x 4 | Subs SVS PC-4000 x 2
confinoj is offline  
post #8 of 14 Old 07-24-2018, 03:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
psuKinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,623
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1518 Post(s)
Liked: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post
I find it hard to believe that people still think that they can hear a difference between high-bitrate lossy and lossless, if all other things are equal (such as listening to the identical mix, volume matched).

I guess it's the same people who hear differences between 16 and 24 bits, and who wax poetic about "spacious, wide, detailed sound" from Pass Alephs and Krells compared to other properly performing amps, or can hear the difference between silver and coper speaker wire. Thee wouldn't be a whole "audiophile" industry if such people didn't exist.

Think about it: if in double blind tests people cannot tell the difference between 192kbps AAC and lossless, in stereo and in controlled environment, why do you think they can tell the difference when multiple channels are involved, most carrying ambient sounds, in living rooms where the average noise floor is generally much higher than what you get with a good pair of headphones or in a studio?

It is entirely possible that sometimes the content provider has different mix for streaming than on disk, or that imperceptible differences in amplitude affect one's preferences -- humans perceive as "better" identical track played at as little as 0.1db higher amplitude.

Cheers.
This post is both:
A) Factually inaccurate, NUMEROUS examples exist of people telling the difference between 192 kbps bitrate compressed files and lossless files (see: McGill University Subjective Evaluation of MP3 Compression for Different Musical Genres). The difference is stark. Lines only start to get blurry (law-of-diminishing-returns) for most people when you get to 256 kbps.

B) Completely Off-topic and mixing apples and oranges. The part that you many fail to understand while citing various references for 2-channel tests at xyz bitrate is that on the "Networking Media Servers and Content Streaming" forum the topic almost always being discussed is xyz bitrate being split not two but five (or more) ways. If my memory serves me right DVD "Dolby Digital" is 640 kbps being split 5 (not 2) ways... and I believe Netflix uses a much lower bitrate flavoring of Dolby Digital for their streaming these days (and it sounds like it too, to those of us that aren't using soundbars).

C) Beyond that, and going back to 2-channel music (again, generally off-topic on this forum, but just to have the discussion), disc space is CAF these days, and I have no idea why so many people worry about/go out of their way justifying why they don't NEED the extra 1's and 0's. If your point is that sampling rates beyond the CD standard of 44.1 kHz is a great big waste of time for everyone in your house except your dog, I don't disagree. But most of the time, when someone goes way out of their way to try to PROVE what others can't hear/are placebo'ing as better sound, it turns out they either don't own/use "better/higher-end equipment" (2-channel music played through a 3-foot wide soundbar they bought for $200 at Best Buy vs. planar magnetic headphones connected to class A amplifiers), or they don't listen to much "well-mastered music that has a lot of dynamic range" (a lot of Red Hot Chili Peppers Californication and not a lot of Norah Jones Come Away With Me), or usually both.

It blows my mind why people spend so much money (many thousands of dollars) on something like a TV or an audio system, and then *pucker* at the idea of (literally) spending a couple dollars (at most) more on the Blu Ray or the CD compared to the HD Digital Download or MP3 digital download... ESPECIALLY when the Blu Ray and CD *come with* the Vudu digital redemption key and the MP3 autorip... seems so incredibly short-sighted to me.

I absolutely hear a difference between both Dolby Digital 5.1 surround and 256 kbps MP3 and Dolby True HD surround and 16-bit/44.1 uncompressed CD on my gear, and I can prove to myself and anyone that wants to administer the A-B test on me at my house... I've done so many times.
psuKinger is offline  
post #9 of 14 Old 07-24-2018, 04:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
lockdown571's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,291
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 309
I think it depends on the source material, but in many cases the TrueHD track sounds obviously better to my ears than DD track. Was just testing out the end of Annihilation and it's pretty noticeable (if you haven't seen it, the audio in that movie is incredible). Definitely true of the Dave Matthews / Tim Reynolds blu-ray which I watch all the time as well. Also agree with what psuKinger said, that if you're going to invest hundreds if not thousands of dollars into AV equipment, then why not demand the highest quality audio and video possible? Reminds me of how some people rip hundreds of blu-rays and immediately transcode them to lower quality rips. Maybe the video quality isn't hugely different, but at the same time, why bother?
psuKinger likes this.
lockdown571 is online now  
post #10 of 14 Old 08-01-2018, 07:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,206
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockdown571 View Post
I think it depends on the source material, but in many cases the TrueHD track sounds obviously better to my ears than DD track...
It depends on the source material/mix and the amplitude. Not on the compression.

The irony is that while older guys are often the most fervent about this, if you test their hearing, they often can't hear above 10-11kHz, yet they claim to hear differences people with "normal" hearing can't hear, in controlled environments.

psuKinger sites the 2009 Subjective Evaluation of MP3 Compression for Different Musical Genres, which states that: "Listeners significantly preferred CD quality to mp3 files up to 192 kb/s...."

I am not sure what the purpose of the citation is, as it supports the findings that high bitrate compression (properly done), which is generally 256kbps for mp3, is indistinguishable from the lossless source to human ears.

Modern codecs, such as AAC and Dolby Digital Plus are much more efficient, so they are generally indistinguishable from lossless at 192kbps. Netflix used to stream DD at 384kbps, and now streams DD+ at 192kbps.

Again, sometimes the mix may be different, but it has nothing to do with the compression.
sdurani likes this.
Ryan1 is offline  
post #11 of 14 Old 11-29-2018, 11:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
psuKinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,623
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1518 Post(s)
Liked: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post
It depends on the source material/mix and the amplitude. Not on the compression.

The irony is that while older guys are often the most fervent about this, if you test their hearing, they often can't hear above 10-11kHz, yet they claim to hear differences people with "normal" hearing can't hear, in controlled environments.

psuKinger sites the 2009 Subjective Evaluation of MP3 Compression for Different Musical Genres, which states that: "Listeners significantly preferred CD quality to mp3 files up to 192 kb/s...."

I am not sure what the purpose of the citation is, as it supports the findings that high bitrate compression (properly done), which is generally 256kbps for mp3, is indistinguishable from the lossless source to human ears.

Modern codecs, such as AAC and Dolby Digital Plus are much more efficient, so they are generally indistinguishable from lossless at 192kbps. Netflix used to stream DD at 384kbps, and now streams DD+ at 192kbps.

Again, sometimes the mix may be different, but it has nothing to do with the compression.
The irony of this is the people that most fervently hold your position almost always:
A) Own/use gear that they BELIEVE to be "high end consumer products," like soundbars for home theater, bluetooth (mono) speakers for music, and bose/beats for headphones... because a wide swath of the internet/general population has led them to believe that these items are in fact high-end/upgraded audio gear.
B) Listen to poor source material by which to make such a claim/judgement (loudness-wars-esque, low-dynamic-range, modern pop music, etc)
C) Prefer or even exlusively stream/digitally rent movies through apps/sources that ONLY support lossy Dolby Digital or DTS and compressed music, and can't deliver TrueHD/HD-MA or CD-quality; and they want their preferences/modus-operandi to be confirmed as optimal/the right way.



Compression and dynamic range are two different beasts, that much we'll agree on. But source material with lots of dynamic range will MORE EASILY allow the listener to discern the difference between a higher bitrate and lower bitrate file. Also, if I buy a CD and create two different files from it, one a lossless FLAC and the other a lossy high-bitrate-MP3, the process of creating said MP3 *does not* introduce a bump in the gain/volume the way you suggest it does. The files are created from the same CD. The MP3 algorithm does not artificially increase the gain on the file. They will both play back at the same level. Whether or not YOU can hear the difference IN YOUR ROOM using YOUR gear is something I won't argue with you about. I can assure you that, when in my best room(s) and using my better gear, and without multi-tasking but rather focusing/critically listening, I can pick out the difference between lossless CD quality rips and high bitrate MP3's, and I can pick out the difference between lossless 5.1 Dolby TrueHD/DTS-HD-MA and lossy Dolby Digital 5.1/DTS 5.1 audio tracks for movies...

And as I've always said, the difference, for me at least, is more stark/pronounced more often for 5.1 channel surround sound movies than it is for 2-channel music...

Last edited by psuKinger; 11-29-2018 at 12:03 PM.
psuKinger is offline  
post #12 of 14 Old 07-19-2019, 04:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
terminaldawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 889
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Ran into this thread.. good read and debate... and noticed this relevant topic. Wonder if this actually took place yet?

https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/01/...ive-streaming/
terminaldawn is offline  
post #13 of 14 Old 07-19-2019, 05:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
m0j0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,306
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 512 Post(s)
Liked: 456
I don’t personally watch a lot of Netflix for movies, but I did test atmos out on a few titles just to make sure it worked. Although I could verify I was getting an atmos mix to my system, I didn’t feel it was anywhere near as good as the same movie I had on a 4K blu ray.
SuperFist and psuKinger like this.
m0j0 is online now  
post #14 of 14 Old 07-19-2019, 06:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
terminaldawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 889
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 55
For sure, I am on the side of lossless audio all the way... If I can hear the difference or not.. Id rather have zero compression if possible Just was always curious how compressed the audio was that was being sent via netflix and other online sources.

Display: LG OLED65C7P 65-Inch | AVR: Denon AVR-X3300W
Speakers Klipsch: Front: RP-260F Atmos: RP-140S, Center RP-450C, Rear: R-15M | SUB: Rythmik FV15HP (Currently Running 3.1.2)
Devices: Apple TV 4K | Nvidia SHIELD TV Gaming Edition | Xbox One X Scorpio Edition | PS4 PRO | Nintendo Switch | Custom Gaming PC
terminaldawn is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming

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