Originally Posted by FilmMixer
And it also isn’t an apples to apples comparisons.
DTS:X can have a total of 16 streams of audio... the mixing tools allow for the almost unlimited use of objects... so either you can limit your self to mixing with a total of 16 channels (impossible for almost all content, be films, broadcast or even music...) or render out the rest of the mix and use any remaining streams to use for discrete objects (for example 7.1.4 + 5 objects....). And managing which discrete five pieces of audio to encode as objects at a given time is a foolish workflow. I think the content that has been released so far backs this up.
Atmos limits the amount of objects to be used during mixing to 118... it will then combine the entire soundtrack (beds and objects) upon encoding.
) is what I've read before on here time and again about the Home version of Dolby Atmos. 16 total objects (anything beyond that is "clustered" together with other objects to shrink them down to fit). The 16 objects supposedly encapsulates the bed channels as well as any extra speakers (not counting LFE). So a 7.1.4 always active bed would have 5 audio objects available beyond that, clustered or not. If this isn't correct, then I spent a lot of time reading false information on these forums.
As far as I know DTS:X also can contain "16" waveforms. The difference I originally alluded to is that many Atmos Blu-Rays only seem to use 12 waveforms for some reason (to save space on a disc?).(https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...l#post58729910
DTS has no similar technology.
Another post in the DTS:X thread (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...l#post58738490
) says that DTS:X's "spatial coding" is called either "Spatial Rendering" or "Spatial Re-mapping" (again same linked post).
Besides, what is clustering in home Atmos if not pre-rendered streams to use over a single object/waveform? Dolby likes to say it can produce 128 simultaneous objects in home Atmos lately, but it doesn't seem to me that it's any more technically correct than DTS:X claiming infinite objects that can be pre-rendered out to a given layout or pre-rendered object (which would be identical to a clustered object in function) and played back over all 32.2 speakers with DTS:X Pro. The semantics seem to fit whatever marketing they wish to use from either brand from my POV.
There is no licensing lost to produce content in Atmos outside of theatrical exhibition venues.
The "falseness" of licensing costs would seem to depend on one's point of view. You're telling me that theaters don't matter? Are there no licensing costs for AVR manufacturers? Is the software to mix Atmos is free?
As an extrapolation of the cost argument, I would propose that it is actually more expensive to produce content (broadcast and disc) in DTS:X because you will also have to author and QC the same content in a Dolby format if you plan to stream or broadcast it... while some studios have certainly embraced the use of X on catalog titles (and a handful of current releases) it is by no means cheaper to do so if you factor in the cost of creating the eventual Dolby streams that are needed for delivery down the line.
argue that, but DTS:X is at least fully capable
of being streamed (using DTS HQ compressed streams similar to using DD+ with Atmos). Given the ever increasing amounts of bandwidth (I have >150Mbps here and that's the bottom tier; it maxes out at 1.5Gbps from my ISP if I'm willing to pay for it), full uncompressed streams aren't an impossibility either. I certainly stream it locally that way. Fandango Now streams DTS and was reportedly set to stream IMAX Enhanced titles with DTS:X the last I heard (I do not use Fandango Now at the moment as my projector is currently 2K and it wants 4K streams to pass Atmos or DTS, which I think is short-sighted, but I have no control over it). While Atmos is clearly well ahead of DTS:X at this point in time, DTS:X isn't a dead format (one could argue Auro-3D probably is dead). Market penetration is still quite low and 8K streaming or some format with it is yet to come as well. I personally wouldn't want to predict the future only to find out I was wrong ten years later.
But as I said, I'll take whatever format I can get. The few titles I have in both DTS:X and Dolby Atmos (usually DTS:X on disc and Atmos in iTunes streaming), they sound virtually identical in every test I've done thus far here. Maybe there'd be a difference on a 32+ channel Trinnov based home theater. I cannot say as I don't have one.
I do know in general, competition is usually good for the future and having Dolby be the last sound format standing doesn't appeal to me even if they are superior in some respects. What drive would there have been to even get Atmos out there if Auro-3D hadn't threatened to overtake them by arriving first? I've read it suggested the threat of Auro-3D is what got Dolby pushing forward much sooner than they might have otherwise. We didn't even get much 7.1 content until Atmos came out. 5.1 on Blu-Ray seemed to be the overwhelming normal even when cinematic 7.1 soundtracks were available for the same movies. If nothing else, Atmos/X has lead to a lot more 7.1 soundtracks for those using older 6.1/7.1 systems even if they never upgrade to Atmos/X.