The official Auro 3D thread (home theater version) - Page 186 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1896Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #5551 of 6397 Old 07-11-2018, 04:51 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,838
Mentioned: 205 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7153 Post(s)
Liked: 6164
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
Does Auro 3D default back to anything without Auro 3D processing? In other words, is it DTS 7.1 + Auro3D on top of it (like X is on top of DTS or Atmos is on top of TrueHD) or would playing one of these Blu-Rays in a system without Auro 3D result in NO SOUND what-so-ever (short of using a foreign language track)?
If you play an Auro-encoded track on a system that doesn't have Auro decoding, you'll get the backwards compatible 5.1 or 7.1 part. Soundtracks are designed with backwards compatibility in mind, to make sure that you always get sound, even with older gear. 30 years ago, if you were playing a matrix-encoded surround track on a system that didn't have Dolby Pro Logic decoding, you still got the 2-channel track. You never get "no sound".

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #5552 of 6397 Old 07-11-2018, 05:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,912
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1110 Post(s)
Liked: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
If you play an Auro-encoded track on a system that doesn't have Auro decoding, you'll get the backwards compatible 5.1 or 7.1 part. Soundtracks are designed with backwards compatibility in mind, to make sure that you always get sound, even with older gear. 30 years ago, if you were playing a matrix-encoded surround track on a system that didn't have Dolby Pro Logic decoding, you still got the 2-channel track. You never get "no sound".
I haven't dealt with Auro 3D before so I couldn't be sure what it defaults back to (hence why I asked). I saw that post say it appears as DTS, but is appearing and actually being the same thing for the downmix? So would Auro 3D 11.1 on this Poland and India Blade Runner 2049 disc likely downmix to DTS 7.1, then? That would still be an improvement over the 3D disc 5.1.

I haven't decided whether to go with Yamaha or Denon for my next receiver (weighing dialog lift that I would hate to lose vs Auddessey and Auro 3D) so I'm basically wondering if I grabbed one of these while you can still get them if it would have any value past my existing 3D disc (and/or to create a new hybrid 3D disc as I can already do with Atmos + 3D).

Actually, I'm wondering if there's some way I could combine my existing receiver (older Yamaha 7.1 model without HDMI) with say a Denon to retain dialog lift for the front channels yet get Auddessey and Auro 3D. I suppose I could take the front pre-outs from the Denon and feed them to the Yamaha (which has 7.1 analog inputs) and it would create the dialog lift presence channels that I could use. However, that would then supplant the actual front height/top channels without using some kind of external mixing device to re-combine both sets of outputs.

Click THEATER (Updated: May-22-2019) for pics: Epson 3100 3D Projector, DaLite 92" screen, 11.1.6 (Marantz SR7012 + Yamaha HTR-5960 + Onkyo ESPro) - Dialog Lift - PSB T45/B15/S50/X1T/CS500 Speakers & Def Tech PF-1500 15" sub; 2nd Room (Updated Apr-22-2019): 48" Plasma TV, Carver AL-III, Carver C-5 Pre-Amp, Technics SH-AC500D, Dual Carver TFM-35x Amps (Active Bi-Amp), Klipsch Surrounds ; Sources: PS4, LG UP875 UHD, Nvidia Shield (KODI), ATV4K, Zidoo X9S, LD, GameCube : Props (Updated 8-26-19)
MagnumX is offline  
post #5553 of 6397 Old 07-11-2018, 05:43 PM
Newbie
 
TechnoDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Mammoth Lakes, Ca
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Hey all,

I'm sure this may have already been discussed, but I'm looking for some Auro-3D content. I'm trying to do a review of the 10.1 system I have setup with a Denon X4400H, Outlaw Amp, and five SVS Prime Elevation Speakers. Anyway, I have the Volume 2 demo disc and I wanted to get some movies. Specifically Kung Fu Panda 3 and Jumanji. If any of you can point me in the right direction, that would be awesome.

I'm also open to borrowing a movie from one of you here in the US. LMK!
TechnoDad is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #5554 of 6397 Old 07-11-2018, 09:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,912
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1110 Post(s)
Liked: 619
I've been looking at the Denon AVR-X8500H manual to see if this receiver could work for my room.

In the attached diagram, it shows the current 6.1 room layout and the photo shows the front of the room and where the right surround speaker is currently located (the left is directly across from it next to the doorway). The projector is an older model from years ago (currently Epson 3100).

The proposed new "bed" surrounds would go beneath the existing high mounted side surrounds just below the wall paneling level, which puts it even with the front speakers. The rear surround would be moved behind the chair on the left and its new mate directly across just past the outboard fireplace. The front height/presence speakers would go on the bookshelf on either edge of the screen on either the first or second shelf (second shelf is same height as existing side surround mounted high on the wall). The rear bounce surround would go as a pair side-by-side in the rear of the room with a couple of feet of separation, but pointed preferably outward and up to bounce it slightly further apart than the rear sliding door and bathroom would allow aiming for the region of the ceiling above the new rear surround location.

This gives a 7.1 ground layout and a 6 channel "height/ceiling" layout for 13.1 channels in a 7.1.6 config and the side surrounds are actually the exact method suggested by Auro 3D for surround/height, but since the side walls aren't that far apart, the high mounted side surrounds are just two feet wider than where the ceiling middle speakers would be located if used for Atmos so it's a compromise, but not a crazy one. With the front presence speakers having to be slightly outward from the main line as well, it would line up reasonably well with the combined sound field (with a Yamaha receiver, that would be dialog lift as well). There is no way to mount a center height speaker (screen mounts to almost ceiling) and the VOG would image where the surround height speakers are anyway so it would be a pointless eye sore even if I did want to mount a speaker to the ceiling or house beam there.

The problem I see is this Denon receiver is inflexible to the point where I can't possibly make use of this layout as I would like. It will not allow (as far as I can tell) for using the side height speaker as either a top middle speaker for Atmos or a top middle speaker as a VOG for Auro 3D. It simply won't allow that selection/substitute regardless of how close the angles are to a particular shaped room. The "assignable" speaker terminals are only assignable in the allowed combinations THEY chose with no thought what-so-ever to the consumer. For example, what's the difference between a stereo pair of top middle speakers and a mono VOG if you sent the same signal to both top middle speakers (assuming you could choose to do that instead of using a top front center speaker)? The answer is effectively NONE. Too bad. You can't do it. It won't allow it (not even just one of them, which IMO would be better than NONE even if it was a little off-center).

Similarly, if you have surround height and surround speakers right above each other as it wants for Auro 3D but you want front/middle/rear speakers for Atmos, TOO BAD. It won't let you use surround height as top middle speakers (it will let you use front and rear height for both, but when you have a surround height speaker that's perfect for Auro 3D, you don't really want to use a rear ceiling bounce speaker instead, but you MUST because they won't allow separate assignable layouts for Atmos/Auro 3D in order to FORCE you to combine the speakers in the combinations they deem fit (regardless of the width of your room, etc.)

I could manage a 7.1.6 Atmos layout (using front height, top ceiling and rear height) (using presence height, middle/surround height and surround bounce speakers) but I'd be forced to use the rear bounce instead of the surround height for a 9.1 Auro 3D setup.

OR

I could have the correct/best Auro 3D 9.1 layout, but could then only manage a 7.1.4 layout for Atmos since top middle can't also be surround height. Given the lack of Auro 3D titles, obviously the first layout would be more functional even if the end result doesn't sound as good.

However, it appears I could change the setup before starting a movie (the same connector is for surround height as middle height), but it would be kind of a PITA (sad they don't just let you choose to use it for both). It also seems strange that they don't have a rear dolby enabled setting with real front/middle height speakers (as if I can choose where I MUST use a bounce speaker due to room layout issues). I'm kind of irritated because I thought these receivers would be a little more flexible in terms of a layout assignment without having to play setup games, etc. This really does seem to be a software/firmware issue for the setup given the same connector there.

Unfortunately, this all makes the Denon receiver less attractive looking, especially given the very high price. I also assume the firmware update adds rear surround for "11.1" Auro 3D in that configuration (no VOG or top center front)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Home Theater Layout.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	93.4 KB
ID:	2427434   Click image for larger version

Name:	Home Theater Photo Resized.jpg
Views:	71
Size:	162.1 KB
ID:	2427436  

Click THEATER (Updated: May-22-2019) for pics: Epson 3100 3D Projector, DaLite 92" screen, 11.1.6 (Marantz SR7012 + Yamaha HTR-5960 + Onkyo ESPro) - Dialog Lift - PSB T45/B15/S50/X1T/CS500 Speakers & Def Tech PF-1500 15" sub; 2nd Room (Updated Apr-22-2019): 48" Plasma TV, Carver AL-III, Carver C-5 Pre-Amp, Technics SH-AC500D, Dual Carver TFM-35x Amps (Active Bi-Amp), Klipsch Surrounds ; Sources: PS4, LG UP875 UHD, Nvidia Shield (KODI), ATV4K, Zidoo X9S, LD, GameCube : Props (Updated 8-26-19)
MagnumX is offline  
post #5555 of 6397 Old 07-12-2018, 02:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Lesmor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,084
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 735 Post(s)
Liked: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechnoDad View Post
Hey all,

I'm sure this may have already been discussed, but I'm looking for some Auro-3D content. I'm trying to do a review of the 10.1 system I have setup with a Denon X4400H, Outlaw Amp, and five SVS Prime Elevation Speakers. Anyway, I have the Volume 2 demo disc and I wanted to get some movies. Specifically Kung Fu Panda 3 and Jumanji. If any of you can point me in the right direction, that would be awesome.

I'm also open to borrowing a movie from one of you here in the US. LMK!
It has already been discussed on the thread
you can only get Auro discs in europe
Jumanji welcome to the jungle has both Dolby Atmos and Auro and is available on Amazon.de

Last edited by Lesmor; 07-12-2018 at 02:46 AM.
Lesmor is online now  
post #5556 of 6397 Old 07-12-2018, 09:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,010
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 835 Post(s)
Liked: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechnoDad View Post
Hey all,

I'm sure this may have already been discussed, but I'm looking for some Auro-3D content. I'm trying to do a review of the 10.1 system I have setup with a Denon X4400H, Outlaw Amp, and five SVS Prime Elevation Speakers. Anyway, I have the Volume 2 demo disc and I wanted to get some movies. Specifically Kung Fu Panda 3 and Jumanji. If any of you can point me in the right direction, that would be awesome.

I'm also open to borrowing a movie from one of you here in the US. LMK!
I would check out some Auro-3D music as well, especially as the format was originally developed as a surround music recording/playback system. The two showcase recordings that I've heard are the TrondheimSolistene "Magnificat" on the 2L label (a gorgeous piece of contemporary classical music), and Lichtmond 3: Days of Eternity (sort of prog-rock I guess, makes me think of Alan Parsons). Both are natively Auro 9.1 (so a 5.1 bed with height channels corresponding to the Left, Right, Left Surround, and Right Surround channels).

Honorable mention as well to Ozark Henry's "Paramount," also in Auro-3D 9.1.

The Lichtmond disc is on Amazon, although I note the price has gone through the roof. The others you may need to source from Europe now, they seem to have dropped off Amazon US.
dschulz is offline  
post #5557 of 6397 Old 07-13-2018, 01:34 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Marc Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Inland Empire, CA
Posts: 13,469
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5440 Post(s)
Liked: 4940
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
I would check out some Auro-3D music as well, especially as the format was originally developed as a surround music recording/playback system. The two showcase recordings that I've heard are the TrondheimSolistene "Magnificat" on the 2L label (a gorgeous piece of contemporary classical music), and Lichtmond 3: Days of Eternity (sort of prog-rock I guess, makes me think of Alan Parsons). Both are natively Auro 9.1 (so a 5.1 bed with height channels corresponding to the Left, Right, Left Surround, and Right Surround channels).

Honorable mention as well to Ozark Henry's "Paramount," also in Auro-3D 9.1.

The Lichtmond disc is on Amazon, although I note the price has gone through the roof. The others you may need to source from Europe now, they seem to have dropped off Amazon US.
Thank you Dan! I've been eyeing Magnificat but was hesitant to pull the trigger, until now.
Marc Alexander is online now  
post #5558 of 6397 Old 07-14-2018, 11:11 PM
Member
 
Sanjay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Delhi, India
Posts: 175
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
I haven't dealt with Auro 3D before so I couldn't be sure what it defaults back to (hence why I asked). I saw that post say it appears as DTS, but is appearing and actually being the same thing for the downmix? So would Auro 3D 11.1 on this Poland and India Blade Runner 2049 disc likely downmix to DTS 7.1, then? That would still be an improvement over the 3D disc 5.1.
Auro 3D rides on top of DTS-HD Master Audio. Therefore, in the absence of an Auro 3D decoder, you would get regular DTS-HD Master Audio.
Sanjay is offline  
post #5559 of 6397 Old 07-15-2018, 01:27 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 83,639
Mentioned: 727 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22374 Post(s)
Liked: 12178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
However, it appears I could change the setup before starting a movie (the same connector is for surround height as middle height), but it would be kind of a PITA (sad they don't just let you choose to use it for both). It also seems strange that they don't have a rear dolby enabled setting with real front/middle height speakers (as if I can choose where I MUST use a bounce speaker due to room layout issues). I'm kind of irritated because I thought these receivers would be a little more flexible in terms of a layout assignment without having to play setup games, etc. This really does seem to be a software/firmware issue for the setup given the same connector there.

Unfortunately, this all makes the Denon receiver less attractive looking, especially given the very high price. I also assume the firmware update adds rear surround for "11.1" Auro 3D in that configuration (no VOG or top center front)
1. You can accomplish your use case using either a USB SAVE or MultEQ Editor app save using Top Middle in one and Surround Height in another taking about 1 minute to swap between the two configurations using either the USB LOAD or MultEQ Editor app load.
2. Yes. Surround Back is available with the newer Auro 3D 13.1 version.
jdsmoothie is offline  
post #5560 of 6397 Old 07-15-2018, 05:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,912
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1110 Post(s)
Liked: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanjay View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
I haven't dealt with Auro 3D before so I couldn't be sure what it defaults back to (hence why I asked). I saw that post say it appears as DTS, but is appearing and actually being the same thing for the downmix? So would Auro 3D 11.1 on this Poland and India Blade Runner 2049 disc likely downmix to DTS 7.1, then? That would still be an improvement over the 3D disc 5.1.
Auro 3D rides on top of DTS-HD Master Audio. Therefore, in the absence of an Auro 3D decoder, you would get regular DTS-HD Master Audio.
Interesting. Too bad they can't piggyback both X and Auro 3D with one base signal. You could then have your choice of immersion decoder instead of this lack of availability problem. Movie theaters can order an Auro 3D mix for many movies. Why can't we the consumer have a choice of surround format in the Internet age? They could burn or stream on demand, if nothing else. Atmos winning with no feedback from consumers isn't really a win. It's more like a game on the corporate end.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie[/quote

1. You can accomplish your use case using either a USB SAVE or MultEQ Editor app save using Top Middle in one and Surround Height in another taking about 1 minute to swap between the two configurations using either the USB LOAD or MultEQ Editor app load.
2. Yes. Surround Back is available with the newer Auro 3D 13.1 version.
I guess that's better than nothing. I still don't get why they couldn't do a true assign whatever you want to whatever terminals and keep more than one setting. For example, I might want the high side surround as the regular side surround for 5.1-7.1 movies instead of an upmixer for a more authentic playback, but use it for surround height with Auro 3D and top middle for Atmos.

You can't do that even with a load USB operation because side surround is on a different speaker terminal. In other words, you should be able to tell it what speakers are connected and then select what to use for what (with external speaker selectors, this might even vary by setup for a more advanced room setup with extra speaker locations like a surround array option for 5.1 movies using a 9.1 or even a 13.1 layout in a room with multiple seating rows, thus giving everyone the same basic experience as they would have gotten in an actual theater with 5.1 and arrays of side speakers, but using those channels for surround wide, side and rear surround with Atmos.

Yes the upmixer might use surround back, but it won't be the same signal (thus affecting what that row hears) and I don't think the upmixer uses surround wide at all).

It just seems like a 13.2 receiver that costs $4000 would be a little more customizable for slightly more exotic room setups. I'm guessing some of those things could be addressed in firmware updates (certainly an option for using surround height as top middle in Atmos automatically could), but does Denon actually give a crap what users want?

Click THEATER (Updated: May-22-2019) for pics: Epson 3100 3D Projector, DaLite 92" screen, 11.1.6 (Marantz SR7012 + Yamaha HTR-5960 + Onkyo ESPro) - Dialog Lift - PSB T45/B15/S50/X1T/CS500 Speakers & Def Tech PF-1500 15" sub; 2nd Room (Updated Apr-22-2019): 48" Plasma TV, Carver AL-III, Carver C-5 Pre-Amp, Technics SH-AC500D, Dual Carver TFM-35x Amps (Active Bi-Amp), Klipsch Surrounds ; Sources: PS4, LG UP875 UHD, Nvidia Shield (KODI), ATV4K, Zidoo X9S, LD, GameCube : Props (Updated 8-26-19)
MagnumX is offline  
post #5561 of 6397 Old 07-15-2018, 11:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ted99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,976
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 972 Post(s)
Liked: 438
I was recently in Poland and because of that, I was able to purchase the Polish version of Blade Runner 2049 with Auro 3D 11.1. I did a back-to-back comparison with my Atmos version of this movie. There IS a difference. Some up front observations: 1) I have the full 13.1 speaker layout for Auro and it is in the Auro configuration--that is to say FH and SH over the side surround speakers. In 11.1 Auro, the rear bed speakers have no signal and they received no signal from my X8500. VOG and Center Height were active. 2) My Atmos speaker layout is the same for the overheads, which means that there is some compromise from the perfect Atmos layout of top front and top rear. 9.1.4 (wides) speakers were active in this movie. I think this is an excellent movie for comparison as the sound for this movie is universally praised as demonstration quality. The flexibility of my Denon X8500 was perfect for making this comparison very easy. It automatically changed the speaker configuration (but not their physical location) between Auro 11.1 and Atmos 9.1.4 (wides).

All of these observations are from my ears. YMMV First off, the music soundtrack was much more enveloping in Auro. It simply emanated from the hemisphere. There was no sense of Atmos' front soundstage. I could not identify any difference in the "flyover" effects. They sounded the same. In the first "baseline scanning" scene, the Atmos version had the proctor's voice coming from the upper right, as if the speaker was located in the right front ceiling. The Auro version had the proctor's voice coming from the upper front center of the room, as if the speaker was located somewhat above the scanning device or in the front center of the ceiling. I think this is a more realistic location for the source of the proctor's voice.

The most striking difference was in the large, hard surface rooms (the storage stacks and the room with the pool floor). The Auro version has a more accurate sound for the echos one would experience in such a room. But, despite the echo, the dialog in the Auro version was crystal clear. In the Atmos version, there was an echo; but it didn't sound quite right. It was also harder to make out the dialog. I reran these comparison scenes back to back to confirm this opinion.

All in all, I preferred the Auro version. The differences are subtle, but discernable.

For anyone who would like to make this comparison for themselves, I've listed the Auro disc for sale in the Classifieds "Physical Media" thread. My Atmos disc is 4K, while the Auro disc is 2K BluRay and I don't need both.
johnnygrandis and mwinc like this.

JVC RS600 Chad-callibrated, 120" 1.3g in Batcave HT, Denon X8500 Polk LSiM703 fronts,
RTi-12 rears, LSiM 706 center, Monitor 40 Heights, Monitor 60 FW, FXiA4 Bi-pole sides,
LSiC CH, Infinity 6" VOG. 4X 12" subs w/mini DSP on sub 1 and nearfield 18" from sub 2.
Ted99 is offline  
post #5562 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 06:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
maikeldepotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,876
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1475 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted99 View Post
I was recently in Poland and because of that, I was able to purchase the Polish version of Blade Runner 2049 with Auro 3D 11.1. I did a back-to-back comparison with my Atmos version of this movie. There IS a difference. Some up front observations: 1) I have the full 13.1 speaker layout for Auro and it is in the Auro configuration--that is to say FH and SH over the side surround speakers. In 11.1 Auro, the rear bed speakers have no signal and they received no signal from my X8500. VOG and Center Height were active. 2) My Atmos speaker layout is the same for the overheads, which means that there is some compromise from the perfect Atmos layout of top front and top rear. 9.1.4 (wides) speakers were active in this movie. I think this is an excellent movie for comparison as the sound for this movie is universally praised as demonstration quality. The flexibility of my Denon X8500 was perfect for making this comparison very easy. It automatically changed the speaker configuration (but not their physical location) between Auro 11.1 and Atmos 9.1.4 (wides).

All of these observations are from my ears. YMMV First off, the music soundtrack was much more enveloping in Auro. It simply emanated from the hemisphere. There was no sense of Atmos' front soundstage. I could not identify any difference in the "flyover" effects. They sounded the same. In the first "baseline scanning" scene, the Atmos version had the proctor's voice coming from the upper right, as if the speaker was located in the right front ceiling. The Auro version had the proctor's voice coming from the upper front center of the room, as if the speaker was located somewhat above the scanning device or in the front center of the ceiling. I think this is a more realistic location for the source of the proctor's voice.

The most striking difference was in the large, hard surface rooms (the storage stacks and the room with the pool floor). The Auro version has a more accurate sound for the echos one would experience in such a room. But, despite the echo, the dialog in the Auro version was crystal clear. In the Atmos version, there was an echo; but it didn't sound quite right. It was also harder to make out the dialog. I reran these comparison scenes back to back to confirm this opinion.

All in all, I preferred the Auro version. The differences are subtle, but discernable.

I find it hard to explain how this audible difference between Auro3D and Atmos could be attributed to a sub-optimal Atrmos overhead positioning only.
Could it be the effect of the added active VOG and Center Height? Did you also do this comparison with a 9.1 Auro3D configuration?
Or does Auro3D allow the re-recording engineer to add some 'secret sauce' to the mix (e.g. a DSU like upmixing algorithm ) which cannot be applied to the Atmos soundtrack?
Yes, I am pretty clueless, and intrigued...

A good idea and understanding lies at the base of every successful project.

Last edited by maikeldepotter; 07-16-2018 at 06:43 AM.
maikeldepotter is offline  
post #5563 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 07:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ted99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,976
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 972 Post(s)
Liked: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by maikeldepotter View Post
I find it hard to explain how this audible difference between Auro3D and Atmos could be attributed to a sub-optimal Atrmos overhead positioning only.
Could it be the effect of the added active VOG and Center Height? Did you also do this comparison with a 9.1 Auro3D configuration?
Or does Auro3D allow the re-recording engineer to add some 'secret sauce' to the mix (e.g. a DSU like upmixing algorithm ) which cannot be applied to the Atmos soundtrack?
Yes, I am pretty clueless, and intrigued...
I did not do a comparison with 9.1 Auro. By the way, the 9.1.4 Atmos version activates the surround rears, where the 11.1 Auro does not. The absence of the rears in the Auro version compared to the Atmos version went completely unnoticed. This supports the oft repeated statement that the rears are the least important speakers.

It's possible that the VOG helped in the large room echo. I can tell you that the echo was very real-sounding, where the Atmos version was not, when compared to Auro. But, if I had not heard the Auro version, I would have thought it perfectly adequate. I also think that the Center Height could have helped with the clarity of dialog overlaying the echo. But, the different locations of the sound coming from the proctor's voice in the "baseline evaluation" seems more likely, to me, to be an artifact of the mixer. I would be very interested if someone else listening to this scene in Atmos (or Auro) perceives the same location--particularly if that someone had a classic Atmos ceiling speaker location.
vn800art likes this.

JVC RS600 Chad-callibrated, 120" 1.3g in Batcave HT, Denon X8500 Polk LSiM703 fronts,
RTi-12 rears, LSiM 706 center, Monitor 40 Heights, Monitor 60 FW, FXiA4 Bi-pole sides,
LSiC CH, Infinity 6" VOG. 4X 12" subs w/mini DSP on sub 1 and nearfield 18" from sub 2.
Ted99 is offline  
post #5564 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 08:34 AM
Member
 
Duckbacker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Sherwood OR
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechnoDad View Post
Hey all,

I'm sure this may have already been discussed, but I'm looking for some Auro-3D content. I'm trying to do a review of the 10.1 system I have setup with a Denon X4400H, Outlaw Amp, and five SVS Prime Elevation Speakers. Anyway, I have the Volume 2 demo disc and I wanted to get some movies. Specifically Kung Fu Panda 3 and Jumanji. If any of you can point me in the right direction, that would be awesome.

I'm also open to borrowing a movie from one of you here in the US. LMK!
Welcome to AVS Channa De! Love your YouTube channel. I am fully set up with 13.2 Auro-3D but am limited to using the Auromatic mode due to lack of native 4K content here in America. Hopefully that is about to change soon as many of us have jumped on board the Auro-3D train just waiting for the software to catch up.

Sony XBR-85X900F 85-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED TV; Denon AVR-X8500H (Dolby Atmos 7.2.6/DTS:X 7.2.4/Auro-3D 13.2); Emotiva XPA-7 Gen 3 Amplifier; SVS Ultra Towers; SVS Ultra Center Channel; (4) SVS Ultra Surround Speakers; (12) SVS Prime Elevations for Dolby Atmos/DTS:X/Auro-3D; Dual SVS SB16-Ultra Subwoofers w/SVS Soundpath Isolation System; Auralex Subdude II Isolation Pads; Panasonic DP-UB820 UHD Blu-ray Player; Panamax M5400 Power Conditioner
Duckbacker is offline  
post #5565 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 11:30 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Marc Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Inland Empire, CA
Posts: 13,469
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5440 Post(s)
Liked: 4940
@Ted99 good stuff! Did you compare Atmos with TOPS configured instead of HEIGHTS? How about 7.1.6?
Marc Alexander is online now  
post #5566 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 11:42 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Marc Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Inland Empire, CA
Posts: 13,469
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5440 Post(s)
Liked: 4940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanjay View Post
Auro 3D rides on top of DTS-HD Master Audio. Therefore, in the absence of an Auro 3D decoder, you would get regular DTS-HD Master Audio.
Actually, Auro3D is interleaved with LPCM. In theory, this could be compressed losslessly via Dts-HD MA or True HD. They have used both Dts-HD MA and uncompressed LPCM for Auro3D on Blu-ray. If you set your Blu-ray player to decode everything to LPCM the Auro3D track will still be properly decoded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
Interesting. Too bad they can't piggyback both X and Auro 3D with one base signal. You could then have your choice of immersion decoder instead of this lack of availability problem. Movie theaters can order an Auro 3D mix for many movies. Why can't we the consumer have a choice of surround format in the Internet age? They could burn or stream on demand, if nothing else. Atmos winning with no feedback from consumers isn't really a win. It's more like a game on the corporate end.
No consumer feedback? Auro3D has been an available option on D+M AVRs/AVPs since 2014. Consumers have spoken and little value was placed on Auro3D decoding.

I like Auro a lot. But I was leary about purchasing a $199 license that was non-transferrable. Now that I've had it over a year now, I'm still not sure I would pay the license fee. I can live without it, but not without Atmos.
Sanjay likes this.
Marc Alexander is online now  
post #5567 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 12:06 PM
Newbie
 
TechnoDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Mammoth Lakes, Ca
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckbacker View Post
Welcome to AVS Channa De! Love your YouTube channel. I am fully set up with 13.2 Auro-3D but am limited to using the Auromatic mode due to lack of native 4K content here in America. Hopefully that is about to change soon as many of us have jumped on board the Auro-3D train just waiting for the software to catch up.
What's up?!?! Thanks for the warm welcome and for watching my channel! Wow, 13.1 Auro-3D...Daaaaaammmm...I just ordered a cop of Pixels on eBay. The disc is from the UK and region free with an Auro-3D audio track. I can't wait to see a whole movie as the Auro-3D demo disc is very good, but it gets old. I can't wait for this disc to come in!
Duckbacker likes this.
TechnoDad is offline  
post #5568 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 12:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,912
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1110 Post(s)
Liked: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Alexander View Post
No consumer feedback? Auro3D has been an available option on D+M AVRs/AVPs since 2014. Consumers have spoken and little value was placed on Auro3D decoding.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. How can a consumer give *ANY* feedback if they can't get a hold of the product??? No movies = No Sound. Denon/Marantz is the only consumer manufacturer out there to support Auro 3D at all (and not until this year included instead of extra). People won't buy extra. People won't try extra, especially with nothing to watch with it anyway. Thus, how many people do you think even have access to Auro 3D in the first place (or even heard of it)? How many people might still want to use front wides, but most of the AVR manufacturers decided to ditch it? Did they ask? Do they care? NO and NO is the answer.

Most people don't even 5.1 and couldn't care less what Auro 3D is, what extra speakers they could use when some Best Buy employee told them this or that 7.1 model would work great with their spanking new SOUND BAR (self-powered no less). Who else buys these things? I know exactly two people at work with any kind of surround system (one an "all in one" Sony crap setup and the other with a sound bar 5.1). I put a soundbar 5.1 in a bedroom. It's not for serious listening. But consumers will happily watch a movie in OLED 4K and just use the crap TV speakers it came with. THAT is the state of "consumer feedback" if you mean the masses.

The bottom line is I can write Yamaha, Denon, etc. all day long and it's exactly one letter to them (from masses of millions of potential customers). What impact will I have??? LESS THAN ZERO! But I represent their actual consumer that uses the products correctly. Nope, some board of idiots makes these decisions at the companies and we the consumer that uses them get zero say except to go buy some ultra-expensive product for the high-end that does it out of extravagance. But even that won't get us any movies in Auro 3D at home. NONE. How many millions bought a 3D TV and Hollywood says NOPE! That's not enough to bother for the USA. Goodbye 3D! The industry sucks. Corporations suck. Why? Because money is all that they love and all that they care about. These formats are nothing more than a way to make money to these people. They don't love audio. They don't love home theater. They love money and money is not a good tool to make quality decisions with from their perspective (i.e. save/make money by denying surgery to someone, not by providing it). By contrast, small companies are typically created by people who care about their business or they would have chosen another business to get into. Once they grow to the corporate level, that is all gone after the originator leaves. It's then all about money from then on.


Quote:
I like Auro a lot. But I was leary about purchasing a $199 license that was non-transferrable. Now that I've had it over a year now, I'm still not sure I would pay the license fee. I can live without it, but not without Atmos.
Atmos is inferior to Auro 3D, but Dolby is a much much larger company and that's why I despise Dolby (along with their latest strong-arm tactic to make sure Auro 3D upmixers can't be used with any kind of Dolby signal, not even 1990s Dolby Digital). They don't want to compete. They want to stomp out the competition. It's corporate greed at its finest. Put out an inferior format and squash the good ones with both feet because you have more money/power. Atmos is the least tolerant/configurable immersion format out there. The only thing it has going for it over X and Auro 3D is that there are a lot of titles that have it now. And Dolby knows that more crap is better than nothing so they keep shoveling it. Thank you mighty Dolby Overlords!

Click THEATER (Updated: May-22-2019) for pics: Epson 3100 3D Projector, DaLite 92" screen, 11.1.6 (Marantz SR7012 + Yamaha HTR-5960 + Onkyo ESPro) - Dialog Lift - PSB T45/B15/S50/X1T/CS500 Speakers & Def Tech PF-1500 15" sub; 2nd Room (Updated Apr-22-2019): 48" Plasma TV, Carver AL-III, Carver C-5 Pre-Amp, Technics SH-AC500D, Dual Carver TFM-35x Amps (Active Bi-Amp), Klipsch Surrounds ; Sources: PS4, LG UP875 UHD, Nvidia Shield (KODI), ATV4K, Zidoo X9S, LD, GameCube : Props (Updated 8-26-19)
MagnumX is offline  
post #5569 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 12:26 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Marc Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Inland Empire, CA
Posts: 13,469
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5440 Post(s)
Liked: 4940
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
Atmos is inferior to Auro 3D
In what ways? I find the Atmos format to be far superior (AuroMax was developed to support objects like Atmos does), especially for the home.

I like the center height and VoG speakers, but they are rarely utilized. I hear all of your complaints about Dolby, but what about Auro? They have neglected the home market. They could/should have been the #2 format, not dts:X IMO.
Marc Alexander is online now  
post #5570 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 12:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,912
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1110 Post(s)
Liked: 619
In regards to Blade Runner Auro 3D vs Atmos, the proctor sound position could just be a sound engineer choice. Believe it or not, the same guy might not do every mix and/or make the exact same choices for every mix. We can't be certain that some of the differences, even the echoes might be do to those choices. Maybe the guy just got it "right/better" with the Auro mix in those echo scenes. Or their layout where mixed varied compared to the playback environment. Meanwhile, "echoes" are precarious things. They are highly timing dependent to sound like a real room being simulated. Since the setup here was for Auro 3D and not Atmos, the non-existent rear height surrounds are not producing the sound at the correct time. This could easily make the Atmos version sound inferior, IMO (I'm not saying that IS the case, but just a possibility).

My question is does this Denon AVRX8500 receiver even output the rear height channel information AT ALL if the receiver is told that side/surround heights are connected instead of rear heights? IF the system doesn't allow side heights to output anything in Atmos mode, Ted99 might not have had any rear height/top sounds at all, which definitely would compromise how the Atmos mix sounds compared to the Auro 3D setup. While rear heights are "acceptable" (if compromised) for Auro 3D, I'm under the impression that side heights are not in any way acceptable to Dolby Atmos (if anything, they would be "top middle" and most receiver configurations won't allow front height + top middle because then there's no rear height information at all. They seem to allow either top middle by itself or front height/top and rear height/top OR all three (front/middle/rear top).

The Denon manual gave me the impression that if you use "surround height" in the grid/speaker layout (manual), it will ONLY be used for Auro 3D material. In other words, it would be turned OFF for all Dolby modes since as far as Dolby is concerned, that speaker doesn't exist. One of the setups (*4 in the manual under 6ch height) allows automatic switching between side surround height and rear height for that purpose (i.e. Auro 3D gets the side height and Atmos gets the rear height), thus optimizing each mode of operation (although oddly there is no connection listed for that configuration that includes the Center Height and Top Surround (Voice of God) speakers under 8-channel heights (i.e. instead of front wides as it shows for 8-channel heights using FH,RH, Top Middle and CH/TS (with CH/TS connected to the front wide/height 4 connection). I don't know if that was a manual oversight (someone who owns the receiver please tell us whether it can be configured that way) or it simply won't do it for unknown reasons.

Really, the question for me is if you set the receiver for rear surround, is there any functional output difference as opposed to surround height from the actual channel itself? In other words, is the Auro 3D signal changed in any way for a rear height configuration or is the less than ideal results simply because the speakers are sitting in the wrong location? Will the receiver output a signal in Atmos mode if it's told the speakers are surround height instead? If it's told they're surround rear, but you put them in the side surround height position to fool the receiver into giving a signal there, would the Auro 3D sound be compromised by that setting somehow (i.e. again, does it change it somehow when it's told it's a rear speaker or is it the same other than any distance setting delays?) I'm GUESSING that because Auro 3D is channel-based, it probably doesn't change the output at all and you could tell it rear height and put it on the side and it wouldn't matter. The "*3" comments in the manual may be trying to imply that, but it's hard to tell the way it's worded. It's just not clear from reading the manual exactly what is compromised by each setting since it doesn't usually say what effect it will have on Atmos or DTS versus Auro 3D for a given setting.

Either way, though (i.e. this will work no matter what), I'm thinking is the BEST setup with this receiver would require an external speaker switch box (i.e. they should have included 17 speaker jacks with internal switching to provide this since 17 speakers are available between the decoding modes for use, but only 13 are really used at once, not counting using a compromised surround height as a top middle (that should sit in a different position anyway) option because you can't use that and front wide at the same time. If you switch Surround Height with Rear Height with an external box (instead of the mode that does this for you on the Denon), you can THEN have Front Wide and Top Center + Top Surround selected by the receiver instead (Top Center + Top Surround goes to Height 3 with Front Wides on the Wide/Height4 connection). This then gives you a perfect 13.x Auro 3D setup with all speakers where they should be and an Atmos/DTS:X 9.1.4 setup with all speakers in Dolby approved positions and DTS working with either.

I think it's kind of weird too that Auro 3D 13.1 uses rear surround (bed) speakers, but it has no rear surround height speakers to match. Apparently, the theaters just use a rear height that gets the side height signal delayed. But side and rear are NOT the same thing, particularly when the rear bed channel can be discrete placement information while the rear height is getting the side location data instead. It seems like Auro 3D should be 15.1 if they're going to use rear surround. That will be next year's upgrade.... (still with no software to play using it)

Click THEATER (Updated: May-22-2019) for pics: Epson 3100 3D Projector, DaLite 92" screen, 11.1.6 (Marantz SR7012 + Yamaha HTR-5960 + Onkyo ESPro) - Dialog Lift - PSB T45/B15/S50/X1T/CS500 Speakers & Def Tech PF-1500 15" sub; 2nd Room (Updated Apr-22-2019): 48" Plasma TV, Carver AL-III, Carver C-5 Pre-Amp, Technics SH-AC500D, Dual Carver TFM-35x Amps (Active Bi-Amp), Klipsch Surrounds ; Sources: PS4, LG UP875 UHD, Nvidia Shield (KODI), ATV4K, Zidoo X9S, LD, GameCube : Props (Updated 8-26-19)
MagnumX is offline  
post #5571 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 12:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ted99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,976
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 972 Post(s)
Liked: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Alexander View Post
@Ted99 good stuff! Did you compare Atmos with TOPS configured instead of HEIGHTS? How about 7.1.6?
I don't have six speakers up top. The only physical location I can do is Heights because of the concrete ceiling. I did not change the overhead speaker designation to tops when running the Atmos disc.

JVC RS600 Chad-callibrated, 120" 1.3g in Batcave HT, Denon X8500 Polk LSiM703 fronts,
RTi-12 rears, LSiM 706 center, Monitor 40 Heights, Monitor 60 FW, FXiA4 Bi-pole sides,
LSiC CH, Infinity 6" VOG. 4X 12" subs w/mini DSP on sub 1 and nearfield 18" from sub 2.
Ted99 is offline  
post #5572 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 12:45 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Marc Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Inland Empire, CA
Posts: 13,469
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5440 Post(s)
Liked: 4940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted99 View Post
I don't have six speakers up top. The only physical location I can do is Heights because of the concrete ceiling. I did not change the overhead speaker designation to tops when running the Atmos disc.
I still recommend you try designating to TOPS for Atmos regardless of physical location. It makes a difference.

I believe Lyngdorf (which includes the McIntosh MX160) has the most elegant solution. By default, Auro's Front Heights are mapped to Dolby's fronts regardless of designation (HEIGHTS or TOPS) and side heights to Dolby's rears. Then there is a setting for Dts Remapping which automatically switches the designation to HEIGHTS for Dts playback. No muss, no fuss.

While leaving everything set to HEIGHTS is the easiest solution for most, switching to TOPS for Atmos and HEIGHT for Auro/Dts performs better.
Marc Alexander is online now  
post #5573 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 12:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ted99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,976
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 972 Post(s)
Liked: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
In regards to Blade Runner Auro 3D vs Atmos, the proctor sound position could just be a sound engineer choice. Believe it or not, the same guy might not do every mix and/or make the exact same choices for every mix. We can't be certain that some of the differences, even the echoes might be do to those choices. Maybe the guy just got it "right/better" with the Auro mix in those echo scenes. Or their layout where mixed varied compared to the playback environment. Meanwhile, "echoes" are precarious things. They are highly timing dependent to sound like a real room being simulated. Since the setup here was for Auro 3D and not Atmos, the non-existent rear height surrounds are not producing the sound at the correct time. This could easily make the Atmos version sound inferior, IMO (I'm not saying that IS the case, but just a possibility).

My question is does this Denon AVRX8500 receiver even output the rear height channel information AT ALL if the receiver is told that side/surround heights are connected instead of rear heights? IF the system doesn't allow side heights to output anything in Atmos mode, Ted99 might not have had any rear height/top sounds at all, which definitely would compromise how the Atmos mix sounds compared to the Auro 3D setup. While rear heights are "acceptable" (if compromised) for Auro 3D, I'm under the impression that side heights are not in any way acceptable to Dolby Atmos (if anything, they would be "top middle" and most receiver configurations won't allow front height + top middle because then there's no rear height information at all. They seem to allow either top middle by itself or front height/top and rear height/top OR all three (front/middle/rear top).

The Denon manual gave me the impression that if you use "surround height" in the grid/speaker layout (manual), it will ONLY be used for Auro 3D material. In other words, it would be turned OFF for all Dolby modes since as far as Dolby is concerned, that speaker doesn't exist. One of the setups (*4 in the manual under 6ch height) allows automatic switching between side surround height and rear height for that purpose (i.e. Auro 3D gets the side height and Atmos gets the rear height), thus optimizing each mode of operation (although oddly there is no connection listed for that configuration that includes the Center Height and Top Surround (Voice of God) speakers under 8-channel heights (i.e. instead of front wides as it shows for 8-channel heights using FH,RH, Top Middle and CH/TS (with CH/TS connected to the front wide/height 4 connection). I don't know if that was a manual oversight (someone who owns the receiver please tell us whether it can be configured that way) or it simply won't do it for unknown reasons.

Really, the question for me is if you set the receiver for rear surround, is there any functional output difference as opposed to surround height from the actual channel itself? In other words, is the Auro 3D signal changed in any way for a rear height configuration or is the less than ideal results simply because the speakers are sitting in the wrong location? Will the receiver output a signal in Atmos mode if it's told the speakers are surround height instead? If it's told they're surround rear, but you put them in the side surround height position to fool the receiver into giving a signal there, would the Auro 3D sound be compromised by that setting somehow (i.e. again, does it change it somehow when it's told it's a rear speaker or is it the same other than any distance setting delays?) I'm GUESSING that because Auro 3D is channel-based, it probably doesn't change the output at all and you could tell it rear height and put it on the side and it wouldn't matter. The "*3" comments in the manual may be trying to imply that, but it's hard to tell the way it's worded. It's just not clear from reading the manual exactly what is compromised by each setting since it doesn't usually say what effect it will have on Atmos or DTS versus Auro 3D for a given setting.

Either way, though (i.e. this will work no matter what), I'm thinking is the BEST setup with this receiver would require an external speaker switch box (i.e. they should have included 17 speaker jacks with internal switching to provide this since 17 speakers are available between the decoding modes for use, but only 13 are really used at once, not counting using a compromised surround height as a top middle (that should sit in a different position anyway) option because you can't use that and front wide at the same time. If you switch Surround Height with Rear Height with an external box (instead of the mode that does this for you on the Denon), you can THEN have Front Wide and Top Center + Top Surround selected by the receiver instead (Top Center + Top Surround goes to Height 3 with Front Wides on the Wide/Height4 connection). This then gives you a perfect 13.x Auro 3D setup with all speakers where they should be and an Atmos/DTS:X 9.1.4 setup with all speakers in Dolby approved positions and DTS working with either.

I think it's kind of weird too that Auro 3D 13.1 uses rear surround (bed) speakers, but it has no rear surround height speakers to match. Apparently, the theaters just use a rear height that gets the side height signal delayed. But side and rear are NOT the same thing, particularly when the rear bed channel can be discrete placement information while the rear height is getting the side location data instead. It seems like Auro 3D should be 15.1 if they're going to use rear surround. That will be next year's upgrade.... (still with no software to play using it)
I agree that much of what I hear COULD be the result of the sound mixer's choice, AND that there are different sound mixers for the Atmos and the Auro mixes.

For exactly the reasons you stated, I told the Denon I had Rear Height, even though the speakers are physically located above the side surrounds. ie: The Denon will give me 4 overheads automatically in either Atmos or Auro.

I agree that an external speaker switch box and placement of two sets of overhead speakers would be the ideal arrangement for switching between Atmos and Auro. BUT, since it takes extraordinary effort to get an Auro mix disc, and there aren't many of those in the movies I want to watch; I'm not inclined to do so. In fact, because it seems that the great majority of 3D Audio movies I want to watch are being done in Atmos; if I could, I'd put my overhead speakers in the preferred Atmos positions. I haven't because of the concrete ceiling problem. So, I have a good physical location for DTS:X and Auro and a compromised setup for Atmos. I'll just have to live with it. Although, because of my comparison between the two, I really hope that Auro makes it into the USA--but I'm not holding my breath.

JVC RS600 Chad-callibrated, 120" 1.3g in Batcave HT, Denon X8500 Polk LSiM703 fronts,
RTi-12 rears, LSiM 706 center, Monitor 40 Heights, Monitor 60 FW, FXiA4 Bi-pole sides,
LSiC CH, Infinity 6" VOG. 4X 12" subs w/mini DSP on sub 1 and nearfield 18" from sub 2.
Ted99 is offline  
post #5574 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 12:56 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Marc Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Inland Empire, CA
Posts: 13,469
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5440 Post(s)
Liked: 4940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted99 View Post
I don't have six speakers up top. The only physical location I can do is Heights because of the concrete ceiling. I did not change the overhead speaker designation to tops when running the Atmos disc.
I still recommend you try designating to TOPS for Atmos regardless of physical location. It makes a difference.

I believe Lyngdorf (which includes the McIntosh MX160) has the most elegant solution. By default, Auro's Front Heights are mapped to Dolby's fronts regardless of designation (HEIGHTS or TOPS) and side heights to Dolby's rears. Then there is a setting for Dts Remapping which automatically switches the designation to HEIGHTS for Dts playback. No muss, no fuss.

While leaving everything set to HEIGHTS is the easiest solution for most, switching to TOPS for Atmos and HEIGHT for Auro/Dts performs better. While switching back & forth is more trouble on D&M than other platforms, it's worth the trouble IMO.
Marc Alexander is online now  
post #5575 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 01:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ted99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,976
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 972 Post(s)
Liked: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Alexander View Post
I still recommend you try designating to TOPS for Atmos regardless of physical location. It makes a difference.

I believe Lyngdorf (which includes the McIntosh MX160) has the most elegant solution. By default, Auro's Front Heights are mapped to Dolby's fronts regardless of designation (HEIGHTS or TOPS) and side heights to Dolby's rears. Then there is a setting for Dts Remapping which automatically switches the designation to HEIGHTS for Dts playback. No muss, no fuss.

While leaving everything set to HEIGHTS is the easiest solution for most, switching to TOPS for Atmos and HEIGHT for Auro/Dts performs better.
Yes, I've seen those comments regarding "Tops" even with a height physical location. I'm inclined to do so, but I'd have to have two "loads" for the speaker setup and I already get flack from my wife when I have to take the time at the beginning of a movie to switch the RS600 between HDR and SDR. Since there are effectively "zero" Auro titles available in the US, I could make that designation. Except that, for the time being, I'm using Auromatic as my preferred simulator. I really like what it does with the music soundtracks.

JVC RS600 Chad-callibrated, 120" 1.3g in Batcave HT, Denon X8500 Polk LSiM703 fronts,
RTi-12 rears, LSiM 706 center, Monitor 40 Heights, Monitor 60 FW, FXiA4 Bi-pole sides,
LSiC CH, Infinity 6" VOG. 4X 12" subs w/mini DSP on sub 1 and nearfield 18" from sub 2.
Ted99 is offline  
post #5576 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 01:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,912
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1110 Post(s)
Liked: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Alexander View Post
In what ways? I find the Atmos format to be far superior (AuroMax was developed to support objects like Atmos does), especially for the home.
Especially for the home? I'm thinking in terms of objects, exactly the opposite due to the relatively few channels used in a home setup (see more below).

I was probably mostly thinking about music recordings in that sense of "superior," although the lack of a height "bed" in Atmos may have something to do with that as well. Then there's the question of Dolby's choice to use ceiling speakers in a home environment when they know a 9 foot ceiling is practically required to get the proper result. How many homes built in the past century have a room with 9 foot or higher non-vaulted ceilings? So they created the POS "enabled" speaker idea instead, which does not work well because sound doesn't easily "beam" around like a reflected bit of light. HEIGHT speakers make a LOT more sense in a home environment (ceiling speakers make sense in a theater environment). Inferior? For my house, 7.1.6 isn't going to work for Atmos no way, no how. I can do 9.1.4 (with height) and the mostly correct layout positions, but side heights are out of order for Atmos, yet work fine for Auro 3D.

From what I gather, Auro 3D can be recorded directly in a real environment and then reproduce that space in playback (similar to a true quad recording or similar how stereo can do it for binaural with a dummy head). This would be ideal for music playback. I think an Atmos version would require studio mixing to achieve a surround mix. It might not sound as real. The Pink Floyd 5.1 mixes of Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here are good, but the quad versions played back with a quad speaker setup are crazy cool.

Yes, AuroMax is the cinematic equivalent of Atmos. Is it needed at home? I suppose if your layout grows beyond 13.1 channels, maybe. It's not like most homes are going to use 23.1.16 Atmos.... That's not going to happen unless your a multi-millionaire and are extremely bored with your Yacht collection. What I'm saying is Atmos doesn't need really need objects at home either. This is probably why DTS:X recordings haven't been using them, despite the capability.

What do you need objects for at home when ~80% of all home equipment sold can only do 5.1.2 at most and another 15% can do 7.1.2 or 9.1.0, leaving less than 5% with 11+ channels and maybe 0.1% with 13+ channels. And you're not really even out of the second row with 9.2.4 channel playback! (fronts including height/top and front wide is in front of first row, side in-between and rear top/bottom behind second row. You're out of channels. You'd need at LEAST 17.1 to properly do 3 rows, and 4 more channels per row after that (surround bed/height). I agree that THEN you'd definitely want some objects. Maybe even at 13.x using front wides (that Auro doesn't use) for a little placement flexibility, etc. In other words, objects are pretty much for scaling larger speaker arrangements. Most people at home don't need/care or would notice a difference with the piddly setups being used.

So yes, I guess you are correct in that Atmos is superior in the sense that it CAN already be scaled to theater-like sizes at home if you have the money for one of those high-end processors and a room and budget to support it, whereas Auro 3D is probably not going to work as well after a few rows of seating (AuroMax would then be needed at home, which is not available).

The question for the home consumer should have been, which format configuration sounds best at home when it's readily available in either format (DTS at least had some titles back in the 1990s to compare to Dolby Digital versions directly and easily and that used the same setup). Or how well does each one work/sound or able to be set up in a given room? DTS claims to be layout agnostic, but given their lack of use of objects in home mixes so far, I can't assume it's an ideal situation either since it's either mixed for side surrounds or rear surrounds. Using only channels, it won't sound the same in both locations.

The ideal from a consumer standpoint would be to be able to buy/stream whatever surround format you have setup/available to you at home. For discs, this is probably not possible (although getting rid of foreign language soundtracks for a given region would probably leave plenty of space to do so or at least TWO of the three formats on the same disc), but streaming should be a no-brainer. What's an extra file on a server?

Quote:
I like the center height and VoG speakers, but they are rarely utilized. I hear all of your complaints about Dolby, but what about Auro? They have neglected the home market. They could/should have been the #2 format, not dts:X IMO.
It's hard to utilize things with so little material available. I wonder if the music titles don't use it much has more to do with recording spaces directly without a lot of mixing (would you need a mic over the middle of the venue to record it without mixing?).

As for blame, I can't blame Auro as much as Dolby because they're a smaller company. It's like me trying to sell my album using self-publishing with CD Baby. Yes, my album is on iTunes and Amazon, etc., but without a large budget for advertising or some viral video or something to get people to even know it exists, how is it going to sell? The record companies have deep pockets and deep clout to get things done and attract large numbers of people. The small individual simply doesn't have the resources to promote or convince companies and people to buy their product in the same way as an established name/brand and/or large company does. Auro 3D can't MAKE Warner Brothers or Disney release their titles at home in Auro 3D in the USA. It doesn't work that way. Maybe they could pay to have some sets done themselves (like I would have to do to get CD baby to sell real CDs for me; make them myself and ship them to them), but that also costs money and probably licensing in that case as well so you see very few titles due to a small home market. And just as soon as they got a few Blu-Rays, along comes 4K to stomp all over the 2K versions again anyway.

Click THEATER (Updated: May-22-2019) for pics: Epson 3100 3D Projector, DaLite 92" screen, 11.1.6 (Marantz SR7012 + Yamaha HTR-5960 + Onkyo ESPro) - Dialog Lift - PSB T45/B15/S50/X1T/CS500 Speakers & Def Tech PF-1500 15" sub; 2nd Room (Updated Apr-22-2019): 48" Plasma TV, Carver AL-III, Carver C-5 Pre-Amp, Technics SH-AC500D, Dual Carver TFM-35x Amps (Active Bi-Amp), Klipsch Surrounds ; Sources: PS4, LG UP875 UHD, Nvidia Shield (KODI), ATV4K, Zidoo X9S, LD, GameCube : Props (Updated 8-26-19)

Last edited by MagnumX; 07-16-2018 at 01:22 PM.
MagnumX is offline  
post #5577 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 01:33 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Marc Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Inland Empire, CA
Posts: 13,469
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5440 Post(s)
Liked: 4940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted99 View Post
Yes, I've seen those comments regarding "Tops" even with a height physical location. I'm inclined to do so, but I'd have to have two "loads" for the speaker setup and I already get flack from my wife when I have to take the time at the beginning of a movie to switch the RS600 between HDR and SDR. Since there are effectively "zero" Auro titles available in the US, I could make that designation. Except that, for the time being, I'm using Auromatic as my preferred simulator. I really like what it does with the music soundtracks.
Have you tried the Dolby Surround upmixing with Center Spread enabled? It makes quite a difference when upmixing music.
Marc Alexander is online now  
post #5578 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 01:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ted99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,976
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 972 Post(s)
Liked: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Alexander View Post
Have you tried the Dolby Surround upmixing with Center Spread enabled? It makes quite a difference when upmixing music.
What I like about the Auromatic treatment of the soundtrack music is that it surrounds me in a hemisphere, rather than being front loaded. I like that for a movie (as contrasted, say, to watching a concert) because the purpose of a music soundtrack is to set the mood and being in a bubble of sound helps that.

JVC RS600 Chad-callibrated, 120" 1.3g in Batcave HT, Denon X8500 Polk LSiM703 fronts,
RTi-12 rears, LSiM 706 center, Monitor 40 Heights, Monitor 60 FW, FXiA4 Bi-pole sides,
LSiC CH, Infinity 6" VOG. 4X 12" subs w/mini DSP on sub 1 and nearfield 18" from sub 2.
Ted99 is offline  
post #5579 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 02:56 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,838
Mentioned: 205 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7153 Post(s)
Liked: 6164
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
I was probably mostly thinking about music recordings in that sense of "superior," although the lack of a height "bed" in Atmos may have something to do with that as well.
Atmos uses objects to feed the height speakers. Objects can move around or remain at a speaker location to mimic channels. Auro doesn't have that option (channels only). How does the lack of options make Auro "superior"?
Quote:
Then there's the question of Dolby's choice to use ceiling speakers in a home environment when they know a 9 foot ceiling is practically required to get the proper result.
"9 foot ceiling" has never been a requirement for home Atmos.
Quote:
So they created the POS "enabled" speaker idea instead, which does not work well because sound doesn't easily "beam" around like a reflected bit of light.
Every demo I've heard of upfiring speakers not only creates the impression of sound from above but also has phantom imaging between ear level and the ceiling. Even used in award winning home theatres, like AVS member Ash Sharma's:



Quote:
From what I gather, Auro 3D can be recorded directly in a real environment and then reproduce that space in playback (similar to a true quad recording or similar how stereo can do it for binaural with a dummy head). This would be ideal for music playback. I think an Atmos version would require studio mixing to achieve a surround mix. It might not sound as real.
In both cases you assign a speaker to each microphone feed. Doesn't make Auro any more "real" than Atmos.
Quote:
Yes, AuroMax is the cinematic equivalent of Atmos. Is it needed at home?
Like they have a choice?
Quote:
So yes, I guess you are correct in that Atmos is superior in the sense that it CAN already be scaled to theater-like sizes at home if you have the money for one of those high-end processors and a room and budget to support it, whereas Auro 3D is probably not going to work as well after a few rows of seating (AuroMax would then be needed at home, which is not available).
No need for "theater-like sizes" to do 13 or 15 speakers. Will easily fit in a domestic sized room.
Quote:
Auro 3D can't MAKE Warner Brothers or Disney release their titles at home in Auro 3D in the USA. It doesn't work that way.
Didn't stop DTS from convincing studios like Universal and Well Go USA to go almost exclusively DTS:X, resulting in almost 100 titles so far.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #5580 of 6397 Old 07-16-2018, 04:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,912
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1110 Post(s)
Liked: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Atmos uses objects to feed the height speakers.
Yes, I said that already. But what is an object? As best I can find, it's a mono or surround channel with panning information data imbedded in it. Panning is a mixing technique, not a recording technique. Again, Atmos is designed for studio mixing. I suppose you could send an entire recording out an "object" with no panning included to play back a fixed multi-channel recording. Are there any available like Auro 3D? I don't know. How do they compare?

Quote:
Objects can move around or remain at a speaker location to mimic channels. Auro doesn't have that option (channels only). How does the lack of options make Auro "superior"?
I guess it depends on how you define superior. The layout alone is superior, IMO. Not having to mount speakers in a ceiling is a huge improvement in terms of looks and a PITA to wire. Feasibility is 9/10 of whether someone will bother to do something. Wall mounting is a breeze by comparison (even fishing the wires through the wall is much easier due to gravity being helpful) and front height or rear can often go on an existing bookshelf or other item (easy to do front height in my room as there are fixed bookshelves on either side of the drop down screen. The room is on the lower floor so the ceiling is not easily accessible AT ALL for hiding wiring. Running wires across the ceiling looks like garbage. The layout makes more sense as well. Height layers are used instead haphazard putting speakers like some hopscotch pad.

I'm sure none of those things matter to you. Perhaps you have an unlimited budget and work as a carpenter? I can see how Atmos makes much more sense, then.

Quote:
"9 foot ceiling" has never been a requirement for home Atmos.
I could have sworn I read that somewhere. My mistake. Dolby suggests 7.5 foot minimum. That's not helpful either. My home theater room is only 7 foot ceiling and again, no easy access.

Quote:
Every demo I've heard of upfiring speakers not only creates the impression of sound from above but also has phantom imaging between ear level and the ceiling.
How is that desirable one iota (the so-called phantom imaging)? The entire reason Atmos doesn't really want dipoles or bipoles used for side surrounds anymore is that they are too dispersed and not pin-point enough to image well in a system designed to move objects around the room. Upfiring speakers create a giant smear of sound between the speaker and the ceiling and THAT is supposed to be better?

Quote:
Even used in award winning home theatres, like AVS member Ash Sharma's:
That's a very pretty looking room. However, how a home theater room "looks" has almost NOTHING to do with its function (outside it being preferable to not have parts of it within your vision be very visible in a dark room). If it has upfiring speakers, I don't see how it won any sound-based award. If the award was for a pretty, neat install, I can believe that. When I visited numerous castles in England, I thought all those rooms I saw with ceiling paintings and other art were pretty like a museum. However, I'd never want a too posh room like that at home. In any case, I'd take a crappy looking room with better sound over a pretty one with inferior sound. Upfiring is inferior technology and I'm not crazy about ceiling speakers either. If Dolby adjusted (via their SO SUPERIOR positional object-based system) for where you put your speakers in the room (as DTS claims their system can do if it were implemented properly by the AV companies), yes, I would be impressed. But the bottom line is you STILL have to conform to their layout pattern.

What good is positional object based audio if it can't take advantage of whatever layout you can make work in a given room? I can't put a speaker where my half bathroom is located. It just doesn't work. I can't afford to build a home or add-on to the house from scratch that is better suited to home theater requirements. My house is a half century old. They didn't do home theater back then. For an object based system, Atmos is incredibly inflexible, IMO about the layout pattern. Having to use "bounce" speakers over wall speakers mounted near the ceiling makes no sense to me at all. Why would an object based system "care" where you put the speakers? The fact it "does" apparently tells me that it's not really a positional system AT ALL, but rather a PANNING based system that can pan between set distances in a given plane. Putting a speaker somewhere more complex than just x/y would probably require more computational power to determine the correct panning amounts over multiple speakers to approximate the object's position in the room and Dolby must not be capable of this or you could just drag/drop your speaker to where you could put in a virtual room of said dimensions.

Now Auro 3D is not really flexible either about placement, but they are more reasonable about what constitutes an average home and where you might be able to actually put higher height speakers (i.e. where one speakr can go, usually another speaker can go higher up in the air in the same location as vertical space isn't used much in houses, not like "footprint" space. Heck, you could mount height speakers on a pole like a lamp with speakers at different levels on it. That's a far cry from cutting into the ceiling. Again, what constitutes a superior "system" ? Just the objects? You must believe yes. Just objects.

Quote:
In both cases you assign a speaker to each microphone feed. Doesn't make Auro any more "real" than Atmos.
An object is ideally located at one point in space. Atmos makes any object rendered to come from a bare minimum of three points in space (save right AT the speaker). Auro 3D would only need two speakers to place an object space vertically at any point between the two speakers (top/bottom pan). In terms of stereo imaging between speakers that may not be exactly identical (ceiling versus "bed"), this tells me the Auro 3D system is much more likely to achieve seamless "imaging" than Atmos. In other words, if you took two stereo speakers and place one at a different distance in front of or behind or not equidistant from the listener, it's NOT going to image very well across pans. You can test this yourself my just moving a single speaker around the room in stereo setups or even just moving yourself to a point where you are no longer sitting the same distance from one speaker relative to the other. This applies to height also, but now drag this into the three dimensional imaging plane and which system is going to image better? One that varies bed/height data from two different points in the room or one that uses the SAME point with only the height varying? I don't think it's a far fetched mental exercise to suggest the bottom/top system will work better than one with the height speakers 25% in front of the side surround speakers so it has to image in multiple planes for every aspect of the stereo image in "3D" space. Again, what's "superior" about Atmos? Just objects?

Auro 3D has a theater based object system and yet I would think the same imaging patterns would still have an edge in a scaled object version of Auro 3D as well. The speaker placement source points are simply superior all around because they are more symmetrical and symmetry is needed for any kind of stereo imaging illusion to work really well.

Even if you don't buy that argument, it's still PITA to install compared to Auro 3D in most rooms. How many people will bother with a real ceiling speaker Atmos setup? What's the point of a format if it's not used correctly? Most people have a hard time placing stereo speakers correctly....

Quote:
Like they have a choice? No need for "theater-like sizes" to do 13 or 15 speakers. Will easily fit in a domestic sized room.
I think you missed the entire point of what I was saying. I was saying objects are probably not actually needed until there's MORE than 13-15 speakers in a given room (i.e. more than 2-3 rows). Those are all discrete locations up until that point. It where the older theaters switched to duplicate arrays (to give each row a similar sound perspective) that Atmos can provide a different experience depending on where you're sitting at a given moment in time (closer to a real object moving through the room instead of just a single front-back pan with a time delay on an array all playing the same signal). I've seen at least one person say they actually don't like Atmos because of that (they prefer a panned single array setup where more or less everyone gets the same experience regardless of where they sit).

Now IF Atmos could object/positionally adapt to putting a speaker anywhere in the room I could make it work, YES, I would rate "objects" the best thing since sliced bread! I wouldn't even have to necessarily align speakers left to right or front to back evenly if there was something in the way and it would take care of the imaging. But no...no I was told you can't do that with Atmos or any system. They still need to be pretty darn close to the prescribed alignments for that system or they won't sound right. Well, WTF!? What good is an object based system, then? But that goes right back to my argument that the more symmetrical "layer" format of Auro 3D probably images better for just that reason. Symmetry matters and Auro 3D is far more symmetrical than Atmo in the layout (true cube layout versus a cross sitting over top of a box).

Hey, maybe I'm wrong with these assumptions. Maybe the functional difference with most material is insignificant and other than the PITA room layout requirements, neither system sounds better in a simple configuration. I'm going more by what I've read from people that have a dual-layout or watched a given movie in both an Auro 3D and an Atmos theater (no X theater to compare to since DTS got out of the theater business).

Quote:
Didn't stop DTS from convincing studios like Universal and Well Go USA to go almost exclusively DTS:X, resulting in almost 100 titles so far.
DTS has been well established since the 1990s. They were far more common on Blu-Ray than Dolby. In other words, they're ALSO a "big player" compared to Auro 3D (i.e. It'd be closer to Microsoft and Apple's OS versus Linux in the home desktop computer market).

Click THEATER (Updated: May-22-2019) for pics: Epson 3100 3D Projector, DaLite 92" screen, 11.1.6 (Marantz SR7012 + Yamaha HTR-5960 + Onkyo ESPro) - Dialog Lift - PSB T45/B15/S50/X1T/CS500 Speakers & Def Tech PF-1500 15" sub; 2nd Room (Updated Apr-22-2019): 48" Plasma TV, Carver AL-III, Carver C-5 Pre-Amp, Technics SH-AC500D, Dual Carver TFM-35x Amps (Active Bi-Amp), Klipsch Surrounds ; Sources: PS4, LG UP875 UHD, Nvidia Shield (KODI), ATV4K, Zidoo X9S, LD, GameCube : Props (Updated 8-26-19)
MagnumX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

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