Originally Posted by sdurani
Sound or combination of sounds not mixed into a channel but instead tied to a location in 3D space or a speaker.
Yeah, that's not a technical description. As I said, it's really just panning meta data tied to a location (I didn't make that up; I read it in a more technical article on the system). In other words, it tells the system how to do automatic pans for a given sound using multiple discrete speakers along the path. But it doesn't allow a calculation to account for the speakers being in different places along the path. It wants a fixed set of speakers. Now whether they could make a processor that COULD account for different speaker locations than their prescribed layout and still function correctly, I'm not certain. What is certain is that it doesn't do that today. DTS, OTOH, claims their system IS speaker layout agnostic, but I haven't seen much evidence to prove this either as current AV gear cannot set up a weird layout to test it. I'm not aware of much use of objects in DTS X mixes either which would likely affect its ability to pull it off anyway.
Atmos & DTS:X can use objects during playback, Auro3D can't.
My point is that objects are great for large theaters (and even home theaters with more than 11-13 speaker or so as that's what it was designed for, but without the placement flexibility, I simply don't see how it actually benefits a home installation. All the speakers used in a typical 11-13 speaker system are specific locations around the screen and a single listening position. All the speakers added beyond that extend the height/bed into the back of the room and it's those speakers that behave differently in a large setup allowing them to act like discrete locations instead of just a giant delay set array, giving more fluid transitions and allowing different sounds in different speakers at the same time. But at home, those speakers aren't used so it's a "meh" that people make a huge deal out of, IMO. Auro could bring their commercial object system home, but how many people would get any use out of it? They can't even get the industry to carry their regular system at home.
You're describing convenience, not superiority.
Well, it would take listening test comparisons to be sure. My comments are anecdotal based on other people's systems that can compare the rare Auro title to Atmos. But then me just saying I don't like Dolby trying to kill off what sounds to me like a superior system (for whatever reason I like I what I read about it) shouldn't be that controversial. You seem to want to pick a fight over nothing. You like Atmos. Ok. I'm not telling you not to use it. I'll be forced to use Atmos too because it's what's out there. That doesn't mean I have to like Dolby. They are fiends, IMO for their licensee restrictions designed solely to monopolize the system. I don't like bullies.
Better than no height imaging. Not everyone can install a height layer of speakers. Dolby planned for that. Auro didn't.
Because, contrary to your belief, upfiring speakers work.
I'll just disagree here. You don't have to look very far to find posts on here and elsewhere that agree with my position. I think they work very poorly and I can't see spending much money on the speakers when they do more sound blur than height.
When did Dolby claim that Atmos is based on listener position and/or placing speakers where ever you want? You're inventing straw men in order to knock them down. More flexible than Auro.
Everything Dolby writes about positional audio makes it sound like it's a positional audio system where the system doesn't care where the channels are because it moves to the nearest speaker in that position. It's marketing hype. Now maybe it wasn't Dolby that put out all those articles saying that, but rather magazines, web sites, etc. that don't understand how it works and THINK it's a true positional system that only cares where the sound goes, not how it gets there, but that's just not accurate to how it works from what I"ve been reading. It's not simple to find a site that explains it out there because they just want to put it layman's terms and get people excited. Certainly DTS has claimed on their site that they are speaker layout agnostic, but with current AVR manufacturers not allowing that placement flexibility, it's really moot whether it's true or not.
Flexibility? It depends on what you mean by flexible when it comes to Auro. If it's easier for someone to install in a given room than ceiling speakers, they would probably call it more flexible.
Honestly, I don't know why you seem to want to pick a fight over an opinion about Auro 3D in an Auro 3D thread. If you don't like Auro 3D, don't use it. I think it sounds pretty interesting as an alternative in the home environment and would like to explore the format further. However, it's lack of support in receivers makes that unlikely as I have a good reason (dialog lift) to go with Yamaha instead and there's little chance they are going to offer a firmware upgrade to get it.