I'm still not sure what your point is as it seems to at least hint at a dislike or even possibly hatred of DTS:X for some reason. You could argue Dolby Atmos was superior to DTS:X until DTS:X Pro came out and technically speaking, DTS:X can carry more objects than home Atmos and licensing costs are lower. It can also use your choice of Atmos or Auro-3D speaker locations. For most people, there is no technical difference whatsoever (7.1.4 systems). Frankly, I'm happy to have either one on a soundtrack over just 5.1 or 7.1. Harry Potter was excellent in DTS:X and Overlord was excellent in Dolby Atmos. I really cannot comprehend why some people feel the need to love or hate either one. Given Red Tails and Death Machine are only available in Auro-3D beyond 5.1, I gladly bought both of them (and several music albums) in Auro-3D too. I'll take anything I can get above 5.1/7.1 and even then DTS:X's Neural X does a bang up job upmixing them to higher speaker counts (11.2 in regular DTS:X and up to 32.2 in DTS:X Pro). DSU is definitely inferior to Neural X, in my experience so I'm glad to have DTS around, technologically speaking even if most movies are in Dolby Atmos. All three formats work perfectly fine in my home theater.Only because of that "IMAX Enhanced" scam. Even then, the streaming versions on Apple & Vudu are Dolby Vision/Dolby Atmos.
You'll note their catalog 4K remasters are still Atmos.
Lionsgate, Paramount and Fox have also dabbled and dropped DTS:X
The only consistent studio now is Universal - who has an ownership stake in the company.
And yet YOU were just talking about DTS:X and yet that seems to imply NO ONE ELSE should with that comment, even if it's a direct comparison to Atmos.(and this is the Dolby Atmos thread)
Not accurate.and technically speaking, DTS:X can carry more objects than home Atmos
Irrelevant when it comes to usability and performance.and licensing costs are lower
Because nobody would set up for just DTS:XIt can also use your choice of Atmos or Auro-3D speaker locations
Not when it routes centered dialogue to the surrounds or other odd artifacts. It's louder I'll give you that.DSU is definitely inferior to Neural X
DTS:X can carry more objects than home Atmos...:
False...... licensing costs are lower:
The trouble with everything being produced for the small screen is that more and more audio mixes will be designed for the lowest common denominator, mainly soundbars and TV speakers. The bulk of the mixes will no longer be monitored in large auditoriums with powerful audio systems and multi speaker arrays in order to shave production costs.
THIS (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-1880.html#post58762310) 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.Not true.
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.
Another post in the DTS:X thread (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2309010-dts-x-139.html#post58738490) says that DTS:X's "spatial coding" is called either "Spatial Rendering" or "Spatial Re-mapping" (again same linked post).DTS has no similar technology.
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?False.
There is no licensing lost to produce content in Atmos outside of theatrical exhibition venues.
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.
THIS (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-1880.html#post58762310) 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-receivers-amps-processors/2309010-dts-x-139.html#post58729910).
Another post in the DTS:X thread (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2309010-dts-x-139.html#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.
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?
You can 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.
I don’t want to argue every point you now bring up.
It's hard to respond to what you wrote without taking note of the disclaimer bit about "in real time" when online movies don't need to be streamed in real time. iTunes, for example, loads into the Apple TV's buffer as fast as it can get the entire movie or TV show. If the bandwidth drops momentarily, it's usually not an issue because as long as your overall bandwidth being served is above what's needed, it will fill up ahead of time. Lossless compressed audio is roughly the same amount of space as a default Handbrake compression video setting (i.e. streaming type size). That means to stream it over a network, you would need roughly 2x the bandwidth as the lossy version of the movie. Apple recommends 25Mbps or higher for 4K movies on iTunes. A lossless audio version would probably stream at 60Mbps or higher, certainly. As long as the buffer (average rate) stays ahead of the real time rate, it shouldn't have any issues. I'd hardly call that impossible. That doesn't mean anyone will offer lossless any time soon. But the notion that DTS can't be streamed and Atmos can is just plain wrong. Fandango Now already has DTS streaming titles available. DTS:X supports more than just lossless tracks.PS.. ... it is almost impossible to stream (meaning in real time over the “internet”) VBR video AND VBR lossless audio unless you can guarantee max bandwidth at all times, which is very hard to do unless you can control it (like on an optical disc or a closed network...).
Are the newer Atmos rooms focused on broadcast/streaming content mostly 7.1.4, or are they starting to move to 9.1.6 or even more channels?As a matter of fact the coming I now work for has built 5 “broadcast” centric Atmos rooms in the last two years and all of them are a bit bigger than most similar rooms around. That’s in addition to the other 6+ rooms and facilities I’ve seen come online.
Most rooms that are brand new (built in the last 2 years), that I have seen, are 9.1.6 or more.... a majority of the retrofit projects have been 7.1.4..Are the newer Atmos rooms focused on broadcast/streaming content mostly 7.1.4, or are they starting to move to 9.1.6 or even more channels?
Why do you think that is the case ?
I’ve ceros my seen none of that behavior. As a matter of fact the company I now work for has built 5 “broadcast” centric Atmos rooms in the last two years and all of them are a bit bigger than most similar rooms around. That’s in addition to the other 6+ rooms and facilities I’ve seen come online.
I would argue the way consumers listen to broadcast/tv/OTT content, and the quality of tv speakers, sound bars and headphones used to hear them, has lead to a better experience for a vast majority of consumers. No one I know mixes any differently now than they did for the last long while...
And since I made the transition to doing mainly broadcast content, about 3-4 years ago, I have almost no clients ask to hear it on “small” or TV speakers.... we have a new generation of creatives and show runners in this world and the are generally, and genuinely, focused on making the best soundtracks available without concern for the “lowest common denominator...”
I would argue things are going the other way.. we can see the shrinking of the need for large scale auditorium sized mixing stages due to the changes in the film business as a whole and the types and quantity of theatrical only “large scale” films., while broadcast mixing stages are getting better
Just my .02
Ps.. regarding your earlier comment about Dolby enabling 7.1.4 printouts... the ability for their software to do that only came out in the latest release of their software, released only a few months back. As I’ve mentioned in the last took a bit of work to make that happen in the past...
Yeah, the removing of Center Spread feature from the Dolby Surround upmixer. Old news... It happened in 2019 (based on a 2018 issued Dolby mandate)..., not this year..., for the 2019 generation and beyond.One of the other audio sites had an article about Dolby removing some aspects of Atmos from 2020 receivers and beyond. DSU Dolby Surround Upmixer. Can't say I'm familiar with this option, anyone using it? Or is it called something different for each manufacturer?
You have a link?One of the other audio sites had an article about Dolby removing some aspects of Atmos from 2020 receivers and beyond. DSU Dolby Surround Upmixer. Can't say I'm familiar with this option, anyone using it? Or is it called something different for each manufacturer?
Thanks very much PeterTHX, that was a great suggestion in fact, one I realized immediately that I should have done, even though I had not touched the cables from when the Marantz was playing ATMOS and DTS:X.Tex, you may want to try changing out your cabling just in case. It is possible there has been some degradation or oxidation in the cable itself over time.
I've seen this happen on both "cheap" and expensive cables.
I never understood the big deal of the spread feature to begin with. The entire point of the center channel speaker is to lock dialog/vocals in the center. Stereo spread defeats that purpose, acting more or less like an arrayed center channel speaker at best. Changing the "spread value" on older DPLII receivers just seems to direct less to the center channel and more to the mains, making it closer to stereo. With DSU that supports it, it's just on/off so you could just defeat your center channel while listening to music to achieve a very similar effect (i.e. let the mains do the work). Yes, 'some' still goes to the center, but it's greatly reduced and has little effect on the precedence effect for off axis listeners so why even bother? You then have to turn it back OFF again if you're using with movies to get the full center effect (just as much bother as shutting off the center speaker, IMO). In other words why even use the center channel at all with music if it doesn't sound as good to you as your mains?