AVS Forum banner

58581 - 58600 of 58951 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
Pretty much all "normal" speakers sound best on-axis. Speakers above you are no different -- if possible, aim them at the listening area for best performance.

Thank you - very helpful


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,715 Posts
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.
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.

I only wish more music albums were available in Auro-3D as it's dual-quad miked albums are vastly superior to ANY pan/pot live concert (Atmos) and despite all the hype about Atmos music albums, the reality hardly ANY work on real AVR/AVP based Atmos systems (rather than sound bar only junk). As for who does/drops what, it seems to change regularly over time, so I wouldn't count on any given studio "only" doing something forever either. Now that Fandango has purchased Vudu, all streaming bets in the long run are off, IMO, especially as more systems come online with DTS:X Pro. As for IMAX Enhance, most of it is nonsense, of course in terms of video (and DTS:X is still DTS:X), but if they can get me a full IMAX only version of Blade Runner 2049 (well preferably the 3D IMAX version, but I doubt that one will ever appear), I'd be glad to buy it no matter how much certain people "hate" them or want to call it a "scam".

(and this is the Dolby Atmos thread)
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. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,559 Posts
and technically speaking, DTS:X can carry more objects than home Atmos
Not accurate.
and licensing costs are lower
Irrelevant when it comes to usability and performance.
It can also use your choice of Atmos or Auro-3D speaker locations
Because nobody would set up for just DTS:X
DSU is definitely inferior to Neural X
Not when it routes centered dialogue to the surrounds or other odd artifacts. It's louder I'll give you that.

And all DTS:X "Pro" is an upmixer. Still taking the same mapped 7.1.4 output and sending it to additional speakers, unlike the majority of Atmos soundtracks which can be sent to any speaker in a *true* 24.1.10 setup.

FandangoNow is pretty much considered by everyone to be bottom tier - the worst interface by far. They need Vudu's infrastructure to survive.

Meanwhile Atmos is being offered on everything from Trinninov to cell phones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,810 Posts
DTS:X can carry more objects than home Atmos...:

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. DTS has no similar technology.


..... licensing costs are lower:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,810 Posts
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.


Why do you think that is the case ?

I’ve ceros my seen none of that behavior. 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.

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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,715 Posts
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.
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).

DTS has no similar technology.
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.

False.

There is no licensing lost to produce content in Atmos outside of theatrical exhibition venues.
The "falseness" of licensing costs would seem to depend on one's point of view. You're telling me that theaters don't matter? Are there no licensing costs for AVR manufacturers? Is the software to mix Atmos is free?

As an extrapolation of the cost argument, I would propose that it is actually more expensive to produce content (broadcast and disc) in DTS:X because you will also have to author and QC the same content in a Dolby format if you plan to stream or broadcast it... while some studios have certainly embraced the use of X on catalog titles (and a handful of current releases) it is by no means cheaper to do so if you factor in the cost of creating the eventual Dolby streams that are needed for delivery down the line.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,810 Posts
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.

You now claim you were talking about one thing when you clearly weee not... for example brining up theatrical licensing costs in a hone Atmos thread (and for your information the same parameters apply to cinema licensing fees and the required mix stage time to produce a cinema DTS:X mix..). Or AVR codec fees or software, etc... there is simply no case you can make where home Atmos is more expansive than using DTS:X... and I’ve given you one simple example when the inverse is almost always true.

You stated two things as facts and on those two specific things you are incorrect .... now you are trying to restate your position by referencing things you don’t understand (i.e. (“spatial remapping,” the difference between production and authoring workflows and methodologies and interchanging then at will, or the fact that the way both codecs deal with audio beds, and both and dynamic objects are completely different and fundamentally change the way you mix and produce soundtracks in the codecs)..

I’ve been on these boards a long long time ...

There are a ton of much much more educated experts (about acoustics, electronics, etc) here than me who have challenged and educated me over the last 21 years..... @markus737 , @batpig and @sdurani come to mind immediately.

When I’ve been wrong, I’ve admitted it (most of the time)... and yet sometimes in the past I’ve tried to argue my way out of a situation when I was clearly out of my depth.

As I’ve grown older (and hopefully more mature) I’ve learned that being louder (both by using CAPS and long worded, meandering, and subject changing replies) doesn’t mean the poster is more educated, or correct, on the subject they are speaking about.

A lot of time is implies they don’t have the ability to step back and absorb the information being presented to them by others and are simply, most of the time, just concerned with always being right rather than providing coherent, factual and/or gained knowledge... they are almost exclusive immovable and quite entrenched in their positions.

I just realized I might be writing one the same kind of posts my reply is speaking about.... I’ll leave it at that.

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...).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,715 Posts
I don’t want to argue every point you now bring up.

As for DTS:X, I'd love to hear your theories of why any studio would bother with DTS:X (other than Universal) in the first place. If it's always more expensive and inferior technology, what possible motivation could any of those studios have to use DTS:X on a single title? I've pointed out at least one studio that has a serious flaw (Disney) in their Atmos playback on high-end systems that DTS:X Pro never has and you dismiss it as just one studio. So I shouldn't get to play Disney Atmos titles? It'd be nice if Dolby had a remedy to that situation like DTS:X Pro does for 7.1.4 soundtracks on higher channel systems. I fail to see what's not valid about that viewpoint.

To me, that's an unacceptable flaw (I have a lot of Marvel and Disney titles) and it's why I went with Pro Logic steering extraction of Top Middle here rather than getting something like a Denon 8500 as I'd like all the movies to have direct overhead sound in my large room). Whatever panning spatial resolution advantage Atmos might have by rendering rather than just using more speakers to play what's already there (Neural X), I can't hear any issue in my 24' long room. The Atmos helicopter moves smoothly all around the room. Without Top Middle, the helicopter all but disappears in terms of a hard 'image' as it gets closer to the middle of the room and reappears as it moves towards the back. With top middle extracted, it smoothly moves around the room. I don't know how it could move any smoother being rendered, perhaps in a larger room still? Dolby's upmixer doesn't impress me either. It fails to put overhead objects (helicopters, jets, etc.) overhead most/all of the time and has no front/back panning either overhead (arrayed L/R only). If DTS were out of business, Neural X might disappear in future products and that would be a real shame given what it can do compared to DSU. I also like how it supports Auro-3D speaker locations that I think Atmos misses out on like Center Height and Top Surround (both lock panning into place for off-axis seats). I would have preferred all three companies to have agreed on a common layout for all speaker locations, but we don't always get what we want.

All I know with absolute certainty is I'm happy to have Harry Potter in immersive sound with great overhead effects. I'd be happy if it was in Atmos too, but if DTS:X is what it has, that's fine. They both have put out some nice home soundtracks and both have had some relative stinkers and the ones that have both sound identical here so what's to complain about from a consumer standpoint other than the issue with Top Middle not typically being used by Disney on 7.1.6 systems?

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...).
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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
17,796 Posts
Let's stop the bickering NOW, please.

Discuss the topic and NOT EACH OTHER.

Questions or comments? PM me. Don't post those here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
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.
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,215 Posts
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...

I am discussing the possibility of trending quality downward as an unfortunate side result of the tenuous circumstances surrounding traditional theatrical distribution on the BIG screen due to this pandemic.



AMC and other cinema companies are hanging on by their fingertips and if we have continuous spikes of outbreaks (despite the fudging of the numbers happening in some states - like Colorado and Florida as but two examples - to make it appear things are winding down, so they can "open back up") because of mismanagement of the crisis, then I can only see theatrical distribution as an endangered species. Why would people risk their lives and dwindling funds on going to a communal place like a theater? I'm glad you still have a job, but many people no longer do. Some might risk it, but not enough to keep things afloat.



If this worse case scenario plays out, then the majority of sound systems playing back these soundtracks will be in the home. We've already noticed on this and other HT boards the damage to dynamics, volume, surround activity, diminished Atmos tracks (fixed print-outs, the minimal use of the immersive formats' full capabilities for various reasons), severely filtered bass tracks (not to fix clipping and distortion that may have occurred in a previous mixes due to lack of QC, but to add a severe low frequency roll-off at about 30 Hz). Maybe you as a seasoned audio engineer don't subscribe to these mixing "foibles" (thank you for that), but it is too often occurring to be one-off events. The latest victims appear to be Top Gun and The War of the Worlds on 4k disc at least as far as bass is concerned.



Then take this to the next step... studios continue to lose revenue causing a shifting from big screen oriented releases to smaller home screen releases. Since more people are listening with, dare I say it, less than adequate sound systems, and with a lack of dual soundtracks on disc or streaming (an A Grade primary track designed for high end home theaters that normally contain subs and speakers that can handle the dynamics and low bass a heck of a lot better, and a B Grade track optimized for sound bars and the like that cannot handle a full-throated audio track), why mix for the best home systems that may have Trinnovs or other high speaker count processors (that can do 9.1.6 or possibly larger immersive layouts - prices have fallen and that as spurred a trend toward somewhat more reasonable >7.1.4 receivers and pre-amp interest on these boards as we want to take advantage of Atmos' 3D object capabilities to improve surround immersion and precision) and other top flight equipment, which are costlier to set up in mixing studios? Your employer may have installed some state-of-the-art dubbing and mixing rooms (that's great!), but can it sustain itself with this economic change in the weather? Will other audio post houses be so bold in the future?



===


You also have brought up a point that we don't fully understand how home Atmos works. Given that some literature has come to light (at least starting a few pages back) on consumer Dolby Atmos, its use of spatial compression, etc., can you help explain what it is talking about in layman's terms... or debunk it if it is incorrect information? Some software that looks at disc metadata seems to indicate that the Meridian Lossless Stream (aka Dolby TrueHD) on the Dolby Atmos tracks is carved up into a maximum of 16 "channels" with many tracks only using 11. Is this inaccurate?



Your assistance and expertise would be most helpful in clearing up any questions or misconceptions or speculation that have been floating around for some time.



Thank you for your time and continued patronage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Hi guys,
Can I ask for a little help troubleshooting here please? I have a 7.2.4 system set up with ATMOS in mind, dedicated home theater.
Been enjoying it for years as surround sound, but added a 4K Pioneer LX500 player around 6 months ago, 4 ceiling speakers and a new Marantz AV7705 to get some ATMOS.
All well and good, loving it, not perfect, but wow for movies. Dolby Surround nice for music too. Then roughly 2 weeks ago, I played an ATMOS disc (I am disc only here in Thailand, keeping Amazon alive and wealthy) and my shipping company too, started to get some strange popping, ticks, digital loud noises, ATMOS flashing on my Marantz back and forth to something else, then GONE. My Marantz will no longer recognize Dolby TrueHD Multi any more, and now no sound comes through unless I change to another language on the disc, change to Thai 5.1 and all is fine, IF I understood Thai. DTS HD MA discs are the same, except there is still major cracks and pops, sounds like morse code and is no longer recognized by the Marantz. There was a FW upgrade around that time for the Marantz, but no one else is calling them out on this problem. Checked everything I can think of, the disc player on bitstream, my HDMI cables are 2.0b or 2.1 compatible, certified, and have not changed an inch since they were working great. HD codecs cannot be read. 4K Hacksaw Ridge, Deepwater Horizon, Ghost in the Shell (BD), 4K Battleship DTS:X all gone.
Any ideas? Done all the resets, one guy said to reset it 10 times in a row, and I did. Still the same.
I think the Marantz has crapped itself.
But I would love a simple, keep it in place and only have to do a FW upgrade to fix it. Did a factory reset and that took it back to an original FW but that too was the same.
Open to suggestions,
God Bless,
Wayne
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,559 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,180 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,102 Posts
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?
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.

Center Spread is VERY useful when listening to Stereo music.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
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.
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.
And I did change out the cable, unfortunately nothing changed at all.
DEAD
GONE
Any other suggestions would be very welcome.
Thanks, God Bless,
Wayne
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,715 Posts
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?

Meanwhile, with three identical speakers here, the only real difference I hear when I switch Center Spread on/off is that if I'm sitting off-axis, it pulls to the nearest speaker (like stereo). Sitting at the MLP, the effect with it on or off sounds IDENTICAL here. PLII, that DSU is based off of, doesn't pull hard to the center to begin with like PLI so it's already better for music. I think the center spread mode had non-identical center channel speakers in mind that are just plain inferior to the mains. These days with wall mounted sets or projectors, many people can now use three identical speakers and the mode has no purpose at that point, IMO. I wouldn't be surprised if Dolby thought the setting was just plain confusing to many people as its benefits are dubious at best and non-existent (as far as my ears can hear, at least) with three identical mains.

To be certain (as I was going by memory), I just went downstairs and tried some very familiar Tori Amos songs (from Scarlett's Walk) and compared Stereo and DSU with Center Spread On/Off on my system that has three identical PSB T-45s in front. From the MLP, I couldn't hear any difference at all with it on/off. Off-axis, it wasn't centered any longer and stereo had the same front stage, but of course there were no longer sounds coming from the surrounds speakers. I just leave it OFF for that reason and off-axis seats at least get vocals centered with DSU music. Truth be told, I prefer stereo mode for 2-channel music most of the time anyway. Those songs weren't designed to put out-of-phase material behind you or to the sides. They were mixed with only 2 speakers in mind.
 
58581 - 58600 of 58951 Posts
Top