|
|
Post by Porscheguy on May 30, 2016 10:35:05 GMT -5
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator 
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,501
|
Post by LCSeminole on May 30, 2016 11:42:31 GMT -5
I'm hoping there will be more hybrid discs with both Dolby Atmos & DTS:X available.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 30, 2016 18:33:41 GMT -5
These are the reasons why a sound engineer friend of mine told me some time ago that DTS-X would eventually have the larger market share. He suggested that I not jump onto the Atmos bandwaggon as DTS-X was a more likely progression.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on May 30, 2016 19:03:42 GMT -5
Isn't like a mixed bag that you reach down in and you do not know what you will pull out. Most of the movies on disc I have are Dolby. Some are DTS. Some are both. I have a lot of disc guys. Is there a trend I am not seeing toward DTS ? Who decides what movie has one or the other or both. Why should you care ? Are not both going to be able to be processed on the new gear ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 31, 2016 0:34:13 GMT -5
Isn't like a mixed bag that you reach down in and you do not know what you will pull out. Most of the movies on disc I have are Dolby. Some are DTS. Some are both. I have a lot of disc guys. Is there a trend I am not seeing toward DTS ? Who decides what movie has one or the other or both. Why should you care ? Are not both going to be able to be processed on the new gear ? The consensus seems to be that DTS-X will cost the movie studios less to mix (faster, current software, no dedicated equipment required, same mix for commercial theatres and HT etc) than Atmos. Which will probably mean that over time more HT releases will be DTS-X. My sound engineer friend tells me that because of cost reductions he doesn't see both formats being used for very long on the same movie. For example there is only one Atmos mixing studio in Australia, but most studios use Pro Tools so the others have/will move straight to DTS-X via a firmware add on. Cheers Gary |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 6:09:53 GMT -5
These are the reasons why a sound engineer friend of mine told me some time ago that DTS-X would eventually have the larger market share. He suggested that I not jump onto the Atmos bandwaggon as DTS-X was a more likely progression. Cheers Gary it has one major flaw as of now...its not object based. they are having difficulty being able to codec it to work in the home as object based. if/when that can be resolved...maybe it will be preferred over ATMOS |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 31, 2016 9:04:46 GMT -5
I still don't understand why this is only being exploited for basically special effects and movies. Where is the recorded MUSIC with a true height dimension? Now THIS is what I call revolutionary for the audio enthusiast. We have the technology, what's the hold up?
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on May 31, 2016 10:03:45 GMT -5
I still don't understand why this is only being exploited for basically special effects and movies. Where is the recorded USIC with a true height dimension? Now THIS is what I call revolutionary for the audio enthusiast. We have the technology, what's the hold up? Well, those with a system capable of playing Object based material is still pretty limited so there probably isn't much of a market there for music right now. Coupled with the fact that music in current surround formats only accounts for a small percentage of sales makes me think there isn't much revenue to be made. You'd think though we'd see some 'demo' type recordings in the coming year. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 31, 2016 10:05:00 GMT -5
I still don't understand why this is only being exploited for basically special effects and movies. Where is the recorded USIC with a true height dimension? Now THIS is what I call revolutionary for the audio enthusiast. We have the technology, what's the hold up? Well, those with a system capable of playing Object based material is still pretty limited so there probably isn't much of a market there for music right now. Coupled with the fact that music in current surround formats only accounts for a small percentage of sales makes me think there isn't much revenue to be made right now. You'd think though we'd see some 'demo' type recordings in the coming year. I hope so too. I don't care that the music isn't in surround. I just want stereo and height information. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,961
|
Post by KeithL on May 31, 2016 10:22:10 GMT -5
I don't think it's a good idea to make any predictions at this point..... 1) Up until recently, DTS has dominated the disc market (while there's some overlap, something like 80% of discs are DTS, while 40% are Dolby). 2) HOWEVER, Dolby Atmos has shown a significant amount of market growth in cinemas (a lot of theaters have switched over to Atmos in the past year). And there is a natural tendency for peole to buy a disc "in the same format as they one in which they saw the movie". 3) Atmos also offers some integration with current mastering software, and the way the Atmos mastering software visualizes 3D objects is very handy. (Which means that many will see it as a worthwhile change - even if they have to learn something new.) There are some claims that "Atmos has to be re-mastered for home use". First, I suspect that this is somewhat exaggerated; second, optimizing the mix for home systems MIGHT well offer benefits in user experience. 4) Some reports suggest that DTS-X does a better job of "synthesizing height channels" with non-encoded content. DTS-X is claimed to "work better" with non-standard speaker locations - and with smaller numbers of speakers. (both unconfirmed and somewhat debatable). 5) Atmos has gotten there first... and there are already a lot of Atmos discs out. 6) There are already a significant number of AVRs with Dolby Atmos out... DTS-X is CLAIMED to be a trivial upgrade for anything that already supports Atmos (but we shall see). My guess is that BOTH formats will "succeed"..... and neither one is going to "get pushed out". (And, as long as a significant number of movies are only available in each, and so you need to support both, the market share doesn't really matter.) These are the reasons why a sound engineer friend of mine told me some time ago that DTS-X would eventually have the larger market share. He suggested that I not jump onto the Atmos bandwaggon as DTS-X was a more likely progression. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 31, 2016 10:27:10 GMT -5
I don't think it's a good idea to make any predictions at this point..... 1) Up until recently, DTS has dominated the disc market (while there's some overlap, something like 80% of discs are DTS, while 40% are Dolby). 2) HOWEVER, Dolby Atmos has shown a significant amount of market growth in cinemas (a lot of theaters have switched over to Atmos in the past year). And there is a natural tendency for peole to buy a disc "in the same format as they one in which they saw the movie". 3) Atmos also offers some integration with current mastering software, and the way the Atmos mastering software visualizes 3D objects is very handy. (Which means that many will see it as a worthwhile change - even if they have to learn something new.) There are some claims that "Atmos has to be re-mastered for home use". First, I suspect that this is somewhat exaggerated; second, optimizing the mix for home systems MIGHT well offer benefits in user experience. 4) Some reports suggest that DTS-X does a better job of "synthesizing height channels" with non-encoded content. DTS-X is claimed to "work better" with non-standard speaker locations - and with smaller numbers of speakers. (both unconfirmed and somewhat debatable). 5) Atmos has gotten there first... and there are already a lot of Atmos discs out. 6) There are already a significant number of AVRs with Dolby Atmos out... DTS-X is CLAIMED to be a trivial upgrade for anything that already supports Atmos (but we shall see). My guess is that BOTH formats will "succeed"..... and neither one is going to "get pushed out". (And, as long as a significant number of movies are only available in each, and so you need to support both, the market share doesn't really matter.) These are the reasons why a sound engineer friend of mine told me some time ago that DTS-X would eventually have the larger market share. He suggested that I not jump onto the Atmos bandwaggon as DTS-X was a more likely progression. Cheers Gary Is there any details about real quality differences between them? Like bit rate etc like the old dobly vs dts type? |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on May 31, 2016 10:30:28 GMT -5
Is there any details about real quality differences between them? Like bit rate etc like the old dobly vs dts type? The article Porcheguy linked says they use the same compression, implying the bit rates would be the same. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,961
|
Post by KeithL on May 31, 2016 11:01:19 GMT -5
The short answer there is that there isn't much music recorded in surround sound, and virtually all of that is 5.1 (and not 7.1). (And, other than by synthesizing it, in order to do height channels, you'd have to hang microphones from the ceiling; my guess is that none of the existing content was recorded that way.) And, to be blunt, while raindrops, and killer drones, and bullet ricochets, may normally be heard from above - there aren't too many musical instruments that fly - and "room height ambience" doesn't seem to be a priority. Note that Atmos does in fact have a synthesis mode.... I still don't understand why this is only being exploited for basically special effects and movies. Where is the recorded USIC with a true height dimension? Now THIS is what I call revolutionary for the audio enthusiast. We have the technology, what's the hold up? Well, those with a system capable of playing Object based material is still pretty limited so there probably isn't much of a market there for music right now. Coupled with the fact that music in current surround formats only accounts for a small percentage of sales makes me think there isn't much revenue to be made. You'd think though we'd see some 'demo' type recordings in the coming year. |
|
|
|
Post by casey01 on May 31, 2016 11:03:06 GMT -5
I heard some numbers recently where DTS MA had almost a 5 to 1 ratio of dominance over Dolby Tru-HD on Blu-Ray and and one wonders if that will continue with their latest format? One of the reasons for that dominance and as was told to me recently and for at least the audiophiles anyway, unlike Dolby, DTS also mixed some of their soundtracks in 7.1 audio, while, unless I missed it, Tru-HD was always only 5.1.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,961
|
Post by KeithL on May 31, 2016 11:09:35 GMT -5
The old questions about the sound quality of "Dolby Digital" vs "DTS" (both of which were compressed - and NOT lossless) are pretty well a done deal. Dolby Atmos basically supports the same quality as Dolby TrueHD (24/96k under most circumstances). I haven't looked it up, but I'm betting that, likewise, DTS-X supports sound quality at the same level as DTS-HD Master Audio (24/96k under most circumstances). (There are some limitations if you use lots of simultaneous objects - but, at worst, we're talking about CD quality or better.... ) I don't think it's a good idea to make any predictions at this point..... 1) Up until recently, DTS has dominated the disc market (while there's some overlap, something like 80% of discs are DTS, while 40% are Dolby). 2) HOWEVER, Dolby Atmos has shown a significant amount of market growth in cinemas (a lot of theaters have switched over to Atmos in the past year). And there is a natural tendency for peole to buy a disc "in the same format as they one in which they saw the movie". 3) Atmos also offers some integration with current mastering software, and the way the Atmos mastering software visualizes 3D objects is very handy. (Which means that many will see it as a worthwhile change - even if they have to learn something new.) There are some claims that "Atmos has to be re-mastered for home use". First, I suspect that this is somewhat exaggerated; second, optimizing the mix for home systems MIGHT well offer benefits in user experience. 4) Some reports suggest that DTS-X does a better job of "synthesizing height channels" with non-encoded content. DTS-X is claimed to "work better" with non-standard speaker locations - and with smaller numbers of speakers. (both unconfirmed and somewhat debatable). 5) Atmos has gotten there first... and there are already a lot of Atmos discs out. 6) There are already a significant number of AVRs with Dolby Atmos out... DTS-X is CLAIMED to be a trivial upgrade for anything that already supports Atmos (but we shall see). My guess is that BOTH formats will "succeed"..... and neither one is going to "get pushed out". (And, as long as a significant number of movies are only available in each, and so you need to support both, the market share doesn't really matter.) Is there any details about real quality differences between them? Like bit rate etc like the old dobly vs dts type? |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 31, 2016 11:18:08 GMT -5
The short answer there is that there isn't much music recorded in surround sound, and virtually all of that is 5.1 (and not 7.1). (And, other than by synthesizing it, in order to do height channels, you'd have to hang microphones from the ceiling; my guess is that none of the existing content was recorded that way.) And, to be blunt, while raindrops, and killer drones, and bullet ricochets, may normally be heard from above - there aren't too many musical instruments that fly - and "room height ambience" doesn't seem to be a priority. Note that Atmos does in fact have a synthesis mode.... Well, those with a system capable of playing Object based material is still pretty limited so there probably isn't much of a market there for music right now. Coupled with the fact that music in current surround formats only accounts for a small percentage of sales makes me think there isn't much revenue to be made. You'd think though we'd see some 'demo' type recordings in the coming year. Well of course there aren't instruments on the ceiling. But wouldn't this seriously improve the 3d body of instruments? For instance just take a choir on risers. Right there is a compelling reason for taking advantage of height. Here are some more compelling reasons for height. -How about a female singer standing and playing a guitar. Now you can hear her voice standing and the guitar below her. - Let's extend that to a second performer joins her and but this one is playing the flute. Now you can hear the flute at a different height than the guitar to the left of it. - More to that another singer joins with a tambourine. The tambourine is below her voice. You hear that too. But every once in a while the performer raises it above her head. You hear this as well. You can hear the movement of the tambourine as it moves upwards. If she alternates the beats one below one above you can hear that too. - The singers are on the stage and the audience is below .When they clap you can hear the clapping lower than the performers. A drum set. The cymbals are higher than the drums and the toms. The treble gives you the illusion that it is higher when we hear it but that is just a perceptional illusion. With height speakers we can make a more convincing illusion. The singer taps/stomps his feet while singing. Now you can hear where the stomp comes from. You are right though I searched for music with height recordings and came up with zilch. Right now I think we use speakers that are larger in size to get a big center image. Gives you the illusion of height. But it's not real height though. It can't do what those things I described are. |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on May 31, 2016 12:13:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 31, 2016 15:47:38 GMT -5
The short answer there is that there isn't much music recorded in surround sound, and virtually all of that is 5.1 (and not 7.1). (And, other than by synthesizing it, in order to do height channels, you'd have to hang microphones from the ceiling; my guess is that none of the existing content was recorded that way.) And, to be blunt, while raindrops, and killer drones, and bullet ricochets, may normally be heard from above - there aren't too many musical instruments that fly - and "room height ambience" doesn't seem to be a priority. Note that Atmos does in fact have a synthesis mode.... Well of course there aren't instruments on the ceiling. But wouldn't this seriously improve the 3d body of instruments? For instance just take a choir on risers. Right there is a compelling reason for taking advantage of height. Here are some more compelling reasons for height. -How about a female singer standing and playing a guitar. Now you can hear her voice standing and the guitar below her. - Let's extend that to a second performer joins her and but this one is playing the flute. Now you can hear the flute at a different height than the guitar to the left of it. - More to that another singer joins with a tambourine. The tambourine is below her voice. You hear that too. But every once in a while the performer raises it above her head. You hear this as well. You can hear the movement of the tambourine as it moves upwards. If she alternates the beats one below one above you can hear that too. - The singers are on the stage and the audience is below .When they clap you can hear the clapping lower than the performers. A drum set. The cymbals are higher than the drums and the toms. The treble gives you the illusion that it is higher when we hear it but that is just a perceptional illusion. With height speakers we can make a more convincing illusion. The singer taps/stomps his feet while singing. Now you can hear where the stomp comes from. You are right though I searched for music with height recordings and came up with zilch. Right now I think we use speakers that are larger in size to get a big center image. Gives you the illusion of height. But it's not real height though. It can't do what those things I described are. I already have it. It is called Magnepan! ☺ |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs 
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,261
|
Post by stiehl11 on May 31, 2016 16:11:31 GMT -5
The short answer there is that there isn't much music recorded in surround sound, and virtually all of that is 5.1 (and not 7.1). (And, other than by synthesizing it, in order to do height channels, you'd have to hang microphones from the ceiling; my guess is that none of the existing content was recorded that way.) And, to be blunt, while raindrops, and killer drones, and bullet ricochets, may normally be heard from above - there aren't too many musical instruments that fly - and "room height ambience" doesn't seem to be a priority. Note that Atmos does in fact have a synthesis mode.... Well of course there aren't instruments on the ceiling. But wouldn't this seriously improve the 3d body of instruments? For instance just take a choir on risers. Right there is a compelling reason for taking advantage of height. Here are some more compelling reasons for height. -How about a female singer standing and playing a guitar. Now you can hear her voice standing and the guitar below her. - Let's extend that to a second performer joins her and but this one is playing the flute. Now you can hear the flute at a different height than the guitar to the left of it. - More to that another singer joins with a tambourine. The tambourine is below her voice. You hear that too. But every once in a while the performer raises it above her head. You hear this as well. You can hear the movement of the tambourine as it moves upwards. If she alternates the beats one below one above you can hear that too. - The singers are on the stage and the audience is below .When they clap you can hear the clapping lower than the performers. A drum set. The cymbals are higher than the drums and the toms. The treble gives you the illusion that it is higher when we hear it but that is just a perceptional illusion. With height speakers we can make a more convincing illusion. The singer taps/stomps his feet while singing. Now you can hear where the stomp comes from. You are right though I searched for music with height recordings and came up with zilch. Right now I think we use speakers that are larger in size to get a big center image. Gives you the illusion of height. But it's not real height though. It can't do what those things I described are. Where the hell do you listen to live music, in the orchestra pit? |
|
|
|
Post by bradford on May 31, 2016 16:28:04 GMT -5
The short answer there is that there isn't much music recorded in surround sound, and virtually all of that is 5.1 (and not 7.1). (And, other than by synthesizing it, in order to do height channels, you'd have to hang microphones from the ceiling; my guess is that none of the existing content was recorded that way.) And, to be blunt, while raindrops, and killer drones, and bullet ricochets, may normally be heard from above - there aren't too many musical instruments that fly - and "room height ambience" doesn't seem to be a priority. Note that Atmos does in fact have a synthesis mode.... Well, those with a system capable of playing Object based material is still pretty limited so there probably isn't much of a market there for music right now. Coupled with the fact that music in current surround formats only accounts for a small percentage of sales makes me think there isn't much revenue to be made. You'd think though we'd see some 'demo' type recordings in the coming year. The only immersive format being actively used for music is Auro-3D. It has its roots in music recording and its upmixer Auromatic has its focus on creating room reflections instead of steering sound sources. There is a limited number of Blu-ray music only recordings: www.auro-3d.com/consumer/bluraythese are lesser known artists and it reminds me of the old direct to disk sheffield records in terms of selection. They are releasing much more music than movies on Blu-ray (much to the dismay of those videophiles who bought it to enjoy movies in native 3D). The Dolby and DTS 3D upmixers have not been favorably received for music as they tend to periodically place instruments or voices in odd locations. Auromatic keeps the front sound stage intact. Atmos and DTS:X maybe good if the music is recorded in that format but it does not seem that they were developed for that use. |
|
