|
|
Post by Mountainbiking Fool on Feb 16, 2019 10:47:02 GMT -5
In my theater, I am running an 11.1 system and I am looking to update it to either a 7.1.4 with the Denon 6500 or a 9.1.4 with the Denon 8500. My question is, If I go with the 6500, I will lose the "wide"speakers setup. For those of you that use to run wide speakers, if you don't have them now, do you miss them? can you tell the difference?
I have been doing some research online and have found that the wides are kind of important in the sound stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Feb 16, 2019 11:00:39 GMT -5
Atmos uses wides for object sound only. Some processors use a derived or synthesized wide signal for Atmos, but I think that detracts from proper object sound XYZ encoding. DTS-X uses wides, I think. I have a 7.1.4 Atmos system without wides because my room is too narrow to accommodate them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 16, 2019 17:15:10 GMT -5
In my theater, I am running an 11.1 system and I am looking to update it to either a 7.1.4 with the Denon 6500 or a 9.1.4 with the Denon 8500. My question is, If I go with the 6500, I will lose the "wide"speakers setup. For those of you that use to run wide speakers, if you don't have them now, do you miss them? can you tell the difference? I have been doing some research online and have found that the wides are kind of important in the sound stage. I haven't tried every 4K Atmos/DTS-X movie but I am up to over 30 now and none of them, not a single one uses anymore than 7.1.4. Maybe in the future, but not so far. Of course I can use the DTS HDMA or the Dolby True HD sound track and upmix it so that it plays through more than 7.1.4, but that's not Atmos/DTSX is it? If anyone has found one please let me know, I'd love to experience it. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Feb 16, 2019 23:11:33 GMT -5
In my theater, I am running an 11.1 system and I am looking to update it to either a 7.1.4 with the Denon 6500 or a 9.1.4 with the Denon 8500. My question is, If I go with the 6500, I will lose the "wide"speakers setup. For those of you that use to run wide speakers, if you don't have them now, do you miss them? can you tell the difference? I have been doing some research online and have found that the wides are kind of important in the sound stage. I haven't tried every 4K Atmos/DTS-X movie but I am up to over 30 now and none of them, not a single one uses anymore than 7.1.4. Maybe in the future, but not so far. Of course I can use the DTS HDMA or the Dolby True HD sound track and upmix it so that it plays through more than 7.1.4, but that's not Atmos/DTSX is it? If anyone has found one please let me know, I'd love to experience it. Cheers Gary Do you have a Dolby licensed/approved 9.1.6 capable receiver? I know I’ve attached that avsforum reference for you a number of times. I think having a capable receiver is necessary before you listen to the movies. It’s been verified the storm audio was only 7.1.4 without upmixing until only recently with Dolby’s release. If all your movies are Disney or DTS that would amaze me. Wether Denon is capable is a whole nother thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 17, 2019 1:52:36 GMT -5
I haven't tried every 4K Atmos/DTS-X movie but I am up to over 30 now and none of them, not a single one uses anymore than 7.1.4. Maybe in the future, but not so far. Of course I can use the DTS HDMA or the Dolby True HD sound track and upmix it so that it plays through more than 7.1.4, but that's not Atmos/DTSX is it? If anyone has found one please let me know, I'd love to experience it. Do you have a Dolby licensed/approved 9.1.6 capable receiver? I know I’ve attached that avsforum reference for you a number of times. I think having a capable receiver is necessary before you listen to the movies. It’s been verified the storm audio was only 7.1.4 without upmixing until only recently with Dolby’s release. If all your movies are Disney or DTS that would amaze me. Wether Denon is capable is a whole nother thing. The AVS forum reference hasn't been any help, It's hugely long with many contradictions, for example one person says a movie is 9.1.6 and then almost immediately multiple others say it isn't. Many times I have checked a movie only to find that its 7.1.4 with Atmos but the poster was talking about more channels using the True HD track with an up mixer. Maybe there's a true 9.1.6 movie in there but I haven't stumbled across it yet FWIW, the Storm processor, that I borrow, was upgraded to 9.1.6 before Xmas, as I understand it that involved both hardware and software. The upgrade came with a Dolby 9.1.6 set up (sample) disc. Cheers Gary |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 17, 2019 8:58:41 GMT -5
I always thought Dolby Atmos being object and NOT channel based, used all available resources.
So there really should not be a 7.1.4 or a 9.1.6 or x.y.z disc, only equipment capability stating those numbers so users know how many speakers they need in a particular setup.
Is this not happening? Anyone know why?
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Feb 17, 2019 9:47:08 GMT -5
I always thought Dolby Atmos being object and NOT channel based, used all available resources. So there really should not be a 7.1.4 or a 9.1.6 or x.y.z disc, only equipment capability stating those numbers so users know how many speakers they need in a particular setup. Is this not happening? Anyone know why? Nobody knows crap. I'm beginning to believe that even Dolby doesn't know how to control Atmos in the market. This may kill immersive sound. DTS is no help - just throws more doubt on how to set up speaker locations. This whole field is a mess. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Feb 17, 2019 10:51:17 GMT -5
There’s got to be someone in the RMC-1 forum that is running wides and can verify there is some activity cross referencing the avsforum thread or not. It was my understanding there wasn’t disagreement as to wether objects played through the wides but there was the opinion by some there wasn’t enough activity for their liking so they matrixed content into the speakers or changed their duty. I could of read into it wrong but I don’t think so. Hopefully I’ll do it soon and chime in here. Still hearing some glitches so I’m not in a rush to get mine running. Have a lot to seal up anyways. And you’re right mgpuff this new idea of DTS:X pro just throws a wrench in any future expansion plans. Although I do like the idea of 1 top center and a front center over 2 middle height speakers. It seems we’re in an exploratory stage. Might be a while for everything to be ironed out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 17, 2019 15:15:33 GMT -5
I always thought Dolby Atmos being object and NOT channel based, used all available resources. So there really should not be a 7.1.4 or a 9.1.6 or x.y.z disc, only equipment capability stating those numbers so users know how many speakers they need in a particular setup. Is this not happening? Anyone know why? Many things are “not happening”, firstly there is confusion between Cinema Atmos and HT Atmos, which is not helped by Dolby, they often don’t differentiate between the 2, some say deliberately. They claim the “as many channels/speakers as you like” to differentiate Atmos from DTS-X which is 7.1.4 (currently). Then, at the behest of the movie studios, Dolby introduced software that facilitated pinning to 7.1.4 over Dolby True HD (for discs) and then over Dolby Digital 5.1 (for streaming). Space on the disc and bandwidth being the limitations. Keeping in mind that a Cinema Atmos movie is played from a hard drive not a disc/s. More relevant is that many processors to date can’t handle more than 7.1.4, this is a processor chip hardware limitation most often, although sometimes some can be upgraded with software. This is also often confused by users choosing the Dolby True HD track with an up mixer (DSU) so that more than 7.1.4 channels/speakers are active. But it ain’t Atmos. In summary, we can have discs that are deliberately limited in their channels/speakers, we can have streamed Atmos that is lossy (over DD5.1) and/or we can have processor limitations to 7.1.4 despite there being more outputs physically available. Then we can have movies that have no pinning but there is next to zero content played out of anything more than 7.1.4. Good luck working through that minefield. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Creature on Feb 17, 2019 15:25:25 GMT -5
I have a Marantz AV8802A hooked up as 9.2.4. Granted, at any given moment, the AV8802A is only
capable of driving at most 11 of the full range channel outputs. I also have a RMC-1 since
January 4th but only opened the box for the first time yesterday to perform the firmware upgrade.
It might be a while before switching over to the RMC-1, letting the firmware mature before
pressing into duty. I do think it's close though and do find my excitment growing.
Because of the AV8802A's 11 channel limit, to get the wides involved, I temporarily change
either the back surrounds or rear height channels from "small" to "none". Doing so nudges
some of the upmixers or decoders (including Atmos) to then enable the wides.
The UHD/HDR Blu-Ray of John Wick is my current go to reference for testing wides during Atmos
playback. There is a scene near the end of the movie that takes place on a shipping dock.
It has John driving a car around and lots of gun shots. That scene very much results in
Atmos objects being played through the wides. So much so that I prefer disabling the rear
heights in favor of the wides when approaching that scene.
Other scenes in John Wick take place inside buildings with what sounds like rain falling on
the roof above. Those scenes sound best with the full complement of four (or more) overhead
speakers enabled.
With wides enabled during the John Wick dock scene, there are only the objects making use
of the wides. The 7.1 base layer (non-object portion of the audio content) only plays
through the LCR, LFE, side and rear surrounds. Objects, however, are summed into the output
of any enabled channels, assuming that an object's XYZ coordinates place it relatively close
to where that channel is assumed to be located within the listening room.
Remember that Atmos done properly does not constrain an object to having a static XYZ
coordinate during the life of that object. It is very much a part of the technology
that objects are free to move around in three dimensional space, assuming that doing so
is consistent with the artist's intent. It is the job of the end user's Atmos processor
to do its best to map the objects into the available speakers.
I do suspect that some Atmos sound tracks circumvent the object technology by creating
just four overhead objects with static XYZ coordinates. XYZ coordinates presumed to
be where the average consumer places their four overhead speakers. They then mix and
pan overhead sounds into those four objects, treating them as little more than static
channels. Apparently Disney is guilty of this laziness/ineptitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 18, 2019 5:56:12 GMT -5
Apparently Disney is guilty of this laziness/ineptitude. I thought I’d pick this comment out first. Since DTS-X is 7.1.4 (currently) does that mean that every movie studio that chooses DTS-X (over Atmos) is also equally lazy/inept? Since Dolby provided the software to pin to 7.1.4 isn’t it them that is being lazy/inept? What about Dolby providing software to mix Atmos over Dolby Digital 5.1 ostensively for streaming, wouldn’t that be even more lazy/inept? My point is that pinning and using lossy DD5.1 has absolutely nothing to with being lazy or inept. Logically there are technical reasons for it, my guesses are; 1. Space on the disc. 2. Bandwidth for streamed content. 3. Processor chip capability (your 8802 is an example of that limitation) be it hardware and/or firmware limits. 4. DTS-X is stealing market share from Atmos because it’s simple to understand at 7.1.4 (terminology that consumers are used to ). 5. Dolby shot themselves in the foot with their deliberate confusion of the market by not properly differentiating between Cinema Atmos and HT Atmos. 6. Dolby forgot the golden rule, make sure that your product offering can run on the mainstream current and planned hardware and firmware. For sure ensure that it’s capable of future enhancements but don’t proclaim the future is already here, because it ain’t. If we want someone to hate on, personally Dolby would be my target, because they lied to me and continue to do so. FWIW a 5.1.2 John Wick review to follow in a separate post. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Creature on Feb 18, 2019 13:42:48 GMT -5
Hi Gary,
My reply was intended for the original poster. My purpose was to affirm that
there is at least some content in the wild that does take advantage of wides.
There are at least a few topics over at AVS Forum on the subject of exploiting
additional output channels, such as wides and more than four overheads. Some
examples are "Official Atmos Width Channel Exploiting Thread", "Exploitation of
Width Speakers AKA Wides", "The official Dolby Atmos 9.x.6 and beyond for Home
Theaters (single AV/Pro) thread", etc.
There are also discussions of this unfortunate use of "pinning" or "pre-rendering"
by some studios. Apparrently, discs that are labeled as "7.1.4 Atmos" are likely
affected and to be avoided, if one cares.
I don't want to debate the relative merits of DTS:X vs Atmos. In part, because
I'm not intellectually equiped to do so, nor do I have a horse in that race. If
we leave brand aside, I am a fan of the concept of objects. The idea being to
let the artists and studios define how they want the various audio elements to
be placed and rendered. This intent being expressed in the meta data packaged
as part of the object. The playback equipment is then responsible for rendering
those objects to the best of its ability, guided by the meta data and its
understanding of the output equipment and speaker locations.
Kind of an abstraction layer between the artist's intent and the specifics of the
playback equipment & room. Almost analagous to hypervisors and/or containers in
the world of information technology. If one were starting with state of the art
technology, no installed base, and consumers who are informed and with deep pockets,
then there would be no reason to even have the 7.1 or 5.1 base layer channels.
Dialogue and orchestral accompanyment could also be encoded as their own objects.
That is of course not the reality in which we find ourselves, so practicalities
abound.
I recognize and concede the validy of your points. Just making two points of my own.
1) I'm a fan of wides and do think they occassionally have relevance.
2) I'm a fan of the concept of objects, current realities aside.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountainbiking Fool on Feb 20, 2019 14:20:57 GMT -5
Thank you for the input. I think I will just save the $2000 and go with the Denon 6500 over the Denon 8500 and use the money for the ceiling speakers.
|
|
