|
|
Post by xmc on Jul 8, 2014 4:17:16 GMT -5
Will the XMC-1 decode Dolby Atmos?
|
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Jul 8, 2014 4:28:02 GMT -5
I can't help but think it could be on the cards. Atmos would be a good excuse for the most recent delays.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Post by xmc on Jul 8, 2014 4:57:09 GMT -5
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,098
|
Post by klinemj on Jul 8, 2014 5:42:38 GMT -5
Well, that's not "all", but yes...many have. So far, it has not been announced for the XMC, but I would expect a TI-based machine from Emotiva that is Atmos capable at some point. My guess would be less than a year using what was previously named the RMC-1 during its development. But that is just speculation.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Jul 8, 2014 5:52:34 GMT -5
Not quite xmc ; From the link ; onkyo yes pioneer no [ if there still major after the takeover  ] Depends on the type and configuration of the processing chipset ; note the integra 30.6 has dual 32bit processing ;the xmc1 has dual 32bit dual core .. Anyway another way to look at this is bd players with built in atmos decoding ; oppo is perfectly setup for this with hdmi 1.4 inputs for streaming dd+ atmos feeds from the web and a couple of analog outs for the ceiling speakers for next years models . There's a dollar to be made for those bd player ce's that don't sell atmos avr's  |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jul 8, 2014 6:17:06 GMT -5
So why do YOU want Atmos in the XMC with so many entry level AVRs offering it? Seems like that would be the way to go if you really wanted Atmos, no? Also I'm curious as to how you are going to integrate those ceiling speakers and you do know that this first release of Atmos isn't object based, so it is really a very watered down version of what is in theaters now. I would wait a few gens to see how that pans out myself because object based placement is really the next big thing. Atmos sounded great until the details started to come out.  Lots of misguided folks are going to be ripping up their sound rooms and not really get the full benefits at first. Oh well I guess the OEMs got the masses a reason to upgrade their low level AVRs, right? And when will we see DTS' answer to this? DTS is in way more home titles than Dolby. I'll bet that will give everyone else yet another reason to upgrade again in 6 months. I was all pumped about the new Pioneer AVRs coming out but with all of this to consider, I think I'll wait until this shakes out. In the meantime I'll just read about all the "fun" the early adopters are having over at other forums later this year. But to answer the OP's question: No. But if there is an upgrade available it will mean it can be a 5.1.2 setup due to the 7.1 outs. A better idea is to see if bluray manufacturers come out with their 7.1 analog out players that can output a 5.1.2 Atmos config so that the millions and millions of 5.1/7.1 users out there today can just try it out with a player change. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by Lsc on Jul 8, 2014 7:14:40 GMT -5
My guess is no as an upgrade, maybe in a new version of the XMC-1 but then we are talking several more years down the road.
It's another big technology change like 4K where it'll take awhile to sort itself out..Not too interested at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jul 8, 2014 8:15:07 GMT -5
At present the XMC-1 is not Atmos enabled. I cannot speak for the future, but as of this moment in time (8:02am CST)the XMC-1 does not support Atmos. For the record, if everything Dolby says about Atmos in the home is true, THE ONLY difference between an existing 5.1/7.1 setup now versus one with Atmos, is the inclusion of ceiling channels. Minus 2 or 4 ceiling speakers you are NOT getting anything new or different than what you already have with Dolby TrueHD via Dolby Atmos.
The second caveat to all of this is in fact DTS. DTS has their version of Atmos coming soon -likely around the same time Atmos products actually start selling. The DTS format, as I understand it, IS object based opposed to Atmos in the home which is not -okay maybe the ceiling channels are "technically" objects, but your main 5.1/7.1 setup is decidedly not. Also, the DTS format is proving to be far less processor intensive, meaning its adoption could be more widespread and easier to accommodate than Atmos (speculation based on early reports). Regardless, it's too early to jump aboard the "XMC-1 is obsolete" train at this time. Sure there are products that have been announced with Atmos support, however they're not for sale yet, DTS hasn't lowered the boom, and frankly, a lot of those products said they were HDMI 2.0/2.2/4K/UHD ready and, well, the CEA just modified the UHD standard last week making many of those claims no longer 100% accurate.
In other words, the sky isn't falling, nor should anyone be losing any sleep over all of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Jul 8, 2014 8:24:13 GMT -5
^ Thanks Andrew, I wonder no more.
Cheers,
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jul 8, 2014 8:52:37 GMT -5
In addition to what I said above, there are two ways or possibilities where the XMC-1 could be made Atmos compatible IN THE FUTURE.
Option 1) If a Blu-ray player were released with Atmos decoding built-in, then routing the 5.1.2 analog outs of the player to the XMC-1's 7.1 analog inputs (connecting the back channels to the ceiling outputs on the player) and letting the player decode the stream would effectively make the XMC-1 compatible.
Option 2) This has NOT been confirmed nor promised, but if there were a firmware update that would allow for the XMC-1's back channels to be configurable to either back or ceiling channels by the user, then the XMC-1 could -in theory -be either a 7.2 or a 5.1.2 AV processor. AGAIN THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL, JUST HYPOTHETICAL!!!
Again, don't go believing the XMC-1 is out of date etc. just yet. There is a lot that needs to be worked out for all the manufacturers, not just Emotiva, before we start drawing lines in the sand.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jul 8, 2014 9:07:31 GMT -5
This thread really should be merged with the existing Atmos thread here.
While I may sound a bit more reserved than when I first heard about this, object based sound is the future of HT audio so I am excited about that.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jul 8, 2014 9:11:25 GMT -5
Filmixer, what hardware for home users coming out this year are using object based modeling?
I thought it was zero from what i read so far on other forums.
So yes while the FUTURE of this format is exciting, what we as consumers have for choices this year isn't what you just described, correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jul 8, 2014 9:32:17 GMT -5
So is Atmos for the home really going to be of utility or will it be just another THX Certification that manufacturers are happy to slap on the faceplates of their AVR's?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 8, 2014 9:50:51 GMT -5
* I agree with most of what you said in principle.... and I do agree entirely that all surrounds should handle frequencies down to 80 Hz. (I know many speakers that reach easily down to 80 Hz using 4" drivers - which I consider to be midranges - although some folks would say they are more properly "mid/bass units". Perhaps I was a bit confusing with my terminology there.  I've never heard a system where any of the surrounds were crossed over above 100 Hz that didn't sound "off".) Theory suggests that audible directionality stops around 80 Hz or 100 Hz, and most decent systems use that as the lower limit for their surrounds. * The (few) "Atmos speakers" shown so far do seem to include a midrange and tweeter for height - although I haven't seen any published specs abut how low they run. * Passively dividing the frequencies received by the "Atmos top car" and routing some of them to the already existing front drivers would be prohibitively complicated. There would be so many issues involved in doing so that it would be cheaper and easier to simply move the top-mounted midrange to the front, as a separate driver, and keep the wiring the same. (But, if you do that, you might as well leave it on top with the tweeter where it belongs.) * Reducing interference between the drivers is something that can be controlled in the mix itself - by limiting the duration of signals that remain in both the front and top speaker. Comb filter effects would only be audible in cases where a signal is carried more or less equally in the front main and front top channel, and "holds still" long enough for interference to be noticed. It seems obvious to me that, since the top speakers are bounced off the ceiling, which makes them very dependent on room conditions, and the top speakers on many systems will be, shall we say, less than impressive to begin with, the best sounding mixes will avoid relying on them to support accurate localization or, for that matter, any important sounds. (In other words, they'll be used for things swooshing and flying back and over your head, and for things like rain - which is solely in the top channels. and you won't see many mixes where anyone positions an "important source" directly between the front main and front top for more than a split second.) Bear in mind that, while you can correct the EQ for those top speakers, you have little control over the directionality you'll end up with - which will depend on the shape of the room, the texture of the ceiling, and such things. You are simply not going to get the same directional control by bouncing off a ceiling as you get in a real theater system - with real ceiling speakers. Since a large percentage of home systems will end up with this speaker configuration, it would make sense to create mixes that sound good on them... by avoiding "asking too much" of those top speakers. The Atmos top speakers seem destined to carry pretty much the same sort of signals as surrounds do - so I would expect the separate top speakers (and the "top sections" of speakers that combine both) to be more or less equivalent to regular surrounds. This would suggest a midrange and tweeter in most cases. I haven't seen any specific specs, so they may not have to go as low as normal surrounds, in which case a smaller mid-woofer might suffice, but it seems simpler to use the same settings for them. The second question is more interesting. Bass management is used because, in a normal surround system, any given speaker could be full range or small. If the Atmos spec specifically limits the top speakers to being "small" (maybe limiting the frequencies they receive to above 100 hz or 200 Hz), then there would be no need for bass management. However, I think this is sort of a moot question. As far as I know, all of those top speakers are wired as entirely separate speakers - with their own binding posts - and requiring their own amplifier channels. As such, it makes sense to handle the bass management for them (if any is needed) in the pre/pro or AVR - along with the bass management for the other speakers, and the decoding functions. (You would simply treat each "top section", even if it is attached to a regular speaker, as a completely separate top surround.) Since they are really only useful with Atmos content, being played on an Atmos-enabled AVR or pre/pro, which is going to be driving them as separate channels, and which is going to include any bass management that may be necessary for them, I don't see any benefit to their having autonomous bass management. I believe psychoacoustic theory regards localization in the height dimension to be possible only with high frequency content, like 5 kHz and above. Perhaps actual experiments indicate otherwise, but I wonder if a ceiling facing mid-woofer is even necessary. Either way, that 4" mid woofer is going to lose its directivity in the vicinity of 3 kHz, so frequencies below this will sound essentially the same coming from either the front or the top. Then, one possible design is to only provide a tweeter in top and use active (or passive?) circuitry to send the lower frequencies (below the tweeter range) in each overhead channel to the front facing woofers of the speaker that handles that channel. I can imagine a few reasons to want to keep a mid woofer up on top, depending on how Atmos works and what features are available on the receivers that implement it. Most likely, the overhead channels will be full-range, or at least restricted to something like 200 Hz, and receivers will not offer the option to redirect sound below the tweeter range to the front-facing mid and bass woofers. (I wonder if this could be accomplished passively in the speaker?) Supposing such clever "mids & bass management" technology did exist, one might want the top-facing mid-woofer to reduce comb filtering in the crossover response, even though, ironically the presence of the reflective ceiling is itself a contributor of comb filtering at and below roughly 3 kHz. Also, the notion that surrounds need not handle the same duties as the fronts is largely outdated, in my opinion. Many if not most modern film sound tracks, not to mention surround music, treat the surrounds as full-range. I believe theaters calibrate their surrounds 3 dB lower than they do the fronts, but Blu-ray releases don't necessarily preserve this level difference, especially since many "for the home" remixes get boosts to the surrounds to correct for the psychoacoustic effect of diminished loudness at lower playback levels. Of course, plenty of people out there use speakers with weak response below 200 Hz in conjunction with a sub woofer, albeit with localization problems and poor quality upper bass. From a sound quality standpoint, I believe most would be better served with 5 channels that perform well down to 80 Hz than a setup with more channels but higher crossovers on the surrounds or overhead speakers. That's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by pop on Jul 8, 2014 10:09:03 GMT -5
So is Atmos for the home really going to be of utility or will it be just another THX Certification that manufacturers are happy to slap on the faceplates of their AVR's? I do see Atmos as something that is going to be hard for most of us to integrate into our homes should we decide to. To even begin toying with it, a dedicated HT room IMO is mandatory. A perfectly designed HT room at that. It can be difficult enough to incorporate 5/7/9 channels perfectly over many different seats, let alone adding these accent channels for directional sounds. There are many more factors to take into account here such as size of display and size of room to keep the scale right, how many seats in the room and their location to the speakers. I think it will be great for commercial rooms, but I see it causing a lot of heartache in the home. Something I am noticing with the Pendragons is the sound just got really really large and full. As Andrew had stated the size of your display should be to scale with the encompassing sound these speakers throw. I think about adding speakers that will pinpoint exact location, and the first thing that comes to mind is a very large immersive display would be necessary. In short, I think it will just be another THX certification for MOST home theaters. However it will be a good standard for commercial rooms. I am excited to hear it in action. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 8, 2014 10:35:25 GMT -5
I've got to jump in here - and suggest that you look at the actual information available so far... If you read Dolby's marketing material carefully, you will note that "Atmos" is more of "an ecosystem" than it is a specific product or CODEC. Cinema Atmos allows sound engineers to mix using the widely touted "10 bed channels plus 118 discrete objects", and theaters equipped with Cinema Atmos equipment will be able to play them to full advantage. (Although one wonders how many theaters will install the full 32 or 64 speakers - and how easily you'll be able to tell which theaters sporting the Atmos logo actually have "the full implementation".) However, you'll also be able to buy "Atmos" for your smart phone, which will provide "a convincing sense of height and 3D realism" from the single pair of drivers in a pair of cheap earbuds (and I'm sort of guessing that your iPhone won't sound exactly as "convincingly 3D" as a theater with 64 speakers.) In short, other than "it's wonderful", and "it includes 3D height channels", and "coming soon - to EVERY AV reciever, smart phone, and who knows what else", there is oddly LITTLE detailed information available about Atmos Home - especially considering that it will be available for sale quite soon. But (again), if you read the current Dolby marketing literature carefully, you'll see lots of references to Cinema Atmos, and a lot about how the "object paradigm" allows creative folks like sound engineers to "better bring their vision to reality", and a lot about the discrete placement of objects amongst all those speakers in CINEMA Atmos. We then jump to claims that Home Theater Atmos, while it will work on current systems, "will be able to take advantage of more speakers as home systems that support them become available". However, what I DON'T see are specific claims about things like how many (if any) discrete objects Home Theater Atmos will actually support, and certainly nothing to suggest that it works in the same way, or can provide the same experience as, the cinema version. Considering that DTS competing home system (soon to be released) does specifically support discrete object positioning - and makes a major point of talking about it at every possible opportunity, and considering how much Dolby likes to talk about this aspect of Cinema Atmos, this seems like a curious - even suspicious - omission to me. (It also begs another interesting question... If the current crop of products will be labelled "Atmos capable", and assuming that future products with more capabilities come out later, how will they be differentiated? Will you be buying a new "Atmos 2015" AVR to update the "Atmos 2014" model you buy in November, then wondering if it's really worth upgrading again to "Atmos 2016" the following year? Ouch!) Now, honestly, I had a Yamaha AVR years ago that had height channels and the experience was... err... less than compelling. I know that Cinema Atmos sounds nice, and I'm - cautiously optimistic - about Home Atmos... but I'll wait to hear it in some real-world systems before I get excited.  (In fact, I'm going to do my best to NOT get excited, even if it works well, until I hear what DTS has to offer as competition. Wouldn't it really suck to buy an "Atmos AVR" this year, then have to buy a "DTS UHD AVR" next year?) Andrew.. I saw your video on Home Atmos.. You seem to have some misconceptions of how it works, and how it compares to the cinema version. You state "instead of using discrete channels like we've been used to with the sound codecs this far, sound engineers now have a new level of flexibility in that sounds are location or object based." It's both, not one or the other. Theatrical Atmos allows you to use both channels and objects. So does the home version... Here are the key differences: In the cinema we can access the overheads as arrays within the channel bed... for the home there is no channel reserved for the overheads (9.1 vs. 7.1 for the bed..) The total number of objects will be less (max number in the cinema is 118, don't have an exact number yet for the home.) The objects will still be rendered on the fly.. The announced products so far are indeed limited to 7.1.4.. or 9.1.2 However the home version supports 24 room and 10 overhead speakers vs a total of 62 discrete speaker outputs for the cinema... If there was information that was in the discrete 9.1 bed in the OH, it can be rendered as a stationary object..... if there was an object that was to move overhead it will render on the fly as needed. Where did Dolby say the ceiling information was not discrete? There certainly isn't a channel bed dedicated to it, but there will be discrete OH information from objects placed there.. You are intimating that the home version will change the intent of where I place a sound... if I want it locked to the right channel I can do so by placing it in the R channel of the bed or playing it as an object with it's panner sent there.. However, as in your example, if I want it to be a little more in the room, it will render as such and not only come out of the R speaker.. All of the products so far are just updates to existing SKU's in the respective makers line up... it was an easy change for them.. There are those that will want to add even more channels than the "reference" 7.1.4 setups that are quickly coming down the pike... and the sound scape will expand to fit the capability. It can be argued that the differences from what we have not over 7.1 might not be that revolutionary... however, some of the benefits become much more apparent when the available speaker outputs exceed the size of the channel bed payload (i.e. the panning of an object from front L to rear L without the overheads, won't sound any different if played back as an object or it is rendered into the 7.1 bed in a 5.1 or 7.1 system... add more speakers like front wide and some surround and now the difference becomes much more audible..) Make no mistake that while there are differences, but I think your categorization of them is a little misinformed, and from what I've heard of the codec so far, I'm impressed... and that's only based on the first generation of products.... I think it's an easy conceit to agree that it's hard enough to get people to setup a 5.1 system, no less 7.1, properly... Dolby Elevation is a really great solution for many existing consumers... While the initial product roll out might indeed not be revolutionary, Dolby seems to be taking a difference approach for their launch and going inside out.... I'm excited... You seem to be skeptical. Can't wait for you to experience it... And to think we're only at the tip of the iceberg.... I can't wait to see what MDA, DTS-UHD, AC4 and all the other innovations coming down the pipeline have to offer us. |
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Jul 8, 2014 11:04:07 GMT -5
The bottom line is that Atmos is great for theaters, and Dolby wants to make more $$$ by selling "a version" of Atmos to the home market.
This is typical of the cycle of the Commercial Theater getting a technology, and then a version of it being adapted for home use, and then a new technology for the Commercial Theater to stay ahead.
Remember movies were originally 4:3, and then went to widescreen; movies were originally B&W and went to color; movies were originally mono and went to stereo, then from stereo to surround. Movies were originally 2-D, then many went 3-D, never mind I-max.
The cycle continues, it's just with the movie studios not owning the theaters, they can't develop their own technology and keep it out of the home theater.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Jul 8, 2014 11:35:08 GMT -5
Two channel rules!!! In my home.... |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 8, 2014 11:46:40 GMT -5
At present the XMC-1 is not Atmos enabled. I cannot speak for the future, but as of this moment in time (8:02am CST)the XMC-1 does not support Atmos. For the record, if everything Dolby says about Atmos in the home is true, THE ONLY difference between an existing 5.1/7.1 setup now versus one with Atmos, is the inclusion of ceiling channels. Minus 2 or 4 ceiling speakers you are NOT getting anything new or different than what you already have with Dolby TrueHD via Dolby Atmos. That is the same as saying "the only difference between an Atmos-enabled unit and a non-Atmos-enabled unit, is Atmos The second caveat to all of this is in fact DTS. DTS has their version of Atmos coming soon -likely around the same time Atmos products actually start selling. The DTS format, as I understand it, IS object based opposed to Atmos in the home which is not -okay maybe the ceiling channels are "technically" objects, but your main 5.1/7.1 setup is decidedly not. Also, the DTS format is proving to be far less processor intensive, meaning its adoption could be more widespread and easier to accommodate than Atmos (speculation based on early reports). Regardless, it's too early to jump aboard the "XMC-1 is obsolete" train at this time. Sure there are products that have been announced with Atmos support, however they're not for sale yet, DTS hasn't lowered the boom, and frankly, a lot of those products said they were HDMI 2.0/2.2/4K/UHD ready and, well, the CEA just modified the UHD standard last week making many of those claims no longer 100% accurate. In other words, the sky isn't falling, nor should anyone be losing any sleep over all of this. Andrew - the announced range of Atmos-enabled units are all object-based. It doesn't make sense to say that the "ceiling channels" are 'technically objects". For a start they are not channels - they are speakers. Nor does it make sense to say that the "main 5.1/7.1 setup is decidedly not (object-based)". Atmos for the home is an object-based system, period. You seem to be confusing channels, speakers and objects. All that the currently announced version of Atmos lacks is that the rendering engine does not measure azimuth and elevation angles for the speakers (nor does it allow those angles to be entered manually unfortunately). This means that the speakers have to be placed where Atmos expects them to be placed, rather than their location being measured and 'known' to the AVR. This is a shame but it is not a big deal for those who are able to place ceiling speakers in the recommended positions, and it is no deal at all for those using Atmos-enabled speakers or add-on modules. All of the benefits of home Atmos will be available with the current range of Atmos-enabled units, so far announced. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jul 8, 2014 12:00:48 GMT -5
This thread really should be merged with the existing Atmos thread here. Agreed, since we can read on the product page that the XMC-1 doesn't include Atmos, this thread seems more intent on pointing out that the XMC-1 doesn't have it rather than actually discussing the merits of Atmos. |
|
]
I've never heard a system where any of the surrounds were crossed over above 100 Hz that didn't sound "off".) Theory suggests that audible directionality stops around 80 Hz or 100 Hz, and most decent systems use that as the lower limit for their surrounds.
