|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jul 8, 2014 12:19:56 GMT -5
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. So if the speakers have to be placed where Atmos expects them to be placed -i.e. in a 5.1 or 7.1 configuration plus some ceiling speakers -does that not mean that the mix becomes "discrete" if not by default? It doesn't much matter then if the sound stem or object is an object at all if its always going to relegated to the right speaker or channel in a home setup (Atmos or not), versus the right side of a room or theater that utilizes a handful of speakers etc. as in a commercial Atmos setup. It's the Azimuth and elevation angles that make Atmos, Atmos. That and the control over individual objects, elements etc, which isn't present with Atmos in the home. I'm sorry, but so far a lot of this seems a bit like marketing slight of hand on behalf of Dolby. I'm not saying Atmos is worse, but you can call it object-based and non-discrete all you want, the fact remains, the format still relies heavily on speaker setups based on either a 5.1 or 7.1 configuration. Now, if the object is designed to emanate from the right side of the theater in a commercial setting and that can mean it (the sound object) uses anywhere between 1 and a dozen speakers at varying places and/or heights -that's great. But in the home market that same sound is going to come from the right speaker. If the sound warrants some "height" it may also include a right ceiling speaker, and that's appears to be all that Atmos in the home is promising -that or sounds mixed exclusively for ceiling speakers/channels. To play off your criticism of my initial post, the Atmos you're describing is like Atmos, without it being Atmos.  |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 8, 2014 13:42:42 GMT -5
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. So if the speakers have to be placed where Atmos expects them to be placed -i.e. in a 5.1 or 7.1 configuration plus some ceiling speakers -does that not mean that the mix becomes "discrete" if not by default? It doesn't much matter then if the sound stem or object is an object at all if its always going to relegated to the right speaker or channel in a home setup (Atmos or not), versus the right side of a room or theater that utilizes a handful of speakers etc. as in a commercial Atmos setup. It's the Azimuth and elevation angles that make Atmos, Atmos. That and the control over individual objects, elements etc, which isn't present with Atmos in the home. I'm sorry, but so far a lot of this seems a bit like marketing slight of hand on behalf of Dolby. I'm not saying Atmos is worse, but you can call it object-based and non-discrete all you want, the fact remains, the format still relies heavily on speaker setups based on either a 5.1 or 7.1 configuration. Now, if the object is designed to emanate from the right side of the theater in a commercial setting and that can mean it (the sound object) uses anywhere between 1 and a dozen speakers at varying places and/or heights -that's great. But in the home market that same sound is going to come from the right speaker. If the sound warrants some "height" it may also include a right ceiling speaker, and that's appears to be all that Atmos in the home is promising -that or sounds mixed exclusively for ceiling speakers/channels. To play off your criticism of my initial post, the Atmos you're describing is like Atmos, without it being Atmos. Andrew, I am sorry but you don't seem to understand what Atmos actually is, nor how it works. Your earlier post was full of misinformation and misunderstanding. Atmos units are already with us and we will be able to buy them in a couple of months. They are all object-enabled. You are confusing channels and speakers unfortunately and your remarks above confirm that. The location of the speakers has no real bearing on the object-enabled nature of the content. The speaker locations are 'fixed' in this iteration of Atmos solely because the units have no means of knowing the azimuth and elevation angles 'intelligently' but the objects will still be rendered to them properly so long as the speakers are in the recommended positions. All I can suggest is that, with respect, you read some more background material. As for DTS UHD, which you mentioned as 'coming' and as an alternative to Atmos, DTS haven’t even launched it in commerical theaters yet let alone in a domestic environment. To imply that it is 'coming soon' and could in some way derail Atmos is highly disnformational |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 8, 2014 13:46:17 GMT -5
I've got to chime in here - in support of logic and reality.... This thread seems to have deteriorated into an argument in semantics. The whole benefit of Cinema Atmos, and the fact that it is object based, is that objects can be placed INDEPENDENTLY OF THE SPEAKER LOCATIONS. This means that, with "real" (Cinema) Atmos, if an object is placed "left and ten degrees forward" of your seat, the Atmos system will play it so it sounds like that's where it is; if there's a speaker there, then it will come from that speaker; if there's no speaker there, but there are speakers on either side of that spot, then Atmos will play it from both - so the combined sound image sounds like it's coming from the correct location. Cinema Atmos knows where the object should be, knows where the available speakers are, and uses that information to "position" the object in the optimal speakers. This allows Cinema Atmos to position any object anywhere it belongs - almost totally independently of where the speakers are. (This would indeed be a useful feature for a home theater system.) You could be reductionist and say that TrueHD is also "object based" - but it only allows 7.1 objects (the 7.1 channels), and those objects are each limited to a single location (the normal location for that speaker). The whole benefit of Cinema Atmos, and what makes it better, is that the objects are able to be defined rather flexibly, and the location routing is FLEXIBLE, and so can be adapted to wherever your speakers are. If the "objects" in Home Atmos are limited to 5.4 or 7.4 or whatever, and the positioning of those objects is limited to "normal speaker positions", then there is no practical difference between it and TrueHD with some top channels added; the ability to ADAPTIVELY position objects to whatever speaker necessary to maintain the proper location for the object ISN'T THERE. (It's like when Henry Ford reportedly told customers that they could order the Model A "in any color they like - as long as they like black".) So, it's not at all like saying "the only difference between an Atmos-enabled unit and a non-Atmos-enabled unit, is Atmos" .... It's more like saying that "the only difference between an Atmos-enabled unit and a non-Atmos-enabled unit is the WORD Atmos in the marketing brochures". (And, from current information, it appears as if, other than the four extra top channels, this is indeed the case.) From everything I've read, the current Home Atmos system has a fixed set of channels, which are each routed to a specific speaker, at a specific (predetermined) location. (Calling them "objects" instead of "channels" doesn't change the functionality of this situation; and it lacks most of the benefits of "real" Cinema Atmos.) If you are aware of any specific information that contradicts this, then please direct Andrew, myself, and everyone else, to it. However, until such information presents itself, the only benefit for Home Atmos over TrueHD that has been specifically offered so far is "two or four height channels in addition to the normal main and surround channels.". 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 jmilton on Jul 8, 2014 13:48:30 GMT -5
Thanks for clearing the ATMOSphere... |
|
|
|
Post by thrillcat on Jul 8, 2014 13:49:41 GMT -5
Atmos units are already with us and we will be able to buy them in a couple of months. The location of the speakers has no real bearing on the object-enabled nature of the content. The speaker locations are 'fixed' in this iteration of Atmos solely because the units have no means of knowing the azimuth and elevation angles 'intelligently' but the objects will still be rendered to them properly so long as the speakers are in the recommended positions. Point 1: If we can't buy them for a couple months, they are not "already with us". Sorry, Keith. That's not how it works. Point 2: If the speakers are in fixed locations, and the coherence and quality of the surround/Atmos effect requires precise placement of speakers, regardless of how the processor derives the information, this is absolutely no different than TrueHD or DD5.1 or DTS-MA. What good is object based audio at this point if the processor can't properly place it based on where your speakers are/can be? At this point, whether the ceiling channels are discreet or not, they may as well be. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jul 8, 2014 13:56:40 GMT -5
I have to chime in here as well.
To emocustomer: previously you made plenty of disparaging comments about the XMC-1 and Dan and Emotiva, and were banned but here you are again which to me is a mystery as to why you were allowed back but it is what it is.
Now you are here going to great lengths to defend Atmos in the home, which at this point in time seems quite nebulous and is more vaporous than the XMC-1, which is in production and whose features, configuration, layout, etc. have been finalized into an actual product. It sounds to me like you are making lots of excuses and relying on semantics to defend Atmos, same as how you would criticize those who stood up for Dan, his company and the XMC-1.
So far, what Andrew and Keith have said makes a lot of sense and jibes with the information that has been released by Atmos. I find them to be a more credible source than you, based on what I have read so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 8, 2014 14:04:08 GMT -5
It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion when the participants seem to have little understanding of how Atmos works and what it is. All I can suggest is that those who are interested read more about it - there is now quite a lot of information available on the Internet. I can well understand that those who are enthusiastic about the XMC-1 would prefer Atmos not to even exist, but it does and units will be on the shelves in just a few weeks now, to buy, to take home and to install, with content also being available at launch.
|
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 8, 2014 14:10:15 GMT -5
I have to chime in here as well. To emocustomer: previously you made plenty of disparaging comments about the XMC-1 and Dan and Emotiva, and were banned but here you are again which to me is a mystery as to why you were allowed back but it is what it is. Now you are here going to great lengths to defend Atmos in the home, which at this point in time seems quite nebulous and is more vaporous than the XMC-1, which is in production and whose features, configuration, layout, etc. have been finalized into an actual product. It sounds to me like you are making lots of excuses and relying on semantics to defend Atmos, same as how you would criticize those who stood up for Dan, his company and the XMC-1. So far, what Andrew and Keith have said makes a lot of sense and jibes with the information that has been released by Atmos. I find them to be a more credible source than you, based on what I have read so far. What can I say? The information posted in the most recent posts is incorrect. Sorry, but it is. I don't understand the remark about being banned. I was in breach of forum rules, so I was told, and was banned as a result. Since being allowed t post here again, for which I thank Andrew, I have been scrupulously careful not to post anything which could even remotely being construed as insulting, or offensive and so on. But to simply point out that information being posted is incorrect surely cannot be a banning offense can it? I am not 'defending Atmos' at all - I am simply pointing out inaccuracies in recent posts. If you want to learn more about Atmos, there is plenty of information now available on how it works, what it is, and so on. What it absolutely, definitely, positively is NOT is a channel-based system. Please feel free to find my posts do not jibe with you. But that does not make them wrong and, in fact, if you believe that Atmos for the home is what has recently been posted here and that that is what Dolby are saying it is, then I also suggest further reading. |
|
|
|
Post by 2muchht on Jul 8, 2014 14:13:44 GMT -5
If you have seen the mixing console software for Atmos (which I have) you will quickly understand the difference between placing something in a hard "channel" vs. the way Atmos allows it to be put in a place in free space rather than the specific channel location. The benefit of Atmos (either in the theater or home) is that once it is set to know the number of speakers and their location it then calculates how the sound should be rendered out to the available speakers so that it is located in psycho-acoustic space as close as possible to where it was meant to be.
That is one of the reason why Dolby is promoting Elevation speakers rather than being limited to "ceiling" speakers. Presuming that the room conditions don't get in the way -- and clearly in some situations they will -- you can use the Elevations speakers that at least four or five brands will offer to deliver the desired result.
TO be fair and neutral, let's face the fact that Atmos may not yet be directly shipping, but products that will be software upgradeable to it are and more will be soon along with those having the Atmos software onboard. The "features, configuration, layout, etc." for the models from Pioneer, Onkyo, Denon and others HAVE "been finalized into actual products".
Not to criticize, but to state the fact, these products are or will shortly be shipping to PAYING END USER CONSUMERS while the unfortunate FACT is that the XMC-1, for whatever reason, just isn't. The signature feature of Atmos WAS shown in live demos last month at CE Week in New York. The signature feature of the XMC-1 was, again for whatever reasons and no malice meant here, NOT able to be demonstrated at the Atlanta event.
Again, not defending or damning either as there are pros and cons on both sides. However, until it actually ships to PAYING CUSTOMERS there is, unfortunately, no way to get around the fact that comparing the XMC's current state to that of Atmos products might be a bit different than you suggest.
Time will tell...
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jul 8, 2014 14:20:00 GMT -5
So if the speakers have to be placed where Atmos expects them to be placed -i.e. in a 5.1 or 7.1 configuration plus some ceiling speakers -does that not mean that the mix becomes "discrete" if not by default? It doesn't much matter then if the sound stem or object is an object at all if its always going to relegated to the right speaker or channel in a home setup (Atmos or not), versus the right side of a room or theater that utilizes a handful of speakers etc. as in a commercial Atmos setup. It's the Azimuth and elevation angles that make Atmos, Atmos. That and the control over individual objects, elements etc, which isn't present with Atmos in the home. I'm sorry, but so far a lot of this seems a bit like marketing slight of hand on behalf of Dolby. I'm not saying Atmos is worse, but you can call it object-based and non-discrete all you want, the fact remains, the format still relies heavily on speaker setups based on either a 5.1 or 7.1 configuration. Now, if the object is designed to emanate from the right side of the theater in a commercial setting and that can mean it (the sound object) uses anywhere between 1 and a dozen speakers at varying places and/or heights -that's great. But in the home market that same sound is going to come from the right speaker. If the sound warrants some "height" it may also include a right ceiling speaker, and that's appears to be all that Atmos in the home is promising -that or sounds mixed exclusively for ceiling speakers/channels. To play off your criticism of my initial post, the Atmos you're describing is like Atmos, without it being Atmos. Andrew, I am sorry but you don't seem to understand what Atmos actually is, nor how it works. Your earlier post was full of misinformation and misunderstanding. Atmos units are already with us and we will be able to buy them in a couple of months. They are all object-enabled. You are confusing channels and speakers unfortunately and your remarks above confirm that. The location of the speakers has no real bearing on the object-enabled nature of the content. The speaker locations are 'fixed' in this iteration of Atmos solely because the units have no means of knowing the azimuth and elevation angles 'intelligently' but the objects will still be rendered to them properly so long as the speakers are in the recommended positions. All I can suggest is that, with respect, you read some more background material. As for DTS UHD, which you mentioned as 'coming' and as an alternative to Atmos, DTS haven’t even launched it in commerical theaters yet let alone in a domestic environment. To imply that it is 'coming soon' and could in some way derail Atmos is highly disnformational I understand it just fine. Perhaps my wording isn't 100 percent clear or how you would phrase it, but the concept(s) behind Atmos I do understand. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Object-based sound or not, those objects are still going to be relegated to (largely) the same five or seven channels enthusiasts already have installed in their home. In the context of home theater, a speaker and the term channel are one in the same, hence why a 5.1 channel system utilizes five speakers and one subwoofer. Objects are all well and good, and I accept that objects in an Atmos mix will translate to Atmos in the home, however rather than have a "variable canvas" of loudspeakers to "choose" from (along with azimuth and elevation angles to help render them more appropriately in space), they're relegated to 5.1.4 up to 7.1.2 channels instead (at present). So you can have all the objects you want, go to town, they (the objects) are going to be relegated to largely the same speakers folks already have. |
|
|
|
Post by thrillcat on Jul 8, 2014 14:21:19 GMT -5
KeithBarnes, I think you're the one who's revealing how little you know about Atmos...You keep repeating the fact that object-based audio is a revolution, ground-breaking, it's the future, man, it's going to change the world, yet when someone asks you to demonstrate how this implementation of Home Atmos is any different than having 4 discreet ceiling channels, you back down and sling mud. The closest thing you've given us to proof that this initial implementation of object-based audio offers any real difference over 4 discreet ceiling channels is "there is now quite a lot of information available on the internet."
I'm not saying Home Atmos is not processing all this object-based audio information. But I am saying that, in this implementation, it's a waste of processing power since it requires specific placement of each ceiling speaker to create a coherent sound field. Why use all that processing power to decode object-based audio information when you know where the speaker is going to be and you could just say "make it sound like that". It's a waste at this point.
And again, Keith, of all people on all of the internet, you are not allowed to say that "Atmos units are already with us." As much of your time as you've spent ridiculing Emotiva about the launch of the XMC-1, you cannot say that. If I posted my credit card information on the internet right now, there's not a single person on the planet that could take that information and legitimately buy an XMC-1 OR an Atmos enabled processor. You can't say the XMC-1 isn't available and then say that Atmos-enabled units are. You can't.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 8, 2014 14:22:43 GMT -5
It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion when the participants seem to have little understanding of how Atmos works and what it is. All I can suggest is that those who are interested read more about it - there is now quite a lot of information available on the Internet. I can well understand that those who are enthusiastic about the XMC-1 would prefer Atmos not to even exist, but it does and units will be on the shelves in just a few weeks now, to buy, to take home and to install, with content also being available at launch. Well to be honest, I am definitely in the crowd of little understanding but I am willing to learn. You mentioned atmos at home is still object based but it is unable to process certain information in the current version. Does this mean: 1. It is still able to make adjustments based on where the speaker is located. For instance if I moved the front speakers further away but had my surround sound channels much closer to me, would atmos make any adjustments to accomodate it? That would qualify as an advantage I think. 2. There is a plan to introduce object based processing similar to atmos cinema? |
|
|
|
Post by xmc on Jul 8, 2014 14:25:34 GMT -5
If the sound warrants some "height" it may also include a right ceiling speaker, and that's appears to be all that Atmos in the home is promising -that or sounds mixed exclusively for ceiling speakers/channels. Isn't that a rather big improvement towards a more convincing sound stage? A much greater improvement than 7.1 was over 5.1? Right now all we get is a ring of sounds. Top speakers add the third dimension. Isn't it more like going from 2D to 3D? |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jul 8, 2014 14:25:55 GMT -5
I can well understand that those who are enthusiastic about the XMC-1 would prefer Atmos not to even exist, but it does and units will be on the shelves in just a few weeks now, to buy, to take home and to install, with content also being available at launch. No one here lives in fear of Atmos nor do we wish it not to exist. You're putting words into mouths that simply aren't there. You can not like my view of consumer Atmos, which is fine. You can even criticize my understanding of it -or lack there of. But to suggest that Emotiva as a company wishes Atmos not to exist out of some sort of fear is baseless. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 8, 2014 14:31:11 GMT -5
And again, Keith, of all people on all of the internet, you are not allowed to say that "Atmos units are already with us." As much of your time as you've spent ridiculing Emotiva about the launch of the XMC-1, you cannot say that. If I posted my credit card information on the internet right now, there's not a single person on the planet that could take that information and legitimately buy an XMC-1 OR an Atmos enabled processor. You can't say the XMC-1 isn't available and then say that Atmos-enabled units are. You can't. That is fair comment. I should have said that Atmos units will be with us in September. As for XMC-1 units, I don't think there is a shipping date yet, is there? |
|
|
|
Post by xmc on Jul 8, 2014 14:32:42 GMT -5
What can I say? The information posted in the most recent posts is incorrect. What exactly is incorrect? I've read all the official documentation and find nothing wrong with what Keith has said. Atmos for the home relies on the same channel based layout we use for current 5.1 and 7.1 mixes. Here Atmos offers no additional benefits. What it does add is height channels which I consider a big step forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jul 8, 2014 14:34:27 GMT -5
If the sound warrants some "height" it may also include a right ceiling speaker, and that's appears to be all that Atmos in the home is promising -that or sounds mixed exclusively for ceiling speakers/channels. Isn't that a rather big improvement towards a more convincing sound stage? A much greater improvement than 7.1 was over 5.1? Right now all we get is a ring of sounds. Top speakers add the third dimension. Isn't it more like going from 2D to 3D? Maybe it will be. Though I argue properly mounted surrounds and back channels can give you a sense of height too -Atmos be damned. Throw in height channels via PLIIz and you add height as well. Now rather than approximate the height info, Atmos will give it to you, or send it to dedicated ceiling speakers -or speakers that reflect sound off your ceiling. Whether or not that equals a more 3D surround experience will depend on the installation. In my current setup I couldn't use Atmos-branded speakers to their fullest potential as my ceiling isn't parallel to my floor, which is a biggie if you want to pull off the illusion of having ceiling speakers without actually having them. So in-ceiling speakers are the only way for me to go, which I could, but a lot of folks may not. We don't know. What we do know is that Dolby Atmos at the theatrical level is a bit different than Dolby Atmos in the home -for better or worse. The rest is up to the individual to decide. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 8, 2014 14:37:13 GMT -5
I can well understand that those who are enthusiastic about the XMC-1 would prefer Atmos not to even exist, but it does and units will be on the shelves in just a few weeks now, to buy, to take home and to install, with content also being available at launch. No one here lives in fear of Atmos nor do we wish it not to exist. You're putting words into mouths that simply aren't there. You can not like my view of consumer Atmos, which is fine. You can even criticize my understanding of it -or lack there of. But to suggest that Emotiva as a company wishes Atmos not to exist out of some sort of fear is baseless. OK - I will happily retract that. It just seemed that some of the posts recently were taking the line that anything that wasn't in the XMC-1 was therefore not important. If I got that impression without foundation, then I apologize, but that is how I read it. What I meant by the perhaps clumsily worded "prefer Atmos to not exist" is that it would certainly be preferable for Emotiva, from a marketing perspective, if Atmos had not come along right at the most inopportune moment it could have done wrt to the XMC-1 being launched. (I am assuming that the XMC-1 will be launched this fall, but of course that is an ASS-UMP-TION and may be entirely wrong). I didn't say that Emotiva was "in fear" of Atmos, but even the most enthusiastic Emovite would surely agree that the timing could hardly have been worse. |
|
kse
Emo VIPs 
Hello me, meet the real me.
Posts: 1,947
|
Post by kse on Jul 8, 2014 14:38:20 GMT -5
As for XMC-1 units, I don't think there is a shipping date yet, is there? [/quote] 4/1/14 |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 8, 2014 14:38:37 GMT -5
What can I say? The information posted in the most recent posts is incorrect. What exactly is incorrect? I've read all the official documentation and find nothing wrong with what Keith has said. Atmos for the home relies on the same channel based layout we use for current 5.1 and 7.1 mixes. Here Atmos offers no additional benefits. What it does add is height channels which I consider a big step forward. Yes it is a big step forward. However, earlier Andrew said that DTS-UHD was going to be object based and Atmos was not object-based. That is incorrect. For the record, Andrew said, "The DTS format, as I understand it, IS object based opposed to Atmos in the home which is not ..."
He also said, " DTS has their version of Atmos coming soon -likely around the same time Atmos products actually start selling." For one thing, DTS does not even have a theatrical version of their object format yet, let alone a domestic version. Thus it would be miraculous if they released domestic DTS-UHD this September and to the best of my knowledge there is not the least shred of evidence to support that assertion. If Andrew is able to correct me on that, I will happily stand corrected. |
|
