|
|
Post by xmc on Jul 8, 2014 14:39:56 GMT -5
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. It doesn't matter if your ceiling isn't parallel to the floor. You simply need to get the angle right for those reflecting speakers. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 8, 2014 14:41:38 GMT -5
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. A major difference between PLIIz and Atmos is that the former is matrixed, deriving information from other channels. Atmos height information is discrete. Surely you would agree that discrete is always going to beat upmixed/matrixed/derived? |
|
|
|
Post by dust770 on Jul 8, 2014 14:44:18 GMT -5
Don't current sound engineers place the sound where it is based on what is going on in the movie? So if it is 20 degrees left it will have some center and left front action. In atoms would it not be in the same location from the same speakers you've always had? Therefore come from the center and left speaker, in the same spot it was placed in 5 or 7.1? It's not like all these years they haven't bothered with correct sound placement. It sounds like atoms may make it easier for sound engineers but how would it change your listening experience? It's still representing the same action in the same placement on the screen. With the exception of the ceiling speakers. But how many in the HT market will add ceiling speakers due to this? I certainly wouldn't unless it was the standard on every disc. Also 7.1 is still NOT standard on all blurays so how many movies will have atoms? I just watched Robocop for Pete's sake and it didn't even have 7.1. This is prob a long way off for blurays. Maybe the receiver/pre pro can do Atmos but the discs wont have it included, or will be few and far between. My .02
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jul 8, 2014 14:45:42 GMT -5
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. Honestly, no one here is sweating Atmos, nor were we running about the office like our hair was on fire when it was dropped on us. We pay to play with Dolby and the truth is Atmos wasn't a shock. It still isn't. For as much as you accuse me (and others) for not possessing the same knowledge and/or understanding of certain topics as you do, you sure have no problem inferring whatever you want (even if you hide behind a disclaimer like "...may be entirely wrong.") as it relates to what Emotiva does or doesn't do on a daily basis. I work here, and I can tell you, no bull, you're wrong about 100% of the time as it relates to the actual goings on here at Emotiva. And that's not an ass-ump-tion. |
|
|
|
Post by thrillcat on Jul 8, 2014 14:46:06 GMT -5
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. A major difference between PLIIz and Atmos is that the former is matrixed, deriving information from other channels. Atmos height information is discrete. Surely you would agree that discrete is always going to beat upmixed/matrixed/derived? For someone willing to mount speakers in/on the ceiling, yes, a definite advantage. For those who are only willing to use the reflecty-speakers I would speculate that the difference will be much, much harder to discern. |
|
|
|
Post by xmc on Jul 8, 2014 14:47:40 GMT -5
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. He said In my opinion it's currently not known whether 5.1/7.1 speakers are fed by objects rendered in real time. It also doesn't matter or have any benefits as Keith has already explained. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jul 8, 2014 14:48:28 GMT -5
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. It doesn't matter if your ceiling isn't parallel to the floor. You simply need to get the angle right for those reflecting speakers. I was referring to Pioneer's own papers on installation and placement of their new Atmos-branded speakers with the upward firing speakers. They recommend a parallel ceiling with an optimal height of (I believe) 8-9 feet, but no greater than 14 feet for best results. My sincerest apologies if I wasn't as clear as I should've been. |
|
|
|
Post by petew on Jul 8, 2014 14:52:41 GMT -5
My initial enthusiasm for Atmos, after reading one of the white papers at Dolby's site, has worn off a bit. My installation could benefit from additional side surround speakers - object rendering would be great if it used them and the rear surrounds to best effect. But it seems the home Atmos units only add height speakers to the equation. Time will tell if content justifies the additional expense of adding more channels. Without content, what's the point. The content needs to be meaningful too, not like the cheesy 3d gimmicks that are all too common.
|
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 8, 2014 14:54:07 GMT -5
Don't current sound engineers place the sound where it is based on what is going on in the movie? So if it is 20 degrees left it will have some center and left front action. In atoms would it not be in the same location from the same speakers you've always had? Therefore come from the center and left speaker, in the same spot it was placed in 5 or 7.1? It's not like all these years they haven't bothered with correct sound placement. It sounds like atoms may make it easier for sound engineers but how would it change your listening experience? It's still representing the same action in the same placement on the screen. With the exception of the ceiling speakers. But how many in the HT market will add ceiling speakers due to this? I certainly wouldn't unless it was the standard on every disc. Also 7.1 is still NOT standard on all blurays so how many movies will have atoms? I just watched Robocop for Pete's sake and it didn't even have 7.1. This is prob a long way off for blurays. Maybe the receiver/pre pro can do Atmos but the discs wont have it included, or will be few and far between. My .02 One of the benefits of Atmos is that the Atmos theatrical mix is almost infinitely scalable. Once the mix has been created for the theatrical release, there is no more work to do for the home version on Bluray. So it is therefore entirely reasonable to expect that every Atmos movie released in theaters and which is later released on Bluray will be an Atmos disc. 7.1 is irrelevant to this discussion. Atmos scales to the number of speakers in the playback system - even to a soundbar. As for the difference between Atmos and what has gone before, it is a revolution. With Atmos, the mixer is no longer confined to placing a sound in a channel or speaker. He can place a sound object in any x, y, z co-ordinate in 3D space and he can make that object any 'size' he likes, from 0 to 100 (zero being the tiniest little sound you can hear and 100 filling the room. I leave it to your imagination to see how this is such a huge step forward. As always, there is plenty of information 'out there'. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 8, 2014 14:57:12 GMT -5
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. Honestly, no one here is sweating Atmos, nor were we running about the office like our hair was on fire when it was dropped on us. We pay to play with Dolby and the truth is Atmos wasn't a shock. It still isn't. For as much as you accuse me (and others) for not possessing the same knowledge and/or understanding of certain topics as you do, you sure have no problem inferring whatever you want (even if you hide behind a disclaimer like "...may be entirely wrong.") as it relates to what Emotiva does or doesn't do on a daily basis. I work here, and I can tell you, no bull, you're wrong about 100% of the time as it relates to the actual goings on here at Emotiva. And that's not an ass-ump-tion. Like I said, I retracted the statement. No matter what is going on in the office, Atmos has still arrived at a very bad time for the XMC-1. That's just a marketing fact of life Andrew. When the competition releases a revolutionary product at the same time, it has to be bad news, whatever the goings-on in the office are. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jul 8, 2014 14:57:33 GMT -5
I do not believe anyone here -myself included -is trying to downplay the positives surrounding Dolby Atmos at the theatrical/commercial or pro level. In that context, Dolby Atmos is truly awesome. And perhaps, in time, all of the flexibility and revolutionary enhancements Atmos brings to the pro world will be available to consumers. But as of this moment, there is a bit of a delta between the pro and consumer realms.
|
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 8, 2014 14:58:43 GMT -5
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. He said In my opinion it's currently not known whether 5.1/7.1 speakers are fed by objects rendered in real time. It also doesn't matter or have any benefits as Keith has already explained. What he said is not correct. Sorry to labor this, but it is 100% incorrect to say that Atmos for home is not object-based. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 8, 2014 15:00:52 GMT -5
My initial enthusiasm for Atmos, after reading one of the white papers at Dolby's site, has worn off a bit. My installation could benefit from additional side surround speakers - object rendering would be great if it used them and the rear surrounds to best effect. But it seems the home Atmos units only add height speakers to the equation. Time will tell if content justifies the additional expense of adding more channels. Without content, what's the point. The content needs to be meaningful too, not like the cheesy 3d gimmicks that are all too common. All the content will benefit from x, y, z co-ordinates, not just obvious 'height' effects. Sounds can, for the first time in history, now be placed anywhere on that x, y, z grid in 3D space. That isn't a 'gimmick' - it is a revolution in movie audio. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jul 8, 2014 15:03:40 GMT -5
He said In my opinion it's currently not known whether 5.1/7.1 speakers are fed by objects rendered in real time. It also doesn't matter or have any benefits as Keith has already explained. What he said is not correct. Sorry to labor this, but it is 100% incorrect to say that Atmos for home is not object-based. I was not completely clear, or perhaps I used the term "object" wrong in this context. I apologize. I do not believe my slip of the tongue means I in anyway misunderstand what Atmos is or how it works, I simply didn't verbalize my point as clearly as I could have. Sorry for any confusion. Emocustomer is correct, in that Dolby Atmos for the home is object-based, however, the term object is what I believe causes a lot of confusion for enthusiasts. Fair? |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 8, 2014 15:07:24 GMT -5
I do not believe anyone here -myself included -is trying to downplay the positives surrounding Dolby Atmos at the theatrical/commercial or pro level. In that context, Dolby Atmos is truly awesome. And perhaps, in time, all of the flexibility and revolutionary enhancements Atmos brings to the pro world will be available to consumers. But as of this moment, there is a bit of a delta between the pro and consumer realms. It isn't a fair criticism to criticize Atmos for the home against Atmos in theaters. Atmos for the home has never been intended to duplicate what Atmos is in theaters. Nobody credible, and certainly nobody at Dolby, has ever said that. Maybe it will in the fullness of time and maybe it won't, but the current iteration is certainly not intended to. What we can be 100% sure of is that it is better than what it replaces. It may not be perfect, but there is no reason to let perfect be the enemy of good. I have enjoyed our back-and-forth, Andrew and it is very gratifying that this thread is being conducted on such an adult level. For my part, I will leave the conversation for now as I have said all I have to say, for now, and it is getting repetitive. Atmos units will be with us in the fall and then everyone will have a first-hand opportunity to make their own mind up as to whether they wish to upgrade or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jul 8, 2014 15:10:21 GMT -5
Honestly, no one here is sweating Atmos, nor were we running about the office like our hair was on fire when it was dropped on us. We pay to play with Dolby and the truth is Atmos wasn't a shock. It still isn't. For as much as you accuse me (and others) for not possessing the same knowledge and/or understanding of certain topics as you do, you sure have no problem inferring whatever you want (even if you hide behind a disclaimer like "...may be entirely wrong.") as it relates to what Emotiva does or doesn't do on a daily basis. I work here, and I can tell you, no bull, you're wrong about 100% of the time as it relates to the actual goings on here at Emotiva. And that's not an ass-ump-tion. Like I said, I retracted the statement. No matter what is going on in the office, Atmos has still arrived at a very bad time for the XMC-1. That's just a marketing fact of life Andrew. When the competition releases a revolutionary product at the same time, it has to be bad news, whatever the goings-on in the office are.  |
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Jul 8, 2014 15:26:32 GMT -5
It seems the object of Atmos (see what I did there) is to change the sound, be it 5.1 or 7.1, from a flat plane of sound as defined by the speakers, to a 3 dimensional effect, the third dimension being the height of the sound; in other words add a third axis for the sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Jul 8, 2014 15:49:16 GMT -5
Atmos or no Atmos, the XMC-1 will sell well. Emotiva already have a long list of buyers who can't wait to hand over their money. If Atmos is a feature that will make it to the XMC-1 sometime then that will be a welcome bonus for those that bought it.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Post by Priapulus on Jul 8, 2014 16:22:10 GMT -5
I'm really flabbergasted by this discussion.
I can understand, in a movie theatre where I'm surrounded by a huge screen, that multiple speakers add realism by having sound come from exact position of the object on the screen.
But hey, my screen is about 3' by 4', and yours is probably, too. What am I going to do with 13.2.4 channels? Really?
Having left and right channels is good; stereo is better than mono for movie music, and it's cool for things on the left side of the screen to come the left speaker. Having a center channel brings out the voices nicely. And the subwoofer does a nice job of shaking the room when the bombs go off. It's even cool, for example, to be surrounded by the sound of rain from the side speakers.
But having more speakers, or better decoding or technology isn't going to make my sound any more realistic, on my 3' by 4' screen. I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
Sincerely
/b
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Jul 8, 2014 16:22:59 GMT -5
While you guys try to figure this out I hope you don't mind I go take a listen to my fixed two channel (2.2) system....I will be right back...
|
|
