The OFFICIAL Dolby Atmos Thread

[Andrew Robinson]

I agree, this discussion sort of went sideways. My apologies for any role I may have played in the derailment. I have a post that I'm working on that I think is in line with what Priapulus and pedrocols have touched upon that I hope to have ready for tomorrow. Stay tuned.

[klinemj]

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.

Keith Barnes, when Atmos for home's details were revealed, you - on these very pages - acknowledged disappointment in its execution relative to the theater version. In essence, the reasons for the dissappointment were pretty much what Andrew has been saying. So...you, yourself, clearly have participated in the comparison. After that, you remained quite quiet here and your other home (AVS) about the glories of Atmos. Then someone mentioned (on AVS) your lounge statement about home Atmos, and all of a sudden, you came out firing again about the glories of Atmos and denied you had ever been disappointed in the home version.

In this flip flop, your info on Atmos lost credibility to me, and your stated intent from your posts on AVS of basically discrediting the XMC because it doesn't have Atmos have revealed the true you. You are as much of an Atmos fanboy as you accuse many here to be regarding Emotiva.

Thanks much for your info. I am convinced object based system will someday be the rage, you have told me enough to be quite wary of the marketing hype (to which you are contributing) for this initial execution.

[rogersch]

Well Atmos yes or no, I'm still very interested in the XMC-1 as it is currently specified. Due to a sloping ceiling I can't install up-firing speakers and mounting 2 or 4 speakers to the ceiling is a really no go in our living room. I'm good to wait a few years before the new/upcoming object based audio formats have settled down and are working as claimed.

For now all I want is an XMC-1 with a working DIRAC implementing in my AV setup so I can re-enjoy to listen to the following surround HD audio albums:
Jaff Wayne - War Of The Worlds
Pink Floyd - Wish Your Were Here
Mike Oldfield - Tubular Bell 2009 remaster
Kraftwerk - Minimum - Maximum
Pete Namlook & Wolfram Spyra - Virtual Vices V
Depeche Mode - Playing The Angel
Depeche Mode - Violator
Propaganda - Wishful Thinking

And only thereafter will start watching a movie whether it is encoded with ATMOS or not, I don't care (yet).

[petew]

A content question.

Assume a theatrical release is done in full atmos glory. That atmos soundtrack then gets transferred to a blu ray disc released late this year. Does that blu ray release contain all the data so that the theatrical system could play back the full glory? Or is something stripped out of the original atmos stream that would prevent a future home decoder from extracting all the original (theatrical) content?

[FilmMixer]

Jul 8, 2014 9:11:25 GMT -5 bootman said:

Filmixer, what hardware for home users coming out this year are using object based modeling?

All of them.

[redog]

So far anything other than plain stereo for movies and music has been completely unsatisfactory for me.

[KeithL]

I've come to the conclusion that a lot of the angst here today has come mostly from the simple fact that there are several different viewpoints involved.

Being unable to resist meddling, I'm going to have a shot at explaining what Atmos means to different people, especially to those of us who are wondering if it will actually make the movies we buy to play at home better - or not.

FOR THE SOUND MIXING ENGINEER... Atmos is very cool. When you're mixing a sound track, or even just plain multi-track music, being able to "place" individual sounds (or whole tracks) as "objects" in specific locations, and then move them around at will, will make lots of cool stuff a lot easier to do. (I haven't personally mixed any serious surround sound tracks, but I have done lots of work with graphics rendering, and the concepts and benefits are similar for both.) This means that mixing engineers can spend less time with messy technical details, and more time doing great mixes and designing cool new sound FX. It also makes some things that were really difficult to do the old way almost easy (almost). This should mean better sounding mixes - with less work - which is clearly a win-win situation. The Atmos mixing paradigm also handles "height" in a much more reasonable and intuitive way than ever before. I would go as far as to say that it's perfectly fair to call the Atmos MASTERING paradigm "revolutionary".

AS A TRANSFER MEDIUM AND UNIVERSAL MASTER FORMAT... What I was talking about before was the control interface; here I'm talking about the format in which the information itself is stored. This is the difference between having a cool 3D joystick that you can use to make pretty patterns on the screen, and having the information about how you move the joystick stored in a meaningful manner so you can use it later. Atmos also does this very well. (So those individual objects and their information are "passed" to the Atmos Cinema Processor, still in the form of separate objects, so it can do a better job of deciding how to position each in the appropriate output channel. That information can also be used to enable the making of very accurate down-mixes for specific uses... more on that later.)

Both of these are very cool things, and both make Atmos very cool - as a Cinema medium. The second one also makes it very easy to "convert" a full Atmos Cinema Mix into a full-quality mix for a fixed-channel system (like Dolby TrueHD)....

Now, on to the facts that are relevant to home users .... From every bit of Dolby literature I've been able to find, the "current" (read that as "coming soon") Atmos AVRs will be able to deliver 7.4.2 - in the form of the usual 7.2 channels (like TrueHD), plus an additional four top channels... and all 11 speakers are required to be placed in specific locations. Nothing so far suggests that there will be any "objects" involved beyond a set of fixed channels, each intended for a specific speaker, in a specific location. (You can call them "objects" if you like, but you can just as reasonably say that each channel in a TrueHD mix is "an object"). Now, it's POSSIBLE that  the Atmos standard includes the ability to deliver and process at least a few "extra" discrete objects, and Dolby is simply not doing it so far because none of the current crop of "Atmos AVRs" is up to the task, but it seems rather doubtful that Dolby wouldn't be talking about that capability if it existed.

By what Dolby has said so far, the current products will be able to give you "regular 7.2 channel surround sound" plus four top speakers - all requiring speakers that are placed at the standard locations. When comparing this to a current system using PLIIz for the height channels, we can hope that the four (discrete) height channels that Atmos delivers will deliver a better overall experience than the two synthesized height channels you get from PLIIz... perhaps significantly better. Those two cool things about Atmos that I talked about above should also grant a smoother transition when converting Cinema Atmos mixes to Home Atmos mixes. (In plain English, Atmos should make it easier to squeeze every bit of performance out of what you do get at home, and minimize the chances of anyone screwing it up along the way. This is another good thing whose importance shouldn't be minimized.) However, you should bear in mind that, if you only have 7.2 speakers, that Atmos down-mix could be delivered in "Home Atmos" or TrueHD - and you'd be getting the same exact 7.2 audio tracks.

Now, why WOULDN'T you want to buy Atmos in November?

Well, for one thing, you might wonder if the current crop of "Atmos AVRs" were rushed to market - and some of those missing features (like rendering based on speaker location, or at least some way to handle that information) may turn up in next years models. (And it's not unreasonable to wonder if this years models won't have enough processing power to be upgraded.)

For another thing, we do have a competitive offering from DTS on the horizon. (Incidentally, there have been claims that the DTS system will be able to play Atmos content... but nobody's suggesting that the Atmos devices will be able to play DTS UHD content.)


















 

I

[FilmMixer]

Jul 8, 2014 10:35:25 GMT -5 KeithL said:

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?)

Jul 7, 2014 22:48:03 GMT -5 FilmMixer said:

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.

Keith...

My information is first hand... unlike anything you or Andrew has posted,

I have heard it as it's been developed.....

You can also read about what others heard in the last two weeks at demos they attended...

While I understand your skepticism, IMO, it seems as if you and Andrew are more interested in speculating on what it won't be and spreading FUD...

The plan all along was for Dolby to announce at CEDIA... the manufacturers cycle dictated the NDA lift on 6/22

Dolby is having a press conference the day CEDIA starts (or the day before IIRC)..

There is no precedent for a scalable system like this one... it is definitely not just a codec...

[Gary Cook]

A simple question how many blu ray movies can I buy currently with Atmos? I can't say as I have found any. I have looked at, ordered and/or already own many of the movies released with Atmos for theatres but none of them have it on the disk. Until there is media available, it's totally irrelevant to me.

Cheers
Gary

[doc1963]

For the life of me, I'm at a loss with all of the back and forth debating in regards to "anything" relating to the XMC-1 versus (fill in the blank). Therefore, I've opted to stay out of such conversations. I'll make this one exception...

As I see it, one of the biggest points in favor of the XMC-1 (versus its competition) is its touted "scalability". If the XMC-1 is truly a "future proof" product (and I see no reason to have been mislead in this regard), then why would I worry about Dolby Atmos, DTS UHD or HDMI 2.0 (the "complete" version)? As it stands today, whatever AVR, pre-pro or standalone processor I purchase right now, most would consider to be "obsolete" within twelve to eighteen months.

When the phrase "long term" equates to meaning far more than a year and a half, I'll worry a little more about what I purchase. Until that time comes (if it ever does), I'd happily surrender my upgrade card, pay my 1200 bucks and enjoy my XMC-1 today... with or without all of the "latest and greatest" bells and whistles onboard.

When the time comes, and as Emotiva makes upgrades available, I'll choose whether or not such upgrades carry any value to "my" system and go from there.

As for Dolby Atmos, since both the UMC-200 and the XMC-1 meet the "minimum" channel requirements established by Dolby (which will likely become the "average" configuration for most), I'm not concerned.

In retrospect, everyone once clamored about 7.1, 9.1, 11.2 and so on and so on being "the future". Really… Then someone please explain why I still own a very low percentage of titles that actually contain "discrete" 7.1 soundtracks…..

[Andrew Robinson]

Filmmixer (and anyone else who may be interested),

I respect your thoughts and thank you for weighing in. I sincerely do appreciate it. I don't think I've misunderstood what Atmos is, though it is possible over the course of this thread or others like it, I haven't done as good a job as I could in explaining myself at times, which has been known to happen on forums and on the Net. Like I told Emocustomer before you, I am not questioning the revolutionary aspect of Dolby Atmos as it relates to the commercial cinema -never have, and likely never will. I very much like the concept of Atmos and its implementation at the commercial level. I've been a guest at many an Atmos press function as I'm sure you have as well.

However, and we can agree to disagree, or maybe its an argument of semantics at this point, but I still feel the implementation of Atmos in the home is more than a little dubious. I'm not saying this to disparage Atmos or to discourage others from wanting it etc. I'm just trying to be pragmatic about the situation versus jumping aboard the awesome train straight away or vice versa. By your own admissions/posts, there are some details that are still murky when it comes to Atmos in the home. Does it, does it not and so and so forth are questions that are expected in the early stages of any new technology, and Atmos is no different.

Personally, as someone who has had to try and make sense of marketing speak versus reality for 10 plus years in this business, I've been down this road before with Dolby -PLIIz anyone? And while I do believe Atmos is the real deal to professionals like yourself and commercial cinemas alike, I'm optimistic about Atmos in the home, but cautiously so. Am I a fan of the notion that we could/can have one sound/surround mix to rule them all? Yes, without a doubt that is a HUGE plus and worth doing regardless if it makes any real difference for the consumer in the end. But speaking to that difference specifically, we'll just have to wait and see. Suffice to say, there are a lot of questions yet to be answered and when you have questions, you're bound to have differing opinions.

This will be my last post on the subject until further information is made available or until I have an Atmos setup in house with which to play with (yes I plan on buying one for my own edification). I believe my current stance is clear and my earlier points valid -though perhaps not always as clear as they could be (I'm human). I cannot speak to Keith's posts or views as I am not him. Suffice to say, this topic is far from dead, but I'm going to go ahead and steer clear of it for the time being.

I do appreciate everyone's candor and input on the subject though and encourage those who wish to continue to do so.

[bluescale]

One of the beauties of Atmos, as I understand it, is once it's mixed and played back on Atmos enabled gear, it doesn't really matter how many speakers you have. No more wondering if the mix is 5.1 or 7.1 or what.what. Simply tell your processor which speaker configuration you have, and the soundtrack scales. It's a shame that the first generation of processors won't have location information, but that doesn't mean they won't intelligently determine how best to use the speakers you currently have. If i have a 5.1.2 setup, and someone else has a 7.1.4 setup, the same soundtrack on the same disc will scale up our down to provide the best possible mix without throwing away or matrixing information.

[2muchht]

Jul 8, 2014 21:08:36 GMT -5 doc1963 said:

...As I see it, one of the biggest points in favor of the XMC-1 (versus its competition) is its touted "scalability". If the XMC-1 is truly a "future proof" product (and I see no reason to have been mislead in this regard), then why would I worry about Dolby Atmos, DTS UHD or HDMI 2.0 (the "complete" version)?...

Perhaps, but in order for the claim of "scalability" to be valid whatever format or feature is being added in the "scale-up" would have to be something that the underlying hardware can run. If you go beyond that the claim doesn't fly since you either have to send the unit back for a board replacement or take the thing apart to replace a board. The latter is something that not everyone wants to do and at least for me does not meet the "easy to upgrade" test.

If the scalability is meant to include the new 600 MHz HDMI formats and/or HDCP 2.2 a new board is the only way they can do that as the current chips simply cannot be firmware upgraded. 600MHz requires new dies for the chip along with stacks and firmware and HDCP keys are embedded in the chip and thus not user-upgradeable. So, I don't see the scalability for HDMI or HDCP with the XMC-1.

As to the possibility of adding Atmos, Auro, whatever DTS comes out with or Fraunhoffer's Object Based Audio solution which may well be adopted by European and perhaps US broadcasters based on talk at NAB, you need DSP power and even MORE DSP horsepower. The XMC-1 is said to be based on the older TI DA-710 chips which is clearly fine for what they are doing now, but it may (and to be clear we're talking here about things that only those with inside information and one would guess very heavy NDAs have)require more than a pair of 710's to do the based Dolby or DTS decoding, all the required bass management and delays and then, on top of that, all the heavy filter lifting required for Dirac. If the MIPS requirements of any of the Object-Based Audio formats over-run that you lose the ability to "scale" up to the new format without a full replacement of the DSP board, and that won't be cheap or probable.

One more thing to consider: For $1,999 one would expect an Atmos-equipped processor to be at least 7.2.2 and possibly 7.2.4. Given the hardware limitations for DACs and physical limitations by the lack of additional RCA, let alone XLR jacks, I don't see how you could consider the XMC-1 to be scalable to what one would expect a contemporary surround processor with a two grand price to be in a year.

Don't get me wrong. If what Dirac does is valuable to a user and if all the other features and performance aspects make it the right processor for you, then you should buy it and enjoy. However, given the need to likely scale beyond what the current platform would seem to offer without a major re-tool and cost increase, I will wait to see how the Atmos thing shakes out while also waiting to see reviews and reports on what Dirac adds to the sound quality thanks to the room correction.

Time will tell...

[xmc]

Jul 8, 2014 14:48:28 GMT -5 Andrew Robinson said:

Jul 8, 2014 14:39:56 GMT -5 xmc said:

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. 

Didn't know you were talking about the Pioneer speakers. Those have a fixed angle but any small speaker can be used as a reflecting speaker. With those the user is free to angle them according to his specific ceiling shape and height.

[xmc]

Jul 8, 2014 14:58:43 GMT -5 emocustomer said:

Jul 8, 2014 14:47:40 GMT -5 xmc said:

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.

He said that "your main 5.1/7.1 setup is decidedly not". This might be true. We don't know yet how theatrical mixes will be delivered to the home. In any case, both your and Andrew's statement are just conjecture.

[xmc]

Jul 8, 2014 22:21:51 GMT -5 bluescale said:

One of the beauties of Atmos, as I understand it, is once it's mixed and played back on Atmos enabled gear, it doesn't really matter how many speakers you have. No more wondering if the mix is 5.1 or 7.1 or what.what. Simply tell your processor which speaker configuration you have, and the soundtrack scales. It's a shame that the first generation of processors won't have location information, but that doesn't mean they won't intelligently determine how best to use the speakers you currently have. If i have a 5.1.2 setup, and someone else has a 7.1.4 setup, the same soundtrack on the same disc will scale up our down to provide the best possible mix without throwing away or matrixing information.

There will always be the requirement for having speakers at specific locations. Atmos is not completely channel independent. Atmos mixes make extensive use of so-called beds which are based on the same fixed speaker locations we currently use for 7.1. So Atmos scales well if the user has more speakers than Atmos beds require but it scales as good or bad as it did in the past with less than 7.1 speakers.

[emocustomer]

Jul 9, 2014 3:21:25 GMT -5 xmc said:

Jul 8, 2014 14:58:43 GMT -5 emocustomer said:

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.

He said that "your main 5.1/7.1 setup is decidedly not". This might be true. We don't know yet how theatrical mixes will be delivered to the home. In any case, both your and Andrew's statement are just conjecture.

No - it isn’t true. And in any event, the statement that the 5.1/7.1 setup is not makes no sense anyway.

[emocustomer]

Jul 8, 2014 20:07:42 GMT -5 Gary Cook said:

A simple question how many blu ray movies can I buy currently with Atmos? I can't say as I have found any. I have looked at, ordered and/or already own many of the movies released with Atmos for theatres but none of them have it on the disk. Until there is media available, it's totally irrelevant to me.

Cheers
Gary

Media will be released at the same time as the units - this fall. This has already been confirmed by Dolby.

[emocustomer]

Jul 8, 2014 15:10:21 GMT -5 Andrew Robinson said:

Jul 8, 2014 14:57:12 GMT -5 emocustomer said:

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.

[emocustomer]

Jul 8, 2014 15:26:32 GMT -5 ÈlTwo said:

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.

Roger Dressler, ex of Dolby Labs, recently said elsewhere "The #1 goal of object audio is to break the linkage between content channels and playback speakers. Having 7, 9, 11, 13, 22 or 32 speakers no longer requires special content. One mix will play in all such systems, theatrical or consumer."  The apparent misunderstanding of what Roger is saying there is the bit that I was challenging earlier, in the posts where channels, speakers and objects were all being conflated.

And yes, the benefit you describe is one of the major audible benefits we will enjoy when Atmos-enabled units are available. The precise positioning of sound to x, y, z co-ordinates in three dimensional space.