|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 9, 2014 5:16:12 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.Er... no. The whole point of surround sound, in any form, is that the sound, well, surrounds you. It is NOT locked to the plane of the screen itself. One of the major benefits of Atmos is that the surround sound will be placed with far greater precision in the room, leading to a much more immersive experience. And because Atmos is scalable to the number of speakers it finds in the playback system, it will work well with just two additional top speakers. Bingo! What movie theaters do you go to, AAMOI, where the screen surrounds you? Other than in those special IMAX screens at NASA Visitor Center and so on, all the theaters I have ever been in have the screen definitely in front of me  |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 9, 2014 5:29:32 GMT -5
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. I think we need to be more clear on what I said (which is a matter of record). I said I was indeed disappointed that the current iteration of Atmos did not include positional information for the speakers. That was the extent of my disappointment, and I am still disappointed by it. I have never, at any time, compared home Atmos with theatrical Atmos and expressed disappointment about any differences. If you can find any posts anywhere where I have done that, please submit them here. It seems that the decision to not enable the positional information may have been taken by the AVR manufactuers and not by Dolby who have made it available in the spec. A possible reason for that decision is that thew AVR manufacturers want to introduce Atmos without too much re-engineering of their current 7.1/9.1/11.1 products. Roger Dressler, the most credible and informed commentator I regularly read, explains it far better than I can, like this: "It takes no more DSP horsepower to calculate the signal for a speaker in position A than position B. So why the inability of these first AVRs to adapt to specific speaker positions? My speculation is that Dolby made that optional for the AVR makers to decide. And just as they are sticking with existing 11.1 platforms, they may also be sticking with as much of the current menu structure as possible. Reduces design time and minimizes consumer shock. Think about what would happen if a consumer were asked to input the azimuth and elevation for 11 speakers. Azi-who? Until there are handy tools available, like the 4-element Trinnov mic and the analysis software seen in the Sherwood 976, the AVR boys may have simply decided to play it safe to minimize the number of distress calls."But the point is, that this limitation has absolutely no relevance at all to the Atmos in-home experience for those who can place their speakers in the recommended locations, or for those who will be using the new Atmos-enabled speakers and/or add-on modules. The lack of knowledge of azimuth and elevation angles for the Atmos rendering engine is a disappointment IMO. But it is not a big deal so long as one can place one's speakers in more or less the correct locations. And since those locations have a 'range' of possibilities, this should not be too difficult for most people. Here is Denon's diagram showing the possibilities of speaker locations, which may help clarify things for you.  If you can quote where I denied I had ever said I was disappointed in the decision to exclude positional information, then I would be pleased to see that. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 9, 2014 5:35:09 GMT -5
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? According to the information I have read, nothing is 'stripped out'. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 9, 2014 5:46:28 GMT -5
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.) Yes, there could be good reasons to wait for 'generation 2' but as I just said, the rendering based on speaker location probably isn't one of them - at least not for people who are able to arrange their speakers according to the diagram posted above. There is plenty of flexibility in those speaker locations for most people. But yes, of course it would be better if the rendering engine knew the precise speaker locations to render to. Nonetheless, what is coming in September will still be significantly better than what we have now. It is always the case with any technology-based hobby that 'something better is around the corner'. The question people have to ask themselves, IMO, is do they want to get in on the act now, or do they want to wait for (possible) new developments that may come along in the future? When you say that DTS-UHD is 'on the horizon', is this just speculation or do you have some data to confirm it? DTS don't even have a theatrical system in place yet, so it seems incredibly unlikely to me that they are anywhere close to a home system derived from it. It may well happen of course - but what is the evidence for the claim made by you and Andrew that is is 'coming soon'? Andrew even went so far as to say that it is "likely" that it will appear in September this year. I'd say that was extremely UNlikely personally. I did ask Andrew if his claim was based on on evidence but he didn't respond. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 9, 2014 5:51:53 GMT -5
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…..  Because what you get on Bluray is derived from what was mixed for commercial theaters. There are no commercial versions of PLIIz tracks or Neo:X tracks so when Expendables 2, Dredd and another release whose title I forget were released on BD with special Neo:X mixes, the studios had to start all over and remix the entire movie for this format. The great advance with Atmos is that this is not needed at all - the movie will already have been mixed in Atmos and all they have to do is to put that mix on a Bluray. No additional mixing or remixing work needed. Same with discrete 7.1 - if the movie was mixed that way for the theatrical release, then it is a no-brainer to release it that way on Bluray too. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 9, 2014 5:53:07 GMT -5
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. 100% correct. it is this breaking of the link between content channels and playback speakers that is the revolutionary part. It is proving hard to get this across to some people though. |
|
|
|
Post by xmc on Jul 9, 2014 6:12:54 GMT -5
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. Could you please provide anything official that describes how objects are delivered to the home? I couldn't find that information in any of the official documents so far. And in any event, the statement that the 5.1/7.1 setup is not makes no sense anyway. Please read up on how Atmos is mixed and what beds are. You seem to be confused about how beds work. They aren't objects but identical to current 7.1 (minus the two top channels). |
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Jul 9, 2014 6:26:09 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. 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. Keith ; that was a simplification based on the dsp horsepower of current dolby atmos avr's and not doing proper xyz rendering to put the objects precisely where they should go ; seems logical especially with speakers bouncing reflections of ceilings . Heres some more doubt www.avsforum.com/forum/286-latest-industry-news/1576825-dolby-atmos-coming-blu-ray-8.html#post25307305On the subject of dts-uhd how close do you think it will be from release considering they already have it on a cirrus logic chipset [ and Andrew had probably read about its customized rendering - so called it proper object based - no ifs or buts like atmos :)Here's a snippet from Filmmixer . Of course for MDA read dts-uhd the new hip roll of the tongue nomenclature |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,101
|
Post by klinemj on Jul 9, 2014 6:48:52 GMT -5
Keith B, by raving about Atmos' cinema version, then expressing disappointment over the home version for what it failed to include (which can only be in reference to something...i.e., the cinema version), you made a comparison between home and cinema versions. That it was not in a single post and explicitly stated like that is not relevant.
Whether or not the decision was Dolby's or the AVR makers, positional info is not there and this does introduce limits. And, if it is the AVR-makers as you say, it looks more and more like they are rushing to market to having marketing news to sell their AVR's. And, it certainly says there will likely be a wave 2 that is better.
I would personally rather wait for the equipment mfg'ers to do it right vs. take an early and lesser version. There does appear to be a clear gap in the home and cinema version that requires the end user to take more steps in setup. And we know just how good most users are at that!
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 9, 2014 6:52:43 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. Apparently the same Atmos fanboys thought they could bring more attention by starting a new rambling thread. It's sad, really. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jul 9, 2014 7:01:31 GMT -5
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. Apparently the same Atmos fanboys thought they could bring more attention by starting a new rambling thread. It's sad, really. You mean these fanboys? Anybody recognize them?  |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Elliot on Jul 9, 2014 7:14:15 GMT -5
All this hoopla about Atmos is pointless.
Look at history:
7.1 Blu-Ray has been around for a long time, but only in the last 18-24 months have there been many disks! The majority is still 5.1 unless it's the latest "crash and burn" movie.
9.1 and 11.1 are not discrete just like the Atmos ceiling speakers. PL-IIz height and width really hasn't gone too far.
What Atmos will be in 2 years will be vastly different than today. DSP speeds will increase in that period to handle the processing requirement of DRC and Atmos processing at a reduced cost.
I've been reluctant to be on the "Bleeding Edge" of technology ever again.
The only persons to be thinking about this should be those with a well defined 7.1 system now and too much money.
If you're new to the hobby, spend you money putting a great 5.1 system together and then think about the future.
That doesn't mean that the Atmos concepts can't be used for planning. If I was building a new sound room, I'd wire now for ceiling speakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdskycaster on Jul 9, 2014 7:25:15 GMT -5
I will be waiting on version two of Atmos to see what it brings to the table. In the world of AVR's though that only means a shade over 12 months from now.
|
|
|
|
Post by thrillcat on Jul 9, 2014 7:32:51 GMT -5
If this is Keith Barnes' version of bowing out of a conversation I'd hate to have to listen when he decides to speak up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Ranger on Jul 9, 2014 7:41:23 GMT -5
I'm waiting for Atmos Service Pack 1. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 9, 2014 7:57:03 GMT -5
Could you please provide anything official that describes how objects are delivered to the home? I couldn't find that information in any of the official documents so far. No. But I don't understand the point you are making. Dolby have rveealed what they have revealed - which psrt of that do you want more clarification on? I assume you have seen the Dolby Atmos FAQ? blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/And in any event, the statement that the 5.1/7.1 setup is not makes no sense anyway. Please read up on how Atmos is mixed and what beds are. You seem to be confused about how beds work. They aren't objects but identical to current 7.1 (minus the two top channels).[/quote] I am not at all confused - it was Andrew who was confused and who has since apologised for saying that Atmos is not object-based. What he said about 5.1/7.1 makes no sense to me. Of course the core mix uses the core channels/speakers. There is no purpose in the mixer using limited object resources to place static content in the core 7.1. This does absolutely not mean, or imply, or point to, anything at all that supports Andrew's main contention at that time, which was that Atmos is not object-based. He was using his comments about 5.1/7.1 to support a claim which he himself has since retracted. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 9, 2014 8:00:00 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. 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. Keith ; that was a simplification based on the dsp horsepower of current dolby atmos avr's and not doing proper xyz rendering to put the objects precisely where they should go ; seems logical especially with speakers bouncing reflections of ceilings . Heres some more doubt www.avsforum.com/forum/286-latest-industry-news/1576825-dolby-atmos-coming-blu-ray-8.html#post25307305On the subject of dts-uhd how close do you think it will be from release considering they already have it on a cirrus logic chipset [ and Andrew had probably read about its customized rendering - so called it proper object based - no ifs or buts like atmos :)Here's a snippet from Filmmixer . Of course for MDA read dts-uhd the new hip roll of the tongue nomenclature It wasn't a "simplification" - it was just wrong. Gee - Andrew himself has agreed that he was wrong - can’t you guys let it go (as I volunteered to do) and accept that Andrew made a mistake, which he has now corrected? And BTW, the proper x, y, z rendering WILL be done so long as your speakers are where Dolby say they need to be - see the diagram I posted earlier for Denon's published take on that. FilmMixer is talking about DTS-UHD (MDA) in a commercial environment, and as he says, it isn’t there yet. If anyone has any evidence that DTS-UHD will be released in home-use AVRs "soon", then please publish it. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 9, 2014 8:02:45 GMT -5
I would personally rather wait for the equipment mfg'ers to do it right vs. take an early and lesser version. That is a reasonable stance. Others will take a different one. Waiting for tech manufacturers to "do it right" usually means waiting for ever. Did you not use Windows 98 because you preferred to wait for MS to "do it right" and introduce XP or 7 or 8 etc? |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 9, 2014 8:04:44 GMT -5
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. Apparently the same Atmos fanboys thought they could bring more attention by starting a new rambling thread. It's sad, really. Apparently the same Atmos fanboys thought they could bring more attention by starting a new rambling thread. It's sad, really. You mean these fanboys? Anybody recognize them? Oh here we go again... another useful thread descends into a playground. is it time to leave this thread as well? I hope not. But if people have nothing useful to say, isn’t the best plan to say nothing at all? |
|
|
|
Post by thrillcat on Jul 9, 2014 8:07:31 GMT -5
I would personally rather wait for the equipment mfg'ers to do it right vs. take an early and lesser version. That is a reasonable stance. Others will take a different one. Waiting for tech manufacturers to "do it right" usually means waiting for ever. Did you not use Windows 98 because you preferred to wait for MS to "do it right" and introduce XP or 7 or 8 etc? That would depend. I used Windows 98 because it was installed on the machine I purchased. But I didn't use Windows 2000 or Windows ME. I waited for XP. Big difference when you're talking about a first purchase or an upgrade. I don't foresee people rushing the stores to buy their first home theater system because of Atmos. The people excited about home Atmos are those who already have a surround system, and those people can EASILY wait for a better implementation of Atmos. |
|
Then someone please explain why I still own a very low percentage of titles that actually contain "discrete" 7.1 soundtracks….. 
