|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jun 10, 2014 12:13:48 GMT -5
With discrete surround if you want a sound effect to travel from your left front speaker to your left surround you had to pan it from one speaker to the next, but you were limited to two points so to speak. This is where I need someone in marketing to come up with a pitch to make me want to spend $1,000 per channel (speaker and amplification) to add more points along the line from LF to LR. Regardless of how many points you have between the start and end, you still have to pan between the points. While more points make it more lifelike; short of an infinite amount of points, you'll never achieve "lifelike" sound. You can only get closer. For some, they may be able to spend $1,000 per channel (speaker and amplification) or more. Some may only spend a couple hundred per channel; but are they really getting quality sound or just a gimmick? Let's look at stereo. That only gives the illusion of the components of a recording being placed at various locations within the soundstage, but it does a darn good job of it. Our brains process the signals from the speakers and then place the objects in the recording appropriately and that is what makes it "lifelike." I don't see how Atmos is going to make that any better. It seems to me the advantage of Atmos is that it is scalable to an infinite number of speakers without the original mix having to be redone. For a normal 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack I don't see how it will sound any different if it is Atmos-based versus DTS or Dolby, etc. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jun 10, 2014 12:31:31 GMT -5
I (think) have a BD-Audio disc that had both TrueHD and DTS-HD MA on it. To my ears, I prefer the DTS-HD MA. But is that a function of the recording or the codec? I can't say with certainty. I'll double check when I get home. Next time use a sound meter and I'll bet the DTS track is a little bit hotter.  |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on Jun 10, 2014 13:00:43 GMT -5
I think Atmos is a lot like 4K. Is it "better" than HD? Yes. Is it necessary for a quality home theater experience? No. Is it a new way to drive consumers to buy more gear? Oh absolutely, and IMO that's the number one reason it exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jun 10, 2014 13:07:38 GMT -5
I think Atmos is a lot like 4K. Is it "better" than HD? Yes. Is it necessary for a quality home theater experience? No. Is it a new way to drive consumers to buy more gear? Oh absolutely, and IMO that's the number one reason it exists. The key benefit that I see to Atmos isn't whether or not is sounds better or superior to whatever came before it, but rather, its proposed universal nature -meaning one file to rule them all. This is the promise of object based anything, for once things stop being discrete you allow for software to figure out the finer details. This is why, despite my not wanting any additional speakers in my room, I'm still a proponent for Atmos, just as I am a proponent for vector video. The promise of one file or format being able to be truly universal from your car, to the Internet to a movie theater on through to your living room is terrific. From a content generation standpoint moving to object based content -be it audio or video -potentially saves those who create it a lot of time and money. Of course there are a million and one ways I'm sure we'll all collectively muck it up, but the principle is sound and intriguing. |
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Jun 10, 2014 13:14:54 GMT -5
I (think) have a BD-Audio disc that had both TrueHD and DTS-HD MA on it. To my ears, I prefer the DTS-HD MA. But is that a function of the recording or the codec? I can't say with certainty. I'll double check when I get home. Next time use a sound meter and I'll bet the DTS track is a little bit hotter. +1 about it being hotter. To me DTS MA sounds better but I'm not sure if this is perceived on my part because it is hotter or does actually sound better. Dave. |
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Jun 10, 2014 13:26:32 GMT -5
After reading Keith's explanation on Atmos I am now keen to have it. If I was to add more speakers to get more from Atmos, I would add them up high. This will cost me about $550 per single speaker.
Dave.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 10, 2014 13:26:45 GMT -5
In theory, the difference is that, since Atmos includes the separate tracks and their positions, they can essentially be REMIXED for different arrangements of speakers "on the fly". This could be a huge boon to theaters, many of which have entirely different arrangements of lots of speakers. The Atmos file includes a recording of Captain Jack talking, and the metadata says he's supposed to be "to the left about 30 degrees behind you". The Atmos decoder takes care of the details so, in one theater with seven speakers, and in another theater with 27 speakers, the decoder sends Captain Jack's voice to the correct speakers so you end up hearing it in the LOCATION where it belongs. (In short, Atmos knows what the sound field is supposed to look like, and maps the tracks to the speakers you have to duplicate the sound field as closely as possible.) This is very useful for theaters, which may have all different numbers of speakers at different locations, but not terribly significant for a home theater - where you have a more or less "standard" 5.1 or 7.1 arrangement of speakers. In that case, Atmos should end up "assigning" everything it controls in pretty much the same place it would have been with an "ordinary 7.1 mix" - and you won't hear a difference. Thanks Keith, for the lucid explanation. While I understand the advantages it gives those who do the mixing, in terms of the final result how many of us are really going to be able to hear any real difference between Atmos and the other codecs currently in use? It sounds like Atmos may be easier to use for the engineer since it is object-based rather than having to mix levels of diffehttp://images.proboards.com/v5/bbcode/strikethrough.pngrent channels in order to create the illusion of where something is placed in the sound field, but will the end result really be appreciably better (or even distinguishable) from a competently mixed track using a different codec? I can see how Atmos is easily adaptable to adding more speakers to an HT system but for those of us with the standard 5.1 or 7.1, I don't see how it will make that much difference. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jun 10, 2014 13:29:59 GMT -5
Didn't cost anywhere near that amount of money to get there, four , not the greatest surround speakers in the world ( don't need to be ) and a pair of Sherbourn 2/150 amps (used). the hight matrix from the Yamaha handles the rest. gives a great added UMPH! to the HT, not bad in party mode either,,,,,he,,,,,he,,,,,,he,,,,,, For me, to go with matching speakers, would be an additional $8,000. If I could find less expensive speakers that deliver the same performance (to my ear, not someone else's) I might look into it. But, I'd have to weigh the cost of replacing what I already have against the $8,000 of just adding to it. In other words; 11.4 equates to 15 speakers which would have to have an average cost of just over $500. Even Emotiva's towers didn't retain that low back in the day (before being put on clearance). Your post seams to be about style and beauty and not the functionality of the sound. Hight speakers are more of a filler role and not the main source of the sound in HT. just my .02 worth. |
|
|
|
Post by deewan on Jun 10, 2014 13:34:36 GMT -5
IMHO, the type of loudspeaker that would be ideal for Atmos would be in-wall speakers. If I were a manufacturer of in-wall or in-ceiling speakers I would be all over Atmos like white on rice -it's the only way you'd get me to embrace having more than 5 speakers in a room. To this day the best HT experience I've ever had was when I was never aware there were any speakers in the room/system at all. That and in-walls are dirt cheap compared to the alternatives. Just my 2 cents. In walls are one option, but I personally think there is a fortune to be made in wireless soundbar type surround speakers. Thin, unintimidating and full sounding speakers that can be placed on a wall anywhere you want. Something similar to my current surrounds...  The speakers could be self-powered and work on a wireless system similar to how Sonos systems work. An ARC/mic type setup allows the system know where each speaker is located in your room and it auto-calibrates. During use, a transmitter in your rack receives unbalanced inputs from your AVR or processor. The signals are sent using the wireless network to the speaker setup you determine. The only issue is getting power to your speakers. With wall surrounds you could have some unsightly power cords. Ceiling speakers are even worse. Hmmm. maybe I just came up with my first million dollar idea. And easy surround sound and high WAF system. |
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Jun 10, 2014 13:35:33 GMT -5
I thought what Keith said in his first post in this thread is what Keith said the first time he wrote about Atmos, but . . . The only thing about using Atmos to mix for 5.1 and 7.1 or 7.2 is that, when mixing, the editor must assume the exact positions of the speakers in the home theater. We all know that many a home theater does not have its speakers in the correct positions, and thus the Atmos mix may be anywhere from partially to significantly off.
I hate to assume, but I will take the plunge here and assume that an Atmos processor will have the ability to be programmed for specific (dare I say nearly exact) speaker positions, either manually or automatically. Thus the Atmos mix will be decoded properly, despite speaker placement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Jun 10, 2014 13:39:34 GMT -5
So is Atmos a possibility for any Emotiva product?
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Jun 10, 2014 14:54:49 GMT -5
While you all debate, I'm enjoying my new Atmos soundbar!  |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jun 10, 2014 16:05:21 GMT -5
For me, to go with matching speakers, would be an additional $8,000. If I could find less expensive speakers that deliver the same performance (to my ear, not someone else's) I might look into it. But, I'd have to weigh the cost of replacing what I already have against the $8,000 of just adding to it. In other words; 11.4 equates to 15 speakers which would have to have an average cost of just over $500. Even Emotiva's towers didn't retain that low back in the day (before being put on clearance). Your post seams to be about style and beauty and not the functionality of the sound. Hight speakers are more of a filler role and not the main source of the sound in HT. just my .02 worth. My speakers are anything but pretty, I assure you. My L/R speakers dictate the rest of the speakers in the system because as the sound transitions I want it to have the same timber and tonal qualities. It has nothing to do with aesthetics. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jun 10, 2014 16:29:30 GMT -5
Your post seams to be about style and beauty and not the functionality of the sound. Hight speakers are more of a filler role and not the main source of the sound in HT. just my .02 worth. My speakers are anything but pretty, I assure you. My L/R speakers dictate the rest of the speakers in the system because as the sound transitions I want it to have the same timber and tonal qualities. It has nothing to do with aesthetics. The hight speakers are more for a fill and feeling of space, I personally don't think timber and tonal qualities matter when it comes to the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th speakers. its theater and not two channel where it would make a huge difference. I do understand how matching the first 5 or even 7 speakers would be such a great asset, I just don't see,,,or hear,,,the difference in the hight speakers. Peace, Nick |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Ranger on Jun 10, 2014 18:56:40 GMT -5
Dolby Atmos? Bah! Humbug. I'll never give up my Dolby Surround encoded VHS tapes; you'll have to pry them from my cold, dead hands!  Joking aside, I tend to agree that Atmos should be very beneficial for the audio engineers.The object-centric technology allows greater precision and convenience as our soundtracks increase in complexity. However, I think the benefits of Atmos in the home environment are exaggerated. Five or seven speakers can only do so much. I know very few zero people in Real Life (my friends and family) who would allow more than 7 speakers in the room. Even 5 is pushing it, and I have several friends who don't want surround at all. Atmos may indeed be scalable, but will there be a real improvement with existing configurations of 5 or 7 speakers over, say, DTS-HD:MA or Dolby TrueHD? I'm not going to bet the farm on it. Regardless, some folks will get that warm, fuzzy feeling on the inside when they purchase a BD with the Atmos label. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmMixer on Jun 10, 2014 19:04:09 GMT -5
I have been reading a lot of posts in this new thread and there are some misconceptions about how an Atmos track is created and how it can benefit users if it comes home. Time is short now but over the next couple of days I will try and clarify some posts from others. In the mean time, I'm happy to answer any questions I may know the answers to. The Dolby site offers very easy to understand whilst papers about the format. A good place to start. I have a bit of experience with the format. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 10, 2014 19:37:54 GMT -5
A few things, not to be argumentative, but rather to help kick start the conversation. One, Atmos is not about the number of loudspeakers one can employ either in a commercial or consumer space. Yes there is a lot of talk about additional speakers, mainly ones located above the viewer, but the crux of what makes Atmos compelling isn't the quantity of speakers, but rather how loudspeakers are treated. With discrete surround if you want a sound effect to travel from your left front speaker to your left surround you had to pan it from one speaker to the next, but you were limited to two points so to speak. With Atmos you can let the sound go from left front of the stage to the left rear of the stage without having to, necessarily, confine it to just two speakers. This way if you have a 5.1 setup or a 15.1 setup, left front to left back is the same. It's, for lack of a better descriptor, location-based sound. Atmos would therefor work as well in a 5.1 system as it would in a 50.1 setup for left is left, right is right, so on and so forth. Another member commented on certain tracks being "discrete" from the mix, tracks containing dialog for example. This may be the case and if it is, this could be a huge advantage for Atmos to supplant our current high-res surround formats quicker as it would showcase a clear benefit to users -especially older listeners. As for your processor having to have Atmos, that has yet to be seen. It's possible for those with "legacy processors" that Atmos could be decoded at the source, which would potentially save folks money opposed to having to buy a whole new processor. In the pro world, Dolby has made the transition to Atmos as inexpensive and easy as possible for theater owners. The Atmos processor for commercial use is only a couple grand and can be retrofit into existing systems. I have no reason to believe that Atmos' consumer roll out can't be equally simple. As for the number of homes running a multi-channel setup, the OP quoted 50%. I feel that figure is extremely generous. 7.1 setups at 40% is even more so. Couple of comments: It is an absolute fact that if the dialog track is created as an object then it will be possible to manipulate it in the AVR without affecting any other part of the soundtrack. As you say, this could be of huge benefit to older enthusiasts and to people whose rooms are not conducive to clarity of dialog (possibly due to undesirable/unwanted reflections for example). With regard to legacy processors, the Atmos 'core' track will be decoded by non-Atmos players and delivered in regular 5.1/7.1. IOW, the Atmos Bluray discs will be backwards compatible with current players and processors. If the user has an Atmos-enabled AVR he will benefit from the Atmos features, and if he doesn't, he will be at no disadvantage and will simply hear the 5.1/7.1 track as he does now. Incidentally, Dolby, at one of their trade launches of Atmos, hinted that they have ALREADY released Blurays which contain 'stealth' Atmos tracks (which is made possible for the reasons I mention above). This means that consumers might already have a number of Atmos Blurays on their shelves without knowing it. Imagine if on the very first day of hardware release, there is an announcement that customers ALREADY HAVE some Atmos content in their possession. Now this was hinted at not stated specifically so it may not have happened - but this is not a hobbyist's rumor but something hinted at by Dolby themselves. It would be a brilliant marketing coup if they pull this off. Guess what the next upgrade would be if customers become aware that they already own Atmos content.... |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 10, 2014 19:44:17 GMT -5
This was originally posted in the XMC-1 thread and I have cross-posted it here as it is more relevant here. Hey Keith, While Dolby Atmos may or may not end up as a game changer in home theater, it's feasibility for those that can barely accommodate 5.x or even 7.x speaker setups is a real hurdle if not downright impossible. Yes, I've read that even a 5.x or 7.x speaker setup may gain from Dolby Atmos/DTS MDA, but that has yet to be determined and by how much. If a majority of home theater enthusiast are limited/constrained by their environment and probably cash flow as well(not to mention the WAF), what makes you think this will be a big hit for any one except those that have the larger man caves that can accommodate what looks to be a minimal investment/upgrade to 11.2(being the height channels for front & rear). I for one won't be cramming another 4 speakers into my living room or ceiling for the matter, which already is barely accommodating 7.2 as is. Personally, Dolby Atmos & DTS MDA make a lot of sense for public theaters and those with enough coin and room environment to have the ultimate movie experience, but as of now I just don't see this as being a must have. If it proves that it can significantly improve the 7.2 experience that I'm set up for now, then I'm sure I'll get around to checking it at that time, until then I'll continue to enjoy what I do have. Hey. I don't want to throw the thread off topic, but as you are a Moderator and as I am replying to you, I am hoping that it will be fine for me to come back on some misconceptions that are floating around with regard to Atmos. I'll leave it alone after this. The issue of more speakers comes up all the time. However, first we have to consider that Atmos will bring benefits even to people with a basic 5.1 setup (see below). Also, much of the benefit of Atmos will come from Height speakers (four is considered a very good number for Atmos to work with domestically) and we mustn't overlook the use of in-ceiling speakers. These are generally very discreet and have good WAF. But there is also a development coming, which unfortunately I am not allowed to discuss publicly, which will remove the objection to additional speakers totally. I can't say what it is but it will be a very significant gamechanger. All will be revealed at CEDIA this fall. Also, I think we need to look at Atmos for what it is: the next step in home AV sound. It is as significant as the move from Prologic to discrete Dolby 5.1 was a few years back. Movies are now being mixed in Atmos and the pace of introduction of Atmos movies has exceeded the pace of introduction of Dolby 5.1 already (see Dolby website for stats) so it seems there is every likelihood that Atmos will become the de facto standard for movies and HT in the not too distant future, just as discrete 5.1/7.1 is now. Because Atmos can be delivered by existing Bluray formats and simply bitstreamed to compatible AVRs there is no impediment to its success from a delivery or content POV (as for example, is holding back 4k because of the lack of content). We will see BD discs routinely introduced with Atmos tracks from the moment of the launch. Some people have said that Atmos mixed movies have already been released on BD ahead of time but this is speculation as far as I know. But it is possible. I said above that Atmos would bring benefits even to basic 5.1 setups. How many times have you heard people say that they sometimes struggle to hear dialog properly? The common advice is to raise the center channel trim a little. But this also raises all of the other content in the center channel as well, imbalancing the sound. Wouldn’t it be marvelous if users could raise the level of the dialog without affecting any other parts of the mix at all? Well, when the dialog is an object, that is exactly what you can do. Atmos will allow users to increase dialog level without touching any other part of the mix. Cool huh? Also, consider this... the mixer has decided that a sound should originate from exactly 90 degrees to the left of the listener. So he places all of the sound in the left surround channel. But many people with 5.1 systems place their side surrounds slightly to the rear of the listening position. So the sound will not then come from directly to the left, but from the left rear - not the intention of the mixer. But in an Atmos system, the system will 'know' where the sound is meant to come from, and it will 'know' where the speakers are located. So it will use the other speakers in the system to create the sound intended for the 90 degree left position and phantom image the sound precisely where the mixer intended it to be. IOW, the system will use a real speaker if it finds one at that location and generate a phantom image there if there is nu physical speaker. Also cool, huh? And just one more of many other examples of how Atmos will benefit a 5.1 setup. KeithL has commented on Atmos in another post so if I may I will address some of the issues he raised too. KeithL says that some of the benefits are "twenty years away", with regard to the Atmos system knowing the location of speakers. But this is not so. The very first generation of Atmos AVRs will have this capability. How will the system know where the speakers are? Well, Trinnov for example used a very clever soundfield mic to determine the speaker angles (as well as distances). Yamaha currently use a three position mic attachment to do it. And there is always the solution currently used by commercial Atmos theaters: the user enters the data into the AVR. So there are three ways to do it which are already in use. There maybe also be more ways yet to be revealed. Thank you for allowing me the indulgence of this long post. Atmos units will be with us this September we now know. Content will be available on current Bluray format at the time of release. Future Atmos movies will have corresponding BD releases with Atmos soundtracks. Already some movies are being remixed for Atmos - eg Chicago and Die Hard to name just two. Does anyone think that these movies are going to be re-released theatrically? Or is it more likely they are being re-mixed for Bluray release? |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 10, 2014 19:49:27 GMT -5
In theory, the difference is that, since Atmos includes the separate tracks and their positions, they can essentially be REMIXED for different arrangements of speakers "on the fly". This could be a huge boon to theaters, many of which have entirely different arrangements of lots of speakers. The Atmos file includes a recording of Captain Jack talking, and the metadata says he's supposed to be "to the left about 30 degrees behind you". The Atmos decoder takes care of the details so, in one theater with seven speakers, and in another theater with 27 speakers, the decoder sends Captain Jack's voice to the correct speakers so you end up hearing it in the LOCATION where it belongs. (In short, Atmos knows what the sound field is supposed to look like, and maps the tracks to the speakers you have to duplicate the sound field as closely as possible.) This is very useful for theaters, which may have all different numbers of speakers at different locations, but not terribly significant for a home theater - where you have a more or less "standard" 5.1 or 7.1 arrangement of speakers. In that case, Atmos should end up "assigning" everything it controls in pretty much the same place it would have been with an "ordinary 7.1 mix" - and you won't hear a difference.[/b] No, that isn't correct. Atmos-enabled units will always put a sound object where there is a physical speaker, if it finds a physical speaker at that location. When there is not a physical speaker at that location, it will phantom-image the sound to the correct location, using the other speakers in the system to do so. See my more detailed explanation of this in another post. This is one of its major advantages, and as I explain elsewhere, a reason why even those with 5.1 systems will benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 10, 2014 19:54:58 GMT -5
I thought what Keith said in his first post in this thread is what Keith said the first time he wrote about Atmos, but . . . The only thing about using Atmos to mix for 5.1 and 7.1 or 7.2 is that, when mixing, the editor must assume the exact positions of the speakers in the home theater. We all know that many a home theater does not have its speakers in the correct positions, and thus the Atmos mix may be anywhere from partially to significantly off. I hate to assume, but I will take the plunge here and assume that an Atmos processor will have the ability to be programmed for specific (dare I say nearly exact) speaker positions, either manually or automatically. Thus the Atmos mix will be decoded properly, despite speaker placement. No that is not the case. The Atmos-enabled AVR will 'know' where the speakers are in the the room and it will also know where the sound is meant to be spatially located. It will use a physical speaker where it finds one and it will phantom-image the sound to the correct place where there is no physical speaker in the right location. If you have your speakers in theoretically 'wrong' places, as many people do due to room constraints, WAF etc, then your Atmos-enabled unit will 'know' this and it will use the speakers you have to in order to place the sound object in the proper position - the position the mixer intended it to be in. |
|
