|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jul 17, 2014 20:09:54 GMT -5
The point made with 3D and I believe it will be the same with Atmos, is not whether the hardware will have it, that's almost a given. What is important is how much will it be used, by how many? A large number of my friends have 3D TV's, its actually very hard not to buy a 3D TV theses days, but no one I know actually watches 3D. This manifests itself in only a small percentage of content being available for 3D and it doesn't appear to be increasing. So a large number of AVR's having Amtos is in itself not an indication of its success. What will determine its success is the demand for content by consumers. If there is no content then it doesn't matter how many AVR's are out there with, it's still a fail.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 17, 2014 20:29:27 GMT -5
So when using "enabled" speakers - is the top module fed by a discrete channel or not? Your description sounds like the answer is no. It is fed by a discrete signal, yes. I always figured that it would be. Would that mean that ceiling speakers are not discrete then too? Or "sometimes"? They are discrete. If something I said implied differently then I apologize. I thought the biggest purpose of overhead speakers was for discrete sound effects - and that seems hard to so without discrete channels. Which is why they are discrete. It's more than 'sound effects' though. The top speakers are essential for allowing Atmos to place sounds in the correct x, y, z co-ordinates. Any sound object can be rendered to any co-ordinate. It could be dialogue for example. And it was in 'Gravity'. I'm still fuzzy on what "supported" configurations will be - since it sounds rather flexible. Would be nice to see list of configurations from Most complicated to simplest. Not entirely sure what you mean, but they are, if I understand what you are asking: 5.1.2 5.1.4 7.1.2 7.1.4 This is for the Atmos units so far released. There is a ludicrously expensive unit coming from Trinnov which will support 32 speakers. Thanks. You answered my questions. I appreciate it. Your comment about the crossover and phasing is what led me to think not discrete. Wish I was headed to CEDIA again this year to check it out. Am I correct in thinking that Atmos for the most part (let's say in home implementations) is really about giving more precision in placing overhead effects? I understand that from a codec aspect - it's much much more robust. I can't see most people adding more side or rear surrounds to "improve" the precision - but the overhead aspect intrigues me. (The upwards wiring speakers seem like a real compromise, but maybe they can work well). I've seen Trinnov pricing for some gear... No doubt it will cost a few limbs! |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 18, 2014 4:59:34 GMT -5
Thanks. You answered my questions. I appreciate it. Your comment about the crossover and phasing is what led me to think not discrete. You are very welcome! Wish I was headed to CEDIA again this year to check it out. I imagine it will be hugely overcrowded this year. Might be better to try to find a decent dealer with a good demo room and give it a listen there, rather than in some crappy, makeshift booth at CEDIA. Although Dolby's stand will no doubt have a great demo - but imagine how long the line will be! Am I correct in thinking that Atmos for the most part (let's say in home implementations) is really about giving more precision in placing overhead effects? I understand that from a codec aspect - it's much much more robust. Certainly right that there is much greater precision. For the first time ever, the mixer is not constrained in where he places sounds by having only 7 channels (9 on the mixing stage) in which to place them, relying on panning to move them about. Now he can place an 'object' anywhere in 3 dimensional space, on a precise x, y, or z co-ordinate. This has many benefits. One that isn't mentioned much is this: in a non-Atmos theater mix, if the mixer wants a sound to come directly from your left, he sends it all to the left channel. But in a cinema, the left channel consists of numerous speakers, arrayed all along the left wall. With Atmos, he can send that sound to any individual speaker in the side wall array, and he can move it from one to another to another, all the way to the screen, across the screen and up the other side, all the way to the back and around the back. That can't be done without object-audio. For the first time the relationship between channels and speakers has been severed. In the home, it will, as you say, give much more precise localisation of individual sounds. But don't get hung up on 'overhead effects'. Yes, if the mixer wants to place you in a thunderstorm, he will place sound all around and all above you, with much of it coming from overhead. But Atmos goes a lot further than that. Because of the ability to use those x,y,z co-ordinates I mentioned, Atmos will be just as good at putting a sound slightly in front of you, to your right and slightly above you. With the ability to then move it from that location to slightly in front of you, directly and to slightly in front of you and to your left and back to slightly above you, front-left. With current 5.1 that is impossible. So think of the top speakers as contributing to the overall sound. Any sound that can use any three speakers in the system can be placed anywhere inside those 'triangles' where the speakers 'overlap'. (One of the Atmos trailers uses triangle graphics, which I am sure is not coincidental). When you hear this for yourself, in a HT size room, the effect is just stunning and quite unlike anything you have ever heard from 5.1 or 7.1. I can't see most people adding more side or rear surrounds to "improve" the precision - but the overhead aspect intrigues me. (The upwards wiring speakers seem like a real compromise, but maybe they can work well). There is no need for more side or rear surrounds. What we already have is fine. But you can see that with all the speakers in one, horizontal plane, we have only two of the required three co-ordinate planes to work with, so the top speakers then come into their own. But for much more than 'overhead effects' which is a common misunderstanding of the value Atmos brings to the listening experience. Go back and read in my review what I said about the scene in the cave... The Atmos speakers are much less of a compromise than you'd think. They really do work. Everyone present with me at the demo in London this week agreed the same. Some said they couldn't hear any difference between the Atmos speakers and physical speakers on the ceiling. I felt I could, but it was only a very small difference. I think 99% of people would be happy with Atmos speakers. FilmMixer is going to use these at home, and he spends all day every day listening to a multimillion dollar Atmos setup at work! I've seen Trinnov pricing for some gear... No doubt it will cost a few limbs! There will always be ultra-high end gear for those who want it and who can afford it. This week I heard the most impressive home audio sound I have ever heard, and all the gear used was of the sort that many, many enthusiasts can afford. |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs 
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Jul 21, 2014 17:44:56 GMT -5
There is not much that I can add here. Ever since experiencing "The Hobbit" in Atmos in a new cinema, I am determined to get it in the homecinema that's in the works. I am also on the XMC-1 list so it was frustrating first to hear Emotiva staff's scepticism on the issue. Cool that Lonnie now hints that Emotiva is on it. I am also keen to get a RMC-1 and since that one will be 12-channel, a 7.1.4 layout should be feasible, not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 21, 2014 18:05:38 GMT -5
There is not much that I can add here. Ever since experiencing "The Hobbit" in Atmos in a new cinema, I am determined to get it in the homecinema that's in the works. I am also on the XMC-1 list so it was frustrating first to hear Emotiva staff's scepticism on the issue. Cool that Lonnie now hints that Emotiva is on it. I am also keen to get a RMC-1 and since that one will be 12-channel, a 7.1.4 layout should be feasible, not? I've never heard that the RMC will be 12 channel. Do you have a source? |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jul 21, 2014 18:52:04 GMT -5
This has many benefits. One that isn't mentioned much is this: in a non-Atmos theater mix, if the mixer wants a sound to come directly from your left, he sends it all to the left channel. But in a cinema, the left channel consists of numerous speakers, arrayed all along the left wall. With Atmos, he can send that sound to any individual speaker in the side wall array, and he can move it from one to another to another, all the way to the screen, across the screen and up the other side, all the way to the back and around the back. That can't be done without object-audio. For the first time the relationship between channels and speakers has been severed. I'd like to examine this in some detail as I am quite confused. A speaker needs a power amp, be it built in or external. To send a unique analogue sound to that power amp a channel is required in the preamp/processor. If the speaker has a built in DAC then the transfer can be digital, but it's still required to be uniquely transmitted. So in the theatre (home or commercial) I'm having real trouble understanding how "the relationship between channels and speakers has been severed". Whether 1, 2 or 3 speakers are used to physically locate the sound in the 3D space is irrelevant, it still needs channels linked to speakers to get there. However, I do understand how it can be severed in the production process, but honestly I couldn't care less about how the sound gets there. I'm really only interested in it being where it's supposed to be when I listen to it. In order to do that I still believe that I will need channels linked to speakers. Don't get me wrong, if Atmos helps the sound engineer/mixer do a better job then I'm all for it. Perhaps a simple question, if I want to run Atmos 7.2.4 do I need more or less channels and speakers than, say, DTS Neo:X 11.2? Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 22, 2014 6:13:25 GMT -5
This has many benefits. One that isn't mentioned much is this: in a non-Atmos theater mix, if the mixer wants a sound to come directly from your left, he sends it all to the left channel. But in a cinema, the left channel consists of numerous speakers, arrayed all along the left wall. With Atmos, he can send that sound to any individual speaker in the side wall array, and he can move it from one to another to another, all the way to the screen, across the screen and up the other side, all the way to the back and around the back. That can't be done without object-audio. For the first time the relationship between channels and speakers has been severed. I'd like to examine this in some detail as I am quite confused. A speaker needs a power amp, be it built in or external. To send a unique analogue sound to that power amp a channel is required in the preamp/processor. If the speaker has a built in DAC then the transfer can be digital, but it's still required to be uniquely transmitted. So in the theatre (home or commercial) I'm having real trouble understanding how "the relationship between channels and speakers has been severed". Whether 1, 2 or 3 speakers are used to physically locate the sound in the 3D space is irrelevant, it still needs channels linked to speakers to get there. However, I do understand how it can be severed in the production process, but honestly I couldn't care less about how the sound gets there. I'm really only interested in it being where it's supposed to be when I listen to it. In order to do that I still believe that I will need channels linked to speakers. Don't get me wrong, if Atmos helps the sound engineer/mixer do a better job then I'm all for it. Perhaps a simple question, if I want to run Atmos 7.2.4 do I need more or less channels and speakers than, say, DTS Neo:X 11.2? Cheers Gary Hi Gary. In order to grasp how object sound differs from what we have currently it is essential to grasp the difference between channels and speakers. A simple way to get this across is by taking the example of a commercial theater. In a commercial theater, using a current 5.1 setup, there is a bank of speakers down the left and right sides of the cinema. There will be several speakers in each bank. But all of those speakers represent only one channel - the left surround. In conventional audio, if the mixer wants to send a sound to the left surround channel, it comes from all of those speakers at the same time and the same level - it has to because it is one channel. One channel using half a dozen speakers. Hopefully that gets across that speakers and channels are different things. In object audio, the relationship between speakers and channels is broken. Staying with the same example above, for an Atmos mix, the mixer can send the sound object to the first speaker in the bank of side speakers, then to the second, then to the third and so on. This is the same sound, at the same level, but it can come from any of the speakers. There is no longer, in effect, a left 'channel' there. Now at home, of course, nobody has a bank of surround speakers running along their left and right wall. So in order to reproduce that effect where the sound moves from the first side speaker to the second and then the third and so on, what happens? The system 'looks at' how many speakers you have in the system. Let's say it is a 5.1.4 system, with a conventional setup for the 5 'normal' speakers and 4 top speakers. The left surround, if following ITU specs, will be at 110 degrees relative to the listener - IOW to his left and slightly behind him. So the Atmos system uses the left surround and the front left and possibly one of the left top speakers to locate that sound as it moves from back to front. IOW it uses whatever speakers are in the system. If the system was 7.1 and had rear surrounds, then it would also use those. The mixer, when creating the soundtrack, can place any sound 'object', anywhere in three dimensional space using x,y, z co-ordinates and that object will be reproduced in that position on playback using whatever speakers the system finds - lots in a theater and as many as 7.1.4 at home. Another way to think of it is like triangulation which you may be familiar with for locating a source when that source can be referenced from three points in space. This is how they know where your cellphone is for example (a crude example). In the Atmos system a sound can be placed anywhere where three speakers can form a triangle - any three speakers. It is essential to grasp that we no longer have the defined and rigid link between channels and speakers. In a 7.1 channel system, each speaker represents a channel. In Atmos this is no longer the case as I hope I have explained. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 22, 2014 9:50:52 GMT -5
Yes, but it is a fact that you must have a power amp channel dedicated to each and every speaker. Call it what you may, but if you want to use a given speaker, you must address it and send a signal to it. Every speaker needs to be wired back to a dedicated amplifier and that dedicated amplifier must be wired back to a processor that is designed to send unique sound signals, whether you call them channels or objects or something else, out to all the various amp/speaker pairs. A 7.2.4 system will require 13 amp channels, and so will an 11.2 system.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdskycaster on Jul 22, 2014 9:58:17 GMT -5
Yes, but it is a fact that you must have a power amp channel dedicated to each and every speaker. Call it what you may, but if you want to use a given speaker, you must address it and send a signal to it. Every speaker needs to be wired back to a dedicated amplifier and that dedicated amplifier must be wired back to a processor that is designed to send unique sound signals, whether you call them channels or objects or something else, out to all the various amp/speaker pairs. A 7.2.4 system will require 13 amp channels, and so will an 11.2 system. Which in turn is great business for Emotiva! |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 22, 2014 10:52:56 GMT -5
Yes, but it is a fact that you must have a power amp channel dedicated to each and every speaker. Call it what you may, but if you want to use a given speaker, you must address it and send a signal to it. Every speaker needs to be wired back to a dedicated amplifier and that dedicated amplifier must be wired back to a processor that is designed to send unique sound signals, whether you call them channels or objects or something else, out to all the various amp/speaker pairs. A 7.2.4 system will require 13 amp channels, and so will an 11.2 system. Yes, of course you do need an amplifier connected to every channel. Not really sure what you are getting at. That doesn't have anything to do with breaking the link between channels and speakers as I tried to explain. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 22, 2014 11:13:45 GMT -5
Of course, you CAN simplify things considerably if you use powered speakers  Yes, but it is a fact that you must have a power amp channel dedicated to each and every speaker. Call it what you may, but if you want to use a given speaker, you must address it and send a signal to it. Every speaker needs to be wired back to a dedicated amplifier and that dedicated amplifier must be wired back to a processor that is designed to send unique sound signals, whether you call them channels or objects or something else, out to all the various amp/speaker pairs. A 7.2.4 system will require 13 amp channels, and so will an 11.2 system. Yes, of course you do need an amplifier connected to every channel. Not really sure what you are getting at. That doesn't have anything to do with breaking the link between channels and speakers as I tried to explain. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 22, 2014 11:30:51 GMT -5
Emocustomer, you are just confusing everyone. Atmos is software that decides what sounds to send to each speaker. A channel is a hard wired path (lets eliminate wireless in the discussion). Atmos is not breaking any links whatsoever, it just is another sound handling piece of software that makes it easier for the programmer to build whatever unnatural sound effects he desires in a piecemeal manner vs recording the same via real time discrete channel recording.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jul 22, 2014 14:44:33 GMT -5
Of course, you CAN simplify things considerably if you use powered speakers I'm not sure that running RCA/XLR connections plus 240 volt power supply to 4 speakers in the ceiling is "simpler" than speaker cable.  Especially in my place with its cathedral ceilings.  Perhaps even less simpler will be finding ceiling speakers, be they powered or passive, that have a sonic signature the same as my current 5.  Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Jul 22, 2014 15:09:00 GMT -5
Of course, you CAN simplify things considerably if you use powered speakers Yes, of course you do need an amplifier connected to every channel. Not really sure what you are getting at. That doesn't have anything to do with breaking the link between channels and speakers as I tried to explain. So, Keith, when can we expect the Emotiva powered ATMOS ceiling speakers? (I can power them from my high hats, right?  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jul 22, 2014 15:15:17 GMT -5
I've had this discussion with a number of sound engineers/mixers (we have a Dolby Atmos studio in Australia) and we always seem to end up with this debate over what constitutes a "channel". To me (and hopefully other HT users) a channel starts at the point in the chain where there can be no further additions or subtractions from that individual sound signal. In simple terms from the time the signal leaves the processor in its unique interconnect (be it RCA or XLR) then it's in a channel. A discrete individual channel that goes to the power amp and the speaker. The sound in that channel can't be further added to or subtracted from by the sound engineer/mixer's programming, it's done. What goes into that interconnect is (depending on the quality of the equipment connected to it) the same as what comes out.
Why is is this important? The way I see it, after content, it's the most important aspect of Atmos, the number of channels ie; power amps, interconnects and speakers. It's a numbers game, take a look at the number of HT's and the number of channels they run. The surveys I have seen show a very small % of the population has a HT and a minority of that minority have more than 5.1 ie 6 channels. It's a long way from 6 channels to 13 channels, a really long way.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Jul 22, 2014 23:47:43 GMT -5
I'm surprised that more enthusiasts here aren't excited by the fact that Atmos, if fully adopted, means that studios will no longer have to choose between 5.1 or 7.1 mixes like they do today. Instead, there will be a signal Dolby Atmos mix (or DTS-UHD mix), and it will use the number of speakers you have to the best of your system's ability. Even though I only have a 5.1 setup right now, I understand what a big boon this is to the HT enthusiast community.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Jul 23, 2014 1:42:48 GMT -5
There is not much that I can add here. Ever since experiencing "The Hobbit" in Atmos in a new cinema, I am determined to get it in the homecinema that's in the works. I am also on the XMC-1 list so it was frustrating first to hear Emotiva staff's scepticism on the issue. Cool that Lonnie now hints that Emotiva is on it. I am also keen to get a RMC-1 and since that one will be 12-channel, a 7.1.4 layout should be feasible, not? I've never heard that the RMC will be 12 channel. Do you have a source? See the RMC-1 thread in the processor section. There was talk of 9.3, but with Atmos now on the horizon, I hope 11 channels + 1 sub will be possible. I think a proper Atmos setup needs 4 top channels (7.1.4 then). I always planned to use wides also, but I learned about a cheaper way to fill the gap between surrounds and fronts: with a 7.1 setup, the ITU suggests that the side surrounds can move to a position before MLP... I would put them at 75 degrees of axis. My fronts are @ 35 degrees. Hence only 40 degrees between fronts and surrounds. This way, the back surrounds are more effective than they would normally be. I believe my backs are @ 140-145 degrees. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 23, 2014 6:59:09 GMT -5
It is my understanding that Atmos has advantages for both studios and users. The studios have the advantages of ease of multi-channel sound mixing. The user has the advantage of freedom of speaker placement. Atmos will make the best of whatever number and placements of speakers that you care to employ including now ceiling mounted ones. But DTS doing their own thing is a bummer to manfactures causing unnecessary programming power to be devoted to duplicate systems. I hope the RMC-1 goes for more channels now, perhaps 16 minimum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 23, 2014 7:32:40 GMT -5
I've never heard that the RMC will be 12 channel. Do you have a source? See the RMC-1 thread in the processor section. There was talk of 9.3, but with Atmos now on the horizon, I hope 11 channels + 1 sub will be possible. I think a proper Atmos setup needs 4 top channels (7.1.4 then). I always planned to use wides also, but I learned about a cheaper way to fill the gap between surrounds and fronts: with a 7.1 setup, the ITU suggests that the side surrounds can move to a position before MLP... I would put them at 75 degrees of axis. My fronts are @ 35 degrees. Hence only 40 degrees between fronts and surrounds. This way, the back surrounds are more effective than they would normally be. I believe my backs are @ 140-145 degrees. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 23, 2014 10:18:30 GMT -5
Emocustomer, you are just confusing everyone. Atmos is software that decides what sounds to send to each speaker. A channel is a hard wired path (lets eliminate wireless in the discussion). Atmos is not breaking any links whatsoever, it just is another sound handling piece of software that makes it easier for the programmer to build whatever unnatural sound effects he desires in a piecemeal manner vs recording the same via real time discrete channel recording. I'm sorry you don't understand how Atmos works. One of the most significant things about Atmos is that, for the first time, the link between channels and speakers has been broken. I have explained it comprehensively above but if it is still unclear to you, there is a lot of information now appearing on the Internet about it. Your explanation above of how you think it works is, unfortunately, entirely incorrect. |
|
)
