|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 23, 2014 10:57:53 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. The only thing I said is that Atmos is software. The delivery system requires channels of amplification and speakers. I was not trying to describe how it works in detail and I do understand the concept of objects and the 3 dimensional encoding of them in general. I really don't want to understand it beyond the results that it gives. If it delivers 5.1 or 7.1 to most existing HT setups, those people won't care either and furthermore, they won't hear any difference. Only the addition of overhead speakers will result in any upgrade to most existing HT's. |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Jul 23, 2014 11:46:24 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. Maybe there is some confusion arising from the terminology or language you're using because if the "link" was really "broken", as you insist it has, then no speakers would be needed at all, since the channels would function completely independently in a separate region from the speakers. Yet, that is clearly not the case. The channels still need the speakers in order to make the programmed sounds audible, however unchartable the directionality of such sounds appears to be. In that sense, the channels are still intimately dependent on the speakers, as they have always been. I think what you are really saying is that it is no longer very easy to determine the correspondence between the sound-objects produced within each channel and the particular speaker to which a sound object is aimed on a strict one on one basis, but the fact that one cannot determine the connection in this way, does not mean that the channels are not always linked with one speaker or the other, or that the connection between channels and speakers is ever broken. The sounds programmed within each channel may slide from speaker to speaker, in any given sound sequence, but that does not mean the connection between channels and speakers are "broken." It simply means the relationship has become more fluid, and less determinate on a one on one basis, but the connection always has to be there, otherwise how would the speakers help to make the sounds audible? That's my two cents... I am no expert in Amos matters, so if I am mistaken in anyway, let me know. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 23, 2014 12:03:42 GMT -5
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. The only thing I said is that Atmos is software. The delivery system requires channels of amplification and speakers. I was not trying to describe how it works in detail and I do understand the concept of objects and the 3 dimensional encoding of them in general. I really don't want to understand it beyond the results that it gives. If it delivers 5.1 or 7.1 to most existing HT setups, those people won't care either and furthermore, they won't hear any difference. Only the addition of overhead speakers will result in any upgrade to most existing HT's. Of course. Without at least two top speakers there is no Atmos at all. The minimum spec is 5.1.2. It is, as you imply, backwards compatible with legacy 5.1 and 7.1 systems so you can buy Atmos Blurays when they are available later this year and play them on a legacy 5.1 or 7.1 system. Then when/if you upgrade you will already have a library of content. And, of course, if you have an Atmos AVR you can use 4 Atmos speakers or 4 Atmos on-speaker modules. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 23, 2014 12:04:50 GMT -5
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. Maybe there is some confusion arising from the terminology or language you're using because if the "link" was really "broken", as you insist it has, then no speakers would be needed at all, since the channels would function completely independently in a separate region from the speakers. Yet, that is clearly not the case. The channels still need the speakers in order to make the programmed sounds audible, however unchartable the directionality of such sounds appears to be. In that sense, the channels are still intimately dependent on the speakers, as they have always been. I think what you are really saying is that it is no longer very easy to determine the correspondence between the sound-objects produced within each channel and the particular speaker to which a sound object is aimed on a strict one on one basis, but the fact that one cannot determine the connection in this way, does not mean that the channels are not always linked with one speaker or the other, or that the connection between channels and speakers is ever broken. The sounds programmed within each channel may slide from speaker to speaker, in any given sound sequence, but that does not mean the connection between channels and speakers are "broken." It simply means the relationship has become more fluid, and less determinate on a one on one basis, but the connection always has to be there, otherwise how would the speakers help to make the sounds audible? That's my two cents... I am no expert in Amos matters, so if I am mistaken in anyway, let me know. Thanks. Yes, you're mistaken. The link or relationship between channels and speakers is severed with Atmos. It is crucial to grasping how Atmos works to take that point on board. |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Jul 23, 2014 12:09:24 GMT -5
So how are the channels able to function (i.e. produce any sounds) without being linked to speakers? Channels do not produce any sounds by themselves, as I understand them, or better yet, such sounds as they produce cannot be audible without the presence of speakers. If they were entirely "severed" from speakers as you claim in one of your last post and others, then they ought to be able to make themselves "heard" without the speakers, but that is clearly not the case either. So Could you explain things better?
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 23, 2014 13:47:56 GMT -5
Bed, object, Atmos language. Channel/amp/speaker, hardware language. Conventional Dolby Digital sends discrete l,c,r,sl,sr,br,bl,sub signals to dedicated amp channels that are connected to speakers in the recommended postitions. Atmos sends bed information (10 available) to up to 64 hardware channels, and object information(118 available) anywhere it desires including multiple channels to fullfill a sound x,y,z coordinated space. See, I do understand!
|
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 23, 2014 14:20:44 GMT -5
So how are the channels able to function (i.e. produce any sounds) without being linked to speakers? Channels do not produce any sounds by themselves, as I understand them, or better yet, such sounds as they produce cannot be audible without the presence of speakers. If they were entirely "severed" from speakers as you claim in one of your last post and others, then they ought to be able to make themselves "heard" without the speakers, but that is clearly not the case either. So Could you explain things better? It's not really my mission in life to educate you, but I will have one more go before I give up. In a cinema, you have, for example, one left surround channel. However, that one channel consists of half a dozen or more speakers. So as you can see, there is a definite relationship between channels and speakers, but one channel does not equate to one speaker and one speaker does not equate to one channel. But there is still only one left surround channel.
With 5.1 at home, things are a little different because at home we have 5 speakers and 5 channels. Each channel directs specific content to one speaker. Atmos uses channels (they call them 'beds) for static content and it also uses up to 118 'objects'. An object can be placed anywhere in a three dimensional sound space. Both in the theater and at home, in order to create a three dimensional space we need to add the third dimension, which has so far being absent: height. This is accomplished with two banks of several top speakers in a theater and 2 or 4 top speakers at home. Remember we are talking speakers and not channels. In the cinema, the system might use a total of 64 speakers. Sound objects can come from any or all of these speakers. But at home we only have, in a 5.1.2 system (the minimum Atmos configuration for home use) 7 speakers (plus a sub of course). In the cinema, when you hear an Atmos movie, it will use all 64 speakers. At home it will use 7, for the same content. So you can see, I hope, that the previous rigid, iron link between channels and speakers has now been severed by Atmos technology. If I am not explaining this clearly then I apologise and suggest you research it elsewhere - there is a lot of information available now and more to come in the next few weeks. Dolby have explained it like this: How is Dolby Atmos different than typical channel-based home theater systems?
Dolby Atmos is the first home theater system that is based not on channels, but on audio objects. What is an audio object? Any sound heard in a movie scene—a child yelling, a helicopter taking off, a car horn blaring—is an audio object. Filmmakers using Dolby Atmos can decide exactly where those sounds should originate and precisely where they move as the scene develops.
Thinking about sound in this way eliminates many of the limitations of channel-based audio. In a channel-based system, filmmakers have to think about the speaker setup: Should this sound come from the left rear surrounds or the left side surrounds? With Dolby Atmos, filmmakers just have to think about the story: Where is that yelling child going to run? The Dolby Atmos system, whether in the cinema or a home theater, has the intelligence to determine what speakers to use to precisely recreate the child’s movement in the way the filmmakers intend.
Dolby Atmos is also far more flexible and adaptable than channel-based home theater. In a channel-based system with channel-based content, the number of speakers is fixed—a 7.1 system always consists of seven speakers and one subwoofer. With Dolby Atmos, in contrast, you have amazing flexibility: you can get the full experience with just seven speakers or get an even richer, more detailed sound by adding more speakers. As you add speakers, a Dolby Atmos enabled receiver will automatically determine how to use them to create fantastic, immersive audio.
Source: blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/As you can see from their own explanation, the first thing they point out is that Atmos is NOT a channel-bases system. Note they say that it is the first time that the sound system at home is not based on channels. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jul 23, 2014 14:27:11 GMT -5
It's not really my mission in life to educate you, but I will have one more go before I give up. Yes it is. When you finally realize this grasshopper, you will have reached enlightenment.  |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Jul 23, 2014 14:28:03 GMT -5
"It's not really my mission in life to educate you, but I will have one more go before I give up."
I think you should have given up rather than bother to write that preface, and even more so, that longwinded ramble. I for one stopped reading as soon as I read that bit about your "mission in life"... Have a good life!
|
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 23, 2014 14:35:59 GMT -5
It's not really my mission in life to educate you, but I will have one more go before I give up. Yes it is. When you finally realize this grasshopper, you will have reached enlightenment. LOL. There is nothing more, my son. But if you choose to think there may be more, you are welcome to follow. Great show... |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 23, 2014 14:37:13 GMT -5
So filmmakers have to think less! I knew there had to be a better reason for Atmos than breaking the link between channels and speakers! Also it enables your wife to determine how many and where to locate speakers - God forbid!
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jul 23, 2014 14:37:39 GMT -5
"It's not really my mission in life to educate you, but I will have one more go before I give up." I think you should have given up rather than bother to write that preface... I for one stopped reading as soon as I read that bit about your "mission in life"... Have a good life! I take it you are not a fan of dry Brit humor.... Well that is how I read it but I can see how others might not take it the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 23, 2014 14:37:49 GMT -5
"It's not really my mission in life to educate you, but I will have one more go before I give up." I think you should have given up rather than bother to write that preface... I for one stopped reading as soon as I read that bit about your "mission in life"... Have a good life! Then clearly you have no interest really in learning more about Atmos and just asked your question for whatever unknown reason you had in mind at the time. Your loss - Atmos is the biggest step forward on home HT audio since we moved from 2.0 to Prologic. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 23, 2014 14:38:51 GMT -5
So filmmakers have to think less! I knew there had to be a better reason for Atmos than breaking the link between channels and speakers! No - that isn't at all true. They just have a different tool in the tool chest now to help them realise their intent much better. |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Jul 23, 2014 14:49:53 GMT -5
"My loss"? Wow! Seriously? it's as if you and only you are the ultimate and last authority on "Dolby Atmos"... Sheesh, Have you googled "Dolby Atmos" lately? To spell things out to you more clearly, I am interested in Dolby Atmos alright, actually very much so.... I am just not interested in reading your stuff anymore. I hope that is clear enough to you. So now, if you do not mind, I shall take a bow and leave you to carry on without me. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 23, 2014 14:53:42 GMT -5
So filmmakers have to think less! I knew there had to be a better reason for Atmos than breaking the link between channels and speakers! No - that isn't at all true. They just have a different tool in the tool chest now to help them realise their intent much better. " In a channel-based system, filmmakers have to think about the speaker setup: Should this sound come from the left rear surrounds or the left side surrounds? With Dolby Atmos, filmmakers just have to think about the story" Which words of yours are considered by you to be true? |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jul 23, 2014 16:03:19 GMT -5
"My loss"? Wow! Seriously? it's as if you and only you are the ultimate and last authority on "Dolby Atmos"... Sheesh, Have you googled "Dolby Atmos" lately? To spell things out to you more clearly, I am interested in Dolby Atmos alright, actually very much so.... I am just not interested in reading your stuff anymore. I hope that is clear enough to you. So now, if you do not mind, I shall take a bow and leave you to carry on without me. Thank you. No problem. I'm one of the few, maybe even the only one, in this thread who has actually heard the home version of Atmos. I thought my comments might be welcome, but clearly they aren't, at least in some cases. I'll leave you guys to it I think. |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Jul 23, 2014 16:19:34 GMT -5
IMO both of you are not as empathic as you could be. Sometimes it's best to agree to disagree...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 16:22:35 GMT -5
It's getting a little edgy in this thread, gents. Let's all play nice. Thanks  |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Jul 23, 2014 16:45:46 GMT -5
While you boys were picking on each other, I was sketching some Atmos-adapted layouts with the Dolby info thusfar in mind. If the tops are in the optimal 60* (degrees) elevation and the ceiling was high enough, then it follows here from that the tops are in the same distance from the side wall as the FR and LR (and the back surrounds). Just as that scheme suggested earlier. Then the angle between L and R tops would also be 60*. But this only works if the ceiling is at least half the room width + ear height. So if the room width is 5 m, the ceiling should be 5/2 (=2,5) + 1 = 3,5 m. Few have this, hence the elevation will be lower than optimal. But it seems this has been taken in account also in that scheme. I know Atmos adapts to the speakers and their position but it's fun to try to find a good layout with as little speakers as possible...
|
|
