KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 25, 2014 10:52:56 GMT -5
The one thing I would comment on here is that I don't think it's "manufacturers" who "aren't including positional information"... at least as far as the original "object positions", it is the "home Atmos" disc (or other content) that simply doesn't contain that positional information. (Although I suspect you really mean that it would be nice if they uses positional information - at least about the speakers - to improve matters.) There seems to be some confusion about what the "objects" are, and how the Atmos model compares to, for example, 3D graphic rendering.... With 3D still graphics rendering, objects take up wildly varying amounts of space (an object could be a complex wireframe with millions of points, taking up gigabytes of space, or it could be an entry in a text file that reads "sphere; center 23,14,28; size 426; material 42"). Therefore, depending on the 3D program and system involved, you can fit a lot of objects into not much space. With Atmos, each object is basically a full audio channel; and, if an Atmos recording is "maxxed out", using all 118 possible independent objects, a cinema Atmos recording could require up to 128 separate audio channels. (This would reduce the play time of a Blu-Ray disc from a few hours to about fifteen minutes - not counting the video. It also takes a huge amount of processing power.) Therefore, it is the "home Atmos" standard itself that must limit the number of independent objects. Nothing so far suggests that the home version has any objects - in the sense that the term is used with the cinema version - although it might contain a few. I haven't seen information with that level of detail yet. However, it would clearly be impractical to include more than a few objects. Current wording suggests that the four top channels are "objects", although I haven't seen anything that explicitly states that they are. (Note that the new pending DTS standard - from what information there is - DOES include at least some actual "positionable objects" - or, at the very least, the ability to address categories of objects such as "dialog".) Now, there are actually two "levels" at which "positioning" takes place.... the positioning of objects, and the (rather simpler) ability to compensate for the location of individual speakers. Cinema Atmos does both - at the same time. Each object contains positional information; cinema Atmos uses this, along with the positional information about each speaker, to put each sound in the proper speaker or speakers to put the sound in the proper audible "location". If you "pick the process apart"... Each object in cinema Atmos is basically a sound clip and its associated meta-data (which looks sort of like "play object 23, level 45, size 20, location 34,16,41"). The cinema Atmos processor then uses that information - and its knowledge of where each speaker in the theater is - to position each object where it belongs. BOTH the intended position of each object AND the known position of each speaker is included in the calculations. However, those objects can be "pre-rendered" into a "standard 7.1.4 mix" - by using the positional information for each object - but assuming that each speaker will be in "the proper location". At this point, the individual objects are "frozen" into that mix. If you then take that mix, and record it on a disc, you can then treat each of the resulting channels in that mix as an object for purposes of adjusting the position of each in relation to where your SPEAKERS are located. This second type of positioning is what would allow Atmos to compensate for various room speaker placements, and would also be quite useful. From the current descriptions, it appears that the "first generation" of home Atmos will do neither. However, it seems quite reasonable to expect that this second capability (to be able to position channels relative to speakers) may be present in "second generation" Atmos devices. Also, interestingly, this should work equally well with ANY standard 5.1 or 7.1 mix, and could be a major benefit for those with non-standard speaker placements. An example will make this easier to understand: Let's assume a 5.1 system - except that the center channel speaker is three feet to the left of center.... In a current 5.1 system, you can control the level of that center, but you really can't "correct" for its position. In a cinema Atmos system, each object would be positioned correctly, regardless of the speaker position. (An object intended to be positioned center front of the room would be "placed" to appear part way between the center speaker - which is too far to the left - and the right front speaker... so it sounded like it was coming from the spot where that center speaker should have been.) With that "second level of positioning only", you wouldn't be able to control how each object appears in the mix, but you would be able to control the overall mix between the center channel and the other channels to "move the entire center channel" to its correct location relative to the entire room (you would mix some of the center into the right front, and so "pull" the image to the right - to where it belonged). This method would be less accurate overall than handling the objects separately, but could still produce a significant improvement. It would also work with even non-Atmos stuff (we DO have "positional information about the channels"; we know that the center channel "belongs" in the center). If all this is starting to sound VERY confusing .... the perhaps it would be best to sum it up thus.... Object-oriented control of audio is "the wave of the future" and "the current hot buzz word"... however, before getting too excited, we really need to sit back and see how much of it ends up in the products themselves, and what practical benefits we actually get from it. So far, all we have is some (incomplete and somewhat confusing) information about home Atmos, and even less about DTS UHD. We need to know both what capabilities the home version of each supports (theoretically) AND which of those capabilities are actually implemented in each piece of equipment. It will also be kind of important to see how many discs are actually produced using each - and how many discs (if any) end up supporting both. (You really don't want to buy something now to get support for Atmos, then find out you'll have to buy something else next year or the year after to get DTS UHD.) I suspect it's going to be a while before the dust settles and we see (and hear) what each actually delivers. To make a pun: What matters isn't how the technology sounds (as in "how they describe it"), but how the technology SOUNDS (as in "how it improves our listening experience - or not").  (sorry, I just couldn't resist)  So it would appear my thoughts regarding Atmos in the home were correct. Not saying this to gloat, just that when going over Dolby's own literature I couldn't see how the current crop of products possessed the requisite "horsepower" to run Atmos "properly" let alone how older models could be made Atmos compatible with a firmware update. I'm sure the introduction of discrete ceiling channels will be a benefit, but to be honest, the addition of ceiling channels was not what had me excited about Atmos (and yes I was excited). I agree with EmoCustomer that object based sound is revolutionary, but it appears we'll have to wait a while longer for it to reach the home -if it does at all. I think it's too early to say, Andrew. The horsepower to run Atmos is being incorporated in the new Atmos units - Denon have added two additional processors and Onkyo have dropped Audyssey (whose computational requirements were too much for Onkyo processors to handle alongside Atmos). It remains to be seen how well the Atmos experience will be reproduced with just two or four additional 'top' speakers. With a movie that has been designed to make the most of Atmos - such as the new Transformers movie for example - it will be interesting to see how much better the audio experience is at home. I will be going Atmos regardless and have speakers ready to install on-ceiling, so you can be sure I will report back here once it is all working. I agree with you that it is disappointing that manufacturers have not included positional information in their AVRs. I was expecting more I have to admit. It will also be interesting to see how Dolby's new upmixing algorithm works with Atmos for legacy content. Dolby have a pretty goods rep with upmixing so I am very interested to see if this brings benefits to my existing Blurays. I never did expect current units to be firmware-upgradeable so that comes as no surprise, although we are led to believe that some of the new 2014 Onkyo models were released with everything inside needed to allow an Atmos FQ upgrade, so they may be an exception. Certainly, I agree that no legacy units will have this capability. |
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Jun 25, 2014 12:13:22 GMT -5
This Atmos discussion has sparked my interest, do we know which 2014 Onkyo models may be FW upgradable to enable Atmos?
Cheers,
Dave.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jun 25, 2014 12:55:43 GMT -5
The 'height' speakers mentioned in that graphic I posted are for running PLIIz, Neo:X and DSX and are not supposed to be used, in those positions, for Atmos. Atmos for the home requires two or four 'top' speakers mounted on the ceiling as also shown in the diagram. I thought one of the "advantages" of Atmos was not REQUIRING specific configurations. With object based sound, yes. Lots of the arguments against are starting to sound very similar to the 5.1 vs 7.1 ones from a few years back. ...you mean I have to buy another set of speakers and amp to get more surrounds? And yet now 7.1 is pretty much the standard today even though many still run 5.1 setups. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 25, 2014 13:04:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 25, 2014 13:07:11 GMT -5
Chuckienut only watches foreign movies with English sub-titles. Will Atmos really enhance his movie experience?  Hey, you never know. Perhaps Atmos can do wonders with mono..... I mean, it cures more ailments than Windex! That is actually a possibility now that we know there will be a new upmixing algorithm for Atmos. Auro have a standard demonstration where they upmix a mono track through their full speaker setup and everyone who has heard it (I haven't unfortunately) has been blown away by it. So yes, you could be right... |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 25, 2014 15:04:26 GMT -5
That is actually a possibility now that we know there will be a new upmixing algorithm for Atmos. Auro have a standard demonstration where they upmix a mono track through their full speaker setup and everyone who has heard it (I haven't unfortunately) has been blown away by it. So yes, you could be right... I can't tell. Are you being serious? Yes, really. I know several people who have hear Auro demoed with an upmixed mono track. I was scheduled to be at one of the demos myself but I couldn’t make it as I was out of the country at the time. They all say, without exception, that the upmixed mono track was "sensational" or words to that effect. IDK if an upmixed mono track via Atmos would give a similar experience of course, but I can't see any reason why not. See this interview with the guy who invented Auro - he comments on mono upmixing somewhere in it IIRC. harmonicjunction.com/interview-wilfried-van-baelen-auro-technologies-part-1/ |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jun 25, 2014 15:08:38 GMT -5
I can't tell. Are you being serious? Yes, really. I know several people who have hear Auro demoed with an upmixed mono track. I was scheduled to be at one of the demos myself but I couldn’t make it as I was out of the country at the time. They all say, without exception, that the upmixed mono track was "sensational" or words to that effect. IDK if an upmixed mono track via Atmos would give a similar experience of course, but I can't see any reason why not. What sonic changes make the upmixed mono track "sensational?" |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 25, 2014 15:12:43 GMT -5
Yes, really. I know several people who have hear Auro demoed with an upmixed mono track. I was scheduled to be at one of the demos myself but I couldn’t make it as I was out of the country at the time. They all say, without exception, that the upmixed mono track was "sensational" or words to that effect. IDK if an upmixed mono track via Atmos would give a similar experience of course, but I can't see any reason why not. What sonic changes make the upmixed mono track "sensational?" I only have secondhand reports to go on, but I trust the judgement of the people who were there. They reported an "almost unbelievable" sense of realism and three dimensionality of the soundstage, even from a mono source. One guy described it as being not unlike a 2 channel source upmixed by Plii. Where Auro hgets the spatial cues from IDK. The article I just linked to might have info on that - it's ages since I read it. I have already dismissed Auro as a serious contender for my cash, for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is that it is a (old fashioned) channel-based solution and I personally believe that the future is objects. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 25, 2014 15:28:13 GMT -5
[snip] One guy described it as being not unlike a 2 channel source upmixed by Plii. [snip] So, basically results that are absolutely made up based on fuzzy algorithms that sound great with select tracks, and horrible with others. Based on the algorithms, you can create source content that gets processed nicely (I'm sure nobody would ever do that for a demo). Doesn't mean a whole lot given that it only sounds good sometimes. PLIIz hasn't exactly blown the doors off the consumer market... Reminds me of old DSP effects. "Concert Hall" "Arena" I can only go on what I was told unfortunately. It is possible that the Auro upmixing algorithm works better than the old Dolby algorithms I guess. And of course, upmixing mono isn't really going to be a mainstream use - I expect they included it to show off the capabilities rather than as a serious concept. If you were going to invest time and money in an Auro system I'd strongly recommend a demo. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,096
|
Post by klinemj on Jun 25, 2014 15:59:13 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. My translation of what you are saying is that the home version won't be as impressive as you had hoped, and also we don't really know how big of a change it will make where it really counts (the sound, for the home version). And, it also makes me wonder if there will be Atmos variations in the future which are even better for home than the one that's coming out, esp. as more machines are ready to take it fully and more content is out there. Net, for me, if I were actively shopping for an AVR or pre/pro, I would still be interested in hearing the real home version of Atmos, but I would not hold it as a requirement. I know you've been trying to educate people about Atmos so when they buy a new AVR or pre/pro that they know what they might be missing if they don't get one that's suitable for Atmos. At this point, you've done a good job of educating me, and it won't be (at this point) a primary driver for any decision. Once Atmos is out in its final version and we start hearing some real user experience with it, I might change my mind. Good thing for me - I am in no hurry to switch my AVR...the UMC-1 is working great still. By the time I am ready, perhaps Atmos will actually be mature and there will be plenty of options for pre/pro's and plenty of content...just like there is for 7.1 today.  Mark |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 25, 2014 18:22:18 GMT -5
I can only go on what I was told unfortunately. It is possible that the Auro upmixing algorithm works better than the old Dolby algorithms I guess. And of course, upmixing mono isn't really going to be a mainstream use - I expect they included it to show off the capabilities rather than as a serious concept. If you were going to invest time and money in an Auro system I'd strongly recommend a demo. I'm confused. I thought you worked for Dolby. Which are you pushing, Atmos or Auro? Or maybe Circle Surround? I don't work for Dolby. I am betting on Atmos as being the format which succeeds. |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 25, 2014 18:32:45 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. My translation of what you are saying is that the home version won't be as impressive as you had hoped, and also we don't really know how big of a change it will make where it really counts (the sound, for the home version). And, it also makes me wonder if there will be Atmos variations in the future which are even better for home than the one that's coming out, esp. as more machines are ready to take it fully and more content is out there. I think all of the above is sensible. I will be going ahead with Atmos in one form or another but haven’t yet decided how many additional top speakers I am going to use. Currently I am perhaps favouring 5.2.2 rather than 5.2.4 but that is mainly due to my HT not having a lot of room behind the seating in order to place rear tops at the proper positions (according to the diagram I posted earlier). With the unfortunate lack of positional rendering, this means that I have to put the speakers in the absolute recommended position as there will be no compensatory rendering at this time to allow for speakers in less than ideal spots. The upside of this is that I will be able to use a cheaper Denon AVR and later, if second-gen units allow for proper rendering, I may be able to use 5.2.4, swapping to a flagship AVR or prepro at that time. It's a bit up in the air right now as we need more detailed info from the manufacturers. I shall wire for all possible scenarios which will make any future developments easy to install. I may start an Atmos upgrade thread on AVS to detail the experience, so anyone interested is welcome to follow it of course. Net, for me, if I were actively shopping for an AVR or pre/pro, I would still be interested in hearing the real home version of Atmos, but I would not hold it as a requirement. I know you've been trying to educate people about Atmos so when they buy a new AVR or pre/pro that they know what they might be missing if they don't get one that's suitable for Atmos Again, your position seems very sensible to me. Early adoption does carry some risks at this time. At this point, you've done a good job of educating me, and it won't be (at this point) a primary driver for any decision. Once Atmos is out in its final version and we start hearing some real user experience with it, I might change my mind. I doubt if you will be able to buy an AVR or processor from any mainstream manufacturer by this time next year which does not include Atmos, so if you upgrade for any reason after that date, and stay with main manufacturers, chances are your unit will have Atmos anyway. By then there will also be a fair amount of content, so all you would need to get into Atmos would be two top additional speakers for a 5.2.2 or 7.2.2 system. Good thing for me - I am in no hurry to switch my AVR...the UMC-1 is working great still. By the time I am ready, perhaps Atmos will actually be mature and there will be plenty of options for pre/pro's and plenty of content...just like there is for 7.1 today. Mark Yes, I would expect so. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jun 25, 2014 18:43:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 25, 2014 18:52:47 GMT -5
I'm confused. I thought you worked for Dolby. Which are you pushing, Atmos or Auro? Or maybe Circle Surround? I don't work for Dolby. I am betting on Atmos as being the format which succeeds. Many people bet on HD-DVD. Just because there is a competition, doesn't mean there is a "winner". Dolby and DTS still compete. And there are multiple competitors in the 3-D realm. While I think Atmos is getting a jump start - it could be the new Beta VCR format for all you know. Time will tell. Lack of consumer interest might be an issue. Most consumers aren't looking for more speakers. It's a very niche market. And I don't buy into the claim that it'll make better use of existing speakers. AVR manufacturers wanted a new buzz word and they got it. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,096
|
Post by klinemj on Jun 26, 2014 5:50:18 GMT -5
Speculation is sure dangerous. Based on what emocustomer had been saying, Atmos for home would be awesome and any processor without it would be effectively a useless antique. Now, a key feature he and others were counting on will not be included. So, it appears it won't be quite as impressive as hoped (but of course, even that is speculation).
We will just have to wait and see. One thing I am quite sure of...given all the marketing hype, it will become something (for at least the next couple years) that some consider a "must have". What I and nobody can be sure of at this point is "will it be worth it?"
We will see.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 26, 2014 7:31:21 GMT -5
Speculation is sure dangerous. Based on what emocustomer had been saying, Atmos for home would be awesome and any processor without it would be effectively a useless antique. Now, a key feature he and others were counting on will not be included. So, it appears it won't be quite as impressive as hoped (but of course, even that is speculation). We will just have to wait and see. One thing I am quite sure of...given all the marketing hype, it will become something (for at least the next couple years) that some consider a "must have". What I and nobody can be sure of at this point is "will it be worth it?" We will see. Mark It is very disappointing that the current Atmos units do not have the ability to determine speaker angles. But some improvement over what we currently have is better than no improvement at all. And for those who are able to place their speakers in the recommended positions, it isn’t an issue anyway. I won't be posting here any more but if you want to continue the discussion there are threads elsewhere where the topic isn’t being ruined. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 26, 2014 7:56:16 GMT -5
Where did I say they NEED it TODAY? Because that is what I'm reading into your post. I picked 6 months from now, and now thinking about it that is way too short of a time, so lets make it 18 months. Does that make what I said more palpable? And again I point to the fact on who started this thread. (and others) So if the Emotiva brass wants to talk about Atmos, I want to listen. If you don't, thats OK but you make it seem that outsiders started this conversation to stir the pot. Not fair and your conclusions are in fact stirring the pot first. Think about it. This tech is beyond alpha or beta since it is being released this year but how successful it becomes to me at least is no different than the next version of HDMI. Yet with that (hdmi), it seems is almost a must have feature and I can talk against bending over backwards to have that but in the end I give up to the market demands. You don't see a difference here besides having bones to pick with other members? People are talking about the current technology as-is based on current information. That's the stumbling block. Fine, I'll concede by calling it Atmos 1.0. However, it's not a mature technology. It might be bug-free, however. I'm not going to argue with you. Not sure why you're trying to rehash old posts. Again. If you want tech talk, post something technical. Or at least some experience you have with Atmos. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jun 26, 2014 8:11:21 GMT -5
Not sure how this thread took such a detour into crazy-angry town, but how about we stop while we're all still friends. There is no reason to get all hot and bothered over Atmos. At the end of the day it's just another technology in a world filled with technology that you can choose to like and use or do without. Pretty harmless really.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 26, 2014 9:16:25 GMT -5
Hi, guys.... I'm going to give you my impressions on Atmos so far - as a "technology".
1) I'm not even going to talk about how it sounds - because we all know it sounds nice in theaters, and I haven't actually heard a proper demonstration of the home version yet (I'm sure it will sound very nice too). My point here is that most of us haven't, and it's sort of obvious that some speakers, and some other equipment, and some rooms, will work far better than others - so that will have to wait a while - and is destined to vary hugely between implementations. Also, at the risk of being obvious, different people have different expectations and different preferences. I'm sure that, in the end, some of us will find having top channels to be "a compelling increase in realism" - while others of us will simply find it more annoying to have stuff buzzing around over your head than just buzzing around your head. Some of my colleagues here like PLIIx for listening to stereo content; I find it merely a distraction; I have no idea how you feel about it. Atmos will certainly give you another choice.. and so will the DTS product. At the very least, Atmos will virtually guarantee that every action movie made from now on will include at least one scene where something takes off and flies back, up, and over your head.
2) Dolby is betting on Atmos for several reasons. They're doing well with pushing Atmos technology out into theater; Atmos home will complement that; and both will bootstrap the market for each other - and for other Atmos "stuff". (More theaters running Atmos == more people listening to Atmos at home == more studios releasing discs on Atmos == maybe I should buy an Atmos-enabled phone == and dig my cool new Atmos headphones.) And, yes, there is going to be Atmos for headphones, and Atmos for smart devices like phones (adding "Beats audio" is credited with improving sales for several smart phones; although some reviews seem reticent to suggest that it actually improves the way they sound). The whole behind-the-scenes business landscape of Dolby vs DTS is interesting, complicated, and a great read (if you like cutting edge commercial technology - or soap operas). The only problem with that is that it encourages both sides to make vague statements that - while they encourage "mind share" in their solution - may not be especially informative. (Some Atmos press releases sure seem to suggest that home Atmos will be "object based", even though the details seem to not support that suggestion. Current information indicates that the DTS version will be - at least somewhat.)
3) Availability and implementation is going to be a huge factor....
* How many people will buy Atmos now?
* How many legacy pieces of equipment will be able to be upgraded to it - or to "Atmos home lite"?
* If you buy an Atmos-enabled system today, will it work with DTS UHD when THAT comes out, or will you have to buy or upgrade again?
(Bummer if the new Atmos AVR you buy won't do DTS UHD, and that turns out to be better...)
* How many discs will actually be released in each?
(Bummer if you buy that new Atmos AVR and it turns out that, five years from now, almost all of the discs end up being DTS... or the other way around.)
* How about compatibility? (DTS is suggesting that their UHD may be able to play Atmos content.... hmmmm.... that could be a big plus...)
* How much equipment will include both? (Will your new AVR do both? Will your new speakers - in their new locations - work for both?)
4) Technology isn't everything anyway... Just because one system is capable of sounding better than another doesn't mean that it will. The home version of the DTS system (UHD) sounds (from descriptions) like it might be technically superior to the home version of Atmos. However, what will matter is what companies DO with it - both in terms of the releases and in terms of the devices you need to play it. (Almost everyone agrees that, as a technology, Beta was far better than VHS - yet VHS won that war early on... mostly because, better technology or not, most of the MOVIES you could actually buy were on VHS. It doesn't matter how good it looks - or sounds - if your movie doesn't come on it.)
Looking at it another way, being able to manage individual objects is definitely great - for a mixing engineer - or someone trying to direct the Foley sound FX for a swarm of killer drone robot bees in his latest action flick. It remains to be seen whether there are any real benefits in a home theater. (Since DTS UDH at least looks to really be object based, while the home version of Atmos is.... less so.... it's obviously going to be very important to find out whether that capability makes much difference to us with home theaters - or not. Regardless of whose technology is technologically better, it's going to matter more which one actually sounds best - of if they end up sounding pretty much the same.) My educated guess here is that, if you have a nice "normal" room, with speakers in the normal places, it isn't going to matter much. If, instead, you have a weird room, or speakers in strange places, then being able to actually use their positions to compensate for that has the potential to be a big plus.
As it sits, only about 1/3 of the home theater owners currently have 7.1 (most of the rest stuck with 5.1). We all wonder how many will upgrade to Atmos, or DTS UHD... and how many of them will actually buy extra speakers and rearrange their room. I know quite a few people who like height speakers, but in percentages most people rally don't like it enough to put speakers in their ceiling. Atmos-enabled "bounce" speakers will make that easier, but we'll see how well they actually work.
4) Accurately synthesizing height information that wasn't there in the recording to begin with is impossible. Anyone who say they can do that is lying. What is possible is to use the information that is present to make a good guess about what should be there - or, more importantly, that will sound nice. This is why any system that "synthesizes" stereo from mono, or surround from stereo, or height from surround, is not quite the same as the real thing - but they can certainly sound very good - and some can sound better than others.
My guess is that, at least initially, the only thing most people will NOTICE about Atmos is those top speakers - and stuff OVER your head as well as surrounding you - and that will make it interesting (lots of "wow" factor").
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on Jun 26, 2014 9:30:18 GMT -5
My guess is that, at least initially, the only thing most people will NOTICE about Atmos is those top speakers - and stuff OVER your head as well as surrounding you - and that will make it interesting (lots of "wow" factor"). I would like to comment on this last statement that Keith makes, because reading it I realize that the sensation of sound over one's head shouldn't be new to the home theater experience. I'm not trying to disparage Atmos or anyone else's home theater setup, but since the advent of Dolby Surround -yes I said surround -you should have been treated to the sensation of sound overhead. I say this because surround channels, be it in a 5.1 or 7.1 setup, should be located higher up than their front loudspeaker counterparts. In a 5.1 setup the surrounds should be located above and to the side of your primary listening position, whereas with a 7.1 setup you have speakers to the side and behind your primary listening position. Because the surrounds are mounted higher than the listener's ear level you should get the sensation of sound emanating from above. Perhaps Atmos will do a "better" job of this by making that ceiling information discrete, but to suggest that it is the only way with which to experience sound overhead, I believe, is wrong. On the flip side, if one is unable to mount their surrounds higher up -i.e. must place them on stands -I have to imagine the notion of being able to then mount speakers to their ceiling is out of the question. This is no doubt where Atmos loudspeakers come into play, which I have no comment on as I have not heard them. Though I could argue that by designing surrounds with upward firing or upward angled drivers to be used in non-Atmos installations you would likely achieve the same effect -or something very close to it -depending on how you worked with the DSP etc. It's what we already do with height and effects channels so I cannot imagine why the same couldn't be done for synthesized ceiling channels -though Atmos renders this question moot, since those channels will now be discrete. |
|
So it would appear my thoughts regarding Atmos in the home were correct. Not saying this to gloat, just that when going over Dolby's own literature I couldn't see how the current crop of products possessed the requisite "horsepower" to run Atmos "properly" let alone how older models could be made Atmos compatible with a firmware update. I'm sure the introduction of discrete ceiling channels will be a benefit, but to be honest, the addition of ceiling channels was not what had me excited about Atmos (and yes I was excited). I agree with EmoCustomer that object based sound is revolutionary, but it appears we'll have to wait a while longer for it to reach the home -if it does at all. I think it's too early to say, Andrew. The horsepower to run Atmos is being incorporated in the new Atmos units - Denon have added two additional processors and Onkyo have dropped Audyssey (whose computational requirements were too much for Onkyo processors to handle alongside Atmos). It remains to be seen how well the Atmos experience will be reproduced with just two or four additional 'top' speakers. With a movie that has been designed to make the most of Atmos - such as the new Transformers movie for example - it will be interesting to see how much better the audio experience is at home. I will be going Atmos regardless and have speakers ready to install on-ceiling, so you can be sure I will report back here once it is all working.
(sorry, I just couldn't resist)
