|
|
Post by junchoon on Mar 1, 2015 1:50:10 GMT -5
I'm not sure what that means, I can't say as I have ever heard a speaker reproducing 100khz. Even the dog next door tops out at 45khz, so he hasn't heard it either. The cat on the other side, the one that always craps right next to the door of my car in the driveway so I tread in it when I get out, she tops out at 80khz. But if we were talking 50 hz or lower, I've got them both covered  Cheers Gary To add to that I agree human hearing range has always been stated as 20-20khz. There is no dispute on that. Which implies we can't hear below 20hz. But put it this way: You can certainly feel 10hz pounding at ya, right? This also opens up the possibility that you can feel 50khz, right? The key word here is feel. Let's hope XMR-1 has the Unison for multi-ch 192khz, finger crossed! |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,275
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 1, 2015 1:59:32 GMT -5
I just wanted to clarify one thing about Atmos.... which is that playing an Atmos disc on a 5.1 or 7.1 channel system (with no height speakers) should give you the exact same result as if you were playing a True HD version of the same content - there are no mystical benefits just because it's using Atmos to deliver the channels. If you have a 5.1 or 7.1 or 7.2 channel system, then the 5.1 or 7.2 channel mix on the disc should be the same exact mix as you would get if you have an Atmos processor decode the Atmos content on the disc (they were presumably sourced from the same Atmos master, by a decoder set to decode them for the standard surround speaker locations anyway). In fact, since the theatrical Atmos master potentially holds more information than the home Atmos format, it's quite possible that the surround sound mixes created from the theatrical Atmos master, and provided on the disc as "standard surround sound versions", might actually be better than the version you would get by having your pre/pro decode the home format Atmos content locally. (In theory, Atmos would give you the benefit of being able to alter the decoder settings to accommodate unusually positioned speakers, but I'm not aware of ANY processor that offers that functionality yet, or anyone who's even announced it.) Other than that, if there are any audible differences, they are simply due to a deliberate choice to make the various versions sound different. I'm interested that you could never go back to 7.2 after Atmos. Just what exactly are you listening to in Atmos? I would prefer quality over multi-speaker gimmickry, just as I don't upscale my stereo sources such as regular TV to surround.
If you have an Atmos setup, you are almost certainly just upscaling standard 2.0 and 5.1 (plus the relatively few tru 7.1 Blu-Rays that exist) using the Atmos processor, as there is almost no Atmos source material.
This means that gimmick is over-riding purity and quality.
Upscaling stereo to 5.1 or 7.1 is "frowned upon" from a quality point of view but that is the same thing that is occurring with all Atmos setups (including both home theatre and the cinemas, who similarly don't have Atmos encoded source material)
I feel that your outlook on upconversion may be a bit short-sighted. Converting two channel material to 5.1/7.1 is certainly stretching the bounds of what can be done well through signal processing. Dolby Pro Logic is an admirable effort, but far from state of the art and, frankly, can do more harm than good. However, I do believe taking 5.1/7.1 material and stretching it vertically with Dolby Surround is considerably less harmful. With two channel you quite simply only have two channels of information and you are attempting to fill six to eight discrete channels. Whereas with 5.1/7.1 you have considerably more discrete data to work with. I own every Atmos title available on BD at this moment. The titles vary in general quality, but none are bad and most are better, in my opinion, than their 7.1 channel counterpart. For me, the real trick is less Atmos and more Dolby Surround. Yes, it is upmixing, but it does an incredible job. I use it by default with all 5.1 and up material. For me the difference between a DS upmix and true Atmos is fairly difficult to tell apart. All of the Atmos titles I own I also have their digital download equivalent. When doing a comparative listen it really is hard to differentiate which is better. The one thing I know for sure is that everyone who has been in my home theater says without hesitation the Atmos/Dolby Surround playback is superior. I agree completely and that is why I made the statement that I could not go back. |
|
|
|
Post by markc on Mar 1, 2015 4:59:14 GMT -5
I'm interested that you could never go back to 7.2 after Atmos. Just what exactly are you listening to in Atmos? I would prefer quality over multi-speaker gimmickry, just as I don't upscale my stereo sources such as regular TV to surround.
If you have an Atmos setup, you are almost certainly just upscaling standard 2.0 and 5.1 (plus the relatively few tru 7.1 Blu-Rays that exist) using the Atmos processor, as there is almost no Atmos source material.
This means that gimmick is over-riding purity and quality.
Upscaling stereo to 5.1 or 7.1 is "frowned upon" from a quality point of view but that is the same thing that is occurring with all Atmos setups (including both home theatre and the cinemas, who similarly don't have Atmos encoded source material)
I feel that your outlook on upconversion may be a bit short-sighted. Converting two channel material to 5.1/7.1 is certainly stretching the bounds of what can be done well through signal processing. Dolby Pro Logic is an admirable effort, but far from state of the art and, frankly, can do more harm than good. However, I do believe taking 5.1/7.1 material and stretching it vertically with Dolby Surround is considerably less harmful. With two channel you quite simply only have two channels of information and you are attempting to fill six to eight discrete channels. Whereas with 5.1/7.1 you have considerably more discrete data to work with. I own every Atmos title available on BD at this moment. The titles vary in general quality, but none are bad and most are better, in my opinion, than their 7.1 channel counterpart. For me, the real trick is less Atmos and more Dolby Surround. Yes, it is upmixing, but it does an incredible job. I use it by default with all 5.1 and up material. For me the difference between a DS upmix and true Atmos is fairly difficult to tell apart. All of the Atmos titles I own I also have their digital download equivalent. When doing a comparative listen it really is hard to differentiate which is better. The one thing I know for sure is that everyone who has been in my home theater says without hesitation the Atmos/Dolby Surround playback is superior. I agree completely and that is why I made the statement that I could not go back. I have not heard Dolby Atmos, but it is clear that, on account of owning "every Atmos title available", you are an Atmos "Fanboy" determined to want and justify Atmos, no matter what. This is evident for many of the people on this forum desperate for Atmos, despite many not having heard it I should speculate, and upset that Emotiva shouldn't attempt to retro-engineer it into the XMC-1.
Owning every Atmos title on Blu-Ray sounds like an attempt to buy Atmos as a format, no matter the genre or quality / likeability of the film. As for me, if I want to watch a movie, I buy the movie. I don't buy movies I am uninterested in just because it is a pristine video transfer with superlative sound.
Finally, I am please to read that Dolby Surround upmixing sounds equivalent to Atmos processing. Perhaps object based audio is not necessary after all for those reluctant to "need" a 16 channel processor and the cost of the matching speakers and room wrecking required to "benefit" from it.
It also suggests that more speakers in any system provides a more immersive experience. That is no surprise. However, immersive does not make for accurate high definition localisation, which our brain is used to doing. Spreading a specific sound across a wider array of speakers actually diffuses the original position of the sound. A gunshot sound comes from a specific direction with secondary reflected and diffracted sounds coming afterwards to help the brain localise direction. Dolby Surround processing does not use any direction information in spreading the sound across even more speakers but uses arithmetical AND, OR, XOR and NOT etc to upmix. Height channels are nothing of the sort. They do not play sounds which emanated from high up in the original recorded environment. Height extraction processing simply spread sounds to more speakers to give less directionality and more immersion at the expense of accuracy and possibly realism.
I guess this is my issue. Much of the forums are aimed at discussing the minutiae of accuracy with increasing bit depths and sample rates and flat in-room speaker responses and feeling hard done by because Dirac only does 48kHz 24 bit processing, downgrading our audio signals in order to do this, whilst there is then a want and perceived need for trickery to decrease accuracy by bastardising discrete channels into up-mixed diffuse channels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Mar 1, 2015 6:50:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure what that means, I can't say as I have ever heard a speaker reproducing 100khz. Even the dog next door tops out at 45khz, so he hasn't heard it either. The cat on the other side, the one that always craps right next to the door of my car in the driveway so I tread in it when I get out, she tops out at 80khz. But if we were talking 50 hz or lower, I've got them both covered To add to that I agree human hearing range has always been stated as 20-20khz. There is no dispute on that. Which implies we can't hear below 20hz. But put it this way: You can certainly feel 10hz pounding at ya, right? This also opens up the possibility that you can feel 50khz, right? The key word here is feel. Let's hope XMR-1 has the Unison for multi-ch 192khz, finger crossed! I think I now know what it means, of course I don't agree, but at least I think I understand the thought. The issue I have is that although I can't hear much below 20 hz, I can definitely feel the air pressure. The amount of air moved at that low a frequency, for any decent volume, is substantial and hence easy to feel. Plus I can almost certainly hear the second harmonic, maybe even the third. But no mater how hard I try I can't hear a 40 khz dog whistle. There's simply not enough air pressure at that frequency to feel it and the second, or third harmonic, just puts it further outside my hearing range. Cheers Gary |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by Lsc on Mar 1, 2015 8:48:44 GMT -5
Folks in Avsforum are holding out for various reasons and they have already called my precious XMC-1 obsolete when I bought it! ( Simple, just pick one item out of their signature and remind them that it's obsolete.  Everyone I know has at least one "obsolete" item in their system. Some are even very precious about it, makes the comeback even stronger Cheers Gary Thanks for the advice but I'm secure enough in knowing that my XPR-2 that retails for $1,799 can keep up with the McIntosh 1.2kW monoblocks at least in my room (21' x 15'). My F208 / SVS SB13 with the help of Dirac and XMC-1 sounds slightly worse than the $80,000 Martin Logan Neolith with the Mcintosh 2 channel preamp and no room correction. And their gear list is too impressive to fight on that front  . If anyone here thinks Atmos doesn't add much to movies really need to check out an Atmos theater. This technology has me going back to the theaters because it's that good and if you never heard it, probably should hear it first... And yes while I do enjoy a really well made movie regardless of its video/audio quality, my favorite movies are the two star action movies with great sound and mindless action. It's personal preference and doesn't have to be an either or situation. I have a very hard time listening to my favorite music too from back in the day because the sound quality is so mediocre. My system makes the well recorded material sound so good, 90% of the music I have sound terrible in comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by wilburthegoose on Mar 1, 2015 8:55:04 GMT -5
^^^
The nearest Atmos theater to me (in Philly) appears to be a 5 hour Acela train trip away in Boston.
|
|
|
|
Post by khollister on Mar 1, 2015 10:12:48 GMT -5
The other Keith is absolutely correct - the current home Atmos standard simply delivers the 5.1/7.1 TrueHD "core" unless you have the additional ceiling speakers enabled. There is absolutely no difference in what the decoder delivers. The only possible advantage an Atmos decoder offers for a 7.1 installation is how the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) synthesizes the extra 2 channels from 5.1 material vs the Dolby PLII umpire that is standard in non-Atmos implementations. There is some discussion on AVS that most prefer the DSU performance on movies to PLII.
However almost everyone seems to prefer PLII for music rather than DSU, so that is a big problem. I believe only Yamaha offers PLII Music on an Atmos decoder presently.
There is a very large difference in commercial Atmos and home theater Atmos, and it is not the implementation but the standard.
All the hype about "object oriented" audio for less than 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 systems if just wishful thinking due to how the standard for Atmos has been defined. DTS might have a big surprise in store with DTS:X, but I seriously doubt it since all of this stuff is designed for the "average" home system. Amos already put considerable strain on existing DSP resources (which is why Onkyo dropped Audyssey this year - to avoid having to double the DSP to accommodate Atmos & Audyssey on all 12 channels). While the Trinnov's, Datasat's and even Emotiva's of the world might not flinch at throwing massive DSP capability into their flagship processors, Yamaha, Onkyo, D&M and Sony are still price driven. I'm pretty sure that Dolby, DTS and the movie studios are not going to embrace a standard that is only accessible to 1% of their customer base.
The industry has their hands full for the next few years trying to make 4k & Atmos/DTS:X a success. I doubt throwing a new ultra high end sound format into that is in the cards.
Remember that any AV technology has to be synchronized with the incorporation of that tech by the studios in the content. If the studios don't think they can generate substantial revenue from people upgrading their media, they aren't in any financial position to support it. 3D was an adoption failure from the studio's standpoint, and I understand that DVD still represents a significant market. 4K blu-ray is going to be a tough sell for the industry at large, especially with Sony ramming HDCP 2.2 down the throats of everyone.
If you are sticking with 5.1 or 7.1, there is absolutely no advantage to a Atmos decoder except if you prefer DSU for umpiring 5.1 to 7.1 (because even 7.1 was not common until that last year or so).
There is no magic in home theater Atmos. The sound advantages have everything to do with having overhead speakers and steering sound vertically as well as horizontally. I don't think the object oriented technology is even that important since most implementations don't even have a way to know where the speakers actually are.
While it might have been cool if the local decoder created a real-time mix depending on whether you had 5.1, 7.1, 9.1, 7.1.4, etc from a single set of audio data on disc, the current standard doesn't actually work that way (commercial Atmos does and is a huge win for the post production sound engineers).
|
|
|
|
Post by wilburthegoose on Mar 1, 2015 10:58:31 GMT -5
^^^
Thumbs up. I'm a person that bet on Betamax and HD-DVD. Who knows, Atmos could be 2015's Betamax....
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by Lsc on Mar 1, 2015 11:52:10 GMT -5
^^^ Thumbs up. I'm a person that bet on Betamax and HD-DVD. Who knows, Atmos could be 2015's Betamax.... Lol! I bet on VHS and blu-Ray. But in between had laserdiscs. I love this talk about how Atmos is totally unnecessary. If it's true then I'm with you that the XMC-1 is just fine the way it is. I personally feel that Emotiva missed a chance to make the XMC-1 the best thing since sliced bread by excluding Atmos. Imagine if the XMC-1 had Atmos? Can you possibly see anything even close to its price range that can compete? The thousands of sales lost to the Marantz 7702 should have all gone to Emotiva. Like the UFC from back in the dark ages, the XMC-1 could have launched the brand into the mainstream and taken over the home theatre world. It literally could have been the can't miss product of the decade. Why with the exception of Atmos would anyone buy the Marantz over the XMC-1? Are you kidding me? I see that people are struggling with Audyssey now over there. Of course! Audyssey is terrible!!! But if it's true that all we need is 7.1 lossless and do not need Atmos, why do most of us even care about the XMR-1? Who cares about 16 channels when 7.1 is good enough. Who needs the fully balanced on all channels? Do we all have Revel Salon2 or B&W 800 diamonds? And $5k price tag means niche market. It's too expensive to set the stage on fire because most average folks who say they don't need more than 5.1 with above average speakers can't really realize the XMR-1's full potential. It's kind of funny how the same thing that gets people excited about the XMR-1 is the same thing they are saying is unnecessary for the XMC-1. Fancy that. |
|
|
|
Post by khollister on Mar 1, 2015 12:18:06 GMT -5
You're missing my point. I'm not saying a 7.1.4 Atmos system doesn't sound better than 7.1, but that Atmos is pointless if you are not going past 7.1.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Mar 1, 2015 12:19:36 GMT -5
Buy gear for the happiness it brings you now.
Your happiness, not a happiness defined by what some write down.
Don't succumb to negative group think.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmMixer on Mar 1, 2015 12:24:51 GMT -5
I just wanted to clarify one thing about Atmos.... which is that playing an Atmos disc on a 5.1 or 7.1 channel system (with no height speakers) should give you the exact same result as if you were playing a True HD version of the same content - there are no mystical benefits just because it's using Atmos to deliver the channels. If you have a 5.1 or 7.1 or 7.2 channel system, then the 5.1 or 7.2 channel mix on the disc should be the same exact mix as you would get if you have an Atmos processor decode the Atmos content on the disc (they were presumably sourced from the same Atmos master, by a decoder set to decode them for the standard surround speaker locations anyway). In fact, since the theatrical Atmos master potentially holds more information than the home Atmos format, it's quite possible that the surround sound mixes created from the theatrical Atmos master, and provided on the disc as "standard surround sound versions", might actually be better than the version you would get by having your pre/pro decode the home format Atmos content locally. (In theory, Atmos would give you the benefit of being able to alter the decoder settings to accommodate unusually positioned speakers, but I'm not aware of ANY processor that offers that functionality yet, or anyone who's even announced it.) Other than that, if there are any audible differences, they are simply due to a deliberate choice to make the various versions sound different. Keith.. just a couple of nit pick comments. The theatrical master could potentially hold more discrete objects, however, semantically speaking, they content will be identical. And you are playing a TrueHD version of the "same content" since the object are embedded into the TrueHD 7.1 track. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmMixer on Mar 1, 2015 13:02:31 GMT -5
The other Keith is absolutely correct - the current home Atmos standard simply delivers the 5.1/7.1 TrueHD "core" unless you have the additional ceiling speakers enabled. There is absolutely no difference in what the decoder delivers. The only possible advantage an Atmos decoder offers for a 7.1 installation is how the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) synthesizes the extra 2 channels from 5.1 material vs the Dolby PLII umpire that is standard in non-Atmos implementations. There is some discussion on AVS that most prefer the DSU performance on movies to PLII. However almost everyone seems to prefer PLII for music rather than DSU, so that is a big problem. I believe only Yamaha offers PLII Music on an Atmos decoder presently. There is a very large difference in commercial Atmos and home theater Atmos, and it is not the implementation but the standard.
All the hype about "object oriented" audio for less than 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 systems if just wishful thinking due to how the standard for Atmos has been defined. DTS might have a big surprise in store with DTS:X, but I seriously doubt it since all of this stuff is designed for the "average" home system. Amos already put considerable strain on existing DSP resources (which is why Onkyo dropped Audyssey this year - to avoid having to double the DSP to accommodate Atmos & Audyssey on all 12 channels). While the Trinnov's, Datasat's and even Emotiva's of the world might not flinch at throwing massive DSP capability into their flagship processors, Yamaha, Onkyo, D&M and Sony are still price driven. I'm pretty sure that Dolby, DTS and the movie studios are not going to embrace a standard that is only accessible to 1% of their customer base. The industry has their hands full for the next few years trying to make 4k & Atmos/DTS:X a success. I doubt throwing a new ultra high end sound format into that is in the cards. Remember that any AV technology has to be synchronized with the incorporation of that tech by the studios in the content. If the studios don't think they can generate substantial revenue from people upgrading their media, they aren't in any financial position to support it. 3D was an adoption failure from the studio's standpoint, and I understand that DVD still represents a significant market. 4K blu-ray is going to be a tough sell for the industry at large, especially with Sony ramming HDCP 2.2 down the throats of everyone. If you are sticking with 5.1 or 7.1, there is absolutely no advantage to a Atmos decoder except if you prefer DSU for umpiring 5.1 to 7.1 (because even 7.1 was not common until that last year or so). There is no magic in home theater Atmos. The sound advantages have everything to do with having overhead speakers and steering sound vertically as well as horizontally. I don't think the object oriented technology is even that important since most implementations don't even have a way to know where the speakers actually are. While it might have been cool if the local decoder created a real-time mix depending on whether you had 5.1, 7.1, 9.1, 7.1.4, etc from a single set of audio data on disc, the current standard doesn't actually work that way (commercial Atmos does and is a huge win for the post production sound engineers).I agree with many of your points.. well said. There really isn't a huge difference in the standard... can you elaborate? We certainly haven't seen any readily averrable home processors that stretch out beyond 7.1.4... however, that doesn't mean that home Atmos is fundamentally different so I just wanted some clarity on your comment.. By the way the audio is encoded (the TrueHD structure contains all the data to recreate the 2.0, 5.1, 7.1 etc) there is no need do a real time mix since Atmos still relies on a bed + objects premise... if it were truly all objects, the mix down would indeed have to happen (and Dolby maintains that home Atmos is all objects, with the "beds" defined by their lack of dynamic metadata and the ability to define the surround "objects" as point source or arrays on systems with more than four speakers handling the surround duties.) To clarify, theatrical Atmos does not work the way you describe.. the two versions are almost identical.. to be clear, the theatrical Atmos print master contains a 10 channel bed (7.1 + 2 overhead array channels...) The OH beds are encoded as objects for the home. In the cinema, the objects are rendered in real time.. which is exactly the same as in the home version... the objects are subtracted from the "bed" and then rendered (I know you know this, just elaborating for those who do not.) I do agree with most of your comments about the format in general as it exists at this point. I think people are going to be disappointed in what DTS:X brings to the plate initially.... from all accounts I've heard, it will be almost exactly like Atmos at this point... why people expect something fundamentally different is beyond me. Many rabid enthusiasts have made the (false) assumption that DTS-HD MA is audibly superior to TrueHD based on it's prevalence on BR, or because of the misunderstanding of how Dialog Norm works, etc.. The initial press release for DTS:X (DTS:UHD at the time of CES 2014) promoted speaker remapping and independent object control... however, it is my understanding that the remapping technology needs to be implemented by the AVR/SSP and is not a function of the "codec/tech.." AFAIK, the Atmos rendering engine will feed positional data in a similar way to the processor. In addition, it will remain to be seen if content makers of filmed content on BR will allow for dialog and other parts of the soundtrack to be encoded separately (for creative reasons... not debating the need for such control...) At this point, for a majority of Atmos and Auro mixers I've been privy to, the dialog doesn't exist separately from the rest of the bed for the most part... to go back and prepare an immersive mix for the home to accomplish such separation takes time and money.. and I can tell you most studies don't like to expend much of either for home content... Interesting times indeed.. As a side note, I love DSU for music.. however, as a mixer, I am always looking for ways to expand 2 channel music to fill up a cinema.. DSU is most similar to a process I use called Penteo for upmixing... (if you want an example of how Penteo sounds, you can listen to any of the songs in "The Heat" or "Anchorman 2...." it's very similar to how DSU works.) It pulls out discrete instruments and voices and has very few artifacts.. I wish that Dolby would've implemented more user control over some parameters, and those I've spoken with who don't love the up mixer feel it makes the soundstage too long (pulls too much into the surrounds)... |
|
|
|
Post by plm on Mar 1, 2015 14:44:37 GMT -5
The XMC-1 is all about delivering the the highest quality Surround Sound experience possible from its existing channel configuration. This is much more important to me than a "half baked" Atmos implementation. We are seriously looking at a Unison upgrade in the future; this has way more upside than adding basic, bare bones Atmos... checking off the option box does not seem to be justification for adding it. Bolting on Atmos, DTSx, and other 3D sound field processing schemes is like trying to add AWD to a RWD car after the fact. It's better if you have planned for it! We needed least 12 channels from the start to do it right, or why bother? Is it possible to get the XMC doing Dirac room correction at native sampling rate? I believe it's operating at 48kHz currently, but don't know whether that's a horsepower limitation in the XMC or a Dirac limitation. I'm not necessarily sold on all the additional channels of the XMR-1, but I have more and more music in Blu-ray format that has multi-channel 192kHz audio, and I'd really like to be able to get that through room correction and into the DACs without downsampling. If it's a horsepower issue, then will the XMR be able to handle this? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Mar 1, 2015 15:11:30 GMT -5
LSC stated:
"I know pre pros have crappy resale values and that's ok. You can see how folks can't unload their XMC-1 for $1500 already".
This not really a fair statement as it relates to the XMC-1, as people as still using their 40% cards, upgrade for life discount, and E Club pricing to purchase their new XMC-1's.
Why would you take a chance buying a used one when you can still purchase new for essentially the same money?
Just saying...
Peace out,
Big Dan
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Mar 1, 2015 15:23:20 GMT -5
I'm not necessarily sold on all the additional channels of the XMR-1, but I have more and more music in Blu-ray format that has multi-channel 192kHz audio, and I'd really like to be able to get that through room correction and into the DACs without downsampling. If it's a horsepower issue, then will the XMR be able to handle this? I can say this. If the XMR will do 96k processing (ie Dirac) it will be among units costing $20K or so. If it can do 192K it will be a first as far as I currently know. I'll also be the first to admit that I won't be able to tell the difference reliably in a DBT between a 96K and 192K recording but I could easily tell the difference between a pre and post Dirac treatment at "only" 48K. But again you as a consumer get to decide what is important to you. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Mar 1, 2015 15:27:47 GMT -5
LSC stated: "I know pre pros have crappy resale values and that's ok. You can see how folks can't unload their XMC-1 for $1500 already". This not really a fair statement as it relates to the XMC-1, as people as still using their 40% cards, upgrade for life discount, and E Club pricing to purchase their new XMC-1's. Why would you take a chance buying a used one when you can still purchase new for essentially the same money? Just saying... Peace out, Big Dan |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Mar 1, 2015 15:33:10 GMT -5
LSC stated: "I know pre pros have crappy resale values and that's ok. You can see how folks can't unload their XMC-1 for $1500 already". This not really a fair statement as it relates to the XMC-1, as people as still using their 40% cards, upgrade for life discount, and E Club pricing to purchase their new XMC-1's. Why would you take a chance buying a used one when you can still purchase new for essentially the same money? Just saying... Peace out, Big Dan I agree: I'm not a buyer of a used piece of gear until I can get it for 20% less than I can buy it new. For a used XMC-1 that's $960 for me. |
|
|
|
Post by khollister on Mar 1, 2015 15:40:23 GMT -5
... By the way the audio is encoded (the TrueHD structure contains all the data to recreate the 2.0, 5.1, 7.1 etc) there is no need do a real time mix since Atmos still relies on a bed + objects premise... if it were truly all objects, the mix down would indeed have to happen (and Dolby maintains that home Atmos is all objects, with the "beds" defined by their lack of dynamic metadata and the ability to define the surround "objects" as point source or arrays on systems with more than four speakers handling the surround duties.) To clarify, theatrical Atmos does not work the way you describe.. the two versions are almost identical.. to be clear, the theatrical Atmos print master contains a 10 channel bed (7.1 + 2 overhead array channels...) The OH beds are encoded as objects for the home. ... I should state up front that I haven't worked in the film post world for a long time, so my comments were based on what I have read, not on first-hand experience. Therefore, I certainly defer to your apparent current experience. What I thought was going on in the theatrical version was that all of the audio was object based and there were no pre-rendered beds. Of course, now that you point out the similarities, I can see how the same backwards-compatibility need would exist in the commercial theater world as in the home theater environment, so the fact that there are existing beds in the release prints makes perfect sense. Which further reinforces ( I think) my assertion that Atmos/DTS:X is not going to do anything to "improve" the 5.1/7.1 experience. I have heard several folks comment on forecasting the ability to tweak things like the dialog level independent of the speaker channel under the same misunderstanding that everything was an object and potentially available for 3D placement and level control. Thanks for the info. I have not heard DSU on music yet, but the AVS crowd is very down on it for music. Of course, that charge is somewhat led by Roger Dressler over there who worked for Dolby and was involved in the design of PLII originally, I believe. The common complaint is that the surrounds are way too hot, so that does line up with your comment. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmMixer on Mar 1, 2015 16:19:44 GMT -5
... I have not heard DSU on music yet, but the AVS crowd is very down on it for music. Of course, that charge is somewhat led by Roger Dressler over there who worked for Dolby and was involved in the design of PLII originally, I believe. The common complaint is that the surrounds are way too hot, so that does line up with your comment.My description was indeed directly from Roger, as we discussed that, and many things, over dinner the other night. |
|
. 
