XMR-1

[KeithL]

You're quite right. My point was that, assuming you have a 5.1 or 7.1 setup, with no height speakers, there's nothing INHERENTLY better about using an Atmos decoded copy rather than a TrueHD decoded copy. That's not to say that, since they are two separate mixes, either might not be better in a specific case. I'm also not especially well versed in how the Atmos mix is created, or how it specifically relates to the other one. I believe that the TrueHD mix is actually treated as a "core stream" of sorts, and that the additional Atmos information then serves as a modifier to that core.... but I don't know the technical details of that process.

I've also been basing my analysis of the situation on the idea that the producers would do the best they could to make the home Atmos version function as much like the theatrical Atmos version as possible - and that also isn't a given. (Although, for the purposes of marketing, they sure seem to be implying that the two will be very close.) The reality is that the goals of the two systems simply aren't the same. The goal of the theatrical system might fairly be described as starting with a bunch of "sound objects", each with a distinct size and location, and a large number of speakers, which may be quite different in both number and location from theater to theater, and reconciling the two such that the objects are presented at the correct virtual location in each theater, independent of where the physical speakers are. Whereas, the goal of the home system could more reasonably be stated as being to duplicate the results of the theatrical system in a home setting, with fewer speakers, and with those speakers in a limited number of possible configurations. (Or, alternately, to produce a mix that presents well in the home, and preserves "the artistic intent" of the original, rather than being an attempt to duplicate it as exactly as possible.)

Based on my initial assumption, we might assume that the home system would use the largest possible subset of the theatrical system, within the limitations of the home decoder (perhaps by consolidating groups of objects, or by limiting the options). Furthermore, if that was the case, it might make sense that some sort of simple and semi-automated process could be used to produce the home version from the theatrical version. However, I recently read a (not especially detailed) article where a mixing engineer discussed his creation of the home Atmos mix of a particular theatrical release. And, rather than an automated conversion, or a specific attempt to produce an accurate subset of the theatrical release, his description read more like "I picked out the objects that seemed important and placed them where they sounded the best". From this we might assume that he made a lot of personal decisions about which objects to merge into the bed channels and which ones to have remain as objects; furthermore, it sounds like he also made decisions based on his "artistic interpretation" of the content and the venue. (In other words, instead of placing a character who was "30 degrees front of left" in the theater in the same position in your living room, he instead positioned that character where it seemed to make sense for him to be in your living room... and so what he ended up with was in fact a "custom Atmos mix for the home version" rather than "the closest possible duplicate of the theatrical mix possible in your home".)

This interpretation leads to many possible - and divergent - options. We may assume that movies that are produced with the intent of being major releases both in-theater and in-home may be assumed to have individually optimized Atmos versions mastered for each. And, with these, how the home Atmos release version relates to the TrueHD version will depend on the producer's vision and their presumed audience. Perhaps the home Atmos version will attempt to recreate the theatrical version as closely as possible, and the TrueHD version will follow that as closely as possible; or, equally likely, the producer will assume that customers with Atmos-enabled home systems like special effects, and so those will be exaggerated in the Atmos version, and that home users who still use TrueHD tend more towards being audiophiles, and so tone down the effects in the TrueHD version in in favor of a cleaner overall mix with better musical production values. We can also assume that, much like with colorized reissues of movies, some movies that are re-mixed in Atmos for home release will have a lot of effort put into them, and will sound really good, while others will simply have a few random sound effects pulled from the mix, assigned as objects, and panned around occasionally - for effect. In short, in "the dark corners", some Atmos mixes may be noticeably different - and better, but others may actually be conspicuously worse. 

And, yes, both Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio are capable of delivering at least 24/96k lossless audio - which should indeed be audibly identical - unless they are deliberately and intentionally caused to sound different (or unless someone deliberately alters one or the other so they sound different). 

Feb 5, 2016 13:14:35 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

Feb 5, 2016 12:27:07 GMT -5 KeithL said:

For a given speaker configuration, there's only one "correct mix", and it doesn't matter how its delivered..... if you DON'T add height speakers, then there's no real benefit to using the Atmos mix rather than the backwards compatible and included Dolby TrueHD mix.

This may hold true if the Dolby True and Atmos mix are created equal. But isn't it possible that may not always be the case?

And could it not be possible that the Atmos mix is done differently on purpose to call out objects more than being blended in? I should think it is depending on who is doing the mixing. No?

Also, when you say there is only one "correct mix," does that not say, by extension, that there should be no difference between Dolby True and DTS Master, or by extension, Atmos vs DTS-X? I mean if there is only one correct mix, and they are both doing their best, then they should sound exactly the same, right? Well I know for a fact that Dolby True and DTS Master do not sound the same in my system. DTS "anything" has always trumped Dolby "anything" in my house.

[junchoon]

When is Emotiva planning to release XMR-1? Is the price still set at 5000? To be honest it is not exactly cheap. Any plan to mark it down?

As the saying goes, if you do not plan, you are planning to fail.

Or at least throw us a bone from time to time.

Thank you.

[Bonzo]

Feb 5, 2016 15:35:54 GMT -5 KeithL said:

You're quite right. My point was that, assuming you have a 5.1 or 7.1 setup, with no height speakers, there's nothing INHERENTLY better about using an Atmos decoded copy rather than a TrueHD decoded copy. That's not to say that, since they are two separate mixes, either might not be better in a specific case. I'm also not especially well versed in how the Atmos mix is created, or how it specifically relates to the other one. I believe that the TrueHD mix is actually treated as a "core stream" of sorts, and that the additional Atmos information then serves as a modifier to that core.... but I don't know the technical details of that process.

I've also been basing my analysis of the situation on the idea that the producers would do the best they could to make the home Atmos version function as much like the theatrical Atmos version as possible - and that also isn't a given. (Although, for the purposes of marketing, they sure seem to be implying that the two will be very close.) The reality is that the goals of the two systems simply aren't the same. The goal of the theatrical system might fairly be described as starting with a bunch of "sound objects", each with a distinct size and location, and a large number of speakers, which may be quite different in both number and location from theater to theater, and reconciling the two such that the objects are presented at the correct virtual location in each theater, independent of where the physical speakers are. Whereas, the goal of the home system could more reasonably be stated as being to duplicate the results of the theatrical system in a home setting, with fewer speakers, and with those speakers in a limited number of possible configurations. (Or, alternately, to produce a mix that presents well in the home, and preserves "the artistic intent" of the original, rather than being an attempt to duplicate it as exactly as possible.)

Based on my initial assumption, we might assume that the home system would use the largest possible subset of the theatrical system, within the limitations of the home decoder (perhaps by consolidating groups of objects, or by limiting the options). Furthermore, if that was the case, it might make sense that some sort of simple and semi-automated process could be used to produce the home version from the theatrical version. However, I recently read a (not especially detailed) article where a mixing engineer discussed his creation of the home Atmos mix of a particular theatrical release. And, rather than an automated conversion, or a specific attempt to produce an accurate subset of the theatrical release, his description read more like "I picked out the objects that seemed important and placed them where they sounded the best". From this we might assume that he made a lot of personal decisions about which objects to merge into the bed channels and which ones to have remain as objects; furthermore, it sounds like he also made decisions based on his "artistic interpretation" of the content and the venue. (In other words, instead of placing a character who was "30 degrees front of left" in the theater in the same position in your living room, he instead positioned that character where it seemed to make sense for him to be in your living room... and so what he ended up with was in fact a "custom Atmos mix for the home version" rather than "the closest possible duplicate of the theatrical mix possible in your home".)

This interpretation leads to many possible - and divergent - options. We may assume that movies that are produced with the intent of being major releases both in-theater and in-home may be assumed to have individually optimized Atmos versions mastered for each. And, with these, how the home Atmos release version relates to the TrueHD version will depend on the producer's vision and their presumed audience. Perhaps the home Atmos version will attempt to recreate the theatrical version as closely as possible, and the TrueHD version will follow that as closely as possible; or, equally likely, the producer will assume that customers with Atmos-enabled home systems like special effects, and so those will be exaggerated in the Atmos version, and that home users who still use TrueHD tend more towards being audiophiles, and so tone down the effects in the TrueHD version in in favor of a cleaner overall mix with better musical production values. We can also assume that, much like with colorized reissues of movies, some movies that are re-mixed in Atmos for home release will have a lot of effort put into them, and will sound really good, while others will simply have a few random sound effects pulled from the mix, assigned as objects, and panned around occasionally - for effect. In short, in "the dark corners", some Atmos mixes may be noticeably different - and better, but others may actually be conspicuously worse. 

And, yes, both Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio are capable of delivering at least 24/96k lossless audio - which should indeed be audibly identical - unless they are deliberately and intentionally caused to sound different (or unless someone deliberately alters one or the other so they sound different). 

Feb 5, 2016 13:14:35 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

This may hold true if the Dolby True and Atmos mix are created equal. But isn't it possible that may not always be the case?

And could it not be possible that the Atmos mix is done differently on purpose to call out objects more than being blended in? I should think it is depending on who is doing the mixing. No?

Also, when you say there is only one "correct mix," does that not say, by extension, that there should be no difference between Dolby True and DTS Master, or by extension, Atmos vs DTS-X? I mean if there is only one correct mix, and they are both doing their best, then they should sound exactly the same, right? Well I know for a fact that Dolby True and DTS Master do not sound the same in my system. DTS "anything" has always trumped Dolby "anything" in my house.

So after all that, depending on how the mix is made, with a 5.1 or 7.1 system, it's possible that the Atmos version will sound identical to the Dolby True version. But more importantly, it's also possible that Atmos could sound different than Dolby True. Whether different means better is another story (similar to Dolby vs DTS). This is the reason having Atmos and DTS:X processing may actually mean something even with a 5.1 or 7.1 system. Could be a little or could be a lot. But it could. Correct?

[hemster]

Feb 5, 2016 16:51:53 GMT -5 junchoon said:

When is Emotiva planning to release XMR-1? Is the price still set at 5000? To be honest it is not exactly cheap. Any plan to mark it down?

As the saying goes, if you do not plan, you are planning to fail.

Or at least throw us a bone from time to time.

Thank you.

They've planned not to throw any bones and I'd say they're succeeding!   

[Bonzo]

Feb 5, 2016 19:14:04 GMT -5 hemster said:

Feb 5, 2016 16:51:53 GMT -5 junchoon said:

When is Emotiva planning to release XMR-1? Is the price still set at 5000? To be honest it is not exactly cheap. Any plan to mark it down?

As the saying goes, if you do not plan, you are planning to fail.

Or at least throw us a bone from time to time.

Thank you.

They've planned not to throw any bones and I'd say they're succeeding!   

They need to make all their money back they spent in the 5 years it took them to make the XMC-1 first. At least that's what I'm a thinkin'. If XMC-1 sales stay strong we'll see the XMR-1 someday. If Atmos and DTS:X and Auro weren't here I'd feel much stronger on that happening. As it is, I'm 50/50 right now.

[junchoon]

Really? Not even planning on throwing out bones?

Oh well i forgot this dog is too old to have teeth left to chew after waiting for so long!

[ausman]

so is emo coming out with preamp with 11.x personally i liked to see 11.3/6 at the same price as the current xmc-1



is this going to be a 15-20amp to 240 vac mains

wouldn't mind seeing this in a 12/24/48 vdc option with atleast a 10-15/3-4 hdmi support..

this would cover all my ht/gaming requirements for the next 2-6 console generations from there on and atleast 2-3 bd or better players the pvr market of fta and pay tv... 1 main important thing inclusion of 10gb lan integration..

[Erwin.BE]

Feb 6, 2016 4:41:46 GMT -5 ausman said:

so is emo coming out with preamp with 11.x personally i liked to see 11.3/6 at the same price as the current xmc-1



is this going to be a 15-20amp to 240 vac mains

wouldn't mind seeing this in a 12/24/48 vdc option with atleast a 10-15/3-4 hdmi support..

this would cover all my ht/gaming requirements for the next 2-6 console generations from there on and atleast 2-3 bd or better players the pvr market of fta and pay tv... 1 main important thing inclusion of 10gb lan integration..

You need to do some reading and then post back if you have more questions. Just this: why would said preamp need "15-20amp to 240 vac mains"?

[klinemj]

Feb 6, 2016 4:41:46 GMT -5 ausman said:

so is emo coming out with preamp with 11.x personally i liked to see 11.3/6 at the same price as the current xmc-1

The only thing they have mentioned with more than 7.2 channels is the XMR-1, and they have said it will have 16 channels and be their top of the line processor. Price so far is estimated at $4999. But there is no firm timing on it, and things could change before it comes out. If they hold to that price, it would be well worth buying a 40% off card ASAP. They come up for sale every now and then.

Mark

[altloff]

Feb 5, 2016 17:16:06 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

Feb 5, 2016 15:35:54 GMT -5 KeithL said:

You're quite right. My point was that, assuming you have a 5.1 or 7.1 setup, with no height speakers, there's nothing INHERENTLY better about using an Atmos decoded copy rather than a TrueHD decoded copy. That's not to say that, since they are two separate mixes, either might not be better in a specific case. I'm also not especially well versed in how the Atmos mix is created, or how it specifically relates to the other one. I believe that the TrueHD mix is actually treated as a "core stream" of sorts, and that the additional Atmos information then serves as a modifier to that core.... but I don't know the technical details of that process.

I've also been basing my analysis of the situation on the idea that the producers would do the best they could to make the home Atmos version function as much like the theatrical Atmos version as possible - and that also isn't a given. (Although, for the purposes of marketing, they sure seem to be implying that the two will be very close.) The reality is that the goals of the two systems simply aren't the same. The goal of the theatrical system might fairly be described as starting with a bunch of "sound objects", each with a distinct size and location, and a large number of speakers, which may be quite different in both number and location from theater to theater, and reconciling the two such that the objects are presented at the correct virtual location in each theater, independent of where the physical speakers are. Whereas, the goal of the home system could more reasonably be stated as being to duplicate the results of the theatrical system in a home setting, with fewer speakers, and with those speakers in a limited number of possible configurations. (Or, alternately, to produce a mix that presents well in the home, and preserves "the artistic intent" of the original, rather than being an attempt to duplicate it as exactly as possible.)

Based on my initial assumption, we might assume that the home system would use the largest possible subset of the theatrical system, within the limitations of the home decoder (perhaps by consolidating groups of objects, or by limiting the options). Furthermore, if that was the case, it might make sense that some sort of simple and semi-automated process could be used to produce the home version from the theatrical version. However, I recently read a (not especially detailed) article where a mixing engineer discussed his creation of the home Atmos mix of a particular theatrical release. And, rather than an automated conversion, or a specific attempt to produce an accurate subset of the theatrical release, his description read more like "I picked out the objects that seemed important and placed them where they sounded the best". From this we might assume that he made a lot of personal decisions about which objects to merge into the bed channels and which ones to have remain as objects; furthermore, it sounds like he also made decisions based on his "artistic interpretation" of the content and the venue. (In other words, instead of placing a character who was "30 degrees front of left" in the theater in the same position in your living room, he instead positioned that character where it seemed to make sense for him to be in your living room... and so what he ended up with was in fact a "custom Atmos mix for the home version" rather than "the closest possible duplicate of the theatrical mix possible in your home".)

This interpretation leads to many possible - and divergent - options. We may assume that movies that are produced with the intent of being major releases both in-theater and in-home may be assumed to have individually optimized Atmos versions mastered for each. And, with these, how the home Atmos release version relates to the TrueHD version will depend on the producer's vision and their presumed audience. Perhaps the home Atmos version will attempt to recreate the theatrical version as closely as possible, and the TrueHD version will follow that as closely as possible; or, equally likely, the producer will assume that customers with Atmos-enabled home systems like special effects, and so those will be exaggerated in the Atmos version, and that home users who still use TrueHD tend more towards being audiophiles, and so tone down the effects in the TrueHD version in in favor of a cleaner overall mix with better musical production values. We can also assume that, much like with colorized reissues of movies, some movies that are re-mixed in Atmos for home release will have a lot of effort put into them, and will sound really good, while others will simply have a few random sound effects pulled from the mix, assigned as objects, and panned around occasionally - for effect. In short, in "the dark corners", some Atmos mixes may be noticeably different - and better, but others may actually be conspicuously worse. 

And, yes, both Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio are capable of delivering at least 24/96k lossless audio - which should indeed be audibly identical - unless they are deliberately and intentionally caused to sound different (or unless someone deliberately alters one or the other so they sound different). 

So after all that, depending on how the mix is made, with a 5.1 or 7.1 system, it's possible that the Atmos version will sound identical to the Dolby True version. But more importantly, it's also possible that Atmos could sound different than Dolby True. Whether different means better is another story (similar to Dolby vs DTS). This is the reason having Atmos and DTS:X processing may actually mean something even with a 5.1 or 7.1 system. Could be a little or could be a lot. But it could. Correct?

Correct as far as I've found.

I did an A/B comparison using "Man From Uncle" (chase scene about 1:30 was the most obvious) using Atmos and PLIIx, with my Height speakers turned off at the amps.
There was definitive a difference in the mixes, for the 7.1 ear level speakers, including extra LFE.
I haven't had time to test other discs yet.

[rtg97229]

Feb 6, 2016 19:26:09 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Feb 6, 2016 4:41:46 GMT -5 ausman said:

so is emo coming out with preamp with 11.x personally i liked to see 11.3/6 at the same price as the current xmc-1

The only thing they have mentioned with more than 7.2 channels is the XMR-1, and they have said it will have 16 channels and be their top of the line processor. Price so far is estimated at $4999. But there is no firm timing on it, and things could change before it comes out. If they hold to that price, it would be well worth buying a 40% off card ASAP. They come up for sale every now and then.

Mark

If you want it on day one the 40% card is a great idea. Otherwise I am a big fan of waiting out the used market. The XMC-1 for example has become a bargain on the used market to the point it is worth looking at even as a 2 chan solution.

[Talley]

Feb 10, 2016 2:14:52 GMT -5 rtg97229 said:

Feb 6, 2016 19:26:09 GMT -5 klinemj said:

The only thing they have mentioned with more than 7.2 channels is the XMR-1, and they have said it will have 16 channels and be their top of the line processor. Price so far is estimated at $4999. But there is no firm timing on it, and things could change before it comes out. If they hold to that price, it would be well worth buying a 40% off card ASAP. They come up for sale every now and then.

Mark

If you want it on day one the 40% card is a great idea. Otherwise I am a big fan of waiting out the used market. The XMC-1 for example has become a bargain on the used market to the point it is worth looking at even as a 2 chan solution.

I saw the XMC-1 early released options w/ the 40% sell for under 1400 which is lower than what I see them sell for now used a  year later.

If you have the 40% off... buy on day one.

[rtg97229]

Feb 10, 2016 6:27:56 GMT -5 Talley said:

Feb 10, 2016 2:14:52 GMT -5 rtg97229 said:

If you want it on day one the 40% card is a great idea. Otherwise I am a big fan of waiting out the used market. The XMC-1 for example has become a bargain on the used market to the point it is worth looking at even as a 2 chan solution.

I saw the XMC-1 early released options w/ the 40% sell for under 1400 which is lower than what I see them sell for now used a  year later.

If you have the 40% off... buy on day one.

If you already have the card of course but otherwise you are paying for a card on top of that price. Still not bad but more than currant used prices. It just depends on priorities.

[iqsy59]

Feb 10, 2016 9:55:01 GMT -5 rtg97229 said:

Feb 10, 2016 6:27:56 GMT -5 Talley said:

I saw the XMC-1 early released options w/ the 40% sell for under 1400 which is lower than what I see them sell for now used a  year later.

If you have the 40% off... buy on day one.

If you already have the card of course but otherwise you are paying for a card on top of that price. Still not bad but more than currant used prices. It just depends on priorities.

Precisely this. I feel like the card pricing right now is in anticipation of the XMR. With the XMC being my "ultimate processor" for years to come, the card at it's current prices would only save me about $100 over the recent sale price. I wish the fabled XMR would come out. I envision a rash of "obsolete" XMC's hitting the market at that time!

Cheers,
Michael

[rhale64]

Feb 10, 2016 10:09:07 GMT -5 iqsy59 said:

Feb 10, 2016 9:55:01 GMT -5 rtg97229 said:

If you already have the card of course but otherwise you are paying for a card on top of that price. Still not bad but more than currant used prices. It just depends on priorities.

Precisely this. I feel like the card pricing right now is in anticipation of the XMR. With the XMC being my "ultimate processor" for years to come, the card at it's current prices would only save me about $100 over the recent sale price. I wish the fabled XMR would come out. I envision a rash of "obsolete" XMC's hitting the market at that time!

Cheers,
Michael

Yep mine would be for sale quickly. I want the XMR1 like right now. I have my card, and my money.

[KeithL]

Absolutely - the Atmos mix could be different.

It is in fact a "separate mix", and so can be as different as the engineer mixed it to be, even when played over the exact same speakers.

Feb 5, 2016 17:16:06 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

Feb 5, 2016 15:35:54 GMT -5 KeithL said:

You're quite right. My point was that, assuming you have a 5.1 or 7.1 setup, with no height speakers, there's nothing INHERENTLY better about using an Atmos decoded copy rather than a TrueHD decoded copy. That's not to say that, since they are two separate mixes, either might not be better in a specific case. I'm also not especially well versed in how the Atmos mix is created, or how it specifically relates to the other one. I believe that the TrueHD mix is actually treated as a "core stream" of sorts, and that the additional Atmos information then serves as a modifier to that core.... but I don't know the technical details of that process.

I've also been basing my analysis of the situation on the idea that the producers would do the best they could to make the home Atmos version function as much like the theatrical Atmos version as possible - and that also isn't a given. (Although, for the purposes of marketing, they sure seem to be implying that the two will be very close.) The reality is that the goals of the two systems simply aren't the same. The goal of the theatrical system might fairly be described as starting with a bunch of "sound objects", each with a distinct size and location, and a large number of speakers, which may be quite different in both number and location from theater to theater, and reconciling the two such that the objects are presented at the correct virtual location in each theater, independent of where the physical speakers are. Whereas, the goal of the home system could more reasonably be stated as being to duplicate the results of the theatrical system in a home setting, with fewer speakers, and with those speakers in a limited number of possible configurations. (Or, alternately, to produce a mix that presents well in the home, and preserves "the artistic intent" of the original, rather than being an attempt to duplicate it as exactly as possible.)

Based on my initial assumption, we might assume that the home system would use the largest possible subset of the theatrical system, within the limitations of the home decoder (perhaps by consolidating groups of objects, or by limiting the options). Furthermore, if that was the case, it might make sense that some sort of simple and semi-automated process could be used to produce the home version from the theatrical version. However, I recently read a (not especially detailed) article where a mixing engineer discussed his creation of the home Atmos mix of a particular theatrical release. And, rather than an automated conversion, or a specific attempt to produce an accurate subset of the theatrical release, his description read more like "I picked out the objects that seemed important and placed them where they sounded the best". From this we might assume that he made a lot of personal decisions about which objects to merge into the bed channels and which ones to have remain as objects; furthermore, it sounds like he also made decisions based on his "artistic interpretation" of the content and the venue. (In other words, instead of placing a character who was "30 degrees front of left" in the theater in the same position in your living room, he instead positioned that character where it seemed to make sense for him to be in your living room... and so what he ended up with was in fact a "custom Atmos mix for the home version" rather than "the closest possible duplicate of the theatrical mix possible in your home".)

This interpretation leads to many possible - and divergent - options. We may assume that movies that are produced with the intent of being major releases both in-theater and in-home may be assumed to have individually optimized Atmos versions mastered for each. And, with these, how the home Atmos release version relates to the TrueHD version will depend on the producer's vision and their presumed audience. Perhaps the home Atmos version will attempt to recreate the theatrical version as closely as possible, and the TrueHD version will follow that as closely as possible; or, equally likely, the producer will assume that customers with Atmos-enabled home systems like special effects, and so those will be exaggerated in the Atmos version, and that home users who still use TrueHD tend more towards being audiophiles, and so tone down the effects in the TrueHD version in in favor of a cleaner overall mix with better musical production values. We can also assume that, much like with colorized reissues of movies, some movies that are re-mixed in Atmos for home release will have a lot of effort put into them, and will sound really good, while others will simply have a few random sound effects pulled from the mix, assigned as objects, and panned around occasionally - for effect. In short, in "the dark corners", some Atmos mixes may be noticeably different - and better, but others may actually be conspicuously worse. 

And, yes, both Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio are capable of delivering at least 24/96k lossless audio - which should indeed be audibly identical - unless they are deliberately and intentionally caused to sound different (or unless someone deliberately alters one or the other so they sound different). 

So after all that, depending on how the mix is made, with a 5.1 or 7.1 system, it's possible that the Atmos version will sound identical to the Dolby True version. But more importantly, it's also possible that Atmos could sound different than Dolby True. Whether different means better is another story (similar to Dolby vs DTS). This is the reason having Atmos and DTS:X processing may actually mean something even with a 5.1 or 7.1 system. Could be a little or could be a lot. But it could. Correct?

[Bonzo]

Feb 10, 2016 11:50:37 GMT -5 KeithL said:

Absolutely - the Atmos mix could be different.

It is in fact a "separate mix", and so can be as different as the engineer mixed it to be, even when played over the exact same speakers.

So for people who say Atmos and DTS:X decoding is 100% pointless without the added height channels and height speakers (beyond 5.1 xn1 7.1) are not 100% correct. Of course I think it's easy to understand that with the height channels & speakers it would make the most difference for sure. Whether that "most" is 70%, 80%, 90% or even 100%, it would potentially depend on the mix itself. But there could also be discernable differences in just 5.1 and/or 7.1., and that would be a reason to have Atmos and DTS:X even with just 5.1 and/or 7.1 equipment. Probably not a reason to upgrade from one 7.1 $1000 receiver to another, but adding it to the XMC-1 might make sense if it could be done via firmware upgrade.

[KeithL]

To be very specific - if you have 5.1 or 7.1 speakers, and no height speakers, there is no specific reason why the Atmos mix would necessarily be any different than the TrueHD mix.
(If the producers chose to, they could put all of the information from the Atmos "decode to 7.1" into the TrueHD version, and the two would be IDENTICAL.)

However, they could in fact choose to make the two mixes different...
Whether this would be the case or not would depend on their particular workflow.
(In fact, it might not be surprising to find "hyped up special effects" in the Atmos mix - in an attempt to differentiate it.)

Now, do bear in mind that what we're talking about here is simply a difference (as if they included "the regular mix" and "the alternate mix").
There's no particular reason why one or the other would be "better" - unless they deliberately "depreciated" the normal mix, or you simply happen to like one or the other better.
(If anything, based on the workflow I've heard of being used with a few Atmos releases, the difference would be that certain objects would be emphasized to a greater or lesser degree.)
And, yes, by having access to both versions, if they are in fact different, you would be getting "more choices".

It will be interesting to see if reviewers start comparing the two (just as we currently see comparisons between "the two-channel track" and "the surround track" on audio discs).
And, if that happens, it will be interesting to see which version most people prefer.
Remember that, assuming there is a difference, it's quite possible that the Atmos mix, intended to be played with height channels available, may actually sound worse in 5.1 or 7.1 than the TrueHD mix.


My guess would be that, once the whole situation becomes routine, the two will become more similar......
Assuming that the two mixes are "mixed individually", then I would expect that each may be optimized differently.
However, once Atmos mastering becomes "'the norm", I would in fact expect all of the mixing to be done in Atmos, and the TrueHD mix to be produced from that "after the fact".
And, if this is the case, then the TrueHD 7.1 channel version really will simply be a copy of the Atmos track "pre-decoded to 7.1".
(In which case I would expect the two to sound identical when played on a 5.1 or 7.1 system without height channels.)
And, by that point, Atmos will have enough market penetration that there's won't be any point in expending extra effort to make them sound different.
(I think, in the actual delivery system, the TrueHD version is treated as the core, and metadata is used to "make the Atmos parts different" - but I haven't studied how it's done in detail, so I could be wrong there.)

Feb 10, 2016 12:27:05 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

Feb 10, 2016 11:50:37 GMT -5 KeithL said:

Absolutely - the Atmos mix could be different.

It is in fact a "separate mix", and so can be as different as the engineer mixed it to be, even when played over the exact same speakers.

So for people who say Atmos and DTS:X decoding is 100% pointless without the added height channels and height speakers (beyond 5.1 xn1 7.1) are not 100% correct. Of course I think it's easy to understand that with the height channels & speakers it would make the most difference for sure. Whether that "most" is 70%, 80%, 90% or even 100%, it would potentially depend on the mix itself. But there could also be discernable differences in just 5.1 and/or 7.1., and that would be a reason to have Atmos and DTS:X even with just 5.1 and/or 7.1 equipment. Probably not a reason to upgrade from one 7.1 $1000 receiver to another, but adding it to the XMC-1 might make sense if it could be done via firmware upgrade.

[Bonzo]

Feb 10, 2016 12:51:18 GMT -5 KeithL said:

To be very specific - if you have 5.1 or 7.1 speakers, and no height speakers, there is no specific reason why the Atmos mix would necessarily be any different than the TrueHD mix.
(If the producers chose to, they could put all of the information from the Atmos "decode to 7.1" into the TrueHD version, and the two would be IDENTICAL.)

However, they could in fact choose to make the two mixes different...
Whether this would be the case or not would depend on their particular workflow.
(In fact, it might not be surprising to find "hyped up special effects" in the Atmos mix - in an attempt to differentiate it.)

Now, do bear in mind that what we're talking about here is simply a difference (as if they included "the regular mix" and "the alternate mix").
There's no particular reason why one or the other would be "better" - unless they deliberately "depreciated" the normal mix, or you simply happen to like one or the other better.
(If anything, based on the workflow I've heard of being used with a few Atmos releases, the difference would be that certain objects would be emphasized to a greater or lesser degree.)
And, yes, by having access to both versions, if they are in fact different, you would be getting "more choices".

It will be interesting to see if reviewers start comparing the two (just as we currently see comparisons between "the two-channel track" and "the surround track" on audio discs).
And, if that happens, it will be interesting to see which version most people prefer.
Remember that, assuming there is a difference, it's quite possible that the Atmos mix, intended to be played with height channels available, may actually sound worse in 5.1 or 7.1 than the TrueHD mix.

Yes, exactly.

It could be the same, as many people tend to think. But it could be better or worse. And I'm not going to differentiate between better or worse, or how much better or worse. That would take actual listening sessions. I'm only going to say "potentially different." Similar to say how while Dolby True & DTS Master could in theory sound exactly the same, they often do sound different, sometimes just slightly different, and sometimes, quite a bit.

Up until this conversation all I've seen is people 100% dismissing Atmos and DTS:X without the height channels. What we are saying here is that there could be benefits to Atmos & DTS:X even with just 5.1 and/or 7.1, depending on the specific mix for that title. At the very least I don't think many would argue it would be cool to have the choice, like in the days of DVD where your could choose Dolby or DTS. That way people can listen and decide for themselves.

[Bonzo]

Feb 10, 2016 12:51:18 GMT -5 KeithL said:

My guess would be that, once the whole situation becomes routine, the two will become more similar......
Assuming that the two mixes are "mixed individually", then I would expect that each may be optimized differently.
However, once Atmos mastering becomes "'the norm", I would in fact expect all of the mixing to be done in Atmos, and the TrueHD mix to be produced from that "after the fact".
And, if this is the case, then the TrueHD 7.1 channel version really will simply be a copy of the Atmos track "pre-decoded to 7.1".
(In which case I would expect the two to sound identical when played on a 5.1 or 7.1 system without height channels.)
And, by that point, Atmos will have enough market penetration that there's won't be any point in expending extra effort to make them sound different.
(I think, in the actual delivery system, the TrueHD version is treated as the core, and metadata is used to "make the Atmos parts different" - but I haven't studied how it's done in detail, so I could be wrong there.)

You added this part afterwards. Cheater!

Very true. But I guess we'll see. By that time the people who are really interested in the extra height speakers may have gotten them by then anyway. And those people would not be buying an XMC-1 then. They would want the XMR-1, or an XMC-2 that has at least 11 channels. I'm really not trying to be a Debbie downer, but I think the XMC-1 with Atmos and DTS:X would last longer in the market place. No one can predict 10 years from now what we'll have, but 7.1.4 is here, right now. And I foresee Atmos and Dolby:X being around for at least 5 years as the "it" thing to have.