|
Post by Gary Cook on Mar 24, 2015 17:27:20 GMT -5
For me it's the presence of height channels in music. Instead of a flat bubble, we can now hear a 3d bubble with height included. Hearing a choir on the risers. Having a guy strum a guitar and hear the guitar come from below his voice. The possibilities are huge. Unfortunately it's not happened yet But the architecture is finally here. So...will I jump into it? Probably not, I've got too many plans for my stereo rig to worry about surround! P.S.: Gravity is INCREDIBLE on surround sound. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, I must be because we usually agree For me the sound of stereo 2.1 music is very much 3 dimensional. It has width, wider that the speaker physical separation. It has height, higher than the speakers. It has depth, it extends behind the speakers, further than the wall behind the speakers. It also extends outwards into the room, even more so with the recent addition of the XPA-1L's, it's enveloping, very much so. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Mar 24, 2015 17:38:57 GMT -5
Just get yourself some Maggies if you want 3D music and make sure you drive them with a tube monoblock amp...
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 24, 2015 18:03:06 GMT -5
For me it's the presence of height channels in music. Instead of a flat bubble, we can now hear a 3d bubble with height included. Hearing a choir on the risers. Having a guy strum a guitar and hear the guitar come from below his voice. The possibilities are huge. Unfortunately it's not happened yet But the architecture is finally here. So...will I jump into it? Probably not, I've got too many plans for my stereo rig to worry about surround! P.S.: Gravity is INCREDIBLE on surround sound. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, I must be because we usually agree For me the sound of stereo 2.1 music is very much 3 dimensional. It has width, wider that the speaker physical separation. It has height, higher than the speakers. It has depth, it extends behind the speakers, further than the wall behind the speakers. It also extends outwards into the room, even more so with the recent addition of the XPA-1L's, it's enveloping, very much so. Cheers Gary Absolutely Gary. What you are talking about is what I look for in stereo music and I bet it sounds fantastic! Your XPA-1 L's are on my short list for upgrades! And I think it's absolutely possible to have stunning depth and a completely enveloping sound in music. This is just my opinion with no facts behind it .... The height information we get is from cues in the stereo sound and its interaction with the room in a stereo signal. But it's not the complete reproduction of height information if that makes any sense. If you have any stereo recording equipment try recording an instrument and go lower and heigher above the microphone. You will notice that something happened and at times you can tell that the height has changed. But it cannot properly be reproduced. Hard to explain why. That's when when you hear something fly overhead in teh movie it does feel like it flew overhead. But....it's just not quite the whole picture. In Jewel's "hands" song, there is a section where she says "I will get down on my knees and I will pray" and repeats it while actually slowly kneeling and then getting back up. In it, you can hear the voice get distant and that "something" happened to it in terms of height, but not necessarily that she was singing from near the floor. Just get yourself some Maggies if you want 3D music and make sure you drive them with a tube monoblock amp... I listened to some maggies. And they definitely had the holographic thing going. Unfortunately, it didn't quite tick all the boxes I was looking for.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Mar 24, 2015 18:18:09 GMT -5
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, I must be because we usually agree For me the sound of stereo 2.1 music is very much 3 dimensional. It has width, wider that the speaker physical separation. It has height, higher than the speakers. It has depth, it extends behind the speakers, further than the wall behind the speakers. It also extends outwards into the room, even more so with the recent addition of the XPA-1L's, it's enveloping, very much so. Cheers Gary Absolutely Gary. What you are talking about is what I look for in stereo music and I bet it sounds fantastic! Your XPA-1 L's are on my short list for upgrades! And I think it's absolutely possible to have stunning depth and a completely enveloping sound in music. This is just my opinion with no facts behind it .... The height information we get is from cues in the stereo sound and its interaction with the room in a stereo signal. But it's not the complete reproduction of height information if that makes any sense. If you have any stereo recording equipment try recording an instrument and go lower and heigher above the microphone. You will notice that something happened and at times you can tell that the height has changed. But it cannot properly be reproduced. Hard to explain why. That's when when you hear something fly overhead in teh movie it does feel like it flew overhead. But....it's just not quite the whole picture. In Jewel's "hands" song, there is a section where she says "I will get down on my knees and I will pray" and repeats it while actually slowly kneeling and then getting back up. In it, you can hear the voice get distant and that "something" happened to it in terms of height, but not necessarily that she was singing from near the floor. Just get yourself some Maggies if you want 3D music and make sure you drive them with a tube monoblock amp... I listened to some maggies. And they definitely had the holographic thing going. Unfortunately, it didn't quite tick all the boxes I was looking for. That is because they are not boxes...
|
|
|
Post by fst96se on Mar 27, 2015 12:39:47 GMT -5
"I find that word "inadequate" intriguing because I feel like it goes to the heart of the problem. People don't like to feel that the system they worked so hard to put together or the media collection they've assembled is inadequate or outdated. It's a pride thing. Plus, our culture tells us that we deserve everything we want, and we deserve it right now. So, if something new comes along that we can't afford or accommodate, it offends us instead of inspiring us. We'd prefer it just didn't exist at all than to know that we can't have it. That's not a healthy way to view advancements in our hobby, which is designed to be, at least in some part, aspirational--just like cars or watches or fine wine."
No Love for Next-Gen AV Technologies? By: Adrienne Maxwell, March 23, 2015
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on May 25, 2015 20:06:37 GMT -5
Take a look at the 2 pics I attached - this is a screen shot of my TV - i've hit the info buttons on my universal disc player and my TV. You should notice 2 things: 1) BluRay 1080p 2) Dolby Digital 5.1
I could attach 100 of these screen shots but hopefully you should be able to grasp what i'm saying. I keep saying that the BluRay discs i'm getting from NetFlix are almost 100% Dolby Digital 5.1 - which came out like 20 years ago. No I am not excited about Dolby Atmos and I do not understand why anyone would be. I've read thru the conversations this thread generated and it's like you guys are on a different planet. Most likely the answer i'm looking for is that NetFlix uses Dolby Digital 5.1 almost exclusively because that's the most widely supported format. They're appealing to a broad audience. If I had to go buy the latest and greatest decoders everytime they add another pair of speakers to it I would not be their customer and I strongly suspect most people would join me.
I just want to point out one thing that seems obvious to me that seems to escape most of you. Take a modern Home Theater Receiver. Look at all the options in the setup menu already. One sub or two? Or none? Or four? Do you want to manage the bass or let us do it? Do you have a center? Surrounds? Do you have 7 speakers? Are they Surround Backs or are they Front Wide or are they Front Height? Or some combination of this? Read through all the combinations of speakers these receivers have to support already and how that complicates the product in many ways - it's more complicated to build - it's more complicated to understand - it's more complicated to explain and to support - the owners manuals are already a nightmare. All of this cost money - it costs time - it makes the products cost more to make and support and therefore more cost cutting has to happen somewhere along the way.
I was hoping - and would hope that all of you would hope too - that these products would start moving in the direction of SIMPLER and having more functions that actually work. Less bugs. Less Problems. Simple is good. I want all the simple I can get in this world. These products could use a huge dose of simplification.
But NO. No they're not moving in the simplify direction. Let's add speakers to the freaking ceiling. Look at the Dolby Atmos receiver owners manual. There are 26 possible signal channels. 26. And for starters let's stop using the word "channel" to describe 2 completely different things: a discrete signal channel and an amplified speaker channel. This is what's made these devices so complicated now is mapping signal channels to amplified speakers (also called channels) in every way imaginable. Some signal channels are discrete and some are fabricated by a matrix algorithm - if you select that option - and if it is an option.
See what I mean?
Attachments:
|
|
bulvy7
Seeker Of Truth
Posts: 9
|
Post by bulvy7 on May 25, 2015 20:32:19 GMT -5
Mr. 5.1 Dolby Digital* / DTS* / DVD-Audio / SACD here ...
I will always be a 5.1 (& 5.2) kinda guy. When 7.1 came out I had a chuckle. (still don't get it)
Dolby Atmos makes sense only because I get the 3D idea ... height!
If you want to FINALLY hear that helicopter/missile/bullet/F-16 (etc) go OVER your head instead of around the room, then give Atmos a shot.
New "upward firing" speakers? ~ eh ... no thanks. Your current speakers will work just fine. (be creative)
(A new movie theater opened advertising as the ONLY Dolby Atmos equipped theater in town) The four local IMAX theaters are playing catchup. I saw the new MAD MAX in Dolby Atmos at the new non-IMAX theater. Blew my lil Vulcan mind.
Dolby Atmos is here to stay, and by gawd the industry needs the infusion.
* (including all current audio formatting based on, or derived from these original formats)
|
|
|
Post by vneal on May 25, 2015 20:54:14 GMT -5
For music I am old fashion and still prefer a 2.1 system but for video a 5.1, 7.1 0r 7.2 sound system properly set up is awesome. Problems sometimes just as many overuse a subwoofer many over use the side/top channel volume in a Bluray
|
|
|
Post by Canuck_fr on May 26, 2015 6:54:18 GMT -5
Take a look at the 2 pics I attached - this is a screen shot of my TV - i've hit the info buttons on my universal disc player and my TV. You should notice 2 things: 1) BluRay 1080p 2) Dolby Digital 5.1
I could attach 100 of these screen shots but hopefully you should be able to grasp what i'm saying. I keep saying that the BluRay discs i'm getting from NetFlix are almost 100% Dolby Digital 5.1 - which came out like 20 years ago. No I am not excited about Dolby Atmos and I do not understand why anyone would be. I've read thru the conversations this thread generated and it's like you guys are on a different planet. Most likely the answer i'm looking for is that NetFlix uses Dolby Digital 5.1 almost exclusively because that's the most widely supported format. They're appealing to a broad audience. If I had to go buy the latest and greatest decoders everytime they add another pair of speakers to it I would not be their customer and I strongly suspect most people would join me.
I just want to point out one thing that seems obvious to me that seems to escape most of you. Take a modern Home Theater Receiver. Look at all the options in the setup menu already. One sub or two? Or none? Or four? Do you want to manage the bass or let us do it? Do you have a center? Surrounds? Do you have 7 speakers? Are they Surround Backs or are they Front Wide or are they Front Height? Or some combination of this? Read through all the combinations of speakers these receivers have to support already and how that complicates the product in many ways - it's more complicated to build - it's more complicated to understand - it's more complicated to explain and to support - the owners manuals are already a nightmare. All of this cost money - it costs time - it makes the products cost more to make and support and therefore more cost cutting has to happen somewhere along the way.
I was hoping - and would hope that all of you would hope too - that these products would start moving in the direction of SIMPLER and having more functions that actually work. Less bugs. Less Problems. Simple is good. I want all the simple I can get in this world. These products could use a huge dose of simplification.
But NO. No they're not moving in the simplify direction. Let's add speakers to the freaking ceiling. Look at the Dolby Atmos receiver owners manual. There are 26 possible signal channels. 26. And for starters let's stop using the word "channel" to describe 2 completely different things: a discrete signal channel and an amplified speaker channel. This is what's made these devices so complicated now is mapping signal channels to amplified speakers (also called channels) in every way imaginable. Some signal channels are discrete and some are fabricated by a matrix algorithm - if you select that option - and if it is an option.
See what I mean?
I don't agree with your assessment. If you want the best, you choose more flexibility. If you want simpler, they did that too: It's called a sound bar.They are simple, relatively inexpensive and work well. Food for thought.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,764
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on May 26, 2015 18:12:58 GMT -5
I didn't see the benefit of multichannel (over good ol' pure 2.0) until I bit the bullet and tried living with surround in my home. And, given I started with a Denon receiver and low cost surrounds, I went straight to 7.1
You know what, I liked it! Over time, I went to better amps all around, better speakers all around (except for sub and center which I am happy with), a umc-1 to get into separates, and an xmc-1 as a better pre/pro.
Each of those steps raised my enjoyment of my system...to the point that I dread watching movies/concert videos at home on anything less. (And, yes, I just had that opportunity at a friend's house and suffered through it)
So...why do I point that out? Simple...I have never heard a home Atmos system. It could be that next thing that raises the bar for me. Or it might not. In any case, it has to be a step up over what I have or I won't do it. And, I won't know until I try it.
That is my two cents.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on May 26, 2015 20:31:45 GMT -5
I didn't see the benefit of multichannel (over good ol' pure 2.0) until I bit the bullet and tried living with surround in my home. And, given I started with a Denon receiver and low cost surrounds, I went straight to 7.1 You know what, I liked it! Over time, I went to better amps all around, better speakers all around (except for sub and center which I am happy with), a umc-1 to get into separates, and an xmc-1 as a better pre/pro. Each of those steps raised my enjoyment of my system...to the point that I dread watching movies/concert videos at home on anything less. (And, yes, I just had that opportunity at a friend's house and suffered through it) So...why do I point that out? Simple...I have never heard a home Atmos system. It could be that next thing that raises the bar for me. Or it might not. In any case, it has to be a step up over what I have or I won't do it. And, I won't know until I try it. That is my two cents. Mark Yours is the voice of reason. Please leave...
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,764
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on May 26, 2015 20:50:42 GMT -5
Darn it! I hate to be so logical...said me never...
Mark
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,230
|
Post by novisnick on May 26, 2015 21:21:30 GMT -5
I didn't see the benefit of multichannel (over good ol' pure 2.0) until I bit the bullet and tried living with surround in my home. And, given I started with a Denon receiver and low cost surrounds, I went straight to 7.1 You know what, I liked it! Over time, I went to better amps all around, better speakers all around (except for sub and center which I am happy with), a umc-1 to get into separates, and an xmc-1 as a better pre/pro. Each of those steps raised my enjoyment of my system...to the point that I dread watching movies/concert videos at home on anything less. (And, yes, I just had that opportunity at a friend's house and suffered through it) So...why do I point that out? Simple...I have never heard a home Atmos system. It could be that next thing that raises the bar for me. Or it might not. In any case, it has to be a step up over what I have or I won't do it. And, I won't know until I try it. That is my two cents. Mark Yours is the voice of reason. Please leave... I love the logic, I also love the way my 11.6 HT sounded before getting the XMC-1, ATMOSPHERE,,,,,,I just don't know! Actually, I'm afraid I'll love it more then the other system,,,,,and,,,,and,,,,,,here we go again!!! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on May 26, 2015 22:20:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by B-613 Command on May 26, 2015 22:34:02 GMT -5
Take a look at the 2 pics I attached - this is a screen shot of my TV - i've hit the info buttons on my universal disc player and my TV. You should notice 2 things: 1) BluRay 1080p 2) Dolby Digital 5.1
I could attach 100 of these screen shots but hopefully you should be able to grasp what i'm saying. I keep saying that the BluRay discs i'm getting from NetFlix are almost 100% Dolby Digital 5.1 - which came out like 20 years ago. No I am not excited about Dolby Atmos and I do not understand why anyone would be. I've read thru the conversations this thread generated and it's like you guys are on a different planet. Most likely the answer i'm looking for is that NetFlix uses Dolby Digital 5.1 almost exclusively because that's the most widely supported format. They're appealing to a broad audience. If I had to go buy the latest and greatest decoders everytime they add another pair of speakers to it I would not be their customer and I strongly suspect most people would join me.
I just want to point out one thing that seems obvious to me that seems to escape most of you. Take a modern Home Theater Receiver. Look at all the options in the setup menu already. One sub or two? Or none? Or four? Do you want to manage the bass or let us do it? Do you have a center? Surrounds? Do you have 7 speakers? Are they Surround Backs or are they Front Wide or are they Front Height? Or some combination of this? Read through all the combinations of speakers these receivers have to support already and how that complicates the product in many ways - it's more complicated to build - it's more complicated to understand - it's more complicated to explain and to support - the owners manuals are already a nightmare. All of this cost money - it costs time - it makes the products cost more to make and support and therefore more cost cutting has to happen somewhere along the way.
I was hoping - and would hope that all of you would hope too - that these products would start moving in the direction of SIMPLER and having more functions that actually work. Less bugs. Less Problems. Simple is good. I want all the simple I can get in this world. These products could use a huge dose of simplification.
But NO. No they're not moving in the simplify direction. Let's add speakers to the freaking ceiling. Look at the Dolby Atmos receiver owners manual. There are 26 possible signal channels. 26. And for starters let's stop using the word "channel" to describe 2 completely different things: a discrete signal channel and an amplified speaker channel. This is what's made these devices so complicated now is mapping signal channels to amplified speakers (also called channels) in every way imaginable. Some signal channels are discrete and some are fabricated by a matrix algorithm - if you select that option - and if it is an option.
See what I mean?
I don't agree with your assessment. If you want the best, you choose more flexibility. If you want simpler, they did that too: It's called a sound bar.They are simple, relatively inexpensive and work well. Food for thought. I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Soundbars are not the same thing. Is there an Atmos soundbar? A 7.1 soundbar? I've had soundbars recommended to me several times and all I can say is the audio system I have now sounds so much better than the best soundbars I heard. As far as I know there is not a soundbar made that comes close to what I have now. Maybe soundbars are simple you're probably right about that but I cannot say it is the same product. Using the speakers in my TV is simple too but not the same as an audio system. I have achieved simple and with far better sound than a soundbar ever dreamed of - it's called vintage audio.
|
|
|
Post by Canuck_fr on May 27, 2015 4:30:36 GMT -5
I don't agree with your assessment. If you want the best, you choose more flexibility. If you want simpler, they did that too: It's called a sound bar.They are simple, relatively inexpensive and work well. Food for thought. I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Soundbars are not the same thing. Is there an Atmos soundbar? A 7.1 soundbar? I've had soundbars recommended to me several times and all I can say is the audio system I have now sounds so much better than the best soundbars I heard. As far as I know there is not a soundbar made that comes close to what I have now. Maybe soundbars are simple you're probably right about that but I cannot say it is the same product. Using the speakers in my TV is simple too but not the same as an audio system. I have achieved simple and with far better sound than a soundbar ever dreamed of - it's called vintage audio. I never said they were the same, I said it was simpler. They are an improvement over the sound of your TV, but they aren't a Home Theater system.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,764
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on May 27, 2015 5:06:58 GMT -5
monkumonkuNice details, incl. the author! Ah, the memories... Mark
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on May 27, 2015 7:43:31 GMT -5
|
|