|
|
Post by Spike on May 11, 2015 21:49:07 GMT -5
Now, let's all be honest......  When you bought that last Blu-Ray disc, was it really a major consideration whether it had Dolby TrueHD, or DTS Master Audio, or both? (OK, thinking back to the last disc you bought, do you actually REMEMBER whether it has sound tracks in Dolby TrueHD, or DTS Master Audio, or both?) Were you really going to NOT buy it if it only came out in 5.1? Really? Do you actually know or care whether Dolby TrueHD is better than DTS Master Audio or why? DTS:X and Atmos, or object-based rendering is certainly no passing hype. And it's a certitude that the XMR-1 will be able to handle these formats. Otherwise the 16 channels of it would be 50% obsolete. The questions are when will we see the XMR-1 (hopefully by mid-2016) and when will other devices get the technology (your guess is as good as mine). I guess that mid-priced AVR's will get 9 or 11 channels as standard (no problem with class-D amps) so why not Emotiva. But I am thinking it will be 2017... I don't think MOST people even care what sound format their Blue Ray/DVD discs come in. Those of us that venture into A/V Forums are the minority. IMO People want the best quality picture possible in which ever standard they choose, either DVD or Blue Ray. Beyond that, they want something that they can hear the story line with. So in order to get this, A FEW might go with a sound bar, FEWER might go with a 5.1 setup, and even FEWER might go with a 7.1 system. Everything beyond that is even a rarer purchase IMO. I have really come full circle since my early years of enjoying Home Theater. There was a time, when as soon as the next new thing came out, I had to have it-- 5.1, 720p, 1080i, 7.1, 7.2, Dolby, DTS, etc. Now, I want a system that provides me with my 2.1 audio for music, and beyond that, I'm not looking to ride the new painted pony anymore. In a movie theater, (When my pain allows me to go) I want the whole shebang. In my home, I just NEED my music to sound the best it can sound--Instrument by instrument! So, Atmos? DTS:X? I don't know how important it is as a whole to the majority of people, and especially to me. It won't be long and something else will come along to be the next big thing. The question is, Does it really matter to the vast majority of people? |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on May 11, 2015 22:22:46 GMT -5
Number 1, I want a good to great movie to entertain me, I look at reviews for what their worth and ask friends, the first thing I look at before looking at the actors/actresses is the sound recording method used for playback. Yes, I'm the odd duck of a very small group. Most movies I can state the audio playback better then the actors names.
I'm glad that many actors are good/great at their craft, that's what they get paid for, but there not as important otherwise. Most think acting and appreciation of there art equates to intelligence,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,far from fact in many/most cases. So , yes, I like to scope out the playback ASAP, and no,,,,,I can not punctuate a sentence so well, again, has no bearing on intelligence.
|
|
|
|
Post by MusicHead on May 11, 2015 22:28:32 GMT -5
Hello Everyone, I am just curious. Will Emotiva delve into the DTS:X and Atmos configurations with their receivers, or are these new sound offerings considered to be just a fad that will pass? Thanks for any information you offer me on this subject. Well, first Emotiva should have a receiver  .... Sorry, could not resist. So glad I was able to get the 8100 before it disappeared. Really hope there will be a worthy successor. |
|
|
|
Post by pletwals on May 18, 2015 2:46:09 GMT -5
Good points everyone... But I still want Atmos & DTS:X with as many channels as possible. 16 sounds about just right to me, double from the "old" standard!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 10:32:26 GMT -5
From what I have been reading...DTS:X CAN be added to the xmc-1 with firmware update...it can adapt it scodec to ANY speaker layout...so it would work with the current 7 channel preouts of the xmc-1
thoughts? possible?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,275
|
Post by KeithL on May 18, 2015 11:27:16 GMT -5
DTS has been making some vague claims about DTS-X not requiring a lot of processing power... but then Dolby made the same claims in the early days of Atmos and they turned out to be slightly .... optimistic. From a marketing perspective, DTS is busily trying to reassure everyone that the things people don't like about Atmos (like the need to install extra speakers) don't apply to DTS-X. The reasons we decided not to implement Atmos on the XMC-1 were both that Atmos isn't especially useful with "only" 7.1 speakers AND it takes a lot of processing power. Therefore, to implement it, we would have had to upgrade the processing power of the XMC-1, and it wouldn't have been terribly impressive anyway. So... expensive upgrade + little improvement = bad idea. It will remain to be seen both how much processing power DTS-X requires, and how much improvement it actually offers for five-channel and seven-channel systems. (The fact that "it will work with any speaker layout" doesn't necessarily mean that it will give you a significant benefit with all of them.) From what I have been reading...DTS:X CAN be added to the xmc-1 with firmware update...it can adapt it scodec to ANY speaker layout...so it would work with the current 7 channel preouts of the xmc-1 thoughts? possible? |
|
|
|
Post by jcam2881 on May 18, 2015 11:40:57 GMT -5
DTS has been making some vague claims about DTS-X not requiring a lot of processing power... but then Dolby made the same claims in the early days of Atmos and they turned out to be slightly .... optimistic. From a marketing perspective, DTS is busily trying to reassure everyone that the things people don't like about Atmos (like the need to install extra speakers) don't apply to DTS-X. The reasons we decided not to implement Atmos on the XMC-1 were both that Atmos isn't especially useful with "only" 7.1 speakers AND it takes a lot of processing power. Therefore, to implement it, we would have had to upgrade the processing power of the XMC-1, and it wouldn't have been terribly impressive anyway. So... expensive upgrade + little improvement = bad idea. It will remain to be seen both how much processing power DTS-X requires, and how much improvement it actually offers for five-channel and seven-channel systems. (The fact that "it will work with any speaker layout" doesn't necessarily mean that it will give you a significant benefit with all of them.) While I don't own the XMC-1 ..on the fence on next purchase - sometime by year end to bring the system into the theater build. I appreciate the answer above..although my next purchase will most likely want to have atmos or DTS X... I can say that I most likely wont be purchasing any/most(800+dvds & 100+ bluray) of my old content again..so maybe only for select titles /favorites it will matter. From what I have been reading...DTS:X CAN be added to the xmc-1 with firmware update...it can adapt it scodec to ANY speaker layout...so it would work with the current 7 channel preouts of the xmc-1 thoughts? possible? |
|
|
|
Post by Spike on May 19, 2015 1:04:04 GMT -5
DTS has been making some vague claims about DTS-X not requiring a lot of processing power... but then Dolby made the same claims in the early days of Atmos and they turned out to be slightly .... optimistic. From a marketing perspective, DTS is busily trying to reassure everyone that the things people don't like about Atmos (like the need to install extra speakers) don't apply to DTS-X. The reasons we decided not to implement Atmos on the XMC-1 were both that Atmos isn't especially useful with "only" 7.1 speakers AND it takes a lot of processing power. Therefore, to implement it, we would have had to upgrade the processing power of the XMC-1, and it wouldn't have been terribly impressive anyway. So... expensive upgrade + little improvement = bad idea. It will remain to be seen both how much processing power DTS-X requires, and how much improvement it actually offers for five-channel and seven-channel systems. (The fact that "it will work with any speaker layout" doesn't necessarily mean that it will give you a significant benefit with all of them.) This is the part that gets me about Atmos at this point (since DTS:X isn't out yet, I reserve my comment to apply only to Atmos), it comes from what you said here, "So... expensive upgrade + little improvement = bad idea."While I have listened to Atmos in my little set up, I found Atmos on occasion to audibly differentiate itself from the normal 5.1 or 7.1 applications in a movie. Now, I must admit, there is one fantastic scene in the movie Gravity--for example-- Where Doctor Stone is being whipped around in circles after the satellite debris strikes their site in space---- that particular scene greatly benefits by having Atmos kick in. It really did add to the joy of watching that movie in that scene. But, was that a huge improvement and add great value? The answer to the question, for me, if answered honestly would take some pondering. Some people want all of the latest technology readily available, so on occasion, when they need it to kick in, like in that one scene in Gravity, it is there for them use. They find value in that. Others might desire a more musically dedicated area. So the fact that their set up will play a Blue Ray Movie is a benefit, but it is not the focus of their environment, so having Atmos, so it would kick in at that moment may not be something that they would look for as they set up their system. What I think is going to be interesting about this whole thing lies in this question, what will happen in the future as all of this plays out? Will some audio/video companies begin to market to different customer tastes and offer a variety of products, some with Atmos and DTS:X, and some products without them, etc. etc., while other companies seek a one product fits all approach? In my opinion there is going to be a lot of money to be made as the answer to that question unfolds in the market place. And one other thing, I would love to be a mouse in the corner and listen to the discussions that go on during staff meetings at a place like Emotiva, as they wrestle with this question. Fascinating! |
|
|
|
Post by goozoo on May 19, 2015 1:07:01 GMT -5
DTS has been making some vague claims about DTS-X not requiring a lot of processing power... but then Dolby made the same claims in the early days of Atmos and they turned out to be slightly .... optimistic. From a marketing perspective, DTS is busily trying to reassure everyone that the things people don't like about Atmos (like the need to install extra speakers) don't apply to DTS-X. The reasons we decided not to implement Atmos on the XMC-1 were both that Atmos isn't especially useful with "only" 7.1 speakers AND it takes a lot of processing power. Therefore, to implement it, we would have had to upgrade the processing power of the XMC-1, and it wouldn't have been terribly impressive anyway. So... expensive upgrade + little improvement = bad idea. It will remain to be seen both how much processing power DTS-X requires, and how much improvement it actually offers for five-channel and seven-channel systems. (The fact that "it will work with any speaker layout" doesn't necessarily mean that it will give you a significant benefit with all of them.) From what I have been reading...DTS:X CAN be added to the xmc-1 with firmware update...it can adapt it scodec to ANY speaker layout...so it would work with the current 7 channel preouts of the xmc-1 thoughts? possible? Thanks for the feedback Keith. I am a bit confused however. If what you are saying is true, then this goes against the very essence of what the XMC-1 was suppose to be. Namely, an up gradable processor built on a modular design thus allowing for future upgrades. To accept that ATMOS really does not make much difference "with only 7.1 speakers" and that it takes a lot of processing power is really missing the whole point. Much like saying why make a processor that can do 7.1 when most movies are still encoded in 5.1 and that the extra two speakers don't make much difference anyways, It's about choice plain and simple. Yes, most movies are released in 5.1 but most of us "choose" to have a 7.1 or 7.2 system to enjoy the benefits that it provides when we listen to movies encoded as such. Dolby TrueHD would be another example. The truth of the matter is that Dolby ATMOS and DTS X will be the new standards like it or not. This will mean the need for more processing power as well as possibly more speakers. But that is a "choice" the consumer makes, and not because the manufacturer decided what was best for the consumer; although the argument could be made that that is what Dolby and DTS are doing....but they are evil companies and Emotiva is not..  At the end of the day, Emotiva will have to figure out how it will implement these new technologies into its' existing lineup lest risking burning up what goodwill capital remains of its' consumer base. Especially true of the early adapters who believed in the company and have been loyal through all the crap over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by Spike on May 19, 2015 1:22:18 GMT -5
This is the part that gets me about Atmos at this point (since DTS:X isn't out yet, I reserve my comment to apply only to Atmos), it comes from what you said here, "So... expensive upgrade + little improvement = bad idea."While I have listened to Atmos in my little set up, I found Atmos on occasion to audibly differentiate itself from the normal 5.1 or 7.1 applications in a movie. Now, I must admit, there is one fantastic scene in the movie Gravity--for example-- Where Doctor Stone is being whipped around in circles after the satellite debris strikes their site in space---- that particular scene greatly benefits by having Atmos kick in. It really did add to the joy of watching that movie in that scene. But, was that a huge improvement and add great value? The answer to the question, for me, if answered honestly would take some pondering. Some people want all of the latest technology readily available, so on occasion, when they need it to kick in, like in that one scene in Gravity, it is there for them use. They find value in that. Others might desire a more musically dedicated area. So the fact that their set up will play a Blue Ray Movie is a benefit, but it is not the focus of their environment, so having Atmos, so it would kick in at that moment may not be something that they would look for as they set up their system. What I think is going to be interesting about this whole thing lies in this question, what will happen in the future as all of this plays out? Will some audio/video companies begin to market to different customer tastes and offer a variety of products, some with Atmos and DTS:X, and some products without them, etc. etc., while other companies seek a one product fits all approach? In my opinion there is going to be a lot of money to be made as the answer to that question unfolds in the market place. And one other thing, I would love to be a mouse in the corner and listen to the discussions that go on during staff meetings at a place like Emotiva, as they wrestle with this question. Fascinating! We are already beginning to see companies offer different products based on customer need vs. the expense of producing all in one products. Fewer and fewer receivers have pre-outs to connect those receivers to external amplifiers. It appears that the more expensive receivers only are providing that option lately over the lesser expensive models. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 19, 2015 2:14:58 GMT -5
The way I see it Atmos and DTS X will be the "standard" formats for sound engineers / mixers going forward, not much doubt about that. Of course it will take some time for them to change and some will never change because they have so much time, money and effort invested in the non object oriented formats that's it's simply not economical. I see that progression through the studios taking some time, years in fact. Then there is the step change in the professional theatres, Atmos hasn't seen very wide acceptance in Australia, in fact last count there were 2. Obviously DTS X is starting from zero. After that the flow on is to the consumer HT market. But the kicker in both the pro and home is that the object oriented formats are backwards compatible, so there is no compulsion to update due to straight obsolescence. It's purely a quality driven demand path and, if my experience is anything to go by, the demand isn't going to be strong or fast.
Personally, I see my UMC-200 as being more than OK for quite a few years yet.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by pletwals on May 22, 2015 9:16:02 GMT -5
DTS has been making some vague claims about DTS-X not requiring a lot of processing power... but then Dolby made the same claims in the early days of Atmos and they turned out to be slightly .... optimistic. From a marketing perspective, DTS is busily trying to reassure everyone that the things people don't like about Atmos (like the need to install extra speakers) don't apply to DTS-X. The reasons we decided not to implement Atmos on the XMC-1 were both that Atmos isn't especially useful with "only" 7.1 speakers AND it takes a lot of processing power. Therefore, to implement it, we would have had to upgrade the processing power of the XMC-1, and it wouldn't have been terribly impressive anyway. So... expensive upgrade + little improvement = bad idea. It will remain to be seen both how much processing power DTS-X requires, and how much improvement it actually offers for five-channel and seven-channel systems. (The fact that "it will work with any speaker layout" doesn't necessarily mean that it will give you a significant benefit with all of them.) Thanks for the feedback Keith. I am a bit confused however. If what you are saying is true, then this goes against the very essence of what the XMC-1 was suppose to be. Namely, an up gradable processor built on a modular design thus allowing for future upgrades. To accept that ATMOS really does not make much difference "with only 7.1 speakers" and that it takes a lot of processing power is really missing the whole point. Much like saying why make a processor that can do 7.1 when most movies are still encoded in 5.1 and that the extra two speakers don't make much difference anyways, It's about choice plain and simple. ... I am with Keith on this one. 7 speakers is hardly enough for Atmos. You need at least 5.1.4. The comparison with 5.1 vs 7.1 is different. |
|
.... Sorry, could not resist. 
