Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2016 8:09:14 GMT -5
With atmos and new specs from Dolby your SUPPOSED to be able to localize surround effects.
It may not been to your liking, maybe because your too used to the diffused sound...but that is not the standard any longer.
Curious what content was being played?
Was it a discreet music bluray? So far the wall in atmos was the best concert bluray I have ever heard for realism. But anything upmixed was awful.
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs 
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,035
|
Post by cawgijoe on Jan 1, 2016 9:04:41 GMT -5
I heard Atmos once last year at a dealer in Maryland on a Meridian system and it did sound good. Not good enough for me to have to have it. Granted that it was still in its infancy.
As to 4K, I had to buy a new tv about three weeks ago as my old one died. I bought a 4K Samsung UHD 65" set at Costco. It was a fantastic deal and it made no sense to me to stay with a 1080p even though content is slim. Up conversion of 1080i and p to 4K does improve the picture, but it's subtle. True 4K from the You Tube app on the tv is spectacular. Reviews stating that you can't tell any difference between 4K and 1080p from more than five feet or so are complete hogwash. I'm satisfied with the tv.
I wish I could have afforded an OLED set, but the price of admission is too high right now, at least for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Jan 1, 2016 10:08:30 GMT -5
Can't agree with you there. LG has a 55 inch (or so) curved, 4k, oled tv in bestbuy.ca that I've seen a few times. Incredibly stunning, can use it as a computer monitor. Just costs a couple thousand though, no biggie  I'll wait for the price to drop, but that guy is in my sights. |
|
|
|
Post by etc6849 on Jan 1, 2016 19:23:06 GMT -5
My impression when I listened to an Atmos setup was that I could easily pick out which speaker(s) were making a sound, but the dealer was really impressed with it?!? At a minimum you need to get rid of first reflections from all speakers if you want decent surround imaging (this includes side walls AND ceiling).
These people putting in ceiling speakers for Atmos hopefully install acoustic panels up there too. When I install it, I will hand weld brackets and my speakers will be integrated into my acoustic treatment (I use 8" absorption panels on my ceiling, it's a must for excellent imaging unless you have tall ceilings).
What's really bad is there are Atmos speakers that require a non-treated ceiling to bounce sound off of (again at the expense of quality imaging); great idea huh? This is really half backed. Andrew Jones has left Pioneer, but he should be ashamed of asking people to bounce sound off their ceiling.
I know people don't want acoustic panels all over their room, but just a stereo image can have so much more depth and even height if a room is setup properly.
The fact that you can tell which speaker a sound came from means a system is setup poorly. The fact that people will spend thousands to update and have Atmos, but don't have basic things like absorption at first reflection points on walls, ceilings, etc really tells you what they are going for (hint it's not great audio). I think it could sound awesome though in a well treated room. I'm in SC if anyone has such a setup. I have an awesome theater in both acoustics and equipment (just no 4k in there or Atmos yet).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2016 19:28:14 GMT -5
I have a fully treated enclosed dedicated atmos room. And yes you should be able to localize effects. Read the Dolby papers
I'm in RI if you want to come up for a listen.
|
|
|
|
Post by etc6849 on Jan 1, 2016 19:57:30 GMT -5
I said tell which sound a speaker came from. This is different from having accurate imaging where you can tell specifically where each instrument is in 3D space. For example, my speakers disappear into my walls and the sound-stage is holographic like it just comes out of the space in the room (and not out of a specific speaker). I have a fully treated enclosed dedicated atmos room. And yes you should be able to localize effects. Read the Dolby papers I'm in RI if you want to come up for a listen. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jan 2, 2016 15:12:40 GMT -5
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,275
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 2, 2016 16:34:23 GMT -5
The intention of HDCP 2.2 is to prevent content that requires HDCP 2.2 from being sent to any device which doesn't support HDCP 2.2. More specifically, the intent was to prevent 4k copy-protected content from being played on any device that doesn't support HDCP 2.2. (If that wasn't the intent, then it would have been made backwards compatible with previous versions of HDCP, for all content - and we wouldn't be having this discussion.) I think where you're getting confused is that the "requirement" for HDCP 2.2 authentication originates at the content itself. In other words, If I have a disc which says that it doesn't require HDCP 2.2, then an HDCP 2.2 player will in fact be able to play that disc and send its 4k content to a device that isn't HDCP 2.2 compliant (so, in that sense, it is backwards compatible). This means, for example, that you would be able to play a homemade video file, or an upsampled HD disc, at 4k - out of a 4k player that supports HDCP 2.2 - to a monitor or pre/pro that doesn't, and it will work fine. For this very reason you can play 4k content through your XMC-1 right now - as long as it isn't HDCP 2.2 copy protected. This works because the CONTENT doesn't have a mandatory HDCP 2.2 requirement. However, by the requirements of the standard, ALL COMMERCIAL 4K BLU-RAY DISC MUST REQUIRE HDCP 2.2, so, when those discs are played on a player, both the player and everything in its HDMI connection chain must support HDCP 2.2. (Likewise, NetFlix 4k requires HDCP 2.2 because the content is "flagged" to require it..... ) If their device is breaking this "chain of trust" concerning the HDCP 2.2 requirement, then it is violating the standard, and the license requirements, and the law. The fact that someone SAYS "what we're doing is perfectly legal according to our lawyers" doesn't make it so. (If this wasn't the case, don't you think everyone would configure their devices to ignore the requirement and avoid all the annoyance?) In other words, assuming everything is working according to the license requirements, when you play that 4k disc, it will "check" and see if the entire HDMI chain is HDCP 2.2 compliant before it lets you see any content. So, as long as everything in the signal chain is HDCP 2.2 compliant, then your disc will play. And, if some of your devices are not HDCP 2.2 compliant, even if there is a (perfectly legal) HDCP 2.2 to HDCP 2.0 converter anywhere in the signal chain, then the HDMI negotiations will report that the entire chain is NOT HDCP 2.2 compliant, and the content will refuse to play. What their device is doing is violating the reporting protocol, and telling the upstream device that they are an HDCP 2.2 endpoint, then starting a new HDCP 2.0 signal chain with the same content - which is NOT allowed. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 2, 2016 17:17:18 GMT -5
Can't agree with you there. LG has a 55 inch (or so) curved, 4k, oled tv in bestbuy.ca that I've seen a few times. Incredibly stunning, can use it as a computer monitor. Just costs a couple thousand though, no biggie I'll wait for the price to drop, but that guy is in my sights. Somebody made some 4K and boy it looked good. People that produce the 4K got with lawyers and said to the engineers " Don't let anybody copy our stuff". Manufacturers started making and selling anything they could that they could say is 4k. It could play 4k if it was your own home made video 4k. Now everybody thinks commercial 4k should play on there 4K device that they bought almost two years ago. The somebody that made the 4K would probably like that but the producers, lawyers and manufactures are not on the same page. They will do what is in there best interest even if it means you get screwed. I am old enough to remember TV being black and white and being amazed when I saw Dorothy's house appear in color after it crashed. My Dad was smart and he bought a Sony Betamax tape video player because it had a better picture. He got screwed. Would you like me to go on ? That's why I say "4K Sucks" !  |
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Jan 2, 2016 19:40:51 GMT -5
Yes Axis I clearly remember the same. Competing technologies and there are always winners and losers. It remains to be seen if this will stop the pirates or if they even care since 1080p done right still looks great to me. I would like to see the cable companies come out with something better than this heavily compressed garbage they serve up. I really don't think it will take the pirates long to circumvent hdcp 2.2 since HD Fury is going around it already.
|
|
|
|
Post by sycraft on Jan 2, 2016 20:24:53 GMT -5
The pirates never bothered with HDCP as it is, they always attack the source. Easier to do, and then you can just rip the already encoded stream. HDCP has always been about the media industry tilting at windmills, rather than anything that would really combat piracy. they think if you just pile on enough encryption, it'll fix things, but the video link isn't where the pirates are getting in. It is rather silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Jan 2, 2016 20:46:47 GMT -5
There are a lot of TV shows that are captured and then have commercials removed then posted up. I should have been more clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 2, 2016 20:58:12 GMT -5
Ok, you are a home theater enthusiast or audio purist. You enjoy and demand high quality reproduction of sound and vision. Your on the leading edge of technology. Your provider offers 4K video service. You have the black box's and display required to realize the 4k. You made it before anyone else in your neighborhood. Your Lucky !
The smart person to me is the one that waits until all the dust has settled and makes one time smart choices. That might be 2017. That takes patience. That is time well spent learning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 3, 2016 7:11:40 GMT -5
Is your 4k TV HDR (High Dynamic Range) compatible ? 8k TV ?
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jan 3, 2016 9:49:53 GMT -5
My tv is 4K, HDR, HDMI2.0a, HDCP 2.2 equipped (Samsung 65" FS8500). My pre-pro is only HDMI 2.0, HDCP 1.4a, thus I bought an HDFURY which I have no use for at the moment. When I do finally use it, I will be raided by Federal agents, fined multi-million dollars by Warner, and thrown in jail for the rest of my life. It's great to live in America! This because all I want to do is enjoy the features I already paid much for from media which I will have again paid for and own and I just want to see it in its full glory. Who is the criminal here?
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,035
|
Post by cawgijoe on Jan 3, 2016 10:42:30 GMT -5
I hear what Keith is saying about everthing in the chain having to be HDCP 2.2 compliant in order to get a a 4K blu-ray picture. Folks who want 4K blu-ray will buy whatever is missing in that chain to get that picture, however IMO, the vast majority will not because they won't want to replace their current gear that is working just fine.
The requirement is going to be bad for sales. Even though I understand the content creators wanting to protect their stuff, it's bad for the consumer and business in general.
Copy protection rears its ugly head once again.
|
|
|
|
Post by millst on Jan 5, 2016 10:33:38 GMT -5
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,275
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 5, 2016 12:22:41 GMT -5
You should also be aware that the technology behind HDCP uses encryption and device keys. Without going into technical details, this means that, if you were to buy the device, a future minor update to HDCP might render it no longer functional. (It probably wouldn't stop working for movies on which it already worked, but it would then no longer work for movies released after the update.) |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,275
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 5, 2016 16:11:51 GMT -5
It's not exactly silly - but that depends on how you look at it. The lock on your front door probably wouldn't stop a determined twelve year old with a crowbar..... but, by having a lock, you "keep honest people honest" and, if someone does break in, they're automatically guilty of "breaking and entering" and can't easily claim you left the door open or that they walked into your house by mistake. Video copy protection works the same way. In order to copy a DVD or Blu-Ray disc, you have to use specialized hardware or software to "crack" the protection, which means that you couldn't very well claim that "you didn't know you weren't supposed to copy it" (you can't pick a lock, or crowbar a door, then claim you didn't know you weren't supposed to open it). In fact, in many jurisdictions, the very act of decrypting encrypted content, or removing an encryption key, is actually a much more serious crime than the theft of the content itself. In the case of HDCP and HDMI, no legal licensed device will allow you to create an exact unencrypted digital copy of content that is protected with HDCP, so any device that allows you to do so is not legal. A device with an HDMI input can play that content, as a TV does, or it can give you an output via HDMI, which is itself encrypted, or it can give you an analog copy, or it may be allowed to give you a reduced-quality digital conversion, and some will even convert the HDMI digital copy to analog, then re-digitize that analog copy, which is also allowed - but which reduces the quality. Of course, it's also possible that a signal coming in by HDMI may NOT be HDCP protected, in which case you are allowed to make copies and such. This could, for example, be the case with homemade HD video content. However, the standard that governs Blu-Ray discs itself specifies that content that is recorded on commercial Blu-Ray discs MUST be configured to require HDCP copy protection. In short, the whole system is designed to make it difficult for ordinary casual folks to "casually" make copies without realizing they're breaking a law, and to ensure that anyone going to the effort to gain the ability to make illegal copies can be assumed to have done so deliberately and knowingly. (And putting a four foot chain link fence around my property won't keep determined trespassers out, but it probably will in fact keep my lawn from being trampled, and deter most small children and dogs.) Besides which, from a legal point of view, it would be very difficult to prosecute piracy effectively without at least being able to claim that they made a reasonable attempt to prevent it (like trying to prosecute someone for trespassing on your lawn if you have no fence and no signs). The pirates never bothered with HDCP as it is, they always attack the source. Easier to do, and then you can just rip the already encoded stream. HDCP has always been about the media industry tilting at windmills, rather than anything that would really combat piracy. they think if you just pile on enough encryption, it'll fix things, but the video link isn't where the pirates are getting in. It is rather silly. |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Jan 5, 2016 17:52:15 GMT -5
I agree with you Keith, but the sad part is you can never win with encryption when a person has both the data and the keys required to decrypt that data in their possession. Which we, as consumers, will always have. We need the encryption keys to play it back on our legal players, so at that point they have to give them to us one way or the other. At that point, it's always just a matter of time before the hackers get the data; they will ALWAYS get it as long as they have access to the key and the data.
Seems like they don't understand that simple concept; they spend millions(?) on this everytime a new format comes out, first dvd, then bluray etc. And a typical teen just downloads some software off the net and boom, their money is wasted. Seems like there must be a cheaper way of doing what they want to do, or just realize they can't do what they want to do and give up. That money could be better spent. After all, as long as we have a lock on the door that's all we need, right? (for the thief to know that what he is doing is illegal)?
Why spend millions and millions on "encrypted" door looks where the key ends up being tied by a string to the door handle? It doesn't make financial / business sense, I really think they're clueless when it comes to this stuff.
|
|
