|
|
Post by lrobertson on Apr 19, 2018 14:21:12 GMT -5
I’d be curious to hear if this was true. I was always under the impression all speakers would always be fed the appropriate content to play even the wides. Never having a speaker going unused unless intended.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 19, 2018 14:30:09 GMT -5
As far as I know, in a theater, the bed channels are thought of as "areas" rather than individual speakers. So, in a theater, "the left front bed channel" may actually include several speakers "in the left front area of the room". Those several speakers could be grouped together and counted as "the left front bed channel"... But would still be addressed individually by the renderer when deciding where to send objects. Here's a VERY thorough explanation of the subject........ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-next-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdfNote that this addresses "the whole subject of Atmos" but doesn't pick out the theatrical parts from the home parts. Also note that theaters are REALLY BIG (at least some of them). So, for example, in home installations we assume that "you can't hear directionality with subs" - but, in really big theaters, multiple subs are used, and it is assumed that you CAN hear directionality. I think we are trying to say Atmos is Atmos and there are no channel specifics on a disc other than its limits which from what I read are 24.1.10 if the pre pro is capable. If a disc labels 7.1.4 then I’d assume they were still new to the codec and decided to just label it with the largest Atmos pre pro available at the time and mislabeled the disc with it being a new format. I might be misinterpreting the bedded data though and maybe 7.1.4 has more to do with that. I would assume though that bedded information like Keith mentioned while being able to be assigned to multiple speakers might instead of being limited to your left front if designated to that in a 7 channel would go to say all your speakers withing a given angle if you installed more speakers around that area. I assuming though and that is usually not good to do. |
|
|
|
Post by millst on Apr 19, 2018 14:42:27 GMT -5
No, DSU does not utilize wides. You need an Atmos mix to get wides from Dolby. A DTS:X mix or a Neural:X upmix will, also, make use of wides.
-tm
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,072
|
Post by klinemj on Apr 19, 2018 15:02:33 GMT -5
For anyone who has seen a demo of the RMC-1, during the initial setup how are speaker locations determined? Is it similar to setups in the past where the processor has predetermined speaker layouts loaded and you scroll through them looking for your layout? Or is there something for each output channel where you tell the processor where that channel will be placed in a room? Because for 11 speaker systems there are a lot of different possible layouts.... Person A: * 9.1.2 setup for a total of 11 speakers and a sub. * Three front speakers, two pairs of side surrounds, a pair of rear surrounds, two overhead speakers and a sub Person B:* 9.1.2 setup for a total of 11 speakers and a sub * Three front speakers, a pair of front wide, a pair of side surrounds, a pair of rear surrounds, a pair of overhead and a sub Person C: * 7.1.4 setup for a total of 11 speakers and a sub *Three front speakers, a pair of side surrounds, a pair or rear surrounds, two pairs of overhead and a sub I understand that some movies and their soundtracks will or will not play sound through certain channels like the wides. But I'm curious how I will be able to tell the RMC-1 where my 15 speakers are located in my room. The only demos I have seen have not focused on how the setup works - only on how it sounds. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Apr 19, 2018 16:32:36 GMT -5
Most of the Atmos/DTSX BD's I own and have seen are 7.1.4. So pretty much everything above 12 objects is "matrixed" by the processor to align with how many channels we have. Can't say as I have seen a 22 "objects" movie, even 16 "objects" (ie; 9.1.6) is rare. So Gary, you’ve been at this for awhile. In your opinion, what’s a good number of speakers to employ in a large home system for object based? Bill Hi Bill, I have listened to quite a few Atmos systems and installed one with a friend that is 5.1.2 which sounds really good even though he only has a very inexpensive AVR doing the processing. He does have really good power amps and speakers though. We spent a long time working out where to locate the ceiling speaking and tested most of them, moving the speakers around to get what sounded right to us. Between the 2 families we have quite a few 4K Atmos BD's to listen to, plus I also have a few friends who work in the movie business including a couple of sound engineers. My experience has been pretty much the same as with stereo, speaker choice and location is of prime importance. Less speakers that are better located works better that more speakers that are badly placed. Plus better speakers themselves makes a difference, so budget appropriately. My room is also a good size for 5.1.2, and if I had the additional space I'd probably stop at 7.1.4 as at the moment that's the most common mixes around (more on that in another post). If I had a huge space, a dedicated theatre, then more subs would be a pre requisite, how many ceiling speakers to me depends on how many seats and where they are located. If there are say a couple of rows of 3 or 4 seats then 6 ceiling speakers works well from every seat. If there is only 1 row of say 2 or 3 seats then 4 is plenty. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Apr 19, 2018 16:59:57 GMT -5
So Gary, you’ve been at this for awhile. In your opinion, what’s a good number of speakers to employ in a large home system for object based? Bill Hi Bill, I have listened to quite a few Atmos systems and installed one with a friend that is 5.1.2 which sounds really good even though he only has a very inexpensive AVR doing the processing. He does have really good power amps and speakers though. We spent a long time working out where to locate the ceiling speaking and tested most of them, moving the speakers around to get what sounded right to us. Between the 2 families we have quite a few 4K Atmos BD's to listen to, plus I also have a few friends who work in the movie business including a couple of sound engineers. My experience has been pretty much the same as with stereo, speaker choice and location is of prime importance. Less speakers that are better located works better that more speakers that are badly placed. Plus better speakers themselves makes a difference, so budget appropriately. My room is also a good size for 5.1.2, and if I had the additional space I'd probably stop at 7.1.4 as at the moment that's the most common mixes around (more on that in another post). If I had a huge space, a dedicated theatre, then more subs would be a pre requisite, how many ceiling speakers to me depends on how many seats and where they are located. If there are say a couple of rows of 3 or 4 seats then 6 ceiling speakers works well from every seat. If there is only 1 row of say 2 or 3 seats then 4 is plenty. Cheers Gary 🙏 |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Apr 19, 2018 18:21:44 GMT -5
Not sure what/which new prepro/avr Im waiting for but I’ve been following all the threads and comments. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by jiriza84641 on Apr 19, 2018 19:10:23 GMT -5
For anyone who has seen a demo of the RMC-1, during the initial setup how are speaker locations determined? Is it similar to setups in the past where the processor has predetermined speaker layouts loaded and you scroll through them looking for your layout? Or is there something for each output channel where you tell the processor where that channel will be placed in a room? Because for 11 speaker systems there are a lot of different possible layouts.... Person A: * 9.1.2 setup for a total of 11 speakers and a sub. * Three front speakers, two pairs of side surrounds, a pair of rear surrounds, two overhead speakers and a sub Person B:* 9.1.2 setup for a total of 11 speakers and a sub * Three front speakers, a pair of front wide, a pair of side surrounds, a pair of rear surrounds, a pair of overhead and a sub Person C: * 7.1.4 setup for a total of 11 speakers and a sub *Three front speakers, a pair of side surrounds, a pair or rear surrounds, two pairs of overhead and a sub I understand that some movies and their soundtracks will or will not play sound through certain channels like the wides. But I'm curious how I will be able to tell the RMC-1 where my 15 speakers are located in my room. The only demos I have seen have not focused on how the setup works - only on how it sounds. Mark I think I am a 9.2.2 person (A). Me likey |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Apr 19, 2018 20:55:03 GMT -5
Most of the Atmos/DTSX BD's I own and have seen are 7.1.4. So pretty much everything above 12 objects is "matrixed" by the processor to align with how many channels we have. Can't say as I have seen a 22 "objects" movie, even 16 "objects" (ie; 9.1.6) is rare. Are you saying the Dolby Atmos BD is limited to 7.1.4 or that was what the receiver/pre-pro you were using had? I thought the whole point of Atmos is that it’s object based and can support up to 24.1.10 at home so someone with a 9.1.6 system will have 16 discrete channels to render what’s encoded in the Atmos BD. Is the Atmos disc only using 7.1.4 channels? This is my understanding of what I see printed on BD Atmos discs, what I have been told by a couple of movie sound engineers and what I hear with my own ears. Quite frankly I find the whole Dolby explanation of Atmos for HT next to useless. As KeithL posted there are bed channels which sound to me like the 7.1 channels in Dolby True HD. What I don't hear are the other 2 as in 9.1, which as I understand it are matrixed by the processor, if you tell it that you have 9.1 channels/speakers. If I play the Dolby Atmos sound track in comparison to the Dolby True HD sound track (with the ceiling speakers turned off) it sounds clearer, more distinct in its directionality. That could be the processor doing a better job with the Atmos track or that the Atmos track itself is actually better. My sound engineer friends tell me that the Atmos track on Thor Ragnarok (that they worked on) actually sounds better. Over the top of Dolby True HD sits the object coding that makes Atmos work. What gives it the location/object data, including ceiling speakers. Since the processor knows how many channels/speakers you have it then uses them as best it can to make the sound come from the location the sound engineer intended it to. If there is no speaker precisely there it will pick the closest ones and simulate it (imaging). It is easy to say that the more channels/speakers we have the better, the more precise the object location. Obviously the larger the room the more likely it is that more speakers will be better. But there are limitations in how many objects the sound engineer can use, for example on a BD 4K Atmos disc there simply isn't the space to include all of the commercial theatre objects. From what I understand they have a limitation placed on them as to how much space they have available and they tailor the number of objects (amount of data) accordingly. With the above in mind and having looked at as many BD 4K Atmos discs as I can find, the most common descriptor is 7.1.4 and I have only found one that is 9.1.6. I have noticed that there are a few that are silent and don't state it. With my limited knowledge and experience, if I had the right space I'd probably go for 7.1.4 as I see no advantage in going more unless the space demands it. Having 16/24/32 speakers lined up a metre apart wouldn't really achieve anything as the processor would simply be matrixing them anyway (because that data isn't on the disc to start with). My space is limited so I'm actually going to do a 5.1.2 much like my friend's set up and in doing so I don't believe that I will be missing out on much if anything at all. Higher quality processor (there is a ship load of processing that has to be done), higher quality power amps and higher quality speakers always wins over lessor quality and more quantity. BTW, I would still go Atmos even without ceiling speakers, in fact I'd chose DTSX over Atmos just for its ability to control the dialogue. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Apr 20, 2018 12:23:30 GMT -5
It sounds like multi dimensional audio will be the norm and for the material that needs to be upmixed I’ll just use a solution that utilizes all speakers. The plus side is that even if the bed channels are limited to 7 or 9 the material isn’t meant to be discrete other than the object so throwing it into more speakers should only help with its diffuse intent since we can’t have dipoles due to the object sounds and that needed directionality. I think it was 15 degrees between speakers that’s needed for sound to be perfectly diffuse so while none of us will end up with that I’m sure the more the better. I’ll be running it 9.6.6 so eventually when I play around I can tell you guys whether I see a drastic benefit from 5.6.2 all the way up. To each is there own though. I’d keep throwing more channels in with expansions if they give the option. I do hear the addition of wides is one of the greatest step ups in sound envelopment.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Apr 20, 2018 13:12:36 GMT -5
That would be neat if one of those expansion bays could just focus on the bed extracts so that you could throw a pair or more of dipoles to fill the room. That would probably have to be some proprietary processing or just pulling the info mid computing before the objects are mixed in with the beds for the speakers. I’m not gonna lie the tech explanation of how it’s all decoded seems complex and dependent on how it’s encoded so who knows if that’s a possibility down the road but at least it might free up computing and add to that diffuse nature since object panning probably doesn’t necessarily need a ton of speakers for good results.
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Apr 21, 2018 9:23:17 GMT -5
Mann......
I just “lightly” read the last few posts that sounded nearly like a foreign language to me!
These kinds of discussions are helping me, actually, in that I am MORE content than ever to simply wait and no longer ponder 🤔 what’s down the pike.
After there are a significant number of Emotiva customers utilizing object based audio for everything, then I’ll decide if I want to jump on board.
By then, I can simply ship my XMC in for a revamp, since it has enough channels for my room configuration and just take it from there.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Apr 21, 2018 10:37:59 GMT -5
I completely understand that. I’m just trying to grasp it all myself and kind of assume people will critique my understanding. I guess the biggest distinction as far as bedded content goes is are the 7 or 9 channel considered actual channels similar to Dolby HD or are they more or less considered zones for designated playback into multiple speakers depending on layouts. Knowing their intended roll as far as that type of content designation coming from the engineers is something I’d like to hear. And how dependent is good playback on speakers moving past 7.1.4 on the sound engineers vs Atmos limits. I might of read right past it somewhere so I appoligize if I’m missing something.
|
|
|
|
Post by mfeust on Apr 21, 2018 15:20:16 GMT -5
Mann...... I just “lightly” read the last few posts that sounded nearly like a foreign language to me! These kinds of discussions are helping me, actually, in that I am MORE content than ever to simply wait and no longer ponder 🤔 what’s down the pike. After there are a significant number of Emotiva customers utilizing object based audio for everything, then I’ll decide if I want to jump on board. By then, I can simply ship my XMC in for a revamp, since it has enough channels for my room configuration and just take it from there. Bill I completely agree. Makes me even more happy with my 2.2ch system. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Apr 21, 2018 15:27:20 GMT -5
Mann...... I just “lightly” read the last few posts that sounded nearly like a foreign language to me! These kinds of discussions are helping me, actually, in that I am MORE content than ever to simply wait and no longer ponder 🤔 what’s down the pike. After there are a significant number of Emotiva customers utilizing object based audio for everything, then I’ll decide if I want to jump on board. By then, I can simply ship my XMC in for a revamp, since it has enough channels for my room configuration and just take it from there. Bill I completely agree. Makes me even more happy with my 2.2ch system. Mark 🙏 |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Apr 21, 2018 15:54:11 GMT -5
^^ Are you praying?
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Apr 21, 2018 15:59:30 GMT -5
I’m beginning to get a room planned out and built around the new format. I’m sure I’m not the only one. I could wait back and see what pops up and then take apart a few things and relocate and rebuild later but it would be nice to get it done as soon as possible and set without the need of modifications. I’ll do what I can to keep some modularity. This is why I myself am trying to understand what and how things are done so I can also get a sense if the expandable bays will be utilized for more than sub outs and whether that will change speaker angles. You should feel blessed 2.2 does it for you but I’m not going to lie for me it’s more fun to geek out on this next gen stuff.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Apr 21, 2018 16:00:05 GMT -5
Also note that theaters are REALLY BIG (at least some of them). So, for example, in home installations we assume that "you can't hear directionality with subs" - but, in really big theaters, multiple subs are used, and it is assumed that you CAN hear directionality. Keith, I thought adding subs in the rear (rather than just the LFE channel) in a theater also was due to the fact that most theater surround speakers cannot even reach down to 80 Hz, the threshold of directionality of most humans. Hence the rear subs are doing the lowest octave above 80Hz. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Apr 21, 2018 19:03:31 GMT -5
A quick addition, my movie sound engineer friends tell me that in Atmos they do locations (for the sound effects) based on the designated Atmos speaker locations. In other words the Atmos track on the disc assumes that we have our speakers in the same locations as Atmos recommends. There's not a lot of flexibility there, if we don't put them where they are supposed to be then we won't hear sounds from the same locations as was intended in the mix. What makes my brain ache is what happens when I'm playing a disc that's 7.1.4 and I have, say, 9.1.6? How does the processor handle it, if those extra 4 objects just aren't there on the disc then the processor surely has to matrix them. But again it doesn't know exactly where they are located.
Personally I don't think it's that big a deal if I have some speakers in slightly different locations. It's not like I have to align the sound with what I see on the screen, it's not 360 degrees video. But it might be a bigger deal if I also have a lot more speakers than there are objects in the mix.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Apr 21, 2018 19:16:10 GMT -5
I thought the objects were the easiest because it’s the processor that can use Atmos code to decipher where to play with it’s supported setup because it knows our Atmos supported speaker layouts (unless you get Trinnov then it extrapolates the information through a proprietary method rather than the official Atmos process so that it can make whatever speaker layout you tell it to. Lots of processing = expensive). I thought the only question is the bedded info and if it really makes a difference when adding speakers due to the content that exists in the bed. My take on objects vs bed is objects are purely xyz for the pre pro to directly custom handle independently regardless of Atmos speaker setup chosen and the bed layouts in reference to the potential of your pre pro is when it might work some black magic to expand it without ruining intent. I’d trust your friend I just don’t know if he really means 7.1.4 means 7.1.4 objects vs 7.1.4 bed channel (or maybe zones is another way of looking at it if in fact a 7.1.4 Atmos code is automatically converting the left to left/left wide on a 9.1.6 setup). Matrixing maybe or else how do you get a good 4 coded to 6 cieling blend.. smh.
|
|
