|
|
Post by cwt on Apr 23, 2018 0:16:48 GMT -5
What's a "full Atmos mix"? Is that 8, 12, 16, 24 or 36? The way I look at it is that "full" is dependant on what the engineer puts on the disc, or more precisely what they are able to physically fit on the disc. I'm not sure that I understand the real world listening difference between the effects of up mixing and down mixing. If the disc really has a 36 layout (like a commercial theatre) and I only have 8, does that not require down mixing? If the disc only has 12 (keeping in mind the most common I have seen on discs is 7.1.4) and I have say a 16 layout (the not so common on discs 9.1.6) then does that not require up mixing? As a size comparison the Digital Cinema Package for Avatar 3D was around 400 gigabytes that's ~8 times the size of the Avatar 4K BD disc. Cheers Gary As your aware Gary the home version of atmos is a re engineered simpler version of the cinema iteration ; this uses a new mixing tool - The 4k video too is what takes the lions share of the disc space ;lossless audio is a % of this like a regular 2k bd may have just a 6gb lossless track; the atmos metadata is negligible. www.pioneerelectronics.com/StaticFiles/PUSA/Files/Dolby%20Atmos/Dolby-Atmos-for-the-Home-Theater.pdfAgree and further to this the object sound effects have characteristics that don't fit neatly into single channels [so to speak] as they may have volume That 7.1.4 disc may steer its 7 bed channels to corresponding speakers but the .4 being objects can go to any or all of your 6 ceiling speakers as they are rendered by your high horsepower dsp is the way I see it . Ime sure someone like Filmixer could elaborate on steering for the bed channels ; cant recall if they too can be diverted to LW or RW  |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Apr 23, 2018 7:42:25 GMT -5
“Importantly, Dolby Atmos content is not tied to any specific playback configuration. Whether you have a full 7.1.4 system, a 5.1.2 system, or an ultimate 24.1.10 Dolby Atmos system, your receiver will get the same content and play it back in a way that takes full advantage of your specific setup.”
“Spatial audio coding takes into account the spatial information, along with other information about the sound objects, to efficiently encode them in Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus. Spatial coding is not a channel-based, matrix-encoding system like Dolby Pro Logic II or Dolby Pro Logic IIz. Instead, it is a fundamentally new coding technique that allows all of the original cinema audio objects to be sent to your home theater.”
I was definitely wrong that they use the identical xyz coding technique but it still claims all the information is accessible for manipulation. The claim that Atmos metadata is negligible doesn’t necessarily mean we will have a poor result trying to recreate the effects at home. I want someone with Trinnov to chime in on how they feel about their system vs a professional theater and whether they feel at loss of content.
I’m curious where your referencing the 7.1.4 means 4 objects are allowed max. It states all objects are brought into Dolby TrueHd on Blu-ray to then be extrapolated is my take on how they describe it not leaving a single object behind. Whether this is just a clever space saving tool that loses nothing of the original is what I wonder now. I would assume under the conversion some sort of accuracy of object detail or location is lost but I wonder if that is negligible. It more or less sounds like they found a way to embed all objects info in dolby trueHd. It wouldn’t be scalable if the xyz information wasn’t somehow there to be extrapolated by our pre pros set up for 24.1.10. I would guess a 7.1.4 is then like Gary was saying the entire bed and object set but the info present is still intact and sufficient enough to preserve the scalable xyz. I’m assuming the 7 lower bed channels has the xy and the point of the .4 is the z data. If there is a process to take the full theatrical Atmos code and simplify it to a 7.1.4 sphere data point set there is a way to also decode it and re associate the data with different speaker layouts.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs 
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Apr 23, 2018 8:19:02 GMT -5
You folks are confusing me... AFAIK, there is no such thing as a "7.1.4 Atmos" Bluray. It's Atmos or it's not Atmos.
Just because someone chose to print Atmos 7.1.4 on a label doesn't mean it's accurate. Has this been verified, before filling all these pages??
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Apr 23, 2018 8:33:49 GMT -5
You folks are confusing me... AFAIK, there is no such thing as a "7.1.4 Atmos" Bluray. It's Atmos or it's not Atmos. Just because someone chose to print Atmos 7.1.4 on a label doesn't mean it's accurate. Has this been verified, before filling all these pages?? That’s what I thought too but I think it has to do with things we don’t really need to know. It’s looking more like that is just the data format they chose to swap to when they transferred it all to dolby trueHd even though it’s meant to be extrapolated and manipulated back into a manageable object data. It does give you a sense of how much directional content they wanted for the non object sounds in the beds if say they chose to go to 9.1.6 rather than 7.1.4. Or maybe the extra channels could also allow for more accurate xyz data embedded. It’s interesting to know the extra step but I think the end result is the same just not as “pure” as we’d all wish for. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Apr 23, 2018 8:54:46 GMT -5
Here's a question about Atmos. We have been told that each object can be assigned three data points regarding location and one data point regarding relative volume. How does frequency enter into the equation? I'm specifically thinking about Doppler frequency shifts.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Apr 23, 2018 9:06:59 GMT -5
Here's a question about Atmos. We have been told that each object can be assigned three data points regarding location and one data point regarding relative volume. How does frequency enter into the equation? I'm specifically thinking about Doppler frequency shifts. I’d imagine that’s up to the mixers intent and might be manipulated to mimic the sound changing distance from the listener. That’s an interesting question. |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 889
|
Post by richb on Apr 23, 2018 9:18:08 GMT -5
You folks are confusing me... AFAIK, there is no such thing as a "7.1.4 Atmos" Bluray. It's Atmos or it's not Atmos. Just because someone chose to print Atmos 7.1.4 on a label doesn't mean it's accurate. Has this been verified, before filling all these pages?? That’s what I thought too but I think it has to do with things we don’t really need to know. It’s looking more like that is just the data format they chose to swap to when they transferred it all to dolby trueHd even though it’s meant to be extrapolated and manipulated back into a manageable object data. It does give you a sense of how much directional content they wanted for the non object sounds in the beds if say they chose to go to 9.1.6 rather than 7.1.4. Or maybe the extra channels could also allow for more accurate xyz data embedded. It’s interesting to know the extra step but I think the end result is the same just not as “pure” as we’d all wish for. Whatever is encoded, it must be backward compatible with HDMI 1.4 so that means 8 channel beds (7.1). There are 32 channels in HDMI 2.0 but I don't know if that is backward compatible. There are limited object and object combining but any Atmos layout selectable by the processor should be mapped. Additional channel layout support can be utilized but the vendor (Emotiva in this case) must supply the up-mixer. I read on AVS that Dolby will be locked down (2019?) to no longer permit using the DTS-X up-mixer with Atmos sources. Vendor specific up-mixers are fine. Nothing stops you from sending LPCM to the processor and selecting the up-mixer of choice but that is going to be a PIA. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Apr 23, 2018 9:23:21 GMT -5
“Dolby has expanded the Dolby TrueHD format, used in Blu-ray discs, to allow the format to support Dolby Atmos content. Before Dolby Atmos, Dolby TrueHD provided lossless support for channel-based audio, such as 5.1 and 7.1. We have added a fourth substream for Dolby Atmos sound. This substream represents a losslessly encoded, fully object-based mix.
Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD is transmitted from a Blu-ray player to your AVR via an HDMI connection. If your AVR supports Dolby Atmos, the Dolby TrueHD object-based audio and related metadata will be decoded, processed, and rendered to your specific speaker configuration.
Dolby Atmos audio can be encoded with Dolby TrueHD at multiple sampling rates (including 48 and 96 kHz) and bit depths (16- and 24-bit). Dolby Atmos enabled receivers will also support legacy Dolby TrueHD bitstreams at multiple sampling rates (including 48, 96, and 192 kHz) and bit depths (16-, 20-, and 24-bit) to provide full backward compatibility with legacy Blu-ray Disc media and Dolby TrueHD music files.“
This probably relates to the hdmi 1.4 compatibility without having to limit all the content to 1.4 standards. I guess this also breaks down the coding process. Smh I think we are focusing on worrying about the things that don’t matter when we say if in fact there is 7.1.4 written on a disk then it won’t be accurate to have more speakers. Everything states differently that it will be accurate to 24.1.10 and because we don’t know precisely how this is done there is an assumption it doesn’t work.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 23, 2018 9:36:40 GMT -5
The third number in the "Atmos number" is the number of HEIGHT SPEAKERS. So, for example, an "Atmos 7.2.4 system": - has seven "regular surround channels" ( 7 . 2 . 4 ) - has two subwoofers ( 7 . 2 . 4 ) - has four height speakers ( 7 . 2 . 4 ) The third number does NOT describe the number of available objects, or simultaneous objects, or anything like that. “Importantly, Dolby Atmos content is not tied to any specific playback configuration. Whether you have a full 7.1.4 system, a 5.1.2 system, or an ultimate 24.1.10 Dolby Atmos system, your receiver will get the same content and play it back in a way that takes full advantage of your specific setup.” “Spatial audio coding takes into account the spatial information, along with other information about the sound objects, to efficiently encode them in Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus. Spatial coding is not a channel-based, matrix-encoding system like Dolby Pro Logic II or Dolby Pro Logic IIz. Instead, it is a fundamentally new coding technique that allows all of the original cinema audio objects to be sent to your home theater.” I was definitely wrong that they use the identical xyz coding technique but it still claims all the information is accessible for manipulation. The claim that Atmos metadata is negligible doesn’t necessarily mean we will have a poor result trying to recreate the effects at home. I want someone with Trinnov to chime in on how they feel about their system vs a professional theater and whether they feel at loss of content. I’m curious where your referencing the 7.1.4 means 4 objects are allowed max. It states all objects are brought into Dolby TrueHd on Blu-ray to then be extrapolated is my take on how they describe it not leaving a single object behind. Whether this is just a clever space saving tool that loses nothing of the original is what I wonder now. I would assume under the conversion some sort of accuracy of object detail or location is lost but I wonder if that is negligible. It more or less sounds like they found a way to embed all objects info in dolby trueHd. It wouldn’t be scalable if the xyz information wasn’t somehow there to be extrapolated by our pre pros set up for 24.1.10. I would guess a 7.1.4 is then like Gary was saying the entire bed and object set but the info present is still intact and sufficient enough to preserve the scalable xyz. I’m assuming the 7 lower bed channels has the xy and the point of the .4 is the z data. If there is a process to take the full theatrical Atmos code and simplify it to a 7.1.4 sphere data point set there is a way to also decode it and re associate the data with different speaker layouts. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Apr 23, 2018 10:06:09 GMT -5
This sounds like if we did want channels just for diffuse content with dipole speakers all we’d have to do is take the dolby trueHd and eliminate all sounds tied to the Atmos fourth sub stream.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 23, 2018 10:35:47 GMT -5
If you read the Dolby literature, you'll find that both interpretations are correct... but the correlation between home and commercial theater installations can be confusing. The bed channels are the equivalent of what we would simply call "the normal channels" in TrueHD (the main speakers, surrounds, and rear surrounds). However, in a large theater, each of these channels would probably be assigned to multiple speakers. For example, in a theater with thirty-two speakers, the "left front" channel may actually be assigned to six speakers (all clustered in the left front area of the theater). Those will be the normal channels for non-Atmos content and the bed channels for Atmos content. However, with Atmos, objects may also be assigned to one or more of those speakers as well.... Note that speakers that belong to "bed groups" are NOT excluded from being used for objects. So, for example, in a theater, content assigned to "the left front bed channel" may be sent to a group of five speakers in the left front area of the room. But an "Atmos object" may still be assigned individually to one or more of the speakers in that group. All bed speakers may also be used as object speakers.... but there may be speakers that are ONLY used for objects and not for bed channels. (Since there are fewer speakers in a home installation fewer combinations are common.) 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 cwt on Apr 23, 2018 12:27:23 GMT -5
The claim that Atmos metadata is negligible doesn’t necessarily mean we will have a poor result trying to recreate the effects at home. I want someone with Trinnov to chime in on how they feel about their system vs a professional theater and whether they feel at loss of content. To expand on atmos metadata being negligible was to mean in relation to the size of the video and audio ; its just piggybacked so theres little throughput overhead. You may have missed my . before the 4  It changes the context to objects in the .4 nomenclature which Keith has explained is the new shorthand for height speakers. |
|
|
|
Post by goozoo on Apr 23, 2018 15:10:09 GMT -5
So, for $5K, is the Emotiva toaster included? ...Perhaps this has been answered elsewhere. All I can say it had better be more than those damn blue M&Ms (I'm looking at you Dan) we all got with the XMC-1!
Ok...now back to the exhilarating conversation about object based audio.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Apr 23, 2018 17:54:33 GMT -5
since we can’t have dipoles due to the object sounds and that needed directionality. You bring up a good point that typically gets hidden under the rug. I've read people basically saying dipoles are obsolete, to throw them away. But then others say they actually prefer them still, even when using atmos. My speakers are bipolar, and they aren't going anywhere just because of Atmos. Certainly not in the garbage, or even lower down on the wall. First of all, its going to be a long while from now until Atmos or DTS-X is the norm, used for regular TV. And we watch a lot of regular TV. So I'm not going the sacrfice the sound of the majority of our watching just to have the perfect ultimate Atmos. Same goes for my hundreds of blurays with Dolby True or DTS Master. To really make this work, we'd all need two sets of speakers. One set dipole and one set direct. For example, at my house, I would need to put the dipoles up the wall and the directs inwall. And then need more amps, and some sort of switcher. But thats crazy for me. Second, I hoping my bipoles are a good mix inbetween. Maybe not super duper perfect for either regular TV, Dolby True, or Atmos, but a good compromise. Gotta go. Be back later for more reasons...... |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Apr 23, 2018 19:25:07 GMT -5
If you read the Dolby literature, you'll find that both interpretations are correct... but the correlation between home and commercial theater installations can be confusing. The bed channels are the equivalent of what we would simply call "the normal channels" in TrueHD (the main speakers, surrounds, and rear surrounds). However, in a large theater, each of these channels would probably be assigned to multiple speakers. For example, in a theater with thirty-two speakers, the "left front" channel may actually be assigned to six speakers (all clustered in the left front area of the theater). Those will be the normal channels for non-Atmos content and the bed channels for Atmos content. However, with Atmos, objects may also be assigned to one or more of those speakers as well.... Note that speakers that belong to "bed groups" are NOT excluded from being used for objects. So, for example, in a theater, content assigned to "the left front bed channel" may be sent to a group of five speakers in the left front area of the room. But an "Atmos object" may still be assigned individually to one or more of the speakers in that group. All bed speakers may also be used as object speakers.... but there may be speakers that are ONLY used for objects and not for bed channels. (Since there are fewer speakers in a home installation fewer combinations are common.) The ability to utilise the bed channels for objects (as well) to me is probably what makes the Atmos track sound better (clearer, more distinct in location) than the True HD track on the same disc. Which is why I'm changing to Atmos even if I never get around to installing ceiling speakers. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Apr 23, 2018 19:37:16 GMT -5
Reason 3, my L shaped couch has one side right up along the left side wall. Any direct radiating speaker at a lower height on the wall would just blast that particular person out. So high placement and bipole will absolutely be better from that spot. Reason 4, switching processors, buying and installing 6 ceiling speakers, adding 6 channels of amplification, and hooking it all up takes a lot of time and money as it is. Swapping out old speakers, filling holes and repainting is a crap load more, that I just don't have.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Apr 24, 2018 14:48:49 GMT -5
Reason 3, my L shaped couch has one side right up along the left side wall. Any direct radiating speaker at a lower height on the wall would just blast that particular person out. So high placement and bipole will absolutely be better from that spot. Reason 4, switching processors, buying and installing 6 ceiling speakers, adding 6 channels of amplification, and hooking it all up takes a lot of time and money as it is. Swapping out old speakers, filling holes and repainting is a crap load more, that I just don't have. You’re a better person than me. I wouldn’t worry about blasting anyone out if it would sacrifice the main lp haha but I understand. And no one wants to replace bipolar speakers already paid for or sell them when everyone is being told to move on from those and dipoles driving down the resale value, but for your situation I see their merit. At least you have some localized effect and probably just miss out a little bit on the seamless object panning. But as far as the overheads spending so much time keeping up in the RMC-1 forum without the intent of going 3d has me scratching my head haha. I know you probably want to see how it all pans out before you jump on which is smart, but yeah if you do have to cut holes for the cieling speakers you want to make sure you cut holes once in the right place for the right number of em. I’m so selfish with my main lp that I’d probably swing towards 11.1.4 If it was available or I’ll orient the 6 from 9.1.6 over the main lp. Whoever is in the second row I don’t think would feel too out of the mix. I’m going to stick with the recommended angles and speaker types for the main lp regardless of what it does to the other seating locations. That’s the only way for accurate panning as intended without a trinnov and either way the lp is always going to be the focus for how the xyz breaks down. How everyone has to balance that especially with pre existing speakers installed in walls is highly personal. |
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on Apr 29, 2018 20:36:02 GMT -5
Weekly updates? Lol yeah ok
|
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on May 1, 2018 7:51:15 GMT -5
my question...does it ever go through ANYONES head at EMO..."ya know....we promised somthing...THIS time we should actually make sure it happens"
pictures from axpona
Weekly updates on RMC-1
HDMI boards come out in March
the list goes on and on...
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 1, 2018 8:28:09 GMT -5
As soon as there is another company developing a 16 channel modularly upgradable system with 3 expansion bays I may be swayed by which one is more involved with people like us but in all honesty this is already the most hands on company I’ve ever seen in this industry. I feel like they listen to our concerns and what we are looking for as consumers and I’ve always appreciated them chiming in giving us what they can. I’d rather them keep their nose to the grindstone and get this out to us sooner rather than taking the time to keep us updated at every turn. There’s already products that can get us almost to the RMC-1’s starting point but none that have the same outlook over the long haul. If patience is what’s required it’s no big deal. Buy once, cry once.
|
|
It changes the context to objects in the .4 nomenclature which Keith has explained is the new shorthand for height speakers.
