|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 10, 2018 15:00:05 GMT -5
I have never once in my life read that a bed layer was ever 24.1.10. Where did you get that info? Does anyone in this forum know a sound mixer that has created a movie with a discrete 24.1.10 bed layer? I never said that! Home Atmos has the possibility of 7 beds max and movie Atmos has up to 9 beds max. I see so your claim is indeed the xyz no longer exists |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 10, 2018 15:09:32 GMT -5
If the xyz is gone you are absolutely right but I will want Keith to verify this one. For how frustrated you seem you should of opened with the xyz is gone. No one has an argument if your right about not being able to expand.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on May 10, 2018 15:18:26 GMT -5
I think everyone is trying to read stuff into Atmos that isn't really there.
According to Dolby's literature.......
The first digit is the number of traditional surround speakers (front, center, surround, etc)
The second digit is how many separate subwoofers you have.
The third digit refers to how many overhead or Dolby Atmos height speakers you have.
NONE of those is specifically "a bed speaker" or "an object speaker".
THOSE NUMBERS REFER TO PHYSICAL SPEAKERS, THEY DO NOT REFER TO BED CHANNELS OR OBJECTS.
According to all the literature I've read about the theatrical system.....
The beds are what we would call the standard fixed surround channels.
In a home system, the left front bed might be a single speaker.
In a theater, the left front bed might be made up of five speakers, all grouped in the left front area of the room.
The point is that the bed channels don't move or change size - the bed channel is made up of a fixed array of speakers playing a discrete channel of content.
The left front bed channel is equivalent to the left front channel in a 5.1 or 7.1 channel system.
Objects are separate "things".
In the editing software, objects look like red beach balls in a 3D picture of a room.
Objects are positioned by x,y,z coordinates and also have a size.
Objects can also move around... and even change size while moving... dynamically.
The decoder will assign an object to whatever speaker or speakers will cause it to seem to be in the correct physical location.
The two types of data, beds and channels, are "overlayed" on top of each other.
For example, you could have five speakers assigned to the front left bed channel, but an object could be assigned to one, two, or all of them.
And, while the bed channel cannot move, the object can move to a different location.
It's a subtle distinction.....
You could cause something in the bed channel to move from left to right by PANNING it between the left and right bed channels.
However, when it is stage left, it will be in all the speakers in the left bed channel
And, when it is stage right, it will be in all the speakers in the right bed channel.
In contrast, and object COULD be positioned in all the left front bed speakers, or just one of them, or wherever it needs to be.
Imagine a normal 7.1 channel system, with one speaker at each position, or a group of speakers at each position; those are your bed channels.
Now imagine a system that handles discrete objects, each object having a location and a size, and each object able to be assigned to one or many speakers, as necessary.
Now just imagine those two systems sharing the same physical set of speakers.
I should also note that, while objects CAN move, they aren't required to.
So, for example, them mixing engineer COULD assign four non-moving objects, and "pin" each to one of your four ceiling speakers.
You would then have the equivalent of a 7.1 channel surround system, except that it would have four more height channels.
And, even though they were technically objects, if those four "height objects" never moved or changed size, they would act just like regular channels.
Likewise, if you had twenty four wall-mounted speakers, arranged every fifteen degrees, the bed channels would be assigned to groups of them....
While objects could be assigned to one or more as desired...
(And it is the objects that could presumably be positioned more precisely if you had more speakers.)
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 10, 2018 15:31:54 GMT -5
As usual Keith you have a knack for making a complex matter as logically simple as possible. However what do you know about the new disc authoring that is limiting the number of channels?
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 10, 2018 15:43:06 GMT -5
I think the correct question is did they get rid of home object audio because that is the xyz that allows expanding. The bed channels are just speaker arrays when expanding so the equivalence isn’t the same as how we saw channels prior. So no prob expanding there. Now it being object codec it would no longer be if they truly did get rid of the xyz object overlay and because he didn’t mention it being taken away and only it’s important roll I’d assume it’s still gtg. Thanks Keith.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 10, 2018 15:55:10 GMT -5
I think the correct question is did they get rid of home object audio because that is the xyz that allows expanding. The bed channels are just speaker arrays when expanding so the equivalence isn’t the same as how we saw channels prior. So no prob expanding there. Now it being object codec it would no longer be if they truly did get rid of the xyz object overlay and because he didn’t mention it being taken away and only it’s important roll I’d assume it’s still gtg. Thanks Keith. I apologize. I don't think you and I speak the same language. We need an interpreter like Keith!  |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 10, 2018 15:58:37 GMT -5
Haha I guess. I really feel like it now. I could of swore that’s what I said but I apologize if my way just results in confusion from poor delivery. I’m thinking this is good news. Now I hope we can at least agree especially with RMC-1’s expandability it theoretically could be possible to get up towards 24.1.10. Throw in some expansion bays that link two RMC-1’s together or even individual expansion bay slots for added channels if the processing power is there.Things like that are why you don’t like me to talk smh.. I can’t help it
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 10, 2018 16:13:37 GMT -5
From what I can tell from brief conversations with sound engineers/mixers the size of the audio track is the issue, it's limited for HT use. So they make mixing decisions based on how much space they have been allocated. This is not the case for cinema mixes, they don't appear to have any space limitations there. Maybe (that means I am guessing), they can save space by limiting the number of x, y, z co ordinates they use. If they pin more effects to immovable co ordinates then it saves space (less data on the disc). I have read the Dolby literature many times (especially the bit KeithL quoted) and quite frankly it doesn't tell me what I want to know. Possibly because Dolby has no control over what the studio demands of the sound engineer/mixer. All Dolby talks about is what Atmos is capable of, not exactly how it is being used in the field. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 10, 2018 16:16:28 GMT -5
Haha I guess. I really feel like it now. I could of swore that’s what I said but I apologize if my way just results in confusion from poor delivery. I’m thinking this is good news. Now I hope we can at least agree especially with RMC-1’s expandability it theoretically could be possible to get up towards 24.1.10. Throw in some expansion bays that link two RMC-1’s together or even individual expansion bay slots for added channels if the processing power is there.Things like that are why you don’t like me to talk smh.. I can’t help it Sure, but what use is it if the information isn't there in the first place? What if we can't get 24.1.10 because it simply won't fit on the disc? Until there is "larger" media are we just wasting our time and money? Have you found a disc that says 24.1.10? I haven't. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 10, 2018 16:17:13 GMT -5
And I’m good with any of those type of limitations over the absence of xyz. It’s better than a crying baby or trying to sit through a quiet place without wanting to rip the popcorn out of a hundred peoples hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 10, 2018 16:18:19 GMT -5
Haha I guess. I really feel like it now. I could of swore that’s what I said but I apologize if my way just results in confusion from poor delivery. I’m thinking this is good news. Now I hope we can at least agree especially with RMC-1’s expandability it theoretically could be possible to get up towards 24.1.10. Throw in some expansion bays that link two RMC-1’s together or even individual expansion bay slots for added channels if the processing power is there.Things like that are why you don’t like me to talk smh.. I can’t help it Sure, but what use is it if the information isn't there in the first place? What if we can't get 24.1.10 because it simply won't fit on the disc? Until there is "larger" media are we just wasting our time and money? Have you found a disc that says 24.1.10? I haven't. Cheers Gary The beds aren’t limited and you’re just saying there may be less objects. That doesn’t limit us from 24.1.10 |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 10, 2018 16:21:14 GMT -5
Sure, but what use is it if the information isn't there in the first place? What if we can't get 24.1.10 because it simply won't fit on the disc? Until there is "larger" media are we just wasting our time and money? Have you found a disc that says 24.1.10? I haven't. The beds aren’t limited and you’re just saying there may be less objects. That doesn’t limit us from 24.1.10 But if there is insufficient space on the disc to include the x, y, z ordinates it definitely does. If they are pinned to 7.1.4 then nothing comes out of the others. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 10, 2018 16:41:11 GMT -5
The beds aren’t limited and you’re just saying there may be less objects. That doesn’t limit us from 24.1.10 But if there is insufficient space on the disc to include the x, y, z ordinates it definitely does. If they are pinned to 7.1.4 then nothing comes out of the others. Cheers Gary Then they are no longer objects without the xyz. So are they limiting the number of objects or are they eliminating objects? I thought we established objects were good and Atmos’s official literature even mentioned the object layer was in fact easy to retain all objects. Sooo somehow we need to stop running in circles. You guys are right if Home objects are no longer there. If there are still objects then there are no limits to going 24.1.10. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 10, 2018 16:42:40 GMT -5
Correct me if I’m wrong but Keith said the mixer could pin an object to a speaker not that that is the new standard. But then the objects wouldn’t move and that kind of limits the intent of objects along with the fact they’d still have the xyz data demand.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 10, 2018 16:50:08 GMT -5
The beds aren’t limited and you’re just saying there may be less objects. That doesn’t limit us from 24.1.10 But if there is insufficient space on the disc to include the x, y, z ordinates it definitely does. If they are pinned to 7.1.4 then nothing comes out of the others. Cheers Gary There is enough space on a BD or UHD BD disc for all the Dolby Home information. Why do you think they came up with a "Dolby Home" abbreviated from Dolby Cinema in the first place? Previous Dolby Atmos discs may have already included all that 24.1.10 information which was just simply reported as "Dolby Atmos". If it were not on most discs, would Trinnov even have a reason to exist? The question is if Media disc producers are going to dumb down what they put on BD and UHD BD discs for the purpose of using the same files for streaming which is sensitive to bandwidth. And if this becomes the dominant practice, why spring for 16 + channel systems? |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 10, 2018 16:57:59 GMT -5
All the 24.1.10 material meaning the few bed channels and object audio. All still exist until an official source is revealed that confirms objects are no longer. So 24.1.10 is still there for trinnov or the likes. Now I know why Keith only pops his head up here and there. This is a daunting task to be on one of the sides of this thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 10, 2018 17:08:51 GMT -5
If I had to guess what a 7.1.4 standard meant for a place in the Atmos family it would purely be a faux Atmos demand for cheap receiver companies that don’t want the cost of processing and they just create that standard bed that can be simply mirrored. This should in no way effect a real Atmos processor. So basically how a non Atmos system gets its 7.1 Dolby hd version a faux Atmos system in the same way would get their 7.1.4. Cheaper and easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 10, 2018 18:36:14 GMT -5
But if there is insufficient space on the disc to include the x, y, z ordinates it definitely does. If they are pinned to 7.1.4 then nothing comes out of the others. There is enough space on a BD or UHD BD disc for all the Dolby Home information. Why do you think they came up with a "Dolby Home" abbreviated from Dolby Cinema in the first place? Previous Dolby Atmos discs may have already included all that 24.1.10 information which was just simply reported as "Dolby Atmos". If it were not on most discs, would Trinnov even have a reason to exist? The question is if Media disc producers are going to dumb down what they put on BD and UHD BD discs for the purpose of using the same files for streaming which is sensitive to bandwidth. And if this becomes the dominant practice, why spring for 16 + channel systems? Are you sure that "there is enough space"? All of my 4K Atmos movies have just the movie on the disc with the extras on a separate disc. If they don't have room for extras, some of which are very scant, then it seems logical that there is a space restriction and they are going past it. So saving space by limiting Atmos x, y, z data would be a step in that direction. Maybe (yes, speculating again) there was enough room on the disc for 1080 video (inc. 3D) and Atmos with all of the x, y, z data. But 4K video and Atmos with all of the x, y, z data doesn't fit so they have to reduce the data. Can't reduce the 4K data or more appropriately don't want to because we (a lot of people with 4K TV's) could see it. But there aren't that many people with Atmos, let alone those past 7.1.4, so not many would be affected (or notice anyway). How does HDR10 and Dolby vision affect the amount of data? Do they ever further limit the amount of space on the disc left for audio? In regards to Trinnov's existence, some people just have to have more and are willing to pay lots more for just being able to say that they have more. Whether it works or not is irrelevant to them. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 10, 2018 18:43:54 GMT -5
I’ve heard from Keith the HDR demands are pretty light. I live in the country so internet isn’t great so I’d have a better shot of running 1080p with hdr (hdr is an overlay like object audio but I’m not sure if it’s cross compatible with 1080p but I thought he said it should be) over getting half way there to 4k. I could see how issues with Atmos might result from streaming so how they decide to handle that and what the actual bandwidth requirements are for the object bed layer will I’m sure be a factor but I wouldnt jump up and say object audio is dead for that reason without an official reference. I’m sure the object bed is similar to the HDR demand ratio wise in the whole scheme of things. Either way for me I’ll have to rely on disks for both 4k hdr and Atmos.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 10, 2018 18:47:36 GMT -5
Then there’s the type of people who look for bargain ways to get MORE by maybe having a system they could piece together that allows for 32 channels for 7k. I wouldn’t even consider a lot of speakers if the principal fundamentals were off for it to all work as the Atmos designers intended. It really takes a clearer understanding of its fundamental operating principals to know that it will work. That’s what it was designed to do. A trinnov type of shopper doesn’t spend time learning and researching and finding bargains. He pays money and has their system installed. I think most in this forum wouldn’t waist their time here if they were those people. How people want to be rewarded for their hard work through life shouldn’t be mocked just because others want less and are happy to settle and it makes sense. You guys on the 7.1.4 bandwagon are prob at the best rate of return where things are beginning to level out. I’d always say if you want less that is awesome for you. The luckiest guy here is the 2 channel listener. Good for you. But me. Ive got an expensive hobby and I do want more and I have more of that coin from work I’m willing to drop on it methodically. Do you guys also talk bad about every car owner that passes you that decided to buy a nicer engine or upholstery than what’s needed to get from A to B or is this kind of behavior limited to AV?
|
|
