|
|
Post by cwt on May 12, 2018 13:52:27 GMT -5
Have a pt7030 as well and as appealing your height channel uptick would be ; it doesn't have an atmos decoder only a truehd/dts hdma etc one so will ignore any metadata objects sent with the bitstream  But if the hdmi 2.0 and atmos boards were compatible it would be winging its way to Tennesee as we speak  Pigs might fly both figuratively and metaphorically  That’s why I was curious if it had a say 2.0 hdmi in and 1.4 hdmi out pre pt-7030 in the signal chain. Or even using a hdmi splitter so there wouldn’t be any type of lag... Maybe...? Keith shot the idea down before but that is when it was dynamic object data and lots of processing. Wouldn’t the pt-7030 only see the 7.1 anyways? Im saying it would be a small separate system not something integral to just the 7030. Very inventive except that a complete hdmi2.0a hdcp2.2 system [no 1.4] is required for drm encoded uhd signals .. Otherwise if you didn't need both hdmi outs and you had a dual hdmi oppo or pana etc an add on box would be a great idea [ not everyone needs 8 hdmi ins ooh just saw your link ' theres a device you never thought you needed before you saw it  |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 12, 2018 14:08:31 GMT -5
Start throwing some cheap alternative out on the market there might be a little more pushback by all the pre pro manufacturers for real Atmos. Emotiva could make their money by the numbers sold. Not that they couldn’t throw in a nice DAC. Throw in a trigger and ir control for some type of volume control and maybe it’s not such hassle to incorporate. Throw a 50-100 watt amp version with an entry DAC and you’re catering to most people I would assume. No reason it couldn’t have multiple inputs and it be used as a switch. Guess I’m just saying the new code maybe left a lot of cheap alternatives to add on rather than replace existing systems for streaming and the other fake content that snuck on to uhds. It would be a paperweight as far as playing back real Atmos though.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 12, 2018 16:46:42 GMT -5
If anyone actually cares about the studios dropping the ball with those uhd’s go write a negative review on Amazon or email Dolby.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 13, 2018 0:50:48 GMT -5
Let's do some research, gather the facts. Get your Dolby Atmos or DTSX discs out and tells us what it says about the configuration. I'll kick it off (all 4K discs); Thor Ragnarok - Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 Wonder Woman - just says Dolby Atmos and Dolby TrueHD 7.1 Justice League - just says Dolby Atmos and Dolby TrueHD 7.1 + DTSHD MA 5.1 Guardians of the Galaxy 2 - Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 The Last Jedi - Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 Blade Runner 2049 - Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 I have seen (but don't own) one movie on the shelf that quoted 7.1.6 but I can't recall which one it was. So dig out your BD's flip them over and let us know what they quote for Atmos. So how is it going, anyone found any of their discs that quote other than 7.1.4? Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 13, 2018 9:28:43 GMT -5
My copy of Blade Runner 2049 says Dolby Atmos TrueHD. It seems that I only see Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 on recent Disney, Lucasfilm, and Marvel releases, all brands controlled by Disney. Disney has never been friendly to the home movie crowd, always being the last to adopt new technologies and limiting their releases so that multiple time spaced commercial movie releases will continue to be viable for them. They are the most protective company I know of for their intellectual/entertainment patented holdings.
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on May 13, 2018 10:37:48 GMT -5
My copy of Blade Runner 2049 says Dolby Atmos TrueHD. It seems that I only see Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 on recent Disney, Lucasfilm, and Marvel releases, all brands controlled by Disney. Disney has never been friendly to the home movie crowd, always being the last to adopt new technologies and limiting their releases so that multiple time spaced commercial movie releases will continue to be viable for them. They are the most protective company I know of for their intellectual/entertainment patented holdings. Last week a DVD not bluray Netflix copy of 2049 showed up here. The “standard” Dolby mix left me wanting for nothing with startling rear channel effects. Who could take time to compare all these mixes to see which ones are better or not, I don’t know. I only know, my rears are above ear level with ultra wide dispersion tweeters (4 feet plus up) and distant enough from the sweet spot that I get awesome overhead effects without object based processing. Perhaps someday I will consider it if it becomes more than a niche market. Bill |
|
|
|
Post by liv2teach on May 13, 2018 14:42:40 GMT -5
Agree on the no-preorder. What they should do is describe the remaining milestones to completion, and then just provide an update on progress against those milestones. They don't have to give dates, just progress and effort remaining. At this point I would be happy just to hear anything from the management team at Emotiva...on the 3/30/18 podcasts, I believe it was Dan, it was stated perhaps they need to have regular updates to keep us posted. Yet, here we are almost two months removed from that post, and crickets..... Hell, I'd be happy to get an update on the toaster I ordered six weeks ago...... |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on May 13, 2018 15:19:52 GMT -5
Agree on the no-preorder. What they should do is describe the remaining milestones to completion, and then just provide an update on progress against those milestones. They don't have to give dates, just progress and effort remaining. At this point I would be happy just to hear anything from the management team at Emotiva...on the 3/30/18 podcasts, I believe it was Dan, it was stated perhaps they need to have regular updates to keep us posted. Yet, here we are almost two months removed from that post, and crickets..... Hell, I'd be happy to get an update on the toaster I ordered six weeks ago......
 |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 13, 2018 18:58:18 GMT -5
No, the other speakers will not remain silent. The Atmos and DTS-X up-mixers work very well and synthesize information for channels without discrete content. We use it all of the time and the Dolby up-mixer in particular sounds spectacular and extremely natural. We’re really hooked on 9.1.6!! Peace, Big dan What I get from Dan's post (please excuse the cynicism) is that I shouldn't bother with an Atmos processor if I want more than 7.1.4. I should simply use the 7.1 Dolby True HD mix (via PCM) and matrix the additional channels using Dolby Pro Logic IIz.  I was a bit confused by what other people were reporting as finding (hearing) from Movies that have Atmos labels so I went to my friends place (the one with the 5.1.2 set up) over the weekend armed with a pair of Airmotive 4's and a pair of Airmotive 6's. He has just recently upgraded from a cheap Atmos AVR to a Yamaha CX-A5100 (designated 11.2), although still using the 5.1.2 speaker set up we sorted out over a year ago. I also took my 4K Atmos BD's that he didn't have (keeping in mind that all are Region B for Australia); The Last Jedi which is labelled Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 Blade Runner 2049 which is labelled Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 Wonder Woman which is labelled Dolby Atmos and Dolby TrueHD 7.1 Justice League which is labelled Dolby Atmos and Dolby TrueHD 7.1 + DTSHD MA 5.1 He already had his own copies of Thor Ragnarok, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, The Jurrasic Park series, all of the Matrices, Suicide Squad plus a few more. We added the pair of Airmotive 4's as additional Front and Rear Presence (Ceiling) and the pair of Airmotive 6's as Surround Back to give us 7.1.4. All of the Atmos tracks we played had all 7.1.4 speakers active. There was no indication from the processor that there was anything more than 7.1.4 on the disc to access. No indication that there were extra objects, like 9.1.6, 24.1.10 etc, but that they couldn't be played on that processor. What I learnt, neither of us had a movie that appeared to have more than 7.1.4 and the difference between 5.1.2 and 7.1.4 is not humongous in his smallish room. Plus the top of the line Atmos processor from Yamaha is 7.1.4 and the Sabre DAC's don't insult my ears like I thought they would.  Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 13, 2018 19:32:31 GMT -5
Yeah from what I heard Yamaha makes a great system. I’m not surprised you had positive feelings about it. But yeah sounds like if the 7.1.4 format really becomes the home standard it would be easy to forgo the thought of going higher in channels. As much as I want to go crazy on the speaker numbers I wouldn’t if the information isn’t there to harness it. We’ll see how it plays out. It’s early and we don’t know how prevalent this new layout will be and whether or not we’ll see a corrective action for uhd’s. Either way I want 50+% content to be straight Atmos and I’ll consider it worth my while to go higher numbers. And it sounds like there are enough perks with multiple subs and its expandability that the RMC-1 is still the right choice even if I decide to limit the speakers. And if we get the most out of DIRAC I expect it to be through the RMC. Definetlily sounds like they might be creating a ceiling for the best audio at the cheapest price potentially dropping us from 34 speakers to 11 though. I’d prefer us to be able to choose for ourselves for the room at least with the hard media but oh well. It is what it is whit this stuff.
You’d think they could make the front two static objects compatible for direct plii z uptake if they wanted to. I honestly don’t know how upmixers work though. Especially when you get into how it should be expanding the bed channels without screwing up the objects when they go and make them static. But for someone who has really pushed for discrete as intended content does the plii z already fit the bill?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 13, 2018 21:56:30 GMT -5
We were so intent on testing out whether or not we could find a disc that had more than 7.1.4 on it we really didn't get too deep into playing around with other formats. We did try a couple of Dolby True HD tracks with Pro Logic IIz (in a 9.1 set up) and neither of them sounded as good as with Atmos (in a 7.1.4 set up). With Atmos the sound effects were a bit more distinct, more accurately positioned and the dialogue was a bit clearer as well. I put that down to less "bleed" between the channels, with the objects more precisely located. The fight scene from the original Matrix is a prime example, with lots of 3 dimensional sound, from above the main action, get's the ceiling speakers working nicely. It's just not as "clean" in PL 11z. My view is that matrixing anything past 7.1.4 would detract from the clean, clear, crispness that Atmos brings.
Caution, small sample, using only one processor.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by cwt on May 14, 2018 1:58:32 GMT -5
What I get from Dan's post (please excuse the cynicism) is that I shouldn't bother with an Atmos processor if I want more than 7.1.4. I should simply use the 7.1 Dolby True HD mix (via PCM) and matrix the additional channels using Dolby Pro Logic IIz. We added the pair of Airmotive 4's as additional Front and Rear Presence (Ceiling) and the pair of Airmotive 6's as Surround Back to give us 7.1.4. All of the Atmos tracks we played had all 7.1.4 speakers active. There was no indication from the processor that there was anything more than 7.1.4 on the disc to access. No indication that there were extra objects, like 9.1.6, 24.1.10 etc, but that they couldn't be played on that processor. What I learnt, neither of us had a movie that appeared to have more than 7.1.4 and the difference between 5.1.2 and 7.1.4 is not humongous in his smallish room. Plus the top of the line Atmos processor from Yamaha is 7.1.4 and the Sabre DAC's don't insult my ears like I thought they would. To be explicit Gary ; Dan wasn't referring to pl2z but its replacement -better -dolby surround . All the older dsp modes like pl2x and 2z used their algorithms on the whole signal ;the new DSU splits up the frequency bands for better panning. Which reminds me there are forces that want to stop using say dts neural x on a atmos soundtrack and the opposite [DSU] on a dts-x soundtrack. After it was recently fixed by some ce's . If the 5100 had better [newer generation griffin light processors] than 7.1.4 like the RMC1'S 9.1.6 ;that would be a better more definitive indication of what channels are absent from the 7.1.4 discs . That explains why people are gravitating towards altitude 32 owners like S Drucker to do the testing. In the meantime I would be watching Disney discs and affiliated ones like Marvell pretty closely Spot on |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 14, 2018 6:14:50 GMT -5
To be explicit Gary ; Dan wasn't referring to pl2z but its replacement -better -dolby surround . All the older dsp modes like pl2x and 2z used their algorithms on the whole signal ;the new DSU splits up the frequency bands for better panning. Which reminds me there are forces that want to stop using say dts neural x on a atmos soundtrack and the opposite [DSU] on a dts-x soundtrack. After it was recently fixed by some ce's . I too was being explicit, in that I don't believe that the concept of frequency banding will in fact lead to better planning. To me it's completely illogical to believe that directionality of the sound has anything whatsoever to do with its frequency. In simple terms, not everything in the higher frequency ranges should come from the ceiling speakers. For example, in my previous post I referred to the fight scene in the original Matrix, where a large number of low frequency sound effects should come from the ceiling speakers. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 14, 2018 7:05:53 GMT -5
Is the DSU supposed to leave the lower 7.1 bed alone in the processing for the lower channels going 9+ and involve only the 4 objects treated as fixed speakers as a separate height processing job not allowing as much of the high frequency banding to bleed from one to the other? Somehow isolating the info as separate layers.. Or is it still pulling a lot of its info from the lower 7.1 for upmixing heights even with the 4 discrete heights above?
The neural x is really only supposed to expand on the diffuse material that would of normally been seen as the old bed’s material right? So object type of material stays with the 7.1.4 speakers or do I have this one wrong? Been a while since I have focused on dts at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 14, 2018 7:25:58 GMT -5
I have heard many opinions of what Dolby Surround Upmixer does or does not do. In a previous post in this thread, I stated to Big Dan that DSU only handles 11 channels. Many others have stated this also. But this article from Sound & Vision with Craig Eggers, the director of Dolby home theater, says that DSU works up to 24.1.10. How it works is murky, but it is more complicated than just frequency (gain and phase is mentioned). www.soundandvision.com/content/meet-new-dolby-surroundThen again, if what Eggers said is true, then why would Big Dan say that Emotiva is going to write its own upmixer to escape the 11 channel limitation of DSU? And has Emotiva written this new upmixer? |
|
|
|
Post by cwt on May 14, 2018 7:56:58 GMT -5
I too was being explicit, in that I don't believe that the concept of frequency banding will in fact lead to better planning. To me it's completely illogical to believe that directionality of the sound has anything whatsoever to do with its frequency. In simple terms, not everything in the higher frequency ranges should come from the ceiling speakers. For example, in my previous post I referred to the fight scene in the original Matrix, where a large number of low frequency sound effects should come from the ceiling speakers. Cheers Gary Understood . I don't look at it in terms of splitting up frequency ranges alone Gary but perceptually spaced frequency bands as our ear/brain interface derives them . As Craig Eggers explains in mgbpuffs link ie front/back controls to assist panning; good riddance |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 14, 2018 9:14:05 GMT -5
Interesting this discussion is almost two years old. This is my yearly post. See ya next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by liv2teach on May 14, 2018 12:51:39 GMT -5
Interesting this discussion is almost two years old. This is my yearly post. See ya next year. Let's hope by the time you post next year, the RMC is finally a realality! |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 14, 2018 13:40:14 GMT -5
Interesting this discussion is almost two years old. This is my yearly post. See ya next year. Let's hope by the time you post next year, the RMC is finally a realality! Well I did the same for the XMC-1 and I spent 5 years posting....So yes let's hope...😎 |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on May 14, 2018 13:46:53 GMT -5
My copy of Blade Runner 2049 says Dolby Atmos TrueHD. It seems that I only see Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 on recent Disney, Lucasfilm, and Marvel releases, all brands controlled by Disney. Disney has never been friendly to the home movie crowd, always being the last to adopt new technologies and limiting their releases so that multiple time spaced commercial movie releases will continue to be viable for them. They are the most protective company I know of for their intellectual/entertainment patented holdings. Last week a DVD not bluray Netflix copy of 2049 showed up here. The “standard” Dolby mix left me wanting for nothing with startling rear channel effects. Who could take time to compare all these mixes to see which ones are better or not, I don’t know. I only know, my rears are above ear level with ultra wide dispersion tweeters (4 feet plus up) and distant enough from the sweet spot that I get awesome overhead effects without object based processing. Perhaps someday I will consider it if it becomes more than a niche market. Bill We rented the regular Bluray from Red Box. It has Atmos and DTS-Master 5.1. on my non-Atmos system, the DTS version sounded MUCH better. So when they say Atmos is fully backwards compatible, I'm not totally sold on that. But I have always prefered DTS-Master to Dolby True, so that may be part of it also. |
|
Pigs might fly both figuratively and metaphorically 
