|
|
Post by socketman on Dec 29, 2018 19:41:33 GMT -5
Moved from the RMC-1 thread to this one..... I've never claimed to have tried every 4K Atmos movie, but of the 30 or so I have tried I haven't found one, not a single one, that is 9.1.6 or 11.1.8. Plainly that involves my taste in movies and maybe also that I'm in Australia and it's possible that we aren't getting local releases more than 7.1.4. I've asked many times in many threads for a genuine 9.1.6 movie that I can try, so far no luck. Happy New Year Gary There really shouldn't be any discs labeled as such. At least I don't think they should. If a disc simply says Atmos, then in theory it should support any speaker layout, because in theory its not pinned. When it starts saying things like 7.1.4, then its pinned. I think it saying Atmos 7.1.4 is false advertising, because its not Atmos if its pinned. I see this more as Limited rather than pinned. It may or may not send information to the 4 roof speakers and the percentage it utilizes them will vary greatly im sure. It like they are saying we limit you to 4 speakers and we may use them if it enhances in some way. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Dec 29, 2018 22:36:53 GMT -5
Limited wouldn’t describe how the objects have static xyz coordinates. Pinned is more like it because they are pinned in their xyz positions that correlate with the Dolby Atmos speaker guidelines for 7.1.4. Dynamic xyz metadata is what steers object sounds around all your speakers. But we can call it anything we want and it seems so can Dolby. Technically it’s 3d object audio even though nothing behaves as the objects were meant to in any of Dolby’s literature.
Every time I see Atmos on a disc that isn’t pinned it suggests it’s 24.1.10 native.. it’s just whether you expect sounds other than occasional objects through the majority of those speakers. Now if you only consider bed channels to be native then that isn’t the 3d “object” audio definition (I.e. Atmos) but you can call it whatever you want as will Dolby. Trinnov owners report object audio out of larger arrays of speakers as have RMC owners if I’m not mistaken. I recall the mention of wides getting utilized for objects.
There is nothing keeping DTS:X from implementing more speakers in the future if their xyz metadata concept is the same as Atmos. It should be cross compatible with old DTS:X material. Just like native 9.1.6 was recently released for Atmos and native 11.1.8 is soon to be released (I say native because they follow Dolby defined guidelines so they are in fact native) I would imagine DTS:X could decide to introduce new layout algorithms that utilize its 3d object metadata with different native layouts. Unless someone else can tell me why not.
|
|
|
|
Post by liv2teach on Dec 30, 2018 5:27:07 GMT -5
Limited wouldn’t describe how the objects have static xyz coordinates. Pinned is more like it because they are pinned in their xyz positions that correlate with the Dolby Atmos speaker guidelines for 7.1.4. Dynamic xyz metadata is what steers object sounds around all your speakers. But we can call it anything we want and it seems so can Dolby. Technically it’s 3d object audio even though nothing behaves as the objects were meant to in any of Dolby’s literature. Every time I see Atmos on a disc that isn’t pinned it suggests it’s 24.1.10 native.. it’s just whether you expect sounds other than occasional objects through the majority of those speakers. Now if you only consider bed channels to be native then that isn’t the 3d “object” audio definition (I.e. Atmos) but you can call it whatever you want as will Dolby. Trinnov owners report object audio out of larger arrays of speakers as have RMC owners if I’m not mistaken. I recall the mention of wides getting utilized for objects. There is nothing keeping DTS:X from implementing more speakers in the future if their xyz metadata concept is the same as Atmos. It should be cross compatible with old DTS:X material. Just like native 9.1.6 was recently released for Atmos and native 11.1.8 is soon to be released (I say native because they follow Dolby defined guidelines so they are in fact native) I would imagine DTS:X could decide to introduce new layout algorithms that utilize its 3d object metadata with different native layouts. Unless someone else can tell me why not. With all do respect, please point me to the posts in the RMC threads where the owners claim they can get sound out of their 9.x.6 setup. I have not read that, in fact I've heard complaints because they can't hear that level of sound saturation. I'd love to be wrong, because it's what will determine if I ever pony up the $ to go beyond my current Marantz 7.2.4 setup. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Dec 30, 2018 7:16:51 GMT -5
Limited wouldn’t describe how the objects have static xyz coordinates. Pinned is more like it because they are pinned in their xyz positions that correlate with the Dolby Atmos speaker guidelines for 7.1.4. Dynamic xyz metadata is what steers object sounds around all your speakers. But we can call it anything we want and it seems so can Dolby. Technically it’s 3d object audio even though nothing behaves as the objects were meant to in any of Dolby’s literature. Every time I see Atmos on a disc that isn’t pinned it suggests it’s 24.1.10 native.. it’s just whether you expect sounds other than occasional objects through the majority of those speakers. Now if you only consider bed channels to be native then that isn’t the 3d “object” audio definition (I.e. Atmos) but you can call it whatever you want as will Dolby. Trinnov owners report object audio out of larger arrays of speakers as have RMC owners if I’m not mistaken. I recall the mention of wides getting utilized for objects. There is nothing keeping DTS:X from implementing more speakers in the future if their xyz metadata concept is the same as Atmos. It should be cross compatible with old DTS:X material. Just like native 9.1.6 was recently released for Atmos and native 11.1.8 is soon to be released (I say native because they follow Dolby defined guidelines so they are in fact native) I would imagine DTS:X could decide to introduce new layout algorithms that utilize its 3d object metadata with different native layouts. Unless someone else can tell me why not. I think I have read all of the posts regarding Trinnov on the AVS forum and the only mentions I recall of front wides is when they (the owners) set it up to use the front wides in addition to or to supplement the surrounds. Ie; there is no mention of “real” front wide use as programmed on the disc. Or when using DSU or Neural on the 7.1 (non Atmos) track. Why not (DTS-X different layouts)? I would suggest streaming bandwidth limitations and maybe available space on the disc. Happy New Year Gary |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 30, 2018 7:49:30 GMT -5
Maybe, just maybe films are being made cheaper by using a multidirectional mic, say one with 11 max sensors. These individual directional feeds are then recorded on 7 ear level channels and 4 overhead channels. Perhaps DTS suggested this to studios instead of adding up to 128 moving objects with dynamic metadata. Maybe DTS introduced the 11 channel method, the studios are sold on the cost and time savings, and Dolby responded with the pinned method to compete? I don't know, but I suspect there is more going on here than we think.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Dec 30, 2018 10:47:22 GMT -5
www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/2542897-official-atmos-width-channel-exploiting-thread-7.html#/topics/2542897?page=1I’m trying to read through the RMC owners thread again. It would be nice to make sure someone is testing with what has been verified to have wide content. Like they say on the avsforum movies can be hit or miss. To your point though Gary guys like sdrucker do also copy content to speakers to have speakers included more often and so that bed channel content is utilized. I believe these tests from the link I provided were done natively though. But yeah I saw one post about 9.2 for the RMC but he was running 6 surrounds and the only other mention of wides is they don’t work with pinned and they weren’t playing back rain content in IT when I asked to test for bed content arrays. So yeah I haven’t found someone verifying wide support but I haven’t heard anyone say it doesn’t work either except on Disney movies which he said is mostly what he had. But yeah as far as DTS:X layouts that’s what I’m saying is if it’s similar to how Dolby encodes Atmos the xyz metadata for a 7.1.4 non pinned is the same size for 24.1.10. There is no added info. The xyz info for objects is just remapped for whatever native layout algorithms each will provide. As of now it sounds like bed arrays are only used for the surrounds with Atmos. The mixing I hear them doing is for the front surround 1 and wides due to this. And goozoo mentioned height channels people prefer to mix as well. But I think a lot of your assumptions about your experiences with Atmos is due to storm audio not even supporting 9.1.6 till recently which I’d imagine on the time tables of our discussions was after you’ve spent your time with the machine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Dec 30, 2018 12:36:51 GMT -5
Maybe, just maybe films are being made cheaper by using a multidirectional mic, say one with 11 max sensors. These individual directional feeds are then recorded on 7 ear level channels and 4 overhead channels. Perhaps DTS suggested this to studios instead of adding up to 128 moving objects with dynamic metadata. Maybe DTS introduced the 11 channel method, the studios are sold on the cost and time savings, and Dolby responded with the pinned method to compete? I don't know, but I suspect there is more going on here than we think. This is one time where I might tend to agree with you. But I would change up your theory some. First, I've said many times that I think 9.1.6 will be the end game in all this. Why? Because of supply and demand. There simply just isn't enough demand for more. It may seem like a lot of people want more, but on a small forum like this those numbers get highly magnified or multiplied out of proportion. But as time goes on, I'm starting to think I might have been wrong. More and more I think 7.1.6 will be the end game. Second, as for studios saving money, I think the proof of this can be shown with regular Blu-rays. The fact is the number of titles available in 5.1 completely dwarfs the number of titles in 7.1. The only excuse for this in my book is that studios didn't consider 7.1 necessary and did 5.1 to save money. Third, this is where I change your theories. You seem to have a beef with DTS and their capitalistic ways. Perhaps you have more insider info than the rest of us, or perhaps you are simply a liberal democrat who doesn't believe in capitalism, I dunno. But blaming it all on DTS seems silly to me. Do you not think the money grubbing studios could be the real blame? I do. Its the studios that want and push for their full control of everything. They don't care what the consumers get as long as they don't lose control of it and they still make money. (They got the first part of it by forcing HDMI down our throats, the worst connection of all time). I most certainly think they are smart enough on their own to figure out how to cheapen things down for the masses. Since the VAST majority of people won't even go past 5.1, 7.1.4 even seems like a stretch. But it will help sell more material regardless just because it sounds cool on paper. But there is a point of diminishing returns. Just like most studios copped out with 5.1, many are going to do the same here and stop at 7.1.4. So I blame studios, not DTS. Forth, as for Disney, I see something else going on than most mention. Everyone seems to say that its because they don't care. I don't think that's it. Disney has proven time and time again that they love to remarket their releases over and over again. They are the only studio I know of that actually advertises limited editions and timelines to those editions acting like if you don't buy it now it will be locked away in their vaults forever. What a bunch if hog schiit, because it has never held true, not once. Its THIS that makes me think the 7.1.4 pinning is just more of the same. This way, they get the excited people to buy these discs now, AND, in the future, they can rerelease a super duper limited edition fully remastered release with Atmos Complete, or some other b.s. marketing term. And they will make it seem like the end all of end alls. In a nut shell, this is all so they can sell it twice and make more money. Good for them. Lastly, I think the limited bandwidth streaming thing makes the most sense. Its here, but more is coming, and I think the handwriting is on the wall so to speak, that it WILL be the future. Until the bandwith issue is resolved, studios are going to do what they must do NOW, to make sure they aren't left out in the cold NOW. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Dec 30, 2018 12:52:34 GMT -5
Also the only one studio implementing the limited bandwidth pinned format also happens to be creating their own streaming service. Netflix allows for non pinned Atmos albeit usually on a lossy base layer as Gary mentioned.
And I was under the assumption the cinematic Atmos is usually a great mix of objects and it’s in the process of transferring that to home Atmos that can really damage the end result. I could be wrong. I don’t think they use cheap methods or gimmicks to make the cinematic mix such as special mics... maybe for bed layers...
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 30, 2018 13:19:16 GMT -5
Maybe, just maybe films are being made cheaper by using a multidirectional mic, say one with 11 max sensors. These individual directional feeds are then recorded on 7 ear level channels and 4 overhead channels. Perhaps DTS suggested this to studios instead of adding up to 128 moving objects with dynamic metadata. Maybe DTS introduced the 11 channel method, the studios are sold on the cost and time savings, and Dolby responded with the pinned method to compete? I don't know, but I suspect there is more going on here than we think. This is one time where I might tend to agree with you. But I would change up your theory some. First, I've said many times that I think 9.1.6 will be the end game in all this. Why? Because of supply and demand. There simply just isn't enough demand for more. It may seem like a lot of people want more, but on a small forum like this those numbers get highly magnified or multiplied out of proportion. But as time goes on, I'm starting to think I might have been wrong. More and more I think 7.1.6 will be the end game. Second, as for studios saving money, I think the proof of this can be shown with regular Blu-rays. The fact is the number of titles available in 5.1 completely dwarfs the number of titles in 7.1. The only excuse for this in my book is that studios didn't consider 7.1 necessary and did 5.1 to save money. Third, this is where I change your theories. You seem to have a beef with DTS and their capitalistic ways. Perhaps you have more insider info than the rest of us, or perhaps you are simply a liberal democrat who doesn't believe in capitalism, I dunno. But blaming it all on DTS seems silly to me. Do you not think the money grubbing studios could be the real blame? I do. Its the studios that want and push for their full control of everything. They don't care what the consumers get as long as they don't lose control of it and they still make money. (They got the first part of it by forcing HDMI down our throats, the worst connection of all time). I most certainly think they are smart enough on their own to figure out how to cheapen things down for the masses. Since the VAST majority of people won't even go past 5.1, 7.1.4 even seems like a stretch. But it will help sell more material regardless just because it sounds cool on paper. But there is a point of diminishing returns. Just like most studios copped out with 5.1, many are going to do the same here and stop at 7.1.4. So I blame studios, not DTS. Forth, as for Disney, I see something else going on than most mention. Everyone seems to say that its because they don't care. I don't think that's it. Disney has proven time and time again that they love to remarket their releases over and over again. They are the only studio I know of that actually advertises limited editions and timelines to those editions acting like if you don't buy it now it will be locked away in their vaults forever. What a bunch if hog schiit, because it has never held true, not once. Its THIS that makes me think the 7.1.4 pinning is just more of the same. This way, they get the excited people to buy these discs now, AND, in the future, they can rerelease a super duper limited edition fully remastered release with Atmos Complete, or some other b.s. marketing term. And they will make it seem like the end all of end alls. In a nut shell, this is all so they can sell it twice and make more money. Good for them. Lastly, I think the limited bandwidth streaming thing makes the most sense. Its here, but more is coming, and I think the handwriting is on the wall so to speak, that it WILL be the future. Until the bandwith issue is resolved, studios are going to do what they must do NOW, to make sure they aren't left out in the cold NOW. O.K. we've got some agreement going on here. However, I am not against capitalism and political wise I am a constitutional conservative. However, just as an author who copied anothers work with just a few changes would still be considered a plagerist, DTS follows Dolby's technical path and just makes a small change and then uses insider contacts to edge out Dolby. That's capitalism, but not honest capitalism. But for the most I agree that the studios are greedy and ultra protective about their intellectual property to the point of forcing ridiculous anti-copying schemes upon the public. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Dec 30, 2018 14:36:28 GMT -5
O.K. we've got some agreement going on here. However, I am not against capitalism and political wise I am a constitutional conservative. However, just as an author who copied anothers work with just a few changes would still be considered a plagerist, DTS follows Dolby's technical path and just makes a small change and then uses insider contacts to edge out Dolby. That's capitalism, but not honest capitalism. But for the most I agree that the studios are greedy and ultra protective about their intellectual property to the point of forcing ridiculous anti-copying schemes upon the public. I think if you look around at other industries you will find the exact same sort of thing going on, probably in EVERY other industry actually. So I wouldn't call what they do devious or anthing like that, I'd call it normal. But maybe that's just me. What I will say about DTS specifically is, no matter what they are doing or how they are doing it, their products have almost always been superior to Dolby. Its not really even close in my system, DTS trumps Dolby everytime. So they follow Dolby, make improvements, and resell it. I'm down with that. As for proof of the superiority, I think this new Dolby mandate says a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 30, 2018 14:54:02 GMT -5
O.K. we've got some agreement going on here. However, I am not against capitalism and political wise I am a constitutional conservative. However, just as an author who copied anothers work with just a few changes would still be considered a plagerist, DTS follows Dolby's technical path and just makes a small change and then uses insider contacts to edge out Dolby. That's capitalism, but not honest capitalism. But for the most I agree that the studios are greedy and ultra protective about their intellectual property to the point of forcing ridiculous anti-copying schemes upon the public. I think if you look around at other industries you will find the exact same sort of thing going on, probably in EVERY other industry actually. So I wouldn't call what they do devious or anthing like that, I'd call it normal. But maybe that's just me. What I will say about DTS specifically is, no matter what they are doing or how they are doing it, their products have almost always been superior to Dolby. Its not really even close in my system, DTS trumps Dolby everytime. So they follow Dolby, make improvements, and resell it. I'm down with that. As for proof of the superiority, I think this new Dolby mandate says a lot. If you like that , then you'll like crony capitalism, and love Fascism. Me, I just like the free market created by free thinkers. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Dec 30, 2018 16:26:33 GMT -5
My view (hence not worth much) is that Dolby rush to market, they like to be first, they believe that by being first that will guarantee them a win in the market place. But at the same time they display some arrogance, they don’t appear to listen to the chip manufacturers, movie studios, streaming services and us consumers. They live in the “build it and they will come” world, even if what that are building isn’t appropriate. Not appropriate for the current technology in bandwidth, disc space, processing power etc. Plus, most of all, I don’t appreciate their mixing of Cinema Atmos with Home Theatre Atmos specifications, I clasify it as being deliberately deceptive.
Looking at the 2 products (Atmos and DTS-X) I see DTS as being the ones who paid attention to the real world, they built a product that there are processor chips to support, that will fit into disc and streaming size limits, that the gear manufacturers and movie studios can provide and mostly that us consumers can afford. They took a little longer in achieving that but the end product reflects that.
Happy New Year
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Dec 30, 2018 18:16:04 GMT -5
I think it’s a major difference of one marketing the future and one marketing the present. DTS:X marketing what it can give us today just feels better but marketing the future creates the demand which is showing now. Bandwidth advancements are coming down the chain as are semi affordable 17.1.10 capable systems. There is already capable code in 3d format structures that are scalable. Really only a short time ago Atmos should of been marketed as 7.1.4 except trinnov did their work for them. Now it’s 9.1.6 and soon 11.1.8. DTS:X wouldn’t be far behind if they wanted to supply some additional layout algorithms. What seems strange to me about DTS:X is there really isn’t much benefit of having their code be 3d object based unless they planned to offer more in the future. They could of just developed a simple mono channel based system like pinned atmos functions.
|
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 890
|
Post by richb on Dec 30, 2018 18:17:15 GMT -5
My view (hence not worth much) is that Dolby rush to market, they like to be first, they believe that by being first that will guarantee them a win in the market place. But at the same time they display some arrogance, they don’t appear to listen to the chip manufacturers, movie studios, streaming services and us consumers. They live in the “build it and they will come” world, even if what that are building isn’t appropriate. Not appropriate for the current technology in bandwidth, disc space, processing power etc. Plus, most of all, I don’t appreciate their mixing of Cinema Atmos with Home Theatre Atmos specifications, I clasify it as being deliberately deceptive. Looking at the 2 products (Atmos and DTS-X) I see DTS as being the ones who paid attention to the real world, they built a product that there are processor chips to support, that will fit into disc and streaming size limits, that the gear manufacturers and movie studios can provide and mostly that us consumers can afford. They took a little longer in achieving that but the end product reflects that. Happy New Year Gary Dolby marketing is over the top. They intentionally obfuscate home and cinema Atmos. Atmos was Initially described as replacing cheannel based audio with object based. Then, we lean there are “beds” fixed channels. Now, there are pinned height channels. Perhaps Darth Vader will chime in: pray that I do not alter the deal further.  DTS has been more straightforward but they lose in the streaming and ATSC 3.0 where there is growth. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Dec 30, 2018 19:02:52 GMT -5
My view (hence not worth much) is that Dolby rush to market, they like to be first, they believe that by being first that will guarantee them a win in the market place. But at the same time they display some arrogance, they don’t appear to listen to the chip manufacturers, movie studios, streaming services and us consumers. They live in the “build it and they will come” world, even if what that are building isn’t appropriate. Not appropriate for the current technology in bandwidth, disc space, processing power etc. Plus, most of all, I don’t appreciate their mixing of Cinema Atmos with Home Theatre Atmos specifications, I clasify it as being deliberately deceptive. Looking at the 2 products (Atmos and DTS-X) I see DTS as being the ones who paid attention to the real world, they built a product that there are processor chips to support, that will fit into disc and streaming size limits, that the gear manufacturers and movie studios can provide and mostly that us consumers can afford. They took a little longer in achieving that but the end product reflects that. Dolby marketing is over the top. They intentionally obfuscate home and cinema Atmos. Atmos was Initially described as replacing cheannel based audio with object based. Then, we lean there are “beds” fixed channels. Now, there are pinned height channels. Perhaps Darth Vader will chime in: pray that I do not alter the deal further. DTS has been more straightforward but they lose in the streaming and ATSC 3.0 where there is growth. - Rich I'm no expert in broadcast TV but as far as I know ATSC 3.0 covers DTS-X as well as Atmos. There are lot of people (companies) involved in such a standards change, TV, video and audio equipment manufacturers, movie studios etc. That means many years in developing the processes and products to be consumer ready. That's why ATSC 2.0 was scraped, by the time it was ready to be implemented it was technically out of date. With streaming becoming so dominant it wouldn't surprise me to see DTS with IMAX develop a relationship with a streaming service for their exclusive use of DTS-X. Imagine if Netflix decided that all of their in house shows used DTS-X audio and not Atmos, that would change the landscape infinitely. After all Netflix currently specifies what cameras their shows are allowed to be shot with, it's not a big step to do the same with audio. Happy New Year Gary |
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Dec 30, 2018 21:54:14 GMT -5
Maybe, just maybe films are being made cheaper by using a multidirectional mic, say one with 11 max sensors. These individual directional feeds are then recorded on 7 ear level channels and 4 overhead channels. Perhaps DTS suggested this to studios instead of adding up to 128 moving objects with dynamic metadata. Maybe DTS introduced the 11 channel method, the studios are sold on the cost and time savings, and Dolby responded with the pinned method to compete? I don't know, but I suspect there is more going on here than we think. I love conspiracies ,everything is a conspiracy LOL |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 31, 2018 8:00:24 GMT -5
Pinning to the 4 ceiling positions is the same thing as creating new bed channels at those locations. So microphones could be set up to capture sound from those height directions. This simplifies the necessity of programming up to 128 objects throughout the 3D space. Perhaps Dolby went technically amok when there was a simpler solution?
|
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on Dec 31, 2018 8:22:35 GMT -5
Pinning to the 4 ceiling positions is the same thing as creating new bed channels at those locations. So microphones could be set up to capture sound from those height directions. This simplifies the necessity of programming up to 128 objects throughout the 3D space. Perhaps Dolby went technically amok when there was a simpler solution? I’m not sure that’s what pinning is. There are still objects in use. But only 4 ceiling speakers are used to reproduce those objects. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 31, 2018 8:33:12 GMT -5
Pinning to the 4 ceiling positions is the same thing as creating new bed channels at those locations. So microphones could be set up to capture sound from those height directions. This simplifies the necessity of programming up to 128 objects throughout the 3D space. Perhaps Dolby went technically amok when there was a simpler solution? I’m not sure that’s what pinning is. There are still objects in use. But only 4 ceiling speakers are used to reproduce those objects. You're not sure, I'm not sure, nobody (at least on this forum) is sure, but people who have more capable systems claim that no sounds emanate from any other speakers other than the base 7 and the 4 heights when Disney 7.1.4 material is played. So there is No object sound in ANY speaker beyond the 7.1.4 ones on this pinned source material. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Dec 31, 2018 11:02:06 GMT -5
But then they’d still have to make the cinematic mix. And most of their movies are cgi so height mics wouldn’t get them very far unless they got dragons, space ships or a real iron man to fly over it. Oh but then they could put that mic in an cinematic Atmos theater I guess. But we already saw the Atmos mixer already has a way to automatically convert to fixed speaker arrays I thought. It doesn’t really matter how it’s done anyways. They are doing it and for that reason I will only rent their movies and never consider their streamer out of principal.
|
|
