|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Oct 30, 2018 11:52:07 GMT -5
Note: Emotiva is NOT going to provide its own upmixer. This is contrary to previous statements by Big Dan and Lonnie. Apparently since Dolby has developed a new upmixer, Emotiva will use it instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on Oct 30, 2018 13:48:36 GMT -5
Dang!  Dang is right!! Really? "The list" I have to say I don't really take things that personal but whatever helps. Hate to see what happens when the burger comes out medium and not rare... obviously you have never seen Stripes! as he and i both quoted the movie. as jokes...smh |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Oct 30, 2018 15:50:11 GMT -5
Dang! This gif.....is..AWESOME. I probably could watch it for hours. Well done. |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Oct 30, 2018 17:13:40 GMT -5
and btw. you just made the list  |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 31, 2018 6:46:49 GMT -5
Note: Emotiva is NOT going to provide its own upmixer. This is contrary to previous statements by Big Dan and Lonnie. Apparently since Dolby has developed a new upmixer, Emotiva will use it instead. DTS Neural X works really well over Atmos, at least from the couple of movies I have heard. The spacial remapping algorithm is very good at placing sounds where you think they should come from ie; it doesn’t sound fake. I’m not sure how Dolby is going to stop us from using Neural to expand, say, 7.1.4 source material to more channels/speakers. I don’t think that they can demand processor/AVR manufacturers not include Neural. The same as they can’t demand that they don’t included DTS-X either. That would be a major restraint of trade which is illegal in most countries that would have the majority of buyers of processors and AVR’s. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Oct 31, 2018 7:53:18 GMT -5
Note: Emotiva is NOT going to provide its own upmixer. This is contrary to previous statements by Big Dan and Lonnie. Apparently since Dolby has developed a new upmixer, Emotiva will use it instead. DTS Neural X works really well over Atmos, at least from the couple of movies I have heard. The spacial remapping algorithm is very good at placing sounds where you think they should come from ie; it doesn’t sound fake. I’m not sure how Dolby is going to stop us from using Neural to expand, say, 7.1.4 source material to more channels/speakers. I don’t think that they can demand processor/AVR manufacturers not include Neural. The same as they can’t demand that they don’t included DTS-X either. That would be a major restraint of trade which is illegal in most countries that would have the majority of buyers of processors and AVR’s. Cheers Gary That's another matter altogether. Dolby will probably just not grant a license to a manufacturer if they allow non Dolby immersive enhancement to Dolby based codecs (the language is 3rd party enhancers, so this still allows the possibility of the manufacturer providing his own proprietary upmixer, under the auspice of Dolby). |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 31, 2018 14:35:24 GMT -5
DTS Neural X works really well over Atmos, at least from the couple of movies I have heard. The spacial remapping algorithm is very good at placing sounds where you think they should come from ie; it doesn’t sound fake. I’m not sure how Dolby is going to stop us from using Neural to expand, say, 7.1.4 source material to more channels/speakers. I don’t think that they can demand processor/AVR manufacturers not include Neural. The same as they can’t demand that they don’t included DTS-X either. That would be a major restraint of trade which is illegal in most countries that would have the majority of buyers of processors and AVR’s. That's another matter altogether. Dolby will probably just not grant a license to a manufacturer if they allow non Dolby immersive enhancement to Dolby based codecs (the language is 3rd party enhancers, so this still allows the possibility of the manufacturer providing his own proprietary upmixer, under the auspice of Dolby). I’m not sure how that would work, I mean physically it’s easy, the Neural option isn’t available when Atmos sound tracks are detected. But how do they stop, say, the “Dan Enhancer” which is a licensed copy of Neural? I don’t think Dolby would be able to stop a manufacturer using a spacial remapping algorithm developed by their software supplier (as distinct from their employee). So it’s really just a “name” stopper, we won’t see “Neural” pop up on the display, it’ll say “Dan”. But we all know, wink wink nudge nudge, that, just like a Bryston processor is really a Storm, it’s Neural at work.  Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Oct 31, 2018 17:18:25 GMT -5
That's another matter altogether. Dolby will probably just not grant a license to a manufacturer if they allow non Dolby immersive enhancement to Dolby based codecs (the language is 3rd party enhancers, so this still allows the possibility of the manufacturer providing his own proprietary upmixer, under the auspice of Dolby). I’m not sure how that would work, I mean physically it’s easy, the Neural option isn’t available when Atmos sound tracks are detected. But how do they stop, say, the “Dan Enhancer” which is a licensed copy of Neural? I don’t think Dolby would be able to stop a manufacturer using a spacial remapping algorithm developed by their software supplier (as distinct from their employee). So it’s really just a “name” stopper, we won’t see “Neural” pop up on the display, it’ll say “Dan”. But we all know, wink wink nudge nudge, that, just like a Bryston processor is really a Storm, it’s Neural at work. Cheers Gary So you're saying that to defeat the Dolby ban on using other upmixers/decoders with Atmos, that DTS would license their products to 'other parties'? The license would then include the proviso that when used, the up mixer identify itself by another name (like "Dan Enhancer")? Hmmm, this certainly sounds like a recipe for loosing your Dolby license. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 31, 2018 17:57:30 GMT -5
I’m not sure how that would work, I mean physically it’s easy, the Neural option isn’t available when Atmos sound tracks are detected. But how do they stop, say, the “Dan Enhancer” which is a licensed copy of Neural? I don’t think Dolby would be able to stop a manufacturer using a spacial remapping algorithm developed by their software supplier (as distinct from their employee). So it’s really just a “name” stopper, we won’t see “Neural” pop up on the display, it’ll say “Dan”. But we all know, wink wink nudge nudge, that, just like a Bryston processor is really a Storm, it’s Neural at work. So you're saying that to defeat the Dolby ban on using other upmixers/decoders with Atmos, that DTS would license their products to 'other parties'? The license would then include the proviso that when used, the up mixer identify itself by another name (like "Dan Enhancer")? Hmmm, this certainly sounds like a recipe for loosing your Dolby license. How would Dolby know? They are going to be granted access to DTS's code to compare Neural with the "Dan Enhancer". Dolby can't stop a processor manufacturer from getting a software company, any software company, to develop an upmixer for them to use in their processor. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Oct 31, 2018 19:11:34 GMT -5
So you're saying that to defeat the Dolby ban on using other upmixers/decoders with Atmos, that DTS would license their products to 'other parties'? The license would then include the proviso that when used, the up mixer identify itself by another name (like "Dan Enhancer")? Hmmm, this certainly sounds like a recipe for loosing your Dolby license. How would Dolby know? They are going to be granted access to DTS's code to compare Neural with the "Dan Enhancer". Dolby can't stop a processor manufacturer from getting a software company, any software company, to develop an upmixer for them to use in their processor. Cheers Gary Well I don’t know what access the Dolby code has to the decoding process, so I really can’t answer that. But I might liken it to the method YouTube uses to determine whether copyrighted music is being included with an uploaded video, just because it isn’t called “A Day In The Life” doesn’t mean it’s not the Beatles, some sort of checksum. Certainly if they tested the gear suspected of a violation they could figure it out. Really though, would any reputable company risk loosing their ability to include the Dolby codec package just to get around an agreement, and wouldn’t it be ineffective if you couldn’t advertise that you can decode Atmos with Neural. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 31, 2018 22:10:47 GMT -5
How would Dolby know? They are going to be granted access to DTS's code to compare Neural with the "Dan Enhancer". Dolby can't stop a processor manufacturer from getting a software company, any software company, to develop an upmixer for them to use in their processor. Well I don’t know what access the Dolby code has to the decoding process, so I really can’t answer that. But I might liken it to the method YouTube uses to determine whether copyrighted music is being included with an uploaded video, just because it isn’t called “A Day In The Life” doesn’t mean it’s not the Beatles, some sort of checksum. Certainly if they tested the gear suspected of a violation they could figure it out. Really though, would any reputable company risk loosing their ability to include the Dolby codec package just to get around an agreement, and wouldn’t it be ineffective if you couldn’t advertise that you can decode Atmos with Neural. Perhaps I need to explain it better, let's try this; A processor manufacturer can ousources its proprietory software development to whoever it chooses. Dolby woud have no say in that, just as they can't tell them what case manufacturer to use. It choses DTS as its software supplier, who supply special "Dan" upmixing software. Which it duly incoporates in its processor. We stick an Amtos disk in and the Doly licenced software decodes it to 7.1.4, then we choose the "Dan" upmixer to extrapolate that to our 11.1.6 system. There is no way Dolby can come to my house, look at my processor and say that the "Dan" upmixer is really DTS Neural and cancel the Dolby licence. Another way of looking at it; What does the Dolby rule against "3rd Party" upmixers really mean? If you're D&M it means your upmixing software has to be developed in house, easy to understand. But what if you a small processor manufacturer who outsources their software development to another company? Is that a "3rd Party" upmixer? Does Dolby have the right to tell you who you can and can't use to develop your software? What Dolby can do is to buy a processor and make sure that whenever an Atmnos disc is being played that "Neural" isn't available as an option to upmix it. But if the "Dan" upmixer is available, then they can't do a thing. Because the "owner" of the upmixer is the 2nd party (the processor manufacturer) and manufacturer upmixers are allowed. Cheers Gary |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,255
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 1, 2018 9:02:59 GMT -5
Dolby Atmos is a LICENSED process... as are all the other Dolby decoder options.
Dolby Labs DOES actually get to look at our processor, and actually measure it to make sure it meets their specs, before they allow us to put their logo on it. If we fail to meet their standards, or do anything they specifically forbid, we don't get approved, and can't put ANY of the Dolby logos on our equipment, or claim to support them. Yes, you could build your own processor, with its own custom developed decoders that "play Dolby discs pretty much like they're supposed to sound" - but, unless you comply with the license, you cannot CALL IT a Dolby decoder.
In some specific instances certain steps of that process may be bypassed. For example, if you hire a consultant to program your DSP, he or she may include Dolby code that has been approved under their license under some circumstances. However, by and large: break their rules = no compliance = no license.
And, yes, Dolby specifically doesn't want you using their competitor's up-mixer with their Atmos decoder.
You should note that Dolby doesn't figure you should EVER need to up-mix Atmos content.... because Atmos is capable of handling as many speakers as you have. They would tell you that the whole point of it all is that objects can be mapped to whatever speakers Atmos chooses - and as many as it chooses - and you shouldn't be trying to override it. Well I don’t know what access the Dolby code has to the decoding process, so I really can’t answer that. But I might liken it to the method YouTube uses to determine whether copyrighted music is being included with an uploaded video, just because it isn’t called “A Day In The Life” doesn’t mean it’s not the Beatles, some sort of checksum. Certainly if they tested the gear suspected of a violation they could figure it out. Really though, would any reputable company risk loosing their ability to include the Dolby codec package just to get around an agreement, and wouldn’t it be ineffective if you couldn’t advertise that you can decode Atmos with Neural. Perhaps I need to explain it better, let's try this; A processor manufacturer can ousources its proprietory software development to whoever it chooses. Dolby woud have no say in that, just as they can't tell them what case manufacturer to use. It choses DTS as its software supplier, who supply special "Dan" upmixing software. Which it duly incoporates in its processor. We stick an Amtos disk in and the Doly licenced software decodes it to 7.1.4, then we choose the "Dan" upmixer to extrapolate that to our 11.1.6 system. There is no way Dolby can come to my house, look at my processor and say that the "Dan" upmixer is really DTS Neural and cancel the Dolby licence. Another way of looking at it; What does the Dolby rule against "3rd Party" upmixers really mean? If you're D&M it means your upmixing software has to be developed in house, easy to understand. But what if you a small processor manufacturer who outsources their software development to another company? Is that a "3rd Party" upmixer? Does Dolby have the right to tell you who you can and can't use to develop your software? What Dolby can do is to buy a processor and make sure that whenever an Atmnos disc is being played that "Neural" isn't available as an option to upmix it. But if the "Dan" upmixer is available, then they can't do a thing. Because the "owner" of the upmixer is the 2nd party (the processor manufacturer) and manufacturer upmixers are allowed. Cheers Gary |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,255
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 1, 2018 9:12:31 GMT -5
Dolby Labs cannot (and does not) demand that a processor manufacturer not include the DTS-X neural up-mixer in their processor. However, they can - and do - demand that we not offer the option of selecting to use it when playing Atmos content. It really is that simple.
As far as they're concerned, doing so would constitute a violation of the license under which we are allowed to provide the Dolby Atmos decoder to you in our equipment.
In short..... They can stop you from doing it very simply by requiring, as a condition of our license, that we not give you a button or menu entry that will allow you to do it. (And, if you think that constitutes legally actionable restraint of trade, then you should ask your lawyer or your Congressman about that.)
Note: Emotiva is NOT going to provide its own upmixer. This is contrary to previous statements by Big Dan and Lonnie. Apparently since Dolby has developed a new upmixer, Emotiva will use it instead. DTS Neural X works really well over Atmos, at least from the couple of movies I have heard. The spacial remapping algorithm is very good at placing sounds where you think they should come from ie; it doesn’t sound fake. I’m not sure how Dolby is going to stop us from using Neural to expand, say, 7.1.4 source material to more channels/speakers. I don’t think that they can demand processor/AVR manufacturers not include Neural. The same as they can’t demand that they don’t included DTS-X either. That would be a major restraint of trade which is illegal in most countries that would have the majority of buyers of processors and AVR’s. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Genie on Nov 1, 2018 10:35:41 GMT -5
Succinctly, 2 (and, sometimes, .1).
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Nov 1, 2018 14:50:19 GMT -5
Dolby Labs cannot (and does not) demand that a processor manufacturer not include the DTS-X neural up-mixer in their processor. However, they can - and do - demand that we not offer the option of selecting to use it when playing Atmos content. It really is that simple.
As far as they're concerned, doing so would constitute a violation of the license under which we are allowed to provide the Dolby Atmos decoder to you in our equipment. In short..... They can stop you from doing it very simply by requiring, as a condition of our license, that we not give you a button or menu entry that will allow you to do it. (And, if you think that constitutes legally actionable restraint of trade, then you should ask your lawyer or your Congressman about that.) Dolby Atmos is a LICENSED process... as are all the other Dolby decoder options. Dolby Labs DOES actually get to look at our processor, and actually measure it to make sure it meets their specs, before they allow us to put their logo on it. If we fail to meet their standards, or do anything they specifically forbid, we don't get approved, and can't put ANY of the Dolby logos on our equipment, or claim to support them. Yes, you could build your own processor, with its own custom developed decoders that "play Dolby discs pretty much like they're supposed to sound" - but, unless you comply with the license, you cannot CALL IT a Dolby decoder. In some specific instances certain steps of that process may be bypassed. For example, if you hire a consultant to program your DSP, he or she may include Dolby code that has been approved under their license under some circumstances. However, by and large: break their rules = no compliance = no license.
And, yes, Dolby specifically doesn't want you using their competitor's up-mixer with their Atmos decoder.
You should note that Dolby doesn't figure you should EVER need to up-mix Atmos content.... because Atmos is capable of handling as many speakers as you have. They would tell you that the whole point of it all is that objects can be mapped to whatever speakers Atmos chooses - and as many as it chooses - and you shouldn't be trying to override it. Last thing first, "Dolby doesn't figure you should EVER need to up-mix Atmos content ....because Atmos is capable of handling as many speakers as you have" but we know that isn't true. For example Dolby provide pinning software to 7.1.4 so if you have, say, 9.1.6 then Atmos won't use "as many speakers as you have". That would need an upmixer, which means Dolby would have to provide one of their own to use, presumably Dolby Surround. I don't consider Atmos plus Surround to the be the same as Atmos on its own. To me it breaches the basic premise of Atmos = objects. Up to now plenty of us have used a variety of upmixers over the top of Atmos, I particularly liked the results from using Neural a few times. Going forward I wouldn't be able to do that, but my understanding is I could use the processor manufacturer's upmixer. So the effect of what Dolby is doing is aimed squarely at DTS and their Neural product. But in fact that's not actually the case, what Dolby is doing is simply stopping the Neural "button/light/indicator" from working when Atmos is running. A processor manufacturer could run Neural code (that they legally acquired), label it, say, "The Dan Upmixer" and as long as the "Dan" light (not the "Neural" light) lights up then all is well with the Atmos licensing. Legally I don't believe that Dolby could demand access to the "Dan" code to prove that it is or isn't "Neural" code. As long as it can be proven that it doesn't "interfere" with the Atmos code of course. I don't see this as a "technical" limiting condition (of the Atmos licence), I see it as a "marketing" limiting condition. Dolby just don't want DTS as being seen to be able to provide a superior upmixer ie; no "Neural" light thanks. Technically they don't care (if someone uses an non Dolby up mixer), since they appear to be allowing a processor manufacturer's upmixer eg; Dan = good, Neural = bad. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Nov 1, 2018 15:11:02 GMT -5
Moving on, I prefer (like many reviewers) DTS Neural X to Dolby Surround, it just does a much better job of pulling out the sounds and allocating them to channels/ speakers and it’s very noticeable. Dolby Surround, like its predecessors (eg; ProLogic) sounds “fake” to me, whereas Neural allocates the sounds to locations that you would expect them to emminate from. How it does that I have no idea, but the code (algorithm) just works better. It’s a dam shame that Dolby are being painful (to consumers) in an attempt to limit their competition, which is far from unusual of course.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on Nov 2, 2018 7:32:03 GMT -5
ive never used an upmixer ONTOP of atmos...in fact im not even sure its an option with the denon 7200w...
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Nov 2, 2018 9:23:15 GMT -5
ive never used an upmixer ONTOP of atmos...in fact im not even sure its an option with the denon 7200w... Interesting, I thought the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) was available with most Atmos packages, or are you saying that with Atmos content you can’t select the DSU? |
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on Nov 2, 2018 10:57:45 GMT -5
with ATMOS content you cannot choose an upmixer.
I USE DSU and DTS nueral with 5.1, 7.1 etc mixes...to SIMULATE atmos or DTS:x
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,255
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 2, 2018 11:03:02 GMT -5
Here's how I understand it....
Dolby Atmos is an object oriented format...
This means that Atmos objects are NOT assigned to specific speakers; they are assigned to coordinates in space. Therefore, in general, Atmos objects are not assigned to specific speakers, and there is essentially no limitation on where they may be assigned.
With Atmos CONTENT, the bed channels are routed to your bed speakers, and the Atmos objects are simply rendered to whatever speakers you have, by the Atmos Renderer. Therefore, since the Atmos Renderer already supports all of your speakers, in what they consider to be optimal fashion, there is no reason to ever "upmix" Atmos content.
However, as you might surmise from the discussion about "pinned channels", there are ways for the content producer to limit the options that the Atmos process can or will use. For example, if they have an old movie, that just has "one or two channels of height ambience sounds", they could simply assign those channels to overhead objects, and never move them. (If you have a single stereo track of "overhead sounds", located at no specific positions except "overhead", it makes perfect sense to simply assign that track to a single "giant stereo object that fills the sky".)
There is also an authoring option to force objects to be rendered to the nearest speaker, and avoid allowing "phantom positioning between speakers". (I assume this is intended so that, if you have an object whose pinpoint size is critical, but whose location is less important, you can prevent it from becoming "smeared" between two speakers with poor imaging.) There may also be other similar options involved in the "pinned 7.1.4 format" that limit the options available to the renderer. However, the point is that, as far as Dolby is concerned, "the Atmos Renderer itself will render Atmos content as it was intended to be rendered by the folks who produced it." And, since Atmos content is already optimized to run on whatever setup you have, there would be no reason to THEN run it through an upmixer.
The Dolby Surround Upmixer is intended SPECIFICALLY to adapt non-Atmos content, which doesn't have objects assigned to coordinates, to play in an Atmos system. Therefore, it can only be applied to non-Atmos content (Atmos content is always handled by the Atmos Renderer).
(And there's no reason why you would want to apply it to content which is already Atmos content.)
Note that Dolby's goal is "to allow you to experience the sound as the producer intended".... So there's little philosophical reason for them to offer you ways to override the producer's intent and change how the content is rendered....
ive never used an upmixer ONTOP of atmos...in fact im not even sure its an option with the denon 7200w... Interesting, I thought the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) was available with most Atmos packages, or are you saying that with Atmos content you can’t select the DSU? |
|
