|
|
Post by musicfan on Nov 2, 2018 11:11:04 GMT -5
think of DSU or DTS Nueral as this generation of dolby pro-logic II for non DD 5.1 or DTS 5.1 mixes
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 2, 2018 11:14:04 GMT -5
You're sort of missing the point.... Dolby assumes that the producers of the content will and should determine how it is rendered... Therefore, if the producers have DECIDED to render it to 7.1.4, then there is no reason they should offer you an option to OVERRIDE the producer's intent... Dolby is simply asserting that: "Whatever comes out of the Atmos renderer is what the producers intended - so you should leave it alone."
There is no obligation to "use all of your speakers"... The basic premise is NOT: "Atmos = objects". The basic premise is: "Atmos gives the producer the ability to design and deliver their content the way they want to; offering the ability to position sounds, as objects, by location, allows it to do this better than previous systems". So, if Disney Studios WANTS to delver their content as 7.1.4 channels, that is their right, and Atmos will allow them to do so.
And, if I wanted to master a movie, with 7.1 bed channels, and no objects at all, that would be OK too. And, yes, Dolby Labs does have the right to simply refuse to license a product which they believe fails to comply with their standards.
They get to test it - and then approve or reject it as a licensed product. And, yes, as far as they're concerned, applying any sort of upmixing that they have't explicitly approved constitutes "interfering with the Atmos decoding process". (And, for that matter, I very much doubt that DTS would allow you to put your own name on their licensed code either. You do not "legally acquire" code; you license it, subject to license conditions and restrictions.)
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 2, 2018 16:36:15 GMT -5
You're sort of missing the point.... Dolby assumes that the producers of the content will and should determine how it is rendered... Therefore, if the producers have DECIDED to render it to 7.1.4, then there is no reason they should offer you an option to OVERRIDE the producer's intent... Dolby is simply asserting that: "Whatever comes out of the Atmos renderer is what the producers intended - so you should leave it alone."
There is no obligation to "use all of your speakers"... The basic premise is NOT: "Atmos = objects". The basic premise is: "Atmos gives the producer the ability to design and deliver their content the way they want to; offering the ability to position sounds, as objects, by location, allows it to do this better than previous systems". So, if Disney Studios WANTS to delver their content as 7.1.4 channels, that is their right, and Atmos will allow them to do so.
And, if I wanted to master a movie, with 7.1 bed channels, and no objects at all, that would be OK too. And, yes, Dolby Labs does have the right to simply refuse to license a product which they believe fails to comply with their standards.
They get to test it - and then approve or reject it as a licensed product. And, yes, as far as they're concerned, applying any sort of upmixing that they have't explicitly approved constitutes "interfering with the Atmos decoding process". (And, for that matter, I very much doubt that DTS would allow you to put your own name on their licensed code either. You do not "legally acquire" code; you license it, subject to license conditions and restrictions.)
But isn't that exactly the point? Ask most people about Atmos and they will say that Atmos movies can play as many channels/speakers as they want (or more precisely have in their system). If they have, say, a 7.1.4 system today they can increase it to 11.1.6 and every Atmos movie they have will play 11.1.6. But, as you point out, that isn't in fact the case, if the movie studio decides to make it 7.1.4 then that's all you gunna get no matter how many channels/speakers you might have. But right now I can use Neural to spread the sound from, say, a 7.1.4 Atmos source to 11.1.6 channels/speakers. Same as I have been able to do for years (decades even) with up mixers like pro logic. Dolby wants to stop that, for 3rd party up mixers, or more specifically just DTS Neural. Up until now if I liked spreading the sound (to more channels/speakers than in the source) then I could, it was my choice. Dolby are removing that choice (the Neural light won't turn on) and that's my point. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by ddog on Nov 3, 2018 19:07:39 GMT -5
Seams to me that once we buy the content we should be able to implement the different sound fields in the way we choose.... no?
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Nov 3, 2018 21:13:35 GMT -5
With PCM you can but you’ll lose all the object info for native heights. Too bad they couldn’t develop PCM support for static objects.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Jan 1, 2019 12:41:31 GMT -5
Bump www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/2542897-official-atmos-width-channel-exploiting-thread-7.html#/topics/2542897?page=1Thought I’d update the thread with some relevant info from an avsforum link to provide some evidence that there’s more to be heard than 7.1.4 with content that already exists and it is dependent for good or bad on how well the sound engineers perform their tasks. Can’t find the movie list thread or I’d put this link in there too. I’m going to say again 12-28 is a good amount of channel options so no one has to feel left out considering the hardware is going to be available. What I found interesting is in this thread they mention the untalked about additional DTS:X channels that go beyond 7.1.4. Both Dolby and DTS:X have similar capabilities with their 3d object audio code if they chose to give us the supporting layouts. Maybe these new talked about advancements in channel counts won’t always be associated with just Atmos. At least I’m hoping. www.google.com/amp/s/www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2015/04/16/breking_fad_dts_x_object_based_audio/www.google.com/amp/s/www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-dts-x/amp/Another couple articles that discusses DTS:X 32 channel capability in its code (not the 35 Atmos was built for). I remember being disappointed after reading this in the past and hearing they settled on 7.1.4 but in reality both Atmos and DTS:X started with only 7.1.4 support besides trinnov so who’s to say they both don’t start supplying the larger layouts to brands like Emotiva. In the second article it mentions the commercial DTS:X layout was going to be structured around 7.1.4 to be compatible with Atmos’s commercially available layout. Now Atmos just recently released 9.1.6 and soon it will be 11.1.8. I think Lonnie’s announcement of higher channel counts will be moving up channel numbers for both codecs. Best part of all this is people who think going over 12 channels is crazy don’t have to buy the hardware capable of 16, 20, 24, or 28 and if they did their supported layout choice will always be compatible with the old 3d audio material they used to play with 12 channels (except for Disney). But point is I wouldn’t get too comfortable saying 7.1.4 is a logical limit due to DTS:X, Disney, and lack of capable Atmos content. It’s a win win for everyone or at least should be unless you live and breathe Disney. |
|
|
|
Post by vonmagnum on Feb 18, 2019 20:41:57 GMT -5
You're sort of missing the point.... Dolby assumes that the producers of the content will and should determine how it is rendered... Therefore, if the producers have DECIDED to render it to 7.1.4, then there is no reason they should offer you an option to OVERRIDE the producer's intent... The problem with this line of thinking is two-fold. One is the reason more speakers are needed/used in some theater/home theater setups in the first place. My room is 12x24' long and I have three rows of seating. If I only used 7.1.4, I would have a big "hole" over the top middle ceiling area of the room as the angle between front and rear height speakers is too far to do phantom panning well. If I used speakers overhead that are closer together, I'd compromise the rear seating at the very least. As you add even more seating, just having one set of side surrounds and a set of rear surrounds won't sound all that great for the additional rows either. Theaters commonly used speaker arrays to ensure all seats had a good surround experience. You can still do that, of course, but it kind of defeats the purpose of the Atmos pin-point imaging. In other words, when someone like Disney limits their Atmos mix to 7.1.4, they are actually largely ruining the experience for many higher-end home theaters. Someone like Trinnov gets around this by having that speaker remapping option which will simulate the required setup using far more speakers than the 11.1 directly supported by the mix. Those of us with lesser setups run the chance of having lesser quality surround with such "locked" setups. Whatever this producer's "intent" is it clearly doesn't take into account the size of the rooms being used at home or the number of rows of seating. If their "intent" was to give us crappy sound in such systems by limiting how many speakers are used, they did an exceptional job.  I get around the problem (and with DTS:X's 11-channel limit by using Pro Logic style extraction and matrixed channels to fill in the extra spots and achieve 11.1.6 sound in my home theater for the three rows. This sounds great. But of course it would probably sound better with all discrete channels available and at some point in the future I hope to upgrade the system to do just that. But as long as Dolby allows the studios to "follow the producer's intent" (whatever that is supposed to be, I don't know because I'm pretty darn sure the cinema releases of Disney moves are NOT limited to 7.1.4 or anything remotely close to that so their "intent" appears to be some monetary gain model I'm unaware of at this time. The one person I know that works in the industry who found out WHY they do it tells me he's not allowed to tell me due to the contract he signed, but he did indicate it had nothing to do with saving money to use less channels and make only one mix for both Blu-Rays and streaming. The other issue at hand is defeating the entire purpose of the Atmos system. I realize you believe their purpose was to give producers magic abilities to decide between life and death, but I don't believe that's what Atmos is all about in the slightest. It's supposed to be about three dimensional sound and getting away from channel-based system configuration limitations. In other words, its purpose is to NOT have to choose between 5.1, 7.1 and 7.1.4 setups. It's supposed to SCALE to any size setup and number of speakers within the limits of the system itself. Locking 7.1.4 takes us straight back to "5.1" and "7.1" limitations all over again! We might as well just use Auro-3D with locked channel limitations as the entire coordinate system is thwarted by Disney. Worse yet, as they continue to buy up other studios, LOUSY sound will become the norm at home again. Disney clearly has more problems than just 7.1.4 limitations. Their soundtracks lack dynamics on the sound effects for given dialog levels and have overall levels well below industry standards and they show ZERO interest in fixing this. The truly sad thing is they bought Skywalker sound along with the rest of Lucasfilm (the people that brought us STANDARDS in the theater and at home in the form of THX) and it's just PATHETIC how they've soiled the Lucasfilm name with sub-standard quality sound in release after release after release (particularly under the Marvel name in recent years). So AGAIN, if their "intent" is sub-par terrible sound quality, then you can count me OUT of supporting what they have "intended". We have correction tools for MP3 compression; we may need correction for poor Disney sound quality in general. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 19, 2019 18:44:53 GMT -5
A couple of things that I don't quite understand; I get around the problem and with DTS:X's 11-channel limit by using Pro Logic style extraction and matrixed channels to fill in the extra spots and achieve 11.1.6 sound in my home theater for the three rows. This sounds great. But of course it would probably sound better with all discrete channels available and at some point in the future I hope to upgrade the system to do just that. Is the upmixer are you using DTS Neural X? Or Dolby Surround Upmixer? My understanding is that DSU works on the Dolby True HD 7.1 and doesn't use the Atmos metadata. So if you are using an upmixer then there are no objects (discrete channels?). , you are simply upmixing the 73.1 sound track. Cinema Atmos and Home Theatre Atmos are completely different products, mixed using different (supplied by Dolby) software. Plus almost always mixed using different computer hardware, Cinema Atmos hardware is exclusively supplied by Dolby, HT Atmos hardware doesn't have to be, mixers can use any approved 3rd party hardware. So any comparison between Cinema Atmos and HT Atmos is next to worthless. Dolby just uses the generic "Atmos" terminology to confuse us so that we think HT Atmos can do things (the same at Cinema Atmos) when it can't. As for their reason why, my personal view is that Cinema Atmos (which for movies is provided to theatres on a hard drive) won't fit on a 4K disc. And it certainly won't stream within any foreseeable bandwidth limitations. That's not actually true, there is still a Dolby True HD 7.1 base underneath the Atmos objects metadata. So Atmos isn't all object based, it still needs the 7.1 base to expand on. Not the fully story, Dolby provided the software to do the pinning, to 7.1.4 for discs over Dolby True HD and for streaming over Dolby Digital 5.1. If Dolby hadn't provided the software then it couldn't be done, by anyone. So blaming Disney for 7.1.4 pinning misses the point that the true culprit here is Dolby themselves. My view is that Dolby were scared of DTS doing the same with DTS-X as they did with DTS HDMA, surpass Dolby technically and then take market share away from them. DTS-X was (until recently) 7.1.4 which was easy for the consumer to understand, being used to 5.1 7.1 etc. Plus DTS supplied the software to studios for free, whereas Dolby charges (a lot). Then DTS came out with Neural X which is a far superior upmixer (IMHO) than DSU which forced Dolby into banning 3rd party upmixers. There's a simple pattern here, easy to follow, Dolby copied DTS-X 7.1.4 (because they were scared of DTS) and they then banned upmixers (because they were scared of DTS). Like all studios some Disney movies have soundtracks that I think could be better, but many 7.1.4 sound tracks are really great, for example Avengers Infinity War is reference material on any systems that I have payed it on, from 5.1, 7.1, 5.1.2, 7.1.4 and the Cinema version on 23.1.8. Similarly Deadpool 2 which has great sound, even better than Deadpool 1 which was outstanding in its own right. I know it's "fashionable" to knock Disney, and there is no doubt that they deserve some criticism, but best to reserve some for the real villain here, Dolby themselves. FWIW my 2 favourite 3D sound tracks are Gladiator and Jurasic World Fallen Kingdom, they are superb examples of how to mix a movie and both are in DTS-X, coincidence, perhaps not. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 19, 2019 12:58:22 GMT -5
So with all of the back and forth concerning speaker/sub-woofer output count, and where some are looking for asiagnabilty of the xlr output I keep asking myself the following: How big are these peoples rooms? seriously where do you put all of tease speakers in an average size room? the multiple sub thing throws me off a bit too. Given that the frequency response typically is non-directional so why not get a sub that can handle the room and or content? Not bashing anyone just trying to make sens of it. I have a 16.6 ft by 27.5 ft purpose built theater. My Current layout is 7.1.6. I simply don't have enough room to add width channels and have separation from my fronts. (glad other people do!) I am running Paradigm signature 8s as my fronts, a Signature c5 for the center and signature adp 1s for the 4 surrounds (dipole) A signature Sub 1 for a sub woofer. When the RMC-1 replaced my Anthem D2v I added 6 Goldenear invisa HTR 7000 overhead. And then there is amplification. amps take up space too Just seems that in most rooms that are not dedicated theaters its hard enough to pull off a 7.1.2 setup I have a similar room size in a dedicated theater room with tall ceilings. I took the route of building a false wall and ceiling that cloth hangs on to hide speakers so I could theoretically fit and hide as many as I want. I wouldn’t dream of filling up the room with those speakers. They are beautiful. I actually have an assortment of studio v4s. I would love my LCR’s to be S8’s. The dipoles are actually not advised with object audio. For non essential non bed material I went with cheap esprit v.4 speakers (eBay). So to get to your question I think anything over a 9.1.6 your getting to the point where you don’t see speakers and then it just gets to be do you get any benefit with more and if not now will developments change that. I take it you appreciate a diffuse soundfield with those dipoles and it is said in order to duplicate those with monopoles you need a few in close approximation. Whether the codecs utilize this in the correct way is what I’m not sure of. And you can never have too many subs. |
|
|
|
Post by Talley on Dec 4, 2019 17:28:05 GMT -5
I'll be adding 2 speakers in the ceiling for a 5.2.2 system. I can't use bounce speakers since my ceiling has diffusion acoustics
|
|
|
|
Post by thompson12 on Dec 29, 2019 19:27:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 30, 2019 7:01:15 GMT -5
While these are probably very well make speakers (I have always been fond of NHT speakers), I would not buy them for Atmos ceiling speakers. These are omni-directional and it is advised that Atmos ceiling speakers be of the type that can be directed toward the MLP. |
|
|
|
Post by thompson12 on Dec 30, 2019 7:43:14 GMT -5
While these are probably very well make speakers (I have always been fond of NHT speakers), I would not buy them for Atmos ceiling speakers. These are omni-directional and it is advised that Atmos ceiling speakers be of the type that can be directed toward the MLP. OK thanks, I would have thought the opposite I would have thought a wider sound instead of more of a localized sound would have been better. I guess it would be like if there was a bee buzzing over your right ear you want to hear it at your right ear and not over the whole ceiling. Mitch |
|
