|
|
Post by chicgeek on Aug 12, 2019 3:40:16 GMT -5
Hello Keith,
My question is in regards to the assignment of the channels on the RMC-1 and the XMC-2. Specifically: are the channel assignments dictated by Dolby; or, did you guys determine the assignments?
The reason I'm curious about this, is because I would MUCH rather have a rear-center channel and an overhead center-channel, than front left and right width channels (which, to me, are PARTICULARLY useless). My proposal would give me a 8.1.7 channel layout, in the form of:
FL FC FR
SL SR
RL RC RR
with an overlay of height channels in the form of:
HFL HFR
HSL HOC HSR
HRL HRR
Which, I think, would sound SIGNIFICANTLY better than the current 9.1.6 layout.
Even barring the aforementioned proposal, I think that if you guys were to designate the front width channels as the optional subwoofer channels (instead of using the rear height channels for that purpose), then the width channels would become MUCH more useful — because, at least, then I could still get a 7.3.6 layout (which, again, I think would sound MUCH better than the current 9.1.6 layout).
While we're on the subject, what I REALLY want is a 8.1.9 layout in the form of:
FL FC FR
SL SR
RL RC RR
With an overlay of height channels in the form of:
HFL HFC HFR
HSL HOC HSR
HRL HRC HRR
And, if you wanted to throw in a couple of ADDITIONAL subwoofers on top of that (i.e.—8.3.9), that would be GREAT!
Anyway, just wondering.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Aug 12, 2019 9:36:14 GMT -5
An HOC channel isn’t supported in Dolby but is in DTS:X Pro it sounds like so maybe in the future.. as far as what is currently available it’s up to dolby not Emotiva so you should be messaging them. I personally would prefer prioritizing DTS:X pro speaker arrangements when the RMC expands its channels but until Emotiva either adopts DTS:X pro or Auro there isn’t a use for HOC. Your 8.3.9 also confirms to DTS not Dolby. There are no height centers for Dolby.
|
|
|
|
Post by chicgeek on Aug 13, 2019 2:54:50 GMT -5
lrobertson , I beg to differ with your assertion that “ there isn’t a use for HOC” in Dolby Atmos! As both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X are object based formats (and, it appears that Auro-3D is, at least, a quasi-object based format), then the decoder should (in theory, anyway) utilize whatever channels that are currently available to reproduce the soundtrack. So, for example, if a sound were to be present at the same intensity (and in the same phase) in all four height channels simultaneously, then I would think that the decoder would recognize that this sound would be perceived, by a seated person, as coming from directly overhead, and therefore route the sound to an overhead center channel (if one were available). Now, having written that, as a computer programmer, I know that there is FREQUENTLY a HUGE difference between what the specification says SHOULD happen, and what the implementation (be it hardware and/or software based) actually ALLOWS to happen! (Though, logically speaking, there must be some way to indicate to the Atmos decoder chip which channels are available, and, what their relative locations are!)
Also, by your logic, there is currently no need for the two addition height channels in the present 9.1.6 channel layout of the RMC-1 (and the future XMC-2) — as, the Atmos decoder will ignore them (according to your assertions)!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Aug 13, 2019 4:15:28 GMT -5
lrobertson , I beg to differ with your assertion that “ there isn’t a use for HOC” in Dolby Atmos! As both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X are object based formats (and, it appears that Auro-3D is, at least, a quasi-object based format), then the decoder should (in theory, anyway) utilize whatever channels that are currently available to reproduce the soundtrack. So, for example, if a sound were to be present at the same intensity (and in the same phase) in all four height channels simultaneously, then I would think that the decoder would recognize that this sound would be perceived, by a seated person, as coming from directly overhead, and therefore route the sound to an overhead center channel (if one were available). Now, having written that, as a computer programmer, I know that there is FREQUENTLY a HUGE difference between what the specification says SHOULD happen, and what the implementation (be it hardware and/or software based) actually ALLOWS to happen! (Though, logically speaking, there must be some way to indicate to the Atmos decoder chip which channels are available, and, what their relative locations are!) Also, by your logic, there is currently no need for the two addition height channels in the present 9.1.6 channel layout of the RMC-1 (and the future XMC-2) — as, the Atmos decoder will ignore them (according to your assertions)!
There is an inbuilt assumption in what you are proposing that the Atmos source doesn’t have pinned channels, which many movies actually do. There is also an inbuilt assumption that DTS-X movies currently available have more than 7.1.4 in the object metadata which they don’t. My best suggestion is to check the source material available in your preferred genres and don’t fall into the trap of believing Dolby who spin the features of Cinema Atmos into home theatre Atmos (my terminology). They aren’t the same, they aren’t mixed on the same equipment and they don’t use the same software, plus of course Cinema Atmos is distributed on portable hard disk drives, not a plastic disk with limited space. Of course you can use the upmixing feature to spread the sound across the available channels, but it ain’t Atmos or DTS-X that you are listening to. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Aug 13, 2019 7:56:56 GMT -5
lrobertson , I beg to differ with your assertion that “ there isn’t a use for HOC” in Dolby Atmos! As both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X are object based formats (and, it appears that Auro-3D is, at least, a quasi-object based format), then the decoder should (in theory, anyway) utilize whatever channels that are currently available to reproduce the soundtrack. So, for example, if a sound were to be present at the same intensity (and in the same phase) in all four height channels simultaneously, then I would think that the decoder would recognize that this sound would be perceived, by a seated person, as coming from directly overhead, and therefore route the sound to an overhead center channel (if one were available). Now, having written that, as a computer programmer, I know that there is FREQUENTLY a HUGE difference between what the specification says SHOULD happen, and what the implementation (be it hardware and/or software based) actually ALLOWS to happen! (Though, logically speaking, there must be some way to indicate to the Atmos decoder chip which channels are available, and, what their relative locations are!)
Also, by your logic, there is currently no need for the two addition height channels in the present 9.1.6 channel layout of the RMC-1 (and the future XMC-2) — as, the Atmos decoder will ignore them (according to your assertions)!
[Yes I am absolutely saying things that should happen don’t. A trinnov might do what you want it to as it actually interprets and deciphers the object data based on your individual speaker placement but that is a feature of trinnov and it will cost almost 30k more to go to there 32 channel machine. Not sure the price of the 24. If it is Atmos you want it’s Dolby that gives DSP companies the layouts that they allow in order to qualify as an Atmos receiver. That’s to this point. Theoretically proprietary upmix algorithms can be used by each company so I guess you can cross your fingers and hope it comes to fruition. And Gary is right not all material is made with dynamic object data but the majority of Atmos is other than Disney owned material. And DTS:X pro just was released so I’m not sure if its content even exists and that happens to be the only format that seems to natively support the HOC other than Auro. So yeah basically the consensus has been that Trinnov owners get some added benefit from Atmos movies that don’t have static meta data but the results widely vary and most resort to non Atmos upmixing/manipulation for a more immersive enveloping sound field while other systems to this point either don’t have the horsepower or the intent to deliver layouts based on custom speaker arrangements. That might change I heard but Emotiva hasn’t suggested they’d be one of them. You’ll probably have to pay 15-20k more. If you don’t want to spend that kind of money I’d buy the RMC-1 with the intent of the Dolby supplied 11.1.8 and hope for more developments in this area as it’s all software and firmware updates and maybe we do get a better way to utilize the 20-28 channels direct from Dolby in the future. We need to remember 9.1.6 was only just recently released for all brands no matter their price beside the trinnov. The RMC is basically the hardware investment for what the future codecs bring. Not so much that it’s going to utilize what’s out there how you always want today. If you’ve got a lot of years on you left then you can assume the hardware will get utilized how we’d all hope so long as Emotiva survives. 3d audio is still in its infancy and the number one driver of competition seems to be on its way with DTS:X Pro... The first ray traced audio video game is also on its way to being released this fall. There will always be driving forces moving us forward in the direction of more immersive sound. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 13, 2019 8:58:01 GMT -5
The situation is actually somewhat more complicated that many people seem to realize. (The easy answer is that the options you get are mostly determined by the license requirements of Dolby and DTS.... )
For example, in some early devices that included both Dolby Atmos and DTS-X, it was possible to select to upmix Dolby Atmos content using Neural:X (the DTS:X UpMixer). However, as per a relatively recent license update from Dolby, newer products are now forbidden from allowing you to do so. (And, if you have an older AVR that still allows it, and you do a firmware update, you may find that option no longer works.) According to the current license restrictions from Dolby "all Atmos content must be decoded using Dolby Atmos". We, as a vendor, are no longer permitted to allow the customer to choose to use any commercially available upmixer to modify their Dolby Atmos content after it is decoded. We would be permitted to write our own upmixer, and allow people to use it (which is basically what Trinnov has done)... However, we are not allowed to offer you the option of using any competing commercial upmixer, like the current DTS upmixer or Auro 3D. (We license Atmos from Dolby... so we are bound by their license requirements and restrictions.)
Also, while Dolby Atmos itself really is "object oriented", the current "consumer implementations of Dolby Atmos" DO NOT support "arbitrary speaker locations". Instead, the current implementations support a relatively wide variety of specific speaker layouts and combinations of speaker locations. However, you cannot "just put the speakers where you want and then tell Atmos where they are" (this ability was sort of implied in very early Dolby marketing literature but currently does not exist).
(To widely paraphrase an old quote about the color of Ford cars.... "You may put your speakers wherever you want - as long as you want them in spots that are listed among the locations recommended by Dolby".)
Also.... as a complete aside.... (and take this as a personal opinion... based on personal observations... from speaking to customers here in the USA  )..... At the moment, in the overall market, Dolby Atmos seems to be way out in the lead, DTS is playing catch-up with DTS-X Pro, and we haven't heard much from Auro 3D lately...
I should also note that Dolby Laboratories also does update Dolby Atmos...
(So you may see more new options there as well.)
lrobertson , I beg to differ with your assertion that “ there isn’t a use for HOC” in Dolby Atmos! As both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X are object based formats (and, it appears that Auro-3D is, at least, a quasi-object based format), then the decoder should (in theory, anyway) utilize whatever channels that are currently available to reproduce the soundtrack. So, for example, if a sound were to be present at the same intensity (and in the same phase) in all four height channels simultaneously, then I would think that the decoder would recognize that this sound would be perceived, by a seated person, as coming from directly overhead, and therefore route the sound to an overhead center channel (if one were available). Now, having written that, as a computer programmer, I know that there is FREQUENTLY a HUGE difference between what the specification says SHOULD happen, and what the implementation (be it hardware and/or software based) actually ALLOWS to happen! (Though, logically speaking, there must be some way to indicate to the Atmos decoder chip which channels are available, and, what their relative locations are!) Also, by your logic, there is currently no need for the two addition height channels in the present 9.1.6 channel layout of the RMC-1 (and the future XMC-2) — as, the Atmos decoder will ignore them (according to your assertions)!
[Yes I am absolutely saying things that should happen don’t. A trinnov might do what you want it to as it actually interprets and deciphers the object data based on your individual speaker placement but that is a feature of trinnov and it will cost almost 30k more to go to there 32 channel machine. Not sure the price of the 24. If it is Atmos you want it’s Dolby that gives DSP companies the layouts that they allow in order to qualify as an Atmos receiver. That’s to this point. Theoretically proprietary upmix algorithms can be used by each company so I guess you can cross your fingers and hope it comes to fruition. And Gary is right not all material is made with dynamic object data but the majority of Atmos is other than Disney owned material. And DTS:X pro just was released so I’m not sure if its content even exists and that happens to be the only format that seems to natively support the HOC other than Auro. So yeah basically the consensus has been that Trinnov owners get some added benefit from Atmos movies that don’t have static meta data but the results widely vary and most resort to non Atmos upmixing/manipulation for a more immersive enveloping sound field while other systems to this point either don’t have the horsepower or the intent to deliver layouts based on custom speaker arrangements. That might change I heard but Emotiva hasn’t suggested they’d be one of them. You’ll probably have to pay 15-20k more. If you don’t want to spend that kind of money I’d buy the RMC-1 with the intent of the Dolby supplied 11.1.8 and hope for more developments in this area as it’s all software and firmware updates and maybe we do get a better way to utilize the 20-28 channels direct from Dolby in the future. We need to remember 9.1.6 was only just recently released for all brands no matter their price beside the trinnov. The RMC is basically the hardware investment for what the future codecs bring. Not so much that it’s going to utilize what’s out there how you always want today. If you’ve got a lot of years on you left then you can assume the hardware will get utilized how we’d all hope so long as Emotiva survives. 3d audio is still in its infancy and the number one driver of competition seems to be on its way with DTS:X Pro... The first ray traced audio video game is also on its way to being released this fall. There will always be driving forces moving us forward in the direction of more immersive sound. |
|
|
|
Post by chicgeek on Aug 13, 2019 10:10:38 GMT -5
Keith, your two quotes:
“Instead, the current implementations support a relatively wide variety of specific speaker layouts and combinations of speaker locations.”
and
"You may put your speakers wherever you want - as long as you want them in spots that are listed among the locations recommended by Dolby."
Would seem to indicated that there is some latitude in the assignment of channels. So, since I don't know the pin-outs of the Atmos decoder chip, my question is: Are you saying, specifically, that of the combination of input parameters available to, and, the pin-outs available from the Atmos decoder chip, that there is NOT the possibility to designate a rear center-channel, NOR the possibility to designate an overhead center-channel?
Also, as every responder to my post has gotten hung-up on overhead center-channels and the lack of object-based sounds being embedded in consumer disc formats, my other question about the front left and right width channels being re-purposed as left and right subwoofer channels has still not been addressed!
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Aug 13, 2019 10:35:27 GMT -5
I think the gist of what everyone is saying is that, the available configuration options are dictated by the Dolby license. If you want additional configurations, Dolby will have to create and license them, then manufacturers like Emotiva can implement them.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 13, 2019 11:52:59 GMT -5
The details themselves can be quite complicated.....
To answer your questions...
There is some latitude in terms of which combinations of layouts we choose to support. (The standard, as per the license, includes some mandatory requirements and some that are optional.)
The current consumer version of Dolby Atmos does not support a center height speaker. (Technically we could develop our own proprietary upmixer to do so - but we have no plans to do so.)
Our implementation of the Dolby Atmos standard does not support a single surround or single rear surround. (I'm not certain whose limitation that is - but we have no plans to support it.)
Dolby Atmos itself recognizes a single "subwoofer channel".... and this is how Dolby Atmos discs are encoded. (You will notice that ALL of Dolby's current recommended speaker layouts are "x.1.x".)
(And the RMC-1 currently follows the Dolby Atmos standard - which is why your choice of subs is "mono", "dual mono", and "triple mono".)
Supporting stereo subs in bass management was done on the XMC-1 IN ADDITION TO what was supported by Dolby TrueHD. We do actually have plans in our roadmap to bring back stereo subwoofers in the RMC-1 at some point in the future (but I don't know when).
(Dolby Atmos itself does not currently support stereo subs - however there is no restriction on us if we prefer to do it ourselves.)
The whole issue/question about "pinned channels" and the number of overhead channels supported by particular content is not actually an issue at all. The Dolby Atmos STANDARD supports both "bed channels" and "objects"... It is up to the producer of the disc which of these features they choose to use and how they choose to use them... (For example, the Dolby Atmos Authoring software allows me to create an object, then designate that it be delivered by a single specific speaker.) In general, Dolby Atmos is intended to offer the engineer who creates the content lots of control, and to then deliver that content THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO BE DELIVERED. (So, if Disney decided to use "pinned height channels", however they chose to do so, then apparently that's the way they intend for you to hear their product.)
Keith, your two quotes: “Instead, the current implementations support a relatively wide variety of specific speaker layouts and combinations of speaker locations.” and "You may put your speakers wherever you want - as long as you want them in spots that are listed among the locations recommended by Dolby." Would seem to indicated that there is some latitude in the assignment of channels. So, since I don't know the pin-outs of the Atmos decoder chip, my question is: Are you saying, specifically, that of the combination of input parameters available to, and, the pin-outs available from the Atmos decoder chip, that there is NOT the possibility to designate a rear center-channel, NOR the possibility to designate an overhead center-channel? Also, as every responder to my post has gotten hung-up on overhead center-channels and the lack of object-based sounds being embedded in consumer disc formats, my other question about the front left and right width channels being re-purposed as left and right subwoofer channels has still not been addressed!
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 13, 2019 12:05:56 GMT -5
Dolby Atmos supports six height channels... You will see both 7.1.6 and 9.1.6 configurations shown in Dolby's current speaker setup guides...
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that all of those channels will be used by every Atmos disc or program you play...
lrobertson , I beg to differ with your assertion that “ there isn’t a use for HOC” in Dolby Atmos! As both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X are object based formats (and, it appears that Auro-3D is, at least, a quasi-object based format), then the decoder should (in theory, anyway) utilize whatever channels that are currently available to reproduce the soundtrack. So, for example, if a sound were to be present at the same intensity (and in the same phase) in all four height channels simultaneously, then I would think that the decoder would recognize that this sound would be perceived, by a seated person, as coming from directly overhead, and therefore route the sound to an overhead center channel (if one were available). Now, having written that, as a computer programmer, I know that there is FREQUENTLY a HUGE difference between what the specification says SHOULD happen, and what the implementation (be it hardware and/or software based) actually ALLOWS to happen! (Though, logically speaking, there must be some way to indicate to the Atmos decoder chip which channels are available, and, what their relative locations are!) Also, by your logic, there is currently no need for the two addition height channels in the present 9.1.6 channel layout of the RMC-1 (and the future XMC-2) — as, the Atmos decoder will ignore them (according to your assertions)!
|
|
|
|
Post by chicgeek on Aug 14, 2019 0:07:04 GMT -5
Thank you Keith! Your last two posts contained precisely the kind of information that I was looking for — namely: what, exactly, Emotiva intends to do with its RMC-1 and XMC-2. I appreciate that you took time out from your busy schedule to share this information. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar! BTW, when I say a rear center-channel, I DON'T mean a SINGLE rear-channel, I mean the MIDDLE channel of THREE ( LEFT, CENTER and RIGHT) rear channels (in addition to the front THREE [ LEFT, CENTER and RIGHT] channels AND the TWO [ LEFT and RIGHT] side channels, for a total of EIGHT ear-level channels [ i.e.— 8.1]). Which is presently what I have running in my main system. Currently, I derive the rear center-channel by running the left and right rear-channel line-level outputs from my processor through an old Dolby Pro Logic processor that I had lying around, and, then feed its left, center and right outputs into a three-channel amp. And, the results (even though the rear center-channel is matrix derived) sound VERY good! (With sounds now moving around me in a FULL circle (in the horizontal plane). Plus, any sound that should come from directly behind me, now emanates only from my rear center-channel! Which, hopefully, explains why I am so interested in the possibility of a rear center-channel on your two processors!)
Anyway, again, thank you kind sir!
|
|
).....
