|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 23, 2019 13:35:47 GMT -5
That’s my point though. We’ve supplied avsforum threads that experimented and other users. I’ve also heard RMC-1 users state wides had activity with Atmos. I would think this would be enough to validate 9.1.6 at the very least. People are suggesting wides only get played with matrixing but this goes against what others say both from Emotiva and some higher authorities on avsforum but when these are supplied as evidence they seem to be ignored. I'll experiment with 9.1.6 with PCM5.1/DD_Surround on the RMC-1 this week and see if it works. Source material will be 4K Mad Max at 00:27:55 tornado scene ... because that's been veried to work with widths and 6 heights separately. lol. I read that. I wondered if the firmware was mislabeling it.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,941
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 23, 2019 13:54:40 GMT -5
I think there is a lot of confusion all around....
For example, I am NOT aware of any 7.1.4 limitation on Dolby Atmos.... quite the contrary. What many folks seem to be confused about is that apparently CERTAIN SPECIFIC PRODUCERS OF DISCS have chosen to limit THEIR Atmos discs to 7.1.4 . (Dolby Atmos offers a huge amount of flexibility to directors and artists who make discs; and part of that flexibility includes the ability to make sure you don't alter it from the way they intended for you to hear it.)
Likewise, Dolby Atmos is an entirely different thing than the Dolby Surround UPMIXER. By design, Dolby Atmos content is played using a Dolby Atmos decoder; the DSU is for NON-ATMOS content. (The reason you cannot use the DSU to add channels to an Atmos mix is that it is assumed that the Atmos decoder is "playing it the way it was intended" to begin with.)
On your final request... which seems like a good one...
A SURROUND SOUND FORMAT, and the decoder that goes with it, are standards for delivering recorded sound in a specific way. The idea there is that the director and artist are able to deliver their work to you in exactly the way they intended. (The format is simply the method in which they deliver it... and is designed to enable them to do so with a much accuracy as possible.)
AN UPMIXER is almost the opposite; it is a way for you to ALTER content; to change it from the way it was delivered into something different that you personally prefer. For example, if you receive a stereo recording, and use the DSU to play it in 5.1.4 channels.... We can safely assume that the artist, and the mixing engineer, and the producer, EXPECT for you to listen to it in Stereo (because that's what they delivered to you).
Therefore, by using the upmixer, the resulting surround sound version is NOT WHAT THEY INTENDED. It is merely a way for you to impose your preferences in order to end up with something you personally find more pleasing. (And, yes, philosophically, it is possible that "they really intended for you to hear it in surround but were unable to deliver it that way due to technical limitations".)
And, yes, just to be very plain here.... If you receive a disc that is encoded as "Atmos 7.1.4" then that is the way the producers intended for you to listen to it. (I don't know all of the specific restrictions which the producer can apply to an Atmos disc if they wish to do so... but there are several.)
If you apply an upmixer and convert that 7.1.4 content into 9.1.6 YOU HAVE NOT MAGICALLY RETRIEVED "THE ORIGINAL 9.1.6 CHANNELS". If you upmix it, what you have done is to synthesize (make up) some extra channels to keep the rest of your speakers occupied. And, while the result may sound quite pleasant, it is not a part of the original mix or the original content. You have NOT "created" or "recovered" a 9.1.6 channel Atmos mix, or a specific reproduction of the original event; you have simply created a new mix BASED ON the original mix. The upmixer has no way of knowing where extra channels belong, or what belongs in them; it is merely technologically skilled at "faking it" to produce a result that "sounds plausable". (And, yes, some upmixers are better at guessing than others, or better able to make guesses that sound nice to you, but they are all still just guessing.)
An almost exact analogy would be if you were to acquire a small painting which you really liked. And, after you hung it on your wall, you hired an artist to "paint the rest of your wall so that it goes with the painting". You may find the result quite pleasing, and some artists will absolutely do a better job than others, or at least a job you personally prefer...
(I'm not specifically saying that this is a bad thing, or that you shouldn't do it, but merely reminding you about what's actually going on.)
Not sure what the upmixer speaker limitations are, but we do know what the 3D sound format limitations are (DTS:X 11.1, DDAtmos 7.1.4). Is there an authority that we can actually point to that will back your statement the limits of Atmos is 7.1.4? Let’s focus on providing that evidence and work backwards.. I’d certainly like to know how misled I’ve been this entire time. Or is that the whole point of this black hole. We hear people from both sides saying the other must be full of it. Is there a way to actually validate one or the other? [/quote] Experimentation is the best way. The answer will have caveats: sound format, upmixer, movie source (start time xx.xx.xx ... hrs, min, sec), number of speakers (5.1.6). Unless someone beats me to it, I'll start at 5.1.6 config with PCM5.1/Dolby Surround and keep adding speakers to see what speaker limitations there are with the Dolby Surround upmixer with a specific movie(s). Maybe someone with experience can describe the difference between an upmixer and a sound format to those RMC-1 silent readers that may be confused betwn the two. [/quote]
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,941
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 23, 2019 14:23:14 GMT -5
From what I've heard many, or even most, current discs recorded using Dolby Atmos simply don't take advantage of everything it can do.
I would suspect that this is largely due to a combination of ability, budget, and the interaction between those two.
Believe it or not, most recording engineers probably haven't done much work with Dolby Atmos yet, and not all studios are set up to master in Atmos...
That means that engineers who are really good at it are going to cost more and be more difficult to find... And, because fewer studios have the proper equipment, the options there will also be limited and cost more... And, even beyond that, at the project level, keeping track of multiple objects, and controlling each separately, is simply a complex process... Even with the best engineer, and the best studio, it's going to take far longer, and cost far more, to have twenty separate airplanes, rather than "some planes buzzing around overhead".
Which is why many movies, even some with reasonable budgets, limit themselves to the occasional object whizzing around, strategically chosen to sound impressive, for the least possible effort.
The other part of the situation is that, as time goes on, more and more movies spend less and less time in the theater, and make the jump to streaming and discs much more quickly. From the producers point of view, this means that more of their viewers are watching that movie on a living room TV, or on their phone. And, to be very blunt, this fact does not encourage them to spend a lot on a really excellent audio mix that most of their audience will never hear. (If 90% of their audience will end up watching that movie on a phone, then they're going to be more concerned about how it sounds on a phone, and less concerned about how it sounds on a high-end home theater system.)
I recall reading an interview with someone from Disney.... when the whole hoo-hah about "pinned 7.1.4 discs" began... According to him, Disney didn't chose that format to spite their customers, or even because it was somehow specifically great for movies on disc... According to him, it was chosen because they were looking for "a single standard format that would work well on discs, on their cable channels, and on streaming devices". In other words, rather than have different versions for different distribution channels, they simply chose that as a compromise that "worked pretty well for everything". (And, as with many compromises, it isn't the best possible choice for everyone.... )
What I would suggest you take away from here is THIS: As the demand for better mixes, and better sound tracks, makes itself FINANCIALLY known, the studios will adapt to deliver what their customers want.
That’s my point though. We’ve supplied avsforum threads that experimented and other users. I’ve also heard RMC-1 users state wides had activity with Atmos. I would think this would be enough to validate 9.1.6 at the very least. People are suggesting wides only get played with matrixing but this goes against what others say both from Emotiva and some higher authorities on avsforum but when these are supplied as evidence they seem to be ignored.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,941
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 23, 2019 14:36:38 GMT -5
I would disagree - although it obviously depends on what you listen to.
At virtually every live concert I've ever attended, all of the musicians, and all of the instruments were arrayed across the stage IN FRONT OF ME. And all that I heard from behind me was room ambience of one sort of another. This is true for both movies and music.
In fact, as a broad generalization, we humans (and most other species) are designed to have the main action taking place in front of us.
When we hear a predator coming, or something that sounds like food, we turn to face it... And all of our senses are designed to deliver us the most detail from the front... Our eyes face forward - and we only have depth perception in the center of our visual area where they overlap.
And our ears have big cups in the back to make it easier to hear sounds from the front and block sounds from the back. (Have you ever specifically chosen to listen to a stereo recording seated in a chair with your back to the speakers?)
Therefore it makes sense that most music would be intended to be heard coming to us mostly from the front... And that, in turn, most systems for reproducing music would place the most emphasis there.
I have heard several surround sound recordings that "placed you in the center of the orchestra". To me, while they were an interesting novelty, most of them sounded both unnatural and at least somewhat unpleasant. I think they interpret the front sound stage as crucial to not involve unwanted artifacts where the rear is meant to be more diffuse and enveloping. Also the fact that bed channels are limited in space more than objects and a lot of that diffuse bed channel info is intended by the mixer to envelop the listener that this expansion is desired. This is just how I interpreted it from what I’ve heard about arrays and dipoles and what used to be desired with the old formats. I agree though I’d want the width channel as an option. Seems like this .pdf was written more for music, not movies.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Sept 23, 2019 14:53:00 GMT -5
Maybe someone with experience can describe the difference between an upmixer and a sound format to those RMC-1 silent readers that may be confused betwn the two. Simple, a sound format places the sound exactly where the movie sound mixer intended it to be. Whereas an upmixer guesses where the sound might come from. Some up mixers are good guessers, they use information in the original sound track via complex proprietary algorithms developed by engineers with a great understanding and decades of experience (eg; Neural X). Other upmixers are poor guessers, their algorithms are not as sophisticated, they don’t use the original sound track information as well and as a result they miss the mark, often by an audibly noticeable amount (eg; DSU). Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Sept 23, 2019 14:58:39 GMT -5
I don’t think you will ever see a movie with both DTS:x and Dolby Atmos sound tracks. Just way too much work for a studio with no real benefit. I think what is desired is an up mixer that can take say Disney pinned 7.1.4 and up mix it to whatever crazy combination of speakers you may have. After all what is the point of a 16-28 channel processor if you can’t make those channels active. I just thinks it’s like Dolby True HD and DTS Master HD was. Studios will do one of the other, but you would never see both. And they always had a simple DD5.1 sound track. Great posts. Agree, looks like RMC-1 is required to have upmixers for all "crazy" numbers of speakers (12 to 24/28) owners want to connect. lol. Since the industry has decided to create monopolies wrt to High Def and 3D sound formats (as you say, because it's too difficult to include more than one), it's the upmixers that will find a competitive stadium to complete in. If RMC-1 is to survive the long haul, they need to incorporate as many upmixers as possible. This will allow RMC-1 owners to decide which upmixer is the best for their "crazy" number of speakers. Maybe all these 3D upmixers will show how poor some of the 3D sound formats really are and force 2K and 4K movies in the future to include more than one HD and 3D sound format. lol. RMC-1 owners want competition and multiple choices with 3D sound formats with 2K and 4K movies. If the industry has decided they want a monopoly, then this may be the demise of these formats ... and the rise of many 3D mixers to fill the void. It would be smart for EMO to include all 3D upmixers to support 12 to 24/28 channels/speakers. Start with these in order of priority: 1. Dolby Digital Surround + Upmixer (more than 7.1.4 channels/speakers) 2. DTS Neural:X Pro Upmixer (more than 11.1 channels/speakers) 3. AuroMax Upmixer (more than 12 channels/speakers) 4. others? So based on Keith's last post it looks like Dolby won't upmix and Atmos track beyond what it is made with. IE if Disney disc are 7.1.4 pinned Atmos then any Dolby upmixer won't expand beyond that. So now its either up to DTS, Aura, or Emotiva in house to make an upmixer that will take Atmos beyond what it was pinned at. I wonder what Marantz is doing for their units to go beyond 7.1.4. I get the 10k+ processors have their own upmixers, but that's a big price jump.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Sept 23, 2019 15:07:22 GMT -5
The upmixers I have experience with access the 7.1 sound track (Dolby True HD, DTS HDMA etc) then using that as the base they apply algorithms to expand the sound to the number of active speakers/channels. They don’t use the object orientation metadata from the Atmos or DTSX sound track.
The only obvious question is why? My guess is that the upmixing algorithms can’t utilise the metadata (for location), that maybe be a software limitation and/or a hardware limitation. In that the currently available processor chips don’t have enough grunt to do both at the same time.
Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Sept 23, 2019 15:18:08 GMT -5
I would disagree - although it obviously depends on what you listen to.
At virtually every live concert I've ever attended, all of the musicians, and all of the instruments were arrayed across the stage IN FRONT OF ME. And all that I heard from behind me was room ambience of one sort of another. This is true for both movies and music.
In fact, as a broad generalization, we humans (and most other species) are designed to have the main action taking place in front of us.
When we hear a predator coming, or something that sounds like food, we turn to face it... And all of our senses are designed to deliver us the most detail from the front... Our eyes face forward - and we only have depth perception in the center of our visual area where they overlap.
And our ears have big cups in the back to make it easier to hear sounds from the front and block sounds from the back. (Have you ever specifically chosen to listen to a stereo recording seated in a chair with your back to the speakers?)
Therefore it makes sense that most music would be intended to be heard coming to us mostly from the front... And that, in turn, most systems for reproducing music would place the most emphasis there.
I have heard several surround sound recordings that "placed you in the center of the orchestra". To me, while they were an interesting novelty, most of them sounded both unnatural and at least somewhat unpleasant. Seems like this .pdf was written more for music, not movies. Well, that depends on the actual music. Most multi channel music, rock or pop, sounds best with emphasis on the front stage. But there are some music that actually comes alive when it surrounds you. This usually are different types of instrumental music with alot of ambient sounds..
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 23, 2019 17:20:44 GMT -5
On the avsforum it sounds like neural:x can be applied to DTS:X so maybe the Pro can retain the object info if and when they mix with objects finally. I would then wonder if it will be able to be applied to Atmos with an update now that the ban is lifted if DTS pursues it.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Sept 23, 2019 22:21:33 GMT -5
On the avsforum it sounds like neural:x can be applied to DTS:X so maybe the Pro can retain the object info if and when they mix with objects finally. I would then wonder if it will be able to be applied to Atmos with an update now that the ban is lifted if DTS pursues it. That is hell of a lot of load on the processor chip, firstly having to decode the base (eg; 5.1, 7.1, 9.1 etc) then applying the metadata for the objects and then utilising the algorithms to upmix the result to the available channels. They could upmix the base channels (much like they do now when upmixing DTS HDMA) but that would interfere with the object oriented channels once they are processed later. I'd be very surprised if any of the mass market processors have anywhere near that processor capacity. As KeithL posted earlier, they won't do it if the audience isn't big enough to justify it. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by TDifEQ on Sept 24, 2019 1:35:08 GMT -5
I'll experiment with 9.1.6 with PCM5.1/DD_Surround on the RMC-1 this week and see if it works. Source material will be 4K Mad Max at 00:27:55 tornado scene ... because that's been veried to work with widths and 6 heights separately. lol. I read that. I wondered if the firmware was mislabeling it. Weird. If the Dolby .pdf says DSU does not support widths, how did widths work in the PCM5.1/DD_Surround widths test (@7.1.4). Need to re-run these tests.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 24, 2019 6:19:11 GMT -5
I read that. I wondered if the firmware was mislabeling it. Weird. If the Dolby .pdf says DSU does not support widths, how did widths work in the PCM5.1/DD_Surround widths test (@7.1.4). Need to re-run these tests. I thought you said it switched from what you thought was Atmos to this pcm/DSU without you touching a button and you got wide content. That’s why I thought it could be a firmware issue just mislabeling it.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 24, 2019 6:24:54 GMT -5
On the avsforum it sounds like neural:x can be applied to DTS:X so maybe the Pro can retain the object info if and when they mix with objects finally. I would then wonder if it will be able to be applied to Atmos with an update now that the ban is lifted if DTS pursues it. That is hell of a lot of load on the processor chip, firstly having to decode the base (eg; 5.1, 7.1, 9.1 etc) then applying the metadata for the objects and then utilising the algorithms to upmix the result to the available channels. They could upmix the base channels (much like they do now when upmixing DTS HDMA) but that would interfere with the object oriented channels once they are processed later. I'd be very surprised if any of the mass market processors have anywhere near that processor capacity. As KeithL posted earlier, they won't do it if the audience isn't big enough to justify it. Cheers Gary I guess to me being a layman I don’t really know the demands required. It does seem like two separate tasks when you mention it. Take the base channels prior to object overlay and upmix those then objects go on top after those themselves are decoded. Not sure if these processor chips are multi core multi thread or any of that to excel at separate tasks or what would be involved in coordinating those separate tasks and sewing them back together. Good point. Would be nice if possible though.
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Sept 24, 2019 7:00:53 GMT -5
I read that. I wondered if the firmware was mislabeling it. Weird. If the Dolby .pdf says DSU does not support widths, how did widths work in the PCM5.1/DD_Surround widths test (@7.1.4). Need to re-run these tests. There is only 1 conclusion to draw and that is the whole lossless + object metadata has been decoded by the atmos decoder to lpcm and the atmos renderer has done its job sending audio to the wide channels If it were just the lossless truehd being decoded and a DSU being applied no wides would occur..The RMC1'S OLED in lieu of trying to recognise any atmos metadata- very difficult- is reporting the decoded lpcm stream direct from the decoder ] Happy to see the RMC1 doing what its designed to do [even though the surround nomenclature is the opposite of what you should hope to read - being native or similar wording ]As uncompressed 7.1 pcm has never come from a bluray disc before the RMC1 settles for reporting 5.1 lpcm [ as early bd's before the lossless codecs once had] - close enough.. Just as Keith says ; and everyone should post those discs with better object audio
|
|
|
Post by TDifEQ on Sept 24, 2019 10:08:03 GMT -5
Weird. If the Dolby .pdf says DSU does not support widths, how did widths work in the PCM5.1/DD_Surround widths test (@7.1.4). Need to re-run these tests. I thought you said it switched from what you thought was Atmos to this pcm/DSU without you touching a button and you got wide content. That’s why I thought it could be a firmware issue just mislabeling it. Yes, you are correct. Maybe a labelling issue. Yesterday, forced OPPO203 to lpcm (rather than bitstream) and RMC-1 first displayed pcm2.0/DD_Surround. This sounded horrible. Later on I turned OPPO power off/on, then RMC-1 read PCM7.1/DD_Surround ... this was with a 9.1.6 config (widths and 6 heights) ... sounded much better. Still testing this config to see if widths and 6 heights can have sound sent to them. Hard to tell if widths and Middle tops are getting sound because all the other speakers are loud. Need an "Speaker Check" EMO tool, similar to Speaker Leveling, that sends movie 3D audio (rather than white noise), while playing a 3D audio movie, from HDMI1 input (or whatever input) to just one speaker at a time ... this way it's easy to tell if widths or multiple height speakers are being sent sound ... without the other speakers drowning them out. Probably a lot easier to develop than a real time monitor.
|
|
|
Post by jagman on Sept 24, 2019 10:31:00 GMT -5
I think it's really simple. I we buy a processor that allows for 16, 20, 24 or 28 channels, get the amps to drive said channels and have the speakers installed, we want the option of using them even if the disk formatting doesn't provide for that. Is it what the original artist wanted? Maybe or maybe not depending on what was budgeted and allowed from above. Does it matter? That depends on the quality of original mix, the way a particular upmixer works and most importantly the end users personal preference. Having the option of trying different upmixers and deciding for ourselves if we like one or another or none at all for a given disk is a reasonable request, especially when you consider the investment we are making. The RMC-1 may be a great value given the competition, but it still costs a pretty penny and the competition seems to get the importance of using multipe upmixers that work with the number of channels the processor is capable of processing simultaneously (e.g. DTS: X Pro).
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 24, 2019 11:03:11 GMT -5
It does sound like the many of the creators mixes will be more confined to money than artistic intent so that would mean more should be on us with an upmixer to make these better rather than rest with everything given to us as is. I understand better is personal so options are good.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,941
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 24, 2019 11:32:43 GMT -5
Well, yes, and no, and a lot is going to depend on what you listen to and your personal preferences.
The important thing to remember is that an upmixer synthesizes (makes up) information.
For example, in a war movie, with fighters flying around overhead, a "really good" Dolby Atmos mix will have each plane as a separate object - so the sound from each will come from the proper direction. Likewise, if there was a "really good" Dolby Atmos mix of a band playing, each instrument would be in its proper spot, and if the lead guitarist started dancing around the stage, the sound of his guitar would follow him. However, an upmixer does not and cannot know where those planes, or that guitarist, are supposed to be. And is sure doesn't know where to individually place each instrument in the orchestra after the engineer has merged them all into the bed channels.
So, if there are a dozen planes buzzing around overhead, but the mix engineer was lazy and only used two height tracks, all the upmixer can do is to "make the planes sort of swoosh around overhead". And, if the guitar player walks past where the right speaker is positioned, it may or may not "figure out" that he should be placed in the right width channel instead of the right main. And, if what you have is a recording of an orchestra, all you're going to end up with is a more complex jumble of instruments, rather than a more detailed rendition of instruments in their proper locations.
In some cases the results may work out very well... for example by placing objects in speakers between other speakers. Or you may find that having the orchestra spread out between more of your speakers sounds better to you.
And, in other cases, the results may be far from accurate but may still be pleasing... for example when the upmixer simply makes up extra ambience information that makes the room seem bigger. However, if you're hoping for any "serious artistic intent" from an upmixer, or for each of those dozen planes to suddenly become a separate object, then you are destined to be disappointed.
It does sound like the creators mix will be more confined to money than artistic intent so that would mean more should be on us with an upmixer to make these better rather than rest with everything given to us as is.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,941
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 24, 2019 11:36:51 GMT -5
If you go into SETUP | SPEAKERS | LEVELS | TEST TONE on the SETUP MENU ... And then set TEST TONE to OFF (EXTERNAL) you will be able to play external audio to each speaker in turn as your "test tone".
There are a few limitations - but I think that's basically what you're looking for.
I thought you said it switched from what you thought was Atmos to this pcm/DSU without you touching a button and you got wide content. That’s why I thought it could be a firmware issue just mislabeling it. Yes, you are correct. Maybe a labelling issue. Yesterday, forced OPPO203 to lpcm (rather than bitstream) and RMC-1 first displayed pcm2.0/DD_Surround. This sounded horrible. Later on I turned OPPO power off/on, then RMC-1 read PCM7.1/DD_Surround ... this was with a 9.1.6 config (widths and 6 heights) ... sounded much better. Still testing this config to see if widths and 6 heights can have sound sent to them. Hard to tell if widths and Middle tops are getting sound because all the other speakers are loud. Need an "Speaker Check" EMO tool, similar to Speaker Leveling, that sends movie 3D audio (rather than white noise), while playing a 3D audio movie, from HDMI1 input (or whatever input) to just one speaker at a time ... this way it's easy to tell if widths or multiple height speakers are being sent sound ... without the other speakers drowning them out. Probably a lot easier to develop than a real time monitor.
|
|
|
Post by TDifEQ on Sept 24, 2019 13:10:38 GMT -5
If you go into SETUP | SPEAKERS | LEVELS | TEST TONE on the SETUP MENU ... And then set TEST TONE to OFF (EXTERNAL) you will be able to play external audio to each speaker in turn as your "test tone".
There are a few limitations - but I think that's basically what you're looking for.
Yes, you are correct. Maybe a labelling issue. Yesterday, forced OPPO203 to lpcm (rather than bitstream) and RMC-1 first displayed pcm2.0/DD_Surround. This sounded horrible. Later on I turned OPPO power off/on, then RMC-1 read PCM7.1/DD_Surround ... this was with a 9.1.6 config (widths and 6 heights) ... sounded much better. Still testing this config to see if widths and 6 heights can have sound sent to them. Hard to tell if widths and Middle tops are getting sound because all the other speakers are loud. Need an "Speaker Check" EMO tool, similar to Speaker Leveling, that sends movie 3D audio (rather than white noise), while playing a 3D audio movie, from HDMI1 input (or whatever input) to just one speaker at a time ... this way it's easy to tell if widths or multiple height speakers are being sent sound ... without the other speakers drowning them out. Probably a lot easier to develop than a real time monitor. Fantastic! I'll try this today. Going to test width and height speakers.
|
|