|
|
Post by PaulBe on Apr 22, 2024 20:45:28 GMT -5
What interests me in this debate however is the difference between tops end heights. I watched some video's from Techno Dad and he's clearly advocating for heights vs tops in a 7.1.6 configuration anyway. I've been following him for a while and what he says indeed makes perfect sense... especially since he can prove what the sound mixer sees and has available to create the track via the dolby atmos renderer. Even Anthony Grimani gave him kudos for what he is doing... if you don't know who Anthony is, give him a quick google. Channa, techno dad, basically advocates to mimic your bed layer, higher on the wall... um, that's Auro-3D speaker configuration / recommendation. :max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/auro-3d-audio-logo-10-1-aaa-5a5fcc6f494ec900379fdde6-fda551fa296640118bc22a061a01d67e.jpg) The advice I remember from Anthony Grimani is nothing like what Techno Dad is doing. Anthony Grimani places the Atmos speakers on TOP and in line with positions between L&C and C&R, from front to back. Angles are also higher, like in the pro atmos mixing stages. At 10:00 in the video - Techno Dad confuses the Dolby layout pics. The one lower right is just a thumb nail meant to show Atmos TOP angles; not distance from front to back. There is no distance scale in the Dolby pics. A true sense of scale is difficult to derive from the Dolby setup pics. We hear in angles - not distance. The sense of distance is created in the recording. At 4:25 in Techno Dads second video, he talks about holes in the speaker boundaries when useing TOP ceiling placement. This logic is nonsense. At the second YouTube video, In the first post, TheReverendSlim describes how overhead imaging actually works. Here is the link - www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWjZZwIe71wNotice at 12:33 and 12:46 that Alan Meyerson's Atmos Genelacs are not in the position that Techno Dad recommends. They are closer to a position that Dolby 'dictates' for a Dolby professional Atmos soundstage. But, Alan's room setup is still kind of weird. He sits right at the front wall. There is no place to accurately place the front Atmos speakers. But, he is the pro who knows his room, and pros know how to work around limitations. Techno Dad, like his cohort joentell, has some strange logic. Both of them have fooled themselves, and hopefully few others. The new Spears and Munsil Ultra HD Benchmark 4K disc has good Atmos audio tests. |
|
|
|
Post by LuisV on Apr 22, 2024 21:48:22 GMT -5
The advice I remember from Anthony Grimani is nothing like what Techno Dad is doing. Anthony Grimani places the Atmos speakers on TOP and in line with positions between L&C and C&R. Angles are also higher, like in the pro atmos mixing stages. Sorry for any confusion, but I didn't say that Anthony agreed with them, I said that Anthony gave them kudos for what they are doing... it was around the hard work they put into their disc. That being said, based on their description of the atmos renderer, it makes sense to implement the Auro 3D speaker placement due to the null; however, it does goes against dolby's specs. Even Anthony's preference goes against dolby's spec as dolby shows the tops in-line with the LR and Anthony recommends them midway between the LC / CR and to aim them at the seats; where as dolby shows to point them at the floor. Confusing to say the least.   In an interview, Anthony goes over his preference and he clearly indicates that he doesn't like the Auro 3D placement. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Apr 22, 2024 22:03:48 GMT -5
Sorry for any confusion, but I didn't say that Anthony agreed with them, I said that Anthony gave them kudos for what they are doing... it was around the hard work they put into their disc. That being said, based on their description of the atmos renderer, it makes sense to implement the Auro 3D speaker placement due to the null; however, it does goes against dolby's specs. Even Anthony's preference goes against dolby's spec as dolby shows the tops in-line with the LR and Anthony recommends them midway between the LC / CR and to aim them at the seats; where as dolby shows to point them at the floor. Confusing to say the least. In an interview, Anthony goes over his preference and he clearly indicates that he doesn't like the Auro 3D placement. Got it. I misunderstood what you meant about Anthony Grimani's comments. Grimani's placement recommendations are closely in line with Dolby Pro soundstage specs. I agree with Grimani and the Dolby Pro soundstage specs. The Dolby home specs make better sense than Techno Dad, but only a little. And, Dolby's setup pics are confusing. I concur with Grimani's criticism of Auro 3D. |
|
|
|
Post by Zombie on Apr 23, 2024 12:21:07 GMT -5
I’m enjoying some further reading on the different viewpoints and ATMOS set-ups. I had a not-so-ideal set-up in the my house I just sold. It surprisingly sounded quite good (IMO) even though it was in a loft with an open side and my seating was all the way back against the wall. Certainly a bunch of compromises but I prewired the room (the building Superintendent was a good friend 🙂) with 2 surrounds, 2 rear surrounds and 4 ceiling speakers. Since my fronts are Martin Logan Motions I used similar timbre-matched Martin Logan’s. While not anywhere close to perfect I really enjoyed the way it sounded. Now, I’m building a new house with a dedicated media room. Roughly 13’ wide by 19’ long rectangle. I plan to prewire the room similar to my last room but this time the seating won’t be all the way back against the wall. I’ll still be using my same front Martin Logan towers and 2 SVS subs but I’m undecided on the surround/rear speakers. I can’t decide if I want in-walls or smaller towers. I like the clean look of the in-walls but also like the added bass response from the towers. I’d prefer not to run a rear sub even though I’ll probably run a wire (just in case). The ceiling speakers will be the same ML’s as I really liked how they sounded and they can be aimed towards the MLP. Fortunately I’ve got lots of time to think and research since the house won’t be done until the end of the year. Certainly any thoughts/comments are welcome.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 23, 2024 15:39:20 GMT -5
There are a few "factoids" that always seem to be forgotten... The first factoid is that Dolby wants you to have lots of channels... Dolby theater gear supports either 32 or 64 channels... And their biggest recommended home layout is 11.1.8 ... Remember that their philosophy is that, the more speakers you have, the more direct control you have over object location... More speakers means that the speakers have more control over object location compared to the effects of room acoustics... The second factoid is that, when they're making a specific "mix for home use", most engineers are going to give some consideration to YOUR system. Specifically, while they're listening on their system, they're going to be trying to make a mix that sounds good on YOURS (or a "typical home system".) Some mix engineers will actually listen to their mix on a pair of cheap ear buds, or a boom box, just to see how it will sound... But even those who don't are still going to be keeping in mind how they thing their mix will sound on what their customers will probably be listening to it on. A third factoid is that there's a lot more involved than "heights" and "tops". A speaker mounted on the ceiling is going to work more or less like a spotlight pointing downwards... although It's more like a floodlight. So, for that, it mostly won't matter what the texture or angle of the ceiling is. But, for a speaker that is reflecting off the ceiling, whether the ceiling is flat or vaulted, and whether it's smooth or popcorn textured, will make a major difference. And, likewise the size and dimensions of the room will make a difference. For example, if you have a narrow room, you might consider mounting "heights" on the walls, near the ceiling, angled upwards... If your ceiling is textured, this will spread out the reflections from the ceiling, and will make objects seem less precise, but will make the room itself seem bigger. (You'll be giving up precise location in return for "more air and spaciousness".) There's a lot more to think about than "just putting the speakers where they're supposed to go"... And what works well in one room may not work so well in another... And, of course, YOU THE LISTENER may also have preferences... like do you actually WANT "pinpoint object locations" or "a great sense of ambience"? (I personally like a sense of ambience but I find pinpoint objects whizzing around above and behind me to be more of a distraction than a point of interest.) What interests me in this debate however is the difference between tops end heights. I watched some video's from Techno Dad and he's clearly advocating for heights vs tops in a 7.1.6 configuration anyway. I've been following him for a while and what he says indeed makes perfect sense... especially since he can prove what the sound mixer sees and has available to create the track via the dolby atmos renderer. Even Anthony Grimani gave him kudos for what he is doing... if you don't know who Anthony is, give him a quick google. Channa, techno dad, basically advocates to mimic your bed layer, higher on the wall... um, that's Auro-3D speaker configuration / recommendation. ........................ |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 23, 2024 15:42:14 GMT -5
If you're going to add height speakers I would be inclined to go with two pairs... However, if you're going to add a single pair of height speakers, I think you should consider MIDDLE heights before FRONT heights... Front heights alone increase the height of the front sound stage but don't do much to create the illusion of things OVER you. (So you can get "things flying from the front to the back over your head"... ) For those who have an Atmos system, I have some questions... 1) Are you finding enough Atmos content in streaming? If so, where? I can stream DV and Atmos through my Roku Ultra to my XMC-2; and we have Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Amazon Prime, etc. as content providers. 2) Do you think adding Front/Rear Height channels adds enough value to a 7.1 system? 3) Do you have the Emotiva height speakers or others? In any case, do you like them? For perspective, I have an XMC-2 and I happen to have an XPA-5 with 1 channel that doesn't work. But, it has 4 that do...I could connect it to my XMC-2 and power Front/Rear left and right height speakers. I've got easy access to add the needed speaker cable and a wall jack to connect that to the amp. So, I'm suddenly tempted... Thanks for any thoughts! Mark |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,086
|
Post by klinemj on Apr 23, 2024 18:37:25 GMT -5
If you're going to add height speakers I would be inclined to go with two pairs... However, if you're going to add a single pair of height speakers, I think you should consider MIDDLE heights before FRONT heights... Front heights alone increase the height of the front sound stage but don't do much to create the illusion of things OVER you. (So you can get "things flying from the front to the back over your head"... ) I added 2 pairs...front R/L and rear R/L. I'm happy with the results. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Apr 23, 2024 18:44:44 GMT -5
There are a few "factoids" that always seem to be forgotten... The first factoid is that Dolby wants you to have lots of channels... Dolby theater gear supports either 32 or 64 channels... And their biggest recommended home layout is 11.1.8 ... Remember that their philosophy is that, the more speakers you have, the more direct control you have over object location... More speakers means that the speakers have more control over object location compared to the effects of room acoustics... The second factoid is that, when they're making a specific "mix for home use", most engineers are going to give some consideration to YOUR system. Specifically, while they're listening on their system, they're going to be trying to make a mix that sounds good on YOURS (or a "typical home system".) Some mix engineers will actually listen to their mix on a pair of cheap ear buds, or a boom box, just to see how it will sound... But even those who don't are still going to be keeping in mind how they thing their mix will sound on what their customers will probably be listening to it on. A third factoid is that there's a lot more involved than "heights" and "tops". A speaker mounted on the ceiling is going to work more or less like a spotlight pointing downwards... although It's more like a floodlight. So, for that, it mostly won't matter what the texture or angle of the ceiling is. But, for a speaker that is reflecting off the ceiling, whether the ceiling is flat or vaulted, and whether it's smooth or popcorn textured, will make a major difference. And, likewise the size and dimensions of the room will make a difference. For example, if you have a narrow room, you might consider mounting "heights" on the walls, near the ceiling, angled upwards... If your ceiling is textured, this will spread out the reflections from the ceiling, and will make objects seem less precise, but will make the room itself seem bigger. (You'll be giving up precise location in return for "more air and spaciousness".) There's a lot more to think about than "just putting the speakers where they're supposed to go"... And what works well in one room may not work so well in another... And, of course, YOU THE LISTENER may also have preferences... like do you actually WANT "pinpoint object locations" or "a great sense of ambience"?
(I personally like a sense of ambience but I find pinpoint objects whizzing around above and behind me to be more of a distraction than a point of interest.)Atmos movies have both pinpoint and ambiance height information. If you design for ambiance the pinpoint is lost. If you design for pinpoint, both pinpoint and ambiance are reproduced. If you stay with 2 ceiling speakers, in the middle, you might achieve a happy medium.  Spaciousness is defined by the room. It's a nice way of saying 'lack of directivity'. More spaciousness = less directivity. Good directivity (high DI) helps Reproduce the 'space' in the recording, rather than Produce the spaciousness of the room. I like to hear the 'space' in the recording instead of the 'spaciousness' of the room. Others may feel different. |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Apr 23, 2024 19:15:27 GMT -5
Hi Mark and everyone, how are you doing all? First post in years from my side. Before you ask: that build in my sig is still ongoing, but don't ask why :-) though the space is in use with only stereo from the XMC-2 (traded in my XMC-1 for it) for now but with all the acoustics in place. Sounds fantastic. It really is the room which is all important. What interests me in this debate however is the difference between tops end heights. I watched some video's from Techno Dad and he's clearly advocating for heights vs tops in a 7.1.6 configuration anyway. I actually tested Front Heights long time ago when I had a Yamaha AVR that supported (upmixed) Front Heights. I can still remember how the the depth of the front stage was created by this Front Heights. Food for thought. When I go to the Dolby website now, it seems to favor 9.1.6 using F+R Heights and Top middle vs all Tops. While the 2018 Guidelines PDF does not favor one above the other. Hmmm.. I'm not seeing this new .6 F+R 'height' favor at the Dolby site: www.dolby.com/about/support/guide/speaker-setup-guides/Could you offer a link please? mm ... you're right... yesterday it was all front height + top middle + rear height but not today. Let me get back on this |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 24, 2024 13:30:14 GMT -5
I think you summed it up pretty well... A lot depends on how you look at your listening experience... I personally agree with you. A room and system that is capable of properly delivering pinpoint imaging will also be able to deliver any ambience information that is in the recording properly. (And I also prefer to hear exactly what's in the recording.) However... not all listeners agree with this philosophy... For example some folks want there to be "lifelike ambience and spaciousness" with everything they listen to. And they prefer a system that will impart this to every recording they listen to... whether it is present in the original recording or not. (And they may prefer that even if they have to sacrifice some pinpoint accuracy to get it.) (Folks who like this sort of sound often prefer omni-directional speakers... or at least dipoles... which often offer exactly that sort of sound.) I hear similar sentiments from many folks who like the sound of tube audio gear. They find "the lifelike presence and holographic sound stage they get with tube gear" to be very pleasing... And most of them rarely consider whether their tube gear is somehow conveying information especially accurately... Or whether it's merely adding a bit of coloration that reasonably well mimics what they expect "real music" to sound like... I also personally almost never set my system to synthesize surround sound... I prefer to listen to actual surround sound recordings in surround... And to listen to stereo recordings in stereo... And even mono recordings in mono... But I know people who prefer listening to everything in surround... There are a few "factoids" that always seem to be forgotten... The first factoid is that Dolby wants you to have lots of channels... Dolby theater gear supports either 32 or 64 channels... And their biggest recommended home layout is 11.1.8 ... Remember that their philosophy is that, the more speakers you have, the more direct control you have over object location... More speakers means that the speakers have more control over object location compared to the effects of room acoustics... The second factoid is that, when they're making a specific "mix for home use", most engineers are going to give some consideration to YOUR system. Specifically, while they're listening on their system, they're going to be trying to make a mix that sounds good on YOURS (or a "typical home system".) Some mix engineers will actually listen to their mix on a pair of cheap ear buds, or a boom box, just to see how it will sound... But even those who don't are still going to be keeping in mind how they thing their mix will sound on what their customers will probably be listening to it on. A third factoid is that there's a lot more involved than "heights" and "tops". A speaker mounted on the ceiling is going to work more or less like a spotlight pointing downwards... although It's more like a floodlight. So, for that, it mostly won't matter what the texture or angle of the ceiling is. But, for a speaker that is reflecting off the ceiling, whether the ceiling is flat or vaulted, and whether it's smooth or popcorn textured, will make a major difference. And, likewise the size and dimensions of the room will make a difference. For example, if you have a narrow room, you might consider mounting "heights" on the walls, near the ceiling, angled upwards... If your ceiling is textured, this will spread out the reflections from the ceiling, and will make objects seem less precise, but will make the room itself seem bigger. (You'll be giving up precise location in return for "more air and spaciousness".) There's a lot more to think about than "just putting the speakers where they're supposed to go"... And what works well in one room may not work so well in another... And, of course, YOU THE LISTENER may also have preferences... like do you actually WANT "pinpoint object locations" or "a great sense of ambience"?
(I personally like a sense of ambience but I find pinpoint objects whizzing around above and behind me to be more of a distraction than a point of interest.)Atmos movies have both pinpoint and ambiance height information. If you design for ambiance the pinpoint is lost. If you design for pinpoint, both pinpoint and ambiance are reproduced. If you stay with 2 ceiling speakers, in the middle, you might achieve a happy medium. Spaciousness is defined by the room. It's a nice way of saying 'lack of directivity'. More spaciousness = less directivity. Good directivity (high DI) helps Reproduce the 'space' in the recording, rather than Produce the spaciousness of the room. I like to hear the 'space' in the recording instead of the 'spaciousness' of the room. Others may feel different. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Apr 24, 2024 22:43:12 GMT -5
I think you summed it up pretty well... A lot depends on how you look at your listening experience... I personally agree with you. A room and system that is capable of properly delivering pinpoint imaging will also be able to deliver any ambience information that is in the recording properly. (And I also prefer to hear exactly what's in the recording.) However... not all listeners agree with this philosophy... For example some folks want there to be "lifelike ambience and spaciousness" with everything they listen to. And they prefer a system that will impart this to every recording they listen to... whether it is present in the original recording or not. (And they may prefer that even if they have to sacrifice some pinpoint accuracy to get it.) (Folks who like this sort of sound often prefer omni-directional speakers... or at least dipoles... which often offer exactly that sort of sound.) I hear similar sentiments from many folks who like the sound of tube audio gear. They find "the lifelike presence and holographic sound stage they get with tube gear" to be very pleasing... And most of them rarely consider whether their tube gear is somehow conveying information especially accurately... Or whether it's merely adding a bit of coloration that reasonably well mimics what they expect "real music" to sound like... I also personally almost never set my system to synthesize surround sound... I prefer to listen to actual surround sound recordings in surround... And to listen to stereo recordings in stereo... And even mono recordings in mono... But I know people who prefer listening to everything in surround... Atmos movies have both pinpoint and ambiance height information. If you design for ambiance the pinpoint is lost. If you design for pinpoint, both pinpoint and ambiance are reproduced. If you stay with 2 ceiling speakers, in the middle, you might achieve a happy medium. Spaciousness is defined by the room. It's a nice way of saying 'lack of directivity'. More spaciousness = less directivity. Good directivity (high DI) helps Reproduce the 'space' in the recording, rather than Produce the spaciousness of the room. I like to hear the 'space' in the recording instead of the 'spaciousness' of the room. Others may feel different. I don’t want to belabor this; however I would like to add just a couple more comments. There is nothing wrong with deciding we like a certain kind of sound. It’s our money. It’s our listening enjoyment. But, once we go down this road of 'a kind of sound', it is more difficult to evaluate the quality and artistic intent of a recording. For example, timber and nuances of interpretation get lost in a personally euphonic ether. All we can evaluate is our response to the ‘filters’ we apply to the sound; like seeing the world through rose – or any other - colored glasses. Adding a Purple Haze to the mix will Not guarantee a good Trip. Removing the 'haze' will not guarantee the Trip is enjoyable, but, there will be more Clarity.  Also, once we decide we like and implement a certain kind of sound, it's more difficult to define the qualities of any individual change in components. Like you – “I also personally almost never set my system to synthesize surround sound... I prefer to listen to actual surround sound recordings in surround... And to listen to stereo recordings in stereo... And even mono recordings in mono...” But, I know people who prefer listening to everything with a particular euphonic signature. It's not art reproduction when the main colors and sounds I want to experience are ones for which I have and create a bias, no matter how pleasant the experience. I like neutrality, even when it exposes the warts. Neutrality reveals more of the art and artist. I purchase, and design for myself, equipment that helps me achieve more neutrality. It's still, and will always be, a work in progress. A 'circle of confusion' tends to get in the way. For Many reasons, the illusion we create for reproduction will Never be able to totally recreate the source - original performance. I accept the quote from Walter Sear, at 15:42, in the following video. Watch 15:20 - 15:46: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I4lszAlJ_gThe quote is "Recorded sound sucks. We're trying to make it better." I accept 'grey' for Transition Lenses... My bias. |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Apr 25, 2024 17:48:42 GMT -5
Re-familiarising myself with the 2018 Dolby Atmos HT Guidelines...
Regarding the overheads, several layouts are proposed using real speakers (let's forget about the enabled nonsense)
As we know the proposed elevation angles for the 5 overhead pairs in HT design from front to rear are
Front Height @ 30°
Top Front @ 45°
Top Middle @ 90° (when used in more than 2 overhead layouts)
Top Rear @ 135°
Rear Height @ 150°
With x.1.4 the only guideline is Top Front + Top Rear (hence 90° overhead separation) - Front Height + Rear Height is not proposed!
With x.1.6 OTOH you have the choice between Heights or Tops in combination with Top Middle obviously. Which of those with 6 overheads is best?
Without actually testing them, my bet is FH+TM+RH. Here 's why I think that: our ears (+brain) are good in localizing sound in front of us. Not so much when sound coming from behind (including behind overhead). With TF+TM+TR, I bet the overhead panning front to rear or rear to front will be almost identical compared to only TF+TR since most action is not happening where we can localize it. Therefore my guess is that FH+TM+RH makes more sense in a layout wit 6 overheads. The Top Middle will play a vital role in panning between FH @ 30° and RH @ 150° since it cuts the 120° vertical angle in two, leaving two 60° gaps which is fine for this area. And at the same time, we only have 30° gaps in all directions in front of us (combined with LCR ear level speakers) and that's where it counts the most!
What about 9.1.4 using the same amount of speakers vs 7.1.6. I would prefer it over the 7.1.6 with TF+TM+TR since it produces a wider soundstage. However the Wides are seldom used in the mixes. Therefore my preference goes to 7.1.6 using FH+TM+RH. As I wrote before, I tested FH long time ago when I had a Yamaha AVR which could up mix to the front heights. The depth of the front soundstage was in another league compared to only LCR ear level.
With the dawn of Atmos, I reckoned Top speakers were the thing to have since Tops are mo' vertical than Heights but now I think Heights (with Top Middle added anyway) is superior.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on May 21, 2024 6:31:07 GMT -5
Here's an interesting discussion of surround/top speakers and Atmos from Matthew Poes.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on May 23, 2024 10:34:42 GMT -5
I have a new Atmos issue with Amazon Prime Video. Wondering if anyone else has had an issue like this. I did all the typical troubleshooting, called Amazon, they told me to do all the things I already did, now have a ticket in to try to resolve it. - When Amazon changed their policy a few months ago so that you only get Dolby Atmos/Vision if you take the $2.99 ads-free option, I did that ... and I have had Atmos working fine in the AppleTV Prime app since then.
- I had been using the AppleTV MAX app for a couple years since Amazon dropped the ability to get MAX(HBO) through Prime. I have found (measured, quantified) that all sound and especially Atmos through the MAX app does not sound good. It's compressed, low level, highs rolled off. When I had HBO through Prime this was not the case. It sounded normal (measured, quantified).
- I recently learned that Prime now again offers MAX, so yesterday I tried it out watching clips from the new Avatar and other movies. I verified that the sound of MAX through prime is much better than through the MAX AppleTV app.
- I signed up for the highest level ad-free MAX+Cinemax through Prime. (note that MAX has a similar policy that you only get Atmos with the ad-free service)
- After I did that ... I no longer get DolbyAtmos/Vision from either Prime Video or MAX. Only 5.1 (as would happen if you do not opt for ad-free).
- Atmos still works fine for AppleTV+ and Netflix. Nothing changed in the AppleTV configuration. I uninstalled, reinstalled the Prime app and deleted the MAX app. Still broken.
It took two calls with Amazon repeating all of the conditions and troubleshooting to get them to understand, and open a ticket. Not unexpected.
Has anyone else experienced anything like this with Amazon? Having Atmos work, and then not work?
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,086
|
Post by klinemj on May 23, 2024 10:44:50 GMT -5
I have a new Atmos issue with Amazon Prime Video. Wondering if anyone else has had an issue like this. I did all the typical troubleshooting, called Amazon, they told me to do all the things I already did, now have a ticket in to try to resolve it. - When Amazon changed their policy a few months ago so that you only get Dolby Atmos/Vision if you take the $2.99 ads-free option, I did that ... and I have had Atmos working fine in the AppleTV Prime app since then.
- I had been using the AppleTV MAX app for a couple years since Amazon dropped the ability to get MAX(HBO) through Prime. I have found (measured, quantified) that all sound and especially Atmos through the MAX app does not sound good. It's compressed, low level, highs rolled off. When I had HBO through Prime this was not the case. It sounded normal (measured, quantified).
- I recently learned that Prime now again offers MAX, so yesterday I tried it out watching clips from the new Avatar and other movies. I verified that the sound of MAX through prime is much better than through the MAX AppleTV app.
- I signed up for the highest level ad-free MAX+Cinemax through Prime. (note that MAX has a similar policy that you only get Atmos with the ad-free service)
- After I did that ... I no longer get DolbyAtmos/Vision from either Prime Video or MAX. Only 5.1 (as would happen if you do not opt for ad-free).
- Atmos still works fine for AppleTV+ and Netflix. Nothing changed in the AppleTV configuration. I uninstalled, reinstalled the Prime app and deleted the MAX app. Still broken.
It took two calls with Amazon repeating all of the conditions and troubleshooting to get them to understand, and open a ticket. Not unexpected.
Has anyone else experienced anything like this with Amazon? Having Atmos work, and then not work?
I don't routinely use AppleTV (through my Roku Ultras), and when I do - it's mainly to watch soccer on my non-ATMOS TV. But, I've read of various issues with certain hardware combo's that either prevent ATMOS from playing (and reverting to 5.1) or playing very poorly (almost inaudible center channel). I had that with my old Roku Ultra, as documented on this site. Perhaps, for you, the issue is not Prime but rather the device(s) it's playing through. I'd expand my search for solutions to include that line of thought. Could the issue be the device(s) you play through and not the app? Sorry I can't be of more help...I just don't know Apple products very well. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on May 23, 2024 11:06:26 GMT -5
I have a new Atmos issue with Amazon Prime Video. Wondering if anyone else has had an issue like this. I did all the typical troubleshooting, called Amazon, they told me to do all the things I already did, now have a ticket in to try to resolve it. - When Amazon changed their policy a few months ago so that you only get Dolby Atmos/Vision if you take the $2.99 ads-free option, I did that ... and I have had Atmos working fine in the AppleTV Prime app since then.
- I had been using the AppleTV MAX app for a couple years since Amazon dropped the ability to get MAX(HBO) through Prime. I have found (measured, quantified) that all sound and especially Atmos through the MAX app does not sound good. It's compressed, low level, highs rolled off. When I had HBO through Prime this was not the case. It sounded normal (measured, quantified).
- I recently learned that Prime now again offers MAX, so yesterday I tried it out watching clips from the new Avatar and other movies. I verified that the sound of MAX through prime is much better than through the MAX AppleTV app.
- I signed up for the highest level ad-free MAX+Cinemax through Prime. (note that MAX has a similar policy that you only get Atmos with the ad-free service)
- After I did that ... I no longer get DolbyAtmos/Vision from either Prime Video or MAX. Only 5.1 (as would happen if you do not opt for ad-free).
- Atmos still works fine for AppleTV+ and Netflix. Nothing changed in the AppleTV configuration. I uninstalled, reinstalled the Prime app and deleted the MAX app. Still broken.
It took two calls with Amazon repeating all of the conditions and troubleshooting to get them to understand, and open a ticket. Not unexpected.
Has anyone else experienced anything like this with Amazon? Having Atmos work, and then not work?
I don't routinely use AppleTV (through my Roku Ultras), and when I do - it's mainly to watch soccer on my non-ATMOS TV. But, I've read of various issues with certain hardware combo's that either prevent ATMOS from playing (and reverting to 5.1) or playing very poorly (almost inaudible center channel). I had that with my old Roku Ultra, as documented on this site. Perhaps, for you, the issue is not Prime but rather the device(s) it's playing through. I'd expand my search for solutions to include that line of thought. Could the issue be the device(s) you play through and not the app? Sorry I can't be of more help...I just don't know Apple products very well. Mark Yeah but the simple fact is ... it worked fine with the AppleTV for months. Atmos worked on the Prime app and it worked on the MAX app. The only thing I did was add MAX to my Prime subscription. Nothing else changed. After I did that, it stopped working for both. I think the issue is clearly on the Amazon side, but I have no idea what options they have to fix it on their end. Thanks! |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,152
|
Post by ttocs on May 23, 2024 11:13:13 GMT -5
I don't routinely use AppleTV (through my Roku Ultras), and when I do - it's mainly to watch soccer on my non-ATMOS TV. But, I've read of various issues with certain hardware combo's that either prevent ATMOS from playing (and reverting to 5.1) or playing very poorly (almost inaudible center channel). I had that with my old Roku Ultra, as documented on this site. Perhaps, for you, the issue is not Prime but rather the device(s) it's playing through. I'd expand my search for solutions to include that line of thought. Could the issue be the device(s) you play through and not the app? Sorry I can't be of more help...I just don't know Apple products very well. Mark Yeah but the simple fact is ... it worked fine with the AppleTV for months. Atmos worked on the Prime app and it worked on the MAX app. The only thing I did was add MAX to my Prime subscription. Nothing else changed. After I did that, it stopped working for both. I think the issue is clearly on the Amazon side, but I have no idea what options they have to fix it on their end. Thanks! Have you signed out, unplug power to the system, then after power up signed in again? After writing the above, something seemed eerily familiar about this. I had a F1TV subscription that I initiated via Apple through the ATV4K and I wanted the Pro version of service, which failed, so I contacted F1TV and after chasing our tails for a while the suggestion was to cancel the subscription from Apple and re-subscribe via F1TV on the web. This worked. Maybe something similar for you? The app was the same app, I didn't even uninstall it. It was only a difference of "how" I signed up for the subscription. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on May 23, 2024 11:44:05 GMT -5
Yeah but the simple fact is ... it worked fine with the AppleTV for months. Atmos worked on the Prime app and it worked on the MAX app. The only thing I did was add MAX to my Prime subscription. Nothing else changed. After I did that, it stopped working for both. I think the issue is clearly on the Amazon side, but I have no idea what options they have to fix it on their end. Thanks! Have you signed out, unplug power to the system, then after power up signed in again? After writing the above, something seemed eerily familiar about this. I had a F1TV subscription that I initiated via Apple through the ATV4K and I wanted the Pro version of service, which failed, so I contacted F1TV and after chasing our tails for a while the suggestion was to cancel the subscription from Apple and re-subscribe via F1TV on the web. This worked. Maybe something similar for you? The app was the same app, I didn't even uninstall it. It was only a difference of "how" I signed up for the subscription. The sequence was like this ... - With MAX app still installed and working, prepaid for a year through Apple, Atmos worked with MAX in the MAX app and Prime in the Prime app.
- With MAX app still active, I added MAX to Prime using my PC and logging into my Prime account. I signed up for ad-free MAX (not ad-free MAX+Cinemax).
- I watched the same Avatar clip on MAX through Prime and it sounded much better. I do believe I looked to see that the Atmos logo was still lit (not 100% sure) but I heard the sound coming from all speakers and much louder than it had been through the MAX app. It sounded like Atmos because the particular clip has gunshots coming down underwater from above.
- I then cancelled MAX through Apple, and uninstalled the MAX app.
- I went back into the Prime app ... and the DolbyAtmos/Vision logos no longer appeared on movies in either Prime or MAX... just UHD HDR 5.1.
So that's the sequence from it working to not working. After that I tried all the stuff ... update the app, log out and back into the app, uninstall and reinstall the app, reboot the AppleTV, I checked on my Amazon Prime Video subscription that it was correct.
Note that I know from other sources that just like Prime, you have to have ad-free in MAX to get Dolby Atmos/Vision (i.e. they totally do NOT tell you this on the signup options!). They have two options for ad-free ... MAX and MAX+Cinemax. So for $5 more, I switched to the MAX+Cinemax option because I read somewhere you need "Ultimate ad-free" or something like that ... though they don't use that terminology. No difference. I get the added content for that upgraded option, but still no Dolby Atmos/Vision logos anywhere.
So yeah I think there is something with HOW I signed up. But I swear the Atmos worked when I had duplicate subscriptions and only stopped working when I cancelled the subscription that I had through Apple with the MAX app. So ... waiting for a response to my ticket. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,152
|
Post by ttocs on May 23, 2024 11:50:10 GMT -5
marcl you may just have to back out of it all and subscribe for how you want it now, except for the fact that you prepaid some of it. edit: It was when I upgraded from the standard subscription to the Pro level that my troubles began. The Pro level never materialized on the streaming apps, but I paid for the year of Pro subscription.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,086
|
Post by klinemj on May 23, 2024 11:58:47 GMT -5
Yeah but the simple fact is ... it worked fine with the AppleTV for months. Atmos worked on the Prime app and it worked on the MAX app. The only thing I did was add MAX to my Prime subscription. Nothing else changed. After I did that, it stopped working for both. I think the issue is clearly on the Amazon side, but I have no idea what options they have to fix it on their end. Thanks! I get that...but...perhaps in adding MAX, it created conflicts in the hardware. If it were me, I'd check that direction also. Mark |
|
