|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 21, 2024 15:35:00 GMT -5
The XMC-2+ and RMC-1+ have the same default channel configs as current. Please see photo of RMC-1+ back panel from Emofest. Any x.6.x without expansion modules will need to use the Left/Right Sub Outputs as Heights to get the Height channel count to 6. 2 When you ask if the bug is fixed, if you are referring to when using Reference Stereo while using the Width channels for bi-amping, this is not a bug. The Width channels are part of the digital signal path and will not function without a delay when used for bi-amping along with the Front L&R channels in any analog signal setting, but will work with digital signal paths. Will this situation be treated differently in the new +Series? Doubtful. Yes on the first two, and somewhat the point I'm making, without expansion modules this is what we can do (some here have commented or hoped it would be different). And yes on the Reference mode 'bi-amp feature', so I'm asking "Is the Bi-Amp option still there?" and "Is it still limited by the digital path?". I still call it a bug, because I don't think it's documented except here in various threads. I managed to use the bi-amp feature it in a way where this wasn't a problem, but although there were two amps involved, I doubt most would call it bi-amping. I have a feeling with the 11.1.8 expansion it's only going to increase the current layout options by 1 just due to the programing complexity. I don't think it's going to free up the 2 internal subs so someone can do 9.3.8 or 11.3.6. I think if programming was simple then the wide channels would have been optionally subs as well. It always would of made more sense for the crowd I see here to have had the option for 7.5.4 out of the gate. The only way I see you doing 9.1.8 is if you eliminate the wides and those can't be reassigned unless something changes. My guess is the back sides and the back tops will be the same. You can maybe turn off a set but that probably takes only 2 speakers away instead of substituting 2. Personally instead of spending time making the expansion have speaker substitute options id rather them put that time into making the second sub expansion work. That's all the debate is anyways is trying to squeeze those 2 subs into the mix making it 7 subs with 6 heights which I dont think is going to work. Just get us the 2 expansions to play well then it's 9 subs and no issues with 6 heights. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 22, 2024 10:37:29 GMT -5
As the famous quote from long ago says: "The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them". (And, of course, it isn't going to hurt anyone's feelings if the speaker layout they recommend for their decoder, or the internal channel layout in their content, doesn't work especially well with their competitors' decoder.) I should also point out that, according to Dolby, there is no need for more than x.1.x - so one subwoofer or "subwoofer channel" - in a home system. Although, of course, they don't seem to care how many physical subs you have, or how you manage them after the fact. (They do use more LFE channels in their theater systems but all of the "official home layouts" are x.1.x ) I should also note that "the internal bi-amp option" on every AVR or pre-pro that I've ever seen is merely an internally configurable equivalent of a y-cable. It's just routing the same signal out of two more physical connectors; I don't know of any that give you actual high-pass and low-pass filters (maybe the Trinnov does but I've never looked.) Arguably having separate level trims for each output in the pair could conceivably be slightly useful if you were using mismatched speaker parts or amps... Except that, with "vertical bi-amping" or "horizontal bi-amping", you would normally be powering two halves of the same speaker, using identical amps, with identical gains, anyway. (But my point is that nobody is giving you real bi-amping anyway.) While it might be de rigueur, the problem I have with the 15.1, 19.5, etc. nomenclature in this thread, is that it's too ambiguous. We've seen the rear panel of the RMC-1+, and have no reason to believe the XMC-2+ will be any different (except slots and thingies). This tells us that while 7.1.6 will work, that 7.3.6, or 7.2.6 won't (even though they're within the channel count), so people shouldn't get their hopes up that they might — if they also want to use DLBC. With the RMC-1+ (sans cards) or the XMC-2+ (no options), I had hoped for 7.2.6 or 9.2.4, out of the box*. We really are only getting hints what flexibility the Channel and Sub cards will have, and don't know when they're be available (though I'm confident my examples will be covered). I understand that 15.1 does not indicate my examples should work, but it also doesn't tell you that 7.3.4 will, and I'm somewhat ignoring the Dolby/DTS layout differences. Maybe I'm just pining for the 'early days of emersion' where we got to add a .x to our signature. —AudioHTIT : 7.2.4 ... aspiring to 9.3.6 * The G4P Dolby configurations I see out of the box (corrections welcome): 9.1.6, 9.1.4, 9.1.2, 9.2.4, 9.2.2, 9.3.4, 9.3.2 7.1.6, 7.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.2.4, 7.2.2, 7.3.4, 7.3.2 5.1.4, 5.1.2, 5.2.4, 5.2.2, 5.3.4, 5.3.2 (don't think 5.1.6 a thing) 3.1.4, 3.1.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.2, 3.3.4, 3.3.2 1 The sub counts greater than x.1.x are for DLBC (if and when available) 2 Do we know if the bi-amp option is there, or if the bug is fixed? The most fashionable and customary things in home audio is confusion. It’s part of making and spending money, establishing sects of gurus and followers, and of course a lot of chest thumping. Who’s the Pan! The difference between Pro and consumer is - Pro sets a standard and consumer sets the degree of agreed upon acceptable compromises. Both have been a moving target. What might be de rigueur today might not be de rigueur tomorrow. Terms change, the lexicon changes, the Canon changes; My recordings remain the same unless new mixes are created – There’s gold in them thar old hills… IMO, some work needs to done on fully and generally defining Channels, Objects, and Positions, so common communication can ensue, and de rigueur becomes less of a moving object – pun intended. Then, specific subset communications per a manufacturer’s device become clearer. Clarity is Not always a goal in the Industry. To add to your ‘out of the box’ G4 configuration list we also have 3-9.1-3.0: 3 to 9 odd numbered base channels; 1-3 Sub channels; and zero heights. I think we will have enough configuration options to cover 95% of the bases - out of the box. The addition of a Sub expansion module would cover 99% of the bases; for a possible 9.5.6. Per the Dolby layout diagrams, 5.1.6 is not a thing. "The sub counts greater than x.1.x are for DLBC (if and when available)", and for other forms of bass management. I currently manage 2 Subs with dbx AutoEQ. My Sub management is set up to manage 4 possible Subs with the Center Sub output on the RMC-1L; input to a dbx Venue 360. I could manage 6 Subs with the dbx Venue 360, using the one Center Sub output on the RMC-1L. Or, I could manage up to 12 Subs using the L&R Sub outputs on the RMC-1L and 2 dbx Venue 360's. A G4, with DLBC, and a Sub expansion module, would be simpler and probably better. DIRAC DLBC could make the corrections, and a 5 Sub limit is hardly a limitation. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 22, 2024 10:50:22 GMT -5
That makes sense to me... Once you've gone well past where the wavelength will fit the dimensions of the room... you've simply got the rear subs cancelling against the front subs. (You might even get "really great dipole-like bass in one specific spot... but you're basically going to get almost no bass in a lot of other spots.) It's also obvious that, if you look at the theory behind their system, it is basically an attempt to simulate the equivalent of "a front and rear wall that are each one big sub". And, to the degree that you only have a few subs on each, rather than a complete array of them, you are not actually going to approach that ideal very closely. It also would suggest that their system works mostly in the mid-bass and upper-bass regions... This isn't a bad compromise since that's where things like transient response will probably be the most audible... and differences in them the most noticeable... The only "issue" I have with Trinnov's concept is that it does seem to be less fully realized unless you have a LOT of subs. Their system is based on the idea of having enough subs that the array approximates two full walls of subs; but most real-world systems won't be anywhere near that.) For example, if you only had two subs on that back wall, would Trinnov's system really work better than putting a pair of Bag End's active bass traps along that same rear wall? (Please note that I have never heard either in a properly set up system so I don't actually know the answer to that question.) It is my understanding that Dirac ART is more like the old Dirac Unison... (It uses some speakers to "actively cancel" sound from others to reduce or control room reflections and other room issues). It is my understanding that DLBC adds to the functionality of regular Dirac Live by taking the existence of multiple subs into account. For example, customizing the filter for one sub to enable it to compensate for gaps in the performance of another. (But their description implies that it uses relatively similar filter choices... just optimized to complement each other rather than to be purely independent.) Note that DLBC doesn't seem to have any special speaker requirements... while Dirac ART does. What Trinnov is doing seems to me to be very different... However Trinnov seems to suggest that there are a variety of options for their system... including some that only use one or two "rear subs". To me this sounds like there MIGHT potentially be SOME overlap with Dirac ART if you only had three or four subs. (But then, if you only had one or two rear subs, there would also be some overlap with the idea behind active bass traps like the one made by Bag End.) Note that, with Trinnov's system, the signals being fed to the rear subs are specifically calculated to ABSORB sound from the front subs. I don't think there's any way you could convince a miniDSP to make that sort of calculations... (And the placement is meaningless unless you have the calculations to go with it.) I did hear that with Trinnov in the infrasonic frequencies the rear subs transform into being an additive force. I believe this is because the room can no longer hold these wavelengths in at a certain point anyways. Or maybe it's just the tradeoff of why focus on canceling frequencies the front wall can barely achieve alone. Interesting stuff. Thanks Keith |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 22, 2024 11:36:47 GMT -5
I kind of sort of agree with you... but I'm afraid I don't see it as especially surprising... OF COURSE Dolby would prefer for your Dolby Atmos content to only play well on equipment that has the Dolby Atmos logo on it... That fact encourages you to buy equipment with that logo on it; and so encourages manufacturers to be willing to pay to license that logo. And, once you have equipment with that logo on it, you're going to prefer Dolby Atmos content... Which will, in turn, encourage content creators to encode their content using Dolby Atmos instead of one of the other options... They really gain very little by being interoperable with other standards. Back when DVDs were "the thing" most DVDs were encoded in DTS... with some supporting both... Dolby has now apparently pretty well taken over that market... So, yes, they're going to do their best to make sure that Dolby content plays best on equipment with a Dolby logo on it... And that equipment with a Dolby logo on it works best with Dolby content... (And, since MOST equipment DOES carry that logo... and so does most content... this works out pretty well for the consumer.) PROFESSIONAL equipment is different because more of the customers in that market already have more equipment... And pro customers tend to hang onto equipment and content longer... So they are more concerned with interoperability and compatibility between new gear they buy and stuff they already have... The actual new object-oriented formats are quite complex internally... And a lot of that complexity is quite proprietary... So it's not at all as simple as "converting those objects into different formats"... like you sometimes can with objects in your favorite CAD program. So it would require extensive changes from everyone to develop some new sort of "open and compatible object format"... And there is virtually no interest in making those changes... especially when one of the major selling points of each system is how well it handles their proprietary content... Dolby has little incentive to share their proprietary details so that a Dolby Atmos disc will play better on a DTS decoder... and vice versa. (Making sure that their content plays well on OTHER PEOPLE'S GEAR is obviously NOT very high on their priority list.) The most fashionable and customary things in home audio is confusion. It’s part of making and spending money, establishing sects of gurus and followers, and of course a lot of chest thumping. Who’s the Pan! The difference between Pro and consumer is - Pro sets a standard and consumer sets the degree of agreed upon acceptable compromises. Both have been a moving target. What might be de rigueur today might not be de rigueur tomorrow. Terms change, the lexicon changes, the Canon changes; My recordings remain the same unless new mixes are created – There’s gold in them thar old hills… IMO, some work needs to done on fully and generally defining Channels, Objects, and Positions, so common communication can ensue, and de rigueur becomes less of a moving object – pun intended. Then, specific subset communications per a manufacturer’s device become clearer. Clarity is Not always a goal in the Industry. To add to your ‘out of the box’ G4 configuration list we also have 3-9.1-3.0: 3 to 9 odd numbered base channels; 1-3 Sub channels; and zero heights. I think we will have enough configuration options to cover 95% of the bases - out of the box. The addition of a Sub expansion module would cover 99% of the bases; for a possible 9.5.6. Per the Dolby layout diagrams, 5.1.6 is not a thing. "The sub counts greater than x.1.x are for DLBC (if and when available)", and for other forms of bass management. I currently manage 2 Subs with dbx AutoEQ. My Sub management is set up to manage 4 possible Subs with the Center Sub output on the RMC-1L; input to a dbx Venue 360. I could manage 6 Subs with the dbx Venue 360, using the one Center Sub output on the RMC-1L. Or, I could manage up to 12 Subs using the L&R Sub outputs on the RMC-1L and 2 dbx Venue 360's. A G4, with DLBC, and a Sub expansion module, would be simpler and probably better. DIRAC DLBC could make the corrections, and a 5 Sub limit is hardly a limitation. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 22, 2024 15:26:57 GMT -5
Dolby Atmos is even more complicated than that... It looks like you're commenting on the difference between what a studio would have and a "home Atmos setup"... But you must also remember that both the hardware and the content encoding are very different between "theatrical Atmos" and "home Atmos" too... The two versions of the content are the equivalent of two different mixes prepared from the same master content... As I understand it, the encoder can prepare both from the same mix, or the "home version" of the mix can be customized to be somewhat different... And the theater hardware is also very different... with most theaters having either 32 or 64 channels... With all of those speakers designated as both individual object speakers and members of bed groups... (And, while in theory the same content can be made to work well with both, we all know that there are going to be "optimizations".) So, if a movie was mastered in Dolby Atmos for theatrical release, it would seem to make sense for the studio to use that layout... Then they can produce the home mix more or less automatically from the original mix... Or they can entirely remaster and remix it to be better optimized for the home arrangement... And, if the latter, then you have yet another decision... Does the mastering engineer master it to "take advantage" of "full featured" systems with 7.1.4 or 9.1.6 speakers... Or does he instead optimize it "to make sure that it sounds good on low end 5.1.2 systems"... His answer will probably depend on which he thinks most of his listeners actually have... or maybe what the guys who are paying him think about that... (Are they more interested in "impressing their high-end customers" or in "satisfying their low-end customers"?) The problem is that all of this leads to the existence of an awful lot of variables to consider... And, yeah, I've actually seen tablets, with two little 3/4" speakers inside them, and an Atmos logo on the top... And let's not forget that new Atmos headphone standard... (Can't miss out on any of that franchise business I guess...) Just remember that, from Dolby's point of view, the answer is quite simple... If you, and every other customer, demand their movies in Dolby Atmos, and refuse to buy content in other formats, then everyone will start using that format, and there won't be a problem...  Bottom line for me – It does not, and should not, matter to the consumer if Dolby, DTS, AURO, IMAX, etc., are different codecs. This is internal to the manufacturers, and as you state, ‘proprietary’. Cross-decoding has never made any sense to me. I don’t like the results of current upmixing. This stuff is not on my priority list. I don’t see or like reproduction as an effects generator. Others may think and use their systems differently. My comment about “The difference between Pro and consumer” has nothing to do with equipment. I see I wasn’t clear enough. It’s about the difference between Pro production standards for speaker positioning and monitoring on a sound stage, and reproduction standards for speaker positioning and monitoring in a home space. The two standards do not match with Dolby ATMOS. The reproduction layout compromises that Dolby allows for best reproduction have little connection to the recording. But, the Dolby Atmos logo is on the processor and the recording, Soooo it must be OK Also, it does matter if a consumer has to use different speaker layouts/positions to playback different surround formats with best reproduction. This is an Industry flaw that is ReAlLy squirrely, even if most people won’t care or perceive a difference. We shouldn’t have to pick a compromise speaker layout to accept codec differences. Most people will not have multiple speaker layouts in their homes. I'm assuming there's no talk you've heard that would lead you to believe bed groups are possible for the home atmos? That would sure make more sense for 11.1.8. Sure seems so simple. Just to duplicate the side surround bed layer to the rear side. You could apply that to the atmos layers as well. 2 bed height channels can be either moved to only the 4 top speakers or perhaps all 8 height/tops. It wouldn't effect the discrete objects. Then any negative side effects really would just be the sound mixer deciding to place locationally critical sounds into bed channels instead of objects. That's at least how I see bed channels. They are meant to contain the non discrete/localizable enveloping noise. I could be wrong but seems limiting to the tech any other way. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,161
|
Post by ttocs on Oct 22, 2024 17:42:29 GMT -5
This is the Dolby 11.1.8 layout. The "overhead speakers" are not all Tops, but instead a mix of 4 Tops and 4 wall mounted Heights. In addition to Wides, there is a pair of Surround 1 speakers making the total of "traditional surround speakers" 11.  |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Oct 22, 2024 17:43:44 GMT -5
… I should also point out that, according to Dolby, there is no need for more than x.1.x - so one subwoofer or "subwoofer channel" - in a home system. Although, of course, they don't seem to care how many physical subs you have, or how you manage them after the fact. (They do use more LFE channels in their theater systems but all of the "official home layouts" are x.1.x ) … As I just commented above, that though it doesn’t matter to Dolby, it does matter to DLBC. So with the G4P, by using the x.3.x nomenclature for example, we are saying that we have 3 subs plugged directly in to 3 separately manageable ports, and DLBC can have there way with them. I think it’s a useful distinction that allows us to understand and use the available ports to maximum advantage, and see the ‘out of the box’ configurations we can use. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 22, 2024 18:04:26 GMT -5
This is the Dolby 11.1.8 layout. The "overhead speakers" are not all Tops, but instead a mix of 4 Tops and 4 wall mounted Heights. In addition to Wides, there is a pair of Surround 1 speakers making the total of "traditional surround speakers" 11. The use of the height speakers also better aligns with the multi height layered DTS:X approach. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 23, 2024 10:12:55 GMT -5
The short answer is that I have not... but I don't really keep up on the studio and mastering side of the discussion. So my interpretation is based on the "original description of how Atmos is intended to work". However, in simplest terms, "home Atmos" doesn't really differentiate "beds" and "object channels" in your speaker configuration. (Presumably because it simply doesn't make sense for the number of speakers used in a home installation.) In a large theater installation the Dolby Atmos decoder hardware supports 32 or 64 channels.... which is a LOT of speakers. So, for example, in a moderately sized theater, you might see eight speakers along each side wall, and two parallel rows of eight running from front to back on the ceiling... You also have an interesting situation involving a mix of older and newer content and mix engineers who are more or less familiar with the capabilities of the system... What you have with those bed channels is the ability to sort of superimpose an object-oriented structure on a channel-based structure. So, if your theater has those 32 speakers... The decoder can use each speaker, or any combination of speakers, as "object speakers" to position specific objects in specific locations... But you also have the equivalent of a traditional surround sound system, where the five speakers nearest the front left corner of the room have been defined collectively as "the front left bed channel", and so on. (So, for example, if you want to play an older movie, which is in Dolby TrueHD, you simply treat the beds as your regular surround speakers...) This enables the mixing engineer to sort of think of their process as a combination of the old and new ways of doing things. (They can use individual object controls where they want to while still continuing to put "normal surround sound content in the beds".) Here's an example... Let's say you were recording a band that had a lead singer, a lead guitarist, and a backup orchestra. The orchestra is seated behind the main stage... and the lead signer and lead guitarist walk back and forth while they perform. If you think like a 3D artist you might immediately consider recording each individual member of the orchestra separately... That way you can adjust the location of each individually (like you place objects to build your scene in a 3D image)... But, in reality, this is both impractical and unnecessary. The orchestra isn't moving... and you don't need to adjust the position of each individual instrument. It makes much more sense to record the orchestra with a pair of stereo microphones... And put those two channels in the two front beds... So now you have the orchestra "spread across the front of the sound stage"... where you can control them with a few simple controls. Then record ONLY the singer and the guitarist as separate tracks, assign them to separate objects, and retain the ability to place them at will. (Then, as objects, you can move them around, adjust their size, or fly them around over the audience's heads if you want to.) It's sort of as if you were to take a picture of me sitting at my desk... You MIGHT want the ability to separate me from the desk in that image so you could adjust my posture... But you wouldn't want to have to manage every pen, pencil, and piece of paper on the desk as separate objects... (So, to complete that analogy, you would assign me - the subject - to an object, and put the image of the desk in the bed.) However... all of that has been from the point of view of the "sound designer"... In a home system, where you don't have that huge number of speakers, it's really not necessary or especially useful to visualize things that way. You COULD think of your home system as not using bed channels... Or you could simply think of your Front Left speaker as BOTH "the front left bed channel" AND "the object speaker at that location". Always bear in mind that, from Dolby's point of view, the whole point of Atmos is to enable you to hear EXACTLY WHAT THE SOUND DESIGNER OR MIXING ENGINEER INTENDED. So we're assuming that "the decoder will put each particular object exactly where it belongs in the sound field"... So, as long as the decoder knows you have a front right and front right wide speakers, the decoder will decide which of them to use for that sound object. (And it doesn't matter whether they consider that placement to be "a bed" or "an object speaker" or "a home Atmos channel".) My point... after that long winded explanation... is that home Atmos is really rather different than theatrical Atmos... And the home Atmos decoder treats speakers as channels, and utilizes them individually... So it's sort of moot whether you think of them as "beds" or as "discrete channels". As it turns out the actual inner workings of both are rather more complicated anyway... For example, objects CAN be "pinned" to specific speakers, which overrides the ability of the decoder to place them wherever it chooses... And Disney Plus can "choose" to only use four height speakers and "force" the decoder to use only those height channels. But the bottom line is that, on a home system, all you have is "channels". I'm assuming there's no talk you've heard that would lead you to believe bed groups are possible for the home atmos? That would sure make more sense for 11.1.8. Sure seems so simple. Just to duplicate the side surround bed layer to the rear side. You could apply that to the atmos layers as well. 2 bed height channels can be either moved to only the 4 top speakers or perhaps all 8 height/tops. It wouldn't effect the discrete objects. Then any negative side effects really would just be the sound mixer deciding to place locationally critical sounds into bed channels instead of objects. That's at least how I see bed channels. They are meant to contain the non discrete/localizable enveloping noise. I could be wrong but seems limiting to the tech any other way. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 23, 2024 10:26:29 GMT -5
The answer is that they could... but there is no true "analog bypass connection" to those Front Wides. (So, when you do this, the signal is still going through the digital processing circuitry, and is subject to a slight delay.) Adding an actual analog path to route the Front Left and Front Right signals to their respective wides would entail significant changes to the analog board. (And, since it would require significant changes, and there is not much call for it, I doubt it's going to happen.) Couldn't a person temporarily drive a pair of front wides with the same signal as the front mains for stereo content... just by using 'All Stereo' and programming a preset with just the L&R and Wides as active/on? Some limitations are good - helps to not tweek ourselves into twouble... |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 23, 2024 10:28:25 GMT -5
The short answer is that I have not... but I don't really keep up on the studio and mastering side of the discussion. So my interpretation is based on the "original description of how Atmos is intended to work". However, in simplest terms, "home Atmos" doesn't really differentiate "beds" and "object channels" in your speaker configuration. (Presumably because it simply doesn't make sense for the number of speakers used in a home installation.) In a large theater installation the Dolby Atmos decoder hardware supports 32 or 64 channels.... which is a LOT of speakers. So, for example, in a moderately sized theater, you might see eight speakers along each side wall, and two parallel rows of eight running from front to back on the ceiling... You also have an interesting situation involving a mix of older and newer content and mix engineers who are more or less familiar with the capabilities of the system... What you have with those bed channels is the ability to sort of superimpose an object-oriented structure on a channel-based structure. So, if your theater has those 32 speakers... The decoder can use each speaker, or any combination of speakers, as "object speakers" to position specific objects in specific locations... But you also have the equivalent of a traditional surround sound system, where the five speakers nearest the front left corner of the room have been defined collectively as "the front left bed channel", and so on. (So, for example, if you want to play an older movie, which is in Dolby TrueHD, you simply treat the beds as your regular surround speakers...) This enables the mixing engineer to sort of think of their process as a combination of the old and new ways of doing things. (They can use individual object controls where they want to while still continuing to put "normal surround sound content in the beds".) Here's an example... Let's say you were recording a band that had a lead singer, a lead guitarist, and a backup orchestra. The orchestra is seated behind the main stage... and the lead signer and lead guitarist walk back and forth while they perform. If you think like a 3D artist you might immediately consider recording each individual member of the orchestra separately... That way you can adjust the location of each individually (like you place objects to build your scene in a 3D image)... But, in reality, this is both impractical and unnecessary. The orchestra isn't moving... and you don't need to adjust the position of each individual instrument. It makes much more sense to record the orchestra with a pair of stereo microphones... And put those two channels in the two front beds... So now you have the orchestra "spread across the front of the sound stage"... where you can control them with a few simple controls. Then record ONLY the singer and the guitarist as separate tracks, assign them to separate objects, and retain the ability to place them at will. (Then, as objects, you can move them around, adjust their size, or fly them around over the audience's heads if you want to.) It's sort of as if you were to take a picture of me sitting at my desk... You MIGHT want the ability to separate me from the desk in that image so you could adjust my posture... But you wouldn't want to have to manage every pen, pencil, and piece of paper on the desk as separate objects... (So, to complete that analogy, you would assign me - the subject - to an object, and put the image of the desk in the bed.) However... all of that has been from the point of view of the "sound designer"... In a home system, where you don't have that huge number of speakers, it's really not necessary or especially useful to visualize things that way. You COULD think of your home system as not using bed channels... Or you could simply think of your Front Left speaker as BOTH "the front left bed channel" AND "the object speaker at that location". Always bear in mind that, from Dolby's point of view, the whole point of Atmos is to enable you to hear EXACTLY WHAT THE SOUND DESIGNER OR MIXING ENGINEER INTENDED. So we're assuming that "the decoder will put each particular object exactly where it belongs in the sound field"... So, as long as the decoder knows you have a front right and front right wide speakers, the decoder will decide which of them to use for that sound object. (And it doesn't matter whether they consider that placement to be "a bed" or "an object speaker" or "a home Atmos channel".) My point... after that long winded explanation... is that home Atmos is really rather different than theatrical Atmos... And, since the home Atmos decoder treats speakers as channels, and utilizes them individually... So it's sort of moot whether you think of them as "beds" or as "discrete channels". As it turns out the actual inner workings of both are rather more complicated anyway... For example, objects CAN be "pinned" to specific speakers, which overrides allowing the ability of the decoder to place them wherever it chooses... And Disney Plus can "choose" to only use four height speakers and "force" the decoder to use only those height channels. But the bottom line is that, on a home system, all you have is "channels". I'm assuming there's no talk you've heard that would lead you to believe bed groups are possible for the home atmos? That would sure make more sense for 11.1.8. Sure seems so simple. Just to duplicate the side surround bed layer to the rear side. You could apply that to the atmos layers as well. 2 bed height channels can be either moved to only the 4 top speakers or perhaps all 8 height/tops. It wouldn't effect the discrete objects. Then any negative side effects really would just be the sound mixer deciding to place locationally critical sounds into bed channels instead of objects. That's at least how I see bed channels. They are meant to contain the non discrete/localizable enveloping noise. I could be wrong but seems limiting to the tech any other way. Yeah I'm aware of the pinned objects on some material but that material isn't what I'm focusing on on my build. So if this is the case that the system can't differentiate bed layers vs objects then it most definitely can't expand the limited 10 beds to additional surrounds. I never was concerned with the lcr because those rooms that utilize the left center and right center etc are trinnov million dollar rooms but I would of hoped that there would be a way to see what is an object and what is a bed prior to the audio processing. Too bad. I guess I won't be hearing much out of the rear sides. At least the front row is my mlp. Would have made a lot of sense for them to have those additional side channels see themselves all as the side and then break off to their respective angular calcs for objects. Their whole purpose is to add side speakers for each row from my understanding. This was from the trinnov guy on a Shane Lee YouTube so he may have 20-30k reasons to not talk about practical limitations. Or maybe they can process it the way I want without dolby. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 23, 2024 10:48:44 GMT -5
I posted a really long explanation... but that isn't really necessary to understand this. You've got it pretty much correct. I wouldn't go as far as to say that "bed channels... are meant to contain the non discrete/localizable enveloping noise". I would say that it's more accurate to say that bed channels are intended to contain content that is expected to be presented IN ONE SPECIFIC AREA OF THE ROOM. Whereas sound objects are intended to contain content that is intended to be located at ONE PARTICULAR SPOT IN THE SOUND FIELD. So, for example, REGARDLESS OF THE SHAPE OF YOUR ROOM, the Front Left Bed belongs "in the front left corner of the room"... Whereas a particular sound object might belong "ahead, thirty degrees to the left of center, twenty degrees up, and at size 8," relative to the listening position... So, depending on the size and shape of the room, the relationship between where those two appear in the sound stage might actually be different. Whether you're in a long narrow room or a shallow wide room the bed channel information will "stretch across the entire front sound stage". But, regardless of which room you're in, that sound object will appear to originate from the same angle and location relative to the listener. As an example... at least in theory... two people, placed as objects, five feet apart, will ALWAYS sound like they're five feet apart... So, in a movie, the two guys standing there talking to each other, will always sound like they're standing more or less next to each other... (because they're "objects") Even though the background sound of the city park they're standing in will scale to fit the size of the theater... or of the overall "shot"... (because it's in the bed channels) And this provides a more natural effect... more like what you would experience if you were actually standing there. (You avoid the audio equivalent of that strange visual effect you get when they zoom in so the guy's face is twenty feet wide...) ....................... I'm assuming there's no talk you've heard that would lead you to believe bed groups are possible for the home atmos? That would sure make more sense for 11.1.8. Sure seems so simple. Just to duplicate the side surround bed layer to the rear side. You could apply that to the atmos layers as well. 2 bed height channels can be either moved to only the 4 top speakers or perhaps all 8 height/tops. It wouldn't effect the discrete objects. Then any negative side effects really would just be the sound mixer deciding to place locationally critical sounds into bed channels instead of objects. That's at least how I see bed channels. They are meant to contain the non discrete/localizable enveloping noise. I could be wrong but seems limiting to the tech any other way. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 23, 2024 11:07:04 GMT -5
I posted a really long explanation... but that isn't really necessary to understand this. You've got it pretty much correct. I wouldn't go as far as to say that "bed channels... are meant to contain the non discrete/localizable enveloping noise". I would say that it's more accurate to say that bed channels are intended to contain content that is expected to be presented IN ONE SPECIFIC AREA OF THE ROOM. Whereas sound objects are intended to contain content that is intended to be located at ONE PARTICULAR SPOT IN THE SOUND FIELD. So, for example, REGARDLESS OF THE SHAPE OF YOUR ROOM, the Front Left Bed belongs "in the front left corner of the room"... Whereas a particular sound object might belong "ahead, thirty degrees to the left of center, twenty degrees up, and at size 8," relative to the listening position... So, depending on the size and shape of the room, the relationship between where those two appear in the sound stage might actually be different. Whether you're in a long narrow room or a shallow wide room the bed channel information will "stretch across the entire front sound stage". But, regardless of which room you're in, that sound object will appear to originate from the same angle and location relative to the listener. As an example... at least in theory... two people, placed as objects, five feet apart, will ALWAYS sound like they're five feet apart... So, in a movie, the two guys standing there talking to each other, will always sound like they're standing more or less next to each other... (because they're "objects") Even though the background sound of the city park they're standing in will scale to fit the size of the theater... or of the overall "shot"... (because it's in the bed channels) And this provides a more natural effect... more like what you would experience if you were actually standing there. (You avoid the audio equivalent of that strange visual effect you get when they zoom in so the guy's face is twenty feet wide...) I completely agree with your more accurate descriptor. This is why in my desired processing I would think using the 2 channel top bed layer for only expanding to the 4 tops makes more sense that expanding that to heights and tops on a 11.1.8. I see the heights acting more like wides where they want clearer separation of bed "zones". It's a lot more clear cut when is see the additional sides wishing they interacted like zones. I can expand on this principal with a 3 row theater. The 13.1.10 would have the 6 sides in the side zones anchoring each row and the 6 tops in their respective l/r zones above the rows with the sweet spot for a more diffuse sound stage in the middle row. This is where I would say a sound engineer shouldn't place any clear dialogue from a single person in a crowded mall scene in the side zone. It should be the muddled congested voices and chaotic reverberant noises. I guess this is all pointless unless dolby plans on grouping any sides or tops with the corresponding beds in the future. If I worked for dolby I would explain to the sound engineers that they would be limiting the future potential if they cut corners on auto remapping of the cinematic mix or misused objects vs beds. Garbage in garbage out. All bed channels besides LCR should be mixed for array applications in mind. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 23, 2024 14:21:54 GMT -5
That Trinnov guy has an interesting "take" on the situation... I have never seen Dolby talk about speakers having anything whatsoever to do with rows... Take a look at pretty well all of the Dolby diagrams for recommended speaker locations... They all show one guy sitting at that central prime listening position... Then they show the ground level speakers... and the positions they occupy, in degrees, in a circle around that point... And they show height speakers... as if they were arranged in an arch over his head... again with the angles by which each is in front of or behind that guy... And, when they add speakers, it's always to "fill angular gaps in that circle of sound". (They don't seem to talk about "adding speakers to provide a consistent experience over a larger area per se.) The basic Atmos philosophy is to do their best to duplicate the direction where each sound would actually come from. They're NOT trying to position surround channels so that, if a sound is "coming from the left", everyone in every row will hear that sound coming from directly to THEIR left... They're trying to make it so that, no matter where you are, the sound will be coming from the correct spot on the left wall... So, for example, let's say that there is a left surround directly to the left of the center row of seats... Sounds coming from that speaker will seem to be coming from directly to the left of the guy in the center row... And, to the guy in the back row, those sounds will seem to originate to his left and forward... And, to the guy in the front row, they'll be coming from the left and slightly behind him... But all of them will be hearing those sounds coming from the proper direction (just as if the object was actually located where the speaker is)... Remember that, as per Dolby, if you "add side speakers for each row", those speakers will all be playing different content anyway... (Each only playing sounds for objects that 'belong where the speaker is located"...) To some degree those extra speakers will help to pin each of those sounds to its proper location. But they won't especially help ensure a consistent experience for the listeners in each row. It sounds to me like Trinnov is more interested in "providing a consistent and similar experience for all of the listeners".... (Which sounds quite reasonable to me as a goal.) ............................. Yeah I'm aware of the pinned objects on some material but that material isn't what I'm focusing on on my build. So if this is the case that the system can't differentiate bed layers vs objects then it most definitely can't expand the limited 10 beds to additional surrounds. I never was concerned with the lcr because those rooms that utilize the left center and right center etc are trinnov million dollar rooms but I would of hoped that there would be a way to see what is an object and what is a bed prior to the audio processing. Too bad. I guess I won't be hearing much out of the rear sides. At least the front row is my mlp. Would have made a lot of sense for them to have those additional side channels see themselves all as the side and then break off to their respective angular calcs for objects. Their whole purpose is to add side speakers for each row from my understanding. This was from the trinnov guy on a Shane Lee YouTube so he may have 20-30k reasons to not talk about practical limitations. Or maybe they can process it the way I want without dolby. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 23, 2024 14:37:09 GMT -5
That Trinnov guy has an interesting "take" on the situation... I have never seen Dolby talk about speakers having anything whatsoever to do with rows... Take a look at pretty well all of the Dolby diagrams for recommended speaker locations... They all show one guy sitting at that central prime listening position... Then they show the ground level speakers... and the positions they occupy, in degrees, in a circle around that point... And they show height speakers... as if they were arranged in an arch over his head... again with the angles by which each is in front of or behind that guy... And, when they add speakers, it's always to "fill angular gaps in that circle of sound". (They don't seem to talk about "adding speakers to provide a consistent experience over a larger area per se.) The basic Atmos philosophy is to do their best to duplicate the direction where each sound would actually come from. They're NOT trying to position surround channels so that, if a sound is "coming from the left", everyone in every row will hear that sound coming from directly to THEIR left... They're trying to make it so that, no matter where you are, the sound will be coming from the correct spot on the left wall... So, for example, let's say that there is a left surround directly to the left of the center row of seats... Sounds coming from that speaker will seem to be coming from directly to the left of the guy in the center row... And, to the guy in the back row, those sounds will seem to originate to his left and forward... And, to the guy in the front row, they'll be coming from the left and slightly behind him... But all of them will be hearing those sounds coming from the proper direction (just as if the object was actually located where the speaker is)... Remember that, as per Dolby, if you "add side speakers for each row", those speakers will all be playing different content anyway... (Each only playing sounds for objects that 'belong where the speaker is located"...) To some degree those extra speakers will help to pin each of those sounds to its proper location. But they won't especially help ensure a consistent experience for the listeners in each row. It sounds to me like Trinnov is more interested in "providing a consistent and similar experience for all of the listeners".... (Which sounds quite reasonable to me as a goal.) Yeah I'm aware of the pinned objects on some material but that material isn't what I'm focusing on on my build. So if this is the case that the system can't differentiate bed layers vs objects then it most definitely can't expand the limited 10 beds to additional surrounds. I never was concerned with the lcr because those rooms that utilize the left center and right center etc are trinnov million dollar rooms but I would of hoped that there would be a way to see what is an object and what is a bed prior to the audio processing. Too bad. I guess I won't be hearing much out of the rear sides. At least the front row is my mlp. Would have made a lot of sense for them to have those additional side channels see themselves all as the side and then break off to their respective angular calcs for objects. Their whole purpose is to add side speakers for each row from my understanding. This was from the trinnov guy on a Shane Lee YouTube so he may have 20-30k reasons to not talk about practical limitations. Or maybe they can process it the way I want without dolby. It made a lot of sense to me not just because conceptually it makes sense but also because they are literally labeled as the same surround but with 1 on top of it. I have many times heard to not take the pdfs too literally but I agree if it was a main focus you would think there would be a coordinated effort from the concept guy to the pdf artist to the home audio processing algorithm guy etc. I woukd think the guy who wants one seat surrounded by 11 speakers on the ground would ignore the 2nd row on the diagram and proceed. This all seems about as simple as saving an identical file when it asks if you want to add a 1 to that. I'd love to know from a trinnov guy if they can tell they found out how to duplicate the bed channel. It should be easy to know when little to no sound comes out vs sound consistently coming out. I'm aware they can mix new channels which would negatively affect the objects so maybe someone more knowledgeable like their spokesman would have to speak on that.. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 23, 2024 14:44:52 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/live/L4n1zf2Y8vc?si=tDaYAp6SJIdAOEeV22 minutes in. It sounds like they utilize the native dolby decoder for the 11.1.x playback. I guess a very relevant question is how much of the processing is dictated by dolby vs how much your Emotiva engineers have to implement dolby's "guidelines"? Hopefully if it's the ladder this can make it to Lonnie. I would assume it's easier to implement due to the channel expansion only focusing on 4 additional speakers that happen to be associated to bed layers.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 23, 2024 15:09:26 GMT -5
From what I understand the Trinnov does have the ability to extensively customize both individual channel content and routing. This is a very nice feature... but it also makes setup and configuration potentially a lot more complex. I suspect that Dolby's "official response" just might be: "We designed Atmos to put everything exactly where the sound designer wanted it to be so we'd prefer that you didn't mess with it" (But that's just a guess on my part and I don't recall ever actually hearing an official opinion on the subject.) It made a lot of sense to me not just because conceptually it makes sense but also because they are literally labeled as the same surround but with 1 on top of it. I have many times heard to not take the pdfs too literally but I agree if it was a main focus you would think there would be a coordinated effort from the concept guy to the pdf artist to the home audio processing algorithm guy etc. I woukd think the guy who wants one seat surrounded by 11 speakers on the ground would ignore the 2nd row on the diagram and proceed. This all seems about as simple as saving an identical file when it asks if you want to add a 1 to that. I'd love to know from a trinnov guy if they can tell they found out how to duplicate the bed channel. It should be easy to know when little to no sound comes out vs sound consistently coming out. I'm aware they can mix new channels which would negatively affect the objects so maybe someone more knowledgeable like their spokesman would have to speak on that.. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 23, 2024 15:16:31 GMT -5
From what I understand the Trinnov does have the ability to extensively customize both individual channel content and routing. This is a very nice feature... but it also makes setup and configuration potentially a lot more complex. I suspect that Dolby's "official response" just might be: "We designed Atmos to put everything exactly where the sound designer wanted it to be so we'd prefer that you didn't mess with it" (But that's just a guess on my part and I don't recall ever actually hearing an official opinion on the subject.) It made a lot of sense to me not just because conceptually it makes sense but also because they are literally labeled as the same surround but with 1 on top of it. I have many times heard to not take the pdfs too literally but I agree if it was a main focus you would think there would be a coordinated effort from the concept guy to the pdf artist to the home audio processing algorithm guy etc. I woukd think the guy who wants one seat surrounded by 11 speakers on the ground would ignore the 2nd row on the diagram and proceed. This all seems about as simple as saving an identical file when it asks if you want to add a 1 to that. I'd love to know from a trinnov guy if they can tell they found out how to duplicate the bed channel. It should be easy to know when little to no sound comes out vs sound consistently coming out. I'm aware they can mix new channels which would negatively affect the objects so maybe someone more knowledgeable like their spokesman would have to speak on that.. Shane Lee asked a similar question to Jon from Trinnov but I would imagine it's just as likely that Jon didn't understand they were doing something proprietary when he answered it's dolby's standard. Maybe I'm just automatically assuming there would be bed channel info associated to those but it sounded like from his response that those aren't object only speakers. So then it sounds like you've heard the 11.1.8 and know that the additional surrounds aren't as busy as the other surrounds? That would be the nail in the coffin for me. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,161
|
Post by ttocs on Oct 23, 2024 15:22:34 GMT -5
Not quite. The four speaker channels of the Speaker Expansion Module simply cannot be all for ear level channels. Going from 9.x.x to 11.x.x needs 2 channels of expansion. Going from x.x.6 to x.x.8 needs 2 channels of expansion. So, one expansion module is for the 2 Surround-1 channels as shown in the Dolby 11.1.8 setup sheet, and for the 2 additional Height channels. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 23, 2024 15:23:53 GMT -5
Not quite. The four speaker channels of the Speaker Expansion Module simply cannot be all for ear level channels. Going from 9.x.x to 11.x.x needs 2 channels of expansion. Going from x.x.6 to x.x.8 needs 2 channels of expansion. So, one expansion module is for the 2 Surround-1 channels as shown in the Dolby 11.1.8 setup sheet, and for the 2 additional Height channels. I mean to associate the new tops to the 2 top bed channels. It's my understanding there are the 7.1 beds for ear level and the additional 2 for tops. So all 4 of the expansion speakers each have a associated bed layer. L/r surrounds and l/r tops. |
|
