|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 24, 2024 14:47:47 GMT -5
Yes and 2 of those are meant for top arrays. Page 34 Refer to 2.4.2 on page 27 By definition we are creating an array by adding speakers to tops, sides, or rears. There's no way for me to brush past this one. For our understanding I think abandoning the word bed channels for array channels would be entirely accurate for those bed surrounds, rears and tops. That redefinition might actually help home atmos mixers as well. Initially, I didn't know what reference you were looking at. I think I found it: For complex designs including loudspeaker layouts of 9.1.6 and more, surround-speaker arrays, or fully equidistant layouts, please refer to the full technical guidelines accessed through the link below. Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Technical Guidelines dolby.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#700000009YuG/a/4u000000lFHc/UYA0IZeD632SUXVmEPmUcr.wIuhpHp6Q7bVSl4LrbUQThis focus on 'arrays' is meant for larger mix rooms of 18' or wider, and is meant for a large room with seating for clients. The 'array' concept is Not the preferred arrangement, and doesn't apply to the RMC-1+ for home use. The best RMC-1+ match to a standard Atmos mix studio is 7.1.4. For example from 2.3.5 in the document link above: 2.3.5 Speaker configuration design guidance for 5.1.4 speaker layouts in a Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Although 7.1.4 is the preferred layout for a Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio, you can alternatively use a 5.1.4 layout. However, with a 5.1.4 layout, the absence of rear surround speakers will lead to a difference in spatial resolution. Some key factors and expectations: • Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 speaker layout sizes are often smaller than typical 7.1.4 layouts, but overall size guidance remains the same as described in Room layout design . • Extended monitor layouts should not be used with a 5.1.4 configuration. It's a good document. I think you are getting too hung up on this 'array' concept. I respectfully disagree. I think the fact they are given directions for home audio studio production quite literally means this is the intended playback methodology. Any other interpretation doesn't make sense. I would agree with you if it was for the cinema but its the home guideline. 18 arrays is the max amount of speakers when each bed channel is expanded on. Not the intended amount for bed channels to exist. 2.4.2 also says any 1 speaker added to tops, sides, or rears creates an array. This breaks the idea that arrays are only for large mixing studios. Arrays are for larger than standard bed layouts on the surround, rear, and tops. There is no logical reason why a mixing studio for home atmos would be given a set of entirley different playback methodologies. It's like algebra. 6(4+3). There is only one right answer. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 24, 2024 14:51:29 GMT -5
Initially, I didn't know what reference you were looking at. I think I found it: For complex designs including loudspeaker layouts of 9.1.6 and more, surround-speaker arrays, or fully equidistant layouts, please refer to the full technical guidelines accessed through the link below. Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Technical Guidelines dolby.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#700000009YuG/a/4u000000lFHc/UYA0IZeD632SUXVmEPmUcr.wIuhpHp6Q7bVSl4LrbUQThis focus on 'arrays' is meant for larger mix rooms of 18' or wider, and is meant for a large room with seating for clients. The 'array' concept is Not the preferred arrangement, and doesn't apply to the RMC-1+ for home use. The best RMC-1+ match to a standard Atmos mix studio is 7.1.4. For example from 2.3.5 in the document link above: 2.3.5 Speaker configuration design guidance for 5.1.4 speaker layouts in a Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Although 7.1.4 is the preferred layout for a Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio, you can alternatively use a 5.1.4 layout. However, with a 5.1.4 layout, the absence of rear surround speakers will lead to a difference in spatial resolution. Some key factors and expectations: • Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 speaker layout sizes are often smaller than typical 7.1.4 layouts, but overall size guidance remains the same as described in Room layout design . • Extended monitor layouts should not be used with a 5.1.4 configuration. It's a good document. I think you are getting too hung up on this 'array' concept. I respectfully disagree. I think the fact they are given directions for home audio studio production quite literally means this is the intended playback methodology. Any other interpretation doesn't make sense. I would agree with you if it was for the cinema. I suggest you reread the document. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 24, 2024 14:54:46 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree. I think the fact they are given directions for home audio studio production quite literally means this is the intended playback methodology. Any other interpretation doesn't make sense. I would agree with you if it was for the cinema. I suggest you reread the document. Can't you reference the section that states arrays are only for 18 channels? I think it's only respectful to provide proof when disregarding 2.4.2. It quite literally states what you are saying is untrue. I think your collapsing the argument to their common room mixing layout. This has nothing to do with bed behavior on larger channel layouts. "Where wider sound coverage is needed for specific seating positions".. This is literally saying with larger layouts the arrays are preferred for the above reason.. This has do with more seats in a room, ie rows. It's the preferred expansion method for including more listeners. You may find you prefer your 7.1.2 or you may not for your mlp. There is no way for the mixer to turn off arrays once he adds a speaker to either the top, surround or backs. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 24, 2024 14:59:33 GMT -5
 All pages 27-34 shouldn't be brushed away. This wouldn't serve any of us as end users who have more than 4 tops (edit 2.4.5 reads like 4 tops is standard before additional speakers creates the array playback. 4 speakers instead image the top bed layer as 2). Expand on that for higher counts of anything. The mixing home studio room layout does not equal bed channel layout playback for the home atmos audio mix. The document literally tells us what happens as channels get expanded to larger layouts for playback. There is no way for the mixer to turn off the arrays if he adds any 1 or more speakers to the standard 4 tops, 2 sides or 2 rears. It's a internal non optional feature.. One we should have. If the bed layer is present for the rear, side, or tops then the bed material behaves in arrays with more than 1 speaker added period. Having more speakers than the bed standards creates arrays therefore will limit the mixers ability to use their spacial coding emulation tool. It only makes sense the vast majority of mixing rooms will limit themselves to 7.1.4 or at most 9.1.4 so all the critical mixing tools are available to work with. The only practical reason to have a larger layout available as a mixer is to be able to experience and verify how the home atmos mix will play in an expanded layout or to involve others in its assessment creating a need for better sound coverage depending on the seating layout. E.g. 2+ rows expands desired side and top arrays, wide rows expands desired rear arrays. Per the document section 2.4.5 my 9.1.6 RMC-1 with heights should have all overheads behave as bed material arrays for the 2 top bed layers. Does it? THIS IS THE RELEVANT POST FOR KEITH TO ADDRESS |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 24, 2024 16:33:08 GMT -5
Let me put this another way. Move your discussion about Dolby layouts to another thread. This thread is for +Series discussion as advertised in the beginning of the thread. Great idea. Anytime Emotiva wants to tell us how the output expansion modules will be implemented, I'm all eyes and ears. We are months away from real +Series processors, with NO information as to how an RMC-1+ will operate with output expansion modules. Perhaps the addition of output expansion modules is just speculation. Perhaps Emotiva's words, as advertised, about an RMC-1+ that outputs 11.5.8, is just a theory. Nothing to see here. Move along. Doesn't apply... As it stands, anything beyond 9.3.4 doesn't exist, even though Emotiva has advertised 11.5.8 with an RMC-1+ processor. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 24, 2024 16:57:44 GMT -5
Yes, expansion modules, questions about them, concerns about them, etc, all good. But a long diatribe about the theory of layout and how the Dolby implementation might be done belongs in a different thread. It's really, really, easy. 9.34 is a base configuration of the +Series. 11.5.8 is proposed by Emotiva to be what can be one of the configurations. Discuss. This is all I wanted. The whole 'Array' discussion, and BEQ discussion, is off the charts. BTW, half the discussion that is so concerning to you came from KeithL . Doesn't Emotiva own this site? The array discussion is on the charts for anything over 4 tops (section 2.4.5 as reference). I'm so confused right now why there is so much rigidity. We can move on from the discussion but it really is simple. If my room was a single row and 6 meters wide I'd be dissapointed the Emotiva 11 ear levels didn't have two more backs instead of the sides for the array that would work best for my seating. Not rocket science. Two rows plays better with the arrays outlined on 2.4.2 on 11.1.8. Talk about gaslighting on its importance. This is important ob the base RMC-1+ for tops. No expansions necessary to make it relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 24, 2024 17:08:32 GMT -5
The array discussion is on the charts for anything over 2 tops. I'm so confused right now why there is so much rigidity. We can move on from the discussion but it really is simple. If my room was a single row and 6 meters wide I'd be dissapointed the Emotiva 11 ear levels didn't have two more backs instead of the sides for the array that would work best for my seating. Not rocket science. Two rows plays better with the arrays outlined on 2.4.2 on 11.1.8. Talk about gaslighting on its importance. This is important ob the base RMC-1+ for tops. No expansions necessary to make it relevant. You can move on with your Array and BEQ discussions by starting new threads. It's not rocket science. I agree with ttocs Start an Array thread. Start a BEQ thread. I'd agree except for the fact that correct atmos playback only matters to me if it make it to the RMC-1+.. When you realize this you should understand it's perfectly reasonable discussion. Just as reasonable as wanting the hdmi to work properly. By your logic everything involving the gen 4 should have it's own seperate thread. None of this is a debate anymore about what is correct atmos playback. The fact Keith's interpretation didn't match the doby docs can easily be answered by him. But until it is its a factor. The dolby docs in fact outline atmos's playback method that Keith himself admitted would make more practical sense than Emotiva's current understanding. This isn't some "theoretical" atmos discussion. This is a discussion getting squashed because the relevance is being undermined. The gen 4 is an atmos processor... General consensus of the day. Don't believe your lying eyes. I think there is a reason there isn't an official response to 2.4.2 even after Keith directed me to find an association to rows. Which I clearly demonstrated I did. Putting it in a seperate thread would just bury it. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Oct 25, 2024 13:45:01 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.  This actially makes more sense in a longer room with good ceiling height. Makes the hole in the front above disappear. I used to have front heights before, I really do miss them. Unbelievably nice especially for live music where you got a ”wall” of sound. For the maxed out future Atmos for homes (Trinnov and Storm may support)  |
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Oct 25, 2024 13:55:06 GMT -5
Compared to the 11.1.8 thr top front and top rear hasn’t totally changed in angle position but recommended to be put slightly tighter to the MLP.  |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 25, 2024 14:32:30 GMT -5
Keith's response about Atmos, and arrays, and all that exciting stuff...
First off I'm agreeing that any further discussion on this topic really belongs somewhere else.
So, if anyone really wants to continue it beyond this post, feel free to set up another thread...
(And PM me to make sure I'm aware of where it is.)
I'm afraid that, in my attempt to clarify things, I've just made them less so.
A lot of the documentation I posted links to is mostly describing how Atmos is intended to be mastered...
My intention was to show how much control THEY have over details that WE, as listeners, DO NOT have control over.
My personal inclination would also be that the best way to hear content "just like the mastering engineer heard it" is to set up my theater "just like his studio".
And, if this is either not practical, or doesn't suit my personal preferences, then I may simply not follow their guidelines where they don't apply.
My takeaway from most of that documentation is this...
The engineer who is mastering Dolby Atmos content has a lot of options and choices...
But Dolby EXPECTS you and I to allow the decoder to "do its thing" and "decide how to play that content through your home system".
So, for example, YOU will tell the decoder what speakers you have and their locations...
And THE DECODER decides what content it wants do route to which of your speakers...
(From your side of things, unlike in a theater installation, you do not get to assign speakers to beds or objects... they're just output channels.)
On that document page lrobertson posted they said that you can use multiple speakers as an array for better coverage...
But they did not say or indicate that the decoder would treat those speakers as anything other than a single speaker or channel...
(In fact they specifically said to set them to the exact same distance / delay setting... which suggests that they're being treated as a single speaker.)
The bottom line is that, here at Emotiva, we include "the standard certified Dolby Atmos Decoder" in our processors.
This is going to decode your Dolby Atmos content "the way Dolby, and the engineer who mastered it, intended."
You may feel free to connect multiple speakers to a given output channel "as an array - for better coverage of a large listening area".
For example, you could use three speakers as "your left surround", and another three as "your right surround", to better cover multiple rows of seats.
(You could do this with splitters, and multiple amplifier channels, or with multiple speakers on individual amplifier channels, for each array.)
(I assume that this would give you a more consistent experience over multiple rows of seats... at the cost of less pinpoint location of sounds in those channels.)
But, as of now, we have no plans to offer an option to internally assign output channels to be part of arrays on our processors.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Oct 25, 2024 14:37:04 GMT -5
The answer is both simple and complicated. In general we are required to follow their guidelines as regards decoding. But we are allowed to then add our own "proprietary additional post-processing" if we like. (Just like in the old days, Yamaha added "cathedral" and "dark basement" "DSP modes" to their standard surround sound modes.) The bottom line is that creating new and interesting DSP modes isn't especially difficult... And neither would it be especially difficult to re-route or duplicate channels... It is worth noting that, with Dolby Atmos content, the beds and objects are actually parts of the content. So whoever made the content gets to decide things like how many beds they want to use. So, while the decoder can make decisions, its options are limited to what's present in the content itself. The VERY general guidance for mastering reads (I'm paraphrasing a bit here): "how beds are rendered will depend on your speaker configuration" "if you want precise control over how and where something will render then you should use an object" Also... from Dolby... and a direct quote this time: "Depending upon the position and size metadata applied to an object, objects and bed channels can be sonically identical. For instance, an object placed in the left front with size set to zero will be identical to placing the audio in the Left channel bed." (Note that, while they say "CAN be sonically identical" this is not always the case with different channels in different configurations.) If you want to see Dolby's "guidance" on when to use beds or objects... : professionalsupport.dolby.com/s/article/What-s-the-difference-between-beds-and-objects?language=en_USprofessionalsupport.dolby.com/s/article/How-many-loudspeakers-do-I-need-to-mix-content-in-Dolby-Atmos-for-Home-Entertainment?language=en_USAnd finally... Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Technical Guidelines (really interesting): dolby.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/700000009YuG/a/4u000000lFHc/UYA0IZeD632SUXVmEPmUcr.wIuhpHp6Q7bVSl4LrbUQ(In a total of 45 rather densely packed pages see if you can find a single direct reference to multiple listener seats...  ) 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. , I did start a new thread and moved some posts over. emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/61546/processors-dolby-atmos-speaker-configurations |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 25, 2024 14:46:19 GMT -5
Keith's response about Atmos, and arrays, and all that exciting stuff...
First off I'm agreeing that any further discussion on this topic really belongs somewhere else.
So, if anyone really wants to continue it beyond this post, feel free to set up another thread...
(And PM me to make sure I'm aware of where it is.)I'm afraid that, in my attempt to clarify things, I've just made them less so. A lot of the documentation I posted links to is mostly describing how Atmos is intended to be mastered... My intention was to show how much control THEY have over details that WE, as listeners, DO NOT have control over. My personal inclination would also be that the best way to hear content "just like the mastering engineer heard it" is to set up my theater "just like his studio". And, if this is either not practical, or doesn't suit my personal preferences, then I may simply not follow their guidelines where they don't apply. My takeaway from most of that documentation is this... The engineer who is mastering Dolby Atmos content has a lot of options and choices... But Dolby EXPECTS you and I to allow the decoder to "do its thing" and "decide how to play that content through your home system". So, for example, YOU will tell the decoder what speakers you have and their locations... And THE DECODER decides what content it wants do route to which of your speakers... ( From your side of things, unlike in a theater installation, you do not get to assign speakers to beds or objects.. . they're just output channels.) On that document page lrobertson posted they said that you can use multiple speakers as an array for better coverage... But they did not say or indicate that the decoder would treat those speakers as anything other than a single speaker or channel... (In fact they specifically said to set them to the exact same distance / delay setting... which suggests that they're being treated as a single speaker.) The bottom line is that, here at Emotiva, we include "the standard certified Dolby Atmos Decoder" in our processors.
This is going to decode your Dolby Atmos content "the way Dolby, and the engineer who mastered it, intended."
You may feel free to connect multiple speakers to a given output channel "as an array - for better coverage of a large listening area".
For example, you could use three speakers as "your left surround", and another three as "your right surround", to better cover multiple rows of seats.
(You could do this with splitters, and multiple amplifier channels, or with multiple speakers on individual amplifier channels, for each array.)
(I assume that this would give you a more consistent experience over multiple rows of seats... at the cost of less pinpoint location of sounds in those channels.)
But, as of now, we have no plans to offer an option to internally assign output channels to be part of arrays on our processors.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but you already admitted Emotiva is tasked with implementing code that conforms to dolby guidelines. Meaning human error is more than possible. I appreciate the thread moved so not to anger the others. What you're implying about the arrays behaving as one speaker can be proven false in the 1st section of 2.4.2. It clearly states the speakers in the array behave individually for objects as they should. If I really need to dig deeper and I guess I will after work. I think it's going to be hard to explain why a atmos home mastering suite would somehow run on a completely different set of playback standards than a home decoder. There's Cinema and home if I'm not mistaken. There is no reason to have the home mastering playback in cinema format correct? The cinema is used to create the home media edition correct? I think what I'm finding out is the trinnov and storm probably don't cut these corners. If both those play in an array I think the nail is in the coffin on this question. Or is evidence that Emotiva does it right merely based on this is the way they chose to do it so it must be right? I think you got confused on the bed material. That is what is being treated like a single speaker. The objects are not. Objects treat each speaker in the array individually. That is what an array is in atmos. This is also why they recommend 3 when possible for an array. A dipole doesn't mimic 2 speakers. It mimics a wall of speakers. My biggest concern is that you actually aren't just relying on people not reading the document. But I'll assume good faith. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 25, 2024 15:11:52 GMT -5
Can someone with an av10 see if they hear the bed layer on the top 6 speaker layout? It might be hard to distinguish what's object vs bed layer without a trinnov mapper though. You'd almost have to know how it plays on a trinnov first.
This would also be enough evidence one way or the other that there are 2 standards.
I need to verify. Sorry for the distrust Keith. Seems just to convenient and nonsensical for atmos to break the effective playback chain for no reason. Same data. Different playback makes 0 sense.
A a/b comparison between a marantz 6 overhead setup and Emotiva 6 overhead setup will do it actually. Same material. Someone can do this experiment on the forum i assume.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 25, 2024 15:47:54 GMT -5
The Atmos Mastering Suite is the software that is used to mix, edit, produce, preview, and render Dolby Atmos content... This means that it produces Dolby Atmos "master files" as its output... The Dolby Atmos Renderer is the piece of the suite that accepts "Atmos master files" as input... and outputs "theatrical Atmos content" or "home Atmos content". (Or, conveniently, it can do both at once, from the same master files, automatically adjusting the content as required.) In short, what we're talking about here is "the preview feature in a full-on Dolby Atmos editing software suite". So, yes, it has to have a LOT more extensive capability than "a consumer level decoder, in a consumer level pre/pro, that only decodes home Atmos content". You can purchase the entire suite, at very reasonable prices, as a plugin for your Avid or ProTools digital audio workstation... Of course, unless you are an Atmos content creator, or good friends with one, you won't have any Atmos master files to play on it. The note at the top of Section 2.4 reads: The design of arrays is intended for use with array mode in Dolby Atmos Renderer version 3.2 and later running with a Dolby Atmos Mastering Suite license.This is quite different than any suggestion that the Dolby Atmos HOME Decoder does or should support that option. Please note that I'm NOT suggesting that it may not be possible for a device to support this ability "at the playback level" with "home Atmos content"... And, at between four and six times the price of the RMC-1+, if this is an option for home Atmos content, then maybe the Trinnov can actually do it... But I don't know of any "normal Dolby Atmos pre/pro" that supports this option... And, as I said, at least for now, WE have no plans to do so...........................................
Correct me if I'm wrong here but you already admitted Emotiva is tasked with implementing code that conforms to dolby guidelines. Meaning human error is more than possible. I appreciate the thread moved so not to anger the others. What you're implying about the arrays behaving as one speaker can be proven false in the 1st section of 2.4.2. It clearly states the speakers in the array behave individually for objects as they should. If I really need to dig deeper and I guess I will after work. I think it's going to be hard to explain why a atmos home mastering suite would somehow run on a completely different set of playback standards than a home decoder. There's Cinema and home if I'm not mistaken. I think what I'm finding out is the trinnov and storm probably don't cut these corners. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 25, 2024 16:20:45 GMT -5
Keith's response about Atmos, and arrays, and all that exciting stuff...
First off I'm agreeing that any further discussion on this topic really belongs somewhere else.
So, if anyone really wants to continue it beyond this post, feel free to set up another thread...
(And PM me to make sure I'm aware of where it is.)I'm afraid that, in my attempt to clarify things, I've just made them less so. A lot of the documentation I posted links to is mostly describing how Atmos is intended to be mastered... My intention was to show how much control THEY have over details that WE, as listeners, DO NOT have control over. My personal inclination would also be that the best way to hear content "just like the mastering engineer heard it" is to set up my theater "just like his studio". And, if this is either not practical, or doesn't suit my personal preferences, then I may simply not follow their guidelines where they don't apply. My takeaway from most of that documentation is this... The engineer who is mastering Dolby Atmos content has a lot of options and choices... But Dolby EXPECTS you and I to allow the decoder to "do its thing" and "decide how to play that content through your home system". So, for example, YOU will tell the decoder what speakers you have and their locations... And THE DECODER decides what content it wants do route to which of your speakers... ( From your side of things, unlike in a theater installation, you do not get to assign speakers to beds or objects.. . they're just output channels.) On that document page lrobertson posted they said that you can use multiple speakers as an array for better coverage... But they did not say or indicate that the decoder would treat those speakers as anything other than a single speaker or channel... (In fact they specifically said to set them to the exact same distance / delay setting... which suggests that they're being treated as a single speaker.) The bottom line is that, here at Emotiva, we include "the standard certified Dolby Atmos Decoder" in our processors.
This is going to decode your Dolby Atmos content "the way Dolby, and the engineer who mastered it, intended."
You may feel free to connect multiple speakers to a given output channel "as an array - for better coverage of a large listening area".
For example, you could use three speakers as "your left surround", and another three as "your right surround", to better cover multiple rows of seats.
(You could do this with splitters, and multiple amplifier channels, or with multiple speakers on individual amplifier channels, for each array.)
(I assume that this would give you a more consistent experience over multiple rows of seats... at the cost of less pinpoint location of sounds in those channels.)
But, as of now, we have no plans to offer an option to internally assign output channels to be part of arrays on our processors.
I'm not going back to look for it, but, I recall that what you are saying is correct for channels. However, objects see each speaker in an array as singular. I thought that is interesting and appropriate. The Dolby Guide focuses on arrays for client coverage. The client(s) sits behind the mix engineer. It's about making a client feel good and entertained while spending so much money for mix time. It has nothing to do with improving the mix. The mix engineer still relies on one position behind the console for MLP and defining the mix - normally as a 7.1.4 setup. This discussion is academic. None of this matters for HT using a RMC-1+ with expansion outputs. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 25, 2024 16:23:16 GMT -5
To be quite honest I'm not quite certain how you would even verify the routing of specific beds and objects... And I certainly would not start by assuming that "however the Trinnov, or some Marantz, maps things must be the right way" either... As per Dolby "depending on the speaker setup bed content may be indistinguishable from object content"... So, unless you have the ability to create test files, with known bed and object content, I'm not sure how you would even know "what went where from where". We've got several files and discs that include "channel callouts"... but none of them name "beds" and "objects" as such. It's also not as simple as "there being two standards". We use a fully licensed decoder, which has been tested and approved, and meets all of Dolby's requirements. (And there are a long list of standard tests which we must pass properly in order to have that Dolby License.) But there are also a whole bunch of "optional extras" and "things you can do above and beyond the requirements"... So it's quite possible that "there are products out there that can do things we do not"... And I guess that, if you find one that includes more stuff that you especially like, you'll probably buy it... Can someone with an av10 see if they hear the bed layer on the top 6 speaker layout? It might be hard to distinguish what's object vs bed layer without a trinnov mapper though. You'd almost have to know how it plays on a trinnov first. This would also be enough evidence one way or the other that there are 2 standards. I need to verify. Sorry for the distrust Keith. Seems just to convenient and nonsensical for atmos to break the effective playback chain for no reason. Same data. Different playback makes 0 sense. A a/b comparison between a marantz 6 overhead setup and Emotiva 6 overhead setup will do it actually. Same material. Someone can do this experiment on the forum i assume. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 25, 2024 16:29:55 GMT -5
To be quite honest I'm not quite certain how you would even verify the routing of specific beds and objects... And I certainly would not start by assuming that "however the Trinnov, or some Marantz, maps things must be the right way" either... As per Dolby "depending on the speaker setup bed content may be indistinguishable from object content"... So, unless you have the ability to create test files, with known bed and object content, I'm not sure how you would even know "what went where from where". We've got several files and discs that include "channel callouts"... but none of them name "beds" and "objects" as such. It's also not as simple as "there being two standards". We use a fully licensed decoder, which has been tested and approved, and meets all of Dolby's requirements. (And there are a long list of standard tests which we must pass properly in order to have that Dolby License.) But there are also a whole bunch of "optional extras" and "things you can do above and beyond the requirements"... So it's quite possible that "there are products out there that can do things we do not"... And I guess that, if you find one that includes more stuff that you especially like, you'll probably buy it... Can someone with an av10 see if they hear the bed layer on the top 6 speaker layout? It might be hard to distinguish what's object vs bed layer without a trinnov mapper though. You'd almost have to know how it plays on a trinnov first. This would also be enough evidence one way or the other that there are 2 standards. I need to verify. Sorry for the distrust Keith. Seems just to convenient and nonsensical for atmos to break the effective playback chain for no reason. Same data. Different playback makes 0 sense. A a/b comparison between a marantz 6 overhead setup and Emotiva 6 overhead setup will do it actually. Same material. Someone can do this experiment on the forum i assume. I understand your position but not much else could be going on if the playback of an a/b comparison is different on 6 heights from the research I've done. It's not like marantz would inject objects to them. To your point yes don't use Disney and do watch Shane Lee movie summaries to see which material to use if you want to save time. Any extra material in the front or rear speakers with 6 heights from marantz must be bed material. If they are exactly the same it may be objects and the way they were redered. If there are any differences ever then they took the array approach. Which would mean they managed to make the arrays a thing out of principal of doing it right. I assume you guys chose not to do it based on complexity costs if I'm not mistaken? This would simply be an achedemic test as you say to see the level of detail marantz pays to the playback. I'm curious as these units don't have the same price associated with Storm and trinnov. More apples to apples. And out of curiosity you said you could do anything after the fact. So could this also imply that Emotiva can do 9.1.4 to spec. Get the atmos sticker and approval and then do whatever with the 9.1.6? I guess my whole point to this is as academic as this is if 2.4 doesn't have any caviets that I find later how much would it have really cost you guys to implement it based on what obviously is THEIR preferred playback? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 25, 2024 16:30:41 GMT -5
I think your last sentence sums things up quite nicely... The way beds and objects are handled in the mix, at the mastering stage, is pretty much irrelevant to we end users. We have little choice but to be satisfied that a properly tested and licensed decoder "is handling the content the way Dolby intended it to be handled". (Or, if we're not satisfied with that, to pick a product that includes optional extras that we happen to like.) Also... FYI... as I mentioned in a much longer post... That document that discussed arrays was talking about options that are available if you're using the Dolby Atmos Renderer installed on a digital audio workstation. (This is what you would expect someone to be using to create or edit Atmos content.) But those options are quite different, and rather more extensive, than the ones you get on "the home Atmos Decoder" in a product. ..........................................
I'm not going back to look for it, but, I recall that what you are saying is correct for channels. However, objects see each speaker in an array as singular. I thought that is interesting and appropriate. The Dolby Guide focuses on arrays for client coverage. The client(s) sits behind the mix engineer. It's about making a client feel good and entertained while spending so much money for mix time. It has nothing to do with improving the mix. The mix engineer still relies on one position behind the console for MLP and defining the mix - normally as a 7.1.4 setup. This discussion is academic. None of this matters for HT using a RMC-1+ with expansion outputs. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 25, 2024 16:48:06 GMT -5
I think your last sentence sums things up quite nicely... The way beds and objects are handled in the mix, at the mastering stage, is pretty much irrelevant to we end users. We have little choice but to be satisfied that a properly tested and licensed decoder "is handling the content the way Dolby intended it to be handled". (Or, if we're not satisfied with that, to pick a product that includes optional extras that we happen to like.) Also... FYI... as I mentioned in a much longer post... That document that discussed arrays was talking about options that are available if you're using the Dolby Atmos Renderer installed on a digital audio workstation. (This is what you would expect someone to be using to create or edit Atmos content.) But those options are quite different, and rather more extensive, than the ones you get on "the home Atmos Decoder" in a product. I'm not going back to look for it, but, I recall that what you are saying is correct for channels. However, objects see each speaker in an array as singular. I thought that is interesting and appropriate. The Dolby Guide focuses on arrays for client coverage. The client(s) sits behind the mix engineer. It's about making a client feel good and entertained while spending so much money for mix time. It has nothing to do with improving the mix. The mix engineer still relies on one position behind the console for MLP and defining the mix - normally as a 7.1.4 setup. This discussion is academic. None of this matters for HT using a RMC-1+ with expansion outputs. I'll bet that the array setting in the Dolby Atmos Renderer is turned OFF when the client is not in the room.  |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 25, 2024 17:08:48 GMT -5
The Atmos Mastering Suite is the software that is used to mix, edit, produce, preview, and render Dolby Atmos content... This means that it produces Dolby Atmos "master files" as its output... The Dolby Atmos Renderer is the piece of the suite that accepts "Atmos master files" as input... and outputs "theatrical Atmos content" or "home Atmos content". (Or, conveniently, it can do both at once, from the same master files, automatically adjusting the content as required.) In short, what we're talking about here is "the preview feature in a full-on Dolby Atmos editing software suite". So, yes, it has to have a LOT more extensive capability than "a consumer level decoder, in a consumer level pre/pro, that only decodes home Atmos content". You can purchase the entire suite, at very reasonable prices, as a plugin for your Avid or ProTools digital audio workstation... Of course, unless you are an Atmos content creator, or good friends with one, you won't have any Atmos master files to play on it. The note at the top of Section 2.4 reads: The design of arrays is intended for use with array mode in Dolby Atmos Renderer version 3.2 and later running with a Dolby Atmos Mastering Suite license.This is quite different than any suggestion that the Dolby Atmos HOME Decoder does or should support that option. Please note that I'm NOT suggesting that it may not be possible for a device to support this ability "at the playback level" with "home Atmos content"... And, at between four and six times the price of the RMC-1+, if this is an option for home Atmos content, then maybe the Trinnov can actually do it... But I don't know of any "normal Dolby Atmos pre/pro" that supports this option... And, as I said, at least for now, WE have no plans to do so.Correct me if I'm wrong here but you already admitted Emotiva is tasked with implementing code that conforms to dolby guidelines. Meaning human error is more than possible. I appreciate the thread moved so not to anger the others. What you're implying about the arrays behaving as one speaker can be proven false in the 1st section of 2.4.2. It clearly states the speakers in the array behave individually for objects as they should. If I really need to dig deeper and I guess I will after work. I think it's going to be hard to explain why a atmos home mastering suite would somehow run on a completely different set of playback standards than a home decoder. There's Cinema and home if I'm not mistaken. I think what I'm finding out is the trinnov and storm probably don't cut these corners. I read that and you are absolutely right about the design of the arrays occurring with the version 3.2 or later. The question for me now is this doesn't mention atmos playback limitations at all. This only focuses on design of the 3.2+ render room for arrays. Could this just mean version 3.1 didn't allow the mixer to even have more than 7.1.4 or 9.1.4... 3.2 can now expand so the mixer can change between speaker layouts with and without arrays and just be locked out of the spacial atmos render with a larger layout? This essentially states limitations of their renderer prior I believe. And now the new version it's easier to see the "Dolby" method of expansion. All that legal jargon is really something I'm not preview to. I think Marantz's playback is a good baseline to set our expectations for a "normal" pre pro with 9.1.6 and what is normal bed array behavior. This we would need to test before people pile on. The one thing I'll admit it I'm less convinced we have fake atmos. I know we have watered down atmos at the very least though. If you happen to have a link to the version 3.1 document we could nip this one in the bud. We can see what really changed. I'm guessing it's not the principal home atmos playback but their equipment and program so a mixer is capable of appropriate audio extraction to test larger layouts. The only other way is they would of had to all have trinnovs or storms in think is what the case is if they had 3.1 to see how it expands. To me this is the most believable. They wouldn't go through the development cost for any other reason. They're not going to create a fake standard for expansion that complex and principaled for fun. They'd go through that cost to make it so you only needed one room to mix even if you needed over 9.1.4 to listen. I'm even going to go on a limb and bet both the trinnov and storm were doing bed arrays before Dolby had the ability to with their proprietary 3.2 home renderer. Not because those companies made it up but because they based it off the Dolby playback specs. That would of been a strange coincidence if they were. Even stranger if marantz 6 overheads do as well. I'm obviously not convinced that the version 3.2 render plays the same importance your implying here to the topic. Possible but I think unlikely. I think it's more of a convenient detraction... But I am open to getting proven wrong and eating crow by a marantz/emotiva owner with a simple real world test. Documents for the 3.1 renderer even better. I want the version 3.1 channel playback limitations... if it's 9.1.4 or smaller we will know the 3.2 mention has no relevance other than they can now do their own larger rooms and arrays are the only way they were willing to expand past 9.1.4 playback support. |
|
)
