IMAX Enhanced

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It is, but it isn't. Due to limitations - namely DTS buying SRS and then trying to use their object based square peg into a round hole of DTS-HD MA certain limitations came up, namely the CPU intensive DTS method of building a lossless codec on top of a lossy base core (and why many devices will natively decode TrueHD but only have "DTS out") - the system were locked into a 7.1.4 channel configuration with no actual objects. There are a few object-based encodes out there (the 4K of Independence Day) but DTS will tell their clients to use a 7.1.4 channel output instead. Then they came out with DTS:X Pro which is a playback only option to allow upmixing to layouts with more than 7.1.4 output.

With the exception of most Disney 4Ks, Atmos is the only true object-based home system

I appreciate the distinction between DTS:X and Atmos and you're right that they aren't equal from a pure capability standpoint, but practically speaking from a home user perspective are there any remotely mainstream A/V receivers out there that can do anything more than 7.2.4 so aren't they the same from that viewpoint? (FYI As there's only 1 LFE channel it doesn't matter whether it's 7.1.4 or 7.2.4 from a mix perspective, the .2 is there just so you have independent amp controls for two subs like my Marantz does which really helps with calibration for 2 subs).

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I appreciate the distinction between DTS:X and Atmos and you're right that they aren't equal from a pure capability standpoint, but practically speaking from a home user perspective are there any remotely mainstream A/V receivers out there that can do anything more than 7.2.4 so aren't they the same from that viewpoint? (FYI As there's only 1 LFE channel it doesn't matter whether it's 7.1.4 or 7.2.4 from a mix perspective, the .2 is there just so you have independent amp controls for two subs like my Marantz does which really helps with calibration for 2 subs).

You might think so but on the best object-based soundtracks the speakers seem to disappear and all the sound seems to come from anywhere in the room. Yes, you can phantom sounds with a channel-based soundtrack but it just isn't the same. Hard to put into words but when you hear it you'll know.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I appreciate the distinction between DTS:X and Atmos and you're right that they aren't equal from a pure capability standpoint, but practically speaking from a home user perspective are there any remotely mainstream A/V receivers out there that can do anything more than 7.2.4 so aren't they the same from that viewpoint? (FYI As there's only 1 LFE channel it doesn't matter whether it's 7.1.4 or 7.2.4 from a mix perspective, the .2 is there just so you have independent amp controls for two subs like my Marantz does which really helps with calibration for 2 subs).

There is already a sub $1,400 pre-amp that does 13.1 (9.1.4 or 7.1.6) immersive processing, the ToneWinner AT-300. >7.1.4 immersive audio is getting cheaper.

[BijouMan]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I appreciate the distinction between DTS:X and Atmos and you're right that they aren't equal from a pure capability standpoint, but practically speaking from a home user perspective are there any remotely mainstream A/V receivers out there that can do anything more than 7.2.4 so aren't they the same from that viewpoint? (FYI As there's only 1 LFE channel it doesn't matter whether it's 7.1.4 or 7.2.4 from a mix perspective, the .2 is there just so you have independent amp controls for two subs like my Marantz does which really helps with calibration for 2 subs).

Marantz's flagship preamplifier processor, the AV8805, can connect to a whopping 15.2 channels and 13.2 can be active at any given time.

[sapiendut]

It’s not 7.2.8 but 9.2.6.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

It’s not 7.2.8 but 9.2.6.

9.1.4. or 7.1.6 processing on the 8805, the same as the ToneWinner AT-300. Multiple sub outs, which are bass managed. There is only one LFE channel for Dolby Atmos or DTS: X.

The next two least expensive products that can do 9.1.6 processing are the Monoprice HTP-1 and the Anthem AVM70.

[sapiendut]

I’m referring to the number of speakers that can be connected, not referring to the nimber of sound channels.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

I’m referring to the number of speakers that can be connected, not referring to the nimber of sound channels.

However, to the uninformed stating it this way makes it seem like that is how much immersive audio the unit can process and output at once. It's still only a 13.1 unit no matter how many output plugs it has.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by BijouMan

Aside from a few Chinese displays, IMAX Enhanced is only available on Sony displays, and aside from a few IMAX documentaries, only Sony has released IMAX Enhanced discs, all of which are encoded in HDR10. IMAX Enhanced is very much a Sony thing, and Sony is on the Dolby Vision side, not the HDR10+ side.

Also, DTS:X is an object-based system in which audio objects carry a polar coordinate which your sound device then uses in conjunction with the way it is configured to determine which speaker(s) these objects should play through. It is DTS's competitor to Dolby's Atmos system and even works with the upward-firing drivers on "Dolby Atmos" speakers. This is unlike the European Auro-3D system which simply uses up to 13.1 channels.

IMAX in the cinema is a 12 Channel-based audio format. DTS-X is alleged object audio. The DTS-X soundtrack on UHD disc has been found to actually be channel-based. DTS made a lot of unfulfilled claims about DTS-X.

[BijouMan]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

It’s not 7.2.8 but 9.2.6.

You can have either Front Heights, Front "Dolby Atmos" speakers (7.2.8) or Front Wides (9.2.6).

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by BijouMan

Marantz's flagship preamplifier processor, the AV8805, can connect to a whopping 7.2.8 channels and 7.2.6 can be active at any given time.

Wow, I've been out of the A/V market for a while so I had no idea they could get that many channels.

[slimdude]

Laserdisc was a niche market catered to only the rich and the wealthy folks who could afford to pay $90.00 for one movie 40 years ago. The average Joe Six Pack who've rented VHS tapes at video stores couldn't afford to adopt laserdisc. People who've invested into the laserdisc technology at the time had money. Laserdisc wasn't for the poor and the underprivileged population.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Laserdisc was a niche market catered to only the rich and the wealthy folks who could afford to pay $90.00 for one movie 40 years ago. The average Joe Six Pack who've rented VHS tapes at video stores couldn't afford to adopt laserdisc. People who've invested into the laserdisc technology at the time had money. Laserdisc wasn't for poor and the underprivileged population.

Except for special deluxe sets, like Criterion, LD's could be had for around the same price as the average 4k disc. They weren't $90 each. Their soundtracks were often not neutered either.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Wow, I've been out of the A/V market for a while so I had no idea they could get that many channels.

It's a 13.1 receiver, though you can plug in other speakers, but they won't be active. The max is 13.1. They're overstating its capabilities by saying 7.2.8, which is not possible on that model.



Any sub out beyond one is normally just a split signal.


Then you move into pre-amp/processors. The ToneWinner AT-300 pre-amp is also 13.1 and less than $1,400 through Summit Hi-Fi.



Then you move up the scale to pre-amps with 9.1.6 or more (around $4,000 - $6,000)... up to the Trinnov Altitude32 with 32 active channel outs using Dolby Atmos or DTS: X Pro. That particular unit is as much as a decent car.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Except for special deluxe sets, like Criterion, LD's could be had for around the same price as the average 4k disc. They weren't $90 each. Their soundtracks were often not neutered either.

Some movies were close to $90.00, it depend on the title. laserdisc movies were expensive, and a lot of people couldn't afford them.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Some movies were close to $90.00, it depend on the title. laserdisc movies were expensive, and a lot of people couldn't afford them.

As I mentioned, those were usually deluxe sets with tons of extras. Even more extras than most discs today. They were called film classes in a box.



If you were paying $90 for a movie only release, you were shopping in the wrong store. I could get a DTS Laserdisc of Jurassic Park for under $35.

[BijouMan]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Except for special deluxe sets, like Criterion, LD's could be had for around the same price as the average 4k disc. They weren't $90 each. Their soundtracks were often not neutered either.

Originally Posted by slimdude

Laserdisc was a niche market catered to only the rich and the wealthy folks who could afford to pay $90.00 for one movie 40 years ago. The average Joe Six Pack who've rented VHS tapes at video stores couldn't afford to adopt laserdisc. People who've invested into the laserdisc technology at the time had money. Laserdisc wasn't for the poor and the underprivileged population.

Back in the 70s when Betamax, VHS and LaserDisc (originally DiscoVision and later LaserVision) were introduced, the former two were designed as recording formats for recording television programs, and the latter was what you would use to "own" Hollywood films and watch them anytime, just like with records and music. LaserDisc was designed as something that could be mass-produced inexpensively. Unfortunately, it was discovered that while people loved the idea of "owning" films, they simply did not want to have to buy two separate machines, so studios started pre-recording Betamax and VHS tapes with films so that people could use their VCR for both recording programs and watching films. LaserDiscs were originally less expensive than blank tapes because they could simply be pressed from a glass master one after another. Prerecorded tapes, on the other hand, took just as long as the material itself to produce, and so they originally cost a lot more than LaserDiscs. Later, tapes did become cheaper, but really only due to sponsorships. The first such example was the Betamax and VHS release of Top Gun which was sponsored by PepsiCo and had a Diet Pepsi commercial at the beginning. If you had gotten the LaserDisc release, you didn't have to worry about advertising.

[sapiendut]

Not only LD was expensive. That’s simply the regular price for movie ownership. Be it VHS, Betamax, LD, to buy a movie was about $80 regardless of format.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Some movies were close to $90.00, it depend on the title. laserdisc movies were expensive, and a lot of people couldn't afford them.

And some were well over $100. I paid $125 for the CAV Box Set of Aliens.

But most of my purchases were $29.95 for a single CLV disc movie and $39.95 for a dual disc CLV movie.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Except for special deluxe sets, like Criterion, LD's could be had for around the same price as the average 4k disc. They weren't $90 each. Their soundtracks were often not neutered either.

Yep. I still have my LD copy of Mimic with DTS sound, I keep it as nostalgia. Those LD's with DTS Sound back in those days would blow you away. BTW, I wasn't rich.