Dolby Atmos, Auro, and 3D audio thread

[Krelldog1977]

Originally Posted by gotmule

The picture above shows Mirage speakers which are "omni directional" due to their tweeter design and are different from the speakers branded Omni which are listed in the article. I certainly would not classify Mirage speakers as junk and a scam.

Yes, you're right, I should have looked at the picture more carefully.

How many subs do you have? good stuff!
B

[JohnAV]

Interview – Wilfried Van Baelen and Auro Technologies (Part 1)

It is important to understand what “immersive sound” is. The definition is related to the reproduction of a natural, true 3D sound all around and above the listener. This means that is it not related to an object based technology as Dolby or DTS try to make us believe through their marketing. Immersive sound can be achieved even better and more efficiently with channel based technology over object based technologies. To achieve being immersed, the addition of the third and missing dimension ‘height’ all around and above the audience is key. This means that the speaker layout becomes the most important aspect, and not the way that sound is going to be delivered by a channel or object based technology. The term “immersive sound” was used for the first time in a flyer we made together with Barco in 2010 to launch a new true 3D experience in sound. But because “3D Sound” was used to market “Surround Sound” formats like 5.1 and 7.1, there was too much confusion and a new name was needed. We have chosen the term “immersive sound” because the addition of a good spread of sound in the vertical axis (height) is what is creating that total immersive experience.

What i find interesting is that both height and overhead play roles, so with Dolby Atmos you are attempting to eliminate height when its just as important as overhead.

[gotmule]

Originally Posted by Krelldog1977

Yes, you're right, I should have looked at the picture more carefully.

How many subs do you have? good stuff!
B

Thanks! I am running 5 now, and have been a huge fan of multiple subs for a long time now. I am guessing from your user I'd that you are a Krell fan. I am looking at the KAVS-300i to jump start a 2 channel room. Any thoughts?

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

What i find interesting is that both height and overhead play roles, so with Dolby Atmos you are attempting to eliminate height when its just as important as overhead.

How can a person run a lower set of speakers without objects blocking the pathway? I've always wondered this when it comes to their surround designs. Even in the Dolby Atmos theater I go to (the only one in the state I believe), sound gets blocked by a balcony in the back.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

How can a person run a lower set of speakers without objects blocking the pathway? I've always wondered this when it comes to their surround designs. Even in the Dolby Atmos theater I go to (the only one in the state I believe), sound gets blocked by a balcony in the back.

Thats a example of a tradition theater of the arts (concerts, plays) with a balcony, rather then a motion picture cinema that doesn't utilize one.



A typical cinema should have minimal a series of speakers below and to the sides of the front screen to reproduce the majority of content, with a series of speakers high up on the walls ringing the sides and the rear. Atmos theaters add speakers hanging above the seating area.

The home listening environment uses the same techniques, with majority of content from the L+C+R + sub in fromt of you, and depending on room size using 1 to 3 pairs of surround speakers placed somewhat higher then the seating area to play on the side and behind you.

You are right one shouldn't setup speakers where objects in the room block the sound particularly the front speakers. I have my surrounds above my seating area.

Below is Auro 11.1 theater speaker layout, note the addition height speakers rather then just a single ring of surround speakers.

[Krelldog1977]

Originally Posted by gotmule

Thanks! I am running 5 now, and have been a huge fan of multiple subs for a long time now. I am guessing from your user I'd that you are a Krell fan. I am looking at the KAVS-300i to jump start a 2 channel room. Any thoughts?

Yup- I'm a huge Krell fan. The executives there are a cool bunch of guys, and the factory is only an hours drive away from my home. Business is doing quite well at Krell these days

The KAV-300i is a very nice piece of gear for a 2 channel listening room. If you buy one it will most likely need a tune up ( due to age ). But that's not a big deal...I know the repair shop mgr at Krell. They will fix and upgrade any Krell unit, regardless of age, for a very fair price.

Here's an example of their customer service:

My cousin bought a used Krell FPB-300c around 10 years ago. It had retailed for $11k when new. He bought the amp for under $4500.

Now, 10 years later, my cousin decided to get the amp tuned up at Krell's factory in Orange, Conn...

They upgraded his capacitors, wires, display lights, etc etc...basically returning the amp to 100% original working performance.

The cost- $800 total. My cousin couldn't be happier...his smile still hasn't worn off from that deal

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Krelldog1977

Yup- I'm a huge Krell fan. The executives there are a cool bunch of guys, and the factory is only an hours drive away from my home. Business is doing quite well at Krell these days

The KAV-300i is a very nice piece of gear for a 2 channel listening room. If you buy one it will most likely need a tune up ( due to age ). But that's not a big deal...I know the repair shop mgr at Krell. They will fix and upgrade any Krell unit, regardless of age, for a very fair price.

Back to topic please.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Back to topic please.

I think that is my job

[BozQ]

Well, there's not much else to discuss for now until Dolby makes more announcements, or when the first hardware and software is released.

Okay, how about this? Which Atmos movies on Blu-ray would you want to purchase?

I have four I must have. Star Trek Into Darkness, Gravity, Transformers: Age of Extinction and Guardians of the Galaxy.

[rubystone356]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Well, there's not much else to discuss for now until Dolby makes more announcements, or when the first hardware and software is released.

Okay, how about this? Which Atmos movies on Blu-ray would you want to purchase?

I have four I must have. Star Trek Into Darkness, Gravity, Transformers: Age of Extinction and Guardians of the Galaxy.

man of steel, gravity, wolverine, xmen.

Jacob

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Well, there's not much else to discuss for now until Dolby makes more announcements, or when the first hardware and software is released.

Well some people think that because Atmos decoders are now built in to some AVR's that Dolby has such a wide lead on all of this, that both Auro 3D and DTS-MDA which is just coming online are too late in the grand scheme of things.

Good luck guessing what films offer Atmos, no one knows.

[JohnAV]

For people wondering what DTS-MDA is about, see this article:

Is DTS MDA the Future of Audio? An Ears-On Report

Dolby Atmos is, in essence, a bunch of extra channels grafted onto a conventional 7.1 system. The speakers can be addressed in groups as in 7.1, or individually for more immersive effects, and there are also two rows of ceiling speakers added.

MDA can address all the same speakers, and more -- the demo I heard uses three rows of speakers on the ceiling plus two additional height-speaker arrays of side surround speakers located above the conventionally placed side surrounds, plus additional left, center and right height speakers on the top of the screen.

[PeterTHX]

Dolby Atmos is, in essence, a bunch of extra channels grafted onto a conventional 7.1 system.

Except it's not and can do pretty much everything the MDA system does.


More DTS propaganda.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Except it's not and can do pretty much everything the MDA system does.

More DTS propaganda.

Both cinema Auro 3D (11.1) and DTS-MDA make use of height speakers to provide for a more uniform 3D effect, unforunately Dolby Atmos expects the elevated speakers (reverb off ceiling) or ceiling speakers to provide everything above you from a base 5.1 or 7.1 system. If someone already has a speaker setup at home with height speakers, which would be more appealing to expand upon? If I was a speaker manufacturer I would wait to see which one is more successful and appealing, not the first one out because Dolby fans say its best.

[JohnAV]

Again FilmMixer has commented on this on AVS.

Well since I'm mixing at Sony right now next to the Holden I have some insight

Only Sony and Universal use Harrison's right now. And between the two there is only one Atmos/Auro dubbing stage (out of a total of 7 large film dubbing stages). In addition to that stage, there are only 3 others in town with both systems installed, and 2 more with Auro only (6 Auro stages in town). vs a total of 11 Atmos rooms.

Technicolor (my normal home) just did two films in both formats with a temporary Auro instal (scaffolding and rigged speakers.). Both started as Atmos native and then the 7.1 fold downs were used to create the Auro.

But the big three large format consoles all support Atmos. And two of the three natively support Auro. The third is an easy workflow. And natively in Pro Tools.

It's up to the studios to decide to release in both formats.

The one person from DTS on the panel that I know, I expect, won't be divulging any info on the consumer market. But MDA will most definitely be discussed. I might attend.... We're being kick off our stage for the day so they can Q and A in our room.

The issue with Auro in the home, IMO, is that the theatrical version requires LCR heights in addition to the additional surround heights. Then add a VOG and I don't think I can see any home iteration gaining mass attraction. It also still only supports arrayed surrounds.

While thebland can afford it, where money is apparently no object for him, I just can't see it being a reality for many hobbyists, even with dedicated rooms.

The use of both codecs for a studio would require dual inventory / releases. I don't see a business model at this time that makes sense... If there are a host of Auro films and content to come, that might make sense.

At this point the content is well in favor of Atmos in terms of sheer titles and announced projects.

But it is still changing....

And MDA is finally coming on line.

But this might be one time when being first to market, with BR, OTT (streaming) and mobile solutions ready to roll, is a definite advantage.

And again, to beat the horse, the Elevation technology will allow many consumers the ability to enjoy immersive sound at home with a minimum of fuss (in relation to the other options.)

Just my .02.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Both cinema Auro 3D (11.1) and DTS-MDA make use of height speakers to provide for a more uniform 3D effect, unforunately Dolby Atmos expects the elevated speakers (reverb off ceiling) or ceiling speakers to provide everything above you from a base 5.1 or 7.1 system. If someone already has a speaker setup at home with height speakers, which would be more appealing to expand upon? If I was a speaker manufacturer I would wait to see which one is more successful and appealing, not the first one out because Dolby fans say its best.

Since a lot of surround setups already have speakers elevated on the wall how would they benefit from speakers slightly above those? There's only so much wall height in a home. Nothing "uniform" about a bunch of sounds blending together in one spot.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Since a lot of surround setups already have speakers elevated on the wall how would they benefit from speakers slightly above those? There's only so much wall height in a home. Nothing "uniform" about a bunch of sounds blending together in one spot.

Your correct that most home setups don't allow much latitude with speaker placement, up to now its been a decision of where your seating area is, and how can you surround yourself with either direct radiated speakers or reflected and indirect radiated speakers to comprise a home setup. Below is a recommended setup with height speakers (presence), which could be augmented with elevated speakers or ceiling speakers.



Also I was using the cinema term DTS-MDA, in regards to home setups this is being marketed as DTS-UHD Object-Based audio format for home theatre. At CES 2014 they were showing the single chip decoders for this.

Knowing how most AVR's and Pre-amps support different codecs (Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD-MA, lossy Dolby Digital, etc), I just like to see whatever 3D audio standards against media and streaming get broadly supported across all makes of gear so the end user doesn't suffer with I made the wrong purchase when all this technology improvements settles down.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Interview – Wilfried Van Baelen and Auro Technologies (Part 1)



What i find interesting is that both height and overhead play roles, so with Dolby Atmos you are attempting to eliminate height when its just as important as overhead.

You seem to have a bias against Dolby Atmos and are trying to prove it doesn't work well. I wonder why.

Frankly, I'm not sure that screen height (Auro) vs. using the objects to drive overheads near the screen would sound very much different from each other. The fact is that in channel based audio, you have no choice but to send sounds to the four arrays of surround speakers, whereas in Atmos (at least the theatre version), you can send individual sounds to individual speakers.

When Dolby first researched a new system, what they discovered is that most sound mixers felt that simply adding more channels was not going to be enough. That's why they took the object-based approach. That's not to say that you can't get good sound maintaining a channel-based approach. But you'll never achieve the channel separation available in an object based approach. And inherently, Atmos lowers distortion because each speaker in the surround arrays now take its own amplifier channel meaning that the amp can be driven at lower levels.

And reality has nothing to do with it. All films that make use of sound effects do so in a way that has almost nothing to do with reality. Most sounds are either entirely artificial or are presented in ways that you would never hear in real life (such as far louder), but work quite well dramatically in terms of their purpose in a given film. And that's even true in films released in mono.

I once wrote a paper on the use of sound in "The French Connection". While that film is shot almost documentary style, the sound effects were anything but. As just one example, near the end when Hackman is running through the abandoned building after

[Show spoiler]accidentally shooting the FBI agent

, you hear dripping water and other sounds far louder then you would ever hear them in real life.

[ditcin]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

You seem to have a bias against Dolby Atmos and are trying to prove it doesn't work well. I wonder why.

Frankly, I'm not sure that screen height (Auro) vs. using the objects to drive overheads near the screen would sound very much different from each other. The fact is that in channel based audio, you have no choice but to send sounds to the four arrays of surround speakers, whereas in Atmos (at least the theatre version), you can send individual sounds to individual speakers.

When Dolby first researched a new system, what they discovered is that most sound mixers felt that simply adding more channels was not going to be enough. That's why they took the object-based approach. That's not to say that you can't get good sound maintaining a channel-based approach. But you'll never achieve the channel separation available in an object based approach. And inherently, Atmos lowers distortion because each speaker in the surround arrays now take its own amplifier channel meaning that the amp can be driven at lower levels.

And reality has nothing to do with it. All films that make use of sound effects do so in a way that has almost nothing to do with reality. Most sounds are either entirely artificial or are presented in ways that you would never hear in real life (such as far louder), but work quite well dramatically in terms of their purpose in a given film. And that's even true in films released in mono.

I once wrote a paper on the use of sound in "The French Connection". While that film is shot almost documentary style, the sound effects were anything but. As just one example, near the end when Hackman is running through the abandoned building after

[Show spoiler]accidentally shooting the FBI agent

, you hear dripping water and other sounds far louder then you would ever hear them in real life.

Auro's set-up looks like it applied some SDDS speaker placement behind the screen mixed with Dolby Atmos surround theology.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

You seem to have a bias against Dolby Atmos and are trying to prove it doesn't work well. I wonder why.

I am not a fan of elevated speakers bouncing sound off of a ceiling as a workaround for ceiling speakers that are separately amplified based on previous experiences. For some rooms with specific ceilings this might work to some extent, but its not a good solution. As a 2D comparison you had the Bose 901's which used a array of small full range speakers to provide a mix of direct and reflected sound like you hear in a live concert, however when doing A/B comparisons it wasn't anywhere as good as a good set of tower speakers. I don't disagree that elevated speakers would not provide a more immersive experience for the home theater participant, I just seriously question the quality of the immersive environment.