Dolby Atmos coming soon for home use

[kenoh]

I guess I'm just a music guy and realistically it's best to keep music front stage.

I'm really hoping for surround wide and height support, I can do without ceiling speakers!

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I've never been impressed with the "no one is forcing you" argument. It implies a level of elitism of the "let them eat cake" stripe.


If any technology is supposed to be for the consumer market - layered onto every disc sold, for example, and obviously paid for by all consumers as part of the purchase - it should be accessible without undue technological compromise, or appearance, or cost. Someone would definitely be forcing me to pay for 30 speaker signals to be encoded.




I have already considered this, and thought through the methods for tacking on this "drool-worthy" sound schema. It obviously will be through modular expansion of existing equipment. The idea that everyone will run out and buy new receivers makes no sense, and can only be "bleeding edge" bait.


Whether it is actually worth it is a subjective idea. Adding thirty new speakers to a home environment is ludicrous, no matter how subjective.


Elitism has little charm. All this dick-stretching comparison about "who has the most comprehensive, impressive, complete audio dream" is going to be funded by the hoi-polloi who only have soundbar equipment; I'm not fooled, and nor will be the average consumer. Such folly sandbagged 3-D (line up, folks, buy the 3-D version of the film) and I'd expect to see the Dolby Atmos version of a film on a special disk, too, if it's all that desirable. We'll see.




I've heard that line before, from the 3-D people. Haven't you? It was part of the "you only have to buy one disc, your objections are meaningless" crowd, circa 2010-2011.


I'd rather wait and see what kind of encode comes with another phantom, the UHD/4K Blu standard. The average consumer is not going to add another 4, or 8, or 30 speakers to 5.1 or 7.1 array. I have two such arrays now, and two 2.1 setups, all for areas used both as social and viewing/listening areas. This is not a "new standard", it's a gimmick to sell audio gear, just as 3-D was a gimmick to reboot television sales. I don't expect it to be anywhere as well received as 3-D.


This is not to criticize the standard, far from it. It might be really nice, but it is a technological Rube Goldberg mess. As I've already mentioned, crossing vaulted ceilings, certain room furnishings, and other things found in the normal consumer setting, is a mess already. Considering this is the type of home where upscale buyers - able to purchase this gear - are actually going to have to place it, it makes less than no sense. I think the ability to multiplex these audio tracks has exceeded the delivery technology by quite a bit, and this thing is nowhere near ready for prime time home consumer delivery.


Having a ceiling on a nice home festooned with some cluster of speakers is not going to be a popular home decoration staple. When looking for audio gear for my own home, I wound up paying a premium price for Sonus Faber, Definitive Technology Mythos, and other gear, primarily for good looks - many speakers sound great, but look terrible - and the same will face "Atmos" speaker arrays on generally unfurnished ceilings.


What, 30 speaker cans trying to hide "concealed" speakers in a ceiling? Wiring this mess sounds reasonable? And "adequate"?


If you're convinced every home should have a dedicated theater, go ahead and say so.

I think your post smacks of heavy drama. Certainly there will be aesthetic considerations and wiring issues for old construction as there are for many other projects besides speaker installations.

Dolby was smart to consider both basic users of surround sound AND those who can do the full Atmos layout. Your concern about "paying" for that extra data shows a lack of understanding about how Atmos and other object based surround formats work. I suggest you do a little research before poo-pooing it. It's completely scalable and expandable. One audio track can handle multiple speaker layout schemes... and with discrete information. It's not matrixed audio.

Object audio is loosely based on 3D audio positional tracking that has been in video games for years.

If you think that home theater is just a bunch of machismo run wild, I suggest that this isn't the hobby for you.

There are a number of lower cost speaker solutions with good quality sound available, especially through Internet Direct companies, and not all basic Atmos receivers are going to be super expensive models either.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by kenoh

I guess I'm just a music guy and realistically it's best to keep music front stage.

I'm really hoping for surround wide and height support, I can do without ceiling speakers!

Then you won't get a lot of the benefits of Atmos or any object surround format. The overhead speakers allow for x/y/z coordinate sound positioning.

[kenoh]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

If you think that home theater is just a bunch of machismo run wild, I suggest that this isn't the hobby for you.

There are a number of lower cost speaker solutions with good quality sound available, especially through Internet Direct companies, and not all basic Atmos receivers are going to be super expensive models either.

If he wants, he can stick with HTIB solutions? Those systems are for people who don't want a full blown standalone system, of course I don't here them argue about new speaker technology...weird?


http://www.twice.com/news/receivers/...products/45915

[kenoh]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Then you won't get a lot of the benefits of Atmos or any object surround format. The overhead speakers allow for x/y/z coordinate sound positioning.

I know, I just wanted more speakers in the front for concerts and surround music, plus they will be the more active then ceiling speakers. I'm not going to argue about it for people who do want ceiling speakers....

But if they decide on 32 channels as the next standard I guess I have nothing to worry about since that setup will be available to me and even more!

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Unless you have a home theater room larger than Dolby Theater, you will not need more than Dolby's recommendation of 7.1.4

If you already have a 7.1 system and you have a qualifying receiver that can be upgraded to Atmos, then all you really need is get at least two height speakers, either in-ceiling or one of the other add on modules and you're more than ready to enjoy Dolby Atmos.

I'm looking forward to the next conference where Dolby can shed more information about this.

Yeah, tell the owner of a Krell, or Macintosh, or Rotel that he won't get the "ultimate listening experience" without rushing out to buy a compatible Onkyo to run his rig. See how far that goes.


This will be a modular "plug and play" add on. If all this talk about being totally compatible with current Blu players is true, it shouldn't be difficult at all. You will get a "black box" with a pass-through for whatever you're running (5.1, 7.1) and it will power and distribute the Atmos signals, probably to a dedicated "disco ball" speaker array. This is the only thing that the consumer market will tolerate.


Sure, there will always be the "Professor Elbow Patches" types recommending that a new $1,200 receiver (minimum for 7.1 distribution now, probably woefully inadequate for 30 or more channels) and a new set of speakers running $200 - $1,000 each for sound, is the absolute minimum for this marvelous new sound arrangement. They said so over in the other website...


The black box solution will be announced soon, with authorized brands, as was THX. It's the same type of thing, and we all know it.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Yeah, tell the owner of a Krell, or Macintosh, or Rotel that he won't get the "ultimate listening experience" without rushing out to buy a compatible Onkyo to run his rig. See how far that goes.


This will be a modular "plug and play" add on. If all this talk about being totally compatible with current Blu players is true, it shouldn't be difficult at all. You will get a "black box" with a pass-through for whatever you're running (5.1, 7.1) and it will power and distribute the Atmos signals, probably to a dedicated "disco ball" speaker array. This is the only thing that the consumer market will tolerate.


Sure, there will always be the "Professor Elbow Patches" types recommending that a new $1,200 receiver (minimum for 7.1 distribution now, probably woefully inadequate for 30 or more channels) and a new set of speakers running $200 - $1,000 each for sound, is the absolute minimum for this marvelous new sound arrangement. They said so over in the other website...


The black box solution will be announced soon, with authorized brands, as was THX. It's the same type of thing, and we all know it.

Atmos speaker height "modules" will be offered by more than just Onkyo and Pioneer for those who will not or cannot add ceiling speakers. Yes, this is a compromise solution. CEDIA will be the jumping off point for new Atmos gear of various sorts.

All this talk of Blu-ray player compatibility is true. The Atmos extension data is carried on a normal Dolby TrueHD bitstream. That's what your player thinks is being outputted via an HDMI cable. If you have an Atmos enabled receiver or pre-amp then the data is combined and you can have a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 or whatever configuration up to 24 + 10 on more expensive gear.

If you have a regular Dolby TrueHD processor, the extension data is ignored and you end up with a normal surround track as before.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

If you have a normal sized living room theater... you'll have no need for more than 7.1.4.

If you have the space and the budget... wire for more than the bare minimum.

As I was saying over and over, 7.3.4 would be my ideal configuration. :-)

[BozQ]

I have a (casual) question for you guys.
I know this is a very long shot and the possibilities of this actually happening is very low.

What if all the current Blu-rays that we currently own, that had an Atmos mix in cinemas, already contain the Atmos metadata in the Blu-ray?

For example, Star Trek Into Darkness. It came with Dolby TrueHD 7.1 back when Paramount was using DTS-HD most of the time. Perhaps Dolby is just waiting for the right time to spring a surprise to say, 'Hey guess what? We actually left the Atmos mix inside the Blu-rays that you already own!'

Just a crazy thought.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by BozQ

I have a (casual) question for you guys.
I know this is a very long shot and the possibilities of this actually happening is very low.

What if all the current Blu-rays that we currently own, that had an Atmos mix in cinemas, already contain the Atmos metadata in the Blu-ray?

For example, Star Trek Into Darkness. It came with Dolby TrueHD 7.1 back when Paramount was using DTS-HD most of the time. Perhaps Dolby is just waiting for the right time to spring a surprise to say, 'Hey guess what? We actually left the Atmos mix inside the Blu-rays that you already own!'

Just a crazy thought.

Yes, it's a crazy thought.

Dolby had to delay their Atmos roll out until this year. I would imagine that only discs prepped for a holiday debut and beyond would have been able to utilize the new authoring software to take commercial Atmos cinema files and convert them to usable consumer versions.

Unless the studio engineers are secretly time travelers.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by BozQ

I have a (casual) question for you guys.
I know this is a very long shot and the possibilities of this actually happening is very low.

What if all the current Blu-rays that we currently own, that had an Atmos mix in cinemas, already contain the Atmos metadata in the Blu-ray?

For example, Star Trek Into Darkness. It came with Dolby TrueHD 7.1 back when Paramount was using DTS-HD most of the time. Perhaps Dolby is just waiting for the right time to spring a surprise to say, 'Hey guess what? We actually left the Atmos mix inside the Blu-rays that you already own!'

Just a crazy thought.

It would be cool if that happened....


Brave's TrueHD track has a HUGE bitrate, 7+Mbps in some sequences.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It would be cool if that happened....


Brave's TrueHD track has a HUGE bitrate, 7+Mbps in some sequences.

I thought that was to accommodate separate video branches.

It doesn't seem like consumer Atmos and its necessary software was made at the same time as commercial Atmos, though some of the principles are the same from what I've been gleaning.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

I think your post smacks of heavy drama.

I can't help it. I am a dog. Dogs are dramatic by nature.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Certainly there will be aesthetic considerations and wiring issues for old construction as there are for many other projects besides speaker installations.

Agreed, and I see no discussion about both the aesthetic and technical drawbacks of implementing this schema. Limiting the discussion to "throw money at it" by purchasing replacement receivers, trying to power up and wire 30 speakers, and overcome sound diffusion by structural and furnishing restraints, doesn't feed the bulldog. This stuff requires a canned solution for home environments to gain popularity; this is why D-Box and Buttkicker gear, while interesting, had not enjoyed popular acceptance.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Dolby was smart to consider both basic users of surround sound AND those who can do the full Atmos layout. Your concern about "paying" for that extra data shows a lack of understanding about how Atmos and other object based surround formats work. I suggest you do a little research before poo-pooing it. It's completely scalable and expandable. One audio track can handle multiple speaker layout schemes... and with discrete information. It's not matrixed audio.

I have previously posted an article showing that this is something that has been done to spur sales; this, after filtering through several more articles about what is currently being touted as the technical issues surrounding Atmos. Perching on a tree branch, chirping at a skeptic about being uneducated, mostly shows that you don't have practical answers to my skepticism.


Have you considered a method for popular acceptance of a sound schema this complicated? I've already mentioned that a modular addition of this would be a more popular answer. Have you presented any solutions that don't involve rebooting perfectly good (and currently disseminated) sound equipment? If so, I haven't heard them. Regurgitated advertising doesn't impress me much, or spur me to go out and buy this stuff. All "drama" aside.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Object audio is loosely based on 3D audio positional tracking that has been in video games for years.

With questionable results. Considering the depth of the yawns surrounding "7.1" headphones, I'm wondering where you're going with this.


I have some PC based games that people enjoy that work very well on my rigs, including video on 70" and 60" televisions, on 5.1 and 7.1 audio rigs. I'm not unfamiliar with current presentations, and would like to see this new format succeed, but it has to be practical in both feature set and implementation.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

If you think that home theater is just a bunch of machismo run wild, I suggest that this isn't the hobby for you.

Suggestion noted, and ignored. I'm a trained engineer, with very impressive consumer-level gear in my home, in multiple locations. Having purchased very good equipment (and built my own subwoofers, full blown speakers and subs for my kids, and connected and wired everything), I can say that it takes less machismo and more hard work to set everything up correctly.


Integrating it all is not a money toss, which is machismo in my book. I've done all this, while integrating it into a very modern home with an eye to aesthetics. The object was not to scream "let me show you the money" when it integrates well. The effects should be subtle.


Hanging up a ton of glitzy, obtrusive gear is a habit for people who think a Ferrari looks better with flames painted on the fenders. Machismo is not something I admire; good engineering and execution is. Why shouldn't I enjoy this hobby? Take a look at my gallery, which has changed much since I took those pictures. And that's one theater of four in my home.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

There are a number of lower cost speaker solutions with good quality sound available, especially through Internet Direct companies, and not all basic Atmos receivers are going to be super expensive models either.

Don't be too sure. There is a ton of good, inexpensive gear out there, and a ton of crap, too. People have spent a lot of money getting good gear, at good prices, but the bottom line here is that the idea that they should get rid of what they have - and replace it with "new" equipment - hits a sour note.


This includes:

• The idea that this new schema will somehow be retrofitted to current Blu disks (double-dipping! What an amazing concept)
• UHD/4K will automatically use this new schema
• Studios will embrace this new sound setup in a uniform fashion, at no cost to the consumer
• It will be easy for the majority of affluent buyers to implement (already a questionable concept)

These are not dramatic statements. This is the current reality.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I can't help it. I am a dog. Dogs are dramatic by nature.





Agreed, and I see no discussion about both the aesthetic and technical drawbacks of implementing this schema. Limiting the discussion to "throw money at it" by purchasing replacement receivers, trying to power up and wire 30 speakers, and overcome sound diffusion by structural and furnishing restraints, doesn't feed the bulldog. This stuff requires a canned solution for home environments to gain popularity; this is why D-Box and Buttkicker gear, while interesting, had not enjoyed popular acceptance.




I have previously posted an article showing that this is something that has been done to spur sales; this, after filtering through several more articles about what is currently being touted as the technical issues surrounding Atmos. Perching on a tree branch, chirping at a skeptic about being uneducated, mostly shows that you don't have practical answers to my skepticism.


Have you considered a method for popular acceptance of a sound schema this complicated? I've already mentioned that a modular addition of this would be a more popular answer. Have you presented any solutions that don't involve rebooting perfectly good (and currently disseminated) sound equipment? If so, I haven't heard them. Regurgitated advertising doesn't impress me much, or spur me to go out and buy this stuff. All "drama" aside.




With questionable results. Considering the depth of the yawns surrounding "7.1" headphones, I'm wondering where you're going with this.


I have some PC based games that people enjoy that work very well on my rigs, including video on 70" and 60" televisions, on 5.1 and 7.1 audio rigs. I'm not unfamiliar with current presentations, and would like to see this new format succeed, but it has to be practical in both feature set and implementation.




Suggestion noted, and ignored. I'm a trained engineer, with very impressive consumer-level gear in my home, in multiple locations. Having purchased very good equipment (and built my own subwoofers, full blown speakers and subs for my kids, and connected and wired everything), I can say that it takes less machismo and more hard work to set everything up correctly.


Integrating it all is not a money toss, which is machismo in my book. I've done all this, while integrating it into a very modern home with an eye to aesthetics. The object was not to scream "let me show you the money" when it integrates well. The effects should be subtle.


Hanging up a ton of glitzy, obtrusive gear is a habit for people who think a Ferrari looks better with flames painted on the fenders. Machismo is not something I admire; good engineering and execution is. Why shouldn't I enjoy this hobby? Take a look at my gallery, which has changed much since I took those pictures. And that's one theater of four in my home.




Don't be too sure. There is a ton of good, inexpensive gear out there, and a ton of crap, too. People have spent a lot of money getting good gear, at good prices, but the bottom line here is that the idea that they should get rid of what they have - and replace it with "new" equipment - hits a sour note.


This includes:

• The idea that this new schema will somehow be retrofitted to current Blu disks (double-dipping! What an amazing concept)
• UHD/4K will automatically use this new schema
• Studios will embrace this new sound setup in a uniform fashion, at no cost to the consumer
• It will be easy for the majority of affluent buyers to implement (already a questionable concept)

These are not dramatic statements. This is the current reality.

When has this ever not been about selling new gear each model year? The same is true with cars and computers.

When Dolby TrueHD and then DTS Master Audio came out, if you didn't have the equipment capable of decoding said formats and wanted to... you had to buy a new receiver or pre-amp. No one forced you to because you could still play those same tracks through legacy gear and get the lossy version as before. And the studios didn't tack on a surcharge to have lossless compressed PCM audio in most every title released after uncompressed multi-channel PCM was dropped due to it being an unnecessary space hog.

If you run Dolby Atmos through your current equipment, you get a regular TrueHD soundtrack as before.

Object audio attaches x/y/z coordinate metadata to individual sound files and then the renderer can place them in various locations throughout the room. In the basic sense, if you have a speaker in that location as described by the metadata and the renderer knows you do... it will come out of that assigned speaker. If you don't, it's phased between two adjacent speakers. Each speaker becomes its own discrete channel above and beyond the base 7.1 layout.

So, in that regard it's vastly superior to real-time steered game audio.

If you haven't actually heard an Atmos track at an Atmos equipped theater... do so. You may (or may not) be impressed. I sure was. When I saw "Gravity" I was blown away by the 3D audio effect.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I can't help it. I am a dog. Dogs are dramatic by nature.

Thanks Dog.
You gave me an idea for a tie-in post to Peter’s Triumph.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

When has this ever not been about selling new gear each model year? The same is true with cars and computers.

So says any slave to fashion. Let's commit every Jaguar XKE to the scrap heap, on the say-so of the latest Jaguar ad. Or every P-51 Mustang, or Tannoy or Klipsch Heritage speaker. I guess I should toss my JL Audio Fathom subwoofer, and get the latest version, or toss my Lawrence of Arabia disc in favor of whatever the latest release has come out with Atmos. And some camels.


Fashion has limits. Think it through...Dolby does amazing work, but this has no standard yet, or a rational product plan. Desperate (yes, desperate) manufacturers are eagerly shouting, "Get that dusty old receiver out of here! You need this unit, which powers up your old 7.1 system and 30 more just like them, we have them lined up over here, you can amaze your friends! The slightest fart sounds like the Deathstar going up in smoke, that's what you need..." and this kind of blather.


I'm supposed to accept that as an axiom? You're buying into it? Yes, it's amazing in a venue designed for it - your local theater, which is a barn without cows and excellent light control, but putting such a rig in your home is very similar to a fleet of toy ducks in your bathtub making you Nelson at Trafalgar. Not quite the same.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

When Dolby TrueHD and then DTS Master Audio came out, if you didn't have the equipment capable of decoding said formats and wanted to... you had to buy a new receiver or pre-amp.

Which I promptly did. I replaced a receiver I bought almost 20 years before. That Dolby receiver, I replaced 12 years later - with a receiver that did not decode anything like Tru-HD or Master Audio - and which I still use every day. My players decode those to PCM, no worries. I've been using them for eight years.


If Atmos is all that, my players will decode those, as well, or feed them as PCM into a separate Atmos box. Why not just purchase a less expensive unit? Why throw out a receiver for it? Some folks have purchased very nice Marantz, Pioneer, Denon, and other gear - quite recently - why is it somehow "obsolescent", preventing widespread adoption of a very nice format?


The urge to "paint-scrape" the market to introduce new products and services has gone from the extreme to the absurd. When an outfit the size of Vizio tosses 3-D overboard because no one uses it, it should be a signboard for anyone touting new technologies. Make it fit the marketplace - don't try to re-invent the marketplace.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

No one forced you to because you could still play those same tracks through legacy gear and get the lossy version as before.

"...he said with a contemptuous sneer..."


Please understand: I will take my Pioneer Kuro over any other television on the market today. I get the best in discrete sound from my 1987 vintage Pioneer Elite 84Txsi receivers, with DTS Master Audio and Dolby Tru-HD fully engaged. My living room rig now sports five subwoofers, and the best audio I've heard short of Sonus Faber Cremonas (I have the Domus) and I've done that for about eight years now.


My original Sony player took an upgrade to get it to Dolby Tru-HD when that was released; I had to get another player to get DTS Master Audio in 7.1. They output in PCM, so no receiver upgrade was necessary, a good thing since they were $1,100 when I got them. They are still a marvel today.


I do have lossy audio in a secondary (actually tertiary) TV room for guests and the odd Netflix viewing. No, lossy audio is not a choice for anyone; it's a devil's bargain. I don't like deviltry.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

And the studios didn't tack on a surcharge to have lossless compressed PCM audio in most every title released after uncompressed multi-channel PCM was dropped due to it being an unnecessary space hog.

I'd give them a cigar for that, except the studios can afford their own cigars. The real hoot is that they wanted the space for endless previews, useless "extras", and god knows how much copy protection crap on every disc. I love lossless audio, and hate the volume/attenuation diddling they do with these encodes (night modes, indeed). But so it goes.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

If you run Dolby Atmos through your current equipment, you get a regular TrueHD soundtrack as before.

Imagine how this could be much more powerful with a simple pass-through decoding box - with or without a 32 band amplifier, feeding a "disco-ball" dodecahedron speaker array. It could be connected to any system currently extant, and since you're convinced it uses the same signal, where's the harm?


This is Dolby, remember - they can have sliding delay modes to change the spatial dynamics, to the user's whim, with a 3-
3-D joystick control. It wouldn't even have to be hung chandelier style. It wouldn't requires Andrew Jones' homely tack-on Pioneer speakers, or anything else, and could be mounted as high as you like.


Mark my words - the confusion around this format is the sure sign that bean-counters are tipping over workbenches where the engineers already figured this out. Let them make their own mischief - they have every time a good advance comes from the gear-heads - and don't back their play.


Good ambient sound without drastic compromise is the Holy Grail since stereo sound. This idea isn't new, it's just close to completion (and has been implemented in professional theaters). To meet the home market, don't support anything that will limit adoption.


Existing construction - sloped ceilings or not - can use such gear, which a bean counter will cry about, since they can't patent it yet. It's not what's at the theater, and they haven't funded the design of the gear to get a lock on it. Everybody wants to be Bose, but who wants to fight those lunatics on the direct/reflecting patents? So we hear all this daft clatter about 30 speakers, or putting speakers on the floor and bouncing it off certain kinds of ceilings, and all of that.


Think it through. If Atmos is all that, you can bet one of the Dolby engineers has thought of it. They're some of the brightest people in this business, but they have get past a bean-counter, and a lawyer, just to get to the exit door if the place is on fire.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Object audio attaches x/y/z coordinate metadata to individual sound files and then the renderer can place them in various locations throughout the room. In the basic sense, if you have a speaker in that location as described by the metadata and the renderer knows you do... it will come out of that assigned speaker. If you don't, it's phased between two adjacent speakers. Each speaker becomes its own discrete channel above and beyond the base 7.1 layout.

So, in that regard it's vastly superior to real-time steered game audio.

This sort of mixing doesn't happen in most audio product for film production. It does for animated work, and with directors obsessed with mike placement while filming (del Toro, the Bond film guys, and others) but a lot of it is layered in by foley teams with a heart, perhaps on an Oscar hunt. Bay does it that way, the sound is recreated later (I'm sure his sets are a cacophony of generators, background noise, etc.)


First, you have know the ultimate mix. Most stuff is in SDDS, from what I've seen, and I don't know how many tracks are in that metadata. Next, you have to mix to a standard for home use - have you noticed how many films are 5.1, and not 7.1? It's a money thing. Finally, we have to figure out what the schema will be - four heights, or eight, or 30, or all possible 128 tracks - nobody knows, and the bean counters will be doing plenty of long division. Number of tracks, divided by engineering hours, you betcha. It's going to get ugly.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

If you haven't actually heard an Atmos track at an Atmos equipped theater... do so. You may (or may not) be impressed. I sure was. When I saw "Gravity" I was blown away by the 3D audio effect.

I won't go to theaters. It's not a phobia; it's worse than that. It approaches pure hatred. I'll take your word for it - Atmos, good - and I'll probably adopt it, fairly early. I'm looking for Vizio to release the 120 inch TV, later this year or early next year (those guys never catch the early bus) and go state of the art when everyone gets a grip on this UHD thing.


But I'm not going to get caught up in the hype. This is definitely a direct-reflecting scenario for sound dispersion, at least in the home, and requires more than a storage medium to work in a residential environment. I've passed on 3-D, thank goodness, avoiding all the technology speed bumps (active vs. passive, no retro use of gear, all that nonsense) and if they make Atmos as confusing - probably intentionally, to get people to buy it two or three times - I'll just let the dust settle.

[Blu-Dog]

I didn't mean to let the cat out of the bag. After all, on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog...

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I didn't mean to let the cat out of the bag. After all, on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog...

Don't worry about it Blu-Dog ~ & don't believe everything some people say

If you have A Huge Room then it might be worth taking advantage of

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

So says any slave to fashion. Let's commit every Jaguar XKE to the scrap heap, on the say-so of the latest Jaguar ad. Or every P-51 Mustang, or Tannoy or Klipsch Heritage speaker. I guess I should toss my JL Audio Fathom subwoofer, and get the latest version, or toss my Lawrence of Arabia disc in favor of whatever the latest release has come out with Atmos. And some camels.


Fashion has limits. Think it through...Dolby does amazing work, but this has no standard yet, or a rational product plan. Desperate (yes, desperate) manufacturers are eagerly shouting, "Get that dusty old receiver out of here! You need this unit, which powers up your old 7.1 system and 30 more just like them, we have them lined up over here, you can amaze your friends! The slightest fart sounds like the Deathstar going up in smoke, that's what you need..." and this kind of blather.


I'm supposed to accept that as an axiom? You're buying into it? Yes, it's amazing in a venue designed for it - your local theater, which is a barn without cows and excellent light control, but putting such a rig in your home is very similar to a fleet of toy ducks in your bathtub making you Nelson at Trafalgar. Not quite the same.




Which I promptly did. I replaced a receiver I bought almost 20 years before. That Dolby receiver, I replaced 12 years later - with a receiver that did not decode anything like Tru-HD or Master Audio - and which I still use every day. My players decode those to PCM, no worries. I've been using them for eight years.


If Atmos is all that, my players will decode those, as well, or feed them as PCM into a separate Atmos box. Why not just purchase a less expensive unit? Why throw out a receiver for it? Some folks have purchased very nice Marantz, Pioneer, Denon, and other gear - quite recently - why is it somehow "obsolescent", preventing widespread adoption of a very nice format?


The urge to "paint-scrape" the market to introduce new products and services has gone from the extreme to the absurd. When an outfit the size of Vizio tosses 3-D overboard because no one uses it, it should be a signboard for anyone touting new technologies. Make it fit the marketplace - don't try to re-invent the marketplace.





"...he said with a contemptuous sneer..."


Please understand: I will take my Pioneer Kuro over any other television on the market today. I get the best in discrete sound from my 1987 vintage Pioneer Elite 84Txsi receivers, with DTS Master Audio and Dolby Tru-HD fully engaged. My living room rig now sports five subwoofers, and the best audio I've heard short of Sonus Faber Cremonas (I have the Domus) and I've done that for about eight years now.


My original Sony player took an upgrade to get it to Dolby Tru-HD when that was released; I had to get another player to get DTS Master Audio in 7.1. They output in PCM, so no receiver upgrade was necessary, a good thing since they were $1,100 when I got them. They are still a marvel today.


I do have lossy audio in a secondary (actually tertiary) TV room for guests and the odd Netflix viewing. No, lossy audio is not a choice for anyone; it's a devil's bargain. I don't like deviltry.





I'd give them a cigar for that, except the studios can afford their own cigars. The real hoot is that they wanted the space for endless previews, useless "extras", and god knows how much copy protection crap on every disc. I love lossless audio, and hate the volume/attenuation diddling they do with these encodes (night modes, indeed). But so it goes.




Imagine how this could be much more powerful with a simple pass-through decoding box - with or without a 32 band amplifier, feeding a "disco-ball" dodecahedron speaker array. It could be connected to any system currently extant, and since you're convinced it uses the same signal, where's the harm?


This is Dolby, remember - they can have sliding delay modes to change the spatial dynamics, to the user's whim, with a 3-
3-D joystick control. It wouldn't even have to be hung chandelier style. It wouldn't requires Andrew Jones' homely tack-on Pioneer speakers, or anything else, and could be mounted as high as you like.


Mark my words - the confusion around this format is the sure sign that bean-counters are tipping over workbenches where the engineers already figured this out. Let them make their own mischief - they have every time a good advance comes from the gear-heads - and don't back their play.


Good ambient sound without drastic compromise is the Holy Grail since stereo sound. This idea isn't new, it's just close to completion (and has been implemented in professional theaters). To meet the home market, don't support anything that will limit adoption.


Existing construction - sloped ceilings or not - can use such gear, which a bean counter will cry about, since they can't patent it yet. It's not what's at the theater, and they haven't funded the design of the gear to get a lock on it. Everybody wants to be Bose, but who wants to fight those lunatics on the direct/reflecting patents? So we hear all this daft clatter about 30 speakers, or putting speakers on the floor and bouncing it off certain kinds of ceilings, and all of that.


Think it through. If Atmos is all that, you can bet one of the Dolby engineers has thought of it. They're some of the brightest people in this business, but they have get past a bean-counter, and a lawyer, just to get to the exit door if the place is on fire.




This sort of mixing doesn't happen in most audio product for film production. It does for animated work, and with directors obsessed with mike placement while filming (del Toro, the Bond film guys, and others) but a lot of it is layered in by foley teams with a heart, perhaps on an Oscar hunt. Bay does it that way, the sound is recreated later (I'm sure his sets are a cacophony of generators, background noise, etc.)


First, you have know the ultimate mix. Most stuff is in SDDS, from what I've seen, and I don't know how many tracks are in that metadata. Next, you have to mix to a standard for home use - have you noticed how many films are 5.1, and not 7.1? It's a money thing. Finally, we have to figure out what the schema will be - four heights, or eight, or 30, or all possible 128 tracks - nobody knows, and the bean counters will be doing plenty of long division. Number of tracks, divided by engineering hours, you betcha. It's going to get ugly.




I won't go to theaters. It's not a phobia; it's worse than that. It approaches pure hatred. I'll take your word for it - Atmos, good - and I'll probably adopt it, fairly early. I'm looking for Vizio to release the 120 inch TV, later this year or early next year (those guys never catch the early bus) and go state of the art when everyone gets a grip on this UHD thing.


But I'm not going to get caught up in the hype. This is definitely a direct-reflecting scenario for sound dispersion, at least in the home, and requires more than a storage medium to work in a residential environment. I've passed on 3-D, thank goodness, avoiding all the technology speed bumps (active vs. passive, no retro use of gear, all that nonsense) and if they make Atmos as confusing - probably intentionally, to get people to buy it two or three times - I'll just let the dust settle.

Oh, I intend to sit this first generation out (I usually do). We'll see what improvements get rolled into next year's gear. If there are a few hardy souls who like to exchange their gear every year or two, they can be the guinea pigs. I don't mind. Don't have the cash to play around and find it's best to be careful. In that we agree.

I also am not a 3D fan. It destroys cinematography and makes it more of a gimmick just like every other time it has been used to get more butts in the seats. 3D, even shot natively with the best equipment, can sometimes look like a pop up book because it still doesn't capture how your eyes work.

Atmos and object audio in general, however, is fundamentally different and is a real sonic game changer.

I look forward to seeing and listening to gear at CEDIA and finding out if home Atmos can do a decent facsimile of the theatrical version. If it's not a bunch of hot air... then sign me up!

You seemingly are far too quick to dismiss some of this stuff. Industry speaking, 3D was a miss and hopefully Atmos is a hit. We need to keep improving the experience.

Video wise we're still using some standards that are decades old. UHD must incorporate a lot more features than just a higher pixel count... and their are some outside pressures at play trying to move the bar higher than HD. I look forward to that.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

Don't worry about it Blu-Dog ~ & don't believe everything some people say

If you have A Huge Room then it might be worth taking advantage of

Oh ye of little faith.