Dolby Atmos coming soon for home use

[Lentulus Batiatus]

So you are judging something based on not actually having been witness to it and then come to the internet to complain about what an injustice it still is, all in a thread that has nothing to do with the quality of these films outside of the sound presentation. Gotcha.

And for reference my post was directed at the MANY people who feel so compelled to do exactly as I described then lament about how much money these filmmakers are making and crying foul that such horrible people are employed. Oh wait, you did that to.

Most days the world was a better place before the internet.

[BozQ]

Yes. Please take note of which thread you're in. Perhaps this thread is in the wrong forum too. But any how, use a little common sense.

I do have my criticisms for Transformers, but I've already left my thoughts in one of the many Age of Extinction threads we have here, but I'm discussing solely on the technical aspects of the film here. Obviously, sound in this case.

I would discuss other Atmos titles, but it just so happens that this was announced just as Transformers is released.

That said, I'm looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy next. I'll be watching that twice. Once in IMAX 3D and another in Dolby Atmos. And I hope to own an Atmos Blu-ray after that.

[sukraj]

dolby dat dolby this.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by sukraj

dolby dat dolby this.

Dolby for teh winz! :-)

[MoulinBlu]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

I only mentioned the presence of DACs in phones to illustrate that the chip itself is basically nothing much, if it were well then the whole conversation would fall apart. I also mentioned it to illustrate how important the implementation of that chip is, which is what I originally stated.

You stop at avrs and BD players, but I'm also adding high end stand alone DACS, the DACs found in my studio recording gear (as well as it's counterpart, the ADC, which is in short all of the same), DACs on audio devices and cards in PCs (this is a big part of it for me).

And I will stand by my beliefs, a well implemented quality DAC can indeed sound substantially better than others.

Now in AVRs the importance of their role is somewhat limited. Limited by the cost and quality of your AVR first and foremost. No manufacturer is going to invest the money and time needed on a product that has all but the kitchen sink included.

As a final example

You have $1.5K to spend. You want to be part of the ESS revolution (though might as well wait some, if marketing is important to you ESS now has a 36 bit chip) Let's say I propose 3 option to you so you can jump on the bandwagon.

1st- You can get a very nice receiver that uses it and also does 1 million other things.

2nd- you can get a Universal player that uses it. Chances are (and is also in reality) you will get a much better built and implemented solution since most of the cost now goes to much less parts. Enter the OPPO 105 that indeed sounds much better than an equivalently priced full fledged AVR, unless you don't agree with this (then we just don't agree at all and all this is pointless)

3rd- you purchase a stand alone DAC that basically only does 1 thing, and still uses the same chip. Now I personally have experienced this and know how much better option 3 would sound over 1 and even 2, though there diminishing returns kick in a bit earlier.

Now if you believe that whether you use a nice Onkyo, an OPPO 105 (or equivalent competition, like a nice Cambridge) feeding that Onkyo, or even a dedicated DAC yet again to feed that Onkyo would result in the same sound quality, then I guess we just don't see eye-to-eye on this.

I mainly stopped at AVRs and players because this isn't a phone or computer forum and the discussion is about AVRs specifically. But I suppose I should qualify things further by saying I have no experience using stand alone DACs. My experience is primarily with AVRs, audio separates (pre/pros and amp combos), and playback devices - in which case I've found no indication of inconsistency in DAC implementation that could be directly related to impacting tonal quality in any way, much less having such a dramatic impact as you've proposed, not even when comparing low end AVRs to high end - it seems a pretty compulsory area of design that was perfected more than a decade ago (some would say decade(s) ago). It's almost not worth advertising the DACs anymore in the AVR arena, as they've become so affordable, it's foolish not to use quality DACs and even Onkyo doesn't seem to have trouble implementing them.

(BTW, apparently you don't remember Denon's 5805 AVR - for it's day it pretty much had "everything but the kitchen sink", as you say. They don't make 'em like that anymore though.)

Phones on the other hand are more about cost and the compromise that comes from compactness, so I imagine cutting corners on DACs might make more sense considering the market surely doesn't expect high fidelity sound out of one tiny speaker. The same is no doubt true of computers as well - I know that for myself, all I hope for from a computer speaker or the tiny USB plug ins on my desk is that I can make out dialogue with or without cranking it to max volume.

I don't own any of Oppos newest line, though I have a good deal of knowledge of the brand and am fairly familiar with their current stuff as I've been pondering upgrading to the 103D lately myself, and a number of my friends and colleagues already have.

I do have a decent amount of hands on experience - both from review evaluation and personal ownership of - a wide variety of AVRs and playback devices running the guantlet of price ranges or both high and low end, if you want to put it that way. Having used "audiophile" grade playback devices (manufacturers term, not mine) that make an Oppo 105D seem cheap, I'll reiterate that I've never found any significant sonic benefit in letting the source device do the decoding and analog conversion, in most cases nothing even appreciable. There are benefits of course - like being able to use legacy gear instead of upgrading the AVR; certain BD features also require decoding the audio in the player to work, not that such necessites converting it to analog there too. But in terms of sound fidelity, it's just not there, all things being equal, at least not that I've heard with the devices I've evaluated and owned over the years.

But HT computer builds aren't my forte either. I don't have the experience in that area necessary to offer anything more than theoretical explanation as to why you may have heard or thought you heard an improvement at all, much less a dramatic one. I will point out that the more direct path of decoding and doing all processing digitally before converting to analog and routing the signal to the speakers should obviously produce better results than digital decoding - analog conversion - digital conversion - processing - analog conversion again.

As most AVRs today no longer support ADC for anything other than stereo, by using a players analog output you often lose all of the processing features in the AVR that are performed in the digital realm, like EQ (both auto, like Audyssey and YPAO, and manual EQ tweaking), THX, DSPs, lipsync, room re-eq, etc, which not even the 105D supports, except maybe for lipsync. So, like I said, I don't understand the point in using the players DACs in the digital age, unless you absolutely need to, because you don't want to modernize the rest of your gear due to budget or whatever reason.


BTW, I've never regarded Onkyo as the pinnacle of AVR build and/or design - curious that you would use one of the cheapest most problematic brands as your example. Some of their models do offer incredible bang for your buck though, in terms of features. I never said there was no audible difference between various components or signal paths, just that such is near impossible to isolate blame solely on the DAC or implementation thereof, and that even where there is audible difference - which is more likely due to other elements of design than the devices DAC - in my experience, it's not likely to be anywhere near the monumental difference you portend, with regard to AVRs. I have heard Toshiba completely flub even the digital audio output in components billed as part of their "audiophile" grade line though, but no fix or reason was ever admitted to or discovered that I'm aware of, and that was more the exception than the rule.

That's all I have to say on the subject - spent too much time on it already.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by kenoh

What I like most about Atmos having 32 channel support is the fact that you can have any configuration you want and still get precise surround sound because it's object based audio!

Whether or not you have all 32 speakers does not hinder the surround sound experience or quality and what ever setup you have will sound like it was native all along!

That is most certainly not accurate.

Here's an example:
Let's say a mixer is using Atmos to mix a helicopter fly-over. So he mixes the objects to pan around to various overhead locations.

You hear that mix in a theatre that has 9 overhead speakers: 3 sets of 3, front to back, side to side. You're going to hear that helicopter move between those 9 speakers, according to the 3D positions the mixer pushed the sound to. If the helicopter is moving in a circle, that's how it will sound (for a circle, maybe it won't use the center overhead in that 9-speaker configuration).

Now you go to another theatre. It only has 3 overhead speakers, front to back. You'll still hear some overhead movement, but you'll only be able to perceive the helicopter moving front to back, not in a circle.

Now you go to another theatre. It has one overhead speaker. You'll be able to perceive that there's a helicopter overhead, but you won't be able to perceive that it's moving at all.

So the number of channels you install certainly makes a difference. Just because Atmos picks the closest speaker to the location it was intended for doesn't mean that more speaker locations don't provide more accurate sound. It just means that you'll still hear all the sound that was intended, just not at the intended location. For all practical purposes, it's an automatic down mix.

This is why I stated in earlier postings that if you have 5.1 or 7.1 today and you playback an Atmos mix on an Atmos receiver without adding more speaker channels, it won't sound any different. It can't.

[kenoh]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

This is why I stated in earlier postings that if you have 5.1 or 7.1 today and you playback an Atmos mix on an Atmos receiver without adding more speaker channels, it won't sound any different. It can't.

I basically just said that in the same post you responded to?

"Whether or not you have all 32 speakers does not hinder the surround sound experience or quality and what ever setup you have will sound like it was native all along!"


I also meant comparing to what we have today, it's a huge leap in surround technology!

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Lentulus Batiatus

Accept you aren't tied to a chair, you willingly go to the theater, purchase a ticket and sit through the entire thing before running to the internet to ***** and moan about the injustice you just suffered.

Atmos in home is sounding more and more interesting. Would be nice to see some sort of actual set-up for a home though. And not some $80000.00 room in a 2 mill home.

In a way, I was forced to see this. My brother is a huge fan of Transformers and I went for him.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by kenoh

I basically just said that in the same post you responded to?

"Whether or not you have all 32 speakers does not hinder the surround sound experience or quality and what ever setup you have will sound like it was native all along!"


I also meant comparing to what we have today, it's a huge leap in surround technology!

No. Your statement states that even if you don't have 32 speakers, the experience won't be hindered. Having only 5.1 or 7.1 is not having 32 speakers and the Atmos experience will most certainly be hindered. For all the reasons I mentioned (the helicopter example), every time you "remove" a speaker, you are indeed hindering the experience.

If, however, what you were trying to say is that if you have the 32 speakers and you're listening to a non-Atmos 5.1 or 7.1 mix, the 5.1 or 7.1 experience won't be hindered, that is true.

If listening to an Atmos mix on 5.1 or 7.1, whether that will sound the same as a native 5.1 or 7.1 mix remains to be seen. No one can judge that without actually hearing it. It's certainly possible that there will be phasing effects and cancellations will result.

I do agree that it's a huge step forward in surround technology, although IMO, a largely impractical one for most people in the home. Most consumers haven't even bothered with anything beyond a sound bar. 5.1 or 7.1 would be a big leap for many consumers. Atmos isn't happening for them. For the elite with dedicated home theaters and enough money to burn so that the spouse doesn't complain or for those rich geeks who can't get a spouse for all the obvious reasons? Sure. But that's a very niche audience.

[Blu-ray Neo]

Personally, I do not see myself purchasing an ATMOS set-up.

32 speakers? Give me a break. Right now I'm running a 7.2 option and that's just fine for me and most others.

Most consumers don't even have a 5.1 set-up and have relied on soundbars for years. Why on Earth would you then ask them to partake into a 32 speaker set-up?

This is a lot like the Blu-ray vs. DVD argument.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by samlop10

Mmh.. This sounds really interesting but the number of channels is still 11 or less for those receivers. I wonder if it will make a noticeable difference using Atmos with that number of channels. And isn't the spec for Blu-ray discs a max of 7.1 discrete channels? Or has that changed? It almost sounds like it is just Dolby's version of DTS Neo-X but slightly different (concentrating on height rather than width also). I guess we'll see once they've been released and reviewed.

Actually, Atmos is a hybrid channel + object format (like DTS MDA). Dolby tacked data extensions on to their TrueHD lossless codec for the consumer version. So, now a 7.1 channel bed with three-axis positional metadata controlled sound objects can transform into a full array of 24 mains + 10 overhead discrete outputs if you have the space and the budget to really go hog wild on the processor, amps, and speakers/subs.

Consumer manufacturers of mass market receivers and pre-amps stopped at 11.1 (for the time being) because the DSP chips for the first generation of Atmos rendering weren't powerful enough.

DTS Neo:X and Dolby ProLogic IIz are post-processing matrixes that do not give you discrete channels of information above and beyond 7.1. They just give you extracted ambiance from the main channels steered to other speakers to add a greater sense of depth.

Atmos and MDA are the real deal. For instance, in Transformers 4: Age of Extinction the sound engineers put a hovering space ship above the audience and the sound effects were at high volumes and full frequency just like the main front speakers.

You need timbre matched, wide dispersal monopoles for all your surround speakers.

[Kirk Out]

mr andrew jones himself enjoyhttp://forums.audioholics.com/forums...view-9.html#81

[kenoh]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

No. Your statement states that even if you don't have 32 speakers, the experience won't be hindered. Having only 5.1 or 7.1 is not having 32 speakers and the Atmos experience will most certainly be hindered. For all the reasons I mentioned (the helicopter example), every time you "remove" a speaker, you are indeed hindering the experience.

If, however, what you were trying to say is that if you have the 32 speakers and you're listening to a non-Atmos 5.1 or 7.1 mix, the 5.1 or 7.1 experience won't be hindered, that is true.

If listening to an Atmos mix on 5.1 or 7.1, whether that will sound the same as a native 5.1 or 7.1 mix remains to be seen. No one can judge that without actually hearing it. It's certainly possible that there will be phasing effects and cancellations will result.

I do agree that it's a huge step forward in surround technology, although IMO, a largely impractical one for most people in the home. Most consumers haven't even bothered with anything beyond a sound bar. 5.1 or 7.1 would be a big leap for many consumers. Atmos isn't happening for them. For the elite with dedicated home theaters and enough money to burn so that the spouse doesn't complain or for those rich geeks who can't get a spouse for all the obvious reasons? Sure. But that's a very niche audience.

I'm not elite nor rich, I'm just very peculiar in my wants!

BTW, I was trying to say this, "Quoted from Andrew Jones": The advantage of ATMOS over any previous surround sound format is the idea of being object oriented. With this approach, the sound does not need to be mixed specifically for the number of surround channels. The sound is designed for where it is supposed to come from. On decoding, that sound object is outputted to whatever combination of speakers that will most accurately place the sound object most accurately to where it is supposed to be perceived from. The more channels you have, the more accurate the apparent placement.

"He explains the advantages better then me, so sorry if I was miss quoted."

Again, even if your a regular "surround sound" Joe, then yes you will want Atmos even if you only choose to use 7.1 surround sound because the accuracy is head and shoulders better then the current standards!

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by kenoh

I'm not elite nor rich, I'm just very peculiar in my wants!

BTW, I was trying to say this, "Quoted from Andrew Jones": The advantage of ATMOS over any previous surround sound format is the idea of being object oriented. With this approach, the sound does not need to be mixed specifically for the number of surround channels. The sound is designed for where it is supposed to come from. On decoding, that sound object is outputted to whatever combination of speakers that will most accurately place the sound object most accurately to where it is supposed to be perceived from. The more channels you have, the more accurate the apparent placement.

"He explains the advantages better then me, so sorry if I was miss quoted."

Again, even if your a regular "surround sound" Joe, then yes you will want Atmos even if you only choose to use 7.1 surround sound because the accuracy is head and shoulders better then the current standards!

The Andrew Jones quote is exactly right and I believe is totally consistent with what I've written. Your followup statement is exactly wrong for the reasons I've already stated.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

Therefore, in summary one only needs 24 floor speakers and 10 ceiling speakers for the home version of Dolby ATMOS if they have an extremely large room. Dolby ATMOS with its object based sound technology should be able to mix all 32 audio channels into a small 7 speaker setup (5.1 + 2 ceiling speakers). The bigger the room the more speakers one should add. Those with huge home theater rooms might be interested in a 32 speaker setup.

You have to be careful with that info and possibly correct it please.

ATMOS will not fold 32 channels into a 7.1.4 setup let's say, there are no defined channels at all in ATMOS. All it is in short is a bitstream telling your avr to play sound A at position XYZ in the soundfield. Then your AVR will decide which speaker combinations to use to place that sound at those coordinates. So while having more speakers might create a more enveloping and precise soundfield, basic science tells us that as long as you have points of reference in all 3 axis, the amount of speakers doesn't need to be crazy, at least not for HT.

Originally Posted by MoulinBlu

Sounds like we're having two different conversations.

We seem to be but since the start I have been agreeing with you that the actual DAC means very little. And to be clear on what I mean by implementation, in short it means what the manufacturer will do with that chip. You even seem to agree by saying that the DAC will not do much, it's all the rest of the AVR's quality that counts, well that my friend is implementation, so we agree

Originally Posted by MoulinBlu

That's all I have to say on the subject - spent too much time on it already.

OK, though if you care to answer this question we might then be on the same page.

MoulinBlu says: the DAC means really nothing

pentatonic says: The DAC means really nothing, but how they make use of this chip will be important in your overall sound.

I arbitrarily chose 24bits BB but the only point is that once you have a DAC chip that is to spec, manufacturers don't all have the same analog expertise to make that chip sing. It does go without saying that the best are also the most expensive (everything being equal). But the best don't necessarily use the Sabres.

I took Onkyo not because I care for them but because they use the ESS and are popular. I also used the 105 because there are many users here who will validate it's sound quality.

But let me then ask you this to be clear as our exchanges have been utterly confusing lol

So you are saying that it is unlikely that an Anthem MRX 310 for example, might sound better

[Show spoiler](An AVR definitely in the price range of many if not most real enthusiast around here)

than an Onkyo? (I will add to be clear, playing a digital source)

Now again, I agree, tweak your setup to perfection, it is no doubt the single most important step to good sound. But once all is, you're happy with your room and treatments, you really don't think you would hear a difference?

And yes, whichever DAC chip is used, within the same form and function, some do sound indeed very superior. But you seem to want to keep it at only AVRs between $600-1000. Think about it, an AVR for $600 with everything in there is going to cut corners on the sound quality, a quality they usually can deliver with their higher end units.

Hey, if not no sweat, but you not hearing something doesn't mean others can't, this is where experience comes in as it does take a long time to get things as right as you can afford them. (Not saying you have none, just sharing my views)

[kopkiwi]

NZ price is going to be at least $10k on the entry model.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by slimdude

I can very well see, Dolby Atmos as a niche market! Overhead sound is not anything new. Ceiling speakers, have been installed in various commercial buildings for years.

How many of them?

[Blu-Dog]

http://www.twice.com/suppliers-hopef...s-volume/45845


If the manufacturers have any sense, they'll sell an external processor that accepts a pass-through HDMI signal from existing equipment, to a speaker array. If they think people are going to storm out there to purchase new receivers for this, they will be sadly disillusioned.


The idea of setting up a wiring storm on a ceiling makes little sense. Amplification is also a huge issue. The warning that this has issues with high ceilings, or sloped ceilings, will cause major issues for the more affluent customer base, or people who have recently purchased newly constructed homes (and it takes a certain level of affluence - spare money - to buy into this game).


Welcome to the new 3-D (or, D-Box). Reboot your base equipment to buy in, for a system not yet wholly adopted by the industry. I can already see the "Can't Wait" enthusiasm from the slaves of techno-fashion. If it winds up:

• Looking tacked-on (some people like that, but they're overwhelmingly single, or soon will be)
• Isn't effective unless it can be retrofit to existing audio schemas (and has working media already on the shelf)
• Works best for the "I have a dedicated theater in my basement / bedroom where I sleep / broom closet" crowd
• Requires tossing out a nice 7.1 receiver as "outmoded"
• Requires enough wire to stretch a hard-line to Earth's Moon
• Doesn't work well for high or sloped ceilings
• Can't be calibrated by a team of NASA scientists, unless you buy them several kegs of beer and give them a week or so to figure it out
• Costs enough to buy your own mixing board and audio-map your own movies

If it isn't consumer-friendly, try not to be deafened by the yawns. There will be one guy in the audio store, sweating and yelling "F--- the price, I'm going to outdo my brother-in-law, the SOB has everything," and twenty more walking past the salespeople looking for the sound-bar gear, after reading the price tag and firing off a massive fart.


Do it right, and they'll have a winner. I'm not optimistic.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

And yes, whichever DAC chip is used, within the same form and function, some do sound indeed very superior. But you seem to want to keep it at only AVRs between $600-1000. Think about it, an AVR for $600 with everything in there is going to cut corners on the sound quality, a quality they usually can deliver with their higher end units.

^^^^^^^^^
What he said...

[Poya]

Could I just use the same speakers used for the surrounds as ceiling speakers? I'm thinking the only problem with that is that it needs to be bolted into the ceiling or it will fall on your head but anything else wrong with that idea.