|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: ATMOS comes home...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!
Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 07-04-2014 01:28 PM
Just read that thread and I'm a bit irritated about how much "probably" there is being thrown around.
"It PROBABLY won't support 5 screen channels, so I hate it"
"It PROBABLY will not be object based"
"It PROBABLY wont have low end management for surrounds"
Comments like that should link to articles that back them up. Lets remember this is not publicly available yet. Can we reserver judgement until we get some ears on them please? I understand the phase trickery being sucky, but as far as I can tell, it's optional. People are already doing shitty phase tricks with soundbars.
To me, the revolutionary thing about Atmos is that object oriented sound design. The idea that, while there's a core 5.1 or 7.1 mix that exists, there is also the ability to fire off instance-based audio objects, and pan them around the room in 360 space, and have that object accurately track regardless of room size, or number of speakers. There is no longer a need to have the largest number of channels, only a need to have enough channels to provide accurate imaging for the room you're in. When set up correctly with the correct number of speakers for the size of the room, individual channels disappear, and you're left with what I can only describe as a very "open" sound stage.
I go way more into detail in my review of theatrical Atmos here:
http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/f16/t001090/p12.html
Here is the article I've seen, which seems to support that object based sound will be making it into the home version.
http://ww w.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Dolby_Atmos/dawn-of-the-planet-of-the-apes/Surround_Sound/home-theatre/Onkyo/Pioneer/Denon/Marantz/dolby-atmos-dawn-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-quick-look-and-updates-about-home-implementation/16236
Excerpt:
quote:
Atmos is scalable, focusing on individual objects rather than channels.
In cinemas, Atmos works in any configuration from 9.1 to 64.4, but is often somewhere in the middle. However, the home version is slightly different. For starters, Dolby is working to recalibrate the way we think of our home theatre setups.
For example, the minium Atmos setup is described as "5.1.2", which translates into five standard surround sound speakers at ear level (left, center, right, surrround right, surround left), one subwoofer, and two height channels. In this configuration, you will need an AV reciever (or amplification) for seven channels plus a powered subwoofer. Depending on budget, Atmos in the home is capable of 24.1.10 (twenty-four surrounds, one sub, ten overhead), though at present, the most powerful Atmos AV Reciever will have 32-channels.
The key to all of this is that, as home theatre enthusiasts, we have to think in "channels" mainly for logical pruposes -- running wire, amplification, etc. -- but content producers won't be producing different mixes for the guy with "5.1.2" versus "24.1.10" because Atmos-enabled tracks adapt to your home theatre environement. Pretty impressive.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-07-2014 11:15 PM
Mike, since much of your response is directed mostly at my critical remarks about home Atmos, I have these comments.
IMHO, my "probably" statements are pretty accurate guesses with not having seen the actual spec before making those guesses. The home version of Atmos may have a top end spec supporting 32 channels of amplification. Unfortunately most consumer electronics companies are going to sell "ATMOS" in 8, 10 and 12 channel setups and nowhere near 32 channels. Yet all the dummies in consumer land will think their home "ATMOS" thingie will be equal to the theatrical counterpart, based entirely on the ATMOS brand name.
The other bottleneck is data capacity on Blu-ray discs. The consumer electronics hardware is going to be limited to some degree. The discs may be limited the same way from the very simple fact one can fit only so many discrete audio objects into a finite space. Movie streaming via services like Netflix won't be much of an option since the United States has such a laughably pathetic average level of Internet download bandwith. It's really pretty embarrasing and may only improve when the sluggish, conservative, greedy bullshit starts putting American big business at a very serious disadvantage against European and Asian counterparts.
Ultimately, I feel this consumer version of Atmos is a big slap in the face of movie theater operators who actually invested in the technology. For them to do Atmos correctly they need to spend upwards of $75,000 or more on new speakers, amplifiers, Dolby tech services, etc. The average consumer hooking up Dolby Atmos in his home will not have to spend remotely near as much money on Atmos.
I also feel correct in my guess this move will stall a lot of would have been pending Atmos installations. It might speed up Auro 11.1 installations instead, despite the fact Auro is a lesser audio format. It also might give the IMAX guys plenty of breathing room to do something about their bullshit sound system and get something vastly improved into place.
IMHO, this premature move to push Atmos into the consumer space has a strong chance of backfiring on Dolby. Commercial movie theater operators are their prestige, halo level customers. They're the ones who define what is the legit movie theater experience. If they turn around and endorse Auro 11.1, DTS' OpenMDA and whatever IMAX develops that's going to leave Atmos the odd format out even though it is a better format.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!
Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 07-12-2014 05:32 PM
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
what is the .2 and .4 indicating? is that height channels?
Yes.
quote: Joe Redifer
What I think you probably mean is up 64 traditional auditorium channels with up to 128 independent sounds playing at any one time which can be placed anywhere independently in the auditorium layout.
Yes.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The home version of Atmos may have a top end spec supporting 32 channels of amplification. Unfortunately most consumer electronics companies are going to sell "ATMOS" in 8, 10 and 12 channel setups and nowhere near 32 channels.
No argument there, the first generation of announced products seems to support this. I'm sure there will be a top-spec available eventually though. Home theater junkies like speakers, and speaker manufactures like selling them.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The other bottleneck is data capacity on Blu-ray discs.
To me it seems like a mix based on individual audio objects should take up less space. No need for long stretches of silence between effects on the surrounds for instance. Also, many studios aren't even filling up half of the disc at this point anyway.
quote: Bobby Henderson
the United States has such a laughably pathetic average level of Internet download bandwith
You aren't kidding there.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Ultimately, I feel this consumer version of Atmos is a big slap in the face of movie theater operators who actually invested in the technology.
I agree that we should have been given more "lead" time - but I've learned this lesson a few times now. Never invest in technology for your theater based on the idea that you will have exclusivity of the technology from the home.
When digital 3D came out, theater owners were told to invest in it - it would be something the home users could never be able to do as well. A few years later, and home 3D is widely available. Now 4k UHDTVs are starting to pop up. Of course any technology that makes a splash in theaters will find itself in home theaters eventually.
Instead, theatre owners should invest in technology for the reason that it improves the presentation or puts buts in seats.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I also feel correct in my guess this move will stall a lot of would have been pending Atmos installations.
I'm not sure about this. Increased brand awareness for Atmos should increase demand for it at theatres.
quote: Bobby Henderson
It also might give the IMAX guys plenty of breathing room to do something about their bullshit sound system and get something vastly improved into place.
I'd like for this to happen. When choosing XD/RPX/ETX vs IMAX right now, I choose XD for Auro/Atmos. IMAX needs to get serious about sound again.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Commercial movie theater operators are their prestige, halo level customers.
Not sure that's true anymore. Dolby is a huge company with their toes in a lot of different markets. I think Atmos was developed as a way for them to try to stay relevant in the cinema sound at all.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic