|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Dolby's new sound system
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 06-26-2014 11:04 AM
Wow, so much hate for something that isn't even past the "blog post pre-announcement" phase... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I can see why this announcement is anathema to theater operators, but I don't see how this is any different than everything that has come before.
Theaters had Dolby surround, and then homes got Dolby Surround, Pro-Logic, etc.
Theaters had THX certification, and then homes got THX-certified equipment, and some lucky few could afford actually getting THX certification for their entire setups.
Theaters had Dolby Digital and DTS and SDDS, and then homes got Dolby Digital and DTS.
Homes got LPCM, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS HD Master Audio, and then theaters got LPCM. (Not exactly sure of the timing here, but I think homes beat theaters in this iteration)
Theaters got Atmos and Auro, and in the near future, homes will get Atmos.
And that's just the audio side. But in each of these iterations, the fact that a home version of a theater technology exists has not killed the theatrical industry. In contrast, I think that enthusiasts who care about such technology are actually a theater's best opportunity. People who don't know any better or that think because they have a logo on their $100 Home Theater in a Box, they have the same stuff as their local movie theater aren't going to care what a movie theater has that makes the moviegoing experience special.
Enthusiasts are going to care. Some can do it in their homes, but not all. Those who can and those who can't are going to seek out the best movie experiences they can, so it is still incumbent upon movie theaters to make the investments in making sure that they are delivering the best possible experience in their theaters.
If Dolby is being unreasonable about its pricing for theaters and/or its requirements for Atmos installations, that's a completely different issue. Maybe theaters need to start making a concerted effort to apply some pressure on Dolby on those pain points and make them see that unnecessary expenses are a bad choice.
Home Atmos can be a good thing for theaters, as it raises awareness for an upgraded experience. It can be a bad thing for theaters that can't deliver a better experience than can be had in the home, but that's been a sticking point for me for a very long time.
A properly equipped, calibrated, and maintained theater that cares about delivering an excellent movie-going experience (and educating its customers about those elements) has nothing to fear from Atmos in the home.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-26-2014 01:18 PM
quote: Scott Jentsch
I can see why this announcement is anathema to theater operators, but I don't see how this is any different than everything that has come before.
One big difference is when it came to formats like matrixed Dolby Surround and discrete Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS the audio tracks delivered to the home were fundamentally very similar to those played in the theater. That probably won't be the case with Dolby Atmos.
I don't know how much more space an Atmos audio track consumes on a DCP hard disc versus that of a standard 5.1/7.1 24/48 LPCM track. But given Atmos holds both channel-based beds and discrete objects I'm willing to bet the file sizes can get a whole lot bigger. That certainly is the case with sound design layouts in audio editing applications like ProTools. The file size of your layout balloons as you add more pieces of audio into the design. Such a thing will not be friendly to disc capacity limits on Blu-ray or the serious bandwidth limits which affect all movie streaming services.
I'll go out on a limb and predict the home version of Atmos will be far more of a channel-based thing, like 9.1 or 11.1 surround with perhaps a sprinkling of object based capability. Home Atmos will probably seem a lot more like Auro. It won't be nearly as elaborate and hard disc consuming as a real cinema Atmos audio track.
quote: Scott Jentsch
And that's just the audio side. But in each of these iterations, the fact that a home version of a theater technology exists has not killed the theatrical industry. In contrast, I think that enthusiasts who care about such technology are actually a theater's best opportunity.
In the 1990s plenty of theater operators were annoyed they had to spend $10,000 or more just to put Dolby Digital capability into an existing booth rack while Joe Schmoe could buy a Dolby Digital capable receiver for less than 5%-10% of that cost.
The cost gulf between home and cinema is amplified to an even greater extreme with Dolby Atmos. If a theater operator wants to install Dolby Atmos into just one auditorium he's probably going to spend at least $50,000 to $75,000 to do it, and probably above that $75,000 mark if he wants to do Atmos right. How can theater operators be expected to spend crazy sums of money like that on Atmos when a consumer can buy an Atmos-labeled surround receiver for under $1000 or $500?
With what theater operators are being expected to spend on the cinema version of Atmos, quite a lot of prestige and exclusivity must be incorporated into the Atmos brand. It should not be available to just anyone.
Disregarding prestige is essentially what killed THX. When it started in 1983 only the very best theaters could get certified. When money making motives took over, standards got watered down and any neighborhood multiplex could have THX branding all over the place. THX moved into consumer electronics, first only certifying very high end receivers and surround controllers, but before long, putting the THX logo onto all sorts of lower priced stuff, including computer speakers. By that time any exclusive prestige the THX brand had was long gone.
Dolby is going to do the same illogical thing with Atmos.
Dolby had an opportunity to re-take ownership of the high end of professional cinema audio. But they're not going to do that since Dolby is now a publicly traded company and its bean counters want to squeeze all the money they can out of the Atmos brand name in as little time as possible. And that means whoring it out to the consumer product level rather than re-establishing a proper high end in movie theater sound. Dolby could have given commercial cinemas something exclusive to hold over home theater, to provide just a little more pressure for people to see movies in theaters rather than wait for the home video release.
I don't have anything against Dolby wanting to revamp home theater surround sound with height channels, especially since Auro is already working hard to market the very same thing in home theater. They're just making a huge mistake associating the Atmos brand with it. Putting the Atmos brand on a home a theater in a box solution would be like sticking a Ferrari logo on a Chevi Cruze.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Enthusiasts are going to care. Some can do it in their homes, but not all.
The damage is still going to be done because it's a sure bet manufacturers like Denon, Onkyo, etc. are going to stick that Atmos label on as many products as they can. The Atmos brand will get cheapened. Home theater fans may like it, but it's going to kill any enthusiasm for exhibitors to spend $75,000 to put the same brand in a commercial cinema auditorium.
This situation reminds me of the IMAX home theater concept that was bandied about a year or so ago. Many were incredulous about the effort, but to IMAX' credit they made the concept a very exclusive, very expensive thing -just so it would have at least some logical relation to an IMAX-digital installation. Dolby isn't going to be doing that with this home version of Atmos.
Earlier I said this consumerization of Atmos might actually work to give Auro a boost in theater installations -a backlash of sorts by theater operators against Dolby. It might also work to give IMAX some breathing room to get its own deficient sound systems upgraded to support an object based, immersive format.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 06-26-2014 09:04 PM
So if a theatre owner buy's himself a spiffy Dolby Home Theatre Atmos processor, what's to stop him from hooking it up in his theatre the same way he would at home, getting way with using only the number of channels the home system requires compared to the Cinema Atmos, but it would cost him chunks less money? Atmos seems to already be all over the place as to what is truly an Atmos system -- you have theatres that install Atmos with the full blown complement of all 64 channels and speakers (is it 64 or 128...I am lost with Joe on this). Then there's the guy who installs not much more than 12 channels and speakers, and presumably the processor/computer figures out how to place objects in the 12 channel array as well as it does in the 64 channel array, maybe with a little less perfect location -- ok, that sound is not EXACTLY 10 feet from the screen and 15ft in the air, it's only 9ft from the screen and 17ft in the air....WOOPIE DO. He isn't concerned about the slight misplacement of particular sounds because, hey, depending on where you sit, EVERYONE hears the sounds in slightly different locatons...how about THAT!. Yet he's get to mount as many Altos logos all over his theatre and his Altos standees are as big as the guy who spent 5 times as much for his 64 channel Altos system.
Both have Altos systems -- on is the real deal, the other is, at most (sorry, I couldn't resist) 1/10th the robustness of the full blown system. So how exclusive can this Dolby system be with that kind of disparity...the consumer has no way of knowing that's REAL Atmos and what's AlmostAtmos.
I say, given that kind of leeway, I can't see how much less of a "3D over/under/back and forth/up and down" dome surround sound experience the home system would be able to deliver over what the cheapest exhibitor can get away with while still being able to hawk that he's got Atmos. It could even be that the Home Theatre Atmos would be just as effective as the AlmostAtmos setup in a small closet multiplex cinema.
if the can be such and vast difference between the "low end" installation and the "over the top" installation? The low end exhibitor still slaps the Atmos name on his cinema same as the guy who spent umpteen thousand. I guess it like, there is I M A X and then there is imax. There is ATMOS and then there will AlmostAtmos. Then there will be the exhibitor who looks at all this and says, if the AlmostAtmos guy can get away with it, so can I...where can I buy me a HOME Atmos box.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-07-2014 11:30 PM
quote: Marc D Fishman
Home Atmos can support 24 speaker outputs for the room and 10 for the ceiling/overhead.
Unfortunately most electronics companies will not sell Atmos branded products with anything near this capability. Onkyo admits their own Atmos branded products will be 11.1 in nature. That will put them on par with Auro 11.1. Considering so many surround sound receivers support multiple surround formats maybe that 11.1 limitation is something that has been done on purpose. Nevertheless, the Atmos brand name is getting devalued in the process.
quote: Marc D Fishman
Just to be clear, there is no additional LFE channel in theatrical Atmos... since bass management has been a requirement for DD AVR's since it's introduction, I can't see how you can qualify this as a difference... if an AVR manufacturer wants to add a discrete second sub output that is up to them.
What's the point of the separate left surround and right surround sub bass outputs if they're only sharing the same ".1" as the front sub bass channel?
quote: Marc D Fishman
This first generation of AVR's shouldn't be taken as an indication of what the maximum capabilities of the Home Atmos iteration are.
I can agree with that. However, the really bad situation remains with the extreme high cost associated with a professional cinema Atmos installation versus Joe Schmo's far more affordable home setup also bearing the Atmos brand name. I'm not a theater operator, but if I was one who had spent upwards of $75,000 or beyond for just one Atmos equipped commercial theater screen and turn around and see consumers buying "ATMOS" for their living rooms for only a grand or two I would be really freaking pissed off about it and thinking of going in a different direction for future sound system upgrades.
As I said before, the only positive point I can see from this short-sighted situation is Atmos equipped theaters might have to throw their own numbers out there in terms of amplified speakers channels to remind the Joe Schmo consumers out there that their toy home systems are pretty puny and cheap compared to a real commercial movie theater system. Unfortunately, most people are not that technically savvy. Most people I've mentioned Atmos to have kind of gone "whaaa?" And that's just at hearing the Dolby Atmos brand name. Nevermind attaching some numerical stuff to it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic