Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Auro 11.1 - Its Rollout & Marketing (Page 9)

 
This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11   
Author Topic: Auro 11.1 - Its Rollout & Marketing
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 07-21-2014 04:19 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Lyle Romer
Did they really get rid of the rear surround channels and go back to just left and right surround and add the height to that?
5.1 + height and ceiling layers is the nature of the theatrical version of Auro. There is nothing to separately define the back wall of the room the way that 7.1 quad surround and Dolby Atmos do.

OTOH, the consumer version of Auro touts both 11.1 and 13.1 systems, with the 13.1 version restoring 7.1 quad surround capability. Why 13.1 hasn't been the standard in theatrical installs makes absolutely little sense to me. The 5.1 + height thing makes the surround field just some big left to right arc. It doesn't create a properly defined dome of controllable sound the way Atmos can do (if it is deployed correctly).

quote: Monte L Fullmer
With tonnage of ATMOS systems being installed, I suspect that Auro will give in, fade away, and join the growing list of obscure A/V formats.
I'm not an Auro fan, but I wouldn't count out the format just yet. If anything, Auro has been gaining momentum lately. I don't know if strategic decisions made by Dolby have some share of blame in this or if it's just coincidence.

Cinemark has installed a lot of Auro 11.1 systems and intends to install it on nearly all their 100+ "XD" theaters (3 of their XD screens have Dolby Atmos). Regal is installing Auro on 2 dozen of their RPX screens (they have 2 dozen Atmos installations on other RPX screens). Some other chains have installed a few systems. Carmike is leaning strongly in the direction of Auro; the sound systems in their "Big D" theaters are set up as Auro-ready. There is a lot of theaters in international markets either installing Auro or leaning in that direction. And all this has been happening with a serious lack of Auro encoded movies.

Title support is another area where Auro is suddenly gaining. Lucy opens this Friday in both Auro & Atmos. Two movies are being released in Auro on August 8, Into The Storm and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (again, both also have Atmos mixes available). The Expendables 3 is coming out the following week, Aug. 15, with both Auro & Atmos mixes. I expect we'll see even more of this dual format approach this fall.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen a whole lot of new Dolby Atmos systems going into service. Dolby revamped its web site recently, but the Atmos theaters installations map hasn't changed very much over the past year.

I think Atmos is a far better system (when it is done right), but some movie theater operators are putting cost ahead of that. Auro is a more simple, less costly system to install. Theaters can still tout it as "next generation surround sound" or even fib a bit, claiming it's the best sound format available to theaters. Most consumers aren't going to dig deep into the details and uncover the limitations with Auro 11.1, such as it lacking discrete channels for the theater's back wall. "Plain" 7.1 surround at least has the back wall covered.

The home theater environment will be an even more interesting situation regarding the Auro versus Atmos contest. The two formats have different speaker layouts. Consumers will have to choose one format over the other. Perhaps this is why Dolby just had to push Atmos into the consumer space early. They had to attempt to gain ownership over object based home theater speaker layout standards before Auro beat them to it. Nevertheless, I think Auro is easier to encode onto a Blu-ray disc (embedded in DTS-HD Master Audio data). And reflective modules on the top of front towers and surround speakers might actually make more sense with Auro than it does Atmos.

I'm rooting for Dolby Atmos, but I've grown pretty concerned about it over the past several months.

 |  IP: Logged
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

- posted 07-22-2014 05:16 AM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm rooting for Dolby Atmos, but I've grown pretty concerned about it over the past several months.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. Unless Dolby can get the price down and/or do a special deal with a major chain to get hundreds of new installs soon, I think the format might be essentially dead.

I haven't heard Auro but to me the format is stupid. I would think you would get a better surround field with just a 7.1 plus left and right ceiling channel format.

I don't really understand the format's obsession with the height layer between the normal channels and ceiling. It doesn't seem like it would make very many sounds more realistic.

I guess some kind of argument could be made for the front channel height channels for on screen action but for the surrounds it makes very little sense to me. The front height channels also provide a use for AMC if they left the speakers in place from when they used to have the torus screens!

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 07-22-2014 09:13 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
As long as Dolby Atmos can maintain some exclusivity with some movies the format will still have a shot. This week Hercules is being released; it has an Atmos mix, but no Auro. The same goes for Guardians of the Galaxy the following week.

If all the major studios start supporting both Atmos and Auro on a fairly equal basis then Atmos could indeed fall deep into trouble. Most theater chains will simply gravitate to the cheaper next-gen surround sound solution rather than the better one.

Frankly, if I was a theater operator who didn't have the budget for Atmos, I'd simply go with 7.1 surround and improve my theater's sound system(s) as best as I could. I'd forget about Auro. I think Auro's lack of discrete back wall surround channels is a huge drawback. I'd take the money I would have spent on Auro and put it into things like 4-way front stage speakers and more powerful sub-bass cabinets.

I think some theater operators are installing Auro now with some kind of understanding they'll have some sort of simple upgrade to true object based sound with whatever emerges from DTS' Open MDA format. They'll have something equal to Atmos without all the high cost. Unfortunately there is no getting around the need of installing dozens of separate channels of amplification for surround speakers, not to mention installing dozens of more powerful surround speakers. Aside from what Dolby's CP850 costs (and the tech services bundled with it) perhaps the biggest cost with Atmos is simply doing what's necessary to make object based surround sound work properly. In the end a DTS Open MDA surround system done right is probably going to cost just about as much as a good Atmos system.

With all that being said, the vast majority of those Auro systems going into place will just be Auro and not be upgraded to anything better.

quote:
I guess some kind of argument could be made for the front channel height channels for on screen action but for the surrounds it makes very little sense to me. The front height channels also provide a use for AMC if they left the speakers in place from when they used to have the torus screens!
I even have to wonder about Auro's implementation of height channels for the stage. It might work okay in terms being added to a modest 2-way or 3-way stage system. Those cabinet setups aren't all that big. There's room to add new speaker systems above the existing ones.

The situation might be different with a top of the line 4-way system. Some of those beasts are pretty tall. Someone might be able to add height channel speaker systems above an existing 4-way stage system in a theater with a really big screen. However, how are those new height channel speaker systems going to be configured and amplified? There might be some real shitty timbre matching problems between the main stage channels and height channels if there isn't some careful thought put into it first.

 |  IP: Logged
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

- posted 07-23-2014 10:42 AM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Frankly, if I was a theater operator who didn't have the budget for Atmos, I'd simply go with 7.1 surround and improve my theater's sound system(s) as best as I could. I'd forget about Auro. I think Auro's lack of discrete back wall surround channels is a huge drawback. I'd take the money I would have spent on Auro and put it into things like 4-way front stage speakers and more powerful sub-bass cabinets.
I agree 100%. Properly done 7.1 will be at least as good as Auro (if not better due to rear surrounds) over 90% of the time even in a movie that is mixed well.

If they released a discrete 9.1 mix with 7.1 plus 2 ceiling left and ceiling right it would be better than Auro (and cheaper) in almost all cases.

I really don't understand the point of Auro when compared to a channel based 9.1 setup. It can't "pinpoint" objects like Atmos because it is still a channel based system. The "in between" layer of surrounds makes almost no sense to me. How often does a mixer try to make a sound seem like it is moving vertically next to you?

If they want that effect, the normal surround channel combined with a ceiling surround channel can certainly accomplish the effect well enough that the money spent on those speakers isn't worth it.

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 07-23-2014 01:15 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Going by d-cinema standards for uncompressed LPCM audio, 7.1 quad surround plus two ceiling surround channels is do-able right now. All that is needed is for the industry to agree on applying channels 15 and 16 as ceiling based surround channels. According to ISDCF Doc4, Interop audio channel recommendations (May 7, 2014 revision) channels 15 and 16 remain "unused at this time."

Going one better, one could have a straight 11.1 channel "unbranded" LPCM based format featuring five stage channels, four standard surround channels, 1 sub bass channel and the two previously mentioned ceiling surround channels. Channels 9 and 10 are reserved for Left Center and Right Center stage channel assignments.

This 11.1 setup would arguably be better than Auro since the back wall and ceiling would each have a pair of discrete surround channels. All of the sound channels would feature full 24-bit depth (unlike Auro).

Dolby Atmos mixes would map over to this 11.1 layout a lot better than trying to map an Atmos oriented mix over to Auro since all the surround channels would be identical in placement to Atmos' "beds" layer. The two extra stage channels would provide backward compatibility with Atmos objects tracking across the screen.

I would even go so far to say a 11.1 implementation like this would help Dolby Atmos. It wouldn't cost theaters such a huge amount of money to install or retrofit 9.1 or 11.1 channel based sound systems. A high traffic theater could have Atmos on one or more of its "big" houses and have the straight 9.1 and 11.1 thing in the smaller houses. It wouldn't be such a big letdown to miss seeing a movie when it played in the Atmos house if the other rooms had 9.1 or 11.1. With more theaters wired for 9.1 or 11.1 use it would encourage movie productions to allow more time and effort to be applied to object based sound designs.

 |  IP: Logged
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

- posted 07-23-2014 01:43 PM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with the 11.1 full 24 bit LPCM setup that you propose.

The Auro channel layout seems to have come out of a meeting where the goal was just to come up with something "different" even if it doesn't really make sense. They just seem to have wanted a brand that can be applied to home theater.

Atmos is much different. Obviously Dolby can't have patents on the concept of object based sound but I wonder how much IP they have when it comes to the adaptive rendering. To me, that is what makes the system valuable from a ticket buyer standpoint. As long as the theatre follows the recommendations for setup, I will get the same experience in theatres of various sizes.

Object based recordings that are mapped to a specific channel layout without dynamically accounting for speaker placement like Atmos does, can't provide this level of consistency.

What I would hope to see is a day where the largest 4-8 auditoriums (depending on complex size) are Atmos equipped and the rest are done with a 9.1 or 11.1 setup like you described. In a pipe dream scenario, IMAX would partner with Dolby to include Atmos as part of "The IMAX Experience."

 |  IP: Logged
Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

- posted 07-23-2014 03:01 PM      Profile for Sam D. Chavez   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Lyle Romer
What I would hope to see is a day where the largest 4-8 auditoriums (depending on complex size) are Atmos equipped and the rest are done with a 9.1 or 11.1 setup like you described. In a pipe dream scenario, IMAX would partner with Dolby to include Atmos as part of "The IMAX Experience."
I agree with Lyle. This would be the ideal application for Atmos. IMAX certainly needs the help. Always did though even way back but was always committed to going it alone. Don't know if this stance this will ever change.

 |  IP: Logged
Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

- posted 07-23-2014 03:35 PM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
IMAX, as it seems, already turned to the dark side.

http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f14/t000258.html

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 07-23-2014 04:19 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think that story about IMAX going with Auro was all speculation. Some rumors suggest IMAX is developing an object based sound format on its own rather than endorsing a system made by someone else. We'll just have to see what IMAX does over the next couple years.

Obviously IMAX has to do something. Their 5.0/5.1-based approach is clearly out of date, no matter how big they make the speaker cabinets or how loud a particular IMAX branded theater cranks up the volume.

 |  IP: Logged
Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

- posted 07-23-2014 04:32 PM      Profile for Jonathan Goeldner   Email Jonathan Goeldner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
and being 'loud' isn't that great when you drown out the other speakers - [it's like buying a portable boom box at Best Buy - "listen to the speakers man" [raises volume even more] (um... no, all I hear is noise)] - and yes. Bobby - IMAX sound is antiquated at best.

 |  IP: Logged
Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

- posted 07-23-2014 05:18 PM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Speculation? You mean IMAX' own Andrew Cripps and Giovanni Dolci 'speculate' in public over a new 11.1 sound system for IMAX:

---
'The “new" IMAX: solutions and commercial models for the German market
Hauptsponsorenveranstaltung
Referenten: Andrew Cripps, Giovanni Dolci
Presentation featuring an overview of:
How the IMAX business model has evolved over the years
Commercial models and deal structures for the German market
What IMAX is today: Technology, film slate, studio partnerships, collaboration with Hollywood’s biggest directors & producers
The new IMAX technology: Xenon and Laser projection, new 11.1 sound'
---

Of course, that doesn't mean it will be Auro 3D. It will never be 'Auro 3D', because IMAX will certainly not allow any Co-branding. It could be a discrete channel based 11.1 system just as well, there's plenty of free channels in the DCI format. But who will mix for an IMAX proprietary sound system? Doing another audio mix is a completely different thing than applying some DMR magic.

The fact that Barco supplies IMAX server/IMS technology means that Auro 3D is already a feature of these servers. Will Barco implement support for the competing ATMOS in their IMS? Sometimes the easiest solution is the easiest solution. And picking up existing Auro 3D mainstream mixes is the most economical solution as well.

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

- posted 07-25-2014 03:34 PM      Profile for Terry Lynn-Stevens   Email Terry Lynn-Stevens   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
@ Carsten, IMAX as of yesterday has officially confirmed that they are adding more channels to their sound system.

 |  IP: Logged
Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

- posted 07-25-2014 05:52 PM      Profile for Jonathan Goeldner   Email Jonathan Goeldner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
^ interesting; I hope to see/read a press release detailing this

 |  IP: Logged
Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 07-26-2014 02:09 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The thing I still find worrisome about Dolby's Altos is that although the object based approach has great potential, the very fact that exhibitors can opt to use any configuration of the system that they chose -- the full compliment of all 64 amps and speakers or the bare minimum of, what? 11? To me, that is too much left up to the exhibitors' pocket books, and we KNOW how badly that can play out for the consumer.

Seems like there is too much room for inconsistency with Altos. I don't think anyone is willing to say that the Altos processor can make a sound mix using a system with the bare minimum amp/speaker compliment sound just the same as a system where the mix is reconstructed using a full compliment of amps/speakers. Given that, when a consumer sees the name Altos plastered all over the marquee, he will really have no idea of what he will be getting. There is too much leeway here allowing exhibitors to be spendthrifts at the expense of accuracy of the system and the expense of the patron. At least with a channel based system, they can't just leave out a channel or two and get away with it. Altos will try to compensate for any configuration of the system that exhibitor installs, whether meager or robust.

 |  IP: Logged
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

- posted 07-26-2014 10:31 AM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Frank Angel
The thing I still find worrisome about Dolby's Altos is that although the object based approach has great potential, the very fact that exhibitors can opt to use any configuration of the system that they chose -- the full compliment of all 64 amps and speakers or the bare minimum of, what? 11? To me, that is too much left up to the exhibitors' pocket books, and we KNOW how badly that can play out for the consumer.
I don't see this as a huge issue because of the baseline expense of Atmos. If you are going to spend over $50k on a sound system, why bother trying to save a couple of thousand dollars by skimping on the recommended number of surround speakers/amps?

If the CP-850 cost $5,000 and an exhibitor could advertise Atmos by installing that and then skimping on the installation then I could see an issue with that. As it stands now, if an exhibitor wants to skimp, they'll install Auro (which does eliminate channels in its design).

There is also a misconception that a "full" Atmos installation has 64 speakers. If you read Dolby's design guidelines, all 64 speakers would only be used in very specific auditorium dimensions. Even though it is counterintuitive, the way the system is designed is that when a particular dimension (length or width) of the auditorium grows, the speakers are spread out further.

It seems the design is to place speakers every x degrees along a "circle" around the primary listening position. As the walls get further away they become spaced out more. It takes some weird dimensions like long but very narrow auditorium to require all 64 speakers.

Also, although there is flexibility, at least currently Dolby is providing design service for the system with each CP-850.

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.