|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Best/worst Atmos mixes
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-20-2014 10:28 PM
I've been about as big a DTS fan as anybody, but I think this whole "Open MDA" thing has done nothing more than the completely stall adoption and installation of next gen surround sound formats.
The Open MDA thing might end up being the thing that makes the less expensive, less next-gen Auro 11.1 format become the "next gen" standard rather than Atmos. Cinemark is installing a fuck-ton of those Auro 11.1 systems. Meanwhile Dolby Atmos installations in North America have seemed to hit a freaking brick wall. I've hardly seen anything new at all happening in the mainland 48 states over the past few months. Perhaps a couple new screens around Kansas City and that's about it. Just what the hell is going on, Dolby? Lots of Atmos installs in China? What gives?
Cinemark has well over 100 of those "XD" screens and they seem very intent on putting Auro 11.1 on every one of those screens even if they can't manage to mention or outright refuse to mention Auro in the advertising to make people like me give any hint of giving the first shit about it. I really don't know what the hell that company is doing. Are they on Auro's side? Or are they secretly working on the behalf of Dolby is some strange, fetish kind of way? I don't know. They're just going to put Auro 11.1 on every "XD" screen and then not say anything at all to the public about it. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Install the sound systems yet give movie studios no fucking reason at all to mix in Auro in the first place. Morons.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Meanwhile DTS' Open MDA format is little more than progress stalling vaporware. It's not like Dolby doesn't deserve some of this treatment. Dolby pulled the same crap back in 1990 when Cinema Digital Sound was trying to gain a foothold in the cinema product market. Uh, yeah, we'll have our 5.1 surround format ready to go to market (in another 18 months). So maybe Dolby is getting a little, long overdue dose of its own medicine.
The sad thing is there appears to be virtually NOTHING in DTS' Open MDA format that is a step above Dolby Atmos in terms of audio technology. And that's really where I kind of have to lean in Dolby's favor. They were there first. They were already presenting an object & bed based sound format featuring lossless audio objects and beds. How is DTS going to improve upon that? I worry all DTS' efforts will do is water down things and make "immersive audio" hardly any better than plain 5.1/7/1 audio.
The compromises I'm afraid that will happen will just end up making me not give the first shit about movie theaters anymore. Film is pretty much dead. It's turning into TV in public. Various things have turned into price gouging scams. So next-gen audio would get lumped into and ultimately get done shitty, cheaper, compromised and not right. I am very pessimistic about the direction of things in movie sound right now.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-21-2014 02:54 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Meanwhile DTS' Open MDA format is little more than progress stalling vaporware.
I give you the vaporware argument, because for an open format that's supposed to be finished, it is hard to find any kind of specifications...
But, it's not like the Atmos format is in any way open, so at least for me it is totally impossible to compare both formats and form even a somewhat substantiated opinion about this.
Following their own published documents, Atmos is a combination of traditional "bed audio", supporting traditional 7.1 channels plus a separate overhead channel, and "audio objects", which can be panned at will in 3D space. Those audio objects can either be mono or stereo PCM "objects", additionally, they contain panning data over a timeline.
What I've read about "MDA" is that it will do roughly the same, so what exactly is the problem with MDA just yet?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-21-2014 02:31 PM
There's a number of problems with Open MDA.
First, it doesn't appear OpenMDA will be any better than Dolby Atmos. If there are any differences I'm concerned they'll be in the form of design compromises to make OpenMDA-based products cheaper.
How many simultaneous objects will OpenMDA support? How many speaker outputs will it support? We at least know those numbers when it comes to Atmos (128 objects maximum, 6 surround array beds, up to 64 speaker outputs). Will OpenMDA copy the speaker layout used by Atmos or Auro? Or will OpenMDA do something different or even let theater operators stick speakers wherever they want? Will OpenMDA support 5 stage channels like Atmos? Auro doesn't support a five up front scheme. Will OpenMDA support surround sub-bass enclosures and timbre matching between stage & surround like Atmos? What kinds of minimum quality requirements will OpenMDA have regarding amplifiers and surround speakers? Atmos makes some tougher demands in that area.
There is a lot of questions for the folks behind OpenMDA to answer. Perhaps the biggest question is will OpenMDA have some clear, minimum standards for various manufacturers to follow in creating OpenMDA-based hardware and minimum standards for OpenMDA-based sound systems? I really have to wonder about that one when there is talk of companies coming out with processors that play OpenMDA content, but "pre-render" it into conventional channel based form and output no more than 16 channels worth of discrete content.
OpenMDA could be all over the map with what equipment manufacturers and theater operators do with it. There is some risk OpenMDA could end up being hardly any better than Auro or even conventional 7.1 audio for that matter. That could be a bad thing especially when premium surcharges are being tacked onto the ticket price.
Making a technology "open" doesn't always work out so great. The Android phone platform is kind of a mess since Google lets other handset makers do whatever they want with the OS; you end up having to buy a Google Nexus phone if you want OS updates in any kind of timely manner. The open source community isn't doing squat to loosen Adobe's ever tightening grip on the graphics software industry. Lots of open source projects stall for years because of all kinds of disagreements that wouldn't happen in a commercial-driven effort. I really don't see much point of open source within a very specific industry like commercial movie theater sound.
The only benefit I can see in an effort like OpenMDA is perhaps in audio editing and mixing software/hardware systems. Dolby Atmos already makes it possible to create Atmos mixes and then derive 5.1 and 7.1 mixes from the Atmos mix. But you can't author an Auro 11.1 mix from within Dolby Atmos' software and vice versa. It would be nice if a sound designer could simply create a 3D object based sound mix in ProTools and then export his mix in various formats. Unfortunately the speaker layouts & system capabilities between Atmos & Auro are very different. That one mix won't sound remotely the same between either system. OpenMDA may add more differences. And the rumored IMAX next-gen sound system may add more differences on top of that. All those differences between systems may yield unexpected, undesirable results in playback.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Following their own published documents, Atmos is a combination of traditional "bed audio", supporting traditional 7.1 channels plus a separate overhead channel, and "audio objects", which can be panned at will in 3D space. Those audio objects can either be mono or stereo PCM "objects", additionally, they contain panning data over a timeline.
That description of Atmos isn't quite accurate. The base of it is more like 9.1, 9.3 or 11.3 with the audio objects placed on top of that. Atmos supports bed-based audio elements on six surround arrays, four on the side & back walls and two on the ceiling. As many as 128 audio objects can be played simultaneously, each object with its own panning/positional data. The system can have one sub bass channel, but the addition of two sub bass surround channels is recommended for timbre matching between the stage and surround field. The stage can support 3 or 5 speaker towers behind the screen. 5 is recommended for large screens.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-21-2014 05:13 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
How many simultaneous objects will OpenMDA support? How many speaker outputs will it support? We at least know those numbers when it comes to Atmos (128 objects maximum, 6 surround array beds, up to 64 speaker outputs). Will OpenMDA copy the speaker layout used by Atmos or Auro? Or will OpenMDA do something different or even let theater operators stick speakers wherever they want? Will OpenMDA support 5 stage channels like Atmos? Auro doesn't support a five up front scheme. Will OpenMDA support surround sub-bass enclosures and timbre matching between stage & surround like Atmos? What kinds of minimum quality requirements will OpenMDA have regarding amplifiers and surround speakers? Atmos makes some tougher demands in that area.
Isn't this "OpenMDA" standard supposed to be an audio *format*? Just like Dolby AC-3? Minimum quality requirements should not be part of an audio format specification. The MP3 specs also don't contain minimum specs for your amps, that's another matter entirely.
A maximum number of objects make sense, both to cap bitrates and to set a limit on decoding complexity, but this can be a moving target for future upgrades. The maximum number of speaker outputs should NOT be part of the audio format. The number is 64 for Atmos right now, because that's probably the max the CP-850 can handle. There is no reason why a future Atmos-capable decoder couldn't handle 256 output channels for example.
In a perfect world, Object Based layouts will not use "beds", but it would rely purely on objects. I also see no use for a sub bass channel, this should be handled by an advanced form of bass management. Even if it's far less important for bass channels, but why would you want to throw away your localization information for those channels? If somebody wants to put a big sub-woofer beneath every speaker, why shouldn't he be capable in doing so?
In that perfect world, there would not be a hard limit in front channels or a fixed speaker layout. There should only be recommended speaker layouts and best practices, but the format should NOT be the limiting factor. A lot like a vector version of a drawing: The limiting factor should be the resolution of your display or your printer, not the graphics contained in the files themselves.
quote: Bobby Henderson
That description of Atmos isn't quite accurate. The base of it is more like 9.1, 9.3 or 11.3 with the audio objects placed on top of that. Atmos supports bed-based audio elements on six surround arrays, four on the side & back walls and two on the ceiling. As many as 128 audio objects can be played simultaneously, each object with its own panning/positional data.
It is a simplification, but I took that from one of their own documents. I didn't know the exact number of supported sound beds, but they specifically mention the standard 7.1 layout.
Still, it comes down to this:
- Traditional channel based audio, now called "sound beds", since there is no more 1-on-1 speaker array match during playback.
- Object based audio, based on PCM objects with panning metadata.
In my opinion, you should make those sound objects more flexible, so they can also function as "sound beds". An object should not just be described as a singleton in a 3D space, but as an area. That would eliminate the need for hard-defined sound beds entirely and as such also the requirement for a hard-defined speaker layout. Wouldn't it?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-21-2014 10:59 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Isn't this "OpenMDA" standard supposed to be an audio *format*? Just like Dolby AC-3? Minimum quality requirements should not be part of an audio format specification. The MP3 specs also don't contain minimum specs for your amps, that's another matter entirely.
The problem is OpenMDA is being sold as an equivalent alternative to Dolby Atmos. To me it appears plenty of movie theater chains are taking a wait and see approach on what OpenMDA delivers rather than installing Dolby Atmos systems now. Others are spending less to install Auro 11.1 and hoping Hollywood increases title support for Auro someday.
While Dolby Atmos is known as being a sound format, it is unique enough to require sound systems be built specifically around it and for those sound systems to meet some minimum quality standards. If OpenMDA is going to be marketed as being just as good as Dolby Atmos then it better live up to the same standards as Atmos or OpenMDA will be a sham.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
In a perfect world, Object Based layouts will not use "beds", but it would rely purely on objects. I also see no use for a sub bass channel, this should be handled by an advanced form of bass management.
There's a couple problems with both of those points. Regarding "beds", some pieces of audio need to be played across all the speakers on one or more of the surround arrays. Beds are the easiest way to accomplish that. Sound designers can create a background layer of audio in those beds and layer objects on top of them. They can build more complex sound designs faster in that manner than going with objects alone. In a perfect world movie sound designers would have at least a few weeks to work on a project rather than doing everything in the last minute like they're doing today.
Regarding sub bass enclosures, they definitely have merit, particularly in the surround array. However, stadium seated auditoriums aren't very friendly to sub-bass surround speakers.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
It is a simplification, but I took that from one of their own documents. I didn't know the exact number of supported sound beds, but they specifically mention the standard 7.1 layout.
The 7.1 layout is only mentioned in terms of what the Dolby Atmos encoder can create for DCPs. 5.1 and 7.1 LPCM tracks can be derived directly from an Atmos mix and are packaged alongside the Atmos track in a DCP. Dolby Atmos isn't just some embellished version of 7.1 audio. It's a lot more complex than that. To me, it like they're taking something that more closely resembles a ProTools audio project layout and playing that in the movie theater.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
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
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic