This is topic DTS announces DTS:X Object-Based Codec in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=001065
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 12-31-2014, 03:55 PM:
DTS launching their answer to Dolby Atmos for home theatre:
DTS Announces DTS:X Object-Based Audio Codec for March 2015 with Support from Onkyo, Denon, Pioneer & More
The company's latest audio tech is poised to compete with Dolby Atmos.
DTS has officially revealed its own object-based audio technology. Dubbed DTS:X, the new codec will launch in March of next year and will serve as the next-generation successor to DTS-HD Master Audio.
"DTS was founded with the goal of making the world sound better through constant innovation. DTS:X is a result of years of cutting-edge development in the area of object-based audio and reflects our continued commitment to provide listeners with incredible immersive audio experiences," said Jon Kirchner, Chairman and CEO of DTS, Inc. "Through incorporating DTS:X technology into a wide range of home AVR products, our partners will take the listening experience to another level. I look forward to sharing further details at the official DTS:X launch in March."
Leading audio manufacturers including Anthem, Denon, Integra, Krell, Marantz, McIntosh, Onkyo, Outlaw Audio, Pioneer, Steinway Lyngdorf, Theta Digital, Trinnov Audio, and Yamaha have all signed on to release products that support DTS:X in 2015. Full details on the codec have not been announced yet, but the audio platform uses object-based mixing technology like Dolby's competing Atmos codec and will likely offer similar features and performance.
DTS:X is expected to launch in March 2015. More information will be revealed at that time.
http: //www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/DTS/dtsx/objectbased/audio/codecs/Dolby/Atmos/dtshd-master-audio/Surround_Sound/Release_Dates/dts-announces-dtsx-objectbased-audio-codec-for-march-2015-with-support-from-onkyo-denon-pioneer-more/20275
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-31-2014, 04:10 PM:
Does the DTS:X home theater audio format carry technology similar to the developing DTS Open MDA standard for movie theaters?
What kind of speaker layouts is DTS:X going to propose? Will it be similar (and compatible with) a home Atmos speaker setup? Or will is propose an entirely different speaker layout like what Auro 3D uses?
I'm wondering if DTS:X and DTS Open MDA, in addition to Barco buying out Iosono will all add up to something that will serve as a true next-generation sound upgrade for all those theaters installing Auro 11.1 systems.
The current implementation of Auro, which is going into a lot of Cinemark XD theaters, is arguably deficient in surround coverage given there is no 7.1 channel "base" to provide discrete back wall surround coverage. Carmike is building a decent number of "Big D" branded premium screens, all wired with 7.1 capable sound systems (and touting 4-way QSC stage speaker setups). But Carmike's Big D concept is leaning toward Auro, which would dump the 7.1 base down to mere 5.1.
Anyway, Auro is just an elaboration on conventional 5.1 channel based audio. DTS:X and DTS Open MDA could be a proper upgrade.
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 12-31-2014, 04:26 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Does the DTS:X home theater audio format carry technology similar to the developing DTS Open MDA standard for movie theaters?
My understanding is that DTS:X is the consumer-facing renderer for MDA files. This is why DTS wants/needs the cinema industry to adopt MDA, so that they have content mixed in an object-based format that can then be ported to a consumer format and decoded. Much as Dolby launched Atmos in the cinema, providing a library of material with Atmos mixes that can be ported to the home theater version of Atmos on Blu Ray.
quote: Bobby Henderson
What kind of speaker layouts is DTS:X going to propose? Will it be similar (and compatible with) a home Atmos speaker setup? Or will is propose an entirely different speaker layout like what Auro 3D uses?
MDA will support any speaker configuration, mapping the object-based mix to the available speakers.
That said, practical realities imply variations on the 5.1 and 7.1 setups that we are all familiar with, and DTS has indicated that the same layouts being utilized by Dolby Atmos for home theater will be supported by DTS:X.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-01-2015, 10:15 AM:
I wonder what studios will support this and release product as such - I'm looking directly at Disney and Fox specifically.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-01-2015, 12:27 PM:
I think we will see DTS-X get more support/titles than the Dolby Atmos-lite format will get for the home. But there are some serious challenges for both formats as the average home viewer does not about surround sound and receivers in this day and age. Small sound bars and slick set ups are what people want.
Another thing is the ridiculous cost it takes to do Atmos at home, I am sure DTS-X will be just as expensive to implement but I really don't think people want ugly speakers on the roof nor do they really want bouncing sound technology. I am keeping my fingers crossed that DTS-X does not have those stupid bounce speakers that Atmos is claiming to be as good as the theatrical experience, at least they could of changed the name for the Atmos system at home ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I think the days of home theaters that mimic a traditional movie theater are over, there will be the fan boys who still do it but I can't see too many regular folks adding height speakers or even worse Atmos enabled bounce speakers to their living rooms.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-01-2015, 03:56 PM:
Personally, I think it’s great to have some competition in the multi-dimensional object based audio formats. It’s a bit of a pity it isn’t an entirely open format, but I guess that’s where the beef is at nowadays for DTS.
Is there any chance we’ll see this being supported by e.g. the Datasat AP20 in the near future? I’m aware this is not intended to be a format distributed on DCP releases, but since alternative content in the form of Blu-Ray regularly makes its way into theatrical presentations, it will sure be an interesting and competitive feature.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Another thing is the ridiculous cost it takes to do Atmos at home, I am sure DTS-X will be just as expensive to implement but I really don't think people want ugly speakers on the roof nor do they really want bouncing sound technology. I am keeping my fingers crossed that DTS-X does not have those stupid bounce speakers that Atmos is claiming to be as good as the theatrical experience, at least they could of changed the name for the Atmos system at home
You don’t really seem to get the concept of object based audio formats, do you? Or you’re ignoring it on purpose, but it has to be one of the two. The whole idea is to go single inventory and not be limited by the amount of speakers in a particular setup, not now and not in the future. Although it entirely beats the purpose of multi-dimensional audio, you could do Atmos and probably DTS-X with just a single speaker.
And what ridiculous costs? You’re making fun of Atmos being available on a tablet in another topic. I recently upgraded my brothers AVR and now he also has Atmos... Upgrade costs: Zero. I'm not entirely sure how they account for the licensing in regards to Dolby, but it was just a software upgrade, available for free. I expect all mid- and high-end market AVRs to do Atmos within a year or so... Does he have speakers on the ceiling? No. Does his AVR even have the channels for it? Probably not, or you would have to trade in another channel. What does he have? A simple but decent 5.1 setup. But he now can play Atmos soundtracks too. Does it really improve on a good 5.1 or down mixed 7.1 mix in any other lossless format supported by the AVR? No, it doesn’t, at least not for the only mix we could try...
Maybe there will be a DTS-X upgrade in it for him too down the road, who knows.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-01-2015, 08:07 PM:
Yeah...I get having competition on sound keeps costs down (and innovation up). However, in our little industry, competing sound formats merely cost more money and confusion. This has been borne out in most every sound format we have had from vitaphone/optical on out.
I don't really like open-architecture for our industry too much unless some trusted entity effectively "owns" it. For instance...we have Linux in most DCinema products but the various companies effectively "own" their implementation of it. We don't have to worry at all about "updating the Linux" part of it...that is the OEM's problem to worry or not worry about. They are purpose-built boxes.
What has worked out better for our industry is to quickly adopt formats and standardize on them. People then can not waste a lot of time/money on duplicating systems or worrying about longevity too much. What really sucks is when a studio aligns themselves with a particular/competing format...witness the Dolby/DTS/SDDS debacle of the '90s. Oh its Universal...gotta have DTS to run Jurassic Park. Got a Disney movie? Gotta get Dolby. Columbia/Tristar? Well that will be SDDS. That was just crazy and expensive. I think Odyssey Products STILL lists their roll around rack solutions to allow a single theatre to have multiple types of digital processors to roll into whichever screen needed them. Once all studios carried all digital formats...SDDS quickly started to die away DTS and Dolby continued. DTS still had lowest cost, easy to implement but those pesky discs coming in (undamaged) became an increasing problem while Dolby could be counted on for just about every feature and normally worked...If I'm not mistaken, once quad-track was everywhere...Dolby became the clear "winner" but it didn't box out DTS since the SAME software (film) would work in a company that preferred DTS (or SDDS).
With Atmos versus MDA...I see another silly fight coming on. At least in the home market, the "solution" has been that all home receivers have been able to deal with both Dolby and DTS so the consumer doesn't have to participate in the "fight". That is between the technology companies and the studios to decide who gets paid for what technology on what title. In the home Dolby won the DVD battle but DTS is way ahead in Blu-Ray. Which makes it a pain in the but for those running Blu-Rays in cinemas if you want the high-bandwidth audio (Master Audio or True-HD). Datasat will give your Master Audio but only AC-3 instead of True-HD...Dolby (on the CP850) will give your True-HD but only a Pro-Logic decode of a LPCM track for DTS...or if your player will do the decode, discrete LPCM. Just about all other processors (CP750, JSD60, JSD100, CP650, JSD80) only deal with low bandwidth audio (AC3 or DTS Core) with Dolby brand processors not playing even DTS Core audio.
We don't need this in the "immersive" audio formats. Lets pick one and go with it. What is even worse with immersive audio is the market slice is SOOOO small...even for the consumer if you are talking about a proper system that actually has all of the channels. I can also guarantee you that the smaller the screen is...the less anyone buying the stuff cares about "immersive" audio. Sure, you could put Atmos on a phone or iPod...but who cares? Nobody is going to buy it because it has that.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-01-2015, 08:49 PM:
I have long wondered what the ratio is of types of sound systems on home TV setups.
- Just using the speakers in the TV
- TV speakers + added speakers but with no surround
- TV speakers + a Home Theater In A Box with soundbar and reflective surround
- Separate system with 5.1 (or better) surround sound
We've got the first option for our bedroom TV (which is usually watched with the sound way down since my wife is often sleeping when I'm watching) and the second option for our "main" TV. No subwoofer necessary there because I've got that one hooked up to some Akai speakers from the 70s that sound just fine. We don't watch many movies at home so there's no need for the surround sound. I realize we're not exactly a "normal" family in all of this, but I still wonder how the numbers would shake out among the general populace.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-01-2015, 11:00 PM:
question: aren't Atmos mixes exclusive to Dolby? wouldn't that negate any one from using the stems or audio design to port over to DTS' system?
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-01-2015, 11:51 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
I have long wondered what the ratio is of types of sound systems on home TV setups.
- Just using the speakers in the TV
- TV speakers + added speakers but with no surround
- TV speakers + a Home Theater In A Box with soundbar and reflective surround
- Separate system with 5.1 (or better) surround sound
I would say flat screen TV with soundbar is the most prevalent set-up after just the TV with the build in speakers.
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
question: aren't Atmos mixes exclusive to Dolby? wouldn't that negate any one from using the stems or audio design to port over to DTS' system?
To play back the sound mix you need an Atmos receiver in the cinema or at home, but the studio would make an Atmos mix and then fold it down to 7.1 or 5.1 etc etc.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-02-2015, 01:41 AM:
quote: Steve Guttag
We don't need this in the "immersive" audio formats. Lets pick one and go with it. What is even worse with immersive audio is the market slice is SOOOO small...even for the consumer if you are talking about a proper system that actually has all of the channels. I can also guarantee you that the smaller the screen is...the less anyone buying the stuff cares about "immersive" audio. Sure, you could put Atmos on a phone or iPod...but who cares? Nobody is going to buy it because it has that.
I agree with you that we, as both consumers and in the professional market like the cinema, don’t really want all those different formats. I guess most of the content producers also aren’t keen in an ever-growing mix of formats. Although if they keep their mixes in “object based” master formats, it’s mostly just another checkbox in the export process. In my opinion, the open LPCM standard for DCI compliant distributions in DCP format was a step forward in regards to all those other multi-channel formats that established themselves over the years. I expect something similar happening down the road with those new "immersive" formats, once it has become a commodity rather than a novelty.
The average home user already has a hard time figuring out all those different formats. While many will probably know by now that Dolby Digital has something to do with surround sound, do we really expect them to know the difference between Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby ProLogic IIx or IIz, DTS ES, DTS Neo:6 or DTS HD Master Audio… just to name a FEW of those many formats and variations out there? And although the transition between those formats is in many cases rather seamless and stuff mostly figures it out themselves, most of those users aren’t really getting any of the specific benefits of those formats anyway.
The problem obviously is, both DTS and Dolby make most or at least a considerable amount of their revenue by selling licenses to those closed formats and are thus competing with each other in exactly this field. Unlike e.g. Audissey and Dirac, they get their bucks from the actual delivery formats and not from some add-on technology which is largely format independent. So, unless both DTS and Dolby find another business model, I'm afraid we’re stuck with this war of audio formats.
Still, the only way of getting the costs down for those formats is some form of competition. There's no reason whatsoever for Dolby to drastically reduce their pricing for Atmos in the cinema, if there is just no serious competitor. Right now, the price of Atmos for anything but the home cinema, is not worth the added benefits for all but the most exclusive auditoria.
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
question: aren't Atmos mixes exclusive to Dolby? wouldn't that negate any one from using the stems or audio design to port over to DTS' system?
Many recent master mixes are created in an object based master format, not specifically bound to Atmos. In an ideal world, once you finished your mix you just export it to the delivery formats supported for your release, like the many multi-channel audio formats available and the now upcoming “immersive” formats.
But it’s still not like every new format comes for free. If you want to do your job right, you need to test every different audio format you’re going to support and in some cases you might even want to tweak specific aspects of a mix for a particular delivery format.
quote: Mike Blakesley
We've got the first option for our bedroom TV (which is usually watched with the sound way down since my wife is often sleeping when I'm watching) and the second option for our "main" TV. No subwoofer necessary there because I've got that one hooked up to some Akai speakers from the 70s that sound just fine. We don't watch many movies at home so there's no need for the surround sound. I realize we're not exactly a "normal" family in all of this, but I still wonder how the numbers would shake out among the general populace.
Amongst the people I know it's Flat TV, basic 5.1 setup and lately sound bars are creeping in. Some of those systems support stuff like "virtual surround".
Most average consumers don't really care all to much about those fancy new formats. For the Panasonics, Sonys, Samsungs and LGs of this world, it's also often just another sticker to add to the line of products. A way to try to convince some users to upgrade to the "latest and best". In the eventual race to the bottom, many of those things become a more or less defacto standard.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-02-2015, 08:14 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
And what ridiculous costs? You’re making fun of Atmos being available on a tablet in another topic. I recently upgraded my brothers AVR and now he also has Atmos... Upgrade costs: Zero. I'm not entirely sure how they account for the licensing in regards to Dolby, but it was just a software upgrade, available for free. I expect all mid- and high-end market AVRs to do Atmos within a year or so... Does he have speakers on the ceiling? No. Does his AVR even have the channels for it? Probably not, or you would have to trade in another channel. What does he have? A simple but decent 5.1 setup. But he now can play Atmos soundtracks too. Does it really improve on a good 5.1 or down mixed 7.1 mix in any other lossless format supported by the AVR? No, it doesn’t, at least not for the only mix we could try...
Why even bother firmware updating an Atmos decoding feature into a surround sound receiver if it doesn't have the extra speaker outputs to honestly accommodate it? It's a waste of time adding that into a 5.1 or 7.1 only receiver. What kind of extra Atmos stuff is going to be pumped into the base 5.1 or 7.1 channels?.
Additionally, Dolby Atmos tracks on Blu-ray are embedded into a Dolby TrueHD track that will play on any Blu-ray player. So anyone with a standard home theater setup or just listening via a sound bar or TV speakers will be able to hear the movie audio. It just won't be spread out in the manner of Atmos playback. It will be downmixed instead.
I would expect DTS to take the same approach with DTS:X, embedding the object oriented data into a DTS-HD Master Audio base track (which also contains backward compatible lossy DTS data).
quote: Steve Guttag
We don't need this in the "immersive" audio formats. Lets pick one and go with it. What is even worse with immersive audio is the market slice is SOOOO small...even for the consumer if you are talking about a proper system that actually has all of the channels.
Wasn't one of the goals of DTS' Open MDA system to be able to render object-based and/or channel-based mixes for any of the new surround sound formats (Atmos, Auro, MDA)?
It would be much better for sound mixers and editors if they only needed one plug-in for Pro Tools that could output mixes in all those formats. Currently, Atmos and Auro mixes have to be generated in different pieces of software. Dolby's Atmos plug-in requires a Mac-based Pro Tools setup; they don't have a Windows version available. This kind of gets back to why DTS-HD Master Audio is so dominant on Blu-ray. All Hollywood studio Blu-ray movie discs are authored in Windows-based. It's easier to encode DTS-HD tracks and stay within one operating system rather than have to bounce back and forth between Mac and PC to encode a Dolby TrueHD track. Plus, DTS' Master Audio encoding software is a LOT less expensive than Dolby's.
If a single "front end" plug-in can be developed by DTS, ProTools or whoever it might result in more object oriented mixes being created. And it would allow movie theaters to make their own choice on which next gen audio system to install if they want to do so.
In the end, I think it's a little late for next generation surround being delivered in just one format.
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
question: aren't Atmos mixes exclusive to Dolby? wouldn't that negate any one from using the stems or audio design to port over to DTS' system?
Movie sound layouts are object-based, but Dolby's Atmos-plug in sits on top of that, creating its own format-specific 3D sound panning data. As far as I can tell (looking through Dolby's PDF documents) there isn't any way to export Atmos data into other formats. But, perhaps in the interest of encouraging growth in next-gen surround, maybe DTS and Dolby ought to work together, creating audio export features for opposing formats from their own software plug-ins.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I would say flat screen TV with soundbar is the most prevalent set-up after just the TV with the build in speakers.
Can you cite a market study or some other reliable source for that claim? Or are you just guessing?
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-03-2015, 04:45 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Why even bother firmware updating an Atmos decoding feature into a surround sound receiver if it doesn't have the extra speaker outputs to honestly accommodate it? It's a waste of time adding that into a 5.1 or 7.1 only receiver. What kind of extra Atmos stuff is going to be pumped into the base 5.1 or 7.1 channels?.
First off all, it was purely out of curiosity and to have some kind of empirical data if an Atmos (consumer) mix rendered on the same hardware sounds in any way different than a 5.1 or 7.1 mix with the same channel layout.
Secondly, you should get rid of the notion that any of those MDA formats are solely useful on systems with a boatload of playback channels. An open MDA format could easily replace all the other mixes on a future release. I guess that would be an improvement and that’s also why it makes sense for your decoder being capable of decoding those formats, even if it doesn’t really improve on a 5.1 or 7.1 discrete channel mix.
You can remap channels if you want. So, for example you could use the rear surround speaker channels as overhead speaker channels. In theory, the mix should also map better to your actual speaker layout without a large part of the “magic” of stuff like Audissey and or Dirac Room Correction, as almost nobody is able to put their speakers in the exact optimal position. The end result should, in theory, outperform a standard 5.1 or 7.1 mix.
It’s all just theory though, if it really produces some noticeable improvements is hard to tell. We only had the latest Transformers Blu-Ray and a few of those Atmos trailers to test it. Your ears are rather subjective things, so if it really makes a difference is rather hard to tell. Both mixes sounded a little different on this hardware, but it’s hard to say the one is better than the other.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Movie sound layouts are object-based, but Dolby's Atmos-plug in sits on top of that, creating its own format-specific 3D sound panning data. As far as I can tell (looking through Dolby's PDF documents) there isn't any way to export Atmos data into other formats. But, perhaps in the interest of encouraging growth in next-gen surround, maybe DTS and Dolby ought to work together, creating audio export features for opposing formats from their own software plug-ins.
I'm sure nobody is going to do away their master source files and DTS:X will get a Pro Tools plug-in just like Dolby Atmos. For many productions it will just be another export.
Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 01-03-2015, 12:50 PM:
I wonder what the MDA.X bitstream looks like. The MDA breaks audio objects into packets with one or more per frame. The packet includes the sound location in spherical coordinates, other meta data, and the waveform file for that packet. A singe frame could have hundreds of these packets (separate objects or slices of moving objects at different positions, "render excepted" sound that goes to specific speakers, etc.). This takes a fair amount of bandwidth (though nothing compared to video). Also, on playback, the object slices have to be panned to the appropriate speakers, all the audio for that speaker summed, etc. I wonder how DTS.X and home ATMOS bitsreams differ from the cinema versions.
Harold
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-03-2015, 01:41 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'm sure nobody is going to do away their master source files and DTS:X will get a Pro Tools plug-in just like Dolby Atmos. For many productions it will just be another export.
The problem is audio editors and mixers will have to fart around with four or even more audio object panning plug-ins after creating their standard 5.1 or 7.1 mix. They'll have to build an Atmos mix within the Atmos front end. Then they'll have to build a DTS MDA/DTS:X layout in that plug-in. Same goes for Auro. And then there's the 12-channel thing IMAX is looking to deploy. Sound designers don't have time for all that crap. They hardly have enough time in their insanely cramped post production schedules to build a proper 5.1 or 7.1 mix.
Obviously the thing that needs to happen is the makers of Pro Tools and other professional level audio editing applications need to build the 3D sound layout features into the core parts of their applications. The capability shouldn't be confined to a collection of 3rd party plug-ins. It should be an another sound layout option in addition to the standard mono, stereo, 5.1 and 7.1. Exporting to Atmos, DTS MDA, Auro and IMAX should amount to nothing more than a few button clicks.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Secondly, you should get rid of the notion that any of those MDA formats are solely useful on systems with a boatload of playback channels.
When it comes to 3D audio a greater number of individually amplified speakers will yield a more precise 3D audio image. It's not any different in principal to more pixels yielding a more detailed visual image.
While it may be possible for someone to tailor object-based sound playback to their specific speaker setup, even if they're missing a lot of basic elements such as rear surround speakers, the listener is still going to need enough speakers installed in the right positions to have convincing 3D audio playback. Plus, if he's lacking certain basic surround speaker positions he'll have to make sure the receiver is able to "fold down" all the sound data intended for those positions back to other speakers. Otherwise it's going to be the same as having one or more sound channels going dead; you don't get to hear the audio meant for those positions at all.
I'm skeptical home theater equipment manufacturers will build the features needed into their receivers for end users to input what amounts to a 3D image of their home theater room and register the correct geometry of where each speaker is placed. Even if those features were built into the receiver I'm not all that convinced many end users would use those features. Even professional installers would very likely skip those parts just to save time (from the point of view the customer won't know the difference).
Basically I'm much more interested in 3D sound as it relates to commercial movie theater installations. That's really where it's going to be most important to get the job done right. I don't think all that many home users are going to be interested in wiring four or more speakers into their ceilings as well as installing all the additional side and back wall surround speakers. I love surround sound, but the idea of installing that kind of thing in my own living room sounds like a giant pain in the ass.
quote: Harold Hallikainen
A singe frame could have hundreds of these packets (separate objects or slices of moving objects at different positions, "render excepted" sound that goes to specific speakers, etc.). This takes a fair amount of bandwidth (though nothing compared to video).
Layouts for movie sound mixes, or mixes for music or other video projects, can get very big in terms of file size.
Some of that gets folded down a little for an Atmos mix. A bunch of the objects get flattened down into the stage channels or in the surround channel beds. Of the individual objects that are maintained, each lossless compressed 24-bit 48kHz object will consume about 500kb/s of bandwidth. Atmos can support as many as 128 of them at the same time, which comes out to 73 million bits per second. Obviously Atmos isn't going to do that all the time.
The home version of Atmos is a little more basic at this point. The home version will eventually support up to 32 speaker channels. But the first receivers and initial series of Blu-ray discs max out at the 7.1.4 level. The Dolby True HD track will contain the foundation 7.1 track and embedded Atmos metadata defines the objects to play either in the base level 7.1 speakers and/or the additional 2 or 4 speakers installed overhead.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-03-2015, 02:40 PM:
quote: Harold Hallikainen
I wonder how DTS.X and home ATMOS bitsreams differ from the cinema versions.
Atmos is gonna run in cinema, home receiver, tablet (headphones ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), computer, streaming and not yet announced in-vehicle there is gonna a be a number of different versions compared to the cinema.
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 01-03-2015, 04:35 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
The home version of Atmos is a little more basic at this point. The home version will eventually support up to 32 speaker channels. But the first receivers and initial series of Blu-ray discs max out at the 7.1.4 level.
That's not quite right on the content side. The full implementation of Dolby Atmos for home theatre will support 24.1.10 channels. While it's true that the initial AVRs max out at 7.1.4 the Blu Ray discs themselves contain the full Atmos soundtrack and will scale to 24.1.10. The more speakers you have in your home theatre the higher the spatial resolution of the object rendering.
Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 01-03-2015, 04:48 PM:
If they have the "full atmos soundtrack," why is there a limit to the number of speakers? It should be able to pan to any number of speakers (assuming the hardware is there on the playback side).
Harold
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 01-03-2015, 05:00 PM:
quote: Harold Hallikainen
If they have the "full atmos soundtrack," why is there a limit to the number of speakers? It should be able to pan to any number of speakers (assuming the hardware is there on the playback side).
There isn't, up to the 24.1.10 maximum. Much as the theatrical version tops out at 64 independent speaker feeds.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-03-2015, 06:41 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Obviously the thing that needs to happen is the makers of Pro Tools and other professional level audio editing applications need to build the 3D sound layout features into the core parts of their applications. The capability shouldn't be confined to a collection of 3rd party plug-ins. It should be an another sound layout option in addition to the standard mono, stereo, 5.1 and 7.1. Exporting to Atmos, DTS MDA, Auro and IMAX should amount to nothing more than a few button clicks.
I think Avid and Steinberg will be missing the boat eventually if they're not already working on this right now. It's obvious that nobody is waiting to do one mix in 3 or even 4 different formats. A company called Fairlight is already offering similar products, both standalone and as plugin for both Pro Tools and Nuendo, although I have never seen those in action.
A different "Multidimensional format" should eventually be just another checkbox in the workflow.
quote: Bobby Henderson
When it comes to 3D audio a greater number of individually amplified speakers will yield a more precise 3D audio image. It's not any different in principal to more pixels yielding a more detailed visual image.
It's essentially like playing a graphically intensive computer game on a PC. The maximum quality I can get out of it is highly dependent on how much money I spent on stuff like processors and graphic cards. Interestingly enough, computer games have done this live audio-panning and rendering across multiple channels for years already. Many computer games produce better surround sound effects than many movies actually...
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm skeptical home theater equipment manufacturers will build the features needed into their receivers for end users to input what amounts to a 3D image of their home theater room and register the correct geometry of where each speaker is placed. Even if those features were built into the receiver I'm not all that convinced many end users would use those features. Even professional installers would very likely skip those parts just to save time (from the point of view the customer won't know the difference).
Isn't where the beef is for companies like Audissey and Dirac? Many AVR and professional decoder manufacturers already use their "room correction" software and put it in their products. Just a select few equipment manufacturers actually produce their own software for those kind of things.
This "room correction" can actually do a pretty decent job with a simple calibration microphone (standard equipment on most mid- and high-end AVRs). I'm sure this software can be expanded to include MDA formats.
This auto-calibration surely won't beat any professional installer service, but why wouldn’t they too embrace those new formats? Isn't this an opportunity for them to sell more of their services?
quote: Bobby Henderson
The Dolby True HD track will contain the foundation 7.1 track and embedded Atmos metadata defines the objects to play either in the base level 7.1 speakers and/or the additional 2 or 4 speakers installed overhead.
Unfortunately, the format is not open yet, but from what I've heard, the objects in the consumer version of Atmos do actually contain full 3D coordinates and can also be panned in the 3D space. So it's not just a speaker assignment thing. There seem to be stricter limitations on the number of concurrent objects though.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Atmos is gonna run in cinema, home receiver, tablet (headphones), computer, streaming and not yet announced in-vehicle there is gonna a be a number of different versions compared to the cinema.
Yeah, just like it happened with e.g. stereo? And why will it need different version for home cinema, tablet, computers and vehicles? Is there a reason why you keep mocking Dolby Atmos? Because I miss the big difference between Atmos and DTS:X and why the one can be ridiculed and the other seems to be fine...
quote: Daniel Schulz
There isn't, up to the 24.1.10 maximum. Much as the theatrical version tops out at 64 independent speaker feeds.
I don't think those limits are in the actual formats themselves, that wouldn't make any sense. Maybe they are some reasonable limits in the specifications for manufacturers. The maximum of 64 output channels for the theatrical version Dolby Atmos is solely based on the maximum of the CP 850, which is probably due to a combination of DSP limitations and plain processing power. Future decoders may very well support a whole bunch more channels, especially once we'll see Wave Field Synthesis make its way in... (Barco recently bought a company, IOSONO, who builds working WFS cinema products.)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-03-2015, 08:29 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I think Avid and Steinberg will be missing the boat eventually if they're not already working on this right now. It's obvious that nobody is waiting to do one mix in 3 or even 4 different formats. A company called Fairlight is already offering similar products, both standalone and as plugin for both Pro Tools and Nuendo, although I have never seen those in action.
A different "Multidimensional format" should eventually be just another checkbox in the workflow.
The only "downside" from the point of view of those creating the sound layouts is they'll probably have to pay at least some kind of fee for the encoding/output function for each of those formats -just like what one has to do with Atmos, Auro, etc. currently. You don't get those features bundled in with Pro Tools. OTOH, the cost of those encoding functions would be relatively cheap compared to the overall cost of the production budget.
The situation reminds me a little about what's gone on with Adobe Audition in previous versions. In the past you had to pay $99 for a third party plug-in if you wanted to encode a 5.1 layout into Dolby Digital format. That's different now; Audition has built-in encoding capability for Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus. But you still have to spend a good bit more if you want to encode anything in DTS HD Master Audio or Dolby True HD.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
It's essentially like playing a graphically intensive computer game on a PC. The maximum quality I can get out of it is highly dependent on how much money I spent on stuff like processors and graphic cards. Interestingly enough, computer games have done this live audio-panning and rendering across multiple channels for years already. Many computer games produce better surround sound effects than many movies actually...
That's a point worth debate on a number of fronts.
Yes, video game systems can render dozens upon dozens of separate sounds. But they're rendering them only to a standard 5.1 or 7.1 channel layout, not something as complex as a cinema sound system with up to 64 speaker outputs. And the sounds being rendered are merely a limited number of "canned" sound elements. Then there's all the subjective differences. Everything in a movie sound mix is deliberately built either by hand or through scripting, and there's often many separate sound objects present in the music and sound effects stems. The sound events in a video game are largely incidental, unless there is some story beat in the game that has the audio locked to specific sound channels.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
This "room correction" can actually do a pretty decent job with a simple calibration microphone (standard equipment on most mid- and high-end AVRs). I'm sure this software can be expanded to include MDA formats.
I'm thinking there is a lot of variables where errors can be made by installers or end users when setting up their next-generation home theater sound systems. If some kind of special microphone and software can correctly identify room geometry and speaker position with minimal input from end users that would be pretty cool. But I'm skeptical that sort of thing can be done easily. Maybe the speakers and receiver need some lasers to align them.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I don't think those limits are in the actual formats themselves, that wouldn't make any sense. Maybe they are some reasonable limits in the specifications for manufacturers. The maximum of 64 output channels for the theatrical version Dolby Atmos is solely based on the maximum of the CP 850, which is probably due to a combination of DSP limitations and plain processing power.
You gotta factor in data bandwidth limits on all parts of the playback chain as well as disc capacity. A hard disc based DCP has lots of space, although that gets cramped if the movie distributor puts 47 different versions of the movie on the same hard disc. Blu-ray disc capacity can be quite a bit more cramped. Developers are working on the next generation of Blu-ray to support 4K resolution movies and HEVC encoded video. There should be more breathing room for Atmos and DTS:X on that.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-06-2015, 03:38 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
The only "downside" from the point of view of those creating the sound layouts is they'll probably have to pay at least some kind of fee for the encoding/output function for each of those formats -just like what one has to do with Atmos, Auro, etc. currently. You don't get those features bundled in with Pro Tools. OTOH, the cost of those encoding functions would be relatively cheap compared to the overall cost of the production budget.
Getting the features into Pro Tools is probably the cheaper side of the deal, proper licensing for mass distribution is another thing. Yet, I guess for any MAJOR release, it's still just peanuts compared to the big picture. Obviously, it's different for your average, independent production, but I sure hope some open, free-to-use standard will weight in here.
quote: Bobby Henderson
That's different now; Audition has built-in encoding capability for Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus. But you still have to spend a good bit more if you want to encode anything in DTS HD Master Audio or Dolby True HD.
Both Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus also don't require any licensing fee for content distribution in those formats. You will need to pay them if you want to put the Dolby logo on your advertising and products though.
The stupid part about both DTS HD Master Audio and Dolby True HD is that those formats essentially add nothing that cannot be done with multichannel PCM... Most delivery formats, including Blu-Ray support those vanilla PCM streams and practically all recent players and decoders do so too. And for backward compatibility you could still add a Dolby AC3 5.1 track, which is supported by practically all digital surround systems out there, even the very first generations.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Yes, video game systems can render dozens upon dozens of separate sounds. But they're rendering them only to a standard 5.1 or 7.1 channel layout, not something as complex as a cinema sound system with up to 64 speaker outputs. And the sounds being rendered are merely a limited number of "canned" sound elements. Then there's all the subjective differences. Everything in a movie sound mix is deliberately built either by hand or through scripting, and there's often many separate sound objects present in the music and sound effects stems. The sound events in a video game are largely incidental, unless there is some story beat in the game that has the audio locked to specific sound channels.
The newer generation of games are actually doing quite an impressive job here. The amount of samples or "canned sounds" has increased considerably, so usually you're not constantly hearing the same loop over and over again. Also, the complexity in processing doesn't really differ between "canned sounds" and "a new sample every time", it has primarily something to do with limits in both production (how many samples are you going to produce for e.g. the same characters?) and traditionally also stuff like storage considerations. In-game music now seems to be threated no less to that of fully blown movie soundtracks for those big budget game productions. Last time I hooked up the PS3 to the surround system I was actually quite blown away about the “immersiveness” (THAT word again) of the sound of many of those games.
I guess movies have traditionally been mixed a bit on the conservative side. In most mixes, it's still primarily the three stage channels. Music comes out left and right and dialog is primarily focused on the center speaker. Surround speakers are mostly only used for added effect. For example, even if somebody is speaking while standing "behind the audience", the dialog most of the time, comes out the front speakers and not from the appropriate surrounds. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing and it wouldn't fit all movies equally well to drastically change it, but mixes that really stand out, like the mix of Gravity, tend to part away from this fixed notion of "channel mapping". They don't threat the surround speakers as some kind of third rate accessories but as an important part of the mix as a whole.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm thinking there is a lot of variables where errors can be made by installers or end users when setting up their next-generation home theater sound systems. If some kind of special microphone and software can correctly identify room geometry and speaker position with minimal input from end users that would be pretty cool. But I'm skeptical that sort of thing can be done easily. Maybe the speakers and receiver need some lasers to align them.
For the Atmos reference setup at home, which is based on a traditional 7.1 setup with 4 ceiling speakers, Onkyo and Denon are already using the standard Audissey auto-calibration using their standard calibration microphone. So as long as you remain within a certain window with your speaker placements, you don't really need to do that much tweaking. A fully custom setup will probably need a lot more tweaking to get it sound right, but we're in the early stages here. The first generation 5.1 systems didn't have anything like the options available today for example.
And yeah, going the "laser aligned" route, a professional installer could probably make a LIDAR scan of the room, reduce this to some basic geometric forms and feed this to some "next gen room correction" software. Maybe you could license them to play your own "frickin' laser alligned sound system" trailer. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'm not sure if this nit picking on the last inch really adds some noticeable quality to your setup though. I doubt anybody, including me would notice if I would e.g. calibrate my basic 5.1 system to "absolute perfection" and somebody else comes in and would start moving the speakers a few inches around. Moving your head around a few inches would probably make a greater impact... Then again, there are audiophiles that pay thousands of dollars for some feel-good snake-oil copper wire.
quote: Bobby Henderson
You gotta factor in data bandwidth limits on all parts of the playback chain as well as disc capacity. A hard disc based DCP has lots of space, although that gets cramped if the movie distributor puts 47 different versions of the movie on the same hard disc. Blu-ray disc capacity can be quite a bit more cramped. Developers are working on the next generation of Blu-ray to support 4K resolution movies and HEVC encoded video. There should be more breathing room for Atmos and DTS:X on that.
The amount of concurrent objects or parallel audio streams are important factors on the distribution side of the content. So, if you limit e.g. the maximum number of concurrent objects, channel beds and count in their maximum bitrate, you know exactly what your maximum bitrate will be. On the playback side, the only thing that should matter regarding the amount of speakers you put in, is the amount of processing power you need to generate all those separate audio streams for all those discrete output channels. So, a limit of e.g. 32 concurrent objects should be of no importance to the amount of speakers/channels you can put in at the playback side, as long as your hardware has sufficient processing power and output channels. If a manufacturer offers such a system, he should make sure he can handle the maximum number of objects, channel beds at the maximum bitrate using all channels to earn the seal of approval.
Another factor for artificial limits like those is licensing and protecting revenue. If you look at Dolby, the professional version of Dolby Atmos is a whole lot more expensive than the home version. You might want to avoid the home standard being used as a knock off replacement for your highly priced professional equipment.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2015, 12:41 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Getting the features into Pro Tools is probably the cheaper side of the deal, proper licensing for mass distribution is another thing. Yet, I guess for any MAJOR release, it's still just peanuts compared to the big picture. Obviously, it's different for your average, independent production, but I sure hope some open, free-to-use standard will weight in here.
I don't. Not everything needs an open source solution.
Open source isn't an all good thing, particularly in software for creative fields. None of the open source alternatives for pixel-based image editing, vector image editing, sound editing, 3D modeling, etc. can compare favorably to their commercially sold, industry leading counterparts. The GIMP might be fine as a free program, but it sucks and is counterproductive compared to Photoshop. And then you have all those open source code modules getting incorporated here and there in either open or commercially sold software and possibly opening serious security holes.
In the niche of complex 3D surround audio the act of adding a free to use and modify standard will just result in more commercial "me too" products clouding the next gen sound situation even further and convincing theater operators to just stick with 5.1 or 7.1.
I'm hoping that between DTS and Barco (and Barco's acquisition of Iosono) that they'll be able to transition Auro-equipped theaters over to DTS MDA. Then we would just have two object based surround sound standards in theaters.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Both Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus also don't require any licensing fee for content distribution in those formats. You will need to pay them if you want to put the Dolby logo on your advertising and products though.
Dolby definitely does charge licensing fees to electronics manufacturers to put Dolby technologies in professional and consumer level hardware. Dolby does charge content producers either directly or indirectly for software using their encoding technologies, such as standalone Dolby TrueHD encoding software or the Atmos plug-in for ProTools. I'm sure Adobe paid Dolby some money to give Audition CC built-in DD & DD Plus encoding capability, and that's probably getting passed on to end users as part of that $50 per month Creative Cloud subscription fee.
However, Dolby doesn't necessarily charge content producers on the back end when they want to include a Dolby TrueHD track on a Blu-ray disc or an Atmos track on a cinema DCP. They do require content producers to sign an agreement with them, particularly if they want to use any Dolby branding.
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/cinema/motion-picture-service-agreement.html
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/licensing/logo-use-agreement.aspx
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The stupid part about both DTS HD Master Audio and Dolby True HD is that those formats essentially add nothing that cannot be done with multichannel PCM... Most delivery formats, including Blu-Ray support those vanilla PCM streams and practically all recent players and decoders do so too.
DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD offer a 50% reduction in sound file size, plus backward compatibility in either an embedded or hidden lossy DTS or DD track. You can't play LPCM 5.1/7.1 properly through a TV set's speakers or through a surround sound system not equipped with either HDMI or multi-channel analog inputs. This is why all those early Blu-ray discs with LPCM 5.1/7.1 also had to at least include separate DD or DTS tracks, eating up even more disc capacity.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'm not sure if this nit picking on the last inch really adds some noticeable quality to your setup though. I doubt anybody, including me would notice if I would e.g. calibrate my basic 5.1 system to "absolute perfection" and somebody else comes in and would start moving the speakers a few inches around.
Overall, I'm just skeptical about any automatic "smart" set up software for sound. Brad Miller could go into this much better than I. In the end you really have to intelligently use your own ears and hope they're "golden" enough to get a sound system properly tuned so it sounds fantastic. Letting a computer do it all by a given set of numbers won't accomplish that.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Another factor for artificial limits like those is licensing and protecting revenue. If you look at Dolby, the professional version of Dolby Atmos is a whole lot more expensive than the home version. You might want to avoid the home standard being used as a knock off replacement for your highly priced professional equipment.
Dolby had that factor handled way back when they developed the first consumer versions of Dolby Digital. The data from a 35mm SRD track couldn't play on a home DD system and vice versa. I don't think there's any way for a theater operator to maintain a Blu-ray disc's Dolby TrueHD track with embedded Atmos data into a commercial Atmos system.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-06-2015, 04:16 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't. Not everything needs an open source solution.
Open source isn't an all good thing, particularly in software for creative fields. None of the open source alternatives for pixel-based image editing, vector image editing, sound editing, 3D modeling, etc. can compare favorably to their commercially sold, industry leading counterparts. The GIMP might be fine as a free program, but it sucks and is counterproductive compared to Photoshop. And then you have all those open source code modules getting incorporated here and there in either open or commercially sold software and possibly opening serious security holes.
You're confusing open standards, which are in many ways, a good thing, with Open Source. They definitly aren't the same, not even close. I agree that many Open Source tools aren't capable of (entirely) replacing commercial tools and The Gimp v.s. Photoshop is a good example. There are plenty others, which are all out of scope of this argument. But, Photoshop for example, can handle many open and closed file formats. Formats like PNG are entirely open and this is a good thing. Without open standards, we wouldn't even have this discussion right here. I won't comment on if that's a good or a bad thing though .
quote: Bobby Henderson
DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD offer a 50% reduction in sound file size, plus backward compatibility in either an embedded or hidden lossy DTS or DD track. You can't play LPCM 5.1/7.1 properly through a TV set's speakers or through a surround sound system not equipped with either HDMI or multi-channel analog inputs. This is why all those early Blu-ray discs with LPCM 5.1/7.1 also had to at least include separate DD or DTS tracks, eating up even more disc capacity.
The DD or DTS track built in for backward compatibility will occupy roughly the same amount of space, whether it's incorporated as a distinctive audio track or as part of the TrueHD / Master Audio track. The space required by non-lossy LPCM tracks should not really be an issue on a conventional Blu-Ray release, especially because you could just skip both of the custom non-lossy sound formats. Some Blu-Rays are actually delivered this way, they feature Multi-PCM soundtracks as primary sound track and maybe Dolby Digital and/or DTS as fallback. Anything that does Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD will also support Multi-PCM, anything that doesn't can happily live off the AC3 soundtrack. The compression factor of the DTS and Dolby formats might only be interesting if you want to cram in multiple sound tracks in e.g. many different languages on a very long movie.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Overall, I'm just skeptical about any automatic "smart" set up software for sound. Brad Miller could go into this much better than I. In the end you really have to intelligently use your own ears and hope they're "golden" enough to get a sound system properly tuned so it sounds fantastic. Letting a computer do it all by a given set of numbers won't accomplish that.
We're talking about average home setups here, not cinemas or screening rooms. Most of those auto-calibration things will do a better job than Joe Average ever will. The audiophile or home theater enthusiast will probably throw in his own set of "theories" of what sounds best and how to calibrate their setup. Personally, I don't believe in "golden ears", I do believe in personal preferences though. But if you want your setup to be as neutral and "close to reference" as possible, you best believe your measuring equipment and not your ears.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Dolby had that factor handled way back when they developed the first consumer versions of Dolby Digital. The data from a 35mm SRD track couldn't play on a home DD system and vice versa. I don't think there's any way for a theater operator to maintain a Blu-ray disc's Dolby TrueHD track with embedded Atmos data into a commercial Atmos system.
Depending on how creative I may get, I could do it for you now, using a standard issue AVR with Atmos support. Not that I would advocate such a setup, but it's not like it's impossible to do some kind of "knock off" Atmos that at least, would work with Blu-Ray releases. It will, in the current setup, never be able to outperform the "real" Atmos, because no AVR will currently support as many discrete channels. If I want the real deal, I will have to buy at least a proper CP-850.
Also, the DATASAT AP20 for example, already supports practically all consumer DTS formats out there. Maybe it will do DTS:X too in the near future and if the AP20 won't do it, I'm rather sure a successor model will do.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2015, 01:40 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
You're confusing open standards, which are in many ways, a good thing, with Open Source. They definitly aren't the same, not even close.
In terms of technology and software the lines between "open source" and "open standards" definitely do blur a lot. For instance, Adobe has some technologies they had either released entirely or partially as an open standard. But in doing so they had to release a bunch of programming code as open source. Adobe couldn't just tell others, "hey here's the idea we have, but you guys need to go code it from scratch."
DTS is developing its Open MDA standard, but if the standard is truly "open" other companies looking to create cinema processors with object based surround capability might expect DTS to provide them with source code to build up that feature.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The DD or DTS track built in for backward compatibility will occupy roughly the same amount of space, whether it's incorporated as a distinctive audio track or as part of the TrueHD / Master Audio track. The space required by non-lossy LPCM tracks should not really be an issue on a conventional Blu-Ray release, especially because you could just skip both of the custom non-lossy sound formats.
There's plenty of advantages in using disc capacity in the most efficient way possible. You can fit two lossless compressed 5.1 tracks in the same space as one LPCM 5.1 track. The space savings provide more bandwidth for a wider, more variable video bit rate. The space savings can be used to fit in more alternative language tracks. And then there's the obvious benefit of having to encode only one primary language track rather than multiple tracks as well as the simplicity for end users over which tracks to select. Blu-ray discs with LPCM 5.1 tracks are usually authored to default to a lossy DD 5.1 or DTS 5.1 track because of this. If the Blu-ray has a DTS-HD Master Audio track the end user doesn't have to fart around with audio choices before pressing "play."
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Depending on how creative I may get, I could do it for you now, using a standard issue AVR with Atmos support. Not that I would advocate such a setup, but it's not like it's impossible to do some kind of "knock off" Atmos that at least, would work with Blu-Ray releases.
One obvious thing: by the time a movie is released onto Blu-ray its theatrical release has been finished for 3 or more months. Movie theater cinema processors have very limited support for strictly home theater audio formats like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio.
AFAIK there are no cinema processors that can decode both natively, much less maintain a top layer of object based sound metadata in the digital bit stream. Usually a movie theater has to feed analog audio outputs from a Blu-ray player featuring 5.1/7.1 analog outputs if they want to play a Blu-ray using a lossless audio format during playback.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Also, the DATASAT AP20 for example, already supports practically all consumer DTS formats out there. Maybe it will do DTS:X too in the near future and if the AP20 won't do it, I'm rather sure a successor model will do.
It supports all the current DTS audio formats, including DTS-HD Master Audio. But it only supports consumer Dolby Digital. It doesn't support Dolby Digital Plus or Dolby TrueHD.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 05-22-2015, 12:15 PM:
first DTS-X encoded bluray has been announced:
"Ex Machina"
quote:
The Blu-ray and DVD are packed with spellbinding extras including an in-depth behind-the-scenes featurette that examines the story development, the cast and characters, the production design, cinematography and location shooting in Norway, costumes and makeup and finally, visual effects along with a wrap-up. The discs also contain a Q&A with cast and crew from SXSW and eight vignettes. In addition, this release marks the first time a Blu-ray features DTS:X immersive audio technology. DTS:X replicates and conveys the fluid movement of sound to create a richer soundscape than previously possible by moving sound to precisely where the mixer placed it. Ex Machina will be available on Blu-ray™ and DVD for the suggested retail price of $24.99 and $19.98, respectively.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-23-2015, 12:55 PM:
A bigger question is when will we see any theatrical releases carrying DTS:X audio as well as theaters advertised as being equipped to play DTS:X?
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 05-23-2015, 02:24 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
A bigger question is when will we see any theatrical releases carrying DTS:X audio as well as theaters advertised as being equipped to play DTS:X?
As I understand it, we will not see movies releasing with something called DTS:X audio, as there will just be the SMPTE-standardized, immersive soundtrack (I'm actually quite curious to see how Dolby tries to maintain the Atmos brand for soundtracks that are an interoperable bitstream). We will in theory see cinemas advertising that they are DTS:X capable or compliant or whatever, but probably first in Asia where GDC has a stronger foothold. Although even then I wonder if the cinemas will forego DTS:X branding in favor of their own PLF brand (Regal RPX, AMC Prime etc.)
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 05-23-2015, 05:28 PM:
^ so what is Carmike and it's theater's that are getting the makeover thinking they will get (movie-wise) to showcase the new DTS-X system with then?
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 05-25-2015, 01:17 AM:
^ The proposed SMPTE/DCI - specified bitstream that can be rendered out to an expanded speaker layout.
I guess the analogy would be when DCPs started to include a 7.1 soundtrack, but some cinemas advertised Dolby Surround 7.1. There was no Dolby secret sauce in the mix, it was just 7.1 uncompressed LPCM. But Dolby did tweak their cinema processors to enable 7.1 playback.
What the studios (and NATO) are after is a mix-once-play-anywhere immersive mix, and not separate soundtrack files (Dolby Atmos, Auro 11.1, DTS:X). Auromax is Auro's answer, a renderer to play back the standardized soundtrack using the Auro speaker layout. DTS:X is DTS' answer. Dolby Atmos will presumably be able to play back the standardized file as well.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-26-2015, 09:46 PM:
quote: Daniel Schulz
As I understand it, we will not see movies releasing with something called DTS:X audio, as there will just be the SMPTE-standardized, immersive soundtrack (I'm actually quite curious to see how Dolby tries to maintain the Atmos brand for soundtracks that are an interoperable bitstream).
The problem is with as much money as it costs to install a properly equipped & configured immersive sound system the theater will need some way to brand it. After spending all that money they need a simple way to tell the public, "this isn't plain surround sound; this is something a whole lot better."
Dolby Atmos at least has that kind of branding. The Atmos logo is finally showing up on end credits of Atmos-mixed movies on a consistent basis, it has a home theater tie-in, at least some movie theaters are advertising they have Atmos. Finally it is a component of Dolby Cinema, which could give IMAX some challenges at least in some higher end markets.
If the technology is going to be handled in a generic manner the movie theater operator will have little if any reason to install something other than conventional 5.1 or 7.1. There is even a lot of premium priced theaters, like the aforementioned Carmike Big D houses, that are just plain 7.1. Out of nearly 30 Big D houses Carmike has only 1 Atmos equipped Big D house and only 1 with Auro.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 05-26-2015, 10:31 PM:
^ Starplex Luxury Cinemas 11 in Ashburn Virginia, did the same with their speciality "IDX" screen it's just 7.1 surround sound
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-27-2015, 12:20 AM:
Most of Regal's RPX theaters have only 5.1 or 7.1 surround. Only about a dozen (or it is 20?) of those theaters have Atmos. Just a few are equipped with Auro.
Cinemark built over 100 XD screens initially equipped with 7.1 surround. Then they put in Auro, which kind of gets rid of the 7.1 component. But all those XD screens might as well be just 5.1 or 7.1 considering the dire lack of Auro-mixed titles.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 05-27-2015, 12:28 AM:
quote:
Most of Regal's RPX theaters have only 5.1 or 7.1 surround. Only about a dozen (or it is 20?) of those theaters have Atmos. Just a few are equipped with Auro.
Cinemark built over 100 XD screens initially equipped with 7.1 surround. Then they put in Auro, which kind of gets rid of the 7.1 component. But all those XD screens might as well be just 5.1 or 7.1 considering the dire lack of Auro-mixed titles.
[face palm]
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 05-27-2015, 02:44 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Cinemark built over 100 XD screens initially equipped with 7.1 surround. Then they put in Auro, which kind of gets rid of the 7.1 component. But all those XD screens might as well be just 5.1 or 7.1 considering the dire lack of Auro-mixed titles.
I don't think they're doing too badly on titles releasing with Auro-3D soundtracks. Recent and upcoming titles: Unbroken, American Sniper, Jupiter Ascending, Insurgent, Home, The Age of Adaline, Minions, Pixels.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-27-2015, 04:07 PM:
That's not too bad of a list, but Auro is missing a lot of huge titles Atmos is getting all to itself, like the Avengers sequel, Mad Max: Fury road, Inside Out and a bunch of other summer titles.
On top of that Auro has little if any exclusive releases. All the movies you mentioned above had Atmos mixes alongside Auro.
Auro and its Auromax format would stand to benefit the most by a SMPTE move to have a single "generic" immersive audio track on DCPs. But, just like I've criticized Atmos installations for possibly being all over the map from minimal to maximum configurations, how is any movie theater customer going to be able to tell if a Cinemark XD theater is only wired for basic Auro or wired up for Auromax?
These days there's way too much pomp and circumstance with how premium movie theater auditoriums are branded and not anywhere near enough specifics to let customers know how much value or how little value they're getting for that premium ticket price.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 12-08-2015, 02:01 PM:
big new news that another major studio's home theater division has jumped on the DTS-X bandwagon - Unversal and their upcoming release of 'Crimson Peak' (they should have remixed 'Jurassic World' and 'Furious 7' as such, two major tent pole franchise's that should have object based mixes created in the first place and released theatrically as such).
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-08-2015, 08:38 PM:
Crimson Peak had a conventional sound mix for its theatrical release. DTS:X is getting off to a quick start being used more in home theater than on the theatrical end of things. Not to be left out, studios like Sony, are re-releasing older catalog titles like Bram Stokers Dracula and Leon: The Professional on Blu-ray with Dolby Atmos mixes.
It's shades of the whole Dolby Surround•EX and DTS-ES thing all over again: used more in home theater than in movie theaters. Hell, the object based mixes might actually be more involving in some cases (which is a reminder about the Atmos mix of some movies seeming to be Atmos in name only).
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 12-09-2015, 12:20 AM:
I never understood why Universal wouldn't give their big-budget tentpoles an Atmos mix, like Jurassic World and Furious 7 as said but instead give smaller (in terms of budget and genre) films like Minions and Crimson Peak the full package. At least they should give the Blu-Rays an Atmos mix...but if they are jumping on the DTS:X boat, they should really expand the option to both types of films (big and small).
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 12-09-2015, 02:03 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
DTS:X is getting off to a quick start being used more in home theater than on the theatrical end of things.
I dunno if I'd call 4 titles (Ex Machina, American Ultra, The Last Witch Hunter and now Crimson Peak) a quick start, especially since there is still no hardware available that can decode these soundtracks (firmware updates for Denon and Marantz AVRs to enable DTS:X decoding is supposed to be released starting in January). Dolby has a serious lead on them at this point, with home Atmos hardware available for more than year, and around 30 movies plus the first two seasons of Game of Thrones on Blu Ray with Atmos soundtracks.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 12-09-2015, 08:28 AM:
the problem was that DTS-X was rushed to the home theater market with buggy technology that hasn't even really been resolved.
I can't speak for Universal or the filmmakers themselves, but at one point 'Jurassic World' WAS going to be released in Atmos (according to Dolby's website) but that got jettisoned at the last minute.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-09-2015, 09:36 AM:
quote: Matt Russell
I never understood why Universal wouldn't give their big-budget tentpoles an Atmos mix, like Jurassic World and Furious 7 as said but instead give smaller (in terms of budget and genre) films like Minions and Crimson Peak the full package.
I agree it's pretty screwy Universal released high profile titles like Furious 7 and Jurassic World only with "plain" 5.1/7.1 audio. No Atmos, Auro, etc. But they could always come back and do double dip releases with an updated DTS:X and/or Dolby Atmos track for home theater.
Crimson Peak didn't have an immersive audio mix in its theatrical release. In the case of Minions, Dreamworks Animation has lately been creating Atmos and Auro mixes for all their releases.
quote: Daniel Schulz
I dunno if I'd call 4 titles (Ex Machina, American Ultra, The Last Witch Hunter and now Crimson Peak) a quick start, especially since there is still no hardware available that can decode these soundtracks (firmware updates for Denon and Marantz AVRs to enable DTS:X decoding is supposed to be released starting in January).
Nevertheless, DTS:X is appearing to do more in home theater than it is doing in commercial cinemas. Right off the bat Ex Machina was a home theater only release for DTS:X. That movie only had conventional audio in its theatrical release. DTS:X compatible hardware may be lagging behind the release of Blu-ray discs with DTS:X, but the receivers will be coming. Unlike the very murky situation of just what DTS:X could be in a commercial movie theater there at least appears to be some level of suggested speaker configuration standard in a home theater setup (and it looks a bit like an Auro 3D setup to me).
Dolby Atmos in home theater is a mixed bag. A lot of movies that had Atmos mixes in theatrical release have had Blu-ray discs with DTS-HD Master Audio instead, even after Atmos for home theater became available. I wonder if the lack of Windows-compatible Atmos encoding software has anything to do with that. All commercial Blu-ray discs are authored on PCs running Windows-based software. Dolby's audio encoding software is Mac-only. DTS' audio encoding software supports Mac & Windows platforms.
The Gunman is the only recent American movie release I can think of that didn't appear to have an Atmos mix in theatrical release, but it has an Atmos track on Blu-ray. Lately Sony has been reissuing older movies on Blu-ray with new Atmos mixes. It's pretty unusual for HBO Home Video to re-release Game of Thrones on Blu-ray with new Atmos mixes. That could be a game changer and put more attention on the home theater side of things, especially with how painfully slow Atmos adoption in commercial theaters is going. The lack of Atmos-equipped screens makes it pretty difficult, if not impossible, for many people to watch a movie presented in Atmos in a commercial theater. So in a lot of cases the only way people are going to see some movies in Atmos is by doing so with a home theater setup.
Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 12-26-2015, 12:40 PM:
I don't know if this is relevant or can stand on its own in a different topic but I'd like to report that the DTS:X mix on the Ex Machina Blu-ray is mainly one of the examples of when people here talk negatively about near-field mixes. I don't have a DTS:X setup, but I have a 7.1 + Back Surround Sub-Bass system at home to listen with. Thankfully, the theatrical 5.1 mix of the film is also available on the same disc, albeit 768 kbps lossy DTS, so I was able to compare the two.
A couple of examples. In the beginning of the movie, when Domhnall Gleeson approaches the entrance of the research facility, the outdoor ambiance has sort of a treble cut in the DTS:X mix whereas in the theatrical it's more flat. I had my THX Re-EQ and Cinema filters on for both tracks (as well as my manual EQ settings) and the DTS:X is stereotypically near-field in that respect. Also later in the film, when Gleeson and Isaac discuss Ava's sexuality, the ambiance is much louder in the DTS:X, leveling with the dialogue, whereas the ambiance is quieter in the theatrical. Overall, the DTS:X mix feels hollow, and ironically, the theatrical DTS has more channel separation.
When I saw Ex Machina in the theaters twice, I took notice of the incredibly dynamic 5.1 mix and its deep low-end crawling all the way to the surrounds. It's mostly a very quiet movie, and usually the loudest moments are musical cues and the helicopter fly-by in the very beginning. I was hoping those aspects of the theatrical mix would be retained in the DTS:X remix, but I wasn't surprised they'd eventually dumb it down. A lossless version of the theatrical mix should be on the UK Blu-ray.
Now this raises my anxieties of Sicario's inevitable DTS:X mix on the upcoming Blu-ray. I should have less anxieties as Sicario did feature a DTS:X mix theatrically, as well as a Dolby Atmos mix, but the standard 5.1 in theaters was still incredible, and perhaps one of the best-sounding movies of its year.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 12-27-2015, 10:03 PM:
'Sicario' was supposed to be DTS-X for it's bluray release but it got changed over Dolby Atmos for some reason. 'The Last Witch Hunter' (from Lionsgate) is also coming out with DTS-X.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-27-2015, 10:25 PM:
Why couldn't the Blu-ray disc for Sicario support both DTS-X and Dolby Atmos mixes? Both formats reside within DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD cores. It's not unheard of for a Blu-ray disc to have both DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD audio on the same disc.
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 12-28-2015, 03:53 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Why couldn't the Blu-ray disc for Sicario support both DTS-X and Dolby Atmos mixes? Both formats reside within DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD cores. It's not unheard of for a Blu-ray disc to have both DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD audio on the same disc.
There's no *technical* reason why it couldn't (other than bit budget of course), but the paradigm has shifted slightly. With DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD, the mix is the same 5.1 or 7.1 for either codec, you're just doing relatively inexpensive compression passes for authoring. With Atmos vs. DTS:X though, you'd be doing two different mixes altogether. I'm sure over time there will be some convergence between the two, and maybe some cross-platform tools for ingesting an Atmos mix and outputting a DTS:X mix (or vice versa), but for now they're sort of two different animals.
Since Dolby Atmos is a de facto standard for A-list theater releases, and the Dolby Atmos home theater encoder is designed to take the theatrical Atmos mix and convert it to home theater *relatively* easily, I think DTS has a bit of an uphill battle. Which is why they're now scrambling to get DTS:X deployed theatrically, to provide a content pipeline. If only at some point in the past DTS had owned a cinema business with a theatrical footprint and relationships with movie studios...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-28-2015, 04:37 PM:
DTS:X and Atmos in home theater are both different animals due to very different suggested speaker placements. Some images I've seen regarding DTS:X setups suggest a more Auro-like speaker setup, which is very different from Dolby Atmos. But isn't DTS:X and its Open MDA format supposed to be able to adapt to different speaker setups?
It's one thing for a home theater receiver to support decoding and playback of two or more surround sound formats. That's relatively easy to do. Speaker placement is another thing entirely. Once they're mounted in a certain placement and configuration they're not going to be moved to other positions. It's enough of a hassle for end users to extra surround speakers.
I think this lack of standardization in surround speaker placement could be a reason why a lot of cinema installations of Dolby Atmos, Auro, etc. have ground to a near halt. Dolby Atmos has good title support in commercial cinemas, but other factors are making the situation with next-gen surround sound very unclear for exhibitors.
quote: Daniel Schulz
If only at some point in the past DTS had owned a cinema business with a theatrical footprint and relationships with movie studios...
I still don't understand why the theatrical side of DTS was spun-off and renamed Datasat, a bean counter strategy to make the DTS stock price improve?
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 12-28-2015, 05:07 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
DTS:X and Atmos in home theater are both different animals due to very different suggested speaker placements. Some images I've seen regarding DTS:X setups suggest a more Auro-like speaker setup, which is very different from Dolby Atmos. But isn't DTS:X and its Open MDA format supposed to be able to adapt to different speaker setups?
I have seen similar images for home theater setup, but until we see some official guidance from DTS I'm not sure what their recommendations will be for home theater DTS:X. I do know that the first AVRs on the market that will have it have pretty fixed channels following the Atmos model, and I don't think they will easily bend to support alternatives - my best guess is that the first generation AVRs will all be using the Atmos speaker configurations. As to the "put your speakers anywhere you want" idea - perhaps the rendering engine running in a D-Cinema server can do that math, but I'm pretty confident that DSP-based AVRs are going to be limited to a few standardized configurations.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I still don't understand why the theatrical side of DTS was spun-off and renamed Datasat, a bean counter strategy to make the DTS stock price improve?
That is my understanding, yes. The cinema division was profitable, but it had relatively low margins because it was hardware-based (with a bit of technology licensing gravy on top) - and hardware has inventory needs, warranties, parts to be stocked, repair programs, a need for a worldwide sales force and dealer/distributor network, etc. All of that eats into your margins; then layered on top of that you have the forecast conversion from film to digital, and therefore a baked-in declining business for audio gear.
On the consumer side, though, you have a pure technology licensing business, with really fat margins (once the technology is developed, the royalties come in virtually for free). No warehouse needed, no tech support, no warranty exchanges. So the Wall Street analyst types *loved* the idea of divesting the cinema business, it improved the profit margins on paper. The cinema division was put up for sale, and ultimately sold to Datasat Communications. The renaming to Datasat wasn't a directive from DTS per se, other than the Datasat-owned cinema audio business couldn't be called DTS for obvious reasons, so the new owners just named it following the same convention as their existing business (Datasat Communications, Datasat Technologies and the newly formed Datasat Digital Entertainment).
I thought then, and still do think, that DTS made a strategic error in selling their cinema group, both for marketing (how much was it worth to have the DTS logo playing before movies and on posters) and also for saying in touch with the cinema industry, which would come in handy about now with the launch of a new format...
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 01-13-2016, 10:45 PM:
Universal's Everest blu-ray has a Dolby Atmos track, so it looks like they finally have a movie with a worthy Atmos track.
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 02-24-2016, 04:18 PM:
The Big Short and Daddy's Home from Paramount are both getting DTS:X mixes on Blu-Ray. The Big Short's release date is March 15th and Daddy's Home is March 22nd. I've seen both of them and neither were impressive audio-wise, but the more options, the better!
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-24-2016, 06:58 PM:
yeah - 'Daddy's Home' in DTS-X ? wtf? kudo's for Paramount for jumping on the DTS-X bandwagon, but ugh, what bizarre titles that weren't even encoded in 7.1 for their theatrical exhibition.
Posted by Aran Clifford (Member # 9379) on 03-20-2016, 12:58 PM:
Hi all,
Its been really interesting looking at all your posts about immersive formats.
Im currently undertaking a dissertation in surround sound formats and what the future could be for these. I've put together a quick survey (about 7 or 8 questions) to see about peoples feelings with these formats. It would be great if you could help and spare a couple of minutes to fill out this survey. It would help me greatly and it might just be interesting for all of you too!
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1GZMtUEr4tqlEEnOPYCrNFRgZEhgh-ZES-mCKHJD9K6I/viewform
Thanks!
AC
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2