Atmos

[Cos]

Any receiver that supports Atmos usually supports DTS:X so I don't think it will matter.

My AV8802A supports both, I just need to play around with DTS:X now and figure out what works best with my setup

 

[yepimonfire]

This war would affect me exactly 0.0%. But since I've always been biased towards DTS, I root for DTS:X.

I'm curious, outside of offering higher bitrates and discrete 6.1 on DVD why are you a DTS fan? While both DTS HD MA and TrueHD are lossless, TrueHD offers better compression and other things like Dialnorm and Dynamic Range Compression, whereas DTS does not.

After some goofing around with atmos and DTS x demos, I have to say I think atmos is a lot better. DTS claims to be adaptable to any speaker layout, you just configure your speakers the way you like and the processor figures out how to create the sound, atmos does the same thing, but isn't quite as flexible as DTS x, at least on paper. DTS x also claims to be compatible with the typical atmos layouts, but I've discovered this isn't the case.

Playing back the DTS x object emulator using a 5.1.2 configuration with top middle height speakers, the only time the sound from the floating ball hit the heights is when it passed overhead between the fronts and surrounds. Floating overhead towards the front or back of the sound stage, the sound was collapsed into the bed channels. The same effect happens with neural x, height effects only work when the sound is between the surrounds and fronts. With atmos, height from the front or the back is phantomed between the front speakers and top middle or rear speakers and top middle. DTS x seems to work a lot better if the height channels are configured as either front height or rear height vs top height channels. Dolby's surround upmixer is also 1000x better and more accurate. I've watched several non atmos movies using both neural x and Dolby surround and I honestly have a hard time distinguishing an actual atmos track from Dolby surround. I've also set my bluray player to output 2 channel PCM on a couple occasions just to see how well it managed to figure out what should be routed to the surrounds and again, it's nearly as accurate as the 5.1 mix, much less of a crap shoot than Pro Logic II. with neural x I've heard sounds hit the height speakers that shouldn't be there, like cars driving by, Dolby surround seems to correctly route sounds to the proper channels 95% of the time, and unlike PLII, there is no channel bleed. Music just sounds plain awful with neural x, which is surprising since neo:6 worked much better with music than the old PLII. I have such a strong preference for Dolby surround that I always set my bluray player to convert DTS to Dolby Digital when playing standard DTS tracks, since my receiver can't apply Dolby surround to DTS sources for some reason.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

...why are you a DTS fan?

I can't speak about DTS:X or matrix-surround sound.

But my perception of DTS and DTS-HD MA is that they sound better than the Dolby counterparts.

I can't directly compare (definitely not double-blind or level matched) because most movies are either in TrueHD or DTS-HD MA. But it seems many times I feel underwhelm or disappointed when I hear the soundtrack of Dolby. I feel the soundtrack in DTS and DTS-HD MA sound more lively and better.

This was the case with Laserdisc, DVD, and Blu-ray.

And also when I'm at the movie theaters, it seems to me DTS theaters sound better every time I watch a movie in DTS when compared to DD.

I think Dolby ATMOS sound about as good as plain DTS.

Anyway, that's how I feel. It's definitely not scientific (like double-blind, level matching).

 

[yepimonfire]

I can't speak about DTS:X or matrix-surround sound.

But my perception of DTS and DTS-HD MA is that they sound better than the Dolby counterparts.

I can't directly compare (definitely not double-blind or level matched) because most movies are either in TrueHD or DTS-HD MA. But it seems many times I feel underwhelm or disappointed when I hear the soundtrack of Dolby. I feel the soundtrack in DTS and DTS-HD MA sound more lively and better.

This was the case with Laserdisc, DVD, and Blu-ray.

And also when I'm at the movie theaters, it seems to me DTS theaters sound better every time I watch a movie in DTS when compared to DD.

I think Dolby ATMOS sound about as good as plain DTS.

Anyway, that's how I feel. It's definitely not scientific (like double-blind, level matching).

I've never heard a difference. As far as lossless audio is concerned, there should be absolutely no difference. Dts HD MA and Dolby TrueHD are nothing more than compression schemes. It's like comparing FLAC to ALAC, there's no difference. I've heard rumors that DTS is mixed 4 dB louder, whether or not that's true I don't know. Even as far as lossy dolby digital and DTS is concerned, I can't hear a difference between DD at 640kbps and DTS at 1500kbps, both are fairly transparent.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I've never heard a difference. As far as lossless audio is concerned, there should be absolutely no difference. Dts HD MA and Dolby TrueHD are nothing more than compression schemes. It's like comparing FLAC to ALAC, there's no difference. I've heard rumors that DTS is mixed 4 dB louder, whether or not that's true I don't know. Even as far as lossy dolby digital and DTS is concerned, I can't hear a difference between DD at 640kbps and DTS at 1500kbps, both are fairly transparent.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

I can't argue there. Lossless is lossless. I realize I am probably just 100% biased. I did say it wasn't "level-matched", hinting at the +4dB.

Whatever it is (bias), I still feel, and I emphasize the word "FEEL" that DTS sounds better to me, even if it is 100% bias and +4dB higher.

 

[Klipschhead302]

I've seen many movies in ATMOS at the theaters. I think it is 100% hype. So no way I would ever do ATMOS at home.

Having been to our local theater that has an incredible Atmos configuration with more speakers than I could count without people looking at me funny. I can say that an Atmos movie in the proper setting, sounds in-fugging-credible!

 

[yepimonfire]

Having been to our local theater that has an incredible Atmos configuration with more speakers than I could count without people looking at me funny. I can say that an Atmos movie in the proper setting, sounds in-fugging-credible!

Don't you also have an atmos setup?

I can't argue there. Lossless is lossless. I realize I am probably just 100% biased. I did say it wasn't "level-matched", hinting at the +4dB.

Whatever it is (bias), I still feel, and I emphasize the word "FEEL" that DTS sounds better to me, even if it is 100% bias and +4dB higher.

Have you done a comparison between DTS X and Atmos? That actually would sound different, since they're slightly different approaches.

As for DTS vs Dolby, you could do a comparison by changing the settings in your BDP to convert DTS to DD and vice versa. Even though it would convert lossless versions to lossy it shouldn't matter because the bitrate would be high enough to be transparent.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Klipschhead302]

Any receiver that supports Atmos usually supports DTS:X so I don't think it will matter.

Sadly for Marantz, this isn't true. The SR7009 supports Atmos but not DTS:X

Don't you also have an atmos setup?

I do, but it's not 40 speakers (I honestly don't know how many they have installed, but it's a lot) worth all over the ceiling, walls and such. I do have to say, dynamics wise my home doesn't give up much to that theater minus the huge screen of course.

We watched Avatar last night, the last time we watched was a few years ago when I was running 5.2, last night we were blown away. The subtle surround effects were so easy to hear now that they weren't thrown into a 5.1 mix, the height channels and wide front and side surrounds were all in play and it was incredible.

 

[yepimonfire]

I do, but it's not 40 speakers (I honestly don't know how many they have installed, but it's a lot) worth all over the ceiling, walls and such.

We watched Avatar last night, the last time we watched was a few years ago when I was running 5.2, last night we were blown away. The subtle surround effects were so easy to hear now that they weren't thrown into a 5.1 mix, the height channels and wide front and side surrounds were all in play and it was incredible.

True. I don't think a home theater really needs that many speakers simply because the room is smaller than a cinema. The nice thing about atmos is it doesn't matter if it's 5.1.2 or 13.1.6, it can correctly portray the same image. The issue is with less speakers, you rely on Phantom imaging. If the speakers and listening position isn't the far apart, this isn't an issue. For example, in my 12x 11 bedroom setup, I am running 4.1, I don't even need a center channel because the front speakers are fairly close together and the only seating position is on my bed. In larger rooms where speakers are spread farther apart the Phantom imaging starts getting too diffuse, especially outside of the sweet spot.

Something like 10.1.6 in a large room would suffice, with 5 front channels, surrounds, surround rears, and a center channel between the two. Front and rear heights along with an overhead middle would adequately portray a full overhead sound stage.

Sadly for Marantz, this isn't true. The SR7009 supports Atmos but not DTS:X

At this point in time there aren't a lot of DTS x titles anyways, I would wait to upgrade until we find out which object based format becomes more popular. Right now it's atmos, but that could just be related to the timing of their release.

I do have to say, dynamics wise my home doesn't give up much to that theater minus the huge screen of course.

Neither does mine, I suppose that's why we're klipsch fans. My 15" sub gives out and starts smacking the back of the pole piece before the front two bookshelf speakers even strain. I honestly don't know how much they can take but I do know that based on their RMS power rating I could easily achieve 107dB without risk of damaging the speakers.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Klipschhead302]

At this point in time there aren't a lot of DTS x titles anyways, I would wait to upgrade until we find out which object based format becomes more popular. Right now it's atmos, but that could just be related to the timing of their release.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

DTS:X does upmix however I've read so I wouldn't mind hearing how well it does.

 

[yepimonfire]

DTS:X does upmix however I've read so I wouldn't mind hearing how well it does.

Neural X is almost exactly the same as neo:x, which you already have. Personally I think Neural X works better if you have front/rear heights vs overhead (ceiling speakers). Dolby surround works better with overhead. In general I think Dolby surround works better as a whole. Dolby's upmixer works based on phase and timing differences. Humans perceive overhead sound as being overhead because of the phase and a boost at 7khz and dip at 12khz, in addition, sounds overhead generally sound non directional. Sound engineers who mix traditional 5.1 and 7.1 tracks know this and appropriately introduce the phase and frequency differences into the mix, and it sort of sounds overhead. Dolby surround is programmed to pull that out of the bed channels and put it into the heights, and it does so with stunning accuracy so long as the mix was properly done. I haven't 100% figured out Neural X, but I do know that I can get it to route everything to the heights by copying the front channels to the surrounds with no delay, I believe it's taking non directional sounds and just routing it to the heights. Either way it's not nearly as accurate, I've head stuff in the heights that doesn't belong there, like cars passing. Utilizing a front height configuration it works much better, but dolby surround works better even so with front heights. You should try switching between dolby surround and neo x on similar scenes, report back which you think works better.

DTS Neural X also mangles music by introducing a crap load of comb filtering.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Klipschhead302]

Neural X is almost exactly the same as neo:x, which you already have. Personally I think Neural X works better if you have front/rear heights vs overhead (ceiling speakers). Dolby surround works better with overhead. In general I think Dolby surround works better as a whole. Dolby's upmixer works based on phase and timing differences. Humans perceive overhead sound as being overhead because of the phase and a boost at 7khz and dip at 12khz, in addition, sounds overhead generally sound non directional. Sound engineers who mix traditional 5.1 and 7.1 tracks know this and appropriately introduce the phase and frequency differences into the mix, and it sort of sounds overhead. Dolby surround is programmed to pull that out of the bed channels and put it into the heights, and it does so with stunning accuracy so long as the mix was properly done. I haven't 100% figured out Neural X, but I do know that I can get it to route everything to the heights by copying the front channels to the surrounds with no delay, I believe it's taking non directional sounds and just routing it to the heights. Either way it's not nearly as accurate, I've head stuff in the heights that doesn't belong there, like cars passing. Utilizing a front height configuration it works much better, but dolby surround works better even so with front heights. You should try switching between dolby surround and neo x on similar scenes, report back which you think works better.

DTS Neural X also mangles music by introducing a crap load of comb filtering.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

Mine uses "Dolby D +Neo:X C" so the front wides and front heights and side surrounds get used nicely. In fact watching Avatar was like hearing the movie for the first time vs 5.2.

 

[yepimonfire]

Mine uses "Dolby D +Neo:X C" so the front wides and front heights and side surrounds get used nicely. In fact watching Avatar was like hearing the movie for the first time vs 5.2.

Have you tried Dolby Surround? Also did you ever get your front wides to work in atmos? And yes, the addition of heights really does totally change the sound, it really is the greatest upgrade to surround sound since discrete 5.1. I truly can't understand why someone would chalk it up to a gimmick or hype. Audio is truly three dimensional now. It's like going from stereo to 5.1. Regular 5.1 or even 7.1 sounds so flat in comparison.

 

[Klipschhead302]

Have you tried Dolby Surround? Also did you ever get your front wides to work in atmos? And yes, the addition of heights really does totally change the sound, it really is the greatest upgrade to surround sound since discrete 5.1. I truly can't understand why someone would chalk it up to a gimmick or hype. Audio is truly three dimensional now. It's like going from stereo to 5.1. Regular 5.1 or even 7.1 sounds so flat in comparison.

I have not yet, I'll definitely do that tonight. So far the only time I get front wides is when I play back Atmos test files, they play all beautifully and blow my mind away, sadly movies like Passenger's in Atmos mode do not include the front wides, pisses me off actually.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I do, but it's not 40 speakers

This may be off topic, but the reason I don't care for ATMOS or DTS:X is that they just add a bunch of SURROUND speakers, which is not the salient speakers to me.

Now if they were to add more Discrete FRONT speakers (like SONY's SDDS), that would make more sense to me.

I care about what's happening in FRONT of me. I don't care about what's happening BEHIND me.

 

[shadyJ]

Atmos does support more front speakers. You can do overhead speakers, or you can do front wide speakers. Go to page 30 of this guide. Atmos is not overhead speakers. That is just one of the things you can do with an Atmos sound mix. Atmos is a sound mix that, theoretically, allows you to place any number of speakers anywhere and the mix will use all the channels individually and appropriately. Same with DTS:X.

 

[Klipschhead302]

This may be off topic, but the reason I don't care for ATMOS or DTS:X is that they just add a bunch of SURROUND speakers, which is not the salient speakers to me.

Now if they were to add more Discrete FRONT speakers (like SONY's SDDS), that would make more sense to me.

I care about what's happening in FRONT of me. I don't care about what's happening BEHIND me.

To a degree I agree, which is why I want front wides, however I also want where ever the sound is supposed to go, to go there. In our RV it came with a craptastic Sony surround system with a bass module behind the fake fireplace, makes perfect sense to go there right so the stupid glass vibrates like crazy and it's not sub bass, just Bose boomy bass but it's an RV so it doesn't need to be fancy so I turned that module way down.

Anyway, it throws sound everywhere, the back channels go crazy and are over sturated and my wife is like ohhhh and ahhhhhh and I'm like it sounds like chit, are you kidding me? But because it was throwing sound everywhere she got the impression it was better than our home surround which explains how she can say an AM radio is all somebody needs.

While watching Passengers at home I asked her to please pay attention to the sound compared to the RV and honestly give an assessment and within the first few minutes she said this sounds much better. I had to ask her if she was saying that to make me happy and she said no, it has more punch and things go all the way around, not just blasting behind us, she did a pretty good job of explaining the differences which impressed me, she then said you need to fix the one in the RV.... me likey.


...

 

[Klipschhead302]

Atmos does support more front speakers. You can do overhead speakers, or you can do front wide speakers. Go to page 30 of this guide. Atmos is not overhead speakers. That is just one of the things you can do with an Atmos sound mix. Atmos is a sound mix that, theoretically, allows you to place any number of speakers anywhere and the mix will use all the channels individually and appropriately. Same with DTS:X.

Well, my SR7009 must be ignorant, it works fine with Atmos demo material but actual Atmos movies don't use the front wides... When it's time for me to upgrade to a new AVR, it's going to be hard because they're all doing away with front wides.... bastards.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Atmos does support more front speakers.

DISCRETE front speakers?

Not matrix.

Besides DTS & DD 5.1, the only other format that made sense to me was SDDS. I think the center channel is absolutely salient. With SDDS, the front Center has 3 DISCRETE speakers - Discrete Left Center, Discrete Middle Center, & Discrete Right Center.

Too bad SDDS is dead was never introduced to home theater.

 

[shadyJ]

DISCRETE front speakers?

Not matrix.

Besides DTS & DD 5.1, the only other format that made sense to me was SDDS. I think the center channel is absolutely salient. With SDDS, the front Center has 3 DISCRETE speakers - Discrete Left Center, Discrete Middle Center, & Discrete Right Center.

Too bad SDDS is dead was never introduced to home theater.

Yes, discrete sound. This is not matrixed sound; the sound is mixed as separate sound objects, not channels, so every channel is totally discrete in Atmos. Atmos can also do multiple center channels, look at page 34 on that guide I linked to. It is all a matter of what your processor will support. Every Atmos mix can scale up to a lot of front stage speakers if the processor can handle it.

Atmos is much superior to SDDS, at least as a sound mixing platform.