What does 4K and Atmos/DTS X mean for those of us happy with legacy equipment?

[yepimonfire]

I currently have a 720p TV and 7.2 A/V receiver supporting HDMI 1.3a. At most, I might upgrade to a 1080p TV in the near future. I have no intention of using dolby atmos anytime soon as I feel that a 7.1 configuration with front wides via DSX is much more immersive than any overhead channel will ever be. I am already fooled enough by helicopter flyovers without discrete overhead speakers, and I refuse to give up my front wides, which means in order to properly adopt atmos I would need an 11.2 receiver with DSX or Neo X, which is entirely out of my budget range any time soon. My receiver would have to break before I would replace it.

I suspect 4K will eventually be adopted like 1080p was adopted. It's very rare to get content nowadays that is limited to 720p, and 4K is becoming less expensive for consumers to adopt. Both of the two new surround formats are supposed to be legacy compatible, however this is going to be entirely dependent on the media player and it's ability to output standard 7.1 DD THD and DTS HD/MA. What I'm more concerned about is 4K and the HDMI 2.0 requirement. Let's assume 4K becomes the new 1080p, would a blu ray player still be able to output down converted 1080p via HDMI 1.3a/1.4?

 

[KenM10759]

You are happy, leave it at that. I just updated the video on my receiver to handle 4K because I have a 4K TV, and I'll need a 4K Blu-Ray player. It's all a waste if I don't get a LOT closer to the TV. The 1080p would really be fine, I just wanted it.

Atmos is a different thing though. Better if you never experience a really good demo of it because done right it works fabulously.

I can't speak to the question of whether or not a Blu-Ray player would down-convert, that depends upon which model it is. My understanding is that 4K disks play just fine in non-4K players.

 

[Cos]

My Take on 4K'

• They have come down in price so much, it's at a similar price point 1080p was a year ago
• You can't get over the screen size vs distance to see a difference, that is fact
• What you do get with 4k TV, is better color (HDR) usually better contrast ratios etc because
  TV Manufacturers aren't investing new technology into 1080P TVs
• HDR Color if done right is a noticeable difference on video content, 1080P doesn't have that
• Even if you can not pass through 4K content on your receiver, most people will buy a smart TV that has 4K apps built in (Hulu/Vudu/Netflix/Amazon) with HDR (High Dynamic Range) Color

If I were in the market today for a TV I would get a 4K just for those reasons. As for your receiver, if it only has 1.3 HDMI you don't have ARC (Audio Return Channel), which for me is worth the upgrade alone, but for most probably not that big a deal.

As someone who has taken the time to do the research and implement Dolby Atmos, I would miss it if I went back to 7.2. Support is growing as more and more movies on blu-ray are including it. I will preface that I am more in the minority on this subject.

Your Question
Let's assume 4K becomes the new 1080p, would a blu ray player still be able to output down converted 1080p via HDMI 1.3a/1.4?

• Standard Blu-ray players are native 1080p and can already display content to 720p
• The only issue you would have is if you purchased a 4K blu-ray player then you would not be able to display content because you would not have HDCP (Copy Protection for 4K Content) which requires HDMI 2.0

I know that is a lot of info and confusing, but never going to be an issue if you don't buy a 4k player.

 

[Carl08]

I have a 5.1.2 system and I think that sounds much better than my 7.1 system I used to have. Yeah, I'd miss Atmos too if I went back to 7.1.

I'm upgrading to 4K because my Panasonic plasma is getting long in the tooth. ARC, HDR, Dolby Vision, 4K, and a 15-inch bigger screen has sold me on a new television

My Take on 4K'

• They have come down in price so much, it's at a similar price point 1080p was a year ago
• You can't get over the screen size vs distance to see a difference, that is fact
• What you do get with 4k TV, is better color (HDR) usually better contrast ratios etc because
  TV Manufacturers aren't investing new technology into 1080P TVs
• HDR Color if done right is a noticeable difference on video content, 1080P doesn't have that
• Even if you can not pass through 4K content on your receiver, most people will buy a smart TV that has 4K apps built in (Hulu/Vudu/Netflix/Amazon) with HDR (High Dynamic Range) Color

If I were in the market today for a TV I would get a 4K just for those reasons. As for your receiver, if it only has 1.3 HDMI you don't have ARC (Audio Return Channel), which for me is worth the upgrade alone, but for most probably not that big a deal.

As someone who has taken the time to do the research and implement Dolby Atmos, I would miss it if I went back to 7.2. Support is growing as more and more movies on blu-ray are including it. I will preface that I am more in the minority on this subject.

 

[yepimonfire]

Oh I can see a difference in 4K even on small screens. With my current pair of glasses I have 20/16 vision and can still make out the pixels on the 1080p 17" laptop I'm writing this from at 3' away, it's just I don't feel the need to upgrade my display, I care much more about the audio.

Is anyone using Atmos enabled speakers? I'm not convinced they're all they're hyped up to be but then again, I haven't tried them. I don't have the ability to install in ceiling speakers.

How much different is Atmos compared to PLIIz? The receiver I'm using now has PLIIz and the option to select between the front wides and front heights. On both DSX height and PLIIz I've experienced some impressive overhead sound on The Hobbit with the dragon flying over but it still seems to pale in comparison to the envelopment of front wides. I know atmos supports a ridiculous amount of channels and configurations natively but are there any receivers that will utilize front wides on atmos?

 

[Carl08]

I dont have in-ceiling speakers either. I have them mounted high up on the wall. Bouncing sound didn't work for me. Atmos is not all hype in my opinion.

Oh I can see a difference in 4K even on small screens. With my current pair of glasses I have 20/16 vision and can still make out the pixels on the 1080p 17" laptop I'm writing this from at 3' away, it's just I don't feel the need to upgrade my display, I care much more about the audio.

Is anyone using Atmos enabled speakers? I'm not convinced they're all they're hyped up to be but then again, I haven't tried them. I don't have the ability to install in ceiling speakers.

How much different is Atmos compared to PLIIz? The receiver I'm using now has PLIIz and the option to select between the front wides and front heights. On both DSX height and PLIIz I've experienced some impressive overhead sound on The Hobbit with the dragon flying over but it still seems to pale in comparison to the envelopment of front wides. I know atmos supports a ridiculous amount of channels and configurations natively but are there any receivers that will utilize front wides on atmos?

 

[yepimonfire]

I dont have in-ceiling speakers either. I have them mounted high up on the wall. Bouncing sound didn't work for me. Atmos is not all hype in my opinion.

How does it sound? Do you have them angled?

 

[Carl08]

How does it sound? Do you have them angled?

They sound great. The angle is built into the speakers

 

[Auditor55]

Folks still blowing their money on Atmos. That ill fated format isn't dead yet? Also, 4K is pure, unadulterated marketing hype. Very successful marketing hype "Pavlovian-ish" Marketing hype.

 

[Auditor55]

Also, pay close attention to what they are saying in this video, particularly between the 10:00 -15:00 minute mark. There are aspect of display technology way more important than more pixel (i.e.4K). 4K is basically worthless on small screens.

 

[Cos]

"Folks still blowing their money on Atmos. That ill fated format isn't dead yet?"

• Nope, not dead yet, as someone who has sat in demo rooms and carefully planned out his own room, it does make a difference to me, the sound in my home theater is more immersive
• Don't think it's going away anytime soon

"4K is pure, unadulterated marketing hype. Very successful marketing hype "Pavlovian-ish" Marketing hype."

• Don't completely disagree with you here on small size screen and distance, but until they add HDR, better contrast ratios, faster CPUs to older 1080P TVs, its still the best game in town.

 

[shadyJ]

Atmos is superior to conventional mixes because it is scalable without needing to be upmixed or downmixed. Atmos is here to stay.

In many cases 4k is wasted, but if it can be easily adapted and manufactured, there is no reason not to make it standard.

These complaints sound like a cantankerous old person grouching about how things change.

 

[lovinthehd]

The thread title's kind of strange...if you have legacy equipment then it doesn't matter, you don't get either If it were easy to put speakers in my ceiling I might think of it but I get pretty good surround with a 9ch setup, nor worry much about 4k either, so don't worry about it.

As to backwards compatible HDMI, believe that is one of their tenets that it shall be backwards compatible as they move forward....

 

[Auditor55]

Atmos is superior to conventional mixes because it is scalable without needing to be upmixed or downmixed. Atmos is here to stay.

In many cases 4k is wasted, but if it can be easily adapted and manufactured, there is no reason not to make it standard.

These complaints sound like a cantankerous old person grouching about how things change.

Whether or not Atmos is superior to conventional mixes is not the issue. A sound engineer can make mixes into eternity, the issue is practical implementation of Atmos systems. As I have opined earlier, Atmos is an ultra-niche format and will remain that way even though every $189. A/V receiver (crappy amps and all) comes with Atmos and even ill-fated DTS-X. I would not be surprised if less than 95% of owners A/V receivers with Atmos have rooms set for Dolby Atmos playback.

 

[Auditor55]

The thread title's kind of strange...if you have legacy equipment then it doesn't matter, you don't get either If it were easy to put speakers in my ceiling I might think of it but I get pretty good surround with a 9ch setup, nor worry much about 4k either, so don't worry about it.

As to backwards compatible HDMI, believe that is one of their tenets that it shall be backwards compatible as they move forward....

The truth of the matter is, the public is not really clamoring for home Atmos. Truth be told, Atmos equipped commercial cinemas are not that wide spread either, which is a shame because I think that is where Atmos belongs where it can easily implemented. The HT theater or small room doesn't really need more than 5.1 speakers to fill the room with sound, OK, I will even give you 7.1, but in my opinion, anything beyond is overkill.

 

[Auditor55]

My Take on 4K'

• They have come down in price so much, it's at a similar price point 1080p was a year ago
• You can't get over the screen size vs distance to see a difference, that is fact
• What you do get with 4k TV, is better color (HDR) usually better contrast ratios etc because
  TV Manufacturers aren't investing new technology into 1080P TVs
• HDR Color if done right is a noticeable difference on video content, 1080P doesn't have that
• Even if you can not pass through 4K content on your receiver, most people will buy a smart TV that has 4K apps built in (Hulu/Vudu/Netflix/Amazon) with HDR (High Dynamic Range) Color

If I were in the market today for a TV I would get a 4K just for those reasons. As for your receiver, if it only has 1.3 HDMI you don't have ARC (Audio Return Channel), which for me is worth the upgrade alone, but for most probably not that big a deal.

As someone who has taken the time to do the research and implement Dolby Atmos, I would miss it if I went back to 7.2. Support is growing as more and more movies on blu-ray are including it. I will preface that I am more in the minority on this subject.

Your Question
Let's assume 4K becomes the new 1080p, would a blu ray player still be able to output down converted 1080p via HDMI 1.3a/1.4?

• Standard Blu-ray players are native 1080p and can already display content to 720p
• The only issue you would have is if you purchased a 4K blu-ray player then you would not be able to display content because you would not have HDCP (Copy Protection for 4K Content) which requires HDMI 2.0

I know that is a lot of info and confusing, but never going to be an issue if you don't buy a 4k player.

HDR is something independent of resolution(4K). HDR can and should have been implemented in 1080p sets. Having said that, I agree, if I was in the market for a new set, I would get a 4K set because HDR and WCG and not resolution because I would not be see the difference between 4K and 1080 from my seating distance. If you have subwoofers and speakers near your TV, you're not going sit to 3-4 feet from a 65 inch set, which about the distance you need to sit to make out the extra resolution from 4K.

Also, at this time, I would not buy a 4K LED set, it would have to be an OLED set. My brother just purchase 65 inch 4K set with HDR. While the colors vibrant and the display is, the view angles are still bad. The black levels, from what I've seen, are still not that great. I will wait until OLED matures and brands and prices hit the market.

 

[lovinthehd]

The truth of the matter is, the public is not really clamoring for home Atmos. Truth be told, Atmos equipped commercial cinemas are not that wide spread either, which is a shame because I think that is where Atmos belongs where it can easily implemented. The HT theater or small room doesn't really need more than 5.1 speakers to fill the room with sound, OK, I will even give you 7.1, but in my opinion, anything beyond is overkill.

It may stick around, as you say the avrs are now 4k/Atmos capable; they gotta churns something new out, who knows what's next. Depends on the speakers and room, I do enjoy having the 9.4 setup and will do 11 when I repaint the room. Just because I can. It's like mountain bikes, a basic bike may suffice for some, but it's my passion so I have a top of the line steed (and several of them, too).

 

[Cos]

HDR is something independent of resolution(4K). HDR can and should have been implemented in 1080p sets. Having said that, I agree, if I was in the market for a new set, I would get a 4K set because HDR and WCG and not resolution because I would not be see the difference between 4K and 1080 from my seating distance. If you have subwoofers and speakers near your TV, you're not going sit to 3-4 feet from a 65 inch set, which about the distance you need to sit to make out the extra resolution from 4K.

Also, at this time, I would not buy a 4K LED set, it would have to be an OLED set. My brother just purchase 65 inch 4K set with HDR. While the colors vibrant and the display is, the view angles are still bad. The black levels, from what I've seen, are still not that great. I will wait until OLED matures and brands and prices hit the market.

I never meant to imply that HDR and 4k are dependent on each other, but at least you got my main point, is that you will never see HDR implemented on 1080 sets. New TV technology will not filter down anymore to 1080P sets.

The PS4 (non pro) is supposed to be able to support HDR in the software, yet I don't think we will see any games take advantage of it.

As for Atmos really taking off, I don't see that either,

• it's cumbersome to set up unless it's new construction, or you try the upfiring speakers (Which I don't reccomend)

• It's expensive, adding 2, 4 or more speakers to your setup.

Those things being said, it doesn't take away from the fact that IMO the sound brings you more into the movie, and I enjoy it. As for popularity, you will see more and more movie theaters support it. Disney offered it with it's Rogue One release and other big studios are releasing movies in format.

I also don't think that 3 sound formats, Atmos, DTS:X and the Auro 3D is overkill. At this point the industry seems to be behind Atmos more than the others.

as for 65" TV the viewing distance is 4-8 feet aprox, not 3-4

 

[slipperybidness]

The truth of the matter is, the public is not really clamoring for home Atmos. Truth be told, Atmos equipped commercial cinemas are not that wide spread either, which is a shame because I think that is where Atmos belongs where it can easily implemented. The HT theater or small room doesn't really need more than 5.1 speakers to fill the room with sound, OK, I will even give you 7.1, but in my opinion, anything beyond is overkill.

What he is getting at is that you are focusing on the disadvantages of Atmos, and that is all on the end-user side (more speakers to install, etc).

There are also advantages of Atmos, mostly the object based mixing vs. the old way of discrete channel mixing. Your argument has ignored the advantages of Atmos and only focused on the disadvantages.

Personally, I'm on the fence concerning Atmos, but it certainly won't happen in my current house, something to consider in my next house.

 

[Bucknekked]

I feel like such a luddite. I only have 1080p, but I'm happy with it. I only have 5.1, but I'm happy with it. I listen to mostly stereo, but I'm happy with it. I am such a luddite.

Someday, I will build a new system. At that time, I shall assess which of you are true prophets and which are preaching with the forked tongue. Some of you, I suspect, are just grousing. Meanwhile, I am still enjoying my toys and my music on this shabby old hardware. sigh.........