Auro-3D questions

[caustic386]

I'm consistently reading about how great stereo upmixing is with Auro, so I'm looking into the cost and design. I'm really confused on a few points:

Is there a limit, either technically or practically, on stereo upmixing with Auro? One doc I found suggests 7.1.4 but it's 5 years old.

Is there a layout that meets compatibility requirements for all surround formats? DTS:X, Auro, Atmos etc. I see a few options published by Denon/Marantz and Auro that are probably close enough, but just want to be sure I'm not missing something better

Are there any Auro upmixing codecs available for a HTPC? Win10 preferred but Mac will work

In a traditional HT setup, LCR are historically considered the most important and where the majority of budget should be placed. Does that hold true with stereo upmixing?

I realize there are a lot of factors that go into what's "practical" but like most I'm searching for the most versatile option without spending unnecessarily. If the difference between layouts is something small like the VOG speaker, that's fine but I'd hate to have a whole height layer (for example) being unused when switching between 2ch/multi-channel playback

If it helps, my listening space is about 20x20x13-18' (sloped ceiling). But the room itself is about 25x40'. Number of channels that make the most sense will dictate what processor I buy - probably Denon Or Marantz 8015 because multiple zones would be really useful but I could easily work with something like the HTP-1 since it has a stereo out. a HTPC w JRiver would be even better but I have yet to find an Auro upmix codec.

Thank you!!

 

[Am_P]

I am fairly new to Atmos, but, i did a fair amount of research on Atmos and Auro 3D before getting into it.
Here's the guideline for atmos from dolby's website on making sure the overhead speakers and surrounds are matched and not just the LCR.

"Dolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, full-range audio objects that may move around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, overhead speakers should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities of the listener-level speakers. Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched as closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers. Overhead speakers with a wide dispersion pattern are desirable for use in a Dolby Atmos system. This will ensure the closest replication of the cinematic environment, where overhead speakers are placed high above the listeners. "

A guy i know who does hometheater installations said that the key difference between Atmos and Auro3D is that Auro3D requires the overhead speakers to be mounted as "front height" and "back height" speakers. Auro3D doesn't work with a "in-ceiling" or "upfiring" speaker. Atmos requires it to be a in-ceiling speaker or a upfiring "atmos module", but, it can also work with the front height & back height configuration. So, it may make sense to wire everything up for Auro3D instead to accommodate all 3.
Auro3D = least flexible, Dolby Atmos = more flexible; DTS X = most flexible.

 

[TLS Guy]

I am fairly new to Atmos, but, i did a fair amount of research on Atmos and Auro 3D before getting into it.
Here's the guideline for atmos from dolby's website on making sure the overhead speakers and surrounds are matched and not just the LCR.

"Dolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, full-range audio objects that may move around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, overhead speakers should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities of the listener-level speakers. Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched as closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers. Overhead speakers with a wide dispersion pattern are desirable for use in a Dolby Atmos system. This will ensure the closest replication of the cinematic environment, where overhead speakers are placed high above the listeners. "

A guy i know who does hometheater installations said that the key difference between Atmos and Auro3D is that Auro3D requires the overhead speakers to be mounted as "front height" and "back height" speakers. Auro3D doesn't work with a "in-ceiling" or "upfiring" speaker. Atmos requires it to be a in-ceiling speaker or a upfiring "atmos module", but, it can also work with the front height & back height configuration. So, it may make sense to wire everything up for Auro3D instead to accommodate all 3.
Auro3D = least flexible, Dolby Atmos = more flexible; DTS X = most flexible.

I can tell you the Dolby upmixer is the only one that is any good, and it is very good.

 

[snakeeyes]

Auro 3D has very little content and I would doubt the Auro up mixer would be better than Dolby DSU. Probably not worth chasing Auro 3D when shopping for a receiver.

 

[lovinthehd]

Auro? WTF is Auro?

 

[ddlooping]

@caustic386

There's a link in the video description to a "One For All" PDF guide.

 

[Am_P]

I can tell you the Dolby upmixer is the only one that is any good, and it is very good.

Isn't it good to have a li'l variety in life? I find it interesting that my Yamaha receiver has presence speaker (front presence & back presence) layouts that they suggest for Yamaha's in-house DSP settings. Auro-3D looks eerily similar to Yamaha's presence speaker layouts. It looks to me like Auro 3D was derived from this because Yamaha's presence speaker layouts pre-date this Auro layout. Could it be that Yamaha was the original pioneer of these 3D sound fields and so on? before Dolby, DTS and Auro took over? Atmos came out in 2014 didn't it? I think Yamaha receivers which are a lot older than that have been tinkering with these presence effects.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Isn't it good to have a li'l variety in life? I find it interesting that my Yamaha receiver has presence speaker (front presence & back presence) layouts that they suggest for Yamaha's in-house DSP settings. Auro-3D looks eerily similar to Yamaha's presence speaker layouts. It looks to me like Auro 3D was derived from this because Yamaha's presence speaker layouts pre-date this Auro layout. Could it be that Yamaha was the original pioneer of these 3D sound fields and so on? before Dolby, DTS and Auro took over? Atmos came out in 2014 didn't it? I think Yamaha receivers which are a lot older than that have been tinkering with these presence effects.

Yes yamaha has been doing that for a long time. I don’t recall that they were involved with Auro or DTS in developing immersive formats. I’ve see. Many reports where people love the Auro upmixer. My problem with Auro is that there is very little content in the U.S. There is more support across the pond, but that can be a PITA so no interest from me. Also, Atmos is really the only mixing protocol that uses object based mixing. DtsX and Auro are both channel based. I don’t think however that many engineers are using that to full potential, and too many Atmos mixes are meh. But that can be said about any format as some mixes are just boring.

 

[snakeeyes]

In my setup on Yamaha 2060 in 5.1.4 with front and back presence (heights) the internal Yamaha dsp is crap IMHO compared to using its Dolby DSU or NeuralX upmixers. I do prefer Dolby DSU over NeuralX mostly because it’s a little less aggressive.

I welcome the inclusion on new Yamaha AVRs such as Yamaha A6A or A8A of Auro 3D but I doubt it’s going to be a game changer as an upmixer and there isn’t much Auro content.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

In my setup on Yamaha 2060 in 5.1.4 with front and back presence (heights) the internal Yamaha dsp is crap IMHO compared to using its Dolby DSU or NeuralX upmixers. I do prefer Dolby DSU over NeuralX mostly because it’s a little less aggressive.

I welcome the inclusion on new Yamaha AVRs such as Yamaha A6A or A8A of Auro 3D but I doubt it’s going to be a game changer as an upmixer and there isn’t much Auro content.

I wish yamaha would stop calling the top/height speakers “presence”. That’s NOT what they are, and it’s confusing, as that’s what yamaha has called them all along. I’ve always been annoyed by their proprietary language despite making high quality components. Their sound modes don’t do anything for me either…
I agree too. DSU is more natural imo. I do like DTSnx sometimes but it sometimes puts things in my ceiling that seem odd, and it can be a distraction. I really used to like PLIIx for music. DSU works well though.

 

[snakeeyes]

Ya heights is the correct term.


I never had PLIIx before and Yamaha eliminated that choice from my current RXA-2060 from 2016. (It does have Neo6 though).

I also never had PLIIz obviously. That one was implemented on AVRs prior to Atmos but didn’t have many positive reviews.

I used DTS Neo6 on my super old Yamaha RXV3300 from 2003 for my 6.1. I actually had front heights on that thing for what would be called “8.1”, but it didn’t seem to do much so I didn’t use the heights back then.

I remember back on Yamaha AVRs I had prior to 2003 in the 1990s and using the original Pro Logic. I also had Sony AVRs. It’s amazing how far we have come.

 

[Am_P]

In my setup on Yamaha 2060 in 5.1.4 with front and back presence (heights) the internal Yamaha dsp is crap IMHO compared to using its Dolby DSU or NeuralX upmixers. I do prefer Dolby DSU over NeuralX mostly because it’s a little less aggressive.

I welcome the inclusion on new Yamaha AVRs such as Yamaha A6A or A8A of Auro 3D but I doubt it’s going to be a game changer as an upmixer and there isn’t much Auro content.

I don't feel like Yamaha's in-house DSP settings are total crap. Some of the presets are not great, but, a couple of them seem to be quite good (music video, enhanced, etc for the specific type of content that is playing).
But, it is letting me start with one of the presets and tweak the following features: [dsp level, ini delay, room size, surround initial delay, surround room size, etc] for a customized dsp setting, which is more to my liking. This is my first exposure to a flagship level receiver though a.k.a big learning curve. The more entry level receivers i have had in the past were quite restrictive.

 

[snakeeyes]

I don't feel like Yamaha's in-house DSP settings are total crap. Some of the presets are not great, but, a couple of them seem to be quite good (music video, enhanced, etc for the specific type of content that is playing).
But, it is letting me start with one of the presets and tweak the following features: [dsp level, ini delay, room size, surround initial delay, surround room size, etc] for a customized dsp setting, which is more to my liking. This is my first exposure to a flagship level receiver though a.k.a big learning curve. The more entry level receivers i have had in the past were quite restrictive.

The opinion that I have may not match yours.

Obviously your 3070 is an excellent AVR. Enjoy it however you like to. There’s no wrong way to do it as long as you like it.

 

[Mark E. Long]

I’ve found that most of Yamaha’s dsp settings are not bad if you dial back the settings in the menus. I’d say it’s room dependent for each set up after all the ypao sets them to its measurements not the users ears . DSP levels most always need turned back with delays etc it does tighten up the image but most take a lot of playing with to get where you want them but that’s what there for to tune them in .
Now there are a few that are trash to my ears and no amount of tweaking can fix the overblown reverb in a big room and also I think the dsp works better if your useing the full complement of speakers in your setup and that’s not always possible for some because of room size limitations but always remember the settings in dsp fields are just a ruff guess based of there measurements based on there room - there a starting point play with them to fit your room that’s why they let you change them .

 

[Am_P]

The opinion that I have may not match yours.

Obviously your 3070 is an excellent AVR. Enjoy it however you like to. There’s no wrong way to do it as long as you like it.

This discussion between Dellasella and the Auromatic guy is interesting.

 

[gene]

I'm consistently reading about how great stereo upmixing is with Auro, so I'm looking into the cost and design. I'm really confused on a few points:

Is there a limit, either technically or practically, on stereo upmixing with Auro? One doc I found suggests 7.1.4 but it's 5 years old.

Is there a layout that meets compatibility requirements for all surround formats? DTS:X, Auro, Atmos etc. I see a few options published by Denon/Marantz and Auro that are probably close enough, but just want to be sure I'm not missing something better

Are there any Auro upmixing codecs available for a HTPC? Win10 preferred but Mac will work

In a traditional HT setup, LCR are historically considered the most important and where the majority of budget should be placed. Does that hold true with stereo upmixing?

I realize there are a lot of factors that go into what's "practical" but like most I'm searching for the most versatile option without spending unnecessarily. If the difference between layouts is something small like the VOG speaker, that's fine but I'd hate to have a whole height layer (for example) being unused when switching between 2ch/multi-channel playback

If it helps, my listening space is about 20x20x13-18' (sloped ceiling). But the room itself is about 25x40'. Number of channels that make the most sense will dictate what processor I buy - probably Denon Or Marantz 8015 because multiple zones would be really useful but I could easily work with something like the HTP-1 since it has a stereo out. a HTPC w JRiver would be even better but I have yet to find an Auro upmix codec.

Thank you!!

The reports of Auro upmixing are greatly exaggerated, IMHO. I have all 3 formats and tested them extensively. If you use the DSU with center spread on, the upmixing is as good as the Auromatic. The problem with an Auro 3D speaker layout is it's not compatible with Atmos. I would never compromise my speaker placement for a dead format that has no content ONLY to use the upmixer which is on par with the Dolby one.

 

[gene]

This discussion between Dellasella and the Auromatic guy is interesting.

Yea in retrospect, I feel that Patrick is a bit of an Auro fanboy. While I agree that many Atmos mixes aren't very good and may benefit from his approach, I did all the tests he suggested after that video and I usually prefer a good Atmos speaker layout using Atmos for native content and the DSU for 2CH. I would never use a 5.1 layer upmixed to Auro over native Atmos mix.

 

[TLS Guy]

Yea in retrospect, I feel that Patrick is a bit of an Auro fanboy. While I agree that many Atmos mixes aren't very good and may benefit from his approach, I did all the tests he suggested after that video and I usually prefer a good Atmos speaker layout using Atmos for native content and the DSU for 2CH. I would never use a 5.1 layer upmixed to Auro over native Atmos mix.

I agree with you completely. The latest Dolby DD p mixer is incredibly good. From two channel recordings it manages to reproduce the original acoustic with a realistic perspective from 2 channel audio.

Probably the best demonstration of how good it is, is this two channel recording by Tom Scott of his brother Jonathan playing Bach's Wachet Auf from St. Mary's Petworth. The flute division is on your immediate right and the reed plays from the division ahead. The right division is precisely located on your right and the reed right ahead, as it would if you where in the nave of the church. This could not be better even if it where are discrete five channel recording. I find this incredible.

I know you use center spread. However on this rig center spread ruins the effect. I get really good left right and center localization leaving it off. Not only that, this upmixer increases the sound stage depth of the recording, and on many good recordings the sound stage sounds wider then the speaker spacing. I never ceased to be amazed how good it is.

One other thing I have noticed is that this latest versions works on vinyl playback from my turntables. The previous one did not, and was prone to a curious pumping. I have not heard it with this current version.

Now I suspect results may vary, in that in my rig every speaker is very capable. They all sound really similar right across the acoustic spectrum except the last two octaves. Although five of them reach well into the last octave, and the mains all the way to 20 Hz. Although the center is deliberately conceived to be different to the mains, to give it a cone type dispersion covering the listening area. However when you walk across the front stage all three speakers sound identical and I don't think anyone would suspect they use different drivers.

I don't know, but I suspect you would not get similar results unless all speakers have a really smooth response from 80 Hz upwards. In addition all these speakers have an excellent sharp impulse response. I consider that important and often overlooked, and may be significant in causing this technology to work properly.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I agree with you completely. The latest Dolby DD p mixer is incredibly good. From two channel recordings it manages to reproduce the original acoustic with a realistic perspective from 2 channel audio.

Probably the best demonstration of how good it is, is this two channel recording by Tom Scott of his brother Jonathan playing Bach's Wachet Auf from St. Mary's Petworth. The flute division is on your immediate right and the reed plays from the division ahead. The right division is precisely located on your right and the reed right ahead, as it would if you where in the nave of the church. This could not be better even if it where are discrete five channel recording. I find this incredible.

I know you use center spread. However on this rig center spread ruins the effect. I get really good left right and center localization leaving it off. Not only that, this upmixer increases the sound stage depth of the recording, and on many good recordings the sound stage sounds wider then the speaker spacing. I never ceased to be amazed how good it is.

One other thing I have noticed is that this latest versions works on vinyl playback from my turntables. The previous one did not, and was prone to a curious pumping. I have not heard it with this current version.

Now I suspect results may vary, in that in my rig every speaker is very capable. They all sound really similar right across the acoustic spectrum except the last two octaves. Although five of them reach well into the last octave, and the mains all the way to 20 Hz. Although the center is deliberately conceived to be different to the mains, to give it a cone type dispersion covering the listening area. However when you walk across the front stage all three speakers sound identical and I don't think anyone would suspect they use different drivers.

I don't know, but I suspect you would not get similar results unless all speakers have a really smooth response from 80 Hz upwards. In addition all these speakers have an excellent sharp impulse response. I consider that important and often overlooked, and may be significant in causing this technology to work properly.

I also like DSU Mark, and look forward to trying this track out. Especially with your description of sound placements. I do use center spread, but might try both ways. I miss the functionality of PLIIx, and liked it overall.

 

[TLS Guy]

I also like DSU Mark, and look forward to trying this track out. Especially with your description of sound placements. I do use center spread, but might try both ways. I miss the functionality of PLIIx, and liked it overall.

The new DD upmixer is a huge upgrade over PLIIx.