??? I don't know. The Atmos file sounds fantastic on my 5.2.4 rig ?That couldn't explain the issues I hear with DSOTM. Indeed given I have a 5.0 system I wouldn't even be able to hear that.
??? I don't know. The Atmos file sounds fantastic on my 5.2.4 rig ?That couldn't explain the issues I hear with DSOTM. Indeed given I have a 5.0 system I wouldn't even be able to hear that.
Thanks for the link. It did not help that much, though being very informative. How the mixing is made, according to 'object status' is unclear. The number of objects themselves is puzzling. I remember Michael Jackson's Bad having 256 tracks of synths alone. So I gather objects can be premixes ? In my mixing experience (and iI have NONE atmos wise), you mix within a space, and not as objects that will be in different positions, because the mix wil unfold differently according to the number of speakers connected. I am probably thinking it wrongly here.
I doubt there are 256 tracks of synths playing simultaneously.Thanks for the link. It did not help that much, though being very informative. How the mixing is made, according to 'object status' is unclear. The number of objects themselves is puzzling. I remember Michael Jackson's Bad having 256 tracks of synths alone. So I gather objects can be premixes ? In my mixing experience (and iI have NONE atmos wise), you mix within a space, and not as objects that will be in different positions, because the mix wil unfold differently according to the number of speakers connected. I am probably thinking it wrongly here.
Search the member Sdurani at AVSForum under Atmos for information on how it really works and how it translates to consumer playback vs theater.Thanks for the link. It did not help that much
That's because you're decoding the Atmos. It sounds fine on my 5.0 when decoding the Atmos, but when playing just the True HD it sounds confused and muddy with everything in the middle, just like the test tones. You'd have to turn off Atmos and play the True HD as 5.2 to hear the issues.??? I don't know. The Atmos file sounds fantastic on my 5.2.4 rig ?
You are making things up again, there were never two versions of 5.1.5.1 was supposed to have two versions, right? Side and rear.
The AVRs are doing what they are meant to do according to the specs. The errors came when 7.1 was added to the designs. This stems from initially we had 6.1 in DTS and Dolby Digital to add a centre rear. Then people wanted to split that into two rears, and at that point the die was already cast because of where the centre rear had been placed. If we'd never had 6.1 and just went straight to 7.1 they might have been added at the sides.The side vs rear faux pas only rears its head when playing 5.x into a 7.x system. This is impossible to correct cleanly because we have all these media players (and you know there are hardware AVRs in the mix too) errantly programmed to treat anything 5.1 as 5.1(side).
The solution is for AVRs to have a control that says whether 4.0 and 5.x use the rears or sides for playing the surrounds. It's a simple thing to add, you're just controlling which DAC is fed the relevant audio (and add caveat that in analogue direct mode this feature is inoperative, get your playback device to deal with it).Do we need to start putting 5.x files in 7.x containers like we do with 4.0 in 5.1? Might actually be the only solution. I think most autopilot speaker management on the computer or AVRs would down mix 7.1 to 5.1 by putting the rears to the sides. Making it transparent playing a 7.1 with blank side channels on a 5.1 system. Blank channels are free (zero extra file size) with FLAC.
Just the messenger here!You are making things up again, there were never two versions of 5.1.
Fortunately, my Denon DTS and DTS HD-MA decoding of a source 5.1 file sends the surround channels to both Sides and Rears. It also displays it correctly in the display with the four surround speakers activated. Some even say that it is correctly done, by lowering about 3dB the level to keep the overall level with the double of speakers. This does not "send back" the sound full to the rears, because both sides and rears "image" the sound in between, but it sounds less intrussive than only with the sides........... I don't know what happens with silence in DTS and DTS HD MA.
That's how I understand it as well5.1 speaker layout was not intended to be like Quad with the listener equal distant from all 4 speakers
"Rear" speakers in 5.1 are intended to be to the side or just slightly behind the MLP.
Only for 7.1 are the "Rears" pushed way to the rear, and "Side" surrounds are now in the approx same position as the "Rears" used to be in 5.1.
Could have, but doesn't, so Dolby makes more money. You have to rebuy your Dolby Surround videos for them to work on new systems. More royalties.That is unrelated to Atmos. Dolby introduced "Dolby Surround" which does not accurately decode any of the old Dolby Surround, Pro Logic or Pro Logic II formats. But there was no reason why Atmos could not have co-existed with those.
There is no shortage of Dolby Surround or Dolby PLII decoders available on the used market so what is the problem? While I hear what you are saying you can't expect old technology to be carried over forever. I would bitch more about no SQ and QS decoders being included in modern equipment. Stick to vintage!Could have, but doesn't, so Dolby makes more money. You have to rebuy your Dolby Surround videos fort them to work on new systems. More royalties.
That is pretty much the set up that I use for Quad (and all surround). Just minus the centre and sub, also the rear/sides are matched to the fronts. Nothing really new since the seventies!5.1 speaker layout was not intended to be like Quad with the listener equal distant from all 4 speakers
"Rear" speakers in 5.1 are intended to be to the side or just slightly behind the MLP.
Only for 7.1 are the "Rears" pushed way to the rear, and "Side" surrounds are now in the approx same position as the "Rears" used to be in 5.1.
This set up is more realistic to how people live. Few people are going to set up a sound system with all four speakers an equal distance from the listener. Most people’s living rooms have the couch towards the back of the room. Not in the middle.5.1 speaker layout was not intended to be like Quad with the listener equal distant from all 4 speakers
"Rear" speakers in 5.1 are intended to be to the side or just slightly behind the MLP.
Only for 7.1 are the "Rears" pushed way to the rear, and "Side" surrounds are now in the approx same position as the "Rears" used to be in 5.1.
That's the modern 5.1 speaker layout, which was introduced when 7.1 became a thing. The original 5.1 speaker layout from the early 2000's placed the rear speakers a lot further behind the listeners head...5.1 speaker layout was not intended to be like Quad with the listener equal distant from all 4 speakers
"Rear" speakers in 5.1 are intended to be to the side or just slightly behind the MLP.
Only for 7.1 are the "Rears" pushed way to the rear, and "Side" surrounds are now in the approx same position as the "Rears" used to be in 5.1.
And even in a high position. To get the sound from a little above to avoid possible furniture obstacles.That's the modern 5.1 speaker layout, which was introduced when 7.1 became a thing. The original 5.1 speaker layout from the early 2000's placed the rear speakers a lot further behind the listeners head...
Enter your email address to join: