jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,546
No but I'd probably describe the robotic autopilot generated music more akin to listening to an airplane takeoff!Would you call an airplane autopilot 'random'?
No but I'd probably describe the robotic autopilot generated music more akin to listening to an airplane takeoff!Would you call an airplane autopilot 'random'?
Yeah. This is one of the nastiest conversations I’ve read on QQ. Not sure why it has to be that way.Wow. Just wow. So much denial and incorrect speculation apparent in this thread.
An algorithm that downmixes isn't 'generating' music. Nor is it operating at random. I've never heard a downmix (or upmix, of which I've heard thousands) that sounded like an airplane takeoff.No but I'd probably describe the robotic autopilot generated music more akin to listening to an airplane takeoff!
No, it's generating artifacts. That's my problem with it!An algorithm that upmixes stereo isn't 'generating' music. ...
No, it's generating artifacts. That's my problem with it!
If I want to hear the sound of wind chimes under water I'll put on an Enya album.
The Pink Floyd DSOTM and Animals Atmos BluRays have a "System Setup" under "Audio Selection" that includes an "Atmos Speaker Configuration" which lets you hear each speaker in turn from a 7.1.4 arrangement, with an accompanying animation. Let me see if I can pull that piece out of one of the BluRays and post it (assuming that is allowed).Would it be possible to encode 7.1.4 Atmos, 1kHz at each of the 11 locations in turn (.1 not needed) and then report where each of these 11 locations ends up appearing in the Dolby Digital 5.1 downmix (using the downmix defaults)?
Kirk Bayne
Or worse, you have to have multiple setups to play all of the different kinds of recordings, because they have to keep changing things. They can't pick one technology and stick with it, because the business wonks want all of the products they sell to be under patent protection. When a patent expires, they discontinue the product.I'm beginning to believe that's a real thing. You spend big money on a non Atmos rig (or even worse, a non HDMI rig). Maybe you even had to go into debt to get it. After a few years you become bitter because the tech has moved on and your super expensive but outdated components are nearly worthless on the used market because they can't process the newest formats that everyone is raving about. Not to mention the formats the old gear can process arent being produced anymore. The easiest way to justify your original decision is to keep that old gear and convince yourself all that new tech is total crap. It makes sense. It happened with the transition from LPs to CDs, from tube TVs to flat-screens, and the transition from analog inputs to HDMI. Why wouldant it happen with the 5.1 to Atmos transition.
Maybe a fortunate mistake for my understanding. I was not aware of the prior discussions, and your discussion explains a lot.Using Pink Floyd DSOTM for tests of this is a mistake. There is an encoding or mixing problem of some sort with that blu ray, as discussed at least twice on QQ some time back. It's fine (music and test tones) when decoded as Atmos, but is very odd when just playing the 7.1 True HD stream. Your speaker positions match the results I got on my 5.0 system, it's all very wishy washy and "lots vaguely in the middle". On 5.0 the results are worse than 7.1, since Lss and Lb are one speaker as are Rss and Rb. Which means much of Ltf and Rtf play from behind me as your results show, which is ridiculous.
When I have my AVR decode and render the Atmos to my 5.0 system everything behaves much better, both the test tones and the music. ie Ltf goes to L, Rtf to R, Ltr to Lb, Rtr to Rb which is what I expect to happen.
When I've tried on other discs switching between straight True HD and Atmos I can't hear any difference. I absolutely can on DSOTM in many tracks, but the alarm clocks and the cash register drawers make the issues obvious.
Enter your email address to join: