I have yet to watch this video but as someone who is in the process of expanding a 7.2 into a 7.2.4 with discrete in-ceiling speakers, I'll be rooting for Atmos. I've not heard first hand any of the new audio formats, whether Atmos, DTS: X or Auro 3D. But since Auro 3D is the one that isn't object based and demands a fairly inflexible channel speaker configuration, I cannot forsee how in any way it has a chance of commercially surviving against the more flexible Atmos and DTS: X. Atmos and DTS also have more available content and are more inclusively compatible in terms of speaker placement configuration with each other. And even if I did want to try to use Auro 3D with my new 7.2.4 configuration, I have to pay Denon about £150 for the privilege. I feel bad *if* Auro 3D is superior, but it doesn't appear to be as user friendly or commercially viable against the competition.
@@RuiSilvaPT wouldn't it be 5.2.2.1? 5 base layer speakers, 2 height surrounds, 2 voice of god speakers higher up again by a 1/2 up the wall and in the ceiling and in the middle of the ceiling pointing down. So you'd need very high ceilings to make it work.
Great! It is very difficult to read an article or to see an interview doing this comparison. What are the differences and what are the similarities between both formats: Atmos vs Auro. Thanks Mike.
Ok to explain it very simply. Imagine Dolby atmos. Speakers all around you and in the ceiling. So you can have something move around you in a circle and have positional rain coming down from above, Or a helicopter moving around above your head. Imagine Auro 3D. Speakers all around you, Height channels and ONE in the ceiling. Now the sound can move in a circle around you but also move up and down. Positional rain can be heard straight above you, Or a helicopter can take off from behind you, move above you and land infront of you. I believe techincally the Auro 3D will be better but I also believe Dolbt Atmos will be better supported. I hope there will be possbility to mix Atmos to Auro 3D.
EmpireLS56KW Rain was just an example. But to be fair in most movies when there is rain it actually hits all around the people in the movies and I believe most scenes it hits the leaves in the trees, roof of car and houses more than you actually get a scene when people are standing out in the open. But that is besides the point since having a sound source with height channels like I said before it gives you that 3rd axis of levels of sound above you and not only around you. You can't call it 2.5D because dimensions can't be split in half. Just because you don't have a speaker on the bottom it does not mean you won't be able to tell where the sound is coming from in 3 different axis. But if we would use your definition of 3D space then there will never be any 3D sound since you will not be able to place infinite number of speakers infront of eachother so you can get the right distance of the sound in a 3 dimensional space. You will only be able to place on speaker in one direction and the distance the sound travels from that speaker will always be the same.
EmpireLS56KW Well atmos today is worthless considering there is hardly any movies out. Also one thing to think about is that movies that has atmos in the cinema like Hobbit does not have it in the consumer blu-ray version. So that big support for atmos movies might never come. Even if you are waiting to see what happens with the sound format war you can add today two front height speakers to get a basic feeling on how Auro3D is going to feel from the front. And in the future whoever wins the war you either add another pair for back height channles (Auro3D) or remove the front spekars and put them in the roof (Atmos) or just keep them and add roof spekers (9.1.2 Atmos). But then you need movies that supports front height spekers. So look for movies with support for 9.1 channels.
According to Wikipedia the speaker layout employed by cinema DTS:X is the sum of Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D. DTS Neo:X set at 11.1 was the first DTS format that used height speakers.
yea I'll stick to my Dolby Atmos home theater... object based doesn't need height speakers in order to represent something higher the object based system uses all speakers to recreate that effect on that one spot sounding more fluid and less like discreet which doesn't sound as natural... Dolby Atmos also sounds more alive then discreet channel based home theaters or for that matter cinema theaters
Discreet unreflected sound reproduces frequencies accurately to what was intended. Reflected sound is no longer what director intended you to hear. Thats why speakers are toed in a bit (equilateral triangle between you and speakers minimize angle for reflected sound). A atmos or dtsx or auro system with bad speakers and bad layout no rta done will sound worse than 5.1 with good speakers, properly positioned and rta parametric eq done to each speaker will sound better. I would rather upgrade equipment and speakers before considering those formats, sure you could use the old speakers after you replaced with better speakers for those additional channels. AVR capable of processing and driving those additional channels but now consider more channels activated less power per channel to drive your new kickass speakers. I use the additional channels that are marked for atmos auro or dtsx to bi amp my 7.2 system. Hearing things clearer and capable of better dynamic range is better. I doubt your speakers are your dream speakers, but rather one that had a promo running
the "voice of God" channel is fine if you've a room with high ceilings.. Otherwise it's pointless and not everybody can cut holes into their ceilings. So Auro 3D would be uselees in most homes (unless people have a dedicated home cinema room). So Front Height with Dolby ATMOS /DTSX would be sufficent.
Auro3D is better because you have 1 speaker on the ceiling? What's next, 4 layers? 6 layers? 10 layers? And what about the floor, don't you ever hear sound coming from there? Better yet, why not cover the whole room with 3000 speakers, driven by 3000 discrete channels? Does that make sense to you, Auro3D developers? It'll be much more realistic for everyone in the audience wouldn't it? This is so much BS, a truly brute-force senseless approach. That's why an object-oriented system, aka Dolby Atmos or DTS:X, can achieve the same (or better) results with less speakers, and will triumph in the end.
Auro3D is actually a better achieved 3D audio tech. As its founder explained human ears are more sensitive to horizontal sound layer and the upper layer at 30 degree above ears. Our ears are not designed to detect very well sounds comming from the ceiling, which is in fact the main selling point of Dolby Atmos technology. So instead of using multiple discrete channels from the ceiling like Dolby Atmos they just use multiple speakers only fed by one mono-channel and they filled the horizontal and upper layers with discrete channels where human ears are the most sensitive. Pretty good indeed. And just speaking of speakers, their numbers increase just as the number of pixels increase on our TV screens.
Auro3D is a discrete technology oriented to re-create pre-recorded spaces. When properly implemented, yes, it sounds very very good, but it's useless for movies. DTS:X on the other hand has no limits, it can be used to encapsulate stereo, 5.1, 7.1, 11.2, Auro3D, or to create completely new worlds of sound, or to combine anything in between. It simply is a better, more logical appropach to multichannel sound technology. Time will prove this, just wait and see.
I have all 3 and can easily say that Auro 3d is simply the most amazing and best realistic 3D sound processor. It's true that not many movies are encapsulated with Auro 3D right now however the Auro 3D upmixer is just crazy awesome because it is compatible with any movie (PCM). I first started out with 2 then 4 up-firing Dolby Atmos format Klipsch RP-140SA speakers sitting on top of my Klipsch tower speakers. I was blown away when watching Game of thrones season 5 (atmos). I felt like re-watching every movie lol. Then I just got hooked on researching neural DTS:X and Auro 3D - all of which are on my Denon AVR-X6200W receiver. Neural sounded great as well very similar to Dolby Atmos. However, since I had a flat ceiling of 10ft and space to mount my upfiring atmos speakers at 30 degrees downward, I couldn't resist sampling Auro 3D. Just the 'voice of god' alone got me hooked on wanting to see what Auro 3D was all about. Best of all, this setup 10.1 was backwards compatible with all 3 formats. All I can say is, 'WOW' the Auro 3D was just something else. The immersion was just on another level in my honest opinion, I'm just glad we live in these times!
I feel the same way for me is Auro the best format for homecinema. i subscribe you :D i dont understand why people speaks bad over Auro.... i hear everytime Atmos and dtsx is the best! why? its free :D
i have Auro 3D 10.1 and i look every Movie with the Auro Upmixer Auro-Matic every Movie is just fun and an 3D immersive sound experience
Auro 3D is the Best Immersive Sound Format. It's unique 3 Layer System is really amazing & effective.
I have yet to watch this video but as someone who is in the process of expanding a 7.2 into a 7.2.4 with discrete in-ceiling speakers, I'll be rooting for Atmos. I've not heard first hand any of the new audio formats, whether Atmos, DTS: X or Auro 3D. But since Auro 3D is the one that isn't object based and demands a fairly inflexible channel speaker configuration, I cannot forsee how in any way it has a chance of commercially surviving against the more flexible Atmos and DTS: X.
Atmos and DTS also have more available content and are more inclusively compatible in terms of speaker placement configuration with each other. And even if I did want to try to use Auro 3D with my new 7.2.4 configuration, I have to pay Denon about £150 for the privilege. I feel bad *if* Auro 3D is superior, but it doesn't appear to be as user friendly or commercially viable against the competition.
will cinemas have auro 3D one day? because I would definitely love to experience it
Auro 3D 9ch works on a 5.2.2 configuration?
nope it should be 5.1.4 (the first .1 or your .2 is related to the subwoofer speaker which is not part of the number of speakers of an AVR)
@@RuiSilvaPT wouldn't it be 5.2.2.1? 5 base layer speakers, 2 height surrounds, 2 voice of god speakers higher up again by a 1/2 up the wall and in the ceiling and in the middle of the ceiling pointing down. So you'd need very high ceilings to make it work.
Great! It is very difficult to read an article or to see an interview doing this comparison. What are the differences and what are the similarities between both formats: Atmos vs Auro.
Thanks Mike.
Ok to explain it very simply.
Imagine Dolby atmos. Speakers all around you and in the ceiling. So you can have something move around you in a circle and have positional rain coming down from above, Or a helicopter moving around above your head.
Imagine Auro 3D. Speakers all around you, Height channels and ONE in the ceiling.
Now the sound can move in a circle around you but also move up and down.
Positional rain can be heard straight above you, Or a helicopter can take off from behind you, move above you and land infront of you.
I believe techincally the Auro 3D will be better but I also believe Dolbt Atmos will be better supported. I hope there will be possbility to mix Atmos to Auro 3D.
EmpireLS56KW
Rain was just an example.
But to be fair in most movies when there is rain it actually hits all around the people in the movies and I believe most scenes it hits the leaves in the trees, roof of car and houses more than you actually get a scene when people are standing out in the open.
But that is besides the point since having a sound source with height channels like I said before it gives you that 3rd axis of levels of sound above you and not only around you.
You can't call it 2.5D because dimensions can't be split in half. Just because you don't have a speaker on the bottom it does not mean you won't be able to tell where the sound is coming from in 3 different axis.
But if we would use your definition of 3D space then there will never be any 3D sound since you will not be able to place infinite number of speakers infront of eachother so you can get the right distance of the sound in a 3 dimensional space. You will only be able to place on speaker in one direction and the distance the sound travels from that speaker will always be the same.
EmpireLS56KW
Well atmos today is worthless considering there is hardly any movies out. Also one thing to think about is that movies that has atmos in the cinema like Hobbit does not have it in the consumer blu-ray version.
So that big support for atmos movies might never come.
Even if you are waiting to see what happens with the sound format war you can add today two front height speakers to get a basic feeling on how Auro3D is going to feel from the front.
And in the future whoever wins the war you either add another pair for back height channles (Auro3D) or remove the front spekars and put them in the roof (Atmos) or just keep them and add roof spekers (9.1.2 Atmos).
But then you need movies that supports front height spekers. So look for movies with support for 9.1 channels.
According to Wikipedia the speaker layout employed by cinema DTS:X is the sum of Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D. DTS Neo:X set at 11.1 was the first DTS format that used height speakers.
Patrick Djugo-Eagleway
Yeah but 11.1 was "presence" speakers and not above like Atmos or "god channel" or whatever Auro 3D uses.
How about a ribbon array, or flat speaker design?
Hey Ben, where are you living? there are some auro cinemas out there ;)
Don’t forget dtsX
Verry Nice
yea I'll stick to my Dolby Atmos home theater... object based doesn't need height speakers in order to represent something higher the object based system uses all speakers to recreate that effect on that one spot sounding more fluid and less like discreet which doesn't sound as natural... Dolby Atmos also sounds more alive then discreet channel based home theaters or for that matter cinema theaters
Discreet unreflected sound reproduces frequencies accurately to what was intended. Reflected sound is no longer what director intended you to hear. Thats why speakers are toed in a bit (equilateral triangle between you and speakers minimize angle for reflected sound). A atmos or dtsx or auro system with bad speakers and bad layout no rta done will sound worse than 5.1 with good speakers, properly positioned and rta parametric eq done to each speaker will sound better. I would rather upgrade equipment and speakers before considering those formats, sure you could use the old speakers after you replaced with better speakers for those additional channels. AVR capable of processing and driving those additional channels but now consider more channels activated less power per channel to drive your new kickass speakers. I use the additional channels that are marked for atmos auro or dtsx to bi amp my 7.2 system. Hearing things clearer and capable of better dynamic range is better. I doubt your speakers are your dream speakers, but rather one that had a promo running
@@VeneraSGF I too will stick with Dolby ATMOS as I'd need a huge room with very high ceilings to make Auro 3D work.
Andre Tanneberger's geeky twin? :D
Dolby is and remains king(like it,good bad indifferent)It’s not which one is better,it’s market /branding.+ Belgium money vs.US money.No match.
the "voice of God" channel is fine if you've a room with high ceilings.. Otherwise it's pointless and not everybody can cut holes into their ceilings. So Auro 3D would be uselees in most homes (unless people have a dedicated home cinema room). So Front Height with Dolby ATMOS /DTSX would be sufficent.
Auro3D is better because you have 1 speaker on the ceiling? What's next, 4 layers? 6 layers? 10 layers? And what about the floor, don't you ever hear sound coming from there? Better yet, why not cover the whole room with 3000 speakers, driven by 3000 discrete channels? Does that make sense to you, Auro3D developers? It'll be much more realistic for everyone in the audience wouldn't it? This is so much BS, a truly brute-force senseless approach. That's why an object-oriented system, aka Dolby Atmos or DTS:X, can achieve the same (or better) results with less speakers, and will triumph in the end.
Auro3D is actually a better achieved 3D audio tech. As its founder explained human ears are more sensitive to horizontal sound layer and the upper layer at 30 degree above ears. Our ears are not designed to detect very well sounds comming from the ceiling, which is in fact the main selling point of Dolby Atmos technology. So instead of using multiple discrete channels from the ceiling like Dolby Atmos they just use multiple speakers only fed by one mono-channel and they filled the horizontal and upper layers with discrete channels where human ears are the most sensitive. Pretty good indeed. And just speaking of speakers, their numbers increase just as the number of pixels increase on our TV screens.
good man! auro 10.1 is amazing
Auro3D is a discrete technology oriented to re-create pre-recorded spaces. When properly implemented, yes, it sounds very very good, but it's useless for movies. DTS:X on the other hand has no limits, it can be used to encapsulate stereo, 5.1, 7.1, 11.2, Auro3D, or to create completely new worlds of sound, or to combine anything in between. It simply is a better, more logical appropach to multichannel sound technology. Time will prove this, just wait and see.
I have all 3 and can easily say that Auro 3d is simply the most amazing and best realistic 3D sound processor. It's true that not many movies are encapsulated with Auro 3D right now however the Auro 3D upmixer is just crazy awesome because it is compatible with any movie (PCM). I first started out with 2 then 4 up-firing Dolby Atmos format Klipsch RP-140SA speakers sitting on top of my Klipsch tower speakers. I was blown away when watching Game of thrones season 5 (atmos). I felt like re-watching every movie lol. Then I just got hooked on researching neural DTS:X and Auro 3D - all of which are on my Denon AVR-X6200W receiver. Neural sounded great as well very similar to Dolby Atmos.
However, since I had a flat ceiling of 10ft and space to mount my upfiring atmos speakers at 30 degrees downward, I couldn't resist sampling Auro 3D. Just the 'voice of god' alone got me hooked on wanting to see what Auro 3D was all about. Best of all, this setup 10.1 was backwards compatible with all 3 formats. All I can say is, 'WOW' the Auro 3D was just something else. The immersion was just on another level in my honest opinion, I'm just glad we live in these times!
I feel the same way for me is Auro the best format for homecinema. i subscribe you :D
i dont understand why people speaks bad over Auro.... i hear everytime Atmos and dtsx is the best! why? its free :D