The information that he gave was pretty good, but it was very hard to listen to, ya know. My thoughts are usually we went through a lot of trouble to get and setup these Atmos speakers only for them not to be used very often. I hope these sound engineers understand that we want to hear a lot more out of these speakers than the garbage we’ve been getting so far. I feel like we sit here wondering why is there nothing coming out of the Atmos speakers in this scene.?!
@@neilhansen3025 Don't think youthman agreed with all of it. He said he didn't really have any issue with how his system sounded. Nor did he feel that he was hearing anything out of place or lacking due to his placement of the overhead speakers.
He says 7.1.4 is where it gets Object Based, yet most Disney/Marvel/Star Wars mixes are actually static 7.1.4 Mixes where the two height Channels are just mirrored into four...so essentially they are doing the bare minimum they have to in order to call it "Dolby Atmos"...😤
Even the 7.1.2 is still object based. The bed "channels" are still objects. They are static and mimicking traditional channels. So the conflict is between static bed objects vs active objects that move through all your channels. These mixers need to get more comfortable using active objects more often. And the studios need to give them more time and money to properly implement these mixes. Another barrier are the directors. Many of them dont understand Atmos very well. They are still learning about it. And many are still skeptical. The sound mixers have to get their mixes approved by the director, so they are often very limited in what they can do. A good example is Denise Villanueve, he mixed Blade Runner 2049 in Atmos but didnt even come close to taking advantage of the format. I saw an interview with him where he said he wanted sound mixes to be forward focused and he didnt want surround effects to distract from whats going on at the screen. That he didnt understand Atmos until he started working on Dune. That means he dictated how the sound mix should be on 2049 having no understanding of the format he was working in. So yeah, we are still in the Wild West of immersive audio mixing.
@@FURognar bed is what i sleep on . while dreaming about genie lamps floating around , ha ha lol atmos at most is waste of money and listening time . most mixers seem clueless to how to use it ? top gun 2 dolby atmos is worst atmouse of 2021 . uses only middle overhead height 2 , with few seconds of height 1 being used a few seconds of , um , yeah . no height 3 a total hyped rubbish movie . the liemax aspect ratio switching is also visually annoying as the atmouse .
I sure enjoy and get plenty of good info to put to use, but I wonder if it is difficult to get a guest's microphone gain on the same level as the rest of the discussion panel's mics. John's mic sounds much lower to me. I hear this on so many other TH-cam interviews. Anyone else have this issue? I offer my sincerest thanks to all of you on this panel for all that you do for us who are trying to have a great home A/V experience. All the very best - Kevin.
Hahahahhahhaa Dolby Atmos is cheap unprofessional knockoff of my home theater research from the early 1980's Atmos is unrealistic garbage created by amateurs I am the final authority on reproduction quality in my home, not you or your engineers GARBAGE!
Actual Atmos content has 3d object data embeded, so its using any number of speakers it has available, that is the point of the format, no matter how many speakers it has, sound will pan corectly across them. The upmixers will use them too. If you just watch 7.1 or 5.1 material without any upmixing it will of course not play through the wides at all.
I truly appreciate you getting on John and him being very forward in pointing out the shortcomings in much of the critique of Atmos on YT, but at the same time being honest about how and why you would want to not adhere strictly to their guidelines with regards to speaker placement. Very informative video, thank you.
I am not so sure that is what John said. He was advocating for following the guidelines. The pro and consumer guidelines don’t match so he was saying that for his mixing room we are not following the consumer guidelines. You could do the same in a residential space but it’s hard to say one is more right than the other. There are specific reasons for the differences. Beyond that he suggested only moving away from those guidelines with the help of an expert professional who understands the risks and rewards of a specific placement.
@@PoesAcoustics Matthew thanks for your expert input. The Dolby studio guidelines say place Atmos (assuming 4) at 45 degrees front/back and left/right but move then inward a bit based on height of LCR and surrounds so you may wind up at ~40 degrees or so. Gene indicated he puts them much closer to MLP than this and Grimani also puts them much closer than this. Do you have an opinion on standard best practice? I basically followed the the studio guidelines and have them somewhere between 37 and 43 degrees.
@@PoesAcoustics, I can see that, I wasn't thinking in terms of him dismissing the guidelines, but simply him stating "yeah, there're reasons why you'd need to deviate in a residential space, but you have to know what you're doing" was nice, I think, in terms of we all work within the limitations of our rooms.
@@confinoj I don’t have a strong opinion on this. When I talked to John and some others about the pro standard I was told that the greater angle stemmed from trying to better match the commercial cinema placement. Further, that there was a desire to create greater separation between the bed layer surrounds and overhead top speakers. A lot of things are done in studios that are not done because it’s better for sound quality. They do it to allow for easier ability to delineate errors in the recordings. Sometimes what is best for realism is bad for mixing. That is probably not something consumers should copy. The renderer for ATMOS is assuming placement that matches the home layout and not pro, so it’s possible that moving to a more extreme angle that increase the aperture between speaker layers is not desirable for overall sound quality. But I have never bothered to setup a room where I could AB the different angles to see which sounds better. I can only go by the standard, what experts who mix this stuff say, what Dolby says, and my experience. I suspect that Grimani’s approach might make the atmospherics a bit more distinct and that this might be preferred by some who want to really obviously hear their atmospherics. On the other hand, I would imagine an angle closer to 30 degrees might create greater blending.
IMHO this is the best video you’ve made. John provided a tremendous insight into spatial sound, with factual information ranging from the wide array of mixing styles, to why mixing is done in certain ways, to the importance of psychoacoustics . Bring him and others with his real world technical depth back!
I really look at All you guys as my Audio Hero's and soak up everything! John is Amazing and I appreciate his work! Thank you Gene for bringing everyone together; you Sir are a God send to this industry!!!
I don't agree that it should be left to the person or people doing the mix, it needs to be as standardised as possible. Also object based mixes should be moving with the times so 9.4.6 and more etc. Also streaming sites should allow different mixes so 5.1, 7.1, 5.1.4 etc
Great vid which helps debunk a few myths surrounding Atmos (no pun intended😂) and lays bare a lot of on-line reviewers who don’t have a clue what they’re talking about! My only concern is the use of the phrase ‘hearing it as the sound engineer intends’ ! While I for one hugely appreciate the work that goes in to a great sound track sadly the vast majority of the population will never get to hear that. Very few movie fans have access to a studio full of reference gear, nor can they afford the time and cash to dedicate a room at home to convert to a suitable home theatre. If my wife caught me trying to install speakers in the ceiling of my Victorian living room she’d kill me! Also, in the UK we have a total of 5 Atmos theatres so the chances of me travelling 100 miles to sit, as John intimated, in a less than ideal seat, listening to compromised version of the original sound track next to someone talking and rustling popcorn bags doesn’t fill me with much joy. I know you guys scoff at the ideas of soundbars and bouncy rear upfiring speaker but the reality is most of us are going to try and experience Atmos this way. I’m not talking of kidding ourselves that Atmos speakers in a lap top or a £200 soundbar is going to give great immersion but some of these £2k+ soundbars with dedicated upfiring rears if set up properly produce a surprisingly exciting results. If Atmos is to survive this needs to be embraced and developed because for the vast majority of movie fans this is how Atmos content will be heard. We’d all like to live in an elitist world with the very best kit in the very best rooms but that just isn’t always possible.
Bottom line is Dolby royally fcked up in their guidelines. It's just ridiculous how much damage that one stupid installation guide and picture from their website has caused. I've had to reinstall my I'm ceilings to bring them closer together.
It's not about the guidelines, rather people followed just the image which can be true in case of a low ceiling. However the doc has enough info in the text, people just skipped that part after seeing the image. It's all about angles.
@@anoopht9588 yeah which is why the document was a crappy job by Dolby. They made mistake after mistake, first the up firing speakers then the bad instructions. Then at the end of it all they wonder why people think an auro layout is better sheesh.
@@mohannair Home layout is a generic one as most people don't have dedicated room and upfiring speakers are a relief for people who can't have overhead installation to get the flavor of atmos. It really works in a small room with low ceilings which are highly reflective. I don't see any problem in including that layout in a home doc. The only issue that I see in the home doc os the image without mentioning the height of the room, just a simple sentence would have made the pic more valid. However in the text it's clearly mentioned about the angles and the tolerances. I think dolby never expected that people would just follow an image without reading the doc esp serious users.
This was an incredible interview about final audio performances. When you think about it this is completely obvious but I my assumptions didn’t match reality. Technology and human interpretation of the final product has a huge influence on the final mix.
Fascinating to listen to guys, really appreciate all of your contributions and shedding some light on one of the most misunderstood areas of sound mixing and home theater reproduction.
So in summation with no real standard and with different studios using different nomenclature for speakers (WILD), we are basically chasing the dragon as the home enthusiast. Streaming is a whole nother ball of wax.
I feel the same. I have done so much research on expanding to atmos that your comment is true about diminishing returns. It’s a lot of money for speakers that will be used for object based sounds for a small percentage of the time.
The BEQ guys literally plot the waveform from the original file. It’s clear some roll off is applied compared to older mixes. Plenty of examples, check twister auro vs atmos for example
Amazing session guys. Really appreciated getting the mix engineer's perspective. Would love to hear more in the future on the validity of BassEQ and also his views on why there is so much inconsistency in Atmos mix quality.
@@brandonadams7837 Yes and time. John mentioned they are last to get the film since the sound must be matched to the action. He said they were like highschoolers with always and emergency exam due. When the producer sets a release date, and other delays and complications snowball then it shortens the sound engineer time. Cutting down for home degrades the quality more as not to blow out home speakers, and it might be streamed on a smartphone, so streaming considerations.
I finally saw this lengthy episode and I must say awesome. I loved your direct no holding back questions. I felt they were necessary, but I also totally understood his job limitations. To bad as consumers we can't purchase the no holds barred mix. Yes you purchase at your own risk. This way you can tailor your system to take advantage of a full range mix. Maybe some day this will be a choice. 🤔
The so called youtube atmos dad don't even have a room with a basic room treatment and talks about all this BS theories. Even if he follow the guidelines I don't think he will feel the atmos as there is a hell lot of reflections that smears the overall sound. The issue with most non performing atmos installations is because of just following a pic than reading the document. Even though the home spec doc is not elaborate as studio it does give enough info to keep the overheads recommended angles and the width limits wrt the surrounds which is .5 to .7. By this dolby want enough separation from the bed layer so that a proper phantom image can be created. These are the basics which dolby want people to follow. Rest is common sense to know the speakers used, it's dispersion pattern, how a phantom image is created etc. Btw, instead of inceiling speakers a set of good bookshelves for atmos are found to be better. All this misinformation on TH-cam is due to the silent pushing of Auto3d as the thing and asking people to follow its guidelines which ends up with a cohesive speaker placement and it collapses the phantom imaging. This kills whatever atmos is there in the mix. It's just the 2 Auro3d fans who is creating a lot of confusion in youtube. Just follow the guidelines atleast the home installation doc, you will get a decent atmos immersion. Those who want the best can follow the studio guideline. However the fake theories like "atmos is in a computer and unless the dadas theory is not followed, even the studios can't get the actual atmos" (as per his latest video) is nothing but BS.
It's sad to see that happening on TH-cam. I'm fortunate to have subject matter experts as guests on our channel to clear up the nonsense and help people make the best decisions to enjoy Atmos.
@@Audioholics Gene, Have you ever seen his so called mixing studio room where he creates all these dumb theories? In one of his videos he was doing a studio tour, there is no treatment at all except few generic pyramid thin foam here and there and call it's acoustically treated. I think the reflections in his room smears the atmos sound effects. So it's irrelevant whether he follows the dolby guidelines or not, he is not going to get it properly. Joe, the magic beans seller, in one of the video comments he agreed that he also don't have a treated room and their recommendations are for non treated rooms as most people don't have a dedicated room, that's his excuse!!! Moreover he is used to the elevated screen kind of sound in auro as the immersion. I have found pretty good results in the theaters that I worked on with speakers (I prefer bookshelves than inceiling) closer together at 55-60deg. In one of the videos, Anthony Grimani also said the same.
@@anoopht9588 I really don't pay much attention to their antics but thanks for letting me know. It makes sense why they are coming to these conclusions based on their listening environments. This topic came up on a large FB group and I just happen to be friends with a high profile film mixer and thought it would be cool to have him on to discuss.
7 foot ceilings, made me decide upfront I'm going on the wall room is about 16' back to front.. works for me (SVS Elevations) My couch is 11.5' from the front wall (7.2.4). Front heights are about 6' apart and now sit inside of LR, rear heights are wider than rear surrounds and are 13' apart due to rear windows, angled in towards the MLP. This is a non dedicated room with half the 26' width where the media center resides. This is all interesting, but as long as I'm satisfied, I'm not going crazy over angles (yes I've measured moved and tweaked and can't say anything did magic other than going from 5.1.2 to 7.2.4). Static Atmos mixes piss me off the most, I do believe Matthew's points about the ability to locate via audio is open to flaws. I wonder how a blind person would interpret some ATMOS mixes.
More compromises have to be made for non dedicated rooms, especially if you have a partner and family. I'm single but no dedicated room either. Plus it's a flat where I can't drill big holes in the ceiling lol. Only a 5.1 set-up for me. But I do have acoustic room treatment - absorption and diffusion. Which makes a big audible improvement to the sound quality of my room.
@@C--A Been lucky to get most of what I wanted with understanding spouse ("oh, another hobby post-retirement!"); only place I might be able to do an acoustic treatment would be first reflection on brick wall on the left side (room is open on the right side); hasn't been a priority just yet, discussion would likely require some type of "artwork". Fortunately the room has lots of soft furnishings - except for the glass coffee table that "must not be moved". LOL
I don't want to sound like a negative Nancy but that interview was ultimately a very convincing argument that as of right now Dolby Atmos is NOT an audiophile format. If one of the best mixers in the business is considering how his mixes sound in the car as well as in his state of the art studio and is admittingly making compromises to suit both and all other listening environments then it clearly isn't a format at this point that has any unique content aimed at the high end. It also sounds like the state of Dolby Atmos is kind of all over the place. After spending the past 30 years seeking out and investigating the best masterings in both stereo and even mono recordings for high end audio systems this looks like going back to proverbial Nursery school in that learning curve. And that there is very likely simply not a good mix for many titles.
They're are plenty of blu ray/4K blu ray movie discs with great Atmos mixes. It's just some studios aren't putting the resources, effort in required to create a good home cinema Atmos mix. Dolby don't get off scott free though with their confusing outdated guidelines for Atmos speaker placement in the home.
@@Audioholics I only auditioned at at Axpona last year at the Focal room. That was not good but I don't think all of it could be blamed on the format. IMO when it comes to "immersive" sound the speaker cross talk cancellation fro Theoretica is light years ahead of Atmos. It is a truly 3 dimensional playback format with real depth. And it works with all stereo recordings. It would certainly be interesting to do a shootout between the two using reformated stereo recordings for the Dolby Atmos. But what we seee here is that a lot of those recordings just haven't been remixed very well by audiophile expectations.
@@Audioholics There are far superior formats (Mach1 for a start is the gold standard because it changes absolutely nothing with the sound source and will fold to stereo and even null) but there's only one realistic delivery format and that is Atmos which sonically is poor.
It's a pitty I didn't listened this before. I made a 5.2.4 setting at home (soon it'll be 7.2.4). I used Atmos specs, and my Atmos are in my ceiling at exactly 45°. The sound is great, but I have to say that something I feel my top sound is coming fron my frontal speakers. I wish I had them a bit closer to me (35°). I can't imagine why some people rexomen to put them on the top of the wall, as high speakers. In a normal living room, that make the layer speakers really close to Atmos speakers. I only guess that people try to convince themshelf about being the best sound becouse is easier to put a thin wire in the wall than having speakers and wires in the celling.
Its easier for most people to place their front heights at the top of the wall rather than on ceiling or in-ceiling. But some of us who could do whatever they want, have decided to go directly above the speakers. That means front heights are directly above the front mains, which tends to push them closer to 30° than 45°. The reason is because when you look at the Atmos renderer, they tend to put a lot of sound objects that hover between speakers. In these cases, the sounds are NOT suppposed to be separated. They are simply supposed to be elevated, but still clearly coming from that direction. For example, Imax puts a Center Height object in its soundtracks because their screens are so large. Its supposed to raise to dialogue and center channel content to sound as if it is coming from the middle of the screen, not the bottom 1/3 of the screen. So the center height channel is directly behind the screen around 25° of elevation from the main center channel. In the home version, they put a center height object around 25° between the front heights and center channel. If your heights are pulled too close to the listener, then that center channel information will be warped and not present correctly.
@@santiagoezquerrocordon1470 I did the same thing. The first 9 months with my 5.1.4 system I had placed them 45 degrees forward and backward and 42 degress to the left and to the right (if 0 degrees is above you). I always felt the same like you that the sound does not really come from above, because it smeared with the bed layer (Front L/R and Surrounds). Then I put the Top speakers 35 degrees forward, backward, left and right, which places them in a quad (also mentioned in the Dolby guides for studios), so the separation between each Top speaker is 2 meters. The height between my ears and the ceiling is 150 cm. I definetely can say that it made a big difference, as I now can hear the objects above and it is much more immersive and feels like as I were in a bubble of sound.
so... atmos speakers more between center of the room and L/R front speakers, side surround more in front of the room ( not at 90 110 degrees... more 75-80 degrees ), and the back surround closer to the back wall??? height of the surround? just over hear listening level? I will need a lot of gypse to repare those holes!!!!
Disney are the biggest movie studio out there, with massive resources. They shouldn't be signing off sloppy mixes for blu ray/4K blu ray without first testing the mix in several different home set-ups. Disney have no excuses for their bad sound mixes on blu ray and 4K blu ray discs! Other studio's including small niche labels like Second Sight etc. Are knocking it out of the park for excellent sound mixes on blu ray and 4K blu ray disc. It doesn't matter if its Dolby Atmos/DTS X or Dolby True HD/DTS Master Audio. It's up to the studio and sound engineer to master as good a mix as possible for the 4K blu ray disc.
For the most part, Disney is making movies for the kiddies, and once it's out of the theater it will be streamed in a home through an "Atmos sound bar" while the kids sit on the couch and mom makes lunch. I don't think Disney puts in a lot of effort and prefers to pocket the difference.
@@frankvee I sadly agree, Disney are very profit based. Disney+ streaming seems to be they're priority. Even though they could easily afford to produce better home Atmos mixes while still making a profit from the disc's. At 40 I do still love the original Lion King, Beauty & The Beast, Lady & The Tramp. Plus Pixar's Toy Story, Wall E, Ratatouille lol.
@@C--A The ones you mentioned were fantastic Blu Rays. It seem around 2015 (Starting with Age of Ultron for me) was when their releases started to go to crap.
John made several audio comparisons of Kaleidescape to streaming services, but what I'm more interested in is a comparison of Kaleidescape to UHD Blu-rays for audio. There were a couple of comments about Blu-ray, but only in reference to video quality on a handful of releases. Am I missing anything audio-wise with UHD discs vs Kaleidescape?
I've seen some people casually mention "better" audio quality than discs but otherwise everything I have read indicates they use the same lossless tracks as the disc. The only difference should be the video portion. If I'm wrong someone else should chime in.
I can’t remember where I heard this, maybe from one of the Kaleidoscape videos from CEDIA? Basically it was saying that even with many of the 4KBD discs are “full”. If you look at the file size of the Kscape and the file size of the disc, Kscape is actually quite a bit larger file for many movies. According to the video, the audio was where the difference was. I’ll have to see if I can find it.
@@aussieexpat Technically it’s lossless vs lossy. It’s still in a compressed codec that gets uncompressed when decoded. The question is if the original track that Kscape has is any different than what the studios are putting on disc.
John Traunwiser should change his name to John Traumatizer! Dude... i really tried to listen to him, but my phone felt on my face while two times! next time give him some energy drinks.. i quit after few min's. at first it makes you sleepy, afterwards angry
He did comment on this. What he said is that he is unaware of any standing policy to high pass sound tracks. He did say that sometimes some degree of high passing is done to avoid destroying peoples speakers. He asked for some examples of this. I think if someone can find a soundtrack they believe has been high passed at 40hz, he could look into it to see if that is true and maybe even find out why.
@@PoesAcoustics War Of The Worlds' Atmos track on UHD compared to the 5.1 on the Blu-ray exhibits this. It's particularly noticeable when the pod first comes from underground that the bass has been neutered somewhat. More recently, the UHD of Edge Of Tomorrow seems to have cut that monster subsonic in the opening sequence down significantly from what was on the 7.1 version on Blu-ray (though that one was kinda' excessive, if we're being honest). I'm sure there are many other examples in the BEQ threads at AVS where they've measured them.
All this is the circle of confusion on steroids. Yesterday I was watching Equalizer 3, started off on my real 7.1.4 system but it was getting late & I was worried about disturbing people so I switched to Air Pods Pro 2's Spatial Audio with customisation. It was a joy to be able to push the sofa up right to my 77" OLED to nail a 70 degree viewing angle (IMAX level) and have perfect virtual placement anywhere I sit. I feel that customised HRTF is the only way something like object audio makes sense. It's custom and better than the Smyth realizer. It'd make even more sense for mixing engineers cause you get completely silent rooms (ANC on, we're talking levels you can't reach in the real world) and you could mix anywhere. With the Air Pods I miss the pressurisation from my PB13 ultra in a 1800 cubic foot room but bass transducers help with that. Just need Apple to let you stream to an Air Play target while using spatial audio so I can get my Quake 10b's alive.
Excellent discussion, to say the least! Thank you John Traunwieser for clearing up the air with real facts and accurate insights about what’s actually inside calibrated Dolby Atmos mixing studios, the equipments used, PLACEMENTS & POSITIONS, and how the mixing is generally done. I’d listen to you as the mixing engineer who works in various multimillion dollar studios with various legendary names for movies that have been watched by millions, versus a retired DJ who’s super excited about Logic Pro and calls himself the Atmos guy. Thanks Gene for delivering this! Superb!
Content is valuable here but oh man this was hard to take in guys. I’ve had surgical anesthesia more dynamic than this presentation. But thanks for valuable intel
Separate calibration per source and per format…..😅 Our demo room main calibration similar to Harmon curve, is bang on for most UBD And Must say, I’ve been jumping on our Storm audio “audio adjust” bass, treble, Center, surround level adjusts for on the fly level changes for adjusting Netflix, TH-cam, sport and APTV movies etc Amazing what 1-3db can do. Now I’m a bit more motivated to lock these into a saved preset / calibration. Just need time to listen for consistency / gain some reference content between each to get this done fast. ( can’t wait for our KScape) 🔊🔊🔊🔊🔊🔊🥰
So I have a 5.1 in my living room and my couch has to be against the back wall, which I would think is fairly common. So would I be better off just doing 2 atmos speakers, or would it be worth putting 2 as far against the wall as they can go and then place the front 2 per dolby regulations? Or just do 2? I think with time alignment on my xmc-2 the 4 speaker setup could work. I am using SVS elevation and already have all 4 speakers.
Your couch doesn't need to be against walls. This is a proven fact. Overwhelming evidence to support you need to be away from walls to achive optimal results. Look up 5.1.2 in the Dolby guidelines. They go directly above your head or slightly in front. About 6 to 8 feet apart
I should clarify, my couch needs to be against the wall because of space constraints. It’s a large sectional that only fits in the room 1 way. But I ended up doing 4 atmos, the rear heights aren’t ideal but I’m pretty happy with it for now. When time and funds allow I will get a new couch setup and switch my room all around so a can get my rears and rear heights behind me more.
Regarding the neutering of bass, I think you really missed an opportunity here. The easy comparisons are with Disney DVD vs Blu-ray (and Atmos) soundtracks: - Toy Story 2 intro - Finding Nemo (glass tapping scene) These used to be my demo scenes back in the day. I thought something broke when I switched to the Blu-Ray versions.... until BEQ. You can also look at the Emmy Award winning DTS soundtrack on Master and Commander... DVD vs Blu-Ray versions. Again, the opening scene on the DVD was demo material. Shane, thanks for trying. 🙂 Gene, you played skeptic. 😞 By the way, you do not need a 24" subwoofer to get infrasonics, and the statement as such was ignorant. I remember U-571 making me woozy in some scenes. It mated well to my house curve at the time using a BFD. My sub at the time was a first-gen SVS PC-U13.... clearly not 24". Room-coupling helps a lot (or apparently hurts when the execs listen against the back wall and complain the bass is too hot?). The rest was great, but again, I think you missed an opportunity here where soundtracks are mixed for soundbars vs home theaters. I'd love to watch something more dedicated to this with more sound engineers. Thanks.
It may be too late to get this question answered. However, I have a pretty open floor plan where my speakers are on either side of my fireplace. Unfortunately, my center channel is a pie and I have a projection screen. However, the depth of my room does not allow for 7.1.4 I can do 5.1 .4 and my surround channels will be behind about 4 feet from the Dolby Atmos speakers. Should they be connected to normal surrounds or should they be connected to rear surrounds since my surrounds are not on the sides?
i have a question about the placement of the Front L / R channels. With an AT screen in a dedicated home cinema, as well as commercial cinemas, the front LCR are placed behind the screen. However, all the photos of studios that i have seen on the web, do not use an AT screen - the LCR speakers are placed usually below the display. Often the display is not maximised for viewing angles, which means the LR are placed wider than the edge of the display. This means that hard panned sounds to the L or R channels, in the studio, looks like they are outside of the screen, but in cinema and a dedicated HT, are actually still behind the screen. I have come across several examples in movies of this jarring disconnects - where the on screen image shows the sound should be off the screen, but the hard paned LR channel is still playing the sound from just behind the edge of the screen. Is there a standard for this?
RECAP: - John is a great sound mixing engineer who mixes movie sound mostly for THEATRES, not for HOME. - Home mixes (bluray, 4K disks) are mixed somehow, IF budget and time allows. Which means, disk mixes are mostly crap. - Gene and Don are trying to protect Atmos and laugh at Auro 3D, disregarding the fact that Theatre mix and Disk mix are totally different in quality. Sure, it's Don's business to convince people that ceiling speaker placement is the way to go. Poor customers. (not that poor maybe). - Shane asks a coupe of very good questions regarding the near field mix (disk) and John gives a honest answer regarding home mix being budget and time dependent. - Speaker placement question answered by John - they have to be in ceiling - True for CINEMAS. What's the point of having ideal ceiling placement for Atmos at home - read the point above about mixing quality for near field. END of RECAP John: upmixers are crap, you need to place the speakers as Dolby suggests ant listen to what "director has intended" Some time later 1:10:31 - John answers Shane's question regarding theatrical mix vs near field (home): "yeah, if we have budget, maybe will will spend up to a week for home mix".. 1:12:26 - the engineers are not too happy to take director's notes and update the near field (home) mix. 1:13:02 - amazing question about the crappy sound on one of the movies and John tries to stay politically correct. daaaa So, let's face it - atmos mixes on discs in many cases suck big time. Of course John recommends to put speakers in the ceiling - he (and many studios) works according to Atmos requirements, how could he put speakers elsewhere, or recommend some other placement. And that's the trick of this discussion. You ask the Dolby guy about other formats. This is funny and not fair. So you all guys are listening to the professional THEATRICAL mixer and are putting all his words into home entertainment systems. The naked truth is in his answer to Shane regarding the quality of near field mixing. And now you gonna go out and say - see, what professional mixing engineer told us - Atmos is the right thing, speakers must be in the ceilings.. blah blah blah... In theatres - yes. But at home..? He just freakin' told you that bluray mixes DEPEND ON BUDGET. He doesn't give a crap on bluray mix quality (or no one pays him to give a crap). A producer listens to the mix on a bloody laptop, so say thanks for having a decent sound in cinemas. But at home.... John is a true professional who works in harsh environment under enormous pressure. I cannot blame him for not liking upmixers. His point of view based on what he does - produces good sound for CINEMAS. Home mixes are left out almost completely. The problem of this video is that a couple of Home Atmos believers are trying to justify Atmos home speaker placement by applying the recommendations for a CINEMA. This is not apples to apples comparison and such justification is a lie. I've placed my 5.1.4 according to Auro 3D recommendations and I really enjoy the immersive sound, instead of "director's intended silence". The whole point of using Auro 3D is that the original Atmos mix most of the time is crap (there was no allocated time and budget for the engineer to work on it). Plus, if you place your speakers in Auro 3D configuration, you don't drill holes in the ceiling, you can enjoy Atmos if the mix happens to be good, you can switch to Auro 3D, if the mix happens to be bad. I see this working in the consumer favour.
You missed many points. John mixes for cinema and home. Not sure why you think otherwise. There's no good reason to crossmix as Dolby already has a very good upmixer for 5.1 content. Let me remind you that crossmixing wouldn't even be possible today if it wasn't for Audioholics pressing Dolby to remove the crossmixing restriction they imposed on Atmos products a few years back. Auro is a dead format as John also agreed with. It's fine if you enjoy using the upmixer. I enjoy it for upmixing certain type of 2CH music. But the hate towards Atmos is just silly and nothing more than enthusiasts rooting for the underdog which in this case is clearly Auro 3D.
If the bouncing of sound is wrong, why is the setting in home receivers for ATMOS speakers reflecting? and in Dolby Documentation? I think the reality is "Home" ATMOS is actually designed to fill a wide array of users. While bouncing sound isn't optimal nor does it match a theater, calling it not ATMOS is simply opinion because Mr. Traunwieser works in a professional environment daily. I get it.
No, the reality is Bouncy House is there to appease those that can't discretely ceiling-mount speakers. It's a last resort and also a money grab to sell more speakers.
Most receivers(if not all receivers) you can change from bouncy house, to on wall or the best is in ceiling. i know all Yamahas do this and I'm sure so does most others.
What is the general consensus on the new Spatial setup disc. I almost got it a few times... Sick of running around plugging and unplugging speakers (I use REW, impulse, eq, etc etc) I do prefer a lot of final adjustments by ear. I started getting into it with TechnoDad.. Especially when he's talking about "coverage holes" and speaker firing direction and everything, I'm guessing his opinions are not highly regarded. But the disc seems like a useful tool.
There is no need for that disc, IMO and I don't endorse anything those guys claim about calibration or Atmos/Auro. You have internal test tones and REW with ASIO driver allows you to sweep any speaker including the heights. Use Auto calibration to set your distances and levels, limit the BW of room correction to room to 5kHz or less, tweak the bass level and PEQ function as needed using multiple measurement points in your room if you're an advanced user. Anyone with the capability to use REW should never need a calibration disc to set up and tune their systems.
Wait, Atmos is 85dB, not 75dB? When did that change? I've been calibrating for 75dB this whole time! That explains why my Atmos Yamaha receiver keeps auto-calibrating to 82dB.
Atmos in the home is quite a disappointing format. I have some amazing demos from Dolby that demonstrate what Atmos is capable of but the sound mix we are getting from the studios either on Blu-ray or from streamed services does nothing really to take advantage of height speakers. I may as well not have them.
There's a ton of great Atmos content out there that takes advantage of the height speakers. Netflix in particular has been doing an excellent job with their shows in Atmos. And there is a wealth of content available on Blu-ray and UHD that uses the format really well. But if your system's not well-placed and calibrated, even the best mixes will be degraded.
@@TheReverendSlim Yep they'res good and bad Atmos/DTS X mixes, some great. Just like they're is some great, good and bad Dolby True HD/DTS Master Audio mixes. And again yep poorly placed Ceiling speakers (and also bed layer speakers) will degrade the sound quality, sometimes greatly. Also a poor room ie no acoustic room treatment - both absorption and diffusion will not allow your speakers to perform anywhere near their best.
I have a 9.4.4 setup and I have full bandwidth on my front l&r and the same speakers for my side surround but I am thinking of adding 2 small subs to the surround back and the wide , my question is what would be the best way to approach this because I am just wondering how much of a balance I will need for the subwoofers to sound apart of the wides and rear speakers without being located but to blend in the system? I know that this may sound a bit like what are you saying but I don’t know what to else to say on the matter.
All of your subs should run as a mono sum of LFE+ bass managed speakers. This allows you to take full advantage of the benefits of multi sub and modal distribution in your room.
A well done 5.1 set-up in a accousticly treated room will sound audibly better than a poorly placed Atmos/DTS X set-up in a non treated room! As for mixes on blu ray and 4K blu ray discs. They'res great, good, bad mixes on Dolby True HD, DTS HD, Dolby Atmos, DTS X. Just depends on the sound composer for the film, and the sound engineer mastering the disc. Plus of course the studio imput.
Thank you 🙏 team for the wisdom. Question: 6 ceiling or 4 ceiling? Dolby says 6, 4 don’t transition from ceiling front to rear naturally vs 6 ceiling speakers installed at the correct angels from the seating position. Is this true based on Matt’s comments on how the brain perceives sound from above?
It depends on the # of rows of seats and size of your listening area, the size of your room, and the height of your ceiling. If you have 2 or more rows of seating, I'd suggest 6 heights if you have the processing capabilities.
I attended the RP22 class at CEDIA several weeks ago and got a peek at the draft spec for Immersive Audio recommendations. Unless you have a very short room front-to-back, you will need 3 rows of overheads to meet the higher performance level requirements. It was based on maximum allowed angles between adjacent rows of ceiling speakers or front/rear bed channels.
I'm not clear on this TBH and something we need to dig deeper in. I always use the DSU on 5.1 content personally. We will discuss with Anthony Grimani.
Re-listened this morning to try and get more insight into whether or not to add front wide speakers for 9.2.6. How do you guys interpret John here? Know they mix at 7.1.4…is there ever a scenario where you’re better off with 7.1.4 vs 9.1.4, or is it just a question as to how much benefit you actually get from adding the wide channels? Didn’t fully follow the discussion on object vs. channel at setups larger than 7.1.4.
The more speakers you add, the better. (Assuming you have the space for them all). Sure with "locked" mixes (7.1.2 and 7.1.4) some of your speakers will be silent. But those locked mixes are themselves compromised and I would never consider them in my theater design. I would design for active object mixes, which will activate all your speakers when appropriate. So yes, there are many situations where 9.4.4 is better than 7.4.4, whenever the mix is active. And 9.4.6 will be better than 9.4.4. And 11.4.8 will be better than 9.4.6 etc.
What product is John Traunwiser referring to, that does surround with headphones very well, at 40:47 into the video? Matthew is mentioning the product name, but way too fast for me to catch…
I don’t believe the cinema mixes can be or are ever available to the consumer ever unless you have the commercial cinema media server and Dolby processor. This is not unheard of in some private home cinemas but is very expensive. It would make a K scape look dirt cheap. I can ask John. I know he said the Kscape sounded better than any other consumer product he has tried to date and impressed him. But he was comparing it to typical streaming options. He was saying that it’s generally disappointing to hear his mixes on any consumer source as compared to the totally uncompressed mixes he is actually doing. He also noted there are various steps between him and the final product and sometimes they will muck up what he has done.
@@PoesAcoustics I think the question was more about having access to a mix that isn't re-EQ'd for near field or dumbed down to just 7.1.2 beds, not specifically the full theatrical object mix that requires all that hardware. Obviously, it would still be a version with the objects grouped down for home transmission formats.
All this talk about immersive sound, here I am scratching my head why both Marantz and Denon do not have a 13.4 channel AVR or at least a pre amp in their new catalogue. I have an ancient receiver and would like to update but I'm not sure if I should go for the 2020 flagships X8500HA/SR-8015 or wait for possible models with 13 channels or amp or processing. Gene, what it your opinion, do you think they will release a 13 channel receiver next year? Anyways, thanks a lot for the video!
Actually I don't understand what is the issue with TH-camrs. Dolby give a window of 25° (30°-55°). It's optimal to place Atmos speakers where they should be, but if there is any kind of problem you can position them at even 30° which actually is the upper corners of the room. So what is the issue? 😎 Any way, great job guys, thank you for your time and for the new informations you put out there.👍
The box created by the atmos speakers about the listener is supposed to be .5 to .7x the width of the room. So it does not seem true that it would be in the corners. That would push the speakers too far out.
@@PoesAcoustics That general 0.5-0.7x the layout width (not the room, but the distance between the widest speakers laterally, which is typically the side surrounds) is part of the issue though. You're correct that even at the 0.7x end of that range, it isn't in the corners. But in my experience, having them wider than the lowest end of that range (0.5x) degrades the sound as it moves between the ear-level and height layers. I think for simplicity's sake, they should have just said to put them at 1/4 and 3/4 of the room's width and for the average consumer, that would be close enough (and generally more easy to understand). For enthusiasts, Dolby's mix room guide provides more logical math (45 degrees + half the elevation of the adjacent speaker) that makes it much clearer for those using elevated surrounds to address coverage/seating issues. The disconnect is the discrepancy between enthusiasts who are trying to get the optimal placement without professional help and the overly generalized guidelines Dolby is using to get your average consumer on board.
@@TheReverendSlim ok true I was just assuming for simplicity sake that folks have their side surrounds on the side walls. That’s also how Dolby presents this in their consumer guides. but you can understand why. They had to take a fairly difficult and complex concept and make it digestible. We use calculators to get optimal placement in all of our designs but inevitably you then have to look at the space and figure out how your placement based on the optimal calculation matches the room. I really think that people get too obsessed with optimizing these angles though. Our vertical localization is pretty terrible. It seems unlikely that small changes in the angle would matter. You and John both seem to prefer the atmos speakers more inward toward the center of the ceiling. I haven’t done enough controlled testing to have a strong preference. I would imagine some of this is going to depend on the size of the room and height of the ceiling. My dedicated theater is 10’ but my family room is 12’. I suspect the family room benefits from a wider placement. Sadly as far as I know the only research into optimal placement for Dolby Atmos was done by Dolby and never released. All the studies I found were codec agnostic and were testing other factors. Object tracking accuracy or perception of spaciousness and envelopment. Object tracking accuracy is a very contrived test. First, it shows that we suck at that. So hence why I am not so sure it really matters all that much. But second, it did seem to suggest that having a certain critical distance or aperture between speakers was of some benefit. The tests were done on large rooms with tall ceilings so I would prefer to see it tested based on smaller spaces with 8’ or 10’ ceilings. Not a 30x50x15 type room. The research I found on perception of spaciousness and envelopment seemed to actually suggest that overhead speakers are totally unnecessary to recreate that perception. Simply having a speaker in front and behind you is sufficient to give the perception of atmospherics above you. Side surrounds provide the lateral reflections that give cues to the size and nature of the space. This is all achieved with 5-7 channels just fine. But again, they were not testing a specific codec. We’ve long known that ambisonics can do that but it’s clearly not the same thing.
@@PoesAcoustics I make the distinction between room and layout width because there would be a difference between in-wall and on-wall installations. Not a big one, admittedly, but depending on the room and size of the speakers, it can matter. Probably more so for someone trying to do their own layout than from an installer's perspective. And yeah, our vertical localization isn't great, but I think it makes sense to optimize per the regions where it's better than where it's not. I'm assuming that the research you cited was Barbour's Elevation Perception. What I took from that paper was that whereas 60 degrees with stereo imaging might be ideal, perception of imaging tends to fall off greatly approaching 60 degrees between two speakers on the vertical. While it doesn't explicitly state results nearer to 45 degrees (since they went 0, 30, 60), my logical read of that was that the 45 degrees Dolby's using for top front/rear is effectively to strike a balance between maintaining imaging from ear-level to height while also bringing the 4 heights closer together above the listener (within 90 degrees of one another) so cross-channel imaging still works reasonably well overhead (the region where we are less sensitive from a spatial resolution standpoint anyway). My current room is on the long side (23'x12'x8') so it has its particular compromises, though I have everything but my rear surrounds pretty much exactly where DARDT would have placed them if my room was set up for mixing at my MLP. I've had 7 different layouts over several years and homes, and you're correct that I prefer the narrower placement (having heard it about every way you can, and having the holes in my ceiling to show for it). And I think for the enthusiast crowd (those not wealthy enough to seek the services of those on the panel but more discerning than your average consumer), it would go a long way if Dolby had an easy tool for consumers to generally show the "ideal" placement for particular room sizes and distances to MLP. Or maybe a more consumer-friendly version of DARDT for the home. The peculiar discrepancies between the home guideline diagrams and the logic used in the mix room and theatrical guidelines has created a lot of confusion for those who are striving to do it right the first time (which is especially important for those cutting holes in their ceilings to implement an Atmos layout).
I do not get the object and 7.1.4 link ... is it just a matter of objects are only bothered with being put in when making a mix that is 7.1.4 and higher speakers? Surely the objects, if in the mix, must be played so is it a choice by the mixer that they do not bother with objects if they do not do a 7 1 4 mix. And if they do bother, again i would imagine it must be played back as an object regardles of listener setup being less speakers or you get missing sound ... or does this mix then contain 2 versions (thought not). Sidenote, i also find it very confusing what dolby pro is supposed to add on eg a denon 6700 in this field ... seems like we are just getting fed stuff thats only half of whata promised and the details come out later
It's actually an encoder choice. In the first days, Atmos was only channel-based, then came the wiggling channels, and in the last year or so, true home Atmos mixes. It's because of iterative evolution and optimization of the encoders. The codec is actually defined up to 63 objects, but we can still only use 15, as it's not worthwile yet to do so.
When we talked to John earlier to understand this, he noted that the “bed layer” refers to the fixed channels they mix directly to using basic panning. That this is 7.1.2. So there are two height or overhead channels they can pan to as well. Once channel count goes higher you need to add objects to use those. He also noted that the renderer in your receiver or processor can’t render to additional channels unless objects are used. As such, if the channels seem fixed regardless of what you have, then it is likely they didn’t actually use objects. He also said a lot of mix engineers prefer to do the panning work themselves as they feel they know what they want and how to achieve it better than the software does with objects. Personally, I think this is a bit like someone saying they can hear better than measurement gear. It may be a legacy issue that will go away as people get more comfortable with how to use objects.
@@PoesAcoustics This is only the case while editing with Atmos. Once it's passed to the distributor, who runs them through their encoder (only 2 of those exists), it will be swapped around. In home mixes, there are no channels, only merged objects that might stay stationary at a channel's location - and for some reason, they regularly swap places, it's a pain in the butt to work with while making a decoder. This is why you don't get proper side/rear surround when a 24.1.10 renderer (like Trinnov's) is used, only a single channel from the sides. Cinema is fine, it's exactly what you wrote, there's a mandatory 7.1.2 bed that scales with the room and there are many objects for even more control. You can't even skip the bed and use their channels for objects, Dolby tools will immediately detect this trickery and mark your stream as invalid.
@@SpamMaster57 oh I see. So there is another step that converts these to objects. I didn’t realize this. John also noted that they can’t live monitor in a high channel count. He said that in the larger mixing rooms (small cinema sized), those extra speakers you see are not used for mixing. They use it to check what it sounds like by sending the mix to a commercial Dolby processor (you probably know exactly what this looks like). I was a bit surprised to hear that.
@@PoesAcoustics Yes, it's the Dolby RMU for 64 channel mixing, but you can actually create Atmos-compliant mixes while working on 16 channels in most DAWs' integrated renderers. When you export as ADM BWF, it can be hacked into an Atmos master with DACT, it's common practice for smaller studios. It's still the true Atmos however, unlike the home version, which is totally dumbed down and they have to convey everything with 15 objects (including channels, excluding LFE) - this task is very hard to do right, and is done completely by software that is not that much evolved.
I think they're both correct. The panners are not representative of speaker layout, but the object position in the cube isn't representative of the Atmos space either. The Atmos space is essentially a classic house with pitched roof, but the entire ground floor is sliced off. This is easily experience by panning into the void areas Techno Dad shows, Nothing changes in the Atmos Renderer. It does change in the binaural render though. ie room is house shapes for speakers, binaural is more sperical/cube shape where sound can pan to the cube boundary sonically.
Atmos shmatmos. 5.1, 7.1 most people still only have stereo. ALL movies mixed in the last 20 years when downmixed to stereo have the dialogue BURIED. The M & E content is twice as loud as the dialogue. All you mixers should fix this. The old Hollywood rule of the dialogue (center channel) should be DOMINANT. Also, Ive never heard an airplane flying overhead switch panning. Call BS.
Bed SHOULD be spread across the surround array ! Its the litteral essence of surround sound and its how its done in thatrical mix ! How on earth somebody wants a bed on only one speaker !! So every movie should be mix with static objet in place of bed chanel. This way we can finally revive our surround array ! "There no sounds other than object on speakers that not in the 7.1.2 layout." Thats not how its done in cinema and its an absolut non sens ! Imagine having the full 24.1.10 layout and only 4 surrounds speakers playing surrounds beds...
The section on psychoacoustics basically confirms my thoughts on atmos being a gimmick. We've got a stereo hearing system, and any forward/back or up/down is almost all perceived with visual cues, a little with comb filtering or delay/reverb, which can be replicated in stereo. When playing video games I've always percieved height and depth whether on headphones or even built in stereo speakers on a TV.
I do disagree with John about upmixing having a negative impact on 5.1 or 7.1 content. A high % of "director's intent" includes garbage mixes to begin with, so what damage is being done?
Greetings, I’m not saying this to upset or anger anyone. But I wish your show wasn’t so long. No longer than 30 minutes long. I understand there is more information to share beyond 30 minutes and my recommendation would be to have two videos for a one hour show and four videos for a two hour show. I hope you will give it a try. I’m interested in your topics and the only reason I don’t watch these videos because they are to long for me. I truly wish you the best with success.
It wasn’t planned to be this long. We are looking to break the video up and releases it into topic specific chunks in the future. We planned this quickly and just vibed.
Watch it in two or three viewings... what's the big deal. This can be parsed into segments, and maybe they will do that, but it has to be recorded in one sitting. It's dense and full of information and it has to be made the way it is. If it's too long to watch in one sitting, hit the pause and come back to it later. It's marked in segments so you can stop at the end of each topic if you want.
So was this whole panel put together to debunk Techno Dad lol, consumers are getting watered down mixes from studios, the only time you hear through atmos is on demo disc and even the video techno dad made showed you how atmos sounds and the amount of time put in creating atmos mix. Build your theaters and believe the gimmick you getting true atmos.
I brought a world class Atmos mixer on to give straight facts about Atmos mixing and speaker placements. Yes he clearly refuted the misinformation in the Technodad Atmos videos but he also brought real knowledge about the subject matter that's never been public knowledge before. Sorry you're not experience great Atmos like so many of us are with proper speaker placements and calibration. A good mix for movies or music is quite magical but won't be heard placing height speakers in the room corners.
@@Audioholics Clearly you guys have your own circle you associate with why not invite him to your panel to offer his opinion on the experiment he conducted? I run a 7.4.6 layout with height surrounds and it is as immersive as what ever your system would be I can turn off my bed layer speakers and here the rain fall or the chopper fly in my height surround speakers or is that a figment of my imagination so please stop spreading info that you will only hear the rain fall or the chopper fly in your in ceiling speakers. The guy clearly is focus on studio recording and there is not the same time and effort put in disc and streaming encoding.
@@reznone6900 I only bring Subject matter experts on our channel to discuss technical matters, not rank amateurs that have no experience calibrating and setting up systems professionally. "The Guy" you refer to mixes many of the movies you enjoy and bases his statements on facts and experience actually producing and evaluating the mixes. Matthew Poes has a PHD and deep understanding of psychoacoustics and professionally designs and calibrates home theater systems for a living. I don't doubt you can hear your height channels when you turn off the bed, but if they are located on the front and back walls they aren't placing objects correctly for Dolby Atmos recordings.
@@Audioholics i agree with gene,why listen to anyone who set up 1 room and with average equipment at best.does anyone actually take doctors advice from a garbage man??
@@Audioholics but doesn’t the processor decode and place the object it the particular speaker and doesn’t the speaker direct the sound to you seating position when angled to the seating position. Matthew Poes comments where that both in ceiling and height surround work one better than the next, I just believe consumers are being robbed by studios that don’t invest the time and money to put decent audio tracks on disc etc. because as the expert said companies are producing advanced consumer equipment that the movie studios don’t even encode for so it’s more upmixing to 6 7 8 9 etc channels.
There is so much history about Star Wars audio. I remember from the original Star Wars. Some of the audio recorders from the sound effects at Skywalker Sound would be priceless.
John is probably one of the more interesting guests I’ve seen on this channel. Very interesting conversation. Definitely get him back!
@@tomsmith2340 I think there is something to be said for quality, not quantity. He seemed to be fairly thoughtful with what he was saying.
@@tomsmith2340 I set playback speed to 1.75x and found it moved along well; but, agreed.
The information that he gave was pretty good, but it was very hard to listen to, ya know.
My thoughts are usually we went through a lot of trouble to get and setup these Atmos speakers only for them not to be used very often.
I hope these sound engineers understand that we want to hear a lot more out of these speakers than the garbage we’ve been getting so far. I feel like we sit here wondering why is there nothing coming out of the Atmos speakers in this scene.?!
You can always count on Audioholics getting to the bottom of things. The chatter around this in recent weeks was ridiculous.
Those clowns at Daily Hi Fi are ridiculous….talk about the same garbage over n over again.
@@shaolin95 i couldn’t agree more! Ive made purchases in the past utilizing Genes bench test reviews. The science doesn’t lie
@@neilhansen3025 Don't think youthman agreed with all of it. He said he didn't really have any issue with how his system sounded. Nor did he feel that he was hearing anything out of place or lacking due to his placement of the overhead speakers.
@@kaneserver i stand corrected, Michael is the only good one outta the bunch. I shouldn’t have included him in that.
I'm late to the party.. can someone give me an update? I'm guessing techno dad didn't come out on top (I started getting into it with him too)
He says 7.1.4 is where it gets Object Based, yet most Disney/Marvel/Star Wars mixes are actually static 7.1.4 Mixes where the two height Channels are just mirrored into four...so essentially they are doing the bare minimum they have to in order to call it "Dolby Atmos"...😤
Dolby Almost
Dolby AtMouse
@@jamiet74 Unfortunately some studios, not just Disney are mastering sloppy below par Atmos mixes for 4K blu ray discs!
Even the 7.1.2 is still object based. The bed "channels" are still objects. They are static and mimicking traditional channels.
So the conflict is between static bed objects vs active objects that move through all your channels.
These mixers need to get more comfortable using active objects more often. And the studios need to give them more time and money to properly implement these mixes.
Another barrier are the directors. Many of them dont understand Atmos very well. They are still learning about it. And many are still skeptical. The sound mixers have to get their mixes approved by the director, so they are often very limited in what they can do.
A good example is Denise Villanueve, he mixed Blade Runner 2049 in Atmos but didnt even come close to taking advantage of the format. I saw an interview with him where he said he wanted sound mixes to be forward focused and he didnt want surround effects to distract from whats going on at the screen. That he didnt understand Atmos until he started working on Dune. That means he dictated how the sound mix should be on 2049 having no understanding of the format he was working in.
So yeah, we are still in the Wild West of immersive audio mixing.
@@FURognar bed is what i sleep on . while dreaming about genie lamps floating around , ha ha lol
atmos at most is waste of money and listening time . most mixers seem clueless to how to use it ?
top gun 2 dolby atmos is worst atmouse of 2021 . uses only middle overhead height 2 , with few seconds of height 1 being used a few seconds of , um , yeah . no height 3 a total hyped rubbish movie . the liemax aspect ratio switching is also visually annoying as the atmouse .
I'm literally placing my speakers in my home theater right now. Thanks for this.
I sure enjoy and get plenty of good info to put to use, but I wonder if it is difficult to get a guest's microphone gain on the same level as the rest of the discussion panel's mics. John's mic sounds much lower to me. I hear this on so many other TH-cam interviews. Anyone else have this issue?
I offer my sincerest thanks to all of you on this panel for all that you do for us who are trying to have a great home A/V experience.
All the very best - Kevin.
Gene, thanks for bringing in experts to clear up the confusion on these standards. This was awesome.
Hahahahhahhaa
Dolby Atmos is cheap unprofessional knockoff of my home theater research from the early 1980's
Atmos is unrealistic garbage created by amateurs
I am the final authority on reproduction quality in my home, not you or your engineers
GARBAGE!
2 things I wonder about =
- Which movies or concerts take advantage of Front Wides?
- When is it better to have 6 height speakers?
Actual Atmos content has 3d object data embeded, so its using any number of speakers it has available, that is the point of the format, no matter how many speakers it has, sound will pan corectly across them.
The upmixers will use them too.
If you just watch 7.1 or 5.1 material without any upmixing it will of course not play through the wides at all.
This was extremely educational. Information coming directly from an industry professional is very valuable.
I truly appreciate you getting on John and him being very forward in pointing out the shortcomings in much of the critique of Atmos on YT, but at the same time being honest about how and why you would want to not adhere strictly to their guidelines with regards to speaker placement. Very informative video, thank you.
I am not so sure that is what John said. He was advocating for following the guidelines. The pro and consumer guidelines don’t match so he was saying that for his mixing room we are not following the consumer guidelines. You could do the same in a residential space but it’s hard to say one is more right than the other. There are specific reasons for the differences.
Beyond that he suggested only moving away from those guidelines with the help of an expert professional who understands the risks and rewards of a specific placement.
@@PoesAcoustics Matthew thanks for your expert input. The Dolby studio guidelines say place Atmos (assuming 4) at 45 degrees front/back and left/right but move then inward a bit based on height of LCR and surrounds so you may wind up at ~40 degrees or so. Gene indicated he puts them much closer to MLP than this and Grimani also puts them much closer than this. Do you have an opinion on standard best practice? I basically followed the the studio guidelines and have them somewhere between 37 and 43 degrees.
@@PoesAcoustics, I can see that, I wasn't thinking in terms of him dismissing the guidelines, but simply him stating "yeah, there're reasons why you'd need to deviate in a residential space, but you have to know what you're doing" was nice, I think, in terms of we all work within the limitations of our rooms.
@@confinoj I don’t have a strong opinion on this. When I talked to John and some others about the pro standard I was told that the greater angle stemmed from trying to better match the commercial cinema placement. Further, that there was a desire to create greater separation between the bed layer surrounds and overhead top speakers.
A lot of things are done in studios that are not done because it’s better for sound quality. They do it to allow for easier ability to delineate errors in the recordings. Sometimes what is best for realism is bad for mixing. That is probably not something consumers should copy.
The renderer for ATMOS is assuming placement that matches the home layout and not pro, so it’s possible that moving to a more extreme angle that increase the aperture between speaker layers is not desirable for overall sound quality.
But I have never bothered to setup a room where I could AB the different angles to see which sounds better. I can only go by the standard, what experts who mix this stuff say, what Dolby says, and my experience.
I suspect that Grimani’s approach might make the atmospherics a bit more distinct and that this might be preferred by some who want to really obviously hear their atmospherics. On the other hand, I would imagine an angle closer to 30 degrees might create greater blending.
IMHO this is the best video you’ve made. John provided a tremendous insight into spatial sound, with factual information ranging from the wide array of mixing styles, to why mixing is done in certain ways, to the importance of psychoacoustics . Bring him and others with his real world technical depth back!
I really look at All you guys as my Audio Hero's and soak up everything! John is Amazing and I appreciate his work! Thank you Gene for bringing everyone together; you Sir are a God send to this industry!!!
I don't agree that it should be left to the person or people doing the mix, it needs to be as standardised as possible. Also object based mixes should be moving with the times so 9.4.6 and more etc.
Also streaming sites should allow different mixes so 5.1, 7.1, 5.1.4 etc
They pander to the masses, and the masses use TV speakers and sound bars unfortunately. That would be awesome though.
Its extremely difficult to standardize art.
Great vid which helps debunk a few myths surrounding Atmos (no pun intended😂) and lays bare a lot of on-line reviewers who don’t have a clue what they’re talking about!
My only concern is the use of the phrase ‘hearing it as the sound engineer intends’ ! While I for one hugely appreciate the work that goes in to a great sound track sadly the vast majority of the population will never get to hear that. Very few movie fans have access to a studio full of reference gear, nor can they afford the time and cash to dedicate a room at home to convert to a suitable home theatre. If my wife caught me trying to install speakers in the ceiling of my Victorian living room she’d kill me! Also, in the UK we have a total of 5 Atmos theatres so the chances of me travelling 100 miles to sit, as John intimated, in a less than ideal seat, listening to compromised version of the original sound track next to someone talking and rustling popcorn bags doesn’t fill me with much joy. I know you guys scoff at the ideas of soundbars and bouncy rear upfiring speaker but the reality is most of us are going to try and experience Atmos this way. I’m not talking of kidding ourselves that Atmos speakers in a lap top or a £200 soundbar is going to give great immersion but some of these £2k+ soundbars with dedicated upfiring rears if set up properly produce a surprisingly exciting results. If Atmos is to survive this needs to be embraced and developed because for the vast majority of movie fans this is how Atmos content will be heard. We’d all like to live in an elitist world with the very best kit in the very best rooms but that just isn’t always possible.
Bottom line is Dolby royally fcked up in their guidelines. It's just ridiculous how much damage that one stupid installation guide and picture from their website has caused. I've had to reinstall my I'm ceilings to bring them closer together.
It's not about the guidelines, rather people followed just the image which can be true in case of a low ceiling. However the doc has enough info in the text, people just skipped that part after seeing the image. It's all about angles.
@@anoopht9588 yeah which is why the document was a crappy job by Dolby. They made mistake after mistake, first the up firing speakers then the bad instructions. Then at the end of it all they wonder why people think an auro layout is better sheesh.
@@mohannair Home layout is a generic one as most people don't have dedicated room and upfiring speakers are a relief for people who can't have overhead installation to get the flavor of atmos. It really works in a small room with low ceilings which are highly reflective. I don't see any problem in including that layout in a home doc.
The only issue that I see in the home doc os the image without mentioning the height of the room, just a simple sentence would have made the pic more valid. However in the text it's clearly mentioned about the angles and the tolerances. I think dolby never expected that people would just follow an image without reading the doc esp serious users.
This was an incredible interview about final audio performances. When you think about it this is completely obvious but I my assumptions didn’t match reality. Technology and human interpretation of the final product has a huge influence on the final mix.
What? The engineer doesn’t like sound bars and the bouncy house ? 😂
John: you know, you know, you know, you know. No, we don’t know, that’s why we’re watching.
Fascinating to listen to guys, really appreciate all of your contributions and shedding some light on one of the most misunderstood areas of sound mixing and home theater reproduction.
Great video Guys!
So in summation with no real standard and with different studios using different nomenclature for speakers (WILD), we are basically chasing the dragon as the home enthusiast. Streaming is a whole nother ball of wax.
Most compatible setup for 7.1 speaker systems: Decode in 5.1 and use Prologic IIx to spread surround to rear speakers.
Agree. Matrixing everything to 7.1 is a huge jump up over 5.1.
More consistently useful than Atmos.
I already know I am going to watch this several times👍
I'll stick with 5.1. Maybe im a dinosaur, but it just seems diminishing returns for home audio.
I feel the same. I have done so much research on expanding to atmos that your comment is true about diminishing returns. It’s a lot of money for speakers that will be used for object based sounds for a small percentage of the time.
Gene that was most interesting what actually goes on behind the scenes fantastic .
The BEQ guys literally plot the waveform from the original file. It’s clear some roll off is applied compared to older mixes. Plenty of examples, check twister auro vs atmos for example
After watching this i actually feel like just getting rid of my Atmos setup altogether and just going back to stereo..im more confused than ever
don't !!
Amazing session guys. Really appreciated getting the mix engineer's perspective. Would love to hear more in the future on the validity of BassEQ and also his views on why there is so much inconsistency in Atmos mix quality.
I'd say he did address that, budget!
@@brandonadams7837 Yes and time. John mentioned they are last to get the film since the sound must be matched to the action. He said they were like highschoolers with always and emergency exam due. When the producer sets a release date, and other delays and complications snowball then it shortens the sound engineer time. Cutting down for home degrades the quality more as not to blow out home speakers, and it might be streamed on a smartphone, so streaming considerations.
I finally saw this lengthy episode and I must say awesome. I loved your direct no holding back questions. I felt they were necessary, but I also totally understood his job limitations. To bad as consumers we can't purchase the no holds barred mix. Yes you purchase at your own risk. This way you can tailor your system to take advantage of a full range mix. Maybe some day this will be a choice. 🤔
This is gonna spark some heat in the YT feed lol
Honestly, The Last Jedi has one of the most Atmouse Audio.
The movie is unwatchable. The sound is the least of its problems.
The so called youtube atmos dad don't even have a room with a basic room treatment and talks about all this BS theories. Even if he follow the guidelines I don't think he will feel the atmos as there is a hell lot of reflections that smears the overall sound.
The issue with most non performing atmos installations is because of just following a pic than reading the document. Even though the home spec doc is not elaborate as studio it does give enough info to keep the overheads recommended angles and the width limits wrt the surrounds which is .5 to .7. By this dolby want enough separation from the bed layer so that a proper phantom image can be created. These are the basics which dolby want people to follow.
Rest is common sense to know the speakers used, it's dispersion pattern, how a phantom image is created etc.
Btw, instead of inceiling speakers a set of good bookshelves for atmos are found to be better.
All this misinformation on TH-cam is due to the silent pushing of Auto3d as the thing and asking people to follow its guidelines which ends up with a cohesive speaker placement and it collapses the phantom imaging. This kills whatever atmos is there in the mix. It's just the 2 Auro3d fans who is creating a lot of confusion in youtube. Just follow the guidelines atleast the home installation doc, you will get a decent atmos immersion. Those who want the best can follow the studio guideline. However the fake theories like "atmos is in a computer and unless the dadas theory is not followed, even the studios can't get the actual atmos" (as per his latest video) is nothing but BS.
It's sad to see that happening on TH-cam. I'm fortunate to have subject matter experts as guests on our channel to clear up the nonsense and help people make the best decisions to enjoy Atmos.
@@Audioholics Gene, Have you ever seen his so called mixing studio room where he creates all these dumb theories? In one of his videos he was doing a studio tour, there is no treatment at all except few generic pyramid thin foam here and there and call it's acoustically treated. I think the reflections in his room smears the atmos sound effects. So it's irrelevant whether he follows the dolby guidelines or not, he is not going to get it properly. Joe, the magic beans seller, in one of the video comments he agreed that he also don't have a treated room and their recommendations are for non treated rooms as most people don't have a dedicated room, that's his excuse!!!
Moreover he is used to the elevated screen kind of sound in auro as the immersion. I have found pretty good results in the theaters that I worked on with speakers (I prefer bookshelves than inceiling) closer together at 55-60deg. In one of the videos, Anthony Grimani also said the same.
@@anoopht9588 I really don't pay much attention to their antics but thanks for letting me know. It makes sense why they are coming to these conclusions based on their listening environments. This topic came up on a large FB group and I just happen to be friends with a high profile film mixer and thought it would be cool to have him on to discuss.
7 foot ceilings, made me decide upfront I'm going on the wall room is about 16' back to front.. works for me (SVS Elevations) My couch is 11.5' from the front wall (7.2.4). Front heights are about 6' apart and now sit inside of LR, rear heights are wider than rear surrounds and are 13' apart due to rear windows, angled in towards the MLP. This is a non dedicated room with half the 26' width where the media center resides. This is all interesting, but as long as I'm satisfied, I'm not going crazy over angles (yes I've measured moved and tweaked and can't say anything did magic other than going from 5.1.2 to 7.2.4). Static Atmos mixes piss me off the most, I do believe Matthew's points about the ability to locate via audio is open to flaws. I wonder how a blind person would interpret some ATMOS mixes.
More compromises have to be made for non dedicated rooms, especially if you have a partner and family.
I'm single but no dedicated room either. Plus it's a flat where I can't drill big holes in the ceiling lol.
Only a 5.1 set-up for me. But I do have acoustic room treatment - absorption and diffusion. Which makes a big audible improvement to the sound quality of my room.
@@C--A Been lucky to get most of what I wanted with understanding spouse ("oh, another hobby post-retirement!"); only place I might be able to do an acoustic treatment would be first reflection on brick wall on the left side (room is open on the right side); hasn't been a priority just yet, discussion would likely require some type of "artwork". Fortunately the room has lots of soft furnishings - except for the glass coffee table that "must not be moved". LOL
Audioholics thanks as always for this episode. Never thought how difficult mixing was, especially with other voices on the project 🤯
Incredible content Gene. Thanks for hosting this one.
Great video, thanks for detailed information 👍
I don't want to sound like a negative Nancy but that interview was ultimately a very convincing argument that as of right now Dolby Atmos is NOT an audiophile format. If one of the best mixers in the business is considering how his mixes sound in the car as well as in his state of the art studio and is admittingly making compromises to suit both and all other listening environments then it clearly isn't a format at this point that has any unique content aimed at the high end. It also sounds like the state of Dolby Atmos is kind of all over the place. After spending the past 30 years seeking out and investigating the best masterings in both stereo and even mono recordings for high end audio systems this looks like going back to proverbial Nursery school in that learning curve. And that there is very likely simply not a good mix for many titles.
They're are plenty of blu ray/4K blu ray movie discs with great Atmos mixes. It's just some studios aren't putting the resources, effort in required to create a good home cinema Atmos mix.
Dolby don't get off scott free though with their confusing outdated guidelines for Atmos speaker placement in the home.
Yet Atmos is the very best sounding format with content for Immersive Surround sound. It's not perfect but damn it's so good!
@@Audioholics I only auditioned at at Axpona last year at the Focal room. That was not good but I don't think all of it could be blamed on the format. IMO when it comes to "immersive" sound the speaker cross talk cancellation fro Theoretica is light years ahead of Atmos. It is a truly 3 dimensional playback format with real depth. And it works with all stereo recordings. It would certainly be interesting to do a shootout between the two using reformated stereo recordings for the Dolby Atmos. But what we seee here is that a lot of those recordings just haven't been remixed very well by audiophile expectations.
@@scottwheeler2679 thanks I will look into that!
@@Audioholics There are far superior formats (Mach1 for a start is the gold standard because it changes absolutely nothing with the sound source and will fold to stereo and even null) but there's only one realistic delivery format and that is Atmos which sonically is poor.
It's a pitty I didn't listened this before.
I made a 5.2.4 setting at home (soon it'll be 7.2.4).
I used Atmos specs, and my Atmos are in my ceiling at exactly 45°.
The sound is great, but I have to say that something I feel my top sound is coming fron my frontal speakers.
I wish I had them a bit closer to me (35°).
I can't imagine why some people rexomen to put them on the top of the wall, as high speakers. In a normal living room, that make the layer speakers really close to Atmos speakers. I only guess that people try to convince themshelf about being the best sound becouse is easier to put a thin wire in the wall than having speakers and wires in the celling.
Its easier for most people to place their front heights at the top of the wall rather than on ceiling or in-ceiling.
But some of us who could do whatever they want, have decided to go directly above the speakers. That means front heights are directly above the front mains, which tends to push them closer to 30° than 45°.
The reason is because when you look at the Atmos renderer, they tend to put a lot of sound objects that hover between speakers. In these cases, the sounds are NOT suppposed to be separated. They are simply supposed to be elevated, but still clearly coming from that direction.
For example, Imax puts a Center Height object in its soundtracks because their screens are so large. Its supposed to raise to dialogue and center channel content to sound as if it is coming from the middle of the screen, not the bottom 1/3 of the screen. So the center height channel is directly behind the screen around 25° of elevation from the main center channel.
In the home version, they put a center height object around 25° between the front heights and center channel. If your heights are pulled too close to the listener, then that center channel information will be warped and not present correctly.
@@santiagoezquerrocordon1470 I did the same thing. The first 9 months with my 5.1.4 system I had placed them 45 degrees forward and backward and 42 degress to the left and to the right (if 0 degrees is above you). I always felt the same like you that the sound does not really come from above, because it smeared with the bed layer (Front L/R and Surrounds). Then I put the Top speakers 35 degrees forward, backward, left and right, which places them in a quad (also mentioned in the Dolby guides for studios), so the separation between each Top speaker is 2 meters. The height between my ears and the ceiling is 150 cm. I definetely can say that it made a big difference, as I now can hear the objects above and it is much more immersive and feels like as I were in a bubble of sound.
so... atmos speakers more between center of the room and L/R front speakers, side surround more in front of the room ( not at 90 110 degrees... more 75-80 degrees ), and the back surround closer to the back wall??? height of the surround? just over hear listening level? I will need a lot of gypse to repare those holes!!!!
If you listen to John carefully, it explains a lot why the Disney home video discs are so poor in recent years.
Disney are the biggest movie studio out there, with massive resources. They shouldn't be signing off sloppy mixes for blu ray/4K blu ray without first testing the mix in several different home set-ups.
Disney have no excuses for their bad sound mixes on blu ray and 4K blu ray discs! Other studio's including small niche labels like Second Sight etc. Are knocking it out of the park for excellent sound mixes on blu ray and 4K blu ray disc.
It doesn't matter if its Dolby Atmos/DTS X or Dolby True HD/DTS Master Audio. It's up to the studio and sound engineer to master as good a mix as possible for the 4K blu ray disc.
For the most part, Disney is making movies for the kiddies, and once it's out of the theater it will be streamed in a home through an "Atmos sound bar" while the kids sit on the couch and mom makes lunch. I don't think Disney puts in a lot of effort and prefers to pocket the difference.
@@frankvee I sadly agree, Disney are very profit based. Disney+ streaming seems to be they're priority.
Even though they could easily afford to produce better home Atmos mixes while still making a profit from the disc's.
At 40 I do still love the original Lion King, Beauty & The Beast, Lady & The Tramp. Plus Pixar's Toy Story, Wall E, Ratatouille lol.
@@C--A I have my Disney favorites as well, but as a corporation, I can’t stand Disney. I think they’re evil. 🤣
@@C--A The ones you mentioned were fantastic Blu Rays. It seem around 2015 (Starting with Age of Ultron for me) was when their releases started to go to crap.
John made several audio comparisons of Kaleidescape to streaming services, but what I'm more interested in is a comparison of Kaleidescape to UHD Blu-rays for audio. There were a couple of comments about Blu-ray, but only in reference to video quality on a handful of releases. Am I missing anything audio-wise with UHD discs vs Kaleidescape?
I've seen some people casually mention "better" audio quality than discs but otherwise everything I have read indicates they use the same lossless tracks as the disc. The only difference should be the video portion. If I'm wrong someone else should chime in.
I can’t remember where I heard this, maybe from one of the Kaleidoscape videos from CEDIA? Basically it was saying that even with many of the 4KBD discs are “full”. If you look at the file size of the Kscape and the file size of the disc, Kscape is actually quite a bit larger file for many movies. According to the video, the audio was where the difference was. I’ll have to see if I can find it.
Uncompressed, is uncompressed. K may have an advantage in video, but I've yet to see a single title where that's apparent.
@@aussieexpat Technically it’s lossless vs lossy. It’s still in a compressed codec that gets uncompressed when decoded. The question is if the original track that Kscape has is any different than what the studios are putting on disc.
@Jason Confino yes agreed. Ive seen no evidence that there is a difference in the tracks used in kscape vs blu ray. Not even a single example.
John Traunwiser should change his name to John Traumatizer! Dude... i really tried to listen to him, but my phone felt on my face while two times! next time give him some energy drinks.. i quit after few min's. at first it makes you sleepy, afterwards angry
makes sense to focus on “separation angle” more so than width. But now rethinking our vertical localisation, makes even more sense.
1:17:16 Wow........ 😐
Good lord, I had no idea…. Thank you so much for holding this conversation, it was extremely eye-opening.
For 7.2.2 should I have the heights at front left & right or center front & rear?
www.dolby.com/siteassets/about/support/guide/setup-guides/7.1.2-overhead-speaker-placement/7_1_2_mounted_pov.jpg?width=1440&quality=80
Don Dunn kills me every time he makes an impersonation of Shane Lee. 🤣
Shane's my boy!
I really would have liked you to ask why most new mixes have NO BASS. Why do they low pass everything above 40hz?? Some of us actually have subs
He did comment on this. What he said is that he is unaware of any standing policy to high pass sound tracks. He did say that sometimes some degree of high passing is done to avoid destroying peoples speakers. He asked for some examples of this.
I think if someone can find a soundtrack they believe has been high passed at 40hz, he could look into it to see if that is true and maybe even find out why.
@@PoesAcoustics War Of The Worlds' Atmos track on UHD compared to the 5.1 on the Blu-ray exhibits this. It's particularly noticeable when the pod first comes from underground that the bass has been neutered somewhat. More recently, the UHD of Edge Of Tomorrow seems to have cut that monster subsonic in the opening sequence down significantly from what was on the 7.1 version on Blu-ray (though that one was kinda' excessive, if we're being honest). I'm sure there are many other examples in the BEQ threads at AVS where they've measured them.
Edge of Tomorrow opening seq had content ~7hz
Battleship is a good example of no bass
All this is the circle of confusion on steroids.
Yesterday I was watching Equalizer 3, started off on my real 7.1.4 system but it was getting late & I was worried about disturbing people so I switched to Air Pods Pro 2's Spatial Audio with customisation. It was a joy to be able to push the sofa up right to my 77" OLED to nail a 70 degree viewing angle (IMAX level) and have perfect virtual placement anywhere I sit. I feel that customised HRTF is the only way something like object audio makes sense. It's custom and better than the Smyth realizer. It'd make even more sense for mixing engineers cause you get completely silent rooms (ANC on, we're talking levels you can't reach in the real world) and you could mix anywhere.
With the Air Pods I miss the pressurisation from my PB13 ultra in a 1800 cubic foot room but bass transducers help with that. Just need Apple to let you stream to an Air Play target while using spatial audio so I can get my Quake 10b's alive.
Excellent discussion, to say the least! Thank you John Traunwieser for clearing up the air with real facts and accurate insights about what’s actually inside calibrated Dolby Atmos mixing studios, the equipments used, PLACEMENTS & POSITIONS, and how the mixing is generally done.
I’d listen to you as the mixing engineer who works in various multimillion dollar studios with various legendary names for movies that have been watched by millions, versus a retired DJ who’s super excited about Logic Pro and calls himself the Atmos guy.
Thanks Gene for delivering this! Superb!
Content is valuable here but oh man this was hard to take in guys. I’ve had surgical anesthesia more dynamic than this presentation. But thanks for valuable intel
😆 🤣
Separate calibration per source and per format…..😅
Our demo room main calibration similar to Harmon curve, is bang on for most UBD
And
Must say, I’ve been jumping on our Storm audio “audio adjust” bass, treble, Center, surround level adjusts for on the fly level changes for adjusting Netflix, TH-cam, sport and APTV movies etc
Amazing what 1-3db can do.
Now I’m a bit more motivated to lock these into a saved preset / calibration.
Just need time to listen for consistency / gain some reference content between each to get this done fast.
( can’t wait for our KScape)
🔊🔊🔊🔊🔊🔊🥰
So I have a 5.1 in my living room and my couch has to be against the back wall, which I would think is fairly common. So would I be better off just doing 2 atmos speakers, or would it be worth putting 2 as far against the wall as they can go and then place the front 2 per dolby regulations? Or just do 2? I think with time alignment on my xmc-2 the 4 speaker setup could work.
I am using SVS elevation and already have all 4 speakers.
Your couch doesn't need to be against walls.
This is a proven fact.
Overwhelming evidence to support you need to be away from walls to achive optimal results.
Look up 5.1.2 in the Dolby guidelines. They go directly above your head or slightly in front. About 6 to 8 feet apart
I should clarify, my couch needs to be against the wall because of space constraints. It’s a large sectional that only fits in the room 1 way. But I ended up doing 4 atmos, the rear heights aren’t ideal but I’m pretty happy with it for now. When time and funds allow I will get a new couch setup and switch my room all around so a can get my rears and rear heights behind me more.
Audioholics the Treasure of Sound ❤
Regarding the neutering of bass, I think you really missed an opportunity here. The easy comparisons are with Disney DVD vs Blu-ray (and Atmos) soundtracks:
- Toy Story 2 intro
- Finding Nemo (glass tapping scene)
These used to be my demo scenes back in the day. I thought something broke when I switched to the Blu-Ray versions.... until BEQ.
You can also look at the Emmy Award winning DTS soundtrack on Master and Commander... DVD vs Blu-Ray versions. Again, the opening scene on the DVD was demo material.
Shane, thanks for trying. 🙂 Gene, you played skeptic. 😞
By the way, you do not need a 24" subwoofer to get infrasonics, and the statement as such was ignorant. I remember U-571 making me woozy in some scenes. It mated well to my house curve at the time using a BFD. My sub at the time was a first-gen SVS PC-U13.... clearly not 24". Room-coupling helps a lot (or apparently hurts when the execs listen against the back wall and complain the bass is too hot?).
The rest was great, but again, I think you missed an opportunity here where soundtracks are mixed for soundbars vs home theaters. I'd love to watch something more dedicated to this with more sound engineers. Thanks.
It may be too late to get this question answered. However, I have a pretty open floor plan where my speakers are on either side of my fireplace. Unfortunately, my center channel is a pie and I have a projection screen. However, the depth of my room does not allow for 7.1.4 I can do 5.1 .4 and my surround channels will be behind about 4 feet from the Dolby Atmos speakers. Should they be connected to normal surrounds or should they be connected to rear surrounds since my surrounds are not on the sides?
i have a question about the placement of the Front L / R channels. With an AT screen in a dedicated home cinema, as well as commercial cinemas, the front LCR are placed behind the screen. However, all the photos of studios that i have seen on the web, do not use an AT screen - the LCR speakers are placed usually below the display. Often the display is not maximised for viewing angles, which means the LR are placed wider than the edge of the display. This means that hard panned sounds to the L or R channels, in the studio, looks like they are outside of the screen, but in cinema and a dedicated HT, are actually still behind the screen. I have come across several examples in movies of this jarring disconnects - where the on screen image shows the sound should be off the screen, but the hard paned LR channel is still playing the sound from just behind the edge of the screen. Is there a standard for this?
In a 12' wide room how close together can you put the 2 center top speakers, (minimum gap between speakers).
How large is the mixing studio (dimensions) and what target curve is being used? A lot of different opinions on target curves out there...
RECAP:
- John is a great sound mixing engineer who mixes movie sound mostly for THEATRES, not for HOME.
- Home mixes (bluray, 4K disks) are mixed somehow, IF budget and time allows. Which means, disk mixes are mostly crap.
- Gene and Don are trying to protect Atmos and laugh at Auro 3D, disregarding the fact that Theatre mix and Disk mix are totally different in quality. Sure, it's Don's business to convince people that ceiling speaker placement is the way to go. Poor customers. (not that poor maybe).
- Shane asks a coupe of very good questions regarding the near field mix (disk) and John gives a honest answer regarding home mix being budget and time dependent.
- Speaker placement question answered by John - they have to be in ceiling - True for CINEMAS. What's the point of having ideal ceiling placement for Atmos at home - read the point above about mixing quality for near field.
END of RECAP
John: upmixers are crap, you need to place the speakers as Dolby suggests ant listen to what "director has intended"
Some time later 1:10:31 - John answers Shane's question regarding theatrical mix vs near field (home): "yeah, if we have budget, maybe will will spend up to a week for home mix"..
1:12:26 - the engineers are not too happy to take director's notes and update the near field (home) mix.
1:13:02 - amazing question about the crappy sound on one of the movies and John tries to stay politically correct.
daaaa
So, let's face it - atmos mixes on discs in many cases suck big time. Of course John recommends to put speakers in the ceiling - he (and many studios) works according to Atmos requirements, how could he put speakers elsewhere, or recommend some other placement. And that's the trick of this discussion. You ask the Dolby guy about other formats. This is funny and not fair. So you all guys are listening to the professional THEATRICAL mixer and are putting all his words into home entertainment systems. The naked truth is in his answer to Shane regarding the quality of near field mixing.
And now you gonna go out and say - see, what professional mixing engineer told us - Atmos is the right thing, speakers must be in the ceilings.. blah blah blah... In theatres - yes. But at home..? He just freakin' told you that bluray mixes DEPEND ON BUDGET. He doesn't give a crap on bluray mix quality (or no one pays him to give a crap). A producer listens to the mix on a bloody laptop, so say thanks for having a decent sound in cinemas. But at home....
John is a true professional who works in harsh environment under enormous pressure. I cannot blame him for not liking upmixers. His point of view based on what he does - produces good sound for CINEMAS. Home mixes are left out almost completely.
The problem of this video is that a couple of Home Atmos believers are trying to justify Atmos home speaker placement by applying the recommendations for a CINEMA. This is not apples to apples comparison and such justification is a lie.
I've placed my 5.1.4 according to Auro 3D recommendations and I really enjoy the immersive sound, instead of "director's intended silence".
The whole point of using Auro 3D is that the original Atmos mix most of the time is crap (there was no allocated time and budget for the engineer to work on it). Plus, if you place your speakers in Auro 3D configuration, you don't drill holes in the ceiling, you can enjoy Atmos if the mix happens to be good, you can switch to Auro 3D, if the mix happens to be bad. I see this working in the consumer favour.
You missed many points. John mixes for cinema and home. Not sure why you think otherwise. There's no good reason to crossmix as Dolby already has a very good upmixer for 5.1 content. Let me remind you that crossmixing wouldn't even be possible today if it wasn't for Audioholics pressing Dolby to remove the crossmixing restriction they imposed on Atmos products a few years back. Auro is a dead format as John also agreed with. It's fine if you enjoy using the upmixer. I enjoy it for upmixing certain type of 2CH music. But the hate towards Atmos is just silly and nothing more than enthusiasts rooting for the underdog which in this case is clearly Auro 3D.
If the bouncing of sound is wrong, why is the setting in home receivers for ATMOS speakers reflecting? and in Dolby Documentation? I think the reality is "Home" ATMOS is actually designed to fill a wide array of users. While bouncing sound isn't optimal nor does it match a theater, calling it not ATMOS is simply opinion because Mr. Traunwieser works in a professional environment daily. I get it.
No, the reality is Bouncy House is there to appease those that can't discretely ceiling-mount speakers. It's a last resort and also a money grab to sell more speakers.
Most receivers(if not all receivers) you can change from bouncy house, to on wall or the best is in ceiling. i know all Yamahas do this and I'm sure so does most others.
Fantastic content here. More of this please. A lot of pretender home theater channels are hiding right now.
What is the general consensus on the new Spatial setup disc. I almost got it a few times... Sick of running around plugging and unplugging speakers (I use REW, impulse, eq, etc etc) I do prefer a lot of final adjustments by ear. I started getting into it with TechnoDad.. Especially when he's talking about "coverage holes" and speaker firing direction and everything, I'm guessing his opinions are not highly regarded. But the disc seems like a useful tool.
There is no need for that disc, IMO and I don't endorse anything those guys claim about calibration or Atmos/Auro. You have internal test tones and REW with ASIO driver allows you to sweep any speaker including the heights. Use Auto calibration to set your distances and levels, limit the BW of room correction to room to 5kHz or less, tweak the bass level and PEQ function as needed using multiple measurement points in your room if you're an advanced user. Anyone with the capability to use REW should never need a calibration disc to set up and tune their systems.
Another valuable and interesting discussion. Learned a lot even if I might never have the capital to implement the knowledge.
Skywalker Ranch used to use M&K speakers... Now Meyer Sound
Wait, Atmos is 85dB, not 75dB? When did that change? I've been calibrating for 75dB this whole time! That explains why my Atmos Yamaha receiver keeps auto-calibrating to 82dB.
The pink noise the receiver gives off is 75db... but it's setting the 0.0db level to 85db.
Thank you @Gene and @John and the team for this wonderful video 👍
I read this title as Dr Evil with the biggest quotes, Dolby Atmos "Myths". 😄 🤣
this is gold
So you’re sourrounds are supposed to be at 82db
Atmos in the home is quite a disappointing format. I have some amazing demos from Dolby that demonstrate what Atmos is capable of but the sound mix we are getting from the studios either on Blu-ray or from streamed services does nothing really to take advantage of height speakers. I may as well not have them.
There's a ton of great Atmos content out there that takes advantage of the height speakers. Netflix in particular has been doing an excellent job with their shows in Atmos. And there is a wealth of content available on Blu-ray and UHD that uses the format really well. But if your system's not well-placed and calibrated, even the best mixes will be degraded.
@@TheReverendSlim Yep they'res good and bad Atmos/DTS X mixes, some great. Just like they're is some great, good and bad Dolby True HD/DTS Master Audio mixes.
And again yep poorly placed Ceiling speakers (and also bed layer speakers) will degrade the sound quality, sometimes greatly.
Also a poor room ie no acoustic room treatment - both absorption and diffusion will not allow your speakers to perform anywhere near their best.
switch to Auro 3D if you have an AVR that supports it, and forget about Atmos crap
I have a 9.4.4 setup and I have full bandwidth on my front l&r and the same speakers for my side surround but I am thinking of adding 2 small subs to the surround back and the wide , my question is what would be the best way to approach this because I am just wondering how much of a balance I will need for the subwoofers to sound apart of the wides and rear speakers without being located but to blend in the system? I know that this may sound a bit like what are you saying but I don’t know what to else to say on the matter.
All of your subs should run as a mono sum of LFE+ bass managed speakers. This allows you to take full advantage of the benefits of multi sub and modal distribution in your room.
Learned a-lot
Interesting.from the horses mouth so to speak.
With so much confusion and everyone interpreting Atmos in multiple ways. Am happy with my 5.1 setup with properly angled and calibrated.
A well done 5.1 set-up in a accousticly treated room will sound audibly better than a poorly placed Atmos/DTS X set-up in a non treated room!
As for mixes on blu ray and 4K blu ray discs. They'res great, good, bad mixes on Dolby True HD, DTS HD, Dolby Atmos, DTS X.
Just depends on the sound composer for the film, and the sound engineer mastering the disc. Plus of course the studio imput.
Mr you know should know I do not know
the only way to have good sources in Blu-ray ?
Thank you 🙏 team for the wisdom.
Question: 6 ceiling or 4 ceiling? Dolby says 6, 4 don’t transition from ceiling front to rear naturally vs 6 ceiling speakers installed at the correct angels from the seating position. Is this true based on Matt’s comments on how the brain perceives sound from above?
It depends on the # of rows of seats and size of your listening area, the size of your room, and the height of your ceiling. If you have 2 or more rows of seating, I'd suggest 6 heights if you have the processing capabilities.
I attended the RP22 class at CEDIA several weeks ago and got a peek at the draft spec for Immersive Audio recommendations. Unless you have a very short room front-to-back, you will need 3 rows of overheads to meet the higher performance level requirements. It was based on maximum allowed angles between adjacent rows of ceiling speakers or front/rear bed channels.
Wow! What a discussion! 🤯🤯
You know, you know, you know, you know.....🤭
Thanks! Very interesting content. I learned a bunch
Should atmos speakers be -3db as well as the surrounds ? 👍🏼
I'm not clear on this TBH and something we need to dig deeper in. I always use the DSU on 5.1 content personally. We will discuss with Anthony Grimani.
Re-listened this morning to try and get more insight into whether or not to add front wide speakers for 9.2.6. How do you guys interpret John here? Know they mix at 7.1.4…is there ever a scenario where you’re better off with 7.1.4 vs 9.1.4, or is it just a question as to how much benefit you actually get from adding the wide channels? Didn’t fully follow the discussion on object vs. channel at setups larger than 7.1.4.
Wish we had an answer for this. Did you find anything?
The more speakers you add, the better. (Assuming you have the space for them all).
Sure with "locked" mixes (7.1.2 and 7.1.4) some of your speakers will be silent. But those locked mixes are themselves compromised and I would never consider them in my theater design. I would design for active object mixes, which will activate all your speakers when appropriate.
So yes, there are many situations where 9.4.4 is better than 7.4.4, whenever the mix is active. And 9.4.6 will be better than 9.4.4. And 11.4.8 will be better than 9.4.6 etc.
👍🏻
What product is John Traunwiser referring to, that does surround with headphones very well, at 40:47 into the video? Matthew is mentioning the product name, but way too fast for me to catch…
The Smyth Realiser. Steel yourself for the sticker shock!
Smyth Realiser
Thanks!
Does kaleidescape provide near field mix or theatrical mix??? If so then how much difference are between them and how to get theatrical mix🤔🤔🤔
Near field ONLY, and there is a huge difference. K is a waste of money
I don’t believe the cinema mixes can be or are ever available to the consumer ever unless you have the commercial cinema media server and Dolby processor. This is not unheard of in some private home cinemas but is very expensive. It would make a K scape look dirt cheap.
I can ask John. I know he said the Kscape sounded better than any other consumer product he has tried to date and impressed him. But he was comparing it to typical streaming options. He was saying that it’s generally disappointing to hear his mixes on any consumer source as compared to the totally uncompressed mixes he is actually doing.
He also noted there are various steps between him and the final product and sometimes they will muck up what he has done.
@@PoesAcoustics I think the question was more about having access to a mix that isn't re-EQ'd for near field or dumbed down to just 7.1.2 beds, not specifically the full theatrical object mix that requires all that hardware. Obviously, it would still be a version with the objects grouped down for home transmission formats.
Why isn't the home version the same as the theatrical version? Making two versions are a waste of time.
Because volume, lots of it. And lots of speakers.
All this talk about immersive sound, here I am scratching my head why both Marantz and Denon do not have a 13.4 channel AVR or at least a pre amp in their new catalogue. I have an ancient receiver and would like to update but I'm not sure if I should go for the 2020 flagships X8500HA/SR-8015 or wait for possible models with 13 channels or amp or processing.
Gene, what it your opinion, do you think they will release a 13 channel receiver next year?
Anyways, thanks a lot for the video!
the marantz sr8015 is 13.2 channels. 11 amps and 13 channels of processing. you need another amp to power the 12th and 13th channel
About that...
Actually I don't understand what is the issue with TH-camrs. Dolby give a window of 25° (30°-55°). It's optimal to place Atmos speakers where they should be, but if there is any kind of problem you can position them at even 30° which actually is the upper corners of the room. So what is the issue? 😎
Any way, great job guys, thank you for your time and for the new informations you put out there.👍
The box created by the atmos speakers about the listener is supposed to be .5 to .7x the width of the room. So it does not seem true that it would be in the corners. That would push the speakers too far out.
@@PoesAcoustics where is that position at 30°? Perhaps I don't understand something.
@@PoesAcoustics That general 0.5-0.7x the layout width (not the room, but the distance between the widest speakers laterally, which is typically the side surrounds) is part of the issue though. You're correct that even at the 0.7x end of that range, it isn't in the corners. But in my experience, having them wider than the lowest end of that range (0.5x) degrades the sound as it moves between the ear-level and height layers. I think for simplicity's sake, they should have just said to put them at 1/4 and 3/4 of the room's width and for the average consumer, that would be close enough (and generally more easy to understand). For enthusiasts, Dolby's mix room guide provides more logical math (45 degrees + half the elevation of the adjacent speaker) that makes it much clearer for those using elevated surrounds to address coverage/seating issues. The disconnect is the discrepancy between enthusiasts who are trying to get the optimal placement without professional help and the overly generalized guidelines Dolby is using to get your average consumer on board.
@@TheReverendSlim ok true I was just assuming for simplicity sake that folks have their side surrounds on the side walls. That’s also how Dolby presents this in their consumer guides.
but you can understand why. They had to take a fairly difficult and complex concept and make it digestible.
We use calculators to get optimal placement in all of our designs but inevitably you then have to look at the space and figure out how your placement based on the optimal calculation matches the room.
I really think that people get too obsessed with optimizing these angles though. Our vertical localization is pretty terrible. It seems unlikely that small changes in the angle would matter.
You and John both seem to prefer the atmos speakers more inward toward the center of the ceiling. I haven’t done enough controlled testing to have a strong preference. I would imagine some of this is going to depend on the size of the room and height of the ceiling. My dedicated theater is 10’ but my family room is 12’. I suspect the family room benefits from a wider placement.
Sadly as far as I know the only research into optimal placement for Dolby Atmos was done by Dolby and never released. All the studies I found were codec agnostic and were testing other factors. Object tracking accuracy or perception of spaciousness and envelopment. Object tracking accuracy is a very contrived test. First, it shows that we suck at that. So hence why I am not so sure it really matters all that much. But second, it did seem to suggest that having a certain critical distance or aperture between speakers was of some benefit. The tests were done on large rooms with tall ceilings so I would prefer to see it tested based on smaller spaces with 8’ or 10’ ceilings. Not a 30x50x15 type room.
The research I found on perception of spaciousness and envelopment seemed to actually suggest that overhead speakers are totally unnecessary to recreate that perception. Simply having a speaker in front and behind you is sufficient to give the perception of atmospherics above you. Side surrounds provide the lateral reflections that give cues to the size and nature of the space. This is all achieved with 5-7 channels just fine. But again, they were not testing a specific codec. We’ve long known that ambisonics can do that but it’s clearly not the same thing.
@@PoesAcoustics I make the distinction between room and layout width because there would be a difference between in-wall and on-wall installations. Not a big one, admittedly, but depending on the room and size of the speakers, it can matter. Probably more so for someone trying to do their own layout than from an installer's perspective.
And yeah, our vertical localization isn't great, but I think it makes sense to optimize per the regions where it's better than where it's not. I'm assuming that the research you cited was Barbour's Elevation Perception. What I took from that paper was that whereas 60 degrees with stereo imaging might be ideal, perception of imaging tends to fall off greatly approaching 60 degrees between two speakers on the vertical. While it doesn't explicitly state results nearer to 45 degrees (since they went 0, 30, 60), my logical read of that was that the 45 degrees Dolby's using for top front/rear is effectively to strike a balance between maintaining imaging from ear-level to height while also bringing the 4 heights closer together above the listener (within 90 degrees of one another) so cross-channel imaging still works reasonably well overhead (the region where we are less sensitive from a spatial resolution standpoint anyway).
My current room is on the long side (23'x12'x8') so it has its particular compromises, though I have everything but my rear surrounds pretty much exactly where DARDT would have placed them if my room was set up for mixing at my MLP. I've had 7 different layouts over several years and homes, and you're correct that I prefer the narrower placement (having heard it about every way you can, and having the holes in my ceiling to show for it). And I think for the enthusiast crowd (those not wealthy enough to seek the services of those on the panel but more discerning than your average consumer), it would go a long way if Dolby had an easy tool for consumers to generally show the "ideal" placement for particular room sizes and distances to MLP. Or maybe a more consumer-friendly version of DARDT for the home. The peculiar discrepancies between the home guideline diagrams and the logic used in the mix room and theatrical guidelines has created a lot of confusion for those who are striving to do it right the first time (which is especially important for those cutting holes in their ceilings to implement an Atmos layout).
I do not get the object and 7.1.4 link ... is it just a matter of objects are only bothered with being put in when making a mix that is 7.1.4 and higher speakers? Surely the objects, if in the mix, must be played so is it a choice by the mixer that they do not bother with objects if they do not do a 7 1 4 mix. And if they do bother, again i would imagine it must be played back as an object regardles of listener setup being less speakers or you get missing sound ... or does this mix then contain 2 versions (thought not). Sidenote, i also find it very confusing what dolby pro is supposed to add on eg a denon 6700 in this field ... seems like we are just getting fed stuff thats only half of whata promised and the details come out later
It's actually an encoder choice. In the first days, Atmos was only channel-based, then came the wiggling channels, and in the last year or so, true home Atmos mixes. It's because of iterative evolution and optimization of the encoders. The codec is actually defined up to 63 objects, but we can still only use 15, as it's not worthwile yet to do so.
When we talked to John earlier to understand this, he noted that the “bed layer” refers to the fixed channels they mix directly to using basic panning. That this is 7.1.2. So there are two height or overhead channels they can pan to as well.
Once channel count goes higher you need to add objects to use those. He also noted that the renderer in your receiver or processor can’t render to additional channels unless objects are used. As such, if the channels seem fixed regardless of what you have, then it is likely they didn’t actually use objects.
He also said a lot of mix engineers prefer to do the panning work themselves as they feel they know what they want and how to achieve it better than the software does with objects. Personally, I think this is a bit like someone saying they can hear better than measurement gear. It may be a legacy issue that will go away as people get more comfortable with how to use objects.
@@PoesAcoustics This is only the case while editing with Atmos. Once it's passed to the distributor, who runs them through their encoder (only 2 of those exists), it will be swapped around. In home mixes, there are no channels, only merged objects that might stay stationary at a channel's location - and for some reason, they regularly swap places, it's a pain in the butt to work with while making a decoder. This is why you don't get proper side/rear surround when a 24.1.10 renderer (like Trinnov's) is used, only a single channel from the sides. Cinema is fine, it's exactly what you wrote, there's a mandatory 7.1.2 bed that scales with the room and there are many objects for even more control. You can't even skip the bed and use their channels for objects, Dolby tools will immediately detect this trickery and mark your stream as invalid.
@@SpamMaster57 oh I see. So there is another step that converts these to objects. I didn’t realize this.
John also noted that they can’t live monitor in a high channel count. He said that in the larger mixing rooms (small cinema sized), those extra speakers you see are not used for mixing. They use it to check what it sounds like by sending the mix to a commercial Dolby processor (you probably know exactly what this looks like). I was a bit surprised to hear that.
@@PoesAcoustics Yes, it's the Dolby RMU for 64 channel mixing, but you can actually create Atmos-compliant mixes while working on 16 channels in most DAWs' integrated renderers. When you export as ADM BWF, it can be hacked into an Atmos master with DACT, it's common practice for smaller studios. It's still the true Atmos however, unlike the home version, which is totally dumbed down and they have to convey everything with 15 objects (including channels, excluding LFE) - this task is very hard to do right, and is done completely by software that is not that much evolved.
Techno dad needs to do an apology video now 🥹
I think they're both correct. The panners are not representative of speaker layout, but the object position in the cube isn't representative of the Atmos space either. The Atmos space is essentially a classic house with pitched roof, but the entire ground floor is sliced off. This is easily experience by panning into the void areas Techno Dad shows, Nothing changes in the Atmos Renderer. It does change in the binaural render though. ie room is house shapes for speakers, binaural is more sperical/cube shape where sound can pan to the cube boundary sonically.
Atmos shmatmos. 5.1, 7.1 most people still only have stereo. ALL movies mixed in the last 20 years when downmixed to stereo have the dialogue BURIED. The M & E content is twice as loud as the dialogue. All you mixers should fix this. The old Hollywood rule of the dialogue (center channel) should be DOMINANT. Also, Ive never heard an airplane flying overhead switch panning. Call BS.
Bed SHOULD be spread across the surround array ! Its the litteral essence of surround sound and its how its done in thatrical mix ! How on earth somebody wants a bed on only one speaker !! So every movie should be mix with static objet in place of bed chanel. This way we can finally revive our surround array !
"There no sounds other than object on speakers that not in the 7.1.2 layout." Thats not how its done in cinema and its an absolut non sens ! Imagine having the full 24.1.10 layout and only 4 surrounds speakers playing surrounds beds...
The section on psychoacoustics basically confirms my thoughts on atmos being a gimmick.
We've got a stereo hearing system, and any forward/back or up/down is almost all perceived with visual cues, a little with comb filtering or delay/reverb, which can be replicated in stereo.
When playing video games I've always percieved height and depth whether on headphones or even built in stereo speakers on a TV.
It's not a gimmick, of its literally sound coming from above you
Way too many Audio formats and speaker layouts !!.....
I do disagree with John about upmixing having a negative impact on 5.1 or 7.1 content. A high % of "director's intent" includes garbage mixes to begin with, so what damage is being done?
I really love upmixing 5.1 as well. It usually gives favorable results.
Greetings,
I’m not saying this to upset or anger anyone. But I wish your show wasn’t so long. No longer than 30 minutes long. I understand there is more information to share beyond 30 minutes and my recommendation would be to have two videos for a one hour show and four videos for a two hour show. I hope you will give it a try. I’m interested in your topics and the only reason I don’t watch these videos because they are to long for me. I truly wish you the best with success.
It wasn’t planned to be this long. We are looking to break the video up and releases it into topic specific chunks in the future. We planned this quickly and just vibed.
Just watch in 3 or 4 parts, no problem
Watch it in two or three viewings... what's the big deal. This can be parsed into segments, and maybe they will do that, but it has to be recorded in one sitting. It's dense and full of information and it has to be made the way it is. If it's too long to watch in one sitting, hit the pause and come back to it later. It's marked in segments so you can stop at the end of each topic if you want.
talk about a sleeper geeez
Talk about content that can't be found anywhere else...geeez
So was this whole panel put together to debunk Techno Dad lol, consumers are getting watered down mixes from studios, the only time you hear through atmos is on demo disc and even the video techno dad made showed you how atmos sounds and the amount of time put in creating atmos mix. Build your theaters and believe the gimmick you getting true atmos.
I brought a world class Atmos mixer on to give straight facts about Atmos mixing and speaker placements. Yes he clearly refuted the misinformation in the Technodad Atmos videos but he also brought real knowledge about the subject matter that's never been public knowledge before.
Sorry you're not experience great Atmos like so many of us are with proper speaker placements and calibration. A good mix for movies or music is quite magical but won't be heard placing height speakers in the room corners.
@@Audioholics Clearly you guys have your own circle you associate with why not invite him to your panel to offer his opinion on the experiment he conducted? I run a 7.4.6 layout with height surrounds and it is as immersive as what ever your system would be I can turn off my bed layer speakers and here the rain fall or the chopper fly in my height surround speakers or is that a figment of my imagination so please stop spreading info that you will only hear the rain fall or the chopper fly in your in ceiling speakers. The guy clearly is focus on studio recording and there is not the same time and effort put in disc and streaming encoding.
@@reznone6900 I only bring Subject matter experts on our channel to discuss technical matters, not rank amateurs that have no experience calibrating and setting up systems professionally.
"The Guy" you refer to mixes many of the movies you enjoy and bases his statements on facts and experience actually producing and evaluating the mixes.
Matthew Poes has a PHD and deep understanding of psychoacoustics and professionally designs and calibrates home theater systems for a living.
I don't doubt you can hear your height channels when you turn off the bed, but if they are located on the front and back walls they aren't placing objects correctly for Dolby Atmos recordings.
@@Audioholics i agree with gene,why listen to anyone who set up 1 room and with average equipment at best.does anyone actually take doctors advice from a garbage man??
@@Audioholics but doesn’t the processor decode and place the object it the particular speaker and doesn’t the speaker direct the sound to you seating position when angled to the seating position. Matthew Poes comments where that both in ceiling and height surround work one better than the next, I just believe consumers are being robbed by studios that don’t invest the time and money to put decent audio tracks on disc etc. because as the expert said companies are producing advanced consumer equipment that the movie studios don’t even encode for so it’s more upmixing to 6 7 8 9 etc channels.
There is so much history about Star Wars audio. I remember from the original Star Wars. Some of the audio recorders from the sound effects at Skywalker Sound would be priceless.