They have a software tool that were originally developed for them by DTS, but that's just to make it easier to pan sounds around when doing the mix. The final Auro soundtrack contains no audio objects, only channels. Likewise, the home version is 100% channel based. It does no rendering and cannot scale itself to additional speakers the way Atmos can.
Dolby Atmos
- Thread starter alekhp
- Start date
The DTS software will be available next year.
Add another title to the list: Phantom Blu-ray (India)
Saif Ali Khan / Katrina Kaif starrer 'Phantom' will be released on BD with an Atmos track.
Unfortunately, All the reviews on the Auro 3D says Otherwise. Being object based just cannot make Atmos more immersive than Auro.
The only problem is that its not as flexible as Atmos.
What reviews?
Sure it does, since Atmos can natively scale to nearly triple the number of speakers that Auro can. The more speakers surround you, the more you're immersed.
Please google.
Native scaling and more number of speakers does not mean that is the actual way that particular scene is supposed to be heard by the listener.
Reviews on Auro have always said they give a natural and more realistic life like sound reproduction rather the forceful sound which can be pinpointed most of the times from Atmos, whether in home or in Theaters.
After all, since I have not heard Auro 3D and based on the personal experience with Atmos in Home and in theaters, I am relying on what people say after being there and done it.
rajesh srinivas
Active Member
just natively scaling to multiple channels/speakers or being object based doesnt make sound immersive,sound should be close to nature thats what surround sound is all about and thats what AURO does.
And one more thing is having a limited size of room as in our HT,we have to consider to the number of channels we can add to produce sound to be near to realistic.
So i feel AURO being a limited channel sound format max (13.1) which uses 3 layers the usual 5.1 or 7.1 layer, a second height layer and then a single overhead are better suited for HT and ATMOS being multiple channel sound format for cinema halls..esp.. cinema version which can utilise up to 128 objects and dozens of speakers to create a more immersive effect.
In normal 5.1/7.1 CH,I definitively prefer the DTS-HD MA processing over the Dolby TrueHD in my blurays, so I have high hopes that DTS X will come up with a competing standard that lives up to the quality levels that they currently offer.
R/S
What does Auro do that an object-based system cannot do?
The third layer of Auro is one mono VOG channel, which is so rarely used that Auro's inventor often says that speaker can be left off home theatre set-ups. Considering that surrounds are typically placed well above the listeners already, it is a waste of resources to add another surround layer when those speakers can be better used to articulate panning and movement on the one surface that has no coverage: the ceiling.
That makes no sense, since both are bit for bit identical to the studio master. DTS MA and TrueHD are not "processing", they're lossless data packing algorithms. Your comment is the equivalent of saying you prefer to read a document compressed using RAR instead of Zip, even though the uncompressed documents are absolutely identical.
rajesh srinivas
Active Member
You can't use objects when recording natural sounds and especially not with live recordings. So while a sound designer could use objects to build up a film soundtrack, the ambience from an actual live recording can only be captured using Auro's techniques.
VOG is an optional choice....the 2nd layer is required since the human ear has evolved to hear sounds above and to the side rather than directly overhead as atmos does..and also to feel being close to nature sound...
ITS U/STOOD THAT
DTS HD MASTER = DOLBY TRUEHD = UNCOMPRESSED PCM
Its individual preference/Liking
But for me DTS HD MSTR sounds clearer than Dolby THD, with the latter seeming more bassy and less detailed,..
One more point to be considered is the way the sound recording is done using the bit rate, the frequency..and the mixing..all counts,i feel DTSHDMSTR does all to perfection..
R/S
No, ambience can be captured using any microphone during a live recording. Merely point them in the direction you want, even the same direction Auro does with their microphone tree. During playback, each of those feeds can be given x,y,z coordinates in 3D space, even at the locations of Auro speakers.
So, objects can mimic channels by simply not moving. Channels cannot mimic objects (i.e., be assigned a location in space rather than be tied to a speaker). In other words, Atmos can do what Auro can; Auro cannot do what Atmos can.
You're repeating Auro marketing talk without understanding how these technologies work.
Ironic, since Atmos has no speakers directly overhead but Auro does (VOG). If the human ear has trouble hearing sounds directly overhead, why would Auro place one of its channels at that exact location? Ceiling decoration?
Movie mixers wanted coverage for the one area where there was none: ceiling. It is the only surface in a theatre that has no speakers. Auro treats this as an afterthought (optional mono VOG channel). Atmos provides ample coverage with height two arrays, spread well apart. Sounds to the side were already taken care of with surrounds.
Apparently it's not U/STOOD since you're claiming differences between identical items. They're either identical or different. They can't be both simultaneously.
rajesh srinivas
Active Member
I am not repeating Auro marketing talk nor favouring any particular sound format,i am
only concerned with HT,so trying to give feedbacks to whatever sound technology that is best suited for HT..
without knowing about these sound formats i would not have written anything...i can only say i am well read when topic is related to cinema & HT..
The objects based mixed seems a little dull and a shortcut for sound engineers. Dedicated channels just seems to have better information and takes that much more crafting. Also the fact that Auro 3d also supports object-based mixing is a plus up. Atmos wants to do some reflecting sounds from the ceiling, which just isn't natural at all in terms of how our ears capture sound..
The so called VOG is not required its just additional option,only adding extra height channels to the existing 5.1 or 7.1 setup is what is required for auro3d..
R/S.
Except your idea of "best" comes from Auro's marketing material, not from actual knowledge of the immersive audio technologies. I'll point out an example: when you talk about height speakers being "directly overhead as atmos does", that demonstrates you're taking Auro's word for it and haven't actually seen what an Atmos set-up looks like:
That image is from the home Atmos install guide published by Dolby. Note that there are no height speakers "directly overhead" (like Auro's VOG speaker), but instead are recommended to be minimum 60 degrees apart.
Same exact information (identical audio). The difference is that Auro can only put those sounds into channels while Atmos can put them in channels OR assign them a location in 3D space. Auro's limitation doesn't make it "better". This is another example of you not understanding the technologies you're writing about.
That's just a panning tool used while doing an Auro mix. Unlike Atmos, Auro cannot encode sounds as objects nor can it render them to a specific location in the room (irrespective of speaker layout). Auro is 100% channel based. Atmos is a hybrid format that includes both channels AND audio objects. Having less options and less flexibility doesn't make Auro "better".
What "reflecting sounds from the ceiling"? Which Atmos soundtrack has these reflections?
Without the VOG speaker, Auro has no coverage above you, just two layers of coverage at your sides (because no Auro soundtrack has rear channels). By comparison, Atmos has coverage at the sides and rears and above. Lack of coverage doesn't make Auro "better".
Buy from India's official online dealer!
