DVD Talk
CinemaCon 2012: Dolby to Unveil 'More Natural And Lifelike' Sound System [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : CinemaCon 2012: Dolby to Unveil 'More Natural And Lifelike' Sound System


RocShemp
04-23-12, 01:07 PM
CinemaCon 2012: Dolby to Unveil 'More Natural And Lifelike' Sound System
(http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cinemacon-2012-dolby-new-sound-system-314999)

LAS VEGAS-- Dolby Laboratories aims to advance the quality of cinema sound with the introduction of its new Dolby Atmos audio format, this week at CinemaCon.

"We think it is going to be breakthrough," Doug Darrow, senior vp of Dolby’s cinema business, told The Hollywood Reporter, noting that with more "precision and control of sound" in any theater, audio will be more "natural and lifelike."

Atmos is capable of transmitting up to 128 simultaneous and lossless audio channels, and renders from 5.1 up to 64 discrete speaker feeds, according to Dolby.

For sound teams, Atmos enables what Dolby refers to as "object-based mixing" by providing precise control over "placement and movement of individual sounds or 'objects' anywhere within a theater environment."

In order to create these mixes, Dolby reported that it plans to offer a new plug-in for Avid’s ProTools audio postproduction system, and it is also working with console manufacturers to enable support for the new format, which would be "layered" on top of a 7.1 mix.

A trailer mixed in Dolby Atmos will debut this week at CinemaCon for demonstration purposes. It was mixed by Will Files (Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted), and features sound design by Academy Award nominee Erik Aadahl (Transformers: Dark of the Moon).

Dolby said the mix could be delivered to theaters on standard Digital Cinema Packages (which are used today and are effectively the digital equivalent of a film print).

Exhibitors will need to outfit theaters for the format. According to Dolby, theater owners can still use the "majority of their existing sound system" though additional speakers and amplification must be installed. Dolby estimated that an "average mid-size" theater could expect to make an investment of around $25,000-$30,000 for this upgrade.

Audio equipment manufacturer Harman Professional is working with Dolby to design specialized loudspeakers to support the Atmos format.

Dolby is set to begin a limited deployment of Atmos in the U.S., Europe, China and Japan, and the first feature with an Atmos mix might be released as early as this summer. A larger rollout is planned for 2013.

I didn't know where exactly to post this but since it's going to be used for theatrical applications (for now), I figured Movie Talk would be the best place for it.

mhg83
04-23-12, 01:22 PM
Will the new sound system be able to detect texters / talkers and blow their heads off? :)

Giles
04-23-12, 01:23 PM
can we say overkill

RocShemp
04-23-12, 01:26 PM
can we say overkill

You don't want to upgrade to a 63.1 surround system? ;)

Giles
04-23-12, 01:46 PM
You don't want to upgrade to a 63.1 surround system? ;)


no, that also sounds completely unfeasible for most theaters - even the current 7.1 sound configurement is slow on the uptake for some theaters (and studios) to mix movies as such.

Pizza
04-23-12, 02:00 PM
Only 64 speakers? I'm holding out for a 360 speaker system. Sound in the round audio.

Draven
04-23-12, 02:11 PM
This will be fun for top-of-the-line theaters, but the ones near most of us will never see the benefits. But they have to do something with their time, I suppose.

DieselsDen
04-23-12, 02:16 PM
My local theatres can barely get their current surround sounds to work correctly. I can't imagine them doing better with more speakers.

Mabuse
04-23-12, 02:41 PM
This is just a matixed thing right? 7 descrete chanels get split into 64 spread throughout the theater. No sound mixer is going to mix for 64 discrete channels. It would take forever.

I feel that show-off active surrounds are fun as a gimick but they are just that, a gimick. The best use for the surround channels is ambiant sound and reverb of the score.

Jay G.
04-23-12, 03:36 PM
This is just a matixed thing right? 7 descrete chanels get split into 64 spread throughout the theater. No sound mixer is going to mix for 64 discrete channels. It would take forever.
From what I can tell, you're not mixing for channels at all. Instead, you mix for the 3D space of a generic "room," placing sounds at specific locations and volumes in the room, and then at projection Atmos mixes for the actual room, based on the speaker layout of that specific room, whether it be 5.1 up to potentially 64 discreet channels.

Videos of Atmos:
http://soundworkscollection.com/atmos

Original Press Release:
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/DLB/1817691727x0x562014/a527336d-d125-498e-8b74-c798044e33e9/DLB_News_2012_4_23_Press_Releases.pdf

Jay G.
04-23-12, 04:07 PM
This article has a nice description of it:
http://venturebeat.com/2012/04/23/dolby-atmos-surround-sound/
For mixers and sound designers, Atmos will allow for “dynamic audio object-based mixing,” which means they’ll be able to map objects across the entire soundfield, instead of just figuring out how to mix sounds by individual speakers. The system will also simplify movie distribution and screening for studios and distributors, since Atmos will optimize playback for any setup. Studios will no longer need to ship copies of films with specific audio tracks.

Matthew Chmiel
04-23-12, 04:45 PM
I'll be at CinemaCon at least tonight and tomorrow.

I'll see if the demo is accessible tomorrow. If not, oh well.

RocShemp
04-23-12, 10:23 PM
This article has a nice description of it:
http://venturebeat.com/2012/04/23/dolby-atmos-surround-sound/

Although I'm sure I'm making a crude analogy, it sounds like a far more sophisticated take on what is done in a home theater with calibration suites such as Audyssey or TacT. Except the groundwork for its use is set in the mixing stage.

Interesting to say the least. I guess it would make for a more diffuse soundfield. I wonder how panning across the soundstage might sound.

RocShemp
04-25-12, 08:00 AM
Pixar's 'Brave' to Test Dolby's New Atmos Format
(http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/brave-pixar-dolby-atmos-format-315802?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thr%2Ffilm+%28The+Hollywood+Reporter+-+Movies%29)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2012/03/brave_-_h_2012.jpg_rgb.jpg

The Disney release will be mixed in Dolby’s new sound system, which will be installed in as many as 15 theaters.


LAS VEGAS -- Disney/Pixar’s Brave will be the first film to test Dolby's new Atmos format, which was developed to create sound that Dolby says is more "natural and lifelike."

Dolby aims to have the new sound system, which it debuted this week at CinemaCon, installed in 10-15 theaters worldwide for the test, for which Pixar will prepare a special mix of the film.

Seven-time Oscar winner Gary Rydstrom is serving as sound designer and re-recording mixer on the project.

At CinemaCon, sound designer and supervising sound editor Erik Aadahl, who was nominated for an Oscar for his work on Transformers: Dark of the Moon, said of the new format: “This is, I think, the biggest breakthrough in sound that has happened in my career.”

Speaking with The Hollywood Reporter, Aadahl, who did sound design using Atmos on a demonstration trailer that played at CinemaCon, likened the new Dolby format to having a new instrument to play.

“We’ve barely scratched the surface of what we can do with this technology,” he said. “What I could have done on the Transformers movie with this! … And it doesn’t have to be an action movie. It could be lush atmosphere.”

Atmos is capable of transmitting up to 128 simultaneous and lossless audio channels, and renders from 5.1 up to 64 discrete speaker feeds, according to Dolby. Speakers would be positioned around the theater and even overhead to create the immersive experience.

For the sound team, Aadahl noted that it might require some changes. He explained that the mix might add a “slight” amount of time to the schedule thought he expects it would be offset by a simpler process for creating deliverables as the sound team would only need to complete an Atmos mix.

Giles
04-25-12, 02:50 PM
^ so these 64 speakers must be on the small side given the number of them - wonder what 15 theaters are showcasing 'Brave' in Atmos (which I have to say is an odd name - where did Dolby dig that name from out of??)

Jay G.
04-25-12, 03:26 PM
^ so these 64 speakers must be on the small side given the number of them
Did you not watch the videos in the page I linked to? I'll embed them below:

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/40853396?byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>
http://vimeo.com/40853396

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/40699179?byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>
http://vimeo.com/40699179

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/40658763?byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>
http://vimeo.com/40658763

They used a 36 speaker setup for the testing in those vids, with some overhead. They are relatively small for that theater, since the idea is having more precise sound instead of simply louder sound.

RocShemp
04-25-12, 03:35 PM
^ so these 64 speakers must be on the small side given the number of them - wonder what 15 theaters are showcasing 'Brave' in Atmos (which I have to say is an odd name - where did Dolby dig that name from out of??)

Well I think only really large screening rooms will get all 64 speakers but you'd be right in assuming they wont be large. That's why Dolby mentioned the system adapts itself to the amount of speakers and configuration in the actual room.

I wonder if they plan to apply the object panning to the front sound stage as well.

In such a configuration you'd figure there'd be two rows of 16 speakers overhead, 16 speakers behind the screen, 6 on either side, and 4 in the back.

Unless they will literally build atop an existing 7.1 layout (as the videos/documents suggest). In which case you'd have three behind the screen, 12 on either side, two rows of 12 overhead, and 13 in the back.

Either way, you'd need one hell of a gargantuan sized screening room to accomodate 64 speakers.

Giles
04-25-12, 04:02 PM
why Dolby also didn't implement the left/center and right/center channels of sound for discrete audio in the front sound stage is baffling.

oh thanks. Jay G. no, I didn't get around to watching the vids you posted.

Jay G.
04-25-12, 05:50 PM
I wonder if they [plan] to apply the object panning to the front sound stage as well.

In such a configuration you'd figure there'd be two rows of 16 speakers overhead, 16 speakers behind the screen, 6 on either side, and 4 in the back.

Unless they will literally build atop an existing 7.1 layout (as the videos/documents suggest). In which case you'd have three behind the screen, 12 on either side, two rows of 12 overhead, and 13 in the back.

Either way, you'd need one hell of a gargantuan sized screening room to accomodate 64 speakers.

why Dolby also didn't implement the left/center and right/center channels of sound for discrete audio in the front sound stage is baffling.

The Atmos system is completely speaker configuration agnostic. The mixer simply places the sounds in the area they want to sound to come from, instead of specifying speaker arrangement. Which means if there's only 3 speakers behind the screen, it'll work with that. If there's 16 behind the screen, it'll work with that. Using right/center and left/center is completely possible. The single Atmos track can be played back on any of these arrangments.

It's a form of future proofing. Movie mixers can mix in this format knowing that it will be compatible with all speaker systems currently existing and for the conceivable future without a need for remixing for each new speaker arrangement. And theater owners can buy it knowing that all future movie tracks in this format will work with the speakers they own and any systems they get in the future.

I'm sure that Dolby specifically went with 128 discrete source channels and 64 speaker channels as a form of overkill, not expecting any current film soundtrack or theater to use them all. That way the format will have room to grow in the future as movie mixers start using more channels and theaters add more speakers.

RocShemp
04-25-12, 06:44 PM
I figured as much, Jay G (since it was covered in the videos). But it's stull fun to imagine how to set up 64 speakers in a screening room. :D

Giles
04-25-12, 10:40 PM
granted they didn't need to explain the entire history of cinema sound in their video - they certainly left some info out - completely negate the existence of five front channel sound and 6.1 which largely has been a failure on Dolby's part - time will tell if theaters have the resources and money to keep Atmos alive.

Ovid
04-26-12, 01:16 AM
It will probably sound like a soap opera.

TheBang
04-26-12, 09:11 PM
It will probably sound like a soap opera.
:lol:

Pizza
04-28-12, 02:42 PM
Sound mixers must want to shoot themselves in the head with this many channels to set up.

Nick Martin
04-28-12, 02:52 PM
Sound mixers must want to shoot themselves in the head with this many channels to set up.

If you read any of what was written so far, you'll see that it's not the case at all - sound mixers can mix things more for their overall ambience and room placement to match the picture instead of having to mix for individual speaker channels for a more natural approach.

RocShemp
04-28-12, 02:56 PM
Sound mixers must want to shoot themselves in the head with this many channels to set up.

Didn't you see the video? They show how a mix is made in this system. If anything, they really dumbed it down.

RocShemp
05-18-12, 09:43 AM
Saw this posted over at Blu-ray.com:

Announced today, Dolby has added a new trick to their TrueHD encoding. It allows studios and authoring houses a way to upconvert standard 48 kHz content (the sampling rate of most movies) to 96 kHz for Blu-ray.

At an event at Dolby headquarters in San Francisco, I got a chance to hear the results. Interestingly, it was quite... interesting.

First, a brief primer. Digital sampling allows for the recording of frequencies up to half the rate of the sample. Or, in other words, to record a specific frequency, you need to sample at twice that rate. So a 48 kHz sample can record sounds up to 24 kHz. This is a common movie sampling rate, slightly higher than the common music (OK, CD) rate of 44.1 kHz. Now, as some of you probably know, the human ear is said to be able to hear from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. This is marginally true, in that a baby with perfect hearing can probably hear that range (but you try asking). Those of you capable of reading this sentence can hear in much narrower range, 20 Hz to 15 kHz if you’re lucky and didn’t hit up too many Bee Gees concerts in your youth.

Now a raw look at those numbers is likely causing most of you to ask: Um, what do I need musical information at 24 kHz, or 48 kHz for, when I can’t hear past 15 kHz? Good question. Here’s the thing: Digitally encoding high frequencies can cause artifacts lower in the frequency range which may be audible. These are mostly “ripples” caused by the brick wall anti-aliasing filter that prevents sounds above half the sampling frequency from being encoded.

One of the core features in the upconversion processing is similar to what Meridian uses in their high-end CD players. It’s called an “Apodizing Filter.” I’ll leave you to the white papers linked below for the technical details, but the short version is it moves “pre-ringing” artifacts to after a audio event. Here’s how Dolby describes it: “[The upconversion process] applies an advanced apodizing filter that masks preringing artifacts introduced upstream by analog-to-digital converters used in either the recording or playback stage by shifting them into postringing. The resulting increase in postringing is inaudible as it is masked. The apodizing filter does not remove any audio from the file. Instead, the filter shifts the location of unnatural artifacts that the brickwall filtering phenomenon of signal conversion introduces into content.”

Seems interesting, but going into the listening room, I was skeptical. However, I had an open mind. I’ve done bit rate and codec testing at Dolby before, and their listening test demos are done pretty much exactly as I’d do them. This time there wasn’t the double blind aspect I’d had with the bit rate tests, but the setup was similar. I also closed my eyes to see if I could pick the 48 from the 96 without looking (a TV in the room displayed the rate).

Despite warnings by Dolby that the effect was subtle, I found it readily apparent, as did my colleagues also present at the event. This is not the sort of change in sound like going from MP3 to CD, or even from CD to high-rez. The level of change is more like switching to a better DAC: subtle, but noticeable. The sound was more open, that was definite. Other effects, like better attack and decay, were very noticeable on a short Joe Satriani clip from an upcoming concert Blu-ray. The high-hat at the beginning of the track sounded more natural, less “recorded.”

Going back and forth between 48 kHz and 96 kHz with some movie clips, the 48 kHz version sounded a little more closed in. The 96 was easier to listen to at higher volumes. A clip from The Dark Knight, where Batman kidnaps the mob money guy, had high-pitched beeps (of the bombs) plus extensive glass shattering. The 48 kHz version had a touch more harshness. The 96 kHz was just cleaner.

I hate to use the comparison, but it’s almost like the 48 kHz sounded more “compressed” even though both selections were lossless TrueHD samples. Let me be clear, the 48 kHz file sounds fine, but the 96 kHz definitely sounds better.

Bottom Line

The beauty of this new tech is there’s no new equipment to buy on your end, it’s done entirely on the mastering side. The upconversion is done before you ever touch the disc. So your current system is likely fully capable of playing back “TrueHD with Advanced 96K Upsampling.”

Will you hear a difference? Well, unfortunately the kind of A/B comparison I was able to do isn’t really possible. The tracks on the discs you’ll buy are already upconverted. Even if they put standard 48 kHz Dolby TrueHD and 96K Upsampling content on the same disc (doubtful), you won’t know if you’re listening to the same mix, or if the tracks are at the same volume (this is also true with comparing codecs on the same disc). So consider it an added bonus: you’re not paying extra for the added (albeit upconverted) resolution, it’s just there to add to your enjoyment.

Look for the logo above on discs soon. The first titles, Satchurated: Live in Montreal, San Francisco Symphony at 100, and the Chinese film The Flowers of War are all coming out in the next few months.

In the mean time, check out these two whitepapers on the tech behind it all. Dolby TrueHD Encoder with Advanced 96k Upsampling and Elevating the Performance of Lossless Audio in the Home Theater: Dolby TrueHD with Advanced 96k Upsampling

Giles
05-18-12, 10:11 AM
^ 96khz? ... pish posh... 'Akira' on bluray at 192kHz is crazy insane.

RocShemp
05-18-12, 10:18 AM
^ 96khz? ... pish posh... 'Akira' on bluray at 192kHz is crazy insane.

Yeah but that was natively encoded to 192 kHz Dolby TrueHD. This is apparently to "upconvert" 48 kHz tracks to 96 kHz. So it's more of a filter than an actual sound format or encode.

Giles
05-18-12, 10:54 AM
Yeah but that was natively encoded to 192 kHz Dolby TrueHD. This is apparently to "upconvert" 48 kHz tracks to 96 kHz. So it's more of a filter than an actual sound format or encode.


I don't doubt you, but when one hears a disc encoded to 192khz - it makes you want every disc to sound 'that' good!

RocShemp
05-18-12, 12:37 PM
I don't doubt you, but when one hears a disc encoded to 192khz - it makes you want every disc to sound 'that' good!

I totally agree with you. I'd love every film to be encoded natively to 192 kHz but space is a concern once you start encoding longer movies.

My main disappointment with this news is that Dolby is basically still using 48 kHz masters. Having heard concerts encoded natively to 96 kHz (LPCM no less), I'd have hoped the news was that 96 kHz was to become a film mastering standard.

Jay G.
05-18-12, 01:33 PM
My main disappointment with this news is that Dolby is basically still using 48 kHz masters. Having heard concerts encoded natively to 96 kHz (LPCM no less), I'd have hoped the news was that 96 kHz was to become a film mastering standard.
It's important to note that the Dolby TrueHD upsampling is strictly for Blu-ray releases, and thus likely was designed for working with current and previous film masters.

Dolby Atmos is completely separate, and is what Dolby has proposed for new and future film mastering. I can't find any info on what sample rates Dolby Atmos works with.

RocShemp
05-18-12, 01:57 PM
^ I get that, Jay G. But my issue is that it is basically nothing but an overglorified filter. Film masters are still produced in 48 kHz so, unless Atmos will require 96 kHz master from scratch, I see no real advancement either way.

I'm surprised films haven't moved passed 96 kHz already and this new Dolby system is a bandaid at best.

Jay G.
05-18-12, 04:44 PM
^ I get that, Jay G. But my issue is that it is basically nothing but an overglorified filter. Film masters are still produced in 48 kHz so, unless Atmos will require 96 kHz master from scratch, I see no real advancement either way.

I'm surprised films haven't moved passed 96 kHz already and this new Dolby system is a bandaid at best.
The

Digital Cinema Package (DCP) that digital films are delivered in support 96 kHz already:


http://dcimovies.com/DCIDigitalCinemaSystemSpecv1_2.pdf
The Media Network is required to support sustained rate of 307 Mbits/sec for compressed image (250 Mbits/sec), audio (37.87 Mbits/sec - 16 channels, 24 bit sample, 96 KHz) and subtitle data (subpicture 20 MBits/sec) for each screen.

Audio – This interface is required to stream multiple digital audio channels to the Cinema Audio Processor. This is required to be in an AES3 format. For worst-case audio bandwidth, 37 Mbits/sec is required (16 channels * 24 bit sample * 96 kHz = 37 Mbits/sec).

Bandwidth
The storage system is required to provide enough output to support a continuous stream of 307 Mbits/sec for compressed image, uncompressed audio (16 channels, 24 bit sample, 96 kHz) and subtitle data to allow for non interrupted Digital Cinema playback.

So if studios are still mastering audio in 48 kHz, it appears to be the fault of the studio, not the delivery system.

Atmos will be delivered in a "backwards compatible" DCP, but since it delivers up to 128 channels, well above the 16 allowed in DCP, the Atmos - specific material must be an extension to the DCP format.
http://www.screendigest.com/news/2012_05_cinema_sound_becomes_a_competitive_environment_again/view.html

Giles
05-18-12, 05:09 PM
It's important to note that the Dolby TrueHD upsampling is strictly for Blu-ray releases, and thus likely was designed for working with current and previous film masters.

Dolby Atmos is completely separate, and is what Dolby has proposed for new and future film mastering. I can't find any info on what sample rates Dolby Atmos works with.

supposedly the July/August issue of Widescreen Review is going to have a detailed story on the new system and hopefully some tech stats will be revealed.

The

Digital Cinema Package (DCP) that digital films are delivered in support 96 kHz already:


http://dcimovies.com/DCIDigitalCinemaSystemSpecv1_2.pdf


So if studios are still mastering audio in 48 kHz, it appears to be the fault of the studio, not the delivery system.

Atmos will be delivered in a "backwards compatible" DCP, but since it delivers up to 128 channels, well above the 16 allowed in DCP, the Atmos - specific material must be an extension to the DCP format.
http://www.screendigest.com/news/2012_05_cinema_sound_becomes_a_competitive_environment_again/view.html

I thought it was going to do a lot of matrixing, but the 16 DCP channels are discrete, two of which are being completely ignored at the moment - the LE and RE (center left/center right) channels - which in the past have been utilized in pre-1977 70mm mixes and SDDS 8-channel mixing. It's a guessing game when five front channel stage sound will be resurrected, if at all, the trend to wrap sound 'around' the audience and 'above' them seems to have become paramount to the new standard of 'film sound'

RocShemp
05-18-12, 07:49 PM
So if studios are still mastering audio in 48 kHz, it appears to be the fault of the studio, not the delivery system.

I totally get that and agree with your conclusion. However that also supports my view that this "feature" Dolby just announced is a figurative bandaid. To truly benefit from 96 kHz, studios need to make their masters that way. Instead, all I see this doing is encourage them to simply stick with 48 kHz since "it'll end up 96 kHz later anyway". :rolleyes:

Jay G.
05-23-12, 09:27 PM
I emailed Dolby asking about the sample rates of Atmos. This is the response I got:
Thank you for contacting Dolby and for you interest in Dolby Atmos.

The current implementation of Dolby Atmos supports sample rates up to 24bit / 96kHz. However, at this sample rate you would be limited to 64 object / channel streams (still with 64 speaker feeds / rendered outputs), as apposed to 128 object / channel streams when operating at 24bit / 48kHz and (again with 64 speaker feeds / rendered outputs).

Matthew Chmiel
06-19-12, 03:24 AM
Dolby Atmos premieres Friday at:

• AMC® BarryWoods 24 (Kansas City, MO)
• AMC Burbank 16 (Burbank, CA)
• AMC Century City 15 (Century City, CA)
• AMC Downtown Disney 24 (Lake Buena Vista, FL)
• AMC Garden State 16 (Paramus, NJ)
• AMC Van Ness 14 (San Francisco, CA)
• ArcLight Sherman Oaks (Sherman Oaks, CA)
• Brenden Theatres at the Palms (Las Vegas, NV)
• Century at Pacific Commons and XD (Fremont, CA)
• Cinemark® West Plano and XD (West Plano, TX)
• SilverCity-Yonge Eglington Cinemas (Cineplex) (Toronto, ON)
• Cinetopia Vancouver Mall 23 (Vancouver, WA)
• El Capitan Theatre (Hollywood, CA)
• Kerasotes ShowPlace™ ICON at Roosevelt Collection (Chicago, IL)

At my theater, Dolby Atmos is either in:


One of the two larger auditoriums that holds 400 (which is showing Brave in 2D).
A smaller auditorium that holds 250 and will replace their Dolby 7.1 system (which is showing Brave in 3D).

I'm hoping for the former and not the latter. I've posted a comment on their Facebook page. We'll see what answer I get. I'm expecting the, "Dolby whatmos?"

TomOpus
06-19-12, 08:42 AM
The AMC Barrywoods is my go-to theater since it's 12 mins away. Hopefully the movie listings will indicate which movie(s) will be using it.

Matthew Chmiel
06-19-12, 02:15 PM
The AMC Barrywoods is my go-to theater since it's 12 mins away. Hopefully the movie listings will indicate which movie(s) will be using it.
Fandango doesn't. At least, not yet.

TomOpus
06-22-12, 01:26 AM
Just checked and the AMC site shows that the ETX screen will be the one with ATMOS. This makes sense since ETX is a larger screen and pumped-up sound.

So we are going to see Brave this weekend and I will checkout the future of sound at the movies :)

Matthew Chmiel
06-22-12, 02:43 AM
Just checked and the AMC site shows that the ETX screen will be the one with ATMOS. This makes sense since ETX is a larger screen and pumped-up sound.

So we are going to see Brave this weekend and I will checkout the future of sound at the movies :)
You lucky son of a bitch.

I got the news last night that the Dolby Atmos auditorium is the smaller 250-seat theater. BAH.

TomOpus
06-22-12, 09:59 AM
You lucky son of a bitch.

I got the news last night that the Dolby Atmos auditorium is the smaller 250-seat theater. BAH. I wonder what the reasoning was in choosing the theater. Hopefully the smaller theater won't affect the experience.

TomOpus
06-24-12, 02:46 AM
Went to Brave today.

1. Right after the previews and just before the movie started, a rep from Dolby Labs explained to the audience about what Atmos is and what to expect.

2. After the movie was over, there were women with clipboards asking for people to fill out a questionnaire. It asked some demographics and questions regarding how you liked the experience, if you knew about Atmos before you bought tickets, what types of movies you'd like to see with Atmos...etc. There were two pages and I got a coupon for a free small popcorn (or upgrade to large).

3. Atmos is pretty cool but in a subtle way. There's a nice sound demo they play before the movie. The sound was powerful without being overly loud during loud passages. My fiancée liked that. The sound was more consistent throughout the film. The overhead speakers made good use of objects flying overhead and the pitter-patter of rain. The clarity of voices really helped with the accents. It does have a more natural sound but doesn't hit you over the head.

TomOpus
07-02-12, 09:55 AM
Anyone else see "Brave" with an Atmos system?

Matthew Chmiel
07-03-12, 12:41 AM
Yes, I finally went tonight.

One of the best uses of surround sound that I've ever experienced, but I wanted it to be louder.

CRANK IT UP TO 11 GODDAMNIT.

TomOpus
07-03-12, 10:17 AM
So, for now, just us two who are the lucky ones.

It will be interesting to hear a live-action movie with Atmos. Could you imagine a Michael Bay explosion-fest?

Matthew Chmiel
07-04-12, 04:54 PM
It'll be interesting to hear a sound mix designed specifically with Atmos in mind.

Don't get me wrong, Brave sounded great in the Atmos auditorium I watched it in. However, at times it sounded like a more immersive 7.1 mix than anything else. It's a gimmick for now, but at least it's a gimmick that doesn't throw one's money away like say D-Box.

However, there's one "fault" that I noticed. During Merida's opening narration, there was a definite reverberation which made everything sound off. It wasn't there during her narration at the end of the film, only the opening. I don't know if that was a sound mix fault, a theater fault, or what.

I was talking to the general manager of the theater after the film and she mentioned that people already complained that it was too loud. We all laughed. Pussies. They should've seen Underworld: Awakening in IMAX where I nearly went deaf half way through the film.

[And this is coming from someone who has a Logitech G35 7.1 headset that is mostly used to play Team Fortress 2 with. ;)]

Drexl
07-04-12, 08:57 PM
I missed the talk about the upsampling the first time, and my initial impression is that it may not be a big deal. Upsampling has been around for a while in PC music players; you can try it now if you want. The general opinion, from those that have done blind tests, is that there is no audible benefit to doing it. Maybe Dolby's filter is special though; we'll see (I mean, we'll hear...).

I hope we can disable the upsampling. On some equipment, working with a higher sampling rate can be a problem due to the increased workload of decoding. For instance, on my receiver, if a TrueHD track is 96khz, I'm unable to use bass management or apply the calibrated volume level of each speaker. It can't play 192khz TrueHD at all. This is probably less of an issue as time goes on though, as newer/higher end receivers pack more processing power.