There are no beds at home, only in the cinema. What are those 2 dimensions? Atmos adds 1 to an existing 2. It's just not truly adaptive at home with free object movements.What about the surround beds, aren’t they add the two remaining dimensions?
There are no beds at home, only in the cinema. What are those 2 dimensions? Atmos adds 1 to an existing 2. It's just not truly adaptive at home with free object movements.What about the surround beds, aren’t they add the two remaining dimensions?
There are no beds at home, only in the cinema. What are those 2 dimensions? Atmos adds 1 to an existing 2.
Usually 7.1.4 or 9.1.6. Try my visualizer, there aren't much movement most of the time. Someone also made a YouTube channel with it called Object Demo.How many channels a Dolby Atmos TrueHD Blu-ray has?
That's advertising. I've found lots of surprises while making an Atmos decoder.Edit: I learned something. You can too by reading this Dolby document.
What was I advertising?That's advertising.
I was talking about Dolby's paper. What they say is not necessarily the truth in all cases. It's just the best of the best case scenario.What was I advertising?
The format is called Atmos. Dolby own the copyright and the patent for Atmos but you think they are lying and you know better?I was talking about Dolby's paper. What they say is not necessarily the truth in all cases. It's just the best of the best case scenario.
There is absolutely no way a large corporation would try to inflate their numbers to please investors. That's literally impossible that the industry working with their product is seeing numbers that are lackluster compared to official ones. Engineers must have united to upload videos and make visualizers that disprove Dolby's claims just to make them look bad. Actually, there's no lie there. You can set up 24.1.10, it just won't have too many active channels.The format is called Atmos. Dolby own the copyright and the patent for Atmos but you think they are lying and you know better?
You need to adjust your values.
They only thing they proved is that MP3 compression can be heard. MP3 by now can be considered legacy. Modern codecs are much better and more efficient. Sure you can always make a test that a codec fails on. In practice though, at the bitrates we’re talking about here, you’ll really have a damn hard time hearing any difference. Certainly not an obvious night and day one.Compression can be heard. They had the proof in abundance.
When you reduce to those words, of course you are correct then again people do hear differences between amplifiers that are supposed to wires with gain and no compression can be measurable and do that on blind tests. You can't hear compression is false but "you’ll really have a have a damn hard time hearing any difference. Certainly not an obvious night and day one." is true. On your earlier posts you were implying the former.They only thing they proved is that MP3 compression can be heard. MP3 by now can be considered legacy. Modern codecs are much better and more efficient. Sure you can always make a test that a codec fails on. In practice though, at the bitrates we’re talking about here, you’ll really have a damn hard time hearing any difference. Certainly not an obvious night and day one.
Sarcasm has no place in science nor engineering. If you have proof than declare it and shame Dolby. Otherwise, you are just winging and blaming people for advertising because we refer to Dolby's papers. That is in itself slander!There is absolutely no way a large corporation would try to inflate their numbers to please investors. That's literally impossible that the industry working with their product is seeing numbers that are lackluster compared to official ones. Engineers must have united to upload videos and make visualizers that disprove Dolby's claims just to make them look bad. Actually, there's no lie there. You can set up 24.1.10, it just won't have too many active channels.
I literally made the only free decoder for it, which requires a complete understanding of even unused features.If you have proof
Do you think we can't find out what the differences in these amps are when they are actually distinguishable in a blind test? Besides, I don't know what this had to do with lossy audio codecs.When you reduce to those words, of course you are correct then again people do hear differences between amplifiers that are supposed to wires with gain and no compression can be measurable and do that on blind tests.
Correct, it is false as a generalization.You can't hear compression is false
Well, research suggests that this is the case, doesn't it?but "you’ll really have a have a damn hard time hearing any difference. Certainly not an obvious night and day one." is true.
Before your post, I wasn't implying anything at all. I was merely asking for proof. Funny how people immediately start to franticly defend their position, when the only thing you do, is ask for some actual proofOn your earlier posts you were implying the former.
Oh, that takes all the fun out of it. Luckily, this is just an internet forum, not a university...Sarcasm has no place in science nor engineering.
It depends on:In practice though, at the bitrates we’re talking about here, you’ll really have a damn hard time hearing any difference. Certainly not an obvious night and day one.
I don't want to discard it, the issue is that the required documents are not public for this task.I'd like to ask to VoidX to don't discard Atmos decoding in TrueHd
Just because you reversed engineer something has nothing to do with your insentience that Dolby is lying. There’s no proof that your solution is working or not? We only have your words or hearsay. Where are the tests?I literally made the only free decoder for it, which requires a complete understanding of even unused features.
Also, advertising is still done by Dolby in the papers, not by you by linking it.
When Dolby documents are required by law to state the truth (like standard documents, e.g. ETSI), they don't match up with ad docs like the one you linked.
Not reverse engineered, but created by Dolby documents and I also contributed to the standard by reporting issues directly to them. Both would disprove your call of hearsay anyway. There are literally tens of videos that prove it works and object count is lesser than the available channel count. If you don't believe me, ask Trinnov, they show the same, because it's the reality. They also prove that the Dolby Demo Discs (!) are mostly 9.1.6 downmixes. I told you but you didn't even bother to check.Just because you reversed engineer something has nothing to do with your insentience that Dolby is lying. There’s no proof that your solution is working or not? We only have your words or hearsay. Where are the tests?
If you keep posting in public forums that Dolby is lying prepare to be sued.
If posting Dolby papers are advertising then sue me and everyone else on the Net, including every Dolby Atmos product manufacturer.
Or, you can grow up.
That is what reverse engineering means.Not reverse engineered, but created by Dolby documents
So you worked for Dolby as a consultant but you are happy to call them liars?I also contributed to the standard by reporting issues directly to them.
They say the opposite in their marketing material.If you don't believe me, ask Trinnov, they show the same, because it's the reality.
You have now started to call Trinnov a liar as well.There are 15 objects at max, clarified in ETSI 103 420. Please read it before you post something biased on marketing materials again. Dolby advertises support up to 34 channels. So how is that a complete adaptive system?
The Altitude32 remains the only AV Processor on the market capable of decoding and rendering Dolby Atmos Home content in its full 24.x.10 channel count...
Trinnov | 36-Channel Reference Immersive Sound AV Processor
Since 2014, Trinnov's Altitude32 leads the AV Processor market to higher levels of performance and sustainability with Dolby Atmos, DTS:X Pro and Auro-3Dwww.trinnov.com
"Reverse engineering is a process or method through which one attempts to understand through deductive reasoning how a previously made device, process, system, or piece of software accomplishes a task with very little insight into exactly how it does so."That is what reverse engineering means.
Quote the word liar from me. Would you decline help for someone just because you don't agree in a minor thing with them? I thought so.So you worked for Dolby as a consultant but you are happy to call them liars?
Oh, really, where do they show more than 15 objects? You would need content that has more, and that doesn't exist. Here's a video of exactly what I said to you:They say the opposite in their marketing material.
I literally agreed with what their visualizer shows. Trinnov proves that Dolby sometimes say nonsense.You have now started to call Trinnov a liar as well.
So you created your programme using the published documents of a patented programme?"Reverse engineering is a process or method through which one attempts to understand through deductive reasoning how a previously made device, process, system, or piece of software accomplishes a task with very little insight into exactly how it does so."
The documentation is a complete insight. This is not reverse engineering, just simple engineering. A fellow engineer might have learned that.
A patent is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an enabling disclosure of the invention.
Patent - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org