If I understand your post correctly, you don't like Atmos and don't use it, is that correct?
If so, then how is Dolby "wasting" your listening time with their junk Atmos?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Upmixing - where are we at? Have people compared upmixers?
- Thread starter dlaloum
- Start date
If so, then how is Dolby "wasting" your listening time with their junk Atmos?
One key advantage of the above approach is that it retains my current setup in terms of calibration. I could setup the MC-12 separately in conjunction with my power amp that has both balanced and unbalanced interfaces but I'm trying to avoid that. Furthermore, I'd need an automated or controlled interface that allows one to switch between two 8-channel sources where one is balanced and the other is unbalanced. This is due to the fact that I have the unbalanced version of the MC-12. All in all, being able to connect the MC-12 to my preamp seems to be the best approach.
Not sure what you mean by that.
Atmos is object based sound. Whatever device is decoding it can render it to whatever number of speakers are available to it.
Soundmixer
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2021
- Messages
- 457
- Likes
- 318
He needs something to complain about. Pay him no mind.
This is another thread that could get value from a look at this article (from that Monty guy)
people.xiph.org
Tl;dr:
Human hearing is limited both in bandwidth and dynamic range.
More than 48kHz is not needed for the former
More than 16 bits (dithered) is not needed for the latter.
Higher bandwidth audio can actually reduce fidelity by intermodulation in the speaker and/or amp reflecting back into the audio bandwidth in an audible way.
(the above referring to reproduction rather than production)
Lots of useful illustration and explanation.
24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed
people.xiph.org
Tl;dr:
Human hearing is limited both in bandwidth and dynamic range.
More than 48kHz is not needed for the former
More than 16 bits (dithered) is not needed for the latter.
Higher bandwidth audio can actually reduce fidelity by intermodulation in the speaker and/or amp reflecting back into the audio bandwidth in an audible way.
(the above referring to reproduction rather than production)
Lots of useful illustration and explanation.
Soundmixer
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2021
- Messages
- 457
- Likes
- 318
It might be easier to say " I don't understand how the technology works" rather than this. Dolby Stereo is dead and buried in the 20th century where it belongs. It is not coming back, and quite frankly it had its playback issues.....like not being a discrete system.
tetragrammaton
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2021
- Messages
- 64
- Likes
- 127
Mythical post
L7 still seems to be the benchmark. Anything new and innovative that surpasses the performance of L7? Recent algos that are able to create stems from two channel sources are very promising but most are geared towards production rather than real-time up-mixing that can be fine tuned to taste. Has anyone out there built an up-mixing solution using the stem creation approach that incorporates sophisticated steering?
- Thread Starter
- #510
A number of people in this thread have posted that they have experienced positive results with Auro3D...
I find the current version of Dolby Surround in my Integra DRX 3.4 to be acceptable.... but going from inherently flawed audio memory, I would think L7 was better...
Once Dirac ART is released to the wider market, I plan to take the plunge and purchase an AVR capable of Auro3D in addition to Dirac ART... (would be even better if it was capable of L7 / L16... but only the JBL Synthesis range have included that, and that range has other issues, including its price!)
Opinions are great things, we all have them. 
I've mentioned before I believe all the continued love for L7 is more nostalgia based than anything.
It's true that L7 continues to be one of the best options for the extraction of ambiance to surround channels and creating the illusion of concert hall sound.
OTOH, if what you're looking for is the of turning of a 2 ch source into some approximation of what a multich mix might sound like on your system, it's my opinion that the more modern codex from Dolby, DTS, and Auro offer better choices. Each must be tried with each album to see which one is a better fit, not one is best for all. JMHO YMMV
I've mentioned before I believe all the continued love for L7 is more nostalgia based than anything.
It's true that L7 continues to be one of the best options for the extraction of ambiance to surround channels and creating the illusion of concert hall sound.
OTOH, if what you're looking for is the of turning of a 2 ch source into some approximation of what a multich mix might sound like on your system, it's my opinion that the more modern codex from Dolby, DTS, and Auro offer better choices. Each must be tried with each album to see which one is a better fit, not one is best for all. JMHO YMMV
tetragrammaton
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2021
- Messages
- 64
- Likes
- 127
I assume you say such things because you've done thorough testing of each in your time, and perhaps even done one or two direct comparisons?Opinions are great things, we all have them.
I've mentioned before I believe all the continued love for L7 is more nostalgia based than anything.
It's true that L7 continues to be one of the best options for the extraction of ambiance to surround channels and creating the illusion of concert hall sound.
OTOH, if what you're looking for is the of turning of a 2 ch source into some approximation of what a multich mix might sound like on your system, it's my opinion that the more modern codex from Dolby, DTS, and Auro offer better choices. Each must be tried with each album to see which one is a better fit, not one is best for all. JMHO YMMV
Otherwise, to dismiss praise as nostalgia without even experiencing whatever is praised seems somewhat foolhardy.
I know one person who has actually compared L7 (and PLII) to the modern upmixers, and their opinion is that only DSU comes close. They had no love for either DTS or Auro in their testing.
Yeah, and most stink....Opinions are great things, we all have them.
Since I never had Logic 7 until 2023 I think that's unlikely to be the case....
It's true that L7 continues to be one of the best options for the extraction of ambiance to surround channels and creating the illusion of concert hall sound.
OTOH, if what you're looking for is the of turning of a 2 ch source into some approximation of what a multich mix might sound like on your system, it's my opinion that the more modern codex from Dolby, DTS, and Auro offer better choices. Each must be tried with each album to see which one is a better fit, not one is best for all. JMHO YMMV
Neural X is great at that if you have 4.0-7.1 to start with, but for stereo, not so much. It has this tendency to put things near the ceiling when it comes to orchestral instruments for some reason (must be concert "bounce" that fools it or something).
DSU is like a weaker PLIIx with some ceiling ambience. It's okay, but I prefer stereo.
Auro-3D is just speaker fill with reverb added. It's a bit like an old fashioned Yamaha DSP mode. It doesn't mess with the layout, so it sounds pretty decent, particularly from the middel and back of the room, which sound kind of "empty" in stereo in a deadened home theater room.
Logic 7 has a LOT of options and varies in what it does to some extent depending on which version you have (I've tried Lexicon DC-1 to MC-1, but I gather later versions had "cinema/music" modes with fixed settings, which worked with some things better, but mostly worse. Supposedly the final MC-12 version was the pinnacle version from the comments I've read.
But I think given the Lexicon options, getting it blended right and using all seven speakers is critical to getting the most from the sound (5-channel sounded good on my Carver AL-III system with Sonic Holography added in the front (via the Carver C5 pre-amp attached to the DC-1 main outs), but adding some rear surrounds (bounced off the rear wall way behind the system with delays set to make it seem anywhere from 5 feet way to 20 feet way) REALLY kicked it into gear (The Sonic Holography made the mains image to the edge of the front of the room instead of 1/3 into it while the side surrounds image at the side walls so it gives it a nice rectangular room filling sound).
Now there's several Logic 7 related modes on the DC-1 and MC-1. There's "Logic 7" (which on the MC-1 also has 5.1 + simulated rears) and there's Music Logic and Logic Surround as well (which you can use to optimize for live music or have a 5.1 mode instead of a 7.1 mode as the phantom images change in location quite a bit). But typically, I find Logic 7 sounds the best once dialed in. But then there's also DD Logic 5.1 and DTS Logic 5.1, both of which can be set to use 5.1 or 7.1 layouts. THX Mode also has Dipole and Monopole options and in Monopole mode, a STEREO rear Surround option (similar to the rears in Logic 7 instead of Dolby/DTS 6.1) or in THX Mono sets of mono arrays (or dipoles), but that's mostly for film. Logic 7 can be used for both, however and IMO, it does a better job than PLIIx for either movies or music. Unlike many newer processors, Lexicon also copies the side channels into the rear channels in most regular modes (5.1 decoded with 7.1 layout for example). This makes multiple rows of seats work very easily with a mere 5.1 soundtrack without necessarily changing the layout (2nd row hears the same as the front row for side fill even if they're one more set of speakers back into the room. My sides are between rows, two sets of them and a rear set and "Scatmos" makes use of all of them with Logic 7 by "filling the phantom center in-between with a real set of ss#2 speakers).
So what does Logic 7 do for 5.1 soundtracks and 5.1 surround music albums? Well, it depends on how discrete the mix is, but generally speaking, it's similar to what PLIIx does for 5.1 (attempts to add stereo rear surrounds pulling parts of the mix backwards further into the room except it uses a different formula. The idea it merely adds ambience seems false to me. If I play Duran Duran's Danse Macabre (title track) in Dolby Digital 5.1 core on the Lexicon MC-1 or DC-1, the parts that are behind me in the bed 7.1 mix are behind me with the Lexicon too! Logic 7 does a fairly good job at pulling out the folded down rear speakers back to the rear (not perfect; it doens't work with pink noise test tones, for example), but those major sounds I hear behind me in Atmos, I hear behind me in Logic 7 also.
Somehow, Logic 7 also seems to simulate higher angle sound fields (it said so in the manual, but I was shocked when it seemed to actually have some truth) so instead of a strict cut off at ear level, sounds are as high as 2/3 up towards the ceiling with no ceiling speakers playing (I find that pretty impressive because Star Wars sounds like the Star Destroyer is above them even in THX (not Logic 7) mode. My Yamaha PLIIx 6.1 setup had 2/3 up the ceiling bipole surrounds and without the front height "presence" speakers, it never sounded above/below and the DSP "locations" were considerably worse without the Presence speakers, whereas the Lexicon "church" and "night club" are considerably better just using ear level speakers than the Yamaha was (although it sounded good with front presence overheads added) and I can "add" them in here with a switch and I can't hear any difference with them both on or just the ear level side surrounds on (there is a difference with side heights on only as it's there's less ear level fill).
So this idea Logic 7 is only for ambience seems absurd in the 5.1 modes as full discrete sounds are pulled into the rears on those albums that have it (e.g. DTS Alan Parsons ON AIR has the guy walk into the back of the room instead of right behind me without the rears, the same as PLIIx does).
But what about Logic 7 with stereo signals? It's dependent on the mix and how much out-of-phase information is present. PLIIx can be a bit "abrupt" with some albums in that regard and sound a bit unnatural. However again I think the idea that only ambience ends up in the surround channels is simply not accurate. I can plainly hear backup vocals and other keyboard parts on the sides and somewhat behind me in Logic 7 if there's heavy out-of-phase instruments used. But it seems "smoother" or "more natural" sounding somehow in a way that's hard to explain.
I didn't like PLIIx much for most 2-channel albums (a few like No Doubt's Rock Steady sounded pretty good), but here I VASTLY PREFER Logic 7 with almost every 2-channel CD I have to playing it in stereo. If it's got heavy out-of-phase instruments, it peforms more like PLIIx. If it has less, it's more natural ambient sounding like I can hear music all around me, but it's more like reverb/room effects. It's kind of like taking Auro-3D's upmixer and adding in PLIIx, but only for more heavily out-of-phase material.
Tori Amos' Ocean To Ocean on the first track (Addition of Ligth Divided) has her choral voice effect come straight out into the room to along side me and then move right towards me in an arc in Logic 7. It's mostly to the sides of the mains in stereo. DSU has it come outwards a bit but it doesn't turn towards me. Neural X has it elevated a bit too much (my experiemental floor speakers seem to balance that out a bit better now, though, but in most systems it will be higher). The Atmos version has that same effect go in a circle around you so I'd say the Logic 7 version is closer to the Atmos effect. I actually kind of like that "U" effect better than a "circle" for some reason, but otherwise, the Atmos mix sounds very similar to Logic 7 rendition ("answer" vocals to the sides, most other effects all around).
All in all, I had a blast going through hundreds of CDs to hear what cool thing would happen in Neural X. Sonic Holography in "All Channel Stereo" mode was VERY interesting also (I tried that first). You have to get all the speakers balanced and distanced just right, but it does work (the Holophonics disc sounded like I was getting a haircut with oversized scissors for an oversized head, but the binaural effects did work with All Channel Stereo in Sonic Holography mode of Bob's old external processor plugged into 2-channel inputs with a 2nd set of outputs going right into it from my Nvidia Shield using an HDMI decoder box). Overall, though, the Sonic Holography 360 effects were inconsistent (awesome on some albums and kind of meh on others), but there was never a time I didn't prefer Logic 7 to plain stereo (easy to instantly switch between them as well on the remote).
- Thread Starter
- #514
My objective with upmixing stereo is pretty much as you describe - keep the stereo image intact (although perhaps allow for the imaging to work across a wider listening window) and provide ambiance...Opinions are great things, we all have them.
I've mentioned before I believe all the continued love for L7 is more nostalgia based than anything.
It's true that L7 continues to be one of the best options for the extraction of ambiance to surround channels and creating the illusion of concert hall sound.
OTOH, if what you're looking for is the of turning of a 2 ch source into some approximation of what a multich mix might sound like on your system, it's my opinion that the more modern codex from Dolby, DTS, and Auro offer better choices. Each must be tried with each album to see which one is a better fit, not one is best for all. JMHO YMMV
But L7 also excels at extracting enveloping positioning information taking old Dolby Surround (stereo with encoded surround) and upmixing it to 5.1 or 7.1 - or taking 5.1 to 7.1.... - within its intended source materials, and intended target setup (up to 7.1) it is pretty much as good as it gets (from memory!).
If I am listening to a stereo recording, I don't want it reproduced as ersatz multi-channel - I just want the additional ambiance, and for the original staging and imaging to be reproduced....
And if I am listening to a recording that is supposed to surround me, and place me in the center of an enveloping soundfield (mainly movies) - then I want the mixer to mix the source material to best fit my speaker configuration (5.1.4) - whether that involved upmixing, downmixing or waving a magic wand....
I mostly miss L7 for music - current generation Dolby Surround works fine for stereo movies/TV material.... and I am hoping that Auro3D's mixer will do something more like L7 for music....
Chr1
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,512
- Likes
- 1,427
Do any of the current AVRs still have Logic X? My AVR doesn't, so I am unable to test it. I find it curious that it seems to be preferred over all of the various modern options here. I guess it also depends on personal taste in both surround effects applied, and possibly also genre of music used/favoured.
Logic X as in Pro Logic IIx? I don't think anything has supported it directly in awhile (I think exactly one Atmos AVR/AVP had PLIIx and DSU both), but any AVRs that support 7.1 inputs can add it easily enough (D&M just recently stopped including 7.1 inputs, but up to the Marantz SR8015 and Denon 8500 had it. The Trinnov Altitude line has 7.1 inputs and can add DSU/Neural X to PLIIx and/or Logic 7, given them overhead ambience).
A Lexicon MC-8 V2.0 or MC-12 V6.0 have both PLIIx and Logic 7 on them that could be plugged into those types of inputs and earlier firmware versions have PLII (5.1) and Logic 7 (7.1). For PLIIx only, there's a plethora of old AVRs that could be plugged in to get it, including some with Audyssey for its own room correction of the 7.1 channels (or Mini-DSP can correct subs after the AVR).
Chr1
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,512
- Likes
- 1,427
Apologies, I meant Logic 7.
I used "X" to denote "x amount of channels". (Presumably there was a Logic 5 before Logic 7.)
I suspect that the older Logic 7, Logic 5 etc may mainly be preferable to people who became familiar with them back in the day. Just wish I had a way to compare with the more current crop personally.
I used "X" to denote "x amount of channels". (Presumably there was a Logic 5 before Logic 7.)
I suspect that the older Logic 7, Logic 5 etc may mainly be preferable to people who became familiar with them back in the day. Just wish I had a way to compare with the more current crop personally.
- Thread Starter
- #518
Only JBL Synthesis AVR's and AVP's... the MA series of AVR's don't have it
(and it is apparently a neutered version with minimal adjustability, nothing like the Lexicon's of yore)
- Thread Starter
- #519
The latest version is Logic16 - apparently able to handle up to 16 channels
Yes I have, I've been doing surround sound since the early 1970's. As a bonafide here's a pic of my Marantz 2270 receiver atop it's matching 2440 Quad adapter and me eating a whopper cira 1975.
I've been doing constant comparisons of upmixers looking to find that which I thought did the best job at the moment. I don't expect anyone to take my findings as definitive on anything, as can be read in this thread these are opinions, not measurement based facts. But reading just the last batch of threads it's easy to deduce that the findings are all over the place and one man's opinion is as good as the next. But I do find it a bit amusing how some can insist that after all these years no one has been able to surpass L7, hence my thoughts on it may be a bit nostalgia based.