• 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?

if ones can make fusion reactor , why is it dolby labs wasting my listening time with their junk atmos ? why is that ? no support for discrete below surround , yes ? huh ? why are they pretending its 3d audio when it ain't , atmos is snake oil , i hardly if not now ever use it , last had it playing many no months ago , its back to Dolby Stereo 04 40 42 43 or 10 , atmos no longer care for it
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?
 
@Magnus - That is interesting, since I have 7.1 analogue inputs (RCA) on my preamp, I could use these to connect to the 7.1 analogue outputs on an MC-12. My source is the Wiim Ultra which would connect to the MC-12 with via toslink.

In such a configuration, would the volume have to be controlled from both the MC-12 and my preamp? I'd rather the volume be controlled using the remote of my preamp.

Also, I'm not sure if I can bypass the DAC in my preamp, I'm sure it's possible via a pass-through or pure direct mode.

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.
 
no support for discrete below surround
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.
 
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?
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)



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.
 
if ones can make fusion reactor , why is it dolby labs wasting my listening time with their junk atmos ? why is that ? no support for discrete below surround , yes ? huh ? why are they pretending its 3d audio when it ain't , atmos is snake oil , i hardly if not now ever use it , last had it playing many no months ago , its back to Dolby Stereo 04 40 42 43 or 10 , atmos no longer care for it
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.
 
if ones can make fusion reactor , why is it dolby labs wasting my listening time with their junk atmos ? why is that ? no support for discrete below surround , yes ? huh ? why are they pretending its 3d audio when it ain't , atmos is snake oil , i hardly if not now ever use it , last had it playing many no months ago , its back to Dolby Stereo 04 40 42 43 or 10 , atmos no longer care for it
Mythical post
 
Back
Top Bottom