Last edited by a moderator:
Comments Inspired By Booka Shade - Dear Future Self [Blu-Ray Audio]
- Thread starter Sal1950
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Dude... educate yourself...
I think the only pop/rock album I've found in Auro-3D that really works for me is Mando Diao's Aelita and Lichtmond 3 - Days of Eternity. I loved Jennifer Batten's "Ass Whoopin'" track on the Auro-3D Demo disc, but the full album is nowhere to be found in Auro-3D. I've got some jazz and folk music in Auro-3D, though. I couldn't get into Tiesto's Elements of Life too well, at least on the first listen. I'll have to try it again, I guess.
???
I'm sorry, but you made a very bold claim about Auro-3D and then won't name a single title? You then tell him to educate himself? Seriously?
I've gone through every Auro-3D title listed at the Auro-3D web site (own a half dozen of them along with both demo discs and I have no idea WTF you're talking about). Many are dual-Atmos/Auro titles like Himmelbrand (excellent hymnal album recording) and Bernie Dresel.
???
I'm sorry, but you made a very bold claim about Auro-3D and then won't name a single title? You then tell him to educate himself? Seriously?
I've gone through every Auro-3D title listed at the Auro-3D web site (own a half dozen of them along with both demo discs and I have no idea WTF you're talking about). Many are dual-Atmos/Auro titles like Himmelbrand (excellent hymnal album recording) and Bernie Dresel.
Did I say anything about pop or rock?
Who was it that pissed in your Cheerio's ?
I took "drum roll please" to be a bit snarky. Point is, there are some great Auro discs. Those who are in to immerse audio and don't know that are missing out...
Why, it wasn't meant to be.
Just waiting for you list the albums you praised
Ok. Keep waiting.
are the mixes different from the Atmos on these albums when they are played back in Auro-3D?
this is what Discogs lists in Auro-3D (was surprised to see i have a few already without knowing it!)
https://www.discogs.com/search/?q=auro+3d&type=all&page=1
this is what Discogs lists in Auro-3D (was surprised to see i have a few already without knowing it!)
https://www.discogs.com/search/?q=auro+3d&type=all&page=1
I have around 1/3 of those. Some excellent stuff!
Do you have the ability to play Auro? Should be roughly the same mix, though Atmos and Auro make use of the available channels a bit differently.
If you're already happy with Atmos from a particular album, I don't see the need to also check it out in Auro. Except Auro is capable of higher resolution.
But of the Auro-only titles, there are definitely some that stay in rotation around here.
For some AVR's, such as mine, you have to purchase Auro-3D, then install it. My AVR prompted me - it was easy. Just doesn't always come installed by default.tbh i think i may be one receiver down from the Auro-3D capable models in Yamaha's new Aventage AVR hierarchy but i will double check tonight by spinning a few BD's and see how it goes. thanks for all your insight
Which titles do you have?
No, you didn't say anything at all and that's the point. He who makes the claim should provide the evidence. I don't think Sal is asking too much for an example of what you're talking about when you went to the bother to tell him how much better it is. I know for a fact he owns at least one Auro-3D music album (Bernie Dresel), but has an Atmos layout.
I've got a dual layout with a speaker switch to do "true" Auro (with surround heights). Frankly, I find their dual-quad microphone technique to be the best thing about some of their albums. The ones that have Atmos and Auro mixes tend to sound very similar when played through the same speaker configuration (i.e. Atmos through Auro layout or Auro through an Atmos layout) making me think the formats aren't that different on a fundamental level. Atmos COULD have supported the Auro speaker positions (simple rendering change) and DTS:X already does both. They chose not to for competitive reasons, not for what's best for consumers (to choose the layout that will best fit their room or WAF requirements, etc.)
It's not some "astounding claim" that a rival format has some excellent discs. And it's not like I haven't mentioned great Auro discs ever.
Plus, how many Atmos disc, at this point, are seen as great by consensus. There aren't that many to begin with and most have their share of critics.
Add to it that I wasn't thrilled with the way I was addressed, right or wrong, much context is lost in text. I'm just not really in the mood to list some titles and potentially get grief over it.
Plus, how many Atmos disc, at this point, are seen as great by consensus. There aren't that many to begin with and most have their share of critics.
Add to it that I wasn't thrilled with the way I was addressed, right or wrong, much context is lost in text. I'm just not really in the mood to list some titles and potentially get grief over it.
just as i thought, my humble wee RXA2A (7.2) is no good for Auro unfortunately, only the RXA6A (9.2) and RXA8A (11.2) support Auro-3D, which will apparently be available via a firmware update later in the year.
Hopefully you can upgrade someday. Atmos is destroying Auro in terms of distribution and ease of entry.
Auro using 5.1 as a base, with ideally 4 heights, 2 front, 2 back.
… clean up on street Shade
@MagnumX I'm a bit confused by that statement but let me ask it another way around. When playing back a Auro source, how bad do you find it suffers from listening on your Auro layout vs that Atmos layout?
They sound very good to me here but I've never heard them played with proper speaker positioning.
For a 5.1.4 system, the ONLY significant difference between an Atmos setup using Heights and an Auro setup using Surround Heights is that the Surround Heights are typically (but not necessarily) on the side walls above the surrounds. I think it's more important the surround heights are above the surrounds than being on the actual wall. They could be hanging from the ceiling above the surround speakers (like some of their diagrams show).
You have to figure that in a 5.1.4 system, you're supposed to put the surround speakers well behind you (not to the side) as the ideal. My Marantz receiver actually repositions the panning of the sounds to be more "front forward" if I tell the AVR that I'm only 5.1.4 (to compensate for the surrounds being behind you instead of along side you). This actually moves the phantom imaging of the front wide test signals forward too so they no longer align with my actual front wide speakers. I don't think there's any way to override this behavior, but it could be AVR dependent. I hadn't thought about trying the same test in Auro-3D decoding (for the base layer) to see if it renders differently. But it's an imaging position change, nothing more.
Thus, if I play an Auro-3D movie I also have in Atmos (that use the same master) over my system in a 5.1.4 setup with the surround heights on the side wall above the side surrounds (which I still have behind my front row as I use the front wides to smooth it all out and that lets me run 5.1.4 more or less correctly), to me it sounds darn similar, so similar I'm not sure I could tell Blade Runner 2049 apart in that mode. This is because they're outputting the signals over the same number of channels in the same configuration. I thought maybe they placed things differently, but all the overhead things (the guy testing Agent K over the speaker, for example) image in the same spot on the ceiling.
Now sure, if you had a DIFFERENT speaker layout (moved the Atmos speakers onto the ceiling inward from the side wall location), it's going to image a big differently because you've moved the speaker, but the output SIGNAL hasn't changed, just the physical speaker location. Theoretically, they should have different signals to account for those speaker position differences if nothing else, but the reality is most of the Auro-3D movies are just conversions from the master file made for Atmos so they're exactly the same in Auro 9.1.
Now if I do the same in reverse for 7.1.4 or 7.1.6 or 11.1.6, the only difference here in the speaker layout is that my Marantz AVR (and most movies that aren't 13.1) don't support rear surrounds. You can have the overheads mounted in the rear height position and I can even use "Scatmos" to render a "top middle" for Auro-3D that uses the full length of the ceiling, but I still won't get rear surrounds so at best it's 9.1.6 with simulated front wides and a SS#2 that's only playing a copy of the side surrounds (but that's OK since arrays are encouraged in Auro-3D). Still, other than the lack of rear surrounds, the overhead stuff shifts accordingly with the speaker changes. Blade Runner 2049 doesn't have a rear surround signal anyway in Auro-3D (it's Auro 11.1), but if it did, I think it would sound near identical played back here that way as 7.1.4 for the same reasons (using the same speakers).
In other words, the differences between the two systems have more to do with speaker placement than an inherent difference in the same number of channels used. Auro-3D and DTS:X support some additional speaker positions (CS/TS) that can be helpful locking the sound down for off-axis listeners, but overall I think the differences between the two systems are way overblown.
Now I do think Auro-3D music is onto something with that dual-quad microphone configuration (creating a binaural like experience with speakers instead of headphones when reproduced accurately), but that's more of a recording/playback technique than anything else. Atmos could do something similar if they standardized the distances/angles more (some change when you add more speakers) and Atmos isn't supposed to use a set number of playback speakers either. But for movies, I think the biggest difference between Daylight in Auro-3D and in Dolby Atmos is that they were mixed by different teams and thus sound different for that reason, not the playback format.
My Marantz has the ability to support Auro by firmware update but it's like $300.
Pass.
Yup. That's typical. I did the upgrade, mainly out of curiosity and also for Life in Surround research.
I'm happy with Auro-3D, but wish there were more titles available. I have 16? Rough $20 per title for that license, so far!
I need to check to see if there is any newer Auro content, to be fair. It's been a while.
