My AURO3D Setup Video: ruclips.net/video/_uoEV8XQWWQ/видео.html AURO3D Setup Guide PDF from Grobi.tv: bit.ly/Auro3DGuide Daily Hi-Fi Interviews with Wilfried Van Baelen from AURO3D: Interview 1: ruclips.net/video/AFGCE1X6HmY/видео.html Interview 2: ruclips.net/video/2K3QK7wqfb8/видео.html Interview 3: ruclips.net/video/kiQ_70LZkDY/видео.html Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms by Dr. Floyd E. Toole: bit.ly/SoundReproductionBook
@Phillip Allen I've had it turned up close to reference -6dB while testing which is louder than I normally listen to it. I'm usually comfortable around -20dB. I did listening tests at various volumes off-camera. What's your point?
Just an idea for future comparisons... If you can find a movie scene with effects panning overhead...that would be a very good usecase to see how well Auro really does. I haven't tested this with the newer Auromatic, but on the older one, there was little precision in the overhead effects while Neural:X did a very good job of extracting those "objects" and flying them around under the ceiling.
I use Auro3D up-mixing almost 99% of the time. I've tried every other up-mixer but always found them to have odd artefacts in sound that I really disliked. Auro3D is not perfect but it's way better than the competition (for me personally)! Once again thank you for the great video and great content :)
100% on point. I made this physical speaker switch from native 7.2.4 to 10.1 Auro 3D, on same 4700h. I use my HT for everything, you tube, built in LG app streaming, plex, shield pro, PC gaming, Nintendo switch, and legacy OTA antenna. Everything is better and more realistic and this is more awesome for me. Thanks for the measurements, binaural demos, and for covering this content! I wish more HT diy people switched to try it themselves, it’s a really clear difference!
I love Auro 3-D. I have a Marantz AV 8802A, although I had to pay $199 to download it on my processor, I wouldn't trade it for nothing. This was an awesome demo. Thank for the video and the comparisons.
Excellent video. I recently changed from Atmos to the the unified Auro speaker setup and the difference is obvious. Part of the problem is the 90% of Atmos discs are mixed lousy like you stated. A big thanks for many of your explanations and testing.
BTW, my findings with Auro 3D is that the overall volume is about 3-4 dbs lower than both DSU and NeuralX (Lyngdorf MP-40). Also do you run your height channels louder than the bed layer?
Very well done Joe! These comparison videos are invaluable. I’ve never been fully satisfied with my 4 overhead Atmos layout, despite all the effort and expense. It’s very disappointing how many poor Atmos mixes there are, and I intend to go full Auro in my new build. Keep up the great work!
Thank you for the detailed evaluation! Subscribed! I bought an NADT778 a few months ago and I enjoy the sound quality for home theater. I had a 7 speaker base layer setup with two existing in-ceiling speakers I made top-rear. I needed top-fronts, so I mounted some KEF 150's I had as front heights on the side walls near the ceiling above the L/R's, and used an amp to get all 11 channels running. Ear level was great, but Atmos effects were not what I expected. I bought two more matching in-ceiling speakers, mounted them just ahead of my MLP, and made them top-front. Much better overhead, but I'm somewhat underwhelmed by Atmos. I'm thinking I'll sell the T778 and get something like a Denon X6700H or maybe an Arcam AVR20 (with an amp for the 13 channels I need driven) so I can have access to Auro 3D to see how that works. I need an AV receiver that can have front height, top front, and top rear to take full advantage of my current 7.2.6 setup. Expensive hobby, but that's how I entertain myself!
I have the T778 which I love, but I'm using it for a 2.1 channel system at the moment. The Denon X4700H is in my main system primarily because of Audyssey MultEQ-X manual calibration capabilities, as well as Auro3D.
I was running an Atmos 7.2.6 or 9.2.4 for the last year or so via a 6700h. After some critical listening tests with material I’m quite familiar with, I made the switch to a 13.1 Auro 3D setup. I run it for my Series X, Apple TV, Amazon Prime, Disney+ and UHD BD’s in movie mode with the level at the maximum of 16. As I’ve gotten older, one of my favorite things to do is to watch movies and streaming series with my now retired father as it gives us some quality time together. For reference he had a 1080p Samsung LCD dumb tv until I gave him a TCL R617 65” and a Martin Logan Vision sound bar with a Dynamo 1100x subwoofer. He always commented that he doesn’t care about that type of stuff but ever since I upgraded his viewing experience, he’ll always mention how much better it is whenever I see him. My point is that he’s not an enthusiast by any means, however when we watched the first gunfight in John Wick 3 in Auro3D he said it was the first time he had ever heard a movie soundtrack where the sound was really around, above and behind you. I’ve gotten similar comments from other non-audiophile friends. I’ve even noticed on a number of native Atmos Series X games like Horizon 5 and COD MW2 I was always underwhelmed, however with Auro tiny details as well as directional effects are exponentially more immersive and engaging. When you first started making these videos I was part of the crowd that dismissed Auro and thought that it was a step backward to use 5.1/7.1 PCM or DTHD or DTS-HD as opposed to a native object/channel based track, oh how wrong I was. Thanks again man!
Joe, You motivated me to duplicate upmixer comparison as best I could in a 5.2.4 system. Denon 4500H only powering four in-ceiling JBL 61C speakers in an Atmos placement array, but designated as Height F&R to enable Auro3D, DTS-X, and DSU upmixers. Base layer connected to an Outlaw 5-Ch amp (set to OFF). 2 subs left ON. Source was music from SACD 2-Ch layer, CONCLUSIONS: DSU least full signal, most reverb effect. Auro3D fullest signal, least reverb. DTS-X in between the other two, a signal fullness similar to DSU, with less reverb than DSU, When playing entire system for music, it was a toss up between Auro3D and DSU for best presentation to my ears. It maybe content dependent, but not enough data to be definitive. DTS lacked impact and clarity compared to other two, IMHO.
Thanks for doing that. I really wish these companies would be a bit more up-front about how their upmixers work. Then we wouldn't have to try to figure it out. They have patents to protect themselves. Until then, folks like us have to reverse-engineer what they're doing. Some of your findings correspond with mine. The problem with judging based on having all the speakers playing is the more speakers, the less we are able to distinguish differences in sound. That's why a lot of people recommend reviewing single speakers in mono. It's easy to be impressed with the stereo effect, and even moreso with immersive audio with as many speakers as we have.
Very interesting testing Joe. I'm definitely looking forward to testing Auro-matic when my theater is complete. I think the end conclusion of all this that everyone can agree on should be that native mixes are inconsistent and in most cases subpar. Perhaps the conversation should be shifted from why Auro-matic is so great and instead to, hey movie industry, stop producing bad height mixes.
I can get with that. I still like Auro3D upmixing for old stuff though. I hope they stick around just for that. I use it for music, older movies, RUclips... pretty much everything. I rarely turn it off.
Good point. But one thing that we can count on forever - maybe two things - is this : 1. Engineers are capable of designing good technology and sometimes they do (Dolby Atmos, DTSX, Auro3D) 2a. Most people don't know and don't care, so Auro3D means nothing to them because Auro isn't a massive marketing machine like Dolby Labs. 2b. Because movie producers know that most people don't know and don't care - because they know the sales - they don't want to spend the money on audio to present a killer mix. When times are good and people are making good money then likely will get more because we're paying more. When times are bad and people are ignorant and couldn't care less, we get less. That's why Auro will always have its place... Like Joe tells.
Nicely done, very thorough explanation and comparison of the different upmixers. I have a small dedicated home theater and opted to setup a 9 speaker plus sub sistem using the Auro-3D/Dolby Atmos combination configuration and is great having the flexibility. I do prefer Auro-3D most of the time. Thanks for the presentation 👍👍
Really interesting vid you have here. I am totally blind, so sound is really important to me during movies. I have a 5.1.4 setup with 4 ceiling speakers. I have been experimenting with atmos over the past 1.5 years. Firstly, atmos mixes for the most part kind of suck :) what I mean by that is that so many films really utilise so little of the available potential. Sure some do it well like Dune, Trek into Darkness etc but if you turn off those ear level speakers it's shocking how little sound actually travels up there. Secondly, the upmixing is very interesting. For my bag, I found DSU to throw the least sound up to the ceiling speakers, whilst dTSXN throws the most. Auro3d is somewhere in the middle. However I have to say that listening to some films on upmixing just sounds really unnatural. Take terminator 2 for example, that film has a lot of high frequency sounds in it and so a heck of a lot gets thrown up on the ceiling until it feels quite fake and wierd. the DSU mixer seems to take high frequency sounds as its baseline to move things vertically. Works very well for planes and copters, but machine guns should not be on the ceiling if fired at ground level :) anyway, a really interesting discussion to be sure :)
Thanks for commenting. I'm very interested in what you think. I'm surprised you found Auro3D upmixing to be unnatural. It makes me wonder if you have your height speakers closer to your main listening position relative to the corresponding ear-level speaker. If you have a Dolby Atmos layout, it probably is. Auro3D requires the height channels to be equal to, or preferably further than the corresponding ear-level speaker or else it won't sound right at all. The simulated reflected sound will arrive at your ears earlier than the direct sound, which is impossible in real life.
I love my Auro-3D all the time, gives it a extra kick. Some movies are ok but if you have it, use it. I listen to my system the way I want to, I don’t worry about what other people think, they don’t like it, they can spend 30-50 k of their own money and build their own home theater.
I just got a new receiver to try auro 3d and prefer it over the atmos and x. I tried the vog and center height and now I can't go back to just 4 heights.
Since I upgraded my SR7011 I only use Pure Direct for 2ch and sometimes Auro when listening to a live album or classical music. Movies always in Auro3D, not using DSU or NeuralX anymore. It is so natural...
My Recent dive into 7.1.6 atmos left me wanting so much more from the media available. I have always understood that Audo3d is the mechanically superior speaker setup. Shame nearly nothing is encoded to use the format without upmixing.
Right now I am a Yamaha fan. I use the DSP 3D sound field 'Standard' for all Atmos Tracks. Also works great to for live sports. Soon I will be getting a new Yamaha RX-A6A. I will try the Auro Upmixing.
Wow, a lot of work went into making this video. i don't do surround because i live in small nyc apartment but i still found it to be very interesting. thanks!
ace May I suggest you can still run a surround system no matter the size of your space? You just need to keep the volume low. In a home theater surround system, 50-70% of the audio energy goes through the center channel, 20-30% through the left & right front speakers, and the remaining 10-30% is spread across the surrounds, rear surrounds, and height channels. So invest in a great center channel and front left and right speakers, and decent surround speakers for a 5.x system. There are plenty of excellent small speaker packages available for not much money. Then you need a small sub, like an 8" for the ".1" LFE. Even in a small space, consider getting two subs to smooth out the bass.
What would you say that niche is? I pretty much make videos about things I'm personally interested in. I have many interests, so sometimes I'm all over the place with my videos.
@@joentell but this completely seperates you from other reviewers by unraveling this ball of yarn that is these sound codecs that include height channels. Good work.
@@iyona14granturismogt6gtspo7 I was truly just curious. I heard others arguing (sometimes with me) about which was better, but I saw very little in the way of objective tests/measurements which I found disappointing. So, I made a video I would've wanted to watch. I hope someone who enjoys the Dolby Surround Upmixer or DTS:Neural-X upmixer does the same type of video with maybe some of their discoveries. Better yet, I wish the companies themselves talked a bit more about how these upmixers work and allow the consumer to decide which methodologies they agree with. Right now, we're left guessing and trying to reverse-engineer what is actually happening with the upmixers.
@@joentell the response is as detailed and clear as the video (*_*) seriously,half of us are on chairs and stools asking " is any sound effects or freaking dialouge coming out of my height speakers!!! Aaagg! Thorough demos such as yours answer the qusetion and put the baby to bed. Well done looking thru all you videos now.
Confirmed🤘🏼 that was the 100% reason for my choice for the x3800h over the 2800. Love it for all sources with lesser surround channels (from germany and our dub is mostly lesser in arranged quality).
I just found DTS -Neural: X is the best suit for my 11.1 denon X4400H set up even over AURO3D , Dts-Neural X use all my speakers even my back surround channel that is very important for me
For me Auro-2d for 2ch upmixing sounds better than just using 2ch and it doesn't over do it with surround activity it just adds a fullness to the music. I've got 11 speakers and 4 subwoofers - I like to use everything I got. I'll check out upmixing with auro-3d and see what that sounds like! I'm very curious now.
Hi Joe. Thank you for this really informative video. Great job on explaining the differences in some of the upmixing sound formats. I have a Marantz Cinema50 and have it connected to my Loewe connect UHD 55" TV, which are both hooked up to my 5.3.2 sound stage. When listening to my TV the audio stream is set to PCM rather than DD as I find PCM down mix from source gives better clarity and volume than DD at source. I then use either auro 3D or DD surround from the AVR to upmix this sound. In both these instances my height channels are engaged. I'm still tinkering with my sound output, your video has helped take me in the right direction. Thank you! 😊
I have a denon 4500h doing 7.1.4 with vog, i have all channels being powered by adcom amps. All speakers are Martin Logan Motion series. I run everything through Appletv 4k 2021 version with Atmos/auto. I listen to everything with Auro3d. When i watch something on atv, it auto switches my denon to atmos. Depending on the movie I turn off atmos n use dolby 5.1 and use Auro3d for most atmos movies. It does sound so much better, no doubt.
Ok so I read somewhere not to force Dolby Digital 5.1 in Apple TV but instead just turn off the Dolby Atmos toggle. If you force Dolby Digital 5.1 it’s actually somewhere taking the PCM and forcing it into another 5.1 container in a way that is not ideal. You will supposedly get 5.1 base layer simply by turning off the Dolby Atmos toggle and not forcing 5.1 with Apple TV.
I’m waiting for my 4700h to arrive and also am running all Martin Logan Motion speakers except for my heights. Love my Martin Logans…a shame you never see anyone reviewing Martin Logans. Probably their fault for not getting these speakers out to reviewers.
As you stated in the video Joe…I’ve encountered the overly emphasized bass with Auro 3D upmixer. Not so much during TV watching but during music. I have to knock back the bass about 6 db and then I prefer Auro Up Mixer for many tracks. Often times I also just like listening to music in Auro 2D upmixer as well. But for movies and TV I really do easily prefer Auro Upmixer. The one exception is RUclips videos where it’s just all dialogue from a talking head. I prefer Dolby or Auro 2D upmixer for RUclips rather than the 3D.
Denon a r 8500 yep seven base level speakers and five heights with a height centre works great for me …I leave it set on the auro 3d most of the time ..😊
Technically the problem with the John wick mix is that the rain that you're hearing isn't really coming from over your head nobody ever notices this it's actually bouncing off the ground of what you're actually hearing for for a rainstorm 90% of the time in a rainstorm what you're hearing is the reflections off is the reflections off of the ground or until you're a car not really coming from over your head As much as the reflected sounds
Good point. I'm sure the surface of the ground has a big effect on the sound and how it's reflected as well. I kind of assumed they were going for the rain hitting the umbrella sound but at lower volume so as not to detract from the dialogue.
I mean in order to be fully completely realistic that would make sense having speakers on the floor If we are gonna have speakers front and back, left and right then we have to complete the bubble and have up and down Right now the down don’t exist because even base speakers at the moment are on the same plane as our ears
You already know I disagree with you on Auro from our past exchanges, so I won't beat that long-dead horse to a pulp again. But man, it pained me to see where you had your heights when you had them on the ceiling! Looked like they were placed way too far apart for your layout (in line with the mains?), which is a mistake I often see people make with Atmos. Maybe it just looks that way in the video though. I wish Dolby would fix the diagrams in the home guideline, since properly placed top front/rear for Atmos would almost never be in line with the L/R. Also, an aside: the Prime Elevations may actually be better suited for 30 degree placement because they exhibit a dip in the crossover region when you get much further off-axis, which on-ceiling placement with them at the stock 45/135 angles does. I only mention that because it's a weakness I've noticed with my own setup... and it's possible that they actually just plain sound better at the angles for front/rear height. Audyssey tries to level that dip out with them at top front/rear, but I actually found that leaving MRC on or implementing my own dip in that region worked better with the Elevations than trying to correct around it. The point being that if you're doing top front/rear and want to go SVS, you're probably better off using Satellites on articulating brackets than Elevations (though they sure look nice on my ceiling). It was interesting to hear more about the Auro-matic comb filtering though. I still don't care for it, but like you, I like to know how things work. Thanks for the video!
I don't know for sure, but my guess is room size affects amount of delay along with other things that only the guys at Auro know. Strength mostly affects the volume of the height channels. There could be more, but this is what I've noticed from my testing. I wish I had a more concrete answer. I do know that Wilfried recommended the default medium and 10 setting.
Joe, An excellent and unemotional discussion, thank you. Would you please consider posting links to the online freq and pink noise generators you used. They appeared to be easier to use than most found in a search result. Thanks.
I tried to be as objective as possible. It was more about just learning about how these upmixers work. Here's that test tone generator www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/
Hey :) There is one importend Point, that you have to think about: Is it good, that stuff that is not happening over you, is mixed to the higher speakers? Most people are using much smaller and cheaper speakers for the high or top channels, so why should music or random sounds be mixed up? it would sound even better, if this stuff stays on the hifi speakers on the main level, and the top or highed speakers are used, only if they are needet.
Aside from being outdoors or in an anechoic chamber, you will almost always be in a room with some reflective surfaces. One of those surfaces is likely to be a ceiling. So, having sound coming from above you is realistic. Any sound made at ear level will likely reflect off the ceiling also. Many movies lack any height information. That's where the Auro3D upmixer is useful. Now, if you have bad speakers, that's not good. That's like having a blown sub and saying that using the LFE channel isn't good. The real solution is to get a good working sub. If you have good speakers all around you, I would recommend you try upmixing. Director's intent doesn't always equal realism. Go check out the CGI on The Scorpion King. 🤣 I bet one of these new video game engines could render that in realtime with much more realism than what they manually did, just because our tech now allows for stuff like ray-tracing. In a sense, taking an old Pixar movie, and running the source content through a graphics engine to allow it to add more realistic shadows and reflections is a form of upmixing. It wasn't the directors intent per se.
Thanks for your time in making this very informative video. Oh, and you also validated my $200 Auro 3D upgrade to my 4300h. One question... Do you have your front height speakers calibrated to the same db as your front stage? Right now I have my front heights about 3 db louder so I can hear more of it. I did that because it's what I did with my ceiling speakers in Atmos set up. (But maybe I did that because there was so little content being played up in those speakers with Atmos anyway! Hence the upgrade to Auro!)
I would let Audyssey do the level matching as I've found it does a good job of that part. I've also done manual level matching using pink noise and an external mic/meter, but you have to be careful since SPL is dependent on the frequency range of your speakers. Height speakers are usually smaller and have less bass. You have to limit the pink noise ranges to the speaker with the highest crossover frequency. Or you can let Audyssey set it. If you want more height effects, consider turning up the strength setting on Auro3D from the default 10 to a higher setting. I would prefer to do that.
The reason i heard about ATMOS movies not having any sound coming from the height speakers is that the movie makers cut cost on some some scenes by not recording per ATMOS standards.
@joentell --- Are the physical locations of speakers in DTS, Auro, and Dolby surround sound configurations incompatible? How can someone listen to all three without having to move speakers constantly?
Lot of good information in here. Definitely think my next avr is going to have Auro3D even if i decide I don't like it. Still have to figure out what I can get away with in the living room though first. I'm thinking I buy some in-ceiling speakers and make a custom box to put them in with 30 degree baffle angle that way worst case I lose money for the box and can just go 5.2.2 in ceiling and best case they pass WAF and I build 2x more for 5.1.5 Auro3D with side height. I do have some thoughts about some of your findings mostly related to speaker positioning, I'll probably email you if that's ok once I get them fully flushed out.
Sure let me know. Also, I hope it isn't about angular positioning of Atmos height speakers. :-) I do believe that proper position for Atmos will give a better experience than a sub-optimal one, but it doesn't matter if there isn't any content up there to begin with. ;-)
This is the video I've been waiting for ever since Gene poo-pooed Auro (all due respects to him). This was professional, thorough and convincing (though I was already convinced). A lot of people are missing out. One thing that we can count on forever - maybe two things - is this : 1. Engineers want to and are capable of designing great audio mix technology and sometimes they do (Dolby Atmos, DTSX, Auro3D) 2a. Most people don't know and don't care (maybe can't afford). So, Auro3D means nothing to them because Auro isn't a massive marketing machine like Dolby Labs. They don't know what they are missing. 2b. Because movie producers know that most people don't know and don't care (they know what's selling), and they are as frugal as they can be; the result is more often than not they don't spend the money to present a killer audio mix. You can be sure that someone like James Cameron is one exception as an example (and that Avatar 2 will probably blow minds in Atmos). When times are good and we are all making good money, and we like to be well informed instead of well opinionated, then likely we will get more because we'll be paying more. So, movie producers will give us more in Atmos, say. But when times are bad and people are tight with cash, are ignorant and couldn't care less; we will always get less. That's why Auro will always have its place... Like Joe tells.
Yea I usually take Gene's advice with a grain of salt🤦🏽. If he's not biased then he's bragging about how it was him who made Denon bring back center spread or it was him who made denon capable of having all 9 channels as pre outs e t c 🤣🤣
@@rindershow212 I see. I always find it interesting that manufacturers might miss something in their beta unit that a reviewer not only discovers, but has influence to correct. Maybe it's not always bragging if it's a fact?
@@rindershow212 I don't exactly know what you are talking about. Of course, some don't understand what I say. My point about Gene and Auro3D is that Gene isn't a fan. That's all I'm saying about Gene. Did I misunderstand you?
@@nickburak7518 when you said gene isn't a fan, what I was trying to say is that gene isn't a fan of anything. He 💩 poos" (your words) on everything 😁.
I have now also extensively tested the neural x and Auro 3D upmixer. In my opinion, the dialogue is much better, more comprehensible and more dynamic with neural x than with Auro. With auro 3d I miss the bass in the voice and I have to increase the centre by 3-4db to understand the dialogue as well as with neural x. How do I get more bass in the voices so that they sound as voluminous as with neural? For example, in Lion King, Mufasa has a super bass-heavy voice (in German) that is completely drowned out by Auro 3D. Which Surround Parameter you got for Auro 3d? Large or movie?
Go To min 2:10 because sadly MANY older movies (& Christopher Noland Movies too) only have 5.1 surround on their 1st round of 4K releases. And sadly again even many modern movies with atmos mixes have very lazy Atmos mixes. AURO 3D for the win!!!!!! Thanks Joe!!! I PreOrdered you & TechnoDads "Spatial Audio Calibration Toolkit" !!
Isn't it the case that we don't want lower frequencies front he surrounds because the low frequencies interact with each other more and cause nodes and modes. Obviously going forward Dirac ART will fix this but if you start putting lots of low frequency content through you heights and surrounds and mains it may cause extra issues
I was able to hear the difference without using headphones, my receivers is set to dts Neural X the first test for me had more clarity and the second one was a bit more muffled and the last one sounded more like it was in between the first two.
I just purchased a Denon X3800H AVR so I can try out the Auro 3D and I was looking under the sound/parameters options and I do not have the auro-matic options to adjust the levels or strength. Is this only available for there upper tier AVRs? It has Auro 3D but no way to tweak it.
It’s there. I have the same receiver. You MIGHT have to actually have auro3d engaged for it to pop up in the sound menu (not 💯) but it is there. I’ll check once I’m home and get back to you! By engaged i mean have auro3d on in the mode setting during. A movie. Try that first?
My only issue with Auro-3d is I have 2 wide channels that aren't being used when auro-3d is turned on, so I'm torn between a wider sound stage, or better activation of heights.... wish they would just do better atmos tracks
I'm with you on the better Atmos tracks. I've been creating Atmos content with fellow RUclipsr, TechnoDad. We've come to the conclusion that they've set some really high expectations with their marketing, and we just don't think Atmos can deliver on that promise 100%. I find it a bit misleading for both the content creator and the consumer. We're working on ways to improve the experience. We jokingly called it Auro for Atmos. ;-) I haven't found the need for front wides in my setup because I feel I get good cohesiveness between my front stage and side surrounds. I'm in a pretty large space also 20x20x9 ft.
@@demonreturns4336 Not on an Auro 3D upmixed setup. Those heights will be on a lot. I’m under the impression that wides don’t get used all that often in mixes either and just sit there playing nothing in most movies. Maybe Dolby Atmos makes more use of the front wides than the height speakers? Again that’s what Auro 3D use here is specifically used to address the lack of use of those heights.
I think you hit it on head when you said Audio Budget for Movies because even the ones with the best 3D effect could be improved if the sound effects was better suited for Dolby Atmos , Also I want to know Why when I play a Dolby Atmos song on Tidal that Atmos pops on my receiver but it doesn't for Apple music or Amazon Music ?
To answer your last question, I think certain streaming devices support Atmos on certain apps. Make sure yours supports Atmos on those two streaming services.
Auro3D works better in higher ceiling rooms. There need to be good distance between base heights and voice of god. This requires high ceilings for best effect. Atmos being object based is more flexible when it comes to number of channels you can use and you can add more, go with 9.1.4 for higher sound placement precision - Auro3D has limits. Also mind version of DSU in your receiver - that matters as well. In Denon I though Auro3D was better than DSU and preferred it but in my Arcam I prefer DSU. In the end I plan to have front wides to fill in the gap between surrounds and front speakers and have all speakers from fronts to rear spread out in increments of 40 degrees. This will be a killer with Atmos.
@@joentell do wonder if that depends on AVR. On Denon Auro was preferred by me compared to DSU. On Arcam DSU with additional Dolby movie processing sounds much better
@@joentell possibly - not sure how room correction would make difference between DSU vs Auro on the same AVR? I think Denon didn’t have Dolby audio processing extra option Arcam has. Without it i would be leaning towards Auro3D.
@@whitecrowuk575 The room correction sets the distances and levels of all the channels. That could have a significant impact on how the upmixers sound.
@@joentell I'm referring to the artifact test at 25:07 or so. Technically all the sound you are hearing from Auromatic IS artifacting. Those outputs are meant to be in the bed layer directly. The fact that DTS Neural produced NO sound, means it is the only one to do it correctly in the height channels. If you play that with all the speakers enabled, the most clear and direct sound will be DTS, Auro will have a spatial wider sound (less directive). However, Auro is not like the others intentionally, you will always get sound from the heights because like Wilfried said on your podcast, it is about producing a bigger more spatial sound, not placing sounds as objects. I think all Auromatic really does is add time/phase delay and amplitude changes, comb filtering, etc. to the bed layer channel below it, and I agree with you that this effect can and often is more pleasing than the object-based results of the other two upmixers. I'm not trying to be argumentative, and some of your tests are enlightening and informative. I'm a fan. I'm just trying to input that a lot of these tests while useful, are kinda just showing that Auro is different and that you will have MORE audio in the heights with Auro, assuming you stick directly to Auro placement guidelines and only with the supported setup of Auro. Another way to look at this is you will never ONLY get audio in your heights for a sound object with Auro upmixing. It's always a altered duplicate of the bed layer, NEVER an object in the height channels exclusively. Obviously there are issues with all the upmixers though. Also a correct Auro setup is literally impossible in my room... period, and it is a pretty standard room. The ceiling height (8') to seated distance doesn't allow the minimum 18 degree angle while keeping your speaker at the same distance. I can benefit with Auro outside of that range, but it's not at all similar to object-based audio. I have some serious problems with Dobly Atmos. My issue is you aren't talking about DTS:X native content at all in these comparisons. There is quite a bit of content there, but obviously they aren't slapping it on everything like Atmos, which is why there is so many bad mixes with Atmos. Try most any DTS:X content and compare it to Auromatic and I bet you are hard pressed to find one you prefer Auro with. Take The Incredible Hulk movie for example. Or the Bourne movies. The biggest benefit to this new "object-based" stuff is the audio mix can accurately adapt to ANY speaker setup you have (with really high limits). This turns out to be a complete LIE with Atmos (make that video please), but to me it seems DTS is REALLY doing it right. Some love from the RUclipsrs in this space might help us get more content and streaming in DTS:X. This isn't my issue, but an example... take someone who is limited in their room and they can't put rear surrounds far enough back to be good, but they want to add front wide channels to a 5.1 bed layer, DTS is the only one that will do that correctly (even in their upmixer). To me, I find that Auromatic is best with 5.1 music, because moving objects and height content generally isn't there unless intentionally made for spatial audio natively. Neural is best with 5.1 movies as Neural actually attempts at upmixing to object-based mixes. DSU with 2-channel TV and such. I'm not a 2-channel music guy. DSU will not upmix to the heights on a front to back ratio if you look at it. Say you have 4 or 6 heights, DSU only uses a stereo mix in the heights, so ALWAYS your front and back channels on one side will play the same audio. SO weak. If you read this far, I'd love your thoughts on this.
@@Macroproxy I am not taking your response as argumentative, it's a discussion and your intentions are well-received. I hope you don't take my disagreement as something personal, either. It's just about discussing concepts. According to your logic about DTS Neural:X being the most accurate because it did not put anything into the height speakers doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that if you were to upmix any 2-channel content, anything other than what's being played out of the left and right speaker would be considered an artifact? If so, then what would the point of upmixing? I used the example that if there is correlated content that is common to both the left and right speaker, an upmixer should upmix that content to a center channel. That isn't an artifact, that's proper upmixing. A digital artifact is something that is an undesired or unintended result. Adding the height aspect to a 2-channel mix IS the intended result. You mention how you will never get an object in a height channel exclusively using Auro-matic and that is correct. It must be in the bed layer. I also mentioned that at the end of the video. It is extremely rare in the real world that a sound is coming exclusively from above you without reflecting sound somewhere at your ear-level. Something that you would be able to hear at a distance from a typical height speaker on a ceiling, would have to be loud enough so that you would hear it right above you. The likelihood that it wouldn't also reflect off a nearby surface, floor, wall etc. is very low. In those small cases, a discrete signal from a native source would give the best reproduction, but it doesn't need to be object-based, it could also work with a channel-based mix. Some of Auro3D's native demos prove this. It's more about a discrete signal vs an extrapolated signal from an upmixer. By definition, NO upmixer can create discrete signals. It cannot create something from nothing; the content has to be there to begin with. Neural:X may give you the perception that it's creating discrete signals, but it is not. Regarding the angle in your room with an 8ft ceiling, you're saying that at your listening position, a height speaker placed near your ceiling above the corresponding ear-level speaker won't create an 18° angle? For that to be correct, your seat would have to be over 24ft away from your main speakers. The 30° angle is based this: Draw a straight line between your ear, while sitting, to your main speakers. Ideally, that line would be parallel to the floor. From your listening position, look up 45°. Now look down a bit to estimate 30°. That's the angle we're talking about, not the angle created at the corner where the speaker is. You can plug in some numbers into this website www.omnicalculator.com/math/trigonometry and you'll see that we're trying to figure out 30° for angle a, not b. Let's say if you were to sit 11ft away, you would create about a 35° angle which is still within Auro3D specs. Even if you were 9-10ft away, I think you could still get a decent effect with Auro3D. Wilfried said, as long as the height speakers aren't closer to you than the corresponding ear-level speaker, you will get a good effect. Regarding native DTS content, I mentioned that it's not about native content for me. I think all the formats have the capability of sounding excellent with their native format, but it depends on whether they are mixed well. That's the bottleneck, not the format. That's why I think there's a place for upmixers, because it's been shown that it's more common that we get poor home mixes than good ones. Hopefully that will change. But yes, I have heard impressive native DTS content.
@Joe N Tell Good point about the upmixing to heights even though the content is specifically intended to be in the bed layer. I do see your point. I guess my point is just you won't ever really get a focused sound. It's like a hall effect all the time. Why use that track for the test? I also agree that you understand what Auronis doing. However, Neural in fact does upmix to objects. Whether that is always particularly accurate is another story. And it does have to tame itself down and can never be like native content, I agree. The angle thing... 8 foot ceilings (really 7'8" with ceiling treatments), not heights 8 feet above ear level. A speaker below the ceiling... lose about 6 inches, your ear is about 3-4 feet above the floor. I sit 14 feet back in a 22 foot deep room. That equates to somewhere around 12 degrees. At some point... the effect is simply because you have two speakers instead of one.
@Joe Wyers yeah that's pretty far back relative to the height of the ceiling. I forgot to account for the things you mentioned, seating height, speaker cabinet etc. That's a rough one. The only way would be to sit closer and use side heights if possible. I'm still not sure what you mean by upmixing to objects with DTS Neural:X. Equating Auro-matic to a hall effect is about as misleading as calling it all-channel stereo. Implementation is extremely important. Imagine if I took your system and just turned the treble all the way up and the bass all the way down. Everything else in your system would stay the same, so you could say it's pretty much the same, but the sound wouldn't be. When you're talking about having a more focused sound, I think it's important to discuss what causes the smearing effect you're talking about. A direct initial sound that combines with a later sound similar to the initial sound can cause smearing, but it's highly dependent on the delay between the two signals. With the proper delay, the brain hears them as two distinct sounds and determines the second sound was caused by a reflection in the space. So, delay as well as level have a huge effect on the realism and whether it causes smearing or a feeling of spaciousness. If you get those wrong, you get a totally different effect. If you don't have the speakers in an optimal location for Auro3D, I wouldn't recommend using it because I think the delays they use assume proper placement. If the height speakers are closer to the listener, the pseudo-reflections created by Auro-matic may arrive too early relative to the "direct sound" from the ear-level speakers. That causes the smearing effect.
Joe, the new Denon X3800 has both Auro 3D and Auro 2D. As I understand it, both use the Auro-matic upmixer for non-native Auro content but 3D is designed to enhance the sound of at least a 5.1.4 system with F/R Heights and 2D is designed to up-mix a basic 5.1 system. I actually disabled my F/R Heights (SVS Prime Elevations) and tested the 2D processor on the remaining 5.1 system. It did a very good job of creating a pretty immersive bubble of sound, much better than DSU. The question is if you just leave Auro 3D on all of the time will it impact a 5.1 setup in the same way that Auro 2D does?
2D is if you don't have height speakers. I would always recommend using 3D if you have heights. AURO3D will work on content from mono to ATMOS. If it's in ATMOS, it will use the base 5.1 or 7.1 mix, and use that to upmix from.
@@joentell Thanks. I also found that for music CDs, Auro 2D works very nicely. It expands the 2 channel sound but excludes the heights The works well since, at least to me, using the heights for music can be overkill.
Nice video and I’m all for Auro3D, But …and it’s a big BUT… On my Denon 4700h I have to assign the rear height speakers differently to experience Dolby in all 9 speakers. I’ve noticed that if I use a “Surround Heights” (AKA DTS\Auro) configuration, Dolby won’t use the rear heights! BUT if I configure the rear heights as “Rear Heights” Dolby will utilise them - although not very much. Have you taken this into account when you did your testing, as you don’t mention it??? I use both configurations by assigning the different layouts before running Audyssey, then storing them to the two different presets and switching between them dependant on the content I’m watching or listening to. And thanks for keeping Auro-matic in the content providers’ thoughts, as without the recognition that plenty of folk use and prefer it, the content may wither and Dolby would be one step nearer to a monopoly. 👍 I’d like to see Gene from Audioholics be as unbiased in his testing - but that’s probably never going to happen. 🤣
I don't know if I kept it in the video, but I do know that if you use an Auro3D configuration on the X4700H, it will not utilize the rear surrounds when in AURO3D unless you step up to something like the X6700H which has more channels of processing. The rear surrounds are activated when in other modes like Atmos, but the voice of god channel is not. I did account for this in my testing as I have an amp dedicated only to the rear surrounds and could turn it on/off accordingly.
@@joentell confused here. You say if you configure in auro 3d layout it will not utilize the rear surround when in auro3d ??🤔. On my 4700h I'm running 7.4.2....and also running all speakers with external amps. My set up is front Height &Rear height. Dolby Atmos, dts x, and Auro 3d works fine. So im confused in what you guys are talking about.
Good video. Although my complaint against Auro3D (correct me if I'm wrong), is that the speaker layout isn't as flexible as Dolby or DTS and isn't as scalable. For example, in one of my rooms (I have a 3.2.2 setup), I can't even select the Auro3D upmixer in that setup on my 4500, while I'm able to select Dolby Surround and Neural X which will upmix sound up to my height speakers. So in reality, although it may sound fantastic, it is a feature that a very, very, very, small percentage of users will be able to use.
@@jmbgator2645 Hey, you're preaching to the choir here. I bought a house and the first I did was have 4 atmos speakers installed in ceiling. Months later I learn about Auro-3D. If I want it, I'll have to change up my set up.
Yes, I do believe you need 4 height speakers. If you do though, I think the Auro3D layout is more compatible than the rest of the formats. The PDF I linked to shows how you can do a setup that's compatible with all 3 formats.
Yes but that’s just physics. You can’t get the experience without the minimum amount of speakers present and in a proper configuration. That’s like me saying I have a Soundbar but I’m upset it won’t do Auro 3D. No…no it can’t. The speakers aren’t there! you can not have half the required speakers and expect it to work. Your not getting a binaural experience without the speakers in the proper locations. While your speakers are outputting sound with your 3.2.2 setup, your certainly are not getting a great Atmos experience either. You just don’t have the proper hardware. Are you only using a front stage? Or do you have like one center channel and two rears and the two heights? Just no way you are getting a great experience even though your receiver is outputting sound in “Atmos”. Your not getting even good surround sound lacking even a basic 5.1 setup. I don’t think the failing is on Auro 3D. Hell it’s only included in Amps in the $1500 price range with 11.1 channels for a reason. It’s not meant to work on any lesser of a setup. You are correct that few will experience it by the very nature of it requiring a $1500 receiver as a minimum entry point that is accompanied by no less than a 5.1.4 setup as a minimum. That’s 10 speakers. This kind of setup for sure is going to be a bit exclusive to those who have the means, have the space, have spouse approval…etc.
ok. nice vid. thanks for defending the work for german engineers :) so... 1st thing. you should present the layout (schematic or 360 view etc. :) so we can judge your personal opinion. I do think you are running a hybrid not a full Auro3D setup as it should be :) am I correct? I presume yes, since you switch from one to another. problem is... you cant judge correctly the Auromatic upmixer or at least the demo discs if you are not 100% Auro3D. yes, it is a shame that it sounds great BUT only when the positioning is top notch. and I know many of movie lovers will love to get 4 atmos hidden in the ceiling and that's it :)) bcz of wife factor and more. but the reality it is what it is. you need the proper place for each level - ear level, heights and VoG with a clear separation. you cannot mount vog at the same level of heights. NO WAY :) it should be a dome like structure not a flat line. so... the height of the room will also influence this yet another headache for most of 2.5m ceilings :P when you need at least 3.5 even more, for a good atmos :P ideal will be 4m.
I'm in search of a new receiver. Auro is a must (for me) . I don't care about extra zones etc. What do you recommend in the best performance/€($) category ? Denon 4700H ? Yamaha A6A ? other ?Perhaps you have a video about it already ? Is the VOG channel a must have or a nice thing to have ?
I use the X4700H and I think it's great. I like the ability to use the dedicated pre-out mode which turns off the internal amps. I also am able to get it to sound exactly how I want with the Audyssey MultEQ-X $200 upgrade.
Joe, awesome tech coverage. Thanks. I notice that most rooms/ppl push their Auro3D height speakers to the top of the wall where it meets the ceiling. And the VOG spkr is also in the same plane attached to the ceiling. Is this ideal? Should there be a real mid level below the top level? What margin is there on the 30 degree angle for height spkrs to create a break or width / separate space for the height and top channels? Does this same plane config hurt the Auro3D repro anyway?
@@joentell thanks Joe, there’s a lot to manage. I’ve got to get furniture (tv media open shelf unit), move boxes of equipment out, create a listening position, create storage space for empty boxes, arrange connections to the pre-wiring and move it to places that for Auro3D as it was wired for Atmos positions. Find an installer with patience and skills to step through this project.
Hello and congratulations for the channel, very interesting! I have a Marantz sr7015, in Atmos 5.2.4 configuration with ceiling speakers. I changed the configuration on the AVR by selecting Front Height and Rear Height and I'm trying to use AURO MATIC upmixer: even in Media mode, I feel too much bass .. How can I fix it to get less intrusive bass? Thank you from Italy!
I also have an SR7015 in a 6.4.4 configuration. Surround back is combined into one speaker as I have a large door to deal with at the back of the room. I use 4 height speakers mounted on the font/back walls at ceiling height. I have been attempting to manage the bass levels as well and notice Atmos 3D puts out more bass. Adding the extra subwoofers gave new dimension to the room and better control over excessive bass, but it's not perfect.
Very interesting. I’m setup as 5.1.2 with 2 in middle of room on ceiling and my “rear surround” actually on my sides in the ceiling. My couch is against a back wall in our smaller home/ so no option. I’ve recently found that Neural X is really cool. A little better than Atmos even. Is that because channel based vs object? I only have a denon s760h so no auro3d unfortunately.
@@joentell interesting. Thanks for the input. Im curious what your recommendations for av receivers in mid range area? Step above my current one* i use mine for both movies & vinyl. Room is small to medium.
@@UnitedRedDevil13 I think the next logical step up be the X-series like the new Denon X3800H. Prior to that, you may want to see about getting Audyssey MultEQ-X ($200) and see if you can enhance your system through calibration.
@@joentell i upgraded to the x3800h on your recommendation and although the s760h is a nice entry point, the step up is def worth it imo. Still messing with Auro3d and debating where to keep the “intensity” or effect level for that in 5.1.2?
Question Joe, so I have a denon 3800H and I can't get auro to work. I have my height speakers assigned as front/rear heights. However I don't get an option to select auro 3d in soundfield, regardless of source layer (2ch,5.1,7.1,atmos). The only time I've seen it come up as an option, is when it glitches when I switch between bluray and game, where sometimes it wont output audio.
Joe: Planning to purchase the Denon 4700H for my current 7.1 system currently using a Marantz 5012/ 100 watt power/ 2 channel driven. Speakers are “Proficient” - W670 class /100 watt. Is a 125 watt receiver too much power for this class of speaker? Like you, I want to build out my setup to 7.2.4 in the near future.
@joentell I wanted to ask if an Auro 3D setup would work in a room 12.8’w x 19’ d x 7’ h. I’m worried about the low ceilings with Atmos in ceiling speakers and achieving the proper angles where I think it may be easier with an Auro 3D layout.
I think it can work. Your speakers may be up near the ceiling to get to 30°, but as long as they are equal or further than the corresponding ear-level speaker, it should work
Hey. I have a 4700h currently use a 10.1 auro. I would like to extend my bed layer to 7 speakers, bringing my 4700h to 12.1 including the voice of god. Now the 4700h is an 11.1 avr. Will it work?
Thx Joe for explanations, it helps a lot, my plan is go with Marantz Cinema 50 and just like to ask, is there any calibrating system for Auro 3d or should I use Dirac to make the sound calibrate?! Great and helpfull video 👍👌👏
Didnt Will say you have to turnoff bitstream then use pcm before auro 3d is used to upmix for best results? This might mean its even better than you think
What about 5.1/7.1 soundtracks ... any recommendations for watching those with atmos speakers? Only about 5% of my discs have atmos soundtrack (I watch mostly weird/niche/old stuff).
Joe I have a question about auro upmixer. I have front heights and surround height and surround backs hooked up. When I hit the info button the input signal on my denon x4700h the front heights & surround heights aren't lit up when listening to a atmos movie. On output they are lit up. Does auro upmixer not look at the front height or surround height input signal?
Well, I spent $200 to upgrade my X6200 to Auro3D because of all the hype. Well, I wish I has kept my $200 in my wallet. DTS: Neo X beats AUROMATIC, and DTS was free 😩😩😩😩 Yes, Auro adds more stuff on the top but it does not sound "natural". They are taking the bed layer sound, moving it up to the height layer, and cranking up the volume. The DTS upmixer sounds felt very close to a native DTS: X/Atmos mix without the top layer becoming overwhelming. I did notice when using the Auro upmixer, Bass was somewhat lacking. I can't figure out what's going on.
That's exactly my personal experience with a Denon X6400H and the "universal" speaker layout recommended by Denon/Marantz with a 7.4.2 system, with height speakers (not in-ceiling). I still prefer DTS Neural:X over Auro3D for almost every content. Also, Auro3D version in my AVR is not capable of doing 7.4 but only 5.4 so it leaves 2 speakers at ground level unused. A few years ago I followed GrobyTV hype-train videos about Auro3D and that was an important buying decision for me, so I was very disappointed about its limitations and real performance, I've compared all 3 up-mixers many times. As you say, DTS is all I need.
@@joentell Due to my space limitations, the Top rears are a bit closer to my MLP versus the Top fronts. I do have good separation between the side surround (@ ear level) and the Top heights. I would not call Auromatic horrible. But when I go back and forth testing between DSU, Auro, and DTS upmixers, I keep going back to DTS. Like I mention before, DTS sounds more natural. In my situation where I had to pay to get Auro, it was not worth the expense.
I have a Pioneer VSX-LX303 which doesn’t have Auro upmixing but only has DSU and Neural X upmixing. Which upmixer is better or more accurate height extraction from upmixing 5.1 or 7.1 movies to Atmos?
I am enjoying the X3800h off of your recommendation several months ago. Now that Dirac is live, would you recommend the Limited or the full bandwidth version?
I think it's worth it to get the full version eventually if you like what it did for the bass. If anything, it allows you to do your own manual target curves full-range.
My AURO3D Setup Video: ruclips.net/video/_uoEV8XQWWQ/видео.html
AURO3D Setup Guide PDF from Grobi.tv: bit.ly/Auro3DGuide
Daily Hi-Fi Interviews with Wilfried Van Baelen from AURO3D:
Interview 1: ruclips.net/video/AFGCE1X6HmY/видео.html
Interview 2: ruclips.net/video/2K3QK7wqfb8/видео.html
Interview 3: ruclips.net/video/kiQ_70LZkDY/видео.html
Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms by Dr. Floyd E. Toole: bit.ly/SoundReproductionBook
well you had it on -18db on spiderman homecoming i mean how loud really was it
@Phillip Allen I've had it turned up close to reference -6dB while testing which is louder than I normally listen to it. I'm usually comfortable around -20dB. I did listening tests at various volumes off-camera. What's your point?
Just an idea for future comparisons...
If you can find a movie scene with effects panning overhead...that would be a very good usecase to see how well Auro really does. I haven't tested this with the newer Auromatic, but on the older one, there was little precision in the overhead effects while Neural:X did a very good job of extracting those "objects" and flying them around under the ceiling.
@@rolandrohde I did. That's the point of the Atmos helicopter demo. It only has content in the height channels and Auro did a good job
@@joentell
I remember now...we spoke about that here a few months ago...😂
Getting old and forgetful...🙈
I use Auro3D up-mixing almost 99% of the time. I've tried every other up-mixer but always found them to have odd artefacts in sound that I really disliked. Auro3D is not perfect but it's way better than the competition (for me personally)! Once again thank you for the great video and great content :)
FACTS video games sound sick
I couldn’t agree with you more!!!
Auro3D up-mixer is what I always leave it on.
I can also confirm this. Auromatic Upmixer with video games sounds amazing. I run a 5.1.4 setup and automatic uses the hight channels amazingly
100% on point. I made this physical speaker switch from native 7.2.4 to 10.1 Auro 3D, on same 4700h. I use my HT for everything, you tube, built in LG app streaming, plex, shield pro, PC gaming, Nintendo switch, and legacy OTA antenna. Everything is better and more realistic and this is more awesome for me.
Thanks for the measurements, binaural demos, and for covering this content! I wish more HT diy people switched to try it themselves, it’s a really clear difference!
I love Auro 3-D. I have a Marantz AV 8802A, although I had to pay $199 to download it on my processor, I wouldn't trade it for nothing. This was an awesome demo. Thank for the video and the comparisons.
Excellent video. I recently changed from Atmos to the the unified Auro speaker setup and the difference is obvious. Part of the problem is the 90% of Atmos discs are mixed lousy like you stated. A big thanks for many of your explanations and testing.
BTW, my findings with Auro 3D is that the overall volume is about 3-4 dbs lower than both DSU and NeuralX (Lyngdorf MP-40).
Also do you run your height channels louder than the bed layer?
Excellent video, and great production value, very professional, it feels like I'm watching a documentary!
Thanks @stopthefomo! 🙏
Very well done Joe! These comparison videos are invaluable. I’ve never been fully satisfied with my 4 overhead Atmos layout, despite all the effort and expense. It’s very disappointing how many poor Atmos mixes there are, and I intend to go full Auro in my new build. Keep up the great work!
Thanks for letting me know it was helpful in some way. 🙏
Nice demos I will have to agree with Joe it's more about the enjoyment of the surround sound then always being 100% accurate
Thank you for the detailed evaluation! Subscribed! I bought an NADT778 a few months ago and I enjoy the sound quality for home theater. I had a 7 speaker base layer setup with two existing in-ceiling speakers I made top-rear. I needed top-fronts, so I mounted some KEF 150's I had as front heights on the side walls near the ceiling above the L/R's, and used an amp to get all 11 channels running. Ear level was great, but Atmos effects were not what I expected. I bought two more matching in-ceiling speakers, mounted them just ahead of my MLP, and made them top-front. Much better overhead, but I'm somewhat underwhelmed by Atmos. I'm thinking I'll sell the T778 and get something like a Denon X6700H or maybe an Arcam AVR20 (with an amp for the 13 channels I need driven) so I can have access to Auro 3D to see how that works. I need an AV receiver that can have front height, top front, and top rear to take full advantage of my current 7.2.6 setup. Expensive hobby, but that's how I entertain myself!
I have the T778 which I love, but I'm using it for a 2.1 channel system at the moment. The Denon X4700H is in my main system primarily because of Audyssey MultEQ-X manual calibration capabilities, as well as Auro3D.
I was running an Atmos 7.2.6 or 9.2.4 for the last year or so via a 6700h. After some critical listening tests with material I’m quite familiar with, I made the switch to a 13.1 Auro 3D setup. I run it for my Series X, Apple TV, Amazon Prime, Disney+ and UHD BD’s in movie mode with the level at the maximum of 16. As I’ve gotten older, one of my favorite things to do is to watch movies and streaming series with my now retired father as it gives us some quality time together. For reference he had a 1080p Samsung LCD dumb tv until I gave him a TCL R617 65” and a Martin Logan Vision sound bar with a Dynamo 1100x subwoofer. He always commented that he doesn’t care about that type of stuff but ever since I upgraded his viewing experience, he’ll always mention how much better it is whenever I see him. My point is that he’s not an enthusiast by any means, however when we watched the first gunfight in John Wick 3 in Auro3D he said it was the first time he had ever heard a movie soundtrack where the sound was really around, above and behind you. I’ve gotten similar comments from other non-audiophile friends. I’ve even noticed on a number of native Atmos Series X games like Horizon 5 and COD MW2 I was always underwhelmed, however with Auro tiny details as well as directional effects are exponentially more immersive and engaging. When you first started making these videos I was part of the crowd that dismissed Auro and thought that it was a step backward to use 5.1/7.1 PCM or DTHD or DTS-HD as opposed to a native object/channel based track, oh how wrong I was. Thanks again man!
Joe,
You motivated me to duplicate upmixer comparison as best I could in a 5.2.4 system.
Denon 4500H only powering four in-ceiling JBL 61C speakers in an Atmos placement array, but designated as Height F&R to enable Auro3D, DTS-X, and DSU upmixers. Base layer connected to an Outlaw 5-Ch amp (set to OFF). 2 subs left ON. Source was music from SACD 2-Ch layer,
CONCLUSIONS: DSU least full signal, most reverb effect. Auro3D fullest signal, least reverb.
DTS-X in between the other two, a signal fullness similar to DSU, with less reverb than DSU,
When playing entire system for music, it was a toss up between Auro3D and DSU for best presentation to my ears. It maybe content dependent, but not enough data to be definitive.
DTS lacked impact and clarity compared to other two, IMHO.
Thanks for doing that. I really wish these companies would be a bit more up-front about how their upmixers work. Then we wouldn't have to try to figure it out. They have patents to protect themselves. Until then, folks like us have to reverse-engineer what they're doing.
Some of your findings correspond with mine.
The problem with judging based on having all the speakers playing is the more speakers, the less we are able to distinguish differences in sound. That's why a lot of people recommend reviewing single speakers in mono. It's easy to be impressed with the stereo effect, and even moreso with immersive audio with as many speakers as we have.
For sure my next avr purchase will be one that supports auro3D. Great video Joe.
Very interesting testing Joe. I'm definitely looking forward to testing Auro-matic when my theater is complete. I think the end conclusion of all this that everyone can agree on should be that native mixes are inconsistent and in most cases subpar. Perhaps the conversation should be shifted from why Auro-matic is so great and instead to, hey movie industry, stop producing bad height mixes.
I can get with that. I still like Auro3D upmixing for old stuff though. I hope they stick around just for that. I use it for music, older movies, RUclips... pretty much everything. I rarely turn it off.
Good point. But one thing that we can count on forever - maybe two things - is this :
1. Engineers are capable of designing good technology and sometimes they do (Dolby Atmos, DTSX, Auro3D)
2a. Most people don't know and don't care, so Auro3D means nothing to them because Auro isn't a massive marketing machine like Dolby Labs.
2b. Because movie producers know that most people don't know and don't care - because they know the sales - they don't want to spend the money on audio to present a killer mix.
When times are good and people are making good money then likely will get more because we're paying more. When times are bad and people are ignorant and couldn't care less, we get less. That's why Auro will always have its place... Like Joe tells.
Thank you so much for making this video. Incredibly useful and honest.
Nicely done, very thorough explanation and comparison of the different upmixers. I have a small dedicated home theater and opted to setup a 9 speaker plus sub sistem using the Auro-3D/Dolby Atmos combination configuration and is great having the flexibility. I do prefer Auro-3D most of the time. Thanks for the presentation 👍👍
My favorite part is when you play with the online frequency generator, reminding me of Star Wars laser blasts and R2-D2 talking. I’m such a nerd… 😄
Really interesting vid you have here. I am totally blind, so sound is really important to me during movies. I have a 5.1.4 setup with 4 ceiling speakers. I have been experimenting with atmos over the past 1.5 years. Firstly, atmos mixes for the most part kind of suck :) what I mean by that is that so many films really utilise so little of the available potential. Sure some do it well like Dune, Trek into Darkness etc but if you turn off those ear level speakers it's shocking how little sound actually travels up there. Secondly, the upmixing is very interesting. For my bag, I found DSU to throw the least sound up to the ceiling speakers, whilst dTSXN throws the most. Auro3d is somewhere in the middle. However I have to say that listening to some films on upmixing just sounds really unnatural. Take terminator 2 for example, that film has a lot of high frequency sounds in it and so a heck of a lot gets thrown up on the ceiling until it feels quite fake and wierd. the DSU mixer seems to take high frequency sounds as its baseline to move things vertically. Works very well for planes and copters, but machine guns should not be on the ceiling if fired at ground level :) anyway, a really interesting discussion to be sure :)
Thanks for commenting. I'm very interested in what you think. I'm surprised you found Auro3D upmixing to be unnatural. It makes me wonder if you have your height speakers closer to your main listening position relative to the corresponding ear-level speaker. If you have a Dolby Atmos layout, it probably is. Auro3D requires the height channels to be equal to, or preferably further than the corresponding ear-level speaker or else it won't sound right at all. The simulated reflected sound will arrive at your ears earlier than the direct sound, which is impossible in real life.
I love my Auro-3D all the time, gives it a extra kick. Some movies are ok but if you have it, use it.
I listen to my system the way I want to, I don’t worry about what other people think, they don’t like it, they can spend 30-50 k of their own money and build their own home theater.
I just got a new receiver to try auro 3d and prefer it over the atmos and x. I tried the vog and center height and now I can't go back to just 4 heights.
Since I upgraded my SR7011 I only use Pure Direct for 2ch and sometimes Auro when listening to a live album or classical music. Movies always in Auro3D, not using DSU or NeuralX anymore. It is so natural...
My Recent dive into 7.1.6 atmos left me wanting so much more from the media available. I have always understood that Audo3d is the mechanically superior speaker setup. Shame nearly nothing is encoded to use the format without upmixing.
I'm with you on that. I have some native Auro3D stuff. Some is good, some not so good.
You have seen the light! I wish Dolby would have quality control regarding use of their codecs.
Right now I am a Yamaha fan. I use the DSP 3D sound field 'Standard' for all Atmos Tracks. Also works great to for live sports. Soon I will be getting a new Yamaha RX-A6A. I will try the Auro Upmixing.
Wow, a lot of work went into making this video. i don't do surround because i live in small nyc apartment but i still found it to be very interesting. thanks!
Thank you for noticing
ace May I suggest you can still run a surround system no matter the size of your space? You just need to keep the volume low. In a home theater surround system, 50-70% of the audio energy goes through the center channel, 20-30% through the left & right front speakers, and the remaining 10-30% is spread across the surrounds, rear surrounds, and height channels. So invest in a great center channel and front left and right speakers, and decent surround speakers for a 5.x system. There are plenty of excellent small speaker packages available for not much money. Then you need a small sub, like an 8" for the ".1" LFE. Even in a small space, consider getting two subs to smooth out the bass.
Joe....you have found your niche. This is something that should be absolutely defined.
I have Auro3D and it is special.
What would you say that niche is? I pretty much make videos about things I'm personally interested in. I have many interests, so sometimes I'm all over the place with my videos.
@@joentell but this completely seperates you from other reviewers by unraveling this ball of yarn that is these sound codecs that include height channels. Good work.
@@iyona14granturismogt6gtspo7 I was truly just curious. I heard others arguing (sometimes with me) about which was better, but I saw very little in the way of objective tests/measurements which I found disappointing. So, I made a video I would've wanted to watch. I hope someone who enjoys the Dolby Surround Upmixer or DTS:Neural-X upmixer does the same type of video with maybe some of their discoveries. Better yet, I wish the companies themselves talked a bit more about how these upmixers work and allow the consumer to decide which methodologies they agree with. Right now, we're left guessing and trying to reverse-engineer what is actually happening with the upmixers.
@@joentell the response is as detailed and clear as the video (*_*) seriously,half of us are on chairs and stools asking " is any sound effects or freaking dialouge coming out of my height speakers!!! Aaagg! Thorough demos such as yours answer the qusetion and put the baby to bed. Well done looking thru all you videos now.
Confirmed🤘🏼 that was the 100% reason for my choice for the x3800h over the 2800.
Love it for all sources with lesser surround channels (from germany and our dub is mostly lesser in arranged quality).
I just found DTS -Neural: X is the best suit for my 11.1 denon X4400H set up even over AURO3D , Dts-Neural X use all my speakers even my back surround channel that is very important for me
Great Video. Good Job.
Thank you! Linked to your PDF!
For me Auro-2d for 2ch upmixing sounds better than just using 2ch and it doesn't over do it with surround activity it just adds a fullness to the music. I've got 11 speakers and 4 subwoofers - I like to use everything I got. I'll check out upmixing with auro-3d and see what that sounds like! I'm very curious now.
Hi Joe. Thank you for this really informative video. Great job on explaining the differences in some of the upmixing sound formats. I have a Marantz Cinema50 and have it connected to my Loewe connect UHD 55" TV, which are both hooked up to my 5.3.2 sound stage. When listening to my TV the audio stream is set to PCM rather than DD as I find PCM down mix from source gives better clarity and volume than DD at source. I then use either auro 3D or DD surround from the AVR to upmix this sound. In both these instances my height channels are engaged. I'm still tinkering with my sound output, your video has helped take me in the right direction. Thank you! 😊
I have a denon 4500h doing 7.1.4 with vog, i have all channels being powered by adcom amps. All speakers are Martin Logan Motion series. I run everything through Appletv 4k 2021 version with Atmos/auto. I listen to everything with Auro3d. When i watch something on atv, it auto switches my denon to atmos. Depending on the movie I turn off atmos n use dolby 5.1 and use Auro3d for most atmos movies. It does sound so much better, no doubt.
Ok so I read somewhere not to force Dolby Digital 5.1 in Apple TV but instead just turn off the Dolby Atmos toggle. If you force Dolby Digital 5.1 it’s actually somewhere taking the PCM and forcing it into another 5.1 container in a way that is not ideal. You will supposedly get 5.1 base layer simply by turning off the Dolby Atmos toggle and not forcing 5.1 with Apple TV.
I’m waiting for my 4700h to arrive and also am running all Martin Logan Motion speakers except for my heights. Love my Martin Logans…a shame you never see anyone reviewing Martin Logans. Probably their fault for not getting these speakers out to reviewers.
As you stated in the video Joe…I’ve encountered the overly emphasized bass with Auro 3D upmixer. Not so much during TV watching but during music. I have to knock back the bass about 6 db and then I prefer Auro Up Mixer for many tracks. Often times I also just like listening to music in Auro 2D upmixer as well.
But for movies and TV I really do easily prefer Auro Upmixer. The one exception is RUclips videos where it’s just all dialogue from a talking head. I prefer Dolby or Auro 2D upmixer for RUclips rather than the 3D.
Denon a r 8500 yep seven base level speakers and five heights with a height centre works great for me …I leave it set on the auro 3d most of the time ..😊
Well done sir. Truly well done. Thank you for this.
That was a Bad Ass video Joe!!! Thank you for your hours of work and research. 👍
Thank you for noticing and taking the time to let me know!
@@joentell Absolutely!!! Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
just upgraded my firmware on the Smyth A16 to the Auro 3D 13.1 format... its actually very very good...
Excellent video, Joe. Thank you.
Thank you Rick!
Technically the problem with the John wick mix is that the rain that you're hearing isn't really coming from over your head nobody ever notices this it's actually bouncing off the ground of what you're actually hearing for for a rainstorm 90% of the time in a rainstorm what you're hearing is the reflections off is the reflections off of the ground or until you're a car not really coming from over your head As much as the reflected sounds
Good point. I'm sure the surface of the ground has a big effect on the sound and how it's reflected as well. I kind of assumed they were going for the rain hitting the umbrella sound but at lower volume so as not to detract from the dialogue.
@@joentell See I bet nobody ever thought of that lol Just imagine if there was speakers at floor level to depict that NOW WE ARE TALKIN :)
This is not even about John wick mix.
Rain falling in general has no sound, it is when it lands on surfaces that we hear audible sounds .
@@rindershow212 like an umbrella
I mean in order to be fully completely realistic that would make sense having speakers on the floor
If we are gonna have speakers front and back, left and right then we have to complete the bubble and have up and down
Right now the down don’t exist because even base speakers at the moment are on the same plane as our ears
Great video and found the PDF invaluable to my studies of using virtual sound fields in 3D/VR video experiences using the Unreal Engine.
I want to hear more about your paper
Brilliant review, thanks for the hard work.
You already know I disagree with you on Auro from our past exchanges, so I won't beat that long-dead horse to a pulp again. But man, it pained me to see where you had your heights when you had them on the ceiling! Looked like they were placed way too far apart for your layout (in line with the mains?), which is a mistake I often see people make with Atmos. Maybe it just looks that way in the video though. I wish Dolby would fix the diagrams in the home guideline, since properly placed top front/rear for Atmos would almost never be in line with the L/R.
Also, an aside: the Prime Elevations may actually be better suited for 30 degree placement because they exhibit a dip in the crossover region when you get much further off-axis, which on-ceiling placement with them at the stock 45/135 angles does. I only mention that because it's a weakness I've noticed with my own setup... and it's possible that they actually just plain sound better at the angles for front/rear height. Audyssey tries to level that dip out with them at top front/rear, but I actually found that leaving MRC on or implementing my own dip in that region worked better with the Elevations than trying to correct around it. The point being that if you're doing top front/rear and want to go SVS, you're probably better off using Satellites on articulating brackets than Elevations (though they sure look nice on my ceiling).
It was interesting to hear more about the Auro-matic comb filtering though. I still don't care for it, but like you, I like to know how things work. Thanks for the video!
I wish you had more data on what the room size setting does and what is happening along with the effect from 0 to 16 using REW.
I don't know for sure, but my guess is room size affects amount of delay along with other things that only the guys at Auro know. Strength mostly affects the volume of the height channels. There could be more, but this is what I've noticed from my testing. I wish I had a more concrete answer. I do know that Wilfried recommended the default medium and 10 setting.
Thanks. This was best upmixing demo I've seen. And very useful information.
🙏 glad it was useful
Joe,
An excellent and unemotional discussion, thank you.
Would you please consider posting links to the online freq and pink noise generators you used. They appeared to be easier to use than most found in a search result. Thanks.
I tried to be as objective as possible. It was more about just learning about how these upmixers work.
Here's that test tone generator www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/
Hey :)
There is one importend Point, that you have to think about: Is it good, that stuff that is not happening over you, is mixed to the higher speakers? Most people are using much smaller and cheaper speakers for the high or top channels, so why should music or random sounds be mixed up? it would sound even better, if this stuff stays on the hifi speakers on the main level, and the top or highed speakers are used, only if they are needet.
Aside from being outdoors or in an anechoic chamber, you will almost always be in a room with some reflective surfaces. One of those surfaces is likely to be a ceiling. So, having sound coming from above you is realistic. Any sound made at ear level will likely reflect off the ceiling also. Many movies lack any height information. That's where the Auro3D upmixer is useful.
Now, if you have bad speakers, that's not good. That's like having a blown sub and saying that using the LFE channel isn't good. The real solution is to get a good working sub. If you have good speakers all around you, I would recommend you try upmixing.
Director's intent doesn't always equal realism. Go check out the CGI on The Scorpion King. 🤣 I bet one of these new video game engines could render that in realtime with much more realism than what they manually did, just because our tech now allows for stuff like ray-tracing.
In a sense, taking an old Pixar movie, and running the source content through a graphics engine to allow it to add more realistic shadows and reflections is a form of upmixing. It wasn't the directors intent per se.
on the x4700h, do you have to manually turn on the auro 3d upmixer each time new content is played, or can you have it on by default
Thanks for your time in making this very informative video. Oh, and you also validated my $200 Auro 3D upgrade to my 4300h. One question... Do you have your front height speakers calibrated to the same db as your front stage? Right now I have my front heights about 3 db louder so I can hear more of it. I did that because it's what I did with my ceiling speakers in Atmos set up. (But maybe I did that because there was so little content being played up in those speakers with Atmos anyway! Hence the upgrade to Auro!)
I would let Audyssey do the level matching as I've found it does a good job of that part. I've also done manual level matching using pink noise and an external mic/meter, but you have to be careful since SPL is dependent on the frequency range of your speakers. Height speakers are usually smaller and have less bass. You have to limit the pink noise ranges to the speaker with the highest crossover frequency. Or you can let Audyssey set it.
If you want more height effects, consider turning up the strength setting on Auro3D from the default 10 to a higher setting. I would prefer to do that.
The reason i heard about ATMOS movies not having any sound coming from the height speakers is that the movie makers cut cost on some some scenes by not recording per ATMOS standards.
@joentell --- Are the physical locations of speakers in DTS, Auro, and Dolby surround sound configurations incompatible?
How can someone listen to all three without having to move speakers constantly?
You are the man Joe
Thanks man! 🙏
Lot of good information in here. Definitely think my next avr is going to have Auro3D even if i decide I don't like it. Still have to figure out what I can get away with in the living room though first. I'm thinking I buy some in-ceiling speakers and make a custom box to put them in with 30 degree baffle angle that way worst case I lose money for the box and can just go 5.2.2 in ceiling and best case they pass WAF and I build 2x more for 5.1.5 Auro3D with side height. I do have some thoughts about some of your findings mostly related to speaker positioning, I'll probably email you if that's ok once I get them fully flushed out.
Sure let me know. Also, I hope it isn't about angular positioning of Atmos height speakers. :-) I do believe that proper position for Atmos will give a better experience than a sub-optimal one, but it doesn't matter if there isn't any content up there to begin with. ;-)
I specifically heard you say get towers for my height speakers,so that's what I'm gonna do!!
Good afternoon john .
Yam from Portugal,auro 3d works with pcm.
Dolby and dts works with bitstream thats the diference with the upmixers
Hey man, love and appreciate your hard work for us. My question is what level do you set your Auro 3D up mix too? In the AVR it goes from 0-16.
Just default. I think it's medium and 10.
This is the video I've been waiting for ever since Gene poo-pooed Auro (all due respects to him). This was professional, thorough and convincing (though I was already convinced). A lot of people are missing out.
One thing that we can count on forever - maybe two things - is this :
1. Engineers want to and are capable of designing great audio mix technology and sometimes they do (Dolby Atmos, DTSX, Auro3D)
2a. Most people don't know and don't care (maybe can't afford). So, Auro3D means nothing to them because Auro isn't a massive marketing machine like Dolby Labs. They don't know what they are missing.
2b. Because movie producers know that most people don't know and don't care (they know what's selling), and they are as frugal as they can be; the result is more often than not they don't spend the money to present a killer audio mix. You can be sure that someone like James Cameron is one exception as an example (and that Avatar 2 will probably blow minds in Atmos).
When times are good and we are all making good money, and we like to be well informed instead of well opinionated, then likely we will get more because we'll be paying more. So, movie producers will give us more in Atmos, say. But when times are bad and people are tight with cash, are ignorant and couldn't care less; we will always get less. That's why Auro will always have its place... Like Joe tells.
Yea I usually take Gene's advice with a grain of salt🤦🏽. If he's not biased then he's bragging about how it was him who made
Denon bring back center spread or it was him who made denon capable of having all 9 channels as pre outs e t c 🤣🤣
@@rindershow212 I see. I always find it interesting that manufacturers might miss something in their beta unit that a reviewer not only discovers, but has influence to correct. Maybe it's not always bragging if it's a fact?
@@nickburak7518 but it wasn't him though. There is no data or facts to prove he had something to do with it🤔
@@rindershow212 I don't exactly know what you are talking about. Of course, some don't understand what I say. My point about Gene and Auro3D is that Gene isn't a fan. That's all I'm saying about Gene. Did I misunderstand you?
@@nickburak7518 when you said gene isn't a fan, what I was trying to say is that gene isn't a fan of anything. He 💩 poos" (your words) on everything 😁.
I have now also extensively tested the neural x and Auro 3D upmixer. In my opinion, the dialogue is much better, more comprehensible and more dynamic with neural x than with Auro. With auro 3d I miss the bass in the voice and I have to increase the centre by 3-4db to understand the dialogue as well as with neural x.
How do I get more bass in the voices so that they sound as voluminous as with neural? For example, in Lion King, Mufasa has a super bass-heavy voice (in German) that is completely drowned out by Auro 3D.
Which Surround Parameter you got for Auro 3d? Large or movie?
Go To min 2:10 because sadly MANY older movies (& Christopher Noland Movies too) only have 5.1 surround on their 1st round of 4K releases. And sadly again even many modern movies with atmos mixes have very lazy Atmos mixes. AURO 3D for the win!!!!!! Thanks Joe!!! I PreOrdered you & TechnoDads "Spatial Audio Calibration Toolkit" !!
Isn't it the case that we don't want lower frequencies front he surrounds because the low frequencies interact with each other more and cause nodes and modes.
Obviously going forward Dirac ART will fix this but if you start putting lots of low frequency content through you heights and surrounds and mains it may cause extra issues
I was able to hear the difference without using headphones, my receivers is set to dts Neural X the first test for me had more clarity and the second one was a bit more muffled and the last one sounded more like it was in between the first two.
For music, Auro 3D all the way.
Do you absolutely have to use a VOG speaker overhead, or can you fib to the processor to enable 3D?
"And so am I."
KO!
I just purchased a Denon X3800H AVR so I can try out the Auro 3D and I was looking under the sound/parameters options and I do not have the auro-matic options to adjust the levels or strength. Is this only available for there upper tier AVRs? It has Auro 3D but no way to tweak it.
It’s there. I have the same receiver. You MIGHT have to actually have auro3d engaged for it to pop up in the sound menu (not 💯) but it is there. I’ll check once I’m home and get back to you! By engaged i mean have auro3d on in the mode setting during. A movie. Try that first?
Ok thanks I'll try when I get home.
@UnitedRedDevil13 Thanks, that was it. When I engaged Auro3D the options appeared in the Surroud parameter option.
I couldn't hear the difference in the sweeps but I could easily hear it in the pink noise.
My only issue with Auro-3d is I have 2 wide channels that aren't being used when auro-3d is turned on, so I'm torn between a wider sound stage, or better activation of heights.... wish they would just do better atmos tracks
I'm with you on the better Atmos tracks. I've been creating Atmos content with fellow RUclipsr, TechnoDad. We've come to the conclusion that they've set some really high expectations with their marketing, and we just don't think Atmos can deliver on that promise 100%. I find it a bit misleading for both the content creator and the consumer. We're working on ways to improve the experience. We jokingly called it Auro for Atmos. ;-)
I haven't found the need for front wides in my setup because I feel I get good cohesiveness between my front stage and side surrounds. I'm in a pretty large space also 20x20x9 ft.
Front wides do way more over the course of a movie than heights do
@@demonreturns4336 Not on an Auro 3D upmixed setup. Those heights will be on a lot.
I’m under the impression that wides don’t get used all that often in mixes either and just sit there playing nothing in most movies.
Maybe Dolby Atmos makes more use of the front wides than the height speakers? Again that’s what Auro 3D use here is specifically used to address the lack of use of those heights.
I think you hit it on head when you said Audio Budget for Movies because even the ones with the best 3D effect could be improved if the sound effects was better suited for Dolby Atmos , Also I want to know Why when I play a Dolby Atmos song on Tidal that Atmos pops on my receiver but it doesn't for Apple music or Amazon Music ?
To answer your last question, I think certain streaming devices support Atmos on certain apps. Make sure yours supports Atmos on those two streaming services.
@@joentell Thanks that has to be it
Auro3D works better in higher ceiling rooms. There need to be good distance between base heights and voice of god. This requires high ceilings for best effect. Atmos being object based is more flexible when it comes to number of channels you can use and you can add more, go with 9.1.4 for higher sound placement precision - Auro3D has limits.
Also mind version of DSU in your receiver - that matters as well. In Denon I though Auro3D was better than DSU and preferred it but in my Arcam I prefer DSU.
In the end I plan to have front wides to fill in the gap between surrounds and front speakers and have all speakers from fronts to rear spread out in increments of 40 degrees. This will be a killer with Atmos.
I know people without high ceilings who find Auro3D works well for them. It also depends how close they are to the speakers.
@@joentell do wonder if that depends on AVR. On Denon Auro was preferred by me compared to DSU. On Arcam DSU with additional Dolby movie processing sounds much better
@@whitecrowuk575 Different room correction also right?
@@joentell possibly - not sure how room correction would make difference between DSU vs Auro on the same AVR? I think Denon didn’t have Dolby audio processing extra option Arcam has. Without it i would be leaning towards Auro3D.
@@whitecrowuk575 The room correction sets the distances and levels of all the channels. That could have a significant impact on how the upmixers sound.
My Denon 3700H doesn't support Auro3D unfortunately. Maybe I should've bought the 4700H.
I might upgrade my X4700H to an X6700H, so mine would go up for sale. We'll see
@Joe N Tell going for that 13 channel auro 👀
Auro is what tipped the balance for me …that and the lack of availability of just about everything else last year.
On the artifact test, the only one to do what should be done is the DTS Neural:X upmixer. Focused and direct, not spacial which is what Auro is doing.
Which test specifically are you referring to? Timestamp? I don't recall DTS Neural:X ever providing a focused and direct sound like you said.
@@joentell I'm referring to the artifact test at 25:07 or so. Technically all the sound you are hearing from Auromatic IS artifacting. Those outputs are meant to be in the bed layer directly. The fact that DTS Neural produced NO sound, means it is the only one to do it correctly in the height channels. If you play that with all the speakers enabled, the most clear and direct sound will be DTS, Auro will have a spatial wider sound (less directive). However, Auro is not like the others intentionally, you will always get sound from the heights because like Wilfried said on your podcast, it is about producing a bigger more spatial sound, not placing sounds as objects.
I think all Auromatic really does is add time/phase delay and amplitude changes, comb filtering, etc. to the bed layer channel below it, and I agree with you that this effect can and often is more pleasing than the object-based results of the other two upmixers. I'm not trying to be argumentative, and some of your tests are enlightening and informative. I'm a fan. I'm just trying to input that a lot of these tests while useful, are kinda just showing that Auro is different and that you will have MORE audio in the heights with Auro, assuming you stick directly to Auro placement guidelines and only with the supported setup of Auro. Another way to look at this is you will never ONLY get audio in your heights for a sound object with Auro upmixing. It's always a altered duplicate of the bed layer, NEVER an object in the height channels exclusively. Obviously there are issues with all the upmixers though. Also a correct Auro setup is literally impossible in my room... period, and it is a pretty standard room. The ceiling height (8') to seated distance doesn't allow the minimum 18 degree angle while keeping your speaker at the same distance. I can benefit with Auro outside of that range, but it's not at all similar to object-based audio.
I have some serious problems with Dobly Atmos. My issue is you aren't talking about DTS:X native content at all in these comparisons. There is quite a bit of content there, but obviously they aren't slapping it on everything like Atmos, which is why there is so many bad mixes with Atmos. Try most any DTS:X content and compare it to Auromatic and I bet you are hard pressed to find one you prefer Auro with. Take The Incredible Hulk movie for example. Or the Bourne movies.
The biggest benefit to this new "object-based" stuff is the audio mix can accurately adapt to ANY speaker setup you have (with really high limits). This turns out to be a complete LIE with Atmos (make that video please), but to me it seems DTS is REALLY doing it right. Some love from the RUclipsrs in this space might help us get more content and streaming in DTS:X. This isn't my issue, but an example... take someone who is limited in their room and they can't put rear surrounds far enough back to be good, but they want to add front wide channels to a 5.1 bed layer, DTS is the only one that will do that correctly (even in their upmixer).
To me, I find that Auromatic is best with 5.1 music, because moving objects and height content generally isn't there unless intentionally made for spatial audio natively. Neural is best with 5.1 movies as Neural actually attempts at upmixing to object-based mixes. DSU with 2-channel TV and such. I'm not a 2-channel music guy. DSU will not upmix to the heights on a front to back ratio if you look at it. Say you have 4 or 6 heights, DSU only uses a stereo mix in the heights, so ALWAYS your front and back channels on one side will play the same audio. SO weak.
If you read this far, I'd love your thoughts on this.
@@Macroproxy
I am not taking your response as argumentative, it's a discussion and your intentions are well-received. I hope you don't take my disagreement as something personal, either. It's just about discussing concepts.
According to your logic about DTS Neural:X being the most accurate because it did not put anything into the height speakers doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that if you were to upmix any 2-channel content, anything other than what's being played out of the left and right speaker would be considered an artifact? If so, then what would the point of upmixing? I used the example that if there is correlated content that is common to both the left and right speaker, an upmixer should upmix that content to a center channel. That isn't an artifact, that's proper upmixing. A digital artifact is something that is an undesired or unintended result. Adding the height aspect to a 2-channel mix IS the intended result.
You mention how you will never get an object in a height channel exclusively using Auro-matic and that is correct. It must be in the bed layer. I also mentioned that at the end of the video. It is extremely rare in the real world that a sound is coming exclusively from above you without reflecting sound somewhere at your ear-level. Something that you would be able to hear at a distance from a typical height speaker on a ceiling, would have to be loud enough so that you would hear it right above you. The likelihood that it wouldn't also reflect off a nearby surface, floor, wall etc. is very low. In those small cases, a discrete signal from a native source would give the best reproduction, but it doesn't need to be object-based, it could also work with a channel-based mix. Some of Auro3D's native demos prove this. It's more about a discrete signal vs an extrapolated signal from an upmixer. By definition, NO upmixer can create discrete signals. It cannot create something from nothing; the content has to be there to begin with. Neural:X may give you the perception that it's creating discrete signals, but it is not.
Regarding the angle in your room with an 8ft ceiling, you're saying that at your listening position, a height speaker placed near your ceiling above the corresponding ear-level speaker won't create an 18° angle? For that to be correct, your seat would have to be over 24ft away from your main speakers.
The 30° angle is based this: Draw a straight line between your ear, while sitting, to your main speakers. Ideally, that line would be parallel to the floor. From your listening position, look up 45°. Now look down a bit to estimate 30°. That's the angle we're talking about, not the angle created at the corner where the speaker is. You can plug in some numbers into this website www.omnicalculator.com/math/trigonometry and you'll see that we're trying to figure out 30° for angle a, not b. Let's say if you were to sit 11ft away, you would create about a 35° angle which is still within Auro3D specs. Even if you were 9-10ft away, I think you could still get a decent effect with Auro3D. Wilfried said, as long as the height speakers aren't closer to you than the corresponding ear-level speaker, you will get a good effect.
Regarding native DTS content, I mentioned that it's not about native content for me. I think all the formats have the capability of sounding excellent with their native format, but it depends on whether they are mixed well. That's the bottleneck, not the format. That's why I think there's a place for upmixers, because it's been shown that it's more common that we get poor home mixes than good ones. Hopefully that will change. But yes, I have heard impressive native DTS content.
@Joe N Tell Good point about the upmixing to heights even though the content is specifically intended to be in the bed layer. I do see your point. I guess my point is just you won't ever really get a focused sound. It's like a hall effect all the time. Why use that track for the test?
I also agree that you understand what Auronis doing. However, Neural in fact does upmix to objects. Whether that is always particularly accurate is another story. And it does have to tame itself down and can never be like native content, I agree.
The angle thing... 8 foot ceilings (really 7'8" with ceiling treatments), not heights 8 feet above ear level. A speaker below the ceiling... lose about 6 inches, your ear is about 3-4 feet above the floor. I sit 14 feet back in a 22 foot deep room. That equates to somewhere around 12 degrees. At some point... the effect is simply because you have two speakers instead of one.
@Joe Wyers yeah that's pretty far back relative to the height of the ceiling. I forgot to account for the things you mentioned, seating height, speaker cabinet etc. That's a rough one. The only way would be to sit closer and use side heights if possible.
I'm still not sure what you mean by upmixing to objects with DTS Neural:X.
Equating Auro-matic to a hall effect is about as misleading as calling it all-channel stereo. Implementation is extremely important. Imagine if I took your system and just turned the treble all the way up and the bass all the way down. Everything else in your system would stay the same, so you could say it's pretty much the same, but the sound wouldn't be.
When you're talking about having a more focused sound, I think it's important to discuss what causes the smearing effect you're talking about. A direct initial sound that combines with a later sound similar to the initial sound can cause smearing, but it's highly dependent on the delay between the two signals. With the proper delay, the brain hears them as two distinct sounds and determines the second sound was caused by a reflection in the space. So, delay as well as level have a huge effect on the realism and whether it causes smearing or a feeling of spaciousness. If you get those wrong, you get a totally different effect. If you don't have the speakers in an optimal location for Auro3D, I wouldn't recommend using it because I think the delays they use assume proper placement. If the height speakers are closer to the listener, the pseudo-reflections created by Auro-matic may arrive too early relative to the "direct sound" from the ear-level speakers. That causes the smearing effect.
thanks
You're welcome
Top video! Btw, if you do the same tests with Music, it will be even more obvious.
Very good. Keep it up 👏
Joe, the new Denon X3800 has both Auro 3D and Auro 2D. As I understand it, both use the Auro-matic upmixer for non-native Auro content but 3D is designed to enhance the sound of at least a 5.1.4 system with F/R Heights and 2D is designed to up-mix a basic 5.1 system. I actually disabled my F/R Heights (SVS Prime Elevations) and tested the 2D processor on the remaining 5.1 system. It did a very good job of creating a pretty immersive bubble of sound, much better than DSU. The question is if you just leave Auro 3D on all of the time will it impact a 5.1 setup in the same way that Auro 2D does?
2D is if you don't have height speakers. I would always recommend using 3D if you have heights. AURO3D will work on content from mono to ATMOS. If it's in ATMOS, it will use the base 5.1 or 7.1 mix, and use that to upmix from.
@@joentell Thanks. I also found that for music CDs, Auro 2D works very nicely. It expands the 2 channel sound but excludes the heights The works well since, at least to me, using the heights for music can be overkill.
Can you have two ceiling speakers (wouldve been atmos) and yet set up as A3D? So the system combines the two speakers to act as one?
If you set the speakers to heights instead of tops, see if your AVR allows you to choose Auro3D.
@@joentell its Marantz Cinema 40 so I believe it does have Auro3D built in 👍
Nice video and I’m all for Auro3D, But …and it’s a big BUT… On my Denon 4700h I have to assign the rear height speakers differently to experience Dolby in all 9 speakers. I’ve noticed that if I use a “Surround Heights” (AKA DTS\Auro) configuration, Dolby won’t use the rear heights! BUT if I configure the rear heights as “Rear Heights” Dolby will utilise them - although not very much. Have you taken this into account when you did your testing, as you don’t mention it???
I use both configurations by assigning the different layouts before running Audyssey, then storing them to the two different presets and switching between them dependant on the content I’m watching or listening to.
And thanks for keeping Auro-matic in the content providers’ thoughts, as without the recognition that plenty of folk use and prefer it, the content may wither and Dolby would be one step nearer to a monopoly. 👍
I’d like to see Gene from Audioholics be as unbiased in his testing - but that’s probably never going to happen. 🤣
I don't know if I kept it in the video, but I do know that if you use an Auro3D configuration on the X4700H, it will not utilize the rear surrounds when in AURO3D unless you step up to something like the X6700H which has more channels of processing. The rear surrounds are activated when in other modes like Atmos, but the voice of god channel is not. I did account for this in my testing as I have an amp dedicated only to the rear surrounds and could turn it on/off accordingly.
@@joentell Thanks for the reply …my concerns have been allayed.
@@joentell confused here. You say if you configure in auro 3d layout it will not utilize the rear surround when in auro3d ??🤔. On my 4700h I'm running 7.4.2....and also running all speakers with external amps. My set up is front Height &Rear height. Dolby Atmos, dts x, and Auro 3d works fine. So im confused in what you guys are talking about.
Good video. Although my complaint against Auro3D (correct me if I'm wrong), is that the speaker layout isn't as flexible as Dolby or DTS and isn't as scalable. For example, in one of my rooms (I have a 3.2.2 setup), I can't even select the Auro3D upmixer in that setup on my 4500, while I'm able to select Dolby Surround and Neural X which will upmix sound up to my height speakers. So in reality, although it may sound fantastic, it is a feature that a very, very, very, small percentage of users will be able to use.
Auro-3D does require a 5.1 setup and then at least 4 heights.
@@mikeortiz2139 Right, so its not very flexible for people that can't get to that setup.
@@jmbgator2645 Hey, you're preaching to the choir here. I bought a house and the first I did was have 4 atmos speakers installed in ceiling. Months later I learn about Auro-3D.
If I want it, I'll have to change up my set up.
Yes, I do believe you need 4 height speakers. If you do though, I think the Auro3D layout is more compatible than the rest of the formats. The PDF I linked to shows how you can do a setup that's compatible with all 3 formats.
Yes but that’s just physics. You can’t get the experience without the minimum amount of speakers present and in a proper configuration.
That’s like me saying I have a Soundbar but I’m upset it won’t do Auro 3D. No…no it can’t. The speakers aren’t there! you can not have half the required speakers and expect it to work. Your not getting a binaural experience without the speakers in the proper locations.
While your speakers are outputting sound with your 3.2.2 setup, your certainly are not getting a great Atmos experience either. You just don’t have the proper hardware.
Are you only using a front stage? Or do you have like one center channel and two rears and the two heights? Just no way you are getting a great experience even though your receiver is outputting sound in “Atmos”. Your not getting even good surround sound lacking even a basic 5.1 setup. I don’t think the failing is on Auro 3D. Hell it’s only included in Amps in the $1500 price range with 11.1 channels for a reason. It’s not meant to work on any lesser of a setup.
You are correct that few will experience it by the very nature of it requiring a $1500 receiver as a minimum entry point that is accompanied by no less than a 5.1.4 setup as a minimum. That’s 10 speakers. This kind of setup for sure is going to be a bit exclusive to those who have the means, have the space, have spouse approval…etc.
ok. nice vid. thanks for defending the work for german engineers :) so... 1st thing. you should present the layout (schematic or 360 view etc. :) so we can judge your personal opinion. I do think you are running a hybrid not a full Auro3D setup as it should be :) am I correct? I presume yes, since you switch from one to another. problem is... you cant judge correctly the Auromatic upmixer or at least the demo discs if you are not 100% Auro3D. yes, it is a shame that it sounds great BUT only when the positioning is top notch. and I know many of movie lovers will love to get 4 atmos hidden in the ceiling and that's it :)) bcz of wife factor and more. but the reality it is what it is. you need the proper place for each level - ear level, heights and VoG with a clear separation. you cannot mount vog at the same level of heights. NO WAY :) it should be a dome like structure not a flat line. so... the height of the room will also influence this yet another headache for most of 2.5m ceilings :P when you need at least 3.5 even more, for a good atmos :P ideal will be 4m.
I'm in search of a new receiver. Auro is a must (for me) . I don't care about extra zones etc. What do you recommend in the best performance/€($) category ? Denon 4700H ? Yamaha A6A ? other ?Perhaps you have a video about it already ? Is the VOG channel a must have or a nice thing to have ?
I use the X4700H and I think it's great. I like the ability to use the dedicated pre-out mode which turns off the internal amps. I also am able to get it to sound exactly how I want with the Audyssey MultEQ-X $200 upgrade.
Great video
Joe, awesome tech coverage. Thanks. I notice that most rooms/ppl push their Auro3D height speakers to the top of the wall where it meets the ceiling. And the VOG spkr is also in the same plane attached to the ceiling. Is this ideal? Should there be a real mid level below the top level? What margin is there on the 30 degree angle for height spkrs to create a break or width / separate space for the height and top channels? Does this same plane config hurt the Auro3D repro anyway?
Check out the PDF I linked to
@@joentell thanks Joe, there’s a lot to manage. I’ve got to get furniture (tv media open shelf unit), move boxes of equipment out, create a listening position, create storage space for empty boxes, arrange connections to the pre-wiring and move it to places that for Auro3D as it was wired for Atmos positions. Find an installer with patience and skills to step through this project.
Hello and congratulations for the channel, very interesting!
I have a Marantz sr7015, in Atmos 5.2.4 configuration with ceiling speakers. I changed the configuration on the AVR by selecting Front Height and Rear Height and I'm trying to use AURO MATIC upmixer: even in Media mode, I feel too much bass .. How can I fix it to get less intrusive bass?
Thank you from Italy!
I also have an SR7015 in a 6.4.4 configuration. Surround back is combined into one speaker as I have a large door to deal with at the back of the room. I use 4 height speakers mounted on the font/back walls at ceiling height. I have been attempting to manage the bass levels as well and notice Atmos 3D puts out more bass. Adding the extra subwoofers gave new dimension to the room and better control over excessive bass, but it's not perfect.
Very interesting. I’m setup as 5.1.2 with 2 in middle of room on ceiling and my “rear surround” actually on my sides in the ceiling. My couch is against a back wall in our smaller home/ so no option. I’ve recently found that Neural X is really cool. A little better than Atmos even. Is that because channel based vs object? I only have a denon s760h so no auro3d unfortunately.
I haven't Neural:X to be very impressive from my testing, but use what sounds best to you.
@@joentell interesting. Thanks for the input. Im curious what your recommendations for av receivers in mid range area? Step above my current one* i use mine for both movies & vinyl. Room is small to medium.
@@UnitedRedDevil13 I think the next logical step up be the X-series like the new Denon X3800H. Prior to that, you may want to see about getting Audyssey MultEQ-X ($200) and see if you can enhance your system through calibration.
@@joentell will do! Thanks again!
@@joentell i upgraded to the x3800h on your recommendation and although the s760h is a nice entry point, the step up is def worth it imo. Still messing with Auro3d and debating where to keep the “intensity” or effect level for that in 5.1.2?
Question Joe, so I have a denon 3800H and I can't get auro to work. I have my height speakers assigned as front/rear heights. However I don't get an option to select auro 3d in soundfield, regardless of source layer (2ch,5.1,7.1,atmos). The only time I've seen it come up as an option, is when it glitches when I switch between bluray and game, where sometimes it wont output audio.
Joe: Planning to purchase the Denon 4700H for my current 7.1 system currently using a Marantz 5012/ 100 watt power/ 2 channel driven. Speakers are “Proficient” - W670 class /100 watt. Is a 125 watt receiver too much power for this class of speaker? Like you, I want to build out my setup to 7.2.4 in the near future.
I really wish the auro 3d up mixer would use the surround back speakers
I think it might on the 6700H and higher. I know it doesn't on the X4700H. I could be wrong about that.
Good video
🙏
@joentell I wanted to ask if an Auro 3D setup would work in a room 12.8’w x 19’ d x 7’ h. I’m worried about the low ceilings with Atmos in ceiling speakers and achieving the proper angles where I think it may be easier with an Auro 3D layout.
I think it can work. Your speakers may be up near the ceiling to get to 30°, but as long as they are equal or further than the corresponding ear-level speaker, it should work
It was disappointing to know most of Indiana Jones in 4K is all the score and no sound effects.
That's a shame. They could've done so much with that movie.
when you upmix dolby atmos or stereo content into auro3d, does the top surround (voice of god) speaker work ?
Hey. I have a 4700h currently use a 10.1 auro. I would like to extend my bed layer to 7 speakers, bringing my 4700h to 12.1 including the voice of god. Now the 4700h is an 11.1 avr. Will it work?
How do you turn on/off bed layer speakers from your phone?
Thx Joe for explanations, it helps a lot, my plan is go with Marantz Cinema 50 and just like to ask, is there any calibrating system for Auro 3d or should I use Dirac to make the sound calibrate?! Great and helpfull video 👍👌👏
It's not specific to any calibration method
@@joentell THX Joe, did you had chance to compare Auro 3d with Sonys 360 Spatial sound mapping 5000es or 7000es avr?!
Didnt Will say you have to turnoff bitstream then use pcm before auro 3d is used to upmix for best results? This might mean its even better than you think
He did. I would guess that would have more to do with the lossless stream.
What about 5.1/7.1 soundtracks ... any recommendations for watching those with atmos speakers? Only about 5% of my discs have atmos soundtrack (I watch mostly weird/niche/old stuff).
Joe I have a question about auro upmixer. I have front heights and surround height and surround backs hooked up. When I hit the info button the input signal on my denon x4700h the front heights & surround heights aren't lit up when listening to a atmos movie. On output they are lit up. Does auro upmixer not look at the front height or surround height input signal?
Auro3D only sees the 5.1 or 7.1 mix and upmixes from there.
Well, I spent $200 to upgrade my X6200 to Auro3D because of all the hype. Well, I wish I has kept my $200 in my wallet.
DTS: Neo X beats AUROMATIC, and DTS was free 😩😩😩😩
Yes, Auro adds more stuff on the top but it does not sound "natural". They are taking the bed layer sound, moving it up to the height layer, and cranking up the volume.
The DTS upmixer sounds felt very close to a native DTS: X/Atmos mix without the top layer becoming overwhelming.
I did notice when using the Auro upmixer, Bass was somewhat lacking. I can't figure out what's going on.
Are you you using an Auro3D layout with height speakers or do you have an Atmos layout?
That's exactly my personal experience with a Denon X6400H and the "universal" speaker layout recommended by Denon/Marantz with a 7.4.2 system, with height speakers (not in-ceiling). I still prefer DTS Neural:X over Auro3D for almost every content. Also, Auro3D version in my AVR is not capable of doing 7.4 but only 5.4 so it leaves 2 speakers at ground level unused. A few years ago I followed GrobyTV hype-train videos about Auro3D and that was an important buying decision for me, so I was very disappointed about its limitations and real performance, I've compared all 3 up-mixers many times. As you say, DTS is all I need.
@@joentell I have Top fronts and Top Rears
@@kevonmanuel are they closer to your main listening position than your ear-level speakers? Mine were before and Auro3D didn't sound good at all.
@@joentell Due to my space limitations, the Top rears are a bit closer to my MLP versus the Top fronts. I do have good separation between the side surround (@ ear level) and the Top heights.
I would not call Auromatic horrible. But when I go back and forth testing between DSU, Auro, and DTS upmixers, I keep going back to DTS. Like I mention before, DTS sounds more natural.
In my situation where I had to pay to get Auro, it was not worth the expense.
I have a Pioneer VSX-LX303 which doesn’t have Auro upmixing but only has DSU and Neural X upmixing. Which upmixer is better or more accurate height extraction from upmixing 5.1 or 7.1 movies to Atmos?
How far up should my height speakers be as I sit more towards the back of livingroom
Does every auro 3D capable processor / avr have an auro 3d up mixer? On the spec sheet for most of them it just says auro 3D.
you spoil us
I finally got it done! It took long enough right? :-)
I am enjoying the X3800h off of your recommendation several months ago. Now that Dirac is live, would you recommend the Limited or the full bandwidth version?
I think it's worth it to get the full version eventually if you like what it did for the bass. If anything, it allows you to do your own manual target curves full-range.
@@joentell awesome. Thanks a lot.