<story><title>Is the DTS vs. Dolby war effectively over?</title><url>https://www.whathifi.com/features/is-the-dts-vs-dolby-war-effectively-over</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>fxtentacle</author><text>Yes, Dolby won. By being cheap to implement.&lt;p&gt;I used to work in this space and I&amp;#x27;ve dealt with:&lt;p&gt;- Barco Auro 3D&lt;p&gt;- Frauenhofer MPEG-H&lt;p&gt;- Dolby Atoms&lt;p&gt;- DTS:X&lt;p&gt;The idea behind Auro3D is to just use a lot of discrete channels, which is great for cinemas with a static playback architecture, but there&amp;#x27;s no way to adjust the mixing based on the listener&amp;#x27;s speaker setup. So it is difficult to make sound great for home use unless you have lots of space to hang things on your ceiling. (5 top speakers needed)&lt;p&gt;MPEG-H can do everything but it&amp;#x27;s difficult to configure and was fully specified very late, after Dolby Atmos was already in production. That said, this is the agreed-upon default standard for broadcast, because it supports stuff like 200 language-independent 3D objects + 5 language-dependent voice actor tracks, all positioned in 3D. MPEG-H can also be converted easily to Dolby Atmos and DTS:X.&lt;p&gt;Many professionals agree that DTS:X is the best quality consumer option. It also theoretically supports quite a lot of customization. But ASIC implementations tend to freeze those because otherwise it&amp;#x27;s too expensive. And it still is expensive.&lt;p&gt;Dolby Atmos virtualization is said by gossip to be a few 32-tap IIR filters with delay modules in between. That means it&amp;#x27;s by far the lowest-tech solution on the list. And that means cheap ASIC implementations. I believe this is why Atmos won.&lt;p&gt;If I remember correctly, DTS:X is a $4 chip, Atmos is a $0.5 chip.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>p0larboy</author><text>Do you have an email that I can contact you? I run a headphones magazine, Headphonesty and I will love to publish an article on this topic.</text></comment>
<story><title>Is the DTS vs. Dolby war effectively over?</title><url>https://www.whathifi.com/features/is-the-dts-vs-dolby-war-effectively-over</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>fxtentacle</author><text>Yes, Dolby won. By being cheap to implement.&lt;p&gt;I used to work in this space and I&amp;#x27;ve dealt with:&lt;p&gt;- Barco Auro 3D&lt;p&gt;- Frauenhofer MPEG-H&lt;p&gt;- Dolby Atoms&lt;p&gt;- DTS:X&lt;p&gt;The idea behind Auro3D is to just use a lot of discrete channels, which is great for cinemas with a static playback architecture, but there&amp;#x27;s no way to adjust the mixing based on the listener&amp;#x27;s speaker setup. So it is difficult to make sound great for home use unless you have lots of space to hang things on your ceiling. (5 top speakers needed)&lt;p&gt;MPEG-H can do everything but it&amp;#x27;s difficult to configure and was fully specified very late, after Dolby Atmos was already in production. That said, this is the agreed-upon default standard for broadcast, because it supports stuff like 200 language-independent 3D objects + 5 language-dependent voice actor tracks, all positioned in 3D. MPEG-H can also be converted easily to Dolby Atmos and DTS:X.&lt;p&gt;Many professionals agree that DTS:X is the best quality consumer option. It also theoretically supports quite a lot of customization. But ASIC implementations tend to freeze those because otherwise it&amp;#x27;s too expensive. And it still is expensive.&lt;p&gt;Dolby Atmos virtualization is said by gossip to be a few 32-tap IIR filters with delay modules in between. That means it&amp;#x27;s by far the lowest-tech solution on the list. And that means cheap ASIC implementations. I believe this is why Atmos won.&lt;p&gt;If I remember correctly, DTS:X is a $4 chip, Atmos is a $0.5 chip.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>CamperBob2</author><text>&lt;i&gt;Dolby Atmos virtualization is said by gossip to be a few 32-tap IIR filters&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;FIR, right?  That&amp;#x27;s crazy long for an IIR filter.</text></comment>