Dolby Atmos, Auro, and 3D audio thread

[KubrickKurasawa]

Originally Posted by Badas

^



I won't be buying those ones and Transformers is not that great on Atmos I heard. Not a great start.

You don't know what you're missing.

TMNT is flat out awesome. I will be getting it.

I'm not a big fan of The Transformers series though. It' needs more Transformers and less goofy white people, and people in general overall.

[Badas]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

You don't know what you're missing.

TMNT is flat out awesome. I will be getting it.

I'm not a big fan of The Transformers series though. It' needs more Transformers and less goofy white people, and people in general overall.

Yeah. I get ya.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Scarriere

Yeah that's exactly what I've been doing.
That Dude isn't providing any intelligent information and is repeatedly saying that Atmos isn't wanted. I am wanting Atmos and got a quote on an AVR and 4 speakers over a month ago, and I shared that fact here in this thread. If there was any pertinent info in his posts, I would've dealt with the negativity. But with nothing important to say, I don't care to read them.
I'm not the "thread-crapping police". I just want to read informative posts, negative or positive.

I don't mean to offend and am sorry if I did.

There is a tendency to go all "fan club" over technology with questionable worth or execution in this group. This pretty well prevents intelligent conversation, and turns it into an advertising venue for certain types of products, and requires unquestioning responses from everyone around. Thread-crap is a cute term, but it totally misses the point.


Like other formats before it, Atmos is seriously missing the mark. There are many restrictions on the implementation of it and the desperate attempt to get people to reboot entire sound setups is madness. For the third time in four years, the industry is requesting/requiring that the main receiver be replaced. Look at the list of issues:

1. The industry still doesn't know how many "ceiling" speakers need to be driven.
2. I still haven't seen information about how powerful/subtle these speakers need to be.
3. Slanted or sloped ceilings are totally ineligible for reflecting floor speakers, and different information is available about whether it works with the ceiling mounted type.
4. The idea of an "Atmos module" has not been broached; the fan-boy club sneers at it. A simple modular amplifier, in line with data from the player/source, could allow the original receiver to remain in place, and use the feed-through signal as the source. It could also handle any number of speakers, should that requirement (or preference) change. I've actually seen very sheep-like fan-boys sneer at this idea; they want to go buy another receiver, a bunch of speakers, and duct-tape the whole rig to the ceiling so they can be the first on their block to hold the boasting rights for this format. Logic be damned. Just join the club!
5. All of the early adopter Atmos stampede involves receivers that do not support the HDCP 2.2 standard, which may not be certified for another year. Without it, 4K encoded material may not be watchable - it would be downgraded to 2K - but that is supposedly not an issue for people who have Atmos. Better receivers, really boasting of high performance, are in the $1,500 and up range. When skeptics point that out, proponents are quick to point out Onkyo's home theater in a box system with Atmos, and other cheap units of that type. The real audience is at the higher end, so it's like saying "no need for a Ferrari, get the four-banger Hyundai, it's just as good."

I just bought a Pioneer SC-71 off the remainder table at Magnolia, and it's very nice. No Atmos or any of that, and it's just for the interim until they get HDCP 2.2 straightened out. I'm also waiting to see if the Atmos and Auro people can figure out who's in charge of movie releases this time around. There is no certainty which one, or both, will have the most releases out there, or which is better, and why.


So far, I can believe proponents who really like it, but I can agree with proponents that say it's a technical advance. It has so many limitations that it could rust right there on the factory floor, and by definition will go mostly unused. It has serious problems with implementation, and pointing them out should not be bucket of cold water on enthusiasts, just a road sign indicating sharp curves ahead. Every thread is not a fan enthusiasts cheerleading squadroom, and honesty requires honest feedback.

[AVinstallGuy]

I have been following Dolby Atmos since the opening of "Brave". I have heard both excellent and fair theatre installs. People on the theatre side love to complain about Dolby being so insistent on putting in enough gear that is good enough and being sure it is aligned right and all. It is not cheap to be able to cover a 500 seat theatre with sound from each single surround speaker. I was very skeptical that a home system would work well at all. as it turns out, only having to cover a couch makes it much easier.

The "Dolby Atmos enabled speakers" bouncing off the ceiling are so much better than I ever would have thought. Since the distances are quite short in a home, the HRT cues actually work. I had to walk quite close to the module to hear the direct sound instead of the ceiling bounce. They do seem very narrow in bandwidth though, but they use the direct speaker directly under it to fill in the spectrum. The effect has to be heard to be believed.

If you do go with true overhead speakers, then they just play full range and none of the psycho-acoustic tricks are needed. For my own system i do think I will be waiting until at least round 1.5 comes out. The current consumer chip set is maxing out at 11 full range outputs. I have a ring of 9 and want 4 on my ceiling, so I need 13 full range feeds. I do not want to buy a new RX twice.

You may all laugh, but if you did not get a chance to hear "Dolphin Tale 2" in a good Dolby Atmos theatre then your really missed something special. It was such a joy to hear Atmos sued to create the real environment, all through the film, it was always there, so subtle, but accurate. Walking on the dock, you hear water, moving, the boat creak on the bumpers, a bird chirp in the distance. It was never annoying and just felt right. Dolby Atmos is not just for 105 db explosions, loud is easy, accurate and subtle takes so much more.

I have only heard the Enrique Iglesias music video in smaller rooms, but it again shows that Atmos is for more than big effects. Enrique's voice is the only one on just center channel. All the other voices are in dynamic objects. The use of larger objects and slow pans makes it feel like your are on the stage with the performers moving around you.

As for the speaker placement...
The first gen Atmos AVR's have a few recommended speaker positions. the objects are rendered to those positions. You can be a bit off, and still get good results, but the pans may lose accuracy. On the cinema systems, with 5 to 12 speakers up a wall, each one is measured to the inch from the screen and entered as a percentage of room length. This way a pan holds accurate rate even through uneven spaced speakers. With just 7.1 on the main ring, that is not much of a concern. Once they get more DSP and can drive a ring of 9 or 15, then putting in the true spacing will be more important. same with just 4 on the ceiling. It can pan around just inside of the four corners.

The Auro 11.1 speaker positions seem a bit strange for home use. Even in the theatres I have seen it, the placement is a compromise at best. They spount on and on about ear level and 30 degrees up. Ear level speakers do not work in a real theatre at all. You BLAST the people near it and the people on the far side can't hear it at all. This is not rocket science, but it is physics. They end up having the lower speakers at about 10 degrees, Dolby recommends more like 15-20 degrees to get more even across the room. Now Auro puts a second layer at the top of the wall, the difference is just not enough. In 2 rooms I saw, they ended up putting the upper layer onto the ceiling to get more angle. They ended up using MORE ceiling speakers than an Atmos install. And that is not including the 8 or so in a cluster for the mono VOG. Dolby uses the two rows to pretty much evenly spread four positions from wall across ceiling to wall. The home setup is trying to do the same thing. The lower speakers can be lower as the listening area is so much smaller, coverage across the room is just not as big of a deal. The same is true for the front speakers. To get the low and high called for by Auro, the low ones do not reach as well to the back of a room. For Dolby Atmos, they get the high effect by just using the very front ceiling speakers, which is why they try to run them as close as possible. For home, this again allows for less speakers to get the job done. Your front L C R can pan up to the front ceilings without needing another set on the front wall.

I may not have a horse in the race, but it sure looks like Dolby put a lot more thought into their system. For those with a sloped ceiling, do not worry, there are several solutions that will work. One way is to use ceiling mounted speakers, and hange the ones on the higher side down to the same height above the audience. Think ceiling fan pipe. Or hang a 2 foot square flat panal to aim the Atmos enabled speaker at. With some creativity, you could make a dual purpose up aiming light and speaker bounce surface, and maybe integrate it into a projector mount too.

I was all set to hang decent power down firing speakers, but after hearing a good set of bounce ones today, I am holding off a bit longer. The Dolby Atmos Amaze" trailer sounded incredible. If your curious, it was a Marantz AVR and KEF speakers.

I am sure a few will notice I just joined her, I have been reading everything I could find on home Atmos, and this thread made me want to chime in more than any other. I have been installing home theatre systems since the very first SSI Dolby Surround box came out in the 80's. I even did big screens with stereo before that, but surrouns made people hire an installer more than anything before.

[Scarriere]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

[Show spoiler]There is a tendency to go all "fan club" over technology with questionable worth or execution in this group. This pretty well prevents intelligent conversation, and turns it into an advertising venue for certain types of products, and requires unquestioning responses from everyone around. Thread-crap is a cute term, but it totally misses the point.


Like other formats before it, Atmos is seriously missing the mark. There are many restrictions on the implementation of it and the desperate attempt to get people to reboot entire sound setups is madness. For the third time in four years, the industry is requesting/requiring that the main receiver be replaced. Look at the list of issues:

1. The industry still doesn't know how many "ceiling" speakers need to be driven.
2. I still haven't seen information about how powerful/subtle these speakers need to be.
3. Slanted or sloped ceilings are totally ineligible for reflecting floor speakers, and different information is available about whether it works with the ceiling mounted type.
4. The idea of an "Atmos module" has not been broached; the fan-boy club sneers at it. A simple modular amplifier, in line with data from the player/source, could allow the original receiver to remain in place, and use the feed-through signal as the source. It could also handle any number of speakers, should that requirement (or preference) change. I've actually seen very sheep-like fan-boys sneer at this idea; they want to go buy another receiver, a bunch of speakers, and duct-tape the whole rig to the ceiling so they can be the first on their block to hold the boasting rights for this format. Logic be damned. Just join the club!
5. All of the early adopter Atmos stampede involves receivers that do not support the HDCP 2.2 standard, which may not be certified for another year. Without it, 4K encoded material may not be watchable - it would be downgraded to 2K - but that is supposedly not an issue for people who have Atmos. Better receivers, really boasting of high performance, are in the $1,500 and up range. When skeptics point that out, proponents are quick to point out Onkyo's home theater in a box system with Atmos, and other cheap units of that type. The real audience is at the higher end, so it's like saying "no need for a Ferrari, get the four-banger Hyundai, it's just as good."

I just bought a Pioneer SC-71 off the remainder table at Magnolia, and it's very nice. No Atmos or any of that, and it's just for the interim until they get HDCP 2.2 straightened out. I'm also waiting to see if the Atmos and Auro people can figure out who's in charge of movie releases this time around. There is no certainty which one, or both, will have the most releases out there, or which is better, and why.


So far, I can believe proponents who really like it, but I can agree with proponents that say it's a technical advance. It has so many limitations that it could rust right there on the factory floor, and by definition will go mostly unused. It has serious problems with implementation, and pointing them out should not be bucket of cold water on enthusiasts, just a road sign indicating sharp curves ahead. Every thread is not a fan enthusiasts cheerleading squadroom, and honesty requires honest feedback.

"Fan club" is a cute term too. I don't believe it applies to me here, although I don't mind being called that if it's warranted.

1. Ceiling wise, I don't care how many speakers are needed to be driven. The Yamaha AVR I've been considering has output for 4, though not driven. I don't want any more than that nor any less, so this fits my want. I am aware that I'll be needing an amplifier.

2. I'm guessing that the effect will be subtle and that will be what factors in my amp and speaker purchase. I've already decided on the speakers and know I'll be pleased.

3. Slanted and sloped ceilings don't apply to me and are of no concern.

4. I haven't sneered at nor heard of an "Atmos module". Damn! Guess I'm not in the club.

5. HDCP 2.2 may be a concern, but also may not. I've seen 4K and it doesn't blow my hair back. My projector isn't 4k, but I love watching movies using it. I just bought it this past spring and won't be replacing it for at least a couple of years. Also, there is ZERO content for 4k. Why would I worry about not having 4k pass-through if there's nothing for it to pass-through?

My first AVR was Dolby Digital only, there was no dts at that time (The dvd player I got was $900, just to give you an idea of timeline). When dts did come out I bought an AVR that had both. Not long after , I upgraded to an AVR that was 6.1 and also bought the rear middle speaker. Then Blu ray and it's lossless audio came out, so yeah, I bought that too. Now I've got 7.2 + 2nd zone.
Do you see what I've been doing here? I have been upgrading. I can't help myself at times. I sit there all happy and content, then BAM, something new comes out and I gotta have it. It's very difficult to sit there watching and listening and knowing that there's something out there superior to what I've been watching and listening to, just like with Atmos. (yes, I'm aware that I need therapy) Now having said that, isn't this Atmos thing the same as what I've been doing since 1997? Or even better, 1995 when I had Pro-logic? Atmos has me drooling because I know from my previous audio purchases, every single one of them was a huge improvement and I don't see this as anything different from that. It's a natural progression.

Maybe I shouldn't have singled out that person for his constant negativity, but it was wearing on me. Especially when he says something stupid like "I've had surround speakers for years" and thinks it's funny. To me it is far from funny. What if a neophyte has an interest in Atmos and come to this thread looking for information? Will he say "Ohhh, I have surround speakers, so I'm good." Uhmm...no, you're not good. I've had surround speakers for almost two decades and there is always room for improvement.

Atmos is going to be an improvement for me. If not for this thread, I would have had it already. I had my availability and my quote and was ready to pounce all over it. But this thread, and one other issue with the 2040 got me thinking and holding off for now. It's because of the people in this thread with their willingness to share information that may have prevented me from making a purchase I may have slightly regretted somewhere down the road and have to upgrade once again.

I didn't mean to stir the pot, just point out that I appreciate information over nonsense and negativity.

[Robert Zohn]

Dolby Atmos works quite well. The home theater version of Atmos has been limited to Dolby's excellent CEDIA demo BD disc I have and Transformers: Age of Extinction.

Some of Dolby's Atmos demo disc content exploits the benefits of object based image matching and when you experience it you will understand. Everyone I have demo'd all say Atmos' advantages are easy to hear and the all appreciate the performance considerably more than any previous surround sound system that we are all very familiar with.

I've played Transformers: Age of Extinction and Dolby's Atmos BD disc with and without Atmos enabled and until you have an opportunity to do the same you just can't know what Atmos does to add value to the media.

-Robert

[BozQ]

Okay now, this is strange. For those of you who discussed about it a few weeks ago, 2L's Magnificat was supposed to be released with Auro 0.1 and Dolby Atmos soundtracks in one disc. But for some reason now, it's only Auro 9.1
I've dropped 2L a message and awaiting their reply.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Scarriere

3. Slanted and sloped ceilings don't apply to me and are of no concern.

Interesting that you have no concern for the expanded audience beyond your own needs. If you aren't interested in the wider audience, do you think this was just made for what you like?


This is a marketing problem. Market share is reduced. So are opportunities for wider adoption. Maybe you just don't see it.

Originally Posted by Scarriere

4. I haven't sneered at nor heard of an "Atmos module". Damn! Guess I'm not in the club.

You haven't heard of it because of all the "Gimme Gimmee The Shiny New Toy" blather, and the frantic hype to sell this thing. One sure fire way to get interest is to fire up a fan base, nodding approvingly at people who look for crowd approval when they promise to buy something. (Witness 3-D for details).


It is much better to encourage people to rush to the latest fashion, rejecting all elements of what came before it, since that means they turn over all that money, all over again. Why a modular addition to current systems hasn't been announced, is just a symptom.

Originally Posted by Scarriere

5. HDCP 2.2 may be a concern, but also may not. I've seen 4K and it doesn't blow my hair back. My projector isn't 4k, but I love watching movies using it. I just bought it this past spring and won't be replacing it for at least a couple of years. Also, there is ZERO content for 4k. Why would I worry about not having 4k pass-through if there's nothing for it to pass-through?

You have zero concern, if expensive technology is a fashion show to you, or you don't care if a manufacturer is robbing you blind. Where is the value in buying a piece of technology is obsolescent the day you purchase it?


I just got a good deal on a receiver for my main theater - that does not have Atmos, or HDCP 2.2. I bought it knowing that it will be cascaded to another system in about two years. This will give manufacturers a chance to get their wits about them, and make a contemporary device that handles all modes.


4K is amazing in ways that you haven't seen yet (color space, primarily), and it's not a big deal to have systems ready for it. Atmos is also not a big deal to include, unless it's finalized with more speakers than are on current bleeding-edge receivers. Making an add-on amplifier/decoder is extremely simple, but it is simply not being discussed - the idea negates the double-triple-quadruple dip that these new technologies can generate.


Want the new 10 speaker array? By a new receiver. Want to decode 4K? By another new receiver. They can do this all day.

Originally Posted by Scarriere

My first AVR was Dolby Digital only, there was no dts at that time (The dvd player I got was $900, just to give you an idea of timeline). When dts did come out I bought an AVR that had both. Not long after , I upgraded to an AVR that was 6.1 and also bought the rear middle speaker. Then Blu ray and it's lossless audio came out, so yeah, I bought that too. Now I've got 7.2 + 2nd zone.
Do you see what I've been doing here? I have been upgrading. I can't help myself at times. I sit there all happy and content, then BAM, something new comes out and I gotta have it. It's very difficult to sit there watching and listening and knowing that there's something out there superior to what I've been watching and listening to, just like with Atmos. (yes, I'm aware that I need therapy) Now having said that, isn't this Atmos thing the same as what I've been doing since 1997? Or even better, 1995 when I had Pro-logic? Atmos has me drooling because I know from my previous audio purchases, every single one of them was a huge improvement and I don't see this as anything different from that. It's a natural progression.

Nothing about it is natural. This is technology, and nothing about it has not been designed. I've also made several changes since 1996 or so - and incorporate most of that equipment into new rigs, in various rooms.


But I wait until these guys get their act together. We all like gizmos, but make them do it right, or you're stuck buying new equipment every year or two. And it may have questionable quality.


Look farther down the "improvement" curve.

Originally Posted by Scarriere

Maybe I shouldn't have singled out that person for his constant negativity, but it was wearing on me. Especially when he says something stupid like "I've had surround speakers for years" and thinks it's funny. To me it is far from funny. What if a neophyte has an interest in Atmos and come to this thread looking for information? Will he say "Ohhh, I have surround speakers, so I'm good." Uhmm...no, you're not good. I've had surround speakers for almost two decades and there is always room for improvement.

If a neophyte is only getting the message that this new thing is totally cool, information lacks objectivity. It can be cool, and NOT ready for prime time, and we're seeing that now. I'm not saying anything you don't already know, but I notice that sites like this, full of enthusiasts, tend to lack objectivity. This reduces pressure on marketers and manufacturers to do what they can easily do - come up with a good product, and some truth-based statements about their gear.


In this group, the "fan-boy" mode is really in charge. That's the real problem - people who don't care about serious matters of technology just want to sit around and chant about something they like. Usually, they use the trite method of "questioning the intelligence" of people who aren't burning up credit cards to validate their own decisions about the value of something.


Don't worry about the consumer, or curious visitor. Save the criticism for the people who make and sell this stuff before it's ready, or who intentionally leave gaping holes in the information they provide to put it on the market. Take your time with a purchase - even if you have the money - to put the heat on these people to make the best product, without regard to the price.

Originally Posted by Scarriere

Atmos is going to be an improvement for me. If not for this thread, I would have had it already. I had my availability and my quote and was ready to pounce all over it. But this thread, and one other issue with the 2040 got me thinking and holding off for now. It's because of the people in this thread with their willingness to share information that may have prevented me from making a purchase I may have slightly regretted somewhere down the road and have to upgrade once again.

Exactly my point. I don't think this thing is anywhere near ready, as nice as it probably is. Get the encode information figured out, get a real internal calibration system integrated, even figure out how many speakers it should have, and what size they should be - then hold product demos for the general public.


And for crying out loud, let people add to their current equipment set! That's not difficult, and if they try to promote the idea that everything that is current must go, this thing is going to fall flat on its face. I can't believe they're that shortsighted.

Originally Posted by Scarriere

I didn't mean to stir the pot, just point out that I appreciate information over nonsense and negativity.

No worries, but make sure you cover all the bases for people just starting out. Liking something means making it popular in this hobby, and if you like it, keep the tech hustlers in check.

[AVinstallGuy]

Let's take a closer look at "an Atmos module"

The early surround decoders did work like this. You fed your "Dolby Surround" encoded source into a box that fed the Left and Right back into your old stereo reciever and the box usually had an amp to drive a pair of small surround speakers. Maintaining the balance and keeping a good noise floor was a little tricky with all of the analog hops, usually all 100 mv unbalanced too. but it did work, and I put in a bunch of them. It did not take long though for people to want a better solution. Pro Logic 2 with the now important center channel was what made the integrated AVR take over the add on market back them.

This was also tried with Dolby Digital, but it did not get a lot of buyers. Most people wanted the new AVR to get the new features.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by AVinstallGuy

Let's take a closer look at "an Atmos module"

The early surround decoders did work like this. You fed your "Dolby Surround" encoded source into a box that fed the Left and Right back into your old stereo reciever and the box usually had an amp to drive a pair of small surround speakers. Maintaining the balance and keeping a good noise floor was a little tricky with all of the analog hops, usually all 100 mv unbalanced too. but it did work, and I put in a bunch of them. It did not take long though for people to want a better solution. Pro Logic 2 with the now important center channel was what made the integrated AVR take over the add on market back them.

This was also tried with Dolby Digital, but it did not get a lot of buyers. Most people wanted the new AVR to get the new features.

There's a huge difference. Something has to actually power the speakers.


So far, we're hearing about two channels, four channels, anywhere up to 11 channels - just "Atmos" speakers, mind you - with very wild talk about 32 channels object-encoded. How is all of this going to get powered up? Most of these rigs aren't described as having pre-outs for additional power amplifiers.


For people who are running lower cost rigs, Onkyo type equipment for example, there is a reason they can toss their old receiver.


There is no reason to do that with a Krell, or Macintosh, or even a nice Marantz or Pioneer. Just for Atmos? Watch the brake light brighten up with that news.


Even worse, savvy buyers are going to wait for HDCP 2.2 - which is more than likely, at least several months to a year away. This gives everyone a chance to think this over, since it's not a slam-dunk installation to put in Atmos speakers anyway. That's plenty of time for the usual flood of cheap Atmos encodes, muddying the market the way lousy rendering for 3-D did, again slowing down adoption. I'm sure if it's done right, it will be fantastic, but we all know there will be too many sloppy renderings, leaving the audiophiles totally disinterested and the rabid "is it new? Can I get it for $299? I bet Walmart is selling it" crowd rendering it useless, and relegating it to cartoons. Again, witness 3-D's glacial adoption.


I'm betting that it will be a standard add-on in three or four years, but that is in eon in marketing time. If it's included in all amplifiers, with enough powered channels, prices will ramp up considerably - and the tiers of pricing will be tied to the number of powered channels. Questions need to be answered about this, the sooner the better.


Connecting receiver's output HDMI to an Atmos module, allowing passthrough to the monitor/television, is child's play. If it's an add-on, it allows for immediate adoption, and pure power amplifiers - along with other peripherals - is not something people get upset about. I don't see any issue with connecting a power amp, Blu player, or even a computer or game machine, to a receiver. No one does. Try to imagine a receiver that tried in include those devices, for "simplicity's sake". It doesn't add up.


Putting in in the receiver, and trying to convince someone that it's a great idea, will put this mode on ice for a long, long time. I'd buy it tomorrow if they'd make it, and add it to my new HDCP 2.2 receiver when it's built. Until then, I can wait. I'm running 7.1 right now, with excellent gear, and they're passing me by with this craziness.

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

There's a huge difference. Something has to actually power the speakers.


So far, we're hearing about two channels, four channels, anywhere up to 11 channels - just "Atmos" speakers, mind you - with very wild talk about 32 channels object-encoded. How is all of this going to get powered up? Most of these rigs aren't described as having pre-outs for additional power amplifiers.


For people who are running lower cost rigs, Onkyo type equipment for example, there is a reason they can toss their old receiver.


There is no reason to do that with a Krell, or Macintosh, or even a nice Marantz or Pioneer. Just for Atmos? Watch the brake light brighten up with that news.


Even worse, savvy buyers are going to wait for HDCP 2.2 - which is more than likely, at least several months to a year away. This gives everyone a chance to think this over, since it's not a slam-dunk installation to put in Atmos speakers anyway. That's plenty of time for the usual flood of cheap Atmos encodes, muddying the market the way lousy rendering for 3-D did, again slowing down adoption. I'm sure if it's done right, it will be fantastic, but we all know there will be too many sloppy renderings, leaving the audiophiles totally disinterested and the rabid "is it new? Can I get it for $299? I bet Walmart is selling it" crowd rendering it useless, and relegating it to cartoons. Again, witness 3-D's glacial adoption.


I'm betting that it will be a standard add-on in three or four years, but that is in eon in marketing time. If it's included in all amplifiers, with enough powered channels, prices will ramp up considerably - and the tiers of pricing will be tied to the number of powered channels. Questions need to be answered about this, the sooner the better.


Connecting receiver's output HDMI to an Atmos module, allowing passthrough to the monitor/television, is child's play. If it's an add-on, it allows for immediate adoption, and pure power amplifiers - along with other peripherals - is not something people get upset about. I don't see any issue with connecting a power amp, Blu player, or even a computer or game machine, to a receiver. No one does. Try to imagine a receiver that tried in include those devices, for "simplicity's sake". It doesn't add up.


Putting in in the receiver, and trying to convince someone that it's a great idea, will put this mode on ice for a long, long time. I'd buy it tomorrow if they'd make it, and add it to my new HDCP 2.2 receiver when it's built. Until then, I can wait. I'm running 7.1 right now, with excellent gear, and they're passing me by with this craziness.

Thats the main reason why I have not bought a new 4K tv or Atmos receiver and ceiling speakers, I will not waist my money until they have a set standard for 4k

[Kirk Out]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Thats the main reason why I have not bought a new 4K tv or Atmos receiver and ceiling speakers, I will not waist my money until they have a set standard for 4k

i dont think im going to drink the atmos kool aid , besides i was more than impressed with transformers AOE truehd.

[AVinstallGuy]

From what I have been able to find out through friends in the industry, the Blu Ray version of Dolby Atmos is created directly from the theatrical object data. Any feature mixed in Dolby Atmos can be converted and packaged to consumer Blu Ray if the studio wants to do it. I bet you will see many of the features from the past 2 years get a re-release with the Atmos track on them. "Life of Pi", "Gravity", "Oblivion", "Edge of Tomorrow", and many more had sound tracks that were just amazing in Dolby Atmos. One indystry inside guy told me, In the past 2 years, 14 of the top 15 grossing films had a Dolby Atmos mix. The one non Atmos feature in there was "The Lego Movie". That one should have been Atmos, it had plenty of scenes it could have been very cool.

Content is certainly not going to be a problem.

There still seems to be quite a bit of mis info about what Dolby Atmos really does. The biggest thing it does is eliminate barriers on the sound designers. When they are mixing a film, they no longer have to think about, how can we make it sound like this? They can put any sound anywhere and it will be faithfully reproduced by a properly setup Dolby Atmos system. It is truly up to the sound team of the movie to decide where sounds should be, how they move, and how loud they are. Because the consumer version does have some limitations, there is some control in the conversion process to decide how to handle situation where they exceed the limits of the consumer format. Like any other mastering process at Dolby, they monitor the result of the track after it is encoded and decoded back out through a reference system. Anything that does not sound right can be adjusted to fix it, usually with someone who was on the original mix. I am very curious to hear a few scenes when they get released. For example, there was one scene in the last "Hunger Games" that had sounds of birds using all 118 object source tracks.

I find it simply amazing that they managed to fit any form of a Dolby Atmos track into the Tdue HD package, let along that they made that track able to play as 5.1 or 7.1 on legacy decoders. There had to be some serious fore thought on Dolby's part to have the original True HD decoder able to take this new track and play the render down and ignore the object data. I was sure it would take a separate track, but it does not. This should make it so that any new Blu Ray release of a Dolby Atmos mixed feature can just have the one sound track version. "Transformers AoE" does have a few optional audio tracks on it. Here is the snip from Blu Ray . com

Audio
English: Dolby Atmos
English: Dolby TrueHD 7.1
English: Dolby Digital 5.1
English: Dolby Digital 2.0
Spanish: Dolby Digital 5.1
… (more)

Not sure how much more.

I find it very funny that the IMAX 3D Blu Ray version also has the Dolby Atmos track on it.

[audioguy]

I agree it may be a niche market but I will still jump in. Upmixed 7.1 material can still an improvement(sometimes a large improvekent) over traditional 7.1.

So if they never release another Atmos Bluray, it will still be OK.

[JohnAV]

For whats its worth, some of the mix on the first 30 minutes of Transformers AOE wasn't all that great in a few short duration instances IMHO, almost sounded a bit distorted when playing on a non-Atmos 7.1 system, but the rest of the film was excellent. I might have been observing some of the over done object programmed sequences where they deliberately over accented a effect and were more concerned that it sounded great on Atmos, rather then 7.1 True HD. I found the first viewing of this film a bit long, but then when you see that the story line involved you can see why it has mixed reviews. Now that I've watched it, it does have some replay value IMHO. But yes they make some of the characters too dumb like the hippie dude that doesn't last very long.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by AVinstallGuy

From what I have been able to find out through friends in the industry, the Blu Ray version of Dolby Atmos is created directly from the theatrical object data. Any feature mixed in Dolby Atmos can be converted and packaged to consumer Blu Ray if the studio wants to do it. I bet you will see many of the features from the past 2 years get a re-release with the Atmos track on them. "Life of Pi", "Gravity", "Oblivion", "Edge of Tomorrow", and many more had sound tracks that were just amazing in Dolby Atmos. One indystry inside guy told me, In the past 2 years, 14 of the top 15 grossing films had a Dolby Atmos mix. The one non Atmos feature in there was "The Lego Movie". That one should have been Atmos, it had plenty of scenes it could have been very cool.

Content is certainly not going to be a problem.

Studios are not going to re-release the title any sooner then the usual update with different cover artwork that they do per distribution schedule. Exception would be directors cut (uncut/extended) releases. I already see a divide on what the studies are backing, so even though they are distributed to cinema's with Auro 3D, Atmos, Dolby True 7.1 , and other audio playback options making one think the studios will readily add Atmos to BD audio capabilties, at this time its just too early to say that it will be commonplace.

Originally Posted by AVinstallGuy

I find it simply amazing that they managed to fit any form of a Dolby Atmos track into the Tdue HD package, let along that they made that track able to play as 5.1 or 7.1 on legacy decoders. There had to be some serious fore thought on Dolby's part to have the original True HD decoder able to take this new track and play the render down and ignore the object data. I was sure it would take a separate track, but it does not. This should make it so that any new Blu Ray release of a Dolby Atmos mixed feature can just have the one sound track version. "Transformers AoE" does have a few optional audio tracks on it. Here is the snip from Blu Ray . com

Audio
English: Dolby Atmos
English: Dolby TrueHD 7.1
English: Dolby Digital 5.1
English: Dolby Digital 2.0
Spanish: Dolby Digital 5.1
… (more)

Not sure how much more.

I find it very funny that the IMAX 3D Blu Ray version also has the Dolby Atmos track on it.

Because of the film's length and audio tracks, Paramount had to separate the main feature from the extras BD, so you have 2 BD's kitted.

[Robert Zohn]

From my conversations with Studio execs they are planning on re-releasing many of the 2012 - present titles with Atmos. The simple explanation I was given is it drives more BD sales.

-Robert

[Robert Zohn]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

There's a huge difference. Something has to actually power the speakers.


So far, we're hearing about two channels, four channels, anywhere up to 11 channels - just "Atmos" speakers, mind you - with very wild talk about 32 channels object-encoded. How is all of this going to get powered up? Most of these rigs aren't described as having pre-outs for additional power amplifiers.


For people who are running lower cost rigs, Onkyo type equipment for example, there is a reason they can toss their old receiver.


There is no reason to do that with a Krell, or Macintosh, or even a nice Marantz or Pioneer. Just for Atmos? Watch the brake light brighten up with that news.


Even worse, savvy buyers are going to wait for HDCP 2.2 - which is more than likely, at least several months to a year away. This gives everyone a chance to think this over, since it's not a slam-dunk installation to put in Atmos speakers anyway. That's plenty of time for the usual flood of cheap Atmos encodes, muddying the market the way lousy rendering for 3-D did, again slowing down adoption. I'm sure if it's done right, it will be fantastic, but we all know there will be too many sloppy renderings, leaving the audiophiles totally disinterested and the rabid "is it new? Can I get it for $299? I bet Walmart is selling it" crowd rendering it useless, and relegating it to cartoons. Again, witness 3-D's glacial adoption.


I'm betting that it will be a standard add-on in three or four years, but that is in eon in marketing time. If it's included in all amplifiers, with enough powered channels, prices will ramp up considerably - and the tiers of pricing will be tied to the number of powered channels. Questions need to be answered about this, the sooner the better.


Connecting receiver's output HDMI to an Atmos module, allowing passthrough to the monitor/television, is child's play. If it's an add-on, it allows for immediate adoption, and pure power amplifiers - along with other peripherals - is not something people get upset about. I don't see any issue with connecting a power amp, Blu player, or even a computer or game machine, to a receiver. No one does. Try to imagine a receiver that tried in include those devices, for "simplicity's sake". It doesn't add up.


Putting in in the receiver, and trying to convince someone that it's a great idea, will put this mode on ice for a long, long time. I'd buy it tomorrow if they'd make it, and add it to my new HDCP 2.2 receiver when it's built. Until then, I can wait. I'm running 7.1 right now, with excellent gear, and they're passing me by with this craziness.

If what I am told is true as long as the receiver has HDMI 2.0 the chip set is upgradable to HDCP 2.2 through firmware.

Also any older receiver can be upgraded to accommodate Atmos with the addition of a new processor. So your excellent SC-71 can be upgraded to Atmos with a new pre-pro.

Commercial theaters are able to accommodate up to 34 speakers, 10 overhead and 24 terrestrial. The home version is limited to 4 additional Atmos overhead speakers and a max of 11 speakers plus up to 4 sub woofers so for example you could have a 7.4.4 Atmos speaker system. FYI, Marantz, Denon and Onkyo can decode up to 11 Atmos channels, Pioneer is limited to 9 Atmos channels.

To take advantage of all 11 Atmos channels you will need one external 2 channel power amp as the receivers have 9 amps built-in.

Most home theaters don't need more than 11 speakers plus subs so I don't expect the home version of Atmos will be an issue.

-Robert

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

From my conversations with Studio execs they are planning on re-releasing many of the 2012 - present titles with Atmos. The simple explanation I was given is it drives more BD sales.

-Robert

Anything that increases sales of the previous release, helps!

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

Commercial theaters are able to accommodate up to 34 speakers, 10 overhead and 24 terrestrial. -Robert

The first (current) version of the theatrical Dolby Atmos processor can handle 64 outputs (61.3). They're eventually expected to support 128 outputs, although I doubt there are any theaters aside perhaps from the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood that would warrant that.

Dolby's tech document says that each individual speaker must be wired to its own amp channel. The number of speakers recommended varies depending upon theatre architecture and coverage in the theatre:

For optimal spatial resolution throughout the auditorium, the angular distance between adjacent (surround) loudspeakers should be 30 degrees or less, referenced from the midpoint between two loudspeakers at the edge of the central listening area. The central listening area is defined as those seats more than one-quarter room-width from the nearest wall...

They also recommend that the overheads match the positions of the side surrounds in two rows, so if there's 9 surround speakers on the left wall, there should be two rows of 9 overhead speakers each.

One interesting item in the recommendations is that certain speakers are supposed to be angled in both directions according to their guidelines, but I've never seen this done, not even at the Dolby Screening Room in Manhattan.

Their diagram of a "typical theatre" (217 seats + 6 empty slots for wheelchairs) shows 5 full range stage speakers, 1 stage subwoofer, 24 surrounds (9 left, 9 right and 6 rear), 18 overheads and 2 rear subwoofers for a total of 50 speakers/channels (47.3 or 29.3.18 in the new syntax).