Dolby Atmos coming soon for home use

[kenoh]

Dolby ATMOS for the home will support up to 32 channels over HDMI 2.0. According to the article a new A/V receiver that has 32 audio channels is being built for Dolby ATMOS

Jesus! How much will that monstrosity cost?

Thank god I didn't buy any of the current receivers yet! I knew I should have waited till more information was available because they never specified what the standard for Atmos for the home was? Now if only we can get the prices?

The question is, will this disrupt the prices and designs of all the new and up coming receivers from the major A/V players such as Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, Marantz, Pioneer?

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by kenoh

Jesus! How much will that monstrosity cost?

The receiver (alone) is going to cost an arm, leg and a foot! That's not including the extra 25 speakers that you'll have to buy, that is required for Dolby Atmos (if you already have a 7.1 sound system)! So if you're contemplating on investing in Dolby Atmos for home theater in the near future, you are going to spend a few thousand dollars more. It's not going to be cheap (that's for sure). If you're an early adopter and have deep pockets, then go for it, if you think it'll be worth investing that kind of money into Dolby Atmos. The price is always the last source of information of a new product that is revealed to the consumer.

[kenoh]

Originally Posted by slimdude

It's going to cost an arm, leg and a foot! That's not including the extra 25 speakers that you'll have to buy, that is required for Dolby Atmos (if you already have a 7.1 sound system)! So if you're contemplating on investing in Dolby Atmos for home theater in the near future, you are going to spend a few thousand dollars more. It's not going to be cheap (that's for sure). If you're an early adopter and have deep pockets, then go for it, if you think it'll be worth investing thousands of dollars into Dolby Atmos.

I'm wondering if it's even possible for manufactures to even create a mainstream 32 channel receiver that doesn't weigh more then 50lbs and is within $1000? Maybe in 10 years?

I mean we barley just got 13 channel A/V receivers and that's only possible through pre-outs, I'm wondering if there's enough space in the back to fit all those inputs?

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by kenoh

I'm wondering if it's even possible for manufactures to even create a mainstream 32 channel receiver that doesn't weigh more then 50lbs and is within $1000? Maybe in 10 years?

I mean we barley just got 13 channel A/V receivers and that's only possible through pre-outs, I'm wondering if there's enough space in the back to fit all those inputs?

Manufacturers are able to construct any size component that is needed based upon specifications given. The receiver is going to be humongous, similar to the size of this blu-ray changer:

http://www.bluray-dvd-players.com/wp...sony7000_l.jpg

[kenoh]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Manufacturers are able to construct any size component that is needed based upon specifications given. The receiver is going to be humongous, like the size of a blu-ray changer, or just a little bit smaller. Similar to this:

http://www.bluray-dvd-players.com/wp...sony7000_l.jpg

I'm going to need a separate rack for that!

Now who wants to play, the price is right? I guess $5000 for the entry level!

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by kenoh

I'm going to need a separate rack for that!

Most definitely. It's going to be interesting to see it.

Originally Posted by kenoh

Now who wants to play, the price is right? I guess $5000 for the entry level!

I'll say $3,850.00.

[kenoh]

Originally Posted by slimdude

The receiver (alone) is going to cost an arm, leg and a foot! That's not including the extra 25 speakers that you'll have to buy

Well I already have my three main "and arguably" the most important speakers in my system so the rest will have to be cheap bookshelf speakers mixed with on the wall flat-panel speakers

Although I have an Idea what my future system will be like, no way in hell will it be 32 speakers! Maybe 11.4 channels, with four Flat-panel over-head speakers and two bookshelves for the wide channels, two Flat-panels for the height channels and maybe two extra surrounds like some other home theaters but that's it for me!

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

I don't have an overpriced Mac, either. Built my own PC too. Don't know why that came up...

Anyway, I'm saying that the benefits of Atmos will be lost using headphones. Sorry, but it's true.

Stick with what you have.

Eh, I'll skip it then. 7.1 headphones for now and later fancy 7.1 computer speakers in the future. I always choose origincal cinematic audio whenever it's available on the Blu-ray disc release. Even though I'm only doing stereo right now.
It'll be rewatching my collection all over again when I get the 7.1 headphones. Especially the titles which use the 7.1 tracks. But not for JAWS, I'll be using the mono track. Surround is especially helpful with many games since the majority of the time it's location detection.

[MoulinBlu]

I'd wait until dts comes out with their version, which you know is going to happen, otherwise you'll just be upgrading again in another year or so. Until then we might see more studios switching back from dts to Dolby sound - right now it's about 80/20 in favor of dts it seems. I don't really see this taking off any better than d-box though. It's a feature aimed at the one percenters. If it ever does generate any kind of market saturation it would eliminate both the need and desirability for diffusion speakers (dibole/bipole) for those who install it. I just dread the buggy years. Remember with DTS ES and DD EX first came out, all the problems they had with missing information in the surround channels, sometimes for those listening in ES/EX, more often for those listening in the core 5.1? It's reasonable to assume we can expect more of the same. They seem to have a hard enough time with even basic 5.1: switched channels, out of sync dialogue, bad masters, edited masters, etc. I've always been on the forefront of tech, when it comes to home theater, but this isn't anything to get excited about yet.

[ZoetMB]

Well, it's certainly possible that this will indeed will be some gigantic receiver with an "extra" 22 outputs and speaker terminals.

If you consider that anyone who is going to have 32 channels probably has a dedicated and specially built home-theatre room and if they do, probably has most of the equipment in a rack, this could possible work, although you also have to think about how much heat those 32 channels would generate and how big the power supply would have to be. Or whether they'll do something like make the extra channels only 10-20 watts each.

Which also makes me wonder whether it really includes power amps for all the channels or whether it will work more like we work today for subwoofers, where there just might be line outs for the channels beyond 7, or maybe line outs for the channels beyond 7 + the 4 overhead channels that are appearing in the first receivers and then maybe a line of multichannel power amps that don't take a lot of space, like 5 or 6 channels in a unit only 1" or 2" high.

I suppose it also could be designed into 2 or 3 units where the first unit has all the controls and the primary channels and the 2nd and 3rd units have those additional amps with either a proprietary control cable or networking between the components.

I wrote in another post last week that I thought that any system with so many channels would have to include a networking scheme to active wireless speakers for the extra channels so that you wouldn't be hard wiring all these speakers, but I realize now that was a stupid statement because in that case, you'd have to run power to them all.

It will be interesting to see how this all works out, whether the studios will support it and how many idiots will double-dip on a BD release because it's newly released with an Atmos soundtrack even if they don't have any extra channels in their home theatre setup to support it (and how inevitably they will claim that 'it sounds better' anyway).

[sega3dmm]

Originally Posted by Poya

I certainly see your point and I love Atmos myself, but I guess I'm just a victim of studio trying to sell me a product. Check it out yourself:

http://www.barco.com/en/Auro11-1/~/media/48FD91C7F9574A4280E49AA8C4CCA90E.ashx

And this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjP-TDMxjA

Basically, they both say how it's pointless to have speakers on the ceiling because we don't have ears on our heads.

Have you actually listened to both Auro and Atmos? I am curious, because I have and the clear winner in my opinion is Atmos. Could be a preference.

I view Auro as more of an extension of 5.1, while Atmos reinvents how movie sound is planned and used. I think of traditional 5.1 as an equivalent to 480p video. It's a standard that can be done either really well (point in case: The Lego Movie) or not so well (any Michael Bay film). Auro 11.1 is basically like 1080p video, it has all the aesthetics of a 5.1 mix, but with added depth and clarity, as well as minimal height activity (too much height is overkill, as stated by Auro experts themselves).

I may be a bit biased and a romantacist, but I will say the equivalent to Dolby Atmos is 70mm film. There, I said it. However, the diet version of Atmos for home consumers is like 720p video, at least what I've read about it.

Oddly enough, am I the only one who thinks Diet Auro will sound better than Diet Atmos? Just the 9.1 Auro configuration seems fine, and there is an odd chance that Auro for the home would be a better solution because you won't lose much from a theatrical 11.1 mix to 9.1 than a theatrical Atmos mix to 9.1.4X whatever.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by sega3dmm

I may be a bit biased and a romantacist, but I will say the equivalent to Dolby Atmos is 70mm film. There, I said it. However, the diet version of Atmos for home consumers is like 720p video, at least what I've read about it.

Oddly enough, am I the only one who thinks Diet Auro will sound better than Diet Atmos? Just the 9.1 Auro configuration seems fine, and there is an odd chance that Auro for the home would be a better solution because you won't lose much from a theatrical 11.1 mix to 9.1 than a theatrical Atmos mix to 9.1.4X whatever.

Seeing as the home version of Atmos is capable of 34 discrete outputs using your terminology I'd say home Atmos is 4K.

You're also forgetting Auro depends on a lot of matrixing, not completely discrete output. So even the minimum configuration of Atmos still has advantages.

[bigshot]

I don't believe that more channels is necessarily better. But a larger room will need more to create a coherent sound field without dropouts and hot spots. It seems to me the largest living room would probably work great with 7:1:5. Anything more than that and everything will begin to overlap all over the place.

The best 5:1 stuff I've heard isn't the disks with stuff coming at you from behind and criss crossing the room diagonally. It's the recordings where they use the blending of all the channels to create a phase ambience that makes the room feel larger, or gives the impression of being outdoors. I think a set of speakers above, would open it up even more, making it possible to create really convincing room tones and outdoor ambiences.

[Brian81]

I don't think that too many speakers will be a problem. I think the more, the better. I think of dominos, one falling and it travels along from one to another in a continuous unbroken motion. Think of a falling domino as a sound, with it traveling from front to rear of the theater, instead of being at one speaker, then jumping to another that's not closeby. That's not realistic. Think of a jet flying overheard in a movie, where it travels along the ceiling and passes over you. That effect would be quite awesome. A sound effect traveling seamlessly around you.

My main concerns are this - I have identical timbre-matched speakers all around. Adding different, in-ceiling, speakers will ruin this. Additionally, if discs are encoded with the audio tracks specifically for X number of channels, and my speaker setup will not be the same, I won't be getting the intended audio experience - I will be getting a dumbed down alteration of the track. Like having a player output a 5.1 audio track in two channel stereo.

[bigshot]

The more channels to balance levels on and equalize, the more work to get it right. Most home theaters are a million miles from a balanced response. Even if speakers are timbre matched, room acoustics will scramble it all up again and you have to start from scratch with room treatments and equalization. The more directions the sound comes from, the more reflections from odd places. A down facing speaker is going to reflect off the floor, making room treatment need to take carpeting and subfloor into account.

More speakers *always* means more work.

For mains and center, you can pretty much expect 8 feet between speakers, and 8 off the side walls. That makes the width of the room 32 feet. More is happening on screen left to right than front to back, so you can easily double the distance for the sides and rears. That makes a room 32 feet by 32 feet. How many living rooms get even close to 900 square feet? The upper Atmos speakers would be about twelve feet off the ground. That is a BIG room. More speakers would mean an even bigger room.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Brian81

I don't think that too many speakers will be a problem. I think the more, the better. I think of dominos, one falling and it travels along from one to another in a continuous unbroken motion. Think of a falling domino as a sound, with it traveling from front to rear of the theater, instead of being at one speaker, then jumping to another that's not closeby. That's not realistic. Think of a jet flying overheard in a movie, where it travels along the ceiling and passes over you. That effect would be quite awesome. A sound effect traveling seamlessly around you.

My main concerns are this - I have identical timbre-matched speakers all around. Adding different, in-ceiling, speakers will ruin this. Additionally, if discs are encoded with the audio tracks specifically for X number of channels, and my speaker setup will not be the same, I won't be getting the intended audio experience - I will be getting a dumbed down alteration of the track. Like having a player output a 5.1 audio track in two channel stereo.

Home Atmos, from what I'm getting from some of the more "in the know" people at AVS Forum has a base channel bed of 5.1 or 7.1 (cinema Atmos has 7.1 or 9.1) and then whatever X amount of objects Dolby allows (I doubt it's the full 128 - since there's 34 outputs, I'm sure there's a smaller amount of objects too).

So the movie isn't really "encoded" for an x number of speakers (of course, it's no less than the base channel bed)... as long as the Atmos renderer conforms to Dolby standards.

Once 3D positional calibration, similar to Dolby's Lake or Trinnov's format, is more readily available, the renderer will map the bed and objects to your particular layout and customize the mix for your room just like at an Atmos cinema.

Current 1st gen. products are a bit hampered. The home A/V companies wanted to be first... not best.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Psh. Not even 7.1

The theatrical DCP was only standard 5.1 and Auro 11.1

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

The theatrical DCP was only standard 5.1 and Auro 11.1

I thought it had an Atmos mix.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

I thought it had an Atmos mix.

oh and yes - that too, but the core mix was 5.1 - there were no additional surround sound stems

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Well, it's certainly possible that this will indeed will be some gigantic receiver with an "extra" 22 outputs and speaker terminals.

If you consider that anyone who is going to have 32 channels probably has a dedicated and specially built home-theatre room and if they do, probably has most of the equipment in a rack, this could possible work, although you also have to think about how much heat those 32 channels would generate and how big the power supply would have to be. Or whether they'll do something like make the extra channels only 10-20 watts each.

Which also makes me wonder whether it really includes power amps for all the channels or whether it will work more like we work today for subwoofers, where there just might be line outs for the channels beyond 7, or maybe line outs for the channels beyond 7 + the 4 overhead channels that are appearing in the first receivers and then maybe a line of multichannel power amps that don't take a lot of space, like 5 or 6 channels in a unit only 1" or 2" high.

I suppose it also could be designed into 2 or 3 units where the first unit has all the controls and the primary channels and the 2nd and 3rd units have those additional amps with either a proprietary control cable or networking between the components.

I wrote in another post last week that I thought that any system with so many channels would have to include a networking scheme to active wireless speakers for the extra channels so that you wouldn't be hard wiring all these speakers, but I realize now that was a stupid statement because in that case, you'd have to run power to them all.

It will be interesting to see how this all works out, whether the studios will support it and how many idiots will double-dip on a BD release because it's newly released with an Atmos soundtrack even if they don't have any extra channels in their home theatre setup to support it (and how inevitably they will claim that 'it sounds better' anyway).

Investing in Dolby Atmos, is not only going to be expensive, but also a lot of work.