The OFFICIAL Dolby Atmos Thread

[jdskycaster]

Additional wow factor is what HT is all about. Just to be clear I am firmly in the camp of wait and see what the technology can deliver but I am also not completely writing it off because there are no current 200 page technical whitepapers detailing the layout of the silicon. The entire CE industry survives on forced obsolescence. That's the facts. Some technologies are worth investing in some not so much. Everyone decides for themselves which is great because I personally enjoy my new front projector with 3D capability even though I don't watch any 3D content with it.

I agree with bootman that there is opportunity with this latest technology for Emotiva beyond processors. More channels means an opportunity for more amp sales which I am pretty sure keeps the lights on in Franklin.

[Jim]

Jun 26, 2014 9:30:18 GMT -5 Andrew Robinson said:

Jun 26, 2014 9:16:25 GMT -5 KeithL said:

My guess is that, at least initially, the only thing most people will NOTICE about Atmos is those top speakers - and stuff OVER your head as well as surrounding you - and that will make it interesting (lots of "wow" factor").

I would like to comment on this last statement that Keith makes, because reading it I realize that the sensation of sound over one's head shouldn't be new to the home theater experience. I'm not trying to disparage Atmos or anyone else's home theater setup, but since the advent of Dolby Surround -yes I said surround -you should have been treated to the sensation of sound overhead. I say this because surround channels, be it in a 5.1 or 7.1 setup, should be located higher up than their front loudspeaker counterparts. In a 5.1 setup the surrounds should be located above and to the side of your primary listening position, whereas with a 7.1 setup you have speakers to the side and behind your primary listening position. Because the surrounds are mounted higher than the listener's ear level you should get the sensation of sound emanating from above. Perhaps Atmos will do a "better" job of this by making that ceiling information discrete, but to suggest that it is the only way with which to experience sound overhead, I believe, is wrong. On the flip side, if one is unable to mount their surrounds higher up -i.e. must place them on stands -I have to imagine the notion of being able to then mount speakers to their ceiling is out of the question. This is no doubt where Atmos loudspeakers come into play, which I have no comment on as I have not heard them. Though I could argue that by designing surrounds with upward firing or upward angled drivers to be used in non-Atmos installations you would likely achieve the same effect -or something very close to it -depending on how you worked with the DSP etc. It's what we already do with height and effects channels so I cannot imagine why the same couldn't be done for synthesized ceiling channels -though Atmos renders this question moot, since those channels will now be discrete. 

It seems that VOG and height speakers are always emphasized when it comes to new codecs with more channels. It will be interesting to see how much having that "ceiling information" (especially being discrete) will play into immersion.

I've always thought that really leveraging height (of any kind) is a challenge in a typical room that has 8-9' ceilings. Now, in a large room? That seems much more appropriate.

I've always wondered if Dolby IIz's mixed reception was more because of the rendering of the channels, or because of the challenge in making a height speaker really higher.

Having the outputs, the amps and the speakers is simple in my mind. It's the placement that's the real challenge. And acoustically treating a room with that many speakers has always intrigued me. 7 speakers is already a lot of sources to treat for.

[klinemj]

Good points by Andrew and Jim on height sounds. I have my surround ceiling mounted (sides and rear). And, my Maggies are quite tall...I do wonder how much extra height sound any front height speakers will deliver for my setup.

Mark

[jmilton]

Sure, it wasn't easy...but I think I am ready for Atmos:



...and this is just the shot of my ceiling.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously though,
Surveys show that most Americans prefer soundbars or stereo. Fewer, more adventurous ones have 5.1 systems. VERY few have 7.1 or greater. I really don't think Atmos is going to have a big impact on consumers. It's nice that consumers will have it in 2014 receivers...but like 3D for video, Atmos will only be  a novelty at home. Ceiling mounted speakers are problematic at best. Sit under it and get beamy sound. Too far away and it becomes too murky and diffuse. As a reviewer, I can't imagine how to begin to compare different processor makes and models...let alone Atmos ready speakers.

 It still comes down to aesthetics, cost and "the wife said NO".

[jdskycaster]

Call it poor negotiation skills but even I managed to snag 9% or roughly 452 of the total square feet in our home. This is space of which she has no control over. I suggest others in the hobby take some time and brush up on those skills as well. You may not need them for Atmos but something else is bound to come down the pike like a refrigerator sized subwoofer, a pair of refrigerator sized subwoofers or maybe even a renewed interest in beer can collecting. Whatever floats your boat.

[KeithL]

Previous "height" speakers were intended to be mounted up in the top front corners of your room. Atmos "top" speakers go in the ceiling (above and in front of you, and above and behind you). This means that a helicopter can be positioned to fly directly towards you from the front, pass over your head, and drop down behind you; or it could go from left to right, over your head, more convincingly than it could with regular surrounds. You couldn't do this with traditional height speakers/channels.

Remember that the new Atmos "mains mounted" drivers are designed to bounce sound off the ceiling. This means that you aren't listening to the sound coming off the top of your front speaker; you are listening to the reflection of that "beam of sound" bouncing off the ceiling over your head. (It's like lighting up a room by shining a powerful flashlight, with a narrow beam, up at the ceiling. The light you see should "appear" to come from the spot on the ceiling where the beam hits it.) So, the "sound source" is the ceiling - just as if there was really a speaker there. At least that's the theory. How well this works in practice will depend on how well the directionality of those speakers is controlled, and on the reflection/diffusion properties of your ceiling. If it works just right, it should sound just like those speakers really are mounted on the ceiling over your head....

One interesting thing this  suggests is that your ceiling should have just the right proportion of reflection and diffusion for the effect to work really well (and what constitutes "just right" will depend a lot on your speakers). This means that a little bit of acoustic treatment - of just the right kind - in the center of your ceiling might prove very useful to getting it to work well.

Jun 26, 2014 14:25:56 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Good points by Andrew and Jim on height sounds. I have my surround ceiling mounted (sides and rear). And, my Maggies are quite tall...I do wonder how much extra height sound any front height speakers will deliver for my setup.

Mark

[garbulky]

Uneducated question: what kind of horsepower does atmos require to do all this 3d positioning? I assume it's pretty hefty if you want to get it super realistic? Does it alter the sound as it moves it through 3d space or split it between speakers to create a more realistic sound? Or is it simply deciding which speaker plays the sound?

[LCSeminole]

I must apologize for not having cleaned up this thread for the past two days or so. I had an accident at work that required a few stitches on my hand/fingers, and just didn't feel up to it until today. I have however now cleaned up most if not all off-topic posts and do ask as Andrew has already to keep on topic and refrain from any personal back and forth. This has been a quite informative thread up to now and I know we would all like to keep it that way. Thank you to all those that have contributed with their own sources and insight on Dolby Atmos and you are encouraged to keep on updating us when the information becomes available.

[LCSeminole]

Jun 26, 2014 16:06:51 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Uneducated question: what kind of horsepower does atmos require to do all this 3d positioning? I assume it's pretty hefty if you want to get it super realistic? Does it alter the sound as it moves it through 3d space or split it between speakers to create a more realistic sound? Or is it simply deciding which speaker plays the sound?

If the rumor that Onkyo dropped Audyssey so that it would have the CPU power for Dolby Atmos, it does make one wonder how much of a processing hog any of the features are and just how many cores does a receiver/processor need to sufficiently run these features.

[klinemj]

Sorry to hear of the accident, but glad you are on the mend.

On why Onkyo dropped Audyssey, I surely don't know. But, aside from the CPU power logic (which makes sense), others have speculated that dropped Audyssey was related to them buying Pioneer to get direct access to its room correction. That's another interesting theory.

Regarding Atmos or anything else being a processor hog, in these days - it seems like the chips are pretty cheap. I can't imagine A/V makers deciding to not spend another few bucks on a chip to provide the power vs. eliminate features. I can't help but think there's more to it than processing power.

Mark

[garbulky]

If it's actually altering the characteristics of the sound to split it over multiple speakers it may require more power than is available on these recievers. That's a lot of work. But if it's simply adjusting volume levels and palying the same thing, that's probably less work. Though I do question how that would make it more accurate vs a dedicated 7.1/5.1 mix.

[Jim]

Jun 26, 2014 17:17:04 GMT -5 LCSeminole said:

Jun 26, 2014 16:06:51 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Uneducated question: what kind of horsepower does atmos require to do all this 3d positioning? I assume it's pretty hefty if you want to get it super realistic? Does it alter the sound as it moves it through 3d space or split it between speakers to create a more realistic sound? Or is it simply deciding which speaker plays the sound?

If the rumor that Onkyo dropped Audyssey so that it would have the CPU power for Dolby Atmos, it does make one wonder how much of a processing hog any of the features are and just how many cores does a receiver/processor need to sufficiently run these features.

That's a surprise if that's the case. They must believe that Atmos is a bigger selling point then Audyssey then.

Hard to make a wager on room correction vs codec support.

[klinemj]

Excellent point. But, we know that some people can be sold anything given the right marketing tools.

Mafk

[bootman]

Here is a pic of a 5.1.2 layout using two ceiling speakers
Only a compatible 7.1 processor needed.

[bootman]

Here is an alternate 5.1.2 using Atmos enabled front speakers.

Again only a compatible 7.1 processor is needed.

[bootman]

If you want to see additional layouts, I took these from here:

www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/dolby-atmos-surround-sound-coming-home-theaters/#/10

And there is some additional reading materials there with clear breakouts on what is needed for your first Atmos setup.

[bootman]

Jun 26, 2014 20:23:22 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Excellent point. But, we know that some people can be sold anything given the right marketing tools.

Mafk

Very true statement.

[monkumonku]

Jun 26, 2014 20:23:22 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Excellent point. But, we know that some people can be sold anything given the right marketing tools.

Mafk

Yup.. I'll buy that!

I see that someone sold you name alteration software, too.

[klinemj]

Yes, they did...and I love it.

Mlabk

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2014 9:07:47 GMT -5 bootman said:

If you want to see additional layouts, I took these from here:

www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/dolby-atmos-surround-sound-coming-home-theaters/#/10

And there is some additional reading materials there with clear breakouts on what is needed for your first Atmos setup.

Looks interesting.