|
|
Post by flak on Jun 12, 2014 8:07:47 GMT -5
Moved from the XMC-1 thread to this thread.You do understand that I am talking about an Atmos mix rendered to a 5.1 speaker layout via an Atmos-enabled AVR (where the AVR knows the speaker locations) and not a 5.1 channel track played back using 5.1 speakers? Hi emocustomer, which solution are the announced Denons using to learn about the actual speaker positions? Ciao, Flavio |
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 12, 2014 8:27:44 GMT -5
Moved from the XMC-1 thread to this thread. Hi emocustomer, which solution are the announced Denons using to learn about the actual speaker positions? Ciao, Flavio As far as I am aware, this information has not been released at this time. |
|
|
|
Post by srrndhound on Jun 12, 2014 12:08:44 GMT -5
You are assuming that Atmos for the home, which is what the discussion was about with the OP, will render to 5.1 on the fly. I an assuming that, too, and for stereo TVs and for whatever sound format a soundbar would like. But I admit this may be incorrect. T'would be a shame, though, not to support all these decoding applications. Correct. That's why it would be better not to disallow using the Atmos bitstream for 5.1 playback when an Atmos capable AVR is present. Yes it will potentially sound the same. That's good. But if the user fits any of the Cases I mentioned, then the sound could be altered to yield certain benefits. Atmos not object capable? That would be pretty big news! Where does Dolby state that Atmos does not support object audio? Yes, it also supports channels (they call them "beds"). Cinemas of course do not use "stereo wideners". But home systems do, and Dolby has had such processing in their portfolio since "Dolby Virtual" was launched. It's trivial to route the beds through such a process and leave the objects alone. I said it was theoretically possible for object-based systems, including Atmos, to provide these advantages. Until we see the hardware embodiment, we will not know if those possibilities have been fulfilled or not. If you are stating unequivocally that Atmos can never provide these benefits, we will move forward agreeing to disagree on this point. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmMixer on Jun 12, 2014 20:12:54 GMT -5
Emo.
Roger clearly dited his post to clarify what he was talking about.
You know I am perfectly aware of how Atmis works.
I never said it didn't use object. It is not however an entirely object based system like MDA.... And they work differently.
Using channels as well as object changes both the workflow and what can be done with the audio once it gets decoded.
At this point in time I stand by my comments. If things change in the future that would be good for everyone. .
I've been involved since the theatrical launch and we have 2 Atmos dubbing stages where I work.
If you want me to spill what I may or may not know about a product that hasn't launched yet you are barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
|
|
Post by emocustomer on Jun 13, 2014 5:04:32 GMT -5
Emo. Roger clearly dited his post to clarify what he was talking about. You know I am perfectly aware of how Atmis works. I never said it didn't use object. It is not however an entirely object based system like MDA.... And they work differently. Using channels as well as object changes both the workflow and what can be done with the audio once it gets decoded. At this point in time I stand by my comments. If things change in the future that would be good for everyone. . I've been involved since the theatrical launch and we have 2 Atmos dubbing stages where I work. If you want me to spill what I may or may not know about a product that hasn't launched yet you are barking up the wrong tree. FM- was this direct at me by mistake and should have gone to srrndhound? I think the confusion is arising, possibly, because you are ultra-familiar with Atmos in its commercial form but not taking into account that the HT form will not be exactly the same. Like you, I stand by all the posts on the subject that I have made, and have seen no contradiction of anything in them from Roger. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,095
|
Post by klinemj on Jun 13, 2014 5:41:22 GMT -5
It has been very helpful for me to learn more about Atmos. Thanks for the info guys!
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Jun 13, 2014 7:39:08 GMT -5
It has been very helpful for me to learn more about Atmos. Thanks for the info guys! Mark Well, at least we know what it can be, but not what it will be for home theater. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jun 13, 2014 7:53:11 GMT -5
It has been very helpful for me to learn more about Atmos. Thanks for the info guys! Mark Well, at least we know what it can be, but not what it will be for home theater. My take is that if you have a 5.1 setup (the vast majority of the installed home base) this is initially a wasted upgrade. Now if you have more speakers than that then maybe some fancy processing can help a bit. It isn't until you get to 9 or greater with heights and/or wides in the mix that the real benefits can kick in. Is this a correct assumption for the masses? |
|
|
|
Post by srrndhound on Jun 13, 2014 10:04:12 GMT -5
My take is that if you have a 5.1 setup (the vast majority of the installed home base) this is initially a wasted upgrade. Now if you have more speakers than that then maybe some fancy processing can help a bit. It isn't until you get to 9 or greater with heights and/or wides in the mix that the real benefits can kick in. Is this a correct assumption for the masses? To be perfectly clear, there's no "fancy processing" unless there's a new processor in the equation. With that assumed, even when driving a 5.1 (or stereo) speaker system, the masses may appreciate benefit #3 in the cases post. It's a continuing problem for many folks watching Blu-ray movies. Other than that, I'd agree with your conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by srrndhound on Jun 13, 2014 10:17:41 GMT -5
Emo. Roger clearly dited his post to clarify what he was talking about. You know I am perfectly aware of how Atmos works. In the cinema, I have no doubt. MDA delivers channels, too, same as Atmos. The benefits I cite in the Cases post are not dependent on the program being 100% objects. The magic is that channels and objects remain separate, thus can be treated separately in the consumer's system. On that point, no "post edit" clarification has affected the discussion. Changes it relative to what? If both Atmos and MDA support objects and channels, how is that a workflow issue or a decoding issue? Please clarify. If there's a workflow difference, it is in how the two systems handle metadata during production and generate the monitor output signals. But that's a factor of the RMU (Dolby's rendering mastering unit) being a piece of separate hardware vs. doing rendering elsewhere for MDA. In that respect MDA is simpler and less expensive. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 13, 2014 10:19:44 GMT -5
Current theater systems do indeed support "only" zones, which they refer to as "arrays" (so, if you're playing a 5.1 track, the Left Surround signal comes from all the speakers in "the Left Surround array"). Atmos supports that model PLUS the "sound object" model - both at the same time. Atmos gives you 9.1 "bed" objects (regular "channels" or arrays), plus 118 "individually rendered objects". (Remember that this is how the system, the processor, and the sound engineer "think about" the stuff in the recording.) The processor itself is able to control up to 64 OUTPUTS (that's 64 channels = 64 speakers, although they refer to it as 61.3 since there are three subs in there, each of which can be individually controlled). This is how many amplifier channels as well as speakers that Dolby "recommends" for a large installation. With Atmos, if something is recorded in "a 5.1 surround sound stem", it will be played as before, with each channel playing out of ALL the speakers in that particular array (so something in the Left Surround channel will play out all of the speakers in the Left Surround array). However, if something is recorded in one of the 118 "objects", then that object may be placed in any number of speakers - ranging from one individual speaker to every speaker in the theater. The whole point of rendering is that you DON'T assign that object to a specific speaker; you tell Atmos where you want it, and Atmos figures out what speaker or speakers to send it to - specific to your particular installation - so that it's in the right place. (The recording engineer actually gets to put a little dot, or a big blob, in the right place in a little 3D picture of a room, for each object.) So, in a theater with 48 speakers, something in the Left Surround Stem Channel will be playing out of all the speakers in the Left Surround Channel Array, but a specific object might be playing out of speaker 27, which may be one speaker in that array, or, if it's bigger, it might be coming from speakers 24, 25, 27, 29, and 32 (each speaker can be addressed individually, or as part of the array). If you only have 5.1 speakers (like in a home setup), then each "array" is one speaker, and so there's no practical difference between sending an object to "one speaker" or "one array", and you don't get any more control over objects than you do over regular channels. Since the "Atmos distribution" also includes "pre-rendered 5.1 and 7.1 versions", you might just as well use one of those. It will remain to be seen how much of this rendering capability, and how many output channels, a home system will include. (Odds are you'll end up with 7.1, plus at least one height speaker; maybe one ceiling height speaker and a pair of front ambiance height speakers). At the moment, Dolby seems to be letting anybody download the "professional specs".... this would be the one you want to read.... www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/Dolby-Atmos-Next-Generation-Audio-for-Cinema.pdfI believe he was referencing the number of speakers typically employed in a commercial theater environment. True there are three across the front, but there are often more than two surrounds in a commercial theater, despite those speakers being fed either the same surround info all at once or some form of matrixed surround in order to give the illusion of more than 5 discrete channels of information -i.e. more than just a left and right surround. Yes, in a cinema the surrounds are presented over arrays, several speakers carrying the same signal (there's no matrixing or other tricksing used). But that is the standard for 5.1. Perhaps Keith is thinking about the ITU BS.775 standard, which has nothing to do with cinemas. |
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Jun 13, 2014 10:25:50 GMT -5
For me, it will be the excuse to add more speakers. I've been thinking of going 7.1 for a while, but now I'll consider height speakers as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by sme on Jun 13, 2014 14:14:00 GMT -5
Hi Keith, Thanks for linking to that document on theatrical Atmos. I do have a question about this statement: (The recording engineer actually gets to put a little dot, or a big blob, in the right place in a little 3D picture of a room, for each object.) From reading the document, it appears that objects in Atmos are point sources only. Here, you are describing "blobs" as well as points. Did I miss something in my reading? Being able to render blobs might be very useful to the mixer, but it may be difficult to render these reliably on various systems because of comb filtering. What I think would be more useful would be to be able to render diffuse blobs in which the phases are randomized for the signals going to each speaker playing the blob. I doubt this capability is present in the current version of Atmos. In the document, I also see it confirmed that theatrical Atmos allows up to 128 separate audio "channels", each used as either an individual object or a bed. For 24-bit 96kHz PCM, this requires a peak data bandwidth of 275 Mbit/s. Lossless audio compression methods (which reduce data size without quality loss) typically achieve a 40-60% reduction in required storage for 2 channels. I imagine Atmos tracks could compressed much more in typical cases, but there may be some tracks that do require independent playback of all 128 "channels" simultaneously. Moreover, the typical 40-60% reduction seen with 2 channel tracks is not *guaranteed*, so I believe a lossless playback chain must still be capable of sustaining peak bandwidth assuming all channels are uncompressed PCM. The lossless compression reduces storage but not peak bandwidth requirements. In the theater, Atmos tracks are streamed from a hard disk array, and 275 Mbit/s is not difficult to achieve. In a consumer playback settting, however, 275 Mbit/s is substantial! I believe the maximum allowed transfer rate for Blu-ray movies (including audio, video, and meta-data) is currently 54 Mbit/s! So my point here is that it will take some time and technological innovation to realize anything like theatrical Atmos in the home. I think it's at least 5 years off. Of course, Atmos fundamentally is a trademark of Dolby, and they have the legal right to use it as they see fit. It's totally conceivable that they'd introduce a multichannel format (say 13.1) with 4 ceiling speakers and call it Atmos, even if there is no object capability at all. Naive consumers aren't likely to know the difference, especially if their home theater has a speaker layout reminiscent of the theatrical layouts. For us enthusiasts, however, we have to be realistic and recognize that the object-based Atmos technology we are familiar with may not be coming to the consumer market any time soon. If someone can provide verifiable information that contradicts what I'm saying here, by all means do it! But so far, I haven't seen any verifiable facts about consumer Atmos presented in this thread. I certainly hope we see a format that provides at least some object-like functionality like the repeatedly discussed independent dialog adjustment feature. On the other hand, I'm not sure how beneficial such a feature will be in practice if sound professionals are not informed as to its proper use. For example in the past, Dolby Dialnorm was supposed to address the issue of varying dynamic range between different mixes, so that mixes all would sound correct with the "volume level" on the processor/AVR set to a single correct reference level. Sadly, very few mixes have the Dialnorm parameter set correctly, typically setting it to the value used for tracks with theatrical dynamic range even though said tracks were mixed with less DR, so this feature fails to work in practice. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 13, 2014 15:54:05 GMT -5
Each object has four position settings: X, Y, Z coordinates and Size; Size goes from 0 to 100, with 0 being a single speaker and 100 being all active speakers. And, yes, they do "decorrelate the signal" and do other things to avoid interference issues.  This page links to several documents about authoring software, etc: www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/dolby-atmos-creators.htmlThis one is how to use all the ProTools authoring stuff for Atmos (Object Size is on page 74): www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/Authoring_for_Dolby_Atmos_Cinema_Sound_Manual%281%29.pdfIt will be interesting to see how they scale this down for home systems. (Remember that their bandwidth limit is pretty much going to be what fits on a Blu-Ray disc.) My guess is that they'll let you use the available max bandwidth as you like (to a point) - much like the DVD standards handle it (on a DVD you get a max of 9 mbps average to use however you like). If I'm right then, for example, you could sacrifice the 5.1 track in return for more objects, or "buy" object bandwidth by compressing your video more. I seem to recall that you can use different bit rates for different objects - so you could cut back on the quality of unimportant objects and rumbly noises - but I forget the details. A lot of this (for the theatrical version) is covered in the document (if you take the time to read it all). (At this point, I'm not even clear what Video and Audio CODECs they'll be using for home; maybe they'll "buy" more space by using the newer H.265 CODEC at 1920p.) It will also be interesting to see if there's even a hope of sending this over streaming video on the Internet.... Hi Keith, Thanks for linking to that document on theatrical Atmos. I do have a question about this statement: (The recording engineer actually gets to put a little dot, or a big blob, in the right place in a little 3D picture of a room, for each object.) From reading the document, it appears that objects in Atmos are point sources only. Here, you are describing "blobs" as well as points. Did I miss something in my reading? Being able to render blobs might be very useful to the mixer, but it may be difficult to render these reliably on various systems because of comb filtering. What I think would be more useful would be to be able to render diffuse blobs in which the phases are randomized for the signals going to each speaker playing the blob. I doubt this capability is present in the current version of Atmos. In the document, I also see it confirmed that theatrical Atmos allows up to 128 separate audio "channels", each used as either an individual object or a bed. For 24-bit 96kHz PCM, this requires a peak data bandwidth of 275 Mbit/s. Lossless audio compression methods (which reduce data size without quality loss) typically achieve a 40-60% reduction in required storage for 2 channels. I imagine Atmos tracks could compressed much more in typical cases, but there may be some tracks that do require independent playback of all 128 "channels" simultaneously. Moreover, the typical 40-60% reduction seen with 2 channel tracks is not *guaranteed*, so I believe a lossless playback chain must still be capable of sustaining peak bandwidth assuming all channels are uncompressed PCM. The lossless compression reduces storage but not peak bandwidth requirements. In the theater, Atmos tracks are streamed from a hard disk array, and 275 Mbit/s is not difficult to achieve. In a consumer playback settting, however, 275 Mbit/s is substantial! I believe the maximum allowed transfer rate for Blu-ray movies (including audio, video, and meta-data) is currently 54 Mbit/s! So my point here is that it will take some time and technological innovation to realize anything like theatrical Atmos in the home. I think it's at least 5 years off. Of course, Atmos fundamentally is a trademark of Dolby, and they have the legal right to use it as they see fit. It's totally conceivable that they'd introduce a multichannel format (say 13.1) with 4 ceiling speakers and call it Atmos, even if there is no object capability at all. Naive consumers aren't likely to know the difference, especially if their home theater has a speaker layout reminiscent of the theatrical layouts. For us enthusiasts, however, we have to be realistic and recognize that the object-based Atmos technology we are familiar with may not be coming to the consumer market any time soon. If someone can provide verifiable information that contradicts what I'm saying here, by all means do it! But so far, I haven't seen any verifiable facts about consumer Atmos presented in this thread. I certainly hope we see a format that provides at least some object-like functionality like the repeatedly discussed independent dialog adjustment feature. On the other hand, I'm not sure how beneficial such a feature will be in practice if sound professionals are not informed as to its proper use. For example in the past, Dolby Dialnorm was supposed to address the issue of varying dynamic range between different mixes, so that mixes all would sound correct with the "volume level" on the processor/AVR set to a single correct reference level. Sadly, very few mixes have the Dialnorm parameter set correctly, typically setting it to the value used for tracks with theatrical dynamic range even though said tracks were mixed with less DR, so this feature fails to work in practice. |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,864
|
Post by LCSeminole on Jun 13, 2014 16:53:14 GMT -5
My take is that if you have a 5.1 setup (the vast majority of the installed home base) this is initially a wasted upgrade. Now if you have more speakers than that then maybe some fancy processing can help a bit. It isn't until you get to 9 or greater with heights and/or wides in the mix that the real benefits can kick in. Is this a correct assumption for the masses? To be perfectly clear, there's no "fancy processing" unless there's a new processor in the equation. With that assumed, even when driving a 5.1 (or stereo) speaker system, the masses may appreciate benefit #3 in the cases post. It's a continuing problem for many folks watching Blu-ray movies. Other than that, I'd agree with your conclusion. This has been my understanding all along. Thanks Roger for clarifying. |
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Jun 14, 2014 7:07:26 GMT -5
For me, it will be the excuse to add more speakers. I've been thinking of going 7.1 for a while, but now I'll consider height speakers as well. I wish we had a manual as it stands to reason that the xmc1 should have dsp modes superior to the umc200 - which can switch the back surrounds to heights for its dpl 2z mode . So if it has the same switching capability a new pcb in the future with an atmos decoder would do the trick  Or a rmc1 instead when all this is settled  Roger has mentioned one thing that those with a 5.1/7.1 atmos system can especially appreciate [if implemented ] As to the bandwidth on a bd25 or bd50 disc I think it unlikely that they will go to mvec/h265 ; that's for differentiating 4k bd 100gb ? imo . Consequently I wouldnt want my h264 bd picture quality be 'drained' to facilitate an atmos lossless track bigger than say 6gb  |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 16, 2014 11:45:31 GMT -5
In the sense that they're using arrays for the surround channels, while home systems generally use individual speakers. Therefore, a sound placed only in the Left Surround in a theater will come from a large area and an array of speakers, whereas, in a home setting, it will come from a single surround speaker. (Your single speaker off to the left is NOT the same as an array of four or five speakers, spread out over twenty feet of wall space. Of course, arguably, it is the single home speaker which is "wrong" - but they are not the same.) Assuming you have a 5.1 setup, with all five speakers "where they normally belong", then the result you would get by having your AVR do "a proper Atmos rendering" should be precisely the same as you would get by simply playing the included 5.1 channel mix. (Because they got the included 5.1 mix by rendering the Atmos content to a "standard 5.1 channel setup"; which should give the same result as you would get from any other "compliant decoder".) Since we're talking about a "typical standard" installation, the value of Atmos adaptability is minimized in this situation. Absolutely correct. Absolutely whhaaat?  How are commercial theaters not using the standard 5.1 layout? They mix 5.1 in such theaters to play in such theaters, so the match is perfect. Atmos will not affect that, as it needs no help. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 16, 2014 12:02:39 GMT -5
Just to clarify something a bit which seems to still confuse some folks here.
The Atmos "portion" of the master contains the Atmos Beds and Objects, and meta-data about where they should be positioned. (And, yes, the ProTools plugins add this metadata, which is carried separately thereafter.... read the white papers.) The Atmos beds are "fixed" in the sense that each is "pre-mixed" to specific channels/speakers. So, when a fully Atmos compliant system plays an Atmos master, the channels in the Beds are sent to specific channels (like Left Surround - via the Left Surround Array), while the Objects are sent to specific locations (like left -40, back -20, height +10, size 20).
Independent of this, and the Beds, the Atmos master will ALSO contain independent 5.1 and 7.1 mixes. These mixes could be simply the results of applying the Atmos decoder to the "main mix" with preset speaker locations, or they could be different (for whatever reasons). So an "Atmos capable AVR" could play the pre-mixed mixes OR actually do its own "Atmos decode". Without seeing the spec, I would also posit the possibility that "Atmos for home" just might contain a subset of the theatrical version - possible limited to fewer Objects. (I could easily see justification for "merging" objects such that you ended up with Objects like "main dialog", yet "trivial objects" were merged into the beds to simplify the decoding necessary later. Perhaps "Atmos for home" will contain one 5.1 Bed and up to 10 Objects instead of the 118 you get with the theatrical version. It would seem quite sensible to merge all the dialog Objects into a single Object Class, which could then be adjusted by a single adjustment, by the user, to make dialog clearer or easier to hear after midnight.)
I could also imagine various permutations of these options being available in more or less powerful processors.
|
|
|
|
Post by srrndhound on Jun 17, 2014 2:58:18 GMT -5
The Atmos "portion" of the master contains the Atmos Beds and Objects, and meta-data about where they should be positioned. Independent of this, and the Beds, the Atmos master will ALSO contain independent 5.1 and 7.1 mixes. Is this documented in the white papers somewhere? I have seen no evidence that a high rez (e.g. Blu-ray or better) consumer format will contain independent 5.1 (or 7.1) mixes plus a complete Atmos mix. That would more than double the audio bitrate, even for the most basic Atmos mix. The strategy I am familiar with carries a complete 5.1 mix plus the individual objects, which has the same bitrate as the full object-based mix alone. No bed channels are needed since they are redundant with the complete mix. The decoder subtracts the objects from the channel mix to obtain the bed, then presents it with the objects rendered accordingly. For the above scenario to work, the channel mix would have to be derived from the object mix to ensure the objects can be well nulled. The choice would be to play the 5.1 mix alone, or to play the 5.1 mix plus the objects as described above. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 17, 2014 10:00:39 GMT -5
As far as I know, there is no definite information available yet about the "Atmos Home Version" - at least nothing that can be discussed outside of tight NDA. A full Atmos Mix - with the maximum possible 118 simultaneous Objects - would require more like ten times the bandwidth of a full rendering... and would be prohibitive for packaging on a Blu-Ray. What you suggest makes sense - with one slight restatement. Package the fully rendered Atmos Mix (at 7.1), then include ONLY CERTAIN Channels as separate Channels. You could then play the pre-rendered mix as-is, in which case it would be the same as playing the 7.1 render from the theatrical Atmos version. You could also ( OPTIONALLY) extract those separate Channels, subtract them from the "master mix", and handle them again separately as individual objects. This would allow you to maintain a single "master mix", and also allow you to "pick and choose" which Objects to handle separately. (A given disc version might contain the master mix - and only ten "important" separate Objects. You could even decide, at playback time, how many of those Objects to "pull out of the mix and handle separately" - perhaps based on the processing power available at the time. The end result would be that any processor could play the full mix, but processors with differing amounts of "horsepower" could accurately place all, or just a few, of the Objects separately. In fact, the Objects included in the "home version" could be composites of multiple Objects from the theatrical version, or even somewhat different - at the sound producer's discretion - and so needn't be simply a few Objects chosen out of the original 118.) Please note that I'm guessing here - I don't have any specific "inside information". The Atmos "portion" of the master contains the Atmos Beds and Objects, and meta-data about where they should be positioned. Independent of this, and the Beds, the Atmos master will ALSO contain independent 5.1 and 7.1 mixes. Is this documented in the white papers somewhere? I have seen no evidence that a high rez (e.g. Blu-ray or better) consumer format will contain independent 5.1 (or 7.1) mixes plus a complete Atmos mix. That would more than double the audio bitrate, even for the most basic Atmos mix. The strategy I am familiar with carries a complete 5.1 mix plus the individual objects, which has the same bitrate as the full object-based mix alone. No bed channels are needed since they are redundant with the complete mix. The decoder subtracts the objects from the channel mix to obtain the bed, then presents it with the objects rendered accordingly. For the above scenario to work, the channel mix would have to be derived from the object mix to ensure the objects can be well nulled. The choice would be to play the 5.1 mix alone, or to play the 5.1 mix plus the objects as described above. |
|
Or a rmc1 instead when all this is settled 
Roger has mentioned one thing that those with a 5.1/7.1 atmos system can especially appreciate [if implemented ]
How are commercial theaters not using the standard 5.1 layout? They mix 5.1 in such theaters to play in such theaters, so the match is perfect. Atmos will not affect that, as it needs no help.