The OFFICIAL Dolby Atmos Thread

[KeithL]

I tend to agree with a lot of what you said - and possibly with a lot of your conjecture.

The only thing which I disagree with is about differentiating Dolby Atmos from Auro 3D; I simply don't think Auro 3D is a threat.

Dolby currently "owns" the lion's share of the cinema audio market - and Atmos seems well positioned to improve on that; they are also the #2 player in disc home theater audio (even though DTS has a much bigger market share). Between these two things, Dolby and DTS are THE two competitors in that market. (And we can all guess that sometime soon DTS will also come out with something that seems to be an awful lot like Atmos - but how it relates to Auro remains to be seen.)

Dolby doesn't have to compete with Auro 3D - Auro isn't a major player. I don't recall seeing an Auro 3D disc - if it exists, I missed it.   All Dolby has to do is to convince you that Atmos is better than whatever DTS comes out with. And their arguments there will be based on the fact that, since Atmos dominates the cinema market, and so most movies made next year will probably be "Atmos mastered", it's an obvious no-brainer to listen to those Atmos mastered sound tracks on Atmos in your living room. In reply, DTS will be saying that DTS is better for home theater than Dolby - and THEIR proof will be that they currently "own" most of the disc market ("and that many customers can't be wrong").

In order for Auro 3D to garner ANY significant market share, they'll have to convince people that they can play stuff NOT mastered for their system, and have it come out better than Atmos mastered sound tracks will sound in Atmos. If a combined Auro/DTS standard comes out, then it will be very confusing, although it may have a bigger head-start on the market.  

My personal guess is that Atmos will win Dolby back a bigger share of the home theater market... (whatever DTS comes up with, Dolby does have the cinema sound tie-in, and they got there first).

Jun 24, 2014 0:38:38 GMT -5 sme said:

The blog post (press release?) is a scant on the details of how Atmos at home differs from the cinema. I have no doubt that they are very different technologies. The only feature that is clearly shared between them is the ability to play sounds from above. Otherwise, given the considerable emphasis on legacy compatibility within the playback chain, I doubt that consumer Atmos supports the objects of its theatrical cousin. The fact that existing Onkyo units with HDMI versions less than 2.0 may be upgradeable suggests that the Atmos bitstream is either limited to 7 channels uses no more bandwidth than 7 channels PCM.

Depending on how well the technology is implemented, that may not be very important. Here's how I imagine the technology *might* work: The Blu-ray master is produced from an Atmos mix by rendering all objects onto a fixed 7 channel layout, probably something that looks like 5.1 + a pair of overheads. Then, when the mix is played back the processor uses steering (technology similar to PLIIx and PLIIz) to render the audio to whatever speaker configuration is present. Presumably, the speaker configuration could be auto-detected using a 3D-aware microphone, or manually configured by inputting angles along with distances.

This may be an unpleasant realization for some people, particularly those dead set against using steering processing modes like PLIIx, but I think it's a good compromise. Dolby's steering technology is actually quite good, and the results with 7 channels input will likely be better than with only 2 channels input as typically used with PLIIx. From a business standpoint, this or another dead simple implementation is probably the right move, and it dramatically increases the chances of us seeing media with consumer Atmos tracks on them. I can also Dolby revising the standard if and when a successor to Blu-ray becomes available with more capacity and bandwidth for multichannel audio. Let's wait and see what DTS comes up with, and let's not discount Auro 3D, either. A problem Dolby has is that if they market Atmos as being about "heights" (as they do in that blog post), then they won't be well differentiated from Auro 3D, which also supports heights.

Now, I personally am not all that excited about height speakers. In my current living room, I am planning to eventually install a large diffuser onto the ceiling, right where I would be expected to install height speakers. I could try adding those "strap-ons" that Onkyo is offering, but when the sound hits my diffuser, the "height" effect will be totally spoiled. The whole point of the diffuser is to make the sound reflected from it be perceived to be more omnidirectional. Either way, I wouldn't want to use any speakers other than the kind I already have. The "smaller" Hsu HB-1 is roughly 16"x8"x8", which is pretty big to be putting on my ceiling. Some might argue I should use smaller speakers, but that just won't fly for me. When Godzilla's "roar from above" rattles my chest, guess which speakers are being asked to produce 100 dB at 100 Hz? Whimpy woofers need not apply.

[Andrew Robinson]

Based on what many of my contacts have now told me about ATMOS all may not be entirely what it seems as it relates to some of these soon to be released ATMOS processors or receivers. For example, Onkyo dropping Audyssey to free up DSP "space" to run Atmos and other such issues. It seems Atmos is very processor intensive, which may mean that while compatible, some of these Atmos compatible products may be receiving a truncated or "lesser" version of the fledgling format. Moreover, Atmos isn't promising (from what I can see) any quality improvements over existing formats (i.e. Blu-ray), you're just getting more "channels" of it.

On the other hand, DTS' UHD format is also coming and is Atmos-like, though it manages to require less of the hardware potentially (at least based on what I've read so far). I'm not an expert on either format (I doubt anyone outside of Dolby or DTS are at this time) but it would appear there is still quite a bit that has to be sussed out before either side, or consumers, can claim "victory." Those of you who believe they need Atmos, I urge you do your homework before committing to a product.

[Andrew Robinson]

Okay, so I've been pouring over all the Atmos news, talks and technical papers this morning and I have more than a few questions. I get what Atmos is to the commercial cinema experience, however, and I could be TOTALLY WRONG, I don't believe that the commercial Atmos is at all what consumers are or will be getting when Atmos enters the home. To me, again, I may be wrong, Atmos for the home appears more like a derivative of PLIIx-like processing than the promise of Atmos' commercial application. Fully tricked out, Atmos in the home presently allows for the inclusion of 4 additional ceiling channels, which are treated as "objects" (according to Dolby's own illustrations and information) with the remaining 7 channels being treated much in the same way they are now -"bedded" (again, Dolby's terminology not mine). Now, the new processors claiming Atmos support seem to be limited to 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 at present -likely due to processing constraints.

One of the key features, as I understand it, to commercial Atmos is that if you have 2 speakers or 200 (exaggeration)the sound mixer puts the sound where he or she wants it in space, and Atmos figures out how many speakers over how large of a space to place that sound within a cinema's setup. But if I'm reading the Atmos for the home literature correctly, it seems you're going to have your existing 5 or 7 channel mix, and then maybe a stem (or two) that is sent to a pair of ceiling channels. Again, I could be wrong, but it does seem to me like consumer Atmos is more akin to just having a dedicated 9.1 channel mix versus a true Atmos, or object-based mix. There are other benefits to Atmos that may or may not find their way to the consumer market, suffice to say, at this point in the discussion, Atmos raises far more questions than it answers. Again, this is just me.

[Deleted]

Agree. Most folks can't afford the luxury of a dedicated, proper home theater, so implementation would be difficult to say the least. In my case, I went from a 5.1 system to a 2.0 system simply because it doesn't work in the weird configuration that is my living room, so I bought a better quality 2.0 system (my Emo setup).

[klinemj]

Thanks Andrew...hopefully, our good friend keithbarnes701/emocustomer/soundchimp/audiomonkey will enlighten us on other details that might provide an alternative perspective. Personally, I have been struggling to understand what the consumer version will actually bring (other than the expected marketing hype), so any factual information from sources such as you tap into is quite helpful.

emocustomer? your serve...

Mark

[Deleted]

Why isn't Ford suing?

[emocustomer]

Jun 24, 2014 17:22:50 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Thanks Andrew...hopefully, our good friend keithbarnes701/emocustomer/soundchimp/audiomonkey will enlighten us on other details that might provide an alternative perspective. Personally, I have been struggling to understand what the consumer version will actually bring (other than the expected marketing hype), so any factual information from sources such as you tap into is quite helpful.

emocustomer? your serve...

Mark

Hi Mark,

There is a considerable amount of information now trickling out of AV manufacturers, especially Pioneer and Denon. There are dedicated threads on other forums where the details so far released are now being made available and that would be a good place to start IMO. Pioneer will be releasing a White Paper today which will, so we are told, have considerable detail about the Atmos information now being made public. Much of that information was known to 'insiders' some time ago, but there are significant new details emerging now.

For starters, we are given to understand, at this time, that all Atmos-enabled AVRs/processors will be the same, in Atmos terms, all using the same TI chip and firmware. So there will be no inherent advantage in going with Denon over Pioneer over Onkyo etc, so far as Atmos ability is concerned.

It now appears that no current Atmos-enabled AVR will use speaker positional information. This is disappointing because some of the benefits of object sound will be lost at home. If speakers are positioned as recommended however, this won't affect anything from a practical sense. 

Pioneer, and probably the others, are offering Atmos upmixing so that legacy content can offer some of the benefits of Atmos.

In terns of the general benefits of Atmos, and why you might want to consider upgrading to it, the benefits of objects as opposed to channels is that sounds will be sent directly to a location and not to a speaker, as they are now. This should bring considerably extra precision to the soundstage, both around you and above you. This should result in a superior audio experience in films mixed in Atmos.

There is no doubt. IMO, that object-based sound will give a much-enhanced audio experience. Only the individual can decide if the expense and trouble is worth it.

Incidentally, the minimum requirement for Atmos at home is two in-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers. These can be the WAF friendly in-ceiling type if that is a consideration, so the physical requirements for Atmos aren't too demanding for anyone who can install a couple of speakers in the ceiling. Emotiva make some pretty nice in-ceiling speakers so that could be a good place to start for many.

Is there anything specifically I can tell you that I haven't covered above, or that is now nit readily available on the Internet?

[Andrew Robinson]

So it would appear my thoughts regarding Atmos in the home were correct. Not saying this to gloat, just that when going over Dolby's own literature I couldn't see how the current crop of products possessed the requisite "horsepower" to run Atmos "properly" let alone how older models could be made Atmos compatible with a firmware update. I'm sure the introduction of discrete ceiling channels will be a benefit, but to be honest, the addition of ceiling channels was not what had me excited about Atmos (and yes I was excited). I agree with EmoCustomer that object based sound is revolutionary, but it appears we'll have to wait a while longer for it to reach the home -if it does at all.

[KeithL]

The one thing I would add to that is that, for those who prefer not to mount ceiling speakers, several vendors have announced plans to offer speakers which "beam" the height channels from the tops of the fronts and/or surrounds and bounce them off the ceiling; these will probably include both separate "top-car" speakers that sit on top of your current conventional speakers, and separate driver elements installed in the tops of new "Atmos enabled" speakers. (These are still entirely separate speakers, and require their own amplifier channels, and an Atmos-enabled AVR or pre/pro and amps to run them).

From what I can tell, it is the "height speakers" which constitute the only real advantage to consumers at this point; and we're talking about STANDARDIZED height speakers as compared to the several proprietary synthesized height options many folks offer, or PLIIz (which doesn't seem to have become terribly popular). Atmos is promised to be better than, and should be much more widely supported than, PLIIz (so, maybe, it will "mainstream" having height speakers ).

I've also read several interviews, in film industry magazines, where various sound mixers claimed that they very much liked the the system for MASTERING sound using the Atmos control paradigm, and suggested that it enabled them to do smoother and fancier special effects more easily (it makes things like controlling the position of objects flying back over your head easier to do more precisely - for the recording engineer). Therefore, the claim is that "mastering in Atmos" makes it easier for them to give you cooler audio special effects. (The reality is that they're just putting forth the claim that "the Atmos system" is better at every step along the way.)

It will be interesting to see how this stacks up against DTS UHD (DTS new announced competition to Atmos). It will also be interesting to see if DTS UHD is "happy" with "Atmos enabled speakers" located where Atmos wants them located (standard 5.1/7.1 setup plus heights) - or if they'll be asking you to put your speakers in different places.... DTS claims (and has shown in demos) that their new system can make use of positional information (which cinema Atmos does; but home Atmos does not), which promises to give their offering a serious advantage - and should allow it to operate with more flexible speaker placement options.

Jun 25, 2014 6:55:10 GMT -5 emocustomer said:

Jun 24, 2014 17:22:50 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Thanks Andrew...hopefully, our good friend keithbarnes701/emocustomer/soundchimp/audiomonkey will enlighten us on other details that might provide an alternative perspective. Personally, I have been struggling to understand what the consumer version will actually bring (other than the expected marketing hype), so any factual information from sources such as you tap into is quite helpful.

emocustomer? your serve...

Mark

Hi Mark,

There is a considerable amount of information now trickling out of AV manufacturers, especially Pioneer and Denon. There are dedicated threads on other forums where the details so far released are now being made available and that would be a good place to start IMO. Pioneer will be releasing a White Paper today which will, so we are told, have considerable detail about the Atmos information now being made public. Much of that information was known to 'insiders' some time ago, but there are significant new details emerging now.

For starters, we are given to understand, at this time, that all Atmos-enabled AVRs/processors will be the same, in Atmos terms, all using the same TI chip and firmware. So there will be no inherent advantage in going with Denon over Pioneer over Onkyo etc, so far as Atmos ability is concerned.

It now appears that no current Atmos-enabled AVR will use speaker positional information. This is disappointing because some of the benefits of object sound will be lost at home. If speakers are positioned as recommended however, this won't affect anything from a practical sense. 

Pioneer, and probably the others, are offering Atmos upmixing so that legacy content can offer some of the benefits of Atmos.

In terns of the general benefits of Atmos, and why you might want to consider upgrading to it, the benefits of objects as opposed to channels is that sounds will be sent directly to a location and not to a speaker, as they are now. This should bring considerably extra precision to the soundstage, both around you and above you. This should result in a superior audio experience in films mixed in Atmos.

There is no doubt. IMO, that object-based sound will give a much-enhanced audio experience. Only the individual can decide if the expense and trouble is worth it.

Incidentally, the minimum requirement for Atmos at home is two in-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers. These can be the WAF friendly in-ceiling type if that is a consideration, so the physical requirements for Atmos aren't too demanding for anyone who can install a couple of speakers in the ceiling. Emotiva make some pretty nice in-ceiling speakers so that could be a good place to start for many.

Is there anything specifically I can tell you that I haven't covered above, or that is now nit readily available on the Internet?

[emocustomer]

Jun 25, 2014 8:32:37 GMT -5 Andrew Robinson said:

So it would appear my thoughts regarding Atmos in the home were correct. Not saying this to gloat, just that when going over Dolby's own literature I couldn't see how the current crop of products possessed the requisite "horsepower" to run Atmos "properly" let alone how older models could be made Atmos compatible with a firmware update. I'm sure the introduction of discrete ceiling channels will be a benefit, but to be honest, the addition of ceiling channels was not what had me excited about Atmos (and yes I was excited). I agree with EmoCustomer that object based sound is revolutionary, but it appears we'll have to wait a while longer for it to reach the home -if it does at all.

I think it's too early to say, Andrew. The horsepower to run Atmos is being incorporated in the new Atmos units - Denon have added two additional processors and Onkyo have dropped Audyssey (whose computational requirements were too much for Onkyo processors to handle alongside Atmos). It remains to be seen how well the Atmos experience will be reproduced with just two or four additional 'top' speakers. With a movie that has been designed to make the most of Atmos - such as the new Transformers movie for example - it will be interesting to see how much better the audio experience is at home. I will be going Atmos regardless and have speakers ready to install on-ceiling, so you can be sure I will report back here once it is all working.

I agree with you that it is disappointing that manufacturers have not included positional information in their AVRs. I was expecting more I have to admit.

It will also be interesting to see how Dolby's new upmixing algorithm works with Atmos for legacy content. Dolby have a pretty goods rep with upmixing so I am very interested to see if this brings benefits to my existing Blurays.

I never did expect current units to be firmware-upgradeable so that comes as no surprise, although we are led to believe that some of the new 2014 Onkyo models were released with everything inside needed to allow an Atmos FQ upgrade, so they may be an exception. Certainly, I agree that no legacy units will have this capability.

[emocustomer]

Jun 25, 2014 8:42:32 GMT -5 KeithL said:

The one thing I would add to that is that, for those who prefer not to mount ceiling speakers, several vendors have announced plans to offer speakers which "beam" the height channels from the tops of the fronts and/or surrounds and bounce them off the ceiling; these will probably include both separate "top-car" speakers that sit on top of your current conventional speakers, and separate driver elements installed in the tops of new "Atmos enabled" speakers. (These are still entirely separate speakers, and require their own amplifier channels, and an Atmos-enabled AVR or pre/pro and amps to run them).

From what I can tell, it is the "height speakers" which constitute the only real advantage to consumers at this point; and we're talking about STANDARDIZED height speakers as compared to the several proprietary synthesized height options many folks offer, or PLIIz (which doesn't seem to have become terribly popular). Atmos is promised to be better than, and should be much more widely supported than, PLIIz (so, maybe, it will "mainstream" having height speakers ).

I've also read several interviews, in film industry magazines, where various sound mixers claimed that they very much liked the the system for MASTERING sound using the Atmos control paradigm, and suggested that it enabled them to do smoother and fancier special effects more easily (it makes things like controlling the position of objects flying back over your head easier to do more precisely - for the recording engineer). Therefore, the claim is that "mastering in Atmos" makes it easier for them to give you cooler audio special effects. (The reality is that they're just putting forth the claim that "the Atmos system" is better at every step along the way.)

It will be interesting to see how this stacks up against DTS UHD (DTS new announced competition to Atmos). It will also be interesting to see if DTS UHD is "happy" with "Atmos enabled speakers" located where Atmos wants them located (standard 5.1/7.1 setup plus heights) - or if they'll be asking you to put your speakers in different places.... DTS claims (and has shown in demos) that their new system can make use of positional information (which cinema Atmos does; but home Atmos does not), which promises to give their offering a serious advantage - and should allow it to operate with more flexible speaker placement options.

The 'Atmos-enabled' speaker concept is very interesting and will surely expand the market into non-dedicated rooms. Chris Walker over at Pioneer was very complimentary about the concept and how good it sounded when he heard demos. Of course, he isn't an unbiased source but he has sufficient credibility, IMO, to be taken seriously when he comments.  In dedicated rooms, in-ceiling speakers might be a neat solution too with high WAF.

I currently run Height speakers and use PLIIz and Neo:X (I very much dislike Audyssey's DSX) and it isn't bad. It is very movie-dependent of course but when it works it works quite nicely. I am expecting Atmos with proper top speakers to do much better. Incidentally I think we will all need to start distinguishing between 'height' speakers and 'top' speakers. The current  concept of 'height' speakers, for PLIIz etc, where the speakers are wall-mounted, high up, is not on spec for Atmos, which apparently requires in-ceiling or on-ceiling 'top' speakers mounted within fairly strict guidelines (see image attached).




Agree with you about the potential of DTS UHD but DTS seem to already have lost the battle for domination in theaters where Atmos has become the de facto standard now. How this will translate into the home market remains to be seen of course.

[bootman]

Jun 25, 2014 6:55:10 GMT -5 emocustomer said:

Incidentally, the minimum requirement for Atmos at home is two in-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers. These can be the WAF friendly in-ceiling type if that is a consideration, so the physical requirements for Atmos aren't too demanding for anyone who can install a couple of speakers in the ceiling. Emotiva make some pretty nice in-ceiling speakers so that could be a good place to start for many.

Hum, so even a 7.1 processor (assuming it can be upgraded to Atmos) could provide a 5.1.2 Atmos experience.

..interesting.

[emocustomer]

Jun 25, 2014 9:10:13 GMT -5 bootman said:

Jun 25, 2014 6:55:10 GMT -5 emocustomer said:

Incidentally, the minimum requirement for Atmos at home is two in-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers. These can be the WAF friendly in-ceiling type if that is a consideration, so the physical requirements for Atmos aren't too demanding for anyone who can install a couple of speakers in the ceiling. Emotiva make some pretty nice in-ceiling speakers so that could be a good place to start for many.

Hum, so even a 7.1 processor (assuming it can be upgraded to Atmos) could provide a 5.1.2 Atmos experience.

..interesting.

I’d forget upgrades (other than the new 2014 Onks I mentioned - and even that hasn’t been confirmed yet AFAIK) - but yes, 5.1 + 2 is an official Atmos spec. In fact there are currently only two - the other being 5.1 +4.  Denon are saying that Atmos cannot be enabled in an Atmos unit unless it detects at least two 'top' speakers.

[emocustomer]

The 'height' speakers mentioned in that graphic I posted are for running PLIIz, Neo:X and DSX and are not supposed to be used, in those positions, for Atmos. Atmos for the home requires two or four 'top' speakers mounted on the ceiling as also shown in the diagram.

[Andrew Robinson]

In my humble opinion, Dolby Atmos is being "rushed" to market partially because a) Dolby is trying to cash in on the "heat" stemming from Atmos in commercial theaters and b) because it wants to beat DTS to market with a new solution to sell. The manufacturers are hip to jump aboard, because, well, why not. The AV receiver/processor market has needed something new to sell for about two full years now, and Atmos is as good as any. (No I don't consider 4K/UHD something new for AV receivers/processors as 4K is not really specific to those products but rather a feature they either can accommodate or not.)If I had to hazard a guess, I would imagine Atmos to go through several revisions in the coming months to years before it becomes all that it currently is at the commercial level -if it's possible at all. In the meantime, I fully expect to be inundated with products that are "Atmos Approved" or "Atmos Ready" etc. etc. Just my 2 cents.

[jmilton]

Chuckienut only watches foreign movies with English sub-titles.

 Will Atmos really enhance his movie experience?

[Jim]

Jun 25, 2014 9:19:19 GMT -5 emocustomer said:

The 'height' speakers mentioned in that graphic I posted are for running PLIIz, Neo:X and DSX and are not supposed to be used, in those positions, for Atmos. Atmos for the home requires two or four 'top' speakers mounted on the ceiling as also shown in the diagram.

I thought one of the "advantages" of Atmos was not REQUIRING specific configurations.

I found an example of the recommended speaker amplification for Atmos:

[Jim]

Jun 25, 2014 9:40:54 GMT -5 jmilton said:

Chuckienut only watches foreign movies with English sub-titles.

 Will Atmos really enhance his movie experience?

Hey, you never know. Perhaps Atmos can do wonders with mono..... I mean, it cures more ailments than Windex!

[monkumonku]

Jun 25, 2014 9:40:54 GMT -5 jmilton said:

Chuckienut only watches foreign movies with English sub-titles.

 Will Atmos really enhance his movie experience?

Yes, because all of those moans and other universal sounds will be more accurately placed within the room (although what some of them will be doing in the ceiling is too kinky to even imagine). Also, the subtitles, if he bothers to read them, will be more accurately placed on the screen irrespective of what kind of TV or OSD he has.

[jdskycaster]

As with any new technology aimed at enhancing the HT experience only a very small percentage of enthusiast's will become early adopters. I never bit on the height and wide speaker concept and now with this coming will just wait and hear what it can do as well. I am lucky to know a couple of early adopters for nearly every tech hitting the HT scene. This allows me the luxury of an evaluation outside of the typical "sales" scenario where I can experience it for myself and make an informed decision. I will reserve all judgement until that time.

I tend to get more excited about enhancements in sound vs. picture when it comes to HT. For me, I think sound impacts the overall movie experience to a much larger degree than a few extra lines of resolution or a few extra pixels on the screen. The sound impacts both what you hear and feel and is what draws you into what is taking place on the screen. Incredible sound can take a visual cue and easily create a deep emotional response. Something that is very hard to do with video alone. Case in point for me is just recently upgrading my FP to 1080p. Seven generations of improvements to the hardware made it a stratospheric leap in performance which in turn made the cash outlay completely insignificant. On the other hand I doubt I have ever waited seven years to upgrade those aspects of my system directly related to sound reproduction.

JD