The Dolby Atmos Home Theater Paradox

[AcuDefTechGuy]

If I need bigger sound due to bigger space, I would just get bigger speakers.

 

[GranteedEV]

I don't even have high-end surrounds or a center channel yet, nor enough subwoofers. The last thing I need is more quantity.

 

[gene]

I certainly don't intend to go beyond 7.1. Under domestic conditions I think 7.1 is max. I think people would be far better off with better speakers than more speakers.

I don't subscribe to the view that surround speakers can be far less capable than the rest. I fail to see how most surround speakers in use can really bring any benefit to the table. I would never consider adding a lousy ceiling speaker for instance.

Quite honestly I think you need a dedicated room for any surround system. My guess is that most members would be better off with good 2.1 or 3.1 rather than 5.1 or 7.1. For instance in our Eagan home I would never consider the space suitable for more than 3.1.

I don't think height channels are necessary in the home. With my system I get lots of height information, even with good two channel recordings.

I have a significant amount of program which pushes all speakers hard, and I can't begin to imagine the effect if all speakers were not powerful capable speakers.

I get excellent 360 degree localization and depth, as well as seamless overhead trajectories.

I think I have to vote War Horse as having the best movie sound track I know. The orchestra perspective is magnificent. A lot of the movie is outdoors and it really feels like it. There is huge depth to the sound stage all round and movement front to back and side to side continuous. So I'm convinced we can do a first class job with the channels we have. So my advice for anyone putting together a dedicated space, is to concentrate on really good speakers and amplification all round. Forget puny speakers anywhere in the system.

On another note, I find it strange that the 5.1 arrangement puts the surrounds at the side instead of the back. I say this as the European SACD layout is left and right front, front center and left and right rears. I think that is a much better 5.1 speaker layout as long as it was mixed that way. That is the way I play my European SACDs. In the Aho 12th symphony, there is circular Laplander drumming in the first movement. The drumming does go seamlessly round the room. Also there are multiple brass choirs and two either side where the surround speakers of a 5.1 system would be. The front and rear speakers of my rig can produce the phantom image where the silent surrounds are. You would not know they were silent. So the 5.1 layout will always remain a mystery to me. Frankly, I think it was a misguided choice, and we could have done perfectly well with European mix SACD speaker layout.

Agreed with everything you said. Let's get 5.1 right before moving on to XX.1. Most homes I visit have very poor speaker placement, bad or no calibration, and very dynamically limited speakers.

I also prefer monopole surrounds towards the back of the room in a 5.1 layout but I favor music over movies in my listening preferences.

 

[jliedeka]

Going beyond 5.1 is impractical for me due to having a small living room. Actually I have a small house and really couldn't build a dedicated theater room if I wanted to. If I ever move, I'd consider a dedicated space with more speakers.

In Atmos' favor, or the DTS equivalent, I like the idea of an encoding scheme that can be adapted to any speaker layout. I'm a software developer and this seems more like making thing configurable at run time rather than hard-coding the mix.

Jim

 

[kstich]

I think the article and the other posters here have missed the point. Dolby atmos is not a 5.1, 7.1, 11.x type solution. It is a system to map the soundtrack to any number of speakers, no matter where they are placed in the room.

3.1 systems would be no problem and you wouldn't miss anything. Less than optimal 5.1 locations, doesn't matter. Think of it. Any number of speakers in any physical location could be mapped with enough processing power.

Saying things like "we need to get 5.1 right" or "3.1 is all I need" shows a lack of understanding of what this technology is and how it works.

Most of us have seen/heard the demo where a bee buzzes around in a 5.1 setup. That demo is comprised of 5 channels of discrete audio that had the sound of the bee pre-faded between fixed channel locations to give the illusion of movement. In a Dolby atmos system, there would be a single track of audio of the bee flying and a corresponding location vector. As the vector (bee) moves the sound of the bee then gets mapped dynamically to your speakers no matter where they are located and the sense of movement can be much more real.

 

[shadyJ]

Agreed with everything you said. Let's get 5.1 right before moving on to XX.1. Most homes I visit have very poor speaker placement, bad or no calibration, and very dynamically limited speakers.

I also prefer monopole surrounds towards the back of the room in a 5.1 layout but I favor music over movies in my listening preferences.

+1 this, however I don't think surround sound manufacturers should hold back just because there are so many poorly implemented 5 or 7.1 system. Let's be honest, not many people will ever take the time to properly setup their system, and that should not be a hindrance for those of us who do. If my understanding of Atmos is correct, it should help to compensate more for poorly placed surrounds than present setup schemes. Moreover, I think Atmos demands monopole surrounds, I don't think bipole or dipole or more diffuse speakers can be correctly calibrated with Atmos. The sooner that none-monopole surrounds die, the better.

 

[kstich]

Agreed with everything you said. Let's get 5.1 right before moving on to XX.1. Most homes I visit have very poor speaker placement, bad or no calibration, and very dynamically limited speakers.

I think this again misses the mark. The point of atmos is not more speakers, although more speakers are inherently supported. The last bullet point in the atmos features sums it up:

• Scales easily to any size theatre, with up to 64 independent speaker outputs

Any size theater is the key. In a way, atmos is the most advanced room correction system that is available. If set up correctly it would fully take into account the actual speaker locations. As mentioned in quote above "very poor speaker placement" is a reality in most rooms. This technology has eliminated the poor speaker placement concern because the speakers are mapped dynamically. Poor speaker placement is only a concern if the surround format mixes the channels into specific pre-defined locations.

I admit this would require a fair amount of configuration to get right. In my opinion this would be the only downside of this technology. I would have no problem doing it but the typical consumer might. Products will likely feature generic 5.1, 7.1, ... setups simply because most people would select this for simplicity, not knowing they could get the full benefits of the technology with more accurate speaker coordinates.

 

[DannyA]

I have 5.1 but I've scrapped surround. I switched the surrounds to presence. I run 7 channel stereo but I'm contemplating going to 2.1 so no I won't be adding any more speakers. I would like to hear a 11.1 system though.

 

[walter duque]

Right now I'm running 9. 11 would be a stretch, but hey, I can just keep adding subwoofers until the place falls down.

The way I hear it, I am amazed that your place is still standing. Even my wife said to me "One day this house is coming down, this kid is crazier then you". Them tiles are not coming loose from just walking on them.

 

[MrHeadGear]

i'm using 7.1 for my room. But for my office, i'm only using 2.1 speakers + one noise cancelling headphones

 

[greatdavide]

Atmos doesn't use channels in it's encoding

Let's get 5.1 right before moving on to XX.1. Most homes I visit have very poor speaker placement, bad or no calibration, and very dynamically limited speakers.

Since Atmos is based on spatial representation (3d position with a volume) of the sounds instead of just being channel driven won't it help somewhat with all of that except speaker quality? Atmos requires speaker calibration which would include speaker location in angle space which none of the cal programs currently do since it requires multiple mics at the same time. This will give better spatial effects even with just 5 channels since the panning will compensate for poorly placed speakers to some extent and will cause more people to run cal in the first place. It doesn't fix everything but it is an improvement and as long as it's not huge $$$ to incorporate isn't this just a plus for the people who want it? I agree if you have to replace both your BD and your receiver it probably will flop but still it doesn't hurt the industry so why the cynicism? Why not highlight the positive?

I also keep seeing discreet channels mentioned, my understanding of Atmos is that it doesn't rely on channels at all, it treats sound in movies the same way video games treat objects. they have a location in space and the system calculates in real time knowing the position of your speakers how to recreate that sound as accurately as possible from your speakers in your space. To do this it has to know the orientation and location of all of your speakers.

 

[gene]

Since Atmos is based on spatial representation (3d position with a volume) of the sounds instead of just being channel driven won't it help somewhat with all of that except speaker quality? Atmos requires speaker calibration which would include speaker location in angle space which none of the cal programs currently do since it requires multiple mics at the same time. This will give better spatial effects even with just 5 channels since the panning will compensate for poorly placed speakers to some extent and will cause more people to run cal in the first place. It doesn't fix everything but it is an improvement and as long as it's not huge $$$ to incorporate isn't this just a plus for the people who want it? I agree if you have to replace both your BD and your receiver it probably will flop but still it doesn't hurt the industry so why the cynicism? Why not highlight the positive?

I also keep seeing discreet channels mentioned, my understanding of Atmos is that it doesn't rely on channels at all, it treats sound in movies the same way video games treat objects. they have a location in space and the system calculates in real time knowing the position of your speakers how to recreate that sound as accurately as possible from your speakers in your space. To do this it has to know the orientation and location of all of your speakers.

You make good points but from what I've heard. If more channels weren't the focus than why do Atmos theaters have 64 channels and why is Dolby pushing to add height channels to an already crammed 5.1/7.1 setup?

the plans for Atmos do recommend at least 7 and up to 11 channels in a home theater. It may be scalable to 5.1 but not sure how much of an advantage it will really be.

Cynicism is my nature Same with 3D in home theater and DVD-A/SACD analog only implementation of years ago that pretty much went nowhere.

I'm looking forward to be proven wrong about Atmos however but I won't hold my breath for a compatible source device and source material

 

[AndrewJ]

Not exactly on topic, but where did that speaker stack photo come from?
Though about as blurry as my natural eyesight these days, I do recognize some of those speakers, namely Pioneer (both woofer dustcaps pushed in, one is missing the vent!), Wharfedale, Celestion and KEF.

Andrew

 

[gene]

Not exactly on topic, but where did that speaker stack photo come from?
Though about as blurry as my natural eyesight these days, I do recognize some of those speakers, namely Pioneer (both woofer dustcaps pushed in, one is missing the vent!), Wharfedale, Celestion and KEF.

Andrew

Hi Andrew. I think I dug it off Google or our Facebook page. LOL.

Can you offer some Atmos insights? Is it true manufacturers are looking at producing an Atmos Soundbar and/or a stackable Atmos speaker to go on top of the main channels? Would love some feedback here.

 

[Stanton]

I'm intrigued by Dolby Atmos in a LARGE format environment (like a movie theater), but I agree that the 9 & 11 channel systems may get very little traction in a home theater environment. At some point you will overwhelm the room (and your ears), not to mention your pocketbook. It will be interesting to see if/when they start including "native" 9.1/11.1 mixes on home movie releases.

 

[tom10i]

I don't live in a theater

We have had a 7.1 system for several years. That said, the vast majority of blu rays/streaming HD is 5.1 or less. Yes, I can place Lord of the Rings in my blu ray player to demonstrate how fine my system sounds, but what does that constitute, maybe half a percent of our use? 7.1 was an audible improvement over stereo and 5.1, but I don't live in a theater, we use our family room for TV and music. What on earth would I do with speakers aimed every which way, I can hardly fit the ones I already have in the room. Heck, if you've been to the theater lately, unless it's IMAX, the sound I have at home is far better than at the movies, not all base and pumped up surround that sounds fake; also I don't have to put up with noisy crowds of people who talk during movies or have their cell phones beeping when they should be off.

That said, 7.1 with proper placement, good quality speakers and a large HD screen is all I need; 9.1/11.1 is another 3-D; ultra HD and in so far as I'm concerned, it's a non-starter.

 

[shadyJ]

The main benefit of Atmos isn't in more speakers, but how those speakers are used. As it is now, all surround channel programming is set and will playback the same sound no matter where your speakers are placed. With Atmos, the sound will come from where its supposed to, and the speakers will deliver the best approximation of the sound's origin- from anywhere in the entire sound stage. This is great news for those who are forced to use less than optimal speaker placement for surrounds. Actually, its great news for everyone. Think of the fluid, dynamic sound environment of a computer game with an open three dimensional world, like Call of Duty or Battlefield. Now imagine that kind of sound mix within a system that is aware of each speaker's location. This opens up a huge range of possibilities. All previous film soundtracks are flat mixes in comparison, because they can not change to accommodate the system in place; they are 'stuck' in a manner of speaking. With respect to traditional sound mixes, Atmos changes the 'mix' to suite the speaker system. This can have tremendous benefits even for simple two channel systems. It's only incidental that a system like this can handle as many speakers as you can throw at it, but that isn't its main advantage.

 

[tpobrienjr]

Diminishing returns?

Wow. What would it cost to upgrade from, say 5.1, to one of these configurations? What would it cost to upgrade a 9.2 or whatever, keeping the same configuration? Now I'm sure Dolby is going way beyond my ability to perceive sound differences. I'll let them play in the theater and keep my very nice Aperion 5.1 system, thank you.

 

[shadyJ]

You don't get it, it doesn't have as much to do with your speakers. The only change that would need to be made is to switch to monopole surrounds if you have dipoles/bipoles surrounds. Atmos is a new way of creating sound mixes, it is not adding a bunch more speakers.

 

[kstich]

Thank you shadyJ for being a voice of reason.