The Dolby Atmos Home Theater Paradox

[yepimonfire]

Agree on the quality aspect. I used an Onkyo 805 back in the day at work and that sucker was 7ch and weighed close to 60 lbs. My 809 weighs 47 with the same number of channels. My new denon 4300h is something like 37 with two extra channels. They are skimping on the PSU for sure.

From what I’ve seen, Onkyo is the only brand that manages to achieve similar multichannel power output as their 2ch output, even the budget TX NR 646, rated at 110wpc 2ch, managed 90wpc all channels driven. Yamaha and denon seem to perform the worst, with some receivers struggling to achieve 40wpc with multiple channels driven.

The TX NR 757 is relatively affordable and carries THX select certification, which requires a certain level of current to be achieved through all channels, and it is likely to bench well. Unfortunately, with onkyo you’re stuck with the steaming pile of dog doodoo Accueq.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Auditor55]

What kind of support is Atmos getting from streaming services? I don't think Atmos is worth the upgrade without support from streaming services because optical disc is seriously on the way out. Having said that, streaming audio doesn't sound as good sound on disc.

 

[yepimonfire]

What kind of support is Atmos getting from streaming services? I don't think Atmos is worth the upgrade without support from streaming services because optical disc is seriously on the way out. Having said that, streaming audio doesn't sound as good sound on disc.

I really don’t think optical discs are going anywhere, just like CDs and even vinyl is still released. Hell, for some strange reason, DVD is still selling quite well.

Contrary to popular belief, lossless audio such as DTS HD MA and Dolby TrueHD do not offer any benefit over high bitrate Dolby Digital or DD+. I have done several ABX tests with both and have found that above 448kbps for Dolby Digital and 384kbps for Dolby Digital plus I cannot distinguish the two, and I have young ears and perfect hearing.

If you want the highest quality streaming experience, VUDU has the best picture and sound quality hands down. I cannot see nor hear any artifacts whatsoever on both HDX and UHD. VUDU also offers atmos on its UHD titles, and 7.1 on several other titles. Netflix has started rolling out atmos support starting with Xbox, more are soon to follow.

It’s also worth mentioning that atmos is worth the upgrade even if you never have atmos encoded content. Both Dolby Surround and DTS Neural: X offer a massive, realistic improvement to standard 5.1/7.1 and even stereo. It’s nothing like the old Prologic II decoders, these are highly advanced algorithms, Dolby Surround processes each channel pair independently, splitting it up into the frequency domain and then steering the individual sounds into each channel with nearly discrete separation. Neural: X utilizes am advanced spatial remapping algorithm that provides pinpoint movement across the DTS X space, and it does it so well that there are many movies I could have sworn we’re encoded in 3D audio.

During doctor strange when strange is push into the astral plane for the first time, the voices come from everywhere in the room. During Thor, the scene where Thor try’s to reclaim his hammer, the thunder and lighting come from directly overhead, when Oden comes down from the sky at yodenheim the descent pans from overhead to floor level.

You do not need atmos or dts x encoded content to gain benefits from atmos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nathan_h]

I hear what you are saying. I too find myself resorting to streaming more than I would have thought I would -- and if the new Apple TV supports UHD 4k WCG HDR and object-oriented sound (like ATMOS), I'll be streaming even more stuff in the future.

Vudu and Netflix have ATMOS content (though Netflix is very limited at the moment). As more services offer more UHD content we are likely to see more ATMOS content as well.

Note that even if content is not encoded for ATMOS, using the upmixing can have a surprisingly subtle but good enhancement to the sound field.

That said, I still rent UHD disks and even Blu-rays because I can see and hear an improvement with the high bit rate content on these physical media, so why not get the best?

It's great to have choices.

What kind of support is Atmos getting from streaming services? I don't think Atmos is worth the upgrade without support from streaming services because optical disc is seriously on the way out. Having said that, streaming audio doesn't sound as good sound on disc.

 

[Foxrox]

Since it was brought up here, the new Apple TV is out now and does have 4K and HDR capabilities, but no Atmos. Looks like the all around best and most affordable option right now for all things 4K, HDR, and Atmos is Xbox One S or soon Xbox One X. And that's coming from a lifelong PlayStation owner. An Oppo at twice the price would be superior in some ways, but the new ones don't stream. Anyone know a better option?

 

[RichB]

Since it was brought up here, the new Apple TV is out now and does have 4K and HDR capabilities, but no Atmos. Looks like the all around best and most affordable option right now for all things 4K, HDR, and Atmos is Xbox One S or soon Xbox One X. And that's coming from a lifelong PlayStation owner. An Oppo at twice the price would be superior in some ways, but the new ones don't stream. Anyone know a better option?

I read that No ATMOS as well. The AT4 could output the DD core or LPCM from DD+. All that is needed on the AT4 is to pass the DD+ bitstream unmolested.

The only barrier standing in the way is "Apple knows best" which can be impenetrable.

- Rich

 

[Foxrox]

I wondered about that. Old BD players can easily handle Atmos because they can just pass bitstream to an Atmos capable AVR. Does the same work with streaming? If not, why?

 

[RichB]

I wondered about that. Old BD players can easily handle Atmos because they can just pass bitstream to an Atmos capable AVR. Does the same work with streaming? If not, why?

Old BD players should be able to pass ATMOS via bitstreaming. However, new ATMOS titles can rely heavily on seamless branching that causes some older players to stutter.

For streaming device, all that is required is that they pass the bitstream: DD+ or DTHD.

- Rich

 

[Auditor55]

I will say that, at least 98% of what Gene Desalla wrote and talked about 2 years ago, on the subject of Dolby Atmos, still stands true today.

 

[panteragstk]

Since it was brought up here, the new Apple TV is out now and does have 4K and HDR capabilities, but no Atmos. Looks like the all around best and most affordable option right now for all things 4K, HDR, and Atmos is Xbox One S or soon Xbox One X. And that's coming from a lifelong PlayStation owner. An Oppo at twice the price would be superior in some ways, but the new ones don't stream. Anyone know a better option?

Nvidia Shield TV will stream Atmos no problem.

 

[yepimonfire]

I will say that, at least 98% of what Gene Desalla wrote and talked about 2 years ago, on the subject of Dolby Atmos, still stands true today.

How so? I think an atmos setup is a whole lot more feasible than a 7.1 setup, and it adds more to the experience than rear channels. Upfiring speakers mostly suck, but in ceiling speakers are only one of many options. Speakers can be mounted to a ceiling, or high on the front/back/side wall. Speakers like the prime elevation are perfect for this. 90% of decent receivers already have 7 channels, so why not use them? 9 channel, 11 channel, or greater is obviously not going to be the norm. PLIIz kinda sucked, so it’s no wonder not many people went out of their way to implement it.

Atmos doesn’t even require atmos/dts x content. Dolby surround and Neural: X work incredibly well, and are worth the upgrade by themselves. How many people attach surrounds to the wall with mounting hardware? It’s no more difficult to screw a pair into the ceiling and put some bookshelf speakers up there.

Even with 2ch music, Dolby surround extracts surround and height information that is incredibly realistic sounding. Try some decent classical or acoustic recordings with it, anybody who has heard a live symphony orchestra in a well designed venue will immediately notice that the height dimension finally edges eerily close to being there.

Two dimensional sound sucks in comparison, it’s almost as big of a difference as stereo is to mono. Anybody who has experienced a proper atmos setup, even if only using Dolby surround or neural x, will immediately realize just how limited 5.1 & 7.1 without height channels is.

I don’t think atmos has crippled receiver power ratings, receiver amp sections have been going down the toilet long before that. if the current trend continues, we may find ourselves having to use external amps regardless. Even a good portion of flagship receivers perform miserably when multiple channels are driven. Yamaha and some denons are the worst offenders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gene]

How so? I think an atmos setup is a whole lot more feasible than a 7.1 setup, and it adds more to the experience than rear channels. Upfiring speakers mostly suck, but in ceiling speakers are only one of many options. Speakers can be mounted to a ceiling, or high on the front/back/side wall. Speakers like the prime elevation are perfect for this. 90% of decent receivers already have 7 channels, so why not use them? 9 channel, 11 channel, or greater is obviously not going to be the norm. PLIIz kinda sucked, so it’s no wonder not many people went out of their way to implement it.

Atmos doesn’t even require atmos/dts x content. Dolby surround and Neural: X work incredibly well, and are worth the upgrade by themselves. How many people attach surrounds to the wall with mounting hardware? It’s no more difficult to screw a pair into the ceiling and put some bookshelf speakers up there.

Even with 2ch music, Dolby surround extracts surround and height information that is incredibly realistic sounding. Try some decent classical or acoustic recordings with it, anybody who has heard a live symphony orchestra in a well designed venue will immediately notice that the height dimension finally edges eerily close to being there.

Two dimensional sound sucks in comparison, it’s almost as big of a difference as stereo is to mono. Anybody who has experienced a proper atmos setup, even if only using Dolby surround or neural x, will immediately realize just how limited 5.1 & 7.1 without height channels is.

I don’t think atmos has crippled receiver power ratings, receiver amp sections have been going down the toilet long before that. if the current trend continues, we may find ourselves having to use external amps regardless. Even a good portion of flagship receivers perform miserably when multiple channels are driven. Yamaha and some denons are the worst offenders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for your input. In speaking with the major receiver manufacturers and some big loudspeaker companys, only about 5-10% (optomistic) of installs include height channels. 5.1 still rules most installations. I do believe inclusion of Atmos/DTS:X is a big part of the decline in amplifier quality in AV receivers today, along with all of the latest streaming tech. Adding all of these features and keeping the same price points, the only thing to cut is the expensive stuff like transformer size, heatsink area, etc.

That said, I'm working on an article about how the FTC has failed this industry and there is good reason why which I will talk about therein.

I'm an advocate for Atmos (done correctly). NOT in a $800 HTIB with little wizzer cone upfiring drivers. It's just stupid and dillutes something that can and should be great!

 

[yepimonfire]

@gene I’m mostly referring to those who would otherwise do 7.1. Not to mention somebody who would do 7.1 but don’t have room for it could instead opt for 5.1.2, which is why I say it’s easier to sell someone on atmos than 7.1. A majority of receivers except for the bottom of the barrel nowadays are 7.2 anyways. I wonder, how much does it cost to implement atmos by itself? I agree on the stupid waste of budget on features, like streaming, lousy 4K upscalers that aren’t needed, etc, but I would say that atmos is as much a “feature” as Dolby and DTS decoding capability.

The article on the FTC failing us sounds good. I wonder why they haven’t gotten involved with speaker manufacturers as well. I think the FTC 2ch power rating is all but useless for multichannel receivers. Sure, the ACD test (as was pointed out in another article) isn’t a good replacement either, but a two channel rating tells you very little about performance with multichannel content. For example, a receiver rated 100w 2ch @8ohms should theoretically supply ~28 Vrms at 3.5A (7A total), but with lousy power supplies, lack of enough current become a real problem, what if the 7A is at the edge of its capabilities? If you split that up between 5 channels, you get 1.5A, or a lousy 18w. Is that 100w 2ch with plenty of current to spare or is it nearing the limits of the power supply? Now that would be a useful spec to have.

I have one of those crappy Lepai amps from parts express, it allows you to use a broad range of power supplies, between 12-19v. I had two 19v DC supplies laying around, a small one rated at 2A, and the one used to power my gaming laptop, rated at 7A, just to see what would happen if I switched between the two, I rigged it up to the small one and turned the volume up to gross clipping using a 30hz sine wave on an old passive onkyo HTiB sub (which I wasn’t worried about blowing), then swapped the power supply without touching the volume control, surprise surprise, no more clipping. Why can’t amplifiers be rated at an rms voltage with a maximum continuous current available for the amplifier?That’d tell you exactly how much power an amp is capable of supplying across all channels.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shadyJ]

It's a hell of a political climate in which to write an article on regulatory failure. For the present political powers, regulatory failure is the goal, not some kind of 'defeat'.

 

[gdsk39a]

I am ready to jump into Dolby Atmos. The setup I am looking at is the Dolby Laboratories one classified as 9.1.2 Atmos, where there are 2 front wide speakers in the setup and 2 overhead. I am unsure as to how the 2 wide speakers are setup in a Denon 11.2 Atmos receiver as I believe only 2 sets of Height Speaker outputs are provided. In Dolby's 9.1.2 setup will the 2 front wide speakers be the height 1 set. I do not want to go 7.1.4 as I can't afford in ceiling installations of 2 pair of speakers.

Any ideas?

 

[2channel lover]

I am ready to jump into Dolby Atmos. The setup I am looking at is the Dolby Laboratories one classified as 9.1.2 Atmos, where there are 2 front wide speakers in the setup and 2 overhead. I am unsure as to how the 2 wide speakers are setup in a Denon 11.2 Atmos receiver as I believe only 2 sets of Height Speaker outputs are provided. In Dolby's 9.1.2 setup will the 2 front wide speakers be the height 1 set. I do not want to go 7.1.4 as I can't afford in ceiling installations of 2 pair of speakers.

Any ideas?

It sounds like the price to install ceiling atmos speakers is prohibitive because the speakers themselves don't have to be price prohibitive. I paid $250 for 4 in ceiling speakers. My HT space has a attic space above so it was a fairly easy DIY install....the setup is 5.2.4...sounds great. I've never heard a system with front heights to know what it's like.

 

[Auditor55]

I am ready to jump into Dolby Atmos. The setup I am looking at is the Dolby Laboratories one classified as 9.1.2 Atmos, where there are 2 front wide speakers in the setup and 2 overhead. I am unsure as to how the 2 wide speakers are setup in a Denon 11.2 Atmos receiver as I believe only 2 sets of Height Speaker outputs are provided. In Dolby's 9.1.2 setup will the 2 front wide speakers be the height 1 set. I do not want to go 7.1.4 as I can't afford in ceiling installations of 2 pair of speakers.

Any ideas?

Ceiling speakers, in my opinion, is a compromise. That's a problem with implementing a Dolby Atmos system in the home, forced to use in ceiling speakers.

 

[2channel lover]

Ceiling speakers, in my opinion, is a compromise. That's a problem with implementing a Dolby Atmos system in the home, forced to use in ceiling speakers.

Before I even knew what Dolby Atmos was...I sat in a demo for two 7.2.4 systems...one was Klipsch and the other was Paradigm. The Paradigm had in ceiling speakers...and the Klipsch had their upshoot Atmos speakers that sit atop another speaker.

I'll admit these were not apple to apple systems, but the rooms were very similar and the same 4k atmos movie.

reflective vs direct sound...both were effective...the Paradigm system was better with the in ceiling speakers imo... the rain hitting the tin roof in one of the scenes from John Wick atmos flick was more convincing with the in ceiling speakers.

 

[panteragstk]

Ceiling speakers, in my opinion, is a compromise. That's a problem with implementing a Dolby Atmos system in the home, forced to use in ceiling speakers.

How else would you get speakers above you? (Keep in mind I actually have my top four mounted to the ceiling. Not optimal)

 

[panteragstk]

I am ready to jump into Dolby Atmos. The setup I am looking at is the Dolby Laboratories one classified as 9.1.2 Atmos, where there are 2 front wide speakers in the setup and 2 overhead. I am unsure as to how the 2 wide speakers are setup in a Denon 11.2 Atmos receiver as I believe only 2 sets of Height Speaker outputs are provided. In Dolby's 9.1.2 setup will the 2 front wide speakers be the height 1 set. I do not want to go 7.1.4 as I can't afford in ceiling installations of 2 pair of speakers.

Any ideas?

Not very many, if any, manufacturers have implemented the width channel capability of Atmos. I think the Denon 7002 receiver can, but I'm not 100% on that.