Atmos and DTS:X

[Jas]

I know the YouTube channel has dealt a lot with these formats, so I don't really want to rehash old stuff. I recently contacted Cambridge Audio about these formats and whether they will be releasing a firmware update to allow their products to support it. Below is the discussion I have been having with Cambridge Audio. I would like to hear your comments, am I wrong, are Cambridge wrong, is there a lot of miss-information on both sides? Am I over simplifying my case?

"Hi Jason,

We will not be doing a firmware update for the CXR-120 or 651BD to support Dolby Atmos or DTS X as this would need hardware changes to happen within the units.

Dolby Atmos and DTS X support is something that we will be looking at for our next generation of AV receivers. I unfortunately cannot give any more information about future products at this time.
Kind Regards,
Joe
Technical Support Agent
Cambridge Audio"

"Dolby Atmos and DTS:X do not require hardware upgrades, they only need a firmware update. Since both the 651BD and CXR120 support Dolby TrueHD/Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD Master Audio they can utilize Atmos and DTS:X. The vast majority of other brands have release firmware updates to allow older hardware to play these new formats. I can’t afford to buy new gear just to access new formats that my current hardware can easily run, if Cambridge Audio would support a firmware update like other vendors. I’m lucky to have what I’ve got now. As much as I like Cambridge Audio products, if you are not going to offer the same sort of support as other vendors, then I’ll not be buying Cambridge Audio again. Extremely disappointed with Cambridge Audio on this.

Regards, Jason."

"Hi Jason,

I have looked into this further for you and I believe I may have given you some of the wrong information. My apologies.

You will be able to use your 651BD to play back an Atmos sound track to an Av Receiver which supports this format.

However, the CXR120 information is correct and it would require a hardware upgrade for it to support Dolby Atmos or DTS X. The CXR is only a seven channel receiver and these formats require eleven channels to operate effectively.

Other players in the market may well have received a firmware update to be compatible with Dolby Atmos or DTS X, but unfortunately this is not the case and is not possible with our CXR range.

Sorry again to be the bearer of bad news and very sorry to hear you'll not be buying Cambridge Audio again. I'm sure you can understand this is not a case of us being unwilling or not wanting to support these formats, it is simply that these units are not capable of supporting them.

As I said before, Dolby Atmos and DTS X support is something that we will be looking at for our next generation of AV receivers.

Please let me know if you have any further questions Jason.
Kind Regards,
Joe
Technical Support Agent
Cambridge Audio"

"I’m not sure about Atmos, but DTS:X is scalable to any speaker configuration, it does not require hardware upgrades like upward firing speakers like Atmos does. Neither of these new formats are new codec’s, they are in essence plugins to the existing platforms which both the CXR120 and 651BD support. This is how other brands have been able to provide firmware updates for older hardware to be able to run Atmos and X. Yes, I agree that the CXR120 or 200 would not be able to take advantage of and run either of these formats to their full potential on a 5.1 or 7.1 setup, but they can run either format and provide some improved performance, especially considering that the CXR does support front height speakers. DTS themselves even specifically say no hardware upgrades are required to run their format. Atmos may require hardware upgrades, at least in the speaker side of things, but it operates in a different way. But since the CXR does have front height speaker support I would imagine Atmos would also run OK on a CXR. I’m only running Mordaunt Short Carnival range speakers. They’re only entry level gear, but they sound nice. I would much rather upgrade my speakers to go with the nice Cambridge receiver that is worth more than all my speakers put together, and them some. I love Cambridge Audio products, I wish I could afford to expand and upgrade my products that I do have. However, I can not, and I would says most people can’t. If you’re going to tell your customers that have spent large amounts of money on your products, that they will have to buy new stuff to get the benefit of what other brands are offering for free, you might as well call yourselves iBridge, because that’s the sort of crap that Apple push, and I don’t own any Apple products, and never will.

Regards, Jason."

 

[Auditor55]

I know the YouTube channel has dealt a lot with these formats, so I don't really want to rehash old stuff. I recently contacted Cambridge Audio about these formats and whether they will be releasing a firmware update to allow their products to support it. Below is the discussion I have been having with Cambridge Audio. I would like to hear your comments, am I wrong, are Cambridge wrong, is there a lot of miss-information on both sides? Am I over simplifying my case?

"Hi Jason,

We will not be doing a firmware update for the CXR-120 or 651BD to support Dolby Atmos or DTS X as this would need hardware changes to happen within the units.

Dolby Atmos and DTS X support is something that we will be looking at for our next generation of AV receivers. I unfortunately cannot give any more information about future products at this time.
Kind Regards,
Joe
Technical Support Agent
Cambridge Audio"

"Dolby Atmos and DTS:X do not require hardware upgrades, they only need a firmware update. Since both the 651BD and CXR120 support Dolby TrueHD/Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD Master Audio they can utilize Atmos and DTS:X. The vast majority of other brands have release firmware updates to allow older hardware to play these new formats. I can’t afford to buy new gear just to access new formats that my current hardware can easily run, if Cambridge Audio would support a firmware update like other vendors. I’m lucky to have what I’ve got now. As much as I like Cambridge Audio products, if you are not going to offer the same sort of support as other vendors, then I’ll not be buying Cambridge Audio again. Extremely disappointed with Cambridge Audio on this.

Regards, Jason."

"Hi Jason,

I have looked into this further for you and I believe I may have given you some of the wrong information. My apologies.

You will be able to use your 651BD to play back an Atmos sound track to an Av Receiver which supports this format.

However, the CXR120 information is correct and it would require a hardware upgrade for it to support Dolby Atmos or DTS X. The CXR is only a seven channel receiver and these formats require eleven channels to operate effectively.

Other players in the market may well have received a firmware update to be compatible with Dolby Atmos or DTS X, but unfortunately this is not the case and is not possible with our CXR range.

Sorry again to be the bearer of bad news and very sorry to hear you'll not be buying Cambridge Audio again. I'm sure you can understand this is not a case of us being unwilling or not wanting to support these formats, it is simply that these units are not capable of supporting them.

As I said before, Dolby Atmos and DTS X support is something that we will be looking at for our next generation of AV receivers.

Please let me know if you have any further questions Jason.
Kind Regards,
Joe
Technical Support Agent
Cambridge Audio"

"I’m not sure about Atmos, but DTS:X is scalable to any speaker configuration, it does not require hardware upgrades like upward firing speakers like Atmos does. Neither of these new formats are new codec’s, they are in essence plugins to the existing platforms which both the CXR120 and 651BD support. This is how other brands have been able to provide firmware updates for older hardware to be able to run Atmos and X. Yes, I agree that the CXR120 or 200 would not be able to take advantage of and run either of these formats to their full potential on a 5.1 or 7.1 setup, but they can run either format and provide some improved performance, especially considering that the CXR does support front height speakers. DTS themselves even specifically say no hardware upgrades are required to run their format. Atmos may require hardware upgrades, at least in the speaker side of things, but it operates in a different way. But since the CXR does have front height speaker support I would imagine Atmos would also run OK on a CXR. I’m only running Mordaunt Short Carnival range speakers. They’re only entry level gear, but they sound nice. I would much rather upgrade my speakers to go with the nice Cambridge receiver that is worth more than all my speakers put together, and them some. I love Cambridge Audio products, I wish I could afford to expand and upgrade my products that I do have. However, I can not, and I would says most people can’t. If you’re going to tell your customers that have spent large amounts of money on your products, that they will have to buy new stuff to get the benefit of what other brands are offering for free, you might as well call yourselves iBridge, because that’s the sort of crap that Apple push, and I don’t own any Apple products, and never will.

Regards, Jason."

I don't think Cambridge is wrong at all. They know their products and if they are telling you its not upgrade-able to Atmos and DTS-X then you probably should accept that they are correct. However, they are telling you that their future products will be Atmos and DTS-X capable.

Also, its not just Apple that plans obsolesce for us, its pretty much the entire consumer electronics industry. My Pioneer Elite SC-63 does Dolby True and DTS-MA, however, in order to have Atmos or DTS-X I have to buy a new receiver.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The only component I know of that allows upgrades to ATMOS is the Theta Digital Casablanca pre-pro. Most companies make people buy new components.

Regarding the number of channels, since most rooms are no bigger than 18x20x10, I think 5.1.2 is all most people need for ATMOS.

Some people have bigger rooms and 7.1.4 might be a good thing for them, but it’s not a that critical.

 

[Jas]

I don't think Cambridge is wrong at all. They know their products and if they are telling you its not upgrade-able to Atmos and DTS-X then you probably should accept that they are correct. However, they are telling you that their future products will be Atmos and DTS-X capable.

Also, its not just Apple that plans obsolesce for us, its pretty much the entire consumer electronics industry. My Pioneer Elite SC-63 does Dolby True and DTS-MA, however, in order to have Atmos or DTS-X I have to buy a new receiver.

What I don't get is other brands have release firmware updates to allow their older gear to use Atmos and DTS:X. DTS themselves state that no hardware upgrades are needed. From everything I've researched, as long as ones current gear supports DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD/Dolby Digital Plus they can run the new formats. I know Cambridge Audio's claim that one has to have an 11.1 system is wrong, because DTS:X scales, that was why DTS did what they did so that home users could use this format without big expensive setups. I can already run front height using Dobly Prologic IIz. DTS is literally a firmware package, it does not require a predetermined hardware setup in order to operate, it adapts to what it has available.

I don't want to fall into the trap of over hyping these new formats as some may have done, but it would be nice for the industry to allow access to this sort of performance on their gear without forcing customers to upgrade. Most people that have good gear that is not to old could easily run these formats. If people have to upgrade to access them, then they are truly just gimmicks, aren't they?

 

[Jas]

The only component I know of that allows upgrades to ATMOS is the Theta Digital Casablanca pre-pro. Most companies make people buy new components.

Regarding the number of channels, since most rooms are no bigger than 18x20x10, I think 5.1.2 is all most people need for ATMOS.

Some people have bigger rooms and 7.1.4 might be a good thing for them, but it’s not a that critical.

I'm only running a 5.1 setup. I would like to expand that to a 5.2.2 or 7.2, either with front height or some dipole speakers. For me, I am more interested in DTS:X because I could scale that to my setup. But I'd rather upgrade my speaker setup before the receiver. I've not even had the receiver for two years now. I had a Cambridge 551R, but it developed a fault, and the agent in New Zealand was unable to determine what was wrong. So the agent managed to get Cambridge to offer me a very good deal on the CXR120. I like the Cambridge gear, it is well built and perform excellently for what I do with it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I'm only running a 5.1 setup. I would like to expand that to a 5.2.2 or 7.2, either with front height or some dipole speakers. For me, I am more interested in DTS:X because I could scale that to my setup. But I'd rather upgrade my speaker setup before the receiver. I've not even had the receiver for two years now. I had a Cambridge 551R, but it developed a fault, and the agent in New Zealand was unable to determine what was wrong. So the agent managed to get Cambridge to offer me a very good deal on the CXR120. I like the Cambridge gear, it is well built and perform excellently for what I do with it.

It seems like AVR’s these days aren’t meant to be repaired; they’re meant to be thrown away and replaced.

 

[Auditor55]

What I don't get is other brands have release firmware updates to allow their older gear to use Atmos and DTS:X. DTS themselves state that no hardware upgrades are needed. From everything I've researched, as long as ones current gear supports DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD/Dolby Digital Plus they can run the new formats. I know Cambridge Audio's claim that one has to have an 11.1 system is wrong, because DTS:X scales, that was why DTS did what they did so that home users could use this format without big expensive setups. I can already run front height using Dobly Prologic IIz. DTS is literally a firmware package, it does not require a predetermined hardware setup in order to operate, it adapts to what it has available.

I don't want to fall into the trap of over hyping these new formats as some may have done, but it would be nice for the industry to allow access to this sort of performance on their gear without forcing customers to upgrade. Most people that have good gear that is not to old could easily run these formats. If people have to upgrade to access them, then they are truly just gimmicks, aren't they?

Those other brands were introducing Dolby Atmos equipped A/V receivers to the market while DTS was ramping up their object based audio codec. The manufacturers knew that, so they offered future DTS-X upgrades on some of the those early Atmos A/V receivers. They would have emblazoned on their front panel "DTS-X upgrade-able" and they usually cost some extra money for the upgrade. In other words, some of the those early Atmos receivers already had the hardware in place to upgrade to DTS-X. I remember when some early adopters were buying first generation Atmos receivers and when DTS-X announced, they were stuck because those receivers had no upgrade path to DTS-X, the could only do Atmos.

 

[Auditor55]

I'm only running a 5.1 setup. I would like to expand that to a 5.2.2 or 7.2, either with front height or some dipole speakers. For me, I am more interested in DTS:X because I could scale that to my setup. But I'd rather upgrade my speaker setup before the receiver. I've not even had the receiver for two years now. I had a Cambridge 551R, but it developed a fault, and the agent in New Zealand was unable to determine what was wrong. So the agent managed to get Cambridge to offer me a very good deal on the CXR120. I like the Cambridge gear, it is well built and perform excellently for what I do with it.

DTS-X does seem to be more flexible and on paper a better system. Dolby Atmos seems very restrictive in terms of speakers placement.
We have Dolby Atmos, DTS-X and Auro 3D, which Dolby Atmos is probably going to win this battle, if there's going be a winner. Dolby True 5.1/7.1 and DTS-MA will be the primary audio that most of us will hear while watching our movies. It will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Dolby Atmos, DTS-X and Auro 3D are ultra niche formats.

Dolby Atmos seems to becoming standard for UHD blu ray, very few UHD DTS-X blu ray titles.

 

[yepimonfire]

DTS-X does seem to be more flexible and on paper a better system. Dolby Atmos seems very restrictive in terms of speakers placement.
We have Dolby Atmos, DTS-X and Auro 3D, which Dolby Atmos is probably going to win this battle, if there's going be a winner. Dolby True 5.1/7.1 and DTS-MA will be the primary audio that most of us will hear while watching our movies. It will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Dolby Atmos, DTS-X and Auro 3D are ultra niche formats.

Dolby Atmos seems to becoming standard for UHD blu ray, very few UHD DTS-X blu ray titles.

Read my blog posts on DTS X, atmos is the superior format in every way, including scalability. DTS ☓ doesn't play nice with anything outside of a traditional front height/rear height system, the upmixer sucks, and absolutely all releases to date are 7.1.4 channel based encodes, not object based. DTS X is limited to around 9 objects with a 7.1.4 base, Atmos supports 118 objects, even on bluray and streaming. Heck, the whole mix and every track could be an object, and there's lots of mixes that function this way, even the music is mixed as objects and the orchestral score now has height along with the depth 5.1/7.1 brought it.

DTS HD-MA has already been mostly phased out as the standard release format, almost every new release that can benefit from more than 5.1 (ie everything but dialogue centric drama/romance movies) is now released in Atmos. To date there are about 300+ Blurays encoded in Atmos with almost every new release supporting it. DTS X is rarely used for multiple reasons. For one, Protools, which the vast majority of film mixers use, natively supports Atmos, secondly, studios are well aware that streaming is replacing physical media, while we can all agree that UHD BD looks better than 4k streaming, I can personally tell you from my own comparison it's not really that much better. Not only that, but digital movie sales are outpacing physical discs. DTS X cannot be streamed, Atmos can.

Atmos isn't the niche it once was, it's now a standard. Hell, even amazon and Netflix are jumping on board, and cheap soundbars offer it.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[Jas]

It seems like AVR’s these days aren’t meant to be repaired; they’re meant to be thrown away and replaced.

When it was working properly it was a solid performer. These things are so complicated now I could imagine it is far from easy tracing a fault. I had to send mine back 3 times before the fault showed up for them and they were unable to trace it or reproduce it at will.

 

[Jas]

Read my blog posts on DTS X, atmos is the superior format in every way, including scalability. DTS ☓ doesn't play nice with anything outside of a traditional front height/rear height system, the upmixer sucks, and absolutely all releases to date are 7.1.4 channel based encodes, not object based. DTS X is limited to around 9 objects with a 7.1.4 base, Atmos supports 118 objects, even on bluray and streaming. Heck, the whole mix and every track could be an object, and there's lots of mixes that function this way, even the music is mixed as objects and the orchestral score now has height along with the depth 5.1/7.1 brought it.

DTS HD-MA has already been mostly phased out as the standard release format, almost every new release that can benefit from more than 5.1 (ie everything but dialogue centric drama/romance movies) is now released in Atmos. To date there are about 300+ Blurays encoded in Atmos with almost every new release supporting it. DTS X is rarely used for multiple reasons. For one, Protools, which the vast majority of film mixers use, natively supports Atmos, secondly, studios are well aware that streaming is replacing physical media, while we can all agree that UHD BD looks better than 4k streaming, I can personally tell you from my own comparison it's not really that much better. Not only that, but digital movie sales are outpacing physical discs. DTS X cannot be streamed, Atmos can.

Atmos isn't the niche it once was, it's now a standard. Hell, even amazon and Netflix are jumping on board, and cheap soundbars offer it.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

Even Windows 10 supports Atmos now, go figure. I've not tried it on my head phones yet, but I will at some point.

And this brings up my point really, the hardware is just that - hardware. On my computer I can run any number of operating systems that I want. All I have to do is install it. Receivers and BD players are much the same, just in a more specialized role. Just as Windows for many years had DOS as its base, so now Atmos and DTS:X have their own base operating system. Both these formats are not new codec's, they are using existing firmware to operate. I could understand Cambridge Audio's point if they were brand new codec's, but they're not, they're plugin's to an existing format.

And Atmos is now on Windows 10 for me to use without ANY hardware upgrades.

 

[snakeeyes]

If they were truly going for a box that lasts 30 yrs then they would make you pay per month. The money needs to flow. The hdmi curse is our generation’s reward for pirating music.... LOL. . Ok get off my lawn.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

When it was working properly it was a solid performer. These things are so complicated now I could imagine it is far from easy tracing a fault. I had to send mine back 3 times before the fault showed up for them and they were unable to trace it or reproduce it at will.

Yeah, my Denon AVP-A1HDCI was sent in twice and they still couldn't figure it out.

Buy. Use. Replace. That's their cycle.

These machines are not designed well like the Theta, DataSAT, ATI, and Bryston machines in the USA.

 

[Auditor55]

Read my blog posts on DTS X, atmos is the superior format in every way, including scalability. DTS ☓ doesn't play nice with anything outside of a traditional front height/rear height system, the upmixer sucks, and absolutely all releases to date are 7.1.4 channel based encodes, not object based. DTS X is limited to around 9 objects with a 7.1.4 base, Atmos supports 118 objects, even on bluray and streaming. Heck, the whole mix and every track could be an object, and there's lots of mixes that function this way, even the music is mixed as objects and the orchestral score now has height along with the depth 5.1/7.1 brought it.

DTS HD-MA has already been mostly phased out as the standard release format, almost every new release that can benefit from more than 5.1 (ie everything but dialogue centric drama/romance movies) is now released in Atmos. To date there are about 300+ Blurays encoded in Atmos with almost every new release supporting it. DTS X is rarely used for multiple reasons. For one, Protools, which the vast majority of film mixers use, natively supports Atmos, secondly, studios are well aware that streaming is replacing physical media, while we can all agree that UHD BD looks better than 4k streaming, I can personally tell you from my own comparison it's not really that much better. Not only that, but digital movie sales are outpacing physical discs. DTS X cannot be streamed, Atmos can.

Atmos isn't the niche it once was, it's now a standard. Hell, even amazon and Netflix are jumping on board, and cheap soundbars offer it.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

DTS-MA is the standard on regular Blu Ray, so its not being phased out. I would agree, for UHD Blu ray, Dolby Atmos is at least the defacto standard. However, UHD Blu Ray represent a infinitesimal amount of the overall optical disc and regular Blu ray market. Also, I don't believe that UHD Blu Ray will become the predominate optical disc format. Optical will die before that ever happens. If studios want to make Dolby Atmos the defacto standard for UHD disc and allow DTS-X to exist on their regular Blu Ray disc, DTS-X will destroy Dolby Atmos on the market.
As far as which format is superior, I don't know. However, it just seems to me, for the home DTS-X is more consumer friendly, as DTS-X is more agnostic to speaker configuration. Dolby Atmos is in ceiling speakers or up-firing modules. That's it!! Whereas DTS-X can be more compatible with the various speaker placements of what you might in an Atmos or Auro 3D set up.
Atmos is definitely niche, Dolby knows that as well, that is why they came up with the up-firing modules concept because they know most home theater rooms can't accommodate ceiling speakers,(on ceiling or in ceiling) not to mention that most folks don't want to cut holes in their ceilings. The on ceiling or in ceiling approach is, for the most part, for those with dedicated HT rooms, which again represents the niche.

In the above Dolby recommended speakers placements, as you can the see, in the 5.1.4 systems, the four ceiling speakers are firing at straight down at the listener. In the picture above, if your room is similar to this, you have two top height speakers above sofa in the back and to height speakers up front on top where no one is sitting, that makes no sense to me unless you have another seat(s) there.

Also, I'm not that convinced that object based audio is necessarily superior to channel based, given what I have heard commercially from both systems.

 

[snakeeyes]

I have been very cautious in my search the past couple months and this may take a couple years to flesh out realistically for my home theater room after buying a Yamaha 2060 that can do 5.2.4 or 7.2.2.

I’m very curious about the SVS elevation speakers that mount on side wall next to the ceiling. Klipsch has a similar speaker option in RP series. Also curious about the RSL 34e in ceiling speakers. Kef in ceiling speakers have me curious too. Also Canton at A4L since discounted.

But if purchasing all 9 speakers I have to look at each one for each position and try to match up to the same series of the same brand ideally..

Also I want to play music on the same speakers so this gets expensive real quick.

I am curious of what the new RSL and Klipsch series will be like. Also very interested in doing a discounted 5.1.4 of Canton speakers at A4L and possibly a bookshelf for a center since they look like a great bargain. Even thought of what Atmos speakers could work with Philharmonic RAAL in 5.1, but tweeters would probably be problematic to match the ceiling speakers (guessing, not sure).

Lots of ideas but still on the fence. I think ultimately I figure out the front 3 then back 2 fall into place and may or may not go for Atmos until later. Maybe buy the SVS elevation and send them back if they clash and go for an in ceiling speaker if the effects are awesome. Then eventually a matching 2nd sub. Possibly an Outlaw 5000 or Monolith 3 or 5 amp also if necessary.

Like another poster mentioned, one piece at a time, like the Johnny Cash song. I don’t really have a budget but I like getting a good deal. I know my Yamaha 2060 and Rythmik LVX12 and 65 Samsung KS8000 and Sony X800 are keepers though.

 

[Auditor55]

I have been very cautious in my search the past couple months and this may take a couple years to flesh out realistically for my home theater room after buying a Yamaha 2060 that can do 5.2.4 or 7.2.2.

I’m very curious about the SVS elevation speakers that mount on side wall next to the ceiling. Klipsch has a similar speaker option in RP series. Also curious about the RSL 34e in ceiling speakers. Kef in ceiling speakers have me curious too. Also Canton at A4L since discounted.

But if purchasing all 9 speakers I have to look at each one for each position and try to match up to the same series of the same brand ideally..

Also I want to play music on the same speakers so this gets expensive real quick.

I am curious of what the new RSL and Klipsch series will be like. Also very interested in doing a discounted 5.1.4 of Canton speakers at A4L and possibly a bookshelf for a center since they look like a great bargain. Even thought of what Atmos speakers could work with Philharmonic RAAL in 5.1, but tweeters would probably be problematic to match the ceiling speakers (guessing, not sure).

Lots of ideas but still on the fence. I think ultimately I figure out the front 3 then back 2 fall into place and may or may not go for Atmos until later. Maybe buy the SVS elevation and send them back if they clash and go for an in ceiling speaker if the effects are awesome. Then eventually a matching 2nd sub. Possibly an Outlaw 5000 or Monolith 3 or 5 amp also if necessary.

Like another poster mentioned, one piece at a time, like the Johnny Cash song. I don’t really have a budget but I like getting a good deal. I know my Yamaha 2060 and Rythmik LVX12 and 65 Samsung KS8000 and Sony X800 are keepers though.

If you're going to hitch your wagon to the Dolby Atmos system its probably better to go with in ceiling as opposed to the SVS elevation approach, unless you have ceilings higher than 8 feet where you could use the SVS Elevations as on ceiling in a 5.1.4 system.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I had to send mine back 3 times before the fault showed up for them and they were unable to trace it or reproduce it at will.

That makes me feel slightly better. I had to send my Denon AVP-AVP-A1HDCI twice and they couldn't find out anything. Maybe I was supposed to send it in the 3rd time?

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

DTS-MA is the standard on regular Blu Ray, so its not being phased out. I would agree, for UHD Blu ray, Dolby Atmos is at least the defacto standard. However, UHD Blu Ray represent a infinitesimal amount of the overall optical disc and regular Blu ray market. Also, I don't believe that UHD Blu Ray will become the predominate optical disc format. Optical will die before that ever happens. If studios want to make Dolby Atmos the defacto standard for UHD disc and allow DTS-X to exist on their regular Blu Ray disc, DTS-X will destroy Dolby Atmos on the market.
As far as which format is superior, I don't know. However, it just seems to me, for the home DTS-X is more consumer friendly, as DTS-X is more agnostic to speaker configuration. Dolby Atmos is in ceiling speakers or up-firing modules. That's it!! Whereas DTS-X can be more compatible with the various speaker placements of what you might in an Atmos or Auro 3D set up.
Atmos is definitely niche, Dolby knows that as well, that is why they came up with the up-firing modules concept because they know most home theater rooms can't accommodate ceiling speakers,(on ceiling or in ceiling) not to mention that most folks don't want to cut holes in their ceilings. The on ceiling or in ceiling approach is, for the most part, for those with dedicated HT rooms, which again represents the niche.
View attachment 25394
In the above Dolby recommended speakers placements, as you can the see, in the 5.1.4 systems, the four ceiling speakers are firing at straight down at the listener. In the picture above, if your room is similar to this, you have two top height speakers above sofa in the back and to height speakers up front on top where no one is sitting, that makes no sense to me unless you have another seat(s) there.

Also, I'm not that convinced that object based audio is necessarily superior to channel based, given what I have heard commercially from both systems.

DTS-x MAY be more agnostic, but I personally don’t think that means superior, as most lowest common denominators are not. IMO, dts’s claims are dubious and I just don’t believe the playback experience can be as good as real overhead speakers. I think the overheads have to be IN the room(over the listening area vs up against the walls) so the phantom imaging between them and the bed layer can work properly. I haven’t heard an atmos system with prime elevation speakers, or speakers in those locations so I’m am speculating, but I don’t buy it. I have also done many experiments with speaker placement vs imaging and I still think in my conjecture that atmos is Superior.
Also, I agree about most people not going for on ceiling speakers, but IN ceiling for many applications is pretty popular and I think for many, it’s a good middle ground. Many people are desensitized to them. My wife didn’t even flinch when I said I was going to mount 4 rsl C34e’s in our living room.
As far as the Dolby diagram, I wouldn’t put much weight on that. It’s pretty archaic and just used to represent the most basic visual description.

The reason for the speakers being in front of/behind the LP where nobody is is to phantom image throughout the room. Not to create a singular point of sound for each listener.

 

[snakeeyes]

The reason for the speakers being in front of/behind the LP where nobody is is to phantom image throughout the room. Not to create a singular point of sound for each listener.[/QUOTE]

So in 5.1.4 do the sides surrounds need to create a singular point of sound, or would a bipole surround speaker be an issue at ear level for sides, or is a monopole the way to go for sides? I saw that YouTube with Gene that said to get rid of dipoles but unsure about bipoles with Atmos.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

The reason for the speakers being in front of/behind the LP where nobody is is to phantom image throughout the room. Not to create a singular point of sound for each listener.

So in 5.1.4 do the sides surrounds need to create a singular point of sound, or would a bipole surround speaker be an issue at ear level for sides, or is a monopole the way to go for sides? I saw that YouTube with Gene that said to get rid of dipoles but unsure about bipoles with Atmos.[/QUOTE]

Content will dictate the behavior of the surround speakers. My personal preference is for monopole speakers in general. I don’t like diffusive sound and my experience with bi/dipoles has been mostly NOT positive. Dolby also recommends monopoles in atmos installations. I do agree with them, however if a room is narrow-ish, bipoles can be ok for surrounds, as hotspotting can be a problem sitting only a couple feet away.
My friend has bipoles in a 5.2.4 setup and it’s pretty good. For myself though, I’d never use them. This is partially due to preconceived bias, and they just don’t meet my performance goals.
I saw you mentioned which way you might go. 7.1.2 or 5.1.4. Fwiw, faced with those options, I will recommend 5.1.4. The phantom imaging between the top rear/top front and surrounds, is much more enveloping than only having 2 height speakers. You’ll still need to have a little room behind the LP, but A)probably not as much(5’min for 7.x.x) and B)it will be more “surroundy “ lol.