Atmos and DTS:X

[snakeeyes]

Ya I wasn’t thinking Atmos at all when I got the AVR, but I’m going for it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Ya I wasn’t thinking Atmos at all when I got the AVR, but I’m going for it.

Might as well.

Everyone else is.

It doesn’t hurt (as long as it is physically feasible to install the ceiling speakers).

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

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.

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.

Most people I know don’t have dedicated HT rooms for sure.

Most people I know don’t even know what DTS-HD MA or TrueHD is, much less ATMOS or DTS:X.

And when I see homes with dedicated HT rooms, the HT rooms are usually upstairs and are usually 14 x 18 with 8’ ceilings with no attic space for in-ceiling speakers.

As far as DTS vs Dolby, I think the Dolby marketing team got really smart.

With the first war (DTS vs Dolby), I think DTS kicked a$$.

With the second war (DTS-HD MA vs TrueHD), I think DTS really kicked a$$.

But with the third war (DTS:X vs ATMOS), I think Dolby really kicked a$$, at least so far.

I suppose there is alway time in the future for DTS:X to catch up and exceed ATMOS, but not yet as of today.

Since most people at HOME aren’t willing to install ceiling speakers, perhaps DTS:X may eventually win. Will see.

 

[snakeeyes]

I’m really happy with Dolby TrueHD as well as DTS HD MA. I’d score them about even in quality which is awesome. I’m excited to cut into my ceiling of my dedicated HT room to find out whether I’m going to like DD Atmos better than DTS-X. I have been holding back from ordering the RSL 34e (my original plan) because I’m hearing that all 9 speakers (5.1.4) need to match and I plan to upgrade the others so I don’t want to screw that up. LOL.

 

[Auditor55]

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.

The Dolby Atmos diagram isn't archaic, its their current, optimal recommendation for speaker placement. I think you kind of attest to it yourself as you wrote " IMO, dts’s claims are dubious and I just don’t believe the playback experience can be as good as real overhead speakers" . That's probably true for Dolby Atmos since their approach is to place all height information, above the bed, in the ceiling right above the listener, as the above diagram shows. As I have mentioned before, looking at the diagram, for someone seated on the sofa in a 5.1.4 system, the top fronts are really useless if no one is seating there. Why would I need sound firing straight down with no one sitting there? Dolby system isn't flexible at all, it's either up-firing or in ceiling.

I'm kind of skeptical about DTS's claim as well because it would be too good to be true. However, if it is true, in my opinion and from a practical application viewpoint, it would be the better system. It should be the preferred system for immersive audio in the home. Agnostic is a good thing because, even if your were to set up a Dolby Atmos system, Following their strict recommendation for speaker placement, that system would still work with DTS-X. Unlike Dolby and Auro-3D, there isn't a recommended speaker location for DTS-X outside of the bed. I've been looking online for a DTS-X white paper to read and haven't been able to find one.

 

[Auditor55]

Most people I know don’t have dedicated HT rooms for sure.

Most people I know don’t even know what DTS-HD MA or TrueHD is, much less ATMOS or DTS:X.

And when I see homes with dedicated HT rooms, the HT rooms are usually upstairs and are usually 14 x 18 with 8’ ceilings with no attic space for in-ceiling speakers.

As far as DTS vs Dolby, I think the Dolby marketing team got really smart.

With the first war (DTS vs Dolby), I think DTS kicked a$$.

With the second war (DTS-HD MA vs TrueHD), I think DTS really kicked a$$.

But with the third war (DTS:X vs ATMOS), I think Dolby really kicked a$$, at least so far.

I suppose there is alway time in the future for DTS:X to catch up and exceed ATMOS, but not yet as of today.

Since most people at HOME aren’t willing to install ceiling speakers, perhaps DTS:X may eventually win. Will see.

I agree, Dolby Atmos is winning. DTS-X was last to come to the immersive audio party. However, I don't think its over yet. Content providers have decided to make Dolby Atmos the defacto standard for UHD content. The UHD hardware and software market is still very early in the game. DTS has time to catch up. If DTS-X claim of being agnostic is really true, that could be significant. I even read that DTS-X could be used with Dolby Atmos enabled speakers.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

The Dolby Atmos diagram isn't archaic, its their current, optimal recommendation for speaker placement. I think you kind of attest to it yourself as you wrote " IMO, dts’s claims are dubious and I just don’t believe the playback experience can be as good as real overhead speakers" . That's probably true for Dolby Atmos since their approach is to place all height information, above the bed, in the ceiling right above the listener, as the above diagram shows. As I have mentioned before, looking at the diagram, for someone seated on the sofa in a 5.1.4 system, the top fronts are really useless if no one is seating there. Why would I need sound firing straight down with no one sitting there? Dolby system isn't flexible at all, it's either up-firing or in ceiling.

I'm kind of skeptical about DTS's claim as well because it would be too good to be true. However, if it is true, in my opinion and from a practical application viewpoint, it would be the better system. It should be the preferred system for immersive audio in the home. Agnostic is a good thing because, even if your were to set up a Dolby Atmos system, Following their strict recommendation for speaker placement, that system would still work with DTS-X. Unlike Dolby and Auro-3D, there isn't a recommended speaker location for DTS-X outside of the bed. I've been looking online for a DTS-X white paper to read and haven't been able to find one.

The reason I said it was archaic is because compared to the much more detailed installation guide, it is. https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
That simple image is just to give a basic idea of the Atmos layout, and I don’t believe anyone could make seriously calculated installations based off of it.

As I said, the reason for the height speakers in front of the LP, is NOT for a person to sit directly under them. It’s to move 3d sounds through the room. The sound isn’t simply “firing straight down”. Dolby specs 90deg dispersion for a reason. You know how when listening to just a simple pair of speakers, and sounds move back and forth, and how it can sound like a singer is standing in the center of the room? Or how a phantom center channel is created? That’s how atmos works. Yes, there is the height layer, and the base layer. But, they’re not mutually exclusive. The same phantom imaging you can get with 2ch(and in some good 5/7.1 mixes) is what happens in atmos, but on a much bigger scale.
That’s one reason I don’t believe dts’s claims. IMO, there needs to be speakers in the room(away from the walls) to “bridge” between speakers and create the object placement in the room. Like I said, I could be wrong about that, but until I have a proper demo I will go with my gut.

 

[snakeeyes]

I believe the better Atmos ceiling speakers are usually the ones with aimable tweeters as well.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I believe the better Atmos ceiling speakers are usually the ones with aimable tweeters as well.

Personally I’ve found aimable tweeters to be of little use, and I think have the potential to sound worse by way of phase and baffle step issues. I’ve never used REW to measure aimable tweeters an any of their variations though.

 

[Andrein]

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.

Interesting, I posted on the same issue a couple days earlier in another thread. I also not sure why software and hardware is not clearly separated in AVR case. Something like AVR-as-a-service would have the all software parts including formats like DTS XX... This service would cost something per month but would give you all future updates for free or small fee. Then AVR would have just analog pieces, the knob and format independent parts. Service, Source and "AVR" would communicate through internet. This AVR would be be provided for free as a part of the service and returned back when you terminate the contract.
Just an idea. Instead of the service it can actually be some program running on your computer.

This could work, right? We could in theory implement this collectively between AH members. Surely we have required skills among us in both software and hardware departments)))

 

[Auditor55]

The reason I said it was archaic is because compared to the much more detailed installation guide, it is. https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
That simple image is just to give a basic idea of the Atmos layout, and I don’t believe anyone could make seriously calculated installations based off of it.

As I said, the reason for the height speakers in front of the LP, is NOT for a person to sit directly under them. It’s to move 3d sounds through the room. The sound isn’t simply “firing straight down”. Dolby specs 90deg dispersion for a reason. You know how when listening to just a simple pair of speakers, and sounds move back and forth, and how it can sound like a singer is standing in the center of the room? Or how a phantom center channel is created? That’s how atmos works. Yes, there is the height layer, and the base layer. But, they’re not mutually exclusive. The same phantom imaging you can get with 2ch(and in some good 5/7.1 mixes) is what happens in atmos, but on a much bigger scale.
That’s one reason I don’t believe dts’s claims. IMO, there needs to be speakers in the room(away from the walls) to “bridge” between speakers and create the object placement in the room. Like I said, I could be wrong about that, but until I have a proper demo I will go with my gut.

The linked that you attached pretty much confirmed some of my points about home Dolby Atmos. It is true, that there are only, according to Dolby, two placements for Atmos. Overhead, in ceiling/on ceilings or up-firing.

The reason I said it was archaic is because compared to the much more detailed installation guide, it is. https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
That simple image is just to give a basic idea of the Atmos layout, and I don’t believe anyone could make seriously calculated installations based off of it.

As I said, the reason for the height speakers in front of the LP, is NOT for a person to sit directly under them. It’s to move 3d sounds through the room. The sound isn’t simply “firing straight down”. Dolby specs 90deg dispersion for a reason. You know how when listening to just a simple pair of speakers, and sounds move back and forth, and how it can sound like a singer is standing in the center of the room? Or how a phantom center channel is created? That’s how atmos works. Yes, there is the height layer, and the base layer. But, they’re not mutually exclusive. The same phantom imaging you can get with 2ch(and in some good 5/7.1 mixes) is what happens in atmos, but on a much bigger scale.
That’s one reason I don’t believe dts’s claims. IMO, there needs to be speakers in the room(away from the walls) to “bridge” between speakers and create the object placement in the room. Like I said, I could be wrong about that, but until I have a proper demo I will go with my gut.

I think the attached link confirmed some of points I made about the Dolby Atmos home. It is very difficult to implement in the home, which means very few can follow the guidelines. There are really only two options, overhead, in ceiling/on ceilings or up-firing modules. The latter, from many A/V experts, is really problematic.

If someone is going to set-up an immersive audio system, they need to forget the other two codecs, DTS-X and Auro-3D because those systems aren't really compatible with the Dolby Atmos guidelines.

 

[KenM10759]

I like that the NAD T758 AV receiver I'd bought in late 2015 is capable of upgrading the hardware to be compliant with Dolby Atmos and Dirac Live. It'll cost me about half what a new NAD T758v3 costs that already has it, but the fact that I've had a good performing, easy to use AVR for almost 3 years without it being obsoleted is good.

NAD has told us that they are "working on" implementing DTS-X, no mention of Auro-3D. If and when they release DTS-X firmware updates is a guess, but they seem committed to providing it when they get negotiations and testing completed.