The Dolby Atmos, DTS-X, and Auro-3D Discussion Thread

[Defcon]

I was very skeptical of ATMOS for a very long time. I mean how could some ceiling speakers improve the sound that much?

But then you hear the many overhead effects (imaging, panning, etc.) and you realize that these effects could only be accomplished with ATMOS.

And then the icing on the cake was DSU/DTSNX and how these could take 2Ch materials and make them sound so dang great.

DSU/DTSNX put ProLogic-II and all other matrix-decoding software to shame. And people who don't own ATMOS AVR's don't know that.

People won't know what all of us on this thread are talking about unless they experience it for themselves.

ATMOS and DSU are awesome and absolutely NIGHT and DAY from everything else before.

A few questions for you -

1. With only a 5.1 config, will DSU sound any better than any of the current matrix processing moders (PL II music/movies, DTS Neo6, all the custom modes by Yamaha etc) ? AFAIK DSU doesn't even have adjustable params and I definitely can hear a big difference between PL II music and movies.

2. Going from 2.0 -> PL II is adding 3 speakers and almost every movie has a discrete 5.1 track and you have sound from all around in the 2d plane. Adding 4 more overhead speakers for Atmos, you will only get overhead when the scene calls for it - which is much much much less common. Its obvious - when you go about your day, how many times are sounds coming from above? Very few times, most of it is in front/back/sides etc. And what about sounds from *below* you? That would be true 360 coverage which of course isnt present.

I've read plenty of reviews of Atmos movies from people with proper equipment and only in a very few cases is it said to be a huge difference. You never have guns firing or doors closing or trains coming from above you, like you do with surround sound. If its ambient effects like rain, why do we need point sources? How many movie scenes have a plane flying above?

I am in no way saying Atmos isn't good tech. The current implementation isn't good. And what happened to the 'object based' sound? It was supposed to reproduce the same soundfield regardless of number of speakers and not depend on SL/SR etc but guess what, thats exactly what it does.

 

[snakeeyes]

I definitely like DSU a lot better than Neo. I never liked Dolby Prologic 2 at all. I’ve got the Yamaha A2060 and am running 5.1. I’ll be installing 4 ceiling speakers soon.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I definitely like DSU a lot better than Neo. I never liked Dolby Prologic 2 at all. I’ve got the Yamaha A2060 and am running 5.1. I’ll be installing 4 ceiling speakers soon.

Did you mean neural(x)? Instead of neo?

 

[Defcon]

Did you mean neural(x)? Instead of neo?

DTS:Neural X is the successor to Neo6 like DSU is Dolby's successor to PLII. At least that's my understanding.

I have no doubt they work great if you have height speakers. Do they sound better with just 5.1?

 

[snakeeyes]

Did you mean neural(x)? Instead of neo?

I thought he was asking about Neo.

Neural is also better than Neo but i really like DSU the best in 5.1 at least. I’m sure when I install overhead speakers, my thoughts could change again.

 

[Danzilla31]

A few questions for you -

1. With only a 5.1 config, will DSU sound any better than any of the current matrix processing moders (PL II music/movies, DTS Neo6, all the custom modes by Yamaha etc) ? AFAIK DSU doesn't even have adjustable params and I definitely can hear a big difference between PL II music and movies.

2. Going from 2.0 -> PL II is adding 3 speakers and almost every movie has a discrete 5.1 track and you have sound from all around in the 2d plane. Adding 4 more overhead speakers for Atmos, you will only get overhead when the scene calls for it - which is much much much less common. Its obvious - when you go about your day, how many times are sounds coming from above? Very few times, most of it is in front/back/sides etc. And what about sounds from *below* you? That would be true 360 coverage which of course isnt present.

I've read plenty of reviews of Atmos movies from people with proper equipment and only in a very few cases is it said to be a huge difference. You never have guns firing or doors closing or trains coming from above you, like you do with surround sound. If its ambient effects like rain, why do we need point sources? How many movie scenes have a plane flying above?

I am in no way saying Atmos isn't good tech. The current implementation isn't good. And what happened to the 'object based' sound? It was supposed to reproduce the same soundfield regardless of number of speakers and not depend on SL/SR etc but guess what, thats exactly what it does.

I think we can all agree the current tech isn't where it should be but I think it's safe to say it will get better. It always has every time new formats are introduced. People get better and better at working with it. That happens in a lot of different fields.

Some of your observations have me curious? You keep mentioning articles you've read about people with atmos equipment. But have you listened to a setup yourself?

Are you curious about applying Atmos and are looking at the pro's and con's. Or just giving us some good viewpoints for discussion?

I'm enjoying the dialogue just curious is all you do have some good views and I think a lot of us agree with you. Atmos isn't where it could be. But it's already impressed enough of us that have demoed it that those of us that like it are willing to invest in it till the implementation catches up to the tech.

 

[Danzilla31]

I thought he was asking about Neo.

Neural is also better than Neo but i really like DSU the best in 5.1 at least. I’m sure when I install overhead speakers, my thoughts could change again.

Hey bro how far along are you with those overhead speakers?

 

[snakeeyes]

Hey bro how far along are you with those overhead speakers?

Work has been really crazy. Should clear up after my next deadline though so I can take a day off. Really jealous you got yours going.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

DTS:Neural X is the successor to Neo6 like DSU is Dolby's successor to PLII. At least that's my understanding.

I have no doubt they work great if you have height speakers. Do they sound better with just 5.1?

Yes those are the successors. He said he likes dsu more than neo, but they are not the same type of upmixer and are not available together in new AVR’s. Neo6 is available in older PLIIx AVR’s while dsu is available in new ones. Since he hasn’t installed his C34e’s I was confused on what exile meant.

I thought he was asking about Neo.

Neural is also better than Neo but i really like DSU the best in 5.1 at least. I’m sure when I install overhead speakers, my thoughts could change again.

Wondering how dsu works without height speakers? Since there’s nowhere to upmixing to I mean.

 

[Danzilla31]

Work has been really crazy. Should clear up after my next deadline though so I can take a day off. Really jealous you got yours going.

It's a good jealousy the kind that inspires you to install your in ceilings Lol

 

[Defcon]

I think we can all agree the current tech isn't where it should be but I think it's safe to say it will get better. It always has every time new formats are introduced. People get better and better at working with it. That happens in a lot of different fields.

Some of your observations have me curious? You keep mentioning articles you've read about people with atmos equipment. But have you listened to a setup yourself?

Are you curious about applying Atmos and are looking at the pro's and con's. Or just giving us some good viewpoints for discussion?

I'm enjoying the dialogue just curious is all you do have some good views and I think a lot of us agree with you. Atmos isn't where it could be. But it's already impressed enough of us that have demoed it that those of us that like it are willing to invest in it till the implementation catches up to the tech.

I have not had the pleasure of being in a dedicated HT with Atmos, no. I have seen the same movie in fancy theaters with ~50 speakers (the ones where they light up all the speakers as you walk in, and they are all over the walls/ceilings),some have the seat shakers too, vs same movie in a cheaper theater without overhead, and I didn't notice a dramatic difference.

I live in an apartment and have 5.1 and I am just looking at how I can upgrade. I have 2 extra bookshelf speakers, which I will use either in 7.1 or I can try to angle them towards ceiling and who knows, I'm definitely not buying those special (i.e. overpriced) upfiring modules. My receiver upgrade is going to happen soon so I will be able to try out DSU too.

Atmos isn't new, its what, >5 years old now. Thats ages for a tech to mature, its not at the 'working out kinks' stage. Receivers using it are on the 3rd/4th gen. Its hard to see how the situation will get better.

I guess I would like to see some way to make the benefits of object based sound formats available to more people. I absolutely don't think the laws of physics won't allow that without putting speakers in the ceiling. I've read many reports of the magic Trinnov/Dirac Live and other advanced sound processors can create, and why can't similar algorithms be used with current configs and bring better sound to everyone.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

A few questions for you -

1. With only a 5.1 config, will DSU sound any better than any of the current matrix processing moders (PL II music/movies, DTS Neo6, all the custom modes by Yamaha etc) ? AFAIK DSU doesn't even have adjustable params and I definitely can hear a big difference between PL II music and movies.

2. Going from 2.0 -> PL II is adding 3 speakers and almost every movie has a discrete 5.1 track and you have sound from all around in the 2d plane. Adding 4 more overhead speakers for Atmos, you will only get overhead when the scene calls for it - which is much much much less common. Its obvious - when you go about your day, how many times are sounds coming from above? Very few times, most of it is in front/back/sides etc. And what about sounds from *below* you? That would be true 360 coverage which of course isnt present.

I've read plenty of reviews of Atmos movies from people with proper equipment and only in a very few cases is it said to be a huge difference. You never have guns firing or doors closing or trains coming from above you, like you do with surround sound. If its ambient effects like rain, why do we need point sources? How many movie scenes have a plane flying above?

I am in no way saying Atmos isn't good tech. The current implementation isn't good. And what happened to the 'object based' sound? It was supposed to reproduce the same soundfield regardless of number of speakers and not depend on SL/SR etc but guess what, thats exactly what it does.

1) not sure what dsu would do without height speakers to use/phantom image with. The reason you hear such a difference between PLIIx movie/music is there designed to do different things from each other depending on content.(movie or music) Ever try plii music when watching tv? It’s just a weird wall of sound.

2) not true. Atmos isn’t only about overhead sounds. It’s also about phantom imaging into the room. 3d sound.
If you have train sounds above you in your system, it’s definitely set up wrong! Lots of movies with planes and choppers overhead.

 

[Danzilla31]

I have not had the pleasure of being in a dedicated HT with Atmos, no. I have seen the same movie in fancy theaters with ~50 speakers (the ones where they light up all the speakers as you walk in, and they are all over the walls/ceilings),some have the seat shakers too, vs same movie in a cheaper theater without overhead, and I didn't notice a dramatic difference.

I live in an apartment and have 5.1 and I am just looking at how I can upgrade. I have 2 extra bookshelf speakers, which I will use either in 7.1 or I can try to angle them towards ceiling and who knows, I'm definitely not buying those special (i.e. overpriced) upfiring modules. My receiver upgrade is going to happen soon so I will be able to try out DSU too.

Atmos isn't new, its what, >5 years old now. Thats ages for a tech to mature, its not at the 'working out kinks' stage. Receivers using it are on the 3rd/4th gen. Its hard to see how the situation will get better.

I guess I would like to see some way to make the benefits of object based sound formats available to more people. I absolutely don't think the laws of physics won't allow that without putting speakers in the ceiling. I've read many reports of the magic Trinnov/Dirac Live and other advanced sound processors can create, and why can't similar algorithms be used with current configs and bring better sound to everyone.

Have you thought about SVS's prime elevations. They're not crazy expensive. And they work great for heights and atmos speakers for people that can't go in ceilings. Plus SVS has that awesome return policy where you can trial them and return them for a full refund if you dont like them. Free shipping both ways. That way you could get the new reciever set everything up the way you would want. Try out the new formats if you don't like them well then just return the Primes and focus on your 7.1 only. From what I hear I've never tried them but there are a lot of reviews that talk about how good they are in place of in ceilings

 

[Defcon]

1) not sure what dsu would do without height speakers to use/phantom image with. The reason you hear such a difference between PLIIx movie/music is there designed to do different things from each other depending on content.(movie or music) Ever try plii music when watching tv? It’s just a weird wall of sound.

2) not true. Atmos isn’t only about overhead sounds. It’s also about phantom imaging into the room. 3d sound.
If you have train sounds above you in your system, it’s definitely set up wrong! Lots of movies with planes and choppers overhead.

1 - is what I actually like. e.g my receiver is set to use PLII movie for the video input, but if I'm watching a musical or music video or a good soundtrack segment I can switch to music mode. Why shouldn't there be different modes for music? Movies are designed to make dialogs and affects cleaerer, not music. If DSU lacks these modes then isn't that a downgrade in every way.

So DSU offers nothing for those with just 5.1 and in fact may be worse due to the 'one effect fits all' thinking. That's what I thought.

2 - how is phantom imaging different from what we had before? Receivers have had 'phantom center/surround/height' modes for decades in which they use DSP to replicate speakers. Atmos was supposed to be object based in that the actual number/location of speakers when playing back would make no difference and the Atmos processor would accomodate it - but that actually is not done.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I have not had the pleasure of being in a dedicated HT with Atmos, no. I have seen the same movie in fancy theaters with ~50 speakers (the ones where they light up all the speakers as you walk in, and they are all over the walls/ceilings),some have the seat shakers too, vs same movie in a cheaper theater without overhead, and I didn't notice a dramatic difference.

I live in an apartment and have 5.1 and I am just looking at how I can upgrade. I have 2 extra bookshelf speakers, which I will use either in 7.1 or I can try to angle them towards ceiling and who knows, I'm definitely not buying those special (i.e. overpriced) upfiring modules. My receiver upgrade is going to happen soon so I will be able to try out DSU too.

Atmos isn't new, its what, >5 years old now. Thats ages for a tech to mature, its not at the 'working out kinks' stage. Receivers using it are on the 3rd/4th gen. Its hard to see how the situation will get better.

I guess I would like to see some way to make the benefits of object based sound formats available to more people. I absolutely don't think the laws of physics won't allow that without putting speakers in the ceiling. I've read many reports of the magic Trinnov/Dirac Live and other advanced sound processors can create, and why can't similar algorithms be used with current configs and bring better sound to everyone.

I don’t know why you think Atmos is a failure. Fwiw, plenty of people have had better Atmos results at home than commercial theaters. Other than size and scale, I’ve been disappointed with commercial theaters for a long time, and definitely prefer to stay at home. @AcuDefTechGuy is a convert for sure and iirc has not had great enjoyment of commercial Atmos. He can tell you as someone who was against Atmos for a long time, he’s had his mind changed greatly.

Edit: would definitely recommend against bouncy speakers as getting the height and angle is very difficult.

 

[Danzilla31]

I have not had the pleasure of being in a dedicated HT with Atmos, no. I have seen the same movie in fancy theaters with ~50 speakers (the ones where they light up all the speakers as you walk in, and they are all over the walls/ceilings),some have the seat shakers too, vs same movie in a cheaper theater without overhead, and I didn't notice a dramatic difference.

I live in an apartment and have 5.1 and I am just looking at how I can upgrade. I have 2 extra bookshelf speakers, which I will use either in 7.1 or I can try to angle them towards ceiling and who knows, I'm definitely not buying those special (i.e. overpriced) upfiring modules. My receiver upgrade is going to happen soon so I will be able to try out DSU too.

Atmos isn't new, its what, >5 years old now. Thats ages for a tech to mature, its not at the 'working out kinks' stage. Receivers using it are on the 3rd/4th gen. Its hard to see how the situation will get better.

I guess I would like to see some way to make the benefits of object based sound formats available to more people. I absolutely don't think the laws of physics won't allow that without putting speakers in the ceiling. I've read many reports of the magic Trinnov/Dirac Live and other advanced sound processors can create, and why can't similar algorithms be used with current configs and bring better sound to everyone.

Also movie theaters sadly these days aren't always the best place to debut anything. Hell my setup blows mostvtheaters I go to away. And I'm just getting started there's some fellas on here that have systems that hell I would pay a pretty good fee just to come over and listen to there pad over just about any movie theater any day of the week Lol

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Have you thought about SVS's prime elevations. They're not crazy expensive. And they work great for heights and atmos speakers for people that can't go in ceilings. Plus SVS has that awesome return policy where you can trial them and return them for a full refund if you dont like them. Free shipping both ways. That way you could get the new reciever set everything up the way you would want. Try out the new formats if you don't like them well then just return the Primes and focus on your 7.1 only. From what I hear I've never tried them but there are a lot of reviews that talk about how good they are in place of in ceilings

Good advice. And the outlet shop has great deals. Especially around Black Friday.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

1 - is what I actually like. e.g my receiver is set to use PLII movie for the video input, but if I'm watching a musical or music video or a good soundtrack segment I can switch to music mode. Why shouldn't there be different modes for music? Movies are designed to make dialogs and affects cleaerer, not music. If DSU lacks these modes then isn't that a downgrade in every way.

So DSU offers nothing for those with just 5.1 and in fact may be worse due to the 'one effect fits all' thinking. That's what I thought.

2 - how is phantom imaging different from what we had before? Receivers have had 'phantom center/surround/height' modes for decades in which they use DSP to replicate speakers. Atmos was supposed to be object based in that the actual number/location of speakers when playing back would make no difference and the Atmos processor would accomodate it - but that actually is not done.

1) there is a dsu music mode.
2) now phantom imaging occurs between the height layer and the bed layer not just the bed plane. This puts sounds into the room much more than other formats could.
Why do you say Atmos isn’t object based? It still is but the difference between commercial and home Atmos is the number of objects supported. Iirc, dts were the ones saying they were speaker agnostic, and you could put speakers anywhere and it would work. I don’t believe them.

 

[Defcon]

w.r.t movie theaters being not the best places to demo sound, I think that may be true in general but not of the premium chains like new AMC's etc. Keep in mind I'm talking about apartment dwellers/normal living room HT and not dedicated $$$ HT's.

I don't think Atmos is a failure at all, they certainly are in every product and no doubt made lots of people upgrade. I view it as a failure in the impact its made to HT in general. Will it every be mentioned in the same breadth as vhs->dvd, tape->mp3, 2.0->5.1, dvd->bluray->4k, hell no, and I have no doubt tons of research and $$ has gone into the tech.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

w.r.t movie theaters being not the best places to demo sound, I think that may be true in general but not of the premium chains like new AMC's etc. Keep in mind I'm talking about apartment dwellers/normal living room HT and not dedicated $$$ HT's.

I don't think Atmos is a failure at all, they certainly are in every product and no doubt made lots of people upgrade. I view it as a failure in the impact its made to HT in general. Will it every be mentioned in the same breadth as vhs->dvd, tape->mp3, 2.0->5.1, dvd->bluray->4k, hell no, and I have no doubt tons of research and $$ has gone into the tech.

Fwiw I, like @danzilla have 7.3.4 in my Lr. Definitely not dedicated lol.