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

[AcuDefTechGuy]

5.1 and 7.1 can't really handle multiple rows

5.1 can absolutely handle multiple rows if you have great dynamic speakers.

And I would rather have two RBH SI-6100/R (100-500W, 92dB/2.83V/m) for Ceiling speakers than 12 little ceiling speakers.

QUALITY over quantity.

So it depends on your speakers.

 

[TheoN]

I can't believe what I'm reading here in some cases...

Starship Troopers has "good" Atmos? In what alternate universe??? I heard very little from the overheads most of the movie on my 11.1.6 system (three rows of seats and I get around the 11-channel limit in DTS:X using multiple processors and AVRs). MI:Fallout is pure Atmos magic by comparison (I can only conclude something is massively wrong with Andy or his system). I was also pretty disappointed with The Fifth Element in that it didn't sound that much better than the original soundtrack (i.e. it's good, but overhead usage was minimal compared to what it COULD have been and not very loud at that). Both could have been a LOT better, IMO.

Gravity does not *correctly* pan dialog when they're on the screen! It "snaps" a LOT (voice will jump to to the right while Clooney is still at the center, for example right after he says they were going to get hit no matter what). Watch a Toy Story movie (with mere ES matrixed 6.1 sound) to see/hear a CORRECT panned dialog.... Panned dialog has NOTHING to do with Atmos anyway.... Gravity does have impressive Atmos effects, however (even better here in 3D video + Atmos courtesy a remux using MKVtoolinix and a Zidoo X9S as I've done with all my 150+ 3D movies that have immersive mixes available. I even have Auro-3D and Atmos mixes combined into one MKV file since a hard drive doesn't have the space limits of of a blu-ray). Speaking of which, I own 10 Auro-3D movies, ~125 Atmos movies and 25 DTS:X movies so far (and 7 of the 10 Auro-3D titles I have Atmos versions as well) so I have a few to compare

People haven't heard any good DTS:X titles? Really??? Crimson Peak had creepy sounds coming from every corner of the room and all over the ceiling here.... Better yet, virtually all the Harry Potter titles blow away most of the Atmos titles I've watched!!! Huge overhead sounds in both of those! Azkaban was particularly good. The various Jurassic Park movies (all are available in DTS:X) are also pretty good.

Someone dismissed Red Tails in Auro-3D? Do you even have a correctly set up Auro-3D system??? The overhead plane content in this movie is pretty much jaw dropping! (A plane even goes above and across the top of the screen left to right in at least one case). Blade Runner 2049.... Atmos is good but the Auro one stinks? They are both quite similar in Atmos and Auro-3D if you use the same layouts (I can expand Auro to use 6 overheads with an extracted top middle or use suuround heights only or surround heights + rear heights with a Monoprice switchbox. In other words, BOTH are good. Dark Tower in Auro-3D at the final battle is CRAZY with overhead sounds (It sounds like a river is flowing overhead across the ceiling). If Auro-3D sounds bad, there's something wrong with your system, IMO.

One of the absolute BEST Atmos soundtracks I've heard so far is the original Jumanji. Even a family member with bad hearing dropped her jaw with that one. The mosquitoes had people swatting above their heads here! I don't see it on anyone's list. Frankly, given Andy throwing a VERY GOOD Atmos soundtrack in the litter box (MI:Fallout), I wouldn't believe a word he says after that.

I have to agree that when it comes to discrete overhead effects Auro-3D with VOG reigns supreme.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I have to agree that when it comes to discrete overhead effects Auro-3D with VOG reigns supreme.

How many Auro3D blu-ray movies do you have compared to Atmos?

 

[VonMagnum]

5.1 can absolutely handle multiple rows if you have great dynamic speakers.

And I would rather have two RBH SI-6100/R (100-500W, 92dB/2.83V/m) for Ceiling speakers than 12 little ceiling speakers.

QUALITY over quantity.

So it depends on your speakers.

No, it actually doesn't. You missed the point entirely. Listening to a speaker 50 feet away is not what I was talking about AT ALL. Commercial theaters (even for 5.1 or old Pro Logic) have arrays of speakers (typically one per row or perhaps one per two or three rows) and they're typically much further away from the listeners to handle the angles than a typical home). This has nothing to do with the fact that Atmos moves objects through speakers like a real object flying around the room (see Atmos "Amaze" demo with the bird flying around all around the room which is awesome). You can only have side surrounds "to the side" of ONE location. Any more rows behind that location are going to have "surround" effects in front of them, not "around" them. That is why speakers add arrays of surround speakers even if they are outputting the same signal. This gives everyone the same experience. Atmos was designed to move sound around the room like a real object flying around the room so where you sit determines how soon/far the bird flies, etc. So even if you have 5.1, you still need more than 5.1 speakers or you don't have "surround" sound at some point.

With arrays, it only goes to ONE speaker and even if there are multiple rear speakers used, it does not move between basic front/back, which in a large theater is quite limited. It's just "there" all the sudden (imaging gets "bigger" instead of more precise). That's what makes Atmos such a large improvement. It allows objects to MOVE through space and even turn around mid-course, etc. Less speakers means less scaling to a point, but there's probably a minimum number needed to accurately move objects around a decent size room (i.e. 9.1.6 does better than 5.1.4 while 5.1.2 cannot even pan front/back on the ceiling). It's also why I pointed out that Atmos is more than ceiling effects. The fact that most people at home have 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 doesn't mean the format isn't capable of a LOT more with a better system and sounding night and day better than plain 2.0, 5.1 or even 7.1 with larger systems. NeuralX tries (and does a great job considering) to upmix to more immersive sound, but you still need adequate coverage. Yes, you can use one set of side surrounds for 5 rows if you want, but they better be loud and far away because otherwise you will have frequency response issues, etc. as you cannot place speakers close on the sides and expect all the rows to get the same sound (bipoles can help, though as they're designed to not send sound in just one on-axis direction).

And quality has NOTHING to do with it either. Two high-end speakers simply cannot do what 11+ speakers can do in terms of imaging. Sound quality is subjective. Imaging is not, really. However, my PSB speakers are rated +/- 1dB across most of their frequency range. I can still play at reference levels, if desired.

How many Auro3D blu-ray movies do you have compared to Atmos?

What happened to quality over quantity???

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

What happened to quality over quantity???

I mean can you even get any Auro3D blu-ray movies because I can't find any at Best Buy, Walmart, Amazon, etc.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

my PSB speakers are rated +/- 1dB across most of their frequency range. I can still play at reference levels, if desired.

Yes, I've listened to PSB speakers. And I never bought any of them.

There is a speaker for everyone, a system and setup for everyone, etc.

There are many debates and theories regarding what is "best" in terms of types and numbers speakers, processors, systems, setups, etc.

There are many debates regarding which Atmos/DTSX movies are most impressive.

There are debates regarding the definition of a great Atmos mix.

For me, if there are no overhead sound effects, then there is no need for Atmos/DTSX/Auro3D since the same soundtracks in DTS-HD MA and TrueHD already sound great. I would rather just use DSU or NeuralX to upmix to the ceiling speakers.

For example, if they remastered "The Dark Knight Rises" in DTSX and didn't mix any overhead sound effects, then I would rather watch the DTS-HD MA version and use NeuralX to upmix.

 

[Bookmark]

Just throwing my oar into this

I would say we should use caution with films that are pre or post 2013. This was the year the technology arrived and films which were specifically mixed, either for the cinema or home, in Atmos/Dts:X started to appear. Some films can easily make use of the tech and others not so much. Also it is a new methodology, so those in the industry were trying to find their feet and find the boundaries/limits. Prior to 2013, unless the original sample components are available and used for the restoration/upgrade of the soundtrack, then claiming it is Atmos/Dts:X like the Potters or the Matrix it is highly unlikely that this occurred. I have listened to both Potters and Matrix up mix to Dts Neural X and the results are very good. Would I notice if Atmos icon appeared or not, I am not sure I could.

6 years on they should have improved, and overall I think they have. That said what gets extracted by the up mixers for the normal, non Atmos/Dts:X films, seems to tie in remarkably closely with end results of the actual Atmos/Dts:X. This should be of some concern, not because the up mixers are doing a bad job, because they are not, but because the Atmos/Dts:X titles are not immediately identifiable as such. Ocean's 8 is for example in Atmos, but for the life of me I would never have known. It doesn't help that this was an ill conceived cash in of the original Clooney franchise, which itself is so front heavy most would not even noticed it is in surround.

The Atmos/Dts:X demos are the showcases, much like graphic demos, of the technology. However the Directors and Sound engineers/editors are perhaps far more reluctant just to simply add the overhead/panning effects because they could. I believe they would regard it, much like 3D films throwing endless objects out the middle frame so people can say "Oh that was good". You simply cannot do that for an hour or two without the audience becoming fatigued and perhaps exasperated. The important part is the story that is being told, how well the actors convey the emotions and dialog and because this, how well the audience is engaged and involved. I think Sully did a good job on the balance, however the numerous crash flashbacks did feel reminiscent of the Terminator 2 SE various colour filtered Judgement days and therefore somewhat unnecessary. For most films the centre is still the primary speaker and while dialog panning across the front 3 or transitioning toward the rear is a step, it can petty much be achieved even with the old Dolby surround. For example about 10-15 mins in on Star Trek Final Frontier 1989, mixed in Dolby Surround, later updated to Dolby 5.1 and then True HD the scene involves Kirk, Spock and McCoy quoting Melville. The trio of voices should mid left/centre, centre and mid right/centre. There should be no phasing or flanging and the dialog for all three and should be of an equal level. However in most films, and for the Star Trek mentioned, the majority of dialog is rooted to the centre, while this is not realistic it helps the audience focus. If the dialog endlessly panned around the room, tracking the characters locations in 3D space it would be a massive distraction. Crowd cheers, voice of god (internal monologues), creep voices from the rears are only just moments in a film, it cannot be the whole content.

Last night I watched Last Action Hero and there is a part early on where young Danny drifts off watching Laurence Olivier's Hamlet to Hamlet II, the sequel with Arnold. It is a very funny scene, however if the explosions and chaos of Arnie's was actually shoehorned into the original no one would have watched it. Contrast the Meg to the original Jaws, can you really imagine the bombastic nature of the first graphed onto the latter? I like both, but the Meg made the mistake of aiming for a PG13 rating. Jaws when it was first released was I think 18 or at least 15, now it's a PG shown in the afternoon, times change.

If the option is to obtain an Atmos/Dts:X then I would likely buy this as a preference, however some films simply do not merit the upgrades. I still buy a good deal of Dvds, I do not currently buy 4k UHD disc, I really just don't see the benefits even though I can easily handle all the formats except Auro3D. The Auro3D format is pretty much DOA the home, the content seems extremely limited, some Japanese and German releases. The actual benefit of VOG over Atmos/Dts:X is minimal and with the introduction of x.x.6 or greater it will diminish further. Auro3D may still hang around in the Cinemas for a few more years, but IMAX linking up with Denon/Marantz to create the IMAX mode is probably the final nail.

Just an opinion, feel free to disagree, YMMV

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

while dialog panning across the front 3 or transitioning toward the rear is a step, it can petty much be achieved even with the old Dolby surround.

I still remember being very impressive with "Desperado" (Antonio Banderas) in DD 5.1 during the scene after he sings the song and then his brother walks around the room clapping his hands. The panning went from speaker to speaker all around the room.

There are many other older DD and DTS movies that had impressive spacial 3D panning from front-to-back or side-to-side and overhead (jets flying overhead).

So 3D panning effects in general to me are old news. I've heard many. Been there, done it.

But Atmos's overhead sound effects are just different. I FELT in my bones like there was an actual spaceship hovering above my room in Matrix Reloaded and Dark Knight Rises. Not flying above my head like many times before, but hovering in one spot.

Helicopters (like in Mission Impossible Fallout) overhead are always supercool.

Thunder and Raindrops overhead are cool.

And voices overhead (intercoms, inner-voices) are examples where the old DD/DTS/DTSHD/TrueHD could never duplicate prior to DSU/NeuralX/Atmos.

Object-based sound effects are great, but I'm just not impressed if they don't involve the overhead speakers.

It sounds like a poor excuse to me when people say, "Atmos/DTSX/Auro3D is not just about overhead sound effects."

Sure, it's not ONLY about the overhead sound effects. But the overhead sound effects is a SIGNIFICANT contribution.

 

[VonMagnum]

Auro-3D title are available from Amazon Germany, Amazon UK and some other locations. There's only around 17-20 movies so far I think. There are dozens of music recordings. Personally, I think it's unneeded at this point with Atmos and X being more flexible and offering more speakers, but I'd certainly take it over plain 5.1 any day. Red Tails is still only available in Auro-3D. Otherwise you get 5.1. Neural X does a good job, but it's not quite the same thing and as someone indicated, Neural X seems to do worse with soundtracks that weren't designed around immersive. Many of the phase/pan clues are still there even when folded down to 5.1 and that's what Neural X is looking for and why some soundtracks are harder to tell apart. Pre-immersive soundtracks are a mixed bag by comparison. So do some neat things with Neural X, but I've found just as many (e.g. Hellraiser 2 I watched the other night) that don't sound very different from before save perhaps the "envelopment sphere" is more precise and surrounding with more speakers. Very little came only from overhead (some of the soundtrack, perhaps a few effects here and there). But I watched The Meg with and without Atmos and Neural X did a VERY good job with just 5.1, but then that 5.1 was derived from Atmos already. Even so, the Atmos track was definitely better, IMO.

You could indeed get overhead effects prior to Atmos, etc. If you recall the OLD setups were supposed to have the surround speakers mounted 2/3 up the wall overhead. That meant any helicopters, etc. would STILL image overhead. I know because that's how my theater was. Early on, I was debating whether it was even worth it to go to Atmos because movies with helicopters, etc. were ALREADY overhead at the listening position. Did I need them overhead in the front too? It was certainly debatable because my projection screen is above eye level so ALL surround effects should technically be at least just above ear level anyway. If you notice at the cinemas, the side speakers are mounted HIGH on the side walls and the Atmos speakers even higher yet on the ceiling. They put them closer together so the imaging blends well. Yet at home people are fixated with "ear level" even though furniture and what not can interfere if you have more than one row of seating.

As for movies, the opening to Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides shows the Disney "pirate" castle swing by and the flag sound comes through right between the two surround speakers. This always created the impression the flag flew by right over my head. It STILL does upmixed and sounds as clean as any Atmos effect, only its height varies by where the speakers are placed (although overhead tends to sound overhead as we are far less sensitive to height sounds which is why you can get away with side heights for Atmos (and indeed Auro-3D calls for them instead of ceiling).

So you see, the height of the effect even with 5.1 or 7.1 depends on your speaker layout. Until Atmos came out, surrounds were not really supposed to be at ear level. Many people put them there because it was convenient and didn't want to wall mount. That was not per Dolby recommendations, however.

The thing was a lot of movies didn't put a lot of in-phase right in the middle pin-point effects in the soundtracks in 5.1 even though they COULD. The idea of sounds directly overhead or "in your head" if it was at ear level was probably something they wanted to avoid. Along comes Atmos and suddenly it's a GREAT idea! Yet so many soundtracks STILL shy away from exactly that, many putting the ceiling effects off to the sides instead so here we are with people looking for the titles with direct overhead sounds because it's what's novel and new.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The idea of sounds directly overhead or "in your head" if it was at ear level was probably something they wanted to avoid.

That's funny.

So you have a 17Ch system? 17Ch of amps?

3 rows of seats = 3 rows of bed surrounds and 3 rows of ceiling speakers?

Which Pre-pro and amps are you using?

 

[VonMagnum]

7 channels from the Marantz 7012. Front heights and rear heights are sent to my old Yamaha AVR to the 7CH inputs (front height goes to a mixer first where L/C/R are mixed in a little bit to the heights as well to add a "dialog lift" effect, which is why it has to use an external amp regardless and you cannot select front height instead of rear height as the channels to send external). Front wides are active matrix mixed and sent to the Yamaha as well for amplification (using 6 out of 7 channels). Rear wides are amplified by a stereo amp after being matrixed. Side heights/top middle are output each from an Onkyo Pro Logic processor (two of them) that extracts a "center" in-between the two heights, creating "top middle". These Onkyo units have their own "center channel" amp already (50W each). The subwoofer has its own 250W amp. That's 17.1 channels of amplification.

Front wides are in front of the front row but ahead of the mains. Side surrounds are at 100 degrees relative to the MLP (just behind the front row and in front of the 2nd row). Rear wides are behind the 2nd row and in front of the back row. Rear surrounds are just behind the 3rd row. Front heights are at the top of the screen on either side. Surround height/top middle are at the ceiling on the sides right above the main side surrounds halfway across the room and rear heights are on the ceiling in the back of the room above the rear surrounds which are in line with the front ones. This works with Auro-3D, Atmos and X perfectly. The side heights are slightly to the side, but you can't tell with just a foot or two overhead. The Atmos helicopter moves perfectly smoothly around the room. Ceiling effects are still on the ceiling, etc.

If you look on AVS under MagnumX, my signature there has a link to photos of my system and a diagram with the layout angles, etc.

 

[TheoN]

I mean can you even get any Auro3D blu-ray movies because I can't find any at Best Buy, Walmart, Amazon, etc.

You can’t. And they are only available in the European market. That’s unfortunate for USA customers who can’t get a taste of what Auro can do. I am fortunate enough to have a few movies and quite a few music discs mixed in Auro-3D.

 

[TheoN]

Overhead effects aside One of the things I love most about immersive audio is the sense of space it creates. It literally blows the ceiling and walls out of my room so that I don’t have the sensation of being surrounded by speakers but being enveloped in an open environment. That intangible is so hard to describe to people but it’s like being in a small movie theater or an open air stadium. There was a comment about the fifth element in one thread and perhaps it doesn’t have the most aggressive use of overhead But boy the sense of space I get from the Atmos mix is fantastic

 

[VonMagnum]

You can’t. And they are only available in the European market. That’s unfortunate for USA customers who can’t get a taste of what Auro can do. I am fortunate enough to have a few movies and quite a few music discs mixed in Auro-3D.

The great thing about Amazon is other than Japan, China and perhaps Russia, one logon works for them all. You don't even have to transfer your credit card information over, etc. So it's very easy to order from Amazon in foreign countries. The same is true for eBay. I got Inferno from eBay Australia in Auro-3D for example (I think it is region locked, though, which doesn't affect me). So it's actually not hard for US residents to get a hold of Auro-3D movies if they're really interested. I live in the US and I own 10 Auro-3D movies (one more soon to be on the way) plus a demo disc and a music album in the format. That's about half of DTS:X titles I own, but for 5 months time since I upgraded my home theater to use it, not bad, IMO.

The problem is getting more, really. I don't think the company is in great shape (at least for the home market), to be honest. Atmos has an easy go of it given they are THE streaming format now, especially since iTunes added support for them (I probably got 40 free Atmos upgrades overnight when the update came online there, whether on purchases or direct to iTunes digital copies. And even though it's DD+ based, the imaging is the same and hell if I can hear a sound quality difference despite all the hoopla made about such things (that IMO are mostly marketing; lossy compression has been pretty darn good for a decade now, really unless you use very low bit-rates).

 

[TheoN]

The big advantage (IMHO) with Auro-3D is the VOG speaker. DTS:X will support it but you need to use the Auro speaker config, which is impractical. I love Atmos and simply wish it incorporated the VOG speaker and that DTS:X allowed you to use it in a 7.2.5 config. The VOG makes all the difference with tracking direct overhead sounds

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

7 channels from the Marantz 7012. Front heights and rear heights are sent to my old Yamaha AVR to the 7CH inputs (front height goes to a mixer first where L/C/R are mixed in a little bit to the heights as well to add a "dialog lift" effect, which is why it has to use an external amp regardless and you cannot select front height instead of rear height as the channels to send external). Front wides are active matrix mixed and sent to the Yamaha as well for amplification (using 6 out of 7 channels). Rear wides are amplified by a stereo amp after being matrixed. Side heights/top middle are output each from an Onkyo Pro Logic processor (two of them) that extracts a "center" in-between the two heights, creating "top middle". These Onkyo units have their own "center channel" amp already (50W each). The subwoofer has its own 250W amp. That's 17.1 channels of amplification.

Front wides are in front of the front row but ahead of the mains. Side surrounds are at 100 degrees relative to the MLP (just behind the front row and in front of the 2nd row). Rear wides are behind the 2nd row and in front of the back row. Rear surrounds are just behind the 3rd row. Front heights are at the top of the screen on either side. Surround height/top middle are at the ceiling on the sides right above the main side surrounds halfway across the room and rear heights are on the ceiling in the back of the room above the rear surrounds which are in line with the front ones. This works with Auro-3D, Atmos and X perfectly. The side heights are slightly to the side, but you can't tell with just a foot or two overhead. The Atmos helicopter moves perfectly smoothly around the room. Ceiling effects are still on the ceiling, etc.

If you look on AVS under MagnumX, my signature there has a link to photos of my system and a diagram with the layout angles, etc.

Holy batmobile. So your 17Ch system is really customized.

@andyblackcat system is also customized. I don’t recall how many channels he has in his CATMOS system, but it’s probably 20Ch including his floor speakers.

So I don’t think it’s a fair comparison between a customized system like what you guys have vs a standard system like what the rest of us have.

You guys might be able to hear more things than the rest of us.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The big advantage (IMHO) with Auro-3D is the VOG speaker. DTS:X will support it but you need to use the Auro speaker config, which is impractical. I love Atmos and simply wish it incorporated the VOG speaker and that DTS:X allowed you to use it in a 7.2.5 config. The VOG makes all the difference with tracking direct overhead sounds

I don’t understand. VOG is only 1 ceiling speaker. Don’t you have 8 ceiling speakers for Atmos?

 

[TheoN]

I don’t understand. VOG is only 1 ceiling speaker. Don’t you have 8 ceiling speakers for Atmos?

The VOG speaker adds another tracking layer in addition to the front, side, or rear heights. It’s not a substitute for but a compliment to. That overhead speaker really makes a big difference with direct overhead discrete sounds. Think of the difference between a true center channel and a phantom center. That analogy carries with the VOG speaker.

What I haven’t yet done is play DTS:X with the Auro-3D layout and see A difference. Hmm I think there’s another immersive audio article brewing here to further push the testing of the Denon X8500H

 

[VonMagnum]

I just watched Red Tails in Auro-3D again (this time with an extracted top middle running to the rear of the room instead of sending the rear height as surround height, aka "true" Auro-3D). That movie just plain kicks butt either way! You want CRAZY amounts of overhead sounds? Red Tails with Auro-3D is IT. The overheads are just constantly running, even when they're in the tents, etc. you can hear these planes up there in the distance going by (very realistic sounding ones then; I get prop planes from a base over my house at least 2-5 times a month. Just like it. I haven't tried the movie with Neural X to compare, though.

As for a customized setup, I'm sure my home theater does some things lower channel number systems doesn't, but then it's in a 24' long room with seats in three rows. A one row theater with 7.1.4 would do nearly as well for that one row, IMO.

As for the VOG, the guy that invented Auro-3D says it's not needed in a typical home environment. In a way, he's right. It's "supposed" to be a 3rd layer ABOVE the side front/side (or rear) heights, but in most houses it's going to end up mounted on an eight to ten foot ceiling at best. If you had a 12-16 foot ceiling with the VOG mounted at the top and the other heights high on the side walls, I think the VOG would make a HUGE difference for overhead effects, giving a different perspective above and having plenty of angle room to hit all seats. But for shorter ceilings, I think it does ONE thing, really and that's act as a hard "center" for the middle of the room, anchoring the effects to the center for all seats (centers make a big difference for the side seats in particular).
The other problem is a lack of content once again. There are just too few Auro-3D titles to bother thus far. If there were over a hundred titles out there, I'd go to great lengths to add a VOG in my room regardless of the lower ceiling (I've got the extra center channel on the Yamaha receiver so I just need the speaker and some speaker wire; it's already wired up even). With DTS:X, it COULD use it, but the 11-channel limit means you'd lose something somewhere else (5.1.8 *IS* an option on the Denon 8500, but the 11-channel limit means center height and the VOG won't function. But if you lose the top middle, it WILL work; at AVS someone has tried and verified this to be true). You basically gain front and middle center heights instead of side-by-side heights in the middle. For smaller rooms, that could be interesting. For longer rooms, top middle is kind of needed (I get a "hole" above mine without it). But then I'm using an extracted channel anyway for top middle. You CAN rig up a system that uses center height and top middle and even the VOG without using discrete channels (they're all typically in-between other discrete channels). The VOG theoretically COULD contain unique content, but in reality it uses side height + front height + VOG in all known titles AND sends the phantom information to the heights as well when not used (where again it could be extracted without the discrete channel using a Pro Logic processor).

With DTS:X Pro now on the horizon, the 11-channel limit for DTS:X will soon be a thing of the past. At the very least, Neural X will be able to use ALL those speaker positions at the same time if your processor supports enough channels. Imagine 9.1.8 with ALL the channels working at the same time for DTS:X titles. That would be sweet, indeed and could give Atmos a run for its money in rooms that don't have many multiple rows and need 32 speakers....

 

[TheoN]

My room is also about 24 feet long and one of the things I can tell you about the Denon X8500H is the difference the middle height speakers make. Worth every penny. I note that in the review.

I wish DTS:X Pro firmware update was available. Would have loved to try that.

I’m right there with you that for longer rooms if you were constructing a canonical set up the side middle and overhead height make a big difference.