Has Dolby Home Atmos Been a Step Forward for Home Audio?

[William Lemmerhirt]

Dolby made Atmos to make money- as all companies do. The question is, does their product have merit? I won't go into that here, since I have already talked about that in the article, and everyone has to decide for themselves how much merit their product has. BUT Dolby was surely betting on the licensing fees they could accrue for using their new technology. That means speakers, processors, and sound mixes all giving a cut to Dolby for that little 'Atmos' logo on their products. Now I don't know that Dolby had their bouncey house speakers in mind when they first conceived of Atmos, but their chief aim from the get-go was to get the 'Atmos' logo on every piece of professional and consumer electronic gear as possible, and they have done a very good job in that respect. With that in mind, the answer to the question of whether Atmos was made to sell more speakers has to be unequivocal yes.

I think this is the looomg way around to prove your point. The earlier statement was that Atmos was created to sell more speakers. NOT, license deals, not processor deals. SELL MORE SPEAKERS. I don’t think Atmos was created with the sole purpose of selling speakers. That is stupid. I do agree that as it started to take shape, some focus did get put on marketing it, and selling it. But the earlier point of being created to sell more speakers is a boat with holes in it. Now, HP on the other hand solely went into the printer business to sell ink. That’s basically extortion, but that’s what I hear when I hear about this being created to sell speakers.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Why bother with a multich system without good speakers, tho? Why compare to 2ch at all? Like me saying my multich system definitely is better than a sucky 2ch setup. Means little.

It came in at post 57.

 

[Tonyantb]

Love atmos & dts.x. Not all sources produce a good mix but for the most part it is a great idea and application. I have the Nakamichi Ultra 9.2.4 soundbar. I got bored and slightly dissatisfied with the atmos attached to the surrounds speakers so I separated them each (amped), and the front wides (all speakers are Boston acoustics soundware xs). I listen everyday to tv with the system on. Some tv sources are dolby digital. Some have different digital formats. Some movies sound incredible,... on tv. Even some 5.1/7.1 upmixes are outstanding using Blu-ray. Nature videos, with rain pouring down in a forrest, hitting leaves.... it's a cacophony of sound. You feel your there. It's amazing!
Listening to Mad Max puts us on the edge, using Blu-ray. All of the Transformer movies sound awesome (tv source). At this point I'm spoiled. I can't go back to anything over 9.2.4. Sounds incredible. One thing it's missing, is the sound stage for music. I think 2 channel speakers will suffice. I miss sitting in front of great stereo imaging. The kind of sound that makes you close your eyes and are transported into another world. Irregardless, atmos is a game changer. Hope things get better.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Two really good speakers will beat 5, 7 or 11 mediocre or poor speakers any day including movie watching.

Wait a minute. Who said anything about mediocre sounding speakers?

Great sounding home Atmos system = great sounding speakers.

We’re saying great sounding speakers don’t need to cost $20K, $30K, etc.

For example, a great sounding $10K Atmos 5.1.2 system vs B&W 800D3 2CH system.

There is no point of buying mediocre sounding speakers. Period. For any system, 2CH or MCH.

 

[Cdx]

Which Audioholic do you mean? Lol
I try to utilize a little of bothb

That's my point, the audio purity is a goal

 

[Auditor55]

So in your opinion, Atmos is a failure because of poor logistics?

But it has nothing to do with the ACTUAL SOUND QUALITY since you've NEVER experienced a great HOME Atmos system.

But sometimes success has less to do with quality and more to do with logistics?

You know what, I can't really call home Atmos a failure because Dolby has indeed achieved what they set out do,as it has cited here in this thread, the Atmos brand is ubiquitous.

 

[panteragstk]

You know what, I can't really call home Atmos a failure because Dolby has indeed achieved what they set out do,as it has cited here in this thread, the Atmos brand is ubiquitous.

Yep. What's really crazy is I bet more people have "Atmos" systems than they realize simply because SO many soundbars have "Atmos" up firing speakers in them. I bet it sounds like garbage, but it's there.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yep. What's really crazy is I bet more people have "Atmos" systems than they realize simply because SO many soundbars have "Atmos" up firing speakers in them. I bet it sounds like garbage, but it's there.

That's true. Heck, I have an Atmos Samsung S9+ phone.

Probably many new Laptops have "Atmos" sound systems.

I bet some TVs will have Atmos speakers built-in that still sound like crap, but hey, it's Atmos.

 

[panteragstk]

Two really good speakers will beat 5, 7 or 11 mediocre or poor speakers any day including movie watching.

I both agree and disagree with this statement.

While I had a simple 2.1 system in my office for a while, and it did sound quite good (not great speakers, but good mains) I will say I do enjoy it more now that it is 5.1 simply because dialog is much better with the center speaker in place.

My surrounds barely have a job in that room, but they do it well.

Another thing I noticed when selling speakers is that there was a system we had set up as a demo that sounded pretty great for movies. It's really all we ever used the demo room for. Loud, bombastic movies. It was the lowest end Klipsch (synergy) series at the time and they were big speakers that could play loud and handle the large dynamic changes in movies well.

They were horrific for music. I was shocked when we played a music demo we used on our 2ch demo rigs. I couldn't believe speakers that were so good at large dynamic changes in moves, had clear dialog, were absolutely horrifying to listen to any music on. Turns out they were good at higher frequencies and a bit of mid range, but totally died in the lower range. Clearly a very bad design on the large towers. The center and surrounds were fine, but I've never thought 2 VERY small speakers with a sub sounded all that great. I'm sure some do, but I just haven't heard them.

So what all that means is that yes, a GOOD 2ch system will sound leaps and bounds better than a surround setup that is "fine". However, I say it greatly depends on what the system is for. If someone were to ONLY listen to movies and TV, it's entirely possible that their system will sound good for movies and TV, but be horrible for music. Counter intuitive, but I've witnessed it.

Granted, all this was before I got to hear really good speakers in person and WAY before I ever owned any so if I were to hear such a system now I may think it sounds horrible for everything. Sonic memory isn't all that good from what I hear (ba dum tss).

 

[Cdx]

If someone were to ONLY listen to movies and TV, it's entirely possible that their system will sound good for movies and TV, but be horrible for music. Counter intuitive, but I've witnessed it.

That's not counter intuitive at all. I wouldn't argue too much with someone who said that a high end 2 channel system would beat many surround sound systems for music. If I was thinking about music as well as movies, then being an enthusiast I would probably rethink my whole approach for building a system.

 

[shadyJ]

I both agree and disagree with this statement.

While I had a simple 2.1 system in my office for a while, and it did sound quite good (not great speakers, but good mains) I will say I do enjoy it more now that it is 5.1 simply because dialog is much better with the center speaker in place.

My surrounds barely have a job in that room, but they do it well.

Another thing I noticed when selling speakers is that there was a system we had set up as a demo that sounded pretty great for movies. It's really all we ever used the demo room for. Loud, bombastic movies. It was the lowest end Klipsch (synergy) series at the time and they were big speakers that could play loud and handle the large dynamic changes in movies well.

They were horrific for music. I was shocked when we played a music demo we used on our 2ch demo rigs. I couldn't believe speakers that were so good at large dynamic changes in moves, had clear dialog, were absolutely horrifying to listen to any music on. Turns out they were good at higher frequencies and a bit of mid range, but totally died in the lower range. Clearly a very bad design on the large towers. The center and surrounds were fine, but I've never thought 2 VERY small speakers with a sub sounded all that great. I'm sure some do, but I just haven't heard them.

So what all that means is that yes, a GOOD 2ch system will sound leaps and bounds better than a surround setup that is "fine". However, I say it greatly depends on what the system is for. If someone were to ONLY listen to movies and TV, it's entirely possible that their system will sound good for movies and TV, but be horrible for music. Counter intuitive, but I've witnessed it.

Granted, all this was before I got to hear really good speakers in person and WAY before I ever owned any so if I were to hear such a system now I may think it sounds horrible for everything. Sonic memory isn't all that good from what I hear (ba dum tss).

The problem here is that so much of a movie's sound mix is comprised of music. If a speaker can not play music well, it can not play movies well, unless all you care about is effects noises and dialogue intelligibility.

 

[panteragstk]

The problem here is that so much of a movie's sound mix is comprised of music. If a speaker can not play music well, it can not play movies well, unless all you care about is effects noises and dialogue intelligibility.

Agreed. The particular movies we used had music, but because of the surround encoding it wasn't noticeable. When we went to 2ch, it was painfully obvious the towers were very weak. So, really, the system as a whole was good, but the FL and FR weren't good on their own.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Agreed. The particular movies we used had music, but because of the surround encoding it wasn't noticeable. When we went to 2ch, it was painfully obvious the towers were very weak. So, really, the system as a whole was good, but the FL and FR weren't good on their own.

Some studies looking at our ability to discern quality issues in speakers suggests that 2+ channels negatively impacts our perception. That we don’t notice flaws as readily as the number of channels goes up.

I often wonder what the true implications of this are? Is it that multichannel confuses the brain making discernment harder? Does multichannel make up for detriments such that they no longer exist? Does this mean that lesser quality speakers would actually be ok if all you listen to is multichannel? I mean, if you can’t hear the flaws, what’s it matter?

but to your point, it makes a lot of sense that you had trouble hearing the flaws while used in multichannel.

 

[VonMagnum]

Audioholics really is the Anti-Atmos site still I see from this review updating on the Atmos is DOA one. No one could watch the movie Fury (with Brad Pitt) at my house and think Atmos was barely distinguishable from their 5.1 system. People don't bang on their ceiling trying to get into the tank with 5.1. The movie's sound was incredible in Atmos. The problem is 50% of Atmos mixes SUCK for no other reason than incompetence on the mixing guy's part. They think they're still doing 5.1 or something. Another 30% are decent with several noticeable moments of overhead sound throughout the movie. These are "hey that's better, but I don't think it's worth the investment" type responses. There's maybe 20% of the mixes where someone would go WOW! That was incredible and I maintain this is due to nothing but incompetence and/or laziness on the mixing team/guy.

Most movies still seem to follow the "less is more" concept that surround sound in general is distracting to the audience who should be paying attention to the screen, not some sound floating above their head out in the theater/room. Unfortunately, that viewpoint is anathema for the entire concept of "Total Immersion". If I go out into a forest with a wildlife group, birds and other animals are going to make whatever noises they're going to make. The birds don't stop chirping because the head of my group starts talking. But watch the movie Annihilation (a movie that does have its moments of Atmos immersion when it wants to) and that's exactly what happens. The birds are dead quiet all around except in the front main speakers (I didn't even think they were in the height speakers unless I switched to Neural X). Was that an oversight on the mixing guy's part or was he following the doctrine of no immersion while people are talking or doing something important that isn't a car wreck or explosion? Either way, it pulled me out of the movie, which was fascinating me with the weird synth sounds coming from every which direction in the soundtrack. But you can't have an open forest scene and bird sounds only come from the main speakers while it's dead silent all around everywhere else in the room. That's not immersion at all.

I think Hollywood should start including TWO major soundtrack versions in the primary language each time. One mix should be for "home optimized for crap systems" (you know the Disney Crapmos sound we get with dynamics designed to not overload your flat TV speaker's driver that is supposed to pass for a woofer. They can make this mix following that methodology of using surround sparingly if at all. It can be 2-channel Pro Logic even if we're going to go with the methodology that was created for that era of sound. The other soundtrack that is Atmos or X should be TRULY IMMERSIVE. I mean full tilt. I like to point to Groundhog Day as an example of a newly immersive film that didn't seem to need to be. I never recall the sound being very noticeable or good in that Bill Murray comedy, but it's a highly entertaining movie. So I was extremely curious to see what they would do with it when it got an Atmos mix. I can't say I recall a large amount of overhead material (if I cut the overhead speakers off, though I'm often surprised to hear how much ambient reflections and the like actually is up there that we don't associate with "there's something on the ceiling" type of thinking with Atmos), but what it did have was a new fully immersive soundtrack that did the best it possibly could with the material it was given. When Phil (Bill Murray is outside in the town, it really sounds like you're outside in the town with him. Cars moving around and people talking are everywhere in that mix and they were barely noticeable at all before! Here's a mixing guy that did the absolute best he could to make that film more immersive. Would most of those effects hold up in just 5.1? Yes, it's more of a new mix than an Atmos "height" mix, but what it is that the old one wasn't is IMMERSIVE. You sound like you're there in the room rather than watching a stage play where everything is only happening up front most of the time.

If you don't like that mix, the old/crappy mix should be there for people to select if they like. Blu-Ray and UHD and even iTunes has plenty of room for foreign soundtrack dubs so they sure as heck ought to be able to fit a 2-channel or 5.1-channel mix on there that isn't as immersive. Yes, Atmos can play on 5.1, but that's not my point. My point is I'm tired of newer movie home soundtracks catering to the lowest common denominators (TV speakers, sound bars and cheap 5.1 systems) rather than containing the best soundtrack it can. Moreover, I'd prefer to have the actual CINEMA soundtrack, not some arbitrary "near field" mix that more often than not does more than just correct for the high frequency increase you get with having speakers closer to you. That correction is ALREADY available on most AVRs. It's called "Cinema EQ" or "THX Re-EQ" or whatever. That's what it's there for. They could have included a flag that automatically triggers it for cinema mixes and turns it off for near field mixes even, but they didn't. So you end up with the wrong setting most of the time (one or the other) and wonder why Paramount soundtracks sound better with one setting and Sony sounds better with another and Disney doesn't sound good with any setting.

But this notion that overhead sound doesn't add anything or we can't hear or track it very well is utterly misleading, IMO. It's harder to gauge overhead sound BEHIND ME, but I maintain I can image sounds directly above or in front of me every bit as well as sounds directly in front of me. This was one of the first things I tested before buying an Atmos receiver. I mounted speakers in the front height position and combined it with my high mounted side surrounds and played things like environmental sounds (thunderstorms, etc.) upmixed with PLIIx through them as if they were the bed speakers (connected them as such). This played everything overhead and let me gauge whether the Atmos effect would "work" or not in my room. It did in spades! All those sounds imaged just fine on the ceiling except things behind me, which were a little more nebulous sounding. Certainly sitting at the 40% or 50% mark, everything in front of me overhead imaged perfectly fine. Sure enough, the same is true with actual Atmos soundtracks. Over time, the overhead sounds behind me have become a bit more clear to me as well as my brain has clearly adjusted to listening for them through the demos, etc. But all I have to do is play the newer Flatliners (2017) movie in Atmos (iTunes 4K version or German Auro-3D version) and the opening with the voices talking about near death experiences just float all over my ceiling in every direction. The ones behind me aren't as easy to track (they sound halfway behind me at best), but the rest image ALL OVER the ceiling sharp as a tack! This is actually my favorite short demo for demonstrating just how well Atmos can image on the ceiling when given true overhead material in spades. It's UNCANNY. If more movies would use that level of immersion, Atmos would be a much greater standout than it is, in my opinion.

 

[Cdx]

Audioholics really is the Anti-Atmos site still I see from this review updating on the Atmos is DOA one. No one could watch the movie Fury (with Brad Pitt) at my house and think Atmos was barely distinguishable from their 5.1 system. People don't bang on their ceiling trying to get into the tank with 5.1. The movie's sound was incredible in Atmos. The problem is 50% of Atmos mixes SUCK for no other reason than incompetence on the mixing guy's part.

I wouldn't call it incompetence. It might depend on what the director requires also. For example, Christopher Nolan is notoriously Atmosphobic. Paradoxically his DTS-HD mixes are some of the best Neural-X tracks around, rivalling many proper DTSx tracks

...It's harder to gauge overhead sound BEHIND ME,

That's strange, do you have a Dolby Atmos demo disc to check? I don't have that issue.

 

[Philnick]

I just rebuilt my basement theater. I had a low ceiling before, and an AVR that didn't support Atmos/X, but with the rebuild I replaced everything but my 7.1 speakers, mostly Paradigm Studios (40s in front - their CC is just a 40 lying on its side, a PDR-10 sub and 20s on the sides) with small Boston Acoustics in back.

Now, with a top of the line (if a year or two back) Yamaha RX-A3070 to decode the soundtracks, an Oppo UDP-203 to play the disks, a Roku Ultra for streaming (including DD+/Atmos tracks) and an old Denon AVR that still has the multichannel analog input to power all four overheads, I'm able to avoid overtaxing the Yammy's power supply by feeding the overhead channels to the Denon (the Yammy still does the room correction for the whole system).

I mounted a quartet of Onkyo silver tubes (the fronts from an HTiB and another pair of those from eBay) on the ceiling firing horizontally at the couch from the specified angles fore and aft, and a second sub (the Onkyo sub from that HTiB) diagonally across from the first. (The 3070 adjusts the two subs independently for time delays, gain, and eq.)

Atmos and DTS:X sound fine, but I stay away from the Dolby Surround Upmixer. Instead, I've set my Yammy to use Neural X on 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks and I hit the Straight button on anything with a real Atmos or DTS:X soundtrack. (To my ears, Neural X sounds a lot clearer than the DSU.)

While compromises may be made in creating a system from scratch, in terms of buying cheaper speakers, if you're starting with a good set of 7.1 speakers, going to Atmos/X is a step forwards.

 

[VonMagnum]

Sorry, it's slow to respond here so I might not respond much (I'm still apparently being punished for disagreeing with the owner on an article where he called me stupid despite the scientific evidence presented, apparently some from an engineer he previously booted from here for suggesting his listening room wasn't optimized as well as it could be) and seemingly slowed my account to a crawl so it's a PITA to even load the page to check for responses, etc. (if it weren't for email, I'd never know).

I wouldn't call it incompetence. It might depend on what the director requires also. For example, Christopher Nolan is notoriously Atmosphobic. Paradoxically his DTS-HD mixes are some of the best Neural-X tracks around, rivalling many proper DTSx tracks

I agree Nolan's mixes do upmix well. It's a shame he won't let them use Atmos. Clearly, the Atmos soundtracks do vary GREATLY in immersiveness and overhead content. It's night and day with many of them. You can call that something else if you like; I still prefer incompetence. Someone who knows what they're doing can make a great Atmos track. Someone who doesn't know or doesn't believe in immersiveness will tend to make a bad one.

That's strange, do you have a Dolby Atmos demo disc to check? I don't have that issue.

It's not a system problem. My rear speakers are 15 feet behind my MLP with three rows of seats. If I move back, everything in front of me images great. But say I run the DTS:X "callout" demo. The voice behind me somehow sounds closer to me than 15 feet. I'm saying it's harder to gauge distance and pin-point as well as things that are overhead or in front of me. This goes with the idea that our brains aren't as good with imaging behind us as precisely as in front of us.

You may not notice this, but I'm talking about trying to say how far away a sound is behind me isn't as easy as in front of me, not that it doesn't image behind me. Of course, it could be that Flatliners opening (the demo I'm thinking of in this particular case) doesn't really image that much behind the 50% mark. The first voice that talks goes in a circular pattern from the front wide ceiling vicinity to behind me in an arc that sounds about 30-50% the distance to the rear wall (whereas the thunder in the Rainstorm demo sounds like it's at the back of the room, so I guess I can gauge the distance, but perhaps there just isn't much imaged in the back as in the front or middle? It seems like that to me, in any case. The rest of the voices in the Flatliner opening go no more than 20% behind me (near the mid-point of the room), I'd say. Most seem to alternate from the top middle location to the front height position and move across the ceiling in various patterns everywhere in-between. That one opening voice is the only one that seems to go really far back into the room by comparison (2/3 the way to the back of the room).

 

[Philnick]

One thing about sounds behind us:

The problem with room equalization systems is that the microphones they use are aimed at the ceiling.

This is completely different from our ears, which are more sensitive to sound from the front than from anywhere else, because of the fleshy ear trumpets that surround them (our "pinnae"), which filter out sound from the rear.

That's why, after running the auto-correction, I always go into the screen where you can tweak the results, and - sitting facing the screen - I travel the test tone around the room and give a bit of a boost to the speakers behind me - including the rear ceiling speakers - so that they all sound about the same volume.

Give it a try - it may solve the problem you're talking about.

 

[Cdx]

...That's why, after running the auto-correction, I always go into the screen where you can tweak the results, and - sitting facing the screen - I travel the test tone around the room and give a bit of a boost to the speakers behind me - including the rear ceiling speakers - so that they all sound about the same volume.

That's pretty much what I do.

 

[JimVal]

Dolby Atmos is best described in 2 words....Massive Gimmick.

Speakers in the ceiling?
Really?

Seriously, the sound quality would be rubbish.

AV Receivers with that many channels?

Seriously, with their paltry little power supplies, the sound quality would also be rubbish.

Quantity, not quality without doubt.

As said, 90% of the material is through your front 3 speakers so how can you possibly justify anything more than even 7.1 DTS-HD???

It’s such an industry con.

Waiting for the usual suspects to start making 16K TVs telling us that our 8K TVs are not good enough when in reality there is no plausible reason to go beyond 4K.

It’s an industry con to make the uneducated consumer throw their perfectly good gear away & waste money for new gear they don’t need, in order to keep the the usual brand suspects & retail box movers in business.

It’s laughable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk