This dude makes good points in totally trashing Dolby Atmos...

[isolar8001]

Yep.....4 one hundred dollar speakers up in the ceiling placed as close to Dolby spec as possible, are about all you need to do for Atmos.
(regardless of what a million YouTube videos and every retailer says)

If it's gonna work in your room, it's gonna work...throwing thousands at it isn't going to magically make it work.
Just don't tell everyone making big bucks off this obsession.

 

[shadyJ]

But, at the same time, I don't think it's fair to call something a "failure" just because we cannot have it in our homes.

I am calling it a failure because it seldom works as intended. We are not talking about high-end home theaters here, we are talking about the vast majority of Atmos systems which have to outnumber properly set-up systems by 20 to 1.

My first issue is how the guy tried out Atmos. Terrible setup I get he was trying to go off an average consumer but I know tons of average people that know better then to not do their research and the ones that don't will be happy with it anyway. They are the type of people happy with getting music off of their phone they will think their new Dolby Atmos sound bar sounds friggin awesome just like Bose owners think their lil cube setups were out of this world.

Second I've done 3 setups in 3 different places and 2 were finished rooms not treated and they sounded friggin awesome. They were also inexpensive to do. Especially the first one

Anything you do even 2 channel requires some effort on the buyer to set it up right or none of its going to work. But we live in a society that just expects to push a button drop it anywhere in the room they want and it just works. Instant gratification syndrome. Are we going to just stop 2 channel stereo setups because some people can't set it up in the ideal room?

And how can we control how mixers and studios choose to use the format (here's looking at you Disney) keep in mind their are still bad mixes for any type of 2 or multichannel content which is why neutral speakers are known to be very revealing of this garbage in garbage out ad it's called. Based on his and your experiences Shady we might as well not have any speakers or setups in our house at all.

The day might come where wireless technology and active speaker technology may develop where people can just stick their little box speakers and little 70hz fart boxes of subs in all the right spots click the button and run the internal room eq on these crap box kits and get halfway decent Atmos

But until then Dolby and every other format needs to make money so we can even have the ability to have high end theaters and gear for us enthusiasts so if they need to stick it on phones and laptops and soundbars and everything else I'm happy for them. They have to make a profit or we don't have have a hobby and you don't have a job

I'd feel a little more for the average consumer on this except they'll be ecstatic with what they are getting anyway so let them be happy with their new multichannel soundbars and virtual reality headphones and let the rest of us keep thr higher levels of this hobby going

You make some good points, but you are assuming an awful lot out of expectation bias. Yes, I agree that many people will set up their Atmos system and think it is awesome even if it is badly set up. But by that argument, they would think anything is going to be great simply from expectation bias. That doesn't excuse poorly designed products. I definitely do not agree with the argument that it's OK for Dolby to deploy a poorly conceived technology that only works well in 1 out of 20 instances just so hardcore home theater enthusiasts can have an improved home theater.

Going back to two-channel, it is a lot harder to screw up a 2-channel setup, and it is a lot easier for manufacturers to make a good 2-channel setup. Yes, people will screw up the set-up of a simple stereo system too, but It is a far less complex system than Atmos and much less likely to go awry.

One of my problems with this video is he keeps repeating $500-1000 for the entire system as the Mid-Range Atmos system. I may have been spoiled, or my expectations heavily skewed as a result of spending a bit too much time on this site, but I strongly associate such budgets with very Low-end, where barely passing scores for the audio system is even possible (again, considering the entire multichannel system, speakers AND electronics)

I agree that the system he chose is pretty low on the ladder of Atmos systems. However, that is likely representative of most Atmos systems out in the wild.

I have to wonder at what dollar amount can a user decide to go with an Atmos system and actually get a notable improvement over typical surround sound? I think that the returns are very diminishing unless you really like Atmos' upmixer.

 

[shadyJ]

The vast majority of domestic installations should be 2.1 or 3.1 and NO more. An extra sub excepted.

+1 this. For so many people, surround sound just turns their systems into a mess. I am not talking about dedicated theaters here, I am talking about living rooms and family rooms. Unless you have the resources to do it right, just leave out the surround speakers. Surround speakers are so rarely placed well for so many people. It's seldom worth the effort. Most people's living room/bedroom/family room systems should be a simple stereo system. I want the common home audio system to go back to two-channel, unless the user has the means to take higher-channel counts more seriously. A good two-channel system is easier to set up and can sound really killer.

 

[lovinthehd]

I'd be curious to see results of a poll listing the various levels/types of Atmos gear members have at this point.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Wow. Just wow…..
This guy downgraded from his 5.1 to a soundbar and is telling me how bad Atmos is. That’s like if he bought a Prius to tell me how bad my GT3 is. Guess I’ll get started removing all my equipment. This will take awhile… Thanks for the super informative video! Without I might not know how bad I got screwed investing in Atmos. FWIW, it does work very well in my room. And while not every soundtrack is exceptional, that can be said going back as far as there have been soundtracks!

 

[Danzilla31]

I am calling it a failure because it seldom works as intended. We are not talking about high-end home theaters here, we are talking about the vast majority of Atmos systems which have to outnumber properly set-up systems by 20 to 1.

You make some good points, but you are assuming an awful lot out of expectation bias. Yes, I agree that many people will set up their Atmos system and think it is awesome even if it is badly set up. But by that argument, they would think anything is going to be great simply from expectation bias. That doesn't excuse poorly designed products. I definitely do not agree with the argument that it's OK for Dolby to deploy a poorly conceived technology that only works well in 1 out of 20 instances just so hardcore home theater enthusiasts can have an improved home theater.

Going back to two-channel, it is a lot harder to screw up a 2-channel setup, and it is a lot easier for manufacturers to make a good 2-channel setup. Yes, people will screw up the set-up of a simple stereo system too, but It is a far less complex system than Atmos and much less likely to go awry.

I agree that the system he chose is pretty low on the ladder of Atmos systems. However, that is likely representative of most Atmos systems out in the wild.

I have to wonder at what dollar amount can a user decide to go with an Atmos system and actually get a notable improvement over typical surround sound? I think that the returns are very diminishing unless you really like Atmos' upmixer.

My biggest peeve with 2 channel is it's great if I'm the sweet spot. But good luck being anywhere else. It's why I use a 3.1 setup in the bedroom

I also think one thing being overlooked is the upmixers.

My HTP-1 has the best upmixer I've heard that's with Dolby Auro 3D and DTX. Auro is so fun with music. I've had 2.0 music sources from sh&tty YouTube just sound amazeballs on a Dolby or Auro 3D upmix. They sound literally like Atmos tracks

And shows and movies it's simply amazing

So even when Dolby Atmos isn't being used the ability of a system to upmix the sound to all your speakers sounds really good

 

[Danzilla31]

Wow. Just wow…..
This guy downgraded from his 5.1 to a soundbar and is telling me how bad Atmos is. That’s like if he bought a Prius to tell me how bad my GT3 is. Guess I’ll get started removing all my equipment. This will take awhile… Thanks for the super informative video! Without I might not know how bad I got screwed investing in Atmos. FWIW, it does work very well in my room. And while not every soundtrack is exceptional, that can be said going back as far as there have been soundtracks!

When I saw what he had bought for his Atmos system I laughed out loud. It's like he deliberately went oughta his way to try to trash the concept

 

[gene]

He is taking the view of the average consumer or a casual enthusiast, not the hardcore home theater nut. Atmos should not have been marketed as a solution for anything but serious home theaters. It has made entry and mid-level systems worse, not better. It has complicated hardware installation and media delivery. And it strangled the potential the tremendous potential of object-oriented audio. We could have had massive scalability and flexibility, but instead Dolby gives us almost none of that. All we get is gimmicky ceiling speakers - and even then only when the mix bothers to use them and when they are installed correctly, so I'm not even talking about bouncy speakers. Bouncy speakers are only the tip of the edge of the failure of Atmos. Atmos is a case of greed killing a budding technology that had great potential.

James, you must be fun at parties Without the mass appeal to Atmos, it probably would have been off the radar of even serious audio enthusiasts. I do agree that Dolby really watered it down, similar to what THX did by certifying everything but breakfast cereal. But, we are getting more and more spatial audio content these days and the fact that we can stream it was something I never thought would see the light of day only a decade ago. Embrace it my friend. Drill some holes in your ceiling and install some speakers.

 

[jinjuku]

Drill some holes in your ceiling and install some speakers.

And all along the cable path and then patch and paint the heck out of it...

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I am calling it a failure because it seldom works as intended. We are not talking about high-end home theaters here, we are talking about the vast majority of Atmos systems which have to outnumber properly set-up systems by 20 to 1.

Wow. Just wow…..
This guy downgraded from his 5.1 to a soundbar and is telling me how bad Atmos is. That’s like if he bought a Prius to tell me how bad my GT3 is. Guess I’ll get started removing all my equipment. This will take awhile… Thanks for the super informative video! Without I might not know how bad I got screwed investing in Atmos. FWIW, it does work very well in my room. And while not every soundtrack is exceptional, that can be said going back as far as there have been soundtracks!

Right!

Many consumers and sound mixers/directors are having a TOTAL BLAST with ATMOS.

But it's a TOTAL FAILURE because of most people use soundbars or don't have their ATMOS systems set up correctly?

So I guess AVR/AVP/Amps and all HT systems are TOTAL FAILURES because most people have HTIB, Soundbars, and poorly setup HT systems?

 

[Eppie]

With all of the author's experience in sound mixing, I get the impression that he set out to fail from the start. Getting a sound bar with up-firing speakers for a room with a vaulted ceiling makes no sense and he should have known better. I do agree, however, that ATMOS should not be marketed the way it is for entry level systems. When dealing with 7 or more discrete channels there is a price for entry and $500 is not it.

I don't know anyone with an ATMOS supported sound bar, just the 3.1 systems that most big box stores carry. There seem to be enough reviews and videos touting that surround effects can be noticeable with sound bars but, like the Dolby specification, I would think that things like seating distances and ceiling height would be critical for proper implementation. The idea that you can throw these into any room and get the same experience is crappy marketing. A Sennheiser AMBEO in a properly proportioned room could be an entirely different matter.

The ability to do surround "on the cheap" has greatly improved in the last few years. You just have to do your homework and choose carefully. Pick the right components for the room. You can get a 7 channel AVR for as little as $500 now and Audioholics has reviewed plenty of decent bookshelf speakers that won't break the bank. If you don't want to cut holes, run speaker wire inside plastic channels along the corners of the room and try two height speakers on brackets. You don't need 9.4.4 in a family room. Save that for a dedicated theatre space. 5.1.2 is enough for a nice immersive experience.

It's also important to manage your expectations. My family room will never compete with a movie theatre. I experimented with 7.1.2 and rolled it back to 5.1.2 as the rear channels were too close and not suited to the space. I might experiment with front heights later after I upgrade the surrounds but we watched Top Gun Maverick last week and it was thoroughly enjoyable.

 

[Trebdp83]

Placement, placement, placement! Optimal placement involves ALL of the speakers of a given system. This includes 2.0, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1 and so on. If I see front speakers smashed up against a small TV stand with a center channel speaker just one foot away from each of them and just one foot off of the ground one more time…

Soundbars have three very small speakers trapped in a long, nearly flat box. Some will have feeble surround speakers and a gutless subwoofer. Some will have multiple up and side firing speakers in them. Place one on a high mantle just below a mounted TV and you can guess how any of it will sound.

Sadder still is how much some are spending on soundbar systems. Then, when connected to a TV that has external devices connected to it, all bets are off. Many aren't setting any of their devices up correctly concerning audio output and aren’t getting Atmos metadata anyway.

Funny that some older homes with closed off rooms are better suited than some newer homes with oddly shaped open spaces for a home theater setup. “Hi guys. New poster here. Do you think my soundbar will sound good six feet high over my fireplace and fifteen feet from my couch?” Will it send enough sound back ten more feet to the dining area and kitchen? Can I just put the sub and surround speakers anywhere my controlling, shrew of a wife says is acceptable to put them. Thanks for any help!”

For the price of some “fancy” soundbars, I’d get a system including a Denon X1800H and a Monoprice M518HT THX 5.1 bundle. It won’t satisfy hardcore enthusiasts. But, it’ll smoke any soundbar system any day of the week while also adding speaker and device connection flexibility completely unavailable with soundbar systems.

Some cannot or will not accommodate ceiling or wall mounted height speakers. Dolby Atmos height Virtualization and DTS Virtual:X actually work in a 5.1 configuration when the five speakers are placed optimally around the room at ear level. Not for the hardcore, but still much better than any soundbar system.

“But, how is virtualization any better than even a silly pair of bounce house modules?” Firstly, bounce house modules are s#%t. They need to be placed just so and their settings applied just so to work. More amps are needed to power them. Virtualization uses all of the speakers in a given setup, 5.1 for example, to try and simulate height speakers moving objects around the room. If the five speakers are optimally placed and match, better still. No additional amps are needed to use virtualization. Results will vary of course.

Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround get lots of attention for expanding sound into systems with multiple ear level and height speakers. They don't get enough credit for condensing expanded signals into systems with fewer speakers at ear level and no height speakers while still delivering enveloping sound. They work very well. But, again, placement is everything no matter the number of speakers.

P.S. If you have vaulted ceilings, forget up firing speakers or virtualization. Get wall mounted or pendant height speakers or just forget about it. If you have to block some windows for properly spaced front speakers then just block the f#%kin’ windows! Why do you need a great view of the dog s#%t in the yard and your neighbors crumbling fence? If your wife doesn’t like it, tell her to take her plants, the kids and her fat ass to her mother’s house. Or, just keep letting a bit of your soul die every time you utter the words “Yes dear.” Again, results will vary.

 

[TLS Guy]

Right!

Many of consumers and sound mixers/directors are having a TOTAL BLAST with ATMOS.

But it's a TOTAL FAILURE because of most people use soundbars or don't have their ATMOS systems set up correctly?

So I guess AVR/AVP/Amps and all HT systems are TOTAL FAILURES because most people have HTIB, Soundbars, and poorly setup HT systems?

It depends on how you define success. Commercial success is what counts at the end of the day. Atmos object based productions are very expensive. If this technology does not improve listener experience for enough consumers, then it will be a commercial failure and die out, like analog quadraphonic. If you remember that? I see some similarities here.

There certainly is one harbinger. Oppenheimer was produced and issued in Dolby 2.0 and DTS Master Audio 5.1. The reason is that the producers did not think that Atmos was worth the trouble. So there you have a major movie release not issued with an Atmos mix. Now how do you define that as a success for Atmos? As always, the market will ultimately decide this, and define success for you.

One thing I will say, is that I think they must have received a 'back hander" from some sub manufacturers as the 0.1 channel is ridiculously loud. If they are not careful some won't have a liver left. The explosions are not particularly realistic but they shake the house and your internal organs. I found it quite unpleasant. For another those sound effects are not very realistic recreations of powerful explosions. I say that as my father was a 'sapper', in other words a Royal Engineer and an officer. When I was younger the main barracks of the Royal engineers was Brompton, which is part of Medway. The main training base was Upnor Hard, which I could see from my windows. As and ex sapper I and my father could visit these demo exercises from time, to time, but I could hear them from the house anyway. I can tell you that Hollywood explosions are in general removed from the real thing by quite a margin. That really is another pointless exercise, investing in monstrously expensive subs to reproduce what Hollywood thinks an explosion sounds like.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Are Auro3D and DTSX failures?

What is the DEFINITION of a failure?

8Track - failed
Cassette tape - failed
LaserDisc - failed
HD-DVD - failed

Auro3D - failure in the USA because there is not a BluRay movie in the USA that has an Auro3D soundtrack
DTS-X - failure because practically all new soundtracks are in ATMOS, not DTS-X

BluRay - success because it is available everywhere today
ATMOS - success because it is practically the standard soundtrack on all new and older remastered movies
4K - success because every TV out there is 4K

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Oppenheimer was produced and issued in Dolby 2.0 and DTS Master Audio 5.1. So there you have a major movie release not issued with an Atmos mix. Now how do you define that as a success for Atmos?

Seriously? So ONE movie defines success vs failure?

Why don't you look at the other ONE THOUSAND movies with ATMOS?

Box office:
1. Avatar $2.92 billion - ATMOS (Remastered)
2. Avengers Endgame $2.79 billion - ATMOS
3. Avatar 2 $2.3 billion - ATMOS
4. Titanic $2.25 billion - ATMOS (Remastered)
5. Star Wars VII The Force Awakens $2.06 billion - ATMOS
6. Avengers Infinity War $2.05 billion - ATMOS
7. Spider-Man No Way Home $1.92 billion - ATMOS
8. Jurassic World $1.67 billion - DTS-X
9. The Lion King $1.66 billion - ATMOS
10. The Avengers $1.52 billion - ATMOS

Top Gun Maverick $1.5 billion - ATMOS
Avengers Age of Ultron $1.4 billion - ATMOS
Star Wars The Last Jedi $1.3 billion - ATMOS
Iron Man $1.2 billion - ATMOS
Captain America Civil War $1.16 billion - ATMOS
Aquaman $1.15 billion - ATMOS

PRACTICALLY EVERY big movie released today has an ATMOS soundtrack.

But no, let's not look at ALL the movies. Let's just look at ONE movie that doesn't have ATMOS! Must be joking.

 

[panteragstk]

That guy missed the mark. His reference is an Atmos soundbar, no wonder he doesn't like the format. James, I think you're just being lazy and don't want to install height speakers in your ceiling. Atmos isn't a failure, their crappy bouncy house speakers were.

The ONLY reason I used "bouncy" speakers in my office is because they matched my pioneer towers, and they were very cheap.

They suck. They honestly don't do anything that I can tell. It doesn't help that my ceiling is 9ft in that room.

My ceiling speakers in my theater do a lot of work, but I still need to find a really good "reference" movie that isn't the Dolby demos.

 

[Trebdp83]

Expectations of produced sound should be in line with the equipment used to produce it.

Anybody expecting this system:

to sound like this system:

is out of their f#%kin’ mind.

 

[TLS Guy]

Seriously? So ONE movie defines success vs failure?

Why don't you look at the other ONE THOUSAND movies with ATMOS?

Box office:
1. Avatar $2.92 billion - ATMOS (Remastered)
2. Avengers Endgame $2.79 billion - ATMOS
3. Avatar 2 $2.3 billion - ATMOS
4. Titanic $2.25 billion - ATMOS (Remastered)
5. Star Wars VII The Force Awakens $2.06 billion - ATMOS
6. Avengers Infinity War $2.05 billion - ATMOS
7. Spider-Man No Way Home $1.92 billion - ATMOS
8. Jurassic World $1.67 billion - DTS-X
9. The Lion King $1.66 billion - ATMOS
10. The Avengers $1.52 billion - ATMOS

Top Gun Maverick $1.5 billion - ATMOS
Avengers Age of Ultron $1.4 billion - ATMOS
Star Wars The Last Jedi $1.3 billion - ATMOS
Iron Man $1.2 billion - ATMOS
Captain America Civil War $1.16 billion - ATMOS
Aquaman $1.15 billion - ATMOS

PRACTICALLY EVERY big movie released today has an ATMOS soundtrack.

But no, let's not look at ALL the movies. Let's just look at ONE movie that doesn't have ATMOS! Must be joking.

My question would be: - Are they really? I have a hunch a lot are just upmixed.

Most of the public, and that includes owners of Atmos soundbars, have no clue what Atmos is, or how it is supposed to work. Whatever they play through them, they believe is Atmos.

The number of rooms set up to properly handle Atmos in homes is minute. From what the BPO have told me, most of their customers who use the Atmos stream are using Atmos headphones. I have never heard those, but I have difficulty believing it would be the right side of pleasant.

In my view it has been harmful on the whole. Cramming all those amps in receivers has increased cost, and it has to have reduced reliability. I say has to, as it has increased the number of power transistors for instance, and so has increased the probability of one failing. Once that happens the whole unit goes into protection and shuts down.

This whole home HT infrastructure has been racing down a blind alley for about 20 years or so now, and is long overdue for a correction.

I can think of numerous ways to improve the whole infrastructure and system design. Imagination, innovative and elegant design have been missing from this arena for far too long.

I was was in charge of Masimo consumer big changes would come day 1. Rigid thinkers would be routed out.

 

[snakeeyes]

If the definition of success for Dolby is to dominate over DTS then yes it’s been successful.

 

[lovinthehd]

If the definition of success for Dolby is to dominate over DTS then yes it’s been successful.

Maybe DTS made an offer that Oppenheimer couldn't refuse?