5 Reasons Dolby Atmos May Be DOA

[RichB]

Yes we are going downhill fast b/c of our skeptical nature. I think they may all be in for a shocker when we start reviewing the Atmos gear and if it pans out well, watching me eat my own hat on Youtube I'm fully prepared to change my viewpoints if I have a positive demo experience in my own theater room but Tom Andry is sticking to his prediction regardless if the tech is good or not

Will Pioneer send you their Atmos speakers?
These are the hardest for me to understand. There have been some interesting posts about dispersion and it seem that even at 180Hz there will be interference with the main speakers. It seems like physics is the enemy.

Before Atmos, I really thought that a great system would be suitable for 2-channel and for HT.
That may no longer be the case since the compromises make my skin crawl and perhaps I am not alone

- Rich

 

[RichB]

I think you will all find this interesting.

Q: Can you please give me one reason Atmos will benefit the end user only implementing a traditional 5.1 or 7.1 speaker system? Will the standard Atmos 5.1/7.1 mix sound ANY different than the TrueHD mix or are they one in the same since those are the bed channels?

A: I don't know the definitive answer to this, but I assume there is no benefit to the Atmos mix on standard 5.1/7.1 system.

No benefit seems to be the prevailing thought. I suppose that could change if they are able to cram more into the DSP's.

When I first read that there would be no benefit for a 7.1/5.1 my reaction was:

WHAT? You have got to be kidding?

Not much has changed in a month

- Rich

 

[shadyJ]

If this statement was true for home Atmos, I would completely agree.
But from what I have read, Atmos is based a fixed bed 5.1 or 7.1 mix where a channel is now called an fixed object.
This appears to be a marketing attempt to claim that it is fully object based.

The mix includes some objects placed within the bed that are extracted by the Atmos enabled processor, removed from the bed, moved in a 3D space with the aid of ceiling channels.

It seems that a smart down-mix is still required. Maybe that's not hard with the proper tools but it is not just one mix.

If Atmos were truly object based then it would map to the existing speakers with knowledge of their positions.

Even then, it might not be significantly better than a channel-based mix, but it would be "one mix to rule them all"

How many people will purchase the Atmos processor for use in the 5.1 or 7.1 system and expect an improvement and how many sale people will be happy to make that claim when they failed to sell them the new Atmos speakers or modules?

- Rich

These are some good counter-points to Atmos. I was hoping Atmos would use a mapping system to know where your speakers are, a la Trinnov, but it looks like it just assumes you have the speakers properly placed. That really doesn't help, especially with folks who don't get how to properly place their speakers as it is. I am still a big believer in the idea of object oriented soundtracks, but many aspects of this implementation of Atmos is disappointing. Still, it is in its infancy -we are discussing a technology that has not even been publicly released yet- and it may grow into something beautiful in time. As for the bed being a fixed object, that is not marketing speak, that is exactly what that is. You can mix a soundtrack and not use it at all, so I don't consider that a cop out in particular.

Anyway, I am enthusiastic about Atmos personally, and I am glad Audioholics has shown caution and even a bit of ridicule towards the technology. Home Atmos definitely does not look perfect, but without criticism, how will it improve? It would be easier for Audioholics to ride the wave and entice advertising revenue by excitedly throwing around a bunch of buzzwords like every other home audio publication.

 

[gene]

Will Pioneer send you their Atmos speakers?
These are the hardest for me to understand. There have been some interesting posts about dispersion and it seem that even at 180Hz there will be interference with the main speakers. It seems like physics is the enemy.

Before Atmos, I really thought that a great system would be suitable for 2-channel and for HT.
That may no longer be the case since the compromises make my skin crawl and perhaps I am not alone

- Rich

Yes and I'm not sure how matching directivity indexes between the front and top drivers really matter considering the drastic frequency response shaping Dolby is doing for the Atmos portion of the speaker and the fact that its bouncing sound (or trying to at least) 180Hz and above. This is why I will want to evaluate in my own space and make some measurements.

We've been giving Pioneer great press and positive reviews for over a decade without receiving a single dime in advertising. If they decline to send us speakers now b/c of a few editorials expressing skepticism towards this approach than screw them. My review of the last AJ speakers sold them a TON of product and its still #1 on Google and linked up everywhere. I've been doing this far too long to care if manufacturers get ticked off for me having an opinion.

 

[gene]

Anyway, I am enthusiastic about Atmos personally, and I am glad Audioholics has shown caution and even a bit of ridicule towards the technology. Home Atmos definitely does not look perfect, but without criticism, how will it improve? It would be easier for Audioholics to ride the wave and entice advertising revenue by excitedly throwing around a bunch of buzzwords like every other home audio publication.

Thank you. I put forth the same skepticism towards DVD-A and SACD back when it was first introduced as an analog only format with no bass management. My articles helped to improve implementation. Same with Yamaha having a fixed 90Hz Xover on their receivers....I don't understand why people wouldn't expect critical analysis in efforts to improve the technology. Instead they seem to gravitate towards manufacturer regurgitation to reaffirm their purchasing decisions.

One thing I love when I read car magazines is that they are critical of performance and function. Manufacturers listen and make better cars as a result. Seems like the audio industry is far more touchy.

 

[rojo]

Re: 5 Reasons Dolby Atmos is DOA

I'm not entirely sure how to articulate my concerns, but I'll give it a shot. What bothers me about implementing Atmos in the home is that, to implement it properly, I'm expected to add more speakers, speakers that are probably of lesser quality than what I already have, thereby introducing a weak link in my chain. I'm expected to pay a small fortune for the privilege of decreasing the overall blend / cohesion of the timbre of my system while simultaneously reducing WAF. And if I want audiophile-grade height reproduction, that'll require a pain in the butt wiring and mounting task for myself for incremental benefit. I mean, I haven't even gotten on the 7.1 train yet. I'm already behind the curve, and I'm perfectly content to be here.

I have a nagging paranoia, a suspicion of a conspiracy to bleed my wallet. In the 90's, I had an Aureal Vortex sound card in my PC. I recall very convincing demos that simulated sounds around, above, and behind me, played through a simple pair of stereo speakers. I know there is old technology around that can simulate 3D aural space with fewer speakers -- technology that seems to be all but forgotten. I imagine the idea men of the industry behind closed doors pitching a revival of simulated 3D via DSP, but being shot down immediately. After all, technology that discourages the sale of more channels, more speakers, more decadence, isn't in the best interest of the stockholders.

Sure, nine physical speakers will probably provide more accurate imaging than a DSP simulation through fewer. On the other hand, if several of those physical speakers are expected to be bounced off the damn ceiling, how concerned are we with accuracy, really?

I know. I'll go find my tin foil hat in a bit. But it just seems to me that Dolby is adding speakers like Gillette adds blades to their disposable razors. Atmos feels exactly like that.

 

[macddmac]

Looks like Pioneer has two rooms at cedia next month.
i look forward to seeing their new system there.. Pass or fail.
Cheers, Mac

 

[Justinmb77]

What a great Post we are in the process of building a house with a living room/HTR and this was one of the things I was wondering about so now I will save the money and use it else where.

Thanks Justin

 

[herbu]

I was hoping Atmos would use a mapping system to know where your speakers are, a la Trinnov, but it looks like it just assumes you have the speakers properly placed.

That's kind of what I was wondering. Doesn't Audyssey do something like that by measuring the distance from your listening spot to each speaker? I suspect that approach can't determine height, but couldn't it be used to help with the inevitable less-than-perfect speaker placement in homes?

I appreciate and enjoy the debate, but don't think we can know how Atmos will evolve or survive in the future. Like I said before, I remember when the very first Dolby stank. It was like throwing a blanket over your speakers. So... who knows?

 

[MidnightSensi2]

One thing I love when I read car magazines is that they are critical of performance and function. Manufacturers listen and make better cars as a result. Seems like the audio industry is far more touchy.

I can't comment on the audio industry, but I can the automotive!

Car magazines are very political. They can get away with some pokes, but, not too much. Their aren't enough car companies for them to not play this game. Giving a bad review to a manufacturer often means you won't get dibs on press cars, etc. Ability to get the cars sells magazines, and advertising is also a critical game.

On the flip side, every manufacturer has a team of ass-kissers for the magazines, taking them to press dinners at trade shows, etc. For the manufacturers, its kind of baby sitting. Feeding the writers egos is also on the table. The magazine test drivers are normally over their head, and wrecks are more common than one might think. Now a lot of 'test drives' are done in controlled environments for this reason (they do lead follow, with a manufacturer driver in front to help show the magazine test driver the line, when to brake, etc.)

PS. Top Gear is FAR from exempt lol.

 

[gene]

I can't comment on the audio industry, but I can the automotive!

Car magazines are very political. They can get away with some pokes, but, not too much. Their aren't enough car companies for them to not play this game. Giving a bad review to a manufacturer often means you won't get dibs on press cars, etc. Ability to get the cars sells magazines, and advertising is also a critical game.

On the flip side, every manufacturer has a team of ass-kissers for the magazines, taking them to press dinners at trade shows, etc. For the manufacturers, its kind of baby sitting. Feeding the writers egos is also on the table. The magazine test drivers are normally over their head, and wrecks are more common than one might think. Now a lot of 'test drives' are done in controlled environments for this reason (they do lead follow, with a manufacturer driver in front to help show the magazine test driver the line, when to brake, etc.)

PS. Top Gear is FAR from exempt lol.

Thanks for that back story. It is interesting when I read what some of these reviewers claim about cars and then I go drive them myself. Most recently a reviewer faulted the Lexus IS350F as needing more power b/c 0-60 in 5.5 sec isn't fast enough. Really? By the time I get to 60MPH on most of the roads by my house there is a radar trap and a cop waiting to put down his doughnut to give me a ticket. Thank God for my radar detector.

 

[RichB]

If you want to get an Atmos experience reports without wading through a huge thread you can read KBarnes701 post here:

The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) - Page 139 - AVS Forum

I wonder if this is the best way to compare sound given human perception.
For example, the "Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City Music Hall" BD is a great concert video which I also ripped to lossless track.
There is no comparison between watching the BD and listening to the sound track. Without the video, the impact is lost.

IMO, listening to the theatrical Atmos and then home Atmos is the wrong way round.

- Rich

 

[utopianemo]

Pioneer HTiB?

The Pioneer speaker setup is not HTiB. And well now, Tom. Quitethe surly cur today, aren't we?

 

[Swerd]

I first bought a modern DVD player and AVR in 2000. The new 5 channel system replaced a 2 channel stereo system to which I had previously added a TV and VCR. I had heard DVDs and a 5 channel sound system at a friend’s house and was impressed with the improved sound and picture from the digital sound track from a DVD, even though the sound system used poor quality speakers. The AVR I got could decode Dolby Digital and DTS, and could synthesize Dolby surround sound from any 2 channel source. My old TV set could not accept video from the DVD player, forcing me to buy a new, enormously heavy 32” CRT set. I was unhappy because I was aware of the digital TV developments that were soon to come but were not yet a reality.

New AV receivers became available which could synthesize an improved Dolby Surround II or DTS Neo from 2 channel sources. Even though it might improve sound from TV and VCRs, I passed on that.

DVD players become available with improved resolution, progressive vs. interlaced scanning. I passed on that because my analog CRT TV was unable to show the difference.

7 channel surround sound became available. I passed on that, keeping my 5.

SACD and DVD-A become available. I passed on that. It wasn’t enough of an improvement over red book CD music.

I bought a more powerful 2 channel audio amplifier to supplement the power of my AVR. My front left and right speakers now had 200 watts instead of 70. It made a noticeable improvement in sound.

Digital and High Definition TV gradually become a reality. At first, it was very expensive. I waited until 2007 to buy what was a big improvement in picture quality. Within a year, I picked up a cheap progressive scan DVD player.

I eagerly bought new front speakers, Salks.

Now Blue Ray disc players, vs. the now defunct Toshiba high definition system became the format war for video discs. I passed on that until it became clear that one format would prevail, and the prices of the players came down.

3D TV became available. I passed on that.

Because the BR players made use of new audio formats and HDMI digital connections, new receivers became available that could decode these audio formats. Because many were in a rush to buy these, I took advantage of the flood of good quality used AV receivers that became available, and replaced my 2000 vintage Denon AVR. The newer more powerful receiver could synthesize Dolby Surround II and DTS Neo (an unimportant feature), and had potent bass management features including user modifiable digital notch filters to tame room bass modes, which did make a difference. As a result, I’ve ignored the trends toward various automated room correction software built into AVRs.

The last improvement I’ve bought was a Blue Ray player. It was one the last players on the market that had 5 or 7 channel analog RCA jacks that allowed me to use it on a non-HDMI receiver. It wasn't much of an improvement.

And now here comes Dolby Atmos. I think I’ll pass on that too.

I don’t know if I’m a typical home theater owner or not, but I think my pattern is more common than not.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I don’t know if I’m a typical home theater owner or not, but I think my pattern is more common than not.

Oh, I think you're typical - you want good honest sound & video minus all the gimmicks and hassle.

 

[hurr_durr]

atmos rulezzzzzzz

Don't let Keith Barnes see this article.

He'll write a 100 page article on how misguided they are.

 

[Qwiklap]

While I am still a wait and see guy ... I am thankful for First Reflection's post about the mix. That was very illuminating. I guess I still have a "channel-based" mindset based on current experience. But I appreciate your post in terms of really making it easier for me to understand what is potentially special about Atmos.

 

[fbov]

As someone who designed a passive clone of Linkwitz' Pluto speaker, and so measured frequency response of single vertical drivers, I have to ask what they're thinking with the upward driver?

Below 1KHz, an upward-pointed driver on a small baffle is just a speaker on a small baffle, perfectly omnidirectional until baffle size comes into play (BSC not withstanding), but added to whatever the speaker under it does. Above 1KHz, it becomes directional, but not noticably so unless you focus on the highs. My Pluto clones have wonderful spaciousness properties, even with a mid-tweet crossed above 1KHz, and make great surrounds save for their very low sensitivity. I can't understand how an Atmos speaker designer can decouple the direct sound of the lower drivers from the equally direct sound of the upper? And then there's the issue of wall reflections... A single, high dispersion speaker would do most of what Atmos does in this configuration, without the boatload of downsides.

Now, ceiling-mounted speakers get around this, at added cost and lack of flexibility. It's a great way to go in a dedicated HT, or commercial theater for that matter. The other issue is sensitivity, as any of the room correction routines will level speaker output, so my MTMs were cut 9dB so the little clones could keep up. It's one reason they were retired to stereo duties.

And I'm firmly rooted in the front-wide camp - 5 MTM's across the front with high-dispersion TM surrounds - because my room has doorways and fireplaces on the short walls. Front-wides make a noticable difference, but you still have to be listening for it; 5- to 7-channel switching isn't a revelation, or night/day difference, and I've been doing surround sound since the days of the Dynaco Quadapter (yes, I was a kid at the time_.

Some very interesting perspectives voiced as a result of the article, and the backlash is expected whenever you reveal the Emporer's New Clothes. Honesty has a price, but it also brings rewards!

Have fun,
Frank

 

[sharkman]

If you want to get an Atmos experience reports without wading through a huge thread you can read KBarnes701 post here:

The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) - Page 139 - AVS Forum

I wonder if this is the best way to compare sound given human perception.
For example, the "Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City Music Hall" BD is a great concert video which I also ripped to lossless track.
There is no comparison between watching the BD and listening to the sound track. Without the video, the impact is lost.

IMO, listening to the theatrical Atmos and then home Atmos is the wrong way round.

- Rich

I was disappointed in the front highs and wides previously, but Atmos seems like something with real potential to change the landscape, as it were. IMO, they've done the roll out pretty astutely, and beating other options to the market place by a fair margin. It's already in the theaters so people can hear for themselves what all the hubbub is about.

I think there will be those who reject it simply because it's new and requires more speakers, and that is fine. But for many of us on forums like these, we are early researchers and adapters who are not afraid of new technology should it prove effective. To give an idea, there is a Dolby Atmos thread at AVS that is 111 pages and it's only 2 months old, so there is real interest to be sure.

In a year or more I'll be redoing my theater. I'll definitely be looking at Atmos and any other technology. Content will be important too, so we'll see. I think that articles making broad pronouncements like the one this thread is based on are a little premature.

 

[gene]

I was disappointed in the front highs and wides previously, but Atmos seems like something with real potential to change the landscape, as it were. IMO, they've done the roll out pretty astutely, and beating other options to the market place by a fair margin. It's already in the theaters so people can hear for themselves what all the hubbub is about.

I think there will be those who reject it simply because it's new and requires more speakers, and that is fine. But for many of us on forums like these, we are early researchers and adapters who are not afraid of new technology should it prove effective. To give an idea, there is a Dolby Atmos thread at AVS that is 111 pages and it's only 2 months old, so there is real interest to be sure.

In a year or more I'll be redoing my theater. I'll definitely be looking at Atmos and any other technology. Content will be important too, so we'll see. I think that articles making broad pronouncements like the one this thread is based on are a little premature.

Agreed and if anything Atmos will survive as it trickles down to all of the AV receivers like TrueHD did despite most people don't use it. I just hope the trend doesn't continue where people think a 3" paper cone firing up at the ceiling is as good or better than discrete ceiling mounted speakers. I'd hate to see people limit the dynamic range of their speaker system or compromise quality of their speaker packages just to incorporate Atmos.

Some very interesting perspectives voiced as a result of the article, and the backlash is expected whenever you reveal the Emporer's New Clothes. Honesty has a price, but it also brings rewards!

Tom's article is definitely premature IMO as was Clint's article years back predicting that HD formats failed. But at the end of the day I allow our authors to express their opinions freely on this site and none of us are Yesman like often seen by the rest of the press. Are we sometimes a bit too abrasive? Yes. Do we make mistakes? Yes. But we do try to get to the real meat of issues and we approach things from the side of skepticism which often rubs people the wrong way.

Trust me when I tell you we haven't received any rewards for our Atmos coverage. Sure they hate us on AVS but they always find a way to hate us either way. Dolby and Pioneer shunned us which is sad b/c we've been giving Pioneer FREE and positive coverage for over a decade without ever receiving a dime for advertising. Also our first Youtube video didn't even mention Pioneer and our actual Preview article of the new Pioneer speakers was mostly favorable. We always cover Dolby news since this site's inception including our very neutral Dolby Atmos Overview article. My review of the last AJ speaker system still ranks #1 in Google and they've sold a ton of speakers b/c of it.But I digress.

If this is the definition of journalism then please count me out:

[video=youtube_share;WyzuGWaSDzQ]http://youtu.be/WyzuGWaSDzQ[/video]

I find this style of limp reporting unpalatable. Just accepting ever claim as fact rather than challenging it, especially when much of it is complete nonsense. But it certainly makes the manufacturers and consumers happy since its all warm and fuzzy. Sorry I can't do that.