5 Reasons Dolby Atmos May Be DOA

[cutedaddy]

Atmos doa yes or no?

Steve Munz's article clearly illustrates how Tom Andry is overly pessimistic. All five arguments Steve mentions are valid, but the fact Atmos is an 'opt-in' feature rather than a market tyranny (like some we've seen before) really says it all. Don't like it, want it or need it? Just play the Atmos processed material on your existing system like you always did and you'll never know the difference. Everybody happy. Can't argue w/that!
Since there's no cons remaining on the consumer end, and on the production side of things it was mostly pros in the first place, it then seems pretty clear: Atmos will succeed.

 

[GO-NAD!]

There have been, of course, costs associated with the development of Dolby Atmos as well as its implementation in Home Theatre equipment. So, I don't know that it's simply an opt-in/opt-out question on the electronics side, i.e. AVRs and BD players. Those costs will have to be passed on to consumers, whether or not one decides to forgo the added speakers required to take advantage of Atmos' capabilities. Can we expect minimal or quite noticeable price increases for said components?

 

[Steve81]

Can we expect minimal or quite noticeable price increases for said components?

Pretty minimal from what I've seen so far. The AVR-X4100 is $100 more expensive than it's non-Atmos predecessor. When you figure in that extra $100 covers the inclusion of integrated wireless over the old X4000 as well as some extra DSP horsepower to deal with Atmos, it's not a bad deal.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Steve Munz's article clearly illustrates how Tom Andry is overly pessimistic.

Imagine you are in a Debate class back in high-school. There are 2 opposing sides - "For ATMOS" vs "Against ATMOS". Your teacher assigns "For ATMOS" to your buddy. But she assigns "Against ATMOS" to you. How would you make your case?

This is what we are seeing here.

It's a fun exercise. A great lawyer could probably win either arguments.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Pretty minimal from what I've seen so far. The AVR-X4100 is $100 more expensive than it's non-Atmos predecessor. When you figure in that extra $100 covers the inclusion of integrated wireless over the old X4000 as well as some extra DSP horsepower to deal with Atmos, it's not a bad deal.

Could also be a little inflation.

For example, the Denon AVR3312 was $1100, but the AVR3313 was $1200, and the X4000 was $1300.

 

[gene]

My understanding is speaker manufacturers have to pay a licensing fee to brand their speakers as "Atmos Enabled". Hence that might explain why Definitive Technology is charging $500/pr for a 3" paper treated Atmos speaker module. On the flip side, Dolby doesn't make any money if the installer uses a regular in-ceiling speaker for Atmos applications.

 

[RichB]

Imagine you are in a Debate class back in high-school. There are 2 opposing sides - "For ATMOS" vs "Against ATMOS". Your teacher assigns "For ATMOS" to your buddy. But she assigns "Against ATMOS" to you. How would you make your case?

This is what we are seeing here.

It's a fun exercise. A great lawyer could probably win either arguments.

Actually, it is a bit worse, if you question Atmos and quote the experiences of some over others, you are anti-Atmos.
The level of zealotry is intense.

For the time-being, they can say "you haven't heard it".

It goes something like this where "AP" is Atmos person.

ME: What about the dispersion characteristic of 3 inch drivers that will overlap the main channels?
AP: "Andrew Jones designed them, that's enough for me."
ME: Yeah, but its physics.
AP: "They have a DSP processing and a notch filter. Dolby has spent millions on this technology and you have not heard it".

ME: In the NY Demo, no one was "fooled" into believing the Atmos speakers were actually the overhead channels.
AP: "They sounded great, so what's your point?"
ME: Doesn't that mean they were not a convincing simulation?
AP: "They both sound great and you have not heard them and most attendees prefer them."
ME: Do you have a count of users and which ones have high-end HT's?
AP: "What is your point in continually bringing this up and you have not heard them?"

Trust me, I could go on for hours.
Technical discussion is unwelcome.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

My understanding is speaker manufacturers have to pay a licensing fee to brand their speakers as "Atmos Enabled". Hence that might explain why Definitive Technology is charging $500/pr for a 3" paper treated Atmos speaker module. On the flip side, Dolby doesn't make any money if the installer uses a regular in-ceiling speaker for Atmos applications.

Does Dolby changes licensing fees to the AVR manufacturers?
Are their licensing fees BD publishers?

- Rich

 

[gene]

Does Dolby changes licensing fees to the AVR manufacturers?
Are their licensing fees BD publishers?

- Rich

I don't know all of the specifics but from the AVR side, I'd imagine it's like anything else they've been doing over the years. You license Atmos you probably get all of the older Dolby tech along with it too. This is the first time for Dolby type speakers in the consumer market as far as I know. This could be part of the reason why there is such a push for them.

 

[Steve81]

But she assigns "Against ATMOS" to you. How would you make your case?

Tom does have a bit of flair to his writing, and that probably didn't help him here I'd simply focus on the key complaints:

1. Dolby is casting too wide a net. Atmos has no real place in the HTIB market, both for the fact that consumers at this level aren't likely to set things up properly (i.e. they aren't enthusiasts), and you can really only buy so many speakers for $500-$1000 before quality tanks big time. The only thing Dolby is doing in this side of the market is diluting the brand IMHO.

2. This ties in with #1 to some extent, but I suspect the super-cheap looking Atmos modules like the Onkyo example are a key part of the push-back Atmos is getting. A demo isn't necessary to understand the inherent limitations of a 3" paper cone driver.

3. The roll out of Atmos hasn't gone as smoothly as it should have in terms of flow of information. Gene mentioned when we did the preview article for the new Pioneer Elite speakers (late June), he sent an e-mail to them to give an opportunity to peer the article with no response. Later, Chris Walker stated they were under NDA . Keep in mind, when I wrote the article, the products were popping up on Pioneer's website. It was a month later before anybody actually mentioned the DSP and bandwidth limiting used in the Atmos engine to make enabled speakers work. The release of the Home Atmos white papers was also relatively recent.

4. Then there's the matter of the number of speakers involved to implement. 5.1.2 might not be so bad; you can run the setup off an 7 channel amp, and with enabled speakers, you don't really have to suffer much rewiring. 7.1.4 and beyond....that's another story. No doubt there's still a market, but it's going to be a niche.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Tom does have a bit of flair to his writing, and that probably didn't help him here .

A little indulgence. Having too much fun.

 

[RichB]

Coming to a BestBuy near you:

Sales: What you really need is Atmos because it does a better job by making sound come from all around you.
Atmos and Atmos speakers to provide the an amazing surround experience.

Customer: But I cannot install more speakers so does Atmos help.

Sales: Atmos is the gold standard of surround sound.

Customer: But I don't have surround sound now.

Sales: No problem, you can use an Atmos surround soundbar.

- Rich

 

[wiyosaya]

This was posted on AVSForum.

View attachment 13864

"Reflected Sound Simulated Height Speakers"

Clearly created by an engineer.

A marketer would have used "psycho-acoustics".
Psycho-acousticsis what happens when physics does not permit actual acoustics

- Rich

With this, we might as well have a Bose 901 for our center channel speaker. LOL

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Coming to a BestBuy near you:

Sales: What you really need is Atmos because it does a better job by making sound come from all around you.
Atmos and Atmos speakers to provide the an amazing surround experience.

Customer: But I cannot install more speakers so does Atmos help.

Sales: Atmos is the gold standard of surround sound.

Customer: But I don't have surround sound now.

Sales: No problem, you can use an Atmos surround soundbar.

- Rich

LOL.

Sales: Oh, yeah, dude, no matter how many freaking speakers you own, man, ATMOS is the bomb of surround sound. Gotta have, bro.

Sales: BTW, I'm sure Audyssey, ARC, Trinnov, Lyngdorf, Dirac, and whatnot will be coming out with room correction software for ATOMS too, dude.

 

[Reorx]

Tom does have a bit of flair to his writing, and that probably didn't help him here I'd simply focus on the key complaints:

1. Dolby is casting too wide a net. Atmos has no real place in the HTIB market, both for the fact that consumers at this level aren't likely to set things up properly (i.e. they aren't enthusiasts), and you can really only buy so many speakers for $500-$1000 before quality tanks big time. The only thing Dolby is doing in this side of the market is diluting the brand IMHO.

2. This ties in with #1 to some extent, but I suspect the super-cheap looking Atmos modules like the Onkyo example are a key part of the push-back Atmos is getting. A demo isn't necessary to understand the inherent limitations of a 3" paper cone driver.

3. The roll out of Atmos hasn't gone as smoothly as it should have in terms of flow of information. Gene mentioned when we did the preview article for the new Pioneer Elite speakers (late June), he sent an e-mail to them to give an opportunity to peer the article with no response. Later, Chris Walker stated they were under NDA . Keep in mind, when I wrote the article, the products were popping up on Pioneer's website. It was a month later before anybody actually mentioned the DSP and bandwidth limiting used in the Atmos engine to make enabled speakers work. The release of the Home Atmos white papers was also relatively recent.

4. Then there's the matter of the number of speakers involved to implement. 5.1.2 might not be so bad; you can run the setup off an 7 channel amp, and with enabled speakers, you don't really have to suffer much rewiring. 7.1.4 and beyond....that's another story. No doubt there's still a market, but it's going to be a niche.

I would probably add:
5. Room layout and Speaker placement. Atmos appears to be lacking in flexibility.

I have a huge room, with plenty of ceiling space (although vaulted), and really like the idea of going to 7.2.4. But my surrounds and rears are 7' high so I can walk under them, and they are out of the way. Having them at ear level will not work.

6. Atmos Enabled Content. How long is it going to take before we see the content? Is it going to be similar to 4k HDTV content? Scarce.



So at the moment, I am taking the wait and see approach. Maybe the next version of Atmos or DTS UHD will be more flexible.

 

[RichB]

I would probably add:
5. Room layout and Speaker placement. Atmos appears to be lacking in flexibility.

I have a huge room, with plenty of ceiling space (although vaulted), and really like the idea of going to 7.2.4. But my surrounds and rears are 7' high so I can walk under them, and they are out of the way. Having them at ear level will not work.

6. Atmos Enabled Content. How long is it going to take before we see the content? Is it going to be similar to 4k HDTV content? Scarce.

View attachment 13894

So at the moment, I am taking the wait and see approach. Maybe the next version of Atmos or DTS UHD will be more flexible.

Your speakers are already up high as are many peoples surround channels.
I have a system with all speakers at 9 feet and the sound is the cinema like since all cinema's have high surrounds.

The Atmos fans don't recognize that it can have diminishing returns in systems like yours.

- Rich

 

[gene]

Your speakers are already up high as are many peoples surround channels.
I have a system with all speakers at 9 feet and the sound is the cinema like since all cinema's have high surrounds.

The Atmos fans don't recognize that it can have diminishing returns in systems like yours.

- Rich

Unless a future iteration of Atmos works on getting sound to project below you I can see it now, speakers on the floor firing up at the listener or perhaps firing down and bouncing off the floor. Anything is possible.

 

[gene]

4 Ways Dolby Atmos Can Gain Consumer Appeal

A new Atmos editorial:

4 Ways Dolby Atmos Can Gain Consumer Appeal | Audioholics

 

[RichB]

A new Atmos editorial:

4 Ways Dolby Atmos Can Gain Consumer Appeal | Audioholics

A very good read.

FilmMixer has made some interesting posts as of late.
In one he stated that a typical Atmos mix imposes a typical overhead of about 20%.
DTS-MA is already more efficient because of the core DTS-track, where Dolby TrueHD requires a hidden DD track.
That's a double hit. Why are most BD's using DTS-MA, is it price, space, and/or bandwidth?

The 24K question is why is Atmos not using speaker positions and why require height channels.
Only insiders know for sure, but I suspect three major reasons.

1) The DSPs and decoding algorithms are not ready.
2) The AVR manufactures needed more time for integrating the new features
3) There is not enough bandwidth in a BD to support a large number of objects.

It has been said, that OO sound makes it easier to author. Perhaps, but since the vast majority of sound is encoded into the beds with some objects mapped on the height channels. That sounds like more, not less work. A subset of the objects has to be selected than fits within the bandwidth.
If bandwidth is a limiting factor, than perhaps full OO sound cannot be provide on BD.
From the consumer view, Audio and Video advancements are tied together, so 4K BD and OO sound might be the right combination.

When Atmos was announced, many expected OO sound and all of its benefits Single mix, separate vocal objects, speaker placement mapping.
What we have with the first release seems far more channel based and limited when compared to the possible benefits of OO sound.

- Rich

 

[gene]

A very good read.

FilmMixer has made some interesting posts as of late.
In one he stated that a typical Atmos mix imposes a typical overhead of about 20%.
DTS-MA is already more efficient because of the core DTS-track, where Dolby TrueHD requires a hidden DD track.
That's a double hit. Why are most BD's using DTS-MA, is it price, space, and/or bandwidth?

The 24K question is why is Atmos not using speaker positions and why require height channels.
Only insiders know for sure, but I suspect three major reasons.

1) The DSPs and decoding algorithms are not ready.
2) The AVR manufactures needed more time for integrating the new features
3) There is not enough bandwidth in a BD to support a large number of objects.

It has been said, that OO sound makes it easier to author. Perhaps, but since the vast majority of sound is encoded into the beds with some objects mapped on the height channels. That sounds like more, not less work. A subset of the objects has to be selected than fits within the bandwidth.
If bandwidth is a limiting factor, than perhaps full OO sound cannot be provide on BD.
From the consumer view, Audio and Video advancements are tied together, so 4K BD and OO sound might be the right combination.

When Atmos was announced, many expected OO sound and all of its benefits Single mix, separate vocal objects, speaker placement mapping.
What we have with the first release seems far more channel based and limited when compared to the possible benefits of OO sound.

- Rich

Rich just give it another 4-5 years. When Dolby comes out with Gen2 Atmos they will speak how wonderfully better it is than anything before it just like they are speaking about Atmos today compared to Dolby TrueHD a few years ago.

If you look at my interview with Dolby on TrueHD back in 2007 you would have thought you simply couldn't get any better than this.

See:
Video: Dolby Interview at CEDIA 2007 | Audioholics

and:

2007 State of the CE Union Dolby Labs and AIX Records Interview | Audioholics