You have to be careful about what you listen to from people at Dolby. One of their key people came out a few years ago as totally opposed to 7.1 in the home...yet, here it is. He was mostly objecting to how it was used, as 7.1 in theaters is 5 screen channels, two surrounds.
Atmos was targeted at commercial theaters, though, where more channels are more feasible (though equally as unlikely) than the home. In the home it's hard enough to place 5.1. But the point here is if the material is produced, it can be re-channeled for something more like discrete 9.2/11.2, even if the channels are extracted via some alorithm.
The argument for more channels has typically been that a doubling of channel count is an unmistakable change for every listener. 1 > 2 was huge, 2 > 5, also huge. 5 > 7, not so much. Turns out, though, that adding the height and width channels does in fact make a far more noticeable change than adding the two back channels, largely due to the channel count. 5.1 > 11.2 should, in theory, be equally huge.
Personally, I look at DSX 9.1/11.2 as an interim step. I have heard discrete 10.2 in a home theater setting, and I can tell you THAT was really good. The speaker plan was slightly different than DSX 11.2, but height and wide channels were there. What you can achieve is a transportation into a complete 3D acoustic space, rather than a circular but relatively flat space. 11.2 is an interim solution until we get all the real channels.
There's also a point to be made for the VOG channel (Voice Of God...center of the venue, high pointed down). That one might actually be easier in an HT than front height and width.
Won't it be fun to watch this all shake out, though?
