The Dolby Atmos, DTS-X, and Auro-3D Discussion Thread

[William Lemmerhirt]

I see your point.

Do you think going from x.x.2 to x.x.4 is like going from 5.1 to 7.1 to 9.1 ?

In each of their respective contexts(channel based vs object based) , definitely yes. Although IMEx.x.2 to x.x.4 is more of an upgrade than 5.1 to 7.1.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I went with 4 right off the bat for one simple reason. If you go with 2 the placement is in a different part of the ceiling then going 4. So to start with 2 in-ceilings and then upgrade later to 4 either means patching holes or compromising placement.

A little bit.

For 5.1.2, the front ceiling speakers are about 2 - 3 ft in front of you.

For 5.1.4, the front ceiling speakers are about 4 - 5 ft in front of you.

 

[Auditor55]

I have heard a number of Atmos demos. I think Atmos really wasted the potential of object oriented sound mixes. It could have has so much more flexibility than what it does. I am very disappointed at where Dolby has taken Atmos. I am sure they don't care since they have so much marketshare, but, in my opinion, they have mostly fulfilled the most negative predictions that Gene made back when it was launched for home use. It's just a damn shame.

It would be good if you explain a little further when you say Atmos could be more flexible.

 

[Drunkpenguin]

That picture is misleading. Dolby suggests using specific angles which really change where those speakers are going to end up. Especially with taller ceilings.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

A little bit.

For 5.1.2, the front ceiling speakers are about 2 - 3 ft in front of you.

For 5.1.4, the front ceiling speakers are about 4 - 5 ft in front of you.

While I don’t think you’re miles off, the images here are a little rudimentary. I believe the angles are more important than the measurements.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
This guide is much more comprehensive.
It also seems that keeping the “square” of atmos speakers above is more important than say, splitting the difference in a longer narrow room, and putting the front heights between the mains and LP. Again, this is in reference to the actual angled to the TF and TR speakers.

 

[Auditor55]

The following is compared to the original playback on 7.1 and not necessarily just as judgement on the use of Atmos/Dts:X. None of these films sound bad in 7.1

Good films so far, in no particular order (don't judge for the choices .)
Fast an Furious 8
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Transformers The Last Knight
XXX Return of Xander Cage
Rampage
Ready Player One
Mission Impossible Rogue Nation
Now You See Me 2
Crimson Peak
Atomic Blonde
Sucide Squad
Wonder Woman
Pacific Rim Uprising
Hunger Games Mockingjay Parts 1 and 2
Ghost in the Shell
The Great Wall

Good but not greatly improved, (I have really only listened to in .2)
Jason Bourne
The Mummy
The Mechanic Ressurection
Jack Reacher Never Go Back

Unknown but hopeful
The Hitmans Bodyguard
Batman v Superman
The Justice League
Valerian

Ones reckoned to be good but I don't have (who knows, a purchase might be in the offing)
John Wick
Gravity

This is really only a sub section of what is available I think the total figure is thought to be around 200ish, perhaps more and growing. Atmos heavily outnumbers the Dts:X. UHD I think always have the Atmos/Dts:X or both. Blurays are bit more hit or miss in the release.

I think Dts could score big time if instead of the usual preference for Dts HDMA which is far more prevalent than True HD. A Dts:X mix instead would go a long way to redressing the balance.

You may notice a heavy presence of DC Comics and Tom Cruise and a complete absence of Disney/Marvel/Pixar/Lucasfilms. I do not currently own any UHD discs and Disney for whatever reason, does not release Atmos/Dts:X on Bluray. However since their recent releases on Bluray and UHD sound mixes have been less than stellar that might not be a bad thing. The sooner they sort this the better. Blaming Skywalker Studios is a complete red herring as a number of the above were also done there.

YMMV, other discs are available.

For those studios that want to reserve Atmos for their UHD titles and DTS for their regular Blu Ray releases could easily include a DTS-X mix on them.

 

[Auditor55]

That picture is misleading. Dolby suggests using specific angles which really change where those speakers are going to end up. Especially with taller ceilings.

View attachment 25696View attachment 25697

That's a flaw in the Dolby approach, could distract from the movie.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

That picture is misleading. Dolby suggests using specific angles which really change where those speakers are going to end up. Especially with taller ceilings.

View attachment 25696View attachment 25697

Agreed.
That’s why I think this guide should be more readily available.
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

 

[Bookmark]

It is my hope that given the current dominance of Atmos, particularly in UHDs. Dts could score a good result if the current bluray preference for Dts HDMA was actually Dts:X. It would require studios to get on board and unfortunately require a new mix which might be problematic. I am not entirely sure why Dts is so heavily used in Blurays when a True HD mix must be available from the Atmos mix when doing the UHDs.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

While I don’t think you’re miles off, the images here are a little rudimentary. I believe the angles are more important than the measurements.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
This guide is much more comprehensive.
It also seems that keeping the “square” of atmos speakers above is more important than say, splitting the difference in a longer narrow room, and putting the front heights between the mains and LP. Again, this is in reference to the actual angled to the TF and TR speakers.

Yeah, these figures are just basic guidelines, definitely not meant to be exacting.

Most rooms are no bigger than 18 x 20 and many people sit a lot closer to the rear wall/surround speakers than the figures.

As you say, 2 ceiling speakers in front of you (close to 30-55 degrees) and 2 ceiling speakers in back of you are more important than the actual distance.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

That picture is misleading. Dolby suggests using specific angles which really change where those speakers are going to end up. Especially with taller ceilings.

View attachment 25696View attachment 25697

Yeah that’s a pretty good “Guideline”. Something like that or close to it should be good.

A lot of people sit a lot closer to the back wall, don’t have as big of a room, have different ceiling heights (8’ to 16’). So a range of placements will work.

But these 2 pictures are a good starting point.

For 2 ceiling speakers, aim for 65-100 degrees. For 4 ceiling speakers, aim for 30-55 degrees.

But as we can see, there’s not much difference between 55 (4 OH) and 65 degrees (2 OH) - avg 60 degrees.

 

[shadyJ]

It would be good if you explain a little further when you say Atmos could be more flexible.

One aspect of Atmos that is rigid is the placement of the speakers. Atmos assumes certain placements for speakers for its system. It didn't need to be that way with an object-oriented sound system. An object-oriented sound system could have just dealt with speakers with custom placement by triangulating their position with respect to the measuring/listening position and mapped the system accordingly. Speakers are just objects in this type of sound mix. That would have been better since not many people can have a layout exactly prescribed by Atmos, and instead of people being forced to adhere to Dolby's layout, Atmos could have been optimized to handle non-ideal speaker placement, ie., what most people have to work with. It would have made Atmos so much more useful.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

One aspect of Atmos that is rigid is the placement of the speakers. Atmos assumes certain placements for speakers for its system. It didn't need to be that way with an object-oriented sound system. An object-oriented sound system could have just dealt with speakers with custom placement by triangulating their position with respect to the measuring/listening position and mapped the system accordingly. Speakers are just objects in this type of sound mix. That would have been better since not many people can have a layout exactly prescribed by Atmos, and instead of people being forced to adhere to Dolby's layout, Atmos could have been optimized to handle non-ideal speaker placement, ie., what most people have to work with. It would have made Atmos so much more useful.

So ATMOS could have worked just fine with the regular Height speakers, instead of ceiling speakers and those add-on modules?

Is DTSX trying to do what ATMOS could have done?

I heard that DTSX could use the regular Height speakers and didn’t “require” ceiling or add-modules.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I just finished watching “The Great Wall” in Atmos.

I will second that this movie makes great use of the ATMOS speakers. Very cool.

 

[shadyJ]

So ATMOS could have worked just fine with the regular Height speakers, instead of ceiling speakers and those add-on modules?

Is DTSX trying to do what ATMOS could have done?

I heard that DTSX could use the regular Height speakers and didn’t “require” ceiling or add-modules.

I am saying that in an object-oriented sound scheme, you can have speakers placed anywhere with respect to the listening position, and the sound processor should be able to make optimum use of that speaker. All it has to do is map that speaker in the spatial relationship to the listening position. A speaker is just an object that relays sound from its coordinates in an object-oriented sound mix. The problem is that you need a microphone that can actually sense the speaker's position, but there are mic rigs that can do that. It does not look like DTS:X is trying to do this. It mandates certain speaker placements as well. It might have more flexibility than Atmos in its speaker positioning, but it's still not making use of the full potential of the possibilities of an object-oriented sound mix.

 

[Bookmark]

I watched Hitman's and Hacksaw, updated the first post. Also I watched Infinity War (bluray)

I used the core (compressed) Dts and up mixed this with DSU. The result was quite passable however this, like all other recent Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilms/etc suffers from level and compression issues. The original Dts HDMA is a fair bit quieter than the compressed core. If we use the Hacksaw/Hitman as a base level of -36, then it needs to be -26 just to achieve the same levels. The dynamics is however better than Black Panther. Hopefully whatever is the reason it will get sorted sooner rather than later.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You can tell that some movies like “Bad Boys” (remastered in Atmos) make immediate use of the ATMOS speakers right from from the beginning - the opening title song comes from overhead, the airplane sound comes from overhead, the sound of the racing Porsche comes from overhead, etc.

The picture quality isn’t as good as the new movies, but they sure make up for it in the sound department with significant overhead sound mixing.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

You can tell that some movies like “Bad Boys” (remastered in Atmos) make immediate use of the ATMOS speakers right from from the beginning - the opening title song comes from overhead, the airplane sound comes from overhead, the sound of the racing Porsche comes from overhead, etc.

The picture quality isn’t as good as the new movies, but they sure make up for it in the sound department with significant overhead sound mixing.

I hate getting hit in the head with soundtracks like that. Sounds like a mixer/remixer got a little zealous with the controls. Too bad. Much of the magic of atmos is in its subtlety.

 

[Bookmark]

I watched the first 10mins of my old Dvd copy of Bad Boys upmixed by DSU. Not so sure there would have been an awful lot of difference. Sounded quite good, even liked the tunnel whoosh of the escape.

I doubt they redid the mix from scatch though. We are still too early in this Atmos phase for studios to really spend the sort of money they should fixing the video quality or remixing the sound.

Glad you enjoyed though, it is a good film. Big Willy and Big Momma at their best. Really hope if they do a third, it's better than the second.

I would like to add Batman v Superman to the list of worthwhiles. First 10mins of that are a pretty good demo.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I would like to add Batman v Superman to the list of worthwhiles. First 10mins of that are a pretty good demo.

Oh good. I haven’t seen BvS in Atmos yet. I will now.

I guess ATMOS is kind of like a new toy. And if it gets us excited again, more power to us.

I was never excited about 3D video. I was pretty excited about TrueHD and DTSHD. But I am even more excited now about ATMOS.

I haven’t seen most of the titles on your list of GOOD Atmos contents. Only senn 2 on your list so far - Ready Player One and The Great Wall. Funny thing is, I probably would have NEVER even seen them if they weren’t on your list. But I am really glad I watched them.