# Denon Dolby Atmos



## Reefdvr27 (Aug 1, 2012)

Looks like Denon has announced a line up Dolby Atmos AVR's in Europe slated for September. 

This link is in French, but there are pics.
http://www.cinenow.fr/articles/2883...vr-x5200w-et-avr-x7200w-demandez-le-programme


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

Aaaaghhh!!! I'm as work & IT has the site blocked. Oh well, I can see it when I get home. So does it have like 20 speaker binding posts?


----------



## Reefdvr27 (Aug 1, 2012)

Tonto said:


> Aaaaghhh!!! I'm as work & IT has the site blocked. Oh well, I can see it when I get home. So does it have like 20 speaker binding posts?


 I think the flagship has a 13.2 pre out, but the unit is only capable of 9.2 amplified


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Tonto said:


> Aaaaghhh!!! I'm as work & IT has the site blocked. Oh well, I can see it when I get home. So does it have like 20 speaker binding posts?


You don't need 20 channels for Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

Well it's been a while since I read about it. But I thought it was all about more surround & even ceiling channels to provide an even more compelling 3D/surround experiance. So this must be a software package in the Denon AVR's?



> Dolby Atmos Technical Information
> 
> Creates clearer, more accurately positioned cinema sound; uses object-oriented mixing to layer independent sound elements over channel-based audio content
> 
> ...


So it must be software to combine info across existing channels. But then it talks about _*up to 64 independant speaker outputs*_. Is that part for commercial theaters?


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Tonto said:


> Well it's been a while since I read about it. But I thought it was all about more surround & even ceiling channels to provide an even more compelling 3D/surround experiance. So this must be a software package in the Denon AVR's?
> 
> 
> 
> So it must be software to combine info across existing channels. But then it talks about _*up to 64 independant speaker outputs*_. Is that part for commercial theaters?


Up to 64 channels is what the Theater can have... The local theater I went to had 28 visible channels (not sure how many they had behind the screen. I am thinking that for home use it will move the sound in space to whatever channels locations you have. I would think that you would be giving it more info during the calibration so it knows exactly where your speakers are located. We will find out when they actually release the units and the reviews start to come in.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

Very cool! I knew it wouldn't be long before something like this happened. I tried a google translation of the page, but it was a little painful to read. Still, a very interesting find. It's been a while since I've read about this stuff... I can't remember if ATMOS requires its own dedicated surround mix. I would think so, since it focuses on object-oriented mixing. I wonder if that means an extra soundtrack to be stored on the disc, or if certain material can be flagged and derived from the normal DD/DTS tracks by an ATMOS-enabled processor to behave differently. 

It might never take off if it needs its own dedicated mix, but if it can "do its own thing" with the existing tracks, kind of like Audyssey DSX or PLIIz or something, sign me up!


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Owen Bartley said:


> Very cool! I knew it wouldn't be long before something like this happened. I tried a google translation of the page, but it was a little painful to read. Still, a very interesting find. It's been a while since I've read about this stuff... I can't remember if ATMOS requires its own dedicated surround mix. I would think so, since it focuses on object-oriented mixing. I wonder if that means an extra soundtrack to be stored on the disc, or if certain material can be flagged and derived from the normal DD/DTS tracks by an ATMOS-enabled processor to behave differently.
> 
> It might never take off if it needs its own dedicated mix, but if it can "do its own thing" with the existing tracks, kind of like Audyssey DSX or PLIIz or something, sign me up!


I think it will require its own dedicated soundtrack mix. I would think that it would be just like buying a BR with a DTS, and DD soundtrack. I am hoping that they make the install process more involved, and ask the user to puch in exactly where the speakers are... If they do this I think you would be able to use your current speakers in their locations and maybe just add some height channels. :T


----------



## Reefdvr27 (Aug 1, 2012)

This puts a new spin on things now. I myself would rather wait a few year till it is perfected and having some more choices for a head unit. However I am wiring my theater now and I would love to know what I could do to wire it now. I thought about wiring 4 channels over head and when the time comes just adding 4 in wall ceiling speakers. I was thinking though could you imagine running Audyssey with 13 channels + subs, I mean especially running the full 8 positions :gulp: I hate running 5 channels and subs.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Dolby Atmos will be nice but until there is a discrete encoded Atmos track on the BluRay its kind of jumping the gun and from my reading none of the movie studios plan on implementing that yet for home use.


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Reefdvr27 said:


> This puts a new spin on things now. I myself would rather wait a few year till it is perfected and having some more choices for a head unit. However I am wiring my theater now and I would love to know what I could do to wire it now. I thought about wiring 4 channels over head and when the time comes just adding 4 in wall ceiling speakers. I was thinking though could you imagine running Audyssey with 13 channels + subs, I mean especially running the full 8 positions :gulp: I hate running 5 channels and subs.


We are making a soffit that goes around the whole room... It will have removable fabric panels and be stuffed with absorption panels. We are doing this so we can also upgrade to height channels anywhere in the room if we need to. :T


----------



## Reefdvr27 (Aug 1, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Dolby Atmos will be nice but until there is a discrete encoded Atmos track on the BluRay its kind of jumping the gun and from my reading none of the movie studios plan on implementing that yet for home use.


I agree, these new units coming out are dead until there is content. The same with 4K. I'm not wasting my money until the content is there or if it is even ever there. It has been mentioned that these units are not even going to be pre loaded with Atmos. There is talk of a firmware update. There is whole lot more to this other than buying a Atmos capable AVR, I hope people think it out before they lay down the cash for it.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

Tonto said:


> So does it have like 20 speaker binding posts?


Nope, one of the models is 7.1 with a MSRP of 1,500 Euros. Puts to rest the notion that Atmos requires higher speaker counts than what is in current AVRs.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

tonyvdb said:


> Dolby Atmos will be nice but until there is a discrete encoded Atmos track on the BluRay its kind of jumping the gun and from my reading none of the movie studios plan on implementing that yet for home use.





Reefdvr27 said:


> I agree, these new units coming out are dead until there is content. The same with 4K. I'm not wasting my money until the content is there or if it is even ever there. It has been mentioned that these units are not even going to be pre loaded with Atmos. There is talk of a firmware update. There is whole lot more to this other than buying a Atmos capable AVR, I hope people think it out before they lay down the cash for it.


We've had Audyssey DSX 11.2 for several years, it's effective, and there's no discrete source material there either. For now, all of this, Atmos, DSX, 4K, is about up-sampling. We are a long time from having any of that source material, but that doesn't mean up-sampling to all those channels and resolution isn't an improvement. And if we do that now, we get the other real benefits of the devices features, and have the basic infrastructure to hand the real deal when it comes. I wouldn't have nearly as much reservation in building out an Atmos or 11.2 or higher theater now as I do jumping into the partially-standardized 4K, even though getting into 4K is probably cheaper than building for a high-channel-count sound system. Pre-wiring is cheap. You can make a lot of assumptions, put in extra wire, and if you don't need it, it's no big deal. 

I also see AVRs as a shorter life product now than they used to be. I would think a 3-year upgrade cycle is more realistic now vs 5-6 years we had. It's about on par with the display life cycle until at least 4K stabilizes. However, wiring doesn't age out, and speakers have a 10 year + life cycle if you buy right now. And, the capabilities of AVRs has improved, so what you get for a grand now you'd have paid 2K for 5 years back. 

Exciting times, really.

Regarding the time to buy 4K, saw *this article* this morning.


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

gazoink said:


> We've had Audyssey DSX 11.2 for several years, it's effective, and there's no discrete source material there either. For now, all of this, Atmos, DSX, 4K, is about up-sampling. We are a long time from having any of that source material, but that doesn't mean up-sampling to all those channels and resolution isn't an improvement. And if we do that now, we get the other real benefits of the devices features, and have the basic infrastructure to hand the real deal when it comes. I wouldn't have nearly as much reservation in building out an Atmos or 11.2 or higher theater now as I do jumping into the partially-standardized 4K, even though getting into 4K is probably cheaper than building for a high-channel-count sound system. Pre-wiring is cheap. You can make a lot of assumptions, put in extra wire, and if you don't need it, it's no big deal.
> 
> I also see AVRs as a shorter life product now than they used to be. I would think a 3-year upgrade cycle is more realistic now vs 5-6 years we had. It's about on par with the display life cycle until at least 4K stabilizes. However, wiring doesn't age out, and speakers have a 10 year + life cycle if you buy right now. And, the capabilities of AVRs has improved, so what you get for a grand now you'd have paid 2K for 5 years back.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you are saying, except that speakers have a 10 year life cycle. My speakers are 30 years old, and they still sound like new... The only thing I had to do was install some new caps (which now will not be needed as I am going active crossovers with minidsps. :T


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

The problem with having DSX or any other format that tries to guess where to send information is that the more speakers you have in your theater space the less directional the sound image becomes. You start diluting the discrete signal so much that you end up with a mess rather than what originally was intended.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

gazoink said:


> For now, all of this, Atmos, DSX, 4K, is about up-sampling.


There is no upmixing (surround processing) built into Atmos. It is a coder/decoder (codec) for object based audio. 

To that end, it is 100% reliant on Atmos encoded content. But does anyone really believe that Atmos receivers will be released this fall with zero Atmos content available on BD? 

Dolby will have to introduce new surround processing in upcoming AVRs to upmix legacy channel-based content to newer (e.g., 7.1+4) speaker layouts recommended for Atmos.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

Reefdvr27 said:


> I think the flagship has a 13.2 pre out, but the unit is only capable of 9.2 amplified


Marantz 8802 announced at the same French site in your first post. 










From the back panel, it looks like the pre-pro version of the Denon 7200 AVR (just as the Marantz 8801 was the pre-pro version of the Denon 4520 AVR).


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

ellisr63 said:


> I agree with everything you are saying, except that speakers have a 10 year life cycle. My speakers are 30 years old, and they still sound like new... The only thing I had to do was install some new caps (which now will not be needed as I am going active crossovers with minidsps. :T


Yes, I agree, good speakers can go quite a while, but 30 years is a stretch in most cases. The typical problem is the foam surround will usually rot before then, and electrolytics in the crossover sometimes start to dry out. Both are repairable of course, but that's what held me back from saying 30 years. Unless you blow a driver, you can keep speakers going indefinitely. It's 10 for sure, no question. However, there are some 10 year old speakers I run into regularly that have been damaged, and no replacement drivers are available. Conversely, I have a 42 year old pair of Large Advents that, after a bit of care, sound great.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

sdurani said:


> There is no upmixing (surround processing) built into Atmos. It is a coder/decoder (codec) for object based audio.
> 
> To that end, it is 100% reliant on Atmos encoded content. But does anyone really believe that Atmos receivers will be released this fall with zero Atmos content available on BD?
> 
> Dolby will have to introduce new surround processing in upcoming AVRs to upmix legacy channel-based content to newer (e.g., 7.1+4) speaker layouts recommended for Atmos.


Right on Atmos not up-mixing inherently, but that may already be covered.

As far as Denon goes, the units that include Audyssey DSX are "almost there" for Atmos too, and DSX is an up-mix and discrete capable system. The main differences are, Atmos needs two top channels, and DSX uses two wide channels. Basically, you add the tops to DSX, you're ready for anything. However, Dolby will likely include some form of up-mixing, knowing Dolby. It doesn't change the hardware, its just more code. 

I too doubt the release of Atmos capable AVRs with no content, but it is always a cart/horse situation, somebody has to pull the switch first. And, in the case of Atmos, content came first. There is already content available for distribution, even if it hasn't officially been released, and it doesn't require an further mastering. Adding Atmos to an AVR would actually be the next logical step.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

gazoink said:


> Right on Atmos not up-mixing inherently, but that may already be covered.


Upmixing will be covered by whatever new surround processing Dolby comes out with. But let's not confuse that with Atmos.


gazoink said:


> As far as Denon goes, the units that include Audyssey DSX are "almost there" for Atmos too, and DSX is an up-mix and discrete capable system.


Audyssey DSX is surround processing that uses research into concert hall acoustic to generate early side wall and proscenium reflections that were not in the original soundtrack. It's room simulation, to give the impression of listening in a larger (more reverberant) space. 

There is nothing discrete about DSX. And their ambience generating process is in no way similar to object-based audio like Atmos. Whatever upmixing Dolby introduces will likely be based on extracting sounds from legacy soundtracks, not generating reflections the way DSX does.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

sdurani said:


> Upmixing will be covered by whatever new surround processing Dolby comes out with. But let's not confuse that with Atmos.


Sorry if that was confusing to you. I didn't mean that Atmos itself would handle up-mixing, but rather that up-mixing might already be covered by something else. It seems logical that up-mixing would be covered by Dolby's next generation surround processing, but of course, nothing's been announced, so it's as much rumor as any of this.



sdurani said:


> Audyssey DSX is surround processing that uses research into concert hall acoustic to generate early side wall and proscenium reflections that were not in the original soundtrack. It's room simulation, to give the impression of listening in a larger (more reverberant) space.
> 
> There is nothing discrete about DSX. And their ambience generating process is in no way similar to object-based audio like Atmos. Whatever upmixing Dolby introduces will likely be based on extracting sounds from legacy soundtracks, not generating reflections the way DSX does.


Yes, I must be getting old in my sloppy age. Or sloppy in my old age. I never meant to imply DSX was discrete, or that it's specifically an up-mix process. It is, however, a way of "lighting up" more speakers, improving the experience, while we await the discrete delivery method. And when it was introduced, a very strong point was made that a DSX system was "discrete ready", though at the time nobody new what that would be. What that means is, the hardware used for a DSX system would be available and mostly positioned well for an 11.2 discrete system. 

Meanwhile, back on Earth, the reality is hardly anybody is going to do this. The average installed system is still 5.1, with 7.1 close behind. The average self-installed system is 2.0 to 5.1. And mostly, placement is non-ideal. So, the idea of tops, wides, heights...pretty much a fraction of a percent. What's amazing is the effort put into that fraction of a percent....somewhere significantly below whatever percentage of the market dedicated rooms make up.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

gazoink said:


> DSX is an up-mix and discrete capable system.





gazoink said:


> I never meant to imply DSX was discrete, or that it's specifically an up-mix process.


Sure.


gazoink said:


> Meanwhile, back on Earth, the reality is hardly anybody is going to do this. ... What's amazing is the effort put into that fraction of a percent....somewhere significantly below whatever percentage of the market dedicated rooms make up.


Dolby and receiver manufacturers see revenue in that "fraction of a percent"; they believe somebody is "going to do this". They believe it enough to take the risk. We'll soon find out if the gamble was worth it.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

sdurani said:


> Sure.


Congratulations, you have caught my error, and made sure it was thoroughly highlighted. You da man. 

I see no need to further explain my error, though.


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

I think we will have Dolby Atmos this year... Look at 4K tvs for an example. There were no 4k sources when they came out and prior to them coming out the AVRs had 4k capability (not full but it was there).:T


----------



## Reefdvr27 (Aug 1, 2012)

sdurani said:


> Marantz 8802 announced at the same French site in your first post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For some reason I just don't like the 8801. I have been to a couple of GTG's and have seen and heard the 8801, but I am turned off by the price tag and I am really ready to move on to something else other than Audyssey. I am now basically down to just using it to EQ my subs. Even when I was using Audyssey I had half of it off. I know myself my surrounds were $900 a piece, so adding many more is really out of the question. I could build them myself, but I would still be in the $500 range.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

Some good discussion in here. Equipment life cycle will also depend largely on a person's needs and means. I'm sure there are many who replace processors every few years, and then others (like me) who ride it out as long as possible. In that case, it does seem to make sense to look for something that is up to date and as "future proof" as it can be.

I'm guilty of channel envy, and would love to try out a 13.2 setup (or Atmos) even in a small room, even knowing logically that Tony is right and at a certain point you're just creating a wall of noise.

If I were ready to build now (seems like I never will be!), I would definitely run speaker wire for at least a pair of overhead speakers, just in case they become useful in the future.


----------



## mdrums (Jan 1, 2007)

Reefdvr27 said:


> For some reason I just don't like the 8801. I have been to a couple of GTG's and have seen and heard the 8801, but I am turned off by the price tag and I am really ready to move on to something else other than Audyssey. I am now basically down to just using it to EQ my subs. Even when I was using Audyssey I had half of it off. I know myself my surrounds were $900 a piece, so adding many more is really out of the question. I could build them myself, but I would still be in the $500 range.


I have an 8801 too. I have been re-calibrating it with Audessey a few times now based off the in depth posts of mic placement from this forum. I'm just moving the mic around no more than 3 inches based off those recommended posts. This works a lot better than moving the mic around the entire seating area per the set up instructions from Audessey.

However like you I am still not pleased but I do like the Audessey sub eq. 

So with the 8801 how are you only using Audessey to eq the subs? Are you doing an Audessey calibration and copying the curves to the Graphic EQ and just using that?


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

I'm still waiting for a paradigm shift in how surroundsound this processed. Instead of dedicated channels the audio files are coded as a three-dimensional sound image... a bubble of audio if you will. Then the AVR processes that file and assigns the appropriate channel mix based on its own internal EQ based on the room correction. 

http://hometheater.about.com/od/hometheateraudiobasics/a/The-3d-Audio-Alliance-Overview.htm

Don't get me wrong atmos is a huge leap in how well surround can image and it gets us that much closer to the theater.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

rab-byte said:


> Then the AVR processes that file and assigns the appropriate channel mix based on its own internal EQ based on the room correction.


Object-based audio has nothing to with EQ or room correction. It is simply a way to render/map sounds to known speaker locations. It is new to movie soundtracks but video games have been doing it for a decade.


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

sdurani said:


> Object-based audio has nothing to with EQ or room correction. It is simply a way to render/map sounds to known speaker locations. It is new to movie soundtracks but video games have been doing it for a decade.


I'm using the wrong terminology. 
If you could map a room in 3D space then apply the rendered 3D audio file to that room then let the AVR assign audio as opposed to discreet channels. Then you'd have one format that could potentially sound better than a DD/DTS mix if the room wasn't perfect. opposed to saying right channel plays this left plays this the AVR would read 30° right sound object moves to 20° left. 

Yes you're right games have done this on the fly for years. I'd just love to see this implemented into surroundsound formatting. That way a 4.1 or a 7.1 would still be able to produce the same quality of imaging, more or less. It's ideal odd shaped rooms and corner mounted living room HT systems. Post production would also be easier since the theater mix could transfer easier to the home.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Trinnov is doing this already, sadly the only receiver to ever use it (the Sherwood/Newcastle R972) is falling behind the game now and we may not ever see trinnov again in a receiver.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

rab-byte said:


> If you could map a room in 3D space then apply the rendered 3D audio file to that room then let the AVR assign audio as opposed to discreet channels.


Exactly. Even if you have a 5.1-speaker layout, Atmos still has advantages. 

Being able to render/map sounds (objects AND channels) to known speaker locations will allow sounds to image from their intended direction. By comparison, merely sending each discrete channel to its respective speaker means that imaging is at the mercy of arbitrary speaker placement. 

Also, if the dialogue stem (all the dialogue with positional metadata) is encoded as a separate object in the bitstream, then listeners can adjust the dialogue level without affecting any other sounds in the soundtrack. That's really helpful for late at night listening or for the hard of hearing.


----------



## Peter Loeser (Aug 11, 2012)

The receiver setup and calibration process could conceivably accommodate more precise speaker location information too, further improving performance in irregular rooms as stated above. Lots of great potential here.

I am currently wired for up to 11.4 - partially to allow me to evaluate a wide range of receiver configurations for my reviews, and partially to give myself room to upgrade my own when I can afford it. The idea of some type of Atmos implementation in an AVR is very appealing to me. I wouldn't hesitate to run another set of wires up into the ceiling to try additional height channels if that became an option.


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

sdurani said:


> Exactly. Even if you have a 5.1-speaker layout, Atmos still has advantages. Being able to render/map sounds (objects AND channels) to known speaker locations will allow sounds to image from their intended direction. By comparison, merely sending each discrete channel to its respective speaker means that imaging is at the mercy of arbitrary speaker placement. Also, if the dialogue stem (all the dialogue with positional metadata) is encoded as a separate object in the bitstream, then listeners can adjust the dialogue level without affecting any other sounds in the soundtrack. That's really helpful for late at night listening or for the hard of hearing.


 I'm all for more speakers. I probably wouldn't be on this forum if I wasn't. Lol But I'm just wondering how many more speakers the average consumer will be okay with in their home. Most people today still only get a 5.1 system even though they have a 7.1 AVR. With the explanation of soundbars into the market it makes since to suggest another approach is needed. 



Peter Loeser said:


> The receiver setup and calibration process could conceivably accommodate more precise speaker location information too, further improving performance in irregular rooms as stated above. Lots of great potential here.


More speakers strategically placed will always provide a better potential for sound imaging. Being able to better predict the location of those speakers in a home environment would allow for a more consistent experience from the home listener. Such an approach would still be able to incorporate traditional surround formats as a predefined speaker position in a virtual space.


----------



## Reefdvr27 (Aug 1, 2012)

I am enjoying the discussion on Atmos, however I wanted to add my take. I am sure we have all seen this video I am attaching and I would really like to know how anybody thinks that 5.1 could benefit Atmos in anyway? However even if there is any benefit to it, would the slight gain be worth the 3K on a roll of the dice AVR that may not even be pre loaded with the Atmos software? Anbody that has not seen this video, please watch and really decide if Atmos could really be duplicated in the home in a simple way.

My feeling is, unless you are really going to go all the way and lay it all out, I just personally don't think it would be worth it. 4 surround speakers will never give you what Atmos is designed to do? Even adding a couple of ceiling speakers would not do it. Thinking about it the last couple of days, one of the ways I could see it becoming popular would be for speaker designers to offer something like a surround line array, something like 4 or 6 speakers in a row that could run off 1 channel and how that would even work I don't know. Maybe something wireless? I still see years of work on this before regular Joe theater guy could even begin to perfect this the right way.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

Reefdvr27 said:


> Thinking about it the last couple of days, one of the ways I could see it becoming popular would be for speaker designers to offer something like a surround line array, something like 4 or 6 speakers in a row that could run off 1 channel and how that would even work I don't know.


That's the opposite of what Atmos is trying to do in commercial cinemas. Rather than having 4 or 6 speakers run off 1 channel, as the current channel-based systems do, Atmos instead address each speaker individually by sending it unique content.


----------



## Reefdvr27 (Aug 1, 2012)

sdurani said:


> That's the opposite of what Atmos is trying to do in commercial cinemas. Rather than having 4 or 6 speakers run off 1 channel, as the current channel-based systems do, Atmos instead address each speaker individually by sending it unique content.


 I know that, I am saying for home theater an easier way may be a pre fabricated line array that a processor can some how hit each speaker through one channel. Probably cannot be done, but would sure make it allot easier to install. However a simple Atmos home version could be 2 left, 2 right, 4 rear and 2 Voice of God ceiling speakers, along with your front 3 mains. I could go for that. Allthough I would now have to consider all in wall speakers, but that might not be a bad thing, but they sure would not be my JTR single slanted 8's.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

Reefdvr27 said:


> something like a surround line array, something like 4 or 6 speakers in a row that could run off 1 channel





Reefdvr27 said:


> may be a pre fabricated line array that a processor can some how hit each speaker through one channel


Which is it, 4 or 6 speakers running off 1 channel or each speaker running off one channel?


Reefdvr27 said:


> However a simple Atmos home version could be 2 left, 2 right, 4 rear and 2 Voice of God ceiling speakers, along with your front 3 mains.


One of the Atmos receivers in your original link is a 7.1 model, which points to a much simpler Atmos set-up: 3 front, 2 surrounds, 2 heights. Might not seem like much, but it still gives you a front soundstage, a surround field and overhead sounds. Pretty good for only 7 speakers.


----------



## Reefdvr27 (Aug 1, 2012)

sdurani said:


> Which is it, 4 or 6 speakers running off 1 channel or each speaker running off one channel? One of the Atmos receivers in your original link is a 7.1 model, which points to a much simpler Atmos set-up: 3 front, 2 surrounds, 2 heights. Might not seem like much, but it still gives you a front soundstage, a surround field and overhead sounds. Pretty good for only 7 speakers.


To your question, I don't know, I am being hypothetical. I am giving guesses as to how a home theater would get on par to an actual Atmos theater. 


Besides that, from what Film Mixer said and I won't quote him on anything, but from what he alluded to is that 5.1/71 will have no effect with Atmos. You may get some updated dolby DTS effect, but your not going to get what Atmos truly is and does. He also said that Atmos also uses an extra sub and also two extra speakers behind the screen along with 64+ speakers. You also have take in size vs speakers needed for a cinema to speakers actually needed for a home theater.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

Reefdvr27 said:


> To your question, I don't know, I am being hypothetical. I am giving guesses as to how a home theater would get on par to an actual Atmos theater.


The only reason I asked is because your two comments about surround arrays contradicted each other. The home version of Atmos will differ from commercial Atmos theatres in several ways, so you can't use one as a template for the other.


Reefdvr27 said:


> Besides that, from what Film Mixer said and I won't quote him on anything, but from what he alluded to is that 5.1/71 will have no effect with Atmos.


As someone who has mixed an Atmos movie (The Heat), his views on Atmos are based on the commercial version. As such, he doesn't believe that the consumer version will render/map the audio to a 5.1 speaker layout (in commercial cinemas, there is a separate 5.1 track because Atmos doesn't downmix). The consumer version will be different.


----------



## Reefdvr27 (Aug 1, 2012)

sdurani said:


> The only reason I asked is because your two comments about surround arrays contradicted each other. The home version of Atmos will differ from commercial Atmos theatres in several ways, so you can't use one as a template for the other. As someone who has mixed an Atmos movie (The Heat), his views on Atmos are based on the commercial version. As such, he doesn't believe that the consumer version will render/map the audio to a 5.1 speaker layout (in commercial cinemas, there is a separate 5.1 track because Atmos doesn't downmix). The consumer version will be different.


 I guess what I will say is that until we see a unit in the US for sale and get hands on experience with it, there really is nothing we can actually really say other than speculate. My thought is that it is a gimmick for now, just like there was 4K upscaling before 4K TV's and no content. It's all a guess at this point and my thought is we are years from seeing it. Pretty much what the new Denon line up is basically the new "line up" and it is probably going to have a badge that says "Atmos ready" even though it won't do anything for years like 4K until the content is there and perfected.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

Reefdvr27 said:


> My thought is that it is a gimmick for now, just like there was 4K upscaling before 4K TV's and no content.


What is the "gimmick" with Atmos or 4K? That is, what is the trick being perpetrated on consumers?


----------



## sub_crazy (Nov 17, 2007)

tonyvdb said:


> Trinnov is doing this already, sadly the only receiver to ever use it (the Sherwood/Newcastle R972) is falling behind the game now and we may not ever see trinnov again in a receiver.


You're right about Trinnov, way more immersive than Audyssey DSX in my system and I am only using 7 normally placed channels. No need for height or wide channels with Trinnov as the sound just wraps around you even if you don't have ideal speaker placement. 

It will be interesting to see if Atmos brings something more than Trinnov, if it does than that would be great. I would love to see another receiver/pre-pro with Trinnov for under $5K but you may be right, we may never see it which is a shame.


----------



## mdrums (Jan 1, 2007)

sdurani said:


> The home version of Atmos will differ from commercial Atmos theatres in several ways, so you can't use one as a template for the other. The consumer version will be different.


^^^^THIS!....I was confused as well a month ago but as I read more it makes sense.

If the commercial version was going to be used in consumer audio it would fail due to the expense of amplifiers and speakers. The consumer version will be different and not require the amount of channels as the commercial version.

I just found a local theater about 1 hr from me that is Atmos. By the end of the month I plan on visiting it and check out a movie.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

mdrums said:


> The consumer version will be different and not require the amount of channels as the commercial version.


Right, first gen products will likely be 7.2 + 4 heights, as seen on the Denon receiver linked in the first post. Since some current receivers already have that number of outputs, it makes it easier for manufacturers to offer object-aware receivers. The goal right now is to get initial products out. Future generation products can go beyond 11.2 and/or add additional features. 

Commercial movie soundtracks are delivered as separate 5.1 and 7.1 and Atmos mixes (no downmixing in commercial cinemas), with all three of those soundtracks being stored as uncompressed PCM (.wav files) on cinema servers. Atmos soundtracks on home video will probably have a core + extension structure (5.1 or 7.1 channel core with objects in an extension packet) for backwards compatibility. And, unlike their commercial counterparts, the audio in the consumer version will likely be packed using TrueHD (for Blu-ray) or compressed using DD/DD+ (for streaming). 

The other thing the consumer version might have is interactivity, IF content providers decide to encode the dialogue stem as a separate object in the bitstream. This would allow listeners to adjust the volume level of the dialogue without affecting any other part of the soundtrack. Below is an example from the Fraunhofer Institute showing broadcast TV audio stream that contains 4 objects whose volume levels can be adjusted on the fly by the listener. Imagine movies having dialogue delivered that way, making things much easier for late night listening or hearing impaired.


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

sdurani said:


> Right, first gen products will likely be 7.2 + 4 heights, as seen on the Denon receiver linked in the first post. Since some current receivers already have that number of outputs, it makes it easier for manufacturers to offer object-aware receivers. The goal right now is to get initial products out. Future generation products can go beyond 11.2 and/or add additional features.
> 
> Commercial movie soundtracks are delivered as separate 5.1 and 7.1 and Atmos mixes (no downmixing in commercial cinemas), with all three of those soundtracks being stored as uncompressed PCM (.wav files) on cinema servers. Atmos soundtracks on home video will probably have a core + extension structure (5.1 or 7.1 channel core with objects in an extension packet) for backwards compatibility. And, unlike their commercial counterparts, the audio in the consumer version will likely be packed using TrueHD (for Blu-ray) or compressed using DD/DD+ (for streaming).
> 
> The other thing the consumer version might have is interactivity, IF content providers decide to encode the dialogue stem as a separate object in the bitstream. This would allow listeners to adjust the volume level of the dialogue without affecting any other part of the soundtrack. Below is an example from the Fraunhofer Institute showing broadcast TV audio stream that contains 4 objects whose volume levels can be adjusted on the fly by the listener. Imagine movies having dialogue delivered that way, making things much easier for late night listening or hearing impaired.


Any idea where the height channels go? I am hoping the front heights will still be good... Not sure where the other pair would go. :T


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

I'm sure there will be a variety of locations for height speakers. On my 7.1 set-up, I would put one pair of heights between the fronts & sides and a second pair of heights between the sides & rears. 

I heard a friend's system with a pair of height speakers above the mains and it just made the front soundstage sound taller. I suggested moving them between the fronts & sides, which he eventually did, and that gave the impression of sounds above me. 

So that's what I would do with height speakers: not put them above other speakers, in order to make their contributions unique. We'll have to wait and see what Dolby recommends.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

sdurani said:


> Commercial movie soundtracks are delivered as separate 5.1 and 7.1 and Atmos mixes (no downmixing in commercial cinemas)


Technically, there IS downmixing (there has to be) but it happens in production. Atmos has a path to automatically generate the downmixes from Atmos to 7.1 and 5.1 for release, so if they build the Atmos track first, the others theoretically follow automatically (though it would be impressive if they didn't require a bit of hand-tweaking). If it didn't work like that, it would basically be such a huge increase in production time and cost to do Admos and two other derivative mixes that it would probably never happen. Let's hope the Atmos downmix to 5.1/7.1 is dead-on, because that's pretty much what we'll mostly be hearing for quite a while.

It's still puzzling that Atmos is being talked about for AVRs at this point when the average theater goer doesn't know what it is, and the typical home theater barely does 5.1 properly, and we are a ways from having native Atmos tracks at home. Besides, Atmos at home is in the rarified area of dedicated rooms...which of course are already a tiny fraction of all installed systems. 

It seems obvious that Dolby would have to provide some form of 5.1 to Atmos upmix so legacy tracks could tickle the extra channels, or it becomes an investment with little application. It's the equivalent of 4K scaling from 1080p, you have to do it or there's too big a lag to native material. So Atmos in an AVR without 5.1 upmixing would be pointless, like having a 4K display with no native material, and no scaling so a 1080p images is a letter/pillar box in the center of the screen.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

gazoink said:


> Atmos has a path to automatically generate the downmixes from Atmos to 7.1 and 5.1 for release, so if they build the Atmos track first, the others theoretically follow automatically (though it would be impressive if they didn't require a bit of hand-tweaking).


You really should talk to someone that mixes movies for a living (especially someone who has done an Atmos mix) and ask them about automatic downmixes of Atmos tracks.


gazoink said:


> Atmos at home is in the rarified area of dedicated rooms...which of course are already a tiny fraction of all installed systems.


It's eventually going to be used with everything from soundbars to TV speakers to HTiBs. Like when Dolby Digital first came out, people thought it would be used in rarified area of dedicated rooms. Now DD decoding is on every flat panel and media streamer.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

sdurani said:


> You really should talk to someone that mixes movies for a living (especially someone who has done an Atmos mix) and ask them about automatic downmixes of Atmos tracks.


Why don't you just save me the trouble tell everyone here what you clearly already know? All I have access to is what Dolby has published, not having mixed a track myself in a few years. If that makes me an idiot, fine, but if you know something that could contribute to the discussion, why don't you just share it?


sdurani said:


> It's eventually going to be used with everything from soundbars to TV speakers to HTiBs. Like when Dolby Digital first came out, people thought it would be used in rarified area of dedicated rooms. Now DD decoding is on every flat panel and media streamer.


Well, I was around for the introduction of DD, and no, people didn't think it was just for dedicated rooms. Several reasons for that. 

If you're referring to the initial use of AC3 in home video media, that would of course be LaserDisc, but since LD never achieved greater than 2% total market penetration, the entire format would be considered esoteric. LD wasn't confined to dedicated rooms, though, since in those early days of LD and DD there were hardly any dedicated rooms. They were literally static in the statistics. None of my old "LaserDisc" buddies had dedicated rooms. Not one.

As to DVD use of DD, the DVD standard requires there be at least one of the following audio tracks: PCM, MP-2, or AC3/DD. Hardly anyone authored with PCM because they wanted extra space for video, and PCM was limited to 2 channels. MP-2 was also 2 channels only, and didn't work as well as AC3/DD (which, by the way, includes the ability to author with anticipation of downmix capability in decoders), so DD with 7 different channel plans from mono to 5.1 rapidly became the default for DVD sound. DVDs that provided a choice of audio tracks quickly got reduced to DTS and DD with no further use of PCM or MP-2. DTS alone was not permitted, as it's outside of the permitted spec, you could only include DTS tracks if something else was there too, and DD was the default. And that means DD was *the* source for DVD soundtracks everywhere there was a DVD player, from mono TV to 5.1, from pretty much Day One. So no, it wasn't thought of as just for the dedicated rooms, anymore than DVD was just for dedicated rooms. In fact, the early use of DVD in high-end systems often resulted in complaints about the sound quality...that would be the DD sound quality...because people often compared DD to uncompressed PCM tracks found on LaserDisc. 

Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks can be optimized so that decoder-based downmixing works, so it was also the most flexible of sound formats of the time. But it's that downmix process, which I've personally experienced, that doesn't work so well in DD, which is why I have my reservations about what Dolby says about automatic downmixes from Atmos to 5.1-7.1. I had to literally tweak my 5.1 mixes to properly downmix through the decoder, and it was not always straight-forward. In my experience it would have been only marginally more work intensive to just remix the whole thing again in stereo and not depend on the DD downmix, and I would have done so if I could depend on viewers to manually pick the stereo track when appropriate. 

Yes, it would be nice to talk to someone who's currently mixing film, and has done an Atmos mix with automated downmix to 5.1-7.1. But clearly _you're_ the connected one here, so how about sharing that experience rather than trying to make someone else look foolish?


----------



## Flak (Nov 15, 2013)

ellisr63 said:


> I am hoping that they make the install process more involved, and ask the user to puch in exactly where the speakers are... If they do this I think you would be able to use your current speakers in their locations and maybe just add some height channels. :T


Yes, I'd like to know which solution (if any) has been used to make these Denons learn about the actual speaker positions... does anybody know about it?

Thanks, Flavio


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

gazoink said:


> Why don't you just save me the trouble tell everyone here what you clearly already know?


Because you're already convinced of the opposite: "there IS downmixing (there has to be)". So rather than take the word of some random hobbyist on a AV forum (me), you should really talk to someone in the industry that you are more willing to believe.


gazoink said:


> If you're referring to the initial use of AC3 in home video media, that would of course be LaserDisc, but since LD never achieved greater than 2% total market penetration, the entire format would be considered esoteric.


Exactly. I was using your "rarified area" line to show that it was initially thought of as something used in home theatres. Most people I knew that bought a laserdisc player _specifically with an AC-3 RF output and also bought a RF demodulator just to hear the few discs with discrete multi-channel soundtracks_ all had dedicated media rooms, hence being the first to buy a standalone DD decoder or a receiver with DD decoding. 

Now everything from soundbars to TVs have DD decoding. Same will happen with Atmos. I know of one cable TV show already being mixed in the format (though I doubt it's the only one). 

You've already expressed your puzzlement at Atmos being announced in consumer AVRs, since you believe that "Atmos at home is in the rarified area of dedicated rooms". Not my place to convince you otherwise by arguing on a forum. But if you check your premise, you'll stop being puzzled.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

sdurani said:


> Because you're already convinced of the opposite: "there IS downmixing (there has to be)". So rather than take the word of some random hobbyist on a AV forum (me), you should really talk to someone in the industry that you are more willing to believe.


Perhaps Dolby might be considered "someone in the industry"? 

Check this out, center of the page, under "Simplifies Audio Postproduction".  It looks an awful lot like it says "Dolby Atmos can automatically create 5.1 and 7.1 deliverables" to me. No, they didn't use the word "downmix" but what would you call that? The main difference is in DD the downmix happens in the decoder, for which you have to be aware during 5.1 production and test for what it's doing, but Atmos creates the 5.1 and 7.1 tracks for distribution, so it's downmix is in the encoder instead. Perhaps that process is so good nobody need audition those tracks and check them, but having worked in the industry, I know that's not the case, especially since the 5.1 track is what will be used most. I'm not saying the did a sloppy job of it, I'm saying its an extremely difficult job to subjectively re-map a huge sound space like Atmos to a far less focussed 5.1 sound field without any vertical component. I would be shocked if the creative intent could be translated perfectly without at least some human input, but I've been shocked before. That helicopter hovering directly overhead...where do you what that in 5.1? Hmm.

It's not even worth debating the DD thing, you clearly have a different angle on reality than I do. My LD exposure came in the original AFM track days...the external CX NR processors, etc., which were horrible. And I did follow, first hand, the migration to PCM, then AC3, and it wasn't my impression that everyone though it was for dedicated rooms only, since we were already building surround decoders for non-dedicated rooms and putting LD players in them.

But it doesn't matter much anyway, DD is everywhere now, which I think is your point, and you think Atmos will replace DD and be everywhere. I really don't care either way, outside of always embracing an improvement, but I guess we'll see.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

gazoink said:


> Perhaps Dolby might be considered "someone in the industry"?


Then let me re-phrase my previous suggestion: talk to someone in the industry that isn't selling Atmos. Ask them specifically whether their Atmos mixes were downmixed to 5.1 and 7.1 or whether they had to do separate mixes. Again, you're never going to believe me (no reason you should), so ask someone you will believe.


gazoink said:


> It's not even worth debating the DD thing, you clearly have a different angle on reality than I do.


I experienced a different reality than you did, so it's not like you can debate my experience away.


gazoink said:


> you think Atmos will replace DD and be everywhere


Object-based mixing can't replace a compression codec. They're different types of technology. More likely they'll be used together. Atmos soundtracks on disc will be packed using a lossless codec like TrueHD. But for broadcast, cable, satellite and streaming, Atmos soundtracks be compressed using DD or DD+. 

But, yes, I do think Atmos will be ubiquitous the way 5.1 is these days. Most TV shows are discrete multi-channel, most people still listen to those 5.1 mixes on their TV speakers. Going from stereo to surround didn't change that, going from channels to objects won't change that either.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

sdurani said:


> Then let me re-phrase my previous suggestion: talk to someone in the industry that isn't selling Atmos. Ask them specifically whether their Atmos mixes were downmixed to 5.1 and 7.1 or whether they had to do separate mixes.


 ...which means? That's a passive-aggressive way of saying I'm wrong. Again, if YOU have that information, just share it. My response will most likely be, "Interesting". 


sdurani said:


> Again, you're never going to believe me (no reason you should), so ask someone you will believe.


 Well, that's sort of presumptuous, but I see why you'd say that. Look, I'm open to others opinions. I've already stated that I suspect the auto downmix doesn't work, but left the possibility open that it might. That's not a polarized opinion, just one based in experience with previous Dolby products. Clearly, my mind cannot be made up already, not having experienced the process. So please, if you have that input, share it. I won't attribute it to you, or disqualify it because it comes through you, if you say it's just a relay of someone's opinion, that's fine.


sdurani said:


> I experienced a different reality than you did, so it's not like you can debate my experience away.


 Agreed.


sdurani said:


> Object-based mixing can't replace a compression codec.


Never said it would. Agreed.


sdurani said:


> They're different types of technology. More likely they'll be used together.


Agreed. Again.



sdurani said:


> Atmos soundtracks on disc will be packed using a lossless codec like TrueHD. But for broadcast, cable, satellite and streaming, Atmos soundtracks be compressed using DD or DD+.


When you say something definitive like "Atmos soundtracks on disc _*will*_ be packed..." you're implying knowledge. That's not stating opinion, that's stating fact. If that's not your intention, please rephrase. If you are stating fact, please back that up with, at least, "I know a guy who knows a guy who works for Dolby". Otherwise it sounds highly questionable.


sdurani said:


> But, yes, I do think Atmos will be ubiquitous the way 5.1 is these days. Most TV shows are discrete multi-channel, most people still listen to those 5.1 mixes on their TV speakers. Going from stereo to surround didn't change that, going from channels to objects won't change that either.


We'll see.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Guys, I suspect that any sort of true Atmos mix that we will have access to will be no different than what TruHD or DTS MA is now. If your receiver does not have the decoder built in you won't be able to play it. As what has already been said Atmos will not be multiple extra channels like in the theatres it will at best be 2 or 4 more channels as the home theater is a completely different environment than the big theatres. You don't have high ceilings and such. 
Given there is nothing available for home and no such plans as of yet Denon is jumping the gun and in my opinion just a sales gimmick.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

gazoink & sdurani:

Thank you both for the questions and contributions. I think the discussion has become argumentative and is losing its usefulness, so let's move on. If there are new questions or contributions to offer, please do so, but without the sparring. You are welcome to do that elsewhere, not here at HTS. Thank you both..


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

gazoink said:


> That's a passive-aggressive way of saying I'm wrong.


Now you're psychoanalyzing me. I give up, you win, believe what you want to about downmixing.


gazoink said:


> Never said it would.


You said "you think Atmos will replace DD" when I never said any such thing _because_ object-based mixes (Atmos) can't replace a compression codec (DD).


gazoink said:


> If you are stating fact, please back that up with, at least, "I know a guy who knows a guy who works for Dolby". Otherwise it sounds highly questionable.


Object-based mixes are a collection of sounds the way channel-based mixes are. Those sounds are stored on BD using lossless packing codecs, so as not to waste disc space with uncompressed PCM. Dolby is not going to want Atmos soundtracks packed using a DTS codec like Master Audio, so the lossless codec will be TrueHD. But, as you said, "we'll see".


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

sdurani said:


> Now you're psychoanalyzing me. I give up, you win, believe what you want to about downmixing.


 Well, according to the Dolby Atmos web page, it automatically creates 5.1 and 7.1 mixes. You're implying that's not true, but can't seem to substantiate that at all, so frankly I don't know what to believe. I gave you a chance to educate me, but seems you pass. No problem, I'll get that info somewhere else.

Could it be neither of us fully understands how Atmos works? I'll admit I don't have it all yet.

Hey, sdurani, let's let this drop, ok? I'm going off to ask some industry pros, as you suggest, but no further comments here.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

Pioneer's entry, at least the European model: 

http://www.supersonido.es/productos/documentos/Documento4447.pdf


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Onkyo jumps into the Atmos fray... 

And it looks like we'll have content on BD this year.


Speaker layout plans will no doubt be in the new AVR manuals.


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

gazoink said:


> Onkyo jumps into the Atmos fray...
> 
> And it looks like we'll have content on BD this year.
> 
> ...


I wonder what they mean by this "Atmos precisely places individual sounds into a room by assigning each one an X, Y, and Z coordinate. Atmos also places sounds overhead if consumers install in-ceiling speakers, but if consumers don’t want to install in-ceiling speakers, said Crockett, *“our partners will offer new Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers that produce full, detailed overhead sound from speakers located where your conventional speakers are now.” In addition, consumers who don’t want to replace their existing multichannel speaker setup can opt for an add-on Atmos-enabled speaker module, which consumers could place on top of their existing speakers,* he said. - See more at: http://www.twice.com/news/blu-raydvd/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-discs-due-year/45750#sthash.fNrPwQze.dpuf"

What makes these new speakers so special?


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

gazoink said:


> Speaker layout plans will no doubt be in the new AVR manuals.


Dolby & Onkyo already have a site up for that: 

http://dolbyatmos.onkyousa.com/ 

Plus lots of other helpful info there.


----------



## Peter Loeser (Aug 11, 2012)

gazoink said:


> Onkyo jumps into the Atmos fray...
> 
> And it looks like we'll have content on BD this year.
> 
> ...


Looks like Atmos will make use of ceiling mounted height speakers _instead_ of the front wall-mounted PLIIz height speakers? i.e. if you're in the build process you've got to decide whether to wire for PLIIz _or_ Atmos?




ellisr63 said:


> What makes these new speakers so special?


Excellent question! My guess would be the use of additional drivers that rely on reflection off the ceiling. Kind of like what Yamaha does with their YSP sound projectors, but vertically. Either way, it will be interesting to see. Personally, I'm tempted to try a set of ceiling mounted speakers. This is all giving me second thoughts about my current 11.1 configuration though :dontknow:

Edit: Diagrams of Onkyo's Atmos speakers HERE and HERE


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Peter Loeser said:


> Looks like Atmos will make use of ceiling mounted height speakers _instead_ of the front wall-mounted PLIIz height speakers? i.e. if you're in the build process you've got to decide whether to wire for PLIIz _or_ Atmos?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I read in another forum that the speakers will have a pinpoint dispersion so as to not interfere with the ceiling or other speakers. I run horn speakers... Not sure if I could even get horns that would do pinpoint dispersion .

Looking at your links... What happens to your first reflection points on the ceiling?


----------



## Peter Loeser (Aug 11, 2012)

ellisr63 said:


> I read in another forum that the speakers will have a pinpoint dispersion so as to not interfere with the ceiling or other speakers. I run horn speakers... Not sure if I could even get horns that would do pinpoint dispersion .
> 
> Looking at your links... What happens to your first reflection points on the ceiling?


Assuming you can't do in-ceiling speakers, I think the idea is that you completely replace your mains with the Atmos speakers. So they act as your front left/right _AND_ your Atmos height channels. The portion that simulates the height channel relies on the ceiling reflections to give the impression that the sound is coming from above. Alternatively, it looks like you could keep your current front channels and place one of these on top of each. Assuming you have not treated your ceiling first reflection point with sound absorbing material, I could see these working quite well actually. Though my preference would still be to do in-ceiling speakers if possible. The question is, whether to do 2 or 4.


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Peter Loeser said:


> Assuming you can't do in-ceiling speakers, I think the idea is that you completely replace your mains with the Atmos speakers. So they act as your front left/right _AND_ your Atmos height channels. The portion that simulates the height channel relies on the ceiling reflections to give the impression that the sound is coming from above. Alternatively, it looks like you could keep your current front channels and place one of these on top of each. Assuming you have not treated your ceiling first reflection point with sound absorbing material, I could see these working quite well actually. Though my preference would still be to do in-ceiling speakers if possible. The question is, whether to do 2 or 4.


 Those add ons might work... I wonder what the specs are for the add on speakers... It might be possible to make a custom set that could keep up with my JBL 2360a horns. Once I make some new bass bins I will have another foot or so of clearance. It does mean like you said though that the ceiling treatments are a no go though.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

sdurani said:


> Dolby & Onkyo already have a site up for that:
> 
> http://dolbyatmos.onkyousa.com/
> 
> Plus lots of other helpful info there.


Pioneer is in on Atmos, too.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

Kal Rubinson said:


> Pioneer is in on Atmos, too.


Pioneer just got sold to Onkyo. 

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Deals/Pioneer-selling-audiovisual-business-to-Onkyo-investment-fund


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

sdurani said:


> Pioneer just got sold to Onkyo.
> 
> http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Deals/Pioneer-selling-audiovisual-business-to-Onkyo-investment-fund


Yup. It will make for an interesting Press Conference tomorrow.


----------



## Peter Loeser (Aug 11, 2012)

sdurani said:


> Pioneer just got sold to Onkyo.
> 
> http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Deals/Pioneer-selling-audiovisual-business-to-Onkyo-investment-fund


Interesting. Looks like the Pioneer branding will remain though.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

So now the Atmos-capable AVR manufacturer list goes:

Denon
Marantz
Onkyo
Integra
Pioneer

...which, when you get down to it, list just two: Denon-Marantz, and Onkyo-Integra-Pioneer.

Denon just brought out a few new AVRs, with more due in July and August. We'll see if they are Atmos-ready, but so far, nobody's sayin'.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

I'm guessing there will be some sort of an announcement from Yamaha.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Correction on the Denon Atmos AVRS:
AVR X4100W and AVR-X5200W (September release)
The X5200W will be able to drive 7.1.4 speaker configs, with an outboard amp.

Marantz Atmos AVRs:
SR-7009 (September)
AV7702 (Pre-pro, October)


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

I have to say I'm impressed with the speed Dolby is hitting the market in multiple receivers. It seems like Atmos at home is a lot more real now, and even attainable within reason.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

it is interesting how fast this has come out. When this thread started a month ago there was no news at all of Dolby making this available and now a month later its a reality.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

It's no secret by this point that the consumer version of Atmos was demonstrated at CES a few months ago. What was surprising was hearing manufacturers saying that the demo was a year later than promised. 

And I thought Atmos was making it to the consumer market quicker than I had expected. Apparently Dolby had been more ambitious than I'd given them credit for.


----------



## Reefdvr27 (Aug 1, 2012)

gazoink said:


> Correction on the Denon Atmos AVRS:
> AVR X4100W and AVR-X5200W (September release)
> The X5200W will be able to drive 7.1.4 speaker configs, with an outboard amp.
> 
> ...


 Had to fix this post as I found the info for the Denon US September release.
http://www.twice.com/news/components/denon-marantz-readying-dolby-atmos-audio-components/45756


----------



## Reefdvr27 (Aug 1, 2012)

I am reading all this talk about Atmos speaker reflection. From those that have heard is say it works and sounds incredible but I am not buying it. I know we have discussed speaker options in here and I have said that someone will come up with ways to do it. I would think it could possibly work with high mounted surrounds, maybe a surround with a top firing speaker at the ceiling, but I don't' see a floor stander with a speaker on top giving Atmos effect. This would have to be proven to me, I sure do have an open mind, but this I will have to hear. I think it will be the cheap option or the gimmick version, but I still thinks you are going to have to mount ceiling speakers to give the true Atmos effect.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Reefdvr27 said:


> I am reading all this talk about Atmos speaker reflection. From those that have heard is say it works and sounds incredible but I am not buying it. I know we have discussed speaker options in here and I have said that someone will come up with ways to do it. I would think it could possibly work with high mounted surrounds, maybe a surround with a top firing speaker at the ceiling, but I don't' see a floor stander with a speaker on top giving Atmos effect. This would have to be proven to me, I sure do have an open mind, but this I will have to hear. I think it will be the cheap option or the gimmick version, but I still thinks you are going to have to mount ceiling speakers to give the true Atmos effect.


Im with you here. Another thing I'm trying to get my head around is having sound origination on top of a speaker being loud enough, and focused enough to "bank shot" off of my ceiling, and down to my ears, but not sound like it's coming from the top of said speaker also. How do I only hear the reflection, and not the original sound at the speaker too. I know modern sound design techniques are very effective at creating an environment and placing things in it, (watching a quidditch match now and sounds are everywhere!) but everything I've seen about treating reflections is basically to bring about focus on the point of origin, (or whatever space the speaker is creating) by taking away, or reducing the reflected sound. How can they create a sound source in one place and basically mute the source itself? I'm pretty open minded too, but agree, I'm gonna have to be convinced. I think the only way is mounting speakers on/in the ceiling. Think soundbar reflective tech vs real surround. ...fail


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

...and what if you don't have a flat ceiling? Or cathedral. No love?


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

willis7469 said:


> ...and what if you don't have a flat ceiling? Or cathedral. No love?


No love...........................unless you install in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## vidiot33 (Dec 12, 2013)

Maybe some innovative designer will come up with speakers which look like ceiling tiles: that could work


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Kal Rubinson said:


> No love...........................unless you install in-ceiling speakers.


Im pretty sure that's gonna be the case.....:-( I know if I even mention that here, I'll be the only speaker hanging from the ceiling! I got away with 7.3(looking to add one more .1) And my WAF is at the redline.


----------



## B- one (Jan 13, 2013)

vidiot33 said:


> Maybe some innovative designer will come up with speakers which look like ceiling tiles: that could work


Doesn't some company make lightbulb speakers?


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

B- one said:


> Doesn't some company make lightbulb speakers?


Ive heard that too. I think they're Bluetooth though so syncing might be very hard. However, I have 12 can lights in my LR. Hmmmm...


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Let me clear up some of the concern about the Atmos ceiling-reflecting speaker idea. I realize it may seem counter intuitive, however a finished ceiling is actually quite an excellent acoustic reflector down to 100Hz and perhaps a bit below, and certainly up as high in frequency as anyone needs. No, technically not 100% reflective, but quite good enough for this purpose. I've actually been doing ceiling bounce surrounds for quite some time for people who live in apartments and don't want to mount surround speakers. You put them on the floor behind the couch and bounce them off the ceiling, works surprisingly well.

There is actually a significant advantage to the ceiling reflection idea. Normal mid-band and up dispersion angles for nearly every speaker is about 30 degrees. That means that for an 8' ceiling, the coverage at ear level for each speaker is less than 3'. If you're fortunate enough to have 10' ceilings, you get just over 5' of coverage. If you double the speaker to ear distance by bouncing off a ceiling, you also double the coverage area at ear level. 

The ideal Admos ceiling bounce speaker would have well controlled dispersion throughout the mid band and HF, and wider is better, though doing better than 30 degrees without a horn is pretty hard to do, as is uniform dispersion vs frequency. Regardless, the bounce idea is actually a big advantage over ceiling speakers, unless you do many more ceiling speakers, or you have a very high ceiling. Otherwise, ceiling speakers will be hot spots for some listeners, almost inaudible for others due to the typically low residential ceilings. 

For those with vaulted or cathedral ceilings, you can still bounce off of them, but the angles get a little harder to figure. Angle of incidence = angle of reflection, so you can still aim that way, or use a mirror with a guy on a ladder. It doesn't take you out of the ability to use the bounce idea, just makes it harder.

Those light-fixture speakers are a huge compromise, and probably not worth the bother and expense. And wireless speakers aren't really wireless And this gets to the real point: Atmos, in any configuration, will take a commitment of time, money, design compromise and aesthetics to accomplish. Since most won't do 7.1 now, much less 11.2, the chances for general proliferation of Atmos are pretty small.


----------

