# Dolby Atmos is coming Home!



## Todd Anderson

We first saw *Dolby Atmos* arrive in theaters nearly two years with a sonic boom, boasting the ability to support up to 64 speakers, many of which are located over top of the audience. It has since been paired with an impressive theatrical run of films including Brave, Life of Pi, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Gravity (just to name a few). With such a wide array of speakers available, filmmakers seem to love the unprecedented ability to pinpoint sounds from nearly anywhere; it’s practically total immersion. 








At its launch, Dolby Atmos appeared to have an IMAX lure that Hollywood could use to coax movie fans from the comfort of their homes to seats in the theaters. Apparently, that isn’t the case moving forward. Several days ago, Dolby announced that Dolby Atmos will soon be available in living rooms from shore to shore through a series of Atmos products including speakers and receivers. While it's reasonable to assume that Atmos products for the home won't support 64 speakers, this announcement does provide a huge change from Dolby's currently supported maximum speaker array of 9 (plus subs)...get your credit cards ready, you’re going to need more!

In a memo drafted by Dolby’s Brett Crockett (Director of Sound Research), the company excitedly touts the potential impact of Dolby Atmos in the home market for both enthusiasts and AV equipment manufacturers. 

“From hearing the exciting cinema sound that Dolby Atmos made possible, I knew there was the potential to raise home entertainment to an entirely new level,” says Crockett. He adds: “You may have already heard announcements from some of our hardware partners about their products that allow you to feel every dimension of your home entertainment in Dolby Atmos. You’ll be hearing more of those announcements in the coming months.”

What Crockett is referencing are announcements from companies such as Denon, Onkyo, and Pioneer, all of which say they will be offering receivers capable of accepting Dolby Atmos firmware updates available later this year. Pioneer (Onkyo’s new darling) has also announced Dolby Atmos-enabled Andrew Jones-designed Elite speakers.

“We’ve been at the forefront of every technology available for the home theater environment and we’re making a point to have the Dolby Atmos technology into the latest products that will captivate and transport audiences with multi-dimensional sound,” said Chris Walker, director of AV product planning and marketing for the Home Electronics Division of Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc.

Of course, what we really want to know is how Dolby Atmos can realistically be deployed in our homes. Dolby says there are multiple options, including speakers installed over the listening area. But, rest assured, for those of us unable to rig speakers from above, Dolby says partnering companies will deploy speaker products that can produce full, detailed, overhead sound from conventional speaker positions. In fact, some products will be simple “modules” that fit on top of currently used speakers. Using the magic of sound wave physics, Dolby says these modules can trick the mind into believing that sound is coming from above.

While an AVR upgrade might be necessary for those of you interested in adding Atmos to your theater room, you won’t need to purchase a new Blu-ray player (assuming a firmware update is available for your model). Look for Dolby Atmos enabled titles to come out on Blu-ray this fall, paired with offerings on television and streaming formats.

The last giant codec leap came in the form of Dolby Pro Logic IIz, which added two “height channels” to the front sound stage. It has received relatively minor fan-fair and mixed reviews as to its overall impact. It will be interesting to see if Atmos has more success in swaying enthusiasts to reconfigure their current speaker deployment. 


_Image Credit: Dolby_


----------



## beyond 1000

With requirement of many speakers, Atmos will not bode well in the mass market. We have 5 channels and 7 channels in rooms. With the exception of dedicated home theatre rooms, how many people will put up with more then 7 channels, especially the ladies of the house. 

Already Onkyo is first out of the box on this with a few others coming out with AVRs that can support 4 extra channels above 7. This simply dilutes power reserves from the already power-starved receivers. Those AVRs will be stressed in dynamic scenes and stress is heat and heat is distortion. The Atmos AVRs will need dedicated amps to help them out on the 5 mains. This way the AVRs can handle the surround backs and ceiling speakers. 
I have an Onlyo 906 and I'm only powering the surround backs on it. The Outlaw 7500 runs the main 5. 

Well guys if you want Atmos get your power amps and subwoofers out for this.


----------



## sdurani

beyond 1000 said:


> With requirement of many speakers, Atmos will not bode well in the mass market. We have 5 channels and 7 channels in rooms.


There is no requirement to go beyond 7 speakers for Atmos. Some of the Atmos receivers announced are 7.1 models (3 fronts, 2 surrounds, 2 heights).


----------



## fschris

seems like a gimmick for movie theaters to differentiate from the Home Theaters... they know that most people are not going to have space for 70 speakers in the living room for the FULL experience. However Dolby will not miss out on making a buck so they will tell you to strap something to the top of your existing White Van speakers for a simulated Atmos experience. Really bizarre.... Dolby is publicly traded correct ? It seems like they keep engineering looking out ahead 90 days


----------



## prerich

I replied to this on another site and got blasted by a user (and he made personal insults to my own system)! Andrew Jones of Pioneer or Pionkyo  is designing a speaker that uses reflective technology to simulate the other speakers. I think the system is a 5.1.4 system. With this configuration - Atmos will be do-able in a home setting (because the extra speakers are located in the mains and the surrounds). 

I still think that if a person wants a true Atmos experience in the home - it will cost a bundle and they must have a lot of room:spend:. That's just my humble opinion. :whistling:


----------



## Peter Loeser

prerich said:


> I replied to this on another site and got blasted by a user (and he made personal insults to my own system)!


Clearly he is more qualified to have an opinion on the topic! :rolleyesno:

As with pretty much any room and audio configuration, proper setup and calibration will probably yield pretty stunning results. I suspect Atmos will be pretty good, especially when Atmos-enabled Blu rays become available. However, the difference from a standard 5.1 or 7.1 to say 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 may be subtle for all but a few movies, meaning the investment may not be worth it for a lot of consumers.


----------



## tcarcio

This is something that for me is not going to happen for at least the foreseeable future and at least until it is well within the market and affordable. Also I would not want to have to replace all my speakers, if that is what needs to be done, for a long time seeing the investment I have already made.


----------



## Peter Loeser

tcarcio said:


> Also I would not want to have to replace all my speakers, if that is what needs to be done, for a long time seeing the investment I have already made.


Shouldn't be necessary


----------



## tcarcio

Peter Loeser said:


> Shouldn't be necessary


I hope your right but if that is then why are they making speakers specifically made for Atmos?


----------



## Todd Anderson

You'll have the option to add on modules to your current speaker configuration. The specifics of Atmos labeled speakers are a little fuzzy at this point... perhaps there will be side channels that are essential a rear channel and Atmos module in one? And ceiling specific speakers? 

Still a little early to tell. We'll know more as Fall approaches.


----------



## Hakka

tcarcio said:


> I hope your right but if that is then why are they making speakers specifically made for Atmos?


The atmos speakers are for people who don't want to mount speakers on their ceiling.


----------



## tcarcio

OK, Got ya....:T


----------



## fschris

... don't get me wrong... i love the idea of some awesome experience. DOlby is the defacto standard for sound in most systems. However I think sometimes they like to get a little bold with marketing. As someone stated earlier. This will come down to dollars and sense. Just look at plasma TVs ... they are slowly being phased out and there is no real affordable equivalent on the market currently. Was it a marketing fail ? 

How come THX never made it into home theaters like Dolby ?


----------



## Todd Anderson

fschris said:


> Just look at plasma TVs ... they are slowly being phased out and there is no real affordable equivalent on the market currently. Was it a marketing fail ?



Plasma is a simple victim of high cost of adaptation to 4K technology and issues with power consumption levels of larger sets. Perhaps Pioneer bowed out earlier in the game due to financial reasons associated with their display costs...but more recent eliminations came at the hands of future trends.

I wouldn't disagree with your premise, though...it really comes down to available consumer dollars. That being said, if you think you might be in the market for a new AVR, I'd pay attention to which ones will accept Atmos firmware upgrades. It would be a shame to miss out on a potentially impactful feature. ;-)


----------



## sdurani

fschris said:


> How come THX never made it into home theaters like Dolby ?


You've never seen THX on consumer gear over the last quarter century?


----------



## bkeeler10

Todd Anderson said:


> You'll have the option to add on modules to your current speaker configuration. The specifics of Atmos labeled speakers are a little fuzzy at this point... perhaps there will be side channels that are essential a rear channel and Atmos module in one? And ceiling specific speakers?
> 
> Still a little early to tell. We'll know more as Fall approaches.


I think the idea behind Atmos-specific speakers is that they will be placed on top of your front speakers and fire to the ceiling to create a reflection that will simulate the presence of a speaker on the ceiling. For those who cannot install an actual speaker on or in the ceiling.

And probably the reason they are specifically designed for Atmos is dispersion. If you're going to do something like this, you would want to use a speaker with the narrowest possible dispersion. As much as possible, you want the sound directed only to the spot on the ceiling it needs to reflect off of to hit the listening area. Otherwise, some of the sounds that are supposed to come from the ceiling will appear to originate (at least in part) from your front speakers, or from all over the ceiling. That wouldn't be pretty.

IMO it's a bandaid approach, and I would be going with actual on-ceiling speakers if I were to implement an Atmos system.


----------



## Todd Anderson

bkeeler10 said:


> I think the idea behind Atmos-specific speakers is that they will be placed on top of your front speakers and fire to the ceiling to create a reflection that will simulate the presence of a speaker on the ceiling. For those who cannot install an actual speaker on or in the ceiling.
> 
> And probably the reason they are specifically designed for Atmos is dispersion. If you're going to do something like this, you would want to use a speaker with the narrowest possible dispersion. As much as possible, you want the sound directed only to the spot on the ceiling it needs to reflect off of to hit the listening area. Otherwise, some of the sounds that are supposed to come from the ceiling will appear to originate (at least in part) from your front speakers, or from all over the ceiling. That wouldn't be pretty.
> 
> IMO it's a bandaid approach, and I would be going with actual on-ceiling speakers if I were to implement an Atmos system.


Yes, there will be add-on modules (where they are place has not yet been specified, as far as I know). But they are also going to produce Atmos labeled speakers that I believe are stand alone units. 

I guess we'll have to wait and see what kind of products begin to roll out.

I'd love to see some kind of speaker array that can deployed on a ceiling. It will be fun to see what happens...


----------



## bkeeler10

Onkyo seems to envision speakers on the top of your existing front left and right, and back left and right, speakers, as you can see here. They even have a very small speaker module you can buy from them to do it.

Obviously not the only way to do it, and I'm sure others will come up with different ways too. Should be interesting to see how this fleshes out.

Either way, I'm extremely interested in setting up a system like this. My ideal configuration (which to my knowledge is not coming immediately) would be to have what would be called 9.1.4 in the new terminology. Meaning, a standard 7.1 setup plus two pairs of on-ceiling speakers and a pair of wide (or forward-side surround) speakers between the front LR and the side LR. Seems to me that filling in the gap between front and side surrounds is at least as important as adding the height dimension.

It was reported that Denon would have a couple of models this fall with 13.1 pre-outs, which got me excited about being able to do this. But it turns out that the units will only process 11 channels simultaneously. I guess I'll have to wait, or settle for a "mere" 9.1.2 or 7.1.4. :bigsmile:


----------



## Tonto

I think we all like the surround experiance...that's why we are here talking about it. I think these speaker "add on's" will be for budget minded folks that don't care about quality IMHO. And there are none in production currently, Dolby is just requesting designs as of now. I can't imagine putting a seperate speaker on top on one of my mains & not getting frequency responce changes. To get the real affect, we will need four, timber matched ceiling speakers with eleven channel of amplification. I don't know how that will work in my room. Dispersion above the riser is going to be a challenge (getting very close to the listeners head in the rear row). I assume the would have to be toe'd in to help. 

And I don't see any suppport for multiple subs in any units currently. Many of us are using at least 2, or more. That will have to change if that is correct.

fschris wrote:



> How come THX never made it into home theaters like Dolby ?


THX is close to announcing their own surround processing format. It will have to be good to compete with Dolby.


----------



## bkeeler10

Indeed, for those of us who value high fidelity, I don't think it makes sense to rely on a ceiling reflection. There are several issues. It will be very difficult to have a small speaker timbre-matched with the rest of your speakers, and even if it was, the sound would no longer be timbre-matched after the reflection off the ceiling.

It looks like a few of the Denon models do have 2 pre-outs for subwoofers. Whether they are tied together or independently configurable it doesn't say.


----------



## Todd Anderson

I agree... adding something to the front mains that isn't timbre matched is not something I'm interested in, personally. The rears? Less of an issue for some, I guess, but my preference is to keep all channels matched.


----------



## sdurani

New FAQ from Dolby: 

http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/


Check out the answers to a couple of questions: 

*If Dolby Atmos allows me to add more speakers, why do I see A/V receivers with just 11 channels?

If this is not a channel-based system, why are there predefined speaker positions?*


----------



## Greenster

I love technology! I gladly welcome any improvement to home theater. I might not be able to afford it when it first comes out to the general public, but I will plan on adding it to my theater when I have the means. I am excited about Dolby Atmos! My boys play PS3 games in our theater room, and it is neat to see how the games exaggerate the surround sound a lot more than movies do. Go play Dead Space. It will make you jump constantly because of the surround sound. Movies tend to keep the main sound in the center of the screen. Good I guess. I am not a director or producer but I like it when I can hear distinct sounds in the rear or side of the room. Dolby Atmos will greatly add to this. All open arm from me Dolby..


----------



## JimShaw

I would love adding more speakers but here is my problem: 

I have 8 speakers in the ceiling--a 6.3 plus 2 speakers used as Wides. Here is what Audssey said regarding my wanting to add Heights to my system... 

*The best and most noticeable results will be with speakers that are separated as much as possible from the front speakers (using height as distance). As all your speakers are in the ceiling, there will not be much separation and the addition will be a lot less noticeable then the addition of wides. *

My question would be: Would adding Dolby Atmos achieve the same results as adding Audyssey Heights to my system and that would be: *Waste of Money?*


m


----------



## vidiot33

I would not make any decisions until the technology matures. Right now, the software or hardware base isn't there, and the vast majority of surround codecs use traditionally positioned speakers. It would be premature to alter your entire setup for a brand new surround platform, and your current setup with be fine for the foreseeable future.


----------



## mr_tv

I am glad to see the announcement of Dolby Atmos coming to a home theater near me. I had been making my plans to get the speaker placement accomplished in my smaller theater. Right now I have Onkyo's NR818 doing surround duty with it's Audessy and DTS Neo:X capability. I had placed a pair of speakers on the ceiling for height duty. Running the speaker wire for this pair was done with four conductor wire to each speaker. Well looks to me like I may not have to run additional wire. I have already figured out how I am going to access and use the other conductors for my other two speakers on the ceiling. I am glad that they have announced the home implementation of Atmos using two or four speakers. In my small room, I was figuring on 4 or 6 speakers on the ceiling. Ok, Dolby answered that for me and said it is going to be 4. I have the additional speakers in the garage waiting. I have a plan on how to hang them. I also have additional power amp channels standing by being unused right now that can be pushed into service. I have a 6 channel power amp which only two are being used. Maybe by this time next year after a new processor upgrade purchase I will use two of them for two Atmos channels. Two of the channels on that amp are being used for the present hight channels. Those will be repurposed for two of the Atmos ceiling channels. Two channels left over on that amp will drive the two IB subs I installed this weekend. I like it!


----------



## sub_crazy

I would love to try atmos at home and would be willing to install ceiling speakers. My only problem is I am addicted to Trinnov. I am sure it will be a long while until something with both Trinnov and Atmos at a reasonable price is available


----------



## AudioPros

Would love to demo this....


----------



## JimShaw

I would love to add more speakers in the ceiling.

_He who has the most speakers wins!_

this guy/gal maybe the winner












m


----------



## beyond 1000

sdurani said:


> There is no requirement to go beyond 7 speakers for Atmos. Some of the Atmos receivers announced are 7.1 models (3 fronts, 2 surrounds, 2 heights).


I Hope that's true Sanjay cause I like my system the way it is. I have posted an article on another website. This is the article from John Kellogg of DTS with MDA technology. Please read this. Kellogg was interviewed recently in April of this year re-affirming the article below. You can find the interview on Youtube by Cintechgeek video magazine

_I feel that this is the type of product that will make it successful in the consumer end. DTS, THX, Atmos would have to be flexible enough to offer the consumer this convenience along with the option of adding more speakers in the room if he wishes. Forcing anybody to re-buy AVRs with many more channels, and added overhead speakers will simply not fly in the vast majority of households. _


SRS Labs believes multi-dimensional audio will up-end the audio industry, but does it 
work? And will consumers take to it? By Jamie Lendino January 9, 2012 06:30pm EST
SRS Labs is usually known for its surround-sound emulation algorithms. But the company now has a 
bigger idea: revamping the entire way the audio industry produces sound. This could be much larger 
than an SRS WOW HD button, so it's worth discussing. At CES 2012, SRS Labs pushed the idea of 
multi-dimensional audio, which focuses on audio in terms of objects, instead of in channels (such as 
5.1, 7.1 channel surround sound). Rather than mixing individual instrument tracks in a song, or 
mixing ambient sound, sound effects, and dialog in a movie's audio track, the engineer instead takes 
those audio pieces and directs exactly where they go in the listener's physical speaker configuration, 
as well as how loud they play.
In other words, instead of an engineer producing a finished, static mix that plays back the same way 
regardless of how the playback system is setup—and if the playback system isn't any good or set up 
incorrectly, tough luck—the engineer produces a finished bundle of meta-data, complete with digital 
instructions on where and how all of the audio pieces play. Then an MDA-compatible renderer, either 
in software or built into consumer electronics components, decodes it properly for the listener's 
playback system.
This is a subtle but key difference. "For example, once we create this way, we can do an audio 
program mix on 11 speakers," said John Kellogg, executive director of corporate strategy at SRS 
Labs, in an interview. "Think of a 7.1 speaker with four more speakers for height (11.1). *Now we can 
take that mix in a dubbing stage on 11 speakers and the MDA player or renderer, as we call it, can 
map it to any number of speakers the consumer has. It's one deliverable that translates into any 
environment."*
*The consumer programs the player in the very beginning: "Here's how many speakers I have in my 
room: two, five, seven, or whatever; here's where they are, here's how far away from me they are," 
Kellogg continued.* "Once those coordinates are in, the MDA player maps that audio program 
beautifully." The goal on the low end is to help people with two speakers, or a soundbar, to get a 
much better, 3D-like audio experience than they're getting now, and to help people who didn't place 
their speakers properly. On the high end, the surround sound experience would be more defined and 
transparent than it is now. *SRS Labs talked a lot about systems with 11 speakers, 22 speakers, and 
so on with us, but we see that as mainly for commercial installations; we're not expecting the 
average home theater owner to go for that sort of thing.*
Essentially, SRS Labs is taking the adaptive, object-based audio that the game industry uses (such as 
Microsoft XACT, or Creative Labs ISACT), and putting it into a form that works for linear audio, but 
with different speaker configurations. Instead of converting sound effects to objects and placing them 
in a 3-D field SRS's new system lets audio engineers take apart the pieces of a soundscape and place 
them in the appropriate speakers in the listener's own physical environment. It's an existing idea, but 
applied to a different kind of situation. But it also means you need a movie or music album mixed in 
NDA and an MDA-compatible system to decode it correctly, so it has to be a new industry 
standard across the board.
Things like this get the audio community excited on a periodic basis. SRS Labs said some big names 
are on already board for MDA, including Skywalker Sound. But there's a huge difference between 
that, however, and actually putting MDA-compatible material and MDA-compatible products in front 
of consumers—most of whom have already flatly rejected audio-enhancing technologies like SACD 
and DVD Audio.
There's no word yet on actual MDA-compatible products or source material yet, but SRS Labs claims 
to have a lot in the works. Whatever happens, we're for anything that improves audio playback, as 
long as it actually improves it in real-world situations. Here's hoping the company is onto something 
that transcends yet another pseudo-surround sound enhancement.


----------



## sdurani

beyond 1000 said:


> I Hope that's true Sanjay cause I like my system the way it is.


No need to hope. The fact that 7.1-channel receivers are being released with Atmos confirms that you don't need to go beyond 7 speakers (just have to configure them as 5.1.2). 

As for price: http://amzn.com/B00IQ0SE22


beyond 1000 said:


> This is the article from John Kellogg of DTS with MDA technology. Please read this.


I know John. I visited a small recording studio here in Santa Monica where he was mixing and he gave me a demo of MDA (he was still at SRS at the time, before DTS bought them).


beyond 1000 said:


> Forcing anybody to re-buy AVRs with many more channels, and added overhead speakers will simply not fly in the vast majority of households.


No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. IF consumers want to experience Atmos, then an Atmos-capable receiver, 7 speakers and Atmos-encoded soundtracks are needed. If that doesn't fly with the vast majority of households, then that's Dolby's problem, not yours.


----------



## sdurani

New king of the hill: 

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=0d139cf6cf26d176fa8bf7bd1&id=0362b166ed&e=65d9e8a823


----------



## prerich

sdurani said:


> New king of the hill:
> 
> http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=0d139cf6cf26d176fa8bf7bd1&id=0362b166ed&e=65d9e8a823


Wow!!!! Yes....it is the new king of the hill.....for now. What I'd like to see is how the computer world will respond to Atmos? Will the software makers like Cyberlink, Arcsoft, and Corel get in on the act as well?


----------



## bkeeler10

sdurani said:


> New king of the hill:
> 
> http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=0d139cf6cf26d176fa8bf7bd1&id=0362b166ed&e=65d9e8a823


:yikes:

:spend:


----------



## willis7469

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-atmos-home-theater-101

Reading this now. Pretty interesting.


----------



## willis7469

sdurani said:


> New king of the hill: http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=0d139cf6cf26d176fa8bf7bd1&id=0362b166ed&e=65d9e8a823


Beast.


----------



## NBPk402

sdurani said:


> New king of the hill:
> 
> http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=0d139cf6cf26d176fa8bf7bd1&id=0362b166ed&e=65d9e8a823


Way to rich for my blood... I heard it is speculated to me around $30k.


----------



## sdurani

ellisr63 said:


> Way to rich for my blood... I heard it is speculated to me around $30k.


Speculated MSRP is.... your soul. Mwahahahahaha...cough...cough...wheeze. (can't do the evil laugh like I used to)


----------



## Orbitron

Looking forward to Scott W on July 10, his guest will be Andrew Jones.


----------



## jet342001

From my understanding though the way the ATMOS format is produced from the development perspective it will also increase the sound effects to existing 5.1, 7.1 systems ect that upgrade to the new decoders. It is stored in a algorithmic matrix kind of like PLII but from the distributed, pre-matrixed out. So just having the decoder with your existing speakers will allow a more full experience just in the way that it maps out the sound.


----------



## Owen Bartley

sdurani said:


> New king of the hill:
> 
> http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=0d139cf6cf26d176fa8bf7bd1&id=0362b166ed&e=65d9e8a823


Drooooolllllll... :spend:

In the right (large) room that would be amazing. For me, I'm hoping to put together something with 4 in-ceiling speakers to take advantage of whatever is current when I get started on my basement build. Might as well plan for whatever I can during construction when making changes is cheap(er). I'd love to have a 7.2.4 or something working one day.


----------



## sdurani

Owen Bartley said:


> In the right (large) room that would be amazing.


Even in a small room, since it starts off with 8 channels (you can add channels in blocks of 4 until you reach the 32-channel limit). The only thing that would stop me is price (I'm guessing even the 8-channel model will be over $10k). But it does allow expansion, as resources permit. 

Remains to be seen whether Trinnov's ability to map your actual speaker locations can be used to improve the rendering of Dolby Atmos. All other Atmos devices announced render to assumed speaker placement.


----------



## willis7469

http://youtu.be/OXLQ4mIwyAk

Just found this in my inbox...
Audioholics, Gene and Hugo. Talking about Atmos at home.


----------



## Peter Loeser

willis7469 said:


> http://youtu.be/OXLQ4mIwyAk
> 
> Just found this in my inbox...
> Audioholics, Gene and Hugo. Talking about Atmos at home.


"Star Trek physics" :blink:


----------



## willis7469

Peter Loeser said:


> "Star Trek physics" :blink:


Rofl! I was laughing a little watching this video, but I'm kind of with em on it. If you can go full on in ceiling, sure, it will be great, but I'm not really buying the speaker on a speaker, yet. It's hard enough setting up an LCR, let alone multiple bank shots off the ceiling. ...it'll be interesting watching this unfold. ...off to call megatron.


----------



## bkeeler10

Totally agree. I understand why Dolby and the AVR manufacturers have endorsed the idea of reflecting off the ceiling -- Atmos will appeal to a much larger audience if people don't have to put speakers on or in their ceiling.

However, I don't think I would even attempt to implement Atmos ceiling speakers unless I could actually place them on the ceiling. Which I could do, and there's a chance my wife would even keep me around 

I'm still going to wait for second-generation boxes to come out though before considering it. If I'm going there, I want at least 13 available channels (9.1.4), and no unit in sane price ranges has been announced yet that will do it for sure.


----------



## Peter Loeser

willis7469 said:


> Rofl! I was laughing a little watching this video, but I'm kind of with em on it. If you can go full on in ceiling, sure, it will be great, but I'm not really buying the speaker on a speaker, yet. It's hard enough setting up an LCR, let alone multiple bank shots off the ceiling. ...it'll be interesting watching this unfold. ...off to call megatron.


Get past the goofiness of those two babbling and they have a valid point about the reflecting speakers. Some current soundbars rely on a similar technique to simulate surround. I suspect similar results too with the Atmos speakers. It will work ok in some cases, but mostly not. Proper ceiling mounted speakers should provide a great effect, especially with Atmos enabled Blu-Rays.



bkeeler10 said:


> Totally agree. I understand why Dolby and the AVR manufacturers have endorsed the idea of reflecting off the ceiling -- Atmos will appeal to a much larger audience if people don't have to put speakers on or in their ceiling.
> 
> However, I don't think I would even attempt to implement Atmos ceiling speakers unless I could actually place them on the ceiling. Which I could do, and there's a chance my wife would even keep me around
> 
> I'm still going to wait for second-generation boxes to come out though before considering it. If I'm going there, I want at least 13 available channels (9.1.4), and no unit in sane price ranges has been announced yet that will do it for sure.


I'm kinda with you. I wish we didn't have to pick x.x.2 OR x.x.4. I really like surround wides, so the 9.1.2 option appeals to me, but with x.x.4 the placement of sound objects above should be better.


----------



## JimShaw

I love the idea of 30+ speakers in the ceiling. He who dies with the most speakers wins.

Here is my problem:

I have e-mailed Dolby (no reply) and I have asked this question on a number of forums with no reply's.

I have 8 speakers in the ceiling: LCR fronts, 2 wides, LR surround and a single surround back. 

Because I have all in-ceiling speakers, would Atmos do anything for me or because all speakers are already high adding heights will do nothing.


P:S: I have a wife that would actually let me sink in that many speakers.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

JimShaw said:


> Because I have all in-ceiling speakers, would Atmos do anything for me or because all speakers are already high adding heights will do nothing.


One only uses the "ATMOS-enabled" speakers with the upward-aimed "height" drivers if one does *not *have real in-ceiling speakers. You do.

EDIT: See my corrected response below at http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...882-dolby-atmos-coming-home-6.html#post837826


----------



## tonyvdb

JimShaw said:


> Here is my problem:
> 
> I have 8 speakers in the ceiling: LCR fronts, 2 wides, LR surround and a single surround back.
> 
> Because I have all in-ceiling speakers, would Atmos do anything for me or because all speakers are already high adding heights will do nothing.


The reality of it is that if you do not have the speakers placed correctly like Dolby suggests meaning fronts in front of you at ear level and the surrounds as they should be your not gaining the effect if you were to add the Atmos speakers to the rest of the ceiling speakers.


----------



## willis7469

...yeah right...


----------



## willis7469

tonyvdb said:


> The reality of it is that if you do not have the speakers placed correctly like Dolby suggests meaning fronts in front of you at ear level and the surrounds as they should be your not gaining the effect if you were to add the Atmos speakers to the rest of the ceiling speakers.


+1 I'm not sure that the handoff between speakers on the same plane would be effective. I could be underestimating though. 
I think peter mentioned soundbars earlier. I think we agree here, but my assessment is they barely work. And that's in a room with proper boundary location. I'm thinking aiming speakers at the ceiling is gonna be problematic at best. Again, I could be underestimating, but I smell snake oil. ...only a drop or 2 though.


----------



## JimShaw

tonyvdb said:


> The reality of it is that if you do not have the speakers placed correctly like Dolby suggests meaning fronts in front of you at ear level and the surrounds as they should be your not gaining the effect if you were to add the Atmos speakers to the rest of the ceiling speakers.


That is what I thought. I was hoping that Atmos might be different then Audyssey. I keep trying but in the end, it seems like it would be a waste of $$$$


Audyssey told me regarding using Heights with their DSX and in-ceiling speakers: 

_The best and most noticeable results will be with speakers that are separated as much as possible from the front speakers (using height as distance). As all your speaker are in the ceiling, there will not be much separation and the addition will be a lot less noticeable then the addition of wides. The standard layout is here: http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/dsx_


----------



## sdurani

JimShaw said:


> I was hoping that Atmos might be different then Audyssey.


Not when it comes to separating speakers. If ALL your speakers are above you, then the idea of adding height speakers doesn't make sense, since you won't be able to separate sounds above you (7 main speakers) from sounds above you (4 height speakers).


----------



## tcarcio

People with acoustically treated rooms will have to change everything to accommodate Atmos as mentioned in the video. Point the speakers up, Point the speakers down, What is next point them all directly at each other and hope for the best. Sorry but I agree with the snake oil comment and I for one will not be changing everything around in my HT until Atmos proves it is not going to go the way of 3D. And I have a feeling that will be awhile.


----------



## sdurani

tcarcio said:


> People with acoustically treated rooms will have to change everything to accommodate Atmos as mentioned in the video.


Everything? Speakers mounted in-ceiling or on-ceiling don't need much space and won't keep folks from treating the ceiling. Virtual height speakers need more of the ceiling to be reflective, but outside those spots there can still be treatment. Everything else about the acoustically treated room can stay the same.


----------



## tcarcio

OK, I may have overstated when I said everything. But in my case my ceiling is treated and if Atmos is depending on reflections then anyone with a good amount of treatments will have to go back and look at things that may need changing. People with no treatment at all will be better off.


----------



## sdurani

tcarcio said:


> if Atmos is depending on reflections


Only as a last resort, for consumers who can't or won't mount speakers above. Traditional in-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers are still Dolby's first recommendation for Atmos.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

JimShaw said:


> I have 8 speakers in the ceiling: LCR fronts, 2 wides, LR surround and a single surround back.





Kal Rubinson said:


> One only uses the "ATMOS-enabled" speakers with the upward-aimed "height" drivers if one does *not *have real in-ceiling speakers. You do.


I read your note too fast and assumed you had all those in-ceiling speakers in addition to main L/C/R/Ls/Rs speakers. In your case, you would need to add those as ATMOS assumes you have main speakers in the proper positions. Having everything in-ceiling is not really conforming to any standard, ATMOS or otherwise.


----------



## Blainetsuds

I am amazed at how quick receiver manufacturers have adopted Dolby Atmos. It seems that none of the big 5 are late to the game. Is this not unusual in it self? Maybe some colluding going on here. On the other hand if Atmos helps to lower the cost of quality 7.1 products then I am all for it.


----------



## sdurani

Blainetsuds said:


> Is this not unusual in it self?


Nope, just Dolby doing a good job of coordinating a product roll-out.


----------



## Blainetsuds

Great job! Cudos to them.


----------



## gazoink

sdurani said:


> Only as a last resort, for consumers who can't or won't mount speakers above. Traditional in-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers are still Dolby's first recommendation for Atmos.


Andrew Jones said in *this podcast* that he actually preferred reflected speakers to in-ceiling speakers when he heard the original Atmos home demo, which was why he designed his Atmos enabled speakers as reflectors. If the ceiling was at 8', I'd tend to agree, the 30 degree wide-band directivity of most speakers would create a fairly tiny footprint, where reflected speakers could create a footprint twice as large and cover more listening positions. Apparently, Dolby has specified a directivity index for Atmos reflected speakers to keep the direct path below the reflected one.

Yes, vaulted/sloped/cathedral ceilings complicate things, but may not completely eliminate reflected speakers from the mix.


----------



## sdurani

gazoink said:


> Andrew Jones said in *this podcast* that he actually preferred reflected speakers to in-ceiling speakers when he heard the original Atmos home demo, which was why he designed his Atmos enabled speakers as reflectors.


Let's not conflate his subjective preference with objective superiority.


----------



## willis7469

I couldn't get the podcast to load...
I hope one of you guys can help me with something. I'm feeling like a moron, cause I'm struggling with how they're gonna throw sound from point A(speaker) to point B(ceiling) to point C(ears), without me hearing point A. Is it phase shifting, mind control, Star Wars technology, megatron, snake oil bath... Or some totally rudimentary principle I've overlooked? The last is just as plausible as any, but I'm struggling with the concept. When treating side reflections, you absorb the 2nd sound source(wall), but even if I wanted it to appear as if the sound were coming from the side wall,(in a traditional install), and not the speaker itself, how could that be made to happen? I'm not saying it couldn't be convincing. But could someone lay out the nuts and bolts for me?


----------



## bkeeler10

willis7469 said:


> I couldn't get the podcast to load...
> I hope one of you guys can help me with something. I'm feeling like a moron, cause I'm struggling with how they're gonna throw sound from point A(speaker) to point B(ceiling) to point C(ears), without me hearing point A. Is it phase shifting, mind control, Star Wars technology, megatron, snake oil bath... Or some totally rudimentary principle I've overlooked? The last is just as plausible as any, but I'm struggling with the concept. When treating side reflections, you absorb the 2nd sound source(wall), but even if I wanted it to appear as if the sound were coming from the side wall,(in a traditional install), and not the speaker itself, how could that be made to happen? I'm not saying it couldn't be convincing. But could someone lay out the nuts and bolts for me?


I have reservations about this process as well. I think, though, that they're relying on a couple of things.

1) The dispersion of the speaker firing at the ceiling is specified by Dolby, as I understand it, so that the direct sound from that speaker is attenuated quite a bit at the listening position (which should be way off axis).

2) When the ear/brain perceives the same sound coming from two different locations at different times (difference in milliseconds or tens of milliseconds), it tends to assume that the sound that is louder is the source, not necessarily the one that gets there first. There's a name for this phenomenon, but I can't remember for sure what it is. Perhaps the precedence effect? Edit: This information is not right -- see next post

So, if the sound from point A in your example gets to the listener first, but is several dB lower than the sound coming from point B, the perception at point C will be that point B is the source, not point A

Clear as mud . . . And a little bit of conjecture and educated guessing on my part.

Having said that, it seems like a compromise to me in many ways, and I would not rely on it myself. I'd be putting speakers on the ceiling.


----------



## bkeeler10

And it looks like I have the precedence effect backwards. The sound that arrives first limits our ability to hear other signals within about 40 ms of the first arrival. Even if they are louder (within limits of course).

So much for my theory :rubeyes:


----------



## sdurani

Higher frequencies, which are the ones reflecting off the ceiling, are more directional. Lower frequencies, which will radiate off axis from the speaker, are less directional. You're more likely to localize the higher frequencies above you than lower frequencies coming from ear level. 

They seem to also be processing the virtual height signal with Dolby Elevation to further give the impression of sounds above you. It's like the kind of virtualization that makes a pair of TV speakers sound further apart than the physically are, but in this case it is to virtualize sounds vertically rather than horizontally.


----------



## Tonto

I still think the actual ceiling speakers will be the way to go. Jon (Chane) has mentioned that he might be able to produce a speaker for ceiling duty that would timber match his Arx's. If he can do it with a small box, it will be a must have (if the technology of Atmos prooves to be as good as we are hoping).


----------



## gazoink

bkeeler10 said:


> And it looks like I have the precedence effect backwards. The sound that arrives first limits our ability to hear other signals within about 40 ms of the first arrival. Even if they are louder (within limits of course).
> 
> So much for my theory :rubeyes:


I'm old-school, so in my head the precedence effect is called the "Haas Effect" though the term is out-dated. Yes, you had it backwards...mostly. You can beat the precedence effect at its own game when the second arrival is hotter than the first by a certain ratio.


----------



## gazoink

sdurani said:


> Higher frequencies, which are the ones reflecting off the ceiling, are more directional. Lower frequencies, which will radiate off axis from the speaker, are less directional. You're more likely to localize the higher frequencies above you than lower frequencies coming from ear level.
> 
> They seem to also be processing the virtual height signal with Dolby Elevation to further give the impression of sounds above you. It's like the kind of virtualization that makes a pair of TV speakers sound further apart than the physically are, but in this case it is to virtualize sounds vertically rather than horizontally.


The Atmos ceiling bounce speakers don't go below 180Hz.


----------



## sdurani

gazoink said:


> The Atmos ceiling bounce speakers don't go below 180Hz.


Are you talking about the Pioneer speakers specifically or ALL Atmos bounce speakers?


----------



## gazoink

Watch/listen to *the podcast* at 37:45, and note how he carefully states his reply to the question, and see what you think. To me it sounds like he's meeting a Dolby spec, or he would have made it sound more like a design choice.

Clearly Dolby won't publish the specs because they're licensing Atmos to speaker manufacturers, but it seems like he leaked a bit of it there. 

It makes some sense too, the up-firing driver couldn't be big because of where it has to go, and while it might not have to be a concentric driver, it will have to meet the Dolby directivity index (hopefully specified vs frequency!), but directivity below 200Hz is pretty hard to control without a big horn or an array, so it makes some sense to have it roll off below 180Hz to make the task feasible at a reasonable price point.

Perhaps you see it differently.


----------



## sdurani

gazoink said:


> Watch/listen to directivity below 200Hz is pretty hard to control without a big horn or an array


But they don't need to control directivity that much since the lower frequencies you hear off-axis at the driver location won't be as localizable as the higher frequencies bouncing off the ceiling.


----------



## gazoink

sdurani said:


> But they don't need to control directivity that much since the lower frequencies you hear off-axis at the driver location won't be as localizable as the higher frequencies bouncing off the ceiling.


Yes, they don't need to control them as much, perhaps it's a question of degree. Or perhaps the LF limit is about a balance of performance for a small driver?

I do think it's part of the Dolby Atmos reflected speaker spec.


----------



## sdurani

I was merely explaining how it was possible for a driver at ear height, pointed at the ceiling, to give the impression of sound coming from above.


----------



## gazoink

The podcast seemed to indicate that the LF limit related to practical driver size and capability. He mentioned directivity index, but didn't say what it specifically was, or if it was specified vs frequency. 

I agree with you that directivity and 180Hz is less important, but it's not unimportant. How much a factor it is will depend on the difference in distance between the bounce speaker and the listener vs the reflected path length.


----------



## sdurani

"Ears on" experience with Atmos speakers: 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-38.html#post25785281


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> "Ears on" experience with Atmos speakers: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-38.html#post25785281


 It seems this demonstration did not include a direct comparison between 7.2 and 7.2.4 in the very same room. That is a pity, as the reviewer could not differentiate between the sound effect of the room (undoubtedly super optimized by Dolby) and what Atmos is actually doing to the 7.2 surround sound.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> It seems this demonstration did not include a direct comparison between 7.2 and 7.2.4 in the very same room. That is a pity, as the reviewer could not differentiate between the sound effect of the room (undoubtedly super optimized by Dolby) and what Atmos is actually doing to the 7.2 surround sound.


Do you mean a comparison of 2D sound (speakers around him) vs 3D sound (speakers around and above him)?


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Do you mean a comparison of 2D sound (speakers around him) vs 3D sound (speakers around and above him)?


Exactly.


----------



## bkeeler10

maikeldepotter said:


> It seems this demonstration did not include a direct comparison between 7.2 and 7.2.4 in the very same room. That is a pity, as the reviewer could not differentiate between the sound effect of the room (undoubtedly super optimized by Dolby) and what Atmos is actually doing to the 7.2 surround sound.


This is true. However, "the reviewer" is quite well versed in all things home theater, and has likely heard a lot of systems and configurations. I would have expected that it would be difficult to impress him, and yet it appears that he was in fact blown away by the experience. This makes me even more excited to hear a demo at CEDIA, and hopefully it will be well-set-up in a room not on the showroom floor.


----------



## sdurani

The main comparison that Dolby seemed to want to make was between real height speakers and virtual height speakers, hence playing back the Atmos trailers both ways. The reviewer had always expressed that virtual heights were a compromise. Now that he heard them, his biggest surprise seems to have been how little of a compromise they really are.


----------



## willis7469

Hey guys, thanks for your earlier input regarding my questions. I did get the podcast to load that gazoink linked. What a pleasure to listen to. 1st off, for me, a bunch of questions were answered. 2nd, after listening to them describe their experiences, I'm much less skeptical, and actually excited to experience this. However the left side of my ceiling is 9.5', and in the direct center of my kitchen/LR(the right side of my "theatre") is 12.5', I think I'll be waiting longer than most to come up with a solution. I also read sanjays link to the British reviewers experience. Very interesting read. Bkeeler, I enjoyed your thoughts as well, so thanks and hey!(in a whatup way).


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> The main comparison that Dolby seemed to want to make was between real height speakers and virtual height speakers, hence playing back the Atmos trailers both ways. The reviewer had always expressed that virtual heights were a compromise. Now that he heard them, his biggest surprise seems to have been how little of a compromise they really are.


 Still, without experiencing in the same session this net effect of the height speakers (whether real or virtual), it is difficult to assess this observed small compromise: If this net effect is small / huge, the small difference between virtual and real will not be a surprise / will be a huge surprise. I also wonder how important the "treatments running front to back down the centre of the ceiling" are for the effectiveness of virtual height speakers....


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> I also wonder how important the "treatments running front to back down the centre of the ceiling" are for the effectiveness of virtual height speakers....


Important to the extent that it pokes a hole in the myth that virtual height speakers require an untreated ceiling.


----------



## BamaDave

Personally I'm excited about this new format and waiting to get the four ceiling speakers mounted and give it a whirl. My initial problem is my Yamaha CX-A5000BL Peramp is not configured for Dolby Atmos and I'm in a holding pattern to see what they are going to do if anything to upgrade the processor. I'm hoping Yamaha will offer an upgrade seeing how the newly designed flagship and already supports 11.2 which would be nice to adjust the height speaker locations to overhead to support this format @ 7.2.4.


----------



## Owen Bartley

Dave, I'm excited about this new surround experience too, moreso than 4k, and certainly 3D. I'll cross my fingers for you, hoping for an upgrade, but I somehow have a feeling that most manufacturers will just give the option of buying an entirely new receiver/processor. It seems like it would be a fairly complex upgrate to integrate, even with an amp-assignable unit.


----------



## bkeeler10

For the most part, unless the unit was designed with Atmos in mind, it won't be firmware upgradeable for Atmos. There are a few units from Denon and Onkyo, for example, that were released earlier this year that will be upgraded. The Yamaha Aventage 1040, 2040 and 3040 also will be since they were designed with that in mind, and those units are due for their firmware upgrade some time this month IIRC. I don't know for sure about the A5000, but have not heard that it will be.

The issue is the hardware I believe. Atmos requires more processing power, so if your unit doesn't have DSP chips capable enough to handle the load, it's a no go.

Looking forward to hearing Atmos demos at CEDIA in a week!


----------



## Owen Bartley

Yep, Bryan is right, it seems the big issue is available processing power, and if a receiver wasn't designed specifically for Atmos then it isn't compatible. After doing some more reading around here, I also remembered that is the reason many of the new Onkyo receivers have dropped Audyssey. Too much processing between the two means they'd need more expensive hardware to use both. 

It seems like a funny time to be short on processing power, given that we should have it in abundance. What happened to Moore's Law!?


----------



## gazoink

Owen Bartley said:


> Yep, Bryan is right, it seems the big issue is available processing power, and if a receiver wasn't designed specifically for Atmos then it isn't compatible. After doing some more reading around here, I also remembered that is the reason many of the new Onkyo receivers have dropped Audyssey. Too much processing between the two means they'd need more expensive hardware to use both.


Denon AVRX4100 and AVRX5200 have Atmos and Audyssey MultEQ XT32 with SubEQ HD. Shipping now, ahead of schedule. 

Onkyo clearly was worried about price point and in doing so have created the entry-level Atmos AVRs, where Denon has created more of the upper end. Onkyo's in-house auto cal is pretty much laughable, but at least there's something.

Each additional channel means another Audyssey filter, in addition to the Atmos processing needed to create that channel. That's a lot of overhead!


Owen Bartley said:


> It seems like a funny time to be short on processing power, given that we should have it in abundance. What happened to Moore's Law!?


Moore's Law still works just fine, but products have to also be priced to sell. In Moore's 18 months there'll no doubt be lower cost Atmos/Audyssey AVRs. We're just at the beginning of the Moore cycle on this one.


----------



## sdurani

The Denon 5200 started shipping last month (I played with one that had been delivered by Amazon in mid-August). 

Meanwhile, Dolby announced the first Blu-ray in Atmos (due by end of month). 

http://investor.dolby.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=869623


----------



## phillihp23

By looking at the dolby atmos 7.1.2 setup diagrams it appears to basically be a 9.1 setup using heights.
Until they have developed equipment to handle unlimited speakers i personally don't see this as anything more than a NEO or DSX experience. Frankly its backwards as I can now do 11.2 with wides and thus increase my front soundstage.

If your starting out new it may be the way to go.....


----------



## bkeeler10

phillihp23 said:


> By looking at the dolby atmos 7.1.2 setup diagrams it appears to basically be a 9.1 setup using heights.
> Until they have developed equipment to handle unlimited speakers i personally don't see this as anything more than a NEO or DSX experience. Frankly its backwards as I can now do 11.2 with wides and thus increase my front soundstage.
> 
> If your starting out new it may be the way to go.....


The Denon 5200 can do 7.1.4 with a two-channel outboard amp. That would be the typical 7.1 layout with four overhead speakers.


----------



## phillihp23

bkeeler10 said:


> The Denon 5200 can do 7.1.4 with a two-channel outboard amp. That would be the typical 7.1 layout with four overhead speakers.


Sorry about that, I must not have read far enough into the article to see that it did 4 overhead speakers.
Even so....I feel its just another option to whats already out there. Sound coming from ceiling instead of front height and front wide. Don't get me wrong great things don't come unless companies try new things. I hope down the road they open up some great new opportunities with this technology. I'll be watching with anticipation. Much like I am for 4K projectors to reach the $3K price range, that is if 8K projectors don't get here first. :help:


----------



## Tonto

In my opinion, 7.1.4 would be the very least that I would be interested in. And that's if it can accomodate 2 or more subs. Which is what most serious theaters have or will have. Would not buy in to is without multiple subs.


----------



## bkeeler10

The Denon 5200 and 4100 will have dual sub outs with Audyssey SubEQ and XT32. No problem there. The 5200 has the ability to do 11 channels of processing simultaneously, and the 4100 can do 9 channels.

I agree that 7.1.4 is the minimum. I would prefer the ability to add a set of wides and maybe a third set of overheads. So 9.1.6. I can't see much benefit to going beyond that in hardly any home setup.


----------



## Peter Loeser

A 9.1.2 Atmos setup still makes use of front wides along with a pair of overhead speakers. I agree though, 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 would be cool but I can't imagine anything more than that being a drastic improvement in the average home cinema. I am currently wired for a typical 11.2 setup. I will probably wire for 6 Atmos speakers so I can make use of x.x.2 or x.x.4 Atmos configurations. And if x.x.6 becomes an option someday I'll be set.


----------



## willis7469

What I want to know is. With Atmos "enabled" speakers, why don't the atmos modules articulate separately. With the importance on setting up L/R speakers, and the plethora of living room sizes, shapes, ceiling heights and seating distances, it seems like this would matter. Especially with the "object based" part, and bouncing the sound off the ceiling, it just seems like another way to fail the setup.


----------



## gazoink

phillihp23 said:


> By looking at the dolby atmos 7.1.2 setup diagrams it appears to basically be a 9.1 setup using heights.
> Until they have developed equipment to handle unlimited speakers i personally don't see this as anything more than a NEO or DSX experience.


Atmos is a very different experience from Neo and DSX, both of which artificaially create the height and width content based on proprietary algorithms. There's no real regard for what the original mixer intended. The effects might be nice, even believable (especially DSX), but Atmos is very different. It directs each sound "object", or element to the location the mixer intended, with scaling to put it there based on whatever speaker count you have. That means if a sound is supposed to be high and to the right, it always goes there. DSX and NEO, there's no telling where it's supposed to be, as there's no location information at all, it's just a guess, an extraction if you will.


phillihp23 said:


> Frankly its backwards as I can now do 11.2 with wides and thus increase my front soundstage. If your starting out new it may be the way to go.....


To your credit, you've taken the plunge already, and 11.2 is admirable! The nice thing for folks like you is, during setup you tell Atmos what speakers you have, including your current 11.2, and it uses them where they are. If at a later date you'd like to add more, you can do that too. The limitation will be with the number of outputs available on an AVR, either powered or preamp outs. The Trinnov Altitude 32 actually covers the complete channel count for Atmos at home. AVRs may take a little longer to get there because a 32 speaker setup won't account for a lot of sales volume.

Remember, Atmos is directionally correct at all times, DSX positioning is based on an algorithm applied to material that contains no discrete directional information. 

DSX is great, no question, but Atmos has their own "decoder" which will "light up" all your speakers, even with non-Atmos tracks. 

BTW, the X5200 will do 11.2, with 11 powerd speaker outs. It will do 13.2 if you use the pre-outs.


----------



## sdurani

phillihp23 said:


> i personally don't see this as anything more than a NEO or DSX experience


DSX generates early side wall and proscenium reflections (that weren't in the source material) based on concert hall acoustics in order to simulate a larger listening space. 

Neo:X uses matrix surround processing to extract ambient cues from the soundtrack to create a wider and taller front soundstage. 

Atmos is a new mixing and rendering technology. When creating the soundtrack, mixers are able to go beyond mere channel assignments and give each sound x,y,z coordinates. The location of the sound in 3D space and its size is stored as metadata. Upon playback, the metadata is used to map the location of the sound to your speaker layout. 

It is discrete object-based mixing and rendering, without any surround processing (generated ambience or extracted ambience) involved.


----------



## bkeeler10

gazoink said:


> BTW, the X5200 will do 11.2, with 11 powerd speaker outs. It will do 13.2 if you use the pre-outs.


I am 99% certain this is not the case. It can power a 9.2 system all by itself (it has 9 amplified outputs), and can do 11.2 with the addition of a two-channel amp. There are 13.2 preouts, but only 11.2 can be used simultaneously.


----------



## gazoink

sdurani said:


> DSX generates early side wall and proscenium reflections (that weren't in the source material) based on concert hall acoustics in order to simulate a larger listening space.
> 
> Neo:X uses matrix surround processing to extract ambient cues from the soundtrack to create a wider and taller front soundstage.
> 
> Atmos is a new mixing and rendering technology. When creating the soundtrack, mixers are able to go beyond mere channel assignments and give each sound x,y,z coordinates. The location of the sound in 3D space and its size is stored as metadata. Upon playback, the metadata is used to map the location of the sound to your speaker layout.
> 
> It is discrete object-based mixing and rendering, without any surround processing (generated ambience or extracted ambience) involved. Remarkable that you "don't see this as anything more than a NEO or DSX experience".


...said better than I did. Thanks.


----------



## gazoink

willis7469 said:


> What I want to know is. With Atmos "enabled" speakers, why don't the atmos modules articulate separately. With the importance on setting up L/R speakers, and the plethora of living room sizes, shapes, ceiling heights and seating distances, it seems like this would matter. Especially with the "object based" part, and bouncing the sound off the ceiling, it just seems like another way to fail the setup.


Probably because the up-facing speakers have fairly wide dispersion, and the longer path length means wider coverage in the listening area, and thus less need to aim. 

Angled ceilings may be a problem.


----------



## sdurani

Didn't see it posted in this thread, but Dolby released an Atmos installation guide earlier today to help with speaker placement. 

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Peter Loeser

sdurani said:


> Didn't see it posted in this thread, but Dolby released an Atmos installation guide earlier today to help with speaker placement.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Well, there ya have it... start saving!
 

Seriously though, I've been looking for a guide just like this. Thanks for sharing Sanjay


----------



## phillihp23

sdurani said:


> DSX generates early side wall and proscenium reflections (that weren't in the source material) based on concert hall acoustics in order to simulate a larger listening space.
> 
> Neo:X uses matrix surround processing to extract ambient cues from the soundtrack to create a wider and taller front soundstage.
> 
> Atmos is a new mixing and rendering technology. When creating the soundtrack, mixers are able to go beyond mere channel assignments and give each sound x,y,z coordinates. The location of the sound in 3D space and its size is stored as metadata. Upon playback, the metadata is used to map the location of the sound to your speaker layout.
> 
> It is discrete object-based mixing and rendering, without any surround processing (generated ambience or extracted ambience) involved. Remarkable that you "don't see this as anything more than a NEO or DSX experience".


Like I hope i conveyed I am pleased to see new technology being created. I personally just haven't bought into whether it is better, other than the future possibility of endless speakers.
Its just debatable if one technology is better than another "generating" "processing""rendering". As is common in American politics and marketing different terms are used as time passes to give things a fresh feel. Truthfully, in the end each end user will have to decide if it adds to their experience. 

I just want to add, that's why i like HTS, we can all have civil discussion and learn alot. I have learned a lot from all the articles and diagrams and comments. Keep up the posting...anyone who takes the jump and gets one of the new Atmos AVR and sets it up please do post a thread to fill us all in....


----------



## bkeeler10

Let's try it this way. Sound engineers mix a movie in Atmos. Nobody mixes a movie in Neo or DSX or Dolby PLz, nor indeed can they. Those are algorithms that manipulate something already created, with a result that is often pleasing but not likely as intended. Nothing at all wrong with that. It just means that Atmos is distinct because it is the mix as created by the director/mixer team, realized as fully as your speaker layout allows.

Obviously nothing wrong with sticking with the others for now (or forever). Just want to make sure the decision is based on accurate information.


----------



## phillihp23

If a source material is 5.1
and say DSX takes a certain range of the left front and sends it to the left wide.

If a source material is atmos based
and say Atmos has a packet for left wide that packet could be sending the same range to the left wide as DSX did. The statement "it is the mix as created by the director/mixer team" is subjective to what they the director /mixer team are basing the packets off.

My thoughts, i may be wrong, are that they are not creating additional audio tracks with atmos. 
In other words they are not creating 9.1 or 11.1 or 13.1 audio tracks on the discs.

I don't know if this helps explain or confuse people more about what I am trying to state.


----------



## willis7469

phillihp23 said:


> If a source material is 5.1 and say DSX takes a certain range of the left front and sends it to the left wide. If a source material is atmos based and say Atmos has a packet for left wide that packet could be sending the same range to the left wide as DSX did. The statement "it is the mix as created by the director/mixer team" is subjective to what they the director /mixer team are basing the packets off. My thoughts, i may be wrong, are that they are not creating additional audio tracks with atmos. In other words they are not creating 9.1 or 11.1 or 13.1 audio tracks on the discs. I don't know if this helps explain or confuse people more about what I am trying to state.


I think the difference is that they ARE creating different channels. As opposed to a "sound mode" that extracts information from say, 5.1 channels, where there isn't any extra info coded for the extra rear surrounds, heights or wides. It's just sending what it decodes( from its internal decoder ring?) as "not" vocal information, or specific sound effect info and sends it to height or wide channels. Kind of like a "hall" or "concert" mode does. Atmos on the other hand codes the height channels as discrete ones just like regular 5/7.1. So every "point" in 5.1.4 is a real discrete channel. Instead of extracting, everything from a "base" 5/7.1 track, the 2/4 in ceiling get coding to reproduce what's actually on the track to go to the appropriate speaker. Not just basically random ambiance. The same way a 5.1 track sends discrete info to each of 6 speakers. The point is, DD-HDMA is not recorded the same way as atmos. Therefore it's not played back the same way. I'm sure I've left a few gaps, but that's my basic understanding of it. Hope there's something useful in there.


----------



## willis7469

gazoink said:


> Probably because the up-facing speakers have fairly wide dispersion, and the longer path length means wider coverage in the listening area, and thus less need to aim. Angled ceilings may be a problem.


I wondered if that would be the case. I'm still feeling like, a spoonful of snake oil helps the medicine go down. I know many have said how good even an "enabled" speaker setup is, but I'm just jaded enough to say, no. Not without a good proper demo. Hearing IS believing. Or is the other way.......... Lol


----------



## gazoink

phillihp23 said:


> If a source material is atmos based
> and say Atmos has a packet for left wide that packet could be sending the same range to the left wide as DSX did. The statement "it is the mix as created by the director/mixer team" is subjective to what they the director /mixer team are basing the packets off.
> 
> My thoughts, i may be wrong, are that they are not creating additional audio tracks with atmos.
> In other words they are not creating 9.1 or 11.1 or 13.1 audio tracks on the discs.


That's right, it's not "channel" based. 




willis7469 said:


> I think the difference is that they ARE creating different channels. As opposed to a "sound mode" that extracts information from say, 5.1 channels, where there isn't any extra info coded for the extra rear surrounds, heights or wides. It's just sending what it decodes( from its internal decoder ring?) as "not" vocal information, or specific sound effect info and sends it to height or wide channels. Kind of like a "hall" or "concert" mode does. Atmos on the other hand codes the height channels as discrete ones just like regular 5/7.1. So every "point" in 5.1.4 is a real discrete channel. Instead of extracting, everything from a "base" 5/7.1 track, the 2/4 in ceiling get coding to reproduce what's actually on the track to go to the appropriate speaker. Not just basically random ambiance. The same way a 5.1 track sends discrete info to each of 6 speakers.


 No, that's not how it works. Each sound "object" has associated with it information that indicates the direction it's to come from. A directional vector, if you wish. The decoder is "told" during setup where your speakers are and how many there are. The decoder then reads the direction vector of a sound "object", and sends it to whatever speaker or speakers would result in the specified location for that sound. That way Atmos can be "scaled" from 5.1.4 up to 32 speakers (in the home). 

I know it's hard to get your head around this idea, but it's really not tracks or channels, it's sound objects with directional vectors. Nothing like what we've known about before.


phillihp23 said:


> The point is, DD-HDMA is not recorded the same way as atmos. Therefore it's not played back the same way. I'm sure I've left a few gaps, but that's my basic understanding of it. Hope there's something useful in there.


Actually, DD-HDMA is a channel-based means of recording high definition audio, and while the channel count is technically unlimited, it's been limited to 8 channels on BD. Technically, you could have a DTS-HDMA 5.1 track that is also encoded for Atmos, though that's pretty unlikely to happen. The two technologies are not mutually exclusive, the Atmos information could theoretically accompany DTS audio too.

There's a very authoritative discussion of Atmos *here.*

My Atmos questions all revolve around adoption and practicality. Cynically, if it's difficult to set up 5.1, what makes us think 5.1.4 will achieve much more than toke market penetration? The Atmos-enabled speakers, at reasonable cost, are it's best hope. I also see that in many cases to have Atmos you have to give something up. If you like Onkyo, you give up Audyssey when you get Atmos. There are trades I'm not read to make, that would be one of them.


----------



## zibawal

Did u guys check Keff module for Atmos


----------



## phillihp23

Gazoink...great link to the video on Dolby ATMOS. Took some good information out of it.


----------



## gazoink

If you google "Dolby Press Conference" you'll find what they had to say this week at CEDIA. The video isn't up at the time of this post, but they say it will be.


----------

