[LazerBlue]

Have any of you seen anything about Dolby's Atmos Audio format that will be coming to Blu-Rays soon?

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-0SIyBx1zJD4...s=10352655

Ceiling speakers in addition to the front, center, middle, and backs in a home build! Holy crap that will be some surround sound, literally! Now I'm looking forward to getting my house and planning that into the build.

[l'pc]

Ha ! I was just thinking of starting a thread here as well, thanks for doing it for me. ;-)

I do quite like the implementation of the technology; the only thing that users have to change is the receiver (plus obviously add overhead speakers.) Everything else stays the same (cables, blu-ray player/HTPC (as long as it is bitstream-capable), existing speakers, etc.) Atmos soundtracks will be retrocompatible with non-atmos-enabled hardware (I wonder how they did that last one.)

Now, if we don't even want to purchase a receiver (or can't bitstream) we just have to wait for XBMC to support Atmos decoding (is it even possible ? Licensing et al ?) and add some sound card with 15 outputs and a decent price.

Then again I'm curious to see how the height effect will be perceived… If it were so spectacular it would already have been done no ? (I mean integrated to the soundtrack, not some processing from a 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack to get 9.x or 11.x)
Anyways, I'm still pretty exited !

[Ned Scott]

This is about as effective as multiple blade razors.

At a certain point, adding more speakers fails to actually enhance anything other than the wallets of Dolby. Depending on the quality of system some people have, even going 5.1 to 7.1 will have no noticeable increase in quality or "surround", let alone this monster.

I hate to be a killjoy, but all I see is marketing BS.

[un1versal]

Well now all you need is to have genetically enhanced eardrums to match. I was thinking of having mine retrofitted, but just realised factory is closed.

Edit My cat may enjoy this though, his ears already move in almost all directions, so the investment already justified there. along with a 65' curved screen, my cardboard box is definitely on route for a 5 star feel.

[WeirdH]

For best results, Dolby recommends 11 or more speakers.

I wouldn't have any place left to put the screen.

[sialivi]

This is about as effective as multiple blade razors.

At a certain point, adding more speakers fails to actually enhance anything other than the wallets of Dolby. Depending on the quality of system some people have, even going 5.1 to 7.1 will have no noticeable increase in quality or "surround", let alone this monster.

I hate to be a killjoy, but all I see is marketing BS.

I disagree. Yes, the difference between 5.1, 7.1 and 9.1 isn't that big, but the change to 5.1.2 (which is how the height channels are denoted) makes a much bigger difference since you're adding a new axis to the surround sound.

But the height speakers are only one of the new features in Atmos; Another BIG difference is that Atmos is object based, rather than channel based.

This provides much better positioning of the sound "sources". In traditional channel based surround formats, the position of a sound is simulated by simply playing it through several speakers at different volume and delay, but it doesn't take your speaker placement into account. Atmos just define a 3D position of a sound source and then mix the sound in realtime during playback. Move the placement of your speakers and it will be mixed differently.

This also means that instead of having a 5.1 and 7.1 mix on a disc like you have with channel based surround formats, an Atmos track doesn't define the number of channels since it's mixing in realtime to the number of speakers that's available. Add more speakers, going from your basic 5.1.2 setup to a 9.2.4 setup, and the same Atmos track will take advantage of all the additional speakers.

[natethomas]

but the change to 5.1.2 (which is how the height channels are denoted) makes a much bigger difference since you're adding a new axis to the surround sound.

Just out of curiosity, do you have some sort of scientific study to back this hypothesis, or are we talking out of our butts?

[Harro]

but the change to 5.1.2 (which is how the height channels are denoted) makes a much bigger difference since you're adding a new axis to the surround sound.

Just out of curiosity, do you have some sort of scientific study to back this hypothesis, or are we talking out of our butts?

Dolby Atmos White Paper

[sialivi]

but the change to 5.1.2 (which is how the height channels are denoted) makes a much bigger difference since you're adding a new axis to the surround sound.

Just out of curiosity, do you have some sort of scientific study to back this hypothesis, or are we talking out of our butts?

Not sure what warranted that unfriendly response, but no, only subjective experience from watching godzilla in an atmos cinema and seen the home theatre version demoed by pioneer and onkyo at the recent ce week tradeshow. Science aside, it doesn't take too much imagination to imagine that turning a circle into a half sphere allows for a larger sound field, no?

[MrMC]

I see nothing but Dolby's attempt to deal with the fact that their patents will expire in a few years and they need a new revenue stream.

[natethomas]

but the change to 5.1.2 (which is how the height channels are denoted) makes a much bigger difference since you're adding a new axis to the surround sound.

Just out of curiosity, do you have some sort of scientific study to back this hypothesis, or are we talking out of our butts?

Dolby Atmos White Paper

That was an interestingly large number of pages to fail to actually provide the method and results from actual testing. I'm willing to believe that more speakers is a good thing, but I'm also going to assume it's totally useless snake oil (just like HD audio) until somebody actually comes out with real, meaningful analytical tests on the subject.

[jjd-uk]

This is a couple of interesting features on it based on actual demo's

http://www.avforums.com/article/dolby-at...ctive.9203

http://www.avforums.com/article/bringing...room.10581

[natethomas]

Not sure what warranted that unfriendly response, but no, only subjective experience from watching godzilla in an atmos cinema and seen the home theatre version demoed by pioneer and onkyo at the recent ce week tradeshow. Science aside, it doesn't take too much imagination to imagine that turning a circle into a half sphere allows for a larger sound field, no?

Sorry if it came off as unfriendly, but I've spent so many years asking people for actual science on HD audio that I'm inclined to be incredibly negative to essentially all new forms of audio transport beyond 1.5Mbps DTS sound. The simple fact of the matter is that human ears are awful, can hear almost nothing, have an absurdly limited range, and are particularly bad at positional tracking.

Most of the engineering behind advanced audio codecs is actually great engineering, and I have no doubt that a half sphere is probably better than a circle, generally speaking. But I also think that most of these improvements would be akin to improving the ability of monitors to reproduce the infrared spectrum (i.e. totally useless, because human eyes can't perceive infrared).

This is no offense intended at you. The offense is intended towards the engineering and marketing teams at Dolby and DTS, who keep pushing new formats while simultaneously failing to actually demonstrate tested benefits of these formats.

[LazerBlue]

I have no science to back this, but when you hear a plane or helicopter in the sky you know is up. If you hear a bat flapping around or a bird chirping you tend to look up in the direction, not side to side. That's just my ear science.

Now I'm not just gonna run out and buy one, because first I think to benefit from it you jeed to have the right space which I do not have. Second, something like that I'll let others be guinea pigs before I even think about investing.

[MrMC]

humm, my ears don't point up. how does that work ?