Dolby Atmos/DTS X - Impact of using them without the overhead channels?

Geordie2004

Established Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
589
Reaction score
120
Points
152
Age
37
Location
Manchester
I'm still pondering upgrading my AV receiver at some point and am wondering if it will be worth it before I am able to get overhead channel speakers. I know that in theory Atmos at least is designed to be used with the overhead channels, but I was wondering if anyone had a view on using the codec without them and if there was any audible improvement over the older lossless audio formats.

I'm also wondering if there is any significant difference between Atmos and X in terms of how they work. From what I can tell they offer basically the same technology, but any differences that people care to point out would be interesting.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts as always. :)
 
I'm still pondering upgrading my AV receiver at some point and am wondering if it will be worth it before I am able to get overhead channel speakers. I know that in theory Atmos at least is designed to be used with the overhead channels, but I was wondering if anyone had a view on using the codec without them and if there was any audible improvement over the older lossless audio formats.

I'm also wondering if there is any significant difference between Atmos and X in terms of how they work. From what I can tell they offer basically the same technology, but any differences that people care to point out would be interesting.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts as always. :)
You can not play atmos or Dts x without overhead/upfireing speakers. Your avr will play the base layer ie TrueHD or DTS Marster
 
You can not play atmos or Dts x without overhead/upfireing speakers. Your avr will play the base layer ie TrueHD or DTS Marster
You can. You just need speakers configured as atmos speakers. These could even sit on the floor with their speakers facing the floor.

When I was first looking into atmos I had a couple of old ordinary speakers configured as atmos just sitting on top of the surrounds. From what I remember there then seemed to be benefits to overall sound stage and steering on the base layer. But that could just have been placebo effect.
 
I was wondering if anyone had a view on using the codec without them and if there was any audible improvement over the older lossless audio formats.
Atmos is additional metadata added on to a base layer audio of either Dolby Digital plus or Dolby True HD. Likewise, DTS:X is additional metadata included with a DTS HD MA soundtrack.

If your AVR is not compatible with or not configured for height speakers, so just a standard 5.1 or 7.1 base layer set up, the amp will ignore the additional metadata for height speakers and instead play the base layer audio of Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby True HD or DTS HD MA.

So, if your current AVR can decode those, buying a new atmos / DTS:X compatible AVR but not adding height speakers, will not give you access to any new lossless audio options.
 
As has been pointed out with a base speaker configuration of 5.1 it would be impossible to configure Atmos unless you were willing to go 3.1.2 forgoing the surrounds and have them configured for Atmos. If those speakers were left at seated head height then it would be something of a pointless exercise. You're better off stick with base 5.1 and adding Atmos speakers and correctly configure the receiver at a later date.
 
Atmos is additional metadata added on to a base layer audio of either Dolby Digital plus or Dolby True HD. Likewise, DTS:X is additional metadata included with a DTS HD MA soundtrack.

If your AVR is not compatible with or not configured for height speakers, so just a standard 5.1 or 7.1 base layer set up, the amp will ignore the additional metadata for height speakers and instead play the base layer audio of Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby True HD or DTS HD MA.

So, if your current AVR can decode those, buying a new atmos / DTS:X compatible AVR but not adding height speakers, will not give you access to any new lossless audio options.
But it's not just metadata for heights though is it, atmos has positional metadata for all of the speakers. Once a minimum of two speakers are configured to be heights (wherever they may be physically located) the atmos metadata is then processed for all of the speakers including the base layer. A move from channel based (True HD) to object based (atmos) placement of sound.

Now obviously if your heights aren't actually heights the helicopter flying overhead won't, but a car moving across the base layer should do so with better definition if its placement is done via the atmos metadata.

In the case of the home theater, every sound in the mix is represented as an audio object. When you set up your Dolby Atmos enabled AVR, you inform your receiver how many speakers you have, what type of speakers they are (large, small, overhead, and/or Dolby Atmos enabled), and where they’re located. Armed with this information, a sophisticated processor in your AVR-----the Object Audio Renderer or OAR-----analyzes the positional metadata and scales each audio object for optimal playback through the connected speaker system. This process include includes determining in real time exactly which speakers it needs to use from moment to moment in order to reproduce the sounds of the car careening across the screen and the child fleeing up the stairs. https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf

As has been pointed out with a base speaker configuration of 5.1 it would be impossible to configure Atmos unless you were willing to go 3.1.2 forgoing the surrounds and have them configured for Atmos. If those speakers were left at seated head height then it would be something of a pointless exercise. You're better off stick with base 5.1 and adding Atmos speakers and correctly configure the receiver at a later date.
But a 7.1 setup can have two speakers configured as 5.1.2 atmos. And if no longer left at seated height hight but angled so as to fire upwards...

One likely result from this exercise may be that the OP will move more quickly than he may have intended to then get true heights or dolby upfirers. Worked for me as, whether placebo or not, I saw enough benefits for the base layer from atmos using two angled ordinary speakers (a pair of <£80 JBLs) to then go full fat in ceiling atmos within a few weeks.
 
Last edited:
One likely result may be that the OP will move more quickly than he may have intended to then get true heights or dolby upfirers. Worked for me as, whether placebo or not, I saw enough benefits for the base layer from atmos to then go full fat in ceiling atmos within a few weeks.
I use upfiring KEF R50s and they sound very good, had them in place for well over four years. As an expert with a sledge hammer or large axe my wife just didn't trust my (lack) of DIY skills to let me mess with the ceiling.
 
I use upfiring KEF R50s and they sound very good, had them in place for well over four years. As an expert with a sledge hammer or large axe my wife just didn't trust my (lack) of DIY skills to let me mess with the ceiling.
You should have flourished your plasterboard keyhole saw rather than your sledge hammer or axe. She may have then had more trust in your DIY abilities to carve up the ceiling. Right tools for the job and all that...:)
 
The AVR will not decode the atmos or Dts:X metadata if the AVR is not configured for height speakers.

And if you set the amp to 5.1.2 but only had 5.1 speakers, you would be missing 2 channels of audio completely.

Setting the amp to 5.1 to match the speakers actually connected to the AVR would play the audio correctly. And would also play the same HD audio soundtrack that the OP's current AVR will play, unless that AVR is old enough to pre-date Dolby True HD / DTS HD MA.
 
The AVR will not decode the atmos or Dts:X metadata if the AVR is not configured for height speakers.
And if it is?
And if you set the amp to 5.1.2 but only had 5.1 speakers, you would be missing 2 channels of audio completely.
To muddy the waters even more, you don't even need the height speakers connected, just configured if I remember correctly. With Denon/Marantz anyway. If not, any cheap speakers would serve to do the job. For instance these £39 ones Tibo Harmony 4 (Black). I used JBL Control 1's temporarily moved from another room as their small size made them ideal to angle as upfirers. Results were fairly poor but probably not much worse than the cheapest available upfirers.
 
And if it is?
Then it will.
To muddy the waters even more, you don't even need the height speakers connected, just configured if I remember correctly. With Denon/Marantz anyway. If not, any cheap speakers would serve to do the job. For instance these £39 ones Tibo Harmony 4 (Black). I used JBL Control 1's temporarily moved from another room as their small size made them ideal to angle as upfirers. Results were fairly poor but probably not much worse than the cheapest available upfirers.
That would be a very bad idea, and not what the OP was asking.

If you configure the AVR for height speakers in order to access Atmos / DTS:X audio, in order for the audio experience to stand a chance of being fairly decent, you need speakers of a similar quality as the main base layer speakers, either on the ceiling or projecting audio towards the ceiling.

Otherwise you will lose or destroy all of the height audio information and end up with an experience that is worse than just accessing the standard 5.1 / 7.1 Dolby Digital Plus / Dolby True HD / DTS HD MA soundtrack.
 
Atmos isn't a channel based format and is reliant upon the metadata packaged with the DD+ or TrueHD it is included with. The AV receiver will not even acknowledge the presence of this metadata if you've not a receiver that can decode Atmos or a speaker layout not conducive with portraying Atmos.

Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD
Dolby expanded the Dolby TrueHD format employed in Blu-ray Disc media to allow the format to support Dolby Atmos content. Prior to Dolby Atmos, Dolby TrueHD provided lossless support exclusively for channel-based audio, such as 5.1 and 7.1. We have added a fourth substream to Dolby TrueHD to support Dolby Atmos playback. This substream represents a losslessly encoded, fully object-based mix.

Dolby Atmos signals encoded in Dolby TrueHD are transmitted from a Blu-ray player to your sound bar with Dolby Atmos through an HDMI connection. The sound bar receives the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack and its associated object-based audio and positional metadata, and then decodes, processes, and renders the sound to the specific speaker configuration in the device.

Dolby Atmos audio can be encoded with Dolby TrueHD at multiple sampling rates (including 48 kHz and 96 kHz) and bit depths (16-bit and 24-bit). Dolby Atmos enabled sound bar products will also support legacy Dolby TrueHD bitstreams at multiple sampling rates (including 48, 96, and 192 kHz) and bit depths (16-, 20-, and 24-bit) to provide full backward compatibility with legacy Blu-ray Disc media and Dolby TrueHD music files.

Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus
Dolby Digital Plus has been updated to include a new decoder capable of processing content encoded for Dolby Atmos. This module employs new bitstream metadata to extract Dolby Atmos object-based audio and then outputs this information for further processing by the object audio renderer, which adapts and scales the Dolby Atmos mix for the onboard speaker system in the sound bar. The sampling rate for Dolby Atmos content is 48 kHz, the same sample rate as for Dolby Digital Plus content.

Dolby Digital Plus is employed for over-the-air (OTA) and cable broadcast delivery and is the preferred audio codec for multichannel OTT or streaming media content.

Full compatibility
Both audio decoders are designed to be fully backward compatible with legacy channel-based Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD soundtracks.

Dolby Atmos in Dolby MAT
A Dolby MAT encoder resides in a Blu-ray player to pack the variable bit-rate Dolby TrueHD bitstreams for transmission over the fixed bit-rate HDMI. A Dolby MAT decoder is concurrently employed in the Dolby TrueHD decoder in the sound bar to unpack the Dolby TrueHD bitstreams. With the introduction of Dolby Atmos, we have expanded the Dolby MAT technology to support encoding and decoding of Dolby Atmos metadata incorporated in lossless pulse-code modulation (PCM) audio.

A key benefit of Dolby MAT 2.0 is that Dolby Atmos object-based audio can be live encoded and transmitted from a source device with limited latency and processing complexity. Among the likely sources are broadcast set-top boxes and game consoles. The Dolby MAT 2.0 decoder in the Dolby Atmos enabled sound bar outputs the object-based audio and its metadata for further processing inside the device. The Dolby MAT 2.0 container is scalable and leverages the full potential of the HDMI audio pipeline.

If the receiver isn't equipped to decode Atmos or if the speakers are not setup in a manner needed to portray it then you'd simply get the TRueHD, DD+ or multichannel PCM that the metadata was packaged with.


If the height speakers are connected, but not correctly positioned in alignment with the guidance offered by Dolby, the aus=dio will not be portrayed as it was mixed. THe speakers still need to be located conducive with Dolby's own guidlines. If trying to fool the receiver into thinking that the addional speakers are present when they aren't they you'll be hearing the soundyt=track with large holes in it. THe conveyance of objects within a 3 dimensoinal space is heavilly reliant upon the additional speakers being present.

There's nothing to be gained by trying to fool your receiver that you have a correctly configured speaker layout conducive with what would be needed for Atmos.


It should be noted though that the additional speakers are basically no different to conventional speakers. Even the up firing speakers can be conventionally designed ones devoid of the HRTF filters Dolby endorsed modules include.


THey would still need to be located in alignment with the Dolby guidlines though. If not then the soundtrack is not portrayed as intended.



Some of the newer AV receivers are including Dolby height virtualisation. THis can be used in setups devoid of physical Atmos speakers to create virtual representations of them, but this isn't on all AV receivers and doesn't really compensate for the effects you'd get if using physical speakers.
 
Last edited:
@Rambles and @dante01 In case you missed it the OP question was not 'will I get the full atmos experience without having atmos speakers' but rather atmos/dts-x - impact of using them without the overhead channels.

It's bleeding obvious you won't get any height effects without height speakers. But you will get the atmos metadata steering and positioning of objects on the base layer. My 4 atmos overhead speakers are powered by an external amp. Occasionally I forget to turn this on. Occasionally I can be well into a UHD before I go 'not much happening overhead with this movie. Oh, the amp is off'.

Point: it's not such a big deal with a lot of atmos soundtracks as quite a few don't do much at all with the atmos speakers and it's not a night and day situation. Even with the amp on I'll still sometimes think 'not much happening with the overheads', run a levels test tone through them to check they are on and go 'well it's not my speakers but the soundtrack'.
That would be a very bad idea, and not what the OP was asking.

If you configure the AVR for height speakers in order to access Atmos / DTS:X audio, in order for the audio experience to stand a chance of being fairly decent, you need speakers of a similar quality as the main base layer speakers, either on the ceiling or projecting audio towards the ceiling.
The cheapest of the cheap speakers are there purely to get atmos soundtrack playback in the AVR, not for any sound they may contribute. And only there in the eventuality that the AVR doesn't let atmos speakers be configured without any actually being connected.

The arguement given by @Rambles and @gibbsy was that if you have a 5.1 setup and connect/configure two speakers to atmos you will only have a 3.1 setup. Very true. But you have a 5.1 setup and if you spend £39 to add two cheap speakers (or use any old small speakers you may have) then you have 5.1.2. Not the best 5.1.2 you could get, but nevertheless 5.1.2.

Do a half decent job of angling those speakers and you get a better 5.1.2 than if you didn't angle the speakers. The angle required is simple to work out. Making the required wedge to angle the speakers correctly can be done easily with some sticky back plastic and cardboard. Didn't you see the Blue Peter episode where Valerie Singleton and Peter Purves showed it being done using cornflake packets...;)

From the audioholics link given above by @dante01 "In our own testing, we've had better results repurposing old 2-way bookshelf speakers as Atmos upfiring speakers as opposed to the specifically designed "Atmos-enabled" speaker designs"
 
Last edited:
The impact would be that element intended to be heard will be absent. This will be particularly applicable to objects being mapped around the room and these objects willno be portrayed conveying around that room as was intended by the person who mixed the soundtrack.


There's nothing to gain be trying to potray Atmos without the additional speakers and if you do persue this then all you are getting is a soundtrack with elements missing and holes in it.


If not a big deal, then why are you so adamant to gave the receiver think it is processing Atmos when all you'd be doing is portraying what you'd have got via 5.1 or 7.1? You may as well simply let the receiver process the channel based elements as they were designed to be portrayed rather than introduce processing that will result in there being holes in the soundtrack being portraye.

Again, there's absolutely no benefits associated with what you appear to be proposing.If there were then you'd be reading lots of posts where people would be suggeting others do as you propose.


Note that the audio encoding isn't superior and the encoded audio is the same audio associated with the DD+ or the TRueHD encoded elements that the metadata is packaged with. THis encoded audio is the only audio data and the objects are embedded within that mix. THe metadata simply tells the receiver what these objects are and how to map them to that setup. THe audio quality is no better than the audio quality of the DD+ or TrueHD element and the package.
 
Last edited:
@doug56hl I disagree with you, your argument has huge holes in it, as will the audio soundstage, if you pretend that you have a 5.1.2 set-up but the .2 is either non existent or sending the audio in the wrong direction.

I am not specifying that the speakers have to be specifically designed for atmos, but they do need to be capable of playing the full frequency range above the crossover at a matching SPL to the base layer speakers without distortion, even at dynamic peaks, and crucially, playing that audio in the correct location in the room.
 
If not a big deal, then why are you so adamant to gave the receiver think it is processing Atmos when all you'd be doing is portraying what you'd have got via 5.1 or 7.1? You may as well simply let the receiver process the channel based elements as they were designed to be portrayed rather than introduce processing that will result in there being holes in the soundtrack being portraye.

Again, there's absolutely no benefits associated with what you appear to be proposing.If there were then you'd be reading lots of posts where people would be suggeting others do as you propose.

Note that the audio encoding isn't superior and the encoded audio is the same audio associated with the DD+ or the TRueHD encoded elements that the metadata is packaged with. THis encoded audio is the only audio data and the objects are embedded within that mix. THe metadata simply tells the receiver what these objects are and how to map them to that setup. THe audio quality is no better than the audio quality of the DD+ or TrueHD element and the package.
Channel based 5.1 or 7.1 vs object based 5.1 or 7.1 with atmos. Same audio, potentially better steering and positioning of base layer objects. In the case say of a car passing left rear to front right in the horizontal plane how much height/vertical plane sound would be there that you wouldn't be getting by not having height speakers?

In real life I'd hear the car passing horizontally, there wouldn't be any vertical element (unless the car was in say a garage with overhead surfaces for the sound to reflect down from).
 
Last edited:
Suite yourself. Waste your time and go ahead with trying to portray Atmos sans the correct speakers located in the correct locations.


I'd personally suggest there to be no point to this and fail to see any reason to persue it?



By the way, in real life you'd not be able to localise any audio eminating from 30° above your horizontal plain. In theory, Atmos shouldn't work and ceiling speakers are pointless. The vast weight of opinion is contrary to the facts though and people do appear to perceive the effects coming from above them. We are predators with ears on the sides of our heads, pointing forwatd and we only really only localise audio ahead of us. If a plane passes overhead, we do hear it, but it isn't until we actually look for it that we becom aware of exactly where it is. To some degree this is why Auro labs don't propagate using ceiling speakers in association with their home implimentation of Auro 3D. They suggest height speakers are more effective (disregarding their Voice of God speaker and associated channel). They do however use ceiling speakers in their theatre installations.

It is maybe also worth pointing out that if using Atmos processing results in better steering etc even in the absence of the Atmos speakers then why aren't Dolby themselves endorsing this as being the way to do things or making it a normal configuration option? The only thing they endorse that compares is the use of height virtualisation.
 
Last edited:
Channel based 5.1 or 7.1 vs object based 5.1 or 7.1 with atmos. Same audio, potentially better steering and positioning of base layer objects. In the case say of a car passing left rear to front right in the horizontal plane how much height/vertical plane sound would be there that you wouldn't be getting by not having height speakers?

In real life I'd hear the car passing horizontally, there wouldn't be any vertical element (unless the car was in say a garage with overhead surfaces for the sound to reflect down from).
So if there is one part of the soundtrack where a car goes from left to right, you might get a fractionally improved audio experience, in your opinion?

But as soon as there is any height element to the soundtrack, it will be awful because you don't have the speakers set-up correctly.

So, what are you advising the OP to do?
 
Suite yourself. Waste your time and go ahead with trying to portray Atmos sans th correct speakers located in the correct locations.

I'd personally suggest there to be no point to this and fail to see any reason to persue it?
The OP asked if there would be any possible benefit to getting and using an atmos AVR before he had atmos speakers. My arguement is that there may be for object positioning and steering in the base layer. Atmos is not just for heights, it's for all speakers. Remove some of the speakers and yes you will remove some of the sound cue information, but you won't remove all of it.
So if there is one part of the soundtrack where a car goes from left to right, you might get a fractionally improved audio experience, in your opinion?

But as soon as there is any height element to the soundtrack, it will be awful because you don't have the speakers set-up correctly.
Potentially yes, if the car going from back left to front right is encoded as an object. And I didn't say a fractional improvement although a 10%, 20% or 50% improvement is better than 0% improvement.

Why would the loss of height information be more awful in a 5.1.2 without the .2 than it would be in a vanilla 5.1. In both cases there is the same absence of height sounds.

It's easily testable as to how great an impact this would have if using an external amp to power the atmos speakers. Just A/B compare with and without that amp powered on. Repeat with atmos turned on and off. I'm guessing (but have yet to test it that way) that for many movies for much of the time there won't be as large a difference ('awful') as you suggest there will be.
So, what are you advising the OP to do?
I'm still pondering upgrading my AV receiver at some point and am wondering if it will be worth it before I am able to get overhead channel speakers.
Upgrade his AVR to an atmos capable one sooner rather than later. Try an atmos configuration with his existing speaker setup. If the impact on the overall sound of loss of height is an issue, use some cheap speakers angled correctly to give reflected height sound until he can go for a 'proper' atmos setup.

Audioholics note that non atmos speakers angled as upfirers can give a better result than the cheap atmos enabled speakers they tested. A cheap pair of speakers can potentially give better results than a £100 pair of atmos enabled speakers. Spending <£40 to be disappointed is better than spending £100 to be equally or more disappointed....

Better now to get the other benefits that a newer atmos capable AVR offers than wait until enough funds are available to go for a big bang new AVR and decent atmos speakers combined purchase. If necessary get some cheap speakers to provide some sort of an atmos effect until he can get decent atmos speakers.
 
Last edited:
The OP asked if there would be any possible benefit to getting and using an atmos AVR before he had atmos speakers.


and the answer is no.

Your arguement is based upon theories that are not supported or substantiated by any other source. If what you suggest is actually the case then why aren't Dolby themselves putting this forward and offering support for Atmos sans the associated height, ceiling or upward firing speakers (disregarding Dolby Virtual Height processing)? If so superior then why the hell wouldn't they be exploiting this themselves to promotes Atmos portrayed via setups excluding the additional speakers?


Atmos isn't new and I'm sure others, including Dolby would have realised what you've suggested if it was in fact true. No one has come to the same conclusion as you appear to have arrived at.


By the way, Audioholics also suggest the best Atmos setupto be one using overhead speakers. Despite their analysis of upward firing speakers and Dolby's use of HRTF, the conclusion is still that overhead speakers give the more authentic portrayal of Atmos soundtracks. Atmos soundtracks are not mixed in studios equipped with height of upward firing speakers. Height and upward firing speakers are a compromise.



Without the additional speakers then there's no Atmos imersive effect and no point in forcing the receiver to think such speakers are present.
 
Last edited:
and the answer is no.


Your arguement is based upon theories that are not supported by any other source. If what you suggest is actually the cas then why aren't Dolby themselves putting this forward and offering support for Atmos sans the associated height, ceiling or upward firing speakers? If so superior then why the hell wouldn't they be exploiting this themselves to promotes Atmos portrayed via setups exclusing the additional speakers?
Does Dolby make money from their atmos enabled speakers licensing...;)

No possible benefit at all? Not even using ordinary speakers in an upfireing capacity?

The 'theories' as you put it are based on the Dolby papers on the benefits of object based rather than channel based soundtracks. Objects can be located or move in the horizontal plane just as they can be located or move in the vertical plane. Dolby has developed the technology required to translate the Dolby Atmos experience in cinema to home theaters. In the case of the home theater, every sound in the mix is represented as an audio object.
Every sound in a scene-----a child yelling, a helicopter taking off, a car horn blaring-----can be a separate sound object. Each of those sounds comes from a specific location in the scene, and in some cases, they move. The car careens from left to right, while the yelling child runs up a set of stairs.


I'm not saying my suggestion is superior, merely that it may provide some 'possible' benefits to the OP prior to them getting dolby speakers/heights. Your argument is based on a somewhat appeal to authority basis and not, it seems, on any actual testing of the position.

Go and try the A/B comparisions I suggested. I'll do similar and we can compare notes. Fast and Furious movies (albeit they use DTS-X) may be a good test for cars careening from left to right...;).
 
Last edited:
Dolby only license the Dolby Enabled upward firing speakers. They themselves suggest Atmos is best portrayed using ceiling speakers which are not licensed by Dolby and don't include HRTF crossovers which Dolby have patented.

Not sure how Dolby are financially gaining from people following their advise to use ceiling speakers?

Besides which, there's nothing preventing anyone from using upward firing speakers that are not licensed by Dolby and devoid of HRTF crossovers. Many manufacturers make such speakers and Dolby do not get paid anything by those manufacturers.

If what you say is true then It would techncally serve Dolby better to promote Atmos as providing superior 5.1 or 7.1 audio in the manner you suggest. Dolby don't do this though because the advantages you suggest are non existent. Please point me to an independent authority that supports your claims? The proposed absence of the speakers would be widespread now if what you are saying were true. No one is promoting this because there's no advantage gained by doing so.


You only gain anything from Atmos if you'v the additional speakers associated with it present.
 
Last edited:
If what you say is true then It would techncally serve Dolby better to promote Atmos as providing superior 5.1 or 7.1 audio in the manner you suggest. Dolby don't do this though because the advantages you suggest are non existent. Please point me to an independent authority that supports your claims? The propose absence of the speakers would be widespread now if what you are saying were true. No one is promoting this because there's no advantage gained by doing so.
I'd suggest anybody interested in atmos will have gone for the full fat setup.
Any possible benefits I'm suggesting are for those who may only be some way along the route to that (or haven't, like the OP, even started).

As I first noted I initially saw some benefits (positioning and steering) with atmos enabled in the AVR (but no speakers doing anything). Then slightly more benefit with angled speakers upfireing. Enough benefit though that, within a fairly short period of time, I was cutting holes in my ceiling and putting in a 7.x.4 setup. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step :)
 
Last edited:
No, what you are suggesting cannot portay Atmos so isn't Atmos. You need the additional speakers to gain anything. There is no mid point between conventional channel based 7.1 and object besed Atmos. THe conventional floor layer is the same floor mix you'd get if listening to the DD+ or the TRueHD audio that the Atmos metadata is packaged with. THe AV receiver uses the same channel steeering for both the channel based elements and thos elements subject to the Atmos metadata. One of the main things that differentiates the home impimentation of Atmos from that which yu'd experience within a theatre is the way in which the fllor level channels are still in effect.

Why would anyone benefit from pretending they had speakers present that are not there?

If you've got angled speakers firing upward then that would be conduscive with what is suggested as being an Atmos setup. The speakers do not have to be endorsed by Dolby or inclusiv of HRTF. What you suggest is actually an Atmos setup. Yes, this would portray the imersive element associated with an Atmos soundtrack, but isn't a halfway house and is in fact an Atmos setup.

Yes, the best way to portray Atmos is via ceiling speakers. THis has always been the case and is exactly what Dolby themselves suggest. Upward firing or height speakers are a compromise for those unable to accommodate ceiling speakers. Dolby do not promote upward firing speakers as being the superior option.
 
Last edited:
No, what you are suggesting cannot portay Atmos so isn't Atmos. You need the additional speakers to gain anything. There is no mid point between conventional channel based 7.1 and object besed Atmos. THe conventional floor layer is the same floor mix you'd get if listening to the DD+ or the TRueHD audio that the Atmos metadata is packaged with. THe AV receiver uses the same channel steeering for both the channel based elements and thos elements subject to the Atmos metadata. One of the main things that differentiates the home impimentation of Atmos from that which yu'd experience within a theatre is the way in which the fllor level channels are still in effect.
So you are saying that atmos objects are only used when they have a height element? That the only atmos metadata is for the heights and not for the base layer? Any source for that?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom