Good article in the NewYork Times about Dolby Atmos

[Zapper]

The motivation for this NYT article is clear: Apple wants to sell more stuff. In particular, it is trying to regain the dominance in digital music that it enjoyed in the iTunes era, and it decided "spatial audio" is the key marketing differentiation to achieve that. So Atmos, which was languishing in the HT market for years, gets a new life. Everyone wants to get on the Apple bandwagon. If Apple wants Atmos, all the recording companies are happy to comply. NYT obliged with this Atmos infomercial. And of course all the electronics and speaker companies are eager to sell punters new AVRs and a truckload of speakers. Psuedo-Atmos is shoe-horned into bluetooth speakers (21st century boomboxes) and such to make them more better than last year's models, etc.

APPLE MUSIC IS betting heavily that the public will, by and large, come to love Atmos. Although other companies, including Amazon, had flirted with the technology, in 2021 Apple decided to commit itself fully to Atmos, putting its own proprietary and branding spin on the tech, dubbing it “spatial” audio.
Strategically, Atmos offers Apple Music a way to further distinguish itself from streaming competitors like Spotify — which has historically ignored high resolution or advanced audio options — and siphon market share from the industry’s dominant music service, YouTube

 

[Galliardist]

The motivation for this NYT article is clear: Apple wants to sell more stuff. In particular, it is trying to regain the dominance in digital music that it enjoyed in the iTunes era, and it decided "spatial audio" is the key marketing differentiation to achieve that. So Atmos, which was languishing in the HT market for years, gets a new life. Everyone wants to get on the Apple bandwagon. If Apple wants Atmos, all the recording companies are happy to comply. NYT obliged with this Atmos infomercial. And of course all the electronics and speaker companies are eager to sell punters new AVRs and a truckload of speakers. Psuedo-Atmos is shoe-horned into bluetooth speakers (21st century boomboxes) and such to make them more better than last year's models, etc.

There's more to this than Apple selling music. They are developing the audio component of their upcoming AR system. Other companies are also, obviously, in the AR/VR space but Apple's actual approach is different: they are targeting people like me who are lacking large screens, multichannel systems, and other such expensive consumer items, as a key driver. Their promotional material makes this quite clear with large virtual displays and home entertainment options built in.

The bet is far bigger than dominance in digital music, and the audio has to work - I'm going to say better than the visuals - for the product to succeed. They want a share of every single home entertainment market from this one device.

$3000 US for a VR headset is a no hoper. $3000 US for multiple big screens, an easy to use computer, a gaming device and serious surround audio suddenly becomes a bargain, though, doesn't it?

And you get all that space back for your other, real world activities with maybe that HomePod playing in the background and as an assistant with the headset off. For those of us in small apartments: and remember, there are going to be millions more of us in the future. If they get it right, it's the next iPhone. If not, somebody else will, but outside of a few big companies that don't have the vision to start this road, who else can do it quickly or in the proverbial garage where startups lurk?

 

[mhardy6647]

Oh I'm sure within say 5 years that will be the next step forward for Dolby to obsolete Atmos. You will have heights and then you'll need depth speakers sited on the floor to portray signals from below. Imaging being on a balcony or ledge in a large space as events happen below you. You need those depth speakers added for those to be like real and stuff. Maybe they'll half a** it by having speakers mounted mid-height on the wall and bounce one speaker off the ceiling for half a** height and one on the bottom bouncing off the floor for half a** depth effects. For the real deal you'll need a minimum 7.2.4.4 setup with LCR plus 4 rear surrounds, 2 subs, 4 height and 4 depth speakers. Minimum 17 speaker setup. You know it will sell like hotcakes. I suggest they name it Datmos. Oh and of course they'll tell you how great an improvement it is over laptop speakers, ear buds and soundbars. Datmos soundbars will be the biggest seller.

[emphasis added]

Timed to debut with James Cameron's next blockbuster:

Spoiler

you can probably guess the subject

Too soon, I know -- I'm almost ashamed. Almost.
I can do guilt, but I'm still workin' on shame.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Almost nobody sets their speakers up that way. The attached home entertainment/studio guidelines (attached) have much more realistic depictions.

We all wish we had bigger rooms. However, in any given room size, multichannel is going to give you a larger sweetspot than stereo. That's one of the main functions of it. You can have a giant room, but if you only have two speakers, your sweetspot is still only about one chair. Move one chair over to the left or the right and the center image follows you, collapsing the soundstage one way and stretching it to the other. A well done multichannel recording will sound very similar for multiple seating positions.

Yes, the larger the room the larger the possible sweetspot. But for any given room size, it's never going to be larger for stereo than it is for a multichannel setup.

Maybe it was just the mixes of the music or shows or whatever, but that has not been my experience with surround (I haven’t tried Atmos). I set up the speakers as per the guidelines. Unless I was exactly half way between the rear speakers, I would always get the rear effect sounding like it was coming from either the rear right or rear left depending on which I was closer to. And in nearly every show I would watch this would result in a sound suddenly shifting to that position in a way that made no auditory sense. I think the reason for that is there is nor way to set up the room symmetrically? The front has to be offset to the left. The rears can be then not be symmetric to the front and they also have to be on the wall which is parallel to the listening position. For whatever reason, the effect totally takes me out of what I am listening to or watching. I find it very distracting. I removed the rears and it sounds great.

My Neighbors have this exact same problem. Unless you want to sacrifice a room to make it for nothing but media consumption, there is no way to get the rears off the wall parallel to the best LP for the front. I could maybe do it in my studio/office, but then one of the rears is going to be 4 or 5 feet nearer that the rear as the room is L shaped. My speakers are fairly wide dispersion since I am not interested in a pinpoint stage presentation of music. I have heard systems that do that. And it is fun, but I prefer having a wide sweet spot where the music sounds really good from to different LPs (my mixing position and a lounger) with just a bit of balance adjustment. Now, if Atmos sounded like standing about 50 feet back from the stage while The Cure plays live with the reverb saturation going nuts so the sound is totally enveloping, that would be cool. But my neighbors might get annoyed at having to listen to my music.

 

[iGude]

Does that make sense?

It does make a lot of sense, now I understand. Thank you very much for taking your time to explain this!

 

[dave999z]

I don't have a surround or Atmos system (and don't go to that many movies in theaters so haven't really assessed this) but have always wondered, when watching movies, does the orientation of sounds change with every camera angle? It would seem that is an artistic choice/compromise, but I imagine it could be distracting or artificial sounding.

Like if two people facing each other are standing next to a waterfall, each time the camera flips to show the other person talking, does the waterfall sound flip from left to right? That's obviously an extreme (and contrived) example, but it seems this just raises a million conundrums in doing surround mixing for movies.

 

[Zapper]

And in nearly every show I would watch this would result in a sound suddenly shifting to that position in a way that made no auditory sense. I think the reason for that is there is nor way to set up the room symmetrically? The front has to be offset to the left. The rears can be then not be symmetric to the front and they also have to be on the wall which is parallel to the listening position. For whatever reason, the effect totally takes me out of what I am listening to or watching. I find it very distracting. I removed the rears and it sounds great.

I had the same observation. My solution was to keep on using the old dipole rear surround speakers I bought with my first home theatre setup from the 90's, with the VCR player, Dolby Pro Logic AVR, and the 36" CRT. They were designed to provide a diffuse rather than localized sound, thereby avoiding pronounced shifts in rear channel localization. The VCR, AVR, and CRT are long gone but I'm still using the 5.1 speakers from 1996. I haven't had much interest in following the advancements in home theatre audio, and Atmos doesn't change that.

 

[mhardy6647]

The motivation for this NYT article is clear: Apple wants to sell more stuff.

I don't have a surround or Atmos system (and don't go to that many movies in theaters so haven't really assessed this) but have always wondered, when watching movies, does the orientation of sounds change with every camera angle? It would seem that is an artistic choice/compromise, but I imagine it could be distracting or artificial sounding.

Like if two people facing each other are standing next to a waterfall, each time the camera flips to show the other person talking, does the waterfall sound flip from left to right? That's obviously an extreme (and contrived) example, but it seems this just raises a million conundrums in doing surround mixing for movies.

That's a really good question.
I, perhaps like you, haven't been to a movie for a long time.

 

[mhardy6647]

Oh I'm sure within say 5 years that will be the next step forward for Dolby to obsolete Atmos. You will have heights and then you'll need depth speakers sited on the floor to portray signals from below. Imaging being on a balcony or ledge in a large space as events happen below you. You need those depth speakers added for those to be like real and stuff. Maybe they'll half a** it by having speakers mounted mid-height on the wall and bounce one speaker off the ceiling for half a** height and one on the bottom bouncing off the floor for half a** depth effects. For the real deal you'll need a minimum 7.2.4.4 setup with LCR plus 4 rear surrounds, 2 subs, 4 height and 4 depth speakers. Minimum 17 speaker setup. You know it will sell like hotcakes. I suggest they name it Datmos. Oh and of course they'll tell you how great an improvement it is over laptop speakers, ear buds and soundbars. Datmos soundbars will be the biggest seller.

Wonder how folks on that small island in the Aegean to which St. John was exiled would feel if they came out with a "pro" version and called it Patmos?

It's OK -- I'll see myself out. Thanks.

 

[Axo1989]

There's more to this than Apple selling music. They are developing the audio component of their upcoming AR system. Other companies are also, obviously, in the AR/VR space but Apple's actual approach is different: they are targeting people like me who are lacking large screens, multichannel systems, and other such expensive consumer items, as a key driver. Their promotional material makes this quite clear with large virtual displays and home entertainment options built in.

The bet is far bigger than dominance in digital music, and the audio has to work - I'm going to say better than the visuals - for the product to succeed. They want a share of every single home entertainment market from this one device.

$3000 US for a VR headset is a no hoper. $3000 US for multiple big screens, an easy to use computer, a gaming device and serious surround audio suddenly becomes a bargain, though, doesn't it?

And you get all that space back for your other, real world activities with maybe that HomePod playing in the background and as an assistant with the headset off. For those of us in small apartments: and remember, there are going to be millions more of us in the future. If they get it right, it's the next iPhone. If not, somebody else will, but outside of a few big companies that don't have the vision to start this road, who else can do it quickly or in the proverbial garage where startups lurk?

A classic move for Apple, if you recall Jobs introducing the iPhone:

Well, today, we’re introducing three revolutionary products of this class. The first one is a widescreen iPod with touch controls. The second is a revolutionary mobile phone. And the third is a breakthrough Internet communications device. So, three things: a widescreen iPod with touch controls; a revolutionary mobile phone; and a breakthrough Internet communications device. An iPod, a phone, and an Internet communicator. An iPod, a phone … are you getting it? These are not three separate devices, this is one device, and we are calling it iPhone.

And it may work. I'm not really interested in an AR/VR headset per se. But "multiple big screens, an easy to use computer, a gaming device and serious surround audio" as you put it is something else. The surround sound part of the Vision Pro is basically head-tracking binaural of course. So everyone not grasping how all surround formats ultimately reduce to two ears is going to be arguing for a while yet.

 

[IPunchCholla]

A classic move for Apple, if you recall Jobs introducing the iPhone:



And it may work. I'm not really interested in an AR/VR headset per se. But "multiple big screens, an easy to use computer, a gaming device and serious surround audio" as you put it is something else. The surround sound part of the Vision Pro is basically head-tracking binaural of course. So everyone not grasping how all surround formats ultimately reduce to two ears is going to be arguing for a while yet.

Without a visual reference, I find the head tracking a bit odd on my AirPod Pros. The way it constantly slides around if I stay turned for long enough I find annoying enough to not use it. I’m curious about how much better it would be with the Vision Pro.

 

[Axo1989]

Without a visual reference, I find the head tracking a bit odd on my AirPod Pros. The way it constantly slides around if I stay turned for long enough I find annoying enough to not use it. I’m curious about how much better it would be with the Vision Pro.

I also get a slight slide-y bit when just starting to rotate my head from centre. It's obvious with audio-only when I'm sitting still and slowly/deliberately turn. I don't notice it really when moving around, etc. But the thing you mention, I'm guessing Apple decided to have an auto-centre after some time period. Without that it would be weird if the music was fixed to the position you started on and you were walking somewhere with various changes of direction. Probably why 'spatial' (alone) and 'head-tracking' (which includes spatial) are separate settings also.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I also get a slight slide-y bit when just starting to rotate my head from centre. It's obvious with audio-only when I'm sitting still and slowly/deliberately turn. I don't notice it really when moving around, etc. But the thing you mention, I'm guessing Apple decided to have an auto-centre after some time period. Without that it would be weird if the music was fixed to the position you started on and you were walking somewhere with various changes of direction. Probably why 'spatial' (alone) and 'head-tracking' (which includes spatial) are separate settings also.

It would be nice if you could set the self-centering time limit. I find it to be too short.

 

[Axo1989]

It would be nice if you could set the self-centering time limit. I find it to be too short.

Yes, it would. Even a vague-but-Apple slow/fast slider would be cool.

And it seems to be different for audio vs video. If I watch something with an iPad on the side while working (on something boring) on a Mac in front of me the iPad audio seems to stay put. But music from the phone will centre iirc. I'll have to try it and see how long that takes.

 

[jhaider]

Unless you want to sacrifice a room to make it for nothing but media consumption, there is no way to get the rears off the wall parallel to the best LP for the front.

You don’t need to do that, though. The rears can be on the wall, or (as in our old house) in bookcases, surrounded by books on their sides. The speakers just have to be well chosen for the role. I’ve found wider pattern speakers to be much better. I’ve settled on CBT arrays as the optimal choice for real-world sides/rears, though in the past I’ve found speakers with wide and smooth horizontal directivity (NHT C3 or the older Classic Three is a great example) to work well.

In the pre-immersive days, I also found upfiring coaxes (e.g. KEF Q100) to work wells as sides/rears, though they were too localizable when aimed at the listeners.

 

[IPunchCholla]

You don’t need to do that, though. The rears can be on the wall, or (as in our old house) in bookcases, surrounded by books on their sides. The speakers just have to be well chosen for the role. I’ve found wider pattern speakers to be much better. I’ve settled on CBT arrays as the optimal choice for real-world sides/rears, though in the past I’ve found speakers with wide and smooth horizontal directivity (NHT C3 or the older Classic Three is a great example) to work well.

In the pre-immersive days, I also found upfiring coaxes (e.g. KEF Q100) to work wells as sides/rears, though they were too localizable when aimed at the listeners.

Any good, cheap CBT arrays you know of? I’m just not convinced immersive (outside of headphones and IEMs) is for me. So I need a demo or something really cheap to dip my toes in.

ETA: I think much of the issue is that, in my house the MLP is against the wall, meaning the rears are to the side.

 

[jhaider]

Any good, cheap CBT arrays you know of?

Everyone has a different definition of “cheap.” JBL CBT-50 are as low in price as I know. JBL did a well received Synthesis immersive demo at CEDIA a while back using them with M2s. The only advantage I can gather from CBT-100 is they may look better flanking bookshelves (that’s why we use them as rears with 50s as sides).

ETA: I think much of the issue is that, in my house the MLP is against the wall, meaning the rears are to the side.

IMO that’s an issue for all reproduction. You can’t add a walkway behind, or at least a console table?

 

[BJL]

Any good, cheap CBT arrays you know of? I’m just not convinced immersive (outside of headphones and IEMs) is for me. So I need a demo or something really cheap to dip my toes in.

ETA: I think much of the issue is that, in my house the MLP is against the wall, meaning the rears are to the side.

It's not what you asked, but just a thought, if the MLP is against the wall, and the surrounds on the side, you could implement Atmos with top middle and front height, or rear height/front height, though I think that top middle front height will give a better result. Side surrounds are within the Atmos configuration options.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Everyone has a different definition of “cheap.” JBL CBT-50 are as low in price as I know. JBL did a well received Synthesis immersive demo at CEDIA a while back using them with M2s. The only advantage I can gather from CBT-100 is they may look better flanking bookshelves (that’s why we use them as rears with 50s as sides).



IMO that’s an issue for all reproduction. You can’t add a walkway behind, or at least a console table?

I might be able to in my office/studio, but the L shaped small room is going to be an issue there. The other room really can’t be changed without making the walking pattern an issue.

 

[MayaTlab]

Yes, it would. Even a vague-but-Apple slow/fast slider would be cool.

And it seems to be different for audio vs video. If I watch something with an iPad on the side while working (on something boring) on a Mac in front of me the iPad audio seems to stay put. But music from the phone will centre iirc. I'll have to try it and see how long that takes.

It would be nice if you could set the self-centering time limit. I find it to be too short.

I think that Apple's ambitions in regards to head tracking are a bit more advanced than just "after x time, for non-visual based content, recentre". They use the AirPods and the source device's motion sensors to detect whether you're sitting, standing, walking, in a static place or in a moving vehicle, and they do apply different algorithms depending the source device type and on whether the content is visual (you have a reference for where the sound is meant to come from), or non visual (no reference for where the sound is meant to come from).

They have a shitload of patents on the subject of using motion sensors for spatial audio head-tracking, this one among others for example : https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/20230100254

Personally I've been generally displeased with the current state of head-tracking in Apple's ecosystem, but perhaps they'll manage to improve it to a point where I find it truly credible.