informal survey: how many Atmos users adhere to Dolby height speaker layout and performance recommendations?

[Soundmixer]

We are not (primarily) talking about studios here though, but home reproduction setups.

Home setups should be set up as close to the studio setups as possible. If you look at the Dolby standards for studios and compare them to their home standards, it is pretty darn close. That is the way it should be. The ITU-BS775 standard is the same for studios as it is for the home.

 

[Soundmixer]

I don't think that there is any reason to sweat the details or try and match the set up of a recording studio. Atmos is quite forgiving assuming that the speaker positions are identified correctly (tops vs heights, for example) and Dirac or similar is used, which takes care of distance deviations nicely. Excellent Atmos mixes sound great. Mediocre mixes sound - mediocre.

If you want to hear the spatial detail that is intended in the mix, then you SHOULD (try and) match the setup of a MIXING studio (not a recording studio). The closer you match it, the closer you are to hearing the spatial detail the mixer intended. Atmos is forgiving to a certain extent. However, you cannot put a speaker just anywhere, label it something, and expect it to sound like it should. Atmos is not THAT forgiving.

 

[BJL]

This is all clear to me now, due to the discussion in this thread, so thank you.

I've never used a format that required "Height" speakers, just ceiling bracket-mounted "Top" speakers, a set of four KEF Q150s aimed toward the main listening position and mounted on the ceiling at Dolby-recommended angles from the MLP. I'm reasonably sure my 7.0.4 setup follows Dolby Labs' instructions perfectly. My confusion resulted from the fact that the back of my processor labels what I'll call "Atmos overhead speaker" outputs as "Height," and Dolby's own practice of sometimes using the terms "Height" and "Top" interchangeably. Maybe my processor could be used to drive "Height" speakers from those same outputs using a format that requires them? I have no idea, I never looked. (I've also seen references to "Presence" speakers mounted high on the front wall. Never used those, either.)

It appears that under current practice, outputs on a Dolby Atmos processor that are labeled "Height" could be used for "Height" speakers, OR for Atmos overhead speakers, unless otherwise instructed, depending on which format is being used.

The manual for your processor should explain that the outputs labeled front or back "height" can be designated in one of three ways: as "top" (or "overhead"), or as "height," or as "Dolby Atmos enabled." If you have the option of middle, those can only be designated as "top" or "overhead."

The Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines document, Home Theater Speaker Guide section, is very clear and straight forward. Every processor manual that I have looked at (and I looked at several when I was shopping) likewise explains all this, though the Dolby guide is the only source with detailed diagrams that I have seen.

I think that part of the problem, and the reason why long threads like this emerge, is that no one seems to read the manuals that accompany the processor. RTFM.

 

[Tre2023]

You should adhere to their recommendations for ceiling speakers. They have stuck to that like glue. All of the other recommendations are for less-than-ideal situations where the ideal setup is not possible.


Concessions are a part of the game. Some folks have to make profound concessions, others, not so much. If you make concessions, don't be surprised if you don't hear anything close to what was intended. The more you make, the less predictable your results.

Nobody is arguing that there is an optimal configuration. But, to say that a configuration that is less than 100% accurate will result in something that is not anything close to what was intended is a bit much.

Many have enhanced their systems with height speakers that may not be in the optimal positions and have enjoyed the results. Without a dedicated room built to spec, they do what they can in living rooms, dens and bedrooms and have a good time.

 

[Soundmixer]

The manual for your processor should explain that the outputs labeled front or back "height" can be designated in one of three ways: as "top" (or "overhead"), or as "height," or as "Dolby Atmos enabled." If you have the option of middle, those can only be designated as "top" or "overhead."

The Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines document, Home Theater Speaker Guide section, is very clear and straight forward. Every processor manual that I have looked at (and I looked at several when I was shopping) likewise explains all this, though the Dolby guide is the only source with detailed diagrams that I have seen.

I think that part of the problem, and the reason why long threads like this emerge, is that no one seems to read the manuals that accompany the processor. RTFM.

Your comment is why one should NOT read the manuals and go to the Dolby website.

 

[Tre2023]

Actually, many run into problems aside from Atmos because they did not read their manuals from front to back. Forums would have far fewer threads if not for those seeking help because they simply did not read their manuals.

 

[Soundmixer]

Nobody is arguing that there is an optimal configuration. But, to say that a configuration that is less than 100% accurate will result in something that is not anything close to what was intended is a bit much.

Sounds like somebody is trying to justify something.

Many have enhanced their systems with height speakers that may not be in the optimal positions and have enjoyed the results. Without a dedicated room built to spec, they do what they can in living rooms, dens and bedrooms and have a good time.

If the speakers are not in optimal positions, and you enjoy the results, then you are not looking for Atmos, but just an enhancement to what you already have. Height speakers belong to Auro, not to Dolby Atmos. As I have previously stated, you can put your speakers wherever you want; there is no speaker setup police. The mix will not translate as it should, and what you get is a distorted spatial "picture".

Some folks love distortion....

 

[Tre2023]

I do not feel the need to justify anything and nobody should feel the need to do so concerning their own systems. You are holding on a little too tight to this thing.

Find something, or somebody, else to hold tight and you may just have a good time yourself. I can't imagine being a hall monitor results in as much fun.

 

[Talisman]

I am always quite surprised by the ability of some arguments to unleash real religious wars with gurus who claim to have the certain and only solution to a problem.

 

[-Matt-]

I am always quite surprised by the ability of some arguments to unleash real religious wars with gurus who claim to have the certain and only solution to a problem.

You shouldn't be surprised, it seems to be a bit of a theme here lately, with certain threads obviously intending to instigate such...

Build a system, don't just buy equipment

 

[Newman]

If you want to hear the spatial detail that is intended in the mix, then you SHOULD (try and) match the setup of a MIXING studio (not a recording studio). The closer you match it, the closer you are to hearing the spatial detail the mixer intended. Atmos is forgiving to a certain extent. However, you cannot put a speaker just anywhere, label it something, and expect it to sound like it should. Atmos is not THAT forgiving.

I accept this as an ideal. However, I do not think that a setup that conforms to any of the alternatives posted in Dolby's guidelines for home installation, should be described as "not Atmos", like you did a few posts back when describing any setup using Height Speakers.

 

[Oddball]

Sounds like somebody is trying to justify something.


If the speakers are not in optimal positions, and you enjoy the results, then you are not looking for Atmos, but just an enhancement to what you already have. Height speakers belong to Auro, not to Dolby Atmos. As I have previously stated, you can put your speakers wherever you want; there is no speaker setup police. The mix will not translate as it should, and what you get is a distorted spatial "picture".

Some folks love distortion....

Not sure why you need to follow the posts in this thread with such hardcore dedication. We all heard your view and took notice of it.

Atmos setups at homes are a combination of compromises that are possible. Even having the bouncy Atmos speakers is a step forward than having no Atmos at all. It gets better as you move up the chain where it is all about angles and placement.

IMO you are distorting the view that on wall speakers are not Atmos. For most that will actually be the best practical solution. Bookshelves will be cheaper than comparable in-wall solutions by factor of more than 2. Checked last time 2 years ago though. Lowering the ceiling by 20 cm that lots of solid in ceilings require is also not a viable option for most.

Than there is experience from different setups. I don't find my on wall setup inferior to in ceiling setups with comparable speakers. My reference for 3D Atmos is Masters of the Air, and their air battles land in the bubble so right that it makes me think this is exactly where they are supposed to land.

 

[Soundmixer]

I accept this as an ideal. However, I do not think that a setup that conforms to any of the alternatives posted in Dolby's guidelines for home installation, should be described as "not Atmos", like you did a few posts back when describing any setup using Height Speakers.

The alternatives are not what is in mixing studios, but the ideal (overheads) is. Height front and back is not found in any Atmos studio mixing film or music content. Height front and back does not give you an overhead effect, and that is what Atmos is all about. Height front and back does not correspond with how the Atmos panner works within the mixing and mastering suite, and it is not even an option on it.

Height front and back is an Auro3D concept, not an Atmos concept. Objects cannot move in a 3D space with height front and back, but they can with overheads.

If what you think is not supported in any studio or in the mixing and mastering software, then it is obviously a wrong thought.

 

[Newman]

It is in the Dolby Atmos Home Cinema guidelines. It is therefore wrong of you to call it "not Atmos".

This is not to deny what you are saying about studio general practice.

But if Dolby says it is Atmos and you say it is not....

 

[Soundmixer]

Not sure why you need to follow the posts in this thread with such hardcore dedication. We all heard your view and took notice of it.

I have heard others' views and have taken note of them. Now what?

Atmos setups at homes are a combination of compromises that are possible. Even having the bouncy Atmos speakers is a step forward than having no Atmos at all. It gets better as you move up the chain where it is all about angles and placement.

Interesting perspective. LOL! Bouncy Atmos speakers are a joke, as are soundbars when it comes to Atmos. Both provide the spaciousness, but neither provides the pinpoint 3D imaging Atmos can have.

IMO you are distorting the view that on wall speakers are not Atmos. For most that will actually be the best practical solution. Bookshelves will be cheaper than comparable in-wall solutions by factor of more than 2. Checked last time 2 years ago though. Lowering the ceiling by 20 cm that lots of solid in ceilings require is also not a viable option for most.

I never commented on on-wall speakers; I made comments about proper placement of speakers being used in an Atmos setup. On wall speaker can be used for Atmos, as long as they are placed according to Dolby's guidelines, and are supported in mixing studios where Atmos is mixed in.

Than there is experience from different setups. I don't find my on wall setup inferior to in ceiling setups with comparable speakers. My reference for 3D Atmos is Masters of the Air, and their air battles land in the bubble so right that it makes me think this is exactly where they are supposed to land.

Where YOU THINK things should land, and where they actually SHOULD land can be two different things. I would not assume (without comparison) that something is landing in the right place. One can always agree with oneself, even if they are wrong.

 

[Soundmixer]

It is in the Dolby Atmos Home Cinema guidelines. It is therefore wrong of you to call it "not Atmos".

This is not to deny what you are saying about studio general practice.

But if Dolby says it is Atmos and you say it is not....

It is an ALTERNATIVE in the guidelines, and those guidelines are full of ALTERNATIVES not supported by studios certified by Dolby for Atmos mixing. These ALTERNATIVES are compromises, and those compromises lead to less than optimum results.

Soundbars can support Atmos, but that does not mean they do Atmos well, or even good.

 

[Newman]

It is an ALTERNATIVE in the guidelines, and those guidelines are full of ALTERNATIVES not supported by studios certified by Dolby for Atmos mixing. These ALTERNATIVES are compromises, and those compromises lead to less than optimum results.

The guidelines show three layouts for 7.1.6 Atmos, and the one with all Top Speakers is listed LAST, and nowhere mentioned as preferred.

Soundbars can support Atmos, but that does not mean they do Atmos well, or even good.

Nor does it mean they are "not Atmos".

Look, all I am saying is that 'Atmos' is a definition with a width that is wider than "only the best and anything less is not Atmos". I think you are having trouble in conceding a small, simple point that I raise (with reference to Dolby's own guidelines), and that should be easy to concede.

I immediately concede that matching the speaker arrangements of certified Atmos mixing studios is the best idea of all. No problem.

cheers

 

[antcollinet]

There are far too many absolutist "my way or the highway" folk on this forum.

Not everyone has the same wants, needs, abilities or facilities.

Listening to music should be a broad church. The ways in which we listen to it, equally so.

 

[Tre2023]

What, if any, quality control standards by Dolby are there for manufacturers to achieve an acceptable representation of an Atmos mix using an alternative speaker configuration?

I am reminded of the original THX certification and the required capabilities of AVP/AVRs to receive the certification. You’d think Dolby would require manufacturers to achieve as close to an optimal presentation of Atmos using their alternative speaker configurations as possible or not sell them a license for it.

I suspect the selling of licenses means more to Dolby than the quality of the presentation of a given speaker configuration supported by various AVP/AVR and soundbar manufacturers. I can also understand how it can seem like a dagger in the heart of a dedicated sound mixer.

Of course, as always, the quality of the speakers themselves will impact the presentation more than a less than optimal speaker configuration. What good is a properly configured 9.1.6 setup if one is using speakers purchased from the back of a white van?

 

[napfkuchen]

Used a "one-for-all-setup" (Auro3D placement) for my 5.2.4-system, dialed in with DiracART to my liking. It's said to have a more coherent "sound bubble" than typical Dolby Atmos setups due to a lower elevation angle. Height speakers are wallmounted.

Of course, as always, the quality of the speakers themselves will impact the presentation more than a less than optimal speaker configuration. What good is a properly configured 9.1.6 setup if one is using speakers purchased from the back of a white van?

Also went through this process of realization. My initial thoughts for the surround setup were: Get some decent speakers (Jamo D500 on-wall-speakers for bed layer and 4 Dali Alteco height speakers) which integrate well into the room, calibration/eq will take care of their flaws... Was completely wrong. Compared to my stereo setup, listening to music - contrary to the positive test reports (without any measurements) - didn't impress at all especially because of vague imaging. Ironically, the Jamo D500 speakers had a THX Select 2 certification. But that's probably just as much of a marketing stunt as (these days) the Atmos stickers even on cheap soundbars.

From there I upgraded the speakers according to Amir's/Erin's recommendations (and my budget ). It could certainly be improved, starting with the only very slightly optimized room acoustics of the living room. In any case, I'm happy now and love listening to music with it (Atmos stream via Apple TV / Blu-ray disc or stereo with Auro3D upmixing). Just closing my eyes and watching the sound objects move around me/above me is fantastic, especially with electronic music.