The Problem With Dolby Atmos

[krabapple]

J River offers all that stuff for the legacy codecs (PEQ, Bass management, calibration) and Dirac for PC is far more powerful on a PC than a receiver. Would there be a learning curve? Sure, but there's been a leaning curve for this tech, and somehow it's become mass market anyway. PC as receiver would be no exception--particularly when people realized how much cheaper it would be.

Color me skeptical.

I in fact use a Windows laptop + foobar as my 'music server' -- connected to an AVR via HDMI for all prepro/amp functions.

Just the learning curve to do *that* right -- including getting all stereo and surround formats working correctly -- I would predict is daunting to Joe Audio Consumer. Putting all the PEW, BM, calibration onto the computer would steepen the curve still more, compared to the plug'n'play/setup hand-holding routines that AVRs offer.

 

[krabapple]

I think you misunderstand, they were suggesting that the form of AVRs is a relic of the past and could use changing. Something like a miniDSP Flex HT, or a WiiM could serve much of the same purpose at a fraction of the size and cost.

Still needs an amp, no? Are are we saying separates are somehow more modern than AVRs?

 

[10PSPMemSticksForMiku2007]

Color me skeptical.

I in fact use a Windows laptop + foobar as my 'music server' -- connected to an AVR via HDMI for all prepro/amp functions.

Just the learning curve to do *that* right -- including getting all stereo and surround formats working correctly -- I would predict is daunting to Joe Audio Consumer. Putting all the PEW, BM, calibration onto the computer would steepen the curve still more, compared to the plug'n'play/setup hand-holding routines that AVRs offer.

The problem is that the AVR is needed for the atmos codec, whereas any other surround format on PC can be decoded in software. With any 8 channel device you should be able to render Atmos to 5.1.2 - which should be a standard speaker layout you can choose in Windows. That's not how it works today.

BTW, bitstreaming is not necessary for PC in non-Atmos formats unless you're using spdif or arc (not earc). If you have multichannel PCM output within Windows, the old Dolby and DTS formats can be decoded in software. Just start up a game or play the movie and often there is no setup, just "oh this one is in suround sound."

 

[masterhw]

Still needs an amp, no? Are are we saying separates are somehow more modern than AVRs?

active speakers are the future (or something like that)…
Even still, 8 WiiM Vibelinks can somehow decode and amplify 16 channels more competently than almost any AVR, and at a fraction of the price of the flagships.

 

[kyuu]

active speakers are the future (or something like that)…
Even still, 8 WiiM Vibelinks can somehow decode and amplify 16 channels more competently than almost any AVR, and at a fraction of the price of the flagships.

Eh? Wiim Vibelink doesn't support any decoding. Even if it did, 8 of them at $300 a pop is $2400. You can get competent AVRs with more channels than that for less money. Nevermind the space those 8 Vibelinks would occupy, and all wiring...

That said, I'd be thrilled if Wiim actually got into the multichannel/surround sound market properly. A Wiim AVR with great measuring class D amplification all around in a modern-looking, not overly bloated chassis for a not unreasonable price? Yes please.

 

[jdbob]

Any AVR is going to have less DSP capability than a 10 year old PC so I'm really not interested in paying more for the AVR than the computer only to decode a proprietary format.

PC's don't have DSP chips in them, AVR's do. A DSP is a very different architecture from the CPU in a PC, apples and oranges.

 

[pablolie]

PC's don't have DSP chips in them, AVR's do. A DSP is a very different architecture from the CPU in a PC, apples and oranges.

Decent computers have plenty of DSP capabilities. In Win11 they are built in, in Linux (and also Win) there are a zillion apps. These days audio is a ridiculously low workload even on 10+ year old CPUs.

 

[10PSPMemSticksForMiku2007]

PC's don't have DSP chips in them, AVR's do. A DSP is a very different architecture from the CPU in a PC, apples and oranges.

You don't need a DSP chip when you have a CPU. Games from years ago are doing effects on like 64 sound sources simultaneously, rendering to 8 channels, maybe also doing a HRTF mix for headphones. We already had object-based positional audio in PC games in the late 90s.

 

[Matt S]

PC's don't have DSP chips in them, AVR's do. A DSP is a very different architecture from the CPU in a PC, apples and oranges.

They do not need DSP chips when their processors are hundreds (thousands) times more powerful than anything in an AVR. Software + powerful processor - PC based DSP/room correction is more advanced.

 

[Matt S]

They do not need DSP chips when their processors are hundreds (thousands) times more powerful than anything in an AVR. Software + powerful processor - PC based DSP/room correction is more advanced.

Sorry, didnt notice that there had been a few responses on this already.

 

[krabapple]

active speakers are the future (or something like that)…
Even still, 8 WiiM Vibelinks can somehow decode and amplify 16 channels more competently than almost any AVR, and at a fraction of the price of the flagships.

Gee, only eight?

BTW, bitstreaming is not necessary for PC in non-Atmos formats unless you're using spdif or arc (not earc). If you have multichannel PCM output within Windows, the old Dolby and DTS formats can be decoded in software. Just start up a game or play the movie and often there is no setup, just "oh this one is in suround sound."

Well aware of that, thanks. It does require that you use software that actually does that --multichannel PCM output plus decoding. Which were you thinking of?

 

[0bs3rv3r]

These days audio is a ridiculously low workload even on 10+ year old CPUs.

Indeed, Camilla DSP works great on my old raspberry Pi 4.

 

[masterhw]

Even still, 8 WiiM Vibelinks can somehow decode and amplify 16 channels more competently than almost any AVR, and at a fraction of the price of the flagships.

obviously this is unwieldy, I meant it to say that we have the technology. the hardware component has been worked out already to convert and amplify @ nearly 100 dB SINAD for ~$150/channel, obviously even less if you compromise some on performance.
what’s stopping you from sticking 8 WiiMs in a trenchcoat and calling it an AVR is mainly
1) decoding from proprietary formats,
2) room EQ.
and both of those can, at least ideally, be performed by the playback source. the licensing is what seems to be causing so much friction. the miniDSP Flex HTx is nearly an AVP killer if only AppleTVs, home PCs, and other common playback sources would decode Atmos into multichannel PCM beyond 7.1, but alas we get no height channels with the current state of things. totally an arbitrary software limitation on Dolby’s part, the HT world could enjoy the same cheap high performing advances the two-channel world has been enjoying for years now if not for gimped licensing models.

 

[levimax]

I was reading that for $400 you can get the Dolby Media Encoder for a PC and decode Dolby Media, Including TrueHD, and route it as needed. The $400 is an annual cost but that is for the ability to Encode Dolby Media, supposedly after a year if you don't pay the license fee the "Decode" part of the software will still work. Has anyone tried this and how did it work?

 

[10PSPMemSticksForMiku2007]

Gee, only eight?


Well aware of that, thanks. It does require that you use software that actually does that --multichannel PCM output plus decoding. Which were you thinking of?

I'm using MPC-BE for most of my viewing but surround sound has also worked for me in SMPlayer, VLC, and MPV. When I tried Amazon Prime video and Netflix I only got stereo, so I stopped using those services.

 

[patoulol]

I was reading that for $400 you can get the Dolby Media Encoder for a PC and decode Dolby Media, Including TrueHD, and route it as needed. The $400 is an annual cost but that is for the ability to Encode Dolby Media, supposedly after a year if you don't pay the license fee the "Decode" part of the software will still work. Has anyone tried this and how did it work?

What is the benefit for you in using this?

 

[patoulol]

the binaural rendering built natively into apple Music, amazon Music, Tidal and works on any standard stereo headphones or earbuds, with zero extra gear required

the Atmos mix itself is native and object-based; the renderer (Dolby or Apple) applies real-time HRTF processing that places sounds all around and above the listener with often jaw-dropping accuracy, even on cheap earbuds.

in daytoday mixing practice, eenger always approve the binaural version first , before we even check the multichannel folddown, simply because that’s where the overwhelming majority of streams actually happen

criticising Atmos while only picturing a full hometheater setup with height speakers is talking about a use case that now represents a tiny minority of realworld listening in 2025

aatmos has become the most widely consumed immersive format on the planet precisely because it delivers a genuine 3D experience to hundreds of millions of people using nothing more than the phone in their pocket and the everyday headphones they already own

 

[EirePaul]

Maybe it's just the rest of the loudspeakers in your surround system that lack the quality of the main speakers?

The thing is, granted that all the loudspeakers in the surround system are of good quality, well set up, and that the listening room doesn't have severe acoustic problems, the surround system will always have better potential than a stereo system of equal quality. That is a fact.

Instead of blaming Dolby Atmos, it's more likely that your disappointment comes from the way the actual mixes are done. I'm sure the Atmos mixes will get better with time and with more experience of the people making them.

Fully agreed, it all has to do with the quality of the original master and the mixing engineering. Atmos can sound amazing, but my experience is that a minority of my discs sound amazing, the majority could have been better. I also don't quite understand why a number of the Atmos mixes have to be so bright and thin on bass? Is there a specific engineering reason for this?

 

[goat76]

Fully agreed, it all has to do with the quality of the original master and the mixing engineering. Atmos can sound amazing, but my experience is that a minority of my discs sound amazing, the majority could have been better. I also don't quite understand why a number of the Atmos mixes have to be so bright and thin on bass? Is there a specific engineering reason for this?

Try adjusting the crossover points in your AVR to see if you can achieve a more pronounced bass response for the Atmos mixed. I think I managed to get a better-balanced sound also for movies after adjusting this based on the Atmos music.

 

[Matt S]

Fully agreed, it all has to do with the quality of the original master and the mixing engineering. Atmos can sound amazing, but my experience is that a minority of my discs sound amazing, the majority could have been better. I also don't quite understand why a number of the Atmos mixes have to be so bright and thin on bass? Is there a specific engineering reason for this?

Try Max Coopers On Being album for bass. Track 2, press play, sit back and listen to pristine sound.