The Problem With Dolby Atmos

[Matt S]

He just said, what we all wanted to hear.

Nah.

 

[Miker 1102]

We have 4 bounce height speakers and I've tried the system Dirac equalized with them included and not, our AVR can switch between equalizations. Again, let me emphasize I'm only interested in music, not movies. The difference isn't huge IMHO, but it does add a noticeable difference in spaciousness and feeling of being at a performance. My initial goal with going to the expense and hassle of setting up an ATMOS system was to better simulate a live music experience, and the height speakers do add to it. However, my experience is that while noticeable, they're not a big deal compared to the main horizontal speakers and going from stereo to ATMOS. OTOH, if you're interested in movies, particularly action movies, my understanding is that the height speakers are a significant improvement, and it's probably better to have them direct firing, not bounce. That's not my interest however.

As I said, my interest initially was to get closer to live performances, but what I was really surprised and very pleased by was the substantial improvement in perceived sound quality. What we both noticed immediately was how much more understandable the lyrics to songs are, then we noticed the increased localization and clarity of individual instruments in jazz groups. With a well engineered ATMOS track, it's all quite a bit better than stereo. As I said, if I accidentally have an UtraHD track mixed in with ATMOS tracks in a playlist, I notice it immediately even with the levels automatically adjusted. Unfortunately, a lot of albums will have almost all ATMOS tracks but one or two stereo tracks which is annoying. Also annoying is the poor engineering of some ATMOS albums, particularly some classical remixes.

I have some near atmos tracks but the upgrade for music for me was the Auro mixer in my Denon. Auro 3d is fantastic and people who come over want to play thier own music thru the sytem. The new atmos mixes are generally after thoughts for marketing. I am disappointed but there is a ton of 5.1 rock stuff out there on dosc wotht getting...

 

[goat76]

I have some near atmos tracks but the upgrade for music for me was the Auro mixer in my Denon. Auro 3d is fantastic and people who come over want to play thier own music thru the sytem. The new atmos mixes are generally after thoughts for marketing. I am disappointed but there is a ton of 5.1 rock stuff out there on dosc wotht getting...

In what way do you think the new Atmos mixes are “afterthoughts”? Can you describe what you find lacking?

 

[Miker 1102]

In what way do you think the new Atmos mixes are “afterthoughts”? Can you describe what you find lacking?

A lot of music that I have heard does not have a lot of thought into the atmos mix it just seems generic to add stuff to the height or ceiling channels. It does not sound as detailed as 5.1 mixes. My subjective interpretation obviously but I do listen to a lot of music. I am going to try and download some atmos content that is music created for atmos in stead if a remix if my favorite music. I have enjoyed some beatles mixes for Atmos. A few tracks surprised me.

 

[goat76]

A lot of music that I have heard does not have a lot of thought into the atmos mix it just seems generic to add stuff to the height or ceiling channels. It does not sound as detailed as 5.1 mixes. My subjective interpretation obviously but I do listen to a lot of music. I am going to try and download some atmos content that is music created for atmos in stead if a remix if my favorite music. I have enjoyed some beatles mixes for Atmos. A few tracks surprised me.

There's really no technical explanation for why an Atmos mix wouldn't sound as "detailed" as a 5.1 mix, since they can both be mixed pretty similarly, and the "bed" channels of an Atmos mix are practically a 7.1.2 mix or similar. The main difference is just that the Atmos format can downmix itself depending on the number of sound sources in the user's speaker setup.

Most stereo mixes contain a lot of individual multi-mono elements, downmixed to two channels. It's not uncommon for them to contain 20 to 60 individual tracks, and sometimes as many as 180, as in the song Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. Therefore, I find it strange to call an Atmos mix "an afterthought" just for the reason that it was mixed a long or short time after the original 2-channel mix was done.
An Atmos mix, or any type of multi-channel mix for that matter, is basically just a new mix using all those individually recorded tracks that already exist, but downmixed to a few more channels than the original 2-channel mix. So a multi-channel mix is, in reality (and in most cases), no more of an afterthought than you could call the original 2-channel stereo mix.

Anyone can, of course, like or dislike the way a multi-channel mix is done, but the same can be said with stereo mixes as well.

 

[masterhw]

There's really no technical explanation for why an Atmos mix wouldn't sound as "detailed" as a 5.1 mix, since they can both be mixed pretty similarly, and the "bed" channels of an Atmos mix are practically a 7.1.2 mix or similar. The main difference is just that the Atmos format can downmix itself depending on the number of sound sources in the user's speaker setup.

Most stereo mixes contain a lot of individual multi-mono elements, downmixed to two channels. It's not uncommon for them to contain 20 to 60 individual tracks, and sometimes as many as 180, as in the song Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. Therefore, I find it strange to call an Atmos mix "an afterthought" just for the reason that it was mixed a long or short time after the original 2-channel mix was done.
An Atmos mix, or any type of multi-channel mix for that matter, is basically just a new mix using all those individually recorded tracks that already exist, but downmixed to a few more channels than the original 2-channel mix. So a multi-channel mix is, in reality (and in most cases), no more of an afterthought than you could call the original 2-channel stereo mix.

Anyone can, of course, like or dislike the way a multi-channel mix is done, but the same can be said with stereo mixes as well.

There certainly is no technical explanation, both can sound excellent or poor. it’s down to the human mixing and the intentionality behind each decision. there are fewer 5.1 mixes, and (assuming no upmixing) everyone is getting approximately the same experience. as you know part of the core design of Atmos is that it can scale to the specific layout you have, but this means there are many different playback experiences. this is harder to mix, and frankly as mentioned already a lot of songs don’t really seem to know what to do with the extra space available to them and don’t use it well.

 

[Soundmixer]

A lot of music that I have heard does not have a lot of thought into the atmos mix it just seems generic to add stuff to the height or ceiling channels. It does not sound as detailed as 5.1 mixes. My subjective interpretation obviously but I do listen to a lot of music. I am going to try and download some atmos content that is music created for atmos in stead if a remix if my favorite music. I have enjoyed some beatles mixes for Atmos. A few tracks surprised me.

There's really no technical explanation for why an Atmos mix wouldn't sound as "detailed" as a 5.1 mix, since they can both be mixed pretty similarly, and the "bed" channels of an Atmos mix are practically a 7.1.2 mix or similar. The main difference is just that the Atmos format can downmix itself depending on the number of sound sources in the user's speaker setup.

Atmos does not downmix itself. It "adapts" to whatever Atmos speaker setup you have in your system.

 

[goat76]

Atmos does not downmix itself. It "adapts" to whatever Atmos speaker setup you have in your system.

I know, it’s just the way I chose to easily describe it without going deep into explaining how an object-based sound format works.

 

[Miker 1102]

There's really no technical explanation for why an Atmos mix wouldn't sound as "detailed" as a 5.1 mix, since they can both be mixed pretty similarly, and the "bed" channels of an Atmos mix are practically a 7.1.2 mix or similar. The main difference is just that the Atmos format can downmix itself depending on the number of sound sources in the user's speaker setup.

Most stereo mixes contain a lot of individual multi-mono elements, downmixed to two channels. It's not uncommon for them to contain 20 to 60 individual tracks, and sometimes as many as 180, as in the song Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. Therefore, I find it strange to call an Atmos mix "an afterthought" just for the reason that it was mixed a long or short time after the original 2-channel mix was done.
An Atmos mix, or any type of multi-channel mix for that matter, is basically just a new mix using all those individually recorded tracks that already exist, but downmixed to a few more channels than the original 2-channel mix. So a multi-channel mix is, in reality (and in most cases), no more of an afterthought than you could call the original 2-channel stereo mix.

Anyone can, of course, like or dislike the way a multi-channel mix is done, but the same can be said with stereo mixes as well.

Thanks for the break down about stereo mixing ..man I didnt realize how music was mad I have good representation of music here from atmos to stereo mixes. Not all mixes are the same. If you think the slew of atmos mixes are great that woukd be your subjective opinion and maybe you have not listened to that many? After thought is an appropriate word for me as I am deeply familiar with many of the ones I own as I bought them on cassette, then cd, then mp3, then digital, then blu ray, then 5.1, and of course Atmos.

 

[Miker 1102]

Atmos does not downmix itself. It "adapts" to whatever Atmos speaker setup you have in your system.

I neve said it was. All I said was the remixes of music I am intimately familiar with left me lacking many times. Strictly my own preference

 

[Matt S]

There certainly is no technical explanation, both can sound excellent or poor. it’s down to the human mixing and the intentionality behind each decision. there are fewer 5.1 mixes, and (assuming no upmixing) everyone is getting approximately the same experience. as you know part of the core design of Atmos is that it can scale to the specific layout you have, but this means there are many different playback experiences. this is harder to mix, and frankly as mentioned already a lot of songs don’t really seem to know what to do with the extra space available to them and don’t use it well.

Agree. The end result, on so many differing systems, is probably a long way from what is intended. Not in every instance, but certainly in many.

Among my favourite surround mixes are those made to really uses. Try out Max Coopers albums for some seriously incredible, immersive stuff.

I find it comes into its own with electronic and for live concerts etc, where you can really feel that you are there with the audience clapping and cheering around you.

 

[EJasonC]

I was going to post a new thread on this topic but found this may be a good place since it most closely relates to my query.
I’m discovering more content on Apple Music lately with some of my all time favorites being remastered into Dolby Atmos - Hi-Res Lossless - Apple Digital Master.
Since configuring Apple Music to the highest possible quality in the Apple TV device settings, I have noticed a significant improvement in sound quality.
(Previously I had it in default ‘high quality’ not lossless).
With some not all content, I feel like I am missing some of what Dolby Atmos touts namely the height channels.
My HT consists of an 11.2 channel processor currently driving 7.2 channels all balanced and all active pro audio monitors/subwoofers.
I would like to implement/install the remaining 4 channels with similar active monitors effectively enabling 7.2.4.
Ideally the monitors would have the option to be safely hung from the ceiling, however, it is going to be a challenge.
I have read in some forums that ‘bouncy house’ speakers do not really work well in rendering the .4 channels.
My question is whether placing the .4 channels around the room on stands instead of from the ceiling would defeat the whole purpose and hence not a good idea?
I may just try it before committing to installing from the ceiling just to hear if it is worth all the effort.

 

[goat76]

I’m discovering more content on Apple Music lately with some of my all time favorites being remastered into Dolby Atmos - Hi-Res Lossless - Apple Digital Master.

Just a little thing I always feel the urgent need to point out. I can’t help myself, sorry.

It’s impossible to ”remaster” a stereo track into a Dolby Atmos track, but it’s possible to use the individually recorded tracks to ”remix” a song into a Dolby Atmos track.

 

[Bobby Bass]

I was going to post a new thread on this topic but found this may be a good place since it most closely relates to my query.
I’m discovering more content on Apple Music lately with some of my all time favorites being remastered into Dolby Atmos - Hi-Res Lossless - Apple Digital Master.
Since configuring Apple Music to the highest possible quality in the Apple TV device settings, I have noticed a significant improvement in sound quality.
(Previously I had it in default ‘high quality’ not lossless).
With some not all content, I feel like I am missing some of what Dolby Atmos touts namely the height channels.
My HT consists of an 11.2 channel processor currently driving 7.2 channels all balanced and all active pro audio monitors/subwoofers.
I would like to implement/install the remaining 4 channels with similar active monitors effectively enabling 7.2.4.
Ideally the monitors would have the option to be safely hung from the ceiling, however, it is going to be a challenge.
I have read in some forums that ‘bouncy house’ speakers do not really work well in rendering the .4 channels.
My question is whether placing the .4 channels around the room on stands instead of from the ceiling would defeat the whole purpose and hence not a good idea?
I may just try it before committing to installing from the ceiling just to hear if it is worth all the effort.

My understanding is you need to place those 4 speakers on the ceiling or on the wall near the ceiling depending on the height of your ceiling so they are above the base layer surround sound speakers with the speakers aimed towards the main listening position. In my 7.3.6 system I have the 6 heights mounted on the wall close to the ceiling and I hear all of the height effects in atmos music and movies.

https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf

 

[Mort]

My understanding is you need to place those 4 speakers on the ceiling or on the wall near the ceiling depending on the height of your ceiling so they are above the base layer surround sound speakers with the speakers aimed towards the main listening position. In my 7.3.6 system I have the 6 heights mounted on the wall close to the ceiling and I hear all of the height effects in atmos music and movies.

Also my understanding.

I've been enjoying the shit out of Atmos music from Apple TV on my nearfield 5.1 system. I'm eager to add a height channel, but it'll have to wait a while. The jump from stereo to 5.1 is huge. Each additional after that is, I think, incrementally better but not as transformationally different.

 

[thcdru2k]

Some of the mixed impressions of Atmos (especially for music) are probably layout-related, not format-related.
I ran Polk OWM3 as top middle before switching to Sonance VXQ68R in the same system. The difference was noticeable.
The OWM3 is a small on-wall speaker with limited bandwidth and wide dispersion, so as a height it tends to blend with the bed layer and feels more like sound being pulled upward.
The VXQ68R is designed for in-ceiling use with more controlled dispersion and proper overhead geometry, so sounds localize above you instead of smearing upward.
Didn’t fix bad Atmos mixes, but it made it clearer which issues were the mix vs the setup.

 

[Open Mind Audio]

Some of the mixed impressions of Atmos (especially for music) are probably layout-related, not format-related.
I ran Polk OWM3 as top middle before switching to Sonance VXQ68R in the same system. The difference was noticeable.
The OWM3 is a small on-wall speaker with limited bandwidth and wide dispersion, so as a height it tends to blend with the bed layer and feels more like sound being pulled upward.
The VXQ68R is designed for in-ceiling use with more controlled dispersion and proper overhead geometry, so sounds localize above you instead of smearing upward.
Didn’t fix bad Atmos mixes, but it made it clearer which issues were the mix vs the setup.

I love multi-channel 5.1 and have many albums where that's my preferred version. Atmos has been more of a mixed bag because of the wide range of mixes out there, but I still enjoy it.

My main problem "with Atmos" seems to be with the mixes I can access on Tidal. When I play my Atmos-mixed discs (oppo udp-205 to the Denon AVR), the mixes are as intended and often great, like the new "Wish You Were Here" Atmos mix. But the same mixes played over Tidal direct send significantly more audio information to the 4 ceiling speakers. It can be cool in a novelty way but it feels overdone, and it lacks the precision of the mixes when played over disc.

So it seems to me there are a lot of novelty Atmos mixes that overdo the height effects, and while these can work for ambiance during a party, they are not satisfying for critical listening, at least not compared to my disc-based Atmos mixes or 5.1 mixes I play through other means (streaming from my PC via Roon).

I suppose I could massively adjust the height speakers when listening to Tidal atmos tracks, but ... not sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

 

[BJL]

My understanding is you need to place those 4 speakers on the ceiling or on the wall near the ceiling depending on the height of your ceiling so they are above the base layer surround sound speakers with the speakers aimed towards the main listening position. In my 7.3.6 system I have the 6 heights mounted on the wall close to the ceiling and I hear all of the height effects in atmos music and movies.

I second @Bobby Bass. I have aa 9.1.6 set up using wall mounted height speakers that have a slightly (22%) angled baffle (SVS Ultra Elevation.) Is it perfect? No! Would I prefer ceiling mounted? Yes! But it is a reasonable compromise where a ceiling installation is not possible or practical, which works well for most competently mixed music and cinema/TV. The times that I find it noticeably lacking are when an object is placed in an extreme position, but those moments are usually fleeting. It is definitely better than foregoing the heights, and generally satisfying.

 

[Mort]

My main problem "with Atmos" seems to be with the mixes I can access on Tidal.

Are they any different on Apple TV? I would assume not.

 

[Open Mind Audio]

Are they any different on Apple TV? I would assume not.

I don't know about Apple TV but can try to check. I don't have Apple Music - they could perhaps be different there, though I assume it's the same mix.