How is Dolby Atmos Doing? (2023)

[Franck]

There was a bunch of press releases when Apple decided to adopt Dolby Atmos with their own renderer called Spatial Audio. It makes sense, they were trialing that aspect of sound for the Apple Vision Pro.
Now there is little information on how Dolby Atmos is doing, except recently this article from the New York Times that don't cite any statistics. Additionally, Apple does not share their numbers for Apple Music specifically.
This thread is to share any sighting of information on statistics about Dolby Atmos success or lack thereof.

• The New York Times - Dolby Atmos Wants You to Listen Up. (And Down. And Sideways.)True believers in the immersive audio format say it could restore a musical appreciation lost to a generation that has come up during the....June 21,2023
• Music Business Worldwide - Over 80% of Apple Music subscribers listened to Spatial Audio in 2022 Apple Music launched Spatial Audio with support for Dolby Atmos in June 2021….Jan 12, 2023
• Music Ally - Two thirds of top 100 Billboard artists' use Dolby Atmos Dolby has been steadily signing up streaming services to use Dolby Atmos spatial audio technology, including Apple Music and Amazon Music..Aug 11, 2022
• How Many People Use Apple Music in 2023? (Statistics)The Small Business Blog

 

[alansanchez86]

Thoughts?



long story short: Atmos only makes sense in a perfect environment, otherwise it's crap (headphones), as the majority listens to it. Market (for a proper environment...) hasn't grew.

 

[sjcorne]

Thoughts?

I didn't watch the video, but some of the comments truly want to make me put my head through a wall:

• "We humans hear in stereo"
• "I could never ever do an ATMOS rig unless I had millions"
• "I also looked into that because a client wanted an album mixed in atmos. I knew he was just hyped by the new format and I ended up simply using an upscaler. The time needed to mix such an album in atmos would be at least 5 times longer compared to stereo and probably 3 times longer than 5.1."
• "I don't want to listen to my music as if I were "immersed" in the center of the band or group making the music. That's not the usual thing to do. The viewer doesn't sit between the musicians, but in front of them... and for that stereo is the right thing to do."

 

[alansanchez86]

I didn't watch the video, but some of the comments truly want to make me put my head through a wall:

• "We humans hear in stereo"
• "I could never ever do an ATMOS rig unless I had millions"
• "I also looked into that because a client wanted an album mixed in atmos. I knew he was just hyped by the new format and I ended up simply using an upscaler. The time needed to mix such an album in atmos would be at least 5 times longer compared to stereo and probably 3 times longer than 5.1."
• "I don't want to listen to my music as if I were "immersed" in the center of the band or group making the music. That's not the usual thing to do. The viewer doesn't sit between the musicians, but in front of them... and for that stereo is the right thing to do."

That first quote I've read in multiple audiophile groups and threads...raises hand in support of loathe.

To be fair the dude in the video didnt mention any of those quotes, or arguments, though he does mention about the investment on an atmos setup and gear to mix, which IMO is valid.

 

[sjcorne]

...he does mention about the investment on an atmos setup and gear to mix, which IMO is valid.

Maybe, but I think if you're creative - and open to picking up used gear - there are lots of ways to save. It's not like you're required to buy expensive Genelec or PMC monitor arrays. As far as interfaces go, I'm a big proponent of Apple's "aggregate audio device" feature - if you want to drive a 9.1.6 system, why not just put two Behringer UMC1820s together for ~$600 instead of dropping $4000 for Focusrite's 16RedLine? The Dolby Atmos Renderer has its own master volume, so using multiple interfaces or even amps in conjunction is a matter of 'set it and forget it'.

 

[AYanguas]

I watched the entire video, and I appreciate that the author truly enjoys the sonic experience of well-executed Atmos mixes. He expres concern about the financial monetization of the current Atmos/Apple hype, specially for the investors in Atmos studio mixing, considering that the vast majority of consumers will be listening through headphones. His personal experience is about many current Atmos mixes that sound worse than a stereo mix, or if they are good, they still do not provide the complete immersive experience of a well-equipped speaker room.

The entry point for consumers, such as soundbars or Atmos speakers bouncing sound off the ceiling in poorly acoustically conditioned rooms, is subpar and unlikely to attract a significant number of people. High-quality Atmos setups are only affordable for a select group of audiophiles and mixing engineering studios. This situation does not bode well for the future of Atmos music reaching the masses.

All these arguments have been previously discussed, and we fear an eventual negative conclusion.
What can I say, specially to all of us QQ members? Let us appreciate and enjoy as much as we can what we currently have.
What does the near future hold? Will Atmos music disappear in five years? Perhaps, but by then, we will have amassed enough Atmos music to enjoy for a lifetime.

 

[Guy Robinson]

I'm still happy with the 7.1 extraction I get from a good Atmos track. The Gentle Giant mixes are good examples. My plans for setting up Atmos are at this point non-existent, even for movies even though I think that Atmos will always be there for movie soundtracks. I do use the headphone Atmos from my phone though which I suspect is sub par as you really need speakers to get proper sound.

 

[ar surround]

Any music format requiring more than two speakers is doomed to fail in the mass market. History has repeated itself several times over.

What is different this time around is that we might successfully ride the coattails of the soundbars and funky headphones 'for the masses' market.

I really wish that we could get a music upmixer that uses the Atmos speaker array yet is superior to Dolby Surround which seems to be a hit or miss experience.

 

[mandrix]

arrrrgh!
I did not watch the video. Yes, Atmos requires an investment, but it need not be stratospheric.
As @sjcorne mentioned, there are ways to aggregate devices on both Mac and PC. I did it with two AVR's for a while on a pc. Note you need the Dolby Reference Player, however.
While my basic 5.0 is a "matched" set with identical corners, my 4 height speakers are some Polk Monitors I've had for a while, and I find they give me satisfactory sound.
I did invest in some refurb Klipsch R41M speakers for side surrounds, but that was a small investment.
Eventually I bought an Onkyo TX-RZ50, no lying that was a big investment for an old retiree's budget, but glad I did.
My audio/pc/furnished bedroom is a challenging space for speaker placement, but having Dirac Live made a great difference, I can recommend it for those in similar situations.

I hope that Atmos is here to stay for a while, meanwhile I'm scarfing up all the Atmos that interests me while it's here.

 

[barfle]

As I’ve noted a handful of times, when I built my room, I added ceiling speakers for Atmos, even though I don’t have the gear to decode or drive the signals to them. And that hasn’t changed and probably won’t for the next year, although I might win a lottery and move such expenditures forward.

Yeah, I’d really like to get Atmos running in there, but it’s nowhere near the top of the pile. The speakers cost around $200, I had the cable and did the installation myself, so the expense at the time was minimal, and the room was a construction project already, so why not?

Too many other projects, but I am looking forward to hearing those speakers before I kick the bucket.

 

[admsh]

Any music format requiring more than two speakers is doomed to fail in the mass market. History has repeated itself several times over.

What is different this time around is that we might successfully ride the coattails of the soundbars and funky headphones 'for the masses' market.

I really wish that we could get a music upmixer that uses the Atmos speaker array yet is superior to Dolby Surround which seems to be a hit or miss experience.

Seems to me one thing that isn't being discussed is prudence and posterity, and Apple is clearly thinking about this. Technology will change, and is changing exponentially. "Soundbars and funky headphones" are just the latest example, and let's also remember these products are for many an entryway to something they didn't even realise existed. Apple is creating new products and the spatial concept is at the centre of things, it seems.

Even if many people can't enjoy this currently, future technological advancements will change this. And Apple will be ready. I really believe this is part of their consideration - the other part being the hype and they money the make from it right now.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

The guy in the video brings up the most important point: cost.

A 5.1 setup, or a 4.0 setup, is infinitely cheaper to set up than Atmos. Sure, you may not be able to put the speakers in the right places/angles, but no one does it perfectly anyway (before someone here says "I do" I'm talking for the general public where there isn't a single tower speaker in sight). I can understand the principle behind Atmos, which is scalability, but is has problematic implementations. The cost of entry is high, the cost of licensing is high, and the low-end is not low-end in price. Furthermore, I only tend to see the ability to have truly customized virtual speaker placements for proper Atmos decoding in high-end equipment like Trinnov's offerings, which is well out of the reach of the normal consumer, and IMO, should have been a base requirement for Atmos. That brings a lot more punching weight when you can say "put the speakers where you can in the room, and map it correctly in the virtual room on your consumer-budget-friendly Atmos decoder, and you will get the intended sound every time" because with 5.1, wrong speaker placements equals wrong sound.

At this stage, with Atmos, wrong speaker placements (unless you have extremely high-end equipment, which at that point you can afford remodeling an entire room to have correct speaker placements) equals wrong sound. The biggest potential strength of Atmos, which is tied hand-in-hand with scalability, is absent for the common man like...me. That's one of the reasons I don't have Atmos yet, as I like proper monitoring, but have no way to have the correct placements in my current room nor have the money to purchase a Trinnov.

 

[mandrix]

As I’ve noted a handful of times, when I built my room, I added ceiling speakers for Atmos, even though I don’t have the gear to decode or drive the signals to them. And that hasn’t changed and probably won’t for the next year, although I might win a lottery and move such expenditures forward.

Yeah, I’d really like to get Atmos running in there, but it’s nowhere near the top of the pile. The speakers cost around $200, I had the cable and did the installation myself, so the expense at the time was minimal, and the room was a construction project already, so why not?

Too many other projects, but I am looking forward to hearing those speakers before I kick the bucket.

I really hope you can get an Atmos system up and running. It's been a source of much enjoyment for me.

The guy in the video brings up the most important point: cost.

A 5.1 setup, or a 4.0 setup, is infinitely cheaper to set up than Atmos. Sure, you may not be able to put the speakers in the right places/angles, but no one does it perfectly anyway (before someone here says "I do" I'm talking for the general public where there isn't a single tower speaker in sight). I can understand the principle behind Atmos, which is scalability, but is has problematic implementations. The cost of entry is high, the cost of licensing is high, and the low-end is not low-end in price. Furthermore, I only tend to see the ability to have truly customized virtual speaker placements for proper Atmos decoding in high-end equipment like Trinnov's offerings, which is well out of the reach of the normal consumer, and IMO, should have been a base requirement for Atmos. That brings a lot more punching weight when you can say "put the speakers where you can in the room, and map it correctly in the virtual room on your consumer-budget-friendly Atmos decoder, and you will get the intended sound every time" because with 5.1, wrong speaker placements equals wrong sound.

At this stage, with Atmos, wrong speaker placements (unless you have extremely high-end equipment, which at that point you can afford remodeling an entire room to have correct speaker placements) equals wrong sound. The biggest potential strength of Atmos, which is tied hand-in-hand with scalability, is absent for the common man like...me. That's one of the reasons I don't have Atmos yet, as I like proper monitoring, but have no way to have the correct placements in my current room nor have the money to purchase a Trinnov.

I think the points are mostly bullshit. IMO e.g. Dirac Live has been a game changer. In no way is my audio room "ideal". But it works for me. The cost thing has been covered, if you can buy some speakers you can be satisfied with, you can still aggregate devices to play Atmos with the DRP. Anyone can pick up a couple of cheap AVR's, although at least one should be HDMI capable, both if possible but I did it with one HDMI capable AVR and one analog input AVR. In fact I now run my side surrounds pre out to that old analog avr from my newer AVR.

Some people are obviously not going to start from scratch and go to Atmos. But used Atmos 5.1.2 AVR's could be found and that would be a start. Then add another (used) AVR when finances permit, forgo the 5.1.2 decoding when 2 devices are aggregated and build a 5.1.4/7.1.4 whatever system and use the DRP for playback. It requires some setup, but there are people here doing it/have done it, so the knowledge exists right here on QQ.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

As a dedicated fan of surround since the early 70's I'm as passionate about it as anyone here. However I'd like to bring up a point about ATMOS I haven't seen mentioned yet, and why I will probably never adopt it.

It just fails to capture my interest or imagination. I'll confess to never auditioning the format except what I've heard in theaters. So someone might say "seek it out & you will be amazed". Perhaps, but once again the potential gain over what I have now just doesn't motivate me.

As a kid growing up in the 60's in the age of mono I read about stereo before I heard it. I converted my Wards Airline mono record player to stereo & was blown away. In the 70's I read about surround sound al a Hafler & was intrigued enough to hook up a third speaker. I felt like I had been transported to another dimension & immediately fell in love with it. ATMOS I read about & I just don't get the urge to try it.

I'd like to point out that all those decades ago when Ambisonics was emerging recording height information was part of the core B format specs. The Calrec mic automatically output width, depth, & height signals to go into the B format encoder. So this really is nothing that hasn't been tried before.

However I do enjoy & appreciate the titles released in ATMOS on disc, like Abbey Road. It is great that an ATMOS release has a 5.1 or 7.1 inside it. I will certainly support the format in that regard.

 

[sjcorne]

...with Atmos, wrong speaker placements (unless you have extremely high-end equipment, which at that point you can afford remodeling an entire room to have correct speaker placements) equals wrong sound.

You definitely don't have to remodel a room to build a decent Atmos system, and I don't think the placement specs have to be followed to the letter either.

I'm in a rental, so in-ceiling monitors (which some specs cite as a requirement) were never an option - instead, my heights (Paradigm Atom V3 bookshelf speakers) are mounted on top of Ikea KALLAX cabinets and pointed down. In-ceiling monitors are actually pretty uncommon in the mixing studios too, you tend to see more wall-mounted bookshelf-size monitors (like Genelec 8010s or Kali IN-5-Cs) angled down or even attached directly to the ceiling.

I also think there is some latitude with the placement of the height speakers - for example, lots of 7.1.4 diagrams (like the one below) show that the ceiling speakers are supposed to be positioned in a sort of 'smaller rectangle' within the 'larger rectangle' of your 7.1 floor array.

I can't figure why they designed it like this, because lots of Atmos mixes have elements suspended halfway between the front & front heights, rears & rear heights, sides & top middles, and so on. Wouldn't those 'phantom images' be clearer if the speakers were properly aligned?

So I set my room up with the front heights directly above the fronts and rear heights directly above the rears, and it sounds great - I can clearly hear stuff like the lead vocals in Sarah McLachlan's Surfacing album or Katatonia's Sky Void Of Stars hovering between the fronts & front heights.

Funny enough, Frank Filipetti made this same comment when I interviewed him last year:

With Dolby, I don’t love the placement of the height channels. According to their official specs, the heights circumscribe an area of the room that’s smaller than the bottom channels. When I build a room, it’s usually a big rectangle like Sony recommends for 360.

 

[mandrix]

You definitely don't have to remodel a room to build a decent Atmos system, and I don't think the placement specs have to be followed to the letter either.

I'm in a rental, so in-ceiling monitors (which some specs cite as a requirement) were never an option - instead, my heights (Paradigm Atom V3 bookshelf speakers) are mounted on top of Ikea KALLAX cabinets and pointed down. In-ceiling monitors are actually pretty uncommon in the mixing studios too, you tend to see more wall-mounted bookshelf-size monitors (like Genelec 8010s or Kali IN-5-Cs) angled down or even attached directly to the ceiling.

I also think there is some latitude with the placement of the height speakers - for example, lots of 7.1.4 diagrams (like the one below) show that the ceiling speakers are supposed to be positioned in a sort of 'smaller rectangle' within the 'larger rectangle' of your 7.1 floor array.

View attachment 93810

I can't figure why they designed it like this, because lots of Atmos mixes have elements suspended halfway between the front & front heights, rears & rear heights, sides & top middles, and so on. Wouldn't those 'phantom images' be clearer if the speakers were properly aligned?

So I set my room up with the front heights directly above the fronts and rear heights directly above the rears, and it sounds great - I can clearly hear stuff like the lead vocals in Sarah McLachlan's Surfacing album or Katatonia's Sky Void Of Stars hovering between the fronts & front heights.

Funny enough, Frank Filipetti made this same comment when I interviewed him last year:

Yeah. My rear heights are almost directly above my rear speakers. Also, I tried using Front High speakers and it does not work for my room, (maybe could but tired of moving speakers) so I use Mid High instead, positioned about halfway between my fronts and rears. I have a slanted roof, and my left side height speakers are slightly higher than my right side heights, because on the left there is a closet door that prevents going lower. (roof slants to right) Also there is a room door in the left front corner, necessitating moving the left front and center speaker off to the right.
My side surrounds are just slightly forward of my sitting position, angled toward me. Where's my sitting position? It's on a plane halfway between the rears and side surrounds! Not centered in the room by about 3 ft.

Also a queen bed, a table with my AVR's/rears and side surrounds,, my desk, a double dresser, a very large pc Case Labs case, a standard tall tower pc, monitor, etc, all in a about 8.5 x 13'ish room! But it works! I've read how people have aggravated over proper speaker placement for Atmos. I say, great if you can, don't worry so much if you can't. Go out there and by George make it work for you. If I can do it in this room, I feel like anyone can.

 

[mandrix]

As a dedicated fan of surround since the early 70's I'm as passionate about it as anyone here. However I'd like to bring up a point about ATMOS I haven't seen mentioned yet, and why I will probably never adopt it.

It just fails to capture my interest or imagination. I'll confess to never auditioning the format except what I've heard in theaters. So someone might say "seek it out & you will be amazed". Perhaps, but once again the potential gain over what I have now just doesn't motivate me.

As a kid growing up in the 60's in the age of mono I read about stereo before I heard it. I converted my Wards Airline mono record player to stereo & was blown away. In the 70's I read about surround sound al a Hafler & was intrigued enough to hook up a third speaker. I felt like I had been transported to another dimension & immediately fell in love with it. ATMOS I read about & I just don't get the urge to try it.

I'd like to point out that all those decades ago when Ambisonics was emerging recording height information was part of the core B format specs. The Calrec mic automatically output width, depth, & height signals to go into the B format encoder. So this really is nothing that hasn't been tried before.

However I do enjoy & appreciate the titles released in ATMOS on disc, like Abbey Road. It is great that an ATMOS release has a 5.1 or 7.1 inside it. I will certainly support the format in that regard.

I think everyone should do what they feel is right. I'm certainly not going to flail you over head with Atmos, Wiz. Well maybe a little.....lol!

 

[Franck]

The guy in the video brings up the most important point: cost.

I have a 5.1.4 studio to make music, but I started to look at sound bars or atmos setup for my TV/Living room. There are many sound bars in the <$500, and they seem easy to setup and provide some immersive experience. Just went to Costo, there were many of them.

But I think Nakamishi got it right with Dragon. It is a full system in the sound bar format. It does not require you to run wires or make holes in the ceiling or walls… Yes it is about $4,000 but the price point is about right for an integrated system. Cheaper than a Denon with 12 speakers. So I think, this may be the way it is going to go. More manufacturers will now do something similar at a cheaper price point.

What you think?

 

[mandrix]

I have a 5.1.4 studio to make music, but I started to look at sound bars or atmos setup for my TV/Living room. There are many sound bars in the <$500, and they seem easy to setup and provide some immersive experience. Just went to Costo, there were many of them.

But I think Nakamishi got it right with Dragon. It is a full system in the sound bar format. It does not require you to run wires or make holes in the ceiling or walls… Yes it is about $4,000 but the price point is about right for an integrated system. Cheaper than a Denon with 12 speakers. So I think, this may be the way it is going to go. More manufacturers will now do something similar at a cheaper price point.

What you think?

I honestly have not really looked at or considered soundbars, because, well, they are soundbars. But if it helps keep immersive music alive I'm all for it. I know many people rent or lease and can't just go putting up speakers on the ceilings also, so could be a help for them.

 

[austinsignal]

I feel like I'm battling this issue every day. So many misperceptions and so much misinformation.

If you want to see how the audio engineering community thinks about it, see this poll: Gearspace ATMOS poll

One of the biggest inhibitors to the rate of adoption is the bro-based engineering community slinging sh_t.