Sigh. Once again I find Guttenbergs testing methods questionable. He didn't get quad, poo poo'd it off the start, never was a surround music fan, uses crappy upmix methods incorporated into older AVR's as examples and is just generally full of shit.
Except on one point.
I find his arguments about imaging and listener's ability to discern differences in mixes fairly credible. Many listeners -present company excluded of course- never sit down and really listen to the music. I myself have fallen into that listening mode myself at times, thinking well crap another crappy mix. But when later relaxed listens with my mind not whirling about life's insistent hammering at my skull, to find those same mixes to be quite better than I initially thought.
One I suppose, could argue that one should not have to be in a "listening mode" to fully appreciate all aspects of imaging and presentation of the sound field, it should just be obvious. If said, I would dismiss that as a fallacy right off. How many mixes have you listened to, that over time you realize are much more than you initially thought, including of course stereo?
It's all subjective, of course, and he can argue for whatever he wants with all the descriptive words he wants to throw at surround in general or Atmos in particular.
However I take umbrage at the (implied) belittling of Atmos encoded music/fans, passing it all off as if we're a bunch of neophytes jumping to the "next best thing". He can kiss my old, uh, Atmos system.
Note: I made it about half way through the video, was all I could stand. So shoot me.