Why is everyone so jazzed about ATMOS?

[rawmacias]

I don't know if you are serious or not, but that is really where it is headed in the future.

Yes, and that is where the entertainment experience should be headed for. Making a BEST real life entertainment experience as possible . Given the restraints of today, of course.
I would love to be in the BULLIT mustang . Sitting in the passenger seat . Listening to the engine rev in front of me , the exhaust roar from behind, and Steve McQueen cursing next to me when he misses that corner ! Pure entertainment !

 

[Sonik Wiz]

For me it is simply just too complicated and expensive a matter to go beyond the 7.1 system that I have now.



I've used Lexicon 7.1 processors since March 1989. Lexicon Logic7 in a Lexicon branded processor is quite good and can be used as an overlay on certain 4.0 and 5.1 recordings. It really opens up the sound stage. (It can also completely booger things up...and most of the time I stick with straight quad or 5.1.) Also, I have found DPLIIx to be far superior than straight DPLII in enhancing stereo to multi-channel. Then there is Involve 4.0/5.1 which is quite good. So many really neat options already without delving into Atmos.



Great story Q-Eight! Perhaps this fellow was involved with the mono-to-surround productions on certain Silverline discs.

Many years ago in an article I wrote for the MCS Review I said:

I look at my audio system as a race car. Always looking for the next leap in performance, what can I do to make it better

Presently I'd say I have mellowed a bit. It's not so much about bleeding edge but finding the sweet spot. Stereo improves on mono, surround sound improves on stereo. But at a certain point there is diminishing returns. For myself 5.1/7.1 is the sweet spot just as 1080P is such a leap ahead over SD that is the video sweet spot for me.

We all know that in quad center side imaging sucks. I think there is good rational for side speakers with 7.1. Practical limitations in my Bassment theater would call for big compromises in speaker mounting, etc for Atmos. I'm not sure I even can logically accept the benefit of those odd upward firing speakers sitting on a stand or front speakers. There is no benefit to poor quality sound coming at you from all directions.

And now to back peddle: if I have the chance to listien to good quality Atmos (other than show room demos) I would certainly give it a try. But right now my system is my happy sweet spot.

 

[rawmacias]

Many years ago in an article I wrote for the MCS Review I said:


Presently I'd say I have mellowed a bit. It's not so much about bleeding edge but finding the sweet spot. Stereo improves on mono, surround sound improves on stereo. But at a certain point there is diminishing returns. For myself 5.1/7.1 is the sweet spot just as 1080P is such a leap ahead over SD that is the video sweet spot for me.

We all know that in quad center side imaging sucks. I think there is good rational for side speakers with 7.1. Practical limitations in my Bassment theater would call for big compromises in speaker mounting, etc for Atmos. I'm not sure I even can logically accept the benefit of those odd upward firing speakers sitting on a stand or front speakers. There is no benefit to poor quality sound coming at you from all directions.

And now to back peddle: if I have the chance to listien to good quality Atmos (other than show room demos) I would certainly give it a try. But right now my system is my happy sweet spot.

Yeah ! Give me a million bucks and I would have the perfect setup; ------------ for today !

 

[rawmacias]

How about a surround system using four Bose type speakers (where there are multiple speakers that face multiple directions in each individual speaker). Sound direction is controlled by a program that gets its imput from a multi directional microphone ! The program puts the sound where it should be ; front, back , side , up , down and in between. Gotta get more sleep !

 

[beerking]

I am totally sold on Atmos.
It gives me 360 degrees of surround music that fills my lug holes with so much pleasure.

For me, there is a massive improvement over the 5.1 system.

I too was very happy with my 5.1 set-up and I still am!!

I approached Atmos with a huge amount of scepticism but with an open mind.

It was either going to wow me or die a quick death.

Wow it did...so much so, that I couldn't wait to show it off to my doubting younger bro.

He is a musician and knows his stuff. He too was completely blown away by the full surround he heard.
He has almost the same set up in his house now..(I have said before that it sounds better than mine..grr)

Of course each to their own and any form of surround music, as long as its treated with respect by professional mixers, is a must for us surroundies!!

So there we are, two very happy, new members of the Atmos appreciation family.

 

[bluelightning]

Just saw this and have no choice, but to jump in stir up the pot. This thread is deja vu all over again and follows the same troglodytic opinions of the SH forums with people debating/questioning the need for surround when stereo imaging etc. is so good. There probably were similar discussions when going from mono to stereo as well. While I am not setup for Atmos as yet, I can clearly envision the benefits. Of course there are going to be diminishing returns with the number of speakers a, room layouts and other factors, but I can easily envision tangible benefits, especially with overhead effects/sounds. The trade off for each individual is going to be different. Some might not find it worth it or gimmicky or whatever. It also might not be very effective/provide sufficient improvemnt for certain kinds of music. I for one, cannot wait to get set up and have more material in Atmos/DTS X. The Atmos material I have so far has been clearly very enjoyable in 5.1 and I will look forward to hearing the same in Atmos.!!


For another thought, I am in the camp that beleives one needs decent speakers for these atmos surrounds so that they are sufficiently directional. Though one should need need real fancy "high "end" stuff for it.

 

[halbroome]

I have ATMOS now in 5.2.4 and love the heights in front and back -- however, I miss the wides from my old 7.2 setup!

So in the (distant) future I'll have to upgrade my AVR again to have 7.2.4. but I'm happy enough not to sweat it now. Although, hmm, theoretically I could use my old AVR to power the wides . . . hmm. . . .

It never stops, does it?

 

[edisonbaggins]

It's true that there is some negativity in this thread, but there is also positivity, and elsewhere in the surround community too. In fact, in response to the Abbey Road Atmos news video I made, and posts on Facebook, Twitter, and so forth, quite a few folks claim they are finally installing Atmos because of the Abbey Road mix.
So, to answer the question of this thread, Abbey Road in Atmos is a reason to be jazzed about Atmos, at least for some!

 

[ssully]

Elliot Scheiner once said himself in an interview that 5.1 served music exceptionally well and the need for more speakers was superfluous. And both he and Steve Wilson were likewise befuddled by the need for a center channel for music since proper imaging of both front right and left speakers provided a more than adequate Phantom Center. ....

...for a single listener in the sweet spot keeping his head quite still. And even then, a center channel delivering content mixed to that channel, provides potentially* higher fidelity than a phantom center. If you want to learn why start here (and wave to QQ member Kal R. while you're there)


*assuming a good quality center channel loudspeaker -- one at least as good as the L and R

 

[kfbkfb]

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ound_system_for_ultrahigh-definition_TV_UHDTV
^^^
"...viewers have better impressions of various spatial attributes in a wider listening area, with the 22.2 multichannel sound system..."


IIRC, in the Quad Era, one article suggested summing LF+RF+LB+RB and placing the speaker overhead
(would probably work best with Discrete Quad systems).

This would have been Music only as Home Video systems didn't offer Surround Sound at that time,
maybe 4.0 to 5.1 + 1 overhead speaker is all that's needed.

BTW, has anyone tried using an overhead speaker with the old Quad Era mixes?

Kirk Bayne

 

[rawmacias]

I have ATMOS now in 5.2.4 and love the heights in front and back -- however, I miss the wides from my old 7.2 setup!

So in the (distant) future I'll have to upgrade my AVR again to have 7.2.4. but I'm happy enough not to sweat it now. Although, hmm, theoretically I could use my old AVR to power the wides . . . hmm. . . .

It never stops, does it?

No , it never stops. To me, that is the fun of it. I will probably never go beyond 5.1 due to many factors . But I like going into sound rooms and listening to the newest tech out there.
Kudos to the people (like Involve) who push entertainment technology to the limits of the times they are in.

 

[rawmacias]

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ound_system_for_ultrahigh-definition_TV_UHDTV
^^^
"...viewers have better impressions of various spatial attributes in a wider listening area, with the 22.2 multichannel sound system..."


IIRC, in the Quad Era, one article suggested summing LF+RF+LB+RB and placing the speaker overhead
(would probably work best with Discrete Quad systems).

This would have been Music only as Home Video systems didn't offer Surround Sound at that time,
maybe 4.0 to 5.1 + 1 overhead speaker is all that's needed.

BTW, has anyone tried using an overhead speaker with the old Quad Era mixes?

Kirk Bayne

Yeah; that is how the quad sound was played during Calif. Jam. Way up there on huge towers that people were climbing on. Sound was fantastic! I could actually hear well , being 23. 54,000 watts RMS !

 

[HomerJAU]

I was very surprised when first listening to true Atmos (with height speakers). How lifting the sound field up above the normal speaker height really improved the perceived sound field. I wonder if it brings back sub conscious memories live stage performances, where stage speakers are up high? Not sure what it is but phantom images are up high not coming from seating height.

I was thinking I’d get more discrete sound (which it does), but height opening up and increasing the immersion level was an unexpected surprise. All my music is now being performed on stage and I’m in the mosh pit!

 

[hobie1dog]

Everyone accepts the .1 as all they ever need, but after you experience the difference 4 subs make, then it's hard to go back to one sub for overall visceral impact. If a movie or a surround recording has a deep drum impact or explosion in the rear channels, you want that bass hit to come from that direction. So .4 hopefully will be coming out soon.

 

[halbroome]

Everyone accepts the .1 as all they ever need, but after you experience the difference 4 subs make, then it's hard to go back to one sub for overall visceral impact. If a movie or a surround recording has a deep drum impact or explosion in the rear channels, you want that bass hit to come from that direction. So .4 hopefully will be coming out soon.

.2 is definitely better than .1, so I can easily imagine that .4 would double the pleasure ! I'm still in a fantasy haze over the 22.2 channel and thinking "44.4 next?"

Realistically, I'll be deaf by that time, though

 

[ar surround]

Realistically, I'll be deaf by that time, though

Yes, another consideration is ear performance of us elders degrading over time. Makes it hard to justify blowing big money on a complete system redux to get ATMOS...or anything else for that matter. LOL Perhaps if labels were releasing ATMOS music at the rate of Dutton Vocalion without just stuff limited to box sets...Still waiting for those thousands-of-songs in ATMOS we were told about.

 

[proufo]

BTW, has anyone tried using an overhead speaker with the old Quad Era mixes?

You can derive a surround channel running the rear channels through a Dolby PL processor and routing the channel to one or two overhead speakers.

Of course that would be crazy and we don't condone that type of talk and behaviour here.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Until we get more than a handful of music titles, Atmos is for Movies. Let's see more commitment for Music titles on par with the launch of DVD-A or SACD.

Atmos might be fun once we get more titles. I'm sure it's great for home theater when watching newer movies. Doubtful Atmos will be embraced by the music community if it's not backwards compatible with 5.1 surround.

I'm not saying Atmos is good or bad, just not seeing enough music titles of any kind to make me want to "walk the ladder to the ceiling."

 

[4-earredwonder]

Until we get more than a handful of music titles, Atmos is for Movies. Let's see more commitment for Music titles on par with the launch of DVD-A or SACD.

Atmos might be fun once we get more titles. I'm sure it's great for home theater when watching newer movies. Doubtful Atmos will be embraced by the music community if it's not backwards compatible with 5.1 surround.

I'm not saying Atmos is good or bad, just not seeing enough music titles of any kind to make me want to "walk the ladder to the ceiling."

Most modern players downmix Atmos or 7.1 into 5.1 and most ATMOS mixes also offer 5.1 as well.

 

[EricKalet]

I seem to recall that for consumers "quad" was a waste of time, an aberration, that it wouldn't work, stereo was good enough, blah, blah, blah. Thankfully companies like Dolby and DTS pursued and evolved quad into matrix and discreet surround codecs. We now have the luxury to hear some incredible music in an immersive form and I for one embrace any form of immersive music. Bring on the Atmos. Bring on the future of music.