Anyone here excited about consumer Dolby Atmos. All the major brands are announcing it now , with more to be disclosed at CES. I for one am in the wait and see mode, it seems to be geared toward the dedicated room crowd though I doubt anyone who has a done theater wants to start ripping it apart to add more speakers. How bout you Nick, any interest??


Could be a new opportunity for Andrew to design some on ceiling atmos speakers . HMMMMMM

How did you know that I would jump in here????

I think that it could be cool, but to get the effect right, I would think that you would need some pretty decent height to your ceiling.

Plus it isn't a "game changer" in audio considering how much you would need to spend to get it to a distinctly higher level.

I mean 7.1 was out for a long time before it became "the" thing to do and media started having discrete 7.1 audio, since then we have 9.1, 11.1, etc and there is no media for it. All just "matrixed" type of technology brought up to the 21st century. Until you get more discrete channels on media, I don't see it as being anything more than taking a second set of rear surround and a second set of side surrounds and putting them on the ceiling.

Not for me.

Perhaps in a big theater it would work but for me 5.2 is all that I can take in my room...

TAM

I used to say that I had a 7.2 setup, but really it is still a 7.1 setup with 2 subwoofers. I had that beat into my head one day over at AVS.

I kinda feel like dolby and the receiver manufacturers are grasping for new bells and whistles to move more AVR's. Most movies just don't have much surround material to begin with.

I'm looking forward to object based layouts and having the ability to add at will. Hopefully there will be plenty of channels. I'd sacrifice the amp section for a dozen (more would be good) assignable outputs.

I actually started reading more into the Dolby Atmos for home use stuff. They state that ideally you would add speakers to your ceiling, but if you can't, you can get (like Pioneer announced) Dolby Atmos speakers that replace some of your speakers and have a built in "module" on the top of the speaker. You can also get an add-on module for your speakers and "using some magic" (basically bouncing sound off of your ceiling and playing with reflection points) you get the "same" effect.

Well, for people with acoustically treated rooms, their ceiling might have absorption on the ceiling and thus it would cancel the effect. If the effect it projected from above the rear channel speakers, then this might work better since most treated ceilings are absorbing front channel reflections. I guess we will find out more tomorrow when Pioneer shows off their new Dolby Atmos receivers and speakers tomorrow at the 2014 CE Week Show in New York.

So far from what I understand <<Disclaimer like nick said, ceiling speakers added to existing 5.1 or 7.1, max 11 channels ... 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 ,5.1.2 ,5.1.4

I hope our local store sets up a system we can hear. We have only one audio store in town. Its that or wait for Nick or BR to get it done and give us feedback.

When I purchased my Denon AVR-891, it was listed at Best Buy as a 7.2 unit as it has 2 SW out jacks - info here:

http://www.dollarbasher.com/electricals/...29358.html/?amp

I realize that they are probably paralleled inside the unit but I don't need a Y-cord to hook up my 2 subs.

I also have a true 2.2 system - 2 completely separate channels - in one of my audio only systems. I drive each of my L & R M2s/EP400s using the EP400 High Level Speaker Inputs from my tube amp.

True stereo = audio bliss...

TAM

TAM I was just giving you a hard time. My Onkyo is advertised as a 7.2 system too since it has 2 sub outs. However, the nomenclature for the numerical #.# is based off of descrete channels encoded on to media. Since everything is encoded with only one subwoofer channel, it is "officially" #.1 no matter the number of subs or what is stamped on your receiver.

With that said, I still tell people who aren't in the home theater world that I have a 7.2 system.

I mentioned something to my wife today about Dolby Atmos for the home theater and she rolled her eyes and said "no" and moved on to a different topic of conversation.

I'm excited because it should translate to more precise placement of sounds thanks to each sound having an x, y, and z coordinate. Assuming proper encoding and a decent auto-setup in the AVR, I'm thinking there's real potential. I'm surprised it's taken this long for them to encode sound this way. But I'm no expert, so maybe they were already achieving 90% of this with the way they've been doing it until now.

And with Pioneer about to announce home theater Ddolby Atmos products tomorrow, they also just announced this afternoon that they are selling off a majority of their home electronics division.

51% to Baring Private Equity Asia, and it will also sell a smaller share to Onkyo.

Onkyo is also dropping Audyssey. Interesting times.

Maybe my next receiver will be a Denon. LOL (Was a Pioneer Elite user for years, and went to Onkyo to get Audyssey.)

I'm curious to see how/if they limit the number of speakers/outputs to 5/7/9/11 still.

Where does the madness end?

One proposed method for getting Atmos sound in a theater:




Using Pioneer's new speakers that reflect sound off of the ceiling (as I suspected yesterday):




And here is a better design if you can do it:



Notice that all of the examples show what I would call a room with pretty tall ceilings.

I think wireless/powered monitor for the overhead speakers. Then just feed power to them through the ceiling. Im in a rental so that's a no go, plus I cant imagine what 4 of those reflecting speakers would cost plus all the extra wire and a receiver, im good I like what I have . I really believe this will be a niche type of thing, and a small one at that.

Nick, I think the best part of this is when you tell the wife what your thinking. Cant beat that. LOL

Yup.

Oh, and for those people thinking that the "reflection" model would be an easy way to not cut holes in your ceiling, it doesn't work with non-flat ceilings (no vaulted ceilings) and there is going to be some sort of low and high height limit. Plus you are talking about sound waves going up, and then bouncing down. That makes for pretty diffused sound, not something that Dolby Atmos wants to really portray to be accurate.

I say that 4 IN/ON the ceiling is the only way to do it right. Then again, I would have to toss a few grand at this with a minimum $1500 or so going to a receiver to get the Atmos processing, and the rest into speakers. ($880 for four M2 on-walls, or $996 for M3 on-walls)

Andrew Jones Dolby Atmos speakers have peaked my interest. I am very intrigued to hear those. Great concept. They are speakers I would consider buying actually.

So when you turn off Dolby Atmos in the receiver does the top driver still fire?

FWIW, I personally would not use reflecting type speakers like Pioneer has employed. Ceiling height and construction material would alter its effectiveness, plus the delay. I don't think the overhead speakers would need to be all that robust given the type of information that would be coming from them. It shouldn't be to difficult to implement them in a typical home with an attic. Wireless self powered I would think.

The Pioneers by AJ are FUGLY just like the last set he designed. Axioms may not be real wood but they look a hell of a lot better than black ash. I have a set of HPM 900's with vinyl and you have to look twice to tell they aren't real wood veneer and they did that 30yrs ago. Also 85db sensitivity, and 4 ohm that's going to require a pretty expensive receiver.

Richard

For those that missed it on AVS

http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/

@B , I read through most of that but it is filled with hyperbole, conjecture,theory and speculation for the most part.It would be nice if the manufacturers would just write a guide with all facts. There are some in the know at AVS but they seem to be tight lipped ATM.

Richard

It will be interesting to see how each manufacturer puts their own spin on it. It could either put them closer to being at the same level or separate the better room correction systems real quick.

My ideal(freedom to place as many speakers where and when I want) may never happen. 11.1(4).4 should be plenty in this room but we're already discussing the next build (14.1(6).8). It won't happen for a year or two so I'll sit back and enjoy the show.

From what I have seen in the specs along with sample system picture layouts, the set-up is one in which overhead effects are more dominant resulting in speakers on or in the ceilings. To me, not particularly practical unless you have a dedicated room where you can have "in-ceiling" speakers where the wires can be hidden.

It is interesting to note, this isn't a particularly new idea since there was a company that I am not sure is still around(SRS Labs)that prior to Dolby PLIIX and DTS 6.1 audio becoming standard on AVRs/Pre-Pros, they designed a decoder box that extracted a matrixed sound out of the surround speakers to create that rear surround effect in one or two additional speakers along the lines of today's 7.1 audio. You could also use the same decoder for the front that extracted a matrixed sound out of the front speakers and when installing overhead speakers it created a similar effect to what the Dolby Atmos system seems to be doing. The decoder has been sitting in my basement unused for over 10 years since, when all connected, (and you need an additional separate stereo amp), I found it just too noisy.

I am sure the current technology has improved considerably on this original design.

I think its a great play by Dolby. Hook one large OEM manufacturer and it becomes a me too technology. Dolby has to stay relevant and ahead of its competitors. I see plenty of bitchin about Bose being nothing more than a great marketing company, well that can be said about Dolby as well. When ATMOS first came out for theaters it made a lot of sense to me but when the home version was announced I am having reservations.

There is only so much you can do with a small space that most of us have to work with in our homes. Not everything scales down well in audio. Music needs room to breathe and commercial theaters have that room. Larger spaces need more speakers but does a smaller room really need more than we already have. Even at work our crappy stereo has a fullness you just cant get in a small room. I agree with the people who believe this will be for the 1% that have large home theater spaces.

If they would release the specs of the requirements of the overhead speakers that would help a lot of people decide if it is viable. The speakers that pioneer is using for reflection are quite small , so if that carries over for in ceiling speakers it may be doable.

I agree, who has the space or the ability to actually implement such a system in its entirety? Even with 9.2 or 11.2 possibilities with some current higher end AVR/Pre-Pros, the units often require additional amplification and if the channels are not used there is the option of re-directing the audio to another zone.

It would seem even with the hype and possible purchase of these latest units, manufacturers know that consumers in many cases will leave the extra channels unused or use them for another purpose.

Just because it is there, doesn't mean it is going to be that much better. Take for instance the trend of a curved screen. I don't want one, but all the newest high end screens have them.

The addition of new ceiling speakers is reaching far into that point of diminishing return where there are far better items to spend my money on that will give a far larger return for the money invested. Like BEER.

So true Matt, I believe many people will take that stance. I cant even convince my boss to add a bit of sound to his 50" flat screen and he like music as much as the next guy, so I hardly think this is going to appeal to any but the most dedicated hardcore theater guy. My parents have 2 flat screens one plasma and one lcd and they couldn't care less about anything other than how big the screen was and the price and my dad is the one that got me crazy about audio. I even offered to send them my Yamaha receiver but they didn't want any of it. They have a great area in the basement that would make a great home theater but have no interest. About 2 yrs ago I bought them their first bluray player. I think more needs to be done to get people interested in HT. This is still an expensive hobby despite how cheap receivers are these days. I use the money I would have spent on beer to satisfy my HT addiction LOL

Curved screens are only good when you get really large and that is to actually account for the distance the light has to travel from the projector before it hits that part of the screen.... So yeah, once you get large enough that you have to worry about the speed of light and how much it expands due to screen size, THEN you can worry about curved screens.

TVs with curved screens is 100% snake oil marketing crap.

At least with Atmos, SOMEONE will get a benefit from it. That group will be very small, but compared to the curved TVs at least there is some level of merit (not much).

As someone, until recently, who was involved with installing and setting up A/V systems, even the ones that liked the idea of a sophisticated set-up and were willing to spend considerable money to do it, I would estimate a significant majority of those buyers still wanted essentially a "turn-key" HT system that they could turn on, turn off and make the necessary changes with as little complications as possible. As we all know, in recent years AVRs having been getting more sophisticated AND more complicated and most of the masses out there don't want to deal with "complicated".

As much as we "A/V geeks" know logically that adding additional equipment to a large screen television would be a far superior viewing and audio experience, I believe your parents and boss fall in to the category of my last sentence in the previous paragraph.

I think that it should say 'theoretically' rather than logically.

The more complexity there is, then you will eventually get into a clutter confusion effect where too much information is bombarded at you and you loose the effect that you were looking at. Like walking in the woods and hearing 3-4 bird singing is far more enjoyable and sets a mood rather than 30-40 birds singing. The sound changes at that point into just noise.

I refuse to listen to real birds, and only listen to good recordings of them via my Axioms.

Actually one benefit of a curved screen is a reduction in reflections. You decrease the area of the screen that acts like a mirror because of the changed angle.
It wouldn't be 100%, but definitely better vs. a perfectly flat tv surface.

So less reflections is better than distorted image? If you think about it, it is actually MORE susceptible to reflections. A flat screen reflects from directly behind the seating area when sitting straight on, and then sure, if you have a window on the extreme right or left, light you get that one reflection there too. With a curved screen, you are actually allowing for a much larger set of reflection points throughout your entire room.

There is a graphic online with some drawn reflections to show that a curved screen has more reflection points. I will see if I can find it.

Here is a link to one article about curved screens:
Curved Screen TVs - What you need to know

As you can see, a lot of the "sales pitch" stuff isn't actually real or true.

As we all know, recently AVRs having been getting more innovative and more complex and most of the public out there don't want to cope with "complicated".

Nick, if they took a globe and flattened it out, it also looks distorted.
I would have assumed that in making a curved screen, the stretch algorithms would compensate for this. Otherwise the flattened globe effect would present itself so horribly that no one would want to buy such a tv.


Actually, no. You would need multiple light sources at increasingly off angles to the screen to have an increased effect. Most people have one window opposing or to the 90 degree right/left of a tv to which they have a complaint about flat screens.
With a curved screen, a 90 degree left/right situation works a world better.


I don't assume that everything one reads on the internet is true. About.com is presenting one opinion (with a confidence reducing typo at that), not representing an absolute fact based article and indications of this person's bias against the concept based on recent increased recent marketing.
"So, there you have it, my perspective on the whole curved screen TV push as of the 2104-2015 time frame."

I'm sure there is an equally opposing article out there where someone states a differing opinion.

I looked at the curved screen tv for a bit today, picture quality was good. Didn't think to look for any distortion.

I just linked one source of review (and yes, some opinion) but there is just as much other sources of this perspective as there is the other touting how cool the new TVs are. But if you use the argument that what I posted is "found on the internet" and therefor can't be true, then I guess that everything on the internet is false, including this post that I am making and everything else here.

Even reliable sources at AVS (wow, you don't hear that very often) say that the curve does absolutely nothing to aid in the picture and it is a gimmick marketing tool only.

The curves aren't as extreme as a globe, so that isn't a great analogy, but I understand what you are saying. I never said that it was great distortion like curving around a globe, but many sources talk about distortion. I mean, how do you take an image that is filmed flat and designed for a flat screen and curve it without distortion? Unless the screen not only curves, but also tapers as you move from the middle towards the edge, there is no real way to not distort the image. If the TV 32" tall in the middle, it is also 32" tall on each of the ends. The only way to account for the curve bringing the image closer is to actually reduce the left and right edge from the 32" in the middle down to something like 30" - 31" or something (probably actually less than 1") depending on the degree of curve. Until the TVs also taper towards the edges, you will see distortion when sitting straight on. However, if you sit to the left or right of center, then you will see the tapered edges, so that won't work.

Take a piece of paper and sketch a picture of some sort, top to bottom and edge to edge. Now curve the paper, and the image distorts. So how do you get the edges that curve towards you to not distort? All that an "algorithm" can do is shrink the images as they approach the edges, and that is the same as tapering the screen itself.

Another thing is that you can't sit as far to the side as you can with a flat TV because at some point you will be seeing the edge or even the back of one sides of the TV since that side is curved and thus exposing the back. Now, would anyone sit that far to the side? Who knows. I am sitting at my in-laws right now at the fairly extreme right of their TV in their living room. The TV is on and I can see everything without seeing the edge or back of the TV. Now, again, there is distortion with a flat panel too. Hmm...

So until we can change the laws of physics in regards to light, we are screwed either way.

What DOES help is that the screens are 4K or UHD. This usually means better contrast, brightness, and color control, but that has nothing to do with curves.

If you want to spend your money because a screen is curved then I won't stop you. Heck, I won't make fun of anyone that does. It is, after all, your money and if you think it is better, great. Just like speakers, there is a lot of subjectivity to it.

Now if I was in the market for a 4K or UHD TV, and I could find a decent flat screen, that is where I would look first. Then again, I am also the eternal pessimist and I am overly skeptical about slick marketing. That is also why I will never own Apple products, BOSE anything, or Monster Cables. I don't like their deceptive marketing, or they way that they make you feel like if you don't have the latest product that you are "lame" and "uncool." Give me a superior product, and you won't have to add gimmicks and market them as advancements or put in inferior components and brag that they are for the purist.

So we disagree, and that is fine. I still "like and respect" you even if you don't have the same attitude towards me.

Some interesting snippits from C|NET and Computerworld articles when searching Google for "curved tv". Nothing else in the search good or bad... Then again, these ARE posted on the internet, so who knows if you can trust them.

----------------------------From Computerworld ( Curved screen TVs expected to flatten out ):

"You see a whole load of pseudo-scientific claims that get made for why curved TVs are a good thing. I think they're designed to bamboozle," said Paul Gray, director of European TV Research for DisplaySearch.

Gray and others see a saturated TV market that's not growing, so manufacturers are scrambling for the next gimmick to spur sales.

Indeed, movie theaters, such as IMAX 3D, use curved screens to correct for the distortions caused by images projected to a large size and in wide formats like 23:9 Cinemascope. With a flat screen, light projecting from a lens would have to travel farther to the edges of a screen. But, the curve-screen benefits for a movie theater don't translate to a 65-in. television, Gray said.
As Samsung states in its marketing material, "you get a perfect view from any angle."

On the contrary, Gray and others say curved-screen TVs only offer someone sitting at the center axis of the TV a great picture. Anyone sitting at right or left angles will have a markedly distorted view.

"There is definitely a reduced viewing angle in terms of other people in the room who are not sitting in the sweet spot," Gray said.
--------------------------------------
From the C|NET article about after trading out a plasma TV for a curved one at the 2-week of in home use ( My life with a curved TV Week 2 ) :

First, I want my plasma back, but for reasons that have little to do with geometry. I mostly miss its superior picture quality, particularly for off-angle viewing and uniformity.

Second, despite the radical-looking shape of the new TV, the curve doesn't have much effect -- positive or negative -- on me and my family's enjoyment of TV shows, movies and games.

...watching a curved TV is a lot like watching a flat one. In fact, the curve has much less of an impact on our daily enjoyment of boob tubery than I anticipated.

On most material, I simply don't notice it. The curve is subtle enough, and the geometric distortions it causes are gentle enough, to basically not register with most of the programming I've watched. Usually I forget I'm watching anything other than a standard TV that's almost as good as the one I'm used to watching.

From my sweet spot on the couch, seated about 10.5 feet from the apex of the curve, the shape of the screen has a slight bowtie or pincushion look: the edges seem a bit larger than the middle. The shape is made more obvious compared to the straight lines of my entertainment cabinet and a window frame directly above the TV.

When I notice the bowtie shape again, it's usually when horizontal lines from graphical elements appear on-screen. Examples include the program guide from my TiVo, a ticker along the bottom of on the screen during any number of sports or news shows, lines on a tennis court, and other similar elements from video games. Rows of words on the screen also cause the curve to be noticeable.

Moving off-angle, and viewing horizontal lines, increases the visibility of distortions.

When I moved from the sweet spot the distortions grew. From my room's furthest-flung TV-watching spot, a chair to the right of my sectional, the curve was a lot more noticeable. The near edge seemed larger than it should be, and the middle to far middle seemed too small, before growing again at the far edge.
-----------------------------

So on and so forth.

So I see no real measurable benefit to the curved screen and neither do they in those articles. There is talk of less reflections, but that seems to be more from the change in screen material from a super reflective plasma screen to the matte curve than geometry. It is supposed to take an OLED screen, which is curved more than other technologies, to actually curve out reflections, but then you have even more distortion.

Those were the two major articles that came up on the first page of search results that weren't at a manufacturer's or retailer's website.

There is also Do you need a curved tv where it is all quotes from a manufacturer and talks about how nice the higher resolution is, and in the end, even after all of the marketing quotes, they say that the curve at least doesn't "get in the way" not that it makes it better at all.

Here is a C|NET video where the title says it all: Curved TV a flat out gimmick

4K and UHD is great, but just give me a nice flat screen please.... Unless the screen is really large (70"+) for my living room.

We got on to this topic as some sidetrack from the Atmos topic. I am fine with moving back to the subject whenever others are.

Curved screens were made for projected images to reduce pin cushion is the corners. They are trying to capitalize on a idea from an entirely different technology. Just another gimmick , same as the car manufacturers do and it becomes a "so me " tech. The sales are down on flat panels etc now they are reaching for something to keep sales moving but they will never reach that fevered pace they were once at. I put atmos directly in that category, it sounds like a great idea but not worth the trouble.

I personally didn't think the screen was all that curved. I get the feeling people may be overstating it. It was a bit gimocy though, like the before mentioned sales tactic. I need to take the time and watch one a bit longer and be more observant next time. Just to report how I think it looks.

I did some carefull measuring today, and the new M3 Coaxial driver will fit nicely in the top of my M80's should I decide at some point I want the atmos experience.

Don't you dare!!...

TAM

Why not. I have the tools and the know how.

Not to rehash old issues, however, I couldn't help but notice(and chuckle) on the Audioholics website their description of what would be their concept of the ideal Dolby Atmos "yet to exist" surround speaker and surprise, surprise, there is an uncanny resemblance to the QS4/8s design which has been around forever. They must have had to bite their tongue not to have to acknowledge that since the QS4/8s design on the Axiom moveable bracket will essentially do what they perceive is required, I couldn't help but laugh about their description of this "yet to be designed" speaker.

I had a quick look at that article a few days ago but did not really get to far into it. I looked just now and I see what you mean, pretty much a QS but the top speaker is a coaxial dedicated to a atmos channel. I handy guy could modify a QS8 easily enough.

I fear that adding all of these attempts at further reflecting sounds off of the ceiling is going to degrade the overall sound stage into an undesirable mish-mash.

What will a driver firing upwards from the top of a tower do to music listening? Perhaps it might work; however, I think that this would upset the balance & imaging that the Axiom folks work so hard to achieve...

TAM

Yep, and I am sure the folks at Axiom could do that even more easily as well. I just couldn't help but chuckle but when they were talking about an upward/downward firing surround speaker and their experimentation with such a design at RBH, they were carrying on as if speakers such as the QS4/8s didn't exist in the marketplace yet. Talk about misplaced pride.

I would expect that such a speaker could easily integrate a switching mechanism in it so one could choose between the regular output and alternatively that when watching a Dolby Atmos encoded movie. I can recall back not that long ago when one or more manufacturers( I can't remember who they were) were producing surrounds that could be switched between dipole(for movies) and bipole for regular music listening.

There is a thread over at AVS by Scott Wilkinson about his experiences with Dolby Atmos during demo's by Dolby and at theaters. A top firing speaker would be wired separately from the main drivers and be driven by its own amp channel and would not play unless fed information from the Atmos decoder.

Link?

I can see how ceiling mounted speakers would work well, but reflecting types would be questionable IMO & done only for convenience...

TAM

Scott Wilkinson on Dolby Atmos

Tam I totally understand your skepticism. I will definitely wait and see once Atmos is in the wild. I don't own a house so I don't think cutting into a ceiling would go over to well with the landlord.Also running wires up the wall and through the ceiling would be a real PITA.