Dolby Atmos, DTS: X, 7.2, 9.1?

[TastesLikeChicken]

I'm going to be doing a Home Theater install for my brother-in-law. He wants a fairly high-end setup and is looking to spend @ $40K for the AV equipment. That should allow for a nice 4K projector, screen, and audio system. The room design, wiring, furnishings, etc. are not included in that budget.

I'm looking at installing a Dolby Atmos setup for him but I wonder is it's more hype than audio reality. Is Atmos worth the premium or should I look at DTS: X, or just go with the tried and true 7.2 or 9.1 or 9.2 audio.

Thoughts?

 

[Annisman*]

Wow that's quite a chunk of change to play around with have fun with it. From what I understand an Atmos setup will work exactly the same as DTS:X so basically if you get presence speakers to work with one it will also work just fine for the other so you don't have to tailor your setup to just one.

 

[blackangst1]

Atmos is definitely worth the trouble. Im fortunate enough to live in Phoenix, which not only has an Atmos theater, but also a Dolby Vision theater (Atmos + native 4k) and the rare time I go to the theater, Ill only go to an Atmos one. Once you experience it, anything less is lacking.

Over on AVSForum, there is a ton of reading you can do, but I can sum it up for you. No one I have read of that has upgraded to Atmos regrets it, and wouldnt go back. Immersive audio is the future.

As far as DTX: vs Atmos, theyre similar, although Dolby requires a little more stringent speaker placement than DTS:X does. But they both work in "object based" audio vs traditional "channel based".

I made the jump to Atmos this year from 7.1 when we bought our new house (which will be done in about 60 days). Ill be running 5.1.4.

 

[Exterous]

Over on AVSForum, there is a ton of reading you can do, but I can sum it up for you. No one I have read of that has upgraded to Atmos regrets it, and wouldnt go back. Immersive audio is the future.

As far as DTX: vs Atmos, theyre similar, although Dolby requires a little more stringent speaker placement than DTS:X does. But they both work in "object based" audio vs traditional "channel based".

I made the jump to Atmos this year from 7.1 when we bought our new house (which will be done in about 60 days). Ill be running 5.1.4.

Lots of this, esp if this is new construction and he can easily install in-ceiling speakers. I have also read that x.x.4 is preferred over x.x.2

The downside is there that content is a bit lacking but people claim that even non-Atmos audio sounds better. I'd let you know my own impressions but my HT project is a bit slow getting started.

 

[blackangst1]

Lots of this, esp if this is new construction and he can easily install in-ceiling speakers. I have also read that x.x.4 is preferred over x.x.2

The downside is there that content is a bit lacking but people claim that even non-Atmos audio sounds better. I'd let you know my own impressions but my HT project is a bit slow getting started.

Correct x.x.4 is much preferred.

As far as releases, there are over 80 now I believe (google can tell you) but the multithousand response thread on AVS show people are just as impressed with DSU encoded audio as well (encoding 5.1/7/1 into Atmos).

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Atmos is definitely worth the trouble. Im fortunate enough to live in Phoenix, which not only has an Atmos theater, but also a Dolby Vision theater (Atmos + native 4k) and the rare time I go to the theater, Ill only go to an Atmos one. Once you experience it, anything less is lacking.

Over on AVSForum, there is a ton of reading you can do, but I can sum it up for you. No one I have read of that has upgraded to Atmos regrets it, and wouldnt go back. Immersive audio is the future.

As far as DTX: vs Atmos, theyre similar, although Dolby requires a little more stringent speaker placement than DTS:X does. But they both work in "object based" audio vs traditional "channel based".

I made the jump to Atmos this year from 7.1 when we bought our new house (which will be done in about 60 days). Ill be running 5.1.4.

That was the first hand info I was looking for. I rarely ever go to movie theaters so I haven't experienced Atmos yet, though I guess I should make the effort if I'm going to recommend the install. I don't doubt he'll go for it though.

Thanks.

Heck, I might try it out myself. The place I just bought already has in-ceiling speakers that I'm not currently using.

 

[boomhower]

If I'm spending that kind of dough I'd be going with a setup for Auro-3D. It's a bit more expensive but from I've read it looks like a winner. Atmos and DTS:X will work with the same speaker setup.

 

[Soccerman06]

Yes its worth it, get denons new avr-x6300h. It has 11 powered channels to let you do 7.2.4 without having to figure out a dsp and external amp.

Shit at that kind of money you could get a full 7.2.4 setup from JTR and 2 LFU OS, Sony 365es and still afford some furniture.

 

[giantpandaman2]

At that level you don't buy receivers, you get preamp/amps. It gives substantially more power and, as technology changes, people can just change the preamps. Sometimes using a receiver as a decoder and then using amps for most of the speaker is a better value.

 

[Soccerman06]

At that level you don't buy receivers, you get preamp/amps. It gives substantially more power and, as technology changes, people can just change the preamps. Sometimes using a receiver as a decoder and then using amps for most of the speaker is a better value.

The difference between 140w and say 200w is ~1.5db, and 140w and 300 is 3db. Baring THD issues you will never notice a difference between pre/pro and just a receiver, its all in your head.

 

[giantpandaman2]

The difference between 140w and say 200w is ~1.5db, and 140w and 300 is 3db. Baring THD issues you will never notice a difference between pre/pro and just a receiver, its all in your head.

Nope. Depends on the speakers, their efficiency, their resistance, and the number of speakers. Not to mention most receivers are way to generous on how many watts they actually push.

 

[Soccerman06]

Nope. Depends on the speakers, their efficiency, their resistance, and the number of speakers. Not to mention most receivers are way to generous on how many watts they actually push.

Speaker efficiency works differently than you think, a speaker with a 90db/w will do 100db with 10w and 110db with 100w. A 95db/w will do 105db at 10w and 115db at 100w, so on. So going from 140w to 300w will only gain 3db no matter what speaker and no matter its efficiency. A speaker's resistance is not a static, impedance it is constantly changing based on a variety of factors. Im not sure if your saying the number woofers a speaker has or the number of speakers you have in a setup? Denon is a very good manufacturer and generally is truthful with its output numbers.

 

[giantpandaman2]

Not really looking to get in a big long debate, so I'll just post this.

http://www.audioholics.com/frequent-questions/receivers-vs-separates

It's not the receivers are bad...they just become really expensive paper weights once they digitally become obsolete.

Running 11 (7.x.4) speakers on a single receiver is just a bad idea. Especially when at $40k budget the L/R will likely be full range speakers that can drop all the way to 2 ohms. Those speakers, by themselves, will likely be able to draw 300w+ each during louder moments. Last thing anyone would want to do is risk clipping and breaking those speakers.

 

[cmdrdredd]

A setup that is wired for the typical Dolby Atmos layout with 4 in ceiling speakers will work just fine on DTS:X content. I have a simple 5.1.2 setup in my game room and the setup I use for Atmos works just as well for DTS:X.

Yes its worth it, get denons new avr-x6300h. It has 11 powered channels to let you do 7.2.4 without having to figure out a dsp and external amp.

Shit at that kind of money you could get a full 7.2.4 setup from JTR and 2 LFU OS, Sony 365es and still afford some furniture.

Why not the new JTR 4000LFU that is tuned to 10hz and has been Data-Bass tested to 108db at 10hz?

 

[Soccerman06]

A setup that is wired for the typical Dolby Atmos layout with 4 in ceiling speakers will work just fine on DTS:X content. I have a simple 5.1.2 setup in my game room and the setup I use for Atmos works just as well for DTS:X.

Why not the new JTR 4000LFU that is tuned to 10hz and has been Data-Bass tested to 108db at 10hz?

Yes that would be a better option, I didnt know they released a new sub and was tested at databass

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Yes its worth it, get denons new avr-x6300h. It has 11 powered channels to let you do 7.2.4 without having to figure out a dsp and external amp.

Shit at that kind of money you could get a full 7.2.4 setup from JTR and 2 LFU OS, Sony 365es and still afford some furniture.

I am leaning towards a Yamaha pre-pro/amp system.

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_022CXA5100/Yamaha-CX-A5100.html?tp=47509

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_022MXA5000/Yamaha-MX-A5000.html?tp=180

The JTR speakers are very interesting but I don't see where they have in-ceiling speakers for an Atmos system. I plan on contacting them to see what they suggest.

I'm also looking at Klipsch because, ime, Klipsch and Yamaha make for a solid combo.

 

[blackangst1]

I am leaning towards a Yamaha pre-pro/amp system.

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_022CXA5100/Yamaha-CX-A5100.html?tp=47509

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_022MXA5000/Yamaha-MX-A5000.html?tp=180

The JTR speakers are very interesting but I don't see where they have in-ceiling speakers for an Atmos system. I plan on contacting them to see what they suggest.

I'm also looking at Klipsch because, ime, Klipsch and Yamaha make for a solid combo.

TLC: Good choice on the yamaha receiver IMHO. Personally, the new 3060 receiver has all the function of the pre/pro 5100, plus some. Ive read others say this is actually the first time a receiver may be a better value for features than a pre-pro. (mind you Im biased as well, as I have a 3060). But, if you prefer separates and have all the amps you need, the 5100 would be a great choice.

For ceiling speakers Klipsch makes some nice ones, but I would encourage you to check out the RSL C34E. You can do your own research if you'd like, but theyre a solid company, and this speaker is the darling over at AVS forum for in ceiling. Dont let the lower price fool you...this speaker ROCKS for Atmos. https://rslspeakers.com/c34e-ceiling-speaker/

 

[JimKiler]

I have seen two Dobly Atmos movies in a theater and both times the Atmos demo was cool but once the movie got going i could not tell a difference. Granted at home being able to flip between Atmos and non Atmos might help. Just saying...

 

[cmdrdredd]

I have seen two Dobly Atmos movies in a theater and both times the Atmos demo was cool but once the movie got going i could not tell a difference. Granted at home being able to flip between Atmos and non Atmos might help. Just saying...

It really depends on the mix but do remember that Dolby Atmos is more than just speakers in the ceiling. You can assign object audio data to any position in 3D space. They can make a bird chirp sound like it's 7 feet to your left side, above and behind you 10 feet, or 20 feet directly over your head depending on where they place that object. They physically take a sound effect and move it around on a monitor to place it. You aren't limited to channels any longer.

Going back to my point about the audio mix, sometimes the mixing is a little conservative so you aren't overwhelmed. There may not be a big use of overhead effects except in certain scenes. I've heard Atmos mixes that didn't seem different like your experience, then I've heard others that are just spectacular and have audio all around you.

 

[nathanddrews]

It really depends on the mix but do remember that Dolby Atmos is more than just speakers in the ceiling. You can assign object audio data to any position in 3D space. They can make a bird chirp sound like it's 7 feet to your left side, above and behind you 10 feet, or 20 feet directly over your head depending on where they place that object. They physically take a sound effect and move it around on a monitor to place it. You aren't limited to channels any longer.

Both technologies are object-oriented in the authoring stage, but only DTSX is object-oriented in the reproduction stage.

Atmos is locked to channels - meaning you must have the number of speakers assigned to specific channels in order to get the Atmos effect. The AVR can make up for some of this by simply blending channels, but the objects themselves are still locked to those channels. DTSX can be channel-independent and can configure itself to distribute audio to the channels that you have available. If the audio track is authored to allow for it, you can even manually control the volume of things like voices or effects in real time independently of other objects. With Atmos, you can only increase or decrease the volume of the center channel, which can contain dialog, music, and effects, but DTSX allows you to increase or decrease the volume of the dialog itself, regardless of the channel it comes out of.

It's a minor, but significant distinction. It's bearing on actual, everyday playback may end up not being very significant, however. It may also be a matter of time before Atmos is updated to do the same thing, but I haven't read anything about that happening.

 

[blackangst1]

Both technologies are object-oriented in the authoring stage, but only DTSX is object-oriented in the reproduction stage.

Atmos is locked to channels - meaning you must have the number of speakers assigned to specific channels in order to get the Atmos effect. The AVR can make up for some of this by simply blending channels, but the objects themselves are still locked to those channels. DTSX can be channel-independent and can configure itself to distribute audio to the channels that you have available. If the audio track is authored to allow for it, you can even manually control the volume of things like voices or effects in real time independently of other objects. With Atmos, you can only increase or decrease the volume of the center channel, which can contain dialog, music, and effects, but DTSX allows you to increase or decrease the volume of the dialog itself, regardless of the channel it comes out of.

It's a minor, but significant distinction. It's bearing on actual, everyday playback may end up not being very significant, however. It may also be a matter of time before Atmos is updated to do the same thing, but I haven't read anything about that happening.

This is 100% incorrect. Atmos is object oriented, not channel, and are both recorded as such. The biggest difference between the two is DTSX is a little more flexible in speaker placement but theyre essentially the same.

 

[nathanddrews]

This is 100% incorrect. Atmos is object oriented, not channel, and are both recorded as such. The biggest difference between the two is DTSX is a little more flexible in speaker placement but theyre essentially the same.

You misread what I wrote or I'm not seeing the error in my post. I stated that they were both object-oriented in authoring ("recorded" as you put it) and that DTSX is more flexible with speakers and placement.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Atmos can handle 32 channel setups with a Trinnov Altitude 32 Pre-Pro. The same processor is limited to 11.1 on DTS:X material. This is DTS' limitation and not a limitation of the unit. So far every home release for DTS:X has been channel based with very few actual objects(yamaha AVRs can tell you how many objects are in the mix). Dolby Atmos so far as done a lot more objects.

Both work with many setups and speaker placements. Heights, wides, in-ceiling, atmos enabled all function with both. DTS:X does some weird things with it's audio though. For example if they place a ship flying from the rear height over your head and then fade out in front but you only have front height speakers it will take that audio from the rear height channel and play it through the rear surrounds which is incorrect and doesn't make the effect sound as good. Atmos would drop the audio out for that audio programmed for rear height and simply play the audio from your front height speakers at the appropriate time. This way the audio doesn't sound like it's going from ear level to overhead which is not how it was mixed and you get a better effect when the ship flys past the camera and over your head. Rather that sounding like the audio jumps in some weird way. This is what they mean by "flexible". They will not omit audio data and will throw it somewhere just so you can hear it. That's not always good.

That said I have found that most of the DTS:X material I've heard is mixed more aggressively than most Atmos. There are good and poor examples of both but I slightly prefer DTS:X based on the few titles I own and have listened to. It seemed like the room filling effect worked better to me. Though a good Atmos mix sounds incredible too I just think the mixes are a little more conservative on the whole.

 

[JimKiler]

It really depends on the mix but do remember that Dolby Atmos is more than just speakers in the ceiling. You can assign object audio data to any position in 3D space. They can make a bird chirp sound like it's 7 feet to your left side, above and behind you 10 feet, or 20 feet directly over your head depending on where they place that object. They physically take a sound effect and move it around on a monitor to place it. You aren't limited to channels any longer.

Going back to my point about the audio mix, sometimes the mixing is a little conservative so you aren't overwhelmed. There may not be a big use of overhead effects except in certain scenes. I've heard Atmos mixes that didn't seem different like your experience, then I've heard others that are just spectacular and have audio all around you.

I saw Mad Max: Fury Road and Transformers 4 (for free so no judging) in Atmos. Again the demo was awesome but i just could not notice during the movie.

 

[blackangst1]

You misread what I wrote or I'm not seeing the error in my post. I stated that they were both object-oriented in authoring ("recorded" as you put it) and that DTSX is more flexible with speakers and placement.

OK my bad then :thumbsup: