Dolby Atmos is this a crazy idea

[simonlewis]

For those of you that don't know i live in a rented flat and would like dolby atmos, so i,ve been thinking and thinking and thinking and thinking some more, if i was to buy some lightweight (ceiling) speakers probably from richer sounds i could perhaps organize to have a custom built light fitting and have the speakers incorporated into that, suspended from the ceiling.

What are your thoughts on that ?

 

[his dudeness]

not crazy at all something like these with white brackets available as well.http://www.richersounds.com/product/standmount-speakers/cambridge-audio/minx-min11/camb-minx-min11-whi

 

[simonlewis]

Okay thanks i was thinking more of like this, i prefer round rather than square, is 1.3 (2.6) quite heavy to suspend off the ceiling.

http://www.richersounds.com/product/multi-room-components/cambridge-audio/c155/camb-incognito-ss10

 

[his dudeness]

its more how you would suspend these as they are meant to be in ceiling,they are also a 4 ohm load,hence i prefare the minx.

 

[simonlewis]

I may consider the minx due to it being 0.8 kg for the pair, the ones i wanted might be a bit heavy to suspend from the ceiling, thanks his dudeness. *good*

 

[his dudeness]

been looking at atmos as well and the minx and bracket seems to be the neatest solution with minimal damage to ceiling,4 screw holes is about as good as it gets for my situation.*biggrin*

 

[simonlewis]

In the process of buying this, does anone have any thoughts.

 

[Crossie]

Looks like some medieval torture device. What is it?

I use cambridge minx for my ceiling speakers in a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup, with good effect.

 

[simonlewis]

It's a customised light fitting, the two cages at either end hold two cambridge audio minx min12 speakers for atmos.

I am quite excited by it i should get it mid september. *smile*

 

[bigboss]

Won't the ceiling speakers be a little too close to each other?

 

[simonlewis]

Maybe but it's similer width to the tv the light fitting is 45 1/2" accross, i don't really want it any larger it will be too big and just look wrong.

 

[bigboss]

You won't be able to experience the left to right Atmos surround effect though, which can be powerful. You could ask them to make a couple of "holders" for ceiling speakers towards either end of the room.

Or something like this:

 

[bigboss]

Upfiring speakers are worth looking into as well.

 

[rocketrazor]

Looks like some medieval torture device. What is it?

I use cambridge minx for my ceiling speakers in a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup, with good effect.

In an effort not to hijack this thread could you let me know how you got the 7.2.4 setup. The amps I seem to keep finding only allow for one sub so I'm interested how you have two working?

Cheers

 

[Crossie]

Sorry to be so late to reply. Onkyo NR3030 has twin sub preouts.

Cheers

 

[rocketrazor]

Cheers

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

I just read the WHF review of DolbyAtmos, again, and they said that "special" Atmos Blurays were needed.

Could these be the "flash in the pan" that 3D proved to be? Another case of quadrophonic stereo?

Thoughts?

 

[bigboss]

I just read the WHF review of DolbyAtmos, again, and they said that "special" Atmos Blurays were needed.

Could these be the "flash in the pan" that 3D proved to be?  Another case of quadrophonic stereo?

Thoughts?

Not sure what you mean by "special Atmos blu rays". Of course, the films have to be coded in Atmos on blu-ray, similar to Dolby True HD or DTS HD MA. Non-Atmos content can be matrixed to play as Atmos but that won't be true Atmos.

List of Atmos blu rays here:

http://www.dolby.com/in/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html

3D had very different problems: need for glasses and ineffective / distracting usage of the technology by some directors.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

Not sure what you mean by "special Atmos blu rays". Of course, the films have to be coded in Atmos on blu-ray, similar to Dolby True HD or DTS HD MA. Non-Atmos content can be matrixed to play as Atmos but that won't be true Atmos.

List of Atmos blu rays here:

http://www.dolby.com/in/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html

3D had very different problems: need for glasses and ineffective / distracting usage of the technology by some directors.

Yeah, 3D was a dog's breakfast. Got in a bit of trouble with the (now former) WHF journos who, like the industry as a whole, were trying to convince us all that 3D TV was the greatest thing since sliced bread when I said it would be a fad and that no-one (especially already spectacle wearing people like me) would want to wear stupid 3D glasses at home). 3D movies with the glasses were tried in the 1950s and flopped. "But this time they're digital" was the cry. 3D TVs still flopped and are now sold at or below the prices of 2D sets to get rid of them.

Anyway, back to Atmos Blurays. Isn't a non Atmos Bluray that is "up-somethinged" to Atmos in the receiver pretty much impossible? The idea behind Atmos is that the sound is encoded with, say, "helicopter", and the software tracks "helicopter" across the speakers. Unless the source is encoded with "helicopter", is the software so incredibly advanced that it can recognize a "helicopter" on its own? If so, IBM and Cray should be worried. But they're not.

And I note, for example, for Gravity you have to buy the "Diamond Luxe Edition", inititally at a premium price, to get Atmos. Whereas the "vanilla" Bluray doesn't come Atmos encoded. So my question stands. If you have to buy Atmos Blurays at a premium, will the technology still be here in 2 years time or will it go the way of 3D TV?

 

[ellisdj]

Benedict - that is a fair shout - and it could well be that way for atmos, if more content doesnt come quickly enough.

3D failed tgo get sustained momentum for 3 to me reasons - most TV's people watch on are far too small, most people sit too far away from these too small tv's.

99% of people wouldnt calibrate their tv to see just how amazing 3D can be and I mean so amazing its worth wearring glasses for a few hours for the experience.

3 at the cinema the quality is toilet in my expeirence - it was amazing the first time as new things especially the amazing visual of Avatar which would still look good on a samsung phone screen of 2000 (first colour ones ,

But when you critique it on repeat viewings it was actually toilet, terrible cross talk, washed out picture, terrible movemnet - not surpirsing for passive tech. In the home the potential is for Much Higher!! Its a terrible shame more people dont get to experience it - Dont worry we have HDR now

I was very surprised when the new avengers came out with no atmos sound track.

However the whole object based audio could gain more / full momentum when and if DTS enter the marketw ith DTS X

There has been promise for a long time well over a year maybe longer and still no sign - but most blu rays have DTS sound tracks so you would expect there to be more content in DTS X naturally.

Same thing for atmos - if you hear it good, you realise how good it can be, same as 3D - how many people will experience this, could be same number as 3D and down the toilet it goes as well

 

[bigboss]

Not sure what you mean by "special Atmos blu rays". Of course, the films have to be coded in Atmos on blu-ray, similar to Dolby True HD or DTS HD MA. Non-Atmos content can be matrixed to play as Atmos but that won't be true Atmos.

List of Atmos blu rays here:

http://www.dolby.com/in/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html

3D had very different problems: need for glasses and ineffective / distracting usage of the technology by some directors.

Yeah, 3D was a dog's breakfast.  Got in a bit of trouble with the (now former) WHF journos who, like the industry as a whole, were trying to convince us all that 3D TV was the greatest thing since sliced bread when I said it would be a fad and that no-one (especially already spectacle wearing people like me) would want to wear stupid 3D glasses at home).  3D movies with the glasses were tried in the 1950s and flopped. "But this time they're digital" was the cry.  3D TVs still flopped and are now sold at or below the prices of 2D sets to get rid of them.

Anyway, back to Atmos Blurays.  Isn't a non Atmos Bluray that is "up-somethinged" to Atmos in the receiver pretty much impossible?  The idea behind Atmos is that the sound is encoded with, say, "helicopter", and the software tracks "helicopter" across the speakers.  Unless the source is encoded with "helicopter", is the software so incredibly advanced that it can recognize a "helicopter" on its own?  If so, IBM and Cray should be worried.  But they're not.

And I note, for example, for Gravity you have to buy the "Diamond Luxe Edition", inititally at a premium price, to get Atmos.  Whereas the "vanilla" Bluray doesn't come Atmos encoded.  So my question stands.  If you have to buy Atmos Blurays at a premium, will the technology still be here in 2 years time or will it go the way of 3D TV?

I personally was never convinced of AV receivers matrixing non Atmos sound to Atmos, for exactly the reason you've described. So I've set that option to "off".

The prices aren't any more that usual blu rays I must say. When I originally bought Gravity, I paid £15.50 for it. And I paid only £11.80 for Diamond Luxe Edition (both from Amazon).

I pre-order most good films, and haven't noticed the Atmos to be any dearer than non-Atmos ones.

Atmos will never aspire to beat the mass market unlike 3D. Given the speaker requirements, it will remain a very niche option.

 

[bigboss]

But when you critique it on repeat viewings it was actually toilet, terrible cross talk, washed out picture, terrible movemnet - not surpirsing for passive tech.  

Actually, it's active technology that suffers more crosstalk and flickering than passive.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/3d-tvs-active-3d-vs-passive-3d

 

[ellisdj]

I can tell you now with active glasses there is no croass talk at all - there was none on my panny and the 3D3 Glasses

3D was glorious on it - until you hit limitation of only half HD resolution for movment - if you look for it you see it, but mostly its a non issue

Beside that no flaws at all - Near 2D good in 3D - how its supposed to be. Then its just down to the content, a lot which has been pretty crud / half assed when you comapre to the better ones Gravity, Pacific Rim, Avatar. On the PJ with the different rations this could be a bit different but likely the same end result.

I got to show this to quite a few people - I only hope I can recreat this magic on my Sony PJ when its all up and done.

I hope my Panny's new owner is as thrilled with it as I was

 

[bigboss]

I can tell you now with active glasses there is no croass talk at all - there was none on my panny and the 3D3 Glasses

I know, I've got the same TV model and 3D3 glasses. I'm only pointing out inaccuracies in your statement regarding passive 3D technology.

 

[ellisdj]

I was talking about the passive 3D I have seen at the cinema its been crap for several films, not even near on par what I was getting off my Panny TV.

Obviously it was a lot bigger and I now appreciate more how hard it is to keep it good that big but still that was my expeience of it.

Seeing Pirates of the Caribean in 3D for example was dreadful because it was in a terrible setup screen in the cinema.

My cousin saw transformers 3 in 3D on the main screen and sung its praises so went again with me but it had been relegated to the same small screen I saw pirates of the caribean and again it was Terrible!