AVS Forum banner

The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) – Check out post 1 first

5M views 69K replies 3K participants last post by  GMil 
#1 · (Edited)
Last update: 02.04.2023



Official Dolby Atmos at home website

Dolby on Atmos for the home
Dolby Atmos Speaker Setup
Ceiling-firing speakers ("Atmos-enabled speakers")
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-technology.pdf
Speaker installation guidelines
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
If you're more the visual type of guy here's a good video explaining the basics of placing your Atmos speakers:

Insights from a recording and mixing engineer


Technical specification for studios wishing to employ a 7.1.4 home entertainment Dolby Atmos monitoring setup
Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio
Certification Guide


Blog posts
Dolby Atmos: Coming soon to a living room near you - Lab Notes
Dolby Atmos for home theaters: FAQ - Lab Notes


Dolby Patent Application
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2014036085A1.html


Dolby on Atmos for movie theaters
Wayback Machine

Specifications for movie theaters
Wayback Machine


How Atmos content is created
Wayback Machine


How Atmos is encoded into TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus
https://professional.dolby.com/site...on/dolby-atmos/dolby_atmos_renderer_guide.pdf


avsforum.com Members Atmos & Auro Configuration Spreadsheet (at Google Docs, maintained by user kokishin)


Atmos test tone downloads (E-AC-3 audio in .mp4 container)
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html

Other Dolby trailer downloads
 
See less See more
#4,501 ·
AFAIK it will do the same as PLII currently does. Expand it to the available channels. It's an upmixer, so it will work the way upmixers work. What is it you think it might not do? (Other than what you asked before which FM answered).
If I remember well, you're not listening to music on your HT system, but have a separate stereo room for 2 CH music, so you're not gonna miss PL II for music. I'll wait for FM's first hand info after CEDIA. Thanks anyway. :cool:
 
#4,502 ·
But PLIIx has a music and cinema mode which each sound different. It sounds like Dolby Surround won't have different modes. Which would be a big oversite if it is trim the case.
That is correct. It does not have a music and cinema mode. Just a centre width expansion thing. Atmos has been designed for cinema sound, not music so it doesn’t surprise me.
 
#4,503 · (Edited)
IDK how many times we have to cover the same ground before everyone gets up to speed, but this has been asked and answered more than once in this thread.

In Atmos units, Prologic is no more. It has been replaced by a new upmixer called Dolby Surround, which has subsumed PLII, PLIIx, PLIIz and all of Prologic into one new upmixer, which also upmixes Atmos.
You're absolutely right, Keith; this has been covered ad nauseum (particularly in this thread). But I think it will sadly remain a point of confusion at least until the Atmos-capable AVR's hit the market. Case in point:

1) Crutchfield (a reliable CE retailer with an enviable reputation for customer care) currently has the AVR-X5200W listed available for pre-order with the following blurb in the "Overview" section:






I suspect that this listing is erroneous (I also note that for both the X4100W and X5200W they list DTS Neo:6 in lieu of Neo:X:eek:), but it adds to the aforementioned confusion.


2) There's also this input from Scott Wilkinson, who was one of the attendees at last Monday's demo in Burbank (along with FilmMixer, SDurani, et al) :

Another interesting tidbit is that the Dolby Atmos system includes a new upmixing algortihm designed to be compatible with conventional channel-based and Atmos playback systems. Manufacturers can choose to include Dolby Pro Logic in Atmos-capable receivers, and Pro Logic will continued to be offered in channel-based receivers. This new upmixer is called Dolby Surround, which is a somewhat unfortunate moniker, since it's also the name given to the earliest consumer version of Dolby's multichannel analog film-sound format back in 1982. Perhaps that's so long ago that few will remember the term from those days.
So perhaps Atmos CE manufacturers have the leeway to include either Dolby Surround or PLII or both? My guess is that PLII will only survive on non-Atmos-enabled equipment, but survive it will. Personally, I'm hoping that Dolby Surround will work so well that we won't be giving Pro Logic (which I use a lot) a second thought.
 

Attachments

#4,504 ·
You're absolutely right, Keith; this has been covered ad nauseum (particularly in this thread). But I think it will sadly remain a point of confusion at least until the Atmos-capable AVR's hit the market. Case in point:

1) Crutchfield (a reliable CE retailer with an enviable reputation for customer care) currently has the AVR-X5200W listed available for pre-order with the following blurb in the "Overview" section (see attached thumbnail):


  • Dolby® and DTS® surround sound decoding, including Pro Logic IIz
  • Dolby Atmos processing for use with in-ceiling or "height" speakers for more enveloping surround sound; compatible with 7-, 9-, or 11-channel setups (11 channels requires an external stereo power amp)
I suspect that this listing is erroneous (I also note that for both the X4100W and X5200W they list DTS Neo:6 in lieu of Neo:X:eek:), but it adds to the aforementioned confusion.


2) There's also this input from Scott Wilkinson, who was one of the attendees at last Monday's demo in Burbank (along with FilmMixer, SDurani, et al) :



So perhaps Atmos CE manufacturers have the leeway to include either Dolby Surround or PLII or both? My guess is that PLII will only survive on non-Atmos-enabled equipment, but survive it will. Personally, I'm hoping that Dolby Surround will work so well that we won't be giving Pro Logic (which I use a lot) a second thought.
It's one or the other.

Crutchfields description is wrong.

Reading the X5200 manual confirms it.
 
#4,505 ·
I have the DTS-HD Master Audio Suite and, when creating a 7.1 track, there's an embedded 5.1 downmix defaulting to a -3dB attenuation (I doubt it gets touched at all by BD producers).
Hi Luca,

Thanks for the further details. Your original question was asking about Atmos, which is delivered through Dolby TrueHD, so it does not matter how DTS' encoder works. And in TrueHD, the core 5.1 of a 7.1 mix is not forced to -3 dB. So that should assure us that whatever is heard from an Atmos mix is exactly how the content makers wanted it to be wrt reference levels.

It cannot be deactivated, so every DTS MA 7.1 track has it. When playing back a 7.1 track on a 5.1 AVR, it will play 3dB lower than Reference Level, no matter what.
The DTS Master Audio Suite User Guidelines, in the section discussing making a 5.1 downmix from a 7.1 source, states:
The first fader (i.e. L, R, C, LFE, Ls and Rs) in each control set, known as Scaling Coefficients, shows the scaling value for each of those channels. The values in these fields, at the bottom of each column, specify the channel’s contribution to the output mix. The values range from 0.0 to -6.0 (0 to -6.0 dBFS) inclusive.
It also states:
The Downmix Saturation Check feature allows a user to check for Saturation (or clipping) in the 5.1 downmix.
So a) it looks like the -3 dB default can be easily changed to 0 dB. And b) if there's any headroom problem, it can be flagged and addressed before mastering.

When extracting the DTS core from 7.1 MA, it receives (or already had) a -3dB attenuation, so even in that case 5.1 system will play 3dB below Reference Level. People in possess of Pacific Rim and 5.1 system can make a quick test, if willing to.
So we agree that none of this has anything to do with the AVR, which is dutifully playing the source exactly as encoded.
 
#4,506 ·
We know that. However, as I previously noted Dolby has also said that the EQ is built into the speakers. What is the correct answer?
If that EQ were in the speaker, it would be impossible for the room EQ system to avoid "fixing" it, negating the filter. But Dolby assures us that problem does not exist. It means the EQ is in the DSP (which of course is also much more practical, and it also assures the benefit accrues only to Atmos sources).
 
#4,507 ·
If that EQ were in the speaker, it would be impossible for the room EQ system to avoid "fixing" it, negating the filter. But Dolby assures us that problem does not exist. It means the EQ is in the DSP (which of course is also much more practical, and it also assures the benefit accrues only to Atmos sources).
This is just one more example why Dolby needs to really get its act together in regards to these demos and press/public relations meetings. Some information being bandied about is as inconsistent as their audio demonstrations at various event locations themselves.
 
#4,508 ·
For a 5.1 system, it probably sound almost the same as any of the other various matrix upmixers.
It might, but which one? They sound quite different. I'm hoping the new Dolby Surround retains the best of PLIIx and builds upon it with improved spatial openness, but does not introduce strange side effects as some other do. I also hope the center adjustment can be remembered per source/input so it will not have to be adjusted each time when switching between movie/TV and music sources.
 
#4,509 ·
You're absolutely right, Keith; this has been covered ad nauseum (particularly in this thread). But I think it will sadly remain a point of confusion at least until the Atmos-capable AVR's hit the market. Case in point:

1) Crutchfield (a reliable CE retailer with an enviable reputation for customer care) currently has the AVR-X5200W listed available for pre-order with the following blurb in the "Overview" section (see attached thumbnail):


  • Dolby® and DTS® surround sound decoding, including Pro Logic IIz
  • Dolby Atmos processing for use with in-ceiling or "height" speakers for more enveloping surround sound; compatible with 7-, 9-, or 11-channel setups (11 channels requires an external stereo power amp)

I suspect that this listing is erroneous (I also note that for both the X4100W and X5200W they list DTS Neo:6 in lieu of Neo:X:eek:), but it adds to the aforementioned confusion.


2) There's also this input from Scott Wilkinson, who was one of the attendees at last Monday's demo in Burbank (along with FilmMixer, SDurani, et al) :



So perhaps Atmos CE manufacturers have the leeway to include either Dolby Surround or PLII or both? My guess is that PLII will only survive on non-Atmos-enabled equipment, but survive it will. Personally, I'm hoping that Dolby Surround will work so well that we won't be giving Pro Logic (which I use a lot) a second thought.
It is true that the AVR manufacturers can choose not to implement Dolby Surround if they wish - I covered that in my last report. The question is, why would they not want to implement it? If any of them made an Atmos unit and chose not to include DS, then they would presumably incorporate Prologic, but I really can’t see the point of that - you'd have an Atmos-capable AVR but no ability to upmix legacy content to Atmos speaker sets. Who would buy an AVR like that?
 
#4,510 ·
This is just one more example why Dolby needs to really get its act together in regards to these demos and press/public relations meetings. Some information being bandied about is as inconsistent as their audio demonstrations at various event locations themselves.
There was nothing inconsistent in the demo I attended. I asked where the filter was applied and they said "in the AVR". Pretty darn clear.

Just because someone has chosen to disbelieve what was said and to wilfully pretend to misunderstand crystal-clear replies, isn’t the fault of Dolby.
 
#4,511 ·
There was nothing inconsistent in the demo I attended. I asked where the filter was applied and they said "in the AVR". Pretty darn clear.

Just because someone has chosen to disbelieve what was said and to wilfully pretend to misunderstand crystal-clear replies, isn’t the fault of Dolby.
I don't think Scott Wilkinson was willfully pretending to misunderstand; he thought it was in the AVR until Dolby corrected him:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...lby-demos-atmos-cinema-home.html#post26631465
 
#4,512 · (Edited)
I don't think Scott Wilkinson was willfully pretending to misunderstand; he thought it was in the AVR until Dolby corrected him:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...lby-demos-atmos-cinema-home.html#post26631465
Except it is in the AVR. At least that is what I was told - straight question, straight reply. And as Roger points out, if it was in the speakers, then Audyssey etc would do it's darndest to EQ it out. Obviously I wasn't there when Scott asked his question but I see no reason to suppose that the reply from Dolby, LA somehow trumps the reply from Dolby, London, especially when the latter makes the most sense.

But yes, one could say there was some inconsistency between the answer Scott received and the answer I received - but I wasn't referring to Scott of course as, until now, I hadn't seen his answer ;)

The other point of course is what sense does it make to do DSP in the speaker when it can easily be done in the AVR, thus removing a potential source of problem and error? By which I mean that Dolby are licensing AVR makers and checking they are conforming to specs. That is impossible wrt to speakers as anyone can make a speaker that looks like an Atmos module - do we think Dolby would allow their entire upward firing Atmos concept to be FUBARed by a speaker maker who didn't 'bother to include' the required DSP?
 
#4,513 ·
The other point of course is what sense does it make to do DSP in the speaker when it can easily be done in the AVR, thus removing a potential source of problem and error? By which I mean that Dolby are licensing AVR makers and checking they are conforming to specs. That is impossible wrt to speakers as anyone can make a speaker that looks like an Atmos module - do we think Dolby would allow their entire upward firing Atmos concept to be FUBARed by a speaker maker who didn't 'bother to include' the required DSP?
As a side nit Keith, please do not use DSP in connection with speakers. DSP stands for Digital Signal Processing and as such it can only be done in the AVR until the signal is in the digital domain, while speakers are fed with analog signals, so, technically speaking in this context DSP'ing a speaker makes no sense. Thank you for your attention.:)
 
#4,514 · (Edited)
This report is a counterpart to my original report from the first demo I was kindly invited to at Dolby's London HQ. Dolby Atmos For The Home - A Second 'Ears-on' Experience at Dolby's London HQ. I was privileged to be invited to a second demonstration of Atmos For The Home on Wednesday, 13th August, at Dolby's magnificent Soho Square HQ in London.

Inside “probably the best Atmos experience in Europe”.: As before, the presentation was split into two parts: the initial briefing and demo in Dolby's truly magnificent screening room, and the second part in their special 'HT' demo room, which is the size of a typical HT room in the UK.


Dolby's 'domestic HT room' setup.

But the main event of the day was yet to come and we filed into the special Home Theater demo room which Dolby have created to showcase Atmos. Stephen and JJ told us that we would hear the exact same clips as we had previously heard and that we would get the opportunity to hear them played through Atmos-enabled speakers and physical ceiling-mounted speakers, for comparison.

Before going into more detail, let me describe this room. It is a modestly sized room with 5 chairs in two rows (3 in front, 2 behind) and a ceiling height of 2.4m (roughly 8 feet). As can be seen in the photograph taken from the back of the room, there are some acoustic treatments on the walls.



What is less clear is the way the ceiling has been designed. The central section is a suspended design which features 4 reflective panels in its centre, and these are flanked by the ceiling-mounted speakers which are concealed behind acoustically transparent panels. In the photograph below you can see the central, reflective area and, to the bottom right you can just make out the acoustically transparent material covering the ceiling-mounted speakers. In the second photograph below you can see a close-up of that panel covering one of the speakers (to the right).




What surprised me is how small the reflective area is. It covered an area roughly, I am guessing, 4ft x 4ft and it is at this area that the Atmos speaker modules were 'aimed'. Inevitably, there is some 'overspill' onto the slightly higher plastered part of the ceiling but, as JJ pointed out, the distance between the suspended part of the ceiling and the plastered part is only about 1 foot or so - a millisecond in terms of sound travel - and this difference will have no significance in terms of what we hear. This bodes well for those with smaller rooms, as it seems that the full Atmos experience can be gained even from a relatively small reflective area. Those with ceiling treatments may yet be able to use Atmos-enabled speakers or modules so long as they can create this clear central reflective area I saw in Dolby's room.

(Incidentally I should give credit to Gizmodo for the above photograph of the room and I hope they do not mind me using it here as it is so much better than the photograph I took myself. Gizmodo's take on the event can be seen here.)

Speakers and placement considerations.

The speakers used at listener level were all Kef designs: the tower and centre speakers are from the Kef R700 range. The upwards-firing modules are built by Kef according to the Dolby Atmos-enabled speaker specification but Dolby has no further information on that aspect of the speaker. As before, the surrounds were all placed at approximately ear level. Stephen later confirmed that this was to create the maximum distance between the listener level speakers and the ceiling speakers. In fact, Stephen said that ideally the ceiling speakers should be between 2 and 3 times the height of the listener level speakers. So in other words, if your main speakers' tweeters are 3.5 feet off the ground, then you will need a ceiling speaker to be at least 7 feet from the floor for the best effect, and preferably a little more. This should allow most people with a standard height ceiling to accommodate ceiling-mounted speakers, but may necessitate lowering the surround speakers somewhat, which is what I am having to do in my own room.

Again, I thank Gizmodo for the pictures of the Kef speakers and their Atmos upfiring module.



The incredible upward-firing Atmos speakers! No compromise!

JJ began the presentation by playing two Atmos trailers and asking us to guess whether they had been played via the Atmos speakers or via the ceiling-mounted physical speakers. I was the only person present who was able to detect that both clips were, in fact, played by the Atmos speakers. I am sure that the reason for this is that, having heard a similar demo before, I was much more tuned in as to what to listen for. Atmos speakers give a slightly more diffuse presentation while the ceiling-mounted speakers are slightly more 'precise' in where they place the sounds (objects). Neither one is better than the other: they are both excellent but (slightly) different.

It is a testament to the effectiveness of the Atmos speakers that even highly experienced listeners such as Richard and Gerald could not detect that these speakers were being used for this part of the demo
. Once again, most people present later confirmed that they actually preferred the Atmos speakers to the ceiling-mounted speakers. There is absolutely no sense of 'compromise' if domestic circumstances mean you have to go the Atmos speakers route. I think it is especially important to stress this for two reasons: one is that it is almost incredible that sound bounced off the ceiling can sound this good and the other is that, for most people, Atmos speakers will be the only way they can incorporate Atmos into their home. If you fall into the latter group, do not hesitate for one moment to go with Atmos-enabled speakers or modules. I can guarantee that you will in no way at all be disappointed.

JJ then played us the STID clip, using both types of speaker in turn so that we could compare. Again, my impressions of slightly more diffuseness vs slightly more precision were confirmed.

Don't just hear the sound - see the sound.

We were next treated to an incredibly interesting section of the presentation where a graphic was overlaid onto the screen, simultaneously with a clip being played, which showed the sound objects moving in real time around the room.



And finally…. How did it sound?

No report of an Atmos demo would be complete without some attempt to convey in words how it all actually sounds. Well, in Dolby's multi-million dollar screening room, it sounds as good as the best commercial cinema in which you may have already heard Atmos movies: fabulous. The sense of immersion, the precision with which sounds are placed around you, the dynamic way that sounds move through the room, with such precision that you often end up following the sound with your eyes, as well as with your ears… all these are part of the commercial Atmos experience, and they all help take cinema sound to a whole new level (pun intended). As I said in my first report, Atmos is much, much more than 'height effects' and the occasional flyover of a helicopter.

But it is when you move to a typical HT environment that you will be truly amazed. Here, in a typical sized domestic space, Dolby seem to have worked a miracle. So little is lost compared with the commercial theater experience that you can scarcely believe it. In many ways, the HT demo is even more impressive than the 'big room' demo, simply because the result is so much less expected.

Using either Atmos speakers or ceiling-mounted speakers, your HT room will suddenly become the environment in which the action is taking place. Walls and ceiling simply disappear and you are transported to a cave, to outer space, to a forest, adding immensely to the enjoyment of the on-screen action in a way which you will not have previously experienced. In the opening scenes of Star Trek Into Darkness, when the aliens throw their spears, they don't just move from front to back of the room, as before. Now they also move overhead as well. As the aliens and the Enterprise crew run through the forest, you can hear precisely where they are, where their voices are coming from; the rustle of leaves and the snapping of branches happen above you, to your left, your right, in front of you. You are there. When I got home, I played that scene in my own HT, which is substantially treated and has high quality speakers, subs and amplification. The difference left me feeling 'flat'. So I say to Dolby, the AVR manufacturers, the content creators, the studios: bring it on! I can't wait. And I would love to hear how the upmixing algorithm treats my legacy version of STID and how it compares with the full fat Atmos version - but that is something, I hope, for another demo on another day.
Lucky you!

I love the idea of acoustic panel ceiling cloud mounting brackets! I could use two panels and cut a whole in the middle to install two in ceiling speakers so I can do Atmos in the small room!

I don’t want to cut my ceiling plus the panels would improve acoustics in the small room!

http://www.markertek.com/Audio-Equipment/Speakers/Outdoor-Waterproof-Speakers/Tannoy-Ltd/DI5.xhtml

I am thinking using these http://www.kef.com/html/us/showroom/custom_installed_speakers/ci_series/speaker/Ci200RR/index.html to mount on the panels and attached to the ceiling using

these http://www.gikacoustics.com/product/acoustic-panel-ceiling-cloud-mounting-brackets/
 
#4,517 · (Edited)
Hi Luca,

Thanks for the further details. Your original question was asking about Atmos, which is delivered through Dolby TrueHD, so it does not matter how DTS' encoder works. And in TrueHD, the core 5.1 of a 7.1 mix is not forced to -3 dB. So that should assure us that whatever is heard from an Atmos mix is exactly how the content makers wanted it to be wrt reference levels.

The DTS Master Audio Suite User Guidelines, in the section discussing making a 5.1 downmix from a 7.1 source, states: It also states: So a) it looks like the -3 dB default can be easily changed to 0 dB. And b) if there's any headroom problem, it can be flagged and addressed before mastering.

So we agree that none of this has anything to do with the AVR, which is dutifully playing the source exactly as encoded.
I admit I didn't make myself clear enough. I brought DTS as an example because if they default a -3 dB attenuation for a 7.1 downmixed, how could Dolby leave TrueHD to be downmixed without attenuation? Usually it's DTS that follows Dolby's specifications.
Pacific Rim's 7.1 downmixed sounds lower than the 5.1 when played back (the end credits music is an easy on-the-fly test).
The 5.1 track embedded in a TrueHD 7.1 is actually a separate stream and not really a core without MLP; that's why there's no -3 dB attenuation.

But in the Atmos case, objects metadata are just "coordinates" or actual loudness content? Playing Atmos without decoding Objects does get or not an attenuation?
 
#4,518 ·
This is just one more example why Dolby needs to really get its act together in regards to these demos and press/public relations meetings. Some information being bandied about is as inconsistent as their audio demonstrations at various event locations themselves.
Dan.. no offense but this detail (how they process audio for the enabled speakers) is hardly important to how the system works as whole (except for those that think they can build their own up firing speakers, which would be relegated to the few here..)

You've heard from countless people about how well it works... do it matter where the EQ is happening?

I think you confuse the understanding of what Dolby has disseminated by some to the quality of the information they have released publicly.

Shoot the messenger in many cases, IMO... I've posted some incorrect information, all of my own doing.

They haven't relasesd a lot of information themselves and have stated when a lot of the details will be released (CEDIA.)

And how exactly have the demos been inconsistent? And exactly what information has Dobly provided (that you can prove came directly form them) that needs explaining?

Just curious....
 
#4,519 ·
And how exactly have the demos been inconsistent? And exactly what information has Dobly provided (that you can prove came directly form them) that needs explaining?

Just curious....
My question would be why everyone in one group seem to prefer the upfiring speakers and in the other group everyone preferred the on ceiling speakers.
Btw, this isn't a knock, just a curiosity.
 
#4,520 · (Edited)
Dan.. no offense but this detail (how they process audio for the enabled speakers) is hardly important to how the system works as whole (except for those that think they can build their own up firing speakers, which would be relegated to the few here..)

You've heard from countless people about how well it works... do it matter where the EQ is happening?

I think you confuse the understanding of what Dolby has disseminated by some to the quality of the information they have released publicly.

Shoot the messenger in many cases, IMO... I've posted some incorrect information, all of my own doing.

They haven't relasesd a lot of information themselves and have stated when a lot of the details will be released (CEDIA.)

And how exactly have the demos been inconsistent? And exactly what information has Dobly provided (that you can prove came directly form them) that needs explaining?

Just curious....
None taken. In the grand scheme of things, if it works, it works irrespective of where the extra height effects processing is done. I agree. I would also think that this would take place in the receiver or pre-amp/processor and not in the "Atmos" speaker itself. It just seems more logical.

And yet, if you look at what some reports of experiences and thoughts from these Dolby demo/meet n' greet press events have talked about, like Scott Wilkinson's, they were getting some inconsistent information from Dolby (compared to what you and others have talked about on this and other threads), and the presentations themselves seemed to have 100% totally different opinions and outcomes about what were the better height effect speakers ("enabled" or in-ceiling), etc. based on said home theater demos. That makes me curious as to what caused this total 180 discrepancy.

The placement and "calibration" of their ceiling speakers didn't seem to be as well thought out either (compared to discussions on this board). They're aimed straight down at the ground, for one thing. Are they consciously trying to play-up the Atmos enabled speakers? I'm just not sure what their motivation was here? And yet Scott's "team" agreed that the ceiling surrounds were the more effective means of reproducing the height effects. Again, a complete reversal of Keith's (and others') group experiences.

More than one person has mentioned that the movie demo material (especially the Star Trek clip) didn't highlight Atmos' benefits very well (compared to the other "unmentionable" movie clip that Keith heard) and their cinema auditoriums were playing material too loudly and were harsh sounding. That diminished the effectiveness of the demos.

You would admit that Dolby needs to address some of these issues, if this is indeed the case. Wouldn't they want to show home Atmos (a fine technology, I'm sure) and the Atmos format in general in the best light possible?
 
Top