Originally Posted by Gene DellaSala
Hi guys, I saw this thread discussing Tom's article. Yes he is a glass half empty kind of guy and he wrote this as an opinion piece similar to how we've written articles in the past about HD DVD vs Blu-ray, DVD-A vs SACD, 3DTV, etc. We are actually working on a glass half-full kind of article on the 5 reasons why Atmos may succeed in the home environment. These type of articles are good to generate discussion and hopefully gain further knowledge on the topic.
Dolby was obviously not amused by our Youtube video so we weren't invited to their demos
Oh well. I did send several emails asking questions like:
- What benefit does a traditional 5.1/7.1 speaker layout have with Atmos if someone doesn't add height or Atmos-enabled speakers?
- What are the BW requirements for an Atmos-enabled speaker?
- Would a user be able to adopt a single set of already installed in-ceiling back surround speakers as Atmos speakers?
- How will room correction systems EQ the Atmos Enabled speaker if Dolby has a specific target curve in mind?
- How does the AVR calculate level and distance of Atmos speakers during auto-setup?
These are questions nobody in the mainstream press are asking. And I think they are questions worth asking.
But I never got a reply to these questions. In my view its still very unclear how a standard 7.1 setup would benefit from Atmos despite it being marketed as object based audio with speaker remapping.
Gene.. Actually most of those questions were asked by the press at the event I was at.
Dolby is going to release the answers to those questions around CEDIA time, in person at the show and through the release of in depth white papers. That was reported by me and others in the main Atmos thread.
They did say they want the Atmos enable speakers to reproduce from around 180Hz and up at reference SPL levels...
Dolby stated very clearly at the over hour long press q and a I was at that how the room correction and speaker setup is handled is up to the CE's to implement...
So your questions 4 and 5 are answered with a simple "depends on what manufacturer you are talking about."
For example, it appears as if Denon requires a fairly standard speaker placement.... that won't be true for others.. since almost all of the announced products are simple evolutions of existing products and platforms, it's little wonder that they aren't as flexible as they might be down the road. I can conceded that this might limit the ability to implement Atmos for some at launch, it's not really wise to assume these first products are the end all be all for Atmos.. far from it.
I think Dolby would recommend adding a pair of front enabled speakers to your proposed rear ceiling speakers if they are more towards the back of the room... I think they recommend either one pair of overheads or two equally spaced sets for best results.
At this time there is no benefit for those with 5.1 and 7.1 spearer setups.
It is up to the manufacturer to implement speaker rampaging..
Who exactly has stated Atmos includes such a feature? It uses the available speakers to render to, but the measurements of the room and the speakers, and what to do with that data, is up to the CE's to implement.
On a side note and commentary..
Are you really surprised at how Dolby has reacted to your video, and their apparent lack of outreach to you in the wake of it's release?
I assume you weren't invited to the NYC press event.
At the LA event, many I spoke to were as skeptical as you about the up firing speakers and many of the points you've raised. to suggest the press isn't making the kind of inquiries you are is misinformed as you weren't there to hear them asked.. that they haven't reported on such answers, or Dolby stated they would answer them in a certain time period.
If you think publishing this article calling a technology DOA without your supposed upcoming counterpoint the right way to make such points I disagree.
And to keep commenting about a new technology (Elevation, which isn't just a speaker but DSP) ever hearing it makes
me wonder what standards you are using for objective journalism.
To then think Dolby is going to respond to you in a timely manner after such postings is a little naive, don't you think?
While the job of the press is certainly to be skeptical and find the truth, this article, without it's counterpoint, seems out of balance to me.
I'm in no way saying the author has no right to his opinion... it's the title and tone of his points that put me off personally, but many others find much to agree with in his points.