Originally Posted by AYanguas
I am also disappointed by the lack of AURO-3D content, specifically in rock (prog) music.
At least, we can upmix with Auromatic the 5.1 tracks of many albums.
I find it depends on what effect you're looking for. Auromatic creates a nice ambient sound (like you're in a more reflective room like a small concert hall, especially for chamber music, orchestral and perhaps jazz), but if you want Pink Floyd type effects where sound effects and some music bits come from the sides or behind you (let alone above), Auromatic is the worst one, IMO. I think Neural X sometimes goes too far with the overhead effects for things like large instruments, but sometimes it may be what you want. Overall, I think I like Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) the best for rock music. It puts some things in the sides/rears, but doesn't go crazy with overhead effects like Neural X (i.e. main vocals and forward instruments stay at a normal height).
With respect to moving sounds all around and enveloping bubble effects for music, it seems some producers will begin to do something with Dolby Atmos. I always mention Matt Darey (Wolf & Retrospective Dolby Atmos albums) as a reference of this.
As I said, the problem with Atmos is that while it can work well (like say Dark Side of the Moon sounds interesting in Quad and/or the Sony 5.1 remix), it's not the same as recording the actual space. If you listen to the music (and even the sound effects) included on the Auro-3D demo discs, they are binaural like, in that the room disappears and you really feel like you're wherever the sounds or music was recorded. The pipe organ really feels like you're in the church with your eyes closed, for example or that Amsterdam city square all around you. This isn't a result of Atmos panned/object effects at all. They used a dual quad-microphone (4 spaced microphones repeated at two height levels and/or more for center/center height and top surround depending on which format of Auro it was recorded in). That creates 8-11 sources of recorded sound that play back precisely in that number of speakers discretely. It creates a holographic like sound field all around you. It's AMAZING sounding, but that is NOT what you get with actual movies in Auro-3D. You get some panned version, usually a hand-me-down from Atmos and that's why Auro-3D movies sound very similar to their Atmos counterparts here (I own 10 movies in Auro-3D, 7 of which I also have in Atmos to compare).
So even if they start releasing some nice concerts or albums in Dolby Atmos, it's going to be more Pink Floyd and less "Binaural" like in presentation. The difference with binaural is anyone with a dummy head and some microphones can make their own binaural concert recordings (you could probably create ear inserts for your own head with microphones on them even to get a precise match) whereas creating your own Auro-3D or Atmos recordings using fixed layouts and microphones is typically beyond the consumer level and there's very little market for it.
Besides, you might get GREAT acoustics in a church or concert hall, but rock concerts have traditionally been in larger venues with poor acoustics (like stadiums, night clubs and outdoor arenas). What ambience are you going to hear? People clapping around you? Generally, it's considered "not worth it" to bother with surround versions, let alone binaural as the sound is crappy in the real venue and probably sounds better off the mixing board when remixed for a CD/BD. I just think it's kind of a shame that Auro-3D's best trick is the dual-quad mic that makes it sound 10x better than Atmos or X when recordings are made that way, but even though you COULD do a print-through channel limited 7.1.4 type track with Atmos or X recorded that way (that would still expand with Neural X or whatever fairly well), you aren't LIKELY to get it because Dolby didn't design Atmos with "binaural-like" fixed channel microphone layouts in mind to make recordings that way. It's designed for objects and objects <> binaural-like. Dual-quad microphones on Auro-3D are EXACTLY analogous to multi-channel immersive as dummy head mics are for binaural headphones that sound holographic (so long as the dummy head is reasonably close to your own).
If there is a small market for this for Dolby Atmos, I’m afraid there is NO option at all for AURO-3D to take off in the Home and music market.
I think it's an absolute mistake to conflate the two for the reasons stated above. I would gladly buy an Auro-3D dual-quad version of an album I'm looking to buy over Atmos every single time for those reasons (reality versus a mixing session) and really, there's room on Blu-Rays for BOTH Atmos and Auro-3D and even X too if it's only music and/or you don't have to store some 2.5-3 hour movie on the disc with it. I have one Auro-3D BD album that has stereo, 5.1 and Auro-3D mixes on it. It's not hard to downmix multi-channel to 5.1 and stereo regardless of whether it's dual-quad or panned surround effects.
The trick would be to get a label to make Atmos recordings using a similar microphone setup for 7.x.4. You'd need ideally 11 microphones on a boom stick and a fixed playback layout instead of objects moving around. That is the one time I'd fully support print-through fixed layouts in Atmos because the holographic-like results are worth it. It would be better in DTS:X, though as Neural X can expand it to 30.2 channels in DTS:X Pro just the same without losing the basic effect whereas Atmos might end up with some "holes" in it in larger rooms/systems unless you used something like Trinnov's remapping technology to use mulitple speakers to simulate larger versions of traditional setups.