This is topic Dolby's new sound system in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001090

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-23-2012, 12:51 PM:
 
from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cinemacon-2012-dolby-new-sound-system-314999

LAS VEGAS-- Dolby Laboratories aims to advance the quality of cinema sound with the introduction of its new Dolby Atmos audio format, this week at CinemaCon.

"We think it is going to be breakthrough," Doug Darrow, senior vp of Dolby’s cinema business, told The Hollywood Reporter, noting that with more "precision and control of sound" in any theater, audio will be more "natural and lifelike."

Atmos is capable of transmitting up to 128 simultaneous and lossless audio channels, and renders from 5.1 up to 64 discrete speaker feeds, according to Dolby.

For sound teams, Atmos enables what Dolby refers to as "object-based mixing" by providing precise control over "placement and movement of individual sounds or 'objects' anywhere within a theater environment."

In order to create these mixes, Dolby reported that it plans to offer a new plug-in for Avid’s ProTools audio postproduction system, and it is also working with console manufacturers to enable support for the new format, which would be "layered" on top of a 7.1 mix.

A trailer mixed in Dolby Atmos will debut this week at CinemaCon for demonstration purposes. It was mixed by Will Files (Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted), and features sound design by Academy Award nominee Erik Aadahl (Transformers: Dark of the Moon).

Dolby said the mix could be delivered to theaters on standard Digital Cinema Packages (which are used today and are effectively the digital equivalent of a film print).

Exhibitors will need to outfit theaters for the format. According to Dolby, theater owners can still use the "majority of their existing sound system" though additional speakers and amplification must be installed. Dolby estimated that an "average mid-size" theater could expect to make an investment of around $25,000-$30,000 for this upgrade.

Audio equipment manufacturer Harman Professional is working with Dolby to design specialized loudspeakers to support the Atmos format.

Dolby is set to begin a limited deployment of Atmos in the U.S., Europe, China and Japan, and the first feature with an Atmos mix might be released as early as this summer. A larger rollout is planned for 2013.

~~

let the flaming begin!
 

---

Posted by Andy Frodsham (Member # 4061) on 04-23-2012, 03:33 PM:
 
They should have made this announcement on April 1st!
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-23-2012, 05:00 PM:
 
Cool! Now showing in Dolby 127.1!

Something else the major chains can upcharge for the privilege of providing to you.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-23-2012, 05:07 PM:
 
This seems a little premature, considering that the basic D-Cinema rollout is still underway.

I'm not sure how many exhibitors will spring for an "optional" component when they're still in the midst of coping with the cost of purchasing and installing projectors. (Which ain't cheap.)

And now there's talk of projector upgrading, too. (HFR, 4K...)

Also, let's not forget what happened with SDDS-8. As long as there's a 5.1 downmix available, cinemas will probably just go with that. And, as long as studios know that the 5.1 will be the de-facto standard, they won't spring for the added time (and expense) required to mix anything more complicated than that.

No users --> No product --> No users

And, speaking of learning from the past, I'd also prefer to know that channel assignments have been standardized, so that we're not making this thing up as we go along (like 70mm).

quote:

---

Now showing in Dolby 127.1!

---

Probably 126.2 -- Dual-channel subs have advantages.
 

---

Posted by Marin Zorica (Member # 1716) on 04-23-2012, 05:26 PM:
 
I share opinios with you guys......but hey, when D-Cinema came I don't know what is pourpose to "invent" sound systems? There are wav files and normally 16ch supported, and with basicly adding some sort of compressing you can put how much channels as you like (theoreticly).......then another thing could be 260.3 channel sound.....only not suitable for smaller rooms because of 263 speakers in it
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-23-2012, 05:43 PM:
 
I still only have 2 ears.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-23-2012, 05:48 PM:
 
Two ears but non-directional sound to hear.

Now, we're prob entering into the world of "ambient" sound.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-23-2012, 06:35 PM:
 
Gee, I guess Dolby was "wrong" when then pronounced 70mm to only need 3 in front and 2/3 surrounds. Louis
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 04-23-2012, 06:59 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-23-2012, 09:27 PM:
 
^ What Bruce said.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-23-2012, 09:48 PM:
 
Any new, "breakthrough" invention that has to have a neologism for a name is automatically bullshit.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 04-23-2012, 09:55 PM:
 
I'm skeptical, but I'll wait to hear it until I make a judgement. Good news is, if it is a hit, it's definitely something that would be pretty hard to achieve at home which is good for the industry.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-23-2012, 11:39 PM:
 
The exhibitors are the ones who really have an interest in promoting the cinema experience -- over the home-theatre experience -- not the studios. There's BIG money in home-video for the studios.

Maybe if exhibitors start producing movies, we might see things happening in cinemas that can't be duplicated at home. But that's a pretty big "maybe" and I still have a hunch, they'd end up being seduced by the big money to be made from a home-video release. Even IMAX movies are on video...

But, whatever -- 128 channels of sound seems excessive. Good luck trying to mix that. You'd never get off the dub stage! (And that will cost a ton of money, too.)

Money is the main challenge here -- the cost to the studios of producing that soundtrack, and the cost to the cinemas of reproducing it.

And, finally, without wanting to state the obvious: They've had 16 channels at their disposal for some time now...and they're only using 7.1 of them. And how often is THAT happening..?
 

---

Posted by Eric Robinson (Member # 2966) on 04-24-2012, 12:05 AM:
 
Neato
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-24-2012, 05:09 AM:
 
Holy crap! Just wait until Jane Campion hears about this!! She rocked the sound in The Piano HARD (blew the roof off... almost sounded like a real goddamn piano) and now she's gonna go nuts creating the mind-numbing, ever-enveloping sound mixes her movies are known for!

quote: Article

---

Atmos is capable of transmitting up to 128 simultaneous and lossless audio channels, and renders from 5.1 up to 64 discrete speaker feeds, according to Dolby.

---

quote: Article

---

Atmos is capable of transmitting up to 128 simultaneous and lossless audio channels, and renders from 5.1 up to 64 discrete speaker feeds, according to Dolby.

---

quote: Manny

---

Good luck trying to mix that.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I think the idea is to take a sound effect and steer it around some sort of 3D globe in the mixing stage so that the sound can travel wherever you put it. I don't think that the sound mixer would be paying attention to each individual channel specifically. He'd just move the sound around and it's basically just for fancy panning.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Good luck trying to mix that.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

Is there a definitive list of the channel assignments for Digital Cinema?

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

Theatrical exhibition can't be Dolby's only play with this. I would imagine that they're coming up with a home version that will be implemented in the next round of home theater receivers.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

No users --> No product --> No users

---

Actually, it's: No users --> No product --> No users --> No Consumer Interest/Demand --> Dead Format

Quite frankly, this almost seems like a knee-jerk reaction by Dolby, who for so long dominated exhibtion sound, to counter the upstart Barco with their new immersive Auro 11.1 sound system, which promotes height channels, as in:



So is Dolby just trying to capture some of Barco's thunder and/or trying to maintain its dominance?

Thing is, even if this can translate into what can be marketed to the Blu-Ray home theatre crowd, and EVEN if guys like us who love surround sound would want to put this in our home theatres, realistically, what size market is that? What proportion of the "home theatre" market actually have a separate theatre rather than a setup in the living room and what woman will let her hubby, no matter how enthusiastic he is about Atmos, will let him put speakers all over the room? and UP ON THE CEILING?!

So if this format can't also be pushed into the consumer market, good luck with studios mixing for it if the only market is the commercial cinema. But let's for the moment say some productions did get the Atmos umpteen channel treatment, then it's all on the exhibitor to spend and install the extra stuff which he will do ONLY if he thinks he can sell this to the public and more importantly, if the public will BUY it. My gut says, No, they won't. Anyone hear any demand for 7.1 from Joe and/or Jane Public? Anyone REALLY think either Joe or especially Jane them will PAY EXTRA for Atmos or even choose a multiplex based on sound format?

I just went to see a movie...in a movie neighborhood multipled...walked up to the b.o. and asked for a ticket. The young man said, "That will be $13.50 please." I said, "No, no, son, not the IMAX theatre." He said, "Sir, that's the price for the regular cinemas." I was grateful he didn't immediately offer me the senior discount, truly I was, but I said to myself, screw this, and then said "Senior ticket please." He was kind enough to say "Really? Wow." Bless the lad. My point is, $13 effin dollars to see a MOVIE?!! What are these guys charging for IMAX and IMAX 3D? Wasn't this much as recently as 6 months ago.
 

---

Posted by Christos Mitsakis (Member # 143) on 04-25-2012, 09:15 AM:
 
Dolby Atmos Theatre Tech Guidelines

Dolby Atmos white paper

Perhaps they should be posted also here in the warehouse.
C.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-25-2012, 09:23 AM:
 

quote: Frank Angel

---

So if this format can't also be pushed into the consumer market, good luck with studios mixing for it if the only market is the commercial cinema.

---

Mixing for Atmos -or rather, doing the computer-based digital sound design for it shouldn't be difficult. As I said earlier, modern audio editing applications already allow the user to individually position and move every audio element in the mix around the surround field and change it along the time line. The current surround steering metaphor is a flat, 2D clock-like model. All Dolby and the audio editing software people have to do is create a more 3D oriented positioning metaphor in the editor and an export module to target the Atmos format.

If Atmos support is implemented properly in software it should be possible for editors to open other existing projects originally tailored for 5.1/7.1 and scale them over to Atmos. But those old mixes would be based on more of a level plane matching a traditional theater speaker layout, but various fly-by effects and what not would move about the sound field more smoothly.

The real issue is hardware cost to the theater. Both in terms of initial install and sound system maintenance. Many theaters are already very lax on keeping sound systems properly maintained. Atmos, or Barco's 11.1 thing, would make it a bigger issue. Atmos will require a more complex amplification scheme (according to Dolby's white paper, one channel of amplification for every speaker). Dolby probably won't be selling its Atmos processor for cheap either.

This system probably won't work so well in stadium seated theaters. Where are the back wall sub-woofers going to be installed?

I can't be the only one who thinks customers are simmering with anger over all the various upcharges at theaters. 3D: upcharge. Big screen: upcharge. Balcony seating: upcharge. Big cushy seat with a waiter call button: upcharge. Sound done well or loud: upcharge. Add to this some serious cost inflation at the snack counter. It's getting pretty damned ridiculous.

It's a guarantee Dolby Atmos will add another upcharge to an already expensive movie ticket price, especially when install costs are estimated between $20K and $30K. The idea that one theater can have an "Atmos done right" installation while another can install "Atmos half-assed" and still gouge the customer should be a warning to Dolby. They better have some enforceable standards to protect customers.
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-25-2012, 11:39 AM:
 
It uses a kind of routing metadata approach. This is certainly smart, but in no way different from immSound and Auro-3D.

Plus - it makes the whole postproduction and distribution scheme dependent of Dolbys metadata protocol and thus licensing. That's the smart part of the abstraction of channels. Channels can not be patented and licensed.

The audio and metadata is placed within the DCP - that means, you need a special DCI server to access and feed this data to the Atmos Dolby processor. Or e.g. a Doremi with a Dolby Atmos license package. So far no server/IMB has provision to output or input the additional audio channels and routing metadata. Guess what that means.

You will also need Dolby equipment and license for localization/dubbing. And home video compilations. Dolby is once more trying to rule the world. Will they succeed? Even more than with EX and 7.1, I guess...

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-25-2012, 12:05 PM:
 
I remain skeptical. Some people think 5.1 is good enough. And there's other people who just don't care.

The cost outlay for theaters is big, and this is on top of all the d-cinema and 3D costs. Theaters aren't doing as good a job maintaining existing sound systems as it is. The Atmos setup (at least done properly) is far more complex. I don't know if it will require theaters to replace existing d-cinema servers with Dolby-branded servers.

I'm still wondering about how a Dolby Atmos audio stream will be encoded, such as its bit rate and foot print on a hard disc. They talk about having all the elements in a mix separated into discrete objects that can be positioned anywhere in the room. The thing is a movie mix in its editable form can have literally hundreds of separate audio elements placed on the time line. This can consume a fuck-ton of hard drive space and bandwidth. I'm guessing some kind of compromise has to be made somewhere, especially if a Dolby Atmos track is going to fit on a standard DCP hard disc alongside the movie video.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-25-2012, 01:36 PM:
 
I'm waiting for the announcement from Sony that they would be resurrecting 8-channel SDDS for inclusion on DCP

...



or at least encode some of the SDDS mixes AND pre-1977 70mm/6-track mixes that had five front channel sound to archive and be able present them as such when DCP's are created

~~

... and here's the first movie to be released in Atmos Dolby Sound:

"Brave" (from Hollywood Reporter)

The Disney release will be mixed in Dolby’s new sound system, which will be installed in as many as 15 theaters.

LAS VEGAS -- Disney/Pixar’s Brave will be the first film to test Dolby's new Atmos format, which was developed to create sound that Dolby says is more "natural and lifelike."

Dolby aims to have the new sound system, which it debuted this week at CinemaCon, installed in 10-15 theaters worldwide for the test, for which Pixar will prepare a special mix of the film.

Seven-time Oscar winner Gary Rydstrom is serving as sound designer and re-recording mixer on the project.

At CinemaCon, sound designer and supervising sound editor Erik Aadahl, who was nominated for an Oscar for his work on Transformers: Dark of the Moon, said of the new format: “This is, I think, the biggest breakthrough in sound that has happened in my career.”

Speaking with The Hollywood Reporter, Aadahl, who did sound design using Atmos on a demonstration trailer that played at CinemaCon, likened the new Dolby format to having a new instrument to play.

“We’ve barely scratched the surface of what we can do with this technology,” he said. “What I could have done on the Transformers movie with this! … And it doesn’t have to be an action movie. It could be lush atmosphere.”

Atmos is capable of transmitting up to 128 simultaneous and lossless audio channels, and renders from 5.1 up to 64 discrete speaker feeds, according to Dolby. Speakers would be positioned around the theater and even overhead to create the immersive experience.

For the sound team, Aadahl noted that it might require some changes. He explained that the mix might add a “slight” amount of time to the schedule thought he expects it would be offset by a simpler process for creating deliverables as the sound team would only need to complete an Atmos mix.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-25-2012, 03:03 PM:
 
Somewhere I read Dolby was working on plug-ins for Pro Tools and similar applications.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner

---

I'm waiting for the announcement from Sony that they would be resurrecting 8-channel SDDS for inclusion on DCP

---

quote: Jonathan Goeldner

---

or at least encode some of the SDDS mixes AND pre-1977 70mm/6-track mixes that had five front channel sound to archive and be able present them as such when DCP's are created

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I'm still wondering about how a Dolby Atmos audio stream will be encoded, such as its bit rate and foot print on a hard disc. They talk about having all the elements in a mix separated into discrete objects that can be positioned anywhere in the room. The thing is a movie mix in its editable form can have literally hundreds of separate audio elements placed on the time line. This can consume a fuck-ton of hard drive space and bandwidth. I'm guessing some kind of compromise has to be made somewhere, especially if a Dolby Atmos track is going to fit on a standard DCP hard disc alongside the movie video.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

The way this works makes clear

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

In essence, it takes every individual sound, records it discretely and then permits the mixer to position it ANYWHERE in the field. The Atmos box then places it in the proper speaker(s) based upon that positioning data, and yes each auditorium is "mapped" so the sound truly goes EXACTLY where it is supposed to go, even if you have a funky shaped auditorium.

This means the mixers make one Atmos mix, and then ANYTHING else can be derived from it, whether it is 11.1 or 7.1 or even 5.1, without any effort or time delays (meaning less post production time).

---

Okay, this is making more sense now.

It is still going to come down to how many movies (and cinemas) adopt the system.

It is a fact that sound formats over-and-above 5.1 don't have a great track-record, including Dolby's own modest attempts to increase the number of channels with EX and, presently, 7.1.

However, 64 channels -- there is a marketing angle for this. You may not appreciate one or two extra channels, but.... 64!!!
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-25-2012, 06:46 PM:
 
What's so complicated to understand that the actual audio mix is not done on the studios mixing stage, but in the auditorium sound processor?

If the processor calls up 4 audio objects to be played from the left screen speaker only, then we play 4 objects through ONE speaker channel. Or up to 128 objects to any or all combinations of 64 speaker channels. It is not just a player, but a mixer/panner. While panning, a single object will as well be played to multiple speaker channels with varying volumens at the same time. But a single object is NOT the full soundtrack, but only a single element of a soundtrack. To make a sound scene complete, multiple objects like music, multiple dialog tracks, atmospheric/background elements, fx, foley, etc. need to be played back simultaneously to the same and/or different speaker channels in realtime in the cinema processor to accomodate for the different speaker layouts and designs.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-25-2012, 06:53 PM:
 
Carsten, it seems pretty clear...

Essentially, it's similar taking a Pro Tools session from one dub stage to another, and playing it back (with automation) in that location.

Basically, the sound doesn't get mastered down to "physical" tracks anymore. Instead, the raw elements and automation are passed on to the cinemas, and the whole mix process (elements and automation) is virtually re-enacted there.

The cinemas will then need to establish their own unique "pan laws" so that the sound goes to the "next-best" location (with a possible level offset) if they don't actually have speakers in an "intended" location.
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-25-2012, 07:10 PM:
 
Yes. Given the fact that EX and 7.1 is relatively easy to retrofit for mixing stages, Distribution AND Cinemas, yet has gained no widerspread use, I have a hard time understanding why Dolby can be too optimistic for Atmos to receive any market acceptance. But who knows what they actually expect to gain there.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 04-25-2012, 07:46 PM:
 
I believe Manny has the most lucid understanding so far.

I do not believe Dolby Labs will have any problem signing films.

"Brave" will be the first according to the demos yesterday.

The mixers seem to like it as they will be able to place objects more precisely than before and there should be no significant increase in this part of posting.

What I appreciate most is that the sound mix will remain an encode/decode process so what the film maker created will be preserved, otherwise we are back in the days of Kintek and other synthetic processors.

I do have some reservations about so much sound going on around you and not in front of you; on the screen.

If I repeated a point already made, sorry, it's been a long show and I did not read the entire thread.
 

---

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 04-25-2012, 09:05 PM:
 
Listened to the demo today. Sounds amazing! I think this is the first time that sound made me smile

They played a few clips. My favorite was the sandstorm scene from Mission Impossible 4. You could literally hear the sound from all directions the wind and the sand zooming all around.

The examples were scenes from Mission Impossible 4, Woman in Black, Planet of the Apes, & The Incredibles. Best part is... the entire scene benefited from the new format. Not just a few gimmicky effects.

LOVE IT
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 04-25-2012, 11:07 PM:
 
If anyone at the demo can comment: did they play the scenes in a normal 5.1/6.1/7.1 config before demoing Atmos for an A/B comparison?

AJG
 

---

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 04-26-2012, 01:23 AM:
 
Aaron, yes, they played a clip of Incredibles in standard 7.1 followed by the Atmos mix. They then did one better, and played the Atmos version with the 7.1 muted, so that we could hear only the added sound objects.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-26-2012, 02:10 AM:
 
I was at the demo today and I have to say I was impressed. I think many of us on Film-Tech, including me, predicted this idea in the past...we were speculating, what's next? Speakers on the ceiling? And so here they are.

Naysayers can gripe all they want, but the sound was impressive. The auditorium had 47 speakers including 5 stage channels. The effects were smooth as silk as they panned around the room. Occasional independent sounds (like a voice) were localized in one spot, rather than just coming from the wall area.

I have a feeling this could go places. Some of the other posters here (Brad, Manny, Steve G) have described it right: The sound effects are placed in the sound field by the mixing engineer, rather than in the individual channels, and then the local system sends the sound to the appropriate speaker(s) in that field based on the speakers available. The system works with how many speakers you have, rather than dictating how many you must have. You can start with just a couple of ceiling speakers right now, for example, and then add more later on as your budget allows.

I don't see a lot of multiplexes doing this in all their auditoriums but it would totally fit in with the "premium" auditorium in a multiplex. If it does catch on, and there is a good stream of movies in the format, I know I'd do it, if we could afford it.

And, Bobby H -- a $25,000 upgrade to a sound system probably won't cause an additional upcharge. With 3-D, you've got a lot more work plus the equipment cost plus ongoing glasses costs (or cleaning costs) -- none of which you would have with this sound upgrade. If anything, a multiplex owner would probably add this to the auditorium he's already charging a premium for, thereby justifying the premium even more.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-26-2012, 04:00 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Form the skimming over this thread I have done thus far, Dolby Atmos is a concept none of you are anywhere near guessing properly.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

And, Bobby H -- a $25,000 upgrade to a sound system probably won't cause an additional upcharge.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Atmos doesn't use parallel tracks but audio objects.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

What's so complicated to understand that the actual audio mix is not done on the studios mixing stage, but in the auditorium sound processor?

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Of course no one is forced to lay down each individual piece of sound into individual channels.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

And, Bobby H -- a $25,000 upgrade to a sound system probably won't cause an additional upcharge.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The main thing I'm wondering is whether a Dolby Atmos track can be included in the same DCP hard disc with the JPEG2000 image stream and 5.1/7.1 LPCM tracks for the vast majority of other d-cinema theaters. Or will the Atmos track be a separately shipped or Internet-streamed item? Is the Atmos track going to be played straight from a Dolby Digital Cinema server alongside the video or will it be something that needs to be loaded separately into the Atmos processor?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Every audio "object" is still going to consume its own share of hard disc space (16 or 24 bits times the 48kHz or 96kHz sample rate) for its duration on the time line.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Yes, but that same sound can be used multiple times in a movie. Have a bunch o' punches? You probably need only 10 or so punch sounds. If the system has any flexibility you could probably change the pitch and duration on the fly.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

And so far, only Dolby servers can deal with the Atmos mix. We will see wether other servers will be enabled at some time. Some thing happened with Dolby 3D.

---

I think Dolby will need to do something along these lines. I just don't see many theaters spending extra money to get rid of non-Dolby d-cinema servers and buying new Dolby-branded servers just to be able to install Atmos.
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-26-2012, 05:02 PM:
 
Me too. But I think even a new server is just a fraction of a full Atmos bill.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-26-2012, 06:38 PM:
 
I'm not worried about file size -- who cares how big the file is?

Nor am I concerned about processing. Pro Tools hardware (formerly Digidesign, now Avid) has been playing and processing hundreds of tracks simultaneously for years now. And, I should hasten to point out that -- in a mix situation -- a Pro Tools system is doing more than just multichannel panning. This kind of playback system won't be called upon to apply filters, EQ, compression, reverberation, fader moves and so on. Just panning. Shouldn't be a problem.

Y'know...In hindsight, I'm shocked we didn't see this sooner. It's a very elegant concept.

BTW, any Sound Effects Editor who re-used the same 10 punches over and over (in one film) wouldn't stay working for very long. At USC, we couldn't even get away with that on our STUDENT films. Traditionally, a body hit (like a punch) is a combination of various elements. An actual punch doesn't sound anything like what you hear in a movie. It's highly constructed and a lot of thought goes into EACH hit. There's a reason those people make the money that they make.

And, yeah -- BAN the "Wilhelm yell." Please!
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-26-2012, 07:30 PM:
 
I, for one, don't see what was so laughable about Mike's surcharge comment. Seemed to me like he's saying that the theaters that install this will probably just use a continuation of surcharges to pay for it rather than making the surcharge higher than it is now.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-26-2012, 08:55 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I just don't see many theaters spending extra money to get rid of non-Dolby d-cinema servers and buying new Dolby-branded servers just to be able to install Atmos.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

I, for one, don't see what was so laughable about Mike's surcharge comment.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

I'm not worried about file size -- who cares how big the file is?

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Nor am I concerned about processing. Pro Tools hardware (formerly Digidesign, now Avid) has been playing and processing hundreds of tracks simultaneously for years now.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Oh look -- he disagrees with me AGAIN.

I'm not on your Christmas Letter mailing list. I get it. And, trust me, I'm not offended.

---

quote:

---

Mike Blakesley
There is a separate Atmos component. Nobody ever said anything about having to install new servers, in fact they specifically stated the Atmos system is installed on top of what you already have and will use as much of your existing equipment as possible.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

BTW, any Sound Effects Editor who re-used the same 10 punches over and over (in one film) wouldn't stay working for very long.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

At USC, we couldn't even get away with that on our STUDENT films.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Traditionally, a body hit (like a punch) is a combination of various elements. An actual punch doesn't sound anything like what you hear in a movie.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

It's highly constructed and a lot of thought goes into EACH hit.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

But probably Dolby simply assumes that anyone with Atmos ambitions will have a Dolby server installed anyway. Or Dolby will license this feature to other server manufacturers like they did with Dolby 3D.

---

I guarantee you the Atmos system will become the defacto standard. It won't happen in the next year or two, but it will happen. This is how movies SHOULD have been mixed for years, but until now the technology has never been there.

My guess is that it will be noticeably more expensive if used with a different server, and not all servers will be technically ABLE to play it back either. Remember the price of Atmos will drop noticeably in the next few years just like digital sound for movies did. The Dolby server is in my opinion the best server out there anyway for all sorts of reasons (from an uptime perspective alone their hardware raid with 4 drive system cannot be beat) but at least with the Dolby server there is no concern for compatibility no Atmos.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-27-2012, 04:53 PM:
 

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Reusing foley sounds in the same feature is recognized even by uneducated audience. It's hilarious. I have seen/heard it in comedies.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

This is how movies SHOULD have been mixed for years, but until now the technology has never been there.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

What is the channel configuration of Barco's 11.1?

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Plus, the name "Barco" sounds like a waste disposal company.

---

Given how fickle the industry can be with these electronics stuff, in a few years they may be one.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 04-30-2012, 12:54 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-30-2012, 07:37 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

They made some really crappy projectors last I used them. Just awful. Any home television set made after 1985 that could tune in a stable picture and was decently adjusted was far better and I say that without exaggeration. I can't imagine the same people doing anything decent with sound. It's like Dolby making 3D or servers or something, or maybe Mitsubishi making electronics or perhaps Ford being a cell phone carrier. Does not compute. If their sound is anything like their projectors were, then it's going to be very blurry/muffled and sound very, very cheap. Plus, the name "Barco" sounds like a waste disposal company.

---

quote: Antti Nayha

---

It’s all in the Auro 3D thread.

---

quote: Daniel Schulz

---

The Barco Auro 3D system is almost-but-not-quite discrete.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Where in my post did I say DCI certified projector? I've never worked with digital cinema. Ever. Never plan to, either. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

too much shit going on and nothing stood out

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

At the risk of sounding like a wet blanket, I'm cynical about the willingness of theaters to adopt it, the willingness of studios to mix for it, the ability of any of the involved parties to market it effectively, and the ability of theaters to keep their equipment calibrated so that it actually means something to the viewer and over the long haul.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

the Atmos component comes after the amplifiers in the chain and that component handles the distribution of the sound to the speakers

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

......Would a steel tube or aluminum extrusion cause noise or interference in speaker wires run inside of it? A lot of speaker wire has to be run unshielded. I'm wondering if having such wire run inside of aluminum or steel would cause problems.

---

What would make you think that? Speaker wiring has been run in electrical conduits from booth to screen for literally a hundred years without issues. I have run tri-amp speaker lines with two or four sub lines to the screen all in one (large) conduit without issues. And that is using standard #12 or #10 AWG wire. I have used both individual wires (THHN) and 2 or 4 conductor cable assemblies in this manner.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-09-2012, 02:11 PM:
 
I did an 8 plex where the architect did not allow any attachment to the side walls; using jbl 8330. We originally thought of CB antenna truss because it was cheap. We ended up using 2" plumbing pipe between metal joists above drop ceiling; black steel cables, and black SJO cord. (Original plan was to use the supporting cables as conductors. The architect did not want to see "power cords." No problem on the speaker end, but the need to insulate on the pipe end was a non-starter.) We tied the 2" pipes to the trusses with radiator clamps.

Amazing what you can do with enough money; 14 surrounds times 8 rooms equals 112 installation nightmares. Louis
 

---

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 05-10-2012, 10:38 PM:
 
On Cinetopia's facebook page; they say that they will be putting this system in there Vancouver Mall 23 in their 85 foot screen auditorium.
 

---

Posted by Ray Derrick (Member # 1001) on 05-10-2012, 10:41 PM:
 
Hi all, I have been absent from participating in these forums for a rather long time, mainly due to heavy work commitments, but I still read them whenever I can. But I just couldn't help making a comment on this topic

As as a person who spent the first half of his career as a television/studio sound mixing engineer, I love the idea of being able to position sounds in a sound field with a whole lot more precision. Having a single bank of surround speakers on each side wall of a cinema was always a limitation that deserved inprovement.

However....

One of the major considerations in the creation of the DCI Specification was getting rid forever of proprietary exhibition technologies. The idea was that exhibitors should be able to choose projection/sound equipment from a variety of competing manufacturers and not be bound to just one or two companies that are trying to monopolise certain aspects of movie production. Yet here we have Dolby (and Barco) trying desperately bring back the bad old days of monopolisation.

The big question is are the big six movie production companies that created the DCI Spec really going to let this happen?

In the real world, the need for such a high degree of sound location in a movie theatre is highly doubtful. In my experience the vast majority of cinema goers don't even understand (or care) what surround sound is. As long as the sound is of good quality is all that seems to matter to most people. Just consider how many times have you walked into someone's home and noticed their nice new 5.1 sound system speakers are all in completely the wrong places? They have bought the system simply because their neighbours all have 5.1 and besides, it sounds bigger and better than their TV speakers. I truly feel most people are far more impressed by the sub-bass than they are with surround effects.

There is also the issue (and in my opinion the futility) of trying to create a vertical sound field when (as Steve Guttag has rightly pointed out) human hearing is rather poor at localising sound in the vertical axis. If we had an ear on the top of our head and another under our chin, things would be very different. Ceiling speakers were a part of Dolby's original Suround-EX scheme but the idea was never promoted because it was an ineffective and difficult to implement addition. To most people in the audience, the sound would seem to come from the middle of the room, not from above. It would be barely distinguishable from sounds panned equally between the left and right surrounds.

Yet here we are with not one, but multiple "channels" of ceiling speakers?

It would seem far more sensible to make full use of the current 16 x DCI audio channels, by splitting up the exisiting four possible surround channels into a greater number channels, say eight or twelve. The difference between being able to localise a sound to single surround speaker as opposed to a group of surround speakers, will be barely distinguishable to the audience in typical cinema auditorium.

None the less, I have to congratulate Dolby on coming up with a way to re-invent themselves at time when they had been well and truly shown the door.

As an aside, no doubt Dolby Atmos will also see the re-introduction of the "Dolby Consultant", often an expensive stooge (with usually far less knowledge and experience than the sound engineer he is supposedly overseeing).
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 05-10-2012, 11:09 PM:
 
I am happy to see that Ray's long absence has not had an adverse effect on his bitterness.

I won't bother to debate the technical points as time will tell, but calling audio technicians that work for Dolby Labs stooges is pretty strong.

If Ray has a specific story to tell, tell it already.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-10-2012, 11:13 PM:
 
I can't fault Dolby for promoting Atmos even with it being a closed, proprietary, exclusive technology.

Regular D-cinema isn't really doing Dolby any favors in terms of marketing. I can't recall ever seeing a movie poster that touted Dolby Digital Cinema or even Dolby 3D for that matter. Real-D and IMAX 3D get ink on movie posters. The only thing I see Dolby-related on movie posters and movie end credits is the old, data lossy, 35mm film-based Dolby Digital audio format. It won't be long before we see the logos for 35mm film sound formats (Dolby Digital, Datasat/DTS and SDDS) get eliminated from movie posters, trailers, TV commercials and end credit runs.

If Dolby did nothing the company would see its name disappear from the cinema side of movie marketing. To consumers the company would only be visible on home video and there only in increasingly limited form with DTS dominating the Blu-ray market.

First and foremost Dolby Atmos is an opportunity to revolutionize cinema sound. And it will do it if commercial theaters are willing to adopt the format as well correctly install and maintain it. Atmos gives Dolby an opportunity to get the company name prominently displayed in movie marketing without a 35mm process being involved.

quote: Ray Derrick

---

One of the major considerations in the creation of the DCI Specification was getting rid forever of proprietary exhibition technologies.

---

quote:

---

It would seem far more sensible to make full use of the current 16 x DCI audio channels, by splitting up the exisiting four possible surround channels into a greater number channels, say eight or twelve.

None the less, I have to congratulate Dolby on coming up with a way to re-invent themselves at time when they had been well and truly shown the door.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

The way Dolby Atmos was presented to me was that unlike other formats, it resides within the 5.1 (or 7.1) mix.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The only way I could see this being possible is if the Atmos track was fake embedded in the LPCM 5.1 or 7.1 track similar to the way Dolby Digital tracks are hidden alongside Dolby TrueHD tracks on Blu-ray disc.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Not only that, they should have standardized down-mxing from 5 stage channels to 3 since the DCI specification has Right Extra and Left Extra channels assigned.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

The Atmos data is not track-based but file based. The Atmos mixing system supports creating a plain-vanilla 5.1 or 7.1 mix for backwards compatibility.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Every system has it's own strenghts and weaknesses. I doubt that any of them will gain significant market dominance.

---

I like the concept behind Dolby Atmos quite a bit more. I've been wanting something like 10.2 Surround installed in movie theaters for over a decade. Atmos has the potential to be much better than that. Underscore the word potential.

Formats like Dolby Atmos and Barco's Auro 11.1 will go nowhere without both the support of movie studios providing mixes in those formats as well as theaters installing the more elaborate sound systems and properly maintaining them.

Home video is a big enemy to either of those formats. The bean counters who run Hollywood have a one-track mind of getting movies into home video release as fast as possible. The way they see it: why spend any extra money on an Atmos or 11.1 mix that will be played for only a few weeks in theaters when the home video mix will only be 5.1/7.1 and be played for years afterward?

One advantage Dolby Atmos will have if the software is designed properly is it shouldn't really cause any huge change or create lots of extra work for sound designers. That might make it relatively simple for a lot of movies to be mixed and released in the Atmos format. Still, if there is extra licensing costs involved the studio bean counters might balk at that. The biggest issue is getting movie theaters to spend the big money installing it.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-12-2012, 04:46 PM:
 
One thing I haven't heard yet is how ATMOS handle regular 5.1 and also the common 7.1 mixes. ATMOS isn't an add-on like Dolby Digital, it must be its own sound processor. No other processor can do 64 channels, after all. So do you tell ATMOS that you want these speakers over here to represent the left surround? And these cluster of speakers over here to represent the right? Or does it figure it out for itself. If so, it sounds like anybody can install ATMOST, no technician required. You certainly won't need somebody skilled to EQ the room or set the levels, that's for sure. If you can hook up a home stereo receiver, you can install an ATMOS system, it just might take a few more minutes.

Also, how do you guys pronounce ATMOS? Do you say it like "Dolby is at most a poor man's Panalogic". Or do you say it like you say you're at Kate Moss's house? "I'm over at Moss right now. Tons of Coke for everyone! Oh, and Coca-cola, too!"
 

---

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 05-12-2012, 10:52 PM:
 
More on Cinetopia

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150877147479485&set=a.10150877137974485.431276.6570614484&type=3&theater

GXL #1, with an 85 foot screen, and the Atmos Dolby 128 channel sound system. — at Cinetopia Vancouver Mall 23.

Is this the first one?

(The comments are interesting.)
 

---

Posted by Ray Derrick (Member # 1001) on 05-13-2012, 10:27 AM:
 
On Dolby's website announcing Dolby Atmos:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/dolby-atmos.html

Ioan Allen states in the video:

"The theatres want an immersive experience that is something superior to anything that the public can have in the home, because that's what keeps the cinema business driving..."

Yet in an article on Hollywood reporter website:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/peter-jackson-hobbit-dolby-atmos-318708

about Peter Jackson considering atmos for the Hobbit. At the end of the article is this sentence:

"Dolby indicated that after a cinema launch, the “longer term” goal is to bring an Atmos experience to the living room, including on tablets, PCs and mobile devices."

So theatres will have something the public can't have in their home for what, maybe 6 to 12 months?

Also 128 audio channels on your mobile device? So those little push-in-your-ear headphones will soon have an array of 128 sub-miniature speakers? Now that will be revolutionary
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-13-2012, 10:43 AM:
 
One of the things about ATMOS is that it is scalable. In the home, without a perforated screen in a projection environment, you are never going to really create the behind-the-screen audio experience.

There is also the difference between what can be attempted in the home and what will be realized. 4K for instance...yes, it can be had in the home...but the incremental benefit on such a small scale is notably less.

People can and have put Cinerama in the home...but now you are talking about a VERY small percentage of potential homes that would attempt such a thing. Most homes are dictated by aesthetics which often combat technical excellence. Every time I've had to make invisible surround work...it has been a struggle to make them work well.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-13-2012, 10:56 AM:
 
I'm still wondering how this can fit in with IMAX branded big screen theaters. IMAX has their own branded sound systems. While they boast a lot of wattage (at least the film-based screens do) they're just pretty straight forward sound systems. Would the IMAX company allow a different brand of sound system into its theaters?

This kind of brings back the whole question about whether Dolby Atmos will involve some kind of surcharge to the ticket price. At the very least, I figure Atmos will be installed in premium priced auditoriums that are trying to copy the IMAX Digital concept.

A multiplex with an IMAX Digital screen might not be open to installing Dolby Atmos on another screen or two if it is going to steal premium priced sales from the "Lie-MAX" screen. I wouldn't put it past the IMAX company to make demands its theater partners don't equip neighboring screens with processes that threaten to upstage the IMAX installation.

quote: Mike Frese

---

GXL #1, with an 85 foot screen, and the Atmos Dolby 128 channel sound system.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

One thing I haven't heard yet is how ATMOS handle regular 5.1 and also the common 7.1 mixes. ATMOS isn't an add-on like Dolby Digital, it must be its own sound processor. No other processor can do 64 channels, after all. So do you tell ATMOS that you want these speakers over here to represent the left surround?

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Yeah, but that doesn't answer my question about it. Can you allocate clusters of speakers to act as one channel? Are you allowed to EQ those channels? You're not allowed to EQ individual channels in ATMOS from what Steve Guttag has said. I think the bottom line is that nobody here knows jack shit about ATMOS yet.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

If a cinema is upgrading to Atmos, they won't ever need to mix anything DOWN to 5.1.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Except that not all movies will be mixed for ATMOST. And to me ATMOS would be a replacement for any existing sound processor.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

But I imagine with ATMOS the speakers are going to be all over the wall, top to bottom front to back.

---

In the demo theater they were just in single rows on each wall, like any normal surround system. The ceiling speakers were in two rows on the ceiling, front to back. I would say the two rows were about 15 to 20 feet from each side wall. I'm not sure what size the screen was, maybe 50-foot.

I suppose the idea of multiple rows of side surround speakers will be brought up for Atmos II!
 

---

Posted by Jeff Kane (Member # 6372) on 05-16-2012, 12:57 PM:
 
IMO this'll translate quite well to the home and will likely do wonders to keep Dolby relevant in the home theater venue.

Lots of receivers/pre-amps already have quite sophisticated room-correction software/processing. They also have web interfaces. I imagine it wouldn't be a far leap to have the ability to 'draw' the room and place the speakers accordingly to tell the receiver what's where. Combine that with the auto-EQ that's already possible and the home experience would actually end up markedly improved on ATMOS and standard 5.1/7.1 even if no additional speakers are installed. Maybe.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-16-2012, 02:13 PM:
 
A couple Dolby Atmos white papers (in PDF) I downloaded from Dolby's web site had diagrams which clearly showed just one horizontal row of speakers for the side wall surrounds. Atmos adds two additional rows of speakers on the ceiling from the screen to the back of the room.

Dolby Atmos adds more speakers to left and right side surround array to fill the transitional gap between the edge of the screen and side surround speakers. Depending on the theater's configuration more side surround speaker cabinets could be added along the row to tighten the spacing between the side surround speakers. In a 5.1/7.1 mode I imagine Atmos would just use only the limited number of side surround speakers that would have been used previously.

Another odd thing that won't make 5.1/7.1 operation entirely seamless: all of the surround speakers on the side walls and ceiling must be re-aimed toward certain areas of the auditorium. Dolby's PDFs have diagrams that show how the speakers are supposed to be aimed. Those aiming methods are designed for Atmos, but may not be so great for the more diffuse aiming of the standard split/quad surround layout.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-16-2012, 04:25 PM:
 

quote: Manny Knowles

---

So, of course it would be able to play back 7.1 without needing to down mix to 5.1.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

A couple Dolby Atmos white papers (in PDF) I downloaded from Dolby's web site had diagrams which clearly showed just one horizontal row of speakers for the side wall surrounds.

---

Leave it to the guy not in the industry to be the only one able to answer my question, though in fairness Mike did tell of his experience as well. So 5.1 and 7.1 will just use side/back wall speakers then. All of them, like normal.

So basically Atmos just adds a bunch of ceiling surrounds and makes each speaker its own channel and (I presume) some height channels behind the screen as well as subwoofers in every corner?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-16-2012, 04:39 PM:
 
It can provide for up to 5 screen channels. Apparently, no limit on the number of subs!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-16-2012, 05:09 PM:
 
It does prescribe subwoofers for the use with the "surround" information. It "recommends" five screen channels for wider screens.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-16-2012, 05:56 PM:
 
Here is one of the diagrams from the Dolby Atmos Technical Guidelines PDF showing surround speaker placement:



I'll repeat what I said earlier how it seems like Atmos would be best suited to a traditional sloped auditorium rather than a stadium seated design with a steeper seating slope. Alliteration much?
 

---

Posted by Ray Derrick (Member # 1001) on 05-16-2012, 08:53 PM:
 
The wall speakers are angled for obvious reasons. What the diagram does not show is that ceiling speakers towards the front and rear would also need to be angled for the same reasons.

So this diagram shows a system with 51 channels, if you include five screen channels and 4 individual sub bass channels (which just happens to be 5.1 x 10) .....

Bobby, I don't see why it would not work equally well with stadium seating. The only potential issue would be that the speakers on the ceiling would be further way from the audience at the front than at the rear, but this will probably be handled using staggered delays. The fact that the rear surrounds will be higher than the front I think will not be an issue due to our poor ability to localise sounds in the vertical axis.

I suspect that the majority of theatres that adopt this system will simply split their existing surround speaker arrays into individual channels and maybe add an extra surround speaker or two closer to the screen. I can't imagine too many will be willing to entertain the considerable cost of adding celing speakers. But we shall see.

One big problem I have with the whole concept is this... Sound mixing engineers will place sounds at different points around the "sound hemisphere", based on where they are sitting when they mix it, which is nearly always in the "sweet spot". For anyone else in the room, the more distant they are from the sweet spot, the more the sound will appear to come from a quite different direction.

Imagine a sound that is placed half way down the left side wall. For the sound mixer it will appear to be positioned on the left side and a little to the front. For audience sitting on the left side of the room, particularly those closest to the wall, those sitting forward of half way will perceive the sound as coming mostly from behind, whereas those sitting rearward of half way will perceive the sound as coming mostly from in front of them.

With the present system using speaker arrays this problem hardly exists, but with multiple surround channels it will become a major consideration.

However for the simple act of panning a helicopter around or over the audience (which seems to be the only example Dolby can come up with) it will work brilliantly. Will it be worth all that the cash outlay for the very occassional helicopter flying right around the audience?

Seriously though, I know it has many other uses other than for chopper sounds, it will certainly be great for sci-fi and horror movies, where you could swirl sounds around the audience to great effect.

If Dolby were prepared to license this technology to all sound equipment manfacturers (such as USL) I would be 100% behind it. But that is not how it works is it. We will be back to the bad old days where if you want to give your audience an Atmos experience you will have to buy an expensive under-featured Dolby sound processor.

The DCI committee could easily force this on Dolby - such that if they allow it into the DCI spec it must be available to all manufacturers. But I can almost guarantee they are too gutless for that.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-16-2012, 11:11 PM:
 
If Dolby had to license Atmos out to its competitors that would sort of defeat one of the purposes in creating the Atmos format in the first place: to keep the Dolby brand name prominently displayed in cinemas and movie related marketing. Like I said before, we're only a short time away from seeing those Dolby Digital, SDDS and "Datasat" logos associated with 35mm film disappear. D-cinema in its current form is not so Dolby-centric. Linear PCM requires no Dolby audio encoding.

Here is a link to the Dolby white paper:
http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/Dolby-Atmos-Cinema-Technical-Guidelines.pdf

quote: Ray Derrick

---

The wall speakers are angled for obvious reasons. What the diagram does not show is that ceiling speakers towards the front and rear would also need to be angled for the same reasons.

---

quote: Ray Derrick

---

The only potential issue would be that the speakers on the ceiling would be further way from the audience at the front than at the rear, but this will probably be handled using staggered delays.

---

quote: Ray Derrick

---

Imagine a sound that is placed half way down the left side wall. For the sound mixer it will appear to be positioned on the left side and a little to the front. For audience sitting on the left side of the room, particularly those closest to the wall, those sitting forward of half way will perceive the sound as coming mostly from behind, whereas those sitting rearward of half way will perceive the sound as coming mostly from in front of them.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Stadium seated theaters typically have taller areas of cubic air space, yet most of these theaters are using little surround array cabinets that were really designed for standard sloped rooms with much lower ceilings and much lower amounts of cubic air space to manipulate.

---

Like I said several pages ago, the demo theater we heard the system in WAS a stadium theatre with several rows of standard sloped seats in front of the stadium. We were seated about 2/3 up the auditorium in the stadium area. I didn't hear any problems that I would associate with the stadium at all. The surrounds didn't seem "too close."

As far as speaker types, to me all the surround speakers on the ceiling looked exactly alike, although that doesn't really say much -- a black cabinet can have anything in it. I don't remember them talking about what type or brand of speakers were used.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-17-2012, 06:54 PM:
 
Manny, the only way it could work if it were released as an add-on (which would be dumb, but it's Dolby so who knows) is if it worked like SDDS. The old crusty processor would have to hook into it, not into the old crusty processor like the DA20. It would need its own volume control. It would need direct access to all of the amplifiers for each individual surround. It would be rather redundant to keep the old processor around.
 

---

Posted by Ray Derrick (Member # 1001) on 05-17-2012, 10:30 PM:
 
One other morsel of food for thought regarding this system is if you are going to be able to pan the sound of a helicopter (or whatever) seemlessly around the room, speaker by speaker, surely every surround speaker and it's associated amplifier is going to need the same acoustic power capability as the stage channels and thus be capable of delivering a maximum of 105dB SPL.

So presumably existing surround speakers will all have to be upgraded to something very much larger and more powerful than current models.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-17-2012, 10:58 PM:
 
That's an interesting thought! But you're right, each channel will need the ability to produce an adequate SPL on it's own. Should be interesting. Guess those old 8330's probably won't be doing the trick.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-18-2012, 12:07 AM:
 
I guess the idea is to let subwoofers in the rear corners of the auditorium handle the bottom end for the surround speakers. I'm just wondering how well those things will work being tucked up high in the back row of a steeply sloped stadium seated theater.

Like I said earlier, this kind of system would be fantastic for a movie theater like the 1000+ seat General Cinemas Northpark #1 screen. Unfortunately that theater is long gone and any others similar to it that are still in operation probably have their days numbered too.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-18-2012, 12:19 AM:
 
Is that idea of surround-mounted subs in the white paper? It was never mentioned at the demo. The surround speakers were just like typical surround speakers. I assumed that any bass was being handled by the stage subs -- bass being fairly nondirectional.

With that in mind though, I don't remember hearing any explosions that were supposed to be coming from behind (or above)!
 

---

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 05-18-2012, 07:13 AM:
 
The issue of 5.1 and 7.1 material should be a non-issue.

You've got an auditorium with a bucket load of speakers, and a processor which has a virtual "map" of the acoustic space in three dimensions. In Atmos mode each incomming sound element has a position associated with it, and the processor places the element where the mixman says it sould be. So the process is scalable from one speaker up to hundreds of speakers with just one incoming source format.

For an incoming standard 5.1 or 7.1 mix, then that mix also has a "standard" 3D map of where the speakers should be, the same as every theatre which has that system is today. Thus the processor just does the three dimensional map translation and places the 5.1 or 7.1 (or 11.1 or whatever) into the same space. To put it another way, rather than placing 128 elements into the virtual space in the processor, only the channels other than the LFE need to be placed, and tbey dont move, they have fixed locations.

There will probably be a range of these Atmos boxes, with the price tag going up by number of outputs. You would expect that all the obvious features would be in there too, such as crossovers, parametrics, limiters, simple routing to allow non-sync, etc, plus an auto-align system.

In business terms, Dolby is trying quite hard not to do a Kodak by remaining relevant, with DCI discrete audio obviating the need for any audio kit with a Dolby sticker on it. If Atmos doesn't catch on, then if Dolby have any brains at all they will exit the cinema audio business sharpish before it drags them under.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-18-2012, 01:27 PM:
 

quote: Ray Derrick

---

One other morsel of food for thought regarding this system is if you are going to be able to pan the sound of a helicopter (or whatever) seemlessly around the room, speaker by speaker, surely every surround speaker and it's associated amplifier is going to need the same acoustic power capability as the stage channels and thus be capable of delivering a maximum of 105dB SPL.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Is that idea of surround-mounted subs in the white paper?

---

quote: David Buckley

---

If Atmos doesn't catch on, then if Dolby have any brains at all they will exit the cinema audio business sharpish before it drags them under.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Dolby's main problem is keeping its name in view of the general public.

IMAX and Real-D are getting all the promotional ink for 3D. I still never see Dolby 3D mentioned in any promotional material for new movies. Dolby 3D is never listed on movie posters or in movie trailers. I never see it mentioned on TV commercials. It's either IMAX 3D or Real-D and nothing else.

---

quote:

---

United States & Canada
AMC Barrywoods 24 (Kansas City, MO)
AMC Burbank 16 (Burbank, CA)
AMC Century City 15 (Century City, CA)
AMC Downtown Disney 24 (Lake Buena Vista, FL)
AMC Garden State 16 (Paramus, NJ)
AMC Van Ness 14 (San Francisco, CA)
Arclight Sherman Oaks (Sherman Oaks, CA)
Brenden Theatres at the Palms (Las Vegas, NV)
Century at Pacific Commons and XD (Fremont, CA)
Cinemark West Plano and XD (West Plano, TX)
SilverCity-Yonge Eglinton Cinemas (Cineplex) (Toronto, ON)
Cinetopia Vancouver Mall 23 (Vancouver, WA)
Kerasotes Showplace ICON at Roosevelt Collection (Chicago, IL)
The Dolby Theatre (Hollywood, CA)

Europe
Cinesa Diagonal Mar (Barcelona, Spain)
Empire Leicester Square (London, United Kingdom)

Asia
China Film Stella Theater Chain Hefei 1912 (He Fei, China)
Shanghai Film Art Center (Shanghai, China)
UME Shuangjing (Beijing, China)
Wanda Cinemas Wuhan Lingjiao Lake (Wuhan, China)

---

quote: Mike Olpin

---

an expensive sound stage

---

I suppose you meant "expansive" but you are right on the money anyway!
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-26-2012, 11:46 PM:
 
Hearing some great Dolby A this weekend and listening to some Pro-Logic at home (in Pro-Logic not Pro-Logic II) right now, yes, I miss expansiveness.

Can't wait to take a listen.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Tom Mundell (Member # 4555) on 06-27-2012, 10:43 AM:
 
Thanks for the review, Mike! I'm really interested in checking out an Atmos movie myself, I'm hoping they install this in some auditoriums here soon. Now if only AMC would fix the god awful picture in their ETX rooms, or install this in some non-ETX rooms.

Also I hope they keep with advertising which shows are presented in Atmos. I really like the 7.1 presentations I've seen, but it's never advertised so finding them can be a real pain; as this becomes more common (I hope) I don't want to have to do the same guesswork and/or numerous calls to theaters to verify which shows are actually in Atmos.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-27-2012, 11:03 AM:
 
I'd like to check out a show in Dolby Atmos. For the time being Cinemark's big theater 200 miles away in Plano, TX is the nearest place from here featuring a screen equipped with Atmos.

I was kind of hoping the Warren Theater folks would install Atmos on one or more of the screens at their Moore, OK location. That's just an hour's drive up the turnpike. The Warren folks tend to install better quality gear than one would see in a Cinemark booth, every screen is THX certified and running Dolby Digital Cinema related equipment. The addition of Atmos would seem to be an obvious upgrade.

I think most here agree Dolby Atmos is a groundbreaking change to how movie audio is played. There is no argument about the technology being very cool. For me, the problems with Atmos have to do with certain realities of the movie theater business.

The installation cost and complexity doesn't make Atmos very friendly to average multiplex auditoriums. Bean counting executives at theater chain home offices would be very tempted to have Atmos installed in minimal configurations and then do nothing to inform customers about the minimal configuration versus a fully tricked out Atmos rig in another auditorium or a rival theater. That could sour some customers on Atmos pretty fast, especially if they have to pay extra to hear a movie presented in the format.

Sound system maintenance is a real problem at many movie theaters. Add to that the compromises made with many houses when they were being designed, built and equipped. Dolby Atmos will demand a much greater commitment from theater operators to keep the sound system working in top form at all times. Elements of dialog and sound effects being panned across the screen and around the room in 3D space won't sound so well if certain speakers have blown drivers no one bothered to fix.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-27-2012, 01:07 PM:
 
Perhaps Atmos itself will bring more attention to sound related issues, and keep it on the cinema's radar more than it is now. I wish it at least.

Of course I could wish in one hand and crap in the other, and see which gets filled first.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 06-27-2012, 01:28 PM:
 
I went back for a second screening, and in between shows, I spoke with the on-site Dolby tech, who was supervising each performance. We spoke for about 40 minutes.

He did confirm that the installation at West Plano has over 50 discrete channels connected. He also confirmed my suspicion that when Atmos engaged, it used a separate, and in my opinion much better, EQ profile.

The floating leaf trailer was made for Dolby by Pixar.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-27-2012, 02:57 PM:
 
I'd really like to know the file size differences between a movie soundtrack in Dolby Atmos versus that of a standard 24-bit 48kHz uncompressed Linear PCM 5.1 soundtrack. My guess is the Atmos files would be quite a bit larger since they are fundamentally more similar to a Pro Tools audio project with many floating/layered sound objects.
 

---

Posted by Marc D Fishman (Member # 6992) on 06-30-2012, 11:43 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Sound system maintenance is a real problem at many movie theaters. Add to that the compromises made with many houses when they were being designed, built and equipped. Dolby Atmos will demand a much greater commitment from theater operators to keep the sound system working in top form at all times. Elements of dialog and sound effects being panned across the screen and around the room in 3D space won't sound so well if certain speakers have blown drivers no one bothered to fix.

---

quote: Mike Olpin

---

He did confirm that the installation at West Plano has over 50 discrete channels connected. He also confirmed my suspicion that when Atmos engaged, it used a separate, and in my opinion much better, EQ profile.

The floating leaf trailer was made for Dolby by Pixar.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Is Atmos "aware" at all times, including playback, or only during a diagnostic mode?

If it depends on someone initiating tests, then it's only going to be as aware as the user allows it to be.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

no Atmos hardware is visible on Dolbys site.

---

They had a processor-looking piece of equipment on display under a glass cover at their CinemaCon demo theater. I wish now I'd taken a picture of it...must have been an empty shell or a "concept model."
 

---

Posted by Christos Mitsakis (Member # 143) on 07-07-2012, 06:11 AM:
 
Here it is, although I believe the final product will be different.



C.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-14-2012, 12:57 PM:
 

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

Great, now I'm going to have to go to Chicago to check this out. Anyone know what kind of installation the Kerasotes ShowPlace ICON Theatre has?

I'm not really interested in seeing Brave, and so far, no other movies have been announced to my knowledge...

---

quote: Peter Castle

---

Just noticed on GDC server that "The Dark Knight Rises" has 14 channels of audio. Is this Atmos, or something else?

---

Just to be clear... Atmos is not a commercial product at this time...

They have not ratified the DCI spec at this time for delivery on a DCP, and for Brave the audio was running off a separate audio server and being rendered in real time by the RMU production hardware.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-20-2012, 01:09 PM:
 
I figured the audio had to be delivered via some kind of separate, synched setup.

It doesn't make any kind of logical sense whatsoever to suggest Atmos audio can somehow be added to a standard LPCM 5.1/7.1 track on a DCP with small amounts of metadata.

I'm still wondering about the file sizes of a movie soundtrack authored in Dolby Atmos. The way that it is described, with lots of uncompressed audio objects, each object having its own separate parameters on mixing, surround steering, effects, etc. the finished Atmos mix would have to more closely resemble a ProTools project than some "flattened" LPCM 5.1/7.1 track.
 

---

Posted by Marc D Fishman (Member # 6992) on 07-20-2012, 01:59 PM:
 
Bobby,,, the idea is that it will indeed be deliverable on a DCP...

There will be some sort of "lossless" or "near lossless" audio compression..

From the ATMOS Production White Paper..

"The Dolby Atmos audio files delivered to the packaging facility can be imported into an appropriate digital cinema packaging system, such as the Dolby Secure Content Creator (SCC2000), to create a DCP. The audio track files may be locked together to help prevent synchronization errors with the Dolby Atmos track file that has been signed off in the dubbing theater. The SCC2000 may also respond to data in the print master file, such as first frame and last frame of action, to ensure accurate synchronization of sound to picture as was signed off in the dubbing theater."

"Upon creation of the DCP, the main audio MXF file (with appropriate additional tracks appended) is encrypted using SMPTE specifications in accordance with existing practice. The Dolby Atmos MXF is packaged as an auxiliary track file, and is optionally encrypted using a symmetric content key per the SMPTE specification."

"This single DCP can then be delivered to any DCI-compliant server. Any installations that are not suitably equipped will simply ignore the additional track file containing the Dolby Atmos soundtrack and will use the existing main audio track file for standard playback. Those installations equipped with a Dolby Atmos cinema processor will be able to ingest and replay the Dolby Atmos soundtrack where applicable, reverting to the standard audio track as necessary."
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-20-2012, 04:01 PM:
 
Of course there's no problem including a Dolby Atmos MXF audio file package in with the other "assets" on a DCP as long as there is enough hard disc capacity to do so.

Nevertheless, the Atmos track absolutely would have to be a different, alternative track from the standard 5.1/7.1 LPCM track. With the way LPCM audio works there is no way one could embed all sorts of Atmos data into a standard LPCM audio track without ruining compatibility.

Here's a couple visual examples of how I think Atmos compares to a LPCM 5.1 track. Atmos is like a layered Photoshop file and the LPCM track is like a flattened, lossless compressed TIFF version of it no longer editable. Better yet, the Atmos track could be similar to an Adobe After Effects motion graphics project with separate layers of video and graphics elements from Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. all with their own effects parameters on the time line. By comparison the LPCM track would be like a flattened video file rendered from the After Effects project. To make any changes to that flat video file one would have to go back into After Effects, make adjustments and re-render the video.

You can't open a flattened, rendered video of motion graphics and select elements like type, graphics, etc. since it's all collapsed down to one layer. A final LPCM 5.1 mix is the same kind of thing. The dozens of audio elements used to create the mix are all destructively baked down into just one layer.
 

---

Posted by David Graham Rose (Member # 1450) on 07-22-2012, 02:36 PM:
 
Paid bod mor gwirion
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 08-01-2012, 09:00 PM:
 
Oooops...

http://www.screendaily.com/news/dolby-laboratories-acquires-immersive-audio-competitor-imm-sound/5044766.article

----
Dolby Laboratories acquires immersive audio competitor IMM Sound
24 July, 2012 | By Neal Romanek

IMM Sound’s immersive audio technology includes both theatre systems and audio post technology with their Immersive Audio Workstation mixing console.

Dolby Laboratories has acquired IMM Sound, the Barcelona-based provider of immersive audio systems for cinemas. IMM’s immersive sound technology will be discontinued and used to enhance Dolby’s own Atmos [pictured] immersive sound system.

Immersive, or “3D”, audio is a term given to a variety of technologies aiming to faithfully recreate the experience of hearing sound in real life, including height information, that goes beyond traditional surround sound. IMM Sound’s immersive audio technology includes both theatre systems and audio post technology with their IAW (Immersive Audio Workstation) mixing console.

Dolby’s Atmos immersive audio system also provides and end-to-end solution with cinema set ups and mixing technology. The Dolby Atmos theatre system has support for up to 64 speaker channels, including speakers in the cinema ceiling.

In June, Dolby equipped the first European Atmos screen with Barcelona’s Cinesa Diagonal Mar Screen 9. Other immersive audio systems include Belgian company Auro Technologies Auro 3D.
---

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Antti Nayha (Member # 4980) on 09-02-2012, 05:57 AM:
 
I'll be in London next weekend, and was hoping to catch an Atmos demo... but alas, it seems that the Empire Leicester Square is not running Brave anymore.

I don't suppose that any of these titles are using Atmos?
 

---

Posted by Derek Young (Member # 7160) on 09-04-2012, 07:06 AM:
 
The Empire did not have the run of Brave its screening at the Vue. I think they done screenings of Brave at the Empire for
test showings,then it looked like Emipre Cinemas pulled the
film and it went to the Vue.
 

---

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 09-24-2012, 12:40 PM:
 
Weekend press release:

LOS ANGELES & SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: DLB) and Twentieth Century Fox® announced today that two of the studio's fall 2012 releases, Taken 2 (U.S. release: October 5, 2012) and Chasing Mavericks (U.S. release: October 26, 2012), will be mixed and released in Dolby® Atmos™, the new audio platform that has revolutionized the experience of sound in entertainment. Anticipating additional Dolby Atmos titles, Twentieth Century Fox is outfitting its Zanuck Theater postproduction facility with Dolby Atmos capabilities.
Dolby Atmos, the latest sound technology from Dolby Laboratories, delivers a more natural and realis ...

Dolby Atmos, the latest sound technology from Dolby Laboratories, delivers a more natural and realistic sound-field that moves sound around and above audiences, transporting them into the onscreen adventure.

"Dolby Atmos transports audiences into the onscreen adventure with the most lifelike sensory experience ever offered in cinema," said Doug Darrow, Senior Vice President, Cinema, Dolby Laboratories. "Dolby Atmos will immerse moviegoers in the sounds of Istanbul's bustling streets in the action-packed Taken 2 and atop the big waves of Chasing Mavericks."

Two acclaimed sound re-recording mixers will be at the helm of the Dolby Atmos mixes. Craig Henighan will mix Chasing Mavericks in Dolby Atmos; Chuck Michael will conduct the Dolby Atmos mix for Taken 2.

According to Darrow, Dolby has a long history of transforming and reinventing cinema sound and is attuned to the desires of both movie audiences and the creative community behind each film.

"Twentieth Century Fox and Dolby have had a long and trusted history together," said Ted Gagliano, President of Post Production, Twentieth Century Fox. "It is therefore not surprising to me that the breadth of Dolby's experience has given them a keen insight not just into the moviegoing experience, but into the wants and needs of postproduction. This has obviously greatly influenced the vision of Dolby Atmos. Fox looks forward to enriching the cinematic experience with this latest innovation from Dolby."

The list of North American theatres selected to show the fall 2012 releases of Taken 2 and Chasing Mavericks in Dolby Atmos will be made available closer to the release dates.

http://investor.dolby.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=705984
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 09-28-2012, 08:21 PM:
 
Taken 2 will be showing in Dolby Atmos at the Empire 25 in NYC.

I saw/heard a Dolby Atmos demo at the Dolby Screening Room a few weeks ago. The "jungle" trailer was phenomenal, but a remixed scene from MI4 lacked decent bottom and had the usual digital harshness. Having said that, the sound localization was amazing.

These films are mixed standard 7.1 and then Atmos is applied as "sweetening" on top of it. What we haven't seen yet is a film mixed totally with Atmos in mind and then played back in both Atmos and standard 7.1/5.1 theatres. I think that's probably at least a year away.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-06-2012, 02:37 PM:
 
^ I'm a little annoyed that Fox didn't let the soundmixers (of Taken 2) also mix this in standard 7.1
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-06-2012, 06:59 PM:
 
The last thing this industry needs is yet another sound format. It is hard enough getting theatres to invest in a QUALITY 5.1 system, so who is the genius at Dolby who imagines that theatres are going to invest in yet more channels and speakers?

What this industry NEEDS DESPERATELY is a testing and certification program similar to THX but without the politics and BS. One that is actually enforced and followed up on. Any theater that does not meet the standard should be required to post signs advising filmgoers that their sound sucks.

I'd say that over 80% of theatres have sound that is at least lacking or more accurately (as Joe Redifer would say) sounds like ass.

Money for Atmos would be far better spent in bringing the existing 5.1/7.1 systems up to proper performance levels.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-06-2012, 09:15 PM:
 
I like your sign idea, but sound is so subjective. For example, lots of people think our sound here is good, but there are some who think it's too loud. And others who wish it was louder.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-06-2012, 11:17 PM:
 
Volume does not = good sound. You can't take a crappy sound system and turn it up to make it sound better. (You would actually be making it sound worse.)

The biggest problem aside from acoustics/room design and poor choice of amp/speaker is people either plug it in, set some basic levels and walk...or they go the other way and OVER-tune the room.

Either = bad sound. That being said though, a properly calibrated system won't sound as good if played at a volume off the mark.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-07-2012, 08:57 AM:
 

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr

---

Any theater that does not meet the standard should be required to post signs advising filmgoers that their sound sucks.

---

Better idea: Movie theaters should have to post colored stickers on their front doors like some cities make restaurants do.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-07-2012, 10:50 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Volume does not = good sound. You can't take a crappy sound system and turn it up to make it sound better. (You would actually be making it sound worse.)

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Volume does not = good sound.

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

...so it would be nice to give them something like that to twiddle with during their screenings.

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Someone needs to make a remote fader box that goes to "11" (call it the "cat. 779 - Spinal Tap version"). Filmmakers always seem to be deaf, so it would be nice to give them something like that to twiddle with during their screenings.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

there are going to be SOME people who think it should be louder (teen boys), or softer (senior citizens).

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

there are going to be SOME people who think it should be louder (teen boys), or softer (senior citizens).

---

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr

---

What this industry NEEDS DESPERATELY is a testing and certification program similar to THX but without the politics and BS. One that is actually enforced and followed up on. Any theater that does not meet the standard should be required to post signs advising filmgoers that their sound sucks.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Why is that? You'd think with their aged ears they wouldn't hear anywhere near as well as they used to. So why are they complaining that a perfectly fine movie is too loud? What is wrong with these people?

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

One would hope Dolby is seeking out the best auditoriums in which to install their new system, so that they don't get a black eye by having some crap theater advertising Atmos only to deliver a half-witted presentation. Perhaps they are, and they are having trouble finding such locations, and that would explain what appears to be zero growth in locations since its introduction?

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

Without a scientific standard by which to measure, judge, and adjust, everyone's just guessing and the industry is doomed to never get it "right" because "right" is seemingly different to everyone.

---

quote:

---

There's also the fact that everyone hears differently and likes different things...

... It's like trying to decide what music is "good" and what isn't. You can't do it definitively for everybody.

---

Here's an interesting idea.

If Atmos can mix down multiple tracks to fit a given theater, why not make it so that a soundtrack can be mixed down differently for the tastes of different audiences?

If you have an audience of more "mature" customers who like a dialogue-centered presentation, you switch to the "Quiet" mix. If you have a younger audience who like to hear car crashes and explosions, you switch to the "Loud" mix. If no specific choice is made, the system would default to the "Standard" mix.

With all the computerized stuff that we have, nowadays, this should be easy-peasy!
 

---

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 10-10-2012, 02:34 PM:
 
Dolby should restrict Atmos to theatres that are prepared to do a full install with enough independent, well placed, speakers to give the full effect. The auditoria would also need to be inspected to avoid installs in rooms with excessive sound bleed and background noise.

Ideally there would also be some certification process to ensure that the sound and venue remains up to standard (if the venue fails it would not be able to advertise itself as Atmos). This would be in contrast to the current situation where a cinema is able to advertise Dolby sound even if the rest of their setup is poor.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 10-22-2012, 01:06 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I think they are used to the "good old days" where all the sound came out of a 3" speaker on the front of the TV (or radio) so anything more "realistic" seems too loud.

---

quote: Mark Hajducki

---

Dolby should restrict Atmos to theatres that are prepared to do a full install with enough independent, well placed, speakers to give the full effect. The auditoria would also need to be inspected to avoid installs in rooms with excessive sound bleed and background noise.

---

Unfortunately, Dolby is not doing that. They're marketing it on the basis that it can work in almost any configuration as long as you individually wire each speaker, even without adding the ceiling speakers or the rear woofers. I think that's a big mistake because if consumers go to a theatre where the movie is advertised as "Atmos" and the sound isn't distinctively better, they won't return, especially if there's an upcharge. They should have at least a minimum required configuration.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-22-2012, 03:18 AM:
 
You are missing my point. You are an audio engineer and thus you like nice loud sound if it's good. But MOST people in our age group (I'm almost 56), even if they bought into hi-if as you say, still listened to TV on sets with crappy sound. That's the group who think movies are too loud.

That said, I agree with you that today's action movies rely too much on a wall of sound. Some subtlety would be nice.
 

---

Posted by Christos Mitsakis (Member # 143) on 11-09-2012, 11:05 AM:
 
Atmos CP850 anounced.



Dolby Atmos Processor CP850 & DAC3201
 

---

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 11-09-2012, 01:31 PM:
 
Someone explains what they mean with "Dolby commissioning service" please!
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-09-2012, 02:40 PM:
 
It means looking at the blueprints, placing the speakers etc., and sending someone qualified to the site to tune, test, and aim speakers to see if it all works properly.

Kind of like a modern day THX. The idea is to have the early sites be a credit to Dolby, rather than a mess.
 

---

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 11-09-2012, 03:54 PM:
 
that's look like a good idea, assuming the "qualified" engineers are actually qualified!
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-09-2012, 05:36 PM:
 
I am told that there will be a tech from Dolby Labs sent to the site which would help explain the high price for the hardware.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-07-2013, 07:30 AM:
 
I was reading the Atmos technical guidelines that Dolby posted and came up with a question. According to the guidelines, EACH INDIVIDUAL surround speaker is supposed to be able to produce 105 dB SPL at the reference position. How can a small surround speaker produce quality sound at that level when stage speakers use huge horns and bass cabinets along with bi or tri amplificatioin to accomplish the same task?
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-07-2013, 10:51 AM:
 
Maybe you confuse peak SPL with sensivity (1W/1m).

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 01-07-2013, 04:16 PM:
 
I recently completed 3 Atmos installs and per spec each surround speaker is truly supposed to be capable of a peak 105db at the reference position - note that the requirement is peak and not continuous (during setup each individual surround level is set to 85db with some other levels done per array). This is partly why bass management is used for the surrounds - the LF is strengthened to compensate for surrounds that are weak in the LF range (these are not subs for the surrounds, regular bass cabinets work just fine).

This is definitely a game changer in selecting surround speakers - many larger auditoriums will need speakers that cost 2-4X what a normal surround does now - in 2 of our auditoriums we completely replaced all the surrounds as part of the install.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-08-2013, 12:02 PM:
 
I wish I had heard 'Life of Pi' in Atmos because I thought the Atmos mix of 'The Hobbit' was obscenely loud at times - I'm not sure why "REALLY LOUD = State of the art sound" The 'riddles in the dark' scene really was impressive because it was one of the few times it was quiet enough to hear gollum's voice bounce around the auditorium to mesmerizing effect.

guess I've gotten to that age where even the trailers which are louder than the feature film is grating and really obnoxious.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-11-2013, 04:12 AM:
 
All of this is fantastic, but when AMC installs the surrounds in the ceiling, what does that do to the audio presentation?
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-11-2013, 07:19 AM:
 

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

All of this is fantastic, but when AMC installs the surrounds in the ceiling, what does that do to the audio presentation?

---

quote: Aaron Garman

---

I can't wait until a chain (and this is unlikely) comes up with a design that makes say, 10 screens, all premium sized and outfitted with Atmos capabilities, and then charges patrons nothing extra to see films there. Just standard ticket prices, including 3D.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

My guess is what they really mean there is "Ceiling speakers are never a good idea if they're playing the same information as the side wall speakers are."

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I see plenty of the "see it in Real-D and IMAX 3D" crap added onto the tail end of movie trailers and TV commercials. I have not seen a single one make any mention of Dolby Atmos.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Dolby's apparently going to promote Atmos with all the gusto they threw behind their 3-D system, which is to say, nobody outside of "geekdom" will know about it.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

What the hell did Real-D and IMAX do to get their names all over the movie trailers, movie commercials, movie posters, etc.? Why wasn't Dolby 3D included with any of that? Are the movie distributors charging Real-D and IMAX a product placement fee to get advertising space in a movie title's marketing?

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

I think you're looking at it from the right perspective. You shouldn't start saying "no" to things when you're still in the ideas stage.

Better to keep yourself open than to assume that something isn't doable when it is, or will be.

If I were a financial backer of a proposed project, I would consider it to be irresponsible for the person doing the planning not to consider all options, especially if they deliver the best results. You can always say no if conditions warrant, but you can't say yes to a question that was never asked.

---

Exactly! ignoring the 2016 date completely (who knows what is going to change or be available by then), why not go for broke and offer several options. Given the overall cost of a completely new build atmos / 4k will really make a small difference in the grand scheme of things

4k + atmos
2k + atmos
2k + 7.1

or a combination, like a 4k+atmos for screen one (mainstream films) and a 2k+7.1 for the second (arthouse / indie).
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-04-2013, 02:40 PM:
 
With some luck, perhaps Atmos related gear will drop in price a great deal over the next year or two. Well, I don't see high quality speaker systems and amplifiers offering big price drops. But maybe the CP850 and any other computerized kinds of gear that needs to be involved with shed those big introductory prices.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-05-2013, 06:08 AM:
 
I can only assume that part of the crazy pricing for the CP850 is to purposely sell very few while they make sure that there aren't any design issues.

If you calculate for inflation the $20,000 original price (1992) for a DA10 Dolby Digital (well, Dolby Stereo Digital) processor would be over $32,000 in 2012 dollars. The CP850 does a lot more than the DA20 since it is a processor not just a decoder and d/a converter.

If they want to sell any volume of systems they will have to lower the price AND market it better. The marketing needs to be to a point where a regular (non IMAX, ETX, RPX or whatever other acronym) auditorium with ATMOS can command a surcharge of $1 or $2. Even though the surround field is fantastic very few people are going to travel extra just for ATMOS.

There is an ATMOS location 30 miles from me and there are a very few movies that I would consider traveling there for (and paying the ETX upcharge). I would be more inclined to travel if the ATMOS auditorium didn't have 3D. I don't like 3D and my wife can't stand it so anything in 3D we can't hear in ATMOS.
 

---

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 06-05-2013, 07:16 AM:
 
http://www.2d-glasses.com/


 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-05-2013, 12:13 PM:
 
Unfortunately, those only work for RealD presentations. They really are a good idea. If there was a Dolby version I'd buy some. We get lots of grandparents who bring kids to 3D movies but would really like to watch in 2D.
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-05-2013, 04:11 PM:
 
You can make a Dolby 2D version just the same way. Only that you have to buy two of them, which is a bit more expensive than with RealD.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-05-2013, 04:51 PM:
 
Yes, but you then have two 2D glasses. It is probably easier to switch the CAT 834s (though more expensive) than the CAT 832s (I don't recal if the CAT 834 lenses are shaped differently for each eye to clear the nose cutout.

Pop the left eye out of one, the right eye out of the other and "switch" so you have two 2D glasses...one that only sees the left image and one that only sees the right image.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-05-2013, 08:32 PM:
 
All the Dolby glasses have different-shaped lenses for left and right, so they're not interchangeable.
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-06-2013, 03:12 AM:
 
duct tape

honestly, there is always a way to get this working. The only bad thing is the small viewing angle of the dolby glasses for people who prefer 2D.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-10-2013, 10:25 PM:
 
I visited Dolby's web site earlier today, looking for more information about Atmos. It looks like they did a bit of an update and are now listing Atmos-equipped theaters on a map of the United States.

Apparently the Harkins Theaters Bricktown 16 in downtown Oklahoma City is adding or has added Atmos to at least 1 of their auditoriums. The Harkins web site has no information about this, but the theater is listed on Dolby's map as having at least 1 Atmos auditorium. The Bricktown 16 showtimes directory makes no mention of Atmos, even for the Friday opening of Man of Steel. I can't tell if they have added Atmos to their large "Cine Capris" house or put it in one of the smaller houses.

Has anyone tried putting together a list of theaters that will be showing Man of Steel in Atmos? I wonder if Dolby has bothered to try doing this.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-11-2013, 01:52 PM:
 
I wonder if Atmos theaters are tremendously louder than non-Atmos theaters are. If so, there will be people who don't even notice the difference about the surround sound but would rave about how much louder it is and how awesome that is.
 

---

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 06-11-2013, 03:16 PM:
 
I guess the dynamic will be - potentially - higher. It's not a channel-based system, but if you've got 64 separate 'channels' in the auditorium, each capable of its own SPL just do the math.
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 06-11-2013, 03:59 PM:
 
At the AMC BarryWoods 24 in KC, MO I had frequented the ETX theater on a few occasions before they installed the Atmos system. Its hard to tell without comparing the same movie mix back to back but from what my ears can remeber, after they installed the Atmos, dynamics and amount of bass punch seemed to go up.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-11-2013, 07:00 PM:
 
I saw "A Good Day to Die Hard" (aweful movie) in Atmos at AMC Pleasure Island in ETX and it was very loud. It actually bordered on too loud and I like loud sound.

The surround field was very noticeably better to me (bullets hit a spot not a whole side of the auditorium) but my wife didn't really notice. She also didn't "get" that the Atmos trailer was trying to show off the sound placement. She said they needed a more impressive trailer.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-11-2013, 10:36 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Has anyone tried putting together a list of theaters that will be showing Man of Steel in Atmos? I wonder if Dolby has bothered to try doing this.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

I whipped up a quick search utility:

http://www.bigscreen.com/advsearch/atmos.php

Shortcuts:
Man of Steel (2D)

Man of Steel (3D)

The search results are live, so as showtimes come in, they will be updated.

---

quote: David Zylstra

---

I recently completed 3 Atmos installs and per spec each surround speaker is truly supposed to be capable of a peak 105db at the reference position - note that the requirement is peak and not continuous (during setup each individual surround level is set to 85db with some other levels done per array). This is partly why bass management is used for the surrounds - the LF is strengthened to compensate for surrounds that are weak in the LF range (these are not subs for the surrounds, regular bass cabinets work just fine).

This is definitely a game changer in selecting surround speakers - many larger auditoriums will need speakers that cost 2-4X what a normal surround does now - in 2 of our auditoriums we completely replaced all the surrounds as part of the install.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

With as much as the Dolby CP850 costs alone, it would be pretty stupid for any movie theater to install Dolby Atmos in a minimal configuration -something that would seem akin to a 9.1 setup. If the theater is already spending tens of thousands on the CP850 they might as well invest in a reasonably proper Atmos setup. It doesn't necessarily have to mean 64 speakers. But I would hope to walk into an Atmos-equipped auditorium and see more than 2 surround speakers on the ceiling.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

I agree, for now it would be strange for a theater to invest in the processor but not in the proper B chain.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

A theater that can't afford to do Atmos right can put the cost of that CP850 into just transforming an ordinary 5.1/7.1 system into a kick-ass sounding 5.1/7.1 system.

---

I quote that.
Nothing wrong with Atmos, but I think we have forgotten how good a proper 5.1/7.1 system sounds.

But we live in a world where people don't bother asking questions, and they just follow the brand.
Thankfully in this case the Brand is a good one
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-14-2013, 03:27 PM:
 
Sometimes the brand can do things that are not in the customer's best interests.

Remember the Dolby triple format all in one logo from 1993-95? It combined Spectral Recording, Dolby Stereo and Digital brands into one word mark with the tagline "verify theatre format."

The old theatrical version of Dolby Digital ran at an incredibly low bit rate. It's unacceptable by today's encoding standards -at least for things like DVD, Blu-ray, d-cinema. If not for competition from DTS, Sony, etc. we would probably still be listening to lossy Dolby Digital audio at low bit rates rather than uncompressed Linear PCM.

I don't think Dolby's recent move to brand 7.1 channel LPCM in commercial movie theaters as Dolby Surround 7.1 was a good move.

It remains to be seen what comes of Dolby Atmos. The concept seems very revolutionary. The way it is being marketed and how theaters may deploy Atmos (in a wide variety of minimal to maximum configurations) could end up hurting the fledgling audio format.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-14-2013, 05:20 PM:
 

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Isn't THX still busy with Dolby SR spec'ing?

---

Maybe they are . But then again, their site is boasting 5.1 and 7.1 setups everywhere, even in your car.

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

My point is there's no way to do Atmos on the cheap. The processor already costs a fortune. A theater merely installing the processor and doing as little as possible with speakers and amps is tantamount to somebody buying a Ferrari car body and putting a dinky 4 cylinder economy car engine in it. Why bother with it at all if the job isn't going to be done right.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The concept seems very revolutionary.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

Unfortunately, if Dolby lets theaters dilute the brand by buying the processor and nothing else, substandard installations are going to make Atmos the THX of the decade.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

They aren't the only game in town, and Barco could eat their lunch like DTS did back in the day.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

They aren't the only game in town, and Barco could eat their lunch like DTS did back in the day.

---

DTS "ate their lunch" for a while because the system was essentially the same thing and was 1/4 the price. Before Jurrasic Park, Dolby was marketing Dolby Stereo Digital as a premium product meant to replace 70mm magnetic in premium theatres. DTS was marketed as "throw this processor into your sound system and have digital sound." They even had the ridiculous 2 track version so that theatres could throw DTS on the marquee.

Beginning with the DA20 and the promotion that was run with The Lion King, DTS stopped eating Dolby's lunch. Once the CP500 was released you could argue that Dolby "ate DTS' lunch" since by the end of the 35mm era, Dolby had more installations.

Atmos (which I'm still not sure how to pronounce) is a completely different situation. It is not the same thing as the 11.1 channel system. Atmos is the only game in town for a 360 degree sound field where sounds are placed in particular locations by the processor according to the soundtrack meta data and the specific auditorium configuration.
 

---

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 06-15-2013, 08:28 AM:
 
Thanks Carsten. I though it was a normal channel based system. Am I mistaken or it needed two servers to run?

Why the IMM was better at 5.1 and 7.1? I think Atmos is just delivering 5.1 and 7.1 to the side and back surrounds as a normal processor would be. I dislike upmixes, so if that is the advantage, it's not for me!
 

---

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 06-15-2013, 11:02 AM:
 
I THINK Iosono is based on "wave front synthesis" where an attempt is made to synthesize how the sound wave would appear at the location of the speaker array and duplicate that by driving the speaker array.

I believe object based systems are based on Vector Based Amplitude Panning as described here .

Harold
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-15-2013, 06:06 PM:
 

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

No, IMMSound was more like a 'hybrid' version, that's why Dolby killed it, it was too close to what ATMOS does.

---

quote: Marco Giustini

---

Thanks Carsten. I though it was a normal channel based system. Am I mistaken or it needed two servers to run?

---

quote:

---

Why the IMM was better at 5.1 and 7.1? I think Atmos is just delivering 5.1 and 7.1 to the side and back surrounds as a normal processor would be. I dislike upmixes, so if that is the advantage, it's not for me!

---

quote: Harold Hallikainen

---

I THINK Iosono is based on "wave front synthesis" where an attempt is made to synthesize how the sound wave would appear at the location of the speaker array and duplicate that by driving the speaker array.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I'm pretty sure that the CP850 does not "upmix" a non-Atmos track into Atmos (it couldn't). It will play the non-Atmos track identically to a non-Atmos processor. It will group the surrounds as they need to be.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I've heard some people suggest "Atmos meta data" is merely applied to a standard 5.1 or 7.1 audio track. And that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Dolby, to some extent, must do a better job with marketing Atmos to the general public. Unfortunately Dolby also needs the cooperation of movie studios and movie theater chains to get the name out there too.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

On the other hand the end credits did list the three obsolescent 35mm film digital sound formats.

---

Scarlet Letters might actually have to adapt their default end credits template... Although they managed to replace DTS with Datasat a while back .

But honestly, the end credits might not be your best marketing tool. It's just strange that Dolby Atmos isn't all over the film posters...

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The Dolby Atmos trailer that played before the movie was pretty cool though. It did a better job of demonstrating the directional capabilities of the sound format than the mix of Man of Steel.

---

Those trailers are obviously made to show off the technology. I still remember a lot of shows, where the Dolby Digital and/or THX trailers were the only thing that could compensate for the crappy movie that followed .

Additionally, just like in the early days of the Digital surround formats, movie makers still need to get a grip on the new features that those new sound formats offer. Compare the movies from the beginning of those formats with the movies right now and you will notice that surround sound has, generally speaking, improved over the last two decades. Just about 10 years ago, most music would only use the L+R channel, nowadays it is quite common to have music playing trough the surrounds.

I guess the main focus for most current releases is still the 5.1/7.1 mix, because that's the biggest install base right now, you cannot afford to have it sound bad on those systems.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-17-2013, 10:57 PM:
 

quote: Lyle Romer

---

Atmos (which I'm still not sure how to pronounce)

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

The imm sound system specifically marketed the "up-mixing" capabilities of normal 5.1/7.1 sound. Whatever that up-mixing would be. I've not heard a noticeable difference between "up-mixed" and "plain" 5.1/7.1 sound.

Obviously, you could still do some tweaking in the way you map your discrete channels to the speaker array.

You could possibly also employ some "intelligent" algorithms on the audio-stream, but that require a lot of processing power and the result would probably still be questionable at best. Additionally, it would create additional latency (which could be compensated otherwise, but still would complicate things a whole lot).

---

This sounds like a horrible "slippery slope" idea.

It also begs the question: Why bother mixing in that format, if a "standard" (i.e. cheaper) mix can be "up-mixed" ?

See also: IMAX DMR and IMAX digital
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-18-2013, 01:30 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

It's pronouced "ATT-mose."

You say the "mose" part with a "s" sound at the end, like the word "dose," not with a z-sound like you would with "rose."

---

Isn't it just "atmosphere" without the "phere"?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-18-2013, 02:53 AM:
 
No. Not unless all the Dolby guys at the convention were saying it wrong.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-18-2013, 04:09 AM:
 
(I think it is.)
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-18-2013, 04:54 AM:
 
When I saw a Good Day to Die Hard the girl in the boxoffice pronounced it At-muss (ryming with fuss).

Mabye they need to say it in the trailer so people know how to say it.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-18-2013, 09:14 AM:
 
I don't understand why any English speaking person would have any problem correctly pronouncing "Atmos." It's just the first two syllables of "Atmosphere."

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

I agree, but new sound formats always have been a bit under-advertised, unlike stuff like "3D".

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

No. Not unless all the Dolby guys at the convention were saying it wrong.

---

Maybe they exceeded their legal daily "dose" of Kool-Aid? For "normal" people it seems quite obvious that Atmos is a reference to Atmosphere. Which at least would make a lot of sense in all kinds of ways..?

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

There has been little if any advertising effort made to support uncompressed 5.1 channel Linear PCM audio in d-cinema shows. I never saw any movie poster or end credits list mention anything about LPCM audio EVER. Never mind the fact it is a serious upgrade above the data lossy compressed sound formats on 35mm film.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Even with film rapidly disappearing from commercial movie theaters the old film-based digital sound formats are still getting their logos used on most movie posters and virtually every end credits list.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

And now we have the situation with Atmos. This sound format breaks all kinds of unprecedented ground. As much of a leap forward as this is I'm flat out exasperated over how poorly Atmos is being advertised.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

They probably also don't want to give Dolby free advertising as they most likely think that putting that in there doesn't sell any extra tickets

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Movie studios probably aren't keen in marketing a system that hasn't yet seen a widespread adoption.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Although it was a pretty great leap forward in regards of quality, most people didn't really notice the difference. But many people didn't even notice the switch from 35mm to digital. Sometimes I actually suspect that many people only notice "3D" because they need glasses to look at the otherwise fuzzy image...

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

The "Uncompressed LPCM" is probably hard to market. Dolby also had a hard time with it. They just slapped the "Dolby Surround" label on it, although it is obviously no real format and just an indication the theater is (probably) using a Dolby decoder in their A chain.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The home video distribution departments of movie studios didn't have any problem marketing new sound formats on Blu-ray. Lots of Blu-ray discs have LPCM 5.1 and LPCM 7.1 audio.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The switch from optical analog sound to digital is very noticeable. The only way I can see the switch not being noticeable is if the theater had its sound system goofed up. Unfortunately there's no shortage of 5.1/7.1 wired movie theaters with crappy sound.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

IMHO, the switch from film projection to video projection is a little less noticeable. The digital image is more steady, but it's not really any better than a film-based image. In some regards it's worse in areas like overall contrast and black levels (not to mention resolution capability over 2K projection). Some of those issues are made moot by digital intermediate use in post production. The finished movie product as a digital file disables any advantages film projection has over video.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

But Mike how can that be??? The movie studios pay lots of money for "near field" (aka: "shitted up") remixes because they know the home viewers are incredibly nitpicky about the sound from their home-theater-in-a-box setups.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Oh please. Do you really think all the people who buy Blu-Rays and DVDs have any clue whatsoever about sound formats? Most of them buy "home theater in a box" setups and have no idea what they're doing. Maybe 10% of them have any clue. I think I'm being generous.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

I guess this is primarily the studios getting screwed here, because I've yet to encounter a Blu-Ray or DVD that markets its remastered near-field mix. Sure, there are re-releases that market the totally digitally remastered THX and whatnot approved and sealed soundtrack, but not specifically "optimized for your home-theater-in-a-box".

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The Blu-ray buying audience is a little more technically aware.

---

quote: Aaron Garman

---

DTS-HD Master Audio is the de facto standard because their software suite is on both Macs and PCs, and far easier to use than Dolby's Mac only suite. I do feel that part of the excitement was the brand though: early Blu-ray adopters were mostly aficionados and all preferred DTS anyhow. I know I was one of those people.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Yeah, I doubt if most Bluray consumers are technically-aware aficionados.

---

Many of the format's early adopters were at least aware of lossless and uncompressed surround sound formats, and even better than CD quality audio formats (like DVD-A and SACD). Perhaps in the last couple or so years Blu-ray has pulled in more mainstream consumers. But I still see a pretty big gap between quality conscious viewers and those who don't care about the differences.

The Blu-ray section of any video store still takes up a smaller space compared to the shelf space for DVDs. Blu-ray movies for sale still command around a $5 premium over the same movie on DVD. Netflix, Amazon, Vudu and other VOD services are options that make it easier to bypass the video store completely. Higher video quality is the biggest selling point for Blu-ray, but if someone has gone that far to understand the difference between Blu-ray and merely streaming a "HD" movie from Netflix the same customer is bound to at least noticed the audio formats Blu-ray has.

I've seen plenty of promo videos on Blu-ray discs, in store promotional displays and even stuff on the players themselves make some effort to promote the lossless audio aspect of Blu-ray.

By comparison, next to no effort has even been made to promote the same kind of high quality audio tracks that come standard with d-cinema. The audio track is the one aspect where d-cinema is clearly an improvement over film. It baffles me the movie theaters and movie studios haven't been selling the public on it. I guess they can just keep promoting the old Dolby Digital, SDDS and Datasat logos.

 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-19-2013, 09:23 PM:
 
I guess the studios don't feel the need to promote the sound, but theaters certainly should. I do think most people just assume (or hope?) that their local theater will have sound that's better than what they have at home. At least, around here they do!

We put a Dolby Digital logo on the marquee occasionally, but not always, due to space. We have a page about our sound system on our website, and the Dolby Digital logo on the main page. I'd put it in the newspaper too but nobody reads the paper so it'd be a waste of money. The website page needs updating...I might work on that tonight, actually, now that I'm thinking about it.

But....we've had digital sound (first DTS, then Dolby) since 1992 and I can think of maybe five or six times during the film days I was asked what format we have. It was usually people who work in other theaters doing the asking.
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 06-20-2013, 01:06 AM:
 
I have Oz: The Great and Powerfull on Blu-Ray and it has a DTS HD Master Audio track that they call a Nearfiled Mix in the audio menu. It defaults to Dolby Digital tho.

For the record there is a large following of front projection home cinema geeks that are as tech savy as they come. And theres and even bigger home theater following that dont know there ass from a hole in the ground. Those are the one that buy a home theater in a box than proclaim there "home theater" is better than the local cinema.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-20-2013, 07:50 AM:
 
I dunno.

Most guys I've come across who spend a ton of money on home-theatre equipment (versus "home theatre in a box" solution) still don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

And, yeah. All of them are guys. Every one of them.

Buying a home theatre in a box doesn't automatically mean the user is an idiot. And, likewise, buying the best of everything doesn't automatically mean the user knows anything about anything.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-20-2013, 10:36 AM:
 
I think it is always going to be a war of misinformation. Some of these so called "aficionados" are just people that read Blu-ray.com and buy all their stuff at Best Buy.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 06-20-2013, 04:52 PM:
 
Yes Manny theres definitly more of the oblivious out there than those in the know.

Exactly Aaron. As with any hobby the more informed one becomes the better. Its the same with cinema owners and/or managers. Some are on top of the game and keep up with the tech and lingo and others never educated themselves on the gear they own or have owned and just wait until theres enough complaints until they make a change. The classic if no one complains theres nothing wrong. Luckily theres guys like all you on this forum still left out there but not enough.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-20-2013, 05:34 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

If the customers really didn't care the studios wouldn't be doing any of this. Further, if quality really wasn't an issue the HD-DVD format might have won that Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD battle several years ago.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

We put a Dolby Digital logo on the marquee occasionally, but not always, due to space. We have a page about our sound system on our website, and the Dolby Digital logo on the main page. I'd put it in the newspaper too but nobody reads the paper so it'd be a waste of money. The website page needs updating...I might work on that tonight, actually, now that I'm thinking about it.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Most guys I've come across who spend a ton of money on home-theatre equipment (versus "home theatre in a box" solution) still don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

---

• Digital Sound - Why Does It Matter?
• Digital Sound - Formats Explained

quote:

---

Dolby, to some extent, must do a better job with marketing Atmos to the general public. Unfortunately Dolby also needs the cooperation of movie studios and movie theater chains to get the name out there too.

None of the movie posters I saw mentioned anything about Dolby Atmos. The end credits of Man of Steel didn't say anything about Atmos either. On the other hand the end credits did list the three obsolescent 35mm film digital sound formats. To me, that's just plain stupid.

The Dolby Atmos trailer that played before the movie was pretty cool though. It did a better job of demonstrating the directional capabilities of the sound format than the mix of Man of Steel.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

The other problem with Atmos is that Dolby has no minimum standard (other than the processor) for how many channels the theatre must have. So just as in the days when the b-chain sucked in many 70mm theatres, if they don't put in the extra channels or the height channels or the rear woofers, you can have a completely different experience from theatre to theatre. Also bad for marketing.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

The thing that still puzzles me is Atmos' lack of emphasis on FRONT channels.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Atmos does allow for five speaker towers/channels behind the screen. Whether anyone bothers to wire for that is another matter. I wonder if Dolby is pushing theaters who install Atmos to also use a baffle sound wall behind the screen.

In addition to supporting the LC and RC stage channels, the two rows of ceiling surrounds and extra side wall surround speakers closer to the screen would seem to add the capability of putting a lot more audio detail up front. With that configuration it's possible for certain sound elements to seem like they're floating in front of the screen. Sound elements can track far left or far right just off the screen more smoothly. With a standard 5.1 setup if you have a audio tracking effect going into the surrounds there's a kind of "snap" effect of the audio having to shoot over that big gap between the stage speakers and surround array. Dolby Atmos fills in that gap.

---

quote: David Zylstra

---

"Dolby Atmos Connect" is a loop where the devices daisy chain together with the first and last in the loop connecting back to the processor - very similar to (or the same as) BLU Link.

---

I've seen that in the specs. It is supposed to be an Ethernet based protocol, but it's currently only used to connect DAC3201 units for additional analog channel breakouts.

But this same system could probably be used to directly hook-up active speaker equipment that supports this protocol. The question is whether or not active systems will work in such a setting.

Regarding the front channels: If a cinema goes the length and installs all supported five of them, then there is no reason why the same or an even better experience can be achieved than with five channel magnetic tracks and/or SDDS.

The Atmos sound format itself doesn't contain discrete channels, the sound mixer puts the sound where it's supposed to originate and the system calculates the best possible mapping for that sound for the installed sound system.

Existing mixes can be easily mapped onto something like "virtual channels", that mimic the old channel mapping. Or, somebody could even go the length of remastering the whole soundtrack into a native Atmos mix, but that would be very expensive and might be frowned upon by purists .
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 07-24-2013, 07:06 AM:
 
I'm a fan of active speaker systems myself - but in these quantities, I don't see a real benefit. You only need one wire pair per speaker with passive speakers. With a bus system, this would have to be a proprietary system, feeding signal and power supply to these speakers. The built in amplifiers would add weight, which is especially problematic for the ceiling speakers weight budget. Plus, reliability/replacement effort for these locations plays against it. 4ch amps in a rack is the better choice I guess. With some many systems, failure rates naturally have to go up, and proprietary systems will result in sourcing problems in the future.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 07-24-2013, 12:11 PM:
 

quote: Frank Angel

---

So theoretically, the system tries to replicate sound element placement in the SAME place no matter what the theatre size or how many speaker/channels are installed. If less speakers than are necessary to get exact localization to where the mixer wanted the sound to originate from, then it only gets as close as the installed system will allow, but not necessarily a cigar. Which is fine, and certainly better than speaker/channels dedicated to very limited and specific points with a sound needing (expected) to come out of THAT speaker at THAT location, which we have had so far up until Atmos. Thing is, this leaves an awful lot of leeway to the exhibitor...a pretty dangerous thing, IMHO. It lets them get away with putting in the LEAST amount of speakers with the assumption that Atmos will do the best to compute hot to place the sound where it is supposed to be, regardless of the actual limitations of the speakers vs the room size (and the exhibitor's "thriftiness").

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

...in an era where the big, "X" large screens are all the marketing rage, I would think emphasizing good sound localization across a 60 foot screen would be a main component of any premium system.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

This is a good point. It would be nice to see directional dialog used again, and being able to support historical titles with directional dialog would be quite nice for those venues that show them.

Maybe Dolby should sponsor a "Legends of Movie Sound" roadshow that would be a series of movies with great sound mixes that would play in their Atmos-equipped theaters around the country/world. That would help with awareness and give the theaters a chance to show off their investments.

---

unfortunately it sounds like the planned 70mm shot 'Ivanhoe' ain't happening - - a great 'historical' that would looked great and perfect opportunity to bring back five front channel sound ... oh well [sigh]

I actually asked AMC via their facebook page if they could bring back 'Brave' to the Tysons' Atmos screen (since it didn't play in the DC area as such), they liked the idea and said they'd inquire with Disney and the higher ups at AMC to see if they could, but, alas, no dice.

Cinemark so far is the only chain that seems to like to book 'classic' films on Thursdays - if they had more Atmos systems on their ETX screens they could easily replay some of those missed Atmos titles.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 07-26-2013, 12:25 PM:
 
Atmos showtimes are getting more prevalent; 39 theaters are showing The Wolverine in 2D/3D:

http://www.bigscreen.com/advsearch/atmos.php

I decided it was about time that we indicate Atmos in the "digital sound" column of the showtimes, so now we do.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-26-2013, 06:53 PM:
 
I finally heard the new Atmos sound system today with Wolverine, sad to say, this system has no chance at ever being a success or relevant in the current marketplace. The marketing is just not there for it.
 

---

Posted by Sam King (Member # 4029) on 07-26-2013, 07:03 PM:
 
What types of licensing fees or annual percentage does Dolby impose to theatre operators with ATMOS?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-27-2013, 02:41 PM:
 
There are zero annual fees on Atmos for the theatre. They own the equipment/system. It is just like when people bought Dolby Digital...once you have it, you own it.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-27-2013, 04:13 PM:
 
Scott you missed the Look theater in Dallas, running it on 2 Atmos screens.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-27-2013, 08:35 PM:
 
Scott,

AMC Downtown Disney 24 and Aventura 24 are playing The Wolverine in Atmos/ETX.

I'm pretty sure there are around 200 North America Atmos installations so I would think the number of Atmos presentations of The Wolverine would be pretty close to that.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 07-29-2013, 11:39 AM:
 
Thanks for the heads-up about the LOOK Cinemas, Brad. I've contacted CinemaSource to get the Atmos and other indicators (Evolution, Look & Dine, etc.) added. It looks like the info is available, so it's just a matter of getting it sent through to us.

The AMC's are a different issue, Lyle. I looked on their web pages, and they say nothing about Atmos. Even though Dolby lists those two theaters on their site as having Atmos installations, the theaters apparently don't want anyone to know about it. They have Atmos listed in the right-hand column of amenities, but the shows aren't marked. Given that, I don't hold out too much hope for getting those indications from them.

As far as the number of installations go, I don't think it's up to 200 in the U.S. and Canada. My count the other day from Dolby's map showed about 80 theaters in the U.S., so even accounting for multiple Atmos installations in each theater and adding in the ones that are in Canada, we'd probably still come up a little short.

That said, I'm certain that a fair number of Atmos showtimes are not reflected in our listings. I would love to have all of that detail for every theater, and we pursue instances like the LOOK Cinemas example that Brad brought up, but we're really at the mercy of the theaters being willing to provide that information in the first place.

Which brings the conversation back to the fact that the entities involved really need to do more to publicize and promote Atmos for it to become more widespread.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-29-2013, 01:41 PM:
 
I don't understand why a movie theater that spent the money to install Atmos would not bother to advertise it much better or at least let customers know specifically which theater is equipped for it and if the current movie playing has an Atmos track.

I can think of a number of reasons why a theater wouldn't put forth the effort to advertise Atmos correctly. None of the reasons are good.

Maybe it takes them too much time/effort to figure out which specific movie and which specific theater has Atmos. Maybe they don't have staff who understands how to get that information properly updated on a theater web site or newspaper ad. If so, that's shitty customer service.

Maybe they want customers to guess which theater has Atmos or merely assume all the theaters are equipped with it. The goal is just getting customers into their multiplex buying tickets and snacks from the food counter rather than drive to a competing theater. Once the cattle are in the gate it doesn't matter which number chute they choose. Why give them any reason to have a preference of one screen over the other? They're all just as good and it doesn't make any difference. Again. This would be shitty customer service.

I'm sure various theater executives might like to explain to me about the sales motivations behind withholding technical information from customers. And I understand that. But I'm looking at it entirely from the customer's point of view. The customer comes first, not the damned sales executive.

AMC needs to be forthcoming about that information regarding Atmos equipped screens and actual Atmos shows. This is pretty easy shit compared to the other far more anal retentive stuff movie theater chains obsess over, like how many medium sized drink cups the 8-plex in Hamilton, Ohio went through last Wednesday.
 

---

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 08-06-2013, 05:34 PM:
 
Because advertising Atmos would cost money.

AMCs don't advertise anywhere anymore - AMC screens haven't been listed in my newspaper's theater listings in some time - though they sometimes note Atmos on their web site when they can be bothered to tell the web site programmers about it.

Frankly it's difficult at times to even tell which theaters are showing films in ETX.

I suspect AMC would prefer studios/Dolby pick up the costs for that, like the free "I Saw it in Atmos" tee I got when I saw A Good Day to Die Hard.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-06-2013, 10:35 PM:
 
Maybe they have their two or three "best" auditoriums equipped with Atmos, and those screens always have the two or three biggest movies playing, therefore attracting the most people, so most of the people coming to that venue are going to get the best experience even if they don't specifically seek it out.

They're figuring on people getting used to the big, bold Atmos sound and equating that with that particular theater -- then thinking, "Wow, this sucks" when they go to a competing non-Atmos theater. They won't necessarily know WHY the AMC is better but it will just seem that way.

I can see a marketing person thinking this way. Word of mouth is one of the best forms of advertising, after all.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-27-2014, 12:39 AM:
 
Having just started an Auro 11.1 thread and posting the brand imagery of that format I thought I would do the same for Dolby Atmos.

This first graphic is how the official branding looks.



I kind of prefer the version with the logo all on one line. It can be made larger on a movie poster, end credits, images on theater web sites. It's what's used in the Dolby Atmos trailers.

The two line version is more compact. Unfortunately, I've seen it reproduced on movie posters and theater web sites at very microscopic sizes. Sometimes a poster will have similar Dolby Digital and Dolby Atmos logos stacked on top of each other. I see little point with including the Dolby Digital logo anymore, given so few theaters left are showing 35mm film and studios like Paramount are discontinuing 35mm print production. This two line version doesn't "flow" from the Dolby Double D icon nearly as well as the single line version.

I played around with previous Dolby logo systems and made a few brand lock-up alternatives. I'm sure Dolby or an ad agency hired by Dolby has poured through similar lock-ups.



Alternative 1 is a vertically stacked lock-up that might actually be more legible on movie poster artwork and end credits. I don't know for sure though.

Alternative 2 is a play off the previous Dolby Digital logo, which many movies avoided using in end credits, going with a version that didn't have the rule line.

Alteratives 3 and 4 are similar to the Dolby Digital Cinema and 3D Digital Cinema badges.

Alternative 5 is a retro throwback to the classic Dolby Stereo lock-up, but with all the type set in Morgan Sans.
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 01-27-2014, 01:16 AM:
 
Love the alternate 5! Alternate 2 is my second choice.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-27-2014, 01:54 AM:
 
Bobby your mock-ups (they are unlocked for me so they can't be called "lock-ups") might be too detailed. The current trend is minimalism. You need to be more minimal. That's what Dolby has done (especially with their second logo) but if they want to make the big bucks with their ATMOS thingy they need to be even more minimal. Lose the Double-D logo. Lose any semblance of a font (if that's possible). Make it as plain-looking as possible. Then you will win and Atmos will take over.

Jesus S Christ will I be happy when the minimalism fad ends. That can't happen soon enough.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-27-2014, 02:36 PM:
 
Here's a few more Atmos logo alternatives, including a couple more minimal versions. Sorry, the Double-D logo has to be present, as well as the Morgan Sans typeface. I could do something with a big "A" set in Morgan Sans, or just hand-drawn to get people to think about Atmos. Unfortunately with our country having the mindset it has many would confuse the big A for America, Ass, Scarlet Letter Adultery or just plain "fuckin-A."



Alternative 6 is styled after the 1995 Dolby logo system, but with Morgan Sans type instead of the classic Eurostile and Helvetica arrangement. Alternative 7 mimics that Dolby Digital logo I see so often in movie end credits. Alternatives 8 and 9 are more minimal, using the Double-D to get people to think "Dolby" rather than having it spelled out for them.

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Jesus S Christ will I be happy when the minimalism fad ends. That can't happen soon enough.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

The current trend is minimalism. You need to be more minimal. That's what Dolby has done (especially with their second logo) but if they want to make the big bucks with their ATMOS thingy they need to be even more minimal. Lose the Double-D logo.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Lose the Double-D logo.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Although I wish Dolby had a little more security over using the Atmos branding on a non Atmos movie, I actually like the new Dolby Atmos logo.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I don't think the term "in better theaters" would be a good replacement. It's kind of off putting to potential customers looking to upgrade.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The only thing Dolby can do is try to educate theater operators when they should or should not play the Atmos snipes. If Dolby hounds theater operators too much about that issue the theater managers might adopt a policy of not playing the Atmos snipes at all.

---

quote: Kenneth Wuepper

---

You are one of those brave circus performers that fly without a net.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

They can make the snipes without a standard LPCM soundtrack and have the DCPs only contain the Atmos soundtrack. Better yet, have the LPCM track have a voice saying "This auditorium is not equipped with Dolby Atmos. If it is equipped, the Atmos soundtrack is not playing properly, please alert the theater manager."

I always thought that the 35mm digital sound snipes should not have contained an analog soundtrack.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

They can make the snipes without a standard LPCM soundtrack and have the DCPs only contain the Atmos soundtrack. Better yet, have the LPCM track have a voice saying "This auditorium is not equipped with Dolby Atmos. If it is equipped, the Atmos soundtrack is not playing properly, please alert the theater manager."

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

I always thought that the 35mm digital sound snipes should not have contained an analog soundtrack.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

Even back on Jurassic Park, many people would comment on how awesome the DTS was when they saw the film in Dolby Stereo since the DTS snipe was on all prints (with analog audio). You were supposed to cut them off I guess but I know of sister GCC theatres that had prints interlocked with 1 DTS and 2 or 3 Dolby Stereo (or even mono) auditoriums. They'd leave the snipe on there for the DTS auditorium.

---

quote: Mark Lensenmayer

---

Marcus has already installed ATMOS in the UltraScreen unit of Crosswoods in Central Ohio.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

other copies of the same trailers that can be dropped into any playlist without being restricted by a specific KDM.

---

quote:

---

quote: Mark LensenmayerMarcus has already installed ATMOS in the UltraScreen unit of Crosswoods in Central Ohio.

Marcus also has Atmos at their UltraScreen DLX 21 location in Addison, IL

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I think Dolby would only be helping themselves sell more Atmos systems if they could get the word out about upcoming Atmos supported movies as soon as possible.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

theaters don't really have an incentive to push special sound formats if they don't think it drives revenue. Of course, then you can ask why they bothered to install it in the first place.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

Dolby should do some kind of co-op program where if they're dealing with the studio/distributor (since most movie display advertising is placed by the distributor, not the theater), the studio gets a break on licensing fees if they include Atmos designations for individual theaters. If they're dealing with the theatre, the theatre gets some kind of credits (or cash) that would be good for service or equipment or promo material or something.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

And I think it's the same at Dolby with ATMOS marketing. Talented engineers. But the former coke selling new exec thinks Dolby Vision is the next big thing, because cinema is SOOO old style and this new pinky flashy 80inch flat screen SOOO cool.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

What's the point of having a great sound system if no one knows it's there?

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

This was a big problem for THX in those days as well. The few NYC theaters that were THX equipped never advertised the fact in movie ads. However, when I used to visit Los Angeles, they all did.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

The manager said, "oh, it's not playing in Atmos." I said, "the film is in Atmos and that's an Atmos screen.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

I bought a ticket for that screen anyway. It was in Atmos and they played the Atmos snipe. So even the theaters don't know what they're doing.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

So with that exception, the theaters don't really have an incentive to push special sound formats if they don't think it drives revenue.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

Of course, then you can ask why they bothered to install it in the first place.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

What's the point of having a great sound system if no one knows it's there?

---

quote: Jack Ondracek

---

Personally, I don't think the average patron cares about a specific element of the experience. It's all in how everything comes together.

---

quote: Jack Ondracek

---

Personally, I don't think the average patron cares about a specific element of the experience. It's all in how everything comes together.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

In High-Quality Theaters
In Top Theaters
In Cutting-Edge Theaters
In Theaters Worth Experiencing™
In Advanced Theaters

---

quote: Jarod Reddig

---

I think its the same old story of the only real thing that gets people into the cinemas are good movies.

---

quote: Jarod Reddig

---

Out of everyone I know that goes to the movies regularly none of them really care about great sound or perfect perjection. Its the movie that gets them to go to the theater and new tech just doesnt' interest the average person that much. As said all the whiz-bang tech these days just confuses the average person. Its only when something goes wrong do they ever even consider the quality of the presentation. Its sad really but I honestly think that for the majority of the public this is the norm.

---

quote: Jarod Reddig

---

I hope Dolby is succesfull with Atmos.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

I also don't believe the horseshit saying "they don't care because they don't know the difference", most average people are so busy with their lives that they don't have the time to worry about what type of projector or sound system is installed. They just want to watch the movie when they want to watch it.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

It's got nothing to do with busy lives.

---

I guess life is pretty boring in Forsyth, Montana
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-26-2014, 06:24 PM:
 
Nope, but I can tell you that it's been at least 10 years since anybody asked me "what kind of sound" we have at the theatre. They know it looks good and sounds good and that's all they want to know. (Plus we show the Dolby tag before every movie.)
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-27-2014, 02:35 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

They'll either seek out a cheaper theater or wait for the video.

---

quote:

---

Where things go wrong is when some crap cinemas have a "Super UX" (or whatever) auditorium that is really just a larger room with the same old stuff in it, that makes some people feel ripped off. Their conclusion is that the "premium" brand, whatever it is, just means a higher price for a bigger room with the same old stuff in it. This is why people are so upset with the recent Imax developments -- it's just a bigger room with the same old stuff and it's diluting that once-pristine brand name, but all the suits see is the increasing $ so it must be good! (Plus it's digital!)

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I can tell you that it's been at least 10 years since anybody asked me "what kind of sound" we have at the theatre. They know it looks good and sounds good and that's all they want to know. (Plus we show the Dolby tag before every movie.)

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

That is quite possibly the goofiest thing I've ever heard of.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

we'll probably need to buy another new digital projector in not too many more years.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Q-Sound sucked my unshaved ballsack.

---

You are funny!

This chick already has Dolby Ass-mos, she don't need no stinking earphones.

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Well...along with them hoping they snag some home entertainment bucks, they're probably also hoping to use the sales angle where they tell theater owners at convention trade shows "You must have this system because the home market has a scaled down version, and you need to stay ahead of the home market you know."

---

quote: Jarod Reddig

---

they need to develop an entire Dolby Cinema bundle.

---

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

hmmmm multi channel SRSlabs

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Dual projector 3D is arguably overkill for modest sized screens

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

if they were smart, they'd install a second projector instead so the 3D experience would be really worth the surcharge and not look like the crap experience it almost always does. I think the majority of patrons would be much more aware of a bright, normal looking (rather than underlit looking) 3D image than being able to hear a particular sound coming from precisely from the position the mixer placed it than coming from the general area the mixer placed it

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Dual projection is not overkill for even the smallest screens, 3D is just way too dim to be acceptable, you probably just haven't been out to enough proper 2D presentations to see that 2D is much, much brighter.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Why can't Dolby just lock out the Atmos trailers when not needed?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

There's probably no way to ever have a 3-D picture be as bright as a 2-D one when the 3-D version has to have two filters (projector and glasses) between the light and the image.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Maybe the theaters running those Atmos trailers are just advertising the fact that they have Atmos. It doesn't say in the trailer that "the following feature is presented in Atmos," does it?

---

quote:

---

Obviously you and I know that they SHOULD only run that trailer on Atmos features but I can see a guy thinking, dammit I spent all that money, I'm gonna let people know it!

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

And, I'll bet even if people are watching a mono film from the 70s, if that Atmos trailer plays ahead of it and the movie sounds real good, people might be outside afterwards telling their friends "That Atmos system really sounds good!" Even if they only heard the center channel.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

I don't see a scenario where Dolby would not bring the Atmos technology and brand to home theater.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

While not everyone can put in a 7.1 surround system, much less ceiling-mounted speakers, some can. If it doesn't add a lot to the cost of the unit, and they do a decent job of it, why not?

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

We even have sites with Christie projectors that switch lamps between 2D and 3D.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

I think Dolby will find away for speaker manufacturers to bounce the sound off a wall or something.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Why doesn't Dolby just come up with a new name for their home Atmos-like thing? Obviously it's not going to be the same as the theater system in most cases but a "simulation."

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

in order for Atmos to succeed in the theaters I think consumers need to be able to experience Atmos on the mobile platform

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

I don't see a scenario where Dolby would not bring the Atmos technology and brand to home theater. The relative market size is much greater, and the potential revenue is too large to ignore.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

As long as they can solve the challenge of how to get the Atmos soundtrack onto a Blu-ray disc and deliver it to the receiver, it's not much more complicated than that.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Maybe the theaters running those Atmos trailers are just advertising the fact that they have Atmos. It doesn't say in the trailer that "the following feature is presented in Atmos," does it?

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

I get what you are saying about having a different name and such, but I think Dolby is in a difficult position, in order for Atmos to succeed in the theaters I think consumers need to be able to experience Atmos on the mobile platform, or in the home etc.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I think you're overemphasizing the mobile arena. Sure the kids are all "connected" but that doesn't mean they don't engage with the real world AT ALL. And, keep in mind that there are billions of people in the world over age 25. The key to making Atmos succeed is to get it into a lot of theaters, get people talking about it and get it promoted. Not watering it down and jamming it into every device that has a speaker.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

If it means just making a lot of money and not caring what the brand means, then yeah, they should jam away. If they want the brand to have integrity, then it should be theatrical only and promoted as such

---

quote:

---

(Sheez, you'd think they'd have a marketing expert onboard who could tell them that lesson from Marketing 101.) B

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

The current generation does not care about speakers and receivers, a sound bar means good sound to a lot of folks.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

The company cannot rely on Dolby Atmos exhibitor sales to keep them afloat.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

You do realize they have a lot more than Atmos in their catalog, right? It's not like they're staking their whole future on Atmos.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

I would say the future of Dolby is riding on the shoulders of Atmos in the home segment. If Atmos does not succeed long term (which I think it won't) then Dolby has no future.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

You might think I might be overemphasizing the mobile segment but Dolby has clearly recognized that mobile is essential. Dolby is on record and has said that in order for Dolby to grow in the future it is from the mobile area.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

They did, I think they hired some former Apple marketing expert.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Dolby is on record and has said that in order for Dolby to grow in the future it is from the mobile area.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

I would say the future of Dolby is riding on the shoulders of Atmos in the home segment. If Atmos does not succeed long term (which I think it won't) then Dolby has no future.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

But does Dolby REALLY need to grow? How big do they need to be?

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

But does Dolby REALLY need to grow? How big do they need to be? How much is enough?

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

But does Dolby REALLY need to grow?

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

You have to look back in the past at Dolby records to see how they are shaping their future, the Dolby of today (in emerging tech segments) is not the "de facto" standard that it once was.

---

quote: Lyle Romer was the last to post

---

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

Emerging segments aren't killing Dolby's revenue

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Lyle, just take a read at some of the Dolby documents on their website. Dolby's revenue is about 10% hardware (exhibition only) and the rest is all licensing/royalties to third-party manufacturers (home theatre, PCs, optical discs etc).

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

The mobile segment (tablets/cell phone) is emerging, mobile is replacing optical/PC/ and some broadcasting. Mobile is not subject to include Dolby. This is the segment that they are losing out.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

For example: As PCs continue to be replaced by cell phones and tablets, Dolby loses out if those tablets are not equipped with Dolby technology.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

+1 to that. I keep hearing about how mobile devices are "replacing" desktop computers, but what they forget to mention is that desktops are used for ACTUAL WORK or data production, where mobile devices are used much more for CONSUMPTION.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

A big percentage of those licensing and royalty revenues were obviously included in his "hardware sales" statement.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

No, but am I to presume

---

quote:

---

Mike, let's not be silly here
...
There is no doubt that the data is showing that the average person is replacing their laptop with a tablet purchase.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Mike, let's not be silly here, everyone knows that they will need a desktop or a laptop for somewhat serious work, most people can get by with a tablet, I know at least 10 people who do not use laptops or desktops anymore. There is no doubt that the data is showing that the average person is replacing their laptop with a tablet purchase.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

They're also bearish on TV sets for the same reason (even though lots of people keep the same TV for a decade or longer).

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

Again, back to the point. The mobile segment isn't taking market away from Dolby. The "growth" that drives the stock price might not be there but they will still make nice profit. The reason public companies are always obsessed with growth is because fundamentally that is the only real way to drive the stock price up. If the company doesn't grow then the value of each share doesn't grow either unless there is a prediction that the company will grow in the future.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

They are trying to create a product replacement cycle after they drove their margins down on LCD/Plasma.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

It's kind of the same with Smart Phones and Tablets. There isn't any pressing need to replace them unless they stop working. They all pretty much look the same and are the same size as they've been for years.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

The mobile segment isn't taking market away from Dolby. The "growth" that drives the stock price might not be there but they will still make nice profit. The reason public companies are always obsessed with growth is because fundamentally that is the only real way to drive the stock price up.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Mike, it is a fact that PC sales are falling, there will be a whole generation that will grow up without ever having a need for a laptop or desktop. Is that to hard for you to figure out?

---

Obviously you didn't read my whole post and/or you can't admit when you're off-base, probably both. You can't fathom my very simple point, which was that computers are lasting longer than they used to which is why they aren't getting replaced as fast as they used to be. Why is that so hard for you to figure out? The computer I'm typing on right now is from 2008. We'll replace it -- with another desktop -- when it breaks, which could be tomorrow or five years from now.

Plus your "average person" isn't the whole computer market. Do you honestly think all the computers in businesses will someday be replaced by tablets? Among teenagers watching movies and playing games, yes, they certainly don't need a desktop computer, but (like Bobby says above) I'll bet they still use them in school and such.

I have no doubt that there are plenty of people who don't need a desktop computer. Most of them are probably people who don't use a computer for their work (if they have jobs, that is).
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-05-2014, 03:39 PM:
 
Demographics is one key area that really screws up that whole "post-PC world" fantasy.

People who have no use for a real computer are more than likely people who aren't doing any productive work using digital devices. They may just be students or in some other bracket where they're bringing in little if any income. Did somebody (like Mommy or Daddy) buy that portable device for them? That demographic isn't exactly something any corporation can build long term plans of exploiting for never-ending profit gains, rising stock prices and big fat bonuses.

Even when it comes to "content consumption" leisure activities, like watching movies or checking Facebook, the portable devices still run into numerous problems. For one thing mobile versions of social media apps like Facebook omit lots of content. The portable version of FB in particular will drop all sorts of things from a user's wall and news feed. You have to check Facebook on a real computer to see what you missed.

The screen on a smart phone or tablet is better than nothing if you want to watch a movie. Just make sure you're connected to the Internet via WiFi so you don't bust through your service provider's bandwidth cap and get hit with overage charges in no time at all.


If someone already has a big HDTV set and a surround sound system why would he bother farting around with watching movies on a tablet (or even a computer for that matter)? The iPhone and iPad lack HDMI connections. You can spend $99 on an AppleTV device and connect the iPad to that wirelessly or spend a bunch of money on adapters to connect the iPad to the TV and/or surround sound system. Some Android devices have HDMI outputs, but not all work exactly the same, and MicroHDMI to HDMI cables are not exactly plentiful at stores. Most people who already have big HDTV sets, surround sound systems, etc. have plenty of other devices that play movies too -like game consoles, DVRs, Blu-ray players, etc. Those devices connect directly to the big TV set and surround system without the need for buying wireless adapters, proprietary cables, etc.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Just look at how the removal of batteries has become the norm, older tablets/phones cannot download the newer designed apps in many cases, and then there is the way they are built. And then, the newer OS is not compatible with older devices which requires and upgrade.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Unfortunately those questions don't matter when a company is selling publicly traded stock. Some investors wouldn't give a scent free fart if a company was merely operating at a profitable level.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

The stockholders always want more, more MORE! It's never enough. They expect to expand into infinity.

---

Joe, in order for a shareholder to get a return on their investment, they need the company to grow and thus make more profits. In the case of Dolby, all of their core segments are not growing or they are growing a small pace, this is why they have said on record that future growth for Dolby is dependent on the mobile segment.

You are right, shareholders want more, more, more. I don't see anything wrong with that.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-05-2014, 09:20 PM:
 
I guess you don't see anything wrong with leveraged buy-outs, hostile takeovers, "activist investors" who think they know more about a company than the guy who started it. Investors wanting more and more turn into things like corporate raiders picking apart an otherwise healthy company, selling off its parts piece by piece and pocketing the retirement fund as "green mail." Yeah, there's nothing wrong with any of that.


Screw greedy shareholders. They don't care about the health of a corporation. They only have their hands in the till, wanting more and more until there's nothing left. Shareholders have zero interest in long term health of a company. They're only there for the quickest, fastest buck possible.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-06-2014, 06:36 PM:
 

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Joe, in order for a shareholder to get a return on their investment, they need the company to grow and thus make more profits.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

No shit, Sherlock! That's why I said I don't like public companies.

---

Well Holmes, I guess you don't invest in any public company now do you?

You sound like the type of guy who would invest in a company and then hope the share price stays the same since the day you bought it
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-07-2014, 04:28 AM:
 

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Joe, in order for a shareholder to get a return on their investment, they need the company to grow and thus make more profits.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Screw greedy shareholders. They don't care about the health of a corporation. They only have their hands in the till, wanting more and more until there's nothing left. Shareholders have zero interest in long term health of a company. They're only there for the quickest, fastest buck possible.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

The problem with shareholders is they are never really in it for the long-term...they can see on each quarterly report (and daily profit/loss of their stock price) what a company is doing right now.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

I think you are being a little bit unfair. Sure, there are investors that feel that way. On the other side, there are plenty of people like me that invest in stocks that pay dividends. In that case, the most important thing is that the company makes a good profit consistently.

It's nice if the stock price rises at least as much as inflation on top of the dividend but the most important thing to me is the dividend. I'm not going to get super rich this way but I'm a lot less likely to suffer big losses and I'm likely to get a MUCH better return than I could with a savings account or CD.

---

quote: Sam D. Chavez

---

In my ideal business world the company is formed to make excellent products. You do this by hiring the best people empowering them and taking care of them in order to have a motivated work force. This is the real value of the company, products and people and loyal, happy customers.

Instead we have MBA's playing games to increase short term value for the shareholders, selling off the cores of companies, outsourcing manufacturing, treating customer service people like the enemy, etc.

MBA's are taught to do just this at every business school and these are supposed to be the smartest among us.

There are exceptions of course, Costco does a good job and Wallmart is atrocious, but that's just me talking.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Which is all fine and dandy Lyle, but if a healthy company can grow then its profits should grow as well. That is the ideal situation.

---

quote:

---

High quality sound - background noise reduction combined with high definition quality

Voice separation - sounds come from different directions (just like being round the meeting room table)

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Dolby used to be a lot more relevant in cinemas, now they are nowhere near as relevant, almost forgotten.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

With Atmos, I don't think it will do well long term, I think it will go the way of Dolby 7.1.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Dolby is still very relevant in the theatrical market. They're making just as many (if not more) products for cinemas than when everything was film-based.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Compared to the 80s and 90s where Dolby 6-track was synonymous with event movies and the double D Dolby logo was all over newspapers ads and theatre marquees, the new generation simply does not see the Dolby logo like I did in the past.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

That's because today, good movie sound is a "given." It's expected.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

In the minds of the consumer (customers buying the tickets) Dolby is totally irrelevant.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Compared to the 80s and 90s where Dolby 6-track was synonymous with event movies and the double D Dolby logo was all over newspapers ads and theatre marquees, the new generation simply does not see the Dolby logo like I did in the past.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Also, you must not forget that Dolby True HD is almost nowhere to be found on blu-ray, it is there but it is not a prevalent as Dolby Digital was on DVD or laserdisc.

---

Dolby TrueHD isn't on a lot of Blu-ray discs due to a pooch screw of sorts by Dolby's software engineers. Somebody, likely a Mac snob, chose to make Dolby's TrueHD encoding software available only for the Mac platform. The problem is all commercially produced Blu-ray discs are authored on Windows-based software. The DTS-HD Master Audio suite is available on both Mac and Windows platforms. It costs a hell of a lot less than the TrueHD suite. According to it's a lot more user friendly than Dolby's software. Movie studios also noticed a very vocal DTS fan base and made it look like they were responding to consumer wishes by choosing DTS-HD Master Audio for Blu-ray. The truth is DTS-HD just fits into a Blu-ray authoring work flow a lot better than Dolby TrueHD.

Nevertheless, the Dolby logo is all over a lot of Blu-ray discs in the form of English DD 5.1 compatibility tracks and foreign language tracks. I don't have many Blu-ray discs that feature DTS audio formats exclusively.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-25-2014, 12:42 PM:
 
Atmos is getting 100 installations in Indonesia, according to this press release :

quote:

---

Cinemaxx to Roll Out 100 Dolby Atmos Screens in Indonesia

March 24, 2014 12:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time

CinemaCon 2014

LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--CinemaCon 2014—Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: DLB) and Lippo Group announced today that Cinemaxx, a new exhibitor under Indonesia’s Lippo Group, has committed to installing Dolby Atmos in 100 cinema screens over the next three or more years, with 30 of the 100 screens scheduled to be launched by the end of May 2015. With this news, the revolutionary new Dolby Atmos® cinema sound format reaches a significant milestone: more than 600 screens worldwide have now been or are scheduled to be equipped for Dolby Atmos.

“Dolby looks forward to working with Cinemaxx to bring the ultimate cinematic experience to moviegoers in Indonesia”

Dolby Atmos unleashes the potential of sound in storytelling by giving filmmakers the creative freedom to easily place or move sounds anywhere in the movie theatre to create a lifelike, virtual reality of sound and the most engaging cinema experience ever.

“Dolby looks forward to working with Cinemaxx to bring the ultimate cinematic experience to moviegoers in Indonesia,” said Mahesh Sundaram, Vice President, Asia Pacific, Dolby Laboratories. “With Dolby Atmos, you feel as if you are in the movie, not merely watching it. We are confident that moviegoers will go back again and again to Cinemaxx once they enjoy their first Dolby Atmos film.”

“Our goal is to offer state-of-the-art technology with first-class amenities,” said Brian Riady, CEO, Cinemaxx. “With Dolby Atmos, we aim to take the Indonesian cinematic experience to the next level.”

Dolby Atmos has quickly become the preferred choice for next-generation cinema sound among major studios, award-winning filmmakers, and exhibitors around the world. To find a Dolby Atmos equipped theatre and showtimes, please visit www.fandango.com/dolby. Movie patrons who would like to experience Dolby Atmos can visit iwantdolbyatmos.dolby.com or check with their local cinema for select showtimes when tickets become available.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

If theaters have not begun researching how they are going to upgrade to Atmos or Auro, this is the shot across the bow to get their attention.

---

I still think Dolby would be farther ahead to come up with a smaller, "FAR" less expensive Atmos for smaller houses. Ours, for example is 194 seats and is 35' wide, so there's not really a huge need for speakers all over the place like there would be a huge room. If there was an option that would use, say, 24 channels for about a third of the cost I'd be all over that.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-24-2014, 01:22 PM:
 
Mike, I pitched a 3 level Atmos solution to Dolby already for exactly the scenario you describe. They seemed interested, but now that this home crap is real, I don't see what it matters.

What's really funny is right now every auditorium's plans, speaker/amp models and the entire design must be submitted to Dolby for approval, then you must pay them several thousand to send one of their techs out to verify the equipment really was installed per the plans and press the "auto-EQ" button. (That fee is built into the CP850 cost.) They do this to supposedly control quality since they can't trust ANYONE but their own people, and for what? People who are going to cinch on things with crappy speakers and omitting everything they can get away with will still do it and their install still won't be a full and proper Atmos install. People who are serious about doing Atmos right will still do Atmos right.

Meanwhile for Home Atmos, any dipshit can setup the system any way he wants with terrible room acoustics, improper speakers, etc. ...and they still want to call it ATMOS???

So digital IMAX has it's catchy LieMAX title.

AMC's old horrendous HITS sound system had it's catchy SHITS sound system title.

I think we should start referring to the home version of Atmos as F'd Atmos, in honor of the way you read it and also in honor of our friend "F" who dutifully destroys home mixes every day. All in favor?
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 06-24-2014, 01:55 PM:
 
There once was a THX quality certification, that actually meant something. Then, "THX" was licensed to consumer audio products so that anyone could set it up anyway they wanted, and theatrical THX lost it's value in mind of the public.

Sometimes history really does repeat itself.
 

---

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 06-24-2014, 03:45 PM:
 
I've read the blog post and I'm speachless. Not only are they downsizing one of the greatest sound ever to the living room, but they are allowing you to have Atmos without Atmos!

No space on the ceiling - or simply too lazy to put up the speakers? No worries! Our "Atmos Enabled" speakers will work anyway, just put them on the floor, behind the sofa, or in a drawer, sprinkle some fairy dust on them and sound will appear from all around you!

Sigh.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-24-2014, 03:54 PM:
 
I guarantee this home version of Atmos initiative is coming from sales/marketing people just wanting to make some quick cash. It can't be coming from any technology people actually wanting to improve the movie-going experience.

Let just sell some shit. Even though it is shit. It's the American way. Or, rather, it's the way of the world.

 

---

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 06-24-2014, 04:24 PM:
 
You should check out Blu-ray.com's thread here. Hilariously plebeian and excitement is off the roof with some voices of reason. I also posted on here as sega3dmm, find me on page four.

quote: Brad Miller

---

AMC's old horrendous HITS sound system had it's catchy SHITS sound system title.

---

quote: Connor Wilson

---

You should check out Blu-ray.com's thread here. Hilariously plebeian and excitement is off the roof with some voices of reason.

---

For some reason I didn't even think of the fact that this will probably unleash a new torrent of reissues of Li'lAtmos/Li'lAuro remixed classic "super deluxe edition" BluRays so all the, for example, Star Wars fans can buy all the movies...again.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-26-2014, 11:04 AM:
 
Wow, so much hate for something that isn't even past the "blog post pre-announcement" phase...

I can see why this announcement is anathema to theater operators, but I don't see how this is any different than everything that has come before.

Theaters had Dolby surround, and then homes got Dolby Surround, Pro-Logic, etc.

Theaters had THX certification, and then homes got THX-certified equipment, and some lucky few could afford actually getting THX certification for their entire setups.

Theaters had Dolby Digital and DTS and SDDS, and then homes got Dolby Digital and DTS.

Homes got LPCM, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS HD Master Audio, and then theaters got LPCM. (Not exactly sure of the timing here, but I think homes beat theaters in this iteration)

Theaters got Atmos and Auro, and in the near future, homes will get Atmos.

And that's just the audio side. But in each of these iterations, the fact that a home version of a theater technology exists has not killed the theatrical industry. In contrast, I think that enthusiasts who care about such technology are actually a theater's best opportunity. People who don't know any better or that think because they have a logo on their $100 Home Theater in a Box, they have the same stuff as their local movie theater aren't going to care what a movie theater has that makes the moviegoing experience special.

Enthusiasts are going to care. Some can do it in their homes, but not all. Those who can and those who can't are going to seek out the best movie experiences they can, so it is still incumbent upon movie theaters to make the investments in making sure that they are delivering the best possible experience in their theaters.

If Dolby is being unreasonable about its pricing for theaters and/or its requirements for Atmos installations, that's a completely different issue. Maybe theaters need to start making a concerted effort to apply some pressure on Dolby on those pain points and make them see that unnecessary expenses are a bad choice.

Home Atmos can be a good thing for theaters, as it raises awareness for an upgraded experience. It can be a bad thing for theaters that can't deliver a better experience than can be had in the home, but that's been a sticking point for me for a very long time.

A properly equipped, calibrated, and maintained theater that cares about delivering an excellent movie-going experience (and educating its customers about those elements) has nothing to fear from Atmos in the home.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-26-2014, 01:18 PM:
 

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

I can see why this announcement is anathema to theater operators, but I don't see how this is any different than everything that has come before.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

And that's just the audio side. But in each of these iterations, the fact that a home version of a theater technology exists has not killed the theatrical industry. In contrast, I think that enthusiasts who care about such technology are actually a theater's best opportunity.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

Enthusiasts are going to care. Some can do it in their homes, but not all.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The Atmos brand will get cheapened. Home theater fans may like it, but it's going to kill any enthusiasm for exhibitors to spend $75,000 to put the same brand in a commercial cinema auditorium.

---

quote: Marc D Fishman

---

Home Atmos can support 24 speaker outputs for the room and 10 for the ceiling/overhead.

---

quote: Marc D Fishman

---

Just to be clear, there is no additional LFE channel in theatrical Atmos... since bass management has been a requirement for DD AVR's since it's introduction, I can't see how you can qualify this as a difference... if an AVR manufacturer wants to add a discrete second sub output that is up to them.

---

quote: Marc D Fishman

---

This first generation of AVR's shouldn't be taken as an indication of what the maximum capabilities of the Home Atmos iteration are.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

some theaters couldn't quite figure out how to show a DD presentation without dropouts at the reel splices (whether that was a Dolby issue or a theater issue, or both, I'm not sure any more).

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

If I were to stick $75k into my theater for anything, you can bet I would make sure that I had a plan for how I was going to milk every ounce of benefit I could get from it.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Has anyone seen the $899 Onkyo Dolby Atmos home theatre in a box yet?

---

Congratulations Dolby on managing to kill what should have been the greatest revolution in sound in 20 years. The speed with which you have accomplished this self sabotage is impressive!
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-15-2014, 02:06 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-15-2014, 02:50 PM:
 
LOL! What about Kimball?
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-15-2014, 03:11 PM:
 
mark said "LOL! What about Kimball? "
ok any of Kimball, Marr Colton, Barton, Robert Morton, Kilgen ,Hill-Green Lane< Compton,Christie,Jardine,Warren Woodstock........
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-15-2014, 10:25 PM:
 

quote:

---

Congratulations Dolby on managing to kill what should have been the greatest revolution in sound in 20 years. The speed with which you have accomplished this self sabotage is impressive!

---

I was on my mobile yesterday, so I could not post the link. Here it is if you want to look at it.

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Onkyo-Unveils-Dolby-Atmos-Home-Theater-in-a-Box-System-for-899.shtml
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-15-2014, 11:20 PM:
 


I'm not sure which is more sad, the fact that this (and other) home products are claiming to be Atmos, or the fact that the upper management at Dolby has permitted their best product in decades to be "THX'd" by releasing it to the home market in such a pathetic excuse for a half-assed attempt at Atmos.

These people will not get the same experience at home as they do the cinema, but just like THX did Dolby is permitting it to be called the same thing, thereby destroying any positive branding that Atmos has (or could've had going forward).
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-15-2014, 11:29 PM:
 

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Onkyo-Unveils-Dolby-Atmos-Home-Theater-in-a-Box-System-for-899.shtml

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

I am sure Dolby is not too happy about it themselves. But with Auro 3D entering the home cinema market, they simply had to do something.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

The number of Blu-ray discs with TrueHD is very small in relation to those with DTS Master Audio, and I can imagine that Dolby didn't want it to happen again.

---

There's two reasons why DTS Master Audio took over as the de facto audio format for Blu-ray. 1.: home theater fans rabid over the DTS brand name. 2.: (I think this is the bigger one) DTS' Master Audio encoder is easier to use and integrates into the Blu-ray Authoring environment better.

All commercial level Blu-ray authoring happens on Windows-based PCs. None of the software runs on Mac OSX. Yet Dolby insisted on making its Dolby TrueHD encoding software a Mac-only thing and made it a LOT more expensive than DTS' encoding software. DTS' Master Audio encoding software is available for both Windows and Mac OSX. Dolby should have got off its high horse and released a Windows version of its encoder and priced it to compete with DTS. BTW, this price and platform hopping problem is still going to be an issue when it comes to embedding Atmos mixes into Dolby TrueHD tracks on Blu-ray. It will be something that will give DTS and Auro 11.1/13.1 an advantage in home theater over Atmos.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-16-2014, 12:52 PM:
 
Let's also not forget "the THX isn't on" and "the Dolby surround isn't working" patron complaints from self-proclaimed experts who remind us "I have a THX sound system at home and when the actors talk ALL of MY speakers work".

In short, home vidiots are going to setup the Atmos incorrectly and then expect that's how it is supposed to sound, just like they always have.

Its similar to "just rewind the film" from people who used to run projectors in their high school classroom.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-16-2014, 01:46 PM:
 
Just wait for the Dolby Home Cinema Server that also can't keep time
 

---

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 07-16-2014, 02:35 PM:
 
How about making a trailer with someone watching a HTIB with a relatively small screen and sound, then run a dramatic BIG picture and BIG sound. Follow with "The choice is yours."

Harold
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-16-2014, 03:50 PM:
 

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

In either scenario, this is not doom and gloom for a theater, nor is it doom and gloom for Dolby.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

I can see why this announcement is anathema to theater operators, but I don't see how this is any different than everything that has come before.

Theaters had Dolby surround, and then homes got Dolby Surround, Pro-Logic, etc.

Theaters had THX certification, and then homes got THX-certified equipment, and some lucky few could afford actually getting THX certification for their entire setups.

Theaters had Dolby Digital and DTS and SDDS, and then homes got Dolby Digital and DTS.

Homes got LPCM, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS HD Master Audio, and then theaters got LPCM. (Not exactly sure of the timing here, but I think homes beat theaters in this iteration)

Theaters got Atmos and Auro, and in the near future, homes will get Atmos

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

The movie theater really should have something that is impossible to replicated on any level or scale vs. the home.

---

which in my opinion should be 9.1 discrete (five front channel) sound - you can't put five speakers equidistant above/below your tv/monitor screen (very easily). So why not bring back the art of mixing with left/center, right/center sound sourcing. Dolby Atmos accounts for them - use them and abuse them ... Maybe someone from LucasArts will actually mix the next Star Wars movie as such. Bring the circle back around: 70mm Dolby 'baby boom' for Ep. 4, Ep. 1 in 8-channel SDDS, Ep 7: 9.1 Dolby Atmos.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-16-2014, 07:14 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

These people will not get the same experience at home as they do the cinema, but just like THX did Dolby is permitting it to be called the same thing, thereby destroying any positive branding that Atmos has (or could've had going forward).

---

Publicly traded companies are driven by shareholders that want their returns, especially in close-to-zero-interest markets we're currently in. This move by Dolby was to expected, although I didn't expect it so soon already.

There is no reason to trust any publicly traded company to do the best for their customers. As soon as the possibility arises, they will screw their customer base ten times over if there is more money to be made on the short term. Dolby effectually proved that by screwing everybody who invested tons of money into their new sound system by destroying its brand-ability so fast.

If you want to get a "seal of quality", companies like Dolby, Barco, Datasat, etc. are not the ones you're looking for. The THX brand is owned by Logitech those days, so go figure...

I've ranted about this before, but in my rather humble opinion, there is still an opportunity for an independent quality label. Something like THX once was, one that's exclusively limited to professional auditoria. Maybe something that even more focuses on the whole package, rather than just the sound system.
It happens, I actually agree with Terry. (Although the answer most definitely isn't IMAX!) The movie theater business has been proclaimed dead since the invention of the television and although it did survive the video cassette, DVD and BluRay, there is definitely trouble brewing ahead. If my not-so-sophisticated home theater setup can already outperform the average multiplex experience by a long shot and the movie becomes available for download on Netflix the same day it's released, then, Houston, we do have a problem.

A movie theater needs to be more than just a dark box with crappy sound and mediocre picture. The problem is, who can discern between the Good, the Bad and the Ugly? That's exactly why a new, independent quality label is desperately needed...
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-16-2014, 07:43 PM:
 
How about the Film-Tech Seal of Quality? Since digital installs are winding down, maybe there would be a market for something like that if it was reasonably priced. A theater could pay a fee for FIlm-Tech to come and pay a visit. Film-Tech could rate the theater on various attributes and assign a rating. The higher the rating, the better the cinema. It would be something like the AAA ratings given to hotels. And a cinema could get a better rating on the next "inspection" by installing upgrades.

And Joe Redifer could animate a bad-ass "Film-Tech Seal of Quality" DCP that would be shown at cinemas receiving the Seal.

The only problem with this idea is, a lot of moviegoers just pick the theater closest to them that's showing the movie they want to see. I don't think a majority of people will go out of their way to a more "premium-ish" theater. We've had this argument before, but I think a big reason for the huge grosses of "PLF" theaters is the higher ticket price + the fact that in any complex, it's the auditorium with the biggest movie and/or best showtimes for that popular title.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-16-2014, 09:21 PM:
 
There's only one problem with your idea Mike. Every one of those stupid theaters without masking would fail.
 

---

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 07-16-2014, 10:29 PM:
 
OK! So this trailer is to be seen in a theatre, right.

Then the attitude is pretty poor from the viewer's point of view.

A really good ending for this would be to acknowledge the patron's presence. We're glad you're here.

"Thank you for choosing to enjoy this film with us!"
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-17-2014, 11:06 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

The only problem with this idea is, a lot of moviegoers just pick the theater closest to them that's showing the movie they want to see. I don't think a majority of people will go out of their way to a more "premium-ish" theater. We've had this argument before, but I think a big reason for the huge grosses of "PLF" theaters is the higher ticket price + the fact that in any complex, it's the auditorium with the biggest movie and/or best showtimes for that popular title.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

There's only one problem with your idea Mike. Every one of those stupid theaters without masking would fail.

---

Actually, I fail to see how this would be a problem .

Proper masking is important and a theater that can't get their basics right doesn't deserve a thumbs up or the whole point of certification is moot.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-17-2014, 12:15 PM:
 

quote: Jonathan Goeldner

---

Maybe someone from LucasArts will actually mix the next Star Wars movie as such. Bring the circle back around: 70mm Dolby 'baby boom' for Ep. 4, Ep. 1 in 8-channel SDDS, Ep 7: 9.1 Dolby Atmos.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

If you want to get a "seal of quality", companies like Dolby, Barco, Datasat, etc. are not the ones you're looking for. The THX brand is owned by Logitech those days, so go figure...

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

The current three-letter LPF lingo signifies nothing and you can't fool customers forever, especially those quite important repeat customers. As sad as it is, the only entity with some "strong" concept and branding going on right now might be IMAX...

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I think a lot of movie theater operators would either be very hesitant to participate in a certification program or they would just refuse outright. They might see it as a means of outing them for bad presentation quality rather than allowing them to sell themselves on delivering good presentation quality.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Some sort of organized effort could be put together, perhaps even by the Film-Tech community.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Proper masking is important and a theater that can't get their basics right doesn't deserve a thumbs up or the whole point of certification is moot.

---

Oh I wholeheartedly agree. I was just being sarcastic.

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I believe Star Wars EP1 had an SDDS-8 mix.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

So what? It's just like some hotels are AAA Four Diamond, some are one diamond and some (in general, places that suck) aren't certified at all.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I believe Star Wars EP1 had an SDDS-8 mix.

---

quote:

---

That said, it's supposedly set 30 years after Return of the Jedi, and we all know how much things can change in 30 years. (Harrison Ford's bones becoming much more brittle, for one example.)

---

or that he's become more of a klutz
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-18-2014, 04:24 PM:
 
Mike...it's not the years, it's the mileage!

Since George himself seemed to have no problem with lattituding his own story, I'd say the sky or "space" is the limit!
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-18-2014, 05:32 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

The difference between Star Wars and Star Trek is, the first Trek movie by Abrams was a REBOOT, where this new Star Wars will be a SEQUEL, so he will have way less latitude to do weird things with the saga.

---

quote: Jonathan Goeldner

---

question: since Atmos is installed in both the Dolby Theater and the El Capitan that have balconies and particularly in the former with multiple one's - how is this actually achieved since some patrons don't have speakers actually above them (the ones sitted under balconies) - I'm just curious.

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

I believe Dolby has leapfrogged advancement with Atmos. Cinemas like ours that see little use of their 7.1 system would hardly jump to Atmos.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

The real difference is about 5 times as much for Atmos vs. Auro 3D...

---