quote: Steve Guttag

---

I'm wondering if, for Atmos, people wouldn't be better served by self-powered speakers and just running a circuit down the side walls another couple in the ceiling. Get the speakers on Blulink and you are down to pretty cheap wiring, overall. Particularly on a new build.

---

Similar to what Meyer Sound are doing.
I would be concerned to have, say, 35 speakers in the auditorium and also 35 amplifiers located in very difficult to access positions. If a 4-ch amplifier fails in the booth, it's a 10 minutes job to replace. If a top surround speaker fails, you'll need a tower. And the more components you add in the speaker, the more likely they are to fail.

If I remember the Dolby amplifier I was shown, it has modular sections for the secondaries but the primary is a single module so yes, there is a chance to lose the whole set of channels in one go
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-19-2017, 07:33 AM:
 
Conversely, if one amplifier fails, you affect just one speaker, not four (or more).
 

---

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 03-19-2017, 11:08 AM:
 
Well the Meyer Sound solution has the primary section of the amps in the booth - so you still have a single point of failure somewhere.
Your solution would be the most reliable but most expensive to service in case of failure.
In the end amplifiers can be very reliable and I can't recall many cinemas losing amplifiers very easily. I'd rather have them in an accessible place than on the ceiling to be honest.
 

---

Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 03-19-2017, 11:53 AM:
 
Is the CP850 able to re-render Atmos tracks on the fly, automatically compensating for a failed channel? That would be a plus for independent active surrounds, IMO.

Then you'd only need to get to the affected speaker at the end of the show: can't remember exactly where, but I believe I saw pictures of a setup with rows of Atmos speakers mounted on light motorized trusses. Could help with retrofitting and maintenance.
 

---

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 03-19-2017, 12:07 PM:
 
I can't see it being easier/cheaper to run power and signal to each (of many, in these systems) surround.
Copper isn't cheap... but I doubt the overall cost of installing power outlets and Cobranet (or equivalent) cabling is less than running speaker wires.
Yes, a 12 channel amp will drop 12 speaker channels if/when it fails. But replacing it in a sound rack is not much of a chore.
Accessing a ceiling surround to service an integrated amp... that's a chore!
A Meyer system sounds pretty sweet. Also hella expensive and a bit less common than hen's teeth. One problem - it has no amp output monitoring capability that I know of: I think Cobranet can include that.
I haven't been fond if high channel count amps. For a 5.1 or 7.1 system I like the flexibility of 2ch amps. Going to Atmos the amp count can quickly get ridiculous - there's a decent saving in rack size, power distribution, and amp cost when you use (at least) 4ch amps for the surrounds.
Dolby obviously recognizes this. They took on SLS to have an in-house speaker supplier to reduce Atmos project speaker cost. Adding an amplifier product makes sense. I'd like to see an Atmos booth monitor too. The fairly common practice of using a DCM for screen channel crossover/monitoring leaves all the surrounds unmonitorable.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-19-2017, 02:19 PM:
 
Having an electrician put in outlets along the surround route, particularly on a new-build is going to be practically free, with respect to the building costs. running CAT cable is as cheap as copper gets for audio. running speaker wire, either plenum or in conduit is far from free.
 

---

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 03-19-2017, 04:01 PM:
 
As systems become more complex with many identical components, the obvious direction to take the hardware is to modularize it. Many hard drives in a system and replacements can be changed easily. Many audio amplifiers hot swap-able.

Reducing the fixed pieces of the system to highly reliable components to make the entire system more reliable. Like common power supplies with extreme designed components. Probably one spare per multiplex.

The broadcast industry has made the concept of minimum failures with duplicate spares a way of life. Why not theatres?

Modern stage lighting systems are an example with many swap-able dimmers operating from the same supply. DMX controls managed through swap-able drivers in the rack.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-20-2017, 09:58 AM:
 
" Altec Incremental Amplifiers" That brings back memories we used to have a lot of them in commercial installations
Raven Labs also made a version that was plug in 120 watt amp modules in a card frame
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 03-20-2017, 10:56 AM:
 
Altec's were none too popular. Pricing was such that it was just cost cutting and maximizing profits on their part. A poor product with all the limitations inherent of all the eggs in one basket.

As to Raven, the mere mention of the brand name fills me with dread.
 

---

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 03-20-2017, 12:51 PM:
 
I still fail to understand why someone should invest in active speakers, sockets, tracks... what are you going to achieve compared to a rack of amplifiers? If you are really concerned about failures, keep an extra amp in stock for a quick replacement.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-20-2017, 03:35 PM:
 
It is pretty simple really. With about 4 branch circuits an electrician can power the entire surround array and it is no more complicated than wiring regular outlets. The cost, again, on a new build is practically zero. The cost of running CAT cable is also about as cheap as copper gets.

With traditional amplifiers, you are running expensive copper that has to be either in conduit or plenum cable...neither are anywhere near as cheap as running CAT cable.

It can also be argued that most powered speakers are "pre-tuned" too.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-20-2017, 04:13 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Can be powered off of 3-Phase, as I recall (think about how much power you are using with that many channels!). But the power was configurable.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Its still a very unimpressive system in all the iterations I have heard so far

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

As for 3-phase. It does indeed balance your power load better (with respect to balancing one's power in the load center) and lowers the current/per/phase.

---

quote:

---

We can argue about many things but not that Atmos is a gimmick!

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

The chains that have it here have much better sounding 7.1 systems. Their Atmos systems must be the bare minimum to be able to put Atmos in your ads. Hence it IS a gimmick system.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

What I was conveying is the local 7.1 systems in this State far outperform the local Atmos systems

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

People I know that frequent the movies say they can't hear any improvement over a 5.1 or 7.1 system. And that sort of opinion hurts or industry and exhibition in general.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

It is a mix practice as well as a codec on the production end and a supposedly high end playback system on the exhibition end

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

That's not really a fault of Atmos itself.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Marco, Woody has gone stereo long ago, I think when analog SR became the norm.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

yes it is for now specifying too lose a set of specs. Is it supposed to be special? Supposedly. Is it i all locations? No. That "No" is gonna cause it to kill itself off.

---

I know what you want to say: it would have been nice if Dolby had been more strict with the specs and not allow cinemas to install 'minimum spec' Atmos and to show the same "Dolby Atmos" logo on the marquee. It was the same with THX.

However, the same applies to Dolby Digital, DTS and SDDS. We all knew what the requirements for digital sound were. Were all the cinemas equipped with Digital Sound upgrading all their speakers and amplifiers to make sure they had proper power handling for the new format? No way.

Atmos has nothing to do with that. It comes with a proper set of specs. If you then want to install the cheap version, then blame the exhibitor.

It's called multidimensional/multidirectional sound BTW
 

---

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 03-24-2017, 09:24 PM:
 
My understanding is that major release movies are mixed for 7.1 with a pass to check that 5.1 sounds OK. Then Atmos - or whatever flavour of extended mix - effects are added. Other than for branding snipes, tracks are not currently mixed specifically for any "multidimensional/multidirectional" sound system. It takes long enough, facing tight deadlines, to complete a 7.1 track.
 

---

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 03-25-2017, 05:45 AM:
 
I guess it depends on the budget, studio and how brave the sound mixer feels.
After all it's a new way of mixing; if you've been mixing using channels for many years with excellent results, you may not be so eager to jump on something you don't really know.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-25-2017, 09:51 AM:
 
I have a good friend that is an Oscar winning mixer who is now at Sony, so I shall ask him about that. He started out as a Dolby Consultant on films so he has been in this since Day 1 of Dolby. I would still tend to believe that most of the mixes are all done in 7.1 these days. However if they are just hitting the button for a 5.1 output of that 7.1 mix I guarantee you those are listened to quite carefully before being approved. If the budget is low they may only do a 5.1.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-04-2017, 02:47 AM:
 
Dolby has a new price list out with their new amps/speakers included.
Well, as it seems, it doesn't actually help to bring down the cost of an ATMOS installation. Only to keep it all-Dolby if that's what you're after.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 04-04-2017, 07:14 AM:
 
Pricing for IMS3000 is not terrible. You get the equivalent of a CP850 Base for $500 less than a CP750. Atmos licence is still crazy, but knowing Dolby I was expecting much worse.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-04-2017, 07:42 AM:
 
I think if you look at what has just come out and/or integrated into the Dolby platform (e.g. SLS), it does, incrementally, bring down the price. It isn't going to slash it in half or anything. But a thousand here, a thousand there, and you are talking real money. How cheap can you get 24 or 32 channels of 300W/CH amps? How much space do they take up? The IMS3000 price over the IMS2000 is less costly than a CP750 and far less costly than a CP850Base, which is what it is targeting. That alone is going to save an exhibitor over $4K/system. The Rapid Rigging System, depending on what one is paying to install the ceiling speakers, particularly on retrofits may also save thousands by avoiding the amount of time moving a scaffold/lift all over the place.

So it is going to shave the price down some but not make it just a little more than a 7.1 system. It is still jumping into a very deep pool, cost wise.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-04-2017, 12:33 PM:
 
Why does a Dolby CP-850 enabled with Atmos have to be so expensive? Is there something special inside a CP-850 that costs Dolby a great deal of money to include? From the way it looks to me (from my limited movie-goer perspective) it just seems like a giant sized premium price mark-up.

If a theater operator wants to install Atmos inside an auditorium and do it right he's already going to be spending a great deal of money just on speakers and power amplifiers. Add in the high price of a CP-850 and the equation becomes cost prohibitive for all but the highest profile movie theaters.

Dolby Atmos has been around for nearly 5 years. After all that time barely over 200 theaters in the United States and Canada have a screen equipped with it. Some theaters have Atmos on 2 or more screens but such locations are very rare. This reminds me a little of the early days of Dolby Digital. The original DA-10 system was priced around $20,000 -which would probably be well over $30,000 in today's dollars. Very few theaters were buying it. It took DTS coming along with a far less costly system, going into over 800 theaters on its first release, to radically change the situation. Unfortunately we don't have that happening today. Marketing for Auro and DTS-X is pretty pathetic. I can't even tell if there is a DTS-X equipped screen anywhere in my region of the country. For all the potential of next-generation surround sound it seems like most people couldn't care less.

It sure doesn't help an already bad situation when movies mixed in Atmos sound hardly any different than a conventional 5.1 or 7.1 mix. That makes the high sticker price of a CP-850 and all the other hardware needed to go with it even more pointless to buy.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-04-2017, 04:06 PM:
 
I cannot really speak to why they charge so much for the Atmos licensing/feature other than Dolby takes an active involvement in the design and commissioning of the system so those costs have to be factored in there somewhere (with the IMS3000, the Atmos upgrade price is the same as for CP850).

Note, the same could be said of the server companies that charge a hefty premium to activate 4K resolution on their IMBs. The hardware is already in there (as is the software)...it is truly just a matter of activating it. They want to recoup their engineering (and software) costs and the "premium" formats is where it is easiest to do that without seeming noncompetitive.

With respect to Dolby Digital on film, it was $15,000 for the DA10 and yes, DTS did help to drive the costs down but Dolby was only able to do that when the DA20 came out. They removed about 2/3rds of the cards in there too. It was cheaper to make and as the format took off and you have both DA20s and CP500s using the same cards, you get an economy of scale in production.

I think a problem Dolby is going to face is that Atmos is only going to find homes in "PLF" type auditoriums because the incremental cost to put one's toe in that water is always going to be immense due to all of the speakers, amps, wiring, rigging that come along with it. It isn't the processor that puts it over the top and Dolby just provided a means to knock your processor price down by almost 25%.

You could take the DTS/USL/GDC approach and promote a 16-channel "immersive" format that distinguishes itself even less from Surround 7.1 yet adds complexity to the installation with just about zero marquee value. I think the thing is you either go whole hog and try to make it as distinctive as possible or you go to a 5.1 or 7.1 system (we install almost all 7.1 systems now, they just don't cost any extra).
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-04-2017, 05:59 PM:
 
We'll see the cost coming down once the SMPTE standard for object based audio is finalized.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-04-2017, 06:35 PM:
 
Cinema operators demand smaller booths and theaters have, on average become smaller. So, in the end the racks with amps will be replaced by active speakers connected to some kind of data bus, which will probably be just Ethernet. While both setups have their advantages and disadvantages, I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with those kind of setups.

quote: Marco Giustini

---

I know what you want to say: it would have been nice if Dolby had been more strict with the specs and not allow cinemas to install 'minimum spec' Atmos and to show the same "Dolby Atmos" logo on the marquee. It was the same with THX.

---

Atmos is no THX and since you can have Atmos on your phone nowadays, the name itself is almost as meaningful as THX has become.

I mentioned in the past, but there really is an opportunity for “THX Revisited”.

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

We'll see the cost coming down once the SMPTE standard for object based audio is finalized.

---