Atmos will not allow a soundbar or other simple setup to magically emulate a multi-speaker theatre array. For Atmos to provide any benefit, the playback system, including speakers, has to be configured to take advantage of it.
The benefit of Atmos is that it changes the way the filmmaker describes where sounds are supposed to be located in physical space. Instead of assigning a specific sound to a particular channel, the mix engineer simply assigns a location for each sound. Atmos then automatically scales to the system on which it's being played. If you have a stereo playback system you'll still get stereo, even with Atmos.
On a typical 5.1 speaker system, Atmos won't sound a lot different than the "traditional" 5.1 surround mix. Where it begins to shine is in setups with additional speakers for side fill, overhead and front elevation. These systems provide Atmos the flexibility to steer sounds into additional physical placements, including height. That can be a definite benefit, but only if you have speakers in places that take advantage of it.
Unless you have more speakers around your room than a standard 5.1 setup, don't expect Atmos to revolutionize your listening experience.
Will HomePod 2 be Atmos ready? Do you think it could have top firing speakers?
With two HomePods working together and their beam forming technology I suspect there could easily be at the very least a pseudo ATMOS surround sound effect created when used with an TV 4K if not the real thing.
It would seem that ATMOS requires at least an overhead speaker. Without that, I’m not sure how effective the HomePod would be. It’s should be able to do a decent job emulating 5.1 surround, as it can use the walls as reflective surfaces for side and rear imaging. The question is, does it?
Appreciate all of the info in this piece on Atmos! Hard to get context from the video, but I should probably get a sound bar.
Since ATMOS can be experienced with a simple sound bar, shouldn’t ATMOS come to the HomePod? I would think with the dynamically adjusting speakers it would be a simple thing to create an ATMOS experience on the HomePod? Or will HomePod customers have to buy HP Series 1 (assuming the current model is S0), in order to upgrade to ATMOS?
ATMOS speakers need to be able to fire upwards reflecting sound off the ceiling. Or have compatible speakers installed in the ceiling to produce the required effect. Very few current sound bars are able to produce ATMOS sound effects. Only some recent official ATMOS compatible models with said upfiring speakers built in are eligible. As for the HomePod, I believe that incorporates an upfiring speaker, so theoretically might be compatible with the standard after a future firmware upgrade. Though it’s upfiring speaker is predominantly for bass. ATMOS upfiring speakers work in the mid to high frequency ranges I believe, so not actually sure if the HomePod is capable or not.
Based on feedback I’ve gotten here and elsewhere, it would seem we’ll need an HP 2.0 to get a speaker physically designed to have top firing speakers for ceiling bounced sound.
i was under the mistakes impression that the tweeters on the HP were directional, rather than fixed. I had imagined some of them swiveling to point upward when receiving an ATMOS signal. But that’s not the case.
The HomePod only has a downfiring speaker not an upfiring one. So we’ll have to wait until Apple gives us one for ATMOS. Considering the current design, we might have a long wait — from the soundbars I’ve seen, the top firing speakers rely on a very specific placement so that the angled speakers get the correct ceiling bounce from directional speakers in relation to the picture. That kind of specific orientation would be very difficult to get good results, unless Apple does put all of their speakers on servo motors that can auto adjust the speakers to the correct position, regardless of the customer placement.
Atmos will not allow a soundbar or other simple setup to magically emulate a multi-speaker theatre array. For Atmos to provide any benefit, the playback system, including speakers, has to be configured to take advantage of it.
The benefit of Atmos is that it changes the way the filmmaker describes where sounds are supposed to be located in physical space. Instead of assigning a specific sound to a particular channel, the mix engineer simply assigns a location for each sound. Atmos then automatically scales to the system on which it's being played. If you have a stereo playback system you'll still get stereo, even with Atmos.
On a typical 5.1 speaker system, Atmos won't sound a lot different than the "traditional" 5.1 surround mix. Where it begins to shine is in setups with additional speakers for side fill, overhead and front elevation. These systems provide Atmos the flexibility to steer sounds into additional physical placements, including height. That can be a definite benefit, but only if you have speakers in places that take advantage of it.
Unless you have more speakers around your room than a standard 5.1 setup, don't expect Atmos to revolutionize your listening experience.
Thanks for the info.
After doing some some research it appears as though the HP is not likely to even emulate a simple ATMOS capable sound bar, to the extent that’s even a desirable option. What is clear to me, is that if Apple makes a HP with an upfiring speaker, their AirPlay 2 solution with a multiple HP setup will be easier than ever to setup a reliable, high quality, home theater ATMOS environment. Just plug in four HPs around the room, tie them together in sync with the picture, and it should be an immersive experience.
mac_128 said: [...] if Apple makes a HP with an upfiring speaker, their AirPlay 2 solution with a multiple HP setup will be easier than ever to setup a reliable, high quality, home theater ATMOS environment. Just plug in four HPs around the room, tie them together in sync with the picture, and it should be an immersive experience.
I suppose, with the conditions you've specified, that might be possible, but I don't know that it would be a particularly desirable approach. The whole point of surround sound is to localize specific sounds. The goal is to make it obvious that a sound is coming from the front left or right rear or some point in between. The HomePod is designed to create a diffuse, radiating sound field, which obfuscates the point of origin. That's inconsistent with a good surround sound experience.
There's also the fact that AP2 only supports stereo, so it's not capable of delivering the four channels of audio that would be required for the setup you describe.
mac_128 said: [...] if Apple makes a HP with an upfiring speaker, their AirPlay 2 solution with a multiple HP setup will be easier than ever to setup a reliable, high quality, home theater ATMOS environment. Just plug in four HPs around the room, tie them together in sync with the picture, and it should be an immersive experience.
I suppose, with the conditions you've specified, that might be possible, but I don't know that it would be a particularly desirable approach. The whole point of surround sound is to localize specific sounds. The goal is to make it obvious that a sound is coming from the front left or right rear or some point in between. The HomePod is designed to create a diffuse, radiating sound field, which obfuscates the point of origin. That's inconsistent with a good surround sound experience.
There's also the fact that AP2 only supports stereo, so it's not capable of delivering the four channels of audio that would be required for the setup you describe.
AP3?
Clearly it’s going to involve new hardware and software. I haven’t heard the stereo HomePods myself, but don’t they produce a localized stereo sound field now? Regardless, I would think software could be designed to send localized sound with pinpoint accuracy given independent control of the six speakers which are customized to the room acoustics, when in home theater mode.
The bottom line is, such a product is probably 2 years out if at all. But the bane of home theater systems for most is the complex setup. The technology in the HPs theoretically would make such an experience more accessible to many, if for a price.
Being a member of so many large dedicated home theater communities out there, I don't see a single person saying an Apple TV is a must for their systems. The only people saying anything like that are on, surprise surprise, Apple communities.
a) don't know what you're talking about b) never heard an Atmos system c) think you car's am/4-track radio sound great d) all of the above.
And you registered just to show us all that with just your first post. Congrats.
I agree with the point of your post, but it is worth considering that Atmos may actually be a bit of a yawn for MOST people. It's a great approach that allows producers to create a soundtrack that appeals to enthusiasts while also dumbing down nicely for those who aren't interested in a sophisticated setup, but since most people fall into the latter category, it's no surprise that they're indifferent towards it. Atmos doesn't really do a lot to enhance the movie experience at home for people with simple setups.
mac_128 said: [...] I haven’t heard the stereo HomePods myself, but don’t they produce a localized stereo sound field now?
Considering that the whole premise of the HomePod is its using reflections to create a diffuse field, I doubt a pair will create a very stable or convincing stereo image. I don't know for sure, though. They aren't available in Canada until tomorrow. Even if they'd been available before I now, I probably still wouldn't know. I can't justify spending CAD$844 just to evaluate something I don't have a use for beyond testing. Maybe, eventually, professional curiosity will kill the credit card, but for now I'm happy to accept that they're a nice sounding speaker that many people really enjoy, and limit my observations to matters of basic practicality.
ATMOS is a marketing scheme. It is not superior to a 5.1 system.
Since Dobly failed to gain ground with ATMOS in movie theaters (you nearly never hear it mentioned anymore in your neighborhood cinema. Dobly has been gunning hard for it in the home theater segment where average consumers are not as sophisticated and don’t know better.
As an example, quality of a loudspeaker is much more important than quantity place throughout the room. Universally, anyone would be better spending their budget on five speakers that were really good, then the eight or 10 speakers required for a true Atmos implementation.
And it is beyond silly to expect you’re going to get an ATMOS experience from a sound bar. It is just a marketing ploy to slap a brand name on something that can’t do the job.
Just like a pair of stereo speakers can place instruments in front closer to the left or to the right by how the sound is balanced between the two speakers, this is also done with a 5.1 system where the amount of sound placed in the rear or the front speakers will make the sound appear closer to the back or closer to the front, or halfway in between. You don’t need 10 speakers to achieve this effect. Anyone who has heard of quadraphonic version of Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon understands this. With just four speakers you can have the sound swirl around the entire room as the sound gets balanced from one speaker to the next. That was done with technology over 20 years ago. It has nothing to do with ATMOS.
Why the writer of this story feels Atmos is so good can only make me speculate. But I can say unequivocally that high quality speaker can reproduce the subtleties of sound, the large dynamic range, and very low and very high frequencies in a way that will get lost in an Atmos setups in most cases. This is definitely a case of less, given a certain budget, being more.
As an example, quality of a loudspeaker is much more important than quantity place throughout the room. Universally, anyone would be better spending their budget on five speakers that were really good, then the eight or 10 speakers required for a true Atmos implementation.
I agree that speaker quality matters more than quantity, but there's an argument to be made for novelty over quality in this application. Some people may get more enjoyment from sounds appearing all over the room than from a more accurate but less "spatial" presentation.
Of course, one may also choose to use 8 or 10 high quality speakers and get the best of both worlds.
Just like a pair of stereo speakers can place instruments in front closer to the left or to the right by how the sound is balanced between the two speakers, this is also done with a 5.1 system where the amount of sound placed in the rear or the front speakers will make the sound appear closer to the back or closer to the front, or halfway in between. You don’t need 10 speakers to achieve this effect. Anyone who has heard of quadraphonic version of Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon understands this. With just four speakers you can have the sound swirl around the entire room as the sound gets balanced from one speaker to the next. That was done with technology over 20 years ago. It has nothing to do with ATMOS.
5.1 does not create as convincing a phantom image between front and rear as stereo does between left and right because the listener is not sitting in the same "sweet spot" that allows the brain to extrapolate a position in between the speakers. The listener is usually closer to the rear speakers, and even if equidistant between them, they're off to one side or the other rather than facing both ears equally. That's not to say the illusion doesn't work at all, just that it's not equivalent to or as convincing as stereo in front of us.
Even if we say that a front-rear pair *IS* just as good as a left-right pair at simulating positions between the speakers, it still isn't as good as having more speakers along any given plane. The inclusion of the centre channel in front is an example of this. 5.1 may be "good enough" for many people, but having more playback channels between front and rear can be even better, particularly in large rooms. It certainly doesn't hurt anything. The limitations are hitting the point of diminishing returns, when there are so many speakers that the distance between them doesn't justify them, budget, and the practical implications of placing 8-10 speakers in a typical room.
Why the writer of this story feels Atmos is so good can only make me speculate. But I can say unequivocally that high quality speaker can reproduce the subtleties of sound, the large dynamic range, and very low and very high frequencies in a way that will get lost in an Atmos setups in most cases. This is definitely a case of less, given a certain budget, being more.
Within a given budget, I agree. I'd rather have 5 good speakers than 10 crappy ones. Not everyone has the same priorities though. Some people may find it more fun to hear things coming from more places, even if those places present a less full-bodied flavour.
Not everyone has the same budget either. If someone is prepared to pay twice as much to have twice as many channels, what's the harm?
Finally, as mentioned earlier, Atmos offers a listener the opportunity to add altitude to the palate. Adjusting the apparent source of a sound on the vertical plane is simply not possible with 5.1 at any price.
Atmos is not what I would consider a "must have" for the vast majority of people watching movies at home, but I don't share your cynicism towards it. It offers genuine benefits to those who choose to exploit it.
Appreciate all of the info in this piece on Atmos! Hard to get context from the video, but I should probably get a sound bar.
Since ATMOS can be experienced with a simple sound bar, shouldn’t ATMOS come to the HomePod? I would think with the dynamically adjusting speakers it would be a simple thing to create an ATMOS experience on the HomePod? Or will HomePod customers have to buy HP Series 1 (assuming the current model is S0), in order to upgrade to ATMOS?
ATMOS speakers need to be able to fire upwards reflecting sound off the ceiling. Or have compatible speakers installed in the ceiling to produce the required effect. Very few current sound bars are able to produce ATMOS sound effects. Only some recent official ATMOS compatible models with said upfiring speakers built in are eligible. As for the HomePod, I believe that incorporates an upfiring speaker, so theoretically might be compatible with the standard after a future firmware upgrade. Though it’s upfiring speaker is predominantly for bass. ATMOS upfiring speakers work in the mid to high frequency ranges I believe, so not actually sure if the HomePod is capable or not.
I agree, I seem to recall HomePod has up facing speaker too, could be wrong, I'll go check. Apple designers knew ATMOS was going to be supported down the road when they were designing the HomePod so it would not be too much of a leap to imagine the beam forming detects ceilings as well as walls, doors and curtains.
HP isn’t in the same category as discrete channel surround sound home theatre systems. It doesn’t have the power or dynamic range and it certainly doesn’t support enough channels to do 5.1, let alone 5.1.2 and beyond. (Heck we only just got 2 channels late last month). I’m sure it will get there, but not for a few iterations yet.
Why the writer of this story feels Atmos is so good can only make me speculate. But I can say unequivocally that high quality speaker can reproduce the subtleties of sound, the large dynamic range, and very low and very high frequencies in a way that will get lost in an Atmos setups in most cases. This is definitely a case of less, given a certain budget, being more.
Within a given budget, I agree. I'd rather have 5 good speakers than 10 crappy ones. Not everyone has the same priorities though. Some people may find it more fun to hear things coming from more places, even if those places present a less full-bodied flavour.
Not everyone has the same budget either. If someone is prepared to pay twice as much to have twice as many channels, what's the harm?
Finally, as mentioned earlier, Atmos offers a listener the opportunity to add altitude to the palate. Adjusting the apparent source of a sound on the vertical plane is simply not possible with 5.1 at any price.
Atmos is not what I would consider a "must have" for the vast majority of people watching movies at home, but I don't share your cynicism towards it. It offers genuine benefits to those who choose to exploit it.
8 matched speakers of average quality (like a $1K 5.1.2 home theater in a box from Yamaha or Onkyo) will sound more immersive (aka better) than an expensive/audiophile 5.1 system costing thousands more.
Atmos is a "must have" for anyone doing a dedicated HT setup. It is extremely silly to expend the effort and cost of a HT room and then NOT do Atmos.
8 matched speakers of average quality (like a $1K 5.1.2 home theater in a box from Yamaha or Onkyo) will sound more immersive (aka better) than an expensive/audiophile 5.1 system costing thousands more.
The degree to which the system envelopes the listener in a sense of space may be better (assuming the material being viewed has been encoded for Atmos), but that's only one characteristic among many that influence enjoyment of the experience. Accurate tweeters improve dialog intelligibility and reduce annoying sizzling. High quality crossovers prevent loss of response in the critical intelligibility range. Well-designed and constructed boxes, fitted with good quality woofers and provided sufficient amplifier power, let the listener enjoy BOOM! and POW! instead of thud and oof.
I would not characterize immersion all by itself as important enough to allow one to dismiss all other factors, particularly when that one and only advantage doesn't exist on material that is not specifically encoded for Atmos (and a lot of catalogue material never will be). For a certain demographic package speakers will be fine, and extra spending on higher quality speakers may not be justified, but that doesn't make the cheap system "better," except with respect to that one aspect, and even then, only with some content.
Atmos is a "must have" for anyone doing a dedicated HT setup. It is extremely silly to expend the effort and cost of a HT room and then NOT do Atmos.
Maybe true, but how many people have Home Theatre rooms versus those who just have some entertainment gear in their living room?
Different people with different priorities result in different definitions of "better." In *MY* case I'd rather have five good speakers and sacrifice some spatial information than have ten crappy speakers that create a sense of space but sound nasty. (Ten good speakers would be even better!)
8 matched speakers of average quality (like a $1K 5.1.2 home theater in a box from Yamaha or Onkyo) will sound more immersive (aka better) than an expensive/audiophile 5.1 system costing thousands more.
The degree to which the system envelopes the listener in a sense of space may be better (assuming the material being viewed has been encoded for Atmos), but that's only one characteristic among many that influence enjoyment of the experience. Accurate tweeters improve dialog intelligibility and reduce annoying sizzling. High quality crossovers prevent loss of response in the critical intelligibility range. Well-designed and constructed boxes, fitted with good quality woofers and provided sufficient amplifier power, let the listener enjoy BOOM! and POW! instead of thud and oof.
I would not characterize immersion all by itself as important enough to allow one to dismiss all other factors, particularly when that one and only advantage doesn't exist on material that is not specifically encoded for Atmos (and a lot of catalogue material never will be). For a certain demographic it will be fine, and extra spending on higher quality speakers may not be justified, but that doesn't make the cheap system "better," except with respect to that one aspect, and even then, only with some content.
Atmos is a "must have" for anyone doing a dedicated HT setup. It is extremely silly to expend the effort and cost of a HT room and then NOT do Atmos.
Maybe true, but how many people have Home Theatre rooms versus those who just have some entertainment gear in their living room?
Different people with different priorities result in different definitions of "better." In *MY* case I'd rather have five good speakers and sacrifice some spatial information than have ten crappy speakers that create a sense of space but sound nasty. (Ten good speakers would be even better!)
FWIW DTS Virtual:X is perhaps appropriate than Atmos for the HomePod in my opinion as it does not require an upfiring speaker. I have it now on my YAS-207 soundbar and it really does create an amazing difference. Considering price it's hardware well worth looking at, but there's no indication Apple shares my enthusiasm for the technology itself.
8 matched speakers of average quality (like a $1K 5.1.2 home theater in a box from Yamaha or Onkyo) will sound more immersive (aka better) than an expensive/audiophile 5.1 system costing thousands more.
The degree to which the system envelopes the listener in a sense of space may be better (assuming the material being viewed has been encoded for Atmos), but that's only one characteristic among many that influence enjoyment of the experience. Accurate tweeters improve dialog intelligibility and reduce annoying sizzling. High quality crossovers prevent loss of response in the critical intelligibility range. Well-designed and constructed boxes, fitted with good quality woofers and provided sufficient amplifier power, let the listener enjoy BOOM! and POW! instead of thud and oof.
I would not characterize immersion all by itself as important enough to allow one to dismiss all other factors, particularly when that one and only advantage doesn't exist on material that is not specifically encoded for Atmos (and a lot of catalogue material never will be). For a certain demographic it will be fine, and extra spending on higher quality speakers may not be justified, but that doesn't make the cheap system "better," except with respect to that one aspect, and even then, only with some content.
Atmos is a "must have" for anyone doing a dedicated HT setup. It is extremely silly to expend the effort and cost of a HT room and then NOT do Atmos.
Maybe true, but how many people have Home Theatre rooms versus those who just have some entertainment gear in their living room?
Different people with different priorities result in different definitions of "better." In *MY* case I'd rather have five good speakers and sacrifice some spatial information than have ten crappy speakers that create a sense of space but sound nasty. (Ten good speakers would be even better!)
FWIW DTS Virtual:X is perhaps appropriate than Atmos for the HomePod in my opinion as it does not require an upfiring speaker. I have it now on my YAS-207 soundbar and it really does create an amazing difference. Considering price it's hardware well worth looking at, but there's no indication Apple shares my enthusiasm for the technology itself.
No, you're right, Apple doesn't seem particularly interested in DTS. In fact I had all kinds of trouble with videos crashing QuickTime Player and iTunes on my then-new 2016 MacBook Pro Touch Bar because of it. Turned out that anything with any kind of DTS audio track would bring it down, even if the DTS track was inactive.
Edit: Sounds like V:X probably does the same kind of phase trickery used on the MacBook Pro to make the image seem wider than the actual physical placement of the drivers. I imagine the sound gets a little weird if you move from side to side, yeah?
Being a member of so many large dedicated home theater communities out there, I don't see a single person saying an Apple TV is a must for their systems. The only people saying anything like that are on, surprise surprise, Apple communities.
I think you have
misread the title and/or the entire article. The statement the author is making is not that an
AppleTV is a must for Home Theater fans, but rather that Atmos support is a
must for adoption of the AppleTV by Home Theater fans.
I myself have been looking to upgrade my aging 5.1 HT set up
and have pretty much decided on an LG Atmos system. I have postponed the
purchase since last year as nearly 100% of my viewing it driven by my AppleTV which
could not take advantage of this capability. Once TVOS 12 drops in the
fall, I'll take another look at what is on the market, and if nothing else
interesting has appeared, buy the LG SK10Y augmented with the SPK8-S rears.
8 matched speakers of average quality (like a $1K 5.1.2 home theater in a box from Yamaha or Onkyo) will sound more immersive (aka better) than an expensive/audiophile 5.1 system costing thousands more.
The degree to which the system envelopes the listener in a sense of space may be better (assuming the material being viewed has been encoded for Atmos), but that's only one characteristic among many that influence enjoyment of the experience. Accurate tweeters improve dialog intelligibility and reduce annoying sizzling. High quality crossovers prevent loss of response in the critical intelligibility range. Well-designed and constructed boxes, fitted with good quality woofers and provided sufficient amplifier power, let the listener enjoy BOOM! and POW! instead of thud and oof.
I did a quick google search but the article was so old I couldn't find it but one of the audiophile magazines did a blind test using 5 radio shack Optimus LX-5 in a 5.1 setup vs the usual audiophile names and listeners found the matched set better than far more expensive mains and center and surrounds.
There will always be a few folks that can hear the difference when listening for it but the entire point is not to be aware of the "subtlety" of the speakers but be immersed in the film. The speakers in a megabuck HTIAB isn't going to be terrible and the Onkyo HT-S7800 at $900 sounds fine. If you hate the idea of a HTiB then you can get a $350 Atmos receiver and 2 Polk TSi200 ($199/pair) as front, CS10 for a center ($100) and 4 Polk T15s ($100/pair) and have $200ish for a powered sub like a PSW505.
What I own is a 5.1 Von Schwikert setup with a MK sub. Sufficiently decent to play audio snob on the internet if I so desired but frankly it was overkill from a point in my life with more money than sense. I'll upgrade to Atmos 5.1.2 the next equipment cycle when I replace the projector and receiver. I'll get SVS prime elevation for the two new Atmos speakers and not worry too much about timber matching although I might replace the rear surrounds to match the sides.
I would not characterize immersion all by itself as important enough to allow one to dismiss all other factors, particularly when that one and only advantage doesn't exist on material that is not specifically encoded for Atmos (and a lot of catalogue material never will be). For a certain demographic package speakers will be fine, and extra spending on higher quality speakers may not be justified, but that doesn't make the cheap system "better," except with respect to that one aspect, and even then, only with some content.
For HT the primary thing is immersion. If the speakers are so poor that dialog is lost then so is immersion. If the speakers have noise then immersion is lost.
At the $600 price point most speaker sets are competent to provide immersion. Just like the grey blacks and so-so colors of front projection. The size induces immersion and the less that stellar specs don't matter.
Maybe true, but how many people have Home Theatre rooms versus those who just have some entertainment gear in their living room? Different people with different priorities result in different definitions of "better." In *MY* case I'd rather have five good speakers and sacrifice some spatial information than have ten crappy speakers that create a sense of space but sound nasty. (Ten good speakers would be even better!)
If you just have entertainment gear in the living room you don't have a critical listening space so high quality speakers don't matter. You're better off with a decent sound bar and really nice headphones.
It is amazing that many folks will spend 5-6 figures on speakers and park them in an untreated living room but that's a different pet peeve.
Comments
The benefit of Atmos is that it changes the way the filmmaker describes where sounds are supposed to be located in physical space. Instead of assigning a specific sound to a particular channel, the mix engineer simply assigns a location for each sound. Atmos then automatically scales to the system on which it's being played. If you have a stereo playback system you'll still get stereo, even with Atmos.
On a typical 5.1 speaker system, Atmos won't sound a lot different than the "traditional" 5.1 surround mix. Where it begins to shine is in setups with additional speakers for side fill, overhead and front elevation. These systems provide Atmos the flexibility to steer sounds into additional physical placements, including height. That can be a definite benefit, but only if you have speakers in places that take advantage of it.
Unless you have more speakers around your room than a standard 5.1 setup, don't expect Atmos to revolutionize your listening experience.
It would seem that ATMOS requires at least an overhead speaker. Without that, I’m not sure how effective the HomePod would be. It’s should be able to do a decent job emulating 5.1 surround, as it can use the walls as reflective surfaces for side and rear imaging. The question is, does it?
Based on feedback I’ve gotten here and elsewhere, it would seem we’ll need an HP 2.0 to get a speaker physically designed to have top firing speakers for ceiling bounced sound.
i was under the mistakes impression that the tweeters on the HP were directional, rather than fixed. I had imagined some of them swiveling to point upward when receiving an ATMOS signal. But that’s not the case.
The HomePod only has a downfiring speaker not an upfiring one. So we’ll have to wait until Apple gives us one for ATMOS. Considering the current design, we might have a long wait — from the soundbars I’ve seen, the top firing speakers rely on a very specific placement so that the angled speakers get the correct ceiling bounce from directional speakers in relation to the picture. That kind of specific orientation would be very difficult to get good results, unless Apple does put all of their speakers on servo motors that can auto adjust the speakers to the correct position, regardless of the customer placement.
After doing some some research it appears as though the HP is not likely to even emulate a simple ATMOS capable sound bar, to the extent that’s even a desirable option. What is clear to me, is that if Apple makes a HP with an upfiring speaker, their AirPlay 2 solution with a multiple HP setup will be easier than ever to setup a reliable, high quality, home theater ATMOS environment. Just plug in four HPs around the room, tie them together in sync with the picture, and it should be an immersive experience.
There's also the fact that AP2 only supports stereo, so it's not capable of delivering the four channels of audio that would be required for the setup you describe.
Clearly it’s going to involve new hardware and software. I haven’t heard the stereo HomePods myself, but don’t they produce a localized stereo sound field now? Regardless, I would think software could be designed to send localized sound with pinpoint accuracy given independent control of the six speakers which are customized to the room acoustics, when in home theater mode.
The bottom line is, such a product is probably 2 years out if at all. But the bane of home theater systems for most is the complex setup. The technology in the HPs theoretically would make such an experience more accessible to many, if for a price.
a) don't know what you're talking about
b) never heard an Atmos system
c) think you car's am/4-track radio sound great
d) all of the above.
And you registered just to show us all that with just your first post.
Congrats.
Considering that the whole premise of the HomePod is its using reflections to create a diffuse field, I doubt a pair will create a very stable or convincing stereo image. I don't know for sure, though. They aren't available in Canada until tomorrow. Even if they'd been available before I now, I probably still wouldn't know. I can't justify spending CAD$844 just to evaluate something I don't have a use for beyond testing. Maybe, eventually, professional curiosity will kill the credit card, but for now I'm happy to accept that they're a nice sounding speaker that many people really enjoy, and limit my observations to matters of basic practicality.
Since Dobly failed to gain ground with ATMOS in movie theaters (you nearly never hear it mentioned anymore in your neighborhood cinema. Dobly has been gunning hard for it in the home theater segment where average consumers are not as sophisticated and don’t know better.
As an example, quality of a loudspeaker is much more important than quantity place throughout the room. Universally, anyone would be better spending their budget on five speakers that were really good, then the eight or 10 speakers required for a true Atmos implementation.
And it is beyond silly to expect you’re going to get an ATMOS experience from a sound bar. It is just a marketing ploy to slap a brand name on something that can’t do the job.
Just like a pair of stereo speakers can place instruments in front closer to the left or to the right by how the sound is balanced between the two speakers, this is also done with a 5.1 system where the amount of sound placed in the rear or the front speakers will make the sound appear closer to the back or closer to the front, or halfway in between. You don’t need 10 speakers to achieve this effect. Anyone who has heard of quadraphonic version of Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon understands this. With just four speakers you can have the sound swirl around the entire room as the sound gets balanced from one speaker to the next. That was done with technology over 20 years ago. It has nothing to do with ATMOS.
Why the writer of this story feels Atmos is so good can only make me speculate. But I can say unequivocally that high quality speaker can reproduce the subtleties of sound, the large dynamic range, and very low and very high frequencies in a way that will get lost in an Atmos setups in most cases. This is definitely a case of less, given a certain budget, being more.
I agree that speaker quality matters more than quantity, but there's an argument to be made for novelty over quality in this application. Some people may get more enjoyment from sounds appearing all over the room than from a more accurate but less "spatial" presentation.
Of course, one may also choose to use 8 or 10 high quality speakers and get the best of both worlds.
5.1 does not create as convincing a phantom image between front and rear as stereo does between left and right because the listener is not sitting in the same "sweet spot" that allows the brain to extrapolate a position in between the speakers. The listener is usually closer to the rear speakers, and even if equidistant between them, they're off to one side or the other rather than facing both ears equally. That's not to say the illusion doesn't work at all, just that it's not equivalent to or as convincing as stereo in front of us.
Even if we say that a front-rear pair *IS* just as good as a left-right pair at simulating positions between the speakers, it still isn't as good as having more speakers along any given plane. The inclusion of the centre channel in front is an example of this. 5.1 may be "good enough" for many people, but having more playback channels between front and rear can be even better, particularly in large rooms. It certainly doesn't hurt anything. The limitations are hitting the point of diminishing returns, when there are so many speakers that the distance between them doesn't justify them, budget, and the practical implications of placing 8-10 speakers in a typical room.
Within a given budget, I agree. I'd rather have 5 good speakers than 10 crappy ones. Not everyone has the same priorities though. Some people may find it more fun to hear things coming from more places, even if those places present a less full-bodied flavour.
Not everyone has the same budget either. If someone is prepared to pay twice as much to have twice as many channels, what's the harm?
Finally, as mentioned earlier, Atmos offers a listener the opportunity to add altitude to the palate. Adjusting the apparent source of a sound on the vertical plane is simply not possible with 5.1 at any price.
Atmos is not what I would consider a "must have" for the vast majority of people watching movies at home, but I don't share your cynicism towards it. It offers genuine benefits to those who choose to exploit it.
Atmos is a "must have" for anyone doing a dedicated HT setup. It is extremely silly to expend the effort and cost of a HT room and then NOT do Atmos.
I would not characterize immersion all by itself as important enough to allow one to dismiss all other factors, particularly when that one and only advantage doesn't exist on material that is not specifically encoded for Atmos (and a lot of catalogue material never will be). For a certain demographic package speakers will be fine, and extra spending on higher quality speakers may not be justified, but that doesn't make the cheap system "better," except with respect to that one aspect, and even then, only with some content.
Maybe true, but how many people have Home Theatre rooms versus those who just have some entertainment gear in their living room?
Different people with different priorities result in different definitions of "better." In *MY* case I'd rather have five good speakers and sacrifice some spatial information than have ten crappy speakers that create a sense of space but sound nasty. (Ten good speakers would be even better!)
Edit: Sounds like V:X probably does the same kind of phase trickery used on the MacBook Pro to make the image seem wider than the actual physical placement of the drivers. I imagine the sound gets a little weird if you move from side to side, yeah?
I think you have misread the title and/or the entire article. The statement the author is making is not that an AppleTV is a must for Home Theater fans, but rather that Atmos support is a must for adoption of the AppleTV by Home Theater fans.
I myself have been looking to upgrade my aging 5.1 HT set up and have pretty much decided on an LG Atmos system. I have postponed the purchase since last year as nearly 100% of my viewing it driven by my AppleTV which could not take advantage of this capability. Once TVOS 12 drops in the fall, I'll take another look at what is on the market, and if nothing else interesting has appeared, buy the LG SK10Y augmented with the SPK8-S rears.
There will always be a few folks that can hear the difference when listening for it but the entire point is not to be aware of the "subtlety" of the speakers but be immersed in the film. The speakers in a megabuck HTIAB isn't going to be terrible and the Onkyo HT-S7800 at $900 sounds fine. If you hate the idea of a HTiB then you can get a $350 Atmos receiver and 2 Polk TSi200 ($199/pair) as front, CS10 for a center ($100) and 4 Polk T15s ($100/pair) and have $200ish for a powered sub like a PSW505.
What I own is a 5.1 Von Schwikert setup with a MK sub. Sufficiently decent to play audio snob on the internet if I so desired but frankly it was overkill from a point in my life with more money than sense. I'll upgrade to Atmos 5.1.2 the next equipment cycle when I replace the projector and receiver. I'll get SVS prime elevation for the two new Atmos speakers and not worry too much about timber matching although I might replace the rear surrounds to match the sides.
For HT the primary thing is immersion. If the speakers are so poor that dialog is lost then so is immersion. If the speakers have noise then immersion is lost.
At the $600 price point most speaker sets are competent to provide immersion. Just like the grey blacks and so-so colors of front projection. The size induces immersion and the less that stellar specs don't matter.
If you just have entertainment gear in the living room you don't have a critical listening space so high quality speakers don't matter. You're better off with a decent sound bar and really nice headphones.
It is amazing that many folks will spend 5-6 figures on speakers and park them in an untreated living room but that's a different pet peeve.