Bounded In a Nutshell
Senior HTF Member
- Jun 20, 2000
- A Mile High
- Real Name
We're talking about two different things. I'm talking about how many discrete objects (channels) are in the source soundtrack. You're talking about how many speakers a processor can derive a signal to feed from that soundtrack.This isn't quite correct.
Home theatre Atmos can support 35 channels, in a maximized configuration of 24.1.10 (and really the LFE channel is infinitely expandable). Source: https://professional.dolby.com/siteassets/tv/home/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-home-theater.pdf (quote: "Dolby Atmos can support home theater systems with up to 34 speakers in a 24.1.10 configuration: 24
speakers on the floor and 10 overhead speakers.) (Dolby itself unhelpfully confuses its own use of speakers, channels, objects, and layers). Of course, very few processors support this (baiscally just the Trinnov, Storm, etc.).
Beyond this, Disney is one of a few companies (and by far the biggest offender) of what you succinctly describe as "surround steering in the studio". Moreover, Disney doesn't actually use the 4 additional "un-anchored" objects. Other companies do, but Disney does not. They put out a 7.x.4 track that is completely un-scaleable and doesn't actually use object-based audio. I call that "locked" and feel it's a fair term.
I explained the limitation on systems beyond 7.1.4. I explained how they work and how compromised they are, if only briefly. If you read my post again, you'll see nothing I said is contrary to what you said, it's just more realistic of how systems beyond 7.1.4 actually work.
To me, the number of actual, discrete objects (channels) in the source is extremely important, and needs to be understood. Dolby does not want people to fully understand this. They don't want people to understand how truly limited home Atmos is. They want people to think it's magic when it's really not all that special.
I've already deviated from this thread. It's about Dr. Strange, not the weeds of home Atmos.