Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

[Mike Blakesley]

I think Dolby's desire to be inclusive has lead to most any speaker can be submitted and so long as its "specs" are sufficient, they are good to use.

I would say their desire to be inclusive went too far, what with the headphones, soundbars and whatever else, but I guess that's another thread.

[Steve Guttag]

That is their desire to be inclusive of one's money!

[Joe Redifer]

I don't know what it is about stadium seated theaters

I think it would be tough to get Atmos right in a stadium seating theater except maybe among a few select seats.

The Dolby Atmos processor tunes the room

Does it EQ the room as well, like IMAX? If so they need to adjust the auto-EQ so it's not so damn tinny. What is it with "premium" screens?

[Bobby Henderson]

As to Atmos...there is actually a bit of a set of standards. One has to submit plans to Dolby...attain approval for the equipment as well as the design. It takes quite a bit of time to get it right, really. And, once all is completed, one has to submit photos of the installation to show that it was put in as it was shown in the drawings. In addition to that, one has to submit the "DAD" files which have the actual recordings of the audio sweeps and the phase "pops." The Dolby Atmos processor tunes the room (using the installer's mics/plexer). Certainly, one can hand-tune as many channels as desired.

If Dolby is actually enforcing some standards I shouldn't be witnessing the quality differences that I am from one Atmos-equipped theater to the next. But I guess it comes down to those factors you mentioned, like not always requiring 5 channels behind the screen or pairing/culling surrounds.

Companies like QSC are now making a wider variety of amplifier models that allow for more channels per rack mounted unit. On the surface that might make it seem easier to put a lot more discrete channels of amplification into any Atmos house. I guess I'm just not seeing it in practice. A lot of cinema upgrades look like they're on hold for the time being (which is understandable under current market circumstances).

I think it would be tough to get Atmos right in a stadium seating theater except maybe among a few select seats.

Most stadium seated theaters can't even get basic 5.1 audio right. They put little tiny cabinets up there that are barely able to handle the mid range and upper frequency registers, and at only so loud a volume level. It's bare minimum "good enough to get by" configuration. Then they install the minimum of sub-bass enclosures. So many stadium seated auditoriums just have this hollow kind of tone to them. I don't understand it. The General Cinemas Northpark theater in Dallas was a pretty big room, probably a lot more cubic air space than many stadium seated houses. But its sound system could literally punch you in the chest with its sub-bass and still sound wonderful across the rest of the EQ band. That shouldn't be impossible to reproduce in a modern stadium seated theater. But apparently no one in my part of the country is doing so.

[Joe Redifer]

Most auditoriums don't have Brad Miller EQing them, but Northpark gets credit for purchasing great sound equipment in the first place.

[Steve Guttag]

Does it EQ the room as well, like IMAX? If so they need to adjust the auto-EQ so it's not so damn tinny. What is it with "premium" screens?

It does. However the installer has a bit of control there. For instance, when I tune an Atmos room, I point my mics at a 45-degree angle towards the screen just for the screen channels and the "wide" channels. I think repoint them straight up for all of the surrounds. You'll get a lot more consistent timbre that way. The Auto-EQ just knows that it is measuring, it doesn't know why it is measuring it that way. Note too, the installer is also welcomed to hand-tune any/all of the channels. Most of mine are over 50 speakers, however. What I normally do, because I use Q-SYS, I tend to pre-tune the stage channels and they, normally, don't need much, if any due to the speakers I use (QSC SC-424 and its variants), use a baffle wall and via Q-SYS, it is simple for all five to have the exact same tuning (makes for MUCH better imaging).

Then, for surrounds, I do "bulk tuning" on them to ensure that they are in the ballpark. All of the speakers of the same make/model should sound the same so I start with essentially the same tuning to all within the same make/model and zone (LTS/RTS/LSS/RSS/LRS/RRS). So, when "DAD" gets ahold of it...things are already reasonable and it can focus more on the specific location variances. I think doing the above goes a long way towards a better outcome.

One does have to use "good stuff." You can't just put in so-so equipment and expect it to sound good just because some whiz-bang computer is tuning it up.

If Dolby is actually enforcing some standards I shouldn't be witnessing the quality differences that I am from one Atmos-equipped theater to the next. But I guess it comes down to those factors you mentioned, like not always requiring 5 channels behind the screen or pairing/culling surrounds.

There are several factors here with respect to Dolby and the various implementations of Atmos.

• One is free to use whatever speakers and amplifiers they want. Do you really think if one uses QSC and another uses JBL and another uses SLS...etc. that they will sound the same? Sure, they may measure to spec on an RTA but they won't sound the same. I use stuff that I think sounds good. And that is NOT necessarily the most expensive. I've yet to hear another stage speaker sound as good as the SC-424 and for the side/rear surrounds, the SR-1590 and SR-1290 are VERY hard to beat. I've heard speakers that cost many times their cost and they don't sound as good. Heck, I've used the SR-1590 as SCREEN SPEAKERS in a couple of rooms (with bass management) and you'd never know that "surround speakers" were playing L-C-R. And, they're covering two levels (the theatres have a small balcony). I've found that the SLS/Dolby MA390C is actually a rather good Top Surround speaker (and easier to keep the image from hitting)
• Dolby allows for economizing the system by pairing (one amplifier channel to two surround speakers on the side/rear) and culling (combining two overhead speakers into one). Because the Top Surround "effect" needs more challenges. There are two types of effects with Top Surrounds that I've, particularly, noticed. Overall ambiance (wind/rain). And moving an effect from front to back/back to front. If you cull the top surrounds it isn't going to be as effective.
• 5-screen channels are not required. In truth, they are not heavily used by most Atmos mixes...just if an object happens to move across them. The same can be true for the "wide" channels. That said there are mixes where they get a LOT of activity. It is up to the person mixing the movie (and the content of the movie). However, if they were always there, a given, I suspect that they'd get more use. If you were mixing a movie, would you be more prone to pan things to where you know speakers are located behind the screen or if you knew that it might just be a "phantom" channel? It is inconsistent. Everyone's eyes are on the screen. That is where the action and story reside. Speakers behind the screen is not where one should economize. LC/RC have the potential to help locate sounds in an area where humans are very sensitive on their hearing...left/right and in front of them. Atmos due to how it is tuned, has the potential to minimize timbre differences between channels (presuming identical speakers) so that pans between channels should feel smooth and natural...not choppy.

CIrcling things back around to Avatar 2...just looking at the meters, I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that the Atmos mix got anything particularly special. All channels get used, at some point but there isn't a heavy use of channels unique to Atmos...I see some array use of the Top Surrounds (array would be all channels of a zone playing the same thing). Note, speaking of array, DAD tunes channels by BOTH individual channel and as an "array." So all speakers in a zone, like Left Side Surround, if the mix is call for them as an array, get the "array" tuning rather than applying individual tunings to each speaker. As such, if an Atmos system gets a 5.1 mix, it will play it like a 5.1 theatre would...tuning wise.

[Joe Redifer]

So do you think that perhaps the auto-EQ was programmed by some dusty old fart who can't hear high frequencies very well any more and thus they are crazy boosted so it sounds good to him? Same with IMAX. Seriously, that's gotta be it. No other way can such a upper-heavy EQ be deemed "correct". It's actually painful. Is this the effect that's desired?

Heck, I've used the SR-1590 as SCREEN SPEAKERS in a couple of rooms (with bass management)

Does your bass management use its own subwoofer or do the same speakers share duties with the LFE channel? I find that when LFE and bass management is combined it's too boomy. Let the LFE do its thing by itself.

[Steve Guttag]

I always found that THX installs, left to their own devices, sounded too harsh. My ears were much younger then. That said, when I did THX rooms, I had no problem making them meet the criteria and not be harsh (except for EV...the DH1 driver is just nasty sounding).

As for Dolby Atmos...the installer has the flexibility to constrain the auto-eq by limiting the bandwidth where boost may be applied. There is no need to make it harsh. Again, I've found that if I tilt my mics towards the screen for the screen channels, that also lets the auto-EQ not be as aggressive on the higher frequencies. Just like with traditional tuning, if you have someone that is mindless and just follows the curve, you get a crappy job. If you allow the tool (auto eq) aid you in doing the eq, it can be a great benefit with a higher degree of uniformity than trying to hand-tune 50+ speakers.

As for bass-management, I used the regular subwoofer. I didn't notice (nor measure) any exaggerated bass. You don't want highs...you don't want lows...you MUST want Bose™ . I suspect, for some, it is all in how you do it. That is, where you crossover into the the LFE, the spacing of it all, what speakers are used...etc. I find where the main speaker naturally falls off and only augment it from there. In the case of the SR-1590, I set the crossover to 60Hz so the bulk of the audio is still coming from the main speaker. Each speaker bass managed signal is independently delayed to match the timing from the main speaker and each is independently leveled, high-passed and EQed too. You really don't get a sense that it is bass-managed. If you are ever in Ventnor City (Atlantic City) NJ. Give it a listen.

[Lyle Romer]

I always found that THX installs, left to their own devices, sounded too harsh. My ears were much younger then. That said, when I did THX rooms, I had no problem making them meet the criteria and not be harsh (except for EV...the DH1 driver is just nasty sounding).

As for Dolby Atmos...the installer has the flexibility to constrain the auto-eq by limiting the bandwidth where boost may be applied. There is no need to make it harsh. Again, I've found that if I tilt my mics towards the screen for the screen channels, that also lets the auto-EQ not be as aggressive on the higher frequencies. Just like with traditional tuning, if you have someone that is mindless and just follows the curve, you get a crappy job. If you allow the tool (auto eq) aid you in doing the eq, it can be a great benefit with a higher degree of uniformity than trying to hand-tune 50+ speakers.

As for bass-management, I used the regular subwoofer. I didn't notice (nor measure) any exaggerated bass. You don't want highs...you don't want lows...you MUST want Bose™ . I suspect, for some, it is all in how you do it. That is, where you crossover into the the LFE, the spacing of it all, what speakers are used...etc. I find where the main speaker naturally falls off and only augment it from there. In the case of the SR-1590, I set the crossover to 60Hz so the bulk of the audio is still coming from the main speaker. Each speaker bass managed signal is independently delayed to match the timing from the main speaker and each is independently leveled, high-passed and EQed too. You really don't get a sense that it is bass-managed. If you are ever in Ventnor City (Atlantic City) NJ. Give it a listen.

Tuning a room is an art combined with a science. Due to the nature of sound waves and the effect of room acoustics, two rooms that measure the exact same will not necessarily sound the exact same unless the rooms are constructed exactly the same and the microphones placed in the exact same positions and orientation.

It takes a skilled technician to make any room sound good.

[Joe Redifer]

You don't want highs...you don't want lows...you MUST want Bose™

LOL I certainly do not want Bose™. However I don't want Klipsh™ either. That's what the harsh sound of whatever they used in that room reminded me of.

I'm not sure what brand of speakers these are, but this is what was in that room. The surrounds rattled very noticeably.
surrounds.jpg top.jpg

[Mike Olpin]

I asked my local AMC friend about it, he told me those are SLS custom made for AMC exclusively. The HF on the top is a ribbon, which I know SLS uses on some of their other speakers, so I tend to think he is correct.

Our Dallas area Dolby Cinemas seem to be in better shape than the one Joe experienced. I don't believe I've ever heard popping or overdriving in any speaker. Some of the older locations, the AMC McTheatres like Grapevine and Mesquite, do have some building rattle though. The EQ I've not found to be remarkable in either a positive or negative. It's usually been just fine. To me the killer app is the butt kicker they build into the recliner. I know its gimmicky, but I love it.

Picture has been outstanding at every Dolby Cinema at AMC I've put eyes on, besting most other PLF locations including Xenon based IMAX. (Laser IMAX I would say has been on par). I do think masking would benefit the image further by eliminating the issues with auditorium light near the front. Overall, with the exception of those few seats at the front, the ambient light in these theaters is usually quite low, which is necessary to showcase those black levels laser is capable of.

To me Atmos has been really hit or miss depending on the locations and equipment selection. The Dolby Cinemas sit in the middle for me, not the worst or best. The best Atmos I've heard was the original demo install they did at Cinemark West Plano way back when Brave came out. They used powered JBL surrounds and the EQ was perfect. They only ran like that for about 6 months to a year, before they got replaced with the production version of Atmos, and the room has never soared back to those original heights in my opinion. Today, the best sounding Atmos room I know of is the EPIC room at Cinergy in Odessa. They have a QSC speaker system and have excellent EQ. I always try to catch whatever is playing on it if I'm passing through.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Newer Dolby Cinema installs, like this one, are SLS speakers and Dolby amps. The first Dolby Cinema installs were Christie Vive Audio speakers and amps.

Despite me remembering Christie Vive Audio as a terrible speaker system, the first Dolby Cinema installs sounded pretty great. Whatever Dolby did in those first few rooms, it worked. Like you can expect, neglect creeped in and over the years, it only got worse, those first rooms they did now sound somewhere between OK and terrible.

I've seen this movie in four different formats now:

• IMAX with Laser and Immersive Sound 3D HFR:
  The picture of IMAX with Laser is still terrible: I can't stand the speckle. No matter what location I visit, it's always there, on their oversized, ugly, silver screens. It's like an unicorn barfed irredecent pearls all over the screen and somebody forgot to wash them off. Highly distracting.
  The 12-channel "Immersive Sound" is a step up from the 6.0 "Concert venue" setup with those honking huge speakers in every corner of the room, but it doesn't blow me away.
• Dolby Cinema 3D HFR:
  Despite many Dolby Cinema rooms not living up to their initial hype anymore, the one I visited still was being kept pretty nicely. The only problem I had with the presentation is that they showed the SCOPE version on this big, unmasked FLAT shaped screen. Running a SCOPE version here really is a waste of real-estate.
  With the exit lights off and the isle lighting reduced to a minimum, the Dolby Vision setup is still the best picture you can get at this moment. Very impressive blacks and a good brightness. No signs of speckle anywhere, I guess not using a mirror as a screen helps... My biggest gripe still is with the Dolby 3D glasses. They are not as clear as polarizers or shutter glasses and introduce a hazy and color-fringed look around the edges of your field of vision.
• Standard Digital 4K 2D HFR.
  Good presentation in 7.1, nothing to complain about the presentation, but HFR in 2D just looks WRONG. As soon as the frame-doubling ends, stuff that used to look super-smooth in 3D, now looks more like a cardboard cutout. By limiting the amount of close character interactions in 48 FPS, Cameron largely avoids the dreaded soap opera look, but I agree with Cameron that for 2D, HFR doesn't really make any sense, it's quite counter-productive actually.
• Standard Digital 2K 2D 24 FPS
  Run-of-the-mill multiplex presentation in 5.1: You really shouldn't watch this movie this way.

As for the movie itself: I've never been a real big fan of Avatar and I don't know a lot of people that would identify as such, but still, I've watched the first movie more often than I could count over the years.

It's not about the story, but about the spectacle. You can say about James Cameron what you want, he still knows how to get a big, epic, spectacle on screen, one that truely deserves the label EPIC. This movie was a marathon of never-ending special effects, but compared to your run-of-the-mill Marvel action movie, those special effects did come with a layer of depth and often even with a layer of pretty deep emotions. Who can't marvel at an underwater alien planet rendered to such great detail? Avatar 2's story may be as dull as the first one, but it's not about the story, it's an excursion to Pandora. For a few hours, Cameron takes you to another place in this universe and immerses you in a world in a way only he could do. Does this make a great movie? I don't know, but it's still a great experience... At least, as long as the technical infrastructure around you allows you to experience it as such...

[Mike Blakesley]

Avatar 2's story may be as dull as the first one, but it's not about the story,

When our technician was last here (October, I think) and we were tuning up the 3-D, he said, "3-D looks good, the only complaints you should get will be about the plot."

[Joe Redifer]

I've seen this movie in four different formats now:

Yikes! I can't imagine watching it more than once, especially so soon. Maybe if I had nothing else to do with my time. Oh wait I just remembered... I can always watch dust collect on the floor. That's just as fun and CHEAPER!

My biggest gripe still is with the Dolby 3D glasses. They are not as clear as polarizers or shutter glasses and introduce a hazy and color-fringed look around the edges of your field of vision.

I noticed this as well, but only on the left eye piece. It had a blue edge if I let that edge get between my eyeball and the lit screen.

It's not about the story, but about the spectacle.

The spectacle should be shorter. Even the visuals get ho-hum after the first hour, hour and a half or so.

it's not about the story, it's an excursion to Pandora.

It's really not all that exciting. It doesn't even feel tremendously alien. I'd rather watch Planet Earth 2 on 4K Blu-ray. Far more interesting. Not only that but it's divided into episodes like it should be. Avatar 1 or 2 have no right to be 3 hours. It's not Godfather, Goodfellas, or The Green Mile. Avatar needs to get over itself.

Standard Digital 2K 2D 24 FPS
Run-of-the-mill multiplex presentation in 5.1: You really shouldn't watch this movie this way.

This means the movie itself has nothing to offer as it simply can't stand on its own. If it needs gimmicks, there's really no substance there. Why do we need 3-5 more upcoming movies of this same gimmick?

[Bobby Henderson]

I'm not sure what brand of speakers these are, but this is what was in that room. The surrounds rattled very noticeably.

Maybe the speaker drivers are literally hammering those thin bars installed across them. What are those things anyway?

That rattling issue reminds me of when our old Carmike 8 theater first opened at the end of 1994. It had 2 THX houses with DTS-6 players. Whoever set up the systems didn't set them up right. Sub-bass audio was going into the surround channels. But no one knew this because the theater hardly got any movies with DTS discs the first few months it was opened. Then when it started getting DTS discs with movies like Braveheart the problem became noticeable. The speaker drivers were hammering against the speaker grills. A loud bass hit would create this loud "BRAPPP" sound. The opening title sequence of Seven sounded like it was going to destroy the sound system. I wrote emails to DTS about it and talked to the theater manager, who I later became friends with. They had someone fix the problems with the sound system. I watched Seven again after that and it sounded great. The rattling issue was gone.

Picture has been outstanding at every Dolby Cinema at AMC I've put eyes on, besting most other PLF locations including Xenon based IMAX.

If only AMC could design their auditoriums better where exit lights weren't bleeding light onto the screens! I hate that crap. If they can't bother to use curtains and masking the very least thing they could do is install a "visor" of sorts on the left/right ends and/or bottom edge of the screen to cut down on the exit door light pollution. A shadow box like some General Cinema screens used might be an extreme solution. I would just appreciate proper curtains and masking.

To me Atmos has been really hit or miss depending on the locations and equipment selection.

Atmos isn't just hit-and-miss from one location to the next. Atmos is also hit-and-miss from one movie to the next. Even if you're lucky enough to find a theater where the Atmos system is well-configured and set up properly you're still at the mercy of the sound editors and mixers of any particular movie. Some, like Gravity for instance, will make good use of the Atmos format. So many other movies don't put in the effort during post production. You basically get a 7.1 channel mix with maybe a little ceiling surround activity. And it could just be "bed" audio that plays across the entire column of ceiling surround speakers -a slightly expanded 9.1 mix. That's opposed to actually using object-based audio elements that get positioned and animated specifically.

To me Dolby Atmos has exposed a lot of weak links in the chain of delivering great audio to movie goers. There's so many ways for people to take short cuts, cut costs and do the bare minimum to get by. The situation makes me feel pretty angry. The lack of professionalism and lost opportunity to raise the standards bar makes me feel like not going to the cinema at all. I don't have a home-Atmos setup. With the apparent lack of effort going into so many movie mixes why bother? I might as well get a fucking sound bar for my next "sound system."