Dolby Atmos sounds incredibly cheap if a single soundbar and two rear speakers are enough for it. License (certificate) money must be more important to Dolby than any standards or real sound quality.

Dolby Atmos sounds incredibly cheap if a single soundbar and two rear speakers are enough for it. License (certificate) money must be more important to Dolby than any standards or real sound quality.

Traditional directional sound has used a set number of speakers with a separate audio track for each speaker. Dolby Atmos is different in that each "sound" can be given a specific location in 3D space. So a helicopter, for example, can fly overhead with gunshots coming from behind, in front, wherever. The key is that these sounds are tied to a location, not a specific speaker. A Dolby Atmos receiver is set up to know how many speakers it has and where they all are, so the receiver itself then does the work of sending the sounds as close as it can to their correct position, given the particular speaker set up that it has. That means there will be a huge variety in the effectiveness of Dolby Atmos setups, depending on the speakers and their locations. It's a much better way of doing 3D audio though, than tying sounds to specific speakers. Just as an aside: have you listened to a high end sound-bar? Their ability to make it appear as though sound is coming from all around is pretty staggering. Pop in to a Bose store next time you pass one and try one of the sound-bar demos... it's impressive.

Perhaps. But my initial impression of Atmos came from my brother's talks as he has been considering switching from his current, rather high quality 7.1 to an Atmos capable home theater amp, and apparently that would require him to install additional speakers directly overhead. So, now reading that a soundbar with a couple of rear speakers is supposedly enough for that same Atmos sounds ridiculous. I'm personally running 5.1 with a decent amp and real speakers as my TV sound, so I kind of doubt a soundbar would impress me in absolute sound quality terms. I reckon it could be interesting from a technological point of view if it's indeed as surprising as you say. But then again, Bose ought to be worlds above Samsung in quality (and price).