@brianlucey , that is a great perspective, thanks for posting. I never really considered that the majority of the population have never really heard a great two channel setup but it is so true. You have die hard enthusiast members here who are still looking for ways to upgrade. So when you talk about a general point of reference for good SQ among average listeners its basically what they hear in the car or ear buds. If Atmos can close that gap so average listeners can experience what a good setup can offe with daily driver type of gear that is easy to use that is a big win/win/win. Win for the artist/director, win for the studio/manufacturer and win for the consumer. I never thought about the mass market aspect of this before. I didn't realize the atmos headphone mix could be so good, probably can save $$$ on headphone rigs (I am not a headphone user, just for casual listening but might start now).
Re: the quality of work being done it must be expensive on the producers end. The first atmos mix has to be for theatrical release (unless its for streaming or music) and that has got to eat a lot of budget, then you have the nearfield mix for the home with any $ left over, then you got the 7.1, 5.1, stereo. The studio mix needs to translate so it won't blow up any ear pods, etc. Then you have emerging standards and lack of a universal system to calibrate reference, more $$$, I get it about early days.
A lot of good info here, appreciate your insight and if you feel you are experimenting that goes for everyone. You have more format confusion with DTS-X/IMAX, Sony 360, Auro-3D, etc. The atmos setup can be confusing between the new nomenclature (5.1.4, 7.2.2, 9.2.7, etc) and then all of the variables on types of speakers and locations.
I found that once I got my hands on the Dolby setup specs it made it much easier to get the angles and distances down. Hopefully as this new format emerges that will be come a standard. To your point about a learning curve I am finding that the source content is much more important for SQ than the processor you use downstream. For example discs are generally better SQ than streaming services (except kaleidoscope).When I was reading how you said the most important "component" in your studio was your Trinnov calibration system I had to smile. When I went from a standard version of Audyssey to the Pro version with a calibrated mic and software using the PC not the one in the processor it was a huge upgrade. Not at the Trinnov level I'm sure but much better than the consumer version. Thanks again for your reply.