They don't explain how it works, and when I first read about it, they said it would work with 2.1 speakers or more, meaning, it is pseudo-immersive. This is cheap, they are trying to catch up to Dolby Atmos and claiming they will be able to make it easier for content creators, but, I know it won't be as good.
-Auro has only one ceiling channel. That limits the 3rd dimension of the sound field.
-DTS-X claims to utilize any speaker setup. Nothing about the ceiling channel(s). I'm not sure if it has a true 3rd dimension to it.
-Dolby Atmos is the only one that has multiple ceiling channels and gives a true 3rd dimension to the audio.
I do not live near a Dolby Atmos theater, but, AVS forum has had plenty of good things to say about it and the home theater implementation. Dolby also upmixes any dolby 5.1 or 7.1 material, and AVS has also had good things to say about that. In fact, they have said that Atmos was better than Auro in the home theater demos they've heard.
Dolby has a list of movies that have been encoded with Atmos for the theater since 2012. It should be easy enough for the studios to put that on the blu-rays, as it just adds metadata to True HD, but, only a few actually have. No upgrade for the blu-ray players needed.
Dolby Atmos is compatible with True HD, and DTS claims X is compatible with DTS-HD MA, but, DTS does not specify that the source is actually object oriented audio. It seems to be like a pseudo-3rd dimension, which I don't like the idea of at all, it couldn't possibly work as well, or sound as good as Atmos.
I remain skeptical, there is no material in the DTS-X format as of yet.
Sigh, now we have to wait longer for new Atmos AVRs because now they'll have to have DTS-X also, which was DTS's goal in making their announcements this year, trying to slow Dolby Atmos adoption. This could mean even more slowly trickling of blu-rays ported from Dolby Atmos theater masters, more of them skipped over.
