For those that don't have Atmos, do the fold down to 5.1's not sound good? I have Atmos, so I wouldn't know. (I'm asking this because some are asking about a 5.1 mix, which this doesn't have...or it's not mentioned)
I've heard some good ones and some bad ones, but my long-winded answer is that it varies depending on the way the Atmos mix was constructed and how the end user's 5.1 system is set up.
To start off, I've seen claims elsewhere on the forum that the height channel information in an Atmos mix is omitted entirely upon playback in 5.1/7.1 and that is 100% false. I think I proved that
here using Gentle Giant's song "Design" from the
Interview album. So if you bought an Atmos Blu-Ray to play on your 5.1 system, don't worry about any instruments or vocals going missing.
Whenever TrueHD/Atmos audio is played on a 5.1 system (regardless of whether the listener's AVR is Atmos-compliant or legacy),
the two back speakers are always defined as "side surrounds" rather than "rear surrounds". Dolby's recommended placement for "side surrounds" is 90-110 degrees off the main listening position, while "rear surrounds" are to be placed at 135-150 degrees. This would suggest to me that whenever the mixer pans a given instrument to the side surrounds, their intention is for that element to sound like it's either directly beside or slightly behind the listener. Conversely, panning to the rear surrounds would place that element much further behind the listener's head.
So if you're listening on a 5.1 setup where the two back speakers are placed in the recommended "side surround" position (90-110 degrees), you'll hear correct placement of any side-panned elements but lose that extra dimension of having different things coming from even further back behind you. But if your two back speakers are in the "rear surround" position (135-150 degrees), you'll end up hearing things that are supposed to be beside/slightly behind coming from much further back. It's a compromise either way, but I think the 90-110 configuration usually yields more accurate results (assuming the mixer has made simultaneously use of the both the side and rear pairs - there are a number of Atmos mixes that only engage one or the other).
Take for example, "Love Ain't For Keeping" from
Who's Next. The dedicated DTS-HD 5.1 mix places the rhythm section and lead vocal upfront, acoustic guitars in the 'phantom sides' (FL & RL, FR & RR), and harmonies in the rears. The Atmos mix expands on this by moving the guitars to the side speakers and backing vocals up in the rear heights. So I think Steven Wilson's intention in both mixes was definitely to have those acoustic guitars sound like they're directly beside the listener - to get that effect in 5.1 required using a phantom center, whereas in Atmos he could pan to a set of actual side speakers in that location.
So if you were to play the Atmos mix of this song on a a 5.1 setup where the two back speakers are placed in the "side surround" position (90-110 degrees), you'd hear both the acoustic guitars and harmony vocals from beside/slightly behind the main listening position. Conversely, with back speakers in the "rear surround" position (135-150 degrees) you'd hear the acoustic guitars and harmony vocals both coming from way behind you.
I'm a little surprised/bummed Steven didn't also deliver a dedicated 5.1 of this title, but thrilled to have the Atmos mix in lossless form