Do NOT Blow Your Entire Budget on Two Channel Audio

@fittebd 
Ouch you have a square room, what if you moved everything 45 degrees ? Weird I know but if your room is to small there is nothing that will work.

https://www.acousticfields.com/acoustic-treatment-for-a-square-room-recommend/

"Now understand that Dolby Atmos played via Amazon Music or Apple Music is compressed on all channels."

Help me understand how listening via an Atmos system to the worst version of a recording is a better experience that listening to better recorded versions on 2 channel?  Thanks

@facten

I can’t speak to worst vs best. When you stream music on Tidal you have choices ranging from hifi/44 khz (redbook), masters (MQA), Sony 360 (immersive) and Atmos (immersive). You can try every type of file and pick what you like. This thread is about budgeting your system so you can play ALL of them since you are paying for all of them regardless. Some people prefer the Beach Boys Pet Sounds in mono, that’s OK too.

I know what your thread is about.  The question remains, if some - Amazon, Apple per ragusw - or all (don't know) Atmos recordings are compressed why is this a better listening experience than 2 channel uncompressed music ?  The question itself speaks to how one would spend their budget

Perhaps.

For more than a song or two, (a few minutes) I absolutely loathe having to listen to music in a "sweet spot",

Im just too restless, so I tend to mull about the room while listening.

This may not likely be a problem with an "object based audio" sytem,

but would certainly eliminate the possibility of using BACCH technology!

I guess the question is, do they sound compressed or worse than the equivalent two channel recordings. 99% of the atmos recordings I listen to sound more "real", in my room, with my setup. The 1% that don’t sound more real are generally from mixes that didn’t sound all too great in two channel either.

The engineers today are moving past either/or and are mixing both simultaneously, see at least the first 5 minutes of this breakdown:

https://youtu.be/0oQlHU6pBdI?feature=shared

@facten 

The question itself speaks to how one would spend their budget

I saw the pics of your systems, nice, Modwright gear, tubes, nice stuff. You would likely want to start with a processor capable of atmos, not a receiver. You likely want to use the amps you already have, do you want specifics?

If they are compressed they aren't good to begin with so crap in crap out. Regardless,  enjoy what you like.

How to get lossless Dolby Atmos Music:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/lossless-spatial-audio-dolby-atmos-music/

No not at all, you can use headphone and walkinng in your room with a complete out of the head experience...

😊

Perhaps.

For more than a song or two, (a few minutes) I absolutely loathe having to listen to music in a "sweet spot",

Im just too restless, so I tend to mull about the room while listening.

This may not likely be a problem with an "object based audio" sytem,

but would certainly eliminate the possibility of using BACCH technology!

@facten 

Here is a good resource for lossless atmos albums.

My favorite so far are Roger Waters The Wall and Kraftwerk 3D: The Catalogue. My favorite Atmos CD/Bluray is The Traveler by Kenny Wayne Shephard. The lossless discs sound great but in my system the Tidal streams sound great too.

@kota1 So let me try and understand this ( Im a little slow) All I need to do is 1.Treat my room. 2. Go down to Best Buy or Costco ,drop 2.5 grand on one of your consumer grade mid fi multi channel systems. 3. Subscribe to Tidal so I can stream their compressed files. Then I sit back push play and marvel at the magic emanating from the seven or nine or however many speakers it is as it blows me away from where I sit all alone in my one very specific spot ? and thats it ? Sounds to good to be true. Oh and I,m 63 yo btw I guess that factors in also, that’s probably realated to the ears I,ll bet. Thanks in advance for your reply. Btw, please try and temper your response as it could potentially be devastating to me and some of the other out of touch oldsters who’ve been trying to achieve high quality audio playback in a completely antiquated and more costly manner, which is to say buying actual high quality gear,Thanks again,

@kota1 - Thanks but no need to send me any further links my questions were out of curiosity (I did read the digitaltrend article you linked) . I have no intention of replacing either of my 2 channel systems with an AVR receiver/processor, soundbar and/or multi-channel speakers, just not my cup of tea. All the best - enjoy your journey and the music as you do

@kota1 

"This brings the question, what is your favorite album/track in atmos music?"

The cut Comfortably Numb from Roger Waters The Wall BluRay does it for me.

+1, that movie hit on so many levels, nice! 

Allocating virtually any budget across two channels will result in better sound quality than twelve…assuming a properly set up room. And properly setting up a 12-channel system is a monumental task. Most hi-fi enthusiasts struggle to get 2-channel systems really dialed in.

I've seen zero evidence that most artists are adopting object-based audio. In fact, of the hundreds of Blu-ray movies I've purchased, only a few dozen have Dolby Atmos or DTS:X audio.

However, I see several YouTube videos from music producers stating that object-based audio makes little financial sense. And others decry poor mastering quality, as also seen in this thread.

I want to be supportive; however, I sincerely hope that all of the various object-based solutions for music will die as fast as they arrived. And don't get me started on Dolby Atmos for headphones and soundbars. Ugh!

@dsnyder0cnn :

Spot on. I agree 100% with what you said. Sober realistically well put. Thanks for chiming in. I couldn’t have said this better. Doing what the OP said has crossed my mind. I would still not do it.

@donavabdear How do I have a square room?

24x13.5x7.25 all feet. Non are divisible by another too. Not sure what you are referring to. Did I do a typo?

I see o talked about what I call false wall.  It’s an 8’ wide floor to ceiling. The floor is the top riser btw.  It’s insulated inside. I use to hold rear speakers and projector.  But it’s 4’ in from rear wall and has 3’ on each side open.   So when you walk in you see that wall and it has light up posters.  You can go left or right like a real theater to get in. I think it’s pretty cool and functional. But certainly does not make room square. 

@fittebd 
That's great, my mistake I was looking at the drawing, sorry I didn't see any dimensions. 

Oh not my diagram 

@dsnyder0cnn

First, thanks for contributing to this thread and you hit on a lot of interesting points.

Most hi-fi enthusiasts struggle to get 2-channel systems really dialed in.

It is a "kaizen" experience, a continuous pursuit of perfection until you hit "good enough". One of the things I learned in this thread is for a lot of members, the stereo is preferred even over live music.

Allocating virtually any budget across two channels will result in better sound quality than twelve

See the first comment of yours above in italics., it almost makes it insurmountable, if two channels are a struggle twelve would be almost impossible. I agree and that takes it back to why I started this thread, how do you allocate budget so you can play the file of choice from your streaming service. Fortunately Dolby has standards that are easy to follow, I have a thread here that discusses setup in detail.

I’ve seen zero evidence that most artists are adopting object-based audio.

Well their are plenty of engineers posting about mixing (see youtube), plenty of studios posting about converting to Atmos (see mixonline) and as for content just pull it up on tidal, apple, or amazon music, its HUGE and growing every month. As for your point about the financial side of it I have a four letter reply, AAPL. When the elephant in the room buys into spatial audio do you want to just ignore it if you are a content producer? I posted a video in this thread by producer Steve Wilson who discusses this.

I want to be supportive; however, I sincerely hope that all of the various object-based solutions for music will die as fast as they arrived.

Point taken, better that even a good format goes away before you sink a ton of dough into it. Some people were bummed their $10K turntables were out of style in 1995, that turned around though right? The reason I took the risk is because unlike SACD or DVD-A I already had access to tons of content (that I liked, unlike SACD) and it was included without a markup, so I said, why not? Now, I already had a 9.1 HT so it was a chip shot, new processor and I added more speakers gradually. If I got an incremental cost effective improvement I kept going. Now I just smile a lot and hit my happy place.

And don’t get me started on Dolby Atmos for headphones and soundbars.

You know who turned me on to the headphones, a member here who I really respect. All because of a thread like this, you never know.

I think my real issue with multi channel music is the preamp. You are stuck with a home theater receiver or so super expensive processor (trinnov, etc). 
 

what are people using as a front end? My experience with surround processor as preamps for music is not positive. Not terrible but not amazing either.

Oh crap I spent all my money on a 2 channel system already! What to do? Keep listening I guess. ☺

what are people using as a front end?

If you look at the sales numbers receivers are the most popular in general.

The next higher tier would be separate processors with XLR outputs. If you want to fold a two channel preamp into a multi-channel system there are preamps with a home theater pass through feature. The benefits of a processor over a lot of two channel preamps is the room correction and easy integration of a subwoofer. The benefit of a two channel preamp over a processor is a direct signal path and reduced noise from the HDMI/video card. I budgeted $2K for a Marantz processor and $2K for a flagship DAC/preamp. My active speakers have toggle switches between the XLR balanced input (processor) and RCA input (preamp) so I used a "balanced" approach and it worked out fine. I could have easily dropped $5K on a processor and left out a dedicated 2 channel preamp/dac but I liked the $2K processor a lot so I just added the two channel preamp/DAC.

If I were shopping today I would get this Marantz processor at the $2K sale price and drop another $2K on a 2CH preamp/dac with HT pass through.

You can always spend more than the budget I suggested above but you get the idea, it's more or less balanced between a 2 CH pre and HT processor. If you are more of a two channel guy tilt it that way, immersive guy tilt that way. If you are a one box guy look at this receiver.

The new Sony receiver has been getting rave reviews and if I were getting a receiver for immersive audio would likely choose it. Here is a video about the Sony demo at a recent audio show:

https://youtu.be/pcyBHD2feIw?feature=shared

Rather than an either/or between purist 2-channel and a full-on Atmos setup, 5.1 is a satisfying halfway house. I can say from experience Atmos folds down into 5.1 very well, and conversely, a lot of 2-channel content upmixes/dynamically matrixes into 5.1. I’ll go a little further: sometimes the 2-channel content sounds better in 5.1 than the Atmos mix.

The Atmos fold-down into 5.1 is no accident; Atmos is based on 5.1 as the starting point, with additional spatial information tacked onto other "stems" as they pop in and out of the mix. So 5.1 playback doesn’t actually lose any information; overhead content is simply re-mapped into the 5.1 plane of sound.

But down-mixing Atmos content into 2-channel goes too far; too much is lost, and a separate 2-channel mix is usually recommended.

So a system with purist 2-channel, combined with 5.1 in the same room with a bit of extra switching, lets you enjoy all the dominant formats: 2-channel music, movie and TV soundtracks, and most of what Atmos offers.

I personally found the Atmos mixes kind of variable: the "Rocket Man" remix is stunning, no question about it, but others were in poor taste, or just flat-sounding, with nothing but a splash of reverb in the rear and sides.

Being able to switch on-the-fly, in the same room, between purist 2-channel, upmixed/DTS enhanced 5.1, or Atmos in 5.1 let me decide which mix sounds best. And the answer was they are all over the place, between option A, B, or C.

In theory, yes, Atmos should always sound the most modern, with all the studio tech that’s available today. But ... with the heavy compression we hear on a lot of modern "remastered" recordings, the actual musical experience might not be as satisfying as a plain old 2-channel CD made in 1990. An awful lot comes down to the taste (or lack of it) of the re-mastering engineer.

@lynn_olson 

Being able to switch on-the-fly, in the same room, between purist 2-channel, upmixed/DTS enhanced 5.1, or Atmos in 5.1 let me decide which mix sounds best. And the answer was they are all over the place, between option A, B, or C.

+10!! The backward compatibility of Atmos is key. 

That’s something that often gets missed. Read about the production guides for Atmos, and it is clear it is a superset of Dolby Digital 5.1 (not 7.1). So down-mixing simply remaps overhead, or spherical, content, into the 5.1 plane.

Down-mixing Atmos into 2-channel, or discrete 5.1, into 2-channel, essentially destroys it. The Dolby guides are clear: make a separate 2-channel mix, and while you’re at it, make sure the 2-channel mix has good mono compatibility (because that really matters in the 2-channel world).

5.1 is the common interchange format between stereo and surround, and the Dolby/DTS upmixers/decoders work surprisingly well. And it’s not a big deal to add 5.1 to a top-of-the-line 2-channel system.

No, thank you.
As simple as that. 
I'm fine with what I’ve got. 
 

https://www.theaudioatticvinylsundays.com/

Thanks for contributing to the thread. really liked your story of how you scored that nice cartridge for your TT @unreceivedogma 

If I were a vinyl enthusiast and wanted to have a pure analog, tube based, immersive setup I would add a Black Ice Audio F360 preamp. I have no "need" for it either, but after watching the Zeos review I find myself thinking more and more about folding it into the HT, or even my desktop system: 

The Black Ice F360 preamp review by Zeos:

https://youtu.be/noe6GsyYDJc?feature=shared

@kota1 ,

"Do NOT Blow Your Entire Budget on Two Channel Audio"

This expression literally means wasting all our money on two channel stereo.

Really don't think there's a single person on here who thinks all his money spent on his system has been a waste.

And it's nice to see you're trying to be so civil and polite after your temporary ban.

​​

I keep seeing post on its either a processor or pre.  You can do both in same system. So many come with bypass no. Many have done it for years.  Sure if you don’t want don’t do it. A vinyl enthusiast is certainly not going to to but many others would.  
 

Honestly the bigger issue is all the speakers and their wiring not the pre.  It’s a ton of work hanging and running the wires and in many cases finding the place to put them.  I built my room with this in mind so it was easier for me.  But I get those who have a living room system or even a den it’s a big ol mess to install.  But I agree with OP it’s worth the squeeze. 

For anyone that is simply curious and is not ready to change their home stereo. The Miles Davis estate provided Capitol Records special permission to remix Kind of Blue and Sketches of Spain in Dolby Atmos. Engineers David Rideau, Steve Genewick and PMC Speakers US President Maurice Patist did both an Atmos multi-channel mix AND a spatial audio binaural mix for headphones. You will need apple airpods pro or airpodds maxx to get the atmos headphone mix. If you don’t use Apple you can find other atmos capable headphones on dolby’s website. Here is more info on the SUPERB Atmos mix of Miles. If Miles is not your taste most Atmos tracks have a binaural headphone track embedded:

https://www.mixonline.com/the-wire/pmcs-dolby-atmos-remix-of-miles-davis-kind-of-blue-released-by-apple-music

and a "behind the scenes at the studio" video:

https://youtu.be/FU5-ZdprCrc?feature=shared

Having heard Atmos 7.1 systems and music with Atmos label in the same room as high end 2-channel audio, it appears to me that most people who keep plugging all this Atmos stuff have no idea what proper 2-channel audio sounds like. Sound imaging and soundstage are not merely "audiophile" concepts -- and the original poster double quotes that moniker, which already tells me it's going to be a bit of a pseudo-insightful post. 

I've seen films like Fury on phenomenal bookshelf format 3-way speakers, just two speakers, not even a subwoofer. Fabulous audio immersive experience. 

Drop the Atmos marketing charade, or target it to people who will lap this stuff up because...more gear. 

@julie_priest +10

Mike

@julie_priest ,

I'll add my +10 to @ditusa  and +20!

@julie_priest

most people who keep plugging all this Atmos stuff have no idea what proper 2-channel audio sounds like

Thanks for sharing, can you post your system and some pics in your profile so we can see your example?

Floyd Toole (look him up) uses the same layout in his home that I have in mine (key point, the MLP is equidistant between front and rear channels)

Where Dr. Toole uses passive speakers I chose to go with active. Check out Abbey Road studios layout (key point, MLP again equidistant). I decided to go with the tall stands for the height channels too, active speakers are a bit heavy:

Finally the measurements of my front L and R speakers in my room, two channel sounds fine:

julie_priest

... it appears to me that most people who keep plugging all this Atmos stuff have no idea what proper 2-channel audio sounds like.

That’s probably true. But it seems their interests are mostly in spectacular sound effects and the posting of charts and graphs and links to YT videos. Meanwhile the rest of us are listening to music.

Cleeds - yep. 

Asctim - absolutely. 

I already said that  we dont need atmos with BACCH filters...

I predicted  this  technology will disapear or stay marginal   because we can create immersiveness and the illusion of many speakers with only two anyway ...

The majority of music i listen to out of classical and jazz will stay recorded  stereo forever anyway...Indian and persian music ...

Oh no I have 4 of those!

Atmos has more in common with Laser disc and MQA, doomed to fail in the audio world. 

Endorsed by fanatical early adopters.

The audio world is filled with choices:

-tubes or solid state

-analog or digital

-CD or Spotify

oh, one more thing, would you like a subwoofer with that (or 2 or 3 or 4)?

Object based audio is something a LOT of members (subscribers to Tidal, Amazon or Apple Music) already have access to. It isn’t rare or hard to find. It’s easily accessed (backward compatible with whatever you are using now, even headphones). You can start "consuming" the object based audio tracks for as little as $100 for a pair of atmos compatible headphones. If you already have a stereo, it works (get the BACHH filters). If you already have a 5.1 system, it works (get an atmos compatible receiver), the height channels are optional. I don’t see much risk in trying it, that’s why I started this thread.

My wife and I were at the mall last night. There was a gentleman there at one of the kiosk,s selling time shares. He was explaining all the advantages of owning one while listing all the disadvantages of other options ( Air b&b , hotels etc ) it reminded me of something else I,d been exposed to recently, but I can’t quite put my finger on it ???, It,ll come to me.

For the members that have 0 practical means to try object based audio I would recommend making channel based audio as immersive as possible using room treatments. Whenever I see a pic of a pair of expensive speakers next to a pristine selection of expensive components in a "naked" room it seems like a waste of good equipment. The acoustics in a room are at least 50% of the sound, maybe more. So, when you are budgeting for a system (it doesn’t matter what type, channel based or object based) make sure to budget for acoustics, room treatments, and a measurement device like REW, a Mini-DSP, etc. If the pics you posted of your system are in a room surrounded by hard, flat surfaces, a lot of windows, etc., think about doing an acoustic makeover for a MUCH more immersive channel based system.

When I had a professional acoustician who works with performance spaces, recording studios, etc. review the graph I posted above his response floored me. His comments were about what a good job I did in the BEFORE graph as in before the use of DSP. DSP is a great tool, but it ain’t a magic wand. You still gotta deal with the basics first. If I were starting all over I would just order a room kit from Sonitus for a one and done approach. If you got budget just hire an acoustician, it will likely be much less expensive than buying a new amp or new speakers. Check out the Sonitus website using this link:

Double Your Sound Quality

and if you need the help of an acoustician in the US see:

Acoustical Society of America

For sure you are right on this...

A way to not antagonize older  dude as me  with stereo system and their  2 speakers is to investigate as you have already begun to  do BACCH filters... Most audiophile have no idea of this revolution...It is all anybody need...

Very few people will transform their house  with Atmos dolby many speakers system...

But they dont need to if they use BACCH...

Because they dont understand that they see  many speakers system as costlier , complicated, artificial, limited , with a sound timbre degradation etc... This is not false especially if it is not well done...

Anyway in spite of your  bad beginnings  with your rash attitude  toward members with no image of their system, you are enthusiastic and communicative ...

😊

For the members that have 0 practical means to try object based audio I would recommend making channel based audio as immersive as possible using room treatments. Whenever I see a pic of a pair of expensive speakers next to a pristine selection of expensive components in a "naked" room it seems like a waste of good equipment. The acoustics in a room are at least 50% of the sound, maybe more.

Little Jack Horner
Sat in the corner,
Eating a Christmas pie;
He put in his thumb,
And pulled out a plum,
And said, "What a good boy am I!"

---Mother Goose

Audiophiles have been "wasting" great equipment long before room treatments became the next best thing to market to the insecure. Fear is a great incentive.

Getting so wrapped up in it to the point where one says "Toole has a room like mine", when it’s the other way ’round, and posting shots of recording studios that one has copied doesn’t make them one of the big boys of audio but just someone who now has invested so heavily into it he needs to have validation in his choices by forcing them on others as there’s comfort in conformity and herd mentality.

This constant, nagging insistence goes beyond congenial advice. Long ago I experimented with blankets over my TV screen and found better center stage focus and clarity. Mounting it 2’ further back on the wall bettered that, negating any need for a blanket. Trying quick ’n cheap fixes to see if results warranted anything else proved futile: no need for further investment. Having a recording engineer physically check out my listening space (not looking at a graph) and pronouncing my space good enough was all I needed to hear.

There’s plenty of online and in print discussion of improving the sound of your system simply by moving closer to it. Get your speakers a bit further out into the room and/or move your listening position a bit closer. If your room is on the smaller side like mine is, you’re most of the way there by listening in the near field.

Speaker placement and toe in can do wonders to improving things. This is age old advice that’s worked for... ages. The acoustics in the room can be as much as 50%, not at least that amount. Nothing would work if that were the case. There’d be no great systems of the past or memories of hearing them. Again, fear sells. With all the links the OP provides, it makes me wonder if he’s getting some kind of kickback for it and his constant, hard sell approach.

All the best,
Nonoise

In my opinion you can’t have a good object based system without a good channel based system. Object based audio is not an island that you have to leave channel based audio to sail off to. I advocate budgeting for both, why not have it ALL: