Do NOT Blow Your Entire Budget on Two Channel Audio

I enjoy Dolby Atmos, but in 5.1 format (downconversion in the Marantz pre/pro from AppleTV streamer).

I think the requirement for a pair (or four) ceiling speakers will be the deal-breaker for nearly all audiophiles. The Atmos requirement for a ceiling speaker installation only works for wealthy people who have dedicated home theater rooms in their house. For that small group, listening to Dolby Atmos music in a dimly lit theater room, with the curtain for the blank screen closed, is going to be minority activity. That expensive room is going to used for movies, not music, because it’s really a single-purpose room. It’s not a relaxing place to socialize with the lights on.

Which leaves the rest of us, listening in either our living room or a dedicated music room. What percentage will install the Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers? 5% of the 2-channel audiophile market? 1%? A few audiophiles will tolerate rear speakers and the nuisance of running fat cables around the room. Fewer still will tolerate moving the couch out into the middle of the room to accommodate 7.1 surround, and the required four side and rear speakers, and the required cabling.

And now two or four ceiling speakers, requiring an expensive professional installation to cut the holes, install the speakers, and snake the wires through the walls? If you want to upgrade the ceiling speakers to timbre-match the others, you call the installer back to cut new holes?

Not to mention the discrepancy between the size of the existing 2-channel catalog vs Atmos remixes ... maybe 100,000 to one, or being generous, 10,000 to one?

@lynn_olson

I think the requirement for a pair (or four) ceiling speakers will be the deal-breaker for nearly all audiophiles.

Interesting, you might be right. I think the deal-breaker for a lot of audiophiles is they got burned on the SACD format. What survived of the "SACD" has become DSD and while you can still buy SACD/DSD players and DAC’s the content is limited and expensive. As for the height channels that market is certainly savvy enough to perceive this more as an annoyance than a real obstacle. This is the crowd that can balance a turntable on an inner tube while drinking high priced scotch at the same time.

Which leaves the rest of us, listening in either our living room or a dedicated music room.

Good point, maybe something like "height channels" would be a solution?

https://www.techhive.com/article/582560/svs-prime-elevation-speaker-review-an-incredibly-versatile-audio-solution-for-the-home-theater.html

What percentage will install the Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers?

You don’t need ceiling speakers to experience object based audio, its backward compatible. You can start with Atmos capable headphones and go from there. The point of my post was to allocate budget for an object based format. What a listener decides to allocate and how they choose to install a system is up to them. Congrats on having a 5.1 system, when that format first came out it was challenging too.

Fewer still will tolerate moving the couch out into the middle of the room to accommodate 7.1 surround, and the required four side and rear speakers, and the required cabling.

Moving the couch is free and sales of these types of systems is on the rise, see:

If you want to upgrade the ceiling speakers to timbre-match the others, you call the installer back to cut new holes?

Fortunately, speaker manufacturers have created solutions that can be hung high on the wall with little installation hassle other then running the wires, see:

https://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/category/atmos/speakers/atmos-speakers/1.html

Not to mention the discrepancy between the size of the existing 2-channel catalog vs Atmos remixes ... maybe 100,000 to one, or being generous, 10,000 to one?

That’s what I thought 5 years ago. Now most people who like music are already streaming. This means the content is available and you don’t have to pay an additional fee, you are already getting it, you just have to figure out how to consume it. I love how much content is available, from all genres and there is like a flood of new content being dropped every month, have you noticed?

I ditched 5.1 20 years ago and never looked back.

What a ridiculous proposal. Almost no one has the room or money to implement your idea, even if they wanted to; and that's a big IF. Besides that, you already made this pitch in another thread. You need to understand that not everyone needs or wants "immersive audio".

You lost me at “object-based audio.”

I agree, object based ain’t gonna happen except for very small minority

Music, with a physical library of 2 channel content, best engineering ’capturing imaging’, and best audio playback system ’re-creating imaging’ is all you can get out of that content/equipment. Very enjoyable, far better than ’good enough, although we must admit: we are a minority, most people are content with ’good enough’. iPad to usb to ____. alexa play me _____

Streaming and re-creating ’object based’ music (no video) is a huge difference which I cannot imagine will go beyond a minority at best.

Home theater, video with directional sound: 5.1 is easy, darn good, ’good enough’. equipment and setup, relocation to another space or home. A few people go beyond 5.1 (7.1; 9.1) but a minority for sure.

4. a dual music/video system is also going to be a small minority (already is).

.......................................

Historically ’good enough’ wins. Convenience, cost’s less, ’good enough’.

33 beats 45 due to length of content/unit

beta beats laser disc; vhs beats beta, primarily due to length of content/unit

two channel audio beats short lived 3 channel for ease/cost/minimum advantage: simply duplicate existing mono setup for stereo.

refinement of alternate formats to the point of simply better happens

cassette for dictation advances to smaller and better mechanisms and tape formulas than 8 track for cars and home recording.

CD, perfect, noiseless/indestructible, smaller, initially: what’s not to like

MP3, crappy sound, I have 7 million songs on my gizmo had quite a run.

Streaming: finally back to high quality: ease, cost, no physical library, now no quality compromise, access to ’everything out there’, fits existing 2 channel system is a huge draw for many,

.........................................

Object Based is the opposite: very complicated, understanding, equipment and placement decisions; big equipment investment, physical construction involved; fixed in one specific location, not easily moved to a new space or home: ALL a heck of a lot, for ’not that much better’ when 5.1 is already darn good.

I agree with @lynn_olson

We have a modest 5.1 in our shared living space for TV/movies. It is satisfying enough. My dedicated 2ch system in a dedicated room is 10x the cost of the 5.1

@roxy54 and @oddiofyl have made valid points. It’s not gonna fly for many of us, IMO.

I have multiple systems in the house (4). I will limit this blurb to my 2-channel “A” system versus my “HT” 7.1 system herein.

- My “A” system is high-end 2-channel ($50 grand-ish) that is great for audio via cdp, or streamer / network NAS server. I also prefer QUBOZ streaming over TIDAL and APPLE.

- I’ve also got a 7.1 channel separate and discreet “C” system down in my HT mancave. But it is now limited only to multichannel BluRay movies and concerts. A lot of the material is distributed in 5.1format and no ATMOS. It’s a decent enough system FOR ITS INTENDED USE ( about $20K …half for MARTIN LOGAN 7.1 system speakers & half for electronics (2&3 channel YBA power amps, discrete all digital AV 7.1 preamp processor, & 7.1 channel digital player )

KEY POINT

Without prejudice to:

(i) the many logistical hurdles and the like already brought up in this thread about ATMOS speaker placements challenges etc,

(ii) the music industry following Elton John to re-recording in multichannel is still very limited in product choice or availability.

Simply put, there isn’t an AV multichannel receiver on this planet that can compete with a high-end 2-channel system for premium audio performance …. Not even close …. Full stop. I had the very top model CAMBRIDGE AVR and an ARCAM in prior iterations of my current HT system.

If eclectic multichannel audio stirs your drink .,,, fine …. Carry on, sir! But it is not going to influence the overwhelming cohort of mainstream 2-channel hi-fi fans, - especially the high-end audio enthusiasts - to steer away from mainstream 2-channel.

The side to side and front to back soundstage created in highend 2 channel audio is a superior 3-dimensional depth musical experience anyway IMO

Do you know where i can find a Dolby Atmos tube amp?  :)

@oddiofyl 

I ditched 5.1 20 years ago and never looked back.

That's exactly why I started this thread. Object based audio is NOT surround sound and many music enthusiasts such as yourself got burned by "surround sound". The content is already available on Tidal and Apple Music.

@soix 

You lost me at “object-based audio.”

I realize your are a two channel expert and may feel no need to try the new object based format. If you want a breakdown here is a good article link:

What Is Immersive Sound

@akg_ca

It’s not gonna fly for many of us, IMO

100% true, I get that, but as you can tell, the content is already widely available so that isn’t an excuse. If you look at my system that would NOT be a fit for the majority of people, it’s setup more like a mix stage, I get it. My point is to allocate some budget to object based audio given it is so refreshing and becoming widely adopted by the artists and content producers, it may as well be enjoyed by as many people as possible. For people that already have a 5.1 system it is as simple as mounting some small speakers high on the wall in the front and back of the room.

@elliottbnewcombjr 

Historically ’good enough’ wins.

True, my desktop system is "good enough" but if you look at the virtual systems here WOW, I guess we all have different standards of what "enough" is. For the "good enough" community you have Spotify, a phone and ear buds. Even this community can get a "good enough" upgrade by getting an apple music subscription and some air pods.

Object Based is the opposite: very complicated,

Again, exactly why I started this thread, to raise the veil and shine a light on how easy it is to consume the object based content many members already have access to via streaming. Are atmos capable processors more complicated than a turntable? Nope, I could not install a cartridge without some type of training either.

@akg_ca

A lot of the material is distributed in 5.1format and no ATMOS.

First of all love the pics you posted and yes, I get it, channel based audio must sound fantastic on both systems. This takes me back to the OP, re: budget. When I bought a $50 Firestick that was 4K/Atmos capable recently with the wifi 6 upgrade I set a $50 expectation. Whoa! The ATV and the Shield are not capable of streaming hirez content, the firestick is. I think amazon loses money on the firestick like kodak lost money on cameras, to get you to buy the film. Martin Logan has atmos speakers on crutchfield you can audition for 60 days, might be worth checking out for the man cave:

https://www.crutchfield.com/S-u8EmbKu42oo/p_839MAFX/MartinLogan-Motion-AFX.html

or The Motion M10 mounted high on the wall near the ceiling: 

https://www.crutchfield.com/S-XrWvrG44H9e/p_839MP10GB/MartinLogan-Motion-MP10-Gloss-Black.html

@fthompson251

My dedicated 2ch system in a dedicated room is 10x the cost of the 5.1

Again, exactly why I started this thread, a question of budget. For someone with a large collection of software like LP’s, CD’s, blurays or SACD’s your setup makes perfect sense. For someone who streams their content maybe allocate some budget to try object based audio in the 5.1 channel room by making it a 5.1.4 channel room with a firestick and a tidal subscription?

Shouting from the mountain top but no one is listening. 5.1 has given way to a sound bar. Atamos is to cumbersome for most. 

Swing and a miss. 

@grinnell 

Do you know where i can find a Dolby Atmos tube amp?  :)

If I had an unlimited budget and the appropriate space I would use tube based monoblocks for each channel....😎

One of our members does this in a SOA atmos system using these:

https://allnicaudio.com/products-2/?ckattempt=2

@jeffrey125

Shouting from the mountain top but no one is listening. 5.1 has given way to a sound bar. Atamos is to cumbersome for most.

Have you heard atmos capable soundbars yet? They are an upgrade over the traditional one. If I lived in a condo and was on the fence about soundbars I would snap up this atmos capable system by sony for around $1K in a nanosecond:

https://youtu.be/eHcjvdGbaa0?feature=shared

Do you also have a used car to sell me?

Yes, two channel audio is here, and is not going away. However, object based audio is delightful, widely available on Tidal and Apple Music, and should be in the listening room of every music lover on the planet, not just "audiophiles.

Should? Really? You presume that a certain type of effect should be a high priority for listeners.

But why is that? Not everyone needs to be in a Disney ride to enjoy and immerse in music. We are not children, needing to be gobsmacked and drooling at special effects. For the real music lover, for someone who already knows how to concentrate, isn’t it just a bit of distraction?

Remember the whole "tall food" craze? That was fun, but not for people who necessarily liked food.

Breaking Story: Washed up pop stars try to remain relevant/rich by repackaging their catalogs in buzzy new format .Yawn.

@hilde45 

Should? Really? You presume that a certain type of effect should be a high priority for listeners.

Watch the video I link to in the OP, if it was a high enough priority for Elton John to convert his entire catalog to Atmos as a HIGH priority. I think every fan of music should have budget for both types of files, channel based and object based if they intend to use a streaming service. What type of object based system is highly personal:

1) headphone based or just use your current stereo to play object based audio over your existing two speakers (yes, backwards compatible).

2) Sound bar based

3) HTIB based

4) An upgrade of your existing system

5) A swing for the fences, I want what they heard in the studio approach.

Ridiculous proposition based on a ridiculous premise.  But, too each their own.  However, don't present the gal to assert that someone else's choice is wrong for them.

Do you also seek to impose pregnancy until birth on those who don't want it?

That dog won't hunt.

@kota1 Nope and I never will. I do not own a TV and honestly find your posts quite boring, same old same old, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Try reading a book some time or if you are that lazy listen to one, I am sure they will be on Atmos soon. LOL!

Have you heard atmos capable soundbars yet? They are an upgrade over the traditional one. If I lived in a condo and was on the fence about soundbars I would snap up this atmos capable system by sony for around $1K in a nanosecond:

kota1

... if it was a high enough priority for Elton John to convert his entire catalog to Atmos as a HIGH priority. I think every fan of music should have budget for both types of files ...

You sound very impressionable. Many people are not so easily swayed by celebrity culture and social media "influencers." Good luck to you, because the next Big Thing is just around the corner. And then the Next Big Thing will be just around the corner after that.

hilde45

Not everyone needs to be in a Disney ride to enjoy and immerse in music. We are not children, needing to be gobsmacked and drooling at special effects.

Exactly! But that kind of faux excitement is exactly what many younger people have come to expect. They grew up exposed to much more artificial, processed music than they were real, live music. It’s the same with food, which in part is why you see some many obese kids these days.

@xenolith 

Ridiculous proposition based on a ridiculous premise.

The "premise" is you will be or already streaming music.

The "proposition" is to consume the object based audio included with your subscription, to not do so is a waste, period.

That dog won't hunt.

See Snoop Dogg in Dolby Atmos, 😁

@cleeds 

You sound very impressionable.

That only means one thing, you didn't hear Rocket Man in Dolby Atmos yet, please post your impressions if you have. Thanks

@jeffrey125 

I do not own a TV and honestly find your posts quite boring, same old same old, yadda, yadda, yadda. 

Do you own a phone, you know, yadda, yadda, yadda? 

@kota1 

"The "premise" is you will be or already streaming music."

You are correct that this is the premise.  You are incorrect that the premise is true.

"The "proposition" is to consume the object based audio included with your subscription, to not do so is a waste, period."

Because the premise is untrue, the proposition has no standing.

Bubye

Kota, I feel you are trying to promote technology to people who have the incorrect time flashing on their VCR because they don't feel like learning how to fix it.

I agree, object based ain’t gonna happen except for very small minority

It is already happening. It is happening in large numbers. It takes a lot of speakers to ATMOS, but we only have 2 ears. Most people will experience ATMOS and other object oriented audio by using headphones.

They grew up exposed to much more artificial, processed music than they were real, live music.

Two channel audio is an illusion. You get an okay illusion of the sound in front of you, but everything else, the sides, the back, above, is a poor illusion that by chance, maybe, but probably not, will sound like live music. Where ATMOS is most superior is recreating a live event. You get the sides, the back, the top as the real thing, not fake.

The side to side and front to back soundstage created in high end 2 channel audio is a superior 3-dimensional depth musical experience anyway IMO

You need to get out more. Seriously. Get out and listen to some high end ATMOS. Does not matter how much you spend on a 2 channel system. You can't get out what is not there. Sure, you can fake it and get something appealing, when the recording is just right for your system. ATMOS does not need to fake it. It has all that sound information you are trying to fake because it does not exist in 2 channel.

I think the requirement for a pair (or four) ceiling speakers will be the deal-breaker for nearly all audiophiles.

The kicker, but also a misconception about requirements and false knowledge. You spend 6 figures on a 2 channel system. The sound from the speakers reaches your ears and it is pristine. All great right?  Hate to break it to everyone, but all those reflections off floors, walls, ceiling, book shelf, and everything else is far from pristine. Screwed up in time, things resonating, screwed up frequency, distorted. A total mess. ATMOS replaces those screwed up reflections with better right at your ears sound. No need for the same quality as the mains to get better quality than chaotic reflections.

Back at you @kota1 .  Maybe some will take heart. All you can do is educate.

@britamerican

Back at you @kota1 . Maybe some will take heart. All you can do is educate

Thanks, it goes back to my OP about budgeting. To put 100% into channel based audio as a consumer when the industry is moving away from channel based and toward object based is questionable in my view. I can tell by the responses in this thread that there remains a huge gap in not just implementation, but even understanding how to implement an object based system for MUSIC (not home theater).

See producer Steve Wilsons comments about how the music industry pivoted to Atmos when Apple began offering spatial audio:

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

If I had 5.1 or 7.1 ears, I might agree, but I only have 2. 
All you can do is dissuade. 😄

All the best,
Nonoise

@xenolith 

Here is the growth of streaming, I rest my "premise":

britamerican

Two channel audio is an illusion. You get an okay illusion of the sound in front of you ... Where ATMOS is most superior is recreating a live event ...

Both two-channel audio and ATMOS create an illusion. It's perfectly fine to prefer one illusion to the other.

I guess the OP has not read about the coupling of BACCH filters and stereo speakers or headphone yet...

No one need atmos after the BACCH filters or even a home theater....

Not only for material cost reason in installation but because of sound quality...

It is the reason i give you this information about BACCH filters ...There is even a new thread about it right now in audiogon...

My 700 bucks system is perfect right now.... I tried to upgrade my amplifier without success so good the Sansui alpha  is... The K340 is the best kept secret in headphone ....  I only need BACCH filters... 😊 You too Kota... But you dont know yet...

 @cleeds 

Both two-channel audio and ATMOS create an illusion. It's perfectly fine to prefer one illusion to the other.

The idea I am championing here is not to have to choose, it is to budget to have both. I prefer some mixes in stereo, some mixes in atmos. Generally the gap is quite large in terms of which I prefer, it isn't like just adding sugar to your coffee. 

@mahgister

 guess the OP has not read about the coupling of BACCH filters and stereo speakers or headphone yet...

No one need atmos after the BACCH filters or even a home theater....

+1, a BACHH system has advantages over both channel and object based audio, I agree.

It seems i was wrong...😁

I apologize to the OP for my intrusion then... 😊

But it is useful for others to be informed...

A revolution in audio for a decade was missed by most audiophiles because of habit i guess...

+1, a BACHH system has advantages over both channel and object based audio, I agree.

The idea I am championing here is not to have to choose, it is to budget to have both.

This idea of yours sounds just like another one of your dictums (we haven’t forgotten your badgering of members to post their system photos for you to admire or criticize). Your advocacy for "object", "immersive" sound has gone overboard into the realm of proselytizing, which seems to be your wont.

All the best,
Nonoise

Dolby Atmos at Abbey Road studio:

"This is the closest I got to the feeling...its like one huge hug... so fricking cool...I never experienced music like that"

Recording Artist Michael Kiwanuka

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

Experience the FUTURE of Music (thus the need to budget for it, OP)

https://youtu.be/Wy4KqZYaj3c?feature=shared

For the members here that are able check out Elton John's Diamonds in Atmos. Read more from his website here. Every track I have played is like visiting an old friend in person instead of just talking over the phone:

https://www.eltonjohn.com/stories/eltons-75th-birthday-presents-diamonds-in-atmos

Btw: Do NOT blow your entire budget on two channel audio. Budget? Whats that? An audiophile is supposed to have a budget now? Kinda takes all the fun out of it doncha think?

Well, he did say he used to get an allowance....

@bikeboy52 Wrote:

Breaking Story: Washed up pop stars try to remain relevant/rich by repackaging their catalogs in buzzy new format .Yawn.

I agree!

Mike

After listening to multichannel music I've found that I often don't like what they do with the mixes. I'm not especially fond of sound coming from way off to the sides or behind me. It's good in video games where  you have to keep track of opponents outside your field of view. With music they often do a stereo wide mix, which either very meagerly uses the center channel, or doesn't use it at all. What I'd really like is a 7 channel system with all 7 speakers across the front, and recordings made with that in mind. Short of that, I'll just stick to 2 channel recordings and employ some crosstalk reduction. 2 channels on 2 speakers without crosstalk reduction is actually pretty bad, if you ask me. It's become a HiFi  tradition but there's nothing technically correct about it, and it suffers unresolvable tonal problems for the phantom center. It's interesting that audiophiles who are otherwise exceedingly keen to hear differences in DACs and cables are capable of completely hearing past this problem. It's true of passive crossovers too. These are cases where it seems the roles get reversed. The objectivists will admit that these problems are highly audible, while the subjectivists will claim they are not, or at least suggest that they are not in any way audibly offensive.