More Channels for AV processors

[pseudoid]

When I set up my Home Theater many years ago, it was a 5.2 system

Why start there, @discus96? Can I have you start with the quadraphonic days?
I may have a total of just 6 speakers, fed thru 3 systems spread around the house, yet with my AVR (which has "Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 home theater.... with 12 channels of RCA audio outputs"), I find it best to keep it in stereo (2-channel mode) and do not want the complexity of umpteen channels.
Then, there is also the feng-shui problem (aka W.A.F.), when the speaker population starts growing.
I am not even allowed to consider room treatments like these.

 

[Sal1950]

I am not even allowed to consider room treatments like these.

ALLOWED ???, Are you a man or a mouse.
Stand up for yourself my brother.

 

[Chromatischism]

When I set up my Home Theater many years ago, it was a 5.2 system and I felt super happy with the sound and effects on the cinema tracks with Dolby Digital and DTS.
My processor was the Sony TAE 9000 ES, a great machine! Later I moved to the Lexicon MC12 B (7 channel machine)

Today is 9 or even 11 Channels and may be more...... Is this run for always more channels really needed?

Having listened to the new machines , I found for myself, the improvements over the 5.2 or 7.2 channels really marginal compared to the level of COMPLICATION required to set these up (more channels more amps more cables more speakers allover your room) .

I understand that we are living in a consumer based society and the need to sell continously new equipment, but do I really need that ?
For sure I don't, and my Lexicon 7.2 system is perfectly adequate for my needs.
My only question is regarding the new movies encoded tracks with Atmos and so on, will I be able to listen to those even with 5 or 7 channels only (can those be downmixed or my old AV processors will simply give up.

11 channels is for Atmos - 2 front and 2 rear either on ceiling (top) or on-wall (height).

And yes, it made a big difference to me.

Atmos, DTS, Auro, even upmixed when necessary. It feels like what surround was always supposed to be.

 

[Trdat]

That may just be why your HT gear doesn't sound good with music.
Open your wallet to the same level as your 2ch and you might hear something different.

Better yet, dump both rigs and dump all the money into a world class multich setup.
Thats what I did 10 years ago

We've actually have had this discusion under your thread Sal's System and I moved onto adding side surrounds using Jriver's JRSS(haven't tried with Dolby upmixing yet) and for live music it definitely beats stereo.

 

[Chromatischism]

You also will need to manually fix the factory target curve for every channel by removing the midrange dip and drawing in a bass curve that more closely approximates the bass response when you place a legit full-range speaker in that room.

In all my years using Audyssey I have found this to not be necessary. The curve I get - measured with Room EQ Wizard - for the subs with Dynamic EQ is nearly perfect.

 

[pseudoid]

ALLOWED ???, Are you a man or a mouse.
Stand up for yourself my brother.

Our mow-n-blow gardener calls me "mandilón"!
To drive the point home, after his last trip back from the South of the Border, he brought me back a Mexican T-shirt saying so!

 

[discus96]

AV processors today can only offer more complexity, more cables, more amplifers, more channels, more speakers.

Where are we going? isn't this out of control or better out of the right way ?

My ears tell me that a 5.2 ch system with excellent amplification with ample reserve of power, excellent speakers can outperform any 13.2 cheap channels or underpowered channels! Room treatment is also a game changer.

I have 2.0 Kw on 4 Ohm, 1.5Kw on 8 Ohm power on each of my channels and when I play the Trex on Jurassic park you are shaken down from the couch! or you turn back to avoid the next dinosaur reaching for you from your back!

Is there an improvement with a 13.2 channel? Sure there is, but the cost the complexity brought are probably not justified.

 

[JayGilb]

I think that my 2 channel soundbar went limp while reading this thread.

 

[Chromatischism]

AV processors today can only offer more complexity, more cables, more amplifers, more channels, more speakers.

Where are we going? isn't this out of control or better out of the right way ?

My ears tell me that a 5.2 ch system with excellent amplification with ample reserve of power, excellent speakers can outperform any 13.2 cheap channels or underpowered channels! Room treatment is also a game changer.

I have 2.0 Kw on 4 Ohm, 1.5Kw on 8 Ohm power on each of my channels and when I play the Trex on Jurassic park you are shaken down from the couch! or you turn back to avoid the next dinosaur reaching for you from your back!

Is there an improvement with a 13.2 channel? Sure there is, but the cost the complexity brought are probably not justified.

While I agree that the majority of the experience is in the bed channels, your last paragraph is a non sequitur. You can get a good upgrade from height or top channels. Atmos is worth it. To me, it's like what surround sound was always supposed to be but never quite was.

 

[pseudoid]

While I agree that the majority of the experience is in the bed channels, your last paragraph is a non sequitur. You can get a good upgrade from height or top channels. Atmos is worth it. To me, it's like what surround sound was always supposed to be but never quite was.

When mono ruled the 50s, stereo was just an argh moment for some that now had to contend with 2X cables.
Should I mention the 'quadraphonic' era, where some uttered 'jeeeez' for 4X cabling?
If one pair of cables is okay, 2 pairs are good, and 4 pairs are better; qed; 5.1 must be the best.
But what can really be better than "the best"?
Stayed tuned if you want but some of us still have not figured out how to get passed quadraphoBia!

 

[Sal1950]

Where are we going? isn't this out of control or better out of the right way ?

No

Is there an improvement with a 13.2 channel? Sure there is, but the cost the complexity brought are probably not justified.

Yes, absolutely. But please don't use another example of,

"My ears tell me that a 5.2 ch system with excellent amplification with ample reserve of power, excellent speakers can outperform any 13.2 cheap channels or underpowered channels!"

Excellent is just that, and cheap, underpowered is just that also. I think we all know that.
And you've had first hand listening experience with all the options for "your ears to tell you"?
I've had 5.2 running here and up in Chicago since around 1994, 4.2 back to 1975 before that.
I can tell you my current 5.2.4 Atmos/Auro system was a big upgrade over the previous systems
and I will again be upgrading my overhead speakers over the next week.

If more than 5.2 wiring is too complicated for you to figure out, feel free to stay where you are.
Or you could hire an installer to handle things for you?

 

[Dj7675]

AV processors today can only offer more complexity, more cables, more amplifers, more channels, more speakers.

Where are we going? isn't this out of control or better out of the right way ?

My ears tell me that a 5.2 ch system with excellent amplification with ample reserve of power, excellent speakers can outperform any 13.2 cheap channels or underpowered channels! Room treatment is also a game changer.

I have 2.0 Kw on 4 Ohm, 1.5Kw on 8 Ohm power on each of my channels and when I play the Trex on Jurassic park you are shaken down from the couch! or you turn back to avoid the next dinosaur reaching for you from your back!

Is there an improvement with a 13.2 channel? Sure there is, but the cost the complexity brought are probably not justified.

5.2 can sound really good and very enjoyable. However, in the right room with proper setup Atmos/DTSX can sound amazing. It can certainly be tricky in a living room/multi purpose room for sure. Your comment about a good 5.2 system outperforming a cheap 13 channel system or underpowered channels I think isn’t really the comparison to make. Take a great 5.2 system and add good on ceiling speakers (I would recommend 4) and it can be great fun and just sounds amazing.

 

[pedrob]

I started with 5.1, but now I've added Front Wides, Surround Rears and Atmos; and loving it.

 

[Vacceo]

I started with 5.1, but now I've added Front Wides, Surround Rears and Atmos; and loving it.

On a small room, 5.2.4 is great, on a mid-sized, 7.2.4 is amazing and on a large room, 9.2.4.

My experience is that 2 height channels is nice, 4 is quite an improvement and more, not something that noticeable. Same for front wides unless your room is, well, wide.

For subwoofers, I´d say 2 is the minimun, but if you can afford 4 and have the room for them, even better.

 

[Sal1950]

On a small room, 5.2.4 is great, on a mid-sized, 7.2.4 is amazing and on a large room, 9.2.4.

Agreed.
Wish I could go to 7 base channels, just no dang room to add the rear surrounds.