Stereophile doubles down on the snake oil!

[Sal1950]

Got to give a quick comment. I don't have the room nor the inclination, but I *have* heard some lovely 'surround' music rather than film presentations, where the action is all in front, the surround speakers better presenting the venue reverb and atmosphere in a very convincing way to 'immerse' the listener more in the venue and performance, more as if one is sitting in a decent seat at the venue.

Someone should have told the artists painting the Sistein Chapel,
WTF are you doing painting pictures all around the room?

I believe they would have responded, "DUH, I'm creating ART" LOL

 

[WisEd]

Got to give a quick comment. I don't have the room nor the inclination, but I *have* heard some lovely 'surround' music rather than film presentations, where the action is all in front, the surround speakers better presenting the venue reverb and atmosphere in a very convincing way to 'immerse' the listener more in the venue and performance, more as if one is sitting in a decent seat at the venue.

Indeed! The issue is whether having a 12 speaker arrangement to enjoy the few times that that is true is worth the expense and complexity of such arrangements. How much better is 12.1 compared to 5.1 even for video? Having lived throgh the entire history if "surround" systems I can honestly say that after 5.1 its just been hype and marketing. What a lot of people don't get is that any AVR with 12 channels is almost by definition a crappy component! To actually have the full intended benefit requires multiple separate amps! If not you get at best 100 W RMS for the mains and some fraction of that for everything else! for example on my previous 7 cannel system it took to separate amps a 200W w2 for the mains and a 200w x5 for everything else plus 2 powered subs! I can't even fathom adding another 5 channels to that particular nightmare.
I demoed a Focal Atmos system at AXPONA. Including the entire portable show booth to precisely position all the speakers exactly where they should be. The price of the whole thing was over one million dollars. They also carried around virtually every surround encoded music title available in existence. As you would expect it sounded spectacular! Yet it sounded no better than the same track at 24/96 playing from 2 speakers, in stereo at my home on a system less than 10% of the price!
For video, surround is wonderful! For music, IMO, its an utter waste.

 

[Sal1950]

I demoed a Focal Atmos system at AXPONA. Including the entire portable show booth to precisely position all the speakers exactly where they should be. The price of the whole thing was over one million dollars. They also carried around virtually every surround encoded music title available in existence. As you would expect it sounded spectacular! Yet it sounded no better than the same track at 24/96 playing from 2 speakers, in stereo at my home on a system less than 10% of the price!

There's a very old saying about opinions here, about which yours belongs directly in the middle of. LOL

 

[WisEd]

There's a very old saying about opinions here, about which yours belongs directly in the middle of. LOL

Yep as valid as anyone elses!

 

[Sal1950]

Yep as valid as anyone elses!

And as full of it too.

 

[krabapple]

No one was born with atmos hearing. I have always preferred a 2.0 image to a fake surround "frankenfield" for music. I've never been to a concert where a ricochet behind me or an overhead exploding airplane was part of the musical ensemble. Even on the 1812 overture the cannon is in front!

LOL, you think two channel provides an accurate reproduction of a live event?

Even the originators of home stereo didn't believe that. They advocated for three (and it's why actual theaters had three front channels).

Tiresome uninformed luddite zombie arguments crop up even on ASR, who would have thought? You're getting a newbie pass.

 

[WisEd]

LOL, you think two channel provides an accurate reproduction of a live event?

Even the originators of home stereo didn't believe that. They advocated for three (and it's why actual theaters had three front channels).

Tiresome uninformed luddite zombie arguments crop up even on ASR, who would have thought? You're getting a newbie pass.

Yet neither 3 channel nor quadraphonic ever survived. nor 7.1. etc It not being a luddite I love technology! Just the effects of having been around the block a long time.

 

[kyuu]

Yet neither 3 channel nor quadraphonic ever survived

Stereo became the default format due to limitations of the physical storage format in the early days and convenience, not because it was superior or even sufficient.

nor 7.1. etc

Surround formats, including 7.1, have survived just fine.

It not being a luddite I love technology!

Your viewpoint has nothing to do with the Luddites, who have been unfairly maligned by the way.

 

[krabapple]

Yet neither 3 channel nor quadraphonic ever survived. nor 7.1. etc It not being a luddite I love technology! Just the effects of having been around the block a long time.

Those same originators understood that three loudspeakers in a home were sigificantly less appealing as furniture, than two. So accurate sound would be compromised for convenience, from the start. Then, too there was the little problem of devising a three-channel delivery medium for home use....

Today, surround sound is far, far more popular in the home than it was at the height of the quadraphonic era.

So, whatever your age, I can tell you have little knowledge of the modern market for surround sound releases, which date all the way back to movies on DVD, and even VHS tape before that. I didn't get around to surround until the early 2000s. You are stuck in the 1970s.

 

[WisEd]

Yet neither 3 channel nor quadraphonic ever survived. nor 7.1. etc It not being a luddite I love technology! Just the effects of having been around the block a long time.

An yep newbie since 1976

Those same originators understood that three loudspeakers in a home were sigificantly less appealing as furniture, than two. So accurate sound would be compromised for convenience, from the start. Then, too there was the little problem of devising a three-channel delivery medium for home use....

Today, surround sound is far, far more popular in the home than it was at the height of the quadraphonic era.

So, whatever your age, I can tell you have little knowledge of the modern market for surround sound releases, which date all the way back to movies on DVD, and even VHS tape before that. I didn't get around to surround until the early 2000s. You are stuck in the 1970s.

Here's the entire database of 7.1 movie releases

Movies with surround 7.1 audio

A list of movies with 7.1 audio.

www.imdb.com

 

[krabapple]

An yep newbie since 1976

Here's the entire database of 7.1 movie releases

Movies with surround 7.1 audio

A list of movies with 7.1 audio.

www.imdb.com

A rather clownish bad faith argument you're making.

Now add all the 5.1 and x.x releases -- movies as well as music-only -- since, say, 2000.

Nor is there any reason to believe that is even the 'entire database' of 7.1 releases. It's one guy's list, titled:

Movies with surround 7.1 audio​

by jsand123 • Created 13 years ago • Modified 12 years ago

 

[WisEd]

A rather pathetic bad faith argument you're making. Nor is there any reason to believe that is the 'entire database'. It's one guy's list:

Movies with surround 7.1 audio​

by jsand123 • Created 13 years ago • Modified 12 years ago



Now add all the 5.1 and x.x releases -- movies as well as music-only -- since, say, 2000.

Q&A with Andres Mesa: Producer & Dolby Atmos Mixing Engineer | IAA

Over the past several years, Andres Mesa has mixed more than 20 albums into Dolby Atmos. His credits include artists such as David Gilmour, Paris Paloma, Vraell, Seafret, Leisure, Bad Sounds, Flyte, Rhodes, Banners, Night Tapes, Boy Bleach, Himalayas, Ider, and Matt Maltese.

immersiveaudioalbum.com

 

[kyuu]

A rather clownish bad faith argument you're making. Nor is there any reason to believe that is the 'entire database'. It's one guy's list, titled:

Not just one guy's list rather than an actual comprehensive database, but one that hasn't been updated in 12 years.

 

[kyuu]

Q&A with Andres Mesa: Producer & Dolby Atmos Mixing Engineer | IAA

Over the past several years, Andres Mesa has mixed more than 20 albums into Dolby Atmos. His credits include artists such as David Gilmour, Paris Paloma, Vraell, Seafret, Leisure, Bad Sounds, Flyte, Rhodes, Banners, Night Tapes, Boy Bleach, Himalayas, Ider, and Matt Maltese.

immersiveaudioalbum.com

Are you just doing a Google search and posting random results? That interview neither supports nor refutes anything at issue here.

 

[WisEd]

A rather pathetic bad faith argument you're making. Nor is there any reason to believe that is the 'entire database'. It's one guy's list, titled:

Movies with surround 7.1 audio​

by jsand123 • Created 13 years ago • Modified 12 years ago



Now add all the 5.1 and x.x releases -- movies as well as music-only -- since, say, 2000.

IMDB is one guy? BTW My main complaint is ATMOS not 5.1 which has been around forever yet never caught on for music aside for the titles that were released for the long defunct SACD (equipmentwise) format.

 

[krabapple]

Q&A with Andres Mesa: Producer & Dolby Atmos Mixing Engineer | IAA

Over the past several years, Andres Mesa has mixed more than 20 albums into Dolby Atmos. His credits include artists such as David Gilmour, Paris Paloma, Vraell, Seafret, Leisure, Bad Sounds, Flyte, Rhodes, Banners, Night Tapes, Boy Bleach, Himalayas, Ider, and Matt Maltese.

immersiveaudioalbum.com

You're besh*tting yourself again, with this dumb premise that Dolby Atmos is the only surround sound product out there.

But do carry on. I believe I hear a clock ticking.

 

[WisEd]

Are you just doing a Google search and posting random results? That interview neither supports nor refutes anything at issue here.

This dude is one of the main producers of Atmos material, in fact he works for Dolby.

 

[krabapple]

IMDB is one guy?

No. IMDB does let guys post lists, though.

BTW My main complaint is ATMOS not 5.1 which has been around forever yet never caught on for music aside for the titles that were released for the long defunct SACD (equipmentwise) format.

Not quite. You're simply wallowing in ignorance. You don't even know what you don't know.

To remedy that, you could do worse than browing here for awhile. Despite its name, it's a place for discussion of all surround sound formats and media.

QuadraphonicQuad Home Audio Forum

Multichannel sound community forum & for sale classifieds including quadraphonic. Home audio forums for DVD-A & SACD. Forums for label histories & discographies.

www.quadraphonicquad.com

 

[kyuu]

This dude is one of the main producers of Atmos material, in fact he works for Dolby.

So what? Again, nothing there supports your position in any way.

 

[WisEd]

Tidal has a total of 130 songs on Atmos.