Who has a 7.1.4 Atmos setup?

[Talisman]

“Lack of Atmos content” seems to be one of those urban myths, that just refuse to die. You can watch [or listen to in case of Atmos music] to reference quality content for next 2 years and there would be still lot of stuff that you will miss. There is also lot of crappy atmos content and lot of great DTS 5.1 content, no doubt. But Atmos has become industry standard and there is hardly any new release, that does not include atmos [and most of 4k re-issues too]

I think there are not that many great immersive audio setups out there. To put 2 or 4 in-ceiling speakers and to expect some extra difference is naive. Thing with immersive setups is - they are just much better in everything - so also DTS HD MA content will sound better on high-performance system [as per RP 22] https://cedia.org/smart-home-profes...ersive-audio-design-excellence/?langchanged=y You can use upmix for 5.1 content and this makes the extra effort pay off, if done properly.

So it is not about atmos, it is about the fact that average living room 65 inch TV system, is just not good enough to show all the strenghts of good atmos content. Home Theatre is not a cheap hobby, if done seriously. No payback, probably cheaper to go to cinema every day for the rest of your life.

Maybe because of the language barrier but I couldn't understand the point of your speech.
Atmos is a standard but putting speakers in the ceiling is not enough, ok.
I imagine that the possible configurations in real environments can be very different from each other, but if atmos does not work unless in an absolutely perfect configuration then atmos is not really for home cinema, I can't imagine many people having the space, time, desire or money to set up a perfectly calibrated cinema room for atmos, most people probably have a basic 5.1 that can lead to 5.1.2 expecting at least a perceptible improvement in the quality of atmos content, if it is not so much it is better to relegate it to a pure cinema format.

 

[Frank Dernie]

“Lack of Atmos content” seems to be one of those urban myths, that just refuse to die. You can watch [or listen to in case of Atmos music] to reference quality content for next 2 years and there would be still lot of stuff that you will miss. There is also lot of crappy atmos content and lot of great DTS 5.1 content, no doubt. But Atmos has become industry standard and there is hardly any new release, that does not include atmos [and most of 4k re-issues too]

I think there are not that many great immersive audio setups out there. To put 2 or 4 in-ceiling speakers and to expect some extra difference is naive. Thing with immersive setups is - they are just much better in everything - so also DTS HD MA content will sound better on high-performance system [as per RP 22] https://cedia.org/smart-home-profes...ersive-audio-design-excellence/?langchanged=y You can use upmix for 5.1 content and this makes the extra effort pay off, if done properly.

So it is not about atmos, it is about the fact that average living room 65 inch TV system, is just not good enough to show all the strenghts of good atmos content. Home Theatre is not a cheap hobby, if done seriously. No payback, probably cheaper to go to cinema every day for the rest of your life.

I think people on an Audio forum like this are pointing out that a dearth of good audio recordings in Atmos is a limitation. It certainly is the reason I can't be bothered with it.
I have literally zero interest in having a home theatre since I rarely watch a film and go to the cinema maybe once a year.
I listen to music I like every day, often for hours. I have thousands of stereo recordings.

 

[Fidji]

I think people on an Audio forum like this are pointing out that a dearth of good audio recordings in Atmos is a limitation. It certainly is the reason I can't be bothered with it.
I have literally zero interest in having a home theatre since I rarely watch a film and go to the cinema maybe once a year.
I listen to music I like every day, often for hours. I have thousands of stereo recordings.

I fully respect your preference for technically outdated format. Same like I understand preference for high distortion, low fidelity equipment e.g. tubes and turntables. Nothing wrong with it, it is about enjoying the music and life.

I also do have all the music I ever wanted to have on stereo. Stereo is with us for 60 years, so understandably catalogue will be significantly bigger. Which does not prohibit me in enjoying ever-growing collection of Multichannel/Atmos Music, that meanwhile consist of approx 300 physical media and access to thousands of recordings in Atmos on streaming platforms. Have checked my purchasing history at jpc and in last 60 days I have added 27 BluRays with either music or concerts.

And you would be surprised how inferior is stereo version of the same recording, on the same disc, compared to immersive audio experience with multichannel/atmos version. If you have the opportunity, go and try it.

 

[antcollinet]

I fully respect your preference for technically outdated format. Same like I understand preference for high distortion, low fidelity equipment e.g. tubes and turntables. Nothing wrong with it, it is about enjoying the music and life.

Nice bit of condescension there.

Unnecessary!

 

[Frank Dernie]

If you have the opportunity, go and try it.

I have, and concluded the benefit was nowhere near to justifying the cost or clutter.

I didn't find it improved the accuracy of instrumental timbre or the musicianship of the performance - the things I enjoy most in music - at all.

It is possible the instrumental timbre was maybe inferior, though , of course the musicianship is not influenced by sound reproduction.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I fully respect your preference for technically outdated format. Same like I understand preference for high distortion, low fidelity equipment e.g. tubes and turntables.

 

[Frank Dernie]

And you would be surprised how inferior is stereo version of the same recording, on the same disc, compared to immersive audio experience with multichannel/atmos version.

I did buy the Bluray of a Leonard Cohen concert I went to at the O2 in London - actually recorded the night I was there. I have listened to it both as a CD and watched the Bluray. I do find the video draws the attention more to watch the action. I would not say the SQ (on 5.1) was enough better to not listen to the CD.

 

[Vacceo]

For us, video consumers in Spanish language, it is not a conspiracy, there is a massive lack of Atmos content because outside cinematic distributions (and only some film), there is not Atmos production.

Luckily I can play the same platform content in English and fixed issue. I first noticed it with Stranger Things.

 

[Wolf11Man]

Today we have an huge progress of technical developmen in combination with absolutely unprecedented corporate greed.
It is all about promising (=charging) customers more, but in fact giving them less. Only if the extra cost of an improved product is near zero, the consumer will get something better for his money.
So real, working Atmos content, will only come over time when production costs have gone down. Mostly because old technical industry equipment has to be replaced for new gear anyway. Then Atmos will be the standard, comming at no extra production cost.
KI is doing it's share to set such new technique as a standard, even at the cost of lost details made by human quality.
If you are a sound engineer, you may be replaced by an autonomous work station soon.

 

[Fidji]

Maybe because of the language barrier but I couldn't understand the point of your speech.
Atmos is a standard but putting speakers in the ceiling is not enough, ok.
I imagine that the possible configurations in real environments can be very different from each other, but if atmos does not work unless in an absolutely perfect configuration then atmos is not really for home cinema, I can't imagine many people having the space, time, desire or money to set up a perfectly calibrated cinema room for atmos, most people probably have a basic 5.1 that can lead to 5.1.2 expecting at least a perceptible improvement in the quality of atmos content, if it is not so much it is better to relegate it to a pure cinema format.

My english is not that good, especially if I try to type on tablet ;-)

First - I agree with your statements re 5.1, compromises etc and rather niche group of people having dedicated rooms [although if you frequent e.g. avsforum you get the impression, that almost everybody has dedicated 1000.1000.500 setup with 25 meters screen]

I try it differently - if you have 5.1/7.1 that is already not ideal setup, be it living room or whatever other reason - adding ONLY ceiling speakers for Atmos will not make it miraculously into top tier immersive audio system. It will still be 5.1 with lot of compromises and added ceiling speakers.
If you would ask me - “I have xxx budget and I want to improve my system - should I do Atmos?”I would probably tell you “first check and upgrade your center and add one more sub, to get the biggest improvement”. Anyway Atmos material will fold down to nearest available speaker setup, so you will still enjoy Atmos music/movies.

Second issue, you can see quite often - people are trying to cut corners on overhead speakers - buying cheapest crap, that distorts and is getting compressed as soon as some signal is present.

 

[Oddball]

Today we have an huge progress of technical developmen in combination with absolutely unprecedented corporate greed.
It is all about promising (=charging) customers more, but in fact giving them less. Only if the extra cost of an improved product is near zero, the consumer will get something better for his money.
So real, working Atmos content, will only come over time when production costs have gone down. Mostly because old technical industry equipment has to be replaced for new gear anyway. Then Atmos will be the standard, comming at no extra production cost.
KI is doing it's share to set such new technique as a standard, even at the cost of lost details made by human quality.
If you are a sound engineer, you may be replaced by an autonomous work station soon.

No pun intended to sound engineers, can’t wait for that day. We are all apparently getting replaced anyway, some sooner some later.

After what Gates predicted, probably best to change education path for my girls as apparently doctors will also be obsolete in 10 years.

 

[Fidji]

I have, and concluded the benefit was nowhere near to justifying the cost or clutter.

I didn't find it improved the accuracy of instrumental timbre or the musicianship of the performance - the things I enjoy most in music - at all.

It is possible the instrumental timbre was maybe inferior, though , of course the musicianship is not influenced by sound reproduction.

I get your personal preferences and priorities. Nothing to argue about here.

My experience is different, MCH recordings are able to convey sense of space and ambience much better, than any stereo can ever do. E.g. legendary DG recordings of Carlos Kleiber in Atmos iteration are just 2-3 notches better compared to either vinyl or CD version. It is pretty simple - there is much more direct sound coming from the right directions, compared to stereo, where you rely on reflections to get the illusion of space.

Depending on which type of music you listen to - but there is repeating pattern of stereo mastering being compressed mess, while MCH/Atmos masters have very respectable dynamic range. One member of ASR has even dedicated page https://magicvinyldigital.net/ where he compares versions of the same records.

People that come to visit me are often shocked how big difference there can be - whatever I throw at them. But I think my MCH setup is quite good, setup and optimized for MCH music [as opposed to movies].

And I have enough great music to listen to in MCH - is there all the music I like? No, for sure not, but enough for me to have something to choose from for every mood.

 

[MattHooper]

“Lack of Atmos content” seems to be one of those urban myths, that just refuse to die. You can watch [or listen to in case of Atmos music] to reference quality content for next 2 years and there would be still lot of stuff that you will miss.

But how much of it will actually appeal to individual listeners in terms of their own musical genre interests etc?

I wouldn’t care if there’s two years worth of music and Atmos out there if it’s not the type of music I want to listen to. Presley, don’t care to listen to music just because it’s an Atmos. (except for demos that show the potential of the format).

 

[MattHooper]

My experience is different, MCH recordings are able to convey sense of space and ambience much better, than any stereo can ever do. E.g. legendary DG recordings of Carlos Kleiber in Atmos iteration are just 2-3 notches better compared to either vinyl or CD version. It is pretty simple - there is much more direct sound coming from the right directions, compared to stereo, where you rely on reflections to get the illusion of space.

When I hear a surround system that can produce as coherent and seamless sound as my two channel system, with as much depth and imaging precision, then I will be truly impressed. So far, I haven’t heard it.

I have heard benefits from surround sound - including my own system (and in the multimillion dollar mixing theatres I’ve worked in). But there remains a level of coherence and precision mentioned above that I haven’t encountered.

I think it would take something like Kal’s system to get me there.

 

[Oddball]

When I hear a surround system that can produce as coherent and seamless sound as my two channel system, with as much depth and imaging precision, then I will be truly impressed. So far, I haven’t heard it.

I have heard benefits from surround sound - including my own system (and in the multimillion dollar mixing theatres I’ve worked in). But there remains a level of coherence and precision mentioned above that I haven’t encountered.

I think it would take something like Kal’s system to get me there.

Point taken. But then your two channel system is pretty much useless for the multi-channel content, namely shows and movies that a lot of people love to watch? So what do you do there?

Not sure what multi-channel system you have, but for people with high standards the price tag will be pretty high as well. Ideally you should have same speakers in the bed channel - 7 or 9 of them? Once I get really angry at my kids I (which is admittedly not good time to do plans but they are approaching teenage age) I am imagining to treat myself Kii three BTS x 4 and Kii three x 4 - but plan is just tentative as they don't have horizontal center channel I need.

 

[klettermann]

“Lack of Atmos content” seems to be one of those urban myths, that just refuse to die. You can watch [or listen to in case of Atmos music] to reference quality content for next 2 years and there would be still lot of stuff that you will miss. There is also lot of crappy atmos content and lot of great DTS 5.1 content, no doubt. But Atmos has become industry standard and there is hardly any new release, that does not include atmos [and most of 4k re-issues too]

I think there are not that many great immersive audio setups out there. To put 2 or 4 in-ceiling speakers and to expect some extra difference is naive. Thing with immersive setups is - they are just much better in everything - so also DTS HD MA content will sound better on high-performance system [as per RP 22] https://cedia.org/smart-home-profes...ersive-audio-design-excellence/?langchanged=y You can use upmix for 5.1 content and this makes the extra effort pay off, if done properly.

So it is not about atmos, it is about the fact that average living room 65 inch TV system, is just not good enough to show all the strenghts of good atmos content. Home Theatre is not a cheap hobby, if done seriously. No payback, probably cheaper to go to cinema every day for the rest of your life.

In the OP it was pretty obvious to me that the context was Atmos for HT, not audio. The OP references sound bars. Given that, and on the assumption that video\HT Atmos systems far outnumber Atmos audio systems, I stand by my remarks. These days streaming is the primary source (or most? Or almost all?) HT content in the real world. Go into any big box store and you'll find Atmos players all over all the video stuff. Not the audio. And the there's a major disconnect between that and the way most video is consumed. Flame on.

 

[MattHooper]

Point taken. But then your two channel system is pretty much useless for the multi-channel content, namely shows and movies that a lot of people love to watch? So what do you do there?

I use my multichannel Home Theatre system.

Not sure what multi-channel system you have, but for people with high standards the price tag will be pretty high as well.

I don’t want to even talk about how much my Home Theatre cost. It’s embarrassing.

I am a longtime Home Theatre nut. And I do sound design for film/TV, so my fanaticism extends to my home theater and multichannel set up.

I hired an architect and one of the professional acousticians responsible for the design and build of some of our film mixing theatres to work on my Home Theatre room renovation. The room has all sorts of carefully designed structures and hidden room treatment, so it sounds about as good as it could without looking like a studio.

I was very picky about the multi channel speakers selection, going with one my all-time favourite brands, Hales, for the main LCR duties. You can see photos of them
IN THIS POST HERE

It’s a 7.0 system (I feel no need for a subwoofer as the L/C/R speakers go plenty low for me).

I love, love, LOVE my surround system. It’s beautifully coherent. I’ve had some theatre installers and some fellow Home Theatre enthusiasts say it’s one of the most coherent systems - a “sonic bubble” - they’ve experienced.

But even so, and even though I listen to plenty of music on the surround system, and even though it does certain things better than my two channel system, it doesn’t achieve the effortless level of coherency, and spatial precision of my two channel system.

Part of that has to do with the fact that the surround system is optimized for the Home Theatre system, so the LCR speakers are flanking the screen wall. For one thing that puts them further away from me than I prefer - I like the sense of immersion I get with my two channels speakers that are pulled out closer to me.

To get that sense of immersion, and get a totally satisfying smooth coherent presentation that is likely to image and the way I want, I would want to have my centre channel Higher on the same plane as my left right speakers, and also pulled out into the room, which would be entirely impractical in the room. Just as it’s impractical for many other rooms.

My room includes both the Home Theatre system and the separate two channel floor standing speakers, with those speakers pulled out into the room, closer to the listening sofa, which is what I prefer. As you can see in photos HERE…and…HERE

So I’ve done a lot of direct comparisons between music played through the two channel system vs my surround system in the same room. That includes comparing plenty of concert videos.

The surround system has a gloriously huge sound, and of course it’s surrounds me with the acoustics in the tracks.

But when I switch over to my two channel towers, that are pulled right out near me and spaced out to the sides, it can be even a more convincing experience. A perfectly coherent soundstage can just evaporate the room beyond those speakers, and replace it with the acoustic of the venue, in a way that is even more coherent and realistic, and imaging wise it extends even more deep into space beyond the screen. It ultimately produces for me a more vivid and convincing life like impression.

As I’ve said many times before, this could no doubt be improved upon using a multichannel system IF I was completely free of practical constraints, arranging the speakers In exactly the right positions where I would find maximum coherence and immersion.

This is why it’s been my position: it’s not that a stereo set up is inherently better than multi channel. But the demands of a good stereo set up are easier than that of a truly top performing multichannel set up, so it can be easier to get certain performance parameters in the stereo set up. IMO.

That’s been my experience. Even with the amount of attention I’ve paid to my room acoustics, to having an acoustician help me design my Home Theatre, and ending up with a terrific surround system… even then it’s been easier to get my two channel system to out perform it in some ways.

 

[klettermann]

Point taken. But then your two channel system is pretty much useless for the multi-channel content, namely shows and movies that a lot of people love to watch? So what do you do there?

Not sure what multi-channel system you have, but for people with high standards the price tag will be pretty high as well. Ideally you should have same speakers in the bed channel - 7 or 9 of them? Once I get really angry at my kids I (which is admittedly not good time to do plans but they are approaching teenage age) I am imagining to treat myself Kii three BTS x 4 and Kii three x 4 - but plan is just tentative as they don't have horizontal center channel I need.

My HT surround system and 2ch audio systems share the left and right mains and power amp, specifically hot-rodded Maggie MGIIIa's, driven by ML No. 332. Doubtless neither system is at the level of @MattHooper 's, but both sound good. in their respective realms. But the 2ch system pretty much crushes the 7.1.2. The 7.1.2 system is a Denon X3800h ,surrounds & ceilings are Elac bookshelves on stands/ceiling brackets, nothing exotic., but seemingly quite capable given the demands placed on them. The 2ch system also has a couple modest but well integrated subs. Anyway, the 7.1.2 setup never, ever comes close to the imaging, depth and realism of the 2ch setup. And this despite the fact that most of the multichannel/Atmos content is rounted to the mains and center channels. Addmittedly, I'm not playing the same stuff on both sysems to comapre.

 

[Fidji]

But the 2ch system pretty much crushes the 7.1.2. The 7.1.2 system is a Denon X3800h ,surrounds & ceilings are Elac bookshelves

yes, makes sense. given absolute imbalance in quality between 2 ch and surround part. I would expect nothing else.

Take price of your 2ch and multiply it by factor 2 to 3 - this is your budget for the rest of the gear if you want to have relatively performant surround system. (compared to 2CH)

 

[Snoopy]

I love atmos mixes downsampled in roon to Stereo. Rip my atmos Blu-ray’s (I know I don’t get the spatial meta data) and play them through roon , either with my 2.0 stereo or Headphones .

I’m fine this solution. Had a 5.1 setup before but wasn’t that great of a experience in my small living room.