PS Audio - Surround Sound not more popular with Audiophiles?

[esimms86]

Downstairs at CEDIA a few years back I heard a super expensive stereo system that was absolutely breathtaking and wonderful, the best I've ever heard - but I think msrp was like a half million bucks!
If I was a billionaire I'd go for it! If I could remember what it was!

2002 CES I heard the million dollar system which - sounded crappy!

Go figure.

Probably the room setup/treatment explains it.

Edit: Now I see that it was set up in a large theater. You need to bring in experts in theater acoustics to tame a room like that. Not something you could do the night before the show.

 

[esimms86]

You certainly must have very exotic tastes in Rock & Blues, anything there was any real demand for was released on CD. I currently have over 4000+ albums stored on my drives, I'd say about 70% of it classic rock stuff 90's and earlier. I don't much collect "greatest hits" unless it's something special, like the new Chicago IX Atmos bluray.


Much more has been done from designers paying greater attention in radiation patterns of both the individual drivers and from the speakers as a whole.. The speaker/room interface has gotten an lot more attention in the last few decades. Have you read Floyd Toole's stuff?
Are multi thousand dollar beryllium tweeters worth it? Yes very marginally IF you could afford them. I can't LOL
Speaker advancement has been incremental in all areas, but it has advanced.


Sure, the High End has lost all touch with High Fidelity. It's more about bragging rights on the cost of your
system than having something that's really more accurate to the source material. But I do see some light at the
end of that tunnel with more interest being shown to the web media covering our passion from a objective and
measurement based angle. Luxury goods are nice, but many watches keep as good if not better time than some
a small fraction of the cost. The same is true for audio.

A cheap smartphone excels at keeping time.

 

[barfle]

I certainly have no problem with listening to the radio. I sort of got my "jazz education" listening to a weekly show by saxophonist David Sanborn.

My Marantz 7701 has AM and FM tuners, which I certainly used from time to time. I even have external antennas for them. The 7706 also has tuners, and they’ll be part of the program as well.

 

[mandrix]

My Marantz 7701 has AM and FM tuners, which I certainly used from time to time. I even have external antennas for them. The 7706 also has tuners, and they’ll be part of the program as well.

I took down my external antenna almost 3 years ago, and glad I did, since I got hammered with 3 hurricanes afterward.

 

[barfle]

I took down my external antenna almost 3 years ago, and glad I did, since I got hammered with 3 hurricanes afterward.

Both AM and FM antennas are whips, the AM being an old McKay Dymek amplified model. With a power cord, of course.

 

[esimms86]

My Marantz 7701 has AM and FM tuners, which I certainly used from time to time. I even have external antennas for them. The 7706 also has tuners, and they’ll be part of the program as well.

C’mon barfle, let’s be Sirius!

 

[Sal1950]

I don't think that my taste is that exotic but for whatever reason a lot of great music has never been released on CD.

That's true I guess but if large enough demand exists there's always someone willing to make a buck.
Sadly not everything I'd like to hear in multich hasn't been released either, Very far from it.
OTOH, I can't think of anything I badly want to hear on digital that's unavailable ???
How many millions of albums are being streamed today?
So much music and so little time.

 

[marpow]

I thought I would chirp in, been kind of reading this thread.
I have watched many You Tube clips from Paul, but not recently.
I own the POWER PLANT 15
The reason I stopped watching Paul and his videos, I always felt he was a little condescending. Meaning, his tone to me, is I know everything, but I am going to tell you in kind of a smug way.
That said, he most certainly knows miles more about audio reproduction than I do.
Regarding this topic thread on surround listening, I know he is not clueless to surround, he has his own probably great surround system, but as he says he is a stereo store, so of course he will downplay surround a bit.
We here at QQ find that when another downplays or isn't quite hip to surround, it's almost unbelievable to us.
Nice to know however, we are certainly being watched on the sidelines by those in the surround business and some even interact with us on QQ.
If there was a downfall to surround listening in a home, it always comes back to do I have the room and can I afford the speaker cost and layout. This is a significant problem.
Atmos headphones and sound bars help the cause, but they are not the real thing.

I am happy just to be a member of QQ with like minded people, I have learned an immense wealth of knowledge on QQ, but in my personal relationships I have changed no one.

 

[Sal1950]

I am working on modifying some NS1000 that I got with some dead wooofers. I am going to replace the woofs with eight or ten inch and quad amp them with a sub. I mostly cannot generate much enthusiasm for "Room EQ" and correction systems. I was always more of a "switch the tone controls out of the system if possible" type of audio person.

You have the time and passion to design and build your own stuff, how many others have that?
How does that relate to Joe Sixpack looking to buy a system, run the setup, then sit down and listen to the
music he loves?
We've come a long way baby.

I heard a big Atmos setup at the Chicago Audio Expo which was set up by Dolby and Emotiva. It was underwhelming. It was all movie based.
Helicopters flying overhead and rain falling are definitely not going to make me get my wallet out for Atmos. I have a musician friend here in St.Louis who has set up an Atmos system. I am trying to get over to his place to hear it.

Your choice. I added Atmos to my system back in 2017 and upgraded it twice since.
For me it's been worth every penny both for music and movie enjoyment.

If microphones have improved so much why do people pay ginormous premiums to buy ancient Neumann, Sennheiser and AKG mikes??

Nostalgia ?

I took down my external antenna almost 3 years ago, and glad I did, since I got hammered with 3 hurricanes afterward.

I bought an external antenna a bunch of years back that still sits on a shelf.
Do to lightning activity in my area I terrified to put it up.

 

[DrKlahn]

Really interesting thread. Here's my $.02.

I have had the privilege of hearing some really amazing 2ch systems. Most recently the ML Neoliths and the Ascendo Black Swans. Although the 2 have different sound profiles, they both were really outstanding. Both setups represent several times the amount I have invested in my space. If they came up to me and said you can have this in place of what you own, I wouldn't do it. The reasoning for me is pretty simple, while those systems represent a phenomenal sound, they can't do what surround does.

The best analogy I can give is say you're standing at an intersection. 2ch can capture cars coming at you and driving by. Cars coming from your left and right crossing in front, it can replicate to a degree. But cars or activity coming towards you from behind it just doesn't do to any real extent. And it's limited in what it can try to do with sounds from above. Surround does not have these limitations to my ears and opens up the space we can recreate in a lot of ways.

Quad vs 5.1 or Atmos. Sorry there isn't anything special about Quad here. Do I like Quad? You bet. But if you're not getting even more immersion with adding channels then it's the mix or setup.

Atmos on Tidal or Apple is not made for headphones. Are some mixes half hearted and not good? Yes. But that's not an absolute you can apply to everything on a streaming service. I recently listened to Duran Duran's Danse Macbre on Tidal and Bob Clearmountain's Atmos mix is very damn good to my ears. This is not a lazy mix or geared towards headphones. Similar to the brickwall epidemic, Atmos mixes are only going to be as good as the engineer behind them.

To me a lot of the audiophile adherence to 2ch is both sticking to what is traditional and pushed along with the lack of hearing a well put together surround system. I've surprised more than a few 2ch adherents.

 

[jimfisheye]

Alright, you start with 2 channels of what you consider an excellent system. Great! Now you add more channels of the exact same equipment. Oh no! It sounds terrible now! Completely stopped being great sounding!

Ya that makes sense...

 

[par4ken]

How many millions of albums are being streamed today?

I have little to no interest in streaming. A lot of music that has not yet been released digitally is up on YouTube but taken from a vinyl source. To me that doesn't count. I do appreciate YouTube as a place to sample music the same purpose that I once used (the original) Napster for; until it was rudely shut down by the music industry. I prefer downloads to actual steaming. IMHO streaming can be likened simply to listening to the radio.

It is totally incorrect to say that everything that "sells" has already or ever will be put out digitally. There are many factors involved, like who owns the rights and the wishes of the rights holder. In other cases masters might be lost or misplaced.

I have a lot of CD's that by Discogs standard are "unofficial" and so blocked for sale. I have no qualms about purchasing such releases. Most are unavailable any other way. I have never found any of these "unofficial" releases to be brickwalled either.

To sum up, if in addition to all the titles that are still unreleased you also exclude digital from vinyl sources, brickwalled masterings, unofficial releases what is left? The original vinyl!

 

[par4ken]

Alright, you start with 2 channels of what you consider an excellent system. Great! Now you add more channels of the exact same equipment. Oh no! It sounds terrible now! Completely stopped being great sounding!

Ya that makes sense...

Those stereo only audiophiles have invested so much already that they can't fathom multiplying that investment. They like to put down multichannel audio simply to justify themselves.

Multichannel systems that cut cost by using lesser quality surround speakers give audiophiles a bad taste in thier mouths. More fuel for thier anti-surround stance.

 

[gene_stl]

I am not saying I won't try Atmos. But I don't care about movies enough to do it for sure. For some reason, that I have no explanation for, the sound tracks of movies don't connect to the audio/music passion.

The passion part is much easier than the time and money. I did go to work in the audio business in the seventies but there was already getting to be too much nonsense. And actually good paying jobs were rare. I moved on.

At AXPONA when I heard the Atmos system there was the proverbial million dollar system. In a rectangular ball room with carpeting and surrounded mostly by curtains They had two huge speakers, von Schweikerts I think. Something absurdly expensive. Along the back wall behind the speakers were a row of like twenty tube power amps with four KT88s each The room was like twenty degrees warmer on that end. I had had the presence of mind to bring a packet of my favorite CDs along and the gentleman running this setup was kind enough to play a number of tracks for me. Everything I was accustomed to hearing was there. I did not hear anything new. (I think the host of that ball room was "The Vacuum Tube Company , VTC , very high end )

One other fun experience I had at that Axpona was almost dozing off in the Bryston suite. I was shaken back to awaketitude by an orchestral sforzando that sounded like what I hear at my house. It was a triamped system. About $55,000.

I was disappointed by the Atmos experience. The Emotiva electronics they were using were not a million bucks but were a LOT. and one would expect that at an audio exposition Dolby themselves could put together something that would wow a guy like me. I WANTED to be wowwed. But not that time.

Like Ken and some others I have no interest whatever in streaming. Stuff disappears, you don't own it and sometimes can't be certain what you are getting and it may change without notice too. And you pay whether you use it or not. I do listen to a lot of music on headphones on my television , served by YouHooToob before going to sleep at night. It's almost free and is better than nothing and the algorithm learns what you like pretty quickly. Somebody (probably here) once compared streaming to a university library versus your own bookshelf. Fair enough but I have more discs already than I can ever hope to listen to all of them.

 

[ar surround]

Even more baffling @par4ken : I walked into a high-end audio salon and talked to the proprietor about buying new speakers for a surround system...Revel Performa F52 towers for the fronts; Performa F32 for the surrounds; large dedicated Revel center speaker; smaller Revel speakers for the rears, REL subwoofer. You know, cheap stuff. LOL

As were discussing things and my interests, he blurted out, "And who wants to listen to music in surround?" He clearly implied that no one wants to do so. Why would a shop owner say something like that to a customer? Especially since he also sells AVR's, HD TV's etc. I went home and rebuilt my beloved AR speakers instead.

And before I even rebuilt the AR speakers, my friend (with the used $25k pair of speakers and McIntosh monoblocks) came over to rate my overall system. He said that it was an 8 out of 10, and to make it better would be a slippery slope requiring huge sums of money.

 

[jimfisheye]

I am not saying I won't try Atmos. But I don't care about movies enough to do it for sure. For some reason, that I have no explanation for, the sound tracks of movies don't connect to the audio/music passion.

With ya 100% there! Surround sound is for music!
I don't even watch movies often but when I do it's usually not even with the surround system turned on. I'm not even curious. Absolutely addicted for audio. 12 channel mixes takes that thought even further.

 

[Marplot]

Godzilla Minus One in ATMOS is a treat; sounds are where you expect them and when Godzilla speaks, you can feel it. It may sound great in 5.1 but it will not be the same experience.
But, music and movies are consumed how each individual prefers. While we share a passion, I don't think I have ever seen anyone here change their mind on what the like; genres excepted.

 

[esimms86]

There is a small handful of us on the forum that own a Smyth Realiser A16. All I can say is, don’t dismiss Dolby Atmos listening through headphones until you’ve experienced the A16. And its precursor, the A8, did a pretty credible version of 3.0, quad and 5.1!

 

[par4ken]

Original Dolby Surround used in movies gave us a whole new use for our quad decoders! I used to watch movies via the Composer regularly. Surround was particularly effective with Sci-fi. I used to rent music videos as well, dubbing to another tape with the help of a friends Beta HiFi machine.

Today I seldom watch movies, and seldom in surround. In fact most of my favorites are the old ones with mono soundtracks anyway!

 

[DrKlahn]

I am not saying I won't try Atmos. But I don't care about movies enough to do it for sure. For some reason, that I have no explanation for, the sound tracks of movies don't connect to the audio/music passion.

The passion part is much easier than the time and money. I did go to work in the audio business in the seventies but there was already getting to be too much nonsense. And actually good paying jobs were rare. I moved on.

At AXPONA when I heard the Atmos system there was the proverbial million dollar system. In a rectangular ball room with carpeting and surrounded mostly by curtains They had two huge speakers, von Schweikerts I think. Something absurdly expensive. Along the back wall behind the speakers were a row of like twenty tube power amps with four KT88s each The room was like twenty degrees warmer on that end. I had had the presence of mind to bring a packet of my favorite CDs along and the gentleman running this setup was kind enough to play a number of tracks for me. Everything I was accustomed to hearing was there. I did not hear anything new. (I think the host of that ball room was "The Vacuum Tube Company , VTC , very high end )

One other fun experience I had at that Axpona was almost dozing off in the Bryston suite. I was shaken back to awaketitude by an orchestral sforzando that sounded like what I hear at my house. It was a triamped system. About $55,000.

I was disappointed by the Atmos experience. The Emotiva electronics they were using were not a million bucks but were a LOT. and one would expect that at an audio exposition Dolby themselves could put together something that would wow a guy like me. I WANTED to be wowwed. But not that time.

Like Ken and some others I have no interest whatever in streaming. Stuff disappears, you don't own it and sometimes can't be certain what you are getting and it may change without notice too. And you pay whether you use it or not. I do listen to a lot of music on headphones on my television , served by YouHooToob before going to sleep at night. It's almost free and is better than nothing and the algorithm learns what you like pretty quickly. Somebody (probably here) once compared streaming to a university library versus your own bookshelf. Fair enough but I have more discs already than I can ever hope to listen to all of them.

To bad you didn't get to experience the ML Atmos room at MWAVE this year. The room itself wasn't amazing acoustics wise, but even with that against it that system sounded great. A lot of people walked away impressed with it.

I look at streaming as a way to try things before buying or experiencing things I can't get on physical. If I like it and it's available on physical media, I'll own it. The compression on streaming Atmos isn't terrible IMO.