The quandary: do I move on from my superb sounding 5.1 setup to be able to enjoy the latest surround technology? Thoughts/experiences welcome.

[DrKlahn]

I guess I don't get a lot of this. The OP has several base issues to deal with.

1. The Room.
The room is admittedly small. The OP has repeatedly stated it is a very live, highly reflective space, and although the OP regards this as an advantage, it generally is not. Most on this forum try to limit high reflectivity in their listening space. Hence the effort put into room treatments and DSP room correction routines. The reflectivity issue will only get worse with more loudspeakers.

There is reluctance to install true overhead height channels.

There does not seem to be any satisfactory placement for side surrounds, lack of side placement is especially troublesome. It is primary to getting a good result with Atmos reproduction. I would also argue it is just as important to a 5.1 rendering of Atmos.

No AVP, regardless of brand, is going to remedy these issues.


2. No digital (HDMI) connection.
A digital connection is desired, but not required to achieve the above. It does however open other methodologies that an analog front end just does not offer.

3. Component Quality.
The OP has repeatedly noted how much he values the quality of his existing system. Many high end brands have been mentioned. Statements about the "sound signature" of power amps and preamps, even a mention of tube equipment. Quality of DACs, etc. All of this may well be dismissed by many as high end hyperbole, But the OP obviously believes in it and values it highly.

To then assume it can all be replaced by a budget, Chinese Pre Pro is very odd.

What are we really talking about with respect to tonal quality? The fact is, the major sonic signature of any system comes down to the loudspeakers, the rocm, and the interaction between them.. Everything else is secondary by a wide margin, assuming the source material is up to the task.

I don't want to sound critical, but It all just seems to be a big ball of twisted logic.

Very good points. It might be a case where a 5.1.4 setup makes more sense. It's always difficult to say what adding more channels will do in a space (so many variables at play here). I do know that even in a lively room you won't hear the material you can't reproduce.

Where I'm at is there isn't any way to experiment or experience anything more in the current setup. I wouldn't necessarily say that the budget prepro will be a bad route (I don't know enough about the TW to have an opinion), but since people on here are much more music focused I'd certainly advocate finding gear that suits this preference. Something like the AVM60 being older and used may not match up spec wise, but it's a known quantity when it comes to sound quality and handling source material properly. This is a case where the tastes and budget are at odds. So, you have to find a compromise that will hopefully work.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Very good points. It might be a case where a 5.1.4 setup makes more sense. It's always difficult to say what adding more channels will do in a space (so many variables at play here). I do know that even in a lively room you won't hear the material you can't reproduce.

Where I'm at is there isn't any way to experiment or experience anything more in the current setup. I wouldn't necessarily say that the budget prepro will be a bad route (I don't know enough about the TW to have an opinion), but since people on here are much more music focused I'd certainly advocate finding gear that suits this preference. Something like the AVM60 being older and used may not match up spec wise, but it's a known quantity when it comes to sound quality and handling source material properly. This is a case where the tastes and budget are at odds. So, you have to find a compromise that will hopefully work.

For me, the Tonewinner has most of the same base problems as the Emotiva. Primarily, max resolution is 24/48 or less and no true bypass mode.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

To top this all off, it seems the motivation for all this began with a perceived unsatisfactory playback of the DSOTM Atmos, rendered as 5.1, when there is in fact, a nearly identical 5.1 version available.

 

[jimfisheye]

I thought the separate component style system evolved to using a computer (with those separate components) and the Monkey Wards all in one box things evolved into the modern AVR.

Now I know full well there are "pro" versions of those things in the $5k to $10k range. Again though, the pucker factor of everything in one box with a price tag like that. Then what do you do when just one of the things goes down?

I'll throw this out there.
Products with DACs and mic preamps have changed in the last 10 years or so. It used to go from zero to 100 and you needed boutique quality or the bell curve was steep. That honestly changed. Yeah, high end is still good! I keep using my Apogee DACs. I didn't replace them with a Behringer/Midas UMC-1820. But I still have them from when there was no other choice and products like the 1820 didn't exist. Today starting over I just might.

The average (but reasonable) stuff usually matches the boutique stuff for nominal use. The boutique stuff shines in the extremes and keeps that to spec. And stands up to 24/7 punishment. There isn't any extended audio range with HD sample rates, for example. There are distortion issues in the audible range that can happen in SD that HD avoids passively. (The low pass filter in the analog part of the circuit in this example.)

The problem with this Dolby decoder situation is it directly attacks those of us with a big expensive system. A theater style audio interface with digital outputs (usually AES EBU) and quality DAC analog balanced outputs with a Dolby Atmos decoder hidden in the firmware is around $10k. I don't need the additional hardware but that's the option that lets me keep using all my other hardware. So a $10k decoder. Or I can treat Atmos as a novelty and buy some AVR that is degraded from what I'm used to. Fidelity comes first, so that doesn't work. Kind of insulting to even suggest, right? I feel like they directly attacked the very people who would have cheer leaded the loudest for this. I'll certainly always avoid their products when possible and liberate any encoded files I come across.

But you do want this! Some things kind of suck but there are mixes being made and you want to hear some of them. And if you're chasing those mixes you kind of want the same channel array. Choose your adventure!

 

[DrKlahn]

I thought the separate component style system evolved to using a computer (with those separate components) and the Monkey Wards all in one box things evolved into the modern AVR.

Now I know full well there are "pro" versions of those things in the $5k to $10k range. Again though, the pucker factor of everything in one box with a price tag like that. Then what do you do when just one of the things goes down?

I'll throw this out there.
Products with DACs and mic preamps have changed in the last 10 years or so. It used to go from zero to 100 and you needed boutique quality or the bell curve was steep. That honestly changed. Yeah, high end is still good! I keep using my Apogee DACs. I didn't replace them with a Behringer/Midas UMC-1820. But I still have them from when there was no other choice and products like the 1820 didn't exist. Today starting over I just might.

The average (but reasonable) stuff usually matches the boutique stuff for nominal use. The boutique stuff shines in the extremes and keeps that to spec. And stands up to 24/7 punishment. There isn't any extended audio range with HD sample rates, for example. There are distortion issues in the audible range that can happen in SD that HD avoids passively. (The low pass filter in the analog part of the circuit in this example.)

The problem with this Dolby decoder situation is it directly attacks those of us with a big expensive system. A theater style audio interface with digital outputs (usually AES EBU) and quality DAC analog balanced outputs with a Dolby Atmos decoder hidden in the firmware is around $10k. I don't need the additional hardware but that's the option that lets me keep using all my other hardware. So a $10k decoder. Or I can treat Atmos as a novelty and buy some AVR that is degraded from what I'm used to. Fidelity comes first, so that doesn't work. Kind of insulting to even suggest, right? I feel like they directly attacked the very people who would have cheer leaded the loudest for this. I'll certainly always avoid their products when possible and liberate any encoded files I come across.

But you do want this! Some things kind of suck but there are mixes being made and you want to hear some of them. And if you're chasing those mixes you kind of want the same channel array. Choose your adventure!

I mean something like an AVM70 supports balanced outputs and has very good DACs. You can get into that for $3k. Yes, you can go even more expensive. But you don't have to. You're well into diminishing returns past that. And I say that as an owner of a processor that costs a lot more new (which is why I bought it used).

Something like the AVM70 I can about guarantee would be a nice sonic improvement over what is in there now. Even an AVM60 should be too. Most all of the computers I see used in rooms are serving media to a preamp or AVR. They aren't acting as the audio processor and aren't usually the sole source.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

In my case, Atmos is a novelty of sorts. Most of the available software is streamed in lossy compressed fashion. What I own on uncompressed physical product is minor compared to what I own on high res 5.1. And in those cases where an Atmos remix of an existing 5.1 is available, I could count on one hand (and still hold a dube) where it significantly improved upon the 5.1.

But you're right. You DO want to hear some of this stuff that isn't available as 5.1. Recent releases by Peter Gabriel and Big Big Train come to mind.

My thought process was to get the decoding capability without a large commitment or cash outlay. Go disposable and limit the risk. After all, how long before it's outdated again? But I'm not going to replace my existing 5.1 capability with it. Not yet, anyway

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Most all of the computers I see used in rooms are serving media to a preamp or AVR. They aren't acting as the audio processor and aren't usually the sole source.

Yeah, Jim is kind of a rebel when it comes to that because of his background. I understand it.

 

[DrKlahn]

In my case, Atmos is a novelty of sorts. Most of the available software is streamed in lossy compressed fashion. What I own on uncompressed physical product is minor compared to what I own on high res 5.1. And in those cases where an Atmos remix of an existing 5.1 is available, I could count on one hand (and still hold a dube) where it significantly improved upon the 5.1.

But you're right. You DO want to hear some of this stuff that isn't available as 5.1. Recent releases by Peter Gabriel and Big Big Train come to mind.

My thought process was to get the decoding capability without a large commitment or cash outlay. Go disposable and limit the risk. After all, how long before it's outdated again? But I'm not going to replace my existing 5.1 capability with it. Not yet, anyway

I don't think I would pitch Atmos as huge improvement over 5.1. Though there are definitely instances where I would say it is a very nice improvement over 5.1 (which makes it worth upgrading to me). My main pitch is this is where things are going and new content is likely to prioritize Atmos or forego a native 5.1 mix altogether (though downmixing can sound pretty good). Life is short, why would you not want to hear this content as intended and enjoy the improvements?

Sure, tech is always a treadmill. But Atmos and DTS:X seem to have a lot of longevity. They've hit a point where most rooms don't have a need or space to go further. My first Atmos preamp is about 10 years old (Marantz 7702 MK2) and still working fine in another setup.

 

[jimfisheye]

I mean something like an AVM70 supports balanced outputs and has very good DACs. You can get into that for $3k. Yes, you can go even more expensive. But you don't have to. You're well into diminishing returns past that. And I say that as an owner of a processor that costs a lot more new (which is why I bought it used).

Something like the AVM70 I can about guarantee would be a nice sonic improvement over what is in there now. Even an AVM60 should be too. Most all of the computers I see used in rooms are serving media to a preamp or AVR. They aren't acting as the audio processor and aren't usually the sole source.

That's reasonable if you're just starting out. Agree fully with the diminishing returns part. In my case with already having invested in Apogee DACs and plenty of channels of audio interfaces that would be 3k for a sideways move. With no way to connect digitally to my current outputs and no direct access and control over the software inside. Those are all red flags to me and unacceptable. The theater aimed interface I mentioned is where devices with actual digital outputs start because they also have DACs and analog outputs.

You know, you buy something nice. Maybe even 'buy it for life' quality. If something actually does break... fair enough. Screw this notion to throw stuff away and planned obsolescence with everything and the software spoofing angle that's just gone wild!

 

[Sal1950]

Life is short, why would you not want to hear this content as intended and enjoy the improvements?

That's the bottom line on my feelings.
I've been on this treadmill for close to 60 years now, most always enjoying the new technology's as they came along.

I don't think I would pitch Atmos as huge improvement over 5.1. Though there are definitely instances where I would say it is a very nice improvement over 5.1 (which makes it worth upgrading to me).

I've loved Quad & 5.1 tech for many decades now but there are many instances where Atmos brings something to the plate that 5.1 just can't offer. If your into exciting discreet artistic mixes as many of us here are, the recordings by artists/production teams like the Yello - Point release (to name just one) will highlight what Atmos is fully capable of. We're only into using the tech for music a few years now. It took stereo a long time to advance to the level it did.

Screw this notion to throw stuff away and planned obsolescence with everything and the software spoofing angle that's just gone wild!

I don't see it as "planned obsolescence". For most everything you've ever owned in your life, time has moved forward and technology has improved its function. Roll with it or stick to a crank start Model T Ford, your choice.

 

[DrKlahn]

That's reasonable if you're just starting out. Agree fully with the diminishing returns part. In my case with already having invested in Apogee DACs and plenty of channels of audio interfaces that would be 3k for a sideways move. With no way to connect digitally to my current outputs and no direct access and control over the software inside. Those are all red flags to me and unacceptable. The theater aimed interface I mentioned is where devices with actual digital outputs start because they also have DACs and analog outputs.

You know, you buy something nice. Maybe even 'buy it for life' quality. If something actually does break... fair enough. Screw this notion to throw stuff away and planned obsolescence with everything and the software spoofing angle that's just gone wild!

I don't think what you expect out of a setup is going to align with what the majority of hobbyists are looking for. I'm not just "starting out" by any means and I'm fine with updating gear when I find the upgrade worthy. There's nothing wrong with your approach and it obviously works for you, but I don't think it has much of an application to the original posters goals.

Yes the upgrade treadmill can get tedious and expensive, but like anything else you can decide when to pull the trigger. For most of us conformity to where the industry is at is desirable from a compatibility and enjoyment standpoint. I think I understand your perspective, but at the end of the day I don't find that approach to outweigh enjoying the best material out there as intended in a relatively convenient manner.

 

[Owen Smith]

To top this all off, it seems the motivation for all this began with a perceived unsatisfactory playback of the DSOTM Atmos, rendered as 5.1, when there is in fact, a nearly identical 5.1 version available.

And DSOTM Atmos is known to be wonky if you play the True HD base layer straight as either 5.x or 7.x without decoding the Atmos.

 

[jimfisheye]

I love new gear and upgrades, mind you! Some company trying to gaslight me into replacing something still working - sometimes with a downgrade - sets me off. I still might decide to buy something foolish I don't need too! Just don't tell me what to do, ya know! (That's aimed at Dolby.)

 

[Owen Smith]

Now I know full well there are "pro" versions of those things in the $5k to $10k range. Again though, the pucker factor of everything in one box with a price tag like that. Then what do you do when just one of the things goes down?

One thing I do is look for a 5 year warranty these days. Doesn't eliminate the problem but at least mitigates it.

 

[barfle]

I have to agree with the Dr. here. I've nothing against Emo and have been running one of their DC-1 DAC's here for close to 7 years now. BUT the Emo AV products have the worst reputation on the net for buggy software, firmware updates, and such, I'd avoid them!

I have three Emotiva Stealth 8 studio monitors across the front of my room. I bought them about ten years ago, and they all needed recapping in about six years.

The circuitry is pretty classical Class AB stuff, so it wasn’t all that difficult, although I have to admit I found a few build-quality issues when I started digging into the boxes.

 

[scottm18]

Wow I really opened up a can of worms
A lot of this stems from the fact every few months I go up and visit my friend in a neighboring city that has a true Atmos system, with sides and four ceiling speakers. So obviously when I compare mine to that it pale...if only in the number of channels. With the bigger room he can easily squeeze in sides (Vanderstein surround and rear surround)

I do find it interesting that for his main room he has two complete systems setup (with two different speakers): as with me, a fully analog Classe-based 5.1, but also an Marantz 8015 Atmos-based system. I don't have the luxury of having two complete systems in my smaller room so I'd have to work this compromise out

As for my room itself, "reflective and lively" is probably not the best terminology. But it is solid block as opposed to sound absorbing drapery and carpetry. Judging my my two audiophile friends (and that neighbor), the room sounds fantastic and they don't feel it really need sound enhancements. And it's smaller size lends to an intimate more engrossing sound... for the five channels anyway.

The other problem with getting a processor is once again maybe minutia but the DACs in my Oppo are still top-end no-slouch ESS 9038 Pro--which are really only bettered by the new AKM 4499EX "register" type. 90% of the processors are going to have inferior DACs to the Oppo which would instead be used if I connected it to the processor i do believe (for instance the Marantz 7706 uses an older mainstream AKM4458). Once again probably another huge argument whether DACs make a difference (if implemented properly)... but I have some Cambridge products with the older Wolfson and I can easily hear the difference with the much crisper ESS Pro.

That said, I may save up and just go for broke with the Anthem AVM90 which also uses the same Pro DAC as the 205...as well as other premium audio components I'm sure I'd be able to hear over the 70. It can be found for a decent price on the used market too. With that, it would make the Audio Research superfluous and I'm sure there's still a market for that great-sounding piece somewhere.

 

[DrKlahn]

Wow I really opened up a can of worms
A lot of this stems from the fact every few months I go up and visit my friend in a neighboring city that has a true Atmos system, with sides and four ceiling speakers. So obviously when I compare mine to that it pale...if only in the number of channels. With the bigger room he can easily squeeze in sides (Vanderstein surround and rear surround)

I do find it interesting that for his main room he has two complete systems setup (with two different speakers): as with me, a fully analog Classe-based 5.1, but also an Marantz 8015 Atmos-based system. I don't have the luxury of having two complete systems in my smaller room so I'd have to work this compromise out

As for my room itself, "reflective and lively" is probably not the best terminology. But it is solid block as opposed to sound absorbing drapery and carpetry. Judging my my two audiophile friends (and that neighbor), the room sounds fantastic and they don't feel it really need sound enhancements. And it's smaller size lends to an intimate more engrossing sound... for the five channels anyway.

The other problem with getting a processor is once again maybe minutia but the DACs in my Oppo are still top-end no-slouch ESS 9038 Pro--which are really only bettered by the new AKM 4499EX "register" type. 90% of the processors are going to have inferior DACs to the Oppo which would instead be used if I connected it to the processor i do believe (for instance the Marantz 7706 uses an older mainstream AKM4458). Once again probably another huge argument whether DACs make a difference (if implemented properly)... but I have some Cambridge products with the older Wolfson and I can easily hear the difference with the much crisper ESS Pro.

That said, I may save up and just go for broke with the Anthem AVM90 which also uses the same Pro DAC as the 205...as well as other premium audio components I'm sure I'd be able to hear over the 70. It can be found for a decent price on the used market too. With that, it would make the Audio Research superfluous and I'm sure there's still a market for that great-sounding piece somewhere.

My take is we've hit a place where DACs are by and large not really a concern. I could hear audible differences in the 90's and early 00's comparing DACs, but today the average phone has what would have been considered high end back then. I think you'll hear more of a difference in how various manufacturers handle the various audio corrections vs the DAC. Others may disagree and that's fine.

Having said that if the AVM 90 is ultimately what you feel will scratch the itch, then I'm 100% behind doing it once and being happy. I've done a few "compromise" purchases over the years and really should have just held out for what I actually wanted. Luckily as I've gotten older my patience to wait and do it once and do it right has gotten better.

 

[JohnN]

I'm not totally sold on Atmos as being necessary for music, a treat sure. A superb sounding 5.1 should be respected. No need to change superb.
Cheers!

 

[Sal1950]

I'm not totally sold on Atmos as being necessary for music, a treat sure. A superb sounding 5.1 should be respected. No need to change superb.
Cheers!

The only thing "necessary" for recorded music reproduction is a mono system.
With stereo, quad, 5.1, and Atmos being another step up the ladder to a better immersive experience. Your choice whats "good enough" for you.

 

[jimfisheye]

Wow I really opened up a can of worms ...

I think Can Of Worms was the working name for Atmos originally.
(It should have been!)