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

I dunno, it's pretty much just worked for me.

And titles that showcase it are definitely more immersive than 5.1.

 

[Sal1950]

I dunno, it's pretty much just worked for me

Here also, and I'm approaching 150 lossless titles on the hard-drive if I include
maybe 20 of them being Auro3D BD rips.

 

[JohnN]

Does Atmos matter with music? Example;>) With The Doors' Riders On The Storm, the raining sounds like it's coming from above in stereo and 5.1.

uh oh

 

[DrKlahn]

Does Atmos matter with music? Example;>) With The Doors' Riders On The Storm, the raining sounds like it's coming from above in stereo and 5.1.

uh oh

I'd say it does. The rain ambience in 5.1 you mention may sound convincing, but it doesn't have the ability to steer and move sound in that dimension the way Atmos does. And Atmos will almost always do a more convincing job with ambience as well.

2ch enthusiasts often argue that 2ch can put sounds beside you, and it can. Is it the same as 5.1 or Quad? Nope.

 

[Owen Smith]

Does Atmos matter with music? Example;>) With The Doors' Riders On The Storm, the raining sounds like it's coming from above in stereo and 5.1.

uh oh

Especially with my 5.0 surrounds which are on wall brackets firing up at the ceiling anyway. There is simply no space either behind or to the sides of my sofa.

EDIT: there's no chance of my going Atmos, I just don't have anywhere to put the speakers. It was hard enough to fit 5 speakers into this room.

 

[JohnN]

I'd say it does. The rain ambience in 5.1 you mention may sound convincing, but it doesn't have the ability to steer and move sound in that dimension the way Atmos does. And Atmos will almost always do a more convincing job with ambience as well.

2ch enthusiasts often argue that 2ch can put sounds beside you, and it can. Is it the same as 5.1 or Quad? Nope.

Good post, thank you. I need convincing, so this is good.

 

[DrKlahn]

Good post, thank you. I need convincing, so this is good.

It's kind of a strange thread in that I love 5.1. When I listen to 5.1, it's in 5.1 (not a fan of upmixing). And I think most of the people in here love 5.1. But where the rubber meets the road, Atmos can and does offer an experience that eclipses it, And it's clearly got momentum at the moment to be the main immersive standard going forward. So, to me the question is why wouldn't you do it? Granted, cases like @Owen Smith where you just can't physically fit things in are certainly valid.

 

[JohnN]

Especially with my 5.0 surrounds which are on wall brackets firing up at the ceiling anyway. There is simply no space either behind or to the sides of my sofa.

EDIT: there's no chance of my going Atmos, I just don't have anywhere to put the speakers. It was hard enough to fit 5 speakers into this room.

Too many speakers. I have two Atmos systems, using high stands for height and surrounds. For space I tried Polk Dolby enabled ceiling firing speakers and was not impressed.

 

[jimfisheye]

I dunno, it's pretty much just worked for me.

And titles that showcase it are definitely more immersive than 5.1.

Oh it just worked for me too... once I had Dolby reference player in hand.

I feel like we jumped into some serious mixes that went beyond the ability of 5.1 already with this extension on the format. Did stereo, quad, and 5.1 hit a stride this quickly?

 

[jimfisheye]

Does Atmos matter with music? Example;>) With The Doors' Riders On The Storm, the raining sounds like it's coming from above in stereo and 5.1.

uh oh

It's more speakers to put sound in and build a mix in. The 3D element of the array extends phantom imaging throughout and lets you do some thing with that too. Surround sound has always been music first, movies secondary to me and adding 4 more speakers hasn't changed that a bit.

I think you asked if this was necessary? Clearly not! This level of audaciousness with art in this plastic corporate world sure blows my mind and makes me smile though!

 

[scottm18]

So, to me the question is why wouldn't you do it? Granted, cases like @Owen Smith where you just can't physically fit things in are certainly valid.

As shown by my previous attaches, I would qualify my room is having not enough space either for at least sides (plus also also aforementioned issue for real 5.1 sound now coming from the sides instead). The only thing I can really do is add either Atmos bounce speakers or true Atmos real speakers in my ceiling (with the appropriate front end to drive them).

Let me list a little summary here:

1. Currently have a superb 5.1 system lauded by everybody I know that hears it--which I do not want to mess with the sonic prowess of (IE getting a receiver of any kind would not match the sound I have now so I would not "risk" it)

2. My only digital component is also top-line: a modified Oppo 205 which is outfitted with one of the best DACs on the planet even now...that being the ESS 9038 Pro. Almost any processor I get will have inferior DACs to this Blu-ray player that handles pretty much 100% of my media. In other words, I'm not going to run a 9038 Pro DAC into say a TI DAC or lower-tier AKM... bcause I'm pretty sure out will come the inferior lower conversion.

3. Even though I would probably go digital from the Oppo, I definitely want the capability to keep the analog connections I have now...so the processor has to have multi-channel inputs and not all do. Monoprice HTP1 is out to lunch in this aspect. However, the Emo, TW, and at least the 70 & 90 Anthem do allow this.

3. I currently have one of the best analog preamps available, so I'm not likely to replace it with some sub-1K Asian model. Again there's fantastic quality Chinese equipment by the likes of Cayin etc, but the ones mentioned a possible choice (TW/Emotiva) definitely aren't going to cut it for sound quality in comparison. Along with that, I have two of the best quality 5-channel amps you can get in Conrad Johnson/McCormack and Cary--so likewise no AIO receiver will match the sonic capability of those.

As I said, I may just have to live with what I have until I'm able to get the Anthem AVM90. After being used to what I have now, I think that's the only one that I would settle for the sound quality of... under five grand anyway. As a bonus, If i got something like that....I could then look into something like the more modern tech Magnetar 900 to replace the Oppo because I wouldn't need its HDMI inputs anymore.

Food for thought for sure

One more comment: I agree the Doors Riders On The Stormt in particular is a pretty cool Atmos mix. It's completely different from the original song with the vocal intro... And even sounds great and 5.1! And Steven Wilson's masterful mix of "Take On Me". actually makes me want to listen to that song I've heard a billion times already.

 

[jimfisheye]

It sounds like you simply like a component style system where you can choose the parts. (DAC choice, etc) The computer approach supports that. Figure out how to route the digital audio to your favorite converters and that thing might become your friend. It's just another component. Then just shop for more channels of your favorite stuff as budget permits.

 

[marpow]

Post #1, I'll pipe in as I am an advocate for surround listening of all types.
Many of us have home rigs that are the best anyone has ever heard, mine included, so you are not unique in that aspect.

I get it Post #1, you have the best of a lot of equipment, lots of us do.

My room is 12' the wall I look at X 14' and is bad ass.
All my listening is via JRiver and the user must be very good at setting proper zones for proper listening. JRiver will paly back video via HDMI and a MKV file.
I have a MCH external DAC for all but Atmos, for Atmos the DAC in the AVR is all she gets. Amps push the rest.
The user must be well versed in ripping discs of all sorts for best listening, not relying on room correction like Audessy, etc.
My experience on QQ since 2014, has been, in the last 5 years, the beginning of Atmos listening, and many of us have made the conversion from our foundation rigs to our added height speakers.

What I have witnessed on QQ is reasons for not going Atmos is the work and expense. The work of cutting, mounting, and hiding speaker cable. For a non mechanically inclined person this can be overwhelming and the expense of paying someone can be unaffordable.
Significant others play a role in aesthetics.

One note I have is with speaker choice, up firing, NO DO NOT. Flush mounted ceiling with movable tweeters, pretty dang good. Small cabinet speakers designed for Atmos, mounted to ceiling best. If your ceiling joists go in the front to back, length ways, it is easiest, if they go right to left, then harder but doable. Open beam ceiling, either run conduit on inside ugly or conduit across roof, best.

Amplification a must, and please choose meter type. Meters enhance the visual and the guessing of what signal you are getting from Atmos, weak to nothing signal, full blown all 4, or maybe just two, anything you can imagine I have seen.

An AVR Dolby Atmos capable, well of course.
7 speaker floor foundation, not necessary.
Subwoofers (plural) a must. Acoustic wall treatment a very big must.

Most important, take your time, lots of research, reading and video watching, experiment with cables, equipment placement, visualize your art before you jump in.

As an audiophile, I am usually very happy with the mix or unhappy with the mix, this goes for stereo all the way to Atmos. I would say it took me a year to dial in the sound of my system. There is a part of our brains that don't quite understand Atmos after listening to stereo or foundation surround, there is an absolute learning curve in the art of listening to Atmos, it is not for everyone.

I see Atmos as a preteen at this point, not a baby and not a teenager. In the last 5 years, Atmos mixing styles have changed, the immersive bubble, to the big bang to things in between, front loaded, vocals recessed, everything everyday we read here on QQ, where everyone's opinion is valid.

I have been upgrading home surround sound since the early 90's and I will admit, Atmos seems the most delicate in a persons approach.

Finally placement of speakers in the ceiling, use the Dolby Labs chart, very good.

 

[scottm18]

Yello - Point release

Funny you should mention that as it's another disc I borrowed I forgot about as it's not nearly as well known as DSOM or Who's next. But probably sounds better than both of them. And you're right that shows the Atmos vs 5.1 difference the best (meaning how it compared that my friend's house vs my own).

Actually checked specs on this and it's actually very low for audio bit rate--only about 5 (compared to over 20 for some of the PA Blu-rays). And you hear it if you listen close...super immersive but not necessarily the cleanest sound. And this is one that only offers stereo and Atmos tracks...no 5.1 specific mix.

...and they all needed recapping in about six years.

That's another consideration for me as both my preamp and amps are pushing 20 years old now. Sure they really don't build them like they used to anymore, but just how soon are they going to need new capacitors to keep that great sound... and how will I know when that's the case and what to do about it? Definitely in my thought process now as well.

 

[MidiMagic]

What a quadnry!

I always want the original quad systems.
All of my recordings are mono, stereo, or matrix quad.
Some DVDs have the 5.1 discrete, but I don't have a player for that. My player plays the Dolby Surround version also on the disc.

I say it was wrong to change the surround system in the middle of the game. They did it twice.
It's like adding a new speed to phonograph records. You have to buy new equipment (and in some cases, also keep old equipment).
There should be a single standard for old recordings and new. The problem with patents is they encourage changing standards.

 

[Sal1950]

Too many speakers. I have two Atmos systems, using high stands for height and surrounds. For space I tried Polk Dolby enabled ceiling firing speakers and was not impressed.

I fully understand having to make do with the situation that you find yourself in, I've had to do the same here. But I do question the then final statement that you "was not impressed".
If we were talking about stereo and a poster said he had one speaker in front and the other next to him for alternate use as a side table but "was not impressed" with the stereo image, how would you respond?

 

[quicksrt]

I'm in a similar situation, except that my system sounds very very good but not "top of the heap" exceptional.

But where I am at is that I have a really great collection of 4.0 quad and 5.1 surround on all modern formats. I mean I have about everything from Mystic Moods Orchestra and Johnny Mathis on DTS to the newer releases and just love the sound of a good 5.1 as well as quad. And I have too many nice discs not yet played all the way through. I really should listen to what I already have before I take the Atmos plunge. I feel some guilt about having unplayed gems on shelves.

When I get new Quadio discs as an example, I tend to play each one over four nights, and do not go back to any of them for a week of so and spread out the listening so that they mysteries are revealed slowly. I want them to stay fresh as a listening experience. So I have some things I have heard but only once.

Atmos takes even more time and effort which I feel short of lately. I absolutely do not want my rear channels coming from side speakers.

 

[scottm18]

I absolutely do not want my rear channels coming from side speakers.

In my opinion this is the Crux of the whole situation. You can have the fanciest processor around..but once you add the side speakers for 7.1 you cannot get the correct 5.1 sound from your rear speakers anymore. With Atmos material and with movies it will steer the sound appropriately, but with a true discreet 5.1 recording I don't think there's any way around it other than literally swapping around speaker connections--as "poked fun" of on the DSOM Atmos disc screenshot I posted earlier. I experimented with this about 10 years ago when I set up 7.1 and was immediately unimpressed with what needed to be done to get true 5.1 back... and nothing has changed in a decade With the sheer amount of 5.1 material I have (hundreds of DVD-Audios & SACDs), that's just absolutely not happening in this lifetime.

2ch enthusiasts often argue that 2ch can put sounds beside you, and it can.

The Bob Marley "Legend" release is controversial due to the ultra slick-sounding remixing (very Lord-Alge like)...but there's no denying the superior sound of the Pure Audio BD. That's one that very nearly sounds surround just with the 2ch uncompressed mix due to it's uncanny imaging of the percussive elements. I fool a lot of people with it

 

[DrKlahn]

I absolutely do not want my rear channels coming from side speakers.

In my opinion this is the Crux of the whole situation. You can have the fanciest processor around..but once you add the side speakers for 7.1 you cannot get the correct 5.1 sound from your rear speakers anymore. With Atmos material and with movies it will steer the sound appropriately, but with a true discreet 5.1 recording I don't think there's any way around it other than literally swapping around speaker connections--as "poked fun" of on the DSOM Atmos disc screenshot I posted earlier. I experimented with this about 10 years ago when I set up 7.1 and was immediately unimpressed with what needed to be done to get true 5.1 back... and nothing has changed in a decade With the sheer amount of 5.1 material I have (hundreds of DVD-Audios & SACDs), that's just absolutely not happening in this lifetime.

2ch enthusiasts often argue that 2ch can put sounds beside you, and it can.

The Bob Marley "Legend" release is controversial due to the ultra slick-sounding remixing (very Lord-Alge like)...but there's no denying the superior sound of the Pure Audio BD. That's one that very nearly sounds surround just with the 2ch uncompressed mix due to it's uncanny imaging of the percussive elements. I fool a lot of people with it

So keep them where they are and do a 5.1.4 setup? Perfectly fine option. And come and have a listen, you can absolutely have a 7 channel bed layer that sounds great with 5.1.

It sounds like you're coming up with reasons not to do this, which it's your money and your room. But you're just fooling yourself if you think there isn't something substantial to be gained going past 5.1.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Iconnections--as "poked fun" of on the DSOM Atmos disc screenshot I posted earlier. I experimented with this about 10 years ago when I set up 7.1 and was immediately unimpressed with what needed to be done to get true 5.1 back... and nothing has changed in a decade With the sheer amount of 5.1 material I have (hundreds of DVD-Audios & SACDs), that's just absolutely not happening in this lifetime.

There is apparently some confusion about what "true 5.1" is supposed to be. In my world, 5.1 does not have rear speakers directly behind the listener, nor does it take a 4 corner approach. That approach applies to old school quad, and I know many who play old quad sources prefer it that way. I never have, nor do I personally know of anyone who does set up 5.1 in that way.

This is the best guide I know of for an explanation of what true 5.1 is. Have a read. YMMV.

https://www.wendycarlos.com/surround/surround.html