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.

[scottm18]

Must investigate this too That's yet another of my legacy equipment, a modified 95. But in this case the DAC (being an "glare-y" 9018) is not nearly the quality of the 205's 9038Pro...

I used to daisy chain the 95 into a Cambridge 752 until I got the Oppo 205-- which I was then able to modify on its own.



Yes...Syn's claim-to-fame is to do upmixing completely in the analog domain so no Dolby standard/licensing or anything like that required. it's all just "smart engineering brains" from the warped mind of Jason Stoddard of Schiit

I completely forgot about another hurdle for all this experimentation: replacing two mysteriously blown tweeters took a while...but I found some exact replacements for the 20-year-old devices.

 

[jimfisheye]

A computer and a 12 channel DAC maybe.

The man is looking to play optical disks at this point

Hell be able to keep his entire 5.1 analog system intact.

Well, those optical discs are digital. He's listening to the DAC in a hardware disc player, followed by any generation analog path from that player through to the system preamp. Unless it's connected HDMI... Now you're listening to an extra DA -> AD right out of the gate and then that converted back to analog with the AVR DAC.

Yes, a simple audio interface with at least 12 channels of output. Really that simple with none of the issues. Get an interface with digital outputs if you prefer to use some other stand alone DACs. (A preference for which has been mentioned.)

 

[jimfisheye]

I'm not suggesting that at all, I realise others are. I'm suggesting replacing the pre-amp with a similar quality Atmos capable processor.

And how is anyone supposed to do that when Dolby don't make the reference player available to the general public?

Yeah, saw some comments like that. Didn't mean to point fingers and sorry if it sounded that way. I get it too! In some ways that's meaning to be a helpful suggestion. I don't think it would play out very well from the fidelity first perspective.

If I answered that 2nd question my post would just be removed. Possibly more fallout like a bridge burned. I'd PM everyone on the forum a link if I thought I could get away with it. (Don't think so!) Yeah this sucks! This is why I want to see 7.1.4 mixes fully separated from Dolby and push for standard wavpack. The forced hardware path is a clusterfuck for people with big and/or boutique systems and feels like an attack. This whole post just lays that all right out.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Well no, we aren't going to see 12 channel mixes sold on 2" reel to reel tapes. It's digital, man! Just like many other sources of music. Gonna have to get a digital player like a computer. It's just another form of tape deck, honestly. Works well too! Better than mirroring waveforms in magnetic medium, IMHO. He's not getting analog copies of those 5.1 albums he plays either.

Put the analog pieces on the ends and shuttle the ones and zeros around in-between. Take a well earned breather from reducing your entire analog chain to the least performing piece of gear! (And lose the double and triple re-conversions. THAT might make an audible upgrade for those signal paths!)

Haha, imagine the price of 2" tape album delivery!

For 5.1 and stereo, he will have a single DA conversion from inside his Oppo player using a highly regarded set of DACs. Any additional analog source like an LP (remember those) stays in the analog domain completely. The Atmos processor will never even come into play with any of this.

When he wants to play Atmos, he switches to that processor. All the 5.1 amplification remains the same. That processor takes in a digital signal from his Oppo via HDMI. It goes through a single DA conversion in the processor and spits out analog signals to the power amps.

The only possible hit he may be taking is a downgrade of sonics when playing Atmos compared to what he can do with 5.1. With a streaming source, I doubt he'd even notice it. When limited to 24/48 resolution, those cheap processors do surprisingly well at reproducing Atmos

So let's consider the costs involved, keeping the context that the OP is dipping his foot into Atmos waters for the first time. He's not even sure if he can get his listening room configured well enough to support it. Maybe he'll want to go all in and eventually get a state of the art processor. Maybe he won't. So what will it cost to find out?

An MC-1 Emo processor is going to cost him $825. He already has everything else he needs to make this work.

Vs

A PC to run software, maybe a NUC? $600 minimum
The Dolby software. What is it? $300? $400? Is there an annual subscription charge yet?
12 channels of high end DAC. I'm not even sure here. Maybe $5-8k minimum? And probably all new cabling. He's quickly approaching the cost of a SOTA Lingdorf processor, which for him, would be much less complicated.

$10k or so just to try out Atmos? Really?

 

[scottm18]

Yeah all these are interesting propositions.

Just for fun I went complete Pure Direct mode and ran the 2ch PA Blu-ray of Stevie Wonder Songs in the Key of Life. Oh my... "Lovely" and the next to the last two songs ("Ebony Eyes" is one) image beautifully. I brought my trusty neighbor over "to hear Stevie in surround" and he bought the superb stereo imaging hook line and sinker l. You have a pretty high resolving system & a good acoustic room to pull that off...

So that's probably going to be my ultimate solution...stay stereo because that's always going to be of the highest resolution offered on the disc...and if the recording is good enough it definitely sounds surround

That's a really especially impressive recording and of course it's a double album with lots of content so it would make a great Atmos release option...

But seriously, looking at the Emotiva XA wedge speaker too. I may be able to fit that versatile speaker somewhere on my side walls (or even ceiling)...but of course getting it to play the material I want is a whole different ball game. And has to be driven with something.

Found another processor model. Anyone have an experience with the IOTAVX AVX17?

 

[DrKlahn]

Yeah all these are interesting propositions.

Just for fun I went complete Pure Direct mode and ran the 2ch PA Blu-ray of Stevie Wonder Songs in the Key of Life. Oh my... "Lovely" and the next to the last two songs ("Ebony Eyes" is one) image beautifully. I brought my trusty neighbor over "to hear Stevie in surround" and he bought the superb stereo imaging hook line and sinker l. You have a pretty high resolving system & a good acoustic room to pull that off...

So that's probably going to be my ultimate solution...stay stereo because that's always going to be of the highest resolution offered on the disc...and if the recording is good enough it definitely sounds surround

That's a really especially impressive recording and of course it's a double album with lots of content so it would make a great Atmos release option...

But seriously, looking at the Emotiva XA wedge speaker too. I may be able to fit that versatile speaker somewhere on my side walls (or even ceiling)...but of course getting it to play the material I want is a whole different ball game. And has to be driven with something.

Found another processor model. Anyone have an experience with the IOTAVX AVX17?

I have 2ch recordings that sound beautifully spacious. They don't do what 5.1 or Quad can do. And neither of those can do what Atmos does. Crazy to think you'd go backwards, but if that's where you're at I guess you need to do what makes you happy.

On the flip side, I have a friend that has heavily invested in his 2ch system. It sounds excellent. We both regularly visit each others places. After hearing some of the amazing stuff coming out in Atmos in my room he's putting it into his new place.

As far as resolution goes, I have Tears for Fears The Tipping point in 2ch from HD Track in 24/96. It is as spacious and engaging as any 2ch mix I've heard. The Atmos mix destroys it. I'm much more concerned about the engineering behind the mix than I am the resolution.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Yeah all these are interesting propositions.

Just for fun I went complete Pure Direct mode and ran the 2ch PA Blu-ray of Stevie Wonder Songs in the Key of Life. Oh my... "Lovely" and the next to the last two songs ("Ebony Eyes" is one) image beautifully. I brought my trusty neighbor over "to hear Stevie in surround" and he bought the superb stereo imaging hook line and sinker l. You have a pretty high resolving system & a good acoustic room to pull that off...

So that's probably going to be my ultimate solution...stay stereo because that's always going to be of the highest resolution offered on the disc...and if the recording is good enough it definitely sounds surround

That's a really especially impressive recording and of course it's a double album with lots of content so it would make a great Atmos release option...

But seriously, looking at the Emotiva XA wedge speaker too. I may be able to fit that versatile speaker somewhere on my side walls (or even ceiling)...but of course getting it to play the material I want is a whole different ball game. And has to be driven with something.

Found another processor model. Anyone have an experience with the IOTAVX AVX17?

My system images nicely in stereo too. But there is no mistaking that it isn't surround. Far from it. If stereo can fool your neighbor into believing he's listening to surround, regardless of how well it images, I wouldn't take his opinion too seriously.

The AVX 17 is another clone of the Emotiva and Tonewinner. All are made in the same Chinese factory. If you search for test reports, you will find information for all three.

 

[Sal1950]

So that's probably going to be my ultimate solution...stay stereo because that's always going to be of the highest resolution offered on the disc.

That particular statement is wrong on so many levels its difficult to know where to start.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

So that's probably going to be my ultimate solution...stay stereo because that's always going to be of the highest resolution offered on the disc

That particular statement is wrong on so many levels its difficult to know where to start.

I'll start. Assuming the OP can hear any difference beyond 48kHz, which I highly doubt, there is this:

The actual resolution really means almost nothing. What matters more is the quality of the mastering and if any lossy compression was used.

The stereo tracks often offer the highest resolution. But just as often they are at the same resolution as the surround tracks.

By far, the stereo tracks are the most likely tracks to be mastered with brick limiting.

 

[Sal1950]

So that's probably going to be my ultimate solution...stay stereo because that's always going to be of the highest resolution offered on the disc..

The stereo tracks often offer the highest resolution. But just as often they are at the same resolution as the surround tracks.

Well this all depends on what he meant by "resolution".
If the point was simply the data rate of any particular track, then yea, OK.
If OTOH by "resolution" he refers to an ability to listen into the recording and
hear the finer details, the tonallity of the instruments, their positoning in the mix, etc;
the separation of the instruments into the various tracks most often offers a more
microscopic, much less cluttered view of the musical presentation

 

[scottm18]

I meant stereo tracks are usually 24/192 and apparently according to someone here Atmos tracks top off at 24/48. And yes I can hear the difference my current system. That's why I won't settle for Chromecast is the only streaming option because I believe it tops out at 24/48. I currently have a Bryson BDP3 which works just fine for the higher resolutions, but it's an extra component. It'd be nice if HEOS ever supported my main streaming service because of the best audio quality...Qobuz...affecting Denon and Marantz products I don't know what the hell their problem is with adding Q... but they refuse to do it.

Speaking of stereo, I should get some time this weekend to get behind the rack and add the Syn. That should be interesting to see what it does with the high resolution 2ch sound using my existing speakers... looking forward to it.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I meant stereo tracks are usually 24/192 and apparently according to someone here Atmos tracks top off at 24/48.

That's not true. The 192 kHz offering is in the minority in my experience.

And yes I can hear the difference my current system.

You realize there is a lot of data out there that says you can't right? And unless you can a/b the two streams under properly controlled, level matched blind conditions, which I don't believe you can, any observation you make wouldn't be valid anyway.

I'll bet you think power cords have a "sound" too, right?

 

[Owen Smith]

I meant stereo tracks are usually 24/192 and apparently according to someone here Atmos tracks top off at 24/48. And yes I can hear the difference my current system.

How can you prove that you're hearing the difference between 24/192 and 24/48? Have you done a double blind test (neither you nor the person running the test knew which was which at the time) with identically mastered material? Because the test done any other way is meaningless.

 

[Sal1950]

I meant stereo tracks are usually 24/192 and apparently according to someone here Atmos tracks top off at 24/48. And yes I can hear the difference my current system

No one in the history of audio has yet brought forward a well run, bias controlled
DBT test to prove that these differences are audible. Every one attempted has shone just the opposite. Sorry but something has been out of kilter with your listening test conditions.
https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6993

 

[scottm18]

We can argue this until the cows come home but in addition to Qobuz having both a lower res and a higher res version of the same album I've run scross, there once was a site that had every resolution imaginable that you could download and test. 24/192 is as close as you can get to DSD sound which is 99% of my media collection--but still can't beat that format.

The difference in imaging and especially bass presence/fullness is quite noticeable at the high resolutions to me...which could very well be why I don't want to mess with my existing system's sonic prowess. And if it's noticeable to me, that's really all that matters right?

 

[jimfisheye]

The 'worst case scenario' price quotes and all that are amusing. I do that kind of thing myself sometimes too. Hopefully it's understood that the idea would be to take inventory of your current gear and find the best (cost and add to vs replace) bang for the buck solution.

I can say I'm an audiophile and highly sensitive to hearing generational artifacts. I'm familiar with all the digital generational artifacts as well as the classic analog stuff. Those are only words and you might not believe them. The business of hearing the difference between converters in pro equipment. (Not talking about 20 year old or more designs. Not talking about Amazon cheapness products or Worst Purchase stuff.) If I heard something striking... I'd assume it was a red herring and start looking for what must be the real issue.

Of course I keep and use my Apogee units! I did hear cleaner sound vs MOTU converters (just one example) too... at least back around 2001. I haven't bought anything new from MOTU for a while. I've used and recorded off a lot of Midas boards the last 10 years or more with their preamps and whatever converters they built and I'm not hearing any artifacts. Can't very well do an A/B on that! (Well I could. I have an X32 Rack too. But that would be more an A/B of two same model mics or a mic splitter transformer at the end of the day. And various other preamp circuits.)

It's east get caught with biased samples with this stuff. You can buy 400 CDs and every one of them happens to be a volume war mastered disaster and then you conclude 16 bit at 44.1k is lo-fi. You just demo'd 400 samples!!! Case closed! Except it was never true and those 400 examples were all ringers with damaged audio going in. True story. Then you record something yourself in the format and none of the problems happen.

 

[Owen Smith]

We can argue this until the cows come home

Or we can read the science of sampling theorem and the results of properly conducted double blind tests and draw conclusions supported by both theory and test results. That's how science works.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Deleted.

 

[DrKlahn]

We can argue this until the cows come home but in addition to Qobuz having both a lower res and a higher res version of the same album I've run scross, there once was a site that had every resolution imaginable that you could download and test. 24/192 is as close as you can get to DSD sound which is 99% of my media collection--but still can't beat that format.

The difference in imaging and especially bass presence/fullness is quite noticeable at the high resolutions to me...which could very well be why I don't want to mess with my existing system's sonic prowess. And if it's noticeable to me, that's really all that matters right?

Unless you've done blind testing in the manner @LuvMyQuad outlined, you're 100% susceptible to confirmation bias. And have you verified the material compared in different sample rates are the exact same mix, just encoded differently?

I think you're moving backwards and I think you're fooling yourself to avoid change. If you have someone close to you with a proper Atmos setup, go listen. I've heard the Stevie Wonder album you claim can match surround on the $100K Martin Logan Neoliths the last 2 MWAVEs. One of their employees loves this album (for good reason). Would I trade my system for that? As I've said that in other postings on this site, no. 2ch can't do what spatial audio can. No matter how well mastered.

 

[scottm18]

If you have someone close to you with a proper Atmos setup, go listen

I do have someone nearby with very much a proper Atmos system (complete with four ceiling speakers...all driven by a Marantz 8015) and it sounds amazing with Atmos media . However...as previously mentioned, he also has the means to keep a completely separate Classe/Jamo -based system in the same room strictly for 5.1...because it doesn't sound so amazing with that dedicated material.

One more thing related to resolution differences: I can easily switch between PCM and DSD (closest to 24/192) on my Oppo 205 when playing SACDs...and the clarity difference is immediately noticeable with something like Beck's Sea Change.