A shame as only true Quad recordings sound natural & correct that way.
Poll: What's your current Atmos speaker layout?
- Thread starter HomerJAU
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Not true. Stereo mixes via the S&IC, TATE II and Sansui QS Surround or Involve have always sounded fantastic. Also 5.1 mixes which in reality are just quad with a centre speaker and sub, sound fine without either. Atmos down-mixes can sound very good or like shit it all depends. Thankfully 5.1 mixes are still often included as well just incase the Atmos downmix sounds bad.
I still can't get over that fact that four then six speakers were not enough. Keep adding more and more and the general public will finally bite. I think not. The people here are the exception. Dolby invented Atmos simply because their old patents were running out. They have a vested interest in pushing a new proprietary system. At least it is a current source of multichannel music so I'm not complaining.
I like what Jimfisheye is trying to do to separate Atmos from it's Dolby imprisonment!
Add the ability to render in binaural for headphones and all of a sudden it becomes accessible to the "general public" in a way that quad and 5.1 never were.
Have you ever listened to a 7.1.4 system with a well done Atmos mix?
Nope, they may sound very nice, but then they may sound like junk.
Been there, done that.
Today we have DD, DTS, and Auro upmixers for 2ch, which I also use.
Again the final results are variable depending on many factors.
Really, with the discrete center information missing how does that work?
If you use software to extract and divide the center between L & R, what is being used to
determine the proper balances?
End results may please your personal subjective opinion but still in no way makes the reproduction 100% correct to the artist/engineers intent.
If you want any of the multich formats to be rendered correctly, there are certain guidelines that
must be followed for best/proper results.
Time marches on, and I thank goodness for Dolby, Atmos, Auro and the rest.
3D immersive sound is awesome and a big move forward in music reproduction artistry.
Much more so than the move from 4 to 5 channels was.
Your rants here sound more like the result of the "deep pockets but short arms" syndrome so
you lash out against that which you chose not to invest in.
Personally I'm thrilled with the direction multich music has taken over the last few decades.
It may cost a bit to do correctly, but the results are more than worth the investment.
JMHO
They always sound nice! It's like listening to stereo via a magnifying glass! I never listen to just two speakers unless I have to!
You can't do much with mono or those stereo recordings that lack any correlation between channels (ie early Beatles) but they don't sound bad, they sound basically the same!
How is it missing? It is folded into the front where it belongs! The balance is preserved, the mix should be -3dB into the fronts.
Disagree totally in the case of 5.1 to 4.0 and besides I wouldn't worry about the intent anyway. I care about what it sounds like to me!
The sweet spot always will be 4.0! You can add more channels but unless all speakers are matched that is a compromise. Atmos is supposed to be scalable up and down, object based implies it is "channel" neutral.. If that doesn't work then what good is it.
I don't think so I spend plenty of money on my 4.0 systems. Two of them are bi-amped. I have more than enough amplifiers and speakers that I could experience full Atmos if I wanted.
Last edited:
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,072
I think the concept of a calibrated system and actually reproducing what the engineer heard to the level of full fidelity virtual reality is a newer concept?
Old school was to put together a system that "sounded good" (technical term). And that extended to studios too!
These shouldn't be mutually exclusive though. Calibrated doesn't mean puny. Kick ass can be calibrated kick ass! More channels before fidelity does lead to novelty... so don't do it that way then!
Anyway, there are mixes made on 5.1 arrays and now 7.1.4 arrays. And a smattering of other configs. Some of these are really ambitious.
It's great that Atmos uses crafty downmix techniques and tries to bring standardization across different systems. But these niche surround mixes that many of us around here like so much are really being taken to the next level with all this. Yeah, quad are still the main 4 surround channels. You really might still want to explore some of this. There's really exotic work being done that demands the full system.
Old school was to put together a system that "sounded good" (technical term). And that extended to studios too!
These shouldn't be mutually exclusive though. Calibrated doesn't mean puny. Kick ass can be calibrated kick ass! More channels before fidelity does lead to novelty... so don't do it that way then!
Anyway, there are mixes made on 5.1 arrays and now 7.1.4 arrays. And a smattering of other configs. Some of these are really ambitious.
It's great that Atmos uses crafty downmix techniques and tries to bring standardization across different systems. But these niche surround mixes that many of us around here like so much are really being taken to the next level with all this. Yeah, quad are still the main 4 surround channels. You really might still want to explore some of this. There's really exotic work being done that demands the full system.
Humm, you don't seem to look far enough back in "old school".
This passion was originally fueled by the search for "High Fidelity" and gear that could come as close to a "straight wire with gain" as possible.
Before the days of the underground audiophool cults and internet, the magazines such as Audio, High Fidelity, and Stereo Review were guided by engineers measuring gear and searching for components that were leading the way during a time when many failed badly at being even near transparent.
The idea that one must have 11 or more "perfectly matched" or identical speakers for Atmos is utter bullshit. I guess if your front R&L are tall floorstanders, then you should hang identical ones from the ceiling. Yet people that evidently have never even set up an Atmos speaker system are experts in what sounds good with one.
Give me a break.
Quad is cool, been there, done that, moved on to better. I never fault people on what they like, but I will call out such nonsensical ideas.
Give me a break.
Quad is cool, been there, done that, moved on to better. I never fault people on what they like, but I will call out such nonsensical ideas.
Ranasakawa
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
I have been trying to get my 7.1 system sounding right. The extra 2 speakers are cluttering the sound in my opinion. Some music is good but overall it is not as an easy listening experience for me as my original 5 1 set up
WooHoo Wow, a media room with a train, no wonder I like you.Since others have posted pics, here's one of my 7.1.4 AV layout with a VOG speaker in the ceiling center. The rear surrounds are against the back wall and not shown. @MTB Vince 's AV room puts it to shame. Again, fantastic job with your room Vince! (But you need to add a giant model railroad circling around it.)
View attachment 82442
For whatever reason, I never had 7 base speakers until I got into Atmos. So in case of my 7.1.4 setup I can def tell a difference in sound vs 5.1.2 or 5.1.4.
Are you using one of your AVR's upmix functions to go from 5.1 to 7.1?
I have got my eye on a pair of La Scala Al 5. As a owner what is your opinion?After making a major life altering move and spending several months changing lifestyles I finally have my HT all setup. Although my room is not as large as the last one it seems to work well and all sound really good. My room is 13.5w x 17' and houses a 7.2.2 Klipsch Atmos setup, small klipsch dub and a Monlith 12" sub. I have attached some pics. As far as my life altering move goes we bought a house on the beach in Panama
. Oh here is a short video too from my patio. Spoiled.... yes! View attachment 97981
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,072
There's a range for everything.
Many people here probably have experience with matched speakers vs not with stereo. You hear a phantom center image for mono content eerily well with matched. This is an audiophile thing. It extends to multi speaker surround the same way. Can you wing it a little and still get the big picture? Sure! You're going to miss stuff if you stray too far. At least in the kind of mixes that are really starting to use and demand the full system just how we always wanted.
Maybe another way to put it is that I really do think fidelity matters before channel count.
I am wondering did you install your acoustic treatments in increments?
The reason I ask, I installed GIK Acoustic, Bass (2) Traps, side acoustic (5) absorbers, and rear acoustic (4) diffusers.
I did all of that, then turned on the machine and Holy Cow, was an immediate BIG BETTER sound, way more than anything I had done previous while building my rig.
Back to your cloud, when I last communicated with GIK Acoustics, telling them how happy I was and would they offer any extra advice, they said, you may want to put a ceiling absorber over your listening area, that would be in-between my two front and two rear ceiling speakers.
I never did, that's why I ask you the question.
Matched speakers would always be the most desirable. That it would be unrealistic to place floorstanders on the ceiling is exactly why I think Atmos is somewhat flawed from the beginning. Also it is needlessly complex, but the fact that it can be scaled up and down is it's virtue. You seem to believe that that scaling is a no no.
Quad is cool, no need for me to move on. Back in the day there was optimism that Quad would soon replace stereo, the same way stereo virtually replaced mono. I think that belief not fulfilled led to its abandonment. Does anyone believe that Atmos will eventually replace stereo? It is not for everyone. The use of subpar speakers and lossy delivery systems means that it will never fly in the Audiophile world.
Last edited:
I have just finished reading all 11 pages, great to read everyone's comments and answers, I also learned a little.
I am just going to point out a little thing and my apologies if I didn't catch it as someone else commented.
Regarding the layout of speakers, the first number is your floor bed, this will be normally the 5 or the 7.
The second number will be the LFE out, generally into a subwoofer.
Some AVR's or Pre/Pros will have one or two LFE outs. I have never seen more than two, have you?
The third number is your height speakers and we have seen many pictures on this thread, no one is wrong, whether they be in ceiling or on ceiling.
My system is considered a 5.2.4.
So for instance my listening system is 5, right/left front-center-right/left rear.
.2 my system is two subs connected LFE, however I have a 3rd sub that is connected to the speaker terminals of the center speaker, adds a little depth. Even though I have 3 subs, it is not considered a .3.
Last I have 4 in ceiling height speakers, two front of my listening and two back of my listening, firing down of course but adjustable tweeters angled towards my head.
I have manual adjustments to my db volume to each speaker as I sit about 6" off center. The DB volume of heights are turned up the highest at 5-6db over the foundation speakers, the 5.
I hope this helps someone. I'm sorry if I'm doubling down on what was already pointed out.
If my media room was used for the paying public I am sure I would be more precise, but being it's just me, I can be a little looser.
Happy New Year, oh and regarding the sound of our systems, there is no denying a big bottle of alcohol really makes things sound fantastic.
Two weeks ago I saw U2 at The Sphere in Las Vegas, absolutely incredible, if you get a chance please go. I wonder what they would say in our little QQ world, the Sphere has 160 thousand speakers I think I read, anyway a very lot.
I am just going to point out a little thing and my apologies if I didn't catch it as someone else commented.
Regarding the layout of speakers, the first number is your floor bed, this will be normally the 5 or the 7.
The second number will be the LFE out, generally into a subwoofer.
Some AVR's or Pre/Pros will have one or two LFE outs. I have never seen more than two, have you?
The third number is your height speakers and we have seen many pictures on this thread, no one is wrong, whether they be in ceiling or on ceiling.
My system is considered a 5.2.4.
So for instance my listening system is 5, right/left front-center-right/left rear.
.2 my system is two subs connected LFE, however I have a 3rd sub that is connected to the speaker terminals of the center speaker, adds a little depth. Even though I have 3 subs, it is not considered a .3.
Last I have 4 in ceiling height speakers, two front of my listening and two back of my listening, firing down of course but adjustable tweeters angled towards my head.
I have manual adjustments to my db volume to each speaker as I sit about 6" off center. The DB volume of heights are turned up the highest at 5-6db over the foundation speakers, the 5.
I hope this helps someone. I'm sorry if I'm doubling down on what was already pointed out.
If my media room was used for the paying public I am sure I would be more precise, but being it's just me, I can be a little looser.
Happy New Year, oh and regarding the sound of our systems, there is no denying a big bottle of alcohol really makes things sound fantastic.
Two weeks ago I saw U2 at The Sphere in Las Vegas, absolutely incredible, if you get a chance please go. I wonder what they would say in our little QQ world, the Sphere has 160 thousand speakers I think I read, anyway a very lot.
Never said or believed scaling is bad, I think quite the opposite, to be clear. My introduction to Atmos was with a 5.1.2 AVR which I still have, I just eventually moved up to a 7.1.4 capable AVR about 13 months ago.
I was early into Quad and had quite a good system, BTW, and I still own some CD-4 and SQ LP's purchased in the early - mid 70's.
If you are happy with Quad, I have no argument with that. I'm just saying if you haven't heard a properly set up Atmos system then you have no room to tell others what's good or bad about it.
Who says my speakers are subpar? They may not be mega money speakers, but one does what one can. All 11 are enclosed speakers, pointing at the MLP.
The corners are matched, as are the 4 top speakers.
What lossy delivery system? If you mean the streaming DD+ then OK. Do you think the mlpa codec is lossy?
I have experience with a lot of stuff. I'm older than dirt. lol.
Of course fidelity matters. But I don't understand this harping on having all identical speakers as some do. Have you looked at any pics of some of the studio's where Atmos is actually being mixed? Do you see 11 identical speakers? There's interviews of Steven Wilson and probably others on Youhootube sitting in their mixing studio.
-----------
Seems like a bunch of snobbery always enters into discussions about Atmos. For those that have all identical speakers, I think that's great if that's your thing, but people thinking about taking the leap from 4 or 5 speakers upwards don't need to be told that their endeavors are useless because it doesn't meet a few people's opinions on a forum.
Like comments I see that "room correction software is useless" blah blah blah. Just uniformed personal opinions.
I'm wasting my time here. People are going to do what they are going to do, and everyone else is wrong. NOT my style or belief.
My assumption, they can't be as good as the mains.
That is good.
Yes, most Atmos seems to be delivered that way. I'm not a fan of streaming.
Sorry if you feel that I rant against Atmos. I have a right to express my opinion. Everytime I say that I listen to Atmos in 4.0 I feel that some of you have to attack me almost as if I've committed a sin against god Atmos!
Similar threads
