2 Speakers are better than 5.1?

[par4ken]

A lot of B.S. there! Amplifiers sound very different. I will concede that more modern units have better sound than those of the past and will not likely sound very different. Vintage amps however, those from the golden age of the 1970's, most had quasi complementary outputs producing what I call "transistor sound". The higher priced units had complementary symmetry output stages, they sounded a bit better. Units utilising MosFet output sounded much better still. In the late seventies work was put into reducing Transient Intermodulation Distortion (TIM/TID) producing better sounding amplifiers.

Once almost forgotten tube amps had been around since the beginning. It has been said that it is impossible to build a bad sounding tube amp and I would mostly agree with that statement. Throughout the seventies my attention focused mostly on quad. Still I always thought that those old tube console stereos and radios sounded great! With the first release of "Glass Audio" I was sent into a tube building frenzy. Tubes produce subjectively better sound in part because they add a bit of harmonic distortion. I don't believe that that is the only reason however, a tube is a more linear device than a transistor is. For most signal processing you can't beat today's high end op-amps, even the venerable TL071 series sound fine. I would not bother to use tubes there. For phono preamps and for Mid/High power amplification I swear by them! Tubes are far more reliable than people give them credit for. I have had far more solid state amplifiers self destruct than any tube amplifier.

Interesting statement "buy well-recorded CD's"! Where do you find them these days?

 

[jimfisheye]

I think it's more a statement that amps made to deliver to spec do just that as long as you don't overload them. Dismissing the amps old and new that aren't made to deliver audio to spec in the first place. Or do other things like intentionally color the sound. I mean reasonable full frequency range, genuine snappy transient response, and low distortion by "to spec".

There were weird consumer amps back in the day that didn't do full range audio just like today. Maybe hit the frequencies but had awful transient response, for just one example.

The "color" stuff is additive after the fact. That blurs the line into the listener doing their own mastering presentation. In the same way tone controls could be called that.

Well, that's what I was thinking when I read that anyway. Maybe I'm just reading things into it!

 

[Sal1950]

In the late seventies work was put into reducing Transient Intermodulation Distortion (TIM/TID) producing better sounding amplifiers.

Oh brother, So you want to got back 50+ years, maybe even to a 201-A tube amp as in my Atwater Kent Model 20 Compact. LOL

Never mind, live in your audio fantasy world if your happy.
You can believe what you want but the math, measurement numbers, and science would prove you wrong in every topic you just covered.
Cheers

 

[par4ken]

Oh brother, So you want to got back 50+ years, maybe even to a 201-A tube amp as in my Atwater Kent Model 20 Compact. LOL
View attachment 98267
Never mind, live in your audio fantasy world if your happy.
You can believe what you want but the math, measurement numbers, and science would prove you wrong in every topic you just covered.
Cheers

I'm sure that would sound very nice indeed! I have never heard anything that uses tubes sound bad.

 

[par4ken]

A lot written about the listening room. Most of us have a typical listening room that while not perfect is likely not that bad either. Carpet drapes and soft furnishings all help to reduce excessive reflections. The only really bad sounding rooms I've encountered are large mostly empty, hard walls etc. I have never felt the need to treat my own listening room. I don't think that listening inside an anechoic chamber would be very satisfying!

 

[jimfisheye]

A lot written about the listening room. Most of us have a typical listening room that while not perfect is likely not that bad either. Carpet drapes and soft furnishings all help to reduce excessive reflections. The only really bad sounding rooms I've encountered are large mostly empty, hard walls etc. I have never felt the need to treat my own listening room. I don't think that listening inside an anechoic chamber would be very satisfying!

The bit about the carpet and drapes and soft furnishings is treating the room. Sounds like you have proved it to yourself!

Maybe it's not perfect but it might be closer to right than wrong.

Surround begs getting a little more serious or it gets to be a mess. 12 channels with speakers on the ceiling even more so!

 

[par4ken]

The bit about the carpet and drapes and soft furnishings is treating the room. Sounds like you have proved it to yourself!

Yes but my point is that is in the typical listening room already. No need for additional room treatment in most cases.

Surround begs getting a little more serious or it gets to be a mess. 12 channels with speakers on the ceiling even more so!

That is where you should have a dedicated home theater room. Myself I have no interest in more than four channels, my untreated Living Room and Man Cave (basement) with typical furnishings is just fine. IMHO you want a room that has a balance of sound absorption with some reflectivity. Pull out all the stops with a purpose built room but I would rather have a rec room that more resembles a bar/pub than a movie theatre.

I find this Atmos thing rather amusing. I don't meant to scoff, but why when people would not accept four channels/speakers did Dolby keep doubling down by adding more and more! Object based, no channel limit?

 

[jimfisheye]

I wasn't exactly pining for more channels with 5.1. But someone did it. And then people started making mixes for it. Just like people making mixes in 5.1 that I wanted to hear led to adding a center channel, the new thing led to more speakers once again. Can't very well have 12 channel mixes out in the world and not be able to listen to them! And I mean on the same 12 channels. "Because" is a good enough reason for me on that. Fidelity still comes first for me. I'm not impressed by lackluster surround mixes just for the channel count.

The brochure speak around object use like it's some mystery and unlimited channels or whatever is hot air. These are mix tools the listener doesn't care about. The mix is made on a speaker system to sound a certain way. Put up the same speaker array to play it back if you want to hear what the engineer heard. The object system up/down mixes to other arrays better than past systems. That's all that's for. It's a crafty good system too! But that's all it's for. Moot point for 1:1 playback.

Anyway, ours go up to 12!

 

[Sal1950]

I'm sure that would sound very nice indeed! I have never heard anything that uses tubes sound bad.

Maybe it's your hearing?

 

[barfle]

I also do not have deep pockets. I hate the fact that they are turning surround sound into an expensive hobby. I do not want Atmos or anything else that requires an expensive speaker array, an expensive player, an expensive recording format. I want a standard system that can be set up by anyone and which uses media that reaches through the ages.

Whatever system is used should work with LP, CD, and FM radio.

I don’t believe that our hobby has to be “expensive,” although, as we all know, ivory and platinum power-cable lifters can add quite a bit to the price of an audio system, and they’re probably not worth it.

As a retired engineer, thee cost/performance tradeoff has always been part of my being. In my system, probably the only “top-line” product I bought is my Oppo 105, which was about as good as you could get at the time, and it was about a grand. I had to save up for it, and in spite of a handful of glitches, it’s my go-to source most of the time. But the rest of the gear fits my definition of “pretty good,” and that’s all I need.

In building my room, well, first, we were buying a new house anyway, having moved 90% of the way across the country, and one of our wants was a room I could build a theater in. I’m retired, so I have the luxury of being able to do hobby work during the week, but the work in that room is 99% mine. the only things I had done by others was running two 20A lines (part of a kitchen remodel) and carpet installation. I learned a handful,of new skills along the way, including wood-finishing, which I believe I got right this time.

I’ve also been buying and upgrading for over 50 years, one or two pieces at a time. I’m on my third SQ decoder, third set of (front) speakers, third tuner/preamp/processor, etc.

Yes, like any hobby other than collecting rocks, it takes some money and some dedication. It is something you WANT to do bad enough that you want to do it well, and tomorrow you’re probably going to want to do it better.

And my room works with LP, CD, and FM (and AM) radio.

 

[barfle]

A lot written about the listening room. Most of us have a typical listening room that while not perfect is likely not that bad either. Carpet drapes and soft furnishings all help to reduce excessive reflections. The only really bad sounding rooms I've encountered are large mostly empty, hard walls etc. I have never felt the need to treat my own listening room. I don't think that listening inside an anechoic chamber would be very satisfying!

My room, as noted above and in my build thread in my sig, has some room treatment as part of my original build. There is a new wall behind the “stage” that first blocks light from windows in the front of the house and second divides the room from a small computer and workbench space. That wall has drywall on the shop side, with recycled denim insulation between the studs. I covered that on the theater side with speaker grill cloth, so the reflections from the front wall are minimized. I also put in a “floating” floor, mostly for sound isolation.

My room, because of my own desire to house my media collection in the room, is not symmetrical. The right side of the listening area is against a wall, and the left side is the aisle and shelves. So the right side is far more likely to suffer from reflections than the right side is.

I’m lucky that my sister likes to quilt. I’m having her make a wall-hanging to go in the reflecive spot on the left wall. That’s not done, and the room will require recalibrating after I hang it, but it gets recalibrated a couple of times a year anyway.

 

[artwwweb]

I can bore for Britain

In a forum like this, there is no such thing as a bore, only an expert!

 

[Marplot]

Some snarkiness aside, I am rather enjoying this thread as I get ready to move and finally have a dedicated space for my use.
I am looking at ATMOS 7.1.4 and am hoping to see a deal on a Denon AVR-X6700H over the next few weeks.

 

[AYanguas]

It is like ... "I have had a dream..."

To have "a dedicated space space for my use"

 

[stoopid]

A lot written about the listening room. Most of us have a typical listening room that while not perfect is likely not that bad either. Carpet drapes and soft furnishings all help to reduce excessive reflections. The only really bad sounding rooms I've encountered are large mostly empty, hard walls etc. I have never felt the need to treat my own listening room. I don't think that listening inside an anechoic chamber would be very satisfying!

This has been my experience as well. My home studio isn't treated, but between the carpeted floors and wall of sleeping bags hanging behind me where some wall treatments would typically be needed (we're outdoorsy types) and curtains for the window, there's miniscule reflection and coloring taking place. The living room / theater / surround space could probably use some treatment, but it's certainly more than acceptable. There's an attached dining/kitchen area and staircase for sound to escape and never return. So I guess knowing what to listen for and making reasonable judgments about what those ears are hearing plays a part in whether an expense in treatment (financial and cosmetic) is justified. There's no single solution to fit every room, and sometimes the solution is that there's nothing needed because the issues are so miniscule it would be akin to chasing ghosts.

Room treatment is a common discussion in home recording and the general rule of thumb is to setup the room with some intent, but mostly set it up for an ideal listening stage with some distance from the monitors THEN address any issues with wall treatments, traps, etc. Approached from this angle saves time and money (instead of putting the cart before the horse, decide if a cart is even needed and how large). Assuming every room needs thousands of $$$$ in treatment is erroneous. So the idea is to set things as close to text book as possible and then strategically correct any issues.

 

[inspclouseau]

This has been my experience as well. My home studio isn't treated, but between the carpeted floors and wall of sleeping bags hanging behind me where some wall treatments would typically be needed (we're outdoorsy types) and curtains for the window, there's miniscule reflection and coloring taking place. The living room / theater / surround space could probably use some treatment, but it's certainly more than acceptable. There's an attached dining/kitchen area and staircase for sound to escape and never return. So I guess knowing what to listen for and making reasonable judgments about what those ears are hearing plays a part in whether an expense in treatment (financial and cosmetic) is justified. There's no single solution to fit every room, and sometimes the solution is that there's nothing needed because the issues are so miniscule it would be akin to chasing ghosts.

Room treatment is a common discussion in home recording and the general rule of thumb is to setup the room with some intent, but mostly set it up for an ideal listening stage with some distance from the monitors THEN address any issues with wall treatments, traps, etc. Approached from this angle saves time and money (instead of putting the cart before the horse, decide if a cart is even needed and how large).

NOTHING wrong with outdoorsy either!

 

[DrKlahn]

This is an interesting discussion. Our downstairs room is "dedicated" as a space for music and movies, but wasn't built from the studs out for this. I have a little bit of sound treatment and the normal attempts to chase down rattles and such. I've been on several what we call theater crawls on AVS. Basically several people open up their rooms for enthusiasts to experience. Most recently was in the Twin Cites in Minnesota this spring. We've done some here in Iowa and have gone down to Kansas City to tour their rooms.

With hearing a mix of spaces that were custom built and rooms like mine that are existing spaces, there's certainly benefits to the custom space. Having said that, this doesn't mean that Atmos requires this sort of space. With the right equipment and placement in a normal room, Atmos sounds great. So, in my opinion based on experiencing a variety of spaces I don't feel Atmos requires a purpose built space. A bit of effort and planning will result in a great experience.

With streaming spatial audio, multichannel discs and concert/films I feel it's certainly worthwhile to pursue more channels than just 4 or 5. They'll obviously be a limit to what you can fit in your room, but even a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 setup is going to open up a more immersive experience.

 

[MidiMagic]

I forgot, as well as carpet on the floor I have artex on the ceiling. It was there when I bought the house, but it means the ceiling is a textured surface rather than flat and that will break up reflections. I have no idea how much difference it makes, and it is far too much work to remove it to find out.

I used a carpet for different reasons. My brother dropped a record on a concrete floor and it shattered.

 

[MidiMagic]

Yes but my point is that is in the typical listening room already. No need for additional room treatment in most cases.

That is where you should have a dedicated home theater room. Myself I have no interest in more than four channels, my untreated Living Room and Man Cave (basement) with typical furnishings is just fine. IMHO you want a room that has a balance of sound absorption with some reflectivity. Pull out all the stops with a purpose built room but I would rather have a rec room that more resembles a bar/pub than a movie theatre.

I find this Atmos thing rather amusing. I don't meant to scoff, but why when people would not accept four channels/speakers did Dolby keep doubling down by adding more and more! Object based, no channel limit?

Maybe to reduce the cogging effect by making smaller cogging steps between speakers.

5.1 two 90 degree cogs
7.1 four 45 degree cogs

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

You can't have cogging if most of the population is listening in mono!

Youngsters seem to dislike stereo, forget about surround, in my experience. One earbud, mono Bluetooth speakers is the norm. Many mixes these days also have most elements center-panned. Amateur mixing engineers are emphasizing mono compatibly more than ever right now. I don't even consider mono compatibility.

Recently I tried showing a friend the difference between stereo and surround. They immediately responded on how amazed they were at the directionality and movement. And then I had to inform them...that I hadn't played the surround yet. It was the stereo. For comparison to the surround.

The main point I really want to drive home is that most people don't sit down and listen to music these days, it remains in the background. That is the fundamental shift in music consumption IMO that has caused the reduction of speakers in the average consumer system.