More channels = more problems

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My problem with all of it, and the reason I have made no effort to upgrade as of yet, is the lack of well done music that has been released and the preference for releasing what is available only on streaming platforms. Abbey Road works for me. The REM AFTP might work for me. The Stones GHS was a flop. The Lennon stuff seems meh. I can't think of any other titles that truly interest me. Did miss any? I cant listen to Techno. I don't watch movies. I see no value.... yet.
 
I certainly hope it's not doomed, and I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade. I'm glad I have it, and I'm going to keep fighting the good fight. But, we've all been down this road, many times.

New format launched - expensive demands made on end user - confusing technology - lack of support - lack of titles - new releases dry up - deemed failure for "lack of sales, lack of interest"

The industry just loves to do this - make all the same mistakes over again, and then blame the customers.

At this point I'm a pessimist - I've been burned too many times. But, hey, in the meantime, I'll buy what they put out, and enjoy it while I can.

What we really need is to find a way to digitally capture the tidal materials - that can disappear at any moment, and I don't see any sign of physical release of that stuff. Not sure how that could be pulled off - would require some sort of hdmi hacking and capturing I suppose.

Well, the shittiest, hardest to implement, most expensive demands on the user - special cartridge & stylus, low cap <100pF cables (tell me how many know what a pF is - sheesh), even tweaked anti-skate setting - format ever made was CD-4! And some of us still try to play those damn FU'd records ;) AoQ - it was the same or worse in the quad era as you're complaining about - confusing formats that the avg consumer didn't know or care about - RM,QS/SQ/Ambisonics/CD4. The need for at least 3 decoders in the receiver or outboard to play the LP's, built-in or thru tape loops. I wouldn't call that easy, straight-forward or cost effective. Plus the early decoders were ~3 dB separation - hardly a lot to enhance stereo! Modern surround like Atmos was completely mature on its release and adds far more to 5.1 than what early quad added to stereo. No comparison.

Sorry but your position doesn't hold up when viewed through the lens of how much effort, gear, money it cost us to play several hundred & maybe more LP's. I won't even mention Q8 or R2R tapes. Q8 is the lowest of low fi in that era and 4 ch R2R was expensive, fewer gear and who wants to screw around fast forwarding & rewinding tapes to find a particular song.

"I've been burned too many times" Me too.
"But, hey, in the meantime, I'll buy what they put out, and enjoy it while I can." Same here.

I prefer discs or files that I own but I have adapted to streaming music from Qobuz and watching original programming on Netflix and Prime.
 
I'm kind of at a loss reading through this thread. I've had Atmos for a number of years, did it right with overhead ceiling mounted speakers, not the reflecting modules and overall had no problems with hardware or setup issues. I started with a Marantz AV8802a prepro and now a Trinnov Altitude 16.

It all works, it's solid, and gives me no problems.

This is not meant for just AoQ but you do have to use hardware that supports the format ;) An Oppo 93 or earlier type of player won't cut it since it can't pass the Dolby TrueHD Atmos metadata. Again no offense to anyone here but this was known from the beginning IF one had sifted through the various mfg support info, and even discussed for a long time on AVSForum. An older BD player in this timeframe wouldn't work. For Oppo, it was clearly noted that you need an 103/105 or 203/205 to pass Atmos. Just bitstream alone isn't all that's needed. It has to pass the specific metadata and the chipsets used in earlier players won't. For Atmos, DTS-X, just get a $200 Sony 1100ES UHD player, a AVR with at least HDMI 1.4 and you're good, the Sony also plays SACD & DVDA, unlike some other UHD players.

Atmos works with HDMI 1.4 although in my case both processors and the players are 2.0.

The main issue with Atmos is not the hardware but the mixers use of it an the platform you use! For music, it adds a lot to the surround field.

For movies, how well it enhances the experience highly depends on the studio and specific mix. For example, Disney titles are notorious for having dumbed down Atmos - weaker bass, fixed instead of moving objects - we call it print-out or hard coded mixes since they use fixed 7.x.2 or 7.x.4 channels instead of objects that can move between channels. For Disney, it's mostly fixed channel based. Some movies & Atmos series have very aggressive mixes with lots of moving objects. Some are pretty lame. With the Altitude, they have an object viewer as well as channel level meters in the software which make it easy to see how the movie/music is mixed.

Streaming platforms:

Netflix makes has consistent & good use of Atmos although some are 7.x.2 with limited objects and some like the space/scifi series Another Life has some of the most aggressive use of Atmos' moving objects of any movie or series I've heard.

OTOH, Amazon Prime is a very mixed bag. Their use of Atmos is inconsistent, at any given time, a series will be in Atmos and then it's dropped to just 5.1 with no explanation or logical reasons. For examples, S5 of The Expanse was in Atmos until several days before the last episode when Amazon reverted it to 5.1 for about a month and then back to Atmos again. Go figure. Jack Ryan, Carnival Row, Hanna were the same, it's Atmos for awhile, then 5.1 then back to Atmos. Jack Ryan in Atmos is 99.9% 7.1 anyway; only a brief moment of overhead use even in action scenes. Carnival Row was done pretty good by someone who knows how to use Atmos.

I can't comment on Atmos in Tidal or Amazon Music since I don't use those services. I use Qobuz which hasn't yet streamed Atmos music.

What I am a little surprised about is some of the posts and denigration of Atmos (doomed? - I think not, it's standard in nearly all hardware). Some of these posts remind me of what I read back in the 70s in the quadraphonic era regarding how quad was dumb, a PITA vs stereo, didn't add much, was harder to implement, needed more speakers. Here it is >40 yrs later and all of us are still playing & value our quad recordings. The same arguments that used to diss quadraphonic sound and formats are being used to diss Atmos. I find that rather ironic ;)

I'm 70 so it's not an age thing...you either change gear and add speakers to use new surround technology and surround formats or you don't. But you can't use old gear and expect it to work. I still have and use legacy quad decoders so I'm not abandoning "purist" stereo or quad. Atmos is an addition not a replacement. I use the Altitude to play 5.1/4.0 and stereo too.

Atmos can be thrilling or it can be disappointing...it's up to the studio or recording label, the mixer's creativity or lack of it regardless of movies or music. I have some Atmos music (and movies) that are really mind enhancing ;)Sounds from all over the place. If you want to hear some of what Atmos can do for music, REM Automatic for the People, Abbey Road, some electronica and if you get your hands on one, the Dolby Atmos demo discs. The muisic clips are amazing! DTS-X and Auro also make for great surround & overhead mixes.

I just had to add my perspective. When done right, immersive audio like Atmos is fantastic, the same as I feel about great quad mixes today & 40 yrs ago. And adding Auromatic or DSU upmixing on top of a great 4.0 SACD like Miles Davis Bitches' Brew really adds to the surround experience.
You make some excellent points here; but I'm still on the fence and in no hurry. I guess it's what came first the Chicken or the Egg (Gear or Content) still waiting for all that "audio/music" content that was supposedly promised to materialize. Of course with the last year of the Global pandemic, that could have slowed things?

For us older folks, it's much more of an uphill battle to get the best facts and make a move to get the work done correctly. I don't think I'd want anything less than a 5.1.4 with in ceiling height speakers, and that's a major upgrade for me.

Kudos to AoQ for even attempting all this. And in a world of younger folks only knowing some compressed mp3 files on their smart phones in stereo; this will be a long hard slog I believe for the audio/video industry.

And hey BTW @ArmyOfQuad; don't forget about this one; I hear it's another killer title in Atmos.
 
My problem with all of it, and the reason I have made no effort to upgrade as of yet, is the lack of well done music that has been released and the preference for releasing what is available only on streaming platforms. Abbey Road works for me. The REM AFTP might work for me. The Stones GHS was a flop. The Lennon stuff seems meh. I can't think of any other titles that truly interest me. Did miss any? I cant listen to Techno. I don't watch movies. I see no value.... yet.

Do you buy the D-V SACDs of Ray Conniff singers or Hugh Montenegro? ;) I wouldn't call that inspiring music but some here are buying them just because they're quad.

I admit that so far, Atmos by a long shot is for movies and some series. It's become a norm for Netflix. IF all you care about is music, then have you looked at some 2L titles? Classical, vocals & some new age-ish but the Atmos enhances the ambience. Have you considered Abbey Road?

And if no value to you yet, then I would feel the same.
 
For us older folks, it's much more of an uphill battle to get the best facts and make a move to get the work done correctly. I don't think I'd want anything less than a 5.1.4 with in ceiling height speakers, and that's a major upgrade for me.

Agree completely, don't bother with 5.1.2. Many of us feel the sweet spot is 7.1.6 or 7.1.4 even with our high channel count processors. My norm is 7.1.6 but I have presets for 9.1.6 that use dual surrounds and also ones for just quadraphonic with no overheads.

An alternative to in-ceilings are on-ceilings, ceiling mounted. I used good Tannoy outdoor type speakers but SVS and others make speakers that are mounted on the ceiling or wall for Atmos. SVS Elevations come to mind, but there are others. Roger Dressler who used to work for Dolby uses JBL on-ceilings I believe. I couldn't handle the wire fishing needed for in-ceilings - cost and having to cross multiple studs - so I mounted to the ceiling at the correct locations and ran the wire in raceway - looks OK in my dedicated room and DIY.
 
Do you buy the D-V SACDs of Ray Conniff singers or Hugh Montenegro? ;) I wouldn't call that inspiring music but some here are buying them just because they're quad.
No. I do not buy releases just because of the format. I do not own any Ray Conniff or Hugh Montenegro

I admit that so far, Atmos by a long shot is for movies and some series. It's become a norm for Netflix. IF all you care about is music, then have you looked at some 2L titles? Classical, vocals & some new age-ish but the Atmos enhances the ambience. Have you considered Abbey Road?
And if no value to you yet, then I would feel the same.
I dont enjoy Classical, or New Age, or Electronica, regardless of format. I thrive on Classic Rock, Soft Rock and Prog. I own Abbey Road and the Kenny Wayne Shepherd release. I dont avoid stuff because its in Atmos. Those are the only two releases I own based on musical taste. With the Quad, SACD, DVDA, BDA rollouts I could choose from dozens if not hundreds of releases based on what I liked. Not so with Atmos.

This codec has been out for years now. Where's the goods?
 
New format launched - expensive demands made on end user - confusing technology - lack of support - lack of titles - new releases dry up - deemed failure for "lack of sales, lack of interest"

The industry just loves to do this - make all the same mistakes over again, and then blame the customers.

Deja Vu (again)

What we really need is to find a way to digitally capture the tidal materials

Capturing the stream and saving to a file been around a while apparently. I’ve not tried.
 
This might be a saving grace.

Tidal Atmos streaming is lossy16 bit 768kbps vs 4000kbps when on BD (48/24 TrueHD). That’s not going to viewed favourably by the audiophile in us all.

EDIT: I can hear problems with DTS at 768kbps as 6 channels (5.1). Atmos is potentially 16 channels squeezed into 768!
 
No. I do not buy releases just because of the format. I do not own any Ray Conniff or Hugh Montenegro


I dont enjoy Classical, or New Age, or Electronica, regardless of format. I thrive on Classic Rock, Soft Rock and Prog. I own Abbey Road and the Kenny Wayne Shepherd release. I dont avoid stuff because its in Atmos. Those are the only two releases I own based on musical taste. With the Quad, SACD, DVDA, BDA rollouts I could choose from dozens if not hundreds of releases based on what I liked. Not so with Atmos.

This codec has been out for years now. Where's the goods?

Yup, I too share the sentiment for more classic rock, prog-rock in Atmos needed! Steven Wilson started to mix in Atmos so we could see eventually see more Yes, King Crimson, Jethro Tull and others from him.

I do like what's been done with other genres like some classical and electronica but I understand that if there's zero interest, it's no sale. In your case and if movies aren't a big deal, I also would hold off. Understand completely. In my own case, movies were the driving factor. I didn't jump in either, waited several years for 4K discs to start coming out. The gear, the specs and formats weren't mature; HDMI 1.4 wasn't going to pass 4K so I waited until the source, playback and display gear fell into place. No sense buying HDMI 1.4 to have to replace it in 2-3 yrs to 2.0 for 4K.

In that respect, I do agree with some of you, been burned before buying gear that was soon obsoleted...a pet peeve of mine also.
 
Last edited:
Tidal Atmos streaming is lossy16 bit 768kbps vs 4000kbps when on BD (48/24 TrueHD). That’s not going to viewed favourably by the audiophile in us all.

EDIT: I can hear problems with DTS at 768kbps as 6 channels (5.1). Atmos is potentially 16 channels squeezed into 768!

Instead of using TrueHD, Prime & Netflix streaming use DD+ as the core. So Tidal isn't surprising. TBH, that's one reason why I stay with Qobuz - 44.1K is their minimum and much of their content is 96/24. They don't have Atmos but I would rather have their quality over Tidal having Atmos.
 
I think Atmos is aimed more at the theaters. Where sound is more professionally installed, balanced and tuned to the room. Trying to do an Atmos mix for an unknown home setup with who knows what speakers in whatever combination and mounted where esthetics issues rule proper placement seems to me to be an exercise in futility! I think my Marantz/Atmos setup sounds great for movies which is what I set it up for, and that took a while, but other program sources have very mixed and unstable results.
 
Instead of using TrueHD, Prime & Netflix streaming use DD+ as the core. So Tidal isn't surprising. TBH, that's one reason why I stay with Qobuz - 44.1K is their minimum and much of their content is 96/24. They don't have Atmos but I would rather have their quality over Tidal having Atmos.
I prefer it the the other way around,Atmos over sound quality as I don't listen to stereo in my music room. ;)
 
Yup, I too share the sentiment for more classic rock, prog-rock in Atmos needed! Steven Wilson started to mix in Atmos so we could see eventually see more Yes, King Crimson, Jethro Tull and others from him.

Yes, Yes, Yes. That music was made for technology like this. I cant believe the Floyd Boys havent yet tried to re-release (again) DSOTM in Atmos... dosent a theatrical track already exist? I have great hope for Steven Wilson. But he cant do it alone.

In that respect, I do agree with some of you, been burned before buying gear that was soon obsoleted...a pet peeve of mine also.
Dosent that Trinnov have a lot of upgrade capability? I wonder about this issue with respect to the gear. You can buy several models of Pre/Pros that claim to provide a viable upgrade path. The one in my price bracket is an Emotiva RMC-1. I marvel at the fact that It has expansion bays so, among other things, you can expand the number of channels in the future, if desired, I mean it already does 16 channels out of the box.... expand to what? 24? 32????? Mind boggeling 🤔
 
I think Atmos is aimed more at the theaters. Where sound is more professionally installed, balanced and tuned to the room. Trying to do an Atmos mix for an unknown home setup with who knows what speakers in whatever combination and mounted where esthetics issues rule proper placement seems to me to be an exercise in futility! I think my Marantz/Atmos setup sounds great for movies which is what I set it up for, and that took a while, but other program sources have very mixed and unstable results.
I find music sounds great in Atmos on my setup,but movies is a mixed bag.:cool:
 
In that respect, I do agree with some of you, been burned before buying gear that was soon obsoleted...a pet peeve of mine also.

It's not just the gear. It's the sparsity of musical material along with the release of top acts with an Atmos mix included only as part of pricey box sets. Yes, I bought Abbey Road and the Lennon set, but nothing else out there has interested me. Meanwhile, we've got the DV quad and Rhino Quadio releases that are excellent value.
 
Back
Top