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]

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.

There shouldn't be any reason to maintain a separate 5.1 setup. I don't know of a single person local that does who enjoys spatial audio. My own room was 5.1 for a while, then 7.1, 7.2.2 and finally 7.2.4. No issues encountered with sound quality expanding out. 5.1 didn't change, though changing preamps did impact things due to how different manufacturers handled things. Denon/Marantz can force upmixing if not using Pure Mode on some models. I ran into it on my 7702MK2 and it was one of the reasons I got rid of it. I suspect something like that is happening if 5.1 somehow sounds worse on an Atmos setup.

You verified this is the exact same mix and you've done this with assistance to allow for completely blind level matched testing right?

 

[LuvMyQuad]

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.

I'm going to reply here and then bow out of this thread for good. You truly have no idea what it is you are comparing, but continue to make unscientific but definitive claims based on fallacy.

Others on this forum have noted the same poor performance of the Oppos when converting from DSD to PCM. Apparently, it's something the Oppos do not do particularly well. To begin with, the conversion is by definition, a lossy one. Also in my experience, the conversion itself causes a small level mismatch, which you do not have a way to compensate for, but will most certainly affect what you hear Your casual comparison is not comparing formats in any absolute sense. It judges the Oppos ability to make the DSD to PCM conversion on the fly. And all this scrutiny for a format that is essentially dead anyway.

With few exceptions, all DSD starts life as some other format. Either analog tape, or PCM. It is then converted to DSD for the final product. But somehow, that final conversion makes all the difference, right? That conversion has the ability to make a version that is better than the original using it's native format.

I'm done.

 

[scottm18]

There shouldn't be any reason to maintain a separate 5.1 setup.
I'm actually not sure why he keeps the two independent systems,...whether it is for channel reasons or sound quality reasons. I do know one thing: super high-end Classe separates (preamp/amp) components (used for 5.1) are going to blow the doors off of any mass-market Marantz receiver (used for Atmos).

I'm going to reply here and then bow out of this thread for good.

I understand your position. Thanks LMQ for the insights & suggestions I appreciate it. This thread is now grown nine pages so I'm going to reread everything this weekend and look into some of the mentioned suggestions. I have a lot of options to mull over...

 

[DrKlahn]

There shouldn't be any reason to maintain a separate 5.1 setup.
I'm actually not sure why he keeps the two independent systems,...whether it is for channel reasons or sound quality reasons. I do know one thing: super high-end Classe separates (preamp/amp) components (used for 5.1) are going to blow the doors off of any mass-market Marantz receiver (used for Atmos).

I'm going to reply here and then bow out of this thread for good.

I understand your position. Thanks LMQ for the insights & suggestions I appreciate it. This thread is now grown nine pages so I'm going to reread everything this weekend and look into some of the mentioned suggestions. I have a lot of options to mull over...

Not necessarily. Progress marches ever forward. Depends a lot on the capabilities of what is being compared.

 

[Owen Smith]

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.

And you have PCM and DSD copies that are gain matched and identically mastered? And you've done this as a double blind A/B comparison?

 

[Owen Smith]

super high-end Classe separates (preamp/amp) components (used for 5.1) are going to blow the doors off of any mass-market Marantz receiver (used for Atmos).

Most of us are not suggesting for one moment that you get a mass market Marantz for Atmos, or any other purpose.

 

[Sal1950]

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.

Right on point there Jim, garbage in garbage out, as we used to say.
Red book CD is nearly 100% transparent to it's source, only at the measurement extremes
can anything of audible value be found possibly missing. And real world bias controlled DBT results have yet to show any weakness.

 

[scottm18]

Most of us are not suggesting for one moment that you get a mass market Marantz for Atmos, or any other purpose.

I worded things a little oddly, but that's what my friend uses for his Atmos side... Again, the brand 8015 is certainly no slouch, but it's a far cry from his 5.1 side which is top-line Classe components.

I almost forgot about another option I have contemplated that's of similar ilk: A completely separate soundbar that would fit on my existing cabinet or something similar to a Sony HT-A9 "smart speaker" system (or new replacement model). That way I'd have my regular system for stereo /5.1 and the sound bar equivalent for Atmos. I've also looked at the Sennheiser ones.. although the beast one is too big the mid one would probably do just fine...and the symmetrical room would have some pretty good bounce effects.

Again...lots to contemplate this holiday weekend.

 

[DrKlahn]

Most of us are not suggesting for one moment that you get a mass market Marantz for Atmos, or any other purpose.

I worded things a little oddly, but that's what my friend uses for his Atmos side... Again, the brand 8015 is certainly no slouch, but it's a far cry from his 5.1 side which is top-line Classe components.

I almost forgot about another option I have contemplated that's of similar ilk: A completely separate soundbar that would fit on my existing cabinet or something similar to a Sony HT-A9 "smart speaker" system (or new replacement model). That way I'd have my regular system for stereo /5.1 and the sound bar equivalent for Atmos. I've also looked at the Sennheiser ones.. although the beast one is too big the mid one would probably do just fine...and the symmetrical room would have some pretty good bounce effects.

Again...lots to contemplate this holiday weekend.

I think bounce/topper Atmos speakers would be a better option than a soundbar (though not really a fan of either to be honest). At least you would still utilize a much better base layer.

I'd still say your best bet is to save your money and get the AVM90 or something similar. This would improve your setup across the board. Then, if it all possible, setup some actual ceiling speakers (or near ceiling speakers if you can't swing it). Bouncing sound off the ceiling, like a topper or soundbar does, just doesn't work all that well in my experience. I used toppers for a bit. Better than nothing, but not nearly as good as actual ceiling speakers.

 

[Owen Smith]

A completely separate soundbar that would fit on my existing cabinet or something similar to a Sony HT-A9 "smart speaker" system (or new replacement model).

No, just no.

 

[Owen Smith]

I'd still say your best bet is to save your money and get the AVM90 or something similar. This would improve your setup across the board. Then, if it all possible, setup some actual ceiling speakers (or near ceiling speakers if you can't swing it).

Yes, that's my view. Replace your existing pre amp with a high quality Atmos capable processor, keeping your power amp. See how Atmos rendered to 5.1 sounds. And if you still aren't happy, add 4 ceiling speakers and power amp for them to go 5.1.4. In a room your size I wouldn't consider 7.1 or 7.1.4, and sticking with 5.1.4 avoids one of your concerns ie the switch from rears to rear surrounds plus rears and compatibility with quad or 5.1 material.

 

[MidiMagic]

Not necessarily. Progress marches ever forward. Depends a lot on the capabilities of what is being compared.

When new systems are incompatible with old, I call it regress, not progress.

 

[DrKlahn]

When new systems are incompatible with old, I call it regress, not progress.

While that's certainly an issue with any technology, I was referring to the sound quality advancements. Let's say for example you have a high quality 15 year old preamp. The advancements in DSP, DACs, Room EQ, bass management and support for better formats can certainly put a current midrange receiver well ahead of the older preamp.

 

[scottm18]

No, just no (soundbar mention)

I didn't think that would go over too well here. Talk about not equaling the audio quality I'm used to...

I said it was an Atmos option, I didn't say it was a good one

My best bet is probably sell the preamp and just get something like the AVM90 to future-proof things. I should still be able to get a good chunk of change for the classic preamp for the right person...one just sold a few months ago on HFS for still a good value.

 

[barfle]

While I understand most of the science regarding audibility of differences between such things as bit depth and compression, I don’t doubt @scottm18 ’s claim for a preference between setups I can’t differentiate between.

A well-made CD sounds great, even MP3s can sound good.

Of course, I can generally hear the difference between mono and 5.1 (my current setup), although some of those “mixes” are pretty weak in the rears. And I often purchase 24/96k recordings, mostly because I believe they were recorded with care. But is there a clear difference between them and good CDs? Not to me, but I hear through my ears, not anyone else’s.

I heard an interview with an audio reviewer who said he can hear the difference between two highly-rated DACs - that there was something that he heard after extensive comparison and was then noticeable every time he listened.

Now, if he was making the claim about ivory and platinum power cable lifters, he’d have lost my respect. But he didn’t, so I’ll believe his claim. Not that it would apply to me, though.

 

[Sal1950]

When new systems are incompatible with old, I call it regress, not progress.

I've been doing this since the mid 1970s and very seldom does new tech
appear that isn't in some way backway compatable. The only place I can see
that with my latest Denon AVR is it's inablity to decode the SQ, QS, or CD4 quad
formats from back then. But those formats had been considered obsolete by
all except the hardcore enthusiasts like those here. Much the same as finding
a preamp that has a phono preamp with the proper playback EQ for 78 records.
I don't see any evil intent from this, time does march on after all.

 

[Owen Smith]

I've been doing this since the mid 1970s and very seldom does new tech
appear that isn't in some way backway compatable. The only place I can see
that with my latest Denon AVR is it's inablity to decode the SQ, QS, or CD4 quad
formats from back then. But those formats had been considered obsolete by
all except the hardcore enthusiasts like those here. Much the same as finding
a preamp that has a phono preamp with the proper playback EQ for 78 records.
I don't see any evil intent from this, time does march on after all.

I agree about legacy quad formats and 78s. What is criminal is Dolby dropping proper Pro Logic and Pro Logic II decoding of original Dolby Surround. The amount of 2 channel material encoded in that is vast.

 

[jimfisheye]

I often purchase 24/96k recordings, mostly because I believe they were recorded with care. But is there a clear difference between them and good CDs? Not to me

HD sample rates don't reveal some mystic extended audio range and give you something you haven't heard before. It's a more transparent pane of glass. SD can be genuinely as transparent if nothing went wrong. It's just easier to get smudges on the glass at SD. HD is a passive way to leave any dirt at the edges of the now very wide road and drive down the middle.

In an example where everything was done right the CD and 24/96 file should sound the same. They should even null down to 90 or 100db and only reveals some noise below that.

Aiming speakers at a wall and listening to the ricochet... I would hope no one is both claiming extraordinary hearing and a hobby of critiquing digital converters and also OK with shitbar listening.

I have Child In Time in my head now.

 

[Owen Smith]

Aiming speakers at a wall and listening to the ricochet...

My rear speakers are on wall brackets, laid on their backs firing straight up at the ceiling so I hear a reflection from the ceiling. I did this because there is nowhere else to put them, there's a window to one side and doors and furniture to the other side and the sofa is close to the rear wall. The speakers are rear ported which is handy as the ports firing downwards from about 5.5 feet off the floor avoids bass boom. I am constantly amazed how well this compromise works.

 

[jimfisheye]

Assuming you have that ricochet path time aligned for...

Everything is relative. There are certainly examples of speakers so bad that a better speaker bouncing off a wall would sound better. There aren't really full fidelity reflective surfaces. Maybe close... Good luck with that cave you have going with something like that.

All I'm saying is the juxtaposition of digital converter shootout talk with even ever considering something like a shitbar is absurdity.

Funny... A shitbar would be all but silenced in a heavily treated room.