I'll jump in one more time. It seems most people are really keen on this concept of immersion. The thing is realism is more important. While most of the posts here are people making reasonable claims, the one person who said you're better off with a $1,000 Atmos system just is clueless. What you get with a $1,000 Atmos system is immersive sounds of electric shavers overhead that are supposed to be Blackhawk helicopters. It won't sound very real man, the that sound is over my head!!!. The amount of air you need to move to approach the realism of those chopper blades over your head takes big-heavy magnets and well designed speakers that can handled the physics of moving lots of air and a cabinet that is rock solid so you hear the sound and not the rattling of the cabinet which will cause distortion. I won't get into all the technical aspects, it is much more complicated, except to say if anyone at the budget end might come close to the sound you want, it would be the company Elac who's chief speaker designer, Andrew Jones hails back to the early 1980's with KEF. Elac makes awesome speakers at affordable prices, but they're not focused on Atmos.
And it is not all about speakers. How about an amplifier designed by legendary Bob Carver? His old company Sunfire produced a 425 watt per channel-five channel Cinema Grand Signature. It's not all about power, though it helps, but that amp is dead quiet when it needs to be and can deliver a big bang a half second later, that's called headroom. That is how you get a Blackhawk sounding like a Blackhawk. Clean-quiet power and speakers that can move lots of air. I'll take that over immersive any day. Realism. THen let's not forget for the 65% of great films that don't have action sequences, all the Atoms stuff is a waste. I'm not sure watching Love Actually in Atmos is going to make it a better experience for anyone.
All that said, I always recommend to anyone who listens to make their setup easy, and buying the best components you can. An Oppo UHD player while they last (OPPO is closing down unfortunately), a really good amp and processor, and five great speakers instead of seven or ten OK speakers. I saw the Disney flick Brave, one of the early Atmos movies in a Atmos theater. It was distracting, not enhancing. You see with a 5.1 system the speakers in back are in back of everyone in the theater.. In Atmos the speaker over my head is behind the person sitting 12 rows up and is in front of the person sitting 12 rows back. Where's the sound coming from? It depends on where you sit. It might be immersive but it is confusing and complicated and it does not sell more theater tickets but costs the theater a lot more to install. That is why no one is pushing it commercially. The setup is easier in a home system because everyone sits a bit closer to the same place. And the makers of consumer hi-fi love selling you more new stuff. But if you want great sound, good luck hanging a 200 pound speaker over your ceiling in an Atmos setup.
Atmos is a marketing ploy as I said before. Marketing is Dolby's core strength. They are not what most people in the hi-fi world would call a high fidelity company. But if you want immersion, and it sounds like a lot of you do, then Atmos is the way to go. I'm sure you'll be happy.
I'll jump in one more time. It seems most people are really keen on this concept of immersion. The thing is realism is more important. While most of the posts here are people making reasonable claims, the one person who said you're better off with a $1,000 Atmos system just is clueless. What you get with a $1,000 Atmos system is immersive sounds of electric shavers overhead that are supposed to be Blackhawk helicopters. It won't sound very real man, the that sound is over my head!!!. The amount of air you need to move to approach the realism of those chopper blades over your head takes big-heavy magnets and well designed speakers that can handled the physics of moving lots of air and a cabinet that is rock solid so you hear the sound and not the rattling of the cabinet which will cause distortion. I won't get into all the technical aspects, it is much more complicated, except to say if anyone at the budget end might come close to the sound you want, it would be the company Elac who's chief speaker designer, Andrew Jones hails back to the early 1980's with KEF. Elac makes awesome speakers at affordable prices, but they're not focused on Atmos.
And it is not all about speakers. How about an amplifier designed by legendary Bob Carver? His old company Sunfire produced a 425 watt per channel-five channel Cinema Grand Signature. It's not all about power, though it helps, but that amp is dead quiet when it needs to be and can deliver a big bang a half second later, that's called headroom. That is how you get a Blackhawk sounding like a Blackhawk. Clean-quiet power and speakers that can move lots of air. I'll take that over immersive any day. Realism. THen let's not forget for the 65% of great films that don't have action sequences, all the Atoms stuff is a waste. I'm not sure watching Love Actually in Atmos is going to make it a better experience for anyone.
All that said, I always recommend to anyone who listens to make their setup easy, and buying the best components you can. An Oppo UHD player while they last (OPPO is closing down unfortunately), a really good amp and processor, and five great speakers instead of seven or ten OK speakers. I saw the Disney flick Brave, one of the early Atmos movies in a Atmos theater. It was distracting, not enhancing. You see with a 5.1 system the speakers in back are in back of everyone in the theater.. In Atmos the speaker over my head is behind the person sitting 12 rows up and is in front of the person sitting 12 rows back. Where's the sound coming from? It depends on where you sit. It might be immersive but it is confusing and complicated and it does not sell more theater tickets but costs the theater a lot more to install. That is why no one is pushing it commercially. The setup is easier in a home system because everyone sits a bit closer to the same place. And the makers of consumer hi-fi love selling you more new stuff. But if you want great sound, good luck hanging a 200 pound speaker over your ceiling in an Atmos setup.
Atmos is a marketing ploy as I said before. Marketing is Dolby's core strength. They are not what most people in the hi-fi world would call a high fidelity company. But if you want immersion, and it sounds like a lot of you do, then Atmos is the way to go. I'm sure you'll be happy.
Lol.
Look genius at the $700 price point you can’t build a significantly better system given the two Atmos speakers cost a grand total of $100. To get to low end audiophile bookshelf’s run you $200 ea for speakers like the PSB alpha or NHT superones. $700 buys you 4 Elacs 2.0 at $280/pr and a Elac 2.0 5.2 Center for $199 and no sub. KEF Q150s are $550/pair.
If you hate Polk there are other low cost alternatives but they are competent speakers from a competent brand. Klipsch has offerings in the same ballpark I think.
At any price point the cost delta for an Atmos system is around 10%-15%. 15% of the budget gets you maybe a different brand but the same general level of performance.
Get real. Most folks are best served with a good sound bar but folks with a dedicated HT setup should do atmos and dts:x because the additional cost is incremental and wouldn’t get you to the next quality tier anyway. And the quality improvement becomes asymptotic anyway.
All you are doing is saying systems that cost two to three times as much sound better.
Move to any price point, spec a system and then factor in two more satellites. There will be a comparable quality receiver of whatever 5.1 receiver/preamp you pick that will do atmos at a similar price point.
There will always be a few folks that can hear the difference when listening for it but the entire point is not to be aware of the "subtlety" of the speakers but be immersed in the film. The speakers in a megabuck HTIAB isn't going to be terrible and the Onkyo HT-S7800 at $900 sounds fine.
I absolutely agree.
I'm not saying one must have snob-grade speakers to enjoy a home theatre experience. I'm not saying HTIAB is unacceptable. I'm saying that something being the preferred choice for most people does not make it "better." A speaker with more accurate sound is objectively and demonstrably "better" than one with poorer response, period, full stop. Whether or not any particular person needs or even wants that particular kind of "better" is a perfectly reasonable discussion, but one can't claim that any particular compromise (quantity over quality and cost) is inherently, absolutely, and universally "better" than another.
Perhaps where you and I may not be on the same page is on HOW we achieve that immersion you nailed as the goal.
Bob watches a movie and doesn't notice the sound. His wife, Mary, is distracted by that tiny little buzzing noise every time an actor says a word that starts with P. Bob doesn't notice it, but it makes it hard for Mary to enjoy the movie. Their daughter is bothered by how the droning sound under the suspenseful scene kinda resonates whenever it hits that low note. Bob and Mary don't notice it, but it's bugging the kid.
The things the women in that scenario are hearing aren't pronounced and obvious, and MOST people wouldn't even notice them, but THEY do, and it affects that "immersion" we're trying to achieve. Adding more speakers of the same type won't improve things for Mary or her daughter. They'd be happier just replacing the ones they already have with higher-quality units.
Bob doesn't hear what his wife and daughter are complaining about, so his experience is better enhanced by having more speakers than it would be by improving the quality of the speakers they already have.
For Mary and her daughter, higher-quality speakers is better. For Bob, more channels is better. Which better is better?
At the $600 price point most speaker sets are competent to provide immersion.
Again, you're assuming that everyone has the same hearing sensitivities and taste. You're not accounting for the variabilities in perception from person to person. You can't generalize like that.
Just like the grey blacks and so-so colors of front projection. The size induces immersion and the less that stellar specs don't matter.
That's what I thought, too, so when I had to replace our living room set I just bought the biggest one our budget could manage, thinking size trumps quality. For me, it did, but my wife is distracted by the motion artifacts and unnatural colour. For her, a higher-quality display would have been better than a bigger one.
Same with speakers. For some people, more will be better. For others, fewer speakers of higher quality will be better.
If you just have entertainment gear in the living room you don't have a critical listening space so high quality speakers don't matter. You're better off with a decent sound bar and really nice headphones.
No, I'm not. My living room is an acoustic nightmare, but I've done the best I can with five identical, decent-quality speakers positioned as closely as possible to an ideal configuration. It's WAAAY short of perfect, but I get wide, even response and a healthy dose of positional novelty. Neither of those would be possible with a sound bar.
There's a whole lotta grey area between black and white, and it's not necessary to just settle for the minimum if one can't have optimum. The experience can be made much better (there's that word again) than the lowest common denominator, even in cases where ideal is impossible.
There will always be a few folks that can hear the difference when listening for it but the entire point is not to be aware of the "subtlety" of the speakers but be immersed in the film. The speakers in a megabuck HTIAB isn't going to be terrible and the Onkyo HT-S7800 at $900 sounds fine.
The things the women in that scenario are hearing aren't pronounced and obvious, and MOST people wouldn't even notice them, but THEY do, and it affects that "immersion" we're trying to achieve. Adding more speakers of the same type won't improve things for Mary or her daughter. They'd be happier just replacing the ones they already have with higher-quality units. ...
Same with speakers. For some people, more will be better. For others, fewer speakers of higher quality will be better.
From a pragmatic, real world, standpoint can you provide an example where if I deleted two satellites I could afford higher quality units as opposed to perhaps a different brand at the same quality level with a different set of trade offs?
The satellites are generally the cheapest speakers in the set. Removing them won’t get you a better set of mains unless you made a poor speaker selection to begin with.
i have found when comparing competent brands at various price points to hear a significant improvement as opposed to just different requires a large jump in budget. Especially if you’ve already done your homework on what speakers are considered best bang for the buck at your price segment.
There will always be a few folks that can hear the difference when listening for it but the entire point is not to be aware of the "subtlety" of the speakers but be immersed in the film. The speakers in a megabuck HTIAB isn't going to be terrible and the Onkyo HT-S7800 at $900 sounds fine.
The things the women in that scenario are hearing aren't pronounced and obvious, and MOST people wouldn't even notice them, but THEY do, and it affects that "immersion" we're trying to achieve. Adding more speakers of the same type won't improve things for Mary or her daughter. They'd be happier just replacing the ones they already have with higher-quality units. ...
Same with speakers. For some people, more will be better. For others, fewer speakers of higher quality will be better.
From a pragmatic, real world, standpoint can you provide an example where if I deleted two satellites I could afford higher quality units as opposed to perhaps a different brand at the same quality level with a different set of trade offs?
The satellites are generally the cheapest speakers in the set. Removing them won’t get you a better set of mains unless you made a poor speaker selection to begin with.
i have found when comparing competent brands at various price points to hear a significant improvement as opposed to just different requires a large jump in budget. Especially if you’ve already done your homework on what speakers are considered best bang for the buck at your price segment.
Fair enough. I can't stand having different speaker designs for L/R, Centre and Surrounds, so I forget that most people buy cheaper speakers for satellites. Even absent that consideration, and one were paying more for satellites in a same-speakers-all-the-way around setup like mine, you're right that adding two is not cost comparable to upgrading five. The comparison may get closer if one also has to replace the receiver and/or source device to get Atmos compatibility, but I get your point.
Look genius at the $700 price point you can’t build a significantly better system given the two Atmos speakers cost a grand total of $100. To get to low end audiophile bookshelf’s run you $200 ea for speakers like the PSB alpha or NHT superones. $700 buys you 4 Elacs 2.0 at $280/pr and a Elac 2.0 5.2 Center for $199 and no sub. KEF Q150s are $550/pair.
Move to any price point, spec a system and then factor in two more satellites. There will be a comparable quality receiver of whatever 5.1 receiver/preamp you pick that will do atmos at a similar price point.
With a great system; say, Focal Sopra line of speakers powered by the Classe Sigma pre/power, or how about Sonus Faber Homage Tradition speakers powered by Anthem P5 amp and their D2v series processor. None of what I've listed which is north of $30,000 is available with Atmos. They know better. When a sniper fires a shot and the gun completely sounds like it is in the room, you'll forget quick about Atmos. Most Atmos is like looking at a photograph of Half Dome at Yosemite. Then actually stand on Half Dome. It is not the same. A great system gets you closer to the action. It is freaky real. You won't get that with speakers the size of shoe boxes you can order on Amazon. It's like saying a Honda Civic is better than a Ferrari 488 Pista. Don't show your ignorance.
Comments
Look genius at the $700 price point you can’t build a significantly better system given the two Atmos speakers cost a grand total of $100. To get to low end audiophile bookshelf’s run you $200 ea for speakers like the PSB alpha or NHT superones. $700 buys you 4 Elacs 2.0 at $280/pr and a Elac 2.0 5.2 Center for $199 and no sub. KEF Q150s are $550/pair.
If you hate Polk there are other low cost alternatives but they are competent speakers from a competent brand. Klipsch has offerings in the same ballpark I think.
At any price point the cost delta for an Atmos system is around 10%-15%. 15% of the budget gets you maybe a different brand but the same general level of performance.
Get real. Most folks are best served with a good sound bar but folks with a dedicated HT setup should do atmos and dts:x because the additional cost is incremental and wouldn’t get you to the next quality tier anyway. And the quality improvement becomes asymptotic anyway.
All you are doing is saying systems that cost two to three times as much sound better.
Move to any price point, spec a system and then factor in two more satellites. There will be a comparable quality receiver of whatever 5.1 receiver/preamp you pick that will do atmos at a similar price point.
I'm not saying one must have snob-grade speakers to enjoy a home theatre experience. I'm not saying HTIAB is unacceptable. I'm saying that something being the preferred choice for most people does not make it "better." A speaker with more accurate sound is objectively and demonstrably "better" than one with poorer response, period, full stop. Whether or not any particular person needs or even wants that particular kind of "better" is a perfectly reasonable discussion, but one can't claim that any particular compromise (quantity over quality and cost) is inherently, absolutely, and universally "better" than another.
Perhaps where you and I may not be on the same page is on HOW we achieve that immersion you nailed as the goal.
Bob watches a movie and doesn't notice the sound. His wife, Mary, is distracted by that tiny little buzzing noise every time an actor says a word that starts with P. Bob doesn't notice it, but it makes it hard for Mary to enjoy the movie. Their daughter is bothered by how the droning sound under the suspenseful scene kinda resonates whenever it hits that low note. Bob and Mary don't notice it, but it's bugging the kid.
The things the women in that scenario are hearing aren't pronounced and obvious, and MOST people wouldn't even notice them, but THEY do, and it affects that "immersion" we're trying to achieve. Adding more speakers of the same type won't improve things for Mary or her daughter. They'd be happier just replacing the ones they already have with higher-quality units.
Bob doesn't hear what his wife and daughter are complaining about, so his experience is better enhanced by having more speakers than it would be by improving the quality of the speakers they already have.
For Mary and her daughter, higher-quality speakers is better. For Bob, more channels is better. Which better is better?
Again, you're assuming that everyone has the same hearing sensitivities and taste. You're not accounting for the variabilities in perception from person to person. You can't generalize like that.
Same with speakers. For some people, more will be better. For others, fewer speakers of higher quality will be better.
There's a whole lotta grey area between black and white, and it's not necessary to just settle for the minimum if one can't have optimum. The experience can be made much better (there's that word again) than the lowest common denominator, even in cases where ideal is impossible.
The satellites are generally the cheapest speakers in the set. Removing them won’t get you a better set of mains unless you made a poor speaker selection to begin with.
i have found when comparing competent brands at various price points to hear a significant improvement as opposed to just different requires a large jump in budget. Especially if you’ve already done your homework on what speakers are considered best bang for the buck at your price segment.
With a great system; say, Focal Sopra line of speakers powered by the Classe Sigma pre/power, or how about Sonus Faber Homage Tradition speakers powered by Anthem P5 amp and their D2v series processor. None of what I've listed which is north of $30,000 is available with Atmos. They know better. When a sniper fires a shot and the gun completely sounds like it is in the room, you'll forget quick about Atmos. Most Atmos is like looking at a photograph of Half Dome at Yosemite. Then actually stand on Half Dome. It is not the same. A great system gets you closer to the action. It is freaky real. You won't get that with speakers the size of shoe boxes you can order on Amazon. It's like saying a Honda Civic is better than a Ferrari 488 Pista. Don't show your ignorance.