The next step in the evolution of 2-channel?

halo

Interesting article on Atmos enabled 2-channel setups. I immediately thought of SDA's when reading it, wondering if combining the two technologies would result in the final frontier for 2-channel enthusiasts.

avsforum.com/i-used-dolby-atmos-enabled-speakers-in-a-2-2-2-system-heres-what-happened/

BlueFox

I definitely believe that technology is the next step in audio for two channel. Not sure about the final part.

nooshinjohn

... But unlike silly stuff like cable risers and python-thick power cords, Atmos does something that directly relates to real-world listening...


And there goes the reviewer's credibility imho.

F1nut

nooshinjohn wrote: »

... But unlike silly stuff like cable risers and python-thick power cords, Atmos does something that directly relates to real-world listening...


And there goes the reviewer's credibility imho.

In addition......

The AVR running the show was more affordable. I used a Denon X4300H AVR ($1499) for processing and amplification—including Audyssey room correction.

An AVR for serious two channel....pffft....hack....pffft

tonyb

agreed ^^^

dannylightning

AVR's just don't dont sound right for music.. they are not good for 2 channel in my opinion..


over at AVS the general idea is everything sounds exactly the same, you could buy a 5 dollar integrated amp or a 50k dollar integrated amp and they would tell you they will sound exactly the same...... not a great place to go for audio advice, especially for 2 channel audio advice.. that is my opinion..

mhardy6647

heh-heh-heh.

pearsall001

Not all AVR'S are created equal. To make such a blanket statement that serious 2 channel listening with an AVR isn't up to snuff is very disingenuous. Total hogwash.

nooshinjohn

pearsall001 wrote: »

Not all AVR'S are created equal. To make such a blanket statement that serious 2 channel listening with an AVR isn't up to snuff is very disingenuous. Total hogwash.

I once thought as you do, padawan... having separate amplification, preferably mono amps, and preamp is preferable to an AVR, or even a two channel receiver. While there are some very capable AVR's out there, having components that are specifically designed for their task and not sharing power supplies to get the job done will be superior.

I have had some very good AVR's in my journey and thought I had all I needed, until I added a simple two channel amp to drive my front speakers. My eyes were opened to all I had been missing, and no AVR has measured up since.

halo

F1nut wrote: »

An AVR for serious two channel....pffft....hack....pffft

I think one might have difficulty setting up an Atmos enabled 2-channel (2.0.2, 2.1.2, or 2.2.2) without the use of an Atmos enabled AVR. Of course, one could use the preamp outputs on the AVR to feed the signal to a dedicated stereo/2-channel power amplifier as long as the AVR is so equipped.

txcoastal1

It actually might be fun if the artist had it recorded that way.

At least maybe back in my stoopid days

Dennis Gardner

Henninger is a hack. He runs the Audiophiles on a Budget Facebook page and uses it to push his reviews that he does on AVS. He was pushing Monoprice PA 15 inch speakers last year as the end all for budget 2 channel listening. Arrogance in abundance too.

mikeyb128

I can attest no AVR can perform to a similarly priced 2 channel pre, for 2 channel music. It's just not happening. I've gone through the upgrade home theater "wringer" with receivers and pre pros, and I've had some comparatively expensive units compared to 2 channel pre's. Not To say you can't get music out of them because you can, and I've had some nice sounding marantz pre/pros.

tonyb

Maybe consider the bigger differences are in what many consider "good music" to them. Everyone has their own acceptance of what dictates good sound. Some might say no receiver can compete with their boombox too....does that make it true ? Only to that person it does.

My take....many receivers can sound darn good for 2 channel, no doubt...but, they are not on the same field with good dedicated 2 channel gear.

motorhead43026

Dedicated 2 channel gear for music falls into the less is more category.

mhardy6647

motorhead43026 wrote: »

Dedicated 2 channel gear for music falls into the less is more category.

That's a big 10-4, at least from my 2017 perspective.

Actually, even back in the olden days, I liked the tone control flexibility of my Yamaha CA-610II... but, with Monitor 7As, I never actually used them.

I did, occasionally, use the Yamaha variable loudness, though, I will confess.

Interestingly, for whatever reason (i.e., Fletcher-Munson effect notwithstanding), single-ended direct heated triode amplification on high-sensitivity loudspeakers reproduces very natural sound even at very low SPLs without loudness compensation. Fadeouts on the upstairs hifi are astonishing in their clarity all the way out to silence, as are acoustic guitar recordings wherein the recording engineer didn't fade out the track too quickly, and the resonance of the guitar's body can be heard decaying away to nothingness. The latter is just a wonderful thing to hear.

halo

@mhardy6647, there are some Atmos enabled speakers that have the forward firing drivers as well as drivers on the top, all in one cabinet, like the Pioneer SP-EFS73, which would still technically qualify as a 2-channel set up.

pearsall001

mikeyb128 wrote: »

I can attest no AVR can perform to a similarly priced 2 channel pre, for 2 channel music. It's just not happening. I've gone through the upgrade home theater "wringer" with receivers and pre pros, and I've had some comparatively expensive units compared to 2 channel pre's. Not To say you can't get music out of them because you can, and I've had some nice sounding marantz pre/pros.

Very interesting...any proof to back up your statement. Not to put you on the spot but with all things audio there simply isn't any proof. It's always nothing more than one's opinions based on their listening experience.

deronb1

Ive owned good seperates and good AVRs A good, well designed AVR that uses good componets, certainly has its merits, when you consider cost difference, room correction and bass management.

mikeyb128

pearsall001 wrote: »

mikeyb128 wrote: »

I can attest no AVR can perform to a similarly priced 2 channel pre, for 2 channel music. It's just not happening. I've gone through the upgrade home theater "wringer" with receivers and pre pros, and I've had some comparatively expensive units compared to 2 channel pre's. Not To say you can't get music out of them because you can, and I've had some nice sounding marantz pre/pros.

Very interesting...any proof to back up your statement. Not to put you on the spot but with all things audio there simply isn't any proof. It's always nothing more than one's opinions based on their listening experience.

You know I don't have proof. What kind of proof am I supposed to provide for you? REW sweeps I just so happened to save for every system I have had? As you already mentioned it is based on personal experieces, since you already know then why ask? I'm not the only one with this experience based opinion either, so maybe other members with more experience can pull up the "proof" you require to satisfy you're needs.

That being said I have had good music performance from a theater based pre/pro (marantz) with separates. But I'm sorry, it's not as good as dedicated 2 channel pre.

dannylightning

pearsall001 wrote: »

mikeyb128 wrote: »

I can attest no AVR can perform to a similarly priced 2 channel pre, for 2 channel music. It's just not happening. I've gone through the upgrade home theater "wringer" with receivers and pre pros, and I've had some comparatively expensive units compared to 2 channel pre's. Not To say you can't get music out of them because you can, and I've had some nice sounding marantz pre/pros.

Very interesting...any proof to back up your statement. Not to put you on the spot but with all things audio there simply isn't any proof. It's always nothing more than one's opinions based on their listening experience.

its kind of like this.. with a AVR your paying for a receiver that amplifies several different speakers and decodes an bunch of digital files and all kinds of stuff like that.

for example.. my amp has 2 separate class XD mono block amplifiers inside of it and big turiodal transformers, your paying for quality amplification for only 2 channels and not all the other stuff.

here is a look inside of a denon AVR which is more expensive than my amp (first photo) and a look inside of my 2 channel amp ( second photo)

mhardy6647

Marantz8B by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

halo

Hey folks,

I wasn't trying to open up a debate about whether separate components are good, better, or best compared to an AVR or even a stereo receiver.

I wanted to highlight the possibility of utilizing a new technology, specifically Dolby Atmos, to enhance a listener's experience in 2-channel. To me, this is probably a similar idea to Bob Carver's Sonic Holigraphy utilizing the hardware to enhance 2-channel listening. YMMV.

nooshinjohn

There is no correlation to either Sonic Holography or SDA here. The format was developed specifically for film soundtrack applications and not two channel stereo. Even if you are using a front speaker that has the Atmos speakers as part of their design, like the DefTech, you are smearing the two channel source rather than reproducing it correctly.

While I am sure some material may sound good this way, most will be distorted t the point of needing a few adult beverages to listen to in a critical fashion.

mikeyb128

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Marantz8B by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

Now that's purrrdy!

txcoastal1

mikeyb128 wrote: »

Now that's purrrdy!

And fetch a purrrdy price

rpf65

The issue isn't what is the best, it is buying what is best for the application.

ATMOS is designed for movie sound tracks: period. It isn't designed for stereo reproduction. If anybody is inferring that somehow ATMOS will be a benefit to music reproduction,in its current form, that person should loose all credibility in any type of electronic, movie, and music reviewing circles.

I can think of no musical instrument or vocals that I wish to hear coming from overhead.

In the case that ATMOS enabled 2-channel is used in a small space, such as a small living room or bedroom, then it has potential. Then again, and 5 years ago I would never have said this, just get a sound bar.

mhardy6647

... and worth every penny.
One of my top favorite storebought amplifiers. Elegantly engineered and built.

On topic -- it can be argued that really well recorded and reproduced mono might be as good as it gets. Perhaps the best evocation of a point source is... a point source (i.e., a single point source).

Unknown

This content has been removed.

halo

I have a Marantz NR1403 pulling HT duty in our living room but it's only driving the center channel speaker. The pre outs for LF & RF go to the HT Bypass on the Cary & the B&K drivers the LF & RF speakers while watching TV & movies.

When I'm listening to music, it's just the Cary, the B&K, the source, & the LF + RF.

I don't use a sub with either the HT or the 2-channel because the living room in the apartment doesn't need it.

mikeyb128

nbrowser wrote: »

mikeyb128 wrote: »

I can attest no AVR can perform to a similarly priced 2 channel pre, for 2 channel music. It's just not happening. I've gone through the upgrade home theater "wringer" with receivers and pre pros, and I've had some comparatively expensive units compared to 2 channel pre's. Not To say you can't get music out of them because you can, and I've had some nice sounding marantz pre/pros.

I'd have to agree on Marantz making some fine sounding gear, while not on the level of the HT pre/pros my SR5010 AVR sure sounds a cut above the Onk it replaced...make that 10 cuts above. Just sounds smoother and more refined by my ears. I will state I am referring to 2.1 mode for music, no H/T modes enabled. The .1 is cause I like my bass though.

The SR6008 in the bedroom has been told it's only got 2 speakers hooked up to it and it can't go any further than 2.1 mode itself. Works quite well as a stereo receiver. But then again we aren't talking tin can receivers here.

Those marantz are beauties. When I had the marantz,sunfire, lsim 705, MIT shot gun, set up for home theater it did sound very good in direct pure. I could see a lot of people being satisfied with just that, and not wanting any better.