@kota1

I am really happy that folks try to employ new technology to old problems. I am actually an early adopter, both in my personal life and professionally for over fifty years. My job was to evaluate new technology and to not adopt to early… or too late. To get technology that gained the most for a appropriate cost.

When evaluating new technology you have to look at what the objectives are and the whole entire picture. So, remember Quadrophonic… four channel sound… they had some good demos and a few albums. But it died. It was too soon.

So, multiple channels comes up again. It is absolutely spectacular for home theater. Which is fundamentally different than audio only at this time… if you are interested in high quality reproduction of music. The video distracts you from the nuances of the music. So, the sound quality is not as important. I have a great home theater system. It is great for home theater, but is completely inadequate compared to my 2 channel audio system.

I am not saying that some day in the future the convergence of home theater and audio only will not happen, I am sure it will. But not for decades.

Great, there are a few albums in Atmos that sound great on a mid-tier home theater system. So what. I have access to millions of albums in red book CD quality and over half a million in high resolution formats that will sound better on a two channel audio system… by far.

What I am very concerned about is sending the message to folks that want a great music system into chasing a dream that is not there yet. If I really want to hear great immersive audio… music… and have $10K, $50K, or $200K, then home theater is not it. End of story.

 

If I want a home theater that sounds ok with just music… sometimes good, ok, your on.

@ghdprentice

My job was to evaluate new technology

I can see your background in tech when you are dispensing advice in your posts, its very clear and articulate. I also see it in your room, its setup like an engineers space, with precision.

So, remember Quadrophonic… four channel sound

I want the Black Ice Audio F360 that has a Jim Fosgate design. It is today’s version of Quad, I could slide it right into my rack and connect the RCA outs to the RCA ins on my active speakers (the XLR ins are connected to my Marantz processor and I could toggle between both preamps). I can get it at a reasonable price, its all analog, tube based. See the Zeos review. "Quadraphonic is Back" here:

https://youtu.be/noe6GsyYDJc

So, multiple channels comes up again.

In an object based format that is backward compatible with everything, yes.

Which is fundamentally different than audio only at this time… if you are interested in high quality reproduction of music.

At this time...2023? No, we can agree to disagree here. Atmos music and concerts on blueray are NOT Hollywood movie productions, in the least.

Great, there are a few albums in Atmos that sound great on a mid-tier home theater system.

Here I am confused, what albums and whose system? There are tons of great albums in Atmos on streaming services that sound fantastic on even budget systems according to the reviewers. This is Andrew Robinsons opinion of the Sony HT-A9 and I think this system would serve Joe Sixpack well:

https://youtu.be/eHcjvdGbaa0

So what. I have access to millions of albums in red book CD quality and over half a million in high resolution formats that will sound better on a two channel audio system… by far.

How can I argue what you have? It is a SOA two channel system, built by an expert in technology with a six figure budget. I got no beef and am thrilled for you. yes, I would very much enjoy a stereo that has been purpose built over years (decades) too, great job!

What I am very concerned about is sending the message to folks that want a great music system into chasing a dream that is not there yet.

I am very concerned that someone starting out today that has a budget (large or small) would waste it by building only half a system, a channel based one, and not be able to experience all that object based audio has to offer.

If I really want to hear great immersive audio… music… and have $10K, $50K, or $200K, then home theater is not it. End of story.

So, let me add to your opinion with facts, anyone wishing to experience GREAT immersive audio is invited to stop by my other thread on getting a proper setup and you can get started for under $2K and build a blow your sox off, SOA system for under $50K:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-to-setup-your-room-for-atmos-and-immersive-audio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technically, to record at 128 discrete locations would require the mixer to combine them faithfully in, what, 128 to what power number of ways to choose from? And with how many intermediate audio components to decode? Or, without mixing, then with 128 channels and speakers to reproduce? More than there are persons in a full orchestra? (Put a mike on every violinist.) It just seems to me to be a lot of marketing beyond man’s capacity to handle and make sense of... so, if there was ever a time to KISS?

On the other hand, I can certainly understand why persons without a system that provides adequate spatial realism would jump at any promises of possible improvement because they know their systems are lacking. And even audiophiles to check out any and all latest technological developments that could prove beneficial. "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good."

But I return to the point that all "stereo", preceded by whatever descriptive adjective above, still enters our senses in a stereo-solid two-ear configuration, attaining 3-D realism based on the distance between our ears and perceiving distance/depth by milliseconds of timing differences. That depth may be created via 128 channels or via a few milliseconds delay in a traditional stereo recording by the timing of the sound arriving at two-channel microphones. (Perhaps the biggest challenge in milliseconds/depth perception is that speakers' transient response still has the driver waiting to stop vibrating thereby masking the arrival of the secondary, tertiary sounds within the same few ms time span.)

That we have our own sound decoders in our infinitely superior mental technology that can still sense almost immeasurable discrepancies between live and recorded sound will likely always be unmatchable by any human-made technology and may never be satisfied by all our feeble attempts.

@hsbrock 

Technically, to record at 128 discrete locations would require the mixer to combine them faithfully in, what, 128 to what power number of ways to choose from? 

When I see the high channel account I think that is for movie theaters. If you check out the thread I link to above it lays out how most mix studios are setup in a 7.2.4 format and the highest count they generally use is a 9.6.6 format.

And even audiophiles to check out any and all latest technological developments that could prove beneficial. "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good."

This is why I think I adopted object based audio and not SACD, it was too expensive to buy new discs at $20-$50 a pop. Now, $ a month and you get everything? losless, hirez, and object based audio? Not being able to use it all is simply a waste if you are already paying for it in your subscription.

 

The Modern Rock Producer: Steve Wilson Interview:

At :45 min in the video below, "listen to records the way you used to listen to records, the way you don’t anymore" on getting people together in a great atmos or acoustics room and taking them on a musical journey. He laments over the fact that most people don’t have a proper 7.1.4 atmos setup so he sets up listening sessions in studios just so people can here it "proper".

Rick Beato Interviews Steve Wilson:

https://youtu.be/03vThmG46A8