Do NOT Blow Your Entire Budget on Two Channel Audio

@lynn_olson

I think the requirement for a pair (or four) ceiling speakers will be the deal-breaker for nearly all audiophiles.

Interesting, you might be right. I think the deal-breaker for a lot of audiophiles is they got burned on the SACD format. What survived of the "SACD" has become DSD and while you can still buy SACD/DSD players and DAC’s the content is limited and expensive. As for the height channels that market is certainly savvy enough to perceive this more as an annoyance than a real obstacle. This is the crowd that can balance a turntable on an inner tube while drinking high priced scotch at the same time.

Which leaves the rest of us, listening in either our living room or a dedicated music room.

Good point, maybe something like "height channels" would be a solution?

https://www.techhive.com/article/582560/svs-prime-elevation-speaker-review-an-incredibly-versatile-audio-solution-for-the-home-theater.html

What percentage will install the Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers?

You don’t need ceiling speakers to experience object based audio, its backward compatible. You can start with Atmos capable headphones and go from there. The point of my post was to allocate budget for an object based format. What a listener decides to allocate and how they choose to install a system is up to them. Congrats on having a 5.1 system, when that format first came out it was challenging too.

Fewer still will tolerate moving the couch out into the middle of the room to accommodate 7.1 surround, and the required four side and rear speakers, and the required cabling.

Moving the couch is free and sales of these types of systems is on the rise, see:

If you want to upgrade the ceiling speakers to timbre-match the others, you call the installer back to cut new holes?

Fortunately, speaker manufacturers have created solutions that can be hung high on the wall with little installation hassle other then running the wires, see:

https://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/category/atmos/speakers/atmos-speakers/1.html

Not to mention the discrepancy between the size of the existing 2-channel catalog vs Atmos remixes ... maybe 100,000 to one, or being generous, 10,000 to one?

That’s what I thought 5 years ago. Now most people who like music are already streaming. This means the content is available and you don’t have to pay an additional fee, you are already getting it, you just have to figure out how to consume it. I love how much content is available, from all genres and there is like a flood of new content being dropped every month, have you noticed?

I ditched 5.1 20 years ago and never looked back.

What a ridiculous proposal. Almost no one has the room or money to implement your idea, even if they wanted to; and that's a big IF. Besides that, you already made this pitch in another thread. You need to understand that not everyone needs or wants "immersive audio".

You lost me at “object-based audio.”

I agree, object based ain’t gonna happen except for very small minority

Music, with a physical library of 2 channel content, best engineering ’capturing imaging’, and best audio playback system ’re-creating imaging’ is all you can get out of that content/equipment. Very enjoyable, far better than ’good enough, although we must admit: we are a minority, most people are content with ’good enough’. iPad to usb to ____. alexa play me _____

Streaming and re-creating ’object based’ music (no video) is a huge difference which I cannot imagine will go beyond a minority at best.

Home theater, video with directional sound: 5.1 is easy, darn good, ’good enough’. equipment and setup, relocation to another space or home. A few people go beyond 5.1 (7.1; 9.1) but a minority for sure.

4. a dual music/video system is also going to be a small minority (already is).

.......................................

Historically ’good enough’ wins. Convenience, cost’s less, ’good enough’.

33 beats 45 due to length of content/unit

beta beats laser disc; vhs beats beta, primarily due to length of content/unit

two channel audio beats short lived 3 channel for ease/cost/minimum advantage: simply duplicate existing mono setup for stereo.

refinement of alternate formats to the point of simply better happens

cassette for dictation advances to smaller and better mechanisms and tape formulas than 8 track for cars and home recording.

CD, perfect, noiseless/indestructible, smaller, initially: what’s not to like

MP3, crappy sound, I have 7 million songs on my gizmo had quite a run.

Streaming: finally back to high quality: ease, cost, no physical library, now no quality compromise, access to ’everything out there’, fits existing 2 channel system is a huge draw for many,

.........................................

Object Based is the opposite: very complicated, understanding, equipment and placement decisions; big equipment investment, physical construction involved; fixed in one specific location, not easily moved to a new space or home: ALL a heck of a lot, for ’not that much better’ when 5.1 is already darn good.