Dolby atmos

Hi-Fi Corner
1

Hello all, new to here and only using the ‘basic’ Naim stuff. Currently listening to Angelica Garcia’s new album via Tidal on a Uniti Atom + Focal 926’s.

A question for you if I may.

It is incredible (whether you like her music or not and my Spanish is zero) but I’m absolutely surrounded by sound.

Does Dolby Atmos and a good stereo system make 5.1, 7.1, etc redundant?

I’ve not tried it yet but if I were to play a Dolby Atmos movie through the Atom/Focals would it be as good as what I’m listening to now? It’s all over the place and most excellent!

1 Like
2

Well worth a watch:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BByK5QtaOng

1 Like
3

Welcome

Each has their place, dependent on source material. With the same budget, a stereo system will likely outshine a multi channel system, simply because more components are needed for the latter, so the budget is spread more thinly.
A good multi channel system, carefully specced, with placement and room correction, will likely exceed. However budget would need to be very significantly more than a stereo system.
In a sense, it is down to personal preference and circumstance; ymmv.

4

I would say no.

Well-recorded 2.0 music played on a good 2.0 system can often give the impression of ’surrounding’ the listener with sound.

A good soundbar can give a very good account of a multichannel source, including the effect of ‘steering’ sounds around the room, though using multiple speakers around the room is (IME) better.

There have been attempts to use a 2.0 source and system to do the equivalent (QSound, popular with Pink Floyd members) but they’re not really a proper replacement.

As I understand it, playing an Atmos source on a 2.0 system gives you nothing more than a ‘folded-down’ equivalent of the original.

Mark

5

Objectives are different. Exact opposites in fact.

  • The goal of stereo is to put the performer in your room.
  • The goal of surround and ATMOS is remove the room and put you where the action is.

And as has been mentioned, if you extrapolate costs of a high end stereo system to ATMOS, it gets to be insane. Notwithstanding the fact there are few if any ATMOS processors with a preamp on par with a Naim 332 (for example).

Why can’t you live happily with both? I have a main Naim system and next to it ATMOS 7.2.4. By many home theatre standards, my ATMOS setup is extremely good. But for music it doesn’t even come close to the stereo system. But the reverse is also true.

2 Likes
6

I’ve no doubt you’re right Mark, I was just blown away with how well the 2.0 with Dolby Atmos spread the sound around the room, but on further reflection it was only going to work effectively in the one sweet spot in the room whereas a proper surround system allows for many more seating positions.

2 Likes
7

Not to mention, 2.0 has to use phase shift effects to trick the brain into thinking sound is thrown from phantom directions. With 5.1 and 7.1, the sound is mostly in phase. With the ceiling speakers, even more sound is direct in phase.

Another thing you’ll notice with how modern films are mixed is that the music track mostly is played via the surround speakers as a sort of stylistic overlay to the front effect main speakers. That effect is greatly diminished in 2.0.

If you’re ever in any doubt, ask a dealer who takes AV seriously for a demonstration. That’ll soon show how effective 7 matched speakers can be even if they are lesser quality than those you use for stereo.

2 Likes
8

surround sound from a front sound source is doable, and has been for decades.

The tech really relies on constant distant from speaker driver to the listener, and ‘a lot of math’.

The physical pinnae around a listeners ear removes treble from sounds occuring behind us.
This translates to Qsound and ‘methods’ to use psychoacoustic steering techniques.

If a user is introduced to a sound effect, and then the treble information alters, it can appear that the point source has moved.

Works well when siumlating a helicopter or plane flying overhead (from front to back), but no so well when introducing a new sound to the listener from behind them… the treble gets added and becomes ‘clearer’, sure, but without the initial setup to the users’ brain saying “this is the initial sound”, the altering of the sound properties needs to be experience in ‘one direction’ to work well…

good thing most movies have action moving FROM the screen, but it is easy for a surround encoded 2 channel source to fatigue the end users…

Atmos encoded music might serve millenials well, but for anyone expecting 70/80/90s music to sound as experienced, might not like the modern ‘reinterpretations’.

The Beatles established a ‘rock stage’ and to a certain degree us humans LIKE our music to have familiar locations.

in the early nineties I used my surround amps ‘surround music’ modes (mostly only Yamaha did this well, but Harmon Kardon and Denon/Marantz had some decent surround music settings that actually didn’t DESTROY the music (too badly)).

And this is the rub-

modern hifi, having to support Dolby Height speakers, and whilst no longer using phase effects etc to place sound at height above us (Atmos and object based audio allows heights to actually be virgin sound bytes); actual high quality two channel and five channel (surround) sound is noticeably a better listen on 98% of all media… (most falling back to a 5.1/7.1 'base layer)…

I’d certainly want ‘good enough’ two channel to render music, and to my ears, south of five figure pricepoints, surround setups are NOT GOING TO DO TWO CHANNEL MUSIC worth listening to (vs a couple of thousand dollars on a two channel ‘music’ setup).

The best of both worlds is to use a Naim amplifier in AV Bypass mode, as an add on to a modern (crappy) Atmos capable processor… (when considering ‘multinchannel’ audio setups),… and a simple ‘stereo amp’ for two channel setups,… (where a user could use a Playstation 5, and the tempest audio engine can encode all media (eg Netflix/Disney/Prime etc) to two speakers simulating surround sound (on the fly).

For anything with a music focus, I’d prefer two channel (better quality audio), and if that means robbing my gaming etc of ‘surround sound’ benefits- that is alright as ALL the sounds will sound GREAT, and the instruments in the soundtrack with natural sounding properties…

Atmos (2 channel) is a great way to resell everything old as ‘new again’.
Best investment is to forget the ‘buzzword’ Atmos altogether; buy a second hand FLAGSHIP surround receiver/processor and use a Naim stereo amp in AV Bypass mode…
THAT sound will be untouchable for any ‘sane prices’ (and would allow buying a large collection of UHD discs that actually have some Atmos tracks on them)…

re-engineered for Atmos (2 channel) is for selling Apple wireless headphones as if they are the replacement to good home hifi (they ARE NOT).
The effect is great and I’d listen to Deep Forrest and Enigma via just such a tech…
but for Deep Purple and Eurythmics - pure (/raw) two channel please

9

Not entirely convinced in my experience, Atmos (2 channel) can work very well on good over ear headphones on the Apple system, it can can give the impression of good two channel playback in a room. This works great for many 70s, 80s and 90s remasters … and has the the vibe, spirit and feel of the original masters… I never liked the Eurythmics. It’s not about replacing hifi, it’s a case of augmenting good hifi for different locations. Atmos 2 channel can be a great hifi codec to allow you to enjoy your music.
Music recording and replay is such a huge compromise and has been processed typically at mixing and production time (ever since the ‘50s) to sound good on replay equipment, those methods that allow you to get closer and enjoy your music more in different replay environments has got to be a good thing.

I find it fascinating the processing that goes into a production to make it sound great with PRaT, emotion and verve. Without that processing many recordings would sound flat, muddled and uninspiring. The same goes even for amplified live music….

1 Like