Dolby Atmos: Determined At All Costs (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

So, @John Dirk do you have an assessment of the difference in Atmos with the speakers overhead, rather than high and to the sides?

 

[John Dirk]

So, @John Dirk do you have an assessment of the difference in Atmos with the speakers overhead, rather than high and to the sides?

Oh there's no comparison! The SVS Prime Elevations are probably still much better than the bounce-type solutions [I never tried that method] but these RSL C34's are at a whole new level. With good Atmos material [Mother!] they pinpoint sounds where your brain would expect them to be in a real-world scenario. Quite amazing!!!

When I initially installed them, I followed the advice in one of the reviews I read. I muted all of the other speakers and was amazed at the overall sonic prowess of the C34E's. Even with music it's a whole new experience. With a decent sub, these babies can hold their own with the rest of my speakers, something I certainly wasn't expecting, especially at this price point.

If that weren't enough, one speaker has a slight rattle in one of the woofers. I contacted RSL and they immediately agreed to send a replacement, no questions asked! Great speaker, great Atmos performance and great customer service! I couldn't be happier. How are you coming with the Elacs?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I have a question for the experts...

I thought Dolby Atmos in the home was limited to 4 overhead channels

Now I see Denon out with a new flagship receiver (AVR-X8500H) that ups it to 6 overheads.

Is the Dolby Atmos encoding capable of doing 6 overhead channels? If so, I may have to buy a new receiver.

 

[Rachael B]

You don't need 6 ceiling speakers unless your room is very large.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I have a question for the experts...

I thought Dolby Atmos in the home was limited to 4 overhead channels

Now I see Denon out with a new flagship receiver (AVR-X8500H) that ups it to 6 overheads.

Is the Dolby Atmos encoding capable of doing 6 overhead channels? If so, I may have to buy a new receiver.

Ron, unless you're going to run that 13.2 receiver along with some external amps, I'm not so sure how much of an audio improvement you're going to get with 6 overheads instead of four.

 

[JohnRice]

I have a question for the experts...

I thought Dolby Atmos in the home was limited to 4 overhead channels

Now I see Denon out with a new flagship receiver (AVR-X8500H) that ups it to 6 overheads.

Is the Dolby Atmos encoding capable of doing 6 overhead channels? If so, I may have to buy a new receiver.

My understanding is the object oriented concept of Atmos means the number of output channels is only limited by the decoding. You might notice, when you look at the on-screen info when playing back Atmos, it doesn't show a finite number of source channels like with other surround formats. It just says "Atmos" or "DTS:X" and then shows which channels you have active. Emotiva has a 9.1.6 processor coming out, and I seem to recall someone has announced a 32 channel one. I'm guessing that one is for commercial use.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Thanks for the response guys. Not just that.....for saving me a lot of money in having to upgrade my receiver.

I already have the 6 overhead channels in place. I initially installed two extra speakers in the ceiling. The extra two are right above the screen. There is a long story attached to putting in the two extra speakers.

If I am not going to hear a difference then no use upgrading.

I was just surprised to hear that Atmos in the home could utilize more than four overheads. Initially -- and I thought it was even discussed in this thread -- home Atmos was limited to 4 overheads by design. I guess that is not the case.

 

[Rachael B]

Josh Zyber over at High Def Digest made his system with 6 Atmos speakers before a processor supported more than four. You could ask him how he did it. You really don't need more than four channels in my estimation. I'd put some accent lights that dim in the two extra holes. 4 ceiling speakers and 2 subs make my whole house rattle and hum. 6 of 'em might lift the ceiling from the foundation. 6 or more is for very big rooms.

 

[Dave Upton]

Thanks for the response guys. Not just that.....for saving me a lot of money in having to upgrade my receiver.

I already have the 6 overhead channels in place. I initially installed two extra speakers in the ceiling. The extra two are right above the screen. There is a long story attached to putting in the two extra speakers.

If I am not going to hear a difference then no use upgrading.

I was just surprised to hear that Atmos in the home could utilize more than four overheads. Initially -- and I thought it was even discussed in this thread -- home Atmos was limited to 4 overheads by design. I guess that is not the case.

Ron - do you have separate amps or are you running just a receiver? I will tell you that going to separates is the most important step you can take right now, if you haven't already.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Ron - do you have separate amps or are you running just a receiver? I will tell you that going to separates is the most important step you can take right now, if you haven't already.

Doing this from memory...

I have last year's flagship Denon that has up to 9.2 channels. Then I have the Outlaw 5000 amp for the additional channels.

Maybe I already have the extra 2 channels on the Outlaw amp to do an additional two overheads. Don't know.

However, wouldn't the Denon have to be rated for 13.2 encoding?

It's really no big deal. I already have the two extra speakers in place (for a total of 6 overheads). Just don't know if I can utilize them with the setup I already have or need to upgrade the receiver.

In any case, members are saying that it's really an unnecessary upgrade.

Thanks Dave!

 

[JohnRice]

Ron, I expect @Dave Upton would also recommend using the Outlaw to power the main channels, especially the front three, instead of having the receiver power them and having the Outlaw power Atmos, which I suspect is what you mean by "additional channels". I have a feeling you'll fight me on that suggestion, but maybe Dave can convince you.

 

[JohnRice]

Ron - do you have separate amps or are you running just a receiver? I will tell you that going to separates is the most important step you can take right now, if you haven't already.

Good luck with that, Dave.

I gave up on that suggestion with both Ron and Sam.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Ron, I expect @Dave Upton would also recommend using the Outlaw to power the main channels, especially the front three, instead of having the receiver power them and having the Outlaw power Atmos, which I suspect is what you mean by "additional channels". I have a feeling you'll fight me on that suggestion, but maybe Dave can convince you.

I have to agree with you John. Ron, you should have your Outlaw amp power your main channels and your surround speakers and let your Denon receiver power the Atmos channels.

On my 7.2.4 setup I have my Outlaw amp powering my seven channels with my receiver powering the four Atmos channels.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Good luck with that, Dave.

I gave up on that suggestion with both Ron and Sam.

You gave up on me too. Perhaps, if I update my Yamaha 3060 receiver in a couple of years, I might buy a pre-amp/processor along with another amp to power my Atmos channels instead of a new receiver. I'll have to evaluate cost versus improved performance. I probably won't notice much improvement with having my Atmos channels powered by an amp instead of a receiver. However, I'm not sure I can say the same thing for having a pre-amp/processor versus of a receiver.

 

[Sam Posten]

Good luck with that, Dave.

I gave up on that suggestion with both Ron and Sam.

Nothing I have ever heard has convinced me it is worth the exorbitant cost. With 11 speakers to power now it is even less likely. Hell I won't ever go with an outboard amp for Atmos, even that is a PITA IMO.

 

[Dave Upton]

Nothing I have ever heard has convinced me it is worth the exorbitant cost. With 11 speakers to power now it is even less likely. Hell I won't ever go with an outboard amp for Atmos, even that is a PITA IMO.

I think it all comes down to whether you have heard a really good amp or not. It's not going to change the sound itself, but bass will be tighter, transients will be sharper and anyone with good hearing can easily tell the difference.

There will very soon be an 11 channel Class D amp on the market that will be very compelling - I hope that will change your mind!

 

[Rachael B]

Nothing I have ever heard has convinced me it is worth the exorbitant cost. With 11 speakers to power now it is even less likely. Hell I won't ever go with an outboard amp for Atmos, even that is a PITA IMO.

In the long run, separates will be cheaper. They'll last much longer on average. Upgrades will be easier once you go separate. All you have to change is the processor unless the channel count goes up. My main amp, a Rotel 990, 3 x 200 watt unit has been in continuous use since 1994. My Sony ES stereo amp has been in continuous use since 1993. As the channel count has risen, I've added another stereo amp for each pair. My main pair of amps has mated with the following: Elite SP-99, Marantz AV9000, Onkyo 1080 receiver, an Onkyo Pro processor, and now with an Intega Research RC-1.

As for performance, the greatest gain will be in the center channel. You will get better dialog out of a big, bad center channel. Your speaker will never run out of air.

 

[John Dirk]

In the long run, separates will be cheaper.

Most likely but that wasn't my reason for going with them. My reason was performance. With a medium to large dedicated room [mine is 3150 cubic feet] I doubt anyone here would disagree. My position is "you can't take it with you" so I'm always looking for upgrades that will add true discernible value. In other words, I want the best performance I can afford. That's why I switched to separates and I've never looked back.

 

[JohnRice]

Just keep piling on everyone.

 

[Rachael B]

Most likely but that wasn't my reason for going with them. My reason was performance. With a medium to large dedicated room [mine is 3150 cubic feet] I doubt anyone here would disagree. My position is "you can't take it with you" so I'm always looking for upgrades that will add true discernible value. In other words, I want the best performance I can afford. That's why I switched to separates and I've never looked back.

I've only ever had separates. Any receiver I've ever had was used as a pre. My first surround system, from the late 80's, was a Pioneer VSX-5000 receiver, two S.A.E. 2x100 power amps, Pioneer Laserdisc player, and 4 Sony tower speakers. That was before Pro-Logic. It's all just evolved from there.

Of course it's the performance!