What's new

Deciding if Aura-3D is worth the extra cost of an 8802A verse an AVM 60 (1 Viewer)

Sasha4

Auditioning
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
3
Real Name
Alex Ford
Like my title states, I'm curious if those in this community have found the Aura-3D application worth the investment in my future Pre-Pro. My current considerations are Marantz 8802A (with) and Anthem AVM 60 (Without). Apologize for the long winded intro but I figured it would help

Looking to upgrade my current set up.
I have Polk RTi12s fronts , CSi6A center, FXiA6 surrounds, RT1 A5 rears
For my object base surround (Atmos/ DTS-X) would be Likely (4) RTi A3, attached to the ceiling with PNBB Mounts

To power my speakers I have recently purchased (5) Crown XLS 1502 and (1) 2002 (for the RTi12's because they crave a lot of attention). The left over channel from the amp that powers the center, could be used as the VOG speaker in Aura-3D so Im not needing an additional amp. DVD is currently a Denon DBT-1713UD, soon to be replaced with wither an OPPO 203 or 205

So I've read what I can find on forums and Google concerning Aura-3D and the concept seems to be better than Atmos and most reviewers prefer the double layer sound versus reflected sound since its leaves more possibilities for imperfect rooms. I also like the VOG speaker directly overhead as I'm sure that will create some amazing effects.

So my issue is with the past dictating battles between formats (we all know what happened to Beta-Max, LD and HD), Im trying to decide if the additional cost is worth the gamble. One thing I did like about the Aura is its upscalable to any input so that could be a great DSP enhanced sound similar to my outgoing Yamaha RX-A2030 Aventage receiver. With very few movies shown in this format, I worry but Atmos is not exactly filling the venues either. So while the there is the possibility that the whole thing could die like 3D video, the Aura-3D can at least in theory, still produce an upscaled effect. Not sure Atmos can

The reviews on the Anthems seem to all be amazing and yet Ive found really none who dislikes the Marantz either. The stereo side I'm not concerned with as I have a Custom 55 Tube amplifier from Ideal Innovations and a vintage pair of Klipsch LaScalas.

So is having the wide channels, the extra possibility for Aura-3D worth the extra 1K? Ive also got to figure out if the Audessey system can calibrate for both Atmos and Aura with one set speaker placement.

Any help would be fantastic
 

Sasha4

Auditioning
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
3
Real Name
Alex Ford
Anyone? Bueller?

I went with the Marantz based off the field tests and reviews that state Auro-3D sounds a lot more realistic and is not sweet spot specific. Additionally the DTS-X format will use either the Atmos or Auro-3D speaker set up so Ill use the extra channels in my Marantz to be able to create a hydrib Auro/ Atmos configuration and adjust./ tweek with Aud.

It was a tough call because I really wanted the Anthem but in the end - I want to cover all spectrums, especially one that upscales any material as well as its been reported to do.
 

DavidMiller

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
1,078
Location
Kirkland, Wa
Real Name
David Miller
Auro-3D just doesn't have much native support. I have not upgraded myself. I have heard it does a better job then DTS:X Neural but I have been really happy with that so I have just skipped it.
 

Sasha4

Auditioning
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
3
Real Name
Alex Ford
Auro-3D just doesn't have much native support. I have not upgraded myself. I have heard it does a better job then DTS:X Neural but I have been really happy with that so I have just skipped it.

From what I've read- No actual claims here, is the upscaler did an unbelievable job with standard 5.1 material. In fact they are rerecording a lot of older movies and raising them to Auro-3D codecs. The system they offer makes sense, has great reviews and none of the downsides of Atmos.

To me Dolby just wanted to get out there as quick as they could and not lose to Auro. They didnt do a very good job of building a working system. I've not once been impressed in an Atmos theater. I think the combined approach of throwing it out to consumers with poor design/ upscaling combined with dismal performing speakers and you have the recipe to be the next forgotten upgrade next to 3D TV (who ever though people would feel immersed in 3D out of 50" TV are truly lost).

So while support is lower (because Dolby likely has a lot of contracts with studios) I did not that Auro is gaining some and with the ability to recapture digital onto film with their codecs and not require a team to do it is amazing. I guess we will have to see.

Ill post back when I get it all up and running. The advantage I see is with Marantz "Hybrid" set-up, you can crossover a lot of speakers and not be too far out (most peoples theater rooms rarely follow Dolby to the law anyways- thats why we pay to get it calibrated or use Aud / ARC, etc). Only downside to the Auro-3D set-up I can see is Marantz saw fit to use one of the Subwoofer channels to be assigned the Voice of God speaker. I guess that SVS PB16 Ultra just move up a notch. LOL
 

DavidMiller

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
1,078
Location
Kirkland, Wa
Real Name
David Miller
I enjoy DTS:X/Atmos a lot but every sound track is different and I wonder if it is the rush job by the encoders not the standard. You listen to John Wick and it is wow. I think the sound formats rock! Just some movies do better then others.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
350,697
Messages
4,926,981
Members
142,888
Latest member
boreli
Recent bookmarks
0
Top