Is Atmos actually reducing the sound quality of flagship AV receivers?

[Leeps]

This is all theory, but with most flagship receivers these days looking at around 11 channels, for those who are never going to be interested in introducing so many speakers to a domestic living room and are more interested in a high quality musical 5.1 system, is having 11 channels actually threatening absolute sound quality?

Or is ultimately the quality of the power supply the main factor, regardless of how many channels are used?

I'm just thinking that flagship AV receivers are in danger of having the same argument comparing 5.1 & 11.1 receivers as 5.1 AV receivers and stereo amps; that for many users you're starting to pay for a lot of components and features that you never intend using, so while the price is ramping up considerably to have the Atmos label (see Anthem's prices this year for example), that in quality terms, there aren't any real improvements. I know further down the food chain that 7.1 only receivers are available, but then, these midrange machines aren't as high quality, are they?

In a way it's a shame that Atmos hit the shops in the same year as 4K/HDCP2.2/HDMI 2.0. The old Anthem MRX710 is actually more appealing to me than the MRX1120 had it been 4k future-proofed.

Am I the only one not bothered about Atmos? I suppose it's the sound quality / cost balance I'm mainly aiming at here.

 

[bigboss]

Year on year, AV receivers don't improve in quality significantly. Anthem MRX700 / 710 / 720 for example. So I won't blame it on Atmos.

Also, only 3 AV receivers have 11 channels of amplification (2 until yesterday): Anthem MRX1120, Onkyo TX-NR3030 (due to be replaced later this year) & the newly announced Denon AVR-X6300H.

Anthem is taking the mick this year, with exchange rates. 1120 should cost around £3000, not £4000. It's not because of Atmos. Compare US vs UK prices of current models and the previous generation ones.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I wouldn't say that more channels are impairing receiver quality, as all the channels share the same transformer anyway, so it just shares out its capabilities between more channels. Quality will be the same, but total output per channel will be reduced a little.

The biggest effect on quality will be the 'feature set' - picture upscaling/converting, streaming, Bluetooth etc. Even if these things didn't affect quality (depends on implementation), they eat up the available budget, so less is left over for the important stuff. That's not to say that AV receivers with loads of features will sound bad because they won't, but a comparison to a two channel hi-fi amp for music quality will show up the shortcomings of AV receivers.

With regards to quality between models, if you have two closely priced models, chances are the differences are going to be connectivity or flexibility, with very little, if any difference in quality unless different DACs are used.

I think the introduction of two channel amplifiers like the Arcam SR 250 and the Classe 2200i (and no doubt more to come over time) with HDMI and digital inputs will impact the sales of AV. There are a lot of people out there who want the flexibility of an AV receiver, but don't want the other 5-9 channels!

And no Leeps, you're not the only one that isn't bothered by Atmos. I "get it", but I just don't feel a relatively small room will genuinely benefit from it. It is great for dedicated rooms over a certain size, but nowadays, most people are struggling to get 5.1 past the other half, especially since the introduction of soundbars and soundbases. Personally, I'm an advocate of increasing the quality of the basic number of channels needed (5.1) rather than adding the more of the same quality. Of course, if you're in a happy place with your system and don't feel the need for better quality, Atmos/DTS:X is the perfect next step.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

David, below which size (approximate dimensions, please!) of room would you say that Atmos is of no genuine benefit? For instance, my biggest room is 18'2" by 14'3" by 11", and the calibrator Mr Steve Withers recently said that perhaps, in my case using a 12.1 Audyssey system (before you ask, I'm using two centre speakers wired in series, one immediately above and the other immediately above the television, to help raise the centre channel sound) that Atmos, though better, might not be enough of an improvement to justify the expense. But to repeat, what size room is too small for Atmos, in your judgement?

 

[Frank Harvey]

David, below which size (approximate dimensions, please!) of room would you say that Atmos is of no genuine benefit? For instance, my biggest room is 18'2" by 14'3" by 11", and the calibrator Mr Steve Withers recently said that perhaps, in my case using a 12.1 Audyssey system (before you ask, I'm using two centre speakers wired in series, one immediately above and the other immediately above the television, to help raise the centre channel sound) that Atmos, though better, might not be enough of an improvement to justify the expense. But to repeat, what size room is too small for Atmos, in your judgement?

You could argue that any room will benefit - a pair of speakers above you will produce precise overhead effects (as well as what they're designed to do) and that can usually be fitted into most rooms. My own room is around 12' x 14', and I don't feel the need for them as my rear speakers (to either side of my listening position) are situated about a foot and a half above my head, and are creating quite adequate overhead effects. Whilst I could put in a couple of in-ceiling speakers above me (or use R50s), I certainly don't feel I'm missing out on anything. When I decided to move on from my Audiolab 8200AP processor, I could've gone Atmos, but decided instead to stick to 5.1 (I have tried 7.1 previously) and just get much better quality processing/pre amplification.

In my view, to get the full benefit of Atmos, you ideally need to be using both pairs of in-ceiling speakers, so in other words, a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 system. To utilise four in-ceiling speakers properly you're looking at a room length of around 20 feet, give or take.

Atmos is the next logical step for anyone who already has a well balanced and we'll set up 5.1 or 7.1 system that they are happy with the quality of, but the majority of systems out there aren't well balanced with regards to quality, which I feel should be addressed first - it is pointless adding more speakers to a system you're not happy with or you're not getting the best from. Justifying apextra outlay comes with a quality increase for me, rather than just adding more speakers of the same quality (or usually lesser quality, in most cases).

My Atmos motto is 'do it properly or don't do it at all'.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

In my view, to get the full benefit of Atmos, you ideally need to be using both pairs of in-ceiling speakers, so in other words, a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 system. To utilise four in-ceiling speakers properly you're looking at a room length of around 20 feet, give or take.

That's the sort of detail I sought. Many thanks, David. For the time being, I won't aspire to Atmos. When I get my next chunk of money it'll go towards the (currently £5,000) Sony 75XD9405 televison and a 4K Blu-ray player, and only after that would I consider the further £2,500 that an Atmos receiver and two pairs of in-ceiling speakers would cost.

 

[Frank Harvey]

That's the sort of detail I sought. Many thanks, David. For the time being, I won't aspire to Atmos. When I get my next chunk of money it'll go towards the (currently £5,000) Sony 75XD9405 televison and a 4K Blu-ray player, and only after that would I consider the further £2,500 that an Atmos receiver and two pairs of in-ceiling speakers would cost.

Don't let my views out you off though (or anyone else), I'm just saying it as I see it, and recommending what I would do/have done.

Anyone else looking to move towards Atmos should also bear in mind one aspect if they have a traditional 5.1/7.1 system where the rear speakers are wall mounted at the usual 1.5/2m (about head height) from the floor - to get the full benefit from Atmos height speakers, the existing rear speakers need to be lowered to around the same level as the front LCR.

 

[bigboss]

I don't think you need a 20 feet room to enjoy Atmos. Mine is about 16.5' X 12.5'. All you need is a "cocoon" of surrounds and Atmos speakers which are at a reasonable distance away from fronts to enjoy immersive sound. And you need to ensure there is a height gradient between the surrounds and Atmos speakers.

 

[Native_bon]

Thats me out then. My room is 15 by 12 feet. Yes I do think more channels would have a negative impact on sound quality. Am quite happy with my 7.1 right now which I still run in 5.1. Plays music very well. Some may say 2 channel systems sounds much better but the difference in sound quality is very hard to detect execpt you got AV & stereo amp side by side. Some av amps may just be able to produce quality sound with good power supply & engineering, but these amps tend to be very expensive.

This is the very reason I go for Arcam Av amps, they only add the bare essentials when making their Av amps.

The way I feel about Atoms? Its just too many speakers to deal with in a real home environment. Well, for me that is. If you got the space & not a problem then why not. Just got a feeling its getting to the point of silliness. Let me see... *wink* What next 15.2.7?. I got a feeling about 70% or even 80% still run in 5.1 mode. Then the rest percent make up for the soundbar generation. May be 3% run in 7.1 or 7.2. I say we need Quality not quantity.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

Bought the Marantz SR-7010 last month. Highest end (at the time) Marantz one box receiver setup.

I have a 7.2.4 setup using Yamaha "Natural Sound" in wall and in ceiling speakers in a 19 ft x 12.5 ft media room.

I also have a pair of Klipsch Reference 40 Mk. 2 floorstanders. The AV setup could be expanded to 9.2.6 if the receiver had the 4 extra channels, as I originally set things up for a 7.2.2 setup, then upgraded to 7.2.4 but left the middle in ceiling speakers in place because I couldn't be bothered to fix the holes in the ceiling that would be left if I took the speakers out.

Sound for movies is great. Atmos has in NO WAY reduced the quality there.

Sound for music? Not so great.

I have no doubt a lot of that is down to the Klipsch speakers (a Christmas gift), but I still think the mantra of "A/V receivers for A/V, proper stereo kit for proper stereo" still applies, and probably always will.

After all you wouldn't expect a minibus to handle like a Lotus Elise, but you wouldn't try to transport 15 people in the Lotus.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I have no doubt a lot of that is down to the Klipsch speakers (a Christmas gift), but I still think the mantra of "A/V receivers for A/V, proper stereo kit for proper stereo" still applies, and probably always will.

Which is why I use a Classe Sigma SSP AV pre - neither aspect is compromised with regards to quality, and it handles movies and music equally well.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

Bought the Marantz SR-7010 last month. Highest end (at the time) Marantz one box receiver setup.

I have a 7.2.4 setup using Yamaha "Natural Sound" in wall and in ceiling speakers in a 19 ft x 12.5 ft media room.

I thought that the Marantz SR-7010 had only nine channels, so if you are running 7.2.4 Atmos, needing eleven channels, surely you must have an extra amplifier somewhere? Which would not be a one-box receiver setup ....

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

The 7010 will actually process up to 11 out of 13 channels, which you can select or let the electronics do for you.

Yes, you need an external power amp for the last two channels.

You can select FL& FR, e.g. if you were using your "proper stereo" for the fronts, or, like me, use it for the back highs / in-ceilings.

I'm using a modest Onkyo M-5010 stereo power amp ($200 open box), 75 wpc RMS.

In time I hope Santa will bring me one of those Monoprice 7 x 200 wpc RMS (all at the same time) power amps, then I can run all 7 in-walls of that and let the receiver run just the overheads.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

I have no doubt a lot of that is down to the Klipsch speakers (a Christmas gift), but I still think the mantra of "A/V receivers for A/V, proper stereo kit for proper stereo" still applies, and probably always will.

Which is why I use a Classe Sigma SSP AV pre - neither aspect is compromised with regards to quality, and it handles movies and music equally well. 

Yeah, but I don't get staff discounts ;-)

I'm pretty much stereo-less at the moment, but if a couple of ships come in soon, I'm buying a pair of ProAc Studio 148 speakers ($3600 plus tax and shipping here), the adding pre and power amps, either Emotiva or Cyrus (I haven't decided) and going from there.

And I'll stick to my mantra of "proper stereo for proper stereo, receivers for surround sound, and never the twain shall meet".

 

[manix]

I have got no idea why anyone would buy a flagship av receiver. 5 years time it will be out of date and all the amplification you have paid for in it is stuck in the same box. Total waste of money. Good for the shops though that sell the next best thing to you.

I wonder why this isn't pointed out to people in the reviews and in shops when you buy the stuff?

 

[bigboss]

I have got no idea why anyone would buy a flagship av receiver. 5 years time it will be out of date and all the amplification you have paid for in it is stuck in the same box. Total waste of money. Good for the shops though that sell the next best thing to you.

I wonder why this isn't pointed out to people in the reviews and in shops when you buy the stuff?

Why won't the AV receivers work after 5 years? They will still amplify sound and drive the speakers. People not interested in Atmos are still happily using their AV receivers for about 10 years. With regards to 4K, the 4K blu ray players have twin HDMI outs which allow the video to go straight to TV and sound to the AV receiver. So they're not rendered useless.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

I have got no idea why anyone would buy a flagship av receiver.

Same reason I don't buy my stereos from Argos (or Target in my neck of the woods) and why I choose to drive a Mercedes AMG and not a Vauxhall Viva:
1. Because if I want the best and can afford it, why not?
2. Because the flagship models often, nay usually, come with features and technologies, sound formats, etc. that will "trickle down" to the budget models in about three years.
3. Because I'm prepared to bet most TVs, AV receivers, etc. break down and are thrown out long before they reach five years of age. Some may last ten years, some only ten minutes. It's called the reliability "bathtub curve" which says (typically for electronics by the way), a relatively large number will fail early on, usually to a defect or flagrant abuse, most will die randomly over a, say, ten year period and at a fairly even rate, then after ten years (or whatever but ten years is good to long for electronics) those units left will start to fail quite rapidly.

 

[manix]

Unfortunetly you are not understanding. A poweramp will last happy 20+ years and still sound good so why on earth would you pay for amplification which is perfectlty good and chuck it away because the unit has become obsolete???

Tell me this you guys who have just bought these flagship al-in-one receivers do you think the amplification side will be any better than my 5 channel power amp Rotel RMB 1075 which I bought 14 years old?? And then quite seriously my Rotel multichannel poweramp is likely to last 30+ years before a re-cap as it uses slit foil capacitors which are in a well ventilated/cool unit. So why put expensive amplication in the same unit as all the processing that becomes obsolete and you can only sell for peanuts in a few years.

Me all I do is keep my multi-channel amplifier and replace the out of date pre-amp/processor as and when necessary.

Now in addition to this having all the amplification in the same unit that does the processing means the design becomes more complicated than it needs to be. Sheilding, power supplies, space, cooling etc. Add to this if the unit goes wrong (given the amplication area was design correctly it's unlikely that area should go wrong) the whole unit could be bin fodder and you have just chucked away all that expensive amplication for no good reason other than it's in the same box.

The downside of a processor/preamp + seperate multichannel amp is only that you have have two boxes and the relative lack of available processor/preamps on the market (in the USA the situation is better on availability)

Like I said these expensive all-in-one receivers make no sense for the consumer it's a flawed idea.

 

[manix]

I have got no idea why anyone would buy a flagship av receiver.

Same reason I don't buy my stereos from Argos (or Target in my neck of the woods) and why I choose to drive a Mercedes AMG and not a Vauxhall Viva: 1. Because if I want the best and can afford it, why not? 2. Because the flagship models often, nay usually, come with features and technologies, sound formats, etc. that will "trickle down" to the budget models in about three years. 3. Because I'm prepared to bet most TVs, AV receivers, etc. break down and are thrown out long before they reach five years of age. Some may last ten years, some only ten minutes. It's called the reliability "bathtub curve" which says (typically for electronics by the way), a relatively large number will fail early on, usually to a defect or flagrant abuse, most will die randomly over a, say, ten year period and at a fairly even rate, then after ten years (or whatever but ten years is good to long for electronics) those units left will start to fail quite rapidly.

If you wanted the best why didn't you buy a processor/pre-amp and multichannel amplifier.

If you understood what I was talking about it's all about the fact power amplifiers don't go out of date and are very reliable if designed correctly. Why put them in the same box as the processing. There is only one positive to the design it's one box everything else is negative

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

I have got no idea why anyone would buy a flagship av receiver.

Same reason I don't buy my stereos from Argos (or Target in my neck of the woods) and why I choose to drive a Mercedes AMG and not a Vauxhall Viva: 1. Because if I want the best and can afford it, why not? 2. Because the flagship models often, nay usually, come with features and technologies, sound formats, etc. that will "trickle down" to the budget models in about three years. 3. Because I'm prepared to bet most TVs, AV receivers, etc. break down and are thrown out long before they reach five years of age. Some may last ten years, some only ten minutes. It's called the reliability "bathtub curve" which says (typically for electronics by the way), a relatively large number will fail early on, usually to a defect or flagrant abuse, most will die randomly over a, say, ten year period and at a fairly even rate, then after ten years (or whatever but ten years is good to long for electronics) those units left will start to fail quite rapidly.

If you wanted the best why didn't you buy a processor/pre-amp and multichannel amplifier.

If you understood what I was talking about it's all about the fact power amplifiers don't go out of date and are very reliable if designed correctly. Why put them in the same box as the processing. There is only one positive to the design it's one box everything else is negative

a) Because I didn't want a two box solution - couldn't afford it for starters - I'm in the used AMG Mercedes price range, not the new Bentley price range.

b) because I couldn't find a decent 11 channel power amp cheaper than a full blown receiver - the Yamaha MX-A5000 costs $2500 here, which is about what I paid for the Marantz SR-7010 plus a modest Onkyo M-5010 stereo power amp, BUT I would still have to have forked out another $2,500 for the CX-A5100 to go with it.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

Unfortunetly you are not understanding. A poweramp will last happy 20+ years and still sound good so why on earth would you pay for amplification which is perfectlty good and chuck it away because the unit has become obsolete???

Tell me this you guys who have just bought these flagship al-in-one receivers do you think the amplification side will be any better than my 5 channel power amp Rotel RMB 1075 which I bought 14 years old?? And then quite seriously my Rotel multichannel poweramp is likely to last 30+ years before a re-cap as it uses slit foil capacitors which are in a well ventilated/cool unit. So why put expensive amplication in the same unit as all the processing that becomes obsolete and you can only sell for peanuts in a few years.

Me all I do is keep my multi-channel amplifier and replace the out of date pre-amp/processor as and when necessary.

Now in addition to this having all the amplification in the same unit that does the processing means the design becomes more complicated than it needs to be. Sheilding, power supplies, space, cooling etc. Add to this if the unit goes wrong (given the amplication area was design correctly it's unlikely that area should go wrong) the whole unit could be bin fodder and you have just chucked away all that expensive amplication for no good reason other than it's in the same box.

The downside of a processor/preamp + seperate multichannel amp is only that you have have two boxes and the relative lack of available processor/preamps on the market (in the USA the situation is better on availability)

Like I said these expensive all-in-one receivers make no sense for the consumer it's a flawed idea.

And spending $2500 on a power amp and another $2500 on an 11 channel preprocessor is more logical, Captain, than spending just $2500 on the top-of-the-single-box-range receiver?

I'm sure some power amps will last over 10 years, but by no means all. My reliability calculation prowess (well, let's face it my maths in general, and I have a BEng in mechanical engineering from the days when degrees weren't handed out like fliers to the latest pizza joint) is rustier than a very rusty thing, but if you assume the "mean time to failure" of a power amp is ten years, that means, by definition, half of all power amps will have failed by the time they're 10 years old. I'd argue the mean time to failure is far less than ten years, more likely five. That's mean time to first failure, by the way. Most people won't bother having any electronic device repaired, and will merely chuck the offending piece of junk out with the trash and buy a newer/shinier/louder/brighter/keep-up-with-the-WHF-Joneses replacement.

Now if you integrate the function decribed by the "bathtub curve", I think you'll find the resulting graph represents the cumulative proportion of failures. Oh yeah, and the bathtub curve was determined by testing gazillions of similar electronic devices, by the way - light bulbs. Express that as a percentage and subtract it from 100% and you'll get the number of units still working. I think you'll find the number of products still working decays expontentially. Google Weibull functions.

 

[bigboss]

Benedict has explained it well. Two problems with the preamp / power amp solution:

1) 2 large boxes instead of 1 box solution. I certainly don't have any space for it.

2) The cheapest pre-amp / power amp combination is the Yamaha at £5000 to drive Atmos. I can get the same with a single box at quarter of the price. So even if it lasts only 5 years (they last much more than that), it'll be 20 years before I match the cost of the Yamaha combination, that is not even considering the cost of replacing the pre-amp.

 

[Series1boy]

I agree with benedict and BB. I too have. 1 box for all solution and pretty good 1 at the cost of£1400. I simply don't have the space for various boxs when I can get a receiver that does it all, very very well and for less money..

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

One of those Monoprice 7 x 200 watt RMS all at the same time power amps is on my Chrimbo list...

I'll use that for the seven in walls and save the receiver's power amps for the in ceilings.

I want the sound and feel of an overweight Concorde taking off on a thin air day...

 

[Leeps]

For those more interested in (5.1) SQ than Atmos, the Anthem MRX520 looks a pretty good bet, although it's annoying that it costs more £GB than $USD! How do Anthem work that exchange rate out??

But in its defence, it does have decent room correction software, an emphasis on SQ, and I like the presets available that allow you to set up a combo of your favourite settings. I was certainly very impressed when I heard the MRX710 at Bristol when it was powering some very sweet Paradigms.

Actually when you consider its 100wpc, HDMI inputs, 3 optical (very useful indeed) and 2 coax, room correction and SQ it starts to compare pretty well to traditional stereo amps for features/SQ balance...and of course you can enjoy your movies much much more too. A pretty good all-rounder then and at £1500 current RRP doesn't look tooooo bad value. There are plenty of stereo amps around this price bracket with the same power but by the time you add a DAC no longer look price competitive. With most other AVR's you could still defend the stereo amp on SQ grounds, but I don't think this is true against the Anthem, especially when you consider that lack of room correction or bass management in an equivalent stereo amp.