I liked your example with Shadow where you spoke about the feeling of being in a cave. Probably that is exactly what people are lacking when they expect "more sound" from the top layer speakers. A bird or a helicopter will fly over and will be gone. They are objects. What comes next is silence. However, If the specific scene is happening on a busy street, after the bird (object) passes, I am expecting more street sound from the top layer speakers. Let's say a car passes by and it beeps loudly. The sound of the car and the horn for sure will come from the bottom layer, but then the echo of the street and the echo of the horn should be heard from the top layer. My expectations are that I should be hearing not only specific sounds which source is somewhere up high (not only specific objects), but the other natural environment sounds that are around us - echoes, wind, trees, etc. A scene in a cave is a perfect example. In my opinion, top layer speakers should almost never be silent, except if the scene is in a space, like in Gravity or similar silent environment. That said, unfortunately, Atmos is lacking "environmental" sounds in most movies. Take any good race scene from Ready Player One or John Wick. Top speakers are mostly silent, except for some objects that fly over. No echoes from what is happening below on the street. Therefore I am a big fan of Auro3D upmixer, which does a fantastic job at "pulling" the environmental sounds up to the top layer.
I agree. I've said the exact same thing on other forums about Atmos. Most people might get disappointed with Atmos because they expect hear things coming from above. Like in the earlier days when 5.1 was pretty new almost all of my friend when I demo my system said "I can't hear anything from the back". But when I turned the surround speaker off they realised what they did. Same thing with Atmos. But now most 5.1 mixes are really active sometimes I think too much is happening in the surrounds. So Atmos mixing will get better when the engineers have totally figured it out I think. I've recently installed four Atmos speakers in my home and the difference in how Atmos vs 5.1 produce space or environments is night and day. When a movie scene is in a church or something like that if I close my eyes I almost think I am there. Sure I wanted to hear some stuff coming from the top just for the fun of it but in the long run I think it will be annoying. I think Atmos is a big and great step for home theatre sound. Didn't think 7.1 was that big of a difference compared to 5.1. With a great 5.1 setup the two extra speakers didn't do much at least for me. In a big room 7.1 could be beneficial but in smaller rooms 5.1 worked great. Although Atmos works well in a small room. Also the name Atmos might come from atmosphere and it fits well with how Atmos works.
@@FURognar I figured. And the name fits well because Atmos makes really good atmosphere for the movies. Tbh I don't really care that much for effects and stuff flying above the head but the spacious sound Atmos gives is just awesome.
My opinion is sometimes simpler is better. I want a four. One system and I don’t have the room per se to have all those speakers on the ceiling but I have been on a movie theater and I have audition theater rooms. I never felt that my system was any less to be honest if you have a good set up in the regards of really fine tuning it and you have decent gear You can achieve a great experience.
I'm pretty new to home theater. I am currently running 5.1.2 from an Onkyo TX-RX820 and want to go to 7.1.2 so needed a power amp. I was keeping an eye on second hand amps when this came up and picked it up as I heard good things about Emotiva and the price was right. I'm curious what you would power with this? The fronts or surrounds? My room is 12x16 and I am running older Klipsch 10.5 towers. Thanks!
Hi! Looks like your Onkyo is rated at 130Watts at 2 channels driven. You are going to want the power for your L and R, so I’d use the Emotiva (80Watts per channel - all channels driven) for the surrounds.
So you’re running your 4 ceiling speakers with the A500? I’m setting up a 7.1.4 with my Denon 4500 running everything but the fronts and center and letting the Emotiva handle that. I’m powering Klipsch RP 5000s and the advice from some other channels were to let the A 500 run those fronts and center and then let the Denon do the rest. I guess it’s all subjective but curious for your thoughts on the setup and what you think makes the most sense. Thanks and subbed.
I’d let the Emotiva handle the fronts and center as well. The reason is you have 80watts per channel all channels driven compared to your Denon which rates its power at 2 channels driven. For my situation, I run separates, one seven channel amp rated at 150 all channels for everything but my ceilings and use the A500 for the ceilings.
@@JoeBandyvoicetalent the x4500h Denon pushes 90w with 7 channels driven. Source: www.soundandvision.com/content/denon-avr-x4200w-av-receiver-review-test-bench The 4200 uses similar power supply the 4500
Reality check. When people spend money to upgrade their Receiver/Processor, buy additional speakers, cut holes in their ceilings, they want to feel like it was worth it. There are too many 4k action movies with 'LAZY' surround effects. The height channels are barely used. It is a good thing we have the option to upmix content. Atmos/DTS:X format would have died in a year if we did not have a way to utilize the height channels. Normal people DO NOT CARE about the director's intent. -- If they buy an 85 inch 4K TV for $5000, they want that TV to always impress them. They want a super sharp native 4k image, not something upscaled from 2k. -- They upgraded from a 5.1 to 13.1 - They want to hear tons of effects coming from the 6 heights/ wides channels. If I watched 6 4k action movies back to back and from those hours of movie watching the height/wide channels were only utilized about 10 percent of the time, I will be pissed.
I'd say that people are asking this question for understanding. The point of personal preference doesn't answer the questions as to how the technology works.
I agree 100 percent with you. Room correction / insulation makes a huge difference with Atmos continuous height sound format.
I liked your example with Shadow where you spoke about the feeling of being in a cave. Probably that is exactly what people are lacking when they expect "more sound" from the top layer speakers. A bird or a helicopter will fly over and will be gone. They are objects. What comes next is silence.
However, If the specific scene is happening on a busy street, after the bird (object) passes, I am expecting more street sound from the top layer speakers. Let's say a car passes by and it beeps loudly. The sound of the car and the horn for sure will come from the bottom layer, but then the echo of the street and the echo of the horn should be heard from the top layer.
My expectations are that I should be hearing not only specific sounds which source is somewhere up high (not only specific objects), but the other natural environment sounds that are around us - echoes, wind, trees, etc. A scene in a cave is a perfect example. In my opinion, top layer speakers should almost never be silent, except if the scene is in a space, like in Gravity or similar silent environment.
That said, unfortunately, Atmos is lacking "environmental" sounds in most movies. Take any good race scene from Ready Player One or John Wick. Top speakers are mostly silent, except for some objects that fly over. No echoes from what is happening below on the street. Therefore I am a big fan of Auro3D upmixer, which does a fantastic job at "pulling" the environmental sounds up to the top layer.
Thanks for sharing... Good thoughts here. Thanks for the kind words.
I agree.
I've said the exact same thing on other forums about Atmos. Most people might get disappointed with Atmos because they expect hear things coming from above. Like in the earlier days when 5.1 was pretty new almost all of my friend when I demo my system said "I can't hear anything from the back". But when I turned the surround speaker off they realised what they did. Same thing with Atmos. But now most 5.1 mixes are really active sometimes I think too much is happening in the surrounds. So Atmos mixing will get better when the engineers have totally figured it out I think.
I've recently installed four Atmos speakers in my home and the difference in how Atmos vs 5.1 produce space or environments is night and day. When a movie scene is in a church or something like that if I close my eyes I almost think I am there.
Sure I wanted to hear some stuff coming from the top just for the fun of it but in the long run I think it will be annoying. I think Atmos is a big and great step for home theatre sound. Didn't think 7.1 was that big of a difference compared to 5.1. With a great 5.1 setup the two extra speakers didn't do much at least for me. In a big room 7.1 could be beneficial but in smaller rooms 5.1 worked great. Although Atmos works well in a small room. Also the name Atmos might come from atmosphere and it fits well with how Atmos works.
@Tate Draven Cool. Is it 4K and Atmos on the movies there like on Netflix?
The name Atmos does come from the word Atmosphere.
@@FURognar I figured. And the name fits well because Atmos makes really good atmosphere for the movies. Tbh I don't really care that much for effects and stuff flying above the head but the spacious sound Atmos gives is just awesome.
My opinion is sometimes simpler is better. I want a four. One system and I don’t have the room per se to have all those speakers on the ceiling but I have been on a movie theater and I have audition theater rooms. I never felt that my system was any less to be honest if you have a good set up in the regards of really fine tuning it and you have decent gear You can achieve a great experience.
I’d agree with you! Good comment.
I'm pretty new to home theater. I am currently running 5.1.2 from an Onkyo TX-RX820 and want to go to 7.1.2 so needed a power amp. I was keeping an eye on second hand amps when this came up and picked it up as I heard good things about Emotiva and the price was right. I'm curious what you would power with this? The fronts or surrounds? My room is 12x16 and I am running older Klipsch 10.5 towers. Thanks!
Hi! Looks like your Onkyo is rated at 130Watts at 2 channels driven. You are going to want the power for your L and R, so I’d use the Emotiva (80Watts per channel - all channels driven) for the surrounds.
So you’re running your 4 ceiling speakers with the A500? I’m setting up a 7.1.4 with my Denon 4500 running everything but the fronts and center and letting the Emotiva handle that. I’m powering Klipsch RP 5000s and the advice from some other channels were to let the A 500 run those fronts and center and then let the Denon do the rest. I guess it’s all subjective but curious for your thoughts on the setup and what you think makes the most sense. Thanks and subbed.
I’d let the Emotiva handle the fronts and center as well. The reason is you have 80watts per channel all channels driven compared to your Denon which rates its power at 2 channels driven.
For my situation, I run separates, one seven channel amp rated at 150 all channels for everything but my ceilings and use the A500 for the ceilings.
@@hometheaterhobby9450 Sounds good...thanks for the response.
@@JoeBandyvoicetalent the x4500h Denon pushes 90w with 7 channels driven.
Source: www.soundandvision.com/content/denon-avr-x4200w-av-receiver-review-test-bench
The 4200 uses similar power supply the 4500
For a modern home theater of even modest means deserves Atmos / DTS X.
Agree. It’s a fantastic upgrade.
I’m curious about this amp myself, does it heat up or keep pretty cool over prolonged usage?
It stays very cool, it has internal fans that make a slight sound after a while, but I’ve ran it for 4+ hours at high volumes.
As with all EMOTIVA amps, it runs very cool, even in a confined space. I love the amp and it performs very well.
Reality check. When people spend money to upgrade their Receiver/Processor, buy additional speakers, cut holes in their ceilings, they want to feel like it was worth it.
There are too many 4k action movies with 'LAZY' surround effects. The height channels are barely used. It is a good thing we have the option to upmix content. Atmos/DTS:X format would have died in a year if we did not have a way to utilize the height channels.
Normal people DO NOT CARE about the director's intent.
-- If they buy an 85 inch 4K TV for $5000, they want that TV to always impress them. They want a super sharp native 4k image, not something upscaled from 2k.
-- They upgraded from a 5.1 to 13.1 - They want to hear tons of effects coming from the 6 heights/ wides channels.
If I watched 6 4k action movies back to back and from those hours of movie watching the height/wide channels were only utilized about 10 percent of the time, I will be pissed.
I'd say that people are asking this question for understanding. The point of personal preference doesn't answer the questions as to how the technology works.