I listen to headphones/earbuds when doing yard work or traveling. In those environments, anything above MP3 is a waste of time. For me, nothing beats a quality 2-channel system in a dedicated listening room. The reality of who is listening and where they are listening means few know the goodness of what the above 2-channel experience can offer.
I do not buy into the argument “as the artist intended” and clearly as we add processing tricks, this statement becomes even more false.
I am sure a full-blown blown properly set up immersive surround sound system using the latest state-of-the-art processing sounds amazing. This is a niche market segment and always will be. For the most part, this is a United States-only event with home theater as most of the world does not have the space to implement it (small living spaces mostly apartments).
For those who can implement it, knock yourselves out. For the rest of us, it really does not matter. How do I know this, Spotify still leads the market by a huge margin and that is all lossless content.
“In the lead as of 2022, is Spotify with a global subscriber market share of 30.6 percent, followed by Apple Music at 13.7 percent, Tencent Music at 13.4, and Amazon at 13.3 percent. Other competitors include YouTube Music and Deezer.” Statista
You are absolutely correct. Most systems should be, and would be better off being stereo systems plus a sub if possible. There has been a trend to higher sensitivity and therefore higher F3s in speaker design in recent years. This makes a sub or two more desirable.
My only caveat is that there is a place for 3.1. I do think most do like a picture with their audio now. We do have one AV system in our great room, and that is mainly used for TV. Now the BBC don't believe in a center channel. When we watch BBC via VPN, the sound is excellent in stereo. However, US networks seem to almost exclusively mix in Dolby 5.1 now. In this situation there does seem to be a definite benefit to the center channel. That system is 3.1.
The big issue is that we have horrid sound bars or an AV receiver as the main options. All these receivers are stuffed with amps, that people feel they are compelled to use, even if the surroundings are totally unsuitable, which I think most are.
You are correct, to do Atmos systems properly it does require an integrated design of which the room is a major, if not the major determinant of success.
What is lacking in all this is an absolute dearth of two and three channel AV receivers. This should be the major market.
You are spot on, that this multichannel craze and especially Atmos is a particularly American obsession.
Even so it is niche here. Today I just had my security system revamped and upgraded. When the house was built, the outfit that handled the installation also did home AV installations. However I found out today they have dropped the AV part of the business due to lack of demand. The owner said AV is just too niche to be viable, at least here in the Twin Cities Metro.
I have long thought that the design of our AV systems is all wrong. The system needs more flexibility and be modular based, so you can just build a system round amps and speakers that are actually practical to use.
If changes are not made, by the major players, sound bars will be the only option for AV, or the few will have to pay a fortune for AVRs and AVPs.
From what I am hearing on the street around here, AV as we know and understand it here is in grave danger of continuing decline.
I just wish that people would realize how good a two channel AV system is. I have one of those also, and it beats most systems with more channels by a country mile.
What is required is more quality and not more channels for the majority.
