Pioneer Atmos Speakers (SP-EFS73/SP-EBS73L/SP-EC73 and SW-E10) Preview

[AndrewJ]

Let me jump in briefly and offer some opinions on the direction of this thread!
I normally monitor threads to see what technical questions need answering, but after reading through all of these responses, it seems that most of the discussion is not per se about the Pioneer speakers, but about the worth of ATMOS in general. Perhaps this belongs in a general ATMOS thread?....
Having said that, and not wanting to come off as sounding combative, but nearly every comment is from a position of never having heard an ATMOS home demo!
I was skeptical until I heard it. In fact most of the time at home I listen in stereo over full range speakers (OK, they are TAD!), but when I heard the Dolby demo, I was surprisingly impressed, and even more so with the version that uses the upward firing drivers. So based on my initial skepticism, I can't blame you for yours. BUT, please try and get a listen...
I also understand that some ATMOS mixes work better than others. Some draw you in, some pull you out of the movie. Some movies are more gimmicky than others. But this is the case for all surround formats. If you don't want to be distracted from the story, read the book instead ;-)
I also see commentary around asking why did Dolby dumb down the experience of ATMOS in the cinema. Well, how did surround sound in the home start, 16 or more surround speakers just like in the cinema? No, of course not. It was scaled for the environment. Well so is ATMOS. The advantage of ATMOS over any previous surround sound format is the idea of being object oriented. With this approach, the sound does not need to be mixed specifically for the number of surround channels. The sound is designed for where it is supposed to come from. On decoding, that sound object is outputted to whatever combination of speakers that will most accurately place the sound object most accurately to where it is supposed to be perceived from. The more channels you have, the more accurate the apparent placement.
Now, I know not everyone will want ATMOS, or will be reluctant to upgrade, or will not want to junk what they have and replace it with all new speakers and receivers.
But some will, and maybe more so after hearing it. You are free to make up your own minds on the issue.
However, after I heard it, I wanted to design speakers to implement it. I also wanted to take advantage of what I thought I could bring to the party by using concentric drivers. These cost more, and demand for best effect that I use them in a three way system. All this adds cost and therefore moves it into a higher price point than my entry level speakers. I thought that it was better that I design a better sounding speaker to go along with the new surround format so that I could maximize the experience, rather than a dive straight to the bottom with a new technology. (OK, I hope you don't think I just said that my entry level speakers are a dive to the bottom.. )
Does this preclude doing a more entry level ATMOS speaker? Or an ATMOS add on to the BS22?, or a non-ATMOS version of these new speakers? Or a speaker above the BS22 price point at around $400/pr? The answer is no, all of these are possible. But which and when are business decisions determined by resources, profitability and sales commitments from possible sellers. As a designer, I get excited about what I can do in any of these categories, but I can't do everything at once. Having gone through the development of these speakers has however given me ideas of what to implement for future designs and this is the advantage of trying new things and designing for different price points.
I do honestly listen to opinions and wants and wishes expressed here, but I still have to prioritize!
So, I have taken one initial response, other manufacturers have taken different approaches, and you can evaluate them all and make your decisions. Happy listening
Regards
Andrew

 

[utopianemo]

Very different considering bipole speakers run off a single channel of the AVR... while these Pioneer Atmos speakers are designed to run the top firing concentric driver off a separate channel... and an Atmos enable AVR is needed to send a "proper" signal to that top firing driver.

It's not different. My point is that like bipoles, the Pioneer Atmos speakers are designed for a specific purpose--in this case, the purpose of playing Atmos material. Yet the author of the article was analyzing them as if they were normal speakers with a weird extra feature.

 

[utopianemo]

I don't think most consumers are savvy enough to understand that. In fact, I know they aren't and I would also gamble... much... that Pioneer is hoping for that to play in their favor as well.

Really? You seriously think a mass-market company would go out of their way to design a niche product meant for a specific audio format, priced well above their entry-level speaker, and develop a marketing strategy that includes selling the speakers to people who don't know what they're for? I agree that most consumers aren't savvy to understand what Atmos is about, but I'm certain these speakers were not developed for those people. I do believe like other people here that AVR companies are hoping Atmos will be a way to get people to buy more gear. That being the case, Pioneer(like others) will likely market the speakers and AVRs in a way that highlights their strengths and explains the features.

 

[3db]

The key difference I see between these Pioneers and Mirage Omni Sats is that if you don't engage ATMOS, the ceiling directed driver doesn't turn on but with the Omnisats, the ceiling based drivers are always on. Geeze with a slight mod to Mirage speakers, you possible could get the same or better performance with the Mirage for a lot cheaper.

Personaly, Id rather go the ceiling speaker route rather than the Pioneer approach. There is just too much compromise due to speaker location with the Pioneer approach.

 

[slipperybidness]

Let me jump in briefly and offer some opinions on the direction of this thread!
I normally monitor threads to see what technical questions need answering, but after reading through all of these responses, it seems that most of the discussion is not per se about the Pioneer speakers, but about the worth of ATMOS in general. Perhaps this belongs in a general ATMOS thread?....
Having said that, and not wanting to come off as sounding combative, but nearly every comment is from a position of never having heard an ATMOS home demo!
I was skeptical until I heard it. In fact most of the time at home I listen in stereo over full range speakers (OK, they are TAD!), but when I heard the Dolby demo, I was surprisingly impressed, and even more so with the version that uses the upward firing drivers. So based on my initial skepticism, I can't blame you for yours. BUT, please try and get a listen...
I also understand that some ATMOS mixes work better than others. Some draw you in, some pull you out of the movie. Some movies are more gimmicky than others. But this is the case for all surround formats. If you don't want to be distracted from the story, read the book instead ;-)
I also see commentary around asking why did Dolby dumb down the experience of ATMOS in the cinema. Well, how did surround sound in the home start, 16 or more surround speakers just like in the cinema? No, of course not. It was scaled for the environment. Well so is ATMOS. The advantage of ATMOS over any previous surround sound format is the idea of being object oriented. With this approach, the sound does not need to be mixed specifically for the number of surround channels. The sound is designed for where it is supposed to come from. On decoding, that sound object is outputted to whatever combination of speakers that will most accurately place the sound object most accurately to where it is supposed to be perceived from. The more channels you have, the more accurate the apparent placement.
Now, I know not everyone will want ATMOS, or will be reluctant to upgrade, or will not want to junk what they have and replace it with all new speakers and receivers.
But some will, and maybe more so after hearing it. You are free to make up your own minds on the issue.
However, after I heard it, I wanted to design speakers to implement it. I also wanted to take advantage of what I thought I could bring to the party by using concentric drivers. These cost more, and demand for best effect that I use them in a three way system. All this adds cost and therefore moves it into a higher price point than my entry level speakers. I thought that it was better that I design a better sounding speaker to go along with the new surround format so that I could maximize the experience, rather than a dive straight to the bottom with a new technology. (OK, I hope you don't think I just said that my entry level speakers are a dive to the bottom.. )
Does this preclude doing a more entry level ATMOS speaker? Or an ATMOS add on to the BS22?, or a non-ATMOS version of these new speakers? Or a speaker above the BS22 price point at around $400/pr? The answer is no, all of these are possible. But which and when are business decisions determined by resources, profitability and sales commitments from possible sellers. As a designer, I get excited about what I can do in any of these categories, but I can't do everything at once. Having gone through the development of these speakers has however given me ideas of what to implement for future designs and this is the advantage of trying new things and designing for different price points.
I do honestly listen to opinions and wants and wishes expressed here, but I still have to prioritize!
So, I have taken one initial response, other manufacturers have taken different approaches, and you can evaluate them all and make your decisions. Happy listening
Regards
Andrew

Well, to be honest, I'm still pretty skeptical of Atmos, but I have not heard it personally yet.

I do, however, feel a bit more comfortable with AJ weighing in on the topic. I had pretty much assumed that this design was Pio forcing AJ to make speakers that it thought would turn a quick buck, but if AJ had the freedom to make the choice then I feel a little better about it.

Unless Atmos turns out to "blow me away", then I'm still sticking to my 5.1 setup. If it's just marginally better, then it's not for me.

 

[utopianemo]

Let me jump in briefly and offer some opinions on the direction of this thread!
I normally monitor threads to see what technical questions need answering, but after reading through all of these responses, it seems that most of the discussion is not per se about the Pioneer speakers, but about the worth of ATMOS in general. Perhaps this belongs in a general ATMOS thread?....
Having said that, and not wanting to come off as sounding combative, but nearly every comment is from a position of never having heard an ATMOS home demo!

Mr. Jones, thank you for your commenting here. You note that folks' comments here are from the position of never having heard an Atmos home demo; the curious theme I note here is that people seem to wrongly assume that your new Atmos speakers are replacements for your entry-level speaker line, and judge them accordingly.

I have taken great interest in your work since the first time I heard of your entry-level bookshelf speakers through the HT Geeks podcast a few years ago. Speaking of which, I can't wait to hear you and Scott discuss Atmos and your new speakers on the show this Thursday. I don't get to tune in live, so I'll pose my questions here:

Firstly, I'm confused about appropriate placement of the mains and rears. It seems to me that the upward firing drivers need to be quite directional so as to ensure as much sound as possible hits the ear after reflecting off of the ceiling, and not directly from the drivers or some other surface. Is that a correct assumption? If so, does that mean the mains/rears need to be placed so that the ceiling reflection point is exactly halfway between the speaker and the listener? Likewise, does that mean ceiling height becomes a factor in determining how far from the main listening position to place the speaker? And does that mean the speakers should be toed inward to point directly at the main listening position?

I hope I phrased my questions clearly enough that you understand why I'm asking them. I have one other question more generally related to your personal speaker design intentions: Do you design your center channels principally for dialogue reproduction, or do you design them so that they'd do fine in a left/right/center setup? I ask because when Dolby Digital first hit the market, most speaker manufacturers seemed to design center channels with the idea that they were primarily for handling dialogue. The more accepted idea nowadays is that 70% of a movie's audio comes through the center channel; therefore a center channel needs to match the left and right in timbre up and down the frequency spectrum, and handle a lot more sound than they used to. So what's your design philosophy? Are Andrew Jones center channels designed primarily for dialogue reproduction, or would they be equally suited for use as left/right speakers?

Thank you for your time,
Nathan Daniels

 

[Plexmulti9]

1. Really? You seriously think a mass-market company would go out of their way to design a niche product meant for a specific audio format, priced well above their entry-level speaker, and develop a marketing strategy that includes selling the speakers to people who don't know what they're for? 2. I agree that most consumers aren't savvy to understand what Atmos is about, but I'm certain these speakers were not developed for those people. 3. I do believe like other people here that AVR companies are hoping Atmos will be a way to get people to buy more gear. That being the case, Pioneer(like others) will likely market the speakers and AVRs in a way that highlights their strengths and explains the features.

1. Oh, without hesitation YES.
2. Then, who are you proposing they are being developed and sold to? I can tell you who they are NOT being sold to: The custom channel, which does the vast majority of higher-ticket audio/video system setups. Not to mention the fact that the custom channel would not find any value or interest in speakers designed like this. Not from a business stand point (thanks for cutting down the number of speakers sold into an ATMOS job, right?), nor a system design/setup perspective (YOU try telling a guy's wife & interior designer where speakers HAVE to go. On the floor behind a couch? Angled just so & can't be moved? And they come in how many finish options? How big are they? On stands? Against the back wall where that table goes? In the middle of the floor? Hopefully you begin to see my point). The truth is that Pioneer does next to nothing with their speakers in the custom channel business wise - especially low sales in respect to in-ceiling/in-walls, which is why the angled speakers are being produced - in comparison to actual speaker manufacturers. So, who are they going to sell to? It's got to be Amazon & big box.... where the majority will be uneducated consumers without the skill set to set this up correctly.
3. I actually do NOT think that receiver companies are out adding ATMOS to get people to buy receivers. There are already things out there in the market place to do that which are more compelling and that are being made more necessities by other technology advances/devices. Namely, HDMI advancements & network-required features. ATMOS is only going to be on the upper end of receivers anyway for the next model cycle or two and that is not where the real sales volume is. These companies are adding ATMOS because large-company consumer electronics manufacturing is an arms race, pure and simple.

 

[gene]

1. Oh, without hesitation YES.
2. Then, who are you proposing they are being developed and sold to? I can tell you who they are NOT being sold to: The custom channel, which does the vast majority of higher-ticket audio/video system setups. Not to mention the fact that the custom channel would not find any value or interest in speakers designed like this. Not from a business stand point (thanks for cutting down the number of speakers sold into an ATMOS job, right?), nor a system design/setup perspective (YOU try telling a guy's wife & interior designer where speakers HAVE to go. On the floor behind a couch? Angled just so & can't be moved? And they come in how many finish options? How big are they? On stands? Against the back wall where that table goes? In the middle of the floor? Hopefully you begin to see my point). The truth is that Pioneer does next to nothing with their speakers in the custom channel business wise - especially low sales in respect to in-ceiling/in-walls, which is why the angled speakers are being produced - in comparison to actual speaker manufacturers. So, who are they going to sell to? It's got to be Amazon & big box.... where the majority will be uneducated consumers without the skill set to set this up correctly.
3. I actually do NOT think that receiver companies are out adding ATMOS to get people to buy receivers. There are already things out there in the market place to do that which are more compelling and that are being made more necessities by other technology advances/devices. Namely, HDMI advancements & network-required features. ATMOS is only going to be on the upper end of receivers anyway for the next model cycle or two and that is not where the real sales volume is. These companies are adding ATMOS because large-company consumer electronics manufacturing is an arms race, pure and simple.

Sadly some companies like Onkyo are dropping critically useful features like Audyssey Room correction in favor of Atmos b/c they lack the processing power to do both. We have an Atmos video coming out in the next couple of days where we discuss this in more detail.

I also find it "interesting" that manufacturers are expecting people to place stand mounted bookshelf speakers as surround speakers in their living rooms. Virtually EVERY theater room I'e been in (my own included) utilize sidwall or in-wall mounted surround speakers. I guess it's just a matter of time when a wallmounted Atmos speaker hits the scene but of course that won't be an optimal Atmos location according to the Dolby diagrams.

 

[utopianemo]

1. Oh, without hesitation YES.
2. Then, who are you proposing they are being developed and sold to? I can tell you who they are NOT being sold to: The custom channel, which does the vast majority of higher-ticket audio/video system setups. Not to mention the fact that the custom channel would not find any value or interest in speakers designed like this. Not from a business stand point (thanks for cutting down the number of speakers sold into an ATMOS job, right?), nor a system design/setup perspective (YOU try telling a guy's wife & interior designer where speakers HAVE to go. On the floor behind a couch? Angled just so & can't be moved? And they come in how many finish options? How big are they? On stands? Against the back wall where that table goes? In the middle of the floor? Hopefully you begin to see my point). The truth is that Pioneer does next to nothing with their speakers in the custom channel business wise - especially low sales in respect to in-ceiling/in-walls, which is why the angled speakers are being produced - in comparison to actual speaker manufacturers. So, who are they going to sell to? It's got to be Amazon & big box.... where the majority will be uneducated consumers without the skill set to set this up correctly.
3. I actually do NOT think that receiver companies are out adding ATMOS to get people to buy receivers. There are already things out there in the market place to do that which are more compelling and that are being made more necessities by other technology advances/devices. Namely, HDMI advancements & network-required features. ATMOS is only going to be on the upper end of receivers anyway for the next model cycle or two and that is not where the real sales volume is. These companies are adding ATMOS because large-company consumer electronics manufacturing is an arms race, pure and simple.

1. Okaay.....the price point for the large majority of people buying speakers at a standard big box store tops out at a couple hundred bucks...$450 at best. Those people will buy the Pioneer A.J.-designed entry level speakers or klipsch or infinity or somesort, not a $750 pair of bookshelf speakers, or floorstanders which cost even more. It makes NO business sense to even try to get those people to buy Elite Atmos Speakers. And they are "Elite" branded, which means Pioneer typically sells through controlled channels(not Amazon).
2. I agree with you regarding the Custom installed market. I believe Pioneer will market the speakers through places like the Magnolia outlets at Best Buy. So yes, big-box store, but a more upscale environment where the customer is likely to have strong contact with a salesperson who (theoretically) knows at least enough to tell the customer why the speaker has an extra set of concentric drivers on top.
3. What does "manufacturing arms race" even mean? The only reason any large company puts out any product is to make a profit. No matter how brilliant or stupid the idea, any feature is created/included/maintained with the goal of making money. As mentioned elsewhere, Onkyo is (stupidly) discontinuing use of Audyssey because they think the money they save by not including it is more than the money they will lose from people refusing to buy their AVRs. So even if AVR companies are adding Atmos simply because the other companies are, the motivation is that if they don't, they will lose out on profit from the people seeking out Atmos-enabled receivers. Even if Atmos is ultimately a doomed technology.

 

[Plexmulti9]

Sadly some companies like Onkyo are dropping critically useful features like Audyssey Room correction in favor of Atmos b/c they lack the processing power to do both. We have an Atmos video coming out in the next couple of days where we discuss this in more detail.

I also find it "interesting" that manufacturers are expecting people to place stand mounted bookshelf speakers as surround speakers in their living rooms. Virtually EVERY theater room I'e been in (my own included) utilize sidwall or in-wall mounted surround speakers. I guess it's just a matter of time when a wallmounted Atmos speaker hits the scene but of course that won't be an optimal Atmos location according to the Dolby diagrams.

My question would be is are they dropping the Audyssey because of processing power or is it that they are done paying royalties to Audyssey? Onkyo is the saddest story for me. My first receiver was the Onkyo TX-DS777 and I absolutely LOVED the company and their products (working at Circuit City in the late 90's was an 18 year old kids dream for me and it afforded me an interesting start down the road to where I am now). They made a tremendously well built product that had great fit and finish. Quality was paramount to the line. Today, it's a shell of itself. Loggo'd up to the max in favor of the features that made the brand popular to begin with. Build quality and Onkyo haven't gone together in the same sentence in several model cycles going back quite a few years.

- Really excited about the ATMOS video.

Your point to the speakers and placement is one that rings loudest with me. Variables between the environments their products are used in and practical application (real world conditions) are things that, unfortunately, manufacturers tend to whiff on hardest sometimes. What was Jeff Goldblum's line in Jurassic Park? "They are too busy trying to find out if they could that they didn't stop to think if they should?".

 

[Plexmulti9]

1. Okaay.....the price point for the large majority of people buying speakers at a standard big box store tops out at a couple hundred bucks...$450 at best. Those people will buy the Pioneer A.J.-designed entry level speakers or klipsch or infinity or somesort, not a $750 pair of bookshelf speakers, or floorstanders which cost even more. It makes NO business sense to even try to get those people to buy Elite Atmos Speakers. And they are "Elite" branded, which means Pioneer typically sells through controlled channels(not Amazon). They can call it whatever they want to be able to add $$ to the MSRP of the speakers. Manufacturers tout channel control to me all day but the reality is that there is no such thing. Rarely do manufacturers have the teeth (legal department and personnel on staff) to police sales channels. Only when it becomes an issue with long term brand devaluation, grey market goods, or customer service calls do companies tend to care. Google "Pioneer Elite Amazon" and you'll find new, used, & B-stock product all through it.
2. I agree with you regarding the Custom installed market. I believe Pioneer will market the speakers through places like the Magnolia outlets at Best Buy. So yes, big-box store, but a more upscale environment where the customer is likely to have strong contact with a salesperson who (theoretically) knows at least enough to tell the customer why the speaker has an extra set of concentric drivers on top. As a business how many can the sell that way? It won't be many or enough to justify production. Manufacturers promise this type of sales strategy all the time to custom dealers as well as big chains, but they break those promises (there's nothing holding them to them, honestly) all the time. No conscience to them because they need to do what they can to salvage the financial dive. The Magnolia where I'm at (top 20 market in US) has tumble weeds blowing through it.
3. What does "manufacturing arms race" even mean? The only reason any large company puts out any product is to make a profit. No matter how brilliant or stupid the idea, any feature is created/included/maintained with the goal of making money. As mentioned elsewhere, Onkyo is (stupidly) discontinuing use of Audyssey because they think the money they save by not including it is more than the money they will lose from people refusing to buy their AVRs. So even if AVR companies are adding Atmos simply because the other companies are, the motivation is that if they don't, they will lose out on profit from the people seeking out Atmos-enabled receivers. Even if Atmos is ultimately a doomed technology. It's an arms race because one company will add a feature, then the other companies do... and then some. Then the first company has to add more features on top of that, and on and on it goes. Onkyo has already gone the way of features > quality because they realized they can turn more $$$$ from taking advantage of how people buy online and at the Target & Walmart's of the world (both places where Onkyo is sold). The point here isn't that companies can do whatever they want to make $, it's that are they doing it at the expense of consumers and their own integrity? They can't have it both ways: Remain price competitive, offer every new feature, and have great build quality. So things get cut and, sadly, it's build quality for some.

Please see my comments above in RED. Also, I don't think ATMOS is doomed. I think it's a great idea and a killer feature. I think that Pioneer's efforts to introduce it in speakers this way is doomed and is dangerous from the stand point of dumbing down the market. (Sorry, Andrew )

 

[gene]

My question would be is are they dropping the Audyssey because of processing power or is it that they are done paying royalties to Audyssey? Onkyo is the saddest story for me. My first receiver was the Onkyo TX-DS777 and I absolutely LOVED the company and their products (working at Circuit City in the late 90's was an 18 year old kids dream for me and it afforded me an interesting start down the road to where I am now). They made a tremendously well built product that had great fit and finish. Quality was paramount to the line. Today, it's a shell of itself. Loggo'd up to the max in favor of the features that made the brand popular to begin with. Build quality and Onkyo haven't gone together in the same sentence in several model cycles going back quite a few years.

- Really excited about the ATMOS video.

Your point to the speakers and placement is one that rings loudest with me. Variables between the environments their products are used in and practical application (real world conditions) are things that, unfortunately, manufacturers tend to whiff on hardest sometimes. What was Jeff Goldblum's line in Jurassic Park? "They are too busy trying to find out if they could that they didn't stop to think if they should?".

Yep I remember that Onkyo receiver back in the 90s. It was my dream to own it. The next generation receivers they made were wimpy in comparison when they watered down the amp section to throw in Dolby Digital.

Great line to quote from Jurassic Park and very appropriate.

 

[gene]

[video=youtube;OXLQ4mIwyAk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXLQ4mIwyAk[/video]

 

[shadyJ]

I might be skeptical that including Atmos was the reason for Onkyo to eliminate Audyessy. Processing power is pretty cheap nowadays, it doesn't seem like Atmos + Audyssey would be too much even for mid level receivers. If I had to guess, I think Onkyo conducted some marketing research and found that the average consumer (ie most people) didn't understand or care about Audyssey, and the licensing to that technology was surely a substantial cost. Anyway, it looks like Atmos is causing Pioneer to beef up their room correction calibration, MCACC, per Chris Walker. Finally, another AVR that can deal with more than a single sub! However Chris did not answer my question about equalization below 63 Hz, which was always a huge weak spot for MCACC. Anyway, while Atmos might just be a feature checkbox for the average consumer, it could be very cool for those of us with dedicated home theater rooms.

 

[Steve81]

I might be skeptical that including Atmos was the reason for Onkyo to eliminate Audyessy. Processing power is pretty cheap nowadays, it doesn't seem like Atmos + Audyssey would be too much even for mid level receivers.

Audyssey does require a fair amount of processing power in its own right as it applies hundreds, or potentially thousands of FIR filters depending on the version; that's a big reason you see higher versions of Audyssey on higher end models. From what we've heard, Atmos requires a pretty significant jump in DSP capability over what older AVRs offered. Gene mentioned that Denon is utilizing quad DSP chips in their AVR-X4100 as an example. Is it a significant issue? For receivers like the aforementioned Denon, the Yamaha RX-A2010, etc., probably not.

OTOH, Onkyo is pushing Atmos down to the TX-NR636 with an MSRP of $699 (street price, probably <$500). Once you get to that point, I think it's fair to say something has to give. Audyssey's licensing fees and the extra DSP power needed to run it certainly seem to be the cuts made. Now to be fair, we don't know everything about AccuEQ; Onkyo isn't really spilling all the beans about their new auto-calibration system. However, one thing they have stated is that AccuEQ doesn't provide any sort of correction for the front channels to preserve their purity or some such BS. That gives a pretty strong indication that it was purely a cost cutting move, and it's one that certainly helps Onkyo to push Atmos down to very low prices.

 

[crossedover]

Audyssey does require a fair amount of processing power in its own right as it applies hundreds, or potentially thousands of FIR filters depending on the version; that's a big reason you see higher versions of Audyssey on higher end models. From what we've heard, Atmos requires a pretty significant jump in DSP capability over what older AVRs offered. Gene mentioned that Denon is utilizing quad DSP chips in their AVR-X4100 as an example. Is it a significant issue? For receivers like the aforementioned Denon, the Yamaha RX-A2010, etc., probably not.

OTOH, Onkyo is pushing Atmos down to the TX-NR636 with an MSRP of $699 (street price, probably <$500). Once you get to that point, I think it's fair to say something has to give. Audyssey's licensing fees and the extra DSP power needed to run it certainly seem to be the cuts made. Now to be fair, we don't know everything about AccuEQ; Onkyo isn't really spilling all the beans about their new auto-calibration system. However, one thing they have stated is that AccuEQ doesn't provide any sort of correction for the front channels to preserve their purity or some such BS. That gives a pretty strong indication that it was purely a cost cutting move, and it's one that certainly helps Onkyo to push Atmos down to very low prices.

From onkyo:

The main benefit of AccuEQ is that it does not apply an Equalized effect to Front channels and Subwoofer. This allows the natural sound of your speakers to be heard while taking into consideration things such as room furnishings, speaker distance and speaker type

 

[Steve81]

From onkyo:

The main benefit of AccuEQ is that it does not apply an Equalized effect to Front channels and Subwoofer. This allows the natural sound of your speakers to be heard while taking into consideration things such as room furnishings, speaker distance and speaker type

Because who needs EQ for the mains and sub anyway

 

[gene]

I might be skeptical that including Atmos was the reason for Onkyo to eliminate Audyessy. Processing power is pretty cheap nowadays, it doesn't seem like Atmos + Audyssey would be too much even for mid level receivers. If I had to guess, I think Onkyo conducted some marketing research and found that the average consumer (ie most people) didn't understand or care about Audyssey, and the licensing to that technology was surely a substantial cost. Anyway, it looks like Atmos is causing Pioneer to beef up their room correction calibration, MCACC, per Chris Walker. Finally, another AVR that can deal with more than a single sub! However Chris did not answer my question about equalization below 63 Hz, which was always a huge weak spot for MCACC. Anyway, while Atmos might just be a feature checkbox for the average consumer, it could be very cool for those of us with dedicated home theater rooms.

It absolutely has EVERYTHING to do with processing power. Onkyo likely did NOT want to beef up their processing power b/c it involves a completely new architecture to do so. Instead they retrofitted an existing core design to accommodate Atmos while dumping Audyssey in the process b/c they lacked the MIPS. Chip cost has little to do with it. It's more about developmental time, new FW, etc.

 

[Plexmulti9]

From onkyo:

The main benefit of AccuEQ is that it does not apply an Equalized effect to Front channels and Subwoofer. This allows the natural sound of your speakers to be heard while taking into consideration things such as room furnishings, speaker distance and speaker type

Onkyo leaves the bone IN the chicken. This allows for natural choking to occur while swallowing the bone.

In all seriousness, when we calibrate systems we tend to NOT use the EQ systems in the receivers. I have had more weird results with them than beneficial ones. I just thought Onkyo's marketing line was hilariously off the mark.

 

[Plexmulti9]

It absolutely has EVERYTHING to do with processing power. Onkyo likely did NOT want to beef up their processing power b/c it involves a completely new architecture to do so. Instead they retrofitted an existing core design to accommodate Atmos while dumping Audyssey in the process b/c they lacked the MIPS. Chip cost has little to do with it. It's more about developmental time, new FW, etc.

On the cheap models, sure, I am 100% with you on that.

Other possibilities to pile on top of that...

Audyssey's licensing costs weighed against the fact that Onkyo just bought HUGE into Pioneer and probably has MCACC type calibration easily available to snipe (the merging is being called a "Captial/business alliance". Re-branding or tweaking MCACC would make sense because Onkyo could still say it has calibration while not intermixing brand "proprietary technology".