Edit

In the early days of modern stereo (the first stereo records were made in the 1930’s) there was “ping pong” stereo that had exaggerated L/R transitions. A few recordings bragged that there was a heavy drape between the left and right orchestras. I’m sure that we’ll hear our share of spatial gymnastics.

There are some great Stereo recordings that if you, your room and speaker placement are really good give an image that matches how the original sound source being recorded was placed. Recording engineers could also take individual instrument/voice tracks and mix them so they appeared in specific locations. Or, sadly do odd stuff that did not sound good. Been too long since I had the setup, or interest in getting that quality of sound but when you got it right it was amazing.

Some of the original Quadraphonic music was the same but doubled so you got not only right/left placement but depth. The higher fidelity methods could put an individual sound in any speaker with the others remaining nearly silent or balance the sound to place the virtual location around the sweet spot in the room. The Guess Who, American Woman comes to mind as the band members were shouting letters from different speakers. Some of the Moody Blues work had mobile sounds that would seem to fly around the room, worked well for their style of music.

Poorer methods didn’t have as much channel separation and could only force a small difference in the front/real sound. Still was pretty decent listening, just not as impressive.

Then later, you have the various DSP created sound images, the internal computer and DSP reprocess what you are playing into what is intended to be a virtual room so you can be listening in a small studio to a concert hall. As always some were far better than others and offered far more choices but most were pretty decent and let you get some use out of your other speakers when playing stereo.

Dolby looks to be trying to give the recording engineers a much more complex playing field than any of the earlier designs, also trying to keep it closer to a single standard so consumers don’t (like they did on Quad) give up on it in frustration.

The room and listener placement seems to be as critical or more so than earlier designs but from what little I have heard even a “bad” setup still sounds as good as 5.1 or Stereo so there is no downside aside from cost.

The engineers can choose to place things in the rear or height channels, as did Quad, or they can go more the DSP Sound Field route, using the additional speakers to provide what would be reflected or other ambient sound. The second I find far more impressive after the first few minutes of “WOW!” listening to things bouncing around the room.

All told I think it is a winning design only in danger from incompetent recording engineers mucking up what should be good music.

Good post but I feel like I have been experiencing true stereo separation for a while now as I do hear generally vocals in the front and various instruments left and right, with panning of any or all from left to right and back again now and then. Even with two small homepod minis I got this effect, and especially with decent Bose headphones.

With two Era 300 as a stereo pair I am fairly happy but perhaps need to still try different positions because I am not amazed with Spatial Audio at all so far. I do notice the difference though so perhaps I was just expecting too much. I haven’t for example found a track where I feel anything is coming from above or behind me.

@SteJames 

As I mentioned in my post there are a lot of “crap” recordings masquerading as Dolby Atmos (spatial audio). In order to hear sounds above and behind for MUSIC you need a good Dolby Atmos recording and a room that is spec’d to give the the proper reflections. Typically 23 L x 16 W x 8 H to start.

The reviews you read don’t mention those factors. In truth 99% of folks (IMO) don’t have rooms to those measurements. Movies on the other hand are more forgiving and provide a decent Dolby Atmos sound with all the effects when you have the Sonos Arc, sub and now the Era 300’s as surrounds.

Headphones designed for Dolby Atmos will always give you the front, rear and overheads effects. In fact I could that on a set of DD 5.1 headphones I owned back in the day. Hmmm, I wonder where they are in my rabbit hole dwelling

I have a room with the a pair of Era 300s (can’t really call it a stereo pair?) + sub and another room with Arc + 2 Ones for rear + sub.  The Arc setup is way better than the 300s.  Audio from the rear is a much bigger factor than from height or sides.  You aren’t going to find a track where you feel something coming from the rear as you don't have any speakers designed to fill that role.

Kind of an aside, but it’s this that leads me to believe that Sonos will be offering a music setup with front and rear speakers eventually….with separate front speakers.

Can Spatial Audio and Dolby Atmos be used interchangeably, or are they two different approaches to surround sound?

The one time I heard the Apple version of this for music using iPod in ear phones a few months ago, I found a big difference between stereo audio and music playing via the iPods, and I was not too impressed by the new sound. Perhaps because I am used to listening via L/R stereo. 

I can see how these surround technologies can enhance the movie experience at home, but even at a live music gig, the main sounds come from the stage in front; there are no musicians in rear balconies. I am therefore still doubtful about the point of all this for music listening at home that aims to approximate a live gig.

@Kumar 

It’s been my experience (short as it may be) using my Sonos Era 300’s in stereo pair vs my Fives in stereo pair; the latter gives better results with an excellent stereo recording. In fact the Era 300’s were not meant to be superior to the Fives when listening to a stereo recording.

However, listening to an excellent Dolby Atmos (spatial audio) recording the Era 300’s offer up a much better sense of instrument placement. IMO it's so good that I dare say with your eyes closed you’ll think you’re at a live venue. That is where the Era 300’s out perform the Fives. Of course you can’t get Dolby Atmos out of the Fives anyway.

In a properly mixed Dolby Atmos (spatial audio) recording you won’t get sound coming from overhead or behind using a single or a pair of Era 300’s. But there is an exception….

I also have a pair of Era 300’s used as surrounds with my Arc and sub x 2. Playing a Dolby Atmos (spatial audio) recording where there are vocals _lead and background_the lead vocals remained up front with the Arc; but in certain passages the background vocals were more clearly heard in the Era 300 rears. Thus giving a sense of music coming from behind. That experience should not be confused with using rears in Full for music when playing a basic stereo recording through the Arc (which I never liked).

However to answer your question...”Can Spatial Audio and Dolby Atmos be used interchangeably, or are they two different approaches to surround sound?”  Here’s the best explanation I found...

“In a nutshell, Dolby Atmos creates the effect of watching a movie at a cinema or listening to music at a live concert — the sound comes from all around you (center, left, right, above and behind) — and Spatial Audio adds another layer that makes you feel like you're in movie or moving around at the concert”. _BY TUCKER BOWE

Read the full text at this link.

Further to the nutshell definition this is what Apple says!: If you subscribe to Apple Music, you can listen to select songs in Spatial Audio with Dolby Atmos.

And on top, Amazon has their own version that is offered on newer movies, using existing hardware that does not do Atmos. Unfortunately there is no toggle switch for such, so one cannot easily discern what extra experience is being offered under their label of surround sound.

And referring to same nutshell - I get the movie bit, but why should I want or need an approximation of “moving around at the concert”, if I have the best seat in the hall as is the aim of every mixing engineer to provide?

I have not heard the Era, and having decided for still valid reasons to stay on S1, I do not expect to ever do so. My question on what you say about them is therefore limited to: When you say they outperform the 5 units when fed with spatial audio music recording largely because the 5 cannot do spatial, can this spatial audio thing on the Era be turned off when regular stereo music is being played? 

And other than the usual price to performance assessments, I am surprised to read this: In fact the Era 300’s were not meant to be superior to the Fives when listening to a stereo recording.

Is this because the spatial audio box of tricks in the Era cannot be toggled off to play stereo masters in just stereo?

The Era 300’s do not perform as well with stereo in home theater mode because the front facing driver only activates when it senses Dolby Atmos content. This is only true when in Home Theater mode as surrounds. Used as a stereo pair the front drivers do activate but still have less dynamics IMO than Fives.

There is a switch in settings to make the Era 300 not activate the front driver when sending it Dolby Atmos material. However, preventing the Era from sensing Dolby Atmos content will not improve its performance with stereo music. The switch is mainly to prevent poorly recorded Dolby Atmos material (Music) from being processed_which can sound terrible.

The be clear the Era 300’s don’t perform poorly with stereo content. Just not as good as the Five’s. As they are cheaper than a set of Five’s most people wouldn’t notice the difference if they didn’t have a set of Fives for comparison.

That seems like a lost opportunity of expanding the listening sweet spot for stereo audio; a small part of the listening space being so is an ongoing drawback of stereo music for decades now.

Era then is definitely not for me, even if the S1/S2 thing wasn’t there; most of my favourite performers from the jazz/blues genre are dead, and stereo mastering is all that will be available of their performances and I would always pick a system that did not compromise on delivery of those recordings in trying go spatial.

Good insights; thanks!

In any enclosed venue you have reflected sound coming from every surface with varying volumes and delays unique to each setting.

My favorite for listening to this type of thing is Cathedral organ music. Engineers have recorded similar music both close miked, where you mainly hear the organ’s pipes and with more distant or multiple mikes where the reflected sound is a much larger component. Both sound good but properly done the distant mikes give you a sound much closer to what you would have heard live in person.

Second would be classic piano, the close miked stuff is fantastic and the music takes center stage but with more distant mikes you get a lot more coloration of the sound from the venue. Listening to a close miked piece and multiple more distant miked ones at various venues sounds very different.

Some fans of the “recreate the venue’s sound” spend a lot of effort on perfect speaker and listener placement along with a lot of reflection suppressing room treatments. Some of the listening rooms I have been in sound very dull and everything seems quiet, not just music. You really need loud speakers to fill the room compared to a more normal or a Live” room.

You could probably play with this a bit by taking a pair of Fives to your deadest room and then out to an empty garage with bare walls. The amount of reflected sound will make both rooms sound very different.

Interesting reading and you can find far less expensive ways to improve your room but with a bit more effort. Here we went with carpet and drapes as the primary, along with a couple bookshelves to diffuse the sound from one wall with an absorption panel between them. Adjoining rooms with large doorways got carpet to deaden the sound coming back from them. Not a lot in interests of keeping the spouse happy but it sounds better than where I started.

https://www.ekustik.eu/tips-and-tricks-blog/how-to-treat-home-listening-room

https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/getting-the-right-acoustics-for-your-listening-room

https://www.acousticfields.com/room-treatment-acoustics-explained/

Dolby Atmos versus Spatial Audio

Dolby Atmos has reinvented how entertainment is created and experienced, allowing creatives everywhere to place each sound exactly where they want it to go, for a more realistic and immersive audio experience.

https://www.dolby.com/technologies/dolby-atmos/

Apple spatial audio takes 5.1, 7.1 and Dolby Atmos signals and applies directional audio filters, adjusting the frequencies that each ear hears so that sounds can be placed virtually anywhere in 3D space. Sounds will appear to be coming from in front of you, from the sides, the rear and even above. The idea is to recreate the audio experience of a cinema.

A good look at both.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/05/18/apples-spatial-audio-and-dolby-atmos-explained

Is that true?  The front driver only activates for Atmos content???  So in normal stereo use it is deactivated?  I thought there was an ‘issue’ with the driver being deactivated when used as a surround - but didn’t know it was switched off in stereo.  Is there somewhere discussing this?  I totally get the Eras are Atmos capable speakers but I’m not sure about expecting people to have two sets of speakers, one for Atmos use and another for stereo use.

That does sound strange because IMO surround tech should enhance existing functionality of a home audio stereo speaker, not replace a part of it. 

I don’t think that is true. I have two Era 300s set up as a stereo pair and if I play non-Atmos content I still hear music coming out the front of both speakers.

Correction: The front drivers on the Era 300 do activate when used as a stereo pair. They are silent when used in a Home Theater’s application with stereo only content but will activate when receiving Dolby Atmos.

Old age is messing with my mind. I have corrected this in my original post as well. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm still confused tbh

You said “The Era 300’s do not perform as well with stereo because the front facing driver only activates when it senses Dolby Atmos content.”. Although you have changed something, if this isn't true (it still says this BTW), and they are active, what is the reasoning for them not performing as well?  Had you thought it was because the centre driver wasn't active but more likely it's just a lower cost speaker that just doesn't sound as good as its bigger brother?

When you setup a pair of Era 300s as it’s own room, not bonded to an Arc or Beam to cover rear speaker duty, the front/center driver are always active, regardless of the source material.

Mono?  Front driver active.

Stereo? Front driver active.

Atmos? Front driver active.

When the Era 300s are setup as rear speakers, my understanding (I don’t have this setup) is that the front/center driver is never active. There are a lot more situations to consider here as you could be listening to music/streaming source vs TV, you could have the ‘full stereo’ option turned on or off, and the source could be mono, stereo, 5.1 surround, or atmos.  But I believe the front driver is off in all situations currently. 

I find the whole “recreate the venue” ideal to be rather interesting. On one hand, I understand that it’s familiar and may bring back memories etc.  And logistically/practically, a front stage is the most logical way to experience a music performance live.  However, there isn’t a reason for playback of recorded music needs to follow the same standards, or that it is objectively better when it does follow the standard. 

While you certainly can get recordings of ‘live music’, it’s generally not as desired as recordings from a studio, since you won’t have imperfections in the recording, or the audience singing (badly sometimes) along, etc.  I mean, no one is trying to recreate standing with a solo cup of cheap beer in your hand with some stranger bumping into you. 

  Also, if you go to a public location (lots of people) where recorded music is playing, you’re rarely going to have a front stage for the music.  That certainly so that you can get move even volume control in the space, but is that music now inferior somehow?  It’s been years since I’ve been to a club setting, but they don’t try and recreate a front stage, do they?

I don’t know, the whole thing is just weird to me.  Sure you want your music to sound natural in a way, but music is pretty much organization and structure out of chaos.  I mean, an electric guitar or keyboard are not natural.  Amplification is not natural.

I like spatial audio in general in two cases, if I had to sum it up.  Some music really is designed to be surrounding you entirely and take you away from wherever you are.  The word ‘epic’ comes to mind.  It’s no different than certain movies/shows that are supposed to take you into a different world than just a slight distraction from where you are now.  The other is just a slight change to something already familiar.  Hearing an old song in spatial (done well) is sort of like hearing a remake of an old song.

I agree with that, but the edited, ‘clarifying’ post still says “The Era 300’s do not perform as well with stereo because the front facing driver only activates when it senses Dolby Atmos content.”, hence my confusion.

To clarify why the Era 300’s don’t sound as good as the Five’s…here’s my answer: 

The Five’s have bigger drivers in all aspects. I had both setup in the same room as a stereo pair and did the A/B comparison. TO MY EARS…the Five’s do a better job with a good stereo recording. FYI, if you read some of the independent reviews they will voice the same. Again listening is prejudice to the end user so your opinion may differ.

However, if you don’t have a set of Five’s to compare to a set of Era 300’s who’s to know the difference real or not?

You need to re-read my corrected post

@AjTrek1 One of your posts still says “The Era 300’s do not perform as well with stereo because the front facing driver only activates when it senses Dolby Atmos content. “    The “because” part of you statement is inaccurate.  When used as a pair, the Era 300 front facing driver is always active regardless of content.  When used as rear surrrounds, the the front facing driver is never active, even with dolby atmos content.

The reason you said elsewhere, that a pair of Fives is better than a pair of Era 300s for stereo, is correct. The Fives have better/more/larger drivers and can handle lower frequencies better than the Era 300. However, the Era 300s are plenty good enough for a lot of spaces and preferences, with the bonus of spatial audio and audio input, especially when bonded to a sub. 

I did, it still makes no sense and contradicts subsequent sentences.