DOLBY ATMOS coming to Homes in Fall. Who's modding their theaters for such? - Page 3 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Will you modify your theater for Atmos?
Hell yeah! As soon as I see the set up guide, I'm in and will wait for content after modding room. 32 23.36%
No way! 7.1 is all I'll install or pay for. 16 11.68%
I will wait for content and what else shakes out, maybe 6 months or a year or more.. 89 64.96%
Voters: 137. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-02-2014, 07:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,210
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1678 Post(s)
Liked: 1131
Quote:
Originally Posted by aftcomet View Post
However, if gaming and movies start being mixed in 9.2/11.2 I won't hesitate to upgrade.
That's what's happening with Atmos, but instead of more channels, it is using object-based audio to render movie soundtracks to more than 7 speakers (up to 11 for now, up to 34 eventually).

Since you already have a 7.1 set-up, you know that a single pair of surrounds cannot be at two places simultaneously (at your sides AND behind you). Hence why many of us went beyond a 5.1 layout.

Likewise, four surround speakers cannot be around you AND above you simultaneously. Hence why some of us are adding overhead speakers, to turn a 2D ring of sound into a 3D bubble of sound.

Suppose you met someone that told you that they would try surround sound only after they achieved the "best possible" 2-channel set-up. When they got more funds, would you advise them to use the money to continue improving their 2-channel set-up or would you suggest they try adding a pair of surrounds?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-03-2014, 12:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 9,253
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1073 Post(s)
Liked: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by aftcomet View Post
Comparing SD to HD is not the same as comparing 320kbps MP3 to FLAC.
Care to explain why not?

Deadwood Atmos theater
AV7702 Atmos 7.4.4, SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, B&W CWM8180 surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
Roger Dressler is online now  
Old 08-03-2014, 01:31 PM
Member
 
aftcomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Care to explain why not?
Because the difference between 480p and 1080p is huge? While the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC track is like the difference between an untouched bluray and one compressed to BD25 using H.264--minor if unnoticeable at all.

I get it. You're a purist and will defend any difference to high hell and back. And the majority of users will disagree with you. You're like someone on Head-Fi. That's fine. There's really no point in continuing this conversation so let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
aftcomet is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 01:42 PM
Member
 
aftcomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
That's what's happening with Atmos, but instead of more channels, it is using object-based audio to render movie soundtracks to more than 7 speakers (up to 11 for now, up to 34 eventually).

Since you already have a 7.1 set-up, you know that a single pair of surrounds cannot be at two places simultaneously (at your sides AND behind you). Hence why many of us went beyond a 5.1 layout.

Likewise, four surround speakers cannot be around you AND above you simultaneously. Hence why some of us are adding overhead speakers, to turn a 2D ring of sound into a 3D bubble of sound.

Suppose you met someone that told you that they would try surround sound only after they achieved the "best possible" 2-channel set-up. When they got more funds, would you advise them to use the money to continue improving their 2-channel set-up or would you suggest they try adding a pair of surrounds?
I think my point is, there is a sweet spot in audio and I truly believe it's at 7.1. As someone mentioned earlier, this is a perfect example of the law of diminishing returns.
aftcomet is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 02:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,210
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1678 Post(s)
Liked: 1131
Quote:
Originally Posted by aftcomet View Post
I think my point is, there is a sweet spot in audio and I truly believe it's at 7.1. As someone mentioned earlier, this is a perfect example of the law of diminishing returns.
How did you come to the conclusion that having sounds around you was the sweet spot and that having sounds above you was diminishing returns? Isn't that an arbitrary line to draw based on the layout you personally have?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 02:39 PM
Member
 
aftcomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
How did you come to the conclusion that having sounds around you was the sweet spot and that having sounds above you was diminishing returns? Isn't that an arbitrary line to draw based on the layout you personally have?
Well seeing as how the majority of content is mastered in 5.1 with a little 7.1 along the line. And the fact that almost anyone who's tried 9.1/11.1 has come to the same conclusion--that the extra processing is nothing special and the benefits are far and few between.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all the say that ATMOS isn't worth it and may in some instances even degrade performance. More isn't necessarily better.
aftcomet is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 02:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BllDo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by aftcomet View Post
Well seeing as how the majority of content is mastered in 5.1 with a little 7.1 along the line. And the fact that almost anyone who's tried 9.1/11.1 has come to the same conclusion--that the extra processing is nothing special and the benefits are far and few between.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all the say that ATMOS isn't worth it and may in some instances even degrade performance. More isn't necessarily better.
This from the person who attacked Roger for using strawman arguments. Hilarious.

Can you give a scenario by which VOG speakers would degrade the performance?

-




Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
BllDo is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 03:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 9,253
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1073 Post(s)
Liked: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by aftcomet View Post
Because the difference between 480p and 1080p is huge? While the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC track is like the difference between an untouched bluray and one compressed to BD25 using H.264--minor if unnoticeable at all.
So you do not care to take into account that for small screens 10' away, the difference between SD and HD is not huge? Or that for some people the difference is not considered to be huge? And you do not care to acknowledge that for some people the difference between MP3 and FLAC (meaning the original source) is huge to their ears?

Do you not see how your personal preferences might not actually mirror everyone else's ideas of what is important to them?

Quote:
I get it. You're a purist and will defend any difference to high hell and back. And the majority of users will disagree with you.
It's funny how you come to a conclusion that I am defending small differences, when I am simply defending the right for people to decide if a difference is important to them or not, on their own, rather than having a self-appointed Subjective Preference Officer tell them what is not important.

Quote:
There's really no point in continuing this conversation so let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Very simple. Click your heels together, and stop making unsupportable statements.
tjenkins95 likes this.

Deadwood Atmos theater
AV7702 Atmos 7.4.4, SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, B&W CWM8180 surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
Roger Dressler is online now  
Old 08-03-2014, 03:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
doublewing11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Timber Country!
Posts: 3,994
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by aftcomet View Post
I think my point is, there is a sweet spot in audio and I truly believe it's at 7.1. As someone mentioned earlier, this is a perfect example of the law of diminishing returns.
doublewing11 is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 04:48 PM
Member
 
aftcomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by BllDo View Post
This from the person who attacked Roger for using strawman arguments. Hilarious.

Can you give a scenario by which VOG speakers would degrade the performance?
I don't think you understand the meaning of that term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
So you do not care to take into account that for small screens 10' away, the difference between SD and HD is not huge? Or that for some people the difference is not considered to be huge? And you do not care to acknowledge that for some people the difference between MP3 and FLAC (meaning the original source) is huge to their ears?

Do you not see how your personal preferences might not actually mirror everyone else's ideas of what is important to them?

It's funny how you come to a conclusion that I am defending small differences, when I am simply defending the right for people to decide if a difference is important to them or not, on their own, rather than having a self-appointed Subjective Preference Officer tell them what is not important.

Very simple. Click your heels together, and stop making unsupportable statements.
How noble of you, defending rights to opinion on an internet forum... I'm obviously trying to censor free speech or something. Lol okay, sure. What's funny is your ears are quite old so I highly doubt you even have the ability to hear such differences you are proclaiming even exist between very high bitrate MP3 and FLAC.

I really should know better than to argue with enthusiasts. You guys will pay triple the cost of something if you even think there is a 0.5% difference, and then argue to high hell and back that there is a major difference. People like you are a marketer's dream.
aftcomet is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 04:50 PM
Member
 
aftcomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublewing11 View Post
Good one.

aftcomet is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 05:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
asarose247's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 611
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 62
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attach...1&d=1406929128

This is my DIY kit for at least 4 but up to 6 tops

if the link fails, the pic is in post 2789 of the dolby home atmos thread. page MOL 93

as soon as i can get in my attic without my eyebrows bursting into flame, it's going UP!

Denon X5200 , Emotiva UPA7, for 7.3.4 ATMOS/DSU
Klipsch FL/FR: F3 , Center: Icon 25 , SL/SR: RC3II , SRL/SRR :Icon 36 Towers, TF & TR: SLX
FH :RB51's
2 30" BF THTLP'S and SUBMAXIMUS and Inuke6000DSP
SHARP 80" LED/LCD, Xbox1 PS4 Panny BD 220
asarose247 is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 06:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 9,253
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1073 Post(s)
Liked: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by aftcomet View Post
What's funny is your ears are quite old so I highly doubt you even have the ability to hear such differences you are proclaiming even exist between very high bitrate MP3 and FLAC.
How childish. Calling into question my hearing, when that is not at all the issue being discussed. And how very clever of you to add the "high bitrate" qualifier to shore up your hollow case. This issue is you deciding what other people want to hear. Simply laughable.

Sir, put on your trifocals and find where I said I could hear the difference.

Quote:
I really should know better than to argue with enthusiasts. You guys will pay triple the cost of something if you even think there is a 0.5% difference, and then argue to high hell and back that there is a major difference. People like you are a marketer's dream.
My my, more irrelevant generalities. There's none so blind as those who will not see. Or in this case, read.

Deadwood Atmos theater
AV7702 Atmos 7.4.4, SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, B&W CWM8180 surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
Roger Dressler is online now  
Old 08-03-2014, 08:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BllDo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by aftcomet View Post
I don't think you understand the meaning of that term.
I wasn't trying to imply that you were making straw man arguments. That was obviously the way it came across and was just poor writing on my part. Not my intent, I apologize. What I thought was hilarious was you accusing someone of making fallacious arguments then responding with equally inane and hyperbolic statements like
Quote:
And the fact that almost anyone who's tried 9.1/11.1 has come to the same conclusion--that the extra processing is nothing special and the benefits are far and few between.
I just thought you were trying to be ironic. My mistake.

-




Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
BllDo is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 08:15 PM
Member
 
aftcomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
And how very clever of you to add the "high bitrate" qualifier to shore up your hollow case. Simply laughable.
No look below. My first post included 320kbps. That is "high bitrate" by all accounts. So nothing clever, you just didn't comprehend it the first time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aftcomet View Post
Comparing SD to HD is not the same as comparing 320kbps MP3 to FLAC. But whatever.

------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
Sir, put on your trifocals and find where I said I could hear the difference.
No you didn't say you personally could hear it, but you did argue that such differences do exist:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
And you do not care to acknowledge that for some people the difference between MP3 and FLAC (meaning the original source) is huge to their ears?
PS. I don't care what else you have to say, so whatever you post I won't be responding. Internet arguments are so pointless.

Last edited by aftcomet; 08-03-2014 at 08:19 PM.
aftcomet is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 08:18 PM
Member
 
aftcomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by BllDo View Post
I wasn't trying to imply that you were making straw man arguments. That was obviously the way it came across and was just poor writing on my part. Not my intent, I apologize. What I thought was hilarious was you accusing someone of making fallacious arguments then responding with equally inane and hyperbolic statements like


I just thought you were trying to be ironic. My mistake.
No worries, but I don't think it's a fallacious argument. Because I've read lots of forum discussions, reviews, and tech sites like Cnet, HardwareCanucks, Overclock.net, and even Head-Fi, to come to the conclusion that the majority doesn't find 9.1 processing all that special. (Apart from hearing it myself of course).
aftcomet is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 10:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,210
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1678 Post(s)
Liked: 1131
Quote:
Originally Posted by aftcomet View Post
Well seeing as how the majority of content is mastered in 5.1 with a little 7.1 along the line.
What does the number of channels in the source material have to do with the number of speakers used for playback? Consumer 7.1 pre-pros were selling in 1986. Discrete 7.1 content didn't show up till 20 years later (BD in 2006). 11.1 receivers have been selling for half a decade. There hasn't been any discrete 11.1 content in all that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aftcomet View Post
And the fact that almost anyone who's tried 9.1/11.1 has come to the same conclusion--that the extra processing is nothing special and the benefits are far and few between.
Where are you getting your data from? When I look at the sampling here at AVS, most folks who have gone beyond 7 speakers don't go back. There's even been a thread dedicated to that for years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aftcomet View Post
I don't think it's unreasonable at all the say that ATMOS isn't worth it and may in some instances even degrade performance.
Isn't worth it for whom? You keep stating your subjective preference as an objective fact, asthough you not wanting to go beyond 7 speakers somehow makes that a sweet spot for everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aftcomet View Post
More isn't necessarily better.
No one claimed it was. That's a straw man argument. However, more does have advantages. Otherwise we'd all still be listening to a single speaker.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 12:10 AM
Just add water and stir
 
zuluwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 467
Wow

I stepped away for a little while and missed the big show. Very good material being presented. I am certainly glad to now know that the enjoyment and fun we have listening to Neo:X was foolishness. I shall remain ignorant and continue to play movies in the dimishing returns that make me smile.

What the hell do I know. I just built a room and bought a ton of gear that does all sorts of stuff. So glad a noob set us straight.
TMcG and domz777 like this.
zuluwalker is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 12:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Elill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Just to get things back on track. I originally voted against ATMOS, after much reading I am now wiring and converting and intend to have a complete 13.x setup (5 subs in total, don't know who receivers split it these days)

Peter the Greek

Downunder Theatre MkII
Redefining snail pace construction
"what is worth knowing is difficult to learn"

Elill is online now  
Old 08-04-2014, 06:38 AM
HOME THEATER CONTRACTOR
 
BIGmouthinDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 21,796
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 703 Post(s)
Liked: 790
Just some food for thought, one of the take aways of Dr Floyd Tooles sound reproduction and room acoustics course is that a large portion of the sound you hear in a home theater is reflected sound. Therefore the importance of a rooms acoustical treatment plan with absorption and diffusion. Continuing that thought he also stated that the more speakers you have in a room the percentage of what you hear directly from the speakers goes up and as a result the more speakers you use the less important the room acoustics become. So I can see people with poorly treated rooms really appreciating stepping up to more speakers.
BIGmouthinDC is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 07:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 25,181
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGmouthinDC View Post
Just some food for thought, one of the take aways of Dr Floyd Tooles sound reproduction and room acoustics course is that a large portion of the sound you hear in a home theater is reflected sound. Therefore the importance of a rooms acoustical treatment plan with absorption and diffusion. Continuing that thought he also stated that the more speakers you have in a room the percentage of what you hear directly from the speakers goes up and as a result the more speakers you use the less important the room acoustics become. So I can see people with poorly treated rooms really appreciating stepping up to more speakers.
This would be a good post subject for the home theater builder section, I would be interested in hearing more about what the "experts" have to say on this subject.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 10:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,210
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1678 Post(s)
Liked: 1131
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGmouthinDC View Post
Continuing that thought he also stated that the more speakers you have in a room the percentage of what you hear directly from the speakers goes up and as a result the more speakers you use the less important the room acoustics become.
Sure, with a 2-speaker set-up, the room IS the surround processor. Reflections around you and above you are what provide a sense of envelopment, so it helps to shape those reflections to give desired results.

With speakers around you and above you, there is now direct sound coming from those directions and you are no longer relying on room reflections to provide surround sound. That's not an excuse to not treat the room, but it is less critical than with a 2-speaker set-up.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 12:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,908
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 351
As some here know I'm an early adopter of 11.2 and luv Neo:X, 1.5 years now.
The sound is truly enveloping and I have it on that 24/7.
Anyone in SE Michigan is welcome to come over for quick demo.

I will closely watch the progress/trends and the build threads, around 2016/2017 I will then update to latest AVR and object sound....along with 4k PJ, AT screen, re-do my speakers - go to front baffle wall, etc etc.

In the meantime Jeff I look fwd to HEMI meet at your home
mtbdudex is online now  
Old 08-04-2014, 12:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,908
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGmouthinDC View Post
Just some food for thought, one of the take aways of Dr Floyd Tooles sound reproduction and room acoustics course is that a large portion of the sound you hear in a home theater is reflected sound. Therefore the importance of a rooms acoustical treatment plan with absorption and diffusion. Continuing that thought he also stated that the more speakers you have in a room the percentage of what you hear directly from the speakers goes up and as a result the more speakers you use the less important the room acoustics become. So I can see people with poorly treated rooms really appreciating stepping up to more speakers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Sure, with a 2-speaker set-up, the room IS the surround processor. Reflections around you and above you are what provide a sense of envelopment, so it helps to shape those reflections to give desired results.

With speakers around you and above you, there is now direct sound coming from those directions and you are no longer relying on room reflections to provide surround sound. That's not an excuse to not treat the room, but it is less critical than with a 2-speaker set-up.
Sanjy;
No matter 2-ch or multi-channel (traditional 5.1/7.1 or object sound with many discrete speakers) using ETC as a tool at your listening positions the goal would still be -15 thru -20 db withing 25ms for reflections, correct?
The data obtained by psychoacoustics would not change,


Now, how you accomplish that in your room depends on speaker<>room interactions....that is subject of other threads not this one.

Last edited by mtbdudex; 08-04-2014 at 01:02 PM.
mtbdudex is online now  
Old 08-04-2014, 01:23 PM
DIY Grand Dad (w/help)
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 15,442
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 370 Post(s)
Liked: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post
This would be a good post subject for the home theater builder section, I would be interested in hearing more about what the "experts" have to say on this subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Sure, with a 2-speaker set-up, the room IS the surround processor. Reflections around you and above you are what provide a sense of envelopment, so it helps to shape those reflections to give desired results.

With speakers around you and above you, there is now direct sound coming from those directions and you are no longer relying on room reflections to provide surround sound. That's not an excuse to not treat the room, but it is less critical than with a 2-speaker set-up.

Gentleman, I can attest to all the above....with a vengeance (...but politely....)

My own use of Audio Transducers, and their ability to create a quasi-omni directional dispersion always produced a more diverse sound scape that any but the most expensive, non-directional multi-element speaker arrays. Not to say it was always "better" than anything else...but absolutely saying it sounded "wider" than virtually anything comparably.

As I progressed into 5.1 and 7.1 (...and 7.2 / 2 / 4 etc) and used up to 4-6 Drivers per channel combined with impeccable Power Amps / Signal sources, the differences between my systems and "directional-oriented" multi-channel systems became all the more obvious. Whereas I was creating a smooth, transitional "Envelope " or "Bubble" (...I found that term amusing...) I noted that everyone else was needing all the more acoustic treatment for a room to offset the reflections, and combat standing waves and tendencies toward cancellation. And without the use of Bi-Directional or Tri-Directional Surrounds, the supposed "Sweet Spot" was grossly confined to a smaller, more centralized area within the room.

Now of course, even with Transducers there still existed some common sense reasoning as far as how the room affected the audio (Absorption & Reflection) but I found it becoming markedly less an issue for all but the most challenging rooms. More drivers that covered larger areas meant less volume needed per location to "Fill" a room's space.

Now obviously, as I stated in a prior post, I'm (was) excited about Atmos because cosmetically the Speakers I use have a distinct advantage.....and price-wise on as well. Placement and dispersion is pretty much ideally suited to multi-room installation, and saturation / blending of imagery simply comes tagging along. Present some clean, dynamic, and distinct channel imaging, and there it is / will be, seamless and omni-present.

Which all sounds good so far except everything I've read about Atmos leads me to believe at present that all it is offering is a better adjustment of the delivered channel steerage of the given format, with supposedly a more distinct "positioning" off effects within the Front soundscape. Now that is good, but gosh....the front channels have never been as much at issue as have the Rears / Center Rears. My most common complaint from people is "How come I hardly ever hear anything from my Rear Speakers ? "....not "The Airplane doesn't seem to wiz overhead and across the room evenly"

As 7.1 came into being, the same complaint existed when Hi / Wide channels were supposedly in play. I jumped on that particular bandwagon too quickly,(...I was a Yamaha-hooligan...) and found that only the rare AC-3 Laser Disc programing did it justice, but that no synthesized Mode was effective enough to wow me...or more importantly, my end users.

Now that eventually changed....and pretty much I could hear the improvement. But as far as Atmos goes, what seems to be happening is the marketing of a concept that uses the promise of true 9. /11. / + formatting to hype 7.1 and / or 9.1 / 11.1 systems. If indeed reasonably affordable processing and amplification (...and programming...) would allow for both High / Wide speakers as well as transitional placement of speakers between the Front and Rear sound stages, as well as between the Rear and Center Rear....then my pulse would quicken once more.....

But that does not seem to be happening, as none of the upcoming Receivers and Processors that lay within the reach of common Mortals aspire to that sort of achievement. Gimme some true 15.4 potential and I'll be falling down crazy !

Now I'm always ready to be shown the error of my thinking...especially if the education is advantageous and not simply demeaning in nature. So if I'm to be corrected here...lemmie have it!

Otherwise....I'm settling back to see it shake out.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"

http://www.invisiblestereo.com
MississippiMan is online now  
Old 08-04-2014, 02:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,210
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1678 Post(s)
Liked: 1131
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post
No matter 2-ch or multi-channel (traditional 5.1/7.1 or object sound with many discrete speakers) using ETC as a tool at your listening positions the goal would still be -15 thru -20 db withing 25ms for reflections, correct?
I'm the wrong person to ask, since I don't have much use for ETC when tuning my room. The goal you describe would be a better fit for studiophiles, but not for me personally (heard enough music in enough studios to know that it's not how I like to listen to music).

Having said that, if you're using Toole's diagram as a reference, the goal you describe would be to get early reflections to fall in the area between the yellow line (detection) and green line (image-shift). I prefer early reflections, mostly lateral ones, to fall between the green line (image-shift) and red line (separate source).

The result is that sounds aren't tied to speaker locations and the soundstage isn't limited to the width of my room. Don't know how useful that would be for a production work space (studio) but I certainly like it for a recreational listening space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post
The data obtained by psychoacoustics would not change
Correct. What would change as you added more speakers is the ability to hear those reflections. For example: it would be more difficult to hear the effects of early side wall reflections if you had wide speakers at those locations playing the early reflections of a concert hall or sounds of an audience cheering or additional musical instruments. The reflections are still there, but they've now got competition from direct sound coming from those directions.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 02:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BllDo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Correct. What would change as you added more speakers is the ability to hear those reflections. For example: it would be more difficult to hear the effects of early side wall reflections if you had wide speakers at those locations playing the early reflections of a concert hall or sounds of an audience cheering or additional musical instruments. The reflections are still there, but they've now got competition from direct sound coming from those directions.
Would this suggest that added absorption will play a more prominent roll in room treatments that diffusion traditionally has? Said another way, in traditional room treatment designs where there is generally a mix of diffusion and absorption, will implementation of Atmos/Aura lead towards new treatment designs with just absorbers and no/limited diffusion?

-




Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
BllDo is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 03:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 20,210
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1678 Post(s)
Liked: 1131
Quote:
Originally Posted by BllDo View Post
Would this suggest that added absorption will play a more prominent roll in room treatments that diffusion traditionally has?
Given enough speakers, I suppose you could absorb the room walls away and still get decent envelopment (assuming those signals are in the recording). It still comes down to the sound you're looking for. More absorption makes things sound more precise, imaging more pinpoint, etc. Less absorption makes things sound more diffuse and enveloping. Somewhere in there is a happy balance for each listener, even when using lots of speakers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BllDo View Post
Said another way, in traditional room treatment designs where there is generally a mix of diffusion and absorption, will implementation of Atmos/Aura lead towards new treatment designs with just absorbers and no/limited diffusion?
I doubt it, since diffusors have a certain effect that you don't get with reflections or absorption. Out of curiosity, I tried playing just my centre speaker with bare walls, absorption and diffusion at the side wall first reflection points. With bare walls, the image of the voice broadened and seem to float forward of my centre speaker. With absorption, voices sounded tightly focused at the centre speaker (like shrinking a human head to the size of a golf ball).

With diffusion, voices took on a voice of god effect; I don't mean sounds from above, but a sort of subtle glow/halo coming from everywhere, that was layered on top of the direct sound from the centre speaker. You're not going to get that effect from absorption, so I can't imagine anyone replacing diffusors with absorbers and expecting to get that effect with additional speakers.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 05:43 PM
Senior Member
 
thestoneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 293
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 31
I guess I lucked out since I heard about Atmos while my room was open. The last thing you want with your theater (or in life, for that matter) is regret. I wired for 11.2.4. I will put in the overhead backer boxes/wire and wait.

I love the idea of Atmos and although I haven't heard it I have read enough to know that I should definitely be planning on it considering the state of my room.

-
My Theater Build

Equipment List: Denon X5200, Epson 6030, 120" Carada cinemascope screen, Panamorph U480, Oppo-103, Emotiva XPA-5, SVS PB12-NSD, LSA Statement LCR & surround speakers, Def Tech ProCinema 1000 rears & front wides, DefTech DI5.5R Atmos overheads, Grafik Eye 3106
thestoneman is offline  
Old 08-05-2014, 02:49 AM
Senior Member
 
domz777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 25
You guys go ahead and fight it out, I'm not really interested in this EXCEPT for how easy it'll make it for me to torture my guests - ya know, on Halloween, and April Fool's Day, and ...Tuesdays, LOL It's gunna be hilarious when I sneak in an atmos ONLY track, into the low points of movie sound tracks - of very soft, barely noticeable - stuff like, mice scratchings, or maybe intermittently dripping water, squeaky floorboards, and best of all *muffled voices* OOH! OOH! How about a marble rolling all the way across the ceiling from left to right then from front to back! This is gunna be great! It'll be like an audio version of the Chinese water torture LOL Oh the hilarity of watching everyone look up occasionally, and then wonder *WHY* they are looking up. Or, catching that, ever so obvious look of, "I KNOW I just heard something!" I'm gunna have to go buy myself some Depends I'll be laughing so hard!!!

NOOOO ONE expects the Spanish Atmos-isition!!!
Our chief weapons are surprise.....






domz777 is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off