DTS Neo.X - Page 40 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1171 of 1283 Old 04-04-2014, 11:30 AM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post

Matched theoretically sounds best. mine are not matched but good speakers all around. Audyssey makes them sound fine

Thanks. Now what about the capability. The 610s have 40 Hz - 40000 Hz while 620s can do 33 Hz - 40000 Hz and the mains can do 20 Hz - 40000 Hz. I am thinking that the height speakers does not need to go that low so 610s should work. But in the future is there any thought on having the height go lower? Any thoughts.
gskinusa is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1172 of 1283 Old 04-04-2014, 12:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,080
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post

Hi
I have been trying to read about the details as much as I can but I am not sure I got the answer for the questions I have. The question are:
I currently have Canton Ergo 690 and 655 speakers as the LCR and the wide is Ergo 610. The surrounds are Klipsch RS52 (4 of them). Now I would like to add Height speaker as I have Marantz AV8801 I can do 11.2 (love the DTS NeoX). I am not sure whether I have to go with another pair Ergo 610 for the heights or can I go with a different brand of speakers (to keep the cost down).? Does the height speakers need to be timber matched with mains ?. Do they need to be similar in capability to the Mains or can this be light weight.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. If this is not the right thread please let me know and I will post there.
Thanks

Because you will be translating a 9.2 or 11.2 Neo:X system -- most likely -- to object based surround via Atmos and DTS-UHD, then you will want to timbre match. So, if you like the Canton Ergo line's sound quality, then you will want 610's for the heights (which would become top surrounds) and then slowly replace your RS52's with 610's as well. Dipole surrounds are not as conducive to object audio, matched monopoles, however, are.

There is a lot more off-screen dialog steering to the surrounds in object mixes than ever before, so you really don't want a tonal shift as voices and other sounds drift around the room.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1173 of 1283 Old 04-04-2014, 12:08 PM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Got it. Thanks. I guess I will go with the 610s and in the future go with in-ceiling cantons.
Thanks
gskinusa is offline  
post #1174 of 1283 Old 04-04-2014, 12:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,080
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post

Got it. Thanks. I guess I will go with the 610s and in the future go with in-ceiling cantons.
Thanks

As long as those in-ceilings timbre match to the Ergo line and can be properly aimed. Getting pivoting brackets and placing 610's on the ceiling might actually be better for the overhead top surrounds (if you don't have low hanging ceilings). Take a look at Dolby's site under Atmos white papers for more visual examples.

Hopefully, we'll have more information later this year on potential optimal object audio speaker layouts. Things are a-changin'. biggrin.gif

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1175 of 1283 Old 04-04-2014, 12:24 PM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Yup that would be an option as well. At this time I am planning on adding the heights only. The struggle is that the screen is left wall to right wall and top to bottom (top of the stage) I would need to place the heights close to the left and right walls with an angle but that would make it little closer to the mains. If I try to mount it on the front wall then I have the bass traps obstructing that location. So somehow need to find a proper way for me to get this set up.

Once the Object based processing becomes standard in the processors then would need to think about ceiling and additional 610s. Good thing is that as this a dedicated space, I already ran additional 5 speaker wires other than the 11.4 that I have currently. These additional wiring is based on Auro 3d but as I was not sure where the speakers would end being I just left them inside the walls/ceiling for now. Hope in a year or two Atmos or Auro would be usable in HT.
gskinusa is offline  
post #1176 of 1283 Old 04-04-2014, 12:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked: 248
In theory, timbre matched all around is always better. I find its not that clear cut unless you can use all speakers on a pivot mount.

All the speakers need to be angled toward the listener otherwise you get off axis issues with any speakers at the margins. Corner mounted room gain will be an issue too i guess.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #1177 of 1283 Old 04-04-2014, 01:07 PM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Currently I do have all the front speakers and the wides pointing to the listening position. Need to see how I can do the same with the Heights. All the fronts will be timber matched and only the 4 surrounds would be different. So far those seem to be good but once I am ready to embrace the object based set up then I will change them.
gskinusa is offline  
post #1178 of 1283 Old 04-04-2014, 01:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,080
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post

Yup that would be an option as well. At this time I am planning on adding the heights only. The struggle is that the screen is left wall to right wall and top to bottom (top of the stage) I would need to place the heights close to the left and right walls with an angle but that would make it little closer to the mains. If I try to mount it on the front wall then I have the bass traps obstructing that location. So somehow need to find a proper way for me to get this set up.

Once the Object based processing becomes standard in the processors then would need to think about ceiling and additional 610s. Good thing is that as this a dedicated space, I already ran additional 5 speaker wires other than the 11.4 that I have currently. These additional wiring is based on Auro 3d but as I was not sure where the speakers would end being I just left them inside the walls/ceiling for now. Hope in a year or two Atmos or Auro would be usable in HT.

From the latest actions by the SMPTE rules board I would say Auro3D may be left in the cold for a future with object based surround codecs as the defacto standard... unless their addition of object based audio in some demos via DTS MDA helps them out, that is. They're more flexible and scalable.

On ceiling may be the best option for the height/tops because they become the third axis in 3D sound. However, where on the ceiling is still a mystery. It depends on how many surrounds for the consumer market they'll allow en totale and the optimal placement of same. Remember, if you theoretically have an object renderer that can address 64 individual speakers, you have the potential for 64 channels of discrete surround.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1179 of 1283 Old 04-04-2014, 11:38 PM
Just add water and stir
 
zuluwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 467
I am getting ready to purchase new surround sound speakers as part of an upgrade of all my theater speakers. Currently I use Di-poles wall mounted in my 11.x system.

I am thinking of adding Bi-poles to my new system, mostly due to the fact that the manufacturer of the line I am interested in does not make a direct radiating speaker for wall mount. But they do make a Bi-pole surround sound wall mount speaker.

I know that for object rendered audio, I would better benefit from mono speaker, but since the only wall mounting option I have available from this manufacturer is this an acceptable loss? The research I have done on this tells me Di-pole is best used for omnidirectional diffuse surround sound, but now I am concerned with object rendering in my audio.

This is big purchase for me, as I am buying 11 speakers. And I want to keep as many doors open for future enjoyment of coming formats.

This article tells me the differences between di-pole and bi-pole may have been more beneficial for di-pole when used with channel based audio we currently know and have...but will the tables turn and suddenly flow back to bi-pole being preferred for it's less diffuse more correct imaging qualities?

"We recommend using dipoles for surrounds for the reasons you mention. They have nothing to do with Dolby Surround--that's just an encoding method for the content. The purpose of dipoles is to reproduce the diffuse ambient sound that one gets in a movie theater with multiple speakers playing the same content (and thus sounding diffuse).

Bipoles are not recommended because they don't really achieve the diffuse sound needed. I guess they are a compromise between dipoles and direct radiators. Yes, some surround music content was mixed with direct radiators as surrounds, but since that is a dead format at this point I would recommend going with dipoles."

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/208239-Dipoles-bipoles-or-monopoles-for-surround-speakers-
zuluwalker is offline  
post #1180 of 1283 Old 04-05-2014, 01:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,080
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

I am getting ready to purchase new surround sound speakers as part of an upgrade of all my theater speakers. Currently I use Di-poles wall mounted in my 11.x system.

I am thinking of adding Bi-poles to my new system, mostly due to the fact that the manufacturer of the line I am interested in does not make a direct radiating speaker for wall mount. But they do make a Bi-pole surround sound wall mount speaker.

I know that for object rendered audio, I would better benefit from mono speaker, but since the only wall mounting option I have available from this manufacturer is this an acceptable loss? The research I have done on this tells me Di-pole is best used for omnidirectional diffuse surround sound, but now I am concerned with object rendering in my audio.

This is big purchase for me, as I am buying 11 speakers. And I want to keep as many doors open for future enjoyment of coming formats.

This article tells me the differences between di-pole and bi-pole may have been more beneficial for di-pole when used with channel based audio we currently know and have...but will the tables turn and suddenly flow back to bi-pole being preferred for it's less diffuse more correct imaging qualities?

"We recommend using dipoles for surrounds for the reasons you mention. They have nothing to do with Dolby Surround--that's just an encoding method for the content. The purpose of dipoles is to reproduce the diffuse ambient sound that one gets in a movie theater with multiple speakers playing the same content (and thus sounding diffuse).

Bipoles are not recommended because they don't really achieve the diffuse sound needed. I guess they are a compromise between dipoles and direct radiators. Yes, some surround music content was mixed with direct radiators as surrounds, but since that is a dead format at this point I would recommend going with dipoles."

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/208239-Dipoles-bipoles-or-monopoles-for-surround-speakers-

Well, one of the things for object base audio to work really well, you do need multiple speakers beyond the norm. Dipoles came out when Dolby Prologic was first introduced as it was matrixed with mono surround output like Dolby A and SR in theaters and needed some help with ambiance and most people only used the one pair. The diffusion happens in object surround because it has a top layer of audio added to the side and back walls as well as reinforcement via said larger amount of speakers in total creating a bubble of sound.

Timbre matching is absolutely necessary as they shift primary dialog and sounds off into the surrounds and position them wherever it works best from scene to scene. In Gravity, off-screen dialog was shifted either to the front left or front right side surround quadrants. That's what Dolby Atmos calls the side speakers placed between the screen left and screen right fronts and the side surround arrays that have traditionally been installed in theaters.

Perhaps bipoles would work better in the top/ceiling surround modes and monos for everything else.

What brand and model are you wanting to go with?
zuluwalker likes this.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1181 of 1283 Old 04-05-2014, 01:46 AM
Senior Member
 
matthewa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Dan I am currently going to have timbre matched front L R C + wides + surrounds + rears, which sounds like it will work exactly with your scenario above, do you think I'll be able to get away with different speakers for the height channels as it seems these will be more for effects?

Other option would be not to have wides and move them up to heights, but still be short if need additional matching rear heights
matthewa is offline  
post #1182 of 1283 Old 04-05-2014, 06:41 AM
Just add water and stir
 
zuluwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Well, one of the things for object base audio to work really well, you do need multiple speakers beyond the norm. Dipoles came out when Dolby Prologic was first introduced as it was matrixed with mono surround output like Dolby A and SR in theaters and needed some help with ambiance and most people only used the one pair. The diffusion happens in object surround because it has a top layer of audio added to the side and back walls as well as reinforcement via said larger amount of speakers in total creating a bubble of sound.

Timbre matching is absolutely necessary as they shift primary dialog and sounds off into the surrounds and position them wherever it works best from scene to scene. In Gravity, off-screen dialog was shifted either to the front left or front right side surround quadrants. That's what Dolby Atmos calls the side speakers placed between the screen left and screen right fronts and the side surround arrays that have traditionally been installed in theaters.

Perhaps bipoles would work better in the top/ceiling surround modes and monos for everything else.

What brand and model are you wanting to go with?

Thanks for the reply Dan.

I am going to buy Revel Preforma3.



F-208 towers
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/223

C-208 center
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/227

M-10 wides/heights
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/56

S-206 surrounds?
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/229

I could use these I rethought my approach to my room, it would give me mono Rears,
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/211

*EDIT - to add links and photo.
zuluwalker is offline  
post #1183 of 1283 Old 04-05-2014, 10:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,080
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthewa View Post

Dan I am currently going to have timbre matched front L R C + wides + surrounds + rears, which sounds like it will work exactly with your scenario above, do you think I'll be able to get away with different speakers for the height channels as it seems these will be more for effects?

Other option would be not to have wides and move them up to heights, but still be short if need additional matching rear heights

I would start by not having the wides and instead going with timbre matched heights or over-head ceilings. In most new speaker layouts I see that the front wides have mainly been replaced with front side wall surrounds that are angled toward the primary listening space. The behind the screen L/R wides are normally only advised in commercial theaters with extra large screens, which most home theaters do not have. All of the speakers have been matched monopoles.

Is this a dedicated space and which speakers are you considering?

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1184 of 1283 Old 04-05-2014, 11:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,080
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Thanks for the reply Dan.

I am going to buy Revel Preforma3.



F-208 towers
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/223

C-208 center
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/227

M-10 wides/heights
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/56

S-206 surrounds?
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/229

I could use these I rethought my approach to my room, it would give me mono Rears,
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/211

*EDIT - to add links and photo.


First off, if you happen to be going with a projector and screen, have you considered an acoustic screen? Obviously, this is if you have a couple extra feet to work with for a false wall. The reason I ask is if you were to go this route, you would want a single F-208 tower for your center speaker.

How many rows of seating? If more than one, buy a pair of side surrounds for each row.

Since Revel doesn't have as many speaker options like Triad or JTR or some of these other custom speaker companies, your model and design choices are a bit limited as far as mountable surround speakers go. Since the S-206's are bipolar (both sections are in-phase) and not dipolar don't have rear firing ports, I would probably use these for the sides and backs due to ease of mounting. You could also attach adjustable wall brackets to their rear mounts if you need to aim them.

The problem with monopole in-walls is that you can't easily aim the entire speaker without building custom housings for them... and then you might as well have bought different speakers.

Skip the M-10's as they're not timbre matched to the Performa3 line. What they need to add to their line up are on-wall Performa3 speakers. The top height layer is where it gets tricky. You need to be able to properly position and aim these speakers. Perhaps manufacturers will have solutions in mind when object audio debuts. Otherwise you might need to use S-206's with angle brackets to properly aim these top speakers.

If you end up placing the height speakers high up on the wall and aim them down, you might go with M-106 bookshelfs and screw mounting ball joint brackets into the back of them. They're a bit more difficult because they have rear firing ports. Perhaps listen to the S-206's vs. the M-106's as "regular" speakers and see if you could get away with the S-206's here... and possibly the front side wall surrounds (taking the place of the front wides), even if you have to angle them towards the listening space with a bracket.

Come to think of it, have you ever thought of Triad or JTR's?? They have various in-room, on-wall, and in-wall (in the case of Triad) solutions and JTR even makes a line of surrounds that are designed exactly like the surround speakers used in commercial Atmos theaters for both side/rear wall and ceiling speakers (Slanted 8HT). Triad's Gold model line (not the upscale Gold Monitor line) is probably around the same price as the Performa3 lineup and some of JTR's upper models are actually less. Both companies' speakers also sound amazing. biggrin.gif Triad Gold's have traditional dome tweeters and JTR's have compression drivers more like commercial venues. It all depends on the type of sound you're looking for.
zuluwalker likes this.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1185 of 1283 Old 04-05-2014, 12:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked: 248
My tweeters in the in-walls dont sound bad since they can be angled. But in the the end if you are OCD/hardcore enough you should go with swivel mounted speakers or those pre -manufactured to be angled.

Another option is to look at actual cinema speaker horn loaded brands if you have a large room. You can't go wrong with well designed horns for cinema use.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #1186 of 1283 Old 04-05-2014, 03:29 PM
Just add water and stir
 
zuluwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 467
Thanks again Dan! biggrin.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

First off, if you happen to be going with a projector and screen, have you considered an acoustic screen? Obviously, this is if you have a couple extra feet to work with for a false wall. The reason I ask is if you were to go this route, you would want a single F-208 tower for your center speaker.

I am going with my current set-up which has a projector and screen.

See attached photos: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

How many rows of seating? If more than one, buy a pair of side surrounds for each row.

Currently we have two rows. The first front row has a wall on the right side, which could have a surround placed there to create a pair of surrounds, but the left side is the entrance to the theater with no option for a surround.

See attached photos: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Since Revel doesn't have as many speaker options like Triad or JTR or some of these other custom speaker companies, your model and design choices are a bit limited as far as mountable surround speakers go. Since the S-206's are bipolar (both sections are in-phase) and not dipolar don't have rear firing ports, I would probably use these for the sides and backs due to ease of mounting. You could also attach adjustable wall brackets to their rear mounts if you need to aim them.

The problem with monopole in-walls is that you can't easily aim the entire speaker without building custom housings for them... and then you might as well have bought different speakers.

Skip the M-10's as they're not timbre matched to the Performa3 line. What they need to add to their line up are on-wall Performa3 speakers. The top height layer is where it gets tricky. You need to be able to properly position and aim these speakers. Perhaps manufacturers will have solutions in mind when object audio debuts. Otherwise you might need to use S-206's with angle brackets to properly aim these top speakers.

If you end up placing the height speakers high up on the wall and aim them down, you might go with M-106 bookshelfs and screw mounting ball joint brackets into the back of them. They're a bit more difficult because they have rear firing ports. Perhaps listen to the S-206's vs. the M-106's as "regular" speakers and see if you could get away with the S-206's here... and possibly the front side wall surrounds (taking the place of the front wides), even if you have to angle them towards the listening space with a bracket.

Come to think of it, have you ever thought of Triad or JTR's?? They have various in-room, on-wall, and in-wall (in the case of Triad) solutions and JTR even makes a line of surrounds that are designed exactly like the surround speakers used in commercial Atmos theaters for both side/rear wall and ceiling speakers (Slanted 8HT). Triad's Gold model line (not the upscale Gold Monitor line) is probably around the same price as the Performa3 lineup and some of JTR's upper models are actually less. Both companies' speakers also sound amazing. biggrin.gif Triad Gold's have traditional dome tweeters and JTR's have compression drivers more like commercial venues. It all depends on the type of sound you're looking for.

I am interested in two other choices, one of which you mentioned, Triad and Procella.

Triad does offer a number of solutions that may better fit my room and it's needs in the future.

I may be able to use the Triad to also solve my future ceiling VoG speaker requirements.

Some of these locations on my ceiling may be good for the coming VoG??
See attached pics: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


My apologies for crude drawings and mock-ups! rolleyes.gif

Thanks again! biggrin.gif
zuluwalker is offline  
post #1187 of 1283 Old 04-05-2014, 03:36 PM
Senior Member
 
matthewa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I would start by not having the wides and instead going with timbre matched heights or over-head ceilings. In most new speaker layouts I see that the front wides have mainly been replaced with front side wall surrounds that are angled toward the primary listening space. The behind the screen L/R wides are normally only advised in commercial theaters with extra large screens, which most home theaters do not have. All of the speakers have been matched monopoles.

Is this a dedicated space and which speakers are you considering?

Thanks for the advice, it is a dedicated space, I'll PM about speakers
matthewa is offline  
post #1188 of 1283 Old 04-05-2014, 04:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,080
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Thanks again Dan! biggrin.gif
I am going with my current set-up which has a projector and screen.

I am interested in two other choices, one of which you mentioned, Triad and Procella.

Triad does offer a number of solutions that may better fit my room and it's needs in the future.

I may be able to use the Triad to also solve my future ceiling VoG speaker requirements.

Some of these locations on my ceiling may be good for the coming VoG??
See attached pics: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


My apologies for crude drawings and mock-ups! rolleyes.gif

Thanks again! biggrin.gif

I haven't heard Procella's, but I have read great user reviews of them. Triads are definitely excellent speakers for both movies and music (high SPL friendly and dynamic with a wide sound stage, yet quite natural and non-fatiguing). I would go with a pair of in-room Gold LCR's (you can either add the Triad stands, build your own, or find third party stands), and a Gold center for the front screen wall and then Gold Omni SE bookshelf monitors for everything else. All with matte black finish, of course. wink.gif They are monopoles and they are timbre matched (same tweeter and mid range driver) to the Gold LCR's. Triad can add wall mounting brackets to your specifications to the Omnis' backs for you. Then you can hang the sides and rears and angle them down to the correct firing position and toe in the front side surrounds (about where your wides are now), like surround speakers in an Atmos movie theater. They also have Gold Omni SE in-ceiling timbre matched, monopole speakers that have a proper firing angle built in to their backer boxes.

No one is sure exactly where the ideal location for the top ceiling surrounds will be and how many can be addressed via object rendering (just like how many extra side, rear, and front surrounds can be added beyond the normal amount). Hopefully, we'll know more soon.

I would pre-wire, if you can still get access to the back of the room, for a couple of surround subwoofers too.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1189 of 1283 Old 04-05-2014, 05:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked: 248
Really the top shelf models of most "major" speaker are quite good these days. It seems like the driver technology baseline is quite high. It seems like the best way to choose speakers for home theater these days is more about specific application parameters such as room size, seating distance, SPL levels, amplifier capabilities, etc.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #1190 of 1283 Old 04-06-2014, 05:52 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Hugo S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 527
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

...
No one is sure exactly where the ideal location for the top ceiling surrounds will be and how many can be addressed via object rendering (just like how many extra side, rear, and front surrounds can be added beyond the normal amount). Hopefully, we'll know more soon.
...

Having a 11.2 installation since 2009, based on a DSX speakers configuration, with Klipsch KL650/KS525 THX Ultra 2 speakers (and SVS PB13 U subs) I'm having similar concerns. As in the very beginning I was using the Audyssey DSX processing (with Dolby IIx to add back surrounds), but since the arrival of the exceptional DTS Neo X 11 Cinema processing , this is the one I exclusively use. Now with the arrival of this new "object audio" generation, what should be done as far as speakers configuration is concerned...

My analysis is that all this will depend on what will be the next standard concerning the number of channels built in the new processors. Will it be 11.2 as today, or shall this evolve into 13.2 or even 15.2? Why so?

Today if one considers the Dolby Atmos scheme of implementing speakers, it is essentially based on surround speakers positioned above ear level completed by a "certain" number of ceiling - or VOG type of - speakers... In my opinion, this won't ever be implantable into a HT environment... particularly into an already existing one.

So we have to consider what could be other options... and this is where the Auro 3D implementation comes into consideration as it consists of 3 layers : ear level, above ear level (45°), VOG. And today in its' 11.1 configuration this consists of a "standard" 5.1 (2) + 4 heights (above L+R and SL+SR) + either 1 VOG + 1 BS or 2 VOG (and no BS).

And it also seems that at some point, an (evolution ?) of the actual DTS Neo X 11 could be tweaked to address this type of configuration, as far as somewhere in the processor's channel configuration, each channel's position could be identified as such.

All this means that the present generation of 11.2 processors actually has the capability to handle this next generation of object audio. Even in a 13.2 configuration of speakers with a "standard 7.1 (2) + 4 heights + 2 VOG, as both the 2 BS and 2 VOG could be driven in parallel...

So this is where a 13.2 processor comes to make sense, as with a 13.2 processor, all 7.1 (2) + 4 heights + 2 VOG speakers could be individually addressed and though adequately calibrated...

Now why 15.2? As a purist I have become accustomed to the Wide speakers, which IMHO do really fill the gap between the Front (ear level) speakers and the Surround speakers, singularly in a HT environment, this is why, again as a purist, I would hate to have to lose the Wide speakers... though this 15.2 processor solution that I would support as it would give us the possibility to individually address and calibrate all speakers in a 7.1 (2) + 2 Wide + 4 Height + 2 VOG speakers. A dream?

So before we see how many channels will be standard in the new generation of processors, I'd wait before taking decisions, as far as what to do with speakers. Anyway this is what I do here. wink.gif

Have a nice Sunday,

Hugo
Hugo S is offline  
post #1191 of 1283 Old 04-06-2014, 06:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post

Hi,
Having a 11.2 installation since 2009, based on a DSX speakers configuration, with Klipsch KL650/KS525 THX Ultra 2 speakers (and SVS PB13 U subs). In the very beginning I was using the Audyssey DSX processing (with Dolby IIx to add back surrounds), but since the arrival of the exceptional DTS Neo X 11 Cinema processing , this is the one I exclusively use.

Now with the arrival of this new "object audio" generation, I'm having just the same concerns as what to do for the speakers configuration.

My analysis is that all this will depend on what will be the next standard concerning the number of channels built in the new processors. Will it be 11.2 as today, or shall this evolve into 13.2 or even 15.2? Why so?

Today if one considers the Dolby Atmos scheme of implementing speakers, it is essentially based on surround speakers positioned above ear level completed by a "certain" number of ceiling - or VOG type of - speakers... In my opinion, this won't ever be implantable into a HT environment... particularly into an already existing one.

So we have to consider what could be other options... and this is where the Auro 3D implementation comes into consideration as it consists of 3 layers : ear level, above ear level (45°), VOG. And today in its' 11.1 configuration this consists of a "standard" 5.1 (2) + 4 heights (above L+R and SL+SR) + either 1 VOG + 1 BS or 2 VOG (and no BS).

And it also seems that at some point, an (evolution ?) of the actual DTS Neo X 11 could be tweaked to address this type of configuration, as far as somewhere in the processor's channel configuration, each channel's position could be identified as such.

All this means that the present generation of 11.2 processors actually has the capability to handle this next generation of object audio. Even in a 13.2 configuration of speakers with a "standard 7.1 (2) + 4 heights + 2 VOG, as both the 2 BS and 2 VOG could be driven in parallel...

So this is where a 13.2 processor comes to make sense, as with a 13.2 processor, all 7.1 (2) + 4 heights + 2 VOG speakers could be individually addressed and though adequately calibrated...

Now why 15.2? As a purist I have become accustomed to the Wide speakers, which IMHO do really fill the gap between the Front (ear level) speakers and the Surround speakers, singularly in a HT environment, this is why, again as a purist, I would hate to have to lose the Wide speakers... though this 15.2 processor solution that I would support as it would give us the possibility to individually address and calibrate all speakers in a 7.1 (2) + 2 Wide + 4 Height + 2 VOG speakers. A dream?

Have a nice Sunday,

Hugo

I like the wides too but i added a height speaker for that channel too for future atmos.

Higher end units like Datasat, trinnov, etc will defintely do a 16-24 channel system with atmos/dts object based if they arrive. Max number of channels is up to the manufacturer and those manufacturers already do lots of channels.

I'll likely go "high end" (if I have to) in order to scale to all 19.6 speakers I have now. In the meantime I am working on a DIY project for upgrading my in-wall subs to much larger drivers (maybe dual 15"). I may actually go with a console table behind my couch and add another sub there (also dual 15" or a single 18").

As you can tell... I love this stuff!

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #1192 of 1283 Old 04-06-2014, 06:25 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Hugo S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 527
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Hi again,
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post

I like the wides too but i added a height speaker for that channel too for future atmos.

Higher end units like Datasat, trinnov, etc will defintely do a 16-24 channel system with atmos/dts object based if they arrive. Max number of channels is up to the manufacturer and those manufacturers already do lots of channels.

I'll likely go "high end" (if I have to) in order to scale to all 19.6 speakers I have now. In the meantime I am working on a DIY project for upgrading my in-wall subs to much larger drivers (maybe dual 15"). I may actually go with a console table behind my couch and add another sub there (also dual 15" or a single 18").

As you can tell... I love this stuff!

My opinion here is that the Auro 3D approach segmenting the reproduction into 3 layers : ear level, above ear level (45°), above head, totally makes sense. Particularly in a HT environment, where individual speakers (points of emission) are more localizable... though the notion of Wide positioned speakers (at ear level).

Now I also think that the more you get above ear level, the less discrimination, precision, localisation of the sound source one (the ear) has and then needs. Meaning though that I don't think we need an individual Height speaker above every individual ear level speaker... and future will tell.

But when one sees that in the 22.2 Japanese implementation, 3 speakers are located bellow ear level just to reproduce foot steps... there's no limit for today's planning for cables positioning...

Anyway if the next generation of processors comes to be 15.2, you bet I'll be a happy man. smile.gif

Hugo
Hugo S is offline  
post #1193 of 1283 Old 04-06-2014, 07:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,080
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post

Hi again,
My opinion here is that the Auro 3D approach segmenting the reproduction into 3 layers : ear level, above ear level (45°), above head, totally makes sense. Particularly in a HT environment, where individual speakers (points of emission) are more localizable... though the notion of Wide positioned speakers (at ear level).

Now I also think that the more you get above ear level, the less discrimination, precision, localisation of the sound source one (the ear) has and then needs. Meaning though that I don't think we need an individual Height speaker above every individual ear level speaker... and future will tell.

But when one sees that in the 22.2 Japanese implementation, 3 speakers are located bellow ear level just to reproduce foot steps... there's no limit for today's planning for cables positioning...

Anyway if the next generation of processors comes to be 15.2, you bet I'll be a happy man. smile.gif

Hugo

In DTS MDA and Dolby Atmos implementations and even consumer demos, they do not do the Auro three-tiered approach. It's the normal side and back surrounds along with top speakers (I've seen at least four). Now, with speaker re-mapping supposedly being implemented, I would imagine that you could have your choice of overhead or high wall tops and the renderer will adapt accordingly.

In Atmos and usually MDA too, there is a delineation between the front screen wide speakers and the front side surrounds. I'm guessing they'll drop the front wides since those are for extremely large screens and go with front side surrounds like in the commercial venues to fill in the gap between stage and surround speakers.

I'm sure it will be up to to the manufacturers to decide how many speakers their implementation of Atmos and MDA (UHD) will control. I'm concerned about how many DTS and Dolby's actual soundtrack codecs will support via metadata (and how many objects). That will be your indication of the maximum allowable. I just don't know how much storage capacity these soundtracks would take in a lossless state if they allow for 60+ speakers just like in the cinema. In a DCP pack they're sometimes in PCM .wav files.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1194 of 1283 Old 04-06-2014, 08:13 AM
wse
AVS Special Member
 
wse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 7,005
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 551 Post(s)
Liked: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluwalker View Post

Thanks for the reply Dan.

I am going to buy Revel Preforma3.



F-208 towers
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/223

C-208 center
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/227

M-10 wides/heights
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/56

S-206 surrounds?
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/229

I could use these I rethought my approach to my room, it would give me mono Rears,
http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/211

*EDIT - to add links and photo.

I heard they sound good but really not my taste!
wse is offline  
post #1195 of 1283 Old 04-06-2014, 08:29 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Hugo S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 527
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Hi Dan,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

In DTS MDA and Dolby Atmos implementations and even consumer demos, they do not do the Auro three-tiered approach. It's the normal side and back surrounds along with top speakers (I've seen at least four). Now, with speaker re-mapping supposedly being implemented, I would imagine that you could have your choice of overhead or high wall tops and the renderer will adapt accordingly.

In Atmos and usually MDA too, there is a delineation between the front screen wide speakers and the front side surrounds. I'm guessing they'll drop the front wides since those are for extremely large screens and go with front side surrounds like in the commercial venues to fill in the gap between stage and surround speakers.

I'm sure it will be up to to the manufacturers to decide how many speakers their implementation of Atmos and MDA (UHD) will control. I'm concerned about how many DTS and Dolby's actual soundtrack codecs will support via metadata (and how many objects). That will be your indication of the maximum allowable. I just don't know how much storage capacity these soundtracks would take in a lossless state if they allow for 60+ speakers just like in the cinema. In a DCP pack they're sometimes in PCM .wav files.

Nearby where I live in Northern Paris, a new cinema complex opened recently. It's owned by a Luc Besson's company committed to performance and at least 2 of the theaters are equipped with Dolby Atmos. I went to see there the latest Hobbit movie. This was a very interesting experience, really immersive as far as sound was concerned... and even though I haven't been impressed by the image calibration...

Now concerning Dolby Atmos could it be possible to (easily) implement this type of speaker configuration at home? I simply don't think so. As multiple layers of speakers hanging from the ceiling aren't very... practical... to say the least.

And on the contrary could an ear level layer of speakers be implemented in a cinema? Clearly also : no!

So what we see here is that speakers implementations in a home context and in a (professional) cinema context aren't really the same... even when with sound re-mapping, wonders can be achieved.

Now to achieve these wonders, what would be the best and optimal speakers configuration? This is where I think that the layer approach - ear level, above ear level (45°), VOG (à la Auro 3D) - would - in my opinion - give the maximum of flexibility to distribute sound the most easily... and probably with the best subjective credibility.

Something impossible to realize in commercial cinemas, but as what we are talking here is home theater speakers implementation with a cost no object approach for a subjectively best possible result in this new object audio context... so why should we restrict our self to "conventional" schemes, mimic commercial cinemas ? And even though I'd bet that in this same object audio context, 90% of the people will be happy with just their sound bar, having the impression that the sound is being re-mapped all round them... wink.gif

Ah Passion... smile.gif

Hugo
Hugo S is offline  
post #1196 of 1283 Old 04-06-2014, 08:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,080
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

I heard they sound good but really not my taste!

As I mentioned to him, I think his choice of Triads or Procellas (or maybe JTR's) is probably the better option.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1197 of 1283 Old 04-06-2014, 08:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,080
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post

Hi Dan,
Nearby where I live in Northern Paris, a new cinema complex opened recently. It's owned by a Luc Besson's company committed to performance and at least 2 of the theaters are equipped with Dolby Atmos. I went to see there the latest Hobbit movie. This was a very interesting experience, really immersive as far as sound was concerned... and even though I haven't been impressed by the image calibration...

Now concerning Dolby Atmos could it be possible to (easily) implement this type of speaker configuration at home? I simply don't think so. As multiple layers of speakers hanging from the ceiling aren't very... practical... to say the least.

And on the contrary could an ear level layer of speakers be implemented in a cinema? Clearly also : no!

So what we see here is that speakers implementations in a home context and in a (professional) cinema context aren't really the same... even when with sound re-mapping, wonders can be achieved.

Now to achieve these wonders, what would be the best and optimal speakers configuration? This is where I think that the layer approach - ear level, above ear level (45°), VOG (à la Auro 3D) - would - in my opinion - give the maximum of flexibility to distribute sound the most easily... and probably with the best subjective credibility.

Something impossible to realize in commercial cinemas, but as what we are talking here is home theater speakers implementation with a cost no object approach for a subjectively best possible result in this new object audio context... so why should we restrict our self to "conventional" schemes, mimic commercial cinemas ? And even though I'd bet that in this same object audio context, 90% of the people will be happy with just their sound bar, having the impression that the sound is being re-mapped all round them... wink.gif

Ah Passion... smile.gif

Hugo

It may be better, but would require a lot more speakers. In some layouts, I think what may happen is they take the DTS Neo:X layout and add an additional pair of heights in the back. The wides become front side surrounds. You then have the option of placing the heights above and toed down or on the ceiling. But then the question remains as to whether they'll have the coding allowing for even more speakers if you want them. In the most basic Atmos layout in their white paper they recommend three screen speakers, four sides on each wall, four in the back, and eight top speakers (four left, four right). That's around the NHK recommendation of about 22 speakers plus subs.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1198 of 1283 Old 04-06-2014, 09:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post

Hi again,
My opinion here is that the Auro 3D approach segmenting the reproduction into 3 layers : ear level, above ear level (45°), above head, totally makes sense. Particularly in a HT environment, where individual speakers (points of emission) are more localizable... though the notion of Wide positioned speakers (at ear level).

Now I also think that the more you get above ear level, the less discrimination, precision, localisation of the sound source one (the ear) has and then needs. Meaning though that I don't think we need an individual Height speaker above every individual ear level speaker... and future will tell.

But when one sees that in the 22.2 Japanese implementation, 3 speakers are located bellow ear level just to reproduce foot steps... there's no limit for today's planning for cables positioning...

Anyway if the next generation of processors comes to be 15.2, you bet I'll be a happy man. smile.gif

Hugo

I have 4 channels wired into our floor that come under our couch. I use them for 3 tacile transducers but the option of using floor speakers somehow is always a crazy consideration. They would need to be built into a riser or maybe into the furniture to make sense.

My room now has 10 total height layer speakers, one front high as usual, 3 side high, and 1 rear high. This seems to fill most gaps in the room really well.

Literally only one more ceiling stereo pair might make a little sense in my size room but I'm not sure you would notice them much in my 18ft wide room. The height later is under a foot from the ceiling as it is.

If you look at the dolby atmos speaker map, my height layer speakers are exactly where a center listener in a dolby theater would have the ceiling speakers oriented.

I am simply hoping that the atmos software will simply use whatever speakers that I have, wherever they are.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #1199 of 1283 Old 04-06-2014, 09:34 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Hugo S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 527
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

It may be better, but would require a lot more speakers. In some layouts, I think what may happen is they take the DTS Neo:X layout and add an additional pair of heights in the back. The wides become front side surrounds. You then have the option of placing the heights above and toed down or on the ceiling. But then the question remains as to whether they'll have the coding allowing for even more speakers if you want them. In the most basic Atmos layout in their white paper they recommend three screen speakers, four sides on each wall, four in the back, and eight top speakers (four left, four right). That's around the NHK recommendation of about 22 speakers plus subs.

Back in march 2004 ("only" 10 yrs ago) when I saw Tom Holman's mythical 10.2 system in a presentation at a University in Paris, I though how possibly can 10+2 speakers be accommodated in a domestic environment... and in my case that was done 5 yrs later... but today we're now talking of 22+2... a factor of 2 in 10 yrs... = 44+4 in 2024? biggrin.gif

Anyway... my experisnce is that today with DTS Neo X 11 (Cinema) what can be got is of a really high level of immersion. And to appreciate that, I'd suggest to listen to the latest DTS 2014 demo BluRay and particularly Dave Stewart's "Every single night" music track, shot with a 4K Red camera, with sound optimized for DTS Neo X 11. This is simply a visual and audible achievement with a DTS Neo X 11 Cinema processing.

Now through this recent specific DTS Neo X 11 optimized track, it is possible to experience that DTS has probably switched from an above ear level disposition for Surround and Back Surround speakers to an ear disposition, as this specific sound mixing clearly show cases that.

In my opinion this directly militates to what has been said above : minimally 2 layers of speakers in the next object audio context.

Now Dolby Atmos configuration positions these 2 layers, one above ear level and the other on the ceiling; I rather think that in a home theater environment these speakers should better be physically located at ear level and above ear level @ 45°( + 2 separate VOG) for an optimal subjective result.

Hugo
Hugo S is offline  
post #1200 of 1283 Old 04-06-2014, 09:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post

Back in march 2004 ("only" 10 yrs ago) when I saw Tom Holman's mythical 10.2 system in a presentation at a University in Paris, I though how possibly can 10+2 speakers be accommodated in a domestic environment... and in my case that was done 5 yrs later... but today we're now talking of 22+2... a factor of 2 in 10 yrs... = 44+4 in 2024? biggrin.gif

Anyway... my experisnce is that today with DTS Neo X 11 (Cinema) what can be got is of a really high level of immersion. And to appreciate that, I'd suggest to listen to the latest DTS 2014 demo BluRay and particularly Dave Stewart's "Every single night" music track, shot with a 4K Red camera, with sound optimized for DTS Neo X 11. This is simply a visual and audible achievement with a DTS Neo X 11 Cinema processing.

Now through this recent specific DTS Neo X 11 optimized track, it is possible to experience that DTS has probably switched from an above ear level disposition for Surround and Back Surround speakers to an ear disposition, as this specific sound mixing clearly show cases that.

In my opinion this directly militates to what has been said above : minimally 2 layers of speakers in the next object audio context.

Now Dolby Atmos configuration positions these 2 layers, one above ear level and the other on the ceiling; I rather think that in a home theater environment these speakers should better be physically located at ear level and above ear level @ 45°( + 2 separate VOG) for an optimal subjective result.

Hugo

I heard that tom holman setup too, in san antonio at Bjorn's I think. It was pretty epic sounding with the various demonstrations I heard. It was a fairly big room with M&K speakers if I'm not mistaken.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Tags
Dts , Denon Avr 4311ci 9 2 Channel Network Multi Room Home Theater Receiver With Hdmi 1 4a
Gear in this thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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