The 'Official' 2014 Denon "S Series" / "X Series" AVR Model Owner's Thread & FAQ - Page 14 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #391 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 05:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
chi_guy50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 874
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
If I am understanding you correctly, the best configuration would be with rear surrounds in back at or just above ear level, conventionally, and a pair of Heights at the front and at the back, at ceiling height.

Or you could repurpose your current rear surrounds as rear heights and lose surround backs altogether. (That is what I will be doing - 5.2+4 - as I have no room behind me for rear surrounds in my current HT.
I'm not sure whether I made myself clear in my earlier post. I have a conventional 11.1 set-up with FH, FW, and SB. But, since it's a living room and there was no convenient way to position and wire surround speakers on the floor, I installed in-ceiling speakers as the surrounds slightly behind and to the left and right of the MLP. The rear surrounds are satellite speakers on the wall behind the MLP just above ear level.

What I am wondering is whether Dolby Atmos can utilize (superimpose the metadata on) the surround speaker channel, in essence recognizing those speakers as "rear heights" in view of their location in respect to the MLP. Or whether an additional set of heights (or repositioning the rear surrounds and thus presumably losing the dedicated RS channel) would be required.

Do you have any insight on how Dolby Atmos or DTS UHD would impact on this configuration?

Last edited by chi_guy50; 06-21-2014 at 05:25 AM.
chi_guy50 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #392 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 08:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,827
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1967 Post(s)
Liked: 2018
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi_guy50 View Post
I'm not sure whether I made myself clear in my earlier post. I have a conventional 11.1 set-up with FH, FW, and SB. But, since it's a living room and there was no convenient way to position and wire surround speakers on the floor, I installed in-ceiling speakers as the surrounds slightly behind and to the left and right of the MLP. The rear surrounds are satellite speakers on the wall behind the MLP just above ear level.

What I am wondering is whether Dolby Atmos can utilize (superimpose the metadata on) the surround speaker channel, in essence recognizing those speakers as "rear heights" in view of their location in respect to the MLP. Or whether an additional set of heights (or repositioning the rear surrounds and thus presumably losing the dedicated RS channel) would be required.

Do you have any insight on how Dolby Atmos or DTS UHD would impact on this configuration?
My understanding is that you will be able to designate the in-ceiling speakers as rear height speakers if you choose to. But if I am understanding you correctly, if you did that you would have no side surrounds in the system, which is a no-no. I think I am still missing your point, sorry.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #393 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 11:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bootman_head_fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Nanny State
Posts: 1,186
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Roger Dressler pretty much booted FM out of the park on that one. FM knows a lot about the commercial side of Atmos but that isn't the same thing as the domestic side.

Not really.
besides the possible improvement in night time viewing, that was about it for 5.1 benefits.

Nothing else suggests otherwise that those will a 5.1 system will just get the regular 5.1 mix on a Atmos based system.
if you have new information, I want to see it since I'm interested in Atmos and I only have a 5.1 setup.
But I also don't want to blindly upgrade if the real benefits are just not there.
bootman_head_fi is offline  
post #394 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 12:30 PM
Senior Member
 
krozman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Atmos for home theatre will have a lot of documentation available before it's available for purchase at least. And there are consistent contributors who will test these finer points and report to this thread.
Keenan likes this.
krozman is offline  
post #395 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 12:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,827
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1967 Post(s)
Liked: 2018
Quote:
Originally Posted by bootman_head_fi View Post
Not really.
besides the possible improvement in night time viewing, that was about it for 5.1 benefits.

Nothing else suggests otherwise that those will a 5.1 system will just get the regular 5.1 mix on a Atmos based system.
if you have new information, I want to see it since I'm interested in Atmos and I only have a 5.1 setup.
But I also don't want to blindly upgrade if the real benefits are just not there.
Did you miss the part where with object based audio the sound will always come from where the mixer intended it to come and not from where the speaker happens to be placed? The example I have used before is a 5.1 system where the surrounds are at 110 degrees as opposed to 90 degrees. With a channel based system, if the mixer intends a sound to emanate directly from 90 degrees to the left of the listener, he will place all of the sound in the left surround speaker/channel. But if the user has his side surrounds at 110 degrees, as many do with a 5.1 system, that sound will then emanate from over his left shoulder. Not where the mixer intended. In an object based system the sound object will be rendered at 90 degrees to the left of the listener, as intended, because the system will 'know' where the speakers are and so it will phantom image the sound at the correct place, using the speakers it finds in the system. Would you not call that an advantage?
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #396 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 03:13 PM
Member
 
crimsonblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Maryland/DC/VA
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by krozman View Post
Atmos for home theatre will have a lot of documentation available before it's available for purchase at least. And there are consistent contributors who will test these finer points and report to this thread.


Well said. And, we can probably punt all of the arguing back and forth until then. Let's enjoy what we have, dream of what we don't, and keep the home theater hobby fun for everyone here.


-----
Keenan likes this.

_______________________
My new home theater build!

Last edited by crimsonblue; 06-21-2014 at 03:16 PM.
crimsonblue is offline  
post #397 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 03:56 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 5
x2100W in hand!

As promised, I was able to pick up my receiver today and just finished my initial setup, including Audessey. It will be a while before I can render any kind of meaningful impressions, but quick thoughts compared to my prior 3808ci:

Build Quality. Definitely a step significant step back, more so than I'd have expected to the 2x series to the 3x series. The input select knob no longer has a solid detented feel and is just a mushy dial, and volume feels much more plastic. Thankfully I'll rarely touch the unit so it shouldn't be a big deal in practice. It's also much lighter which contributes to the general feeling of an inexpensive piece of kit.

Setup and Navigation. Presumably the step-by-step setup isn't new, but it is pretty well thought out. It didn't take long at all to get everything connected to the right input and verify that it was all working as expected. Menus are logically organized and easy to navigate. I even appreciate the move to a simple positive volume scale that doesn't confuse guests. Again, chances are none of this is new to this year.

Audio Quality. This is the part that matters most beyond the basic feature set, and it was where I had the most misgivings about the lower-end model. In practice I simply didn't need multi-zone support or any of the other features of the 3100 for my one-room 5.1 setup that's optimized more for living than listening. So far I'm tentatively pleased. The handful of scenes I've watched and SACDs I've sampled fared well, and best of all Audessey didn't make a complete hash of my subwoofer EQ and volume levels as it always did on the 3808. The soundstage is well defined, it seems capable of yielding mellow and breathy qualities when asked alongside punchy bass and crisp transients. I'm hoping it will stand up to longer-term scrutiny as well.

I haven't yet delved into Bluetooth or AirPlay use but I had no trouble joining my household WiFi network and my iPad immediately saw it as an AirPlay destination. So far, so good.
sikclown likes this.
Lady Gaia is offline  
post #398 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 04:26 PM
Senior Member
 
WhiskeyOmega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Looks like we have to wait till the 4th July here in the UK then?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

LG 55LA970W - Oppo 103D - Onkyo TX-NR636 - Kef Q1,5,9C speakers and Rel 150 sub - Sennheiser HD650 Headphones
WhiskeyOmega is offline  
post #399 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 04:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
chi_guy50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 874
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
My understanding is that you will be able to designate the in-ceiling speakers as rear height speakers if you choose to. But if I am understanding you correctly, if you did that you would have no side surrounds in the system, which is a no-no. I think I am still missing your point, sorry.
Obviously, I'm still pondering how Atmos will be implemented in an HT application and what that will imply for my set-up. Understanding that object-oriented audio is not channel-based, I hypothesized that perhaps my in-ceiling surrounds could do "double duty" for the purposes of Atmos given their physical location in the listening area (i.e., the speakers physically connected to the surround posts would be recognized by the Atmos software as rear heights based on their position). But your reponse implies that this double duty is not feasible.

Still, since the X5200/X7200 can only be expanded to a maximum of 13 speakers in the main zone, I presume there will be some "double duty" involved in an 11.2.4 configuration. After all, 11 + 4 = 15, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimsonblue View Post
Well said. And, we can probably punt all of the arguing back and forth until then. Let's enjoy what we have, dream of what we don't, and keep the home theater hobby fun for everyone here.
Or we could do that! (But my curiosity just keeps getting the better of me.)

Last edited by chi_guy50; 06-21-2014 at 04:49 PM.
chi_guy50 is online now  
post #400 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 04:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Grooms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Villages, Fl
Posts: 2,200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 168
How do you do 11.2.4 with 13 preouts?
Tom Grooms is online now  
post #401 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 05:58 PM
585-645-1006
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 45,461
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1486 Post(s)
Liked: 1617
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi_guy50 View Post
Obviously, I'm still pondering how Atmos will be implemented in an HT application and what that will imply for my set-up. Understanding that object-oriented audio is not channel-based, I hypothesized that perhaps my in-ceiling surrounds could do "double duty" for the purposes of Atmos given their physical location in the listening area (i.e., the speakers physically connected to the surround posts would be recognized by the Atmos software as rear heights based on their position). But your reponse implies that this double duty is not feasible.

Still, since the X5200/X7200 can only be expanded to a maximum of 13 speakers in the main zone, I presume there will be some "double duty" involved in an 11.2.4 configuration. After all, 11 + 4 = 15, right?



Or we could do that! (But my curiosity just keeps getting the better of me.)
That would be 9CH AVRs expandable to 11 CH max so either 7.1.4 (recommended) or 9.1.2 (w/Front Wides).

---------------------------------
"JD" – jd@avscience.com ; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - Authorized dealer for AVRs, Speakers, etc. 
Daily 8am – 8pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)
Call for pricing - Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Oppo
** Think the AVR is defective?  Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times. 

Last edited by jdsmoothie; 07-08-2014 at 06:31 AM.
jdsmoothie is online now  
post #402 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 06:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
chi_guy50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 874
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Grooms View Post
How do you do 11.2.4 with 13 preouts?
Exactly. Of course, in an earlier post, JD referenced Atmos marketing designations and pegged the resulting speaker configuration of "up to 7.1.4 on the X5200W (11CH max)." So if, like me, you already have 11.1 and want to accommodate the Atmos .4, something has to go or else do double duty given the limitation of 13 preouts.

Or else I'm missing something (conceded, very likely in any case).
chi_guy50 is online now  
post #403 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 06:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Grooms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Villages, Fl
Posts: 2,200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 168
I guess wides and Heights didn't make the cut in Atmos
Tom Grooms is online now  
post #404 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 06:22 PM
585-645-1006
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 45,461
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1486 Post(s)
Liked: 1617
^^
Wides did.

---------------------------------
"JD" – jd@avscience.com ; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - Authorized dealer for AVRs, Speakers, etc. 
Daily 8am – 8pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)
Call for pricing - Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Oppo
** Think the AVR is defective?  Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times. 

Last edited by jdsmoothie; 07-08-2014 at 06:32 AM.
jdsmoothie is online now  
post #405 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 06:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Schwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,993
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 258 Post(s)
Liked: 279
JD, are you saying that the X7200W supports a max of 7.2.4 in the main zone? Is that confirmed? Honestly it's fine by me as 11 is really the max number of speakers I'd like to install, but I expected the 13-speaker configuration option might be a differentiator between the X7200W and the lower models.

I hope one pair of the four ceiling speakers can be installed just like traditional front height speakers under DSX or DTS Neo:X. If so, that's where I'll put the first set of ceiling speakers; the second pair I'll install more-or-less directly over the MLP. Everything else is a standard 7.2 config w/ side and rear surrounds.

Should this work?
Schwa is offline  
post #406 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 06:43 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
batpig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 24,775
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 966 Post(s)
Liked: 1468
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi_guy50 View Post
Exactly. Of course, in an earlier post, JD referenced Atmos marketing designations and pegged the resulting speaker configuration of "up to 7.1.4 on the X5200W (11CH max)." So if, like me, you already have 11.1 and want to accommodate the Atmos .4, something has to go or else do double duty given the limitation of 13 preouts.

Or else I'm missing something (conceded, very likely in any case).
Atmos has 4 height speakers (front and rear). Your 11ch setup already includes two. So you aren't adding four, you would be adding two.
batpig is offline  
post #407 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 06:53 PM
585-645-1006
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 45,461
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1486 Post(s)
Liked: 1617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwa View Post
JD, are you saying that the X7200W supports a max of 7.2.4 in the main zone? Is that confirmed? Honestly it's fine by me as 11 is really the max number of speakers I'd like to install, but I expected the 13-speaker configuration option might be a differentiator between the X7200W and the lower models.

I hope one pair of the four ceiling speakers can be installed just like traditional front height speakers under DSX or DTS Neo:X. If so, that's where I'll put the first set of ceiling speakers; the second pair I'll install more-or-less directly over the MLP. Everything else is a standard 7.2 config w/ side and rear surrounds.

Should this work?
Yup. Confirmed. Max 11CH processing on the 7200. The 7200 will likely have other features to differentiate it from the 5200.

---------------------------------
"JD" – jd@avscience.com ; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - Authorized dealer for AVRs, Speakers, etc. 
Daily 8am – 8pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)
Call for pricing - Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Oppo
** Think the AVR is defective?  Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times. 

Last edited by jdsmoothie; 06-21-2014 at 06:56 PM.
jdsmoothie is online now  
post #408 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 06:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Schwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,993
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 258 Post(s)
Liked: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post
Yup. Confirmed. Max 11CH processing on the 7200. The 7200 will likely have other features to differentiate it from the 5200.
Any thoughts on my proposed speaker configuration?
Schwa is offline  
post #409 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 11:41 PM
Senior Member
 
esappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Poulsbo, Washington
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post
Yup. Confirmed. Max 11CH processing on the 7200. The 7200 will likely have other features to differentiate it from the 5200.
Ok, so let me see if I understand this correctly. The x7200 has a maximum of 11.2 channels of processing at any given time but has a total of 13.2 preouts, and Dolby Atmos doesn't use "wide speakers". So the options available to the consumer is thus:

11.2 (AKA Audyssey DSX or DTS NEO:X) with the following maximum speaker configuration:
FL, C, FR, SL, SBL, SR, SBR, FHL, FHR, FWL, FWR + LFE X 2

OR

7.2.4 (AKA Dolby Atmos and possibly DTS's answer to Atmos) with the following maximum speaker configuration:
FL, C, FR, SL, SBL, SR, SBR, FHL(FCL), FHR(FCR), RHL(RCL), RHR(RCR) + LFE X 2.

The front heights used by DSX and NEO:X as well as the front height/ceiling used by Atmos would share the 'Height 1' preout and the rear heights/ceiling would be used by Atmos using the 'Height 2' preout. But to keep to the max 11.2 (7.2.4) channels max, only the 'Height 2' OR the 'front wides' would be active at a given time depending on if you are using Atmos or DSX/NEO:X. This should also coincide with what batpig was saying.

Does that sound about right or am I out to lunch still? I understand that their is the possibility of some of the preouts being assignable (they are called 'height 1' and 'height 2' instead of 'front height/ceiling' and 'rear height/ceiling') but I am trying to keep it as simple as possible because it gets confusing quick.

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

Last edited by esappy; 06-22-2014 at 12:02 AM.
esappy is offline  
post #410 of 1649 Old 06-21-2014, 11:55 PM
Senior Member
 
esappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Poulsbo, Washington
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 70
The only issue I see with using the built in amps in the x7200 is that 'height 2' and 'front wide' share the same set of binding posts. So hopefully the x7200 will have extensive internal amp assignability similar or better than the 4520 for those of us who would have to rely heavily on using the receivers built in amplification.

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

Last edited by esappy; 06-21-2014 at 11:57 PM.
esappy is offline  
post #411 of 1649 Old 06-22-2014, 03:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SanchoPanza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Beauvoir, Mississippi
Posts: 3,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 473
Think I'd rather have Wide than Rear Height Speakers.
SanchoPanza is online now  
post #412 of 1649 Old 06-22-2014, 04:15 AM
585-645-1006
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 45,461
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1486 Post(s)
Liked: 1617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwa View Post
JD, are you saying that the X7200W supports a max of 7.2.4 in the main zone? Is that confirmed? Honestly it's fine by me as 11 is really the max number of speakers I'd like to install, but I expected the 13-speaker configuration option might be a differentiator between the X7200W and the lower models.

I hope one pair of the four ceiling speakers can be installed just like traditional front height speakers under DSX or DTS Neo:X. If so, that's where I'll put the first set of ceiling speakers; the second pair I'll install more-or-less directly over the MLP. Everything else is a standard 7.2 config w/ side and rear surrounds.

Should this work?

Not ideally no as the second set should be placed behind the MLP. The proper configuration for 7.2.4 will be "Front" and "Rear" ceiling speakers while if using 7.2.2 you will have the option of either "Front" or "Middle".

There will be a total of five possible Atmos configurations:

5.1.2 ==> 5.1+top middle
5.1.4 ==> 5.1+top front + top rear
7.1.2 ==> 7.1+top front or top middle
7.1.4 ==> 7.1+top front + top rear)
9.1.2 ==> 7.1+Front Wide + top middle
kbarnes701 likes this.

---------------------------------
"JD" – jd@avscience.com ; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - Authorized dealer for AVRs, Speakers, etc. 
Daily 8am – 8pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)
Call for pricing - Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Oppo
** Think the AVR is defective?  Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times. 

Last edited by jdsmoothie; 07-08-2014 at 06:33 AM.
jdsmoothie is online now  
post #413 of 1649 Old 06-22-2014, 04:18 AM
585-645-1006
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 45,461
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1486 Post(s)
Liked: 1617
Quote:
Originally Posted by esappy View Post
Ok, so let me see if I understand this correctly. The x7200 has a maximum of 11.2 channels of processing at any given time but has a total of 13.2 preouts, and Dolby Atmos doesn't use "wide speakers". So the options available to the consumer is thus:

11.2 (AKA Audyssey DSX or DTS NEO:X) with the following maximum speaker configuration:
FL, C, FR, SL, SBL, SR, SBR, FHL, FHR, FWL, FWR + LFE X 2

OR

7.2.4 (AKA Dolby Atmos and possibly DTS's answer to Atmos) with the following maximum speaker configuration:
FL, C, FR, SL, SBL, SR, SBR, FHL(FCL), FHR(FCR), RHL(RCL), RHR(RCR) + LFE X 2.

The front heights used by DSX and NEO:X as well as the front height/ceiling used by Atmos would share the 'Height 1' preout and the rear heights/ceiling would be used by Atmos using the 'Height 2' preout. But to keep to the max 11.2 (7.2.4) channels max, only the 'Height 2' OR the 'front wides' would be active at a given time depending on if you are using Atmos or DSX/NEO:X. This should also coincide with what batpig was saying.

Does that sound about right or am I out to lunch still? I understand that their is the possibility of some of the preouts being assignable (they are called 'height 1' and 'height 2' instead of 'front height/ceiling' and 'rear height/ceiling') but I am trying to keep it as simple as possible because it gets confusing quick.
You got it.

---------------------------------
"JD" – jd@avscience.com ; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - Authorized dealer for AVRs, Speakers, etc. 
Daily 8am – 8pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)
Call for pricing - Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Oppo
** Think the AVR is defective?  Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times. 
jdsmoothie is online now  
post #414 of 1649 Old 06-22-2014, 04:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,827
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1967 Post(s)
Liked: 2018
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post
Yup. Confirmed. Max 11CH processing on the 7200. The 7200 will likely have other features to differentiate it from the 5200.
Thanks for that. Looks like I will be buying the X5200 then.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #415 of 1649 Old 06-22-2014, 07:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
chi_guy50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 874
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Thanks for that. Looks like I will be buying the X5200 then.
But wait, you haven't learned yet what other goodies will come with the X7200! For an upcharge of about $800 I'm hoping it will make me breakfast and give me a morning massage. If not, I will also plan to go for the X5200 now that I have a preliminary understanding of how it will accommodate the new processing. Like you, I will probably plan to repurpose my rear surrounds as rear heights initially, but I might want to add on another pair of speakers as dedicated RH's later (and thereby regain my SB's) if I think it's worth it.

Many thanks to JDSmoothie and Batpig, once again, for illuminating the 11.1 vs. 7.1.4 conundrum. This discussion has been very helpful.

Last edited by chi_guy50; 06-22-2014 at 07:06 AM.
chi_guy50 is online now  
post #416 of 1649 Old 06-22-2014, 07:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,827
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1967 Post(s)
Liked: 2018
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi_guy50 View Post
But wait, you haven't learned yet what other goodies will come with the X7200! For an upcharge of about $800 I'm hoping it will make me breakfast and give me a morning massage. If not, I will also plan to go for the X5200 now that I have a preliminary understanding of how it will accommodate the new processing. Like you, I will probably plan to repurpose my rear surrounds as rear heights initially, but I might want to add on another pair of speakers as dedicated RH's later (and thereby regain my SB's) if I think it's worth it.
IDK of course at this stage, but I strongly suspect that the X7200 will have plenty of additional stuff that I won't, personally, want or need. I looked at the spec of the X5200 that has been posted on some European sites and it seems to have everything that I need. I don't use the internal amps so they are a non-issue for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chi_guy50 View Post
Many thanks to JDSmoothie and Batpig, once again, for illuminating the 11.1 vs. 7.1.4 conundrum. This discussion has been very helpful.
+1
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #417 of 1649 Old 06-22-2014, 07:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bootman_head_fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Nanny State
Posts: 1,186
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Did you miss the part where with object based audio the sound will always come from where the mixer intended it to come and not from where the speaker happens to be placed? The example I have used before is a 5.1 system where the surrounds are at 110 degrees as opposed to 90 degrees. With a channel based system, if the mixer intends a sound to emanate directly from 90 degrees to the left of the listener, he will place all of the sound in the left surround speaker/channel. But if the user has his side surrounds at 110 degrees, as many do with a 5.1 system, that sound will then emanate from over his left shoulder. Not where the mixer intended. In an object based system the sound object will be rendered at 90 degrees to the left of the listener, as intended, because the system will 'know' where the speakers are and so it will phantom image the sound at the correct place, using the speakers it finds in the system. Would you not call that an advantage?
Lets assume it does this (and I haven't found confirmation that it does on 5.1 systems) wouldn't the type of speakers you have now more critical in creating the phantom image?
Not all speakers can possibly hope in making that sound good don't you think?

Maybe I'm stuck in the old arguments against creating a phantom center in the early days of 5.1 and the negatives of that vs spreading the sound field over three vs two speakers. Much like spreading that phantom 5.1 sound over additional heights and wides?

Lets these units come! i can't wait to see those with a good 5.1 system test it out to see if now we are all back to buying say bi-poles to get a correct phantom image. (or we are now rearranging our speaker locations and room treatments to compensate for a proper sounding field)

And that is just for movies, how will music sound after all that?
bootman_head_fi is offline  
post #418 of 1649 Old 06-22-2014, 08:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,827
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1967 Post(s)
Liked: 2018
Quote:
Originally Posted by bootman_head_fi View Post
Lets assume it does this (and I haven't found confirmation that it does on 5.1 systems) wouldn't the type of speakers you have now more critical in creating the phantom image?
Not all speakers can possibly hope in making that sound good don't you think?

Maybe I'm stuck in the old arguments against creating a phantom center in the early days of 5.1 and the negatives of that vs spreading the sound field over three vs two speakers. Much like spreading that phantom 5.1 sound over additional heights and wides?
There's nothing wrong with phantom imaging in terms of creating a solid image between two speakers - stereo has relied on it for all of my lifetime. The problem with stereo is that it limits the seating position to just one, if the proper effect is to be heard. WRT to Atmos using phantom imaging to correctly locate sounds where the mixer intended, well you can have the correct position of the sound guaranteed to always be wrong (when the speaker concerned is not at the location assumed by the mixer) or you can have Atmos at least attempt to get it correctly positioned. It may not work all the time, but working some of the time is surely better than being guaranteed to work none of the time (when the speaker is not in the assumed location)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootman_head_fi View Post
Lets these units come! i can't wait to see those with a good 5.1 system test it out to see if now we are all back to buying say bi-poles to get a correct phantom image. (or we are now rearranging our speaker locations and room treatments to compensate for a proper sounding field)
There will be slightly less, not more, reason to rearrange our speaker locations with Atmos. Current channel-based audio simply places the sound in a speaker, regardless of whether that speaker is correctly located or not. Atmos will place the sound, or at least attempt to place it, where it should actually be. Many people do not have their speakers in the correct locations (correct according to agreed standards such as ITU) because their rooms are not conducive to it. Similarly, even the 'standards' have very large deviations permitted. If you look at the THX or Dolby websites you will see that side surrounds, for example, can 'correctly' be positioned anywhere between 90 degrees and 110 degrees. But the mixer has no idea where you placed them of course. So when he wants a sound to come from 90 degrees he places it according to his assumption that your side surrounds are at 90 degrees. Surely it is better to position the sound itself in the right point in space, rather than in a speaker whose location is unknown?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootman_head_fi View Post
Not all speakers can possibly hope in making that sound good don't you think?
I would assume that people prepared to invest in an Atmos setup are using competent speakers. If not, then my advice would be to stick with DD 5.1 and spend the money on decent speakers prior to bothering with an Atmos upgrade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootman_head_fi View Post
And that is just for movies, how will music sound after all that?
I'm not personally interested in playing music in my HT so I am the wrong person to ask. But Atmos has been developed for movie sound reproduction not music sound reproduction as such, so to criticise it for possibly not handling well something it wasn't designed to handle at all is probably unfair. As you know, there are no agreed standards for music mixes.
Keenan likes this.

Last edited by kbarnes701; 06-22-2014 at 08:07 AM.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #419 of 1649 Old 06-22-2014, 10:25 AM
Senior Member
 
krozman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 74
You have it correctly IMO. Audio specialization is really key in the mid range speaker market. I just recently went from a hybrid music/home theatre speaker system to dedicated home theatre speakers. My mains were Cerwin Vega D9s, which were/are amazing for stereo music. I moved to the Klipsch RF62s. While in home theatre settings the Klipsch speakers provide more clarity and depth to my Home theatre experience, they are pitiful and pathetic for music compared to the D9s. The good news is that my X3100W is going to be the new Home theatre receiver, and my perfectly functional Denon receiver that it's replacing will move upstairs with the D9s to play music. Win win!
krozman is offline  
post #420 of 1649 Old 06-22-2014, 02:09 PM
Senior Member
 
AllenA07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Very curious to hear the reviews of atmos at home. I'm about a year out of replacing my AVR, and I'm thinking the x4100 might be the direction I'm heading.
AllenA07 is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Tags
denon s500bt , X2100W , x3100w
Gear in this thread - x3100w by PriceGrabber.com

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