The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) - Page 125 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 3800Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #3721 of 12659 Old 08-11-2014, 10:46 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 795 Post(s)
Liked: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post
They are independent of the speaker they sit on.
That's exactly what I've said all along. The AVR provides the crossover as soon as you define top surrounds as "Atmos enabled speakers". There is no electrical connection between the front speaker and the top unit within the speaker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post
I'd like to 100% confirm this since one option I'm considering is to use just the top part of the Pioneer speaker, like an add-on module.
You want to buy a speaker with a fixed mounted Atmos unit on top just to use the top part? Massive waste of money (whole speaker isn't used) and loss of flexibility (top unit can't be angled). Better get a standalone top surround unit or build your own tailored to your room.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole

Last edited by markus767; 08-11-2014 at 11:36 PM.
markus767 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #3722 of 12659 Old 08-11-2014, 10:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,656
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Many thanks for the report, Marc!

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #3723 of 12659 Old 08-11-2014, 10:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,101
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 938 Post(s)
Liked: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

2. All the objects will use spatial coding as required.
Marc, thanks for your initial report!

Could you (and would you) put object "spatial coding" into context for us lay people who are not tuned into the lingo? How does it differ from the way objects are handled in the theatrical version? Better, worse, just "a different way of doing the same thing"? Would you say that the home Atmos version gives a close approximation of the theatrical Atmos mix or are any compromises readily apparent? Does spatial coding affect audio fidelity and channel/speaker separation in any negative way, especially if using home Atmos for multi-channel music above and beyond 7.1?

Thank you again!

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!

Last edited by Dan Hitchman; 08-11-2014 at 11:15 PM.
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #3724 of 12659 Old 08-11-2014, 11:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,685
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1275 Post(s)
Liked: 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
Three other forum members were there, and I'm sure they will all be posting their impressions soon.
I will post my thoughts more fully tomorrow, after sleeping on some of it. Suffice it to say there is a big gulf between what Dolby Atmos / Dolby Surround are capable of doing and what manufacturers have implemented (at least first generation implementations).

Consumer Atmos is capable of rendering to actual speaker locations, even if none of the consumer AVRs are taking advantage of that capability. Granularity is 15-degree chunks (360 degrees ÷ 24 speakers = 15 degrees), though that might change way down the road IF there is market pressure. Current speaker count is 34 (24 around you, 10 above you), but that could likewise increase in the future IF there is market pressure to do so.

Dolby Surround Upmixer can scale all channel-based sources (including 2-channel material) to the full 24.1.10 speaker layout. So the fact that upcoming AVRs don't use wides when upmixing is not a limitation of DSU, just how manufacturers/chipmakers are implementing it.

Aside from Scott Wilkinson, four other AVS members attended the Atmos presser. After hearing a comparison between ceiling mounted height speakers and Atmos-enabled speakers, I did an informal survey amongst our group: all four of us slightly preferred the reflected speakers. There could be a couple of reasons for this, which I'll post about tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'm going to stop using the word "compromise" from now own when referring to the upfiring speakers.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #3725 of 12659 Old 08-11-2014, 11:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,836
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 326 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Consumer Atmos is capable of rendering to actual speaker locations, even if none of the consumer AVRs are taking advantage of that capability. Granularity is 15-degree chunks (360 degrees ÷ 24 speakers = 15 degrees), though that might change way down the road IF there is market pressure.
Thanks, that confirms what I believed to be the reason behind that circle-of-speakers graph in the whitepaper. (Pity if no one uses that, though)

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is online now  
post #3726 of 12659 Old 08-11-2014, 11:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,905
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 578 Post(s)
Liked: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post
Marc, thanks for your initial report!

Could you (and would you) put object "spatial coding" into context for us lay people who are not tuned into the lingo? How does it differ from the way objects are handled in the theatrical version? Better, worse, just "a different way of doing the same thing"? Would you say that the home Atmos version gives a close approximation of the theatrical Atmos mix or are any compromises readily apparent? Does spatial coding affect audio fidelity and channel/speaker separation in any negative way, especially if using home Atmos for multi-channel music above and beyond 7.1?

Thank you again!
Theatrical objects are all lossless and you can have 118 of them.

Obviously they can't do that in the home.

But they didn't go into detail about it.

It was developed in house. And I don't believe it is based on existing techs.

I can't speak to the fidelity as I don't have any titles I can compare.

I know of one of my counterparts who recently signed off on one of his films and he had no complaints. He was very happy. And he is fairly picky.

Fidelity to the cinema master is imperative. They stated that. And clients and film makers aren't going to sign off on it if it isn't.

But I have no business commenting on how well it works. I don't have any first hand experience.

Another tidbit I forgot.

The size of the TrueHD Atmos encodes increase an average of 20% over a regular 7.1.

EDIT: and they mentioned they recommend at least a minimum three feet of distance between listener and an elevation speaker. And in a 7.1 setup to use the elevation speaker on the back, not side, surrounds.

Last edited by FilmMixer; 08-11-2014 at 11:44 PM.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #3727 of 12659 Old 08-11-2014, 11:43 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 795 Post(s)
Liked: 317
^
Quite an achievement that they've found a solution to encode all objects. Did you guys also listen to DD+ encoded mixes? This is probably what most consumers will get to hear via streaming services.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole

Last edited by markus767; 08-12-2014 at 01:04 AM.
markus767 is offline  
post #3728 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 12:19 AM
Member
 
Mech0z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bargervais View Post
Onkyo.US is selling them for $249.00 US dollars so your saying 3800 DKK that's about $650.00 US dollars. WOW does that include tax would it be cheaper to have them shipped to you from the USA
3800 is for the Onkyo 636 where the offer now includes the speakers without more pay, but yes Denmark is very expensive
Mech0z is offline  
post #3729 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 01:11 AM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 3,966
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1708 Post(s)
Liked: 522
I have a theory, on why the Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers (from atop the four mains - two fronts and two rears) might be more effective @ recreating that 'spatial' heightened envelopment over the on-ceiling Dolby Atmos speakers, @ home.

* I call it Sound Beam, or the beam of sound projection and reflection.
With them top mounted speakers above your two front mains and two rear surrounds, the beam of sound starts right above the listener's horizontal soundfield (on the plane right above the listener's ears - half foot to a foot, roughly) and travels upwards to the ceiling where it is reflected back in a second beam of sound towards the listener's ears. The two beams of sound travel a longer distance and cover a wider soundfield in the room's space.
That in itself creates a larger covered area.

In-ceiling, or on-ceiling speakers @ home, the sound beam is only one; from directly above and towards the listening area's floor.
The distance of that beam of sound is much less (twice as less) than up-firing speakers atop the four corner standing ones.
And the area of coverage is also less because there are no reflections. ...The soundfield (occupied space in the room) created by the four on-ceiling speakers is narrower and less diffused. ...Because it doesn't travel as much and starts from above, where there is a discontinuity as compared to the the horizontal sound beams starting from the four top mounted Dolby Atmos speakers.

So, our ears are already familiar with the horizontal plane (the sound coming from all our main floor speakers), and there is an ascending continuity, a more seamless integration with the horizontal sound going upwards in that first sound beam of energy. ...And back down reflected from above.

Are you catching what I'm saying?

Dolby Atmos might be Lossless, but with spatial directivity. ...Less direct, less discrete to speak of. ...Because it is based on objects (sounds) positioned in space and between the horizontal and vertical planes, to create a third dimension (3D) with that sense of elevated and more filling space. And if sound can be projected and bounced back then more space is created than just projected sound from above.
Two beams of sound versus only one sound beam.

And that's my theory on why some people might prefer up-firing speakers than on-ceiling mounted ones above. ...A continuity of the sound going up and back down than one just coming down, much above our ears' horizontal plane.

I can easily buy that, psychoacoustically speaking. I'll be keeping a close ear open in the near future...
...On how various AVRs and SSPs manufactureres will be implementing this new Dolby Atmos technology for the home,
and also how much fine-tuning we are allowed, how many options we have (speaker's positioning wise), accessibilty to pro calibration of Dolby Atmos with the product's own Auto Room Correction & EQ system, the second generation of Dolby Atmos AVRs and SSPs, and of course eventual future DTS-UHD DSP decoders in equipped AVRs and SSPs.

Dolby Atmos is just the start, much much more to come. But the future sure sounds bright and promising and elevated.

So far so good, and I am quite confident (if software supported in sufficient quality and quantity - might take few years - and for me there are only Blu-rays), that I will be jumping in totally supporting it, but with DTS-UHD and dts Upmixer in addition to Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround Upmixer. ...Not before because that would be wasting my money to upgrade again soon.

I remember very well the past: Dolby Surround (1982), then Dolby Pro Logic (1986-87 - Pioneer VSX-9300s).
...And Dolby Digital (1996-97 - Yamaha RX-2090 + DD decoder), then dts (1998).
...And Audyssey MultEQ (2006 -Denon), then Audyssey MultEQ XT (2007), then MultEQ XT32 (2010).
{And MultEQ Pro came in 2005, then in receivers and SSPs in 2008} ... Audyssey | History\Timeline
- I bought too many receivers in very short periods of time. ...I'm rich in surround experience, but not that rich in banking experience. Each year they improve, and each year you discover all the flaws from the previous years, and several wrong implementations. ...That's the core nature of the business.
I'm older too, and wiser I believe, and patient for the next best. ...Till abso!ute and final expiration.

Software is key; without it not much to play on. And the sotware right now is zero on Dolby Atmos encoding.
I'm always talking Blu-rays here; I'm a Blu-ray man, and that's the way it is for me. ...Hi-res multichannel audio.
And Elevated Upmixing experience? ...I got over 4,000 Blu-rays in my BD Cinema/Music/Doc collection with the vast majority of them encoded in DTS-HD Master Audio; I'd say 90% of them. So dts (HD MA) in my book is much more accentuated/pronounced than Dolby (TrueHD & DD+); much much more.

Last edited by NorthSky; 08-12-2014 at 04:06 PM. Reason: Typos
NorthSky is online now  
post #3730 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 01:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,836
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 326 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mech0z View Post
In-ceiling, or on-ceiling speakers @ home, the sound beam is only one; from directly above and towards the listening area's floor.
The distance of that beam of sound is much less (twice as less) than up-firing speakers atop the four corner standing ones.
And the area of coverage is also less because there are no reflections. ...The soundfield (occupied space in the room) created by the four on-ceiling speakers is narrower and less diffused. ...Because it doesn't travel as much and starts from above, where there is a discontinuity as compared to the the horizontal sound beams starting from the four top mounted Dolby Atmos speakers.

So, our ears are already familiar with the horizontal plane (the sound coming from all our main floor speakers), and there is an ascending continuity with the horizontal sound going upwards in that first sound beam of energy. ...And back down reflected from above.

Are you catching what I'm saying?
Yes. That's why I've been pondering on if you shouldn't really mount four ceiling speakers per channel... thus 16 speakers for x.x.4. But I think cost itself would stop me from trying it.
Jim S. likes this.

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is online now  
post #3731 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 01:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post
Could you (and would you) put object "spatial coding" into context for us lay people who are not tuned into the lingo?
My previous speculation about Dolby's Spatial Coding bearing some resemblance to other spatial coders (even those for which Dolby has recent patents filed) was explained as being incorrect. Based on today's discussion, I believe this application is the one in play. Be forewarned, it does not answer your questions wrt sound quality.
Dan Hitchman 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 offline  
post #3732 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 02:50 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
So I was lucky to be asked to the Dolby Labs Home Atmos demo today.

Three other forum members were there, and I'm sure they will all be posting their impressions soon.

A couple of things..

I've shared my thoughts over the last 6 weeks about what I've been privy to for the last 8 months, and much of what I had been told, and seen/heard, was repeated for those in attendance.

While I asked for some questions that I could relay today, I am not going to post the answer to many of them.

Mostly because I didn't ask them.

I was privy to some of the answers as others did inquire. If others that post here want to delve into some of them they will...

Dolby made it very clear today that they are going to put very specific information out (about up firing speaker requirements, detailed setup instructions, etc) in tech papers/releases starting around CEDIA.

There were no content announcements, and they stated they wouldn't be making any such statements, but would let the content providers do so at their discretion.

This was a big audio press invite, and it was really fantastic to see many people whose articles and columns I've read over the years... it was a who's who of audio journalists, and there was nothing at the event that they were told they couldn't write about, or couldn't post pictures of (the event was relegated to the screening room, a conference room and their home Atmos demo room.)

I think I counted about 32-35 invitees...

To start off, all of the attendees gathered in the Dolby Screening Room, which contains a theatrical Atmos system (IIRC it is a 52 channel system.) They started with an overview of Atmos from it's start two years ago in the cinema towards the focus of the event, the imminent release of Home Atmos, and a peek into where it will be going in the future, i.e. tablets, phones, music players, etc.

I can dispel the rumor that even some of those in attendance mentioned before the presentations started... that this is not a truly object based technology.

It is object based. I only mention it again here because there were some skeptical comments before the demos started and I've even seen it posted on other sites by a couple of other well known "sources."

After the presentation by Brett Crockett, who wrote the initial blogs about Atmos for Dolby, Stewart Bowling gave a brief summary of the state of cinema Atmos from it's launch up until today.

They then presented four trailers and a 5 minute clip from "Star Trek: Into Darkness." They showed all three Dolby Atmos trailers (Amaze, Unfold and Leaf) in addition to a Red Bull Formula One car "trailer."

After that, we took a couple of shuttle busses over to the other Dolby facility which houses a lot of their R and D and their Atmos demo room.

Everyone fit into a large conference room and was joined by Stewart, Brett and Craig Eggers, who I believe is the head of home theater marketing.

People were called out in groups of 5-6 for demos, while everyone else was able to stay in the conference room for a Q and A.

Some tidbits I learned from the Q and A..

1. I was mistaken about the Dolby Surround upmixer... It works as batpig has so thoroughly explained, and not only on setups with overheads. It is indeed the only Dolby upmixer available on Dolby Atmos products going forward. No PLII, PLIIx or PLIIz. No Cinema or Music Mode... it will include and optional Center Width control if the AVR manufacturer implements it.

2. All the objects will use spatial coding as required.

3. They didn't talk any specifics, but it was clearly stated that some manufacturers will ask in setup where the speakers are placed, distance, etc. Some will require user input for such parameters, some will gather it during audio calibration. And some will simply rely on pre determined standard layouts for their products. There has been a bit of speculation that this wasn't going to be available on these upcoming first gen products. While there certainly was no confirmation of what any of the CE's are planning on doing (except we can glean what we can from the Denon manuals) I suspect we will see varied setup options on some of these initial AVR's and pre/pros.

For the demos, we went into a room approximately 22x20x8 (I'm terrible with measurements, someone else can chime in.) It was a 7.1.4 setup.

They then played the exact same material we heard in the theater for comparisons sake.

In addition we heard some audio only demos in 7.1 and then Atmos.

And then some of those with with the ceiling mounted speakers and then the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers...

A couple of the audio only clips played back first one way (ceiling speakers) and then the other. Others played back and they switched in the middle (with an onscreen indication of which one was active.)

There was no demo of Dolby Surround.

I'll let the others chime in their personal experiences...

I can relate, however, that the other three regulars all subjectively preferred the Atmos speakers over the on ceiling speakers. Again, most of those I spoke with were fairly skeptical before hand... not about if it would work, but how well it would work.

It's no secret that I'm really excited about the technology. I'm really honored that Dolby let me be a part of this gathering, and you are going to read all about it in the next couple of days and weeks and see what those people have to say. There are other demos for the east coast journalists and others happening very soon I was told.

It was really obvious that today was the start of the information flow and the true launching pad for this new home theater technology.


Thank you Marc
Franin is offline  
post #3733 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 03:00 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 795 Post(s)
Liked: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
My previous speculation about Dolby's Spatial Coding bearing some resemblance to other spatial coders (even those for which Dolby has recent patents filed) was explained as being incorrect. Based on today's discussion, I believe this application is the one in play. Be forewarned, it does not answer your questions wrt sound quality.
Thanks Roger. Back to reading.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole

Last edited by markus767; 08-12-2014 at 03:33 AM.
markus767 is offline  
post #3734 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 03:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ss9001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: metro Atlanta
Posts: 8,683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 246 Post(s)
Liked: 331
Thanks to both sanjay & Marc for your demo comments. I know most of us would have liked to have joined you

I'm checking my budget to see if CEDIA is feasible. This summer has been one of unplanned expenses

Steve
ss9001 is offline  
post #3735 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 03:25 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
I will post my thoughts more fully tomorrow, after sleeping on some of it. Suffice it to say there is a big gulf between what Dolby Atmos / Dolby Surround are capable of doing and what manufacturers have implemented (at least first generation implementations).

Consumer Atmos is capable of rendering to actual speaker locations, even if none of the consumer AVRs are taking advantage of that capability. Granularity is 15-degree chunks (360 degrees ÷ 24 speakers = 15 degrees), though that might change way down the road IF there is market pressure. Current speaker count is 34 (24 around you, 10 above you), but that could likewise increase in the future IF there is market pressure to do so.

Dolby Surround Upmixer can scale all channel-based sources (including 2-channel material) to the full 24.1.10 speaker layout. So the fact that upcoming AVRs don't use wides when upmixing is not a limitation of DSU, just how manufacturers/chipmakers are implementing it.

Aside from Scott Wilkinson, four other AVS members attended the Atmos presser. After hearing a comparison between ceiling mounted height speakers and Atmos-enabled speakers, I did an informal survey amongst our group: all four of us slightly preferred the reflected speakers. There could be a couple of reasons for this, which I'll post about tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'm going to stop using the word "compromise" from now own when referring to the upfiring speakers.
So we can keep our speakers Sanjay and use external speakers ( modules )?

Another question is if I have heights already can I angle them towards the ceiling ?

Thanks for your review as well
Franin is offline  
post #3736 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 03:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,832
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1968 Post(s)
Liked: 2019
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
So I was lucky to be asked to the Dolby Labs Home Atmos demo today.
Thanks for that Marc. It sounds (NPI) exactly the same format as the demo I attended in London. That demo was in partnership with Onkyo. I believe the one I am attending tomorrow will be just Dolby (it may be the press preview you referred to in LA). I will report back any significant news of course.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #3737 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 03:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,832
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1968 Post(s)
Liked: 2019
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
I will post my thoughts more fully tomorrow, after sleeping on some of it. Suffice it to say there is a big gulf between what Dolby Atmos / Dolby Surround are capable of doing and what manufacturers have implemented (at least first generation implementations).

Consumer Atmos is capable of rendering to actual speaker locations, even if none of the consumer AVRs are taking advantage of that capability. Granularity is 15-degree chunks (360 degrees ÷ 24 speakers = 15 degrees), though that might change way down the road IF there is market pressure. Current speaker count is 34 (24 around you, 10 above you), but that could likewise increase in the future IF there is market pressure to do so.

Dolby Surround Upmixer can scale all channel-based sources (including 2-channel material) to the full 24.1.10 speaker layout. So the fact that upcoming AVRs don't use wides when upmixing is not a limitation of DSU, just how manufacturers/chipmakers are implementing it.

Aside from Scott Wilkinson, four other AVS members attended the Atmos presser. After hearing a comparison between ceiling mounted height speakers and Atmos-enabled speakers, I did an informal survey amongst our group: all four of us slightly preferred the reflected speakers. There could be a couple of reasons for this, which I'll post about tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'm going to stop using the word "compromise" from now own when referring to the upfiring speakers.
Thanks Sanjay. I agree with your last comment entirely. In the demo I attended, many preferred the Atmos speakers to the ceiling-mounted speakers. This may have been a deficiency in the latter of course, or just simply that the former are 'better', preference-wise. Bottom line: if you can't mount ceiling speakers, you do not have to feel in any way like a 'second class Atmos citizen'.

It is still a disappointment to me that the AVR manufacturers have not enabled rendering to actual speaker locations, even though I understand their reasons for not doing so at this time. It's also the reason I am choosing the cheapest Atmos AVR I can which meets my personal spec (XT32, Pro Ready, 5.1.4) -- the Denon X4100W. I can see another AVR purchase in my future once the manufacturers fully implement more of the Atmos feature set.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #3738 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 04:38 AM
Senior Member
 
MX48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Metter
Posts: 426
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Is there a reason these could not be used as Atmos height speakers? Low sensitivity or power handling etc. I know they are cheap just wondering what would keep them from being used for that purpose.


https://www.parts-express.com/faital...-ohm--294-1123


Thanks.
MX48 is online now  
post #3739 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 04:51 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 795 Post(s)
Liked: 317
^
Those will work just fine. Just don't expect reference level from them (but the same is true for the commercial designs from Pioneer, Onkyo, etc.).

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #3740 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 05:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,832
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1968 Post(s)
Liked: 2019
Quote:
Originally Posted by MX48 View Post
Is there a reason these could not be used as Atmos height speakers? Low sensitivity or power handling etc. I know they are cheap just wondering what would keep them from being used for that purpose.


https://www.parts-express.com/faital...-ohm--294-1123


Thanks.
Do you mean as the driver in a DIY Atmos module (to sit on or near a regular speaker)?

If so, then remember that the cabinet in an Atmos module appears to have been purpose-designed for the job, hence the deep "ashtray-like" cabinet that the driver sits in. I assume that this design is to help prevent forwardly directed sound from reaching the listener's ears. Other than that, I'd guess that the driver itself looks fine.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #3741 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 05:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
chi_guy50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
It is still a disappointment to me that the AVR manufacturers have not enabled rendering to actual speaker locations, even though I understand their reasons for not doing so at this time. It's also the reason I am choosing the cheapest Atmos AVR I can which meets my personal spec (XT32, Pro Ready, 5.1.4) -- the Denon X4100W. I can see another AVR purchase in my future once the manufacturers fully implement more of the Atmos feature set.
I'm thinking along the same lines, Keith, with this reasoning rapidly solidifying for me as more specifics are revealed about HT Atmos implementation. Although I'll be targeting the X5200W (at least) because I don't want to give up on 11CH capability, I can readily foresee feeling the need to upgrade in two to three years as the technology matures.

For those who have asked the question in the past, I don't believe there is any way these days to "future-proof" your AV purchase at this user level without settling for lesser functionality as time passes. In some ways it's similar to an investor trying to time the market; change (and rapid change, at that) is inevitable and you just have to conduct due diligence and choose to purchase what/when corresponds best to your needs. And I don't think the "early adopter" caveat applies here in the fullest sense of the term because the underlying technology has already undergone years of deployment in the theatrical realm.
chi_guy50 is online now  
post #3742 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 05:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bargervais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tampa Bay Florida
Posts: 1,426
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 371 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
The BDs will not have both soundtracks. Atmos will deliver the standard 5.1/7.1 to whomever needs it. Neo:X will treat them the same as any other 5.1/7.1 mixes.
So if I understand correctly if I don't have an Atmos AVR and if I purchased a atmos BD it will treat it as 5.1/7.1

My main setup
PN60E8000 Plus evolution 2013Kit + Directv genie + Panasonic 3D blu-ray player + Onkyo TX-NR 818 9.2 Bic F12 subs Onkyo M-5010 2-Channel Amplifier for wides.
MY 10' X 15' DEN
PN51F5500 + Directv Genie + Panasonic 3D blu-ray player + Onkyo TX-NR 737 5.2.2 Atmos top front Ceiling Speakers
bargervais is offline  
post #3743 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 05:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ss9001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: metro Atlanta
Posts: 8,683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 246 Post(s)
Liked: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by bargervais View Post
So if I understand correctly if I don't have an Atmos AVR and if I purchased a atmos BD it will treat it as 5.1/7.1
that is correct, you will get the normal TrueHD or Dolby Digital+ track.

Steve
ss9001 is offline  
post #3744 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 05:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bargervais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tampa Bay Florida
Posts: 1,426
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 371 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post
that is correct, you will get the normal TrueHD or Dolby Digital+ track.
Cool that's what I was thinking too kind of backwards compatible.

My main setup
PN60E8000 Plus evolution 2013Kit + Directv genie + Panasonic 3D blu-ray player + Onkyo TX-NR 818 9.2 Bic F12 subs Onkyo M-5010 2-Channel Amplifier for wides.
MY 10' X 15' DEN
PN51F5500 + Directv Genie + Panasonic 3D blu-ray player + Onkyo TX-NR 737 5.2.2 Atmos top front Ceiling Speakers
bargervais is offline  
post #3745 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 05:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,832
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1968 Post(s)
Liked: 2019
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi_guy50 View Post
I'm thinking along the same lines, Keith, with this reasoning rapidly solidifying for me as more specifics are revealed about HT Atmos implementation. Although I'll be targeting the X5200W (at least) because I don't want to give up on 11CH capability, I can readily foresee feeling the need to upgrade in two to three years as the technology matures.

For those who have asked the question in the past, I don't believe there is any way these days to "future-proof" your AV purchase at this user level without settling for lesser functionality as time passes. In some ways it's similar to an investor trying to time the market; change (and rapid change, at that) is inevitable and you just have to conduct due diligence and choose to purchase what/when corresponds best to your needs. And I don't think the "early adopter" caveat applies here in the fullest sense of the term because the underlying technology has already undergone years of deployment in the theatrical realm.
Agreed. If I needed 7.1.4 I'd go with the X5200W, but in my room I can't accommodate rear surrounds, so 5.1.4 is fine for me. I am not concerned if I have to change the AVR in a year or two. For me, it will be a price worth paying to a) get into Atmos as soon as possible and b) get more advanced features later. I realise this approach would not suit everyone, and respect their choices, but it suits me.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #3746 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 06:16 AM
Senior Member
 
PoshFrosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post
Right, if a conventional 2-way is used consideration should be given to mounting orientation so as to aim the suckouts to do the least damage, ideally where there no seats.
Can someone elaborate on this a bit. I plan on doing exactly what this is referring to (i.e. using four conventionally designed [non-coaxial tweeter/woofer] 2-way speakers on-ceiling for atmos top speakers).
What exact consideration am I giving to mounting orientation...?
Thanks.

Energy Speakers' specs spreadsheet.

Corrections or additions? Please PM me and I will edit the document.
PoshFrosh is offline  
post #3747 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 06:23 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 795 Post(s)
Liked: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
My previous speculation about Dolby's Spatial Coding bearing some resemblance to other spatial coders (even those for which Dolby has recent patents filed) was explained as being incorrect. Based on today's discussion, I believe this application is the one in play. Be forewarned, it does not answer your questions wrt sound quality.
Wow, beds (fixed objects that are associated with specific speaker feeds) are even more integral for distribution of Atmos content than I ever thought. Fixed speaker layouts will obviously stay with us for a very long time.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #3748 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 06:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,905
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 578 Post(s)
Liked: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi_guy50 View Post
I'm thinking along the same lines, Keith, with this reasoning rapidly solidifying for me as more specifics are revealed about HT Atmos implementation. Although I'll be targeting the X5200W (at least) because I don't want to give up on 11CH capability, I can readily foresee feeling the need to upgrade in two to three years as the technology matures.

For those who have asked the question in the past, I don't believe there is any way these days to "future-proof" your AV purchase at this user level without settling for lesser functionality as time passes. In some ways it's similar to an investor trying to time the market; change (and rapid change, at that) is inevitable and you just have to conduct due diligence and choose to purchase what/when corresponds best to your needs. And I don't think the "early adopter" caveat applies here in the fullest sense of the term because the underlying technology has already undergone years of deployment in the theatrical realm.
At this point you shouldn't assume that all the manufacturers will implement speaker setup information like Denon.

Dolby clearly stated the the CE's have a great deal of flexibility in how they implement speaker setup.

Pure speculation on my part but I suspect even some of these first gen products will have more flexibility than what is thought to be the case at this point.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #3749 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 06:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,832
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1968 Post(s)
Liked: 2019
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoshFrosh View Post
Can someone elaborate on this a bit. I plan on doing exactly what this is referring to (i.e. using four conventionally designed [non-coaxial tweeter/woofer] 2-way speakers on-ceiling for atmos top speakers).
What exact consideration am I giving to mounting orientation...?
Thanks.
Have you already got these speakers? If not, then you might consider using a coaxial design, which has various advantages when used as ceiling speakers, as has been mentioned in the thread before. I was going to use MK Sound speakers, to match my other speakers, initially, but I decided against it in the end, for the reasons under discussion, and decided to use four of these instead. (Thanks to Roger Dressler for pointing me in the right direction here).

You will have gathered from this reply that I could not resolve the problems that using 'conventional' two-way designs introduced, hence my decision to bypass the problems completely and go for a co-axial design.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #3750 of 12659 Old 08-12-2014, 06:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,832
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1968 Post(s)
Liked: 2019
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post
At this point you shouldn't assume that all the manufacturers will implement speaker setup information like Denon.

Dolby clearly stated the the CE's have a great deal of flexibility in how they implement speaker setup.

Pure speculation on my part but I suspect even some of these first gen products will have more flexibility than what is thought to be the case at this point.
Interesting you should say that (last sentence). At the Dolby/Onkyo demo I attended, I specifically asked the Onkyo people present if their units would in any way be 'aware' of the speaker positions (ie by user input of angles or AVR measurement of same) and they told me that their units would. I asked the question again, in a different way, as I was surprised by the response, and is it was contrary to what we believed to be true at the time of the demo I heard (a few weeks ago now). I received the same reply, in different words. I later asked another Onkyo person the same question and got the same answer. To this day, I still believe that all three answers were wrong and that the Onkyo guys had been incorrectly briefed themselves. However, your speculative remark now makes me wonder...

To me this lack of information on speaker positions being sent to the rendering engine was a great disappointment (although overcomable for me by judicious speaker placement) so I do hope your speculation is on the money. If it is, then what we need to know sooner rather than later is -- which units will provide the relevant speaker positional information to the rendering engine? And who makes them? And what do they cost?
Dan Hitchman likes this.
kbarnes701 is online now  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

User Tag List

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