The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) - Page 182 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

Forum Jump: 
 15540Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #5431 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 06:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
chi_guy50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,146
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1169 Post(s)
Liked: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
JD will no doubt step in, but I don't think you have got it right. Batpig's chart showed clearly that the FH+RH combination was an Atmos combination. I should have saved the post but search should find it for you.

@batpig: would you post the chart from the manual again please (or PM it to me). It's the one where you had highlighted in yellow various combinations IIRC. Thanks buddy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Thanks JD. Some confusion seems to arise from the nomenclature for the overhead speakers. Some call them 'overhead', others 'height', others 'top', others 'ceiling' and so on. So when referring to 'heights' some people mean the legacy heights like those for PLIIz and others mean 'tops' like the new Top Front etc. I guess it will settle into some sort of convention eventually. Maybe we should call traditional front and rear heights 'legacy heights' and all the others 'ceiling'?
Keith, I see that, subsequent to your first post, you noticed that JD had corrected himself here.

I was perfectly clear about the five sets of permissible height speakers, but JD's original statement--although startling--was also plausible assuming a heretofore undisclosed prerequisite for engaging the Atmos processor that further delimits the speaker combinations. Although I am somewhat adept at reading their manuals after three years of ownership (and with the help of my dog-eared copy of batpig's Denon-to-English Dictionary), D&M is notorious for their convoluted and less than exhaustive user's manuals. Even so, you would think such a prerequisite would have been spelled out somewhere in the manual. But I would not be surprised to see other actual surprises emerge once we start getting user feedback on these units. Caveat emptor, RTFM, and--when all else fails--consult the experts here at AVS Forum!

BTW, I'm now tentatively planning to redesignate my in-ceiling surrounds as TR (for a FH/TR set-up) so at that point the whole question of a FH/RH combo would be moot for my purposes.
kbarnes701 likes this.
chi_guy50 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #5432 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 06:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 26,416
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6740 Post(s)
Liked: 5051
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

I don't think that's particularly or at all important, actually. LCR, yes. The rest of 'em, not so much. At least on material for which fidelity is an actual issue, such as orchestral concerts recorded in multichannel. For movies, whatever. Don't know, don't care.



Except when you've done it, and realized that after spending an awful lot of money on four speakers to your sides or rear you're not even positive you could tell the new 20x more expensive surrounds from the old ones in a blind test, even though when you compare them as main speakers the spectral balance, image rendition, and dynamic reproduction of the new ones are all beyond question superior...
As someone who has done it, I have to agree. I spent a lot of money on a matching set of 5 speakers from the Canadian company, Totem. This was in the days when I seemed to have some sort of belief in 'audiophile' speakers, although I am embarrassed to admit it now. The sound was very good though. Then, for various reasons to do with reconfiguring the room, I had to replace the surround pair of Totems and I chose some small, inexpensive speakers from a British company which isn't well known, or known at all in the USA. And guess what? After running XT32, I couldn’t detect any audible difference between these small, cheap speakers and the 5 times more expensive Totems, for surround duties.

More recently, to go with my M&K S150s across the front, I have used M&K SS150T Tripoles, which are fairly expensive but I wanted the tripole concept. Those speakers were wonderful as surrounds, but clearly they are not identical to the mains and also the great sound had little to do with 'timbre matching' and a lot to do with the tripole concept in my room.

Now, in preparation for Atmos, I have sold the Tripoles and relocated my surrounds to 110° and changed them to some MK Sound M7s, which aren't cheap and aren't expensive. And lately I have been thinking of replacing those with some dual concentrics.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #5433 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 06:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 26,416
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6740 Post(s)
Liked: 5051
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post
OIC, yet another "blind test" guy.

My home theatre have 2 sets of speakers to make a point to my clients. One set 100% identical, another only the LCR are identical with slightly different model but from the same series of the same brand manufacturers. Funny enough that 100% of about 500 listeners (so far) always prefer the 100% identical speakers vs similarly sounding speakers. None of them knew which set I was playing and I only asked whether they choose set A or set B.
Yes, David, I am sure that is the case - but there are all sorts of possible reasons why they preferred A over B which have nothing to do with whether all the speakers are identical or not. They might, for example, have shown the same preference for one over another if you had used the 'second set' for the mains and the 'first set' for the surrounds.

Do you use XT32 or some similar electronic EQ in the HT?

Incidentally, as you will know, the test you performed isn't scientifically valid really because while the audience may not have known which set of speakers were in use, you did. And you may well have (and possibly did) unconsciously convey bias to the audience, thus influencing their decision. I am not saying this happened of course, as I was not there, but it does happen all the time, which is why the only really reliable tests are double blind. We are OT for this thread so it isn’t the place to prolong a discussion of this.

Last edited by kbarnes701; 08-25-2014 at 07:03 AM.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #5434 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 07:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
westmd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,055
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 751 Post(s)
Liked: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
If you are using XT32, timbre matching isn’t really an issue.
I will most likely use YPAO but have not found a word on timbre matching in Yamaha's current manuals!

Last edited by westmd; 08-25-2014 at 07:06 AM.
westmd is offline  
post #5435 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 07:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
Glenn Baumann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Posts: 884
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
As someone who has done it, I have to agree. I spent a lot of money on a matching set of 5 speakers from the Canadian company, Totem. This was in the days when I seemed to have some sort of belief in 'audiophile' speakers, although I am embarrassed to admit it now. The sound was very good though. Then, for various reasons to do with reconfiguring the room, I had to replace the surround pair of Totems and I chose some small, inexpensive speakers from a British company which isn't well known, or known at all in the USA. And guess what? After running XT32, I couldn’t detect any audible difference between these small, cheap speakers and the 5 times more expensive Totems, for surround duties.

More recently, to go with my M&K S150s across the front, I have used M&K SS150T Tripoles, which are fairly expensive but I wanted the tripole concept. Those speakers were wonderful as surrounds, but clearly they are not identical to the mains and also the great sound had little to do with 'timbre matching' and a lot to do with the tripole concept in my room.

Now, in preparation for Atmos, I have sold the Tripoles and relocated my surrounds to 110° and changed them to some MK Sound M7s, which aren't cheap and aren't expensive. And lately I have been thinking of replacing those with some dual concentrics.



Keith,


I believe I have read in some past posts of yours that you wanted to maybe use the Dual Concentrics for the Atmos "Tops". Are you also considering them for the "Side Surrounds" also?


...Glenn
Glenn Baumann is offline  
post #5436 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 07:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 26,416
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6740 Post(s)
Liked: 5051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post
Yes, of course you would want to use the smaller family of speakers from the same brand for the surrounds as the fronts to maintain timbre matching.
The point DS was making is that timbre matching is largely an illusion. I used to think it was important - it was only recently that Roger (Dressler) made a casual remark to me that timbre matching used to be important back in the day, when we had no easy means of EQing speakers, but not so important these days when we have easy access to EQ like XT32 and so on. Roger's remark caused me to rethink and to do some research and, as expected, Roger is right. Nowadays, electronic EQ will 'iron out' the timbral differences between speakers, so long, of course, as they are fairly decent speakers to begin with. By which I mean, nobody is saying that B&W Whatevers can be made to timbrally match the speaker in my 20 dollar transistor radio, simply by using EQ. But where the speakers are designed reasonable flat across the spectrum, then yes, EQ will do the job.

This Damascene moment has caused me to rethink the whole concept of a 5.1 speaker 'set' and I have come to the conclusion that, provided effective EQ is undertaken, the surround speakers can be different, and much less costly, to the main speakers (in a bass managed system) with no real audible detriment. If one wants a 'belt and braces/suspenders' solution, then choosing smaller speakers from the same manufacturer might be an option.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #5437 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 07:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 26,416
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6740 Post(s)
Liked: 5051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
When I moved to San Antonio in 1980, Bjorn was already "at it" doing demos of high fidelity sound with projection video, playing surrounds through a time delay device. This was at least 2 years before Dolby Surround was born.
I don't think we have anything like Bjorn's in the entire UK. Although, of course, the entire UK is significantly smaller than Texas! We have the very high end 'custom integrators', some small specialist shops and the big box shifter stores. But nothing like the Bjorn concept which seems to wrap all three into one.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #5438 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 07:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 26,416
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6740 Post(s)
Liked: 5051
Quote:
Originally Posted by westmd View Post
I will most likely use YPAO but have not found a word on timbre matching in Yamaha's current manuals!
YPAO will do a similar job. Timbre matching is a term related to speakers so I'd not expect to see it in an AVR manual.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #5439 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 07:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 26,416
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6740 Post(s)
Liked: 5051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post
Really no one in your area?
Nope. Where I live there are about .5 people to the square kilometer! But I have hardly any friends who are into AV - most of them have a TV and a soundbar, and they only have the soundbar because their flat TVs have such poor speakers And I don't participate in the UK forums so I haven't 'met' any virtual buddies there. TBH, I am much more in tune with Americans than with Brits in almost every way.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #5440 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 07:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 11,163
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2689 Post(s)
Liked: 1306
Quote:
Originally Posted by westmd View Post
I will most likely use YPAO but have not found a word on timbre matching in Yamaha's current manuals!
They wouldn't mention it using those words. Rather, any good room EQ software will attempt to flatten (make more accurate) the frequency response of all of the speakers as heard at your primary listening position. To the extent that the EQ actually manages to do that, then the timbre of the sounds coming from all of the speakers will be the same: accurate. If you use a spectrum analysis program like REW, you'll discover that the differing peaks and valleys in frequency response (which are what make speakers sound different) will have been substantially reduced after you've run the EQ calibration. As a result, the speakers will sound very similar to one another when the room EQ is enabled.
David Susilo and kbarnes701 like this.

Selden

Marantz SR7009 avr + MM9000 amp --> Atmos 7.1.4
Fronts=NHT 2.9+AC2, FH+TM=DefTech PM1000, LCR+TM amped
Selden Ball is offline  
post #5441 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 07:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 26,416
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6740 Post(s)
Liked: 5051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baumann View Post
Keith,


I believe I have read in some past posts of yours that you wanted to maybe use the Dual Concentrics for the Atmos "Tops". Are you also considering them for the "Side Surrounds" also?


...Glenn
Hey Glenn... yes, I am using Tannoy dual concentrics for my four ceiling speakers. And yes, I am, sort of, considering using them for my side surrounds now too. Nothing decided at this time, but under consideration. The wide dispersion pattern appeals to me, in my room, for the surrounds. Also, my room is small, and inevitably I sit quite close to one of the surrounds - the greater phase coherence of the dual concentrics appeals to me.

Both of those benefits seem to be potentially useful to me, in my room. If I decide to try them, I will keep my current surround speakers until I am sure I have made the right choice.

As I am far from expert in this area, if anyone wishes to chime in and comment on the above, I'd welcome it.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #5442 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 08:01 AM
Advanced Member
 
Glenn Baumann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Posts: 884
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Hey Glenn... yes, I am using Tannoy dual concentrics for my four ceiling speakers. And yes, I am, sort of, considering using them for my side surrounds now too. Nothing decided at this time, but under consideration. The wide dispersion pattern appeals to me, in my room, for the surrounds. Also, my room is small, and inevitably I sit quite close to one of the surrounds - the greater phase coherence of the dual concentrics appeals to me.

Both of those benefits seem to be potentially useful to me, in my room. If I decide to try them, I will keep my current surround speakers until I am sure I have made the right choice.

As I am far from expert in this area, if anyone wishes to chime in and comment on the above, I'd welcome it.

Is it true that the latest "Atmos" convention regarding "Side" and "Back" Surrounds indicates that they should be mounted down lower than the usually recommended "2 to 3 feet above ear level" as in the past? This is so that the "Tops" are to be more separated from the sides, is that the thinking?


Also, I have a relatively narrow room at 12 ft 4 inches. I have (1) row of (3) seats and if the "Side Surrounds" in particular are mounted at ear level wouldn't the person seated in the middle have the "Side Surrounds" being blocked by the two people on the ends?


...Glenn

Last edited by Glenn Baumann; 08-25-2014 at 08:17 AM.
Glenn Baumann is offline  
post #5443 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 08:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 8,279
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1627 Post(s)
Liked: 1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacovn View Post
We really need a white paper from Dolby for the specifications on the ceiling speakers.

I sort of assume it will be close to the cinema requirements on most part.

From http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolog...ifications.pdf there are some clear guidelines.

Loudspeakers over Central Listening Area (CLA) should be aimed down
Loudspeakers front and behind CLA should be aimed at the edge of the CLA.

When CLA is 1 seat, or row, it should perhaps not be aimed directly at the ear position, but slightly before and behind ?

The same seems true for the angle they need from side towards the middle of the room. That is halfway between the middle of the room and the axis front rear they are installed on.
Same logic, not directly at the ears of the person in the optimal position, but just next to it.

Come on Dolby, share this information.
Dolby stated specifically, at their press demo event, that one would be available around CEDIA time..
FilmMixer is offline  
post #5444 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 08:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 26,416
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6740 Post(s)
Liked: 5051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baumann View Post
Is it true that the latest "Atmos" convention regarding "Side" and "Back" Surrounds indicates that they should be mounted down lower than the usually recommended "2 to 3 feet above ear level" as in the past?
Yes. At both the Dolby demos I attended, the surrounds were all placed at ear level. This is to create a bigger distance between the floor-level speakers and the ceiling speakers. Since then, Stephen at Dolby, London has confirmed to me the following, which is taken from my report on the second demo:

Stephen later confirmed that this was to help create an optimal distance between the listener level speakers and the ceiling speakers. In fact, Stephen said that ideally the ceiling speakers should be between 2 and 3 times the height of the listener level speakers. For listener level speakers, the height of the surround speakers is still less critical when compared with the height of the front speakers, but Dolby recommend that surround speakers in a Dolby Atmos system be no more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers.

Translating that to a practical example, if your main speakers' tweeters are 3.5 feet off the ground, then you will need a ceiling speaker to be at least 7 feet from the floor for the best effect, and preferably a little more. And for those same mains speakers, the surrounds should not be higher than about 4ft 3 ins.

This should allow most people with a standard height ceiling to accommodate ceiling-mounted speakers, but may necessitate lowering the surround speakers somewhat, which is what I am having to do in my own room.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baumann View Post
Also, I have a relatively narrow room at 12 ft 4 inches. I have (1) row of (3) seats and if the "Side Surrounds" in particular are mounted at ear level wouldn't the person seated in the middle have the "Side Surrounds" being blocked by the two people on the ends?
Yes - I have the same issue. Some compromise is required. If you assume the above info from Dolby represents the 'ideal' then try to get as close to it as you can, without introducing undesirable side effects. I’d say it was more important that everyone has a clear line of hearing to the surrounds than the ideal placement of the surrounds vis-à-vis the ceiling speakers, if one has to compromise. So, lower the surrounds to the point where every set of ears can 'see' them - that will be the optimum possible position in your room.
Dan Hitchman likes this.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #5445 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 08:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
Glenn Baumann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Posts: 884
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Yes. At both the Dolby demos I attended, the surrounds were all placed at ear level. This is to create a bigger distance between the floor-level speakers and the ceiling speakers. Since then, Stephen at Dolby, London has confirmed to me the following, which is taken from my report on the second demo:

Stephen later confirmed that this was to help create an optimal distance between the listener level speakers and the ceiling speakers. In fact, Stephen said that ideally the ceiling speakers should be between 2 and 3 times the height of the listener level speakers. For listener level speakers, the height of the surround speakers is still less critical when compared with the height of the front speakers, but Dolby recommend that surround speakers in a Dolby Atmos system be no more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers.

Translating that to a practical example, if your main speakers' tweeters are 3.5 feet off the ground, then you will need a ceiling speaker to be at least 7 feet from the floor for the best effect, and preferably a little more. And for those same mains speakers, the surrounds should not be higher than about 4ft 3 ins.

This should allow most people with a standard height ceiling to accommodate ceiling-mounted speakers, but may necessitate lowering the surround speakers somewhat, which is what I am having to do in my own room.



Yes - I have the same issue. Some compromise is required. If you assume the above info from Dolby represents the 'ideal' then try to get as close to it as you can, without introducing undesirable side effects. I’d say it was more important that everyone has a clear line of hearing to the surrounds than the ideal placement of the surrounds vis-à-vis the ceiling speakers, if one has to compromise. So, lower the surrounds to the point where every set of ears can 'see' them - that will be the optimum possible position in your room.

That line of thinking regarding the compromise makes total sense!


I will have to also decide whether I will be using "Dipole" or "Monopole" speakers for my "Side" and "Back" Surrounds? I have always used "Dipolar" surround speakers in the past but I might have to give the "Monopoles" a try! I have both types of speakers so I can do just the rears as monopoles or do the "sides" and "rears" as monopoles... decisions, decisions!


...Glenn

Last edited by Glenn Baumann; 08-25-2014 at 08:28 AM.
Glenn Baumann is offline  
post #5446 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 08:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ted99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
The only thing that I can see so far is the replacement of the Yamaha CX-A5000 pre/pro with added Dolby Atmos/Dolby Surround inside and in a 11.2.4 configuration possible device. It's matching amp, the MX-A5000 (11-channel amp) will remain.

Separates are always better. The top receiver(s) right now, IMO, is the Denon AVR-X7200W or the Marantz SR7900. ...Available later on; end of year or beginning of next.

But! Who knows when DTS-UHD will start to appear in the second generation of receivers...

It's a lot of fun to be the first one on our block with Dolby Atmos, but it is also very wise (more so for people with limited funds) to be patient and wait fall 2015 for what's coming up.
Because $1,000 or $2,000 for many people is a fair chunk of cash, and they cannot afford to upgrade next year with even better surround audio codecs (decoders).
Thanks. I got so tired of chasing codecs, I passed on DTS Neo11 and HDMI 1.4. It looks like HDMI 2.0 and Atmos, plus DTS-UHD will be as good as I need for a while, so I'll wait until the 2nd generation, as you suggest. I used to be an early adopter, but stopped that looking for step changes. Looks like Atmos and DTS-UHD are step changes.
Ted99 is offline  
post #5447 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 08:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ted99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
Just imagine...for a simple glimpse of moment...Oppo making a hi-end receiver with Dolby Atmos and Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and with a possible configuration of 11.2.4 (11.3.6 - 11.4.5) ... or a pre/pro. ...Or an eventual Universal Blu-ray player with a Dolby Atmos, Dolby Surround, DTS-UHD, dts Surround decoders. ...HDCP 2.2 - HDMI 2.0 - 4K/8K, 3D Sound & Picture...
I sent Oppo a letter about a year ago asking them to put DTS Neo X and 11 pre outs in their next player. No reply, but I'm glad they didn't because Atmos/DTS-UHD would be a more long-lasting product.
harrybnbad likes this.
Ted99 is offline  
post #5448 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 09:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 24,247
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4261 Post(s)
Liked: 2717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baumann View Post
Is it true that the latest "Atmos" convention regarding "Side" and "Back" Surrounds indicates that they should be mounted down lower than the usually recommended "2 to 3 feet above ear level" as in the past? This is so that the "Tops" are to be more separated from the sides, is that the thinking?
That convention should be due more to common sense than Atmos.

When going from 5.1 to 7.1, you shouldn't just add a pair of speakers behind you, but also move your current surrounds a bit forward, to better separate sounds behind you from sounds at your sides.

Same with Atmos. It isn't just about having sounds above you but separating sounds above you from sounds around you. To that end, anything you can do to improve that distinction (e.g., move current surrounds a bit down) is helpful.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #5449 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 09:24 AM
Senior Member
 
pasender91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
The point DS was making is that timbre matching is largely an illusion. I used to think it was important - it was only recently that Roger (Dressler) made a casual remark to me that timbre matching used to be important back in the day, when we had no easy means of EQing speakers, but not so important these days when we have easy access to EQ like XT32 and so on. Roger's remark caused me to rethink and to do some research and, as expected, Roger is right. Nowadays, electronic EQ will 'iron out' the timbral differences between speakers, so long, of course, as they are fairly decent speakers to begin with. By which I mean, nobody is saying that B&W Whatevers can be made to timbrally match the speaker in my 20 dollar transistor radio, simply by using EQ. But where the speakers are designed reasonable flat across the spectrum, then yes, EQ will do the job.

This Damascene moment has caused me to rethink the whole concept of a 5.1 speaker 'set' and I have come to the conclusion that, provided effective EQ is undertaken, the surround speakers can be different, and much less costly, to the main speakers (in a bass managed system) with no real audible detriment. If one wants a 'belt and braces/suspenders' solution, then choosing smaller speakers from the same manufacturer might be an option.

Hi Keith,
+1 on that, in a movie setting the surrounds can be smaller.
But i would temper this statement for people also listening to multichannel audio, SACD, DVD-A, BD-TA, ... In this scenario, the surround channels emit a lot of signal and are as important as the fronts
Dan Hitchman and David Susilo like this.

9.2.4 : Samsung BD J5500 / Marantz 7009 + Lexicon CX-7 / Monitor Audio Gold GX (300+center+100+100) [bottom 7] + Bose 101 monitors [top 4] / Klipsch R 115 + Sydney AR12 / Panasonic PTAE-2000
pasender91 is offline  
post #5450 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 09:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 24,247
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4261 Post(s)
Liked: 2717
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
I do envy you guys who all live so close to each other that you can have these GTGs.
Roger was 800 miles away, until he found out there was a fully functioning Atmos receiver at Marc's place.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #5451 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 09:35 AM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 20,752
Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5073 Post(s)
Liked: 3999
No doubt. I'd have made that drive.
Scott Simonian is offline  
post #5452 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 10:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 26,416
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6740 Post(s)
Liked: 5051
Quote:
Originally Posted by pasender91 View Post
Hi Keith,
+1 on that, in a movie setting the surrounds can be smaller.
But i would temper this statement for people also listening to multichannel audio, SACD, DVD-A, BD-TA, ... In this scenario, the surround channels emit a lot of signal and are as important as the fronts
Ah yes sure - I *always* forget that people use their HT for music listening too. I don't, so all my remarks on AVS are concerned with movie sound only - but of course you can't be expected to know that. I ought to add it as a disclaimer to every post I make
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #5453 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 10:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 26,416
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6740 Post(s)
Liked: 5051
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Roger was 800 miles away, until he found out there was a fully functioning Atmos receiver at Marc's place.
LOL. I understand. I could have been tempted to make the 12,000 mile round trip myself
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #5454 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 10:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
bkeeler10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 764
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted99 View Post
I sent Oppo a letter about a year ago asking them to put DTS Neo X and 11 pre outs in their next player. No reply, but I'm glad they didn't because Atmos/DTS-UHD would be a more long-lasting product.
Yep. Make it 13 pre-outs and give it either Dirac Live/XT32 or a versatile multi-band PEQ for each channel, and they will have my attention. We bantied this idea around about 100 pages ago in this thread

bkeeler10 is offline  
post #5455 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 10:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Orbitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 472 Post(s)
Liked: 342
I make a Motion that Marc put up a video of his Atmos room, who seconds the Motion?
Orbitron is offline  
post #5456 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 10:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
redjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,869
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Great review UKTexan! This kind of reviews is inspiring all of us to hopefully to speed up our adoption of Dolby Atmos. I just need to get a new receiver now! Unfortunately, I've just spent $$$$$ on my new mancave/basement.
UKTexan likes this.

redjr...
Pioneer Elite - A-20, DV-79AVi, BDP-HD1, SC-89, SC-05
redjr is offline  
post #5457 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 3,203
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1102 Post(s)
Liked: 291
Now that we have overhead channels, are the surround speakers (side and back) suppose to be at ear-level or can they still be placed above ear-level? I've noticed that all of Dolby's layouts on their Web site (not just for Atmos) have all speakers are ear-level (if I am not mistaken).
Kain is offline  
post #5458 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 11:43 AM
Senior Member
 
pasender91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain View Post
Now that we have overhead channels, are the surround speakers (side and back) suppose to be at ear-level or can they still be placed above ear-level? I've noticed that all of Dolby's layouts on their Web site (not just for Atmos) have all speakers are ear-level (if I am not mistaken).
ehhhhhhh, this has been discussed earlier today already, don't you read a bit the messages before asking questions ?

The answer was yes, now with Atmos the surrounds are lowered to ear-level (in order to create more space between them and the Top speakers)

9.2.4 : Samsung BD J5500 / Marantz 7009 + Lexicon CX-7 / Monitor Audio Gold GX (300+center+100+100) [bottom 7] + Bose 101 monitors [top 4] / Klipsch R 115 + Sydney AR12 / Panasonic PTAE-2000
pasender91 is offline  
post #5459 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 11:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 24,247
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4261 Post(s)
Liked: 2717
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKTexan View Post
I had the opportunity to find out how well Dolby Surround, yes it is a capital S, worked in comparison to PLIIX/Z.
Thank you for covering that part of the new technology. For the near future, folks with Atmos receivers and pre-pros will have still have media collections dominated by legacy material, so the Dolby Surround Upmixer could end up getting much MUCH more use than the Atmos decoder residing on the same DSP chip. Hope more people report on DSU while we wait for Atmos content to be released.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #5460 of 42768 Old 08-25-2014, 12:06 PM
Senior Member
 
W3Rman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Incidentally, as you will know, the test you performed isn't scientifically valid really because while the audience may not have known which set of speakers were in use, you did. And you may well have (and possibly did) unconsciously convey bias to the audience,.....
For all 500 listeners... ROFLMAO moment ....
W3Rman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

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