Beyond 7.1.4... Multi-AVR set-up for Immersive Audio - Page 30 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 199Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #871 of 1050 Old 04-20-2017, 01:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Marc Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Inland Empire, CA
Posts: 9,720
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2625 Post(s)
Liked: 2498
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post
I was too but got turned off by these guys also why can't it do 16 discrete channels Marantz, Anthem, all offer the same 12 discrete channels and cost a third!

Trinnov 16 will I think!
What channel setup will work best for you? I believe 9.1.6 is perfect for mine (14½'×24½'×8½'). I actually like Lyngdorf's approach with the wide variety of "matrixed" channels in addition to the traditional 7.1.4.
Marc Alexander is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #872 of 1050 Old 04-20-2017, 01:53 PM
wse
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2204 Post(s)
Liked: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by maikeldepotter View Post
That is how I interpreted this slide and the explanation that came with it:

http://cedia.co.uk/cda_/images/Cours...0Listeners.pdf
Thank you very informative!
wse is offline  
post #873 of 1050 Old 04-20-2017, 04:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nalleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,449
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1201 Post(s)
Liked: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
Yeah, I could see the benefit of going from 9 to 11 in a two row environment using this method, vs. simply arraying the single surround (split signal), since you can then set individual delays, level, EQ.... and they are "semi discrete" for objects while providing a true array for bed content.
None of my channels are "split signal", "copied" or "ganged on" as such, and as you say, i can not only calibrate all channels correct, but also adjust levels, delays etc. seperately for all channels(as Maikel mentions decorrelation).

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
With center spread off, center channel sounds extract to the center speaker and are removed from the L/R speakers. So the hard speaker replaces the phantom image.

With center spread on, that sound is spread across all three LCR speakers. So you get the phantom image from L/R and ALSO the hard center speaker. That's effectively what would happen in this scenario, with wide+surround phantom imaging a sound while a different hard speaker, run by a different processor, is producing the same sound.

I disagree that this does not "smear" the imaging. It will certainly sound less pinpoint. Following the above example, the center image sounds distinctly "wider" when upmixing 2ch with DSU and center spread on than it does with center spread off.
As you know, phantom imaging don't work as well if you sit off axis, and in that case a third hard speaker help pannings better.

And if both setup are correctly calibrated, the phantom imaging and pannings should go along the same path. And therefore the extra hard speakers should help when you sit off axis, as you do when you have a two seat MLP.

Don't know if you read this in the "special wides" discussions, but in a 5.1.4+wides setup, when playing test tones, it will place the side surround tones phantomed between the side surrounds and wides, not in the side surrounds. The reason is in a 5.1 setup, the Atmos renderer "assumes" that the side surrounds are placed at the correct 120degrees, and not 90 as in a 7.1 setup.

In my setup that means both config 1 and 2 places the side surround test tone at 90 degress. No smearing.

Triple Atmos Receivers
Atmos 13.1.8/DTS:X 9.1.8/AURO 3D 12.1

My setup:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-wha...l#post41323201

Last edited by Nalleh; 04-20-2017 at 04:45 PM.
Nalleh is online now  
 
post #874 of 1050 Old 04-20-2017, 08:39 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,663
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2420 Post(s)
Liked: 1589
I can't believe it didn't occur to me while writing my latest article, but I missed an opportunity to brand my 7.1.8 system with a simply perfect name.

Of course, it has to be... EIGHTMOS!

I've gone ahead and edited the article to put that in there.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #875 of 1050 Old 04-20-2017, 11:05 PM
Member
 
Opethion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by maikeldepotter View Post
Duplicating channels is standard practice in most - if not all - commercial venues, including Atmos theaters. Do you consider those 'flawed' as well?
Lots of feedback already, but I'd like to give a specific reply.

In all but the largest Atmos theaters a small object will occasionally be reproduced by one single speaker when panning around or when being "snapped" to a speaker. Larger objects (or the bed channels of course) use more speakers. You lose that behavior in the discussed setup with 3 AVRs. E.g. if an object is snapped in the front wide position it will be reproduced by two speakers instead of one. If it is in-between the wide and side surround position it is reproduced by four speakers instead of two. A flaw in my book.

A phantom imaged sound source simply does not sound the same as a speaker at that location. We all made that experience from a phantom center or the center width of PLII music mode. Btw that's also the reason why I don't want to got for Scatmos, i.e. matrixing new channels. Same as the discussed 3 AVR setup it might have advantages in some situations, but it is a compromise in others.

Last edited by Opethion; 04-20-2017 at 11:09 PM.
Opethion is online now  
post #876 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 01:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
maikeldepotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,322
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1039 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opethion View Post
In all but the largest Atmos theaters a small object will occasionally be reproduced by one single speaker when panning around or when being "snapped" to a speaker. Larger objects (or the bed channels of course) use more speakers. You lose that behavior in the discussed setup with 3 AVRs. E.g. if an object is snapped in the front wide position it will be reproduced by two speakers instead of one. If it is in-between the wide and side surround position it is reproduced by four speakers instead of two. A flaw in my book.
That may be a flaw in your book, but not in Dolby's book. Following certain rules, the 'Atmos specifications' (issue 3) allows pairing of side surrounds starting in rooms as small as 10x6 meters with 8 surround on either side (including the just-outside-screen 'precedence' speakers for which no true home alternative exists).

Quote:
A phantom imaged sound source simply does not sound the same as a speaker at that location. We all made that experience from a phantom center or the center width of PLII music mode.
True. And what sounds better may depend on room size, number of speakers, proximity to speakers, and - ultimately - personal preference.

A good idea and understanding lies at the basis of every successful project.

Last edited by maikeldepotter; 04-21-2017 at 02:03 AM.
maikeldepotter is online now  
post #877 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 04:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
maikeldepotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,322
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1039 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalleh View Post
Don't know if you read this in the "special wides" discussions, but in a 5.1.4+wides setup, when playing test tones, it will place the side surround tones phantomed between the side surrounds and wides, not in the side surrounds. The reason is in a 5.1 setup, the Atmos renderer "assumes" that the side surrounds are placed at the correct 120degrees, and not 90 as in a 7.1 setup.
I am not sure that is the mechanism.

Firstly, the Atmos renderer does not seem to change the intended side surround position going from a 5.x.x to a 7.x.x (or more) configuration (as shown by the ideal re-mapping positions the Trinnov Altitude applies for both configs). Secondly, the test tone on the Atmos demo disk could very well be a bed channel sound, which would explain why it is also sent to the 'special wides' in a 5.x.x+wides configuration.

So in this scenario, where is the side surround test tone expected to end up in a 13.x.x SWATMOS configuration? In the 9.x.x+wides config only the side surrounds at 90 degrees receive the tone. In the 5.x.x+wides config as part of SWATMOS, the side surrounds positioned at 120 degrees, and the wides positioned at 70 degrees receive that tone, resulting in a phantom sound at around 95 degrees (and possibly even a bit further back around 100 degrees, as the surround bed channel in the 'special wide' speaker is set at lower volume by the Atmos renderer). So the summed-up system produces the test tone between 90 and 100 degrees.

EDIT2: Further testing has shown that the wides play the side surround info at HIGHER volume (+3 dB as compared to the side surrounds). The resulting 'phantom' location of the side surround signal (with side surrounds at 120 and wides at 70 degrees) will therefore be at around 90 degrees. Exactly where it is supposed to be, and where it will stay in the summed-up system.

You said:

Quote:
In my setup that means both config 1 and 2 places the side surround test tone at 90 degress. No smearing.
Now if this theory is correct, you might hear those slight differences in surround bed channel placement when listening to each config separately, and together....

@Nalleh please review my corrections

A good idea and understanding lies at the basis of every successful project.

Last edited by maikeldepotter; 05-16-2017 at 06:44 AM. Reason: see text
maikeldepotter is online now  
post #878 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 04:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
maikeldepotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,322
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1039 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
What sounds are being reproduced by three speakers? Sounds from the sides output? Sounds from the wides output?
The only sound that is produced by three speakers instead of one, is that of the side surround bed channel: 'special wides' (5.x.x+wides config) + 'pure side surrounds' (9.x.x config) + side/rear surrounds (5.x.x+wides config)

A good idea and understanding lies at the basis of every successful project.
maikeldepotter is online now  
post #879 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 04:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
maikeldepotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,322
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1039 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
Am I missing something, or is my conclusion accurate and it's simply a compromise some are willing to make for MOAR SPEAKERZ!
The idea of SWATMOS originated solely from the desire to enjoy the 'cinemascopic' effect of the 'special wides' in a 5.x.x+wides config, and NOT having to loose the rear surrounds. The solution was to put two configurations (5.x.x+wides and 9.x.x) on top of each other, and (to keep the spatial sound balance intact) only remove the exact duplicates (being one LCR set). That resulted in 7+9-3=13 base layer speakers, which may be more than bargained for...
Marc Alexander likes this.

A good idea and understanding lies at the basis of every successful project.

Last edited by maikeldepotter; 04-21-2017 at 04:45 AM.
maikeldepotter is online now  
post #880 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 05:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nalleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,449
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1201 Post(s)
Liked: 594
@maikeldepotter . ^^^ exactly, Maikel. You are so much better at explaining these things than me.
maikeldepotter likes this.

Triple Atmos Receivers
Atmos 13.1.8/DTS:X 9.1.8/AURO 3D 12.1

My setup:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-wha...l#post41323201
Nalleh is online now  
post #881 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 06:20 AM
Member
 
Opethion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by maikeldepotter View Post
Following certain rules, the 'Atmos specifications' (issue 3) allows pairing of side surrounds starting in rooms as small as 10x6 meters with 8 surround on either side (including the just-outside-screen 'precedence' speakers for which no true home alternative exists).
You missed the point. There is nothing wrong with using multiple speakers for bed channels.
Opethion is online now  
post #882 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 06:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
maikeldepotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,322
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1039 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opethion View Post
You missed the point. There is nothing wrong with using multiple speakers for bed channels.
I didn't miss that point.

Dolby says:

Quote:
Loudspeakers within the same zone and region can be paired (driven by a single signal) to jointly optimize for uniform coverage, power efficiency, spatial resolution, and system complexity. The signals are distributed to each loudspeaker without phase, level, or delay differences, and can be driven by a single amplifier channel.
So that includes using multiple speakers for ('snap to nearest speaker') objects.

A good idea and understanding lies at the basis of every successful project.

Last edited by maikeldepotter; 04-21-2017 at 07:02 AM.
maikeldepotter is online now  
post #883 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 07:04 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,663
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2420 Post(s)
Liked: 1589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opethion View Post
A phantom imaged sound source simply does not sound the same as a speaker at that location. We all made that experience from a phantom center or the center width of PLII music mode. Btw that's also the reason why I don't want to got for Scatmos, i.e. matrixing new channels. Same as the discussed 3 AVR setup it might have advantages in some situations, but it is a compromise in others.
Matrixing a center between two other channels is not the same as phantom imaging it. What disadvantage do you see to that?

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #884 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 08:13 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 24,990
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5082 Post(s)
Liked: 3553
Quote:
Originally Posted by maikeldepotter View Post
That is how I interpreted this slide and the explanation that came with it:
They're tying additional speakers to the size of the seating area (number of listeners). For a single row of listeners (page 28), they show one pair of sides and one pair of rears; no arrays. Multiple sides show up only when a second row of listeners is added. Which is what I posted earlier: "Arraying is more a solution for coverage (multiple rows of listeners) than proximity (hot spotting)."

Keep in mind that this topic started when discussing a room with a 2-seat listening area. To justify arrays for that set-up, if feels like we're playing excuse-o-rama. First it was because arrays are standard practice for commercial venues, then it was to avoid the exit door effect, now it is because Trinnov says so (even though the paper you linked doesn't show that for a single row). If you like the sound of arrays, then you should do arrays for your home set-up, even if it is a single seat. No need keep coming up with new excuses to justify your preference to anyone else.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #885 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 08:46 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 24,990
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5082 Post(s)
Liked: 3553
Quote:
Originally Posted by maikeldepotter View Post
The only sound that is produced by three speakers instead of one, is that of the side surround bed channel: 'special wides' (5.x.x+wides config) + 'pure side surrounds' (9.x.x config) + side/rear surrounds (5.x.x+wides config)
Got it. Guess I was concentrating on the sides & wides and 'special wides' in between them; wasn't thinking about a surround speaker dropped in between the sides and rears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maikeldepotter View Post
Dolby says:

So that includes using multiple speakers for ('snap to nearest speaker') objects.
You're doing it again, using commercial cinema guidelines to justify arrays at home, even when Dolby makes no such recommendation in their home Atmos install guide.
mrtickleuk likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #886 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 09:17 AM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 21,499
Mentioned: 183 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5972 Post(s)
Liked: 5029
Quote:
Originally Posted by maikeldepotter View Post
The idea of SWATMOS originated solely from the desire to enjoy the 'cinemascopic' effect of the 'special wides' in a 5.x.x+wides config, and NOT having to loose the rear surrounds. The solution was to put two configurations (5.x.x+wides and 9.x.x) on top of each other, and (to keep the spatial sound balance intact) only remove the exact duplicates (being one LCR set). That resulted in 7+9-3=13 base layer speakers, which may be more than bargained for...








Spoiler!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	realwides_costner.jpg
Views:	283
Size:	43.3 KB
ID:	2094849  
Scott Simonian is offline  
post #887 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 09:56 AM
Member
 
Opethion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by maikeldepotter View Post
I didn't miss that point.
So that includes using multiple speakers for ('snap to nearest speaker') objects.
You are right, I did miss that, sorry. Seems to be a valid solution for multiple rows. Nothing I'm interested in, though.
maikeldepotter likes this.
Opethion is online now  
post #888 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 10:31 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
batpig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,304
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3706 Post(s)
Liked: 3577
Quote:
Originally Posted by maikeldepotter View Post
The only sound that is produced by three speakers instead of one, is that of the side surround bed channel: 'special wides' (5.x.x+wides config) + 'pure side surrounds' (9.x.x config) + side/rear surrounds (5.x.x+wides config)
I wasn't talking about bed channels, I was talking about objects panning along the side wall.

Again, you have two separate processors, unaware of each other, running "interlocking" speakers along the side wall. So multiple speakers will be independently trying to produce the same phantom image as the object moves along the side wall.
Scott Simonian likes this.

batpig's "Denon-to-English Dictionary"
Setup Guide and FAQ
http://batpigworld.com/

Become a fan "batpigworld.com" on Facebook!
batpig is offline  
post #889 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 10:46 AM
Member
 
Opethion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Matrixing a center between two other channels is not the same as phantom imaging it. What disadvantage do you see to that?
To a certain extent it's the opposite of it. A small sound object originally placed in-between two speaker locations is now played by only one speaker instead of two. Thus it also changes the original sound but certainly not always for the better. Take the extreme example of stereo music: Using a matrixed center for a 3.0 or 3.1 playback sounds very different from the original 2.0 or 2.1 playback, even with identical speakers in a well treated room. To my ears, the sound collapses way too much to the center. Top speaker matrixing (Scatmos) might actually work great in many movie scenes (and of course it works perfectly for the top middle Atmos test tones), but not in general. Maybe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, I don't know. You guys with a Scatmos setup know that better.
Opethion is online now  
post #890 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 11:00 AM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 21,499
Mentioned: 183 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5972 Post(s)
Liked: 5029
With any matrixing, there is bound to some be artifacts.

The sound "collapsing" into one speaker can be one of them.
Scott Simonian is offline  
post #891 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 11:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nalleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,449
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1201 Post(s)
Liked: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
I wasn't talking about bed channels, I was talking about objects panning along the side wall.

Again, you have two separate processors, unaware of each other, running "interlocking" speakers along the side wall. So multiple speakers will be independently trying to produce the same phantom image as the object moves along the side wall.
Yes, and if both processors manage to move that object the same "route", why would it smear up that object as it moves?

Triple Atmos Receivers
Atmos 13.1.8/DTS:X 9.1.8/AURO 3D 12.1

My setup:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-wha...l#post41323201
Nalleh is online now  
post #892 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 11:43 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,663
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2420 Post(s)
Liked: 1589
With all the talk about how Atmos maps sounds to the Wide channels differently depending on whether you've programmed a 5.1 base or 7.1 base, one point that's being overlooked or glossed over is that this only applies to Atmos. The Dolby Surround Upmixer doesn't support Wides at all, so both the Wide and "Special Wide" speakers will go completely unused during the majority of content watched.

What do DTS:X, Neural:X and Neo:X do?

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #893 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 11:58 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
batpig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,304
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3706 Post(s)
Liked: 3577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalleh View Post
Yes, and if both processors manage to move that object the same "route", why would it smear up that object as it moves?
I would ask how could it NOT smear the object unless the speakers are perfectly positioned exactly as the renderer is assuming? If the phantom image isn't in precisely the same place in both cases, isn't that essentially "smearing" the pinpoint sound by definition?

The "route" of the object will definitely be the same, but the precision would have to be reduced. Like I said above, this is likely more of a theoretical concern than practical, as I can't imagine that in a full scale action movie your ears/brain are going to notice that the rocket ship zooming by the left side is a bit less precisely located than it would be if all those speakers were full discrete and addressable by a single processor... but I'm not sure why you're denying that it's a slight compromise for all those extra speakers (with the caveat that you may gain some benefit in terms of more even coverage and off-axis stability to balance out the compromise).

You're essentially talking about two interlocking pairs of speakers trying to produce the same stereo image at a precise point in space. You're telling me you couldn't hear an image shift/smear in a controlled test enviroment if you were playing a mono sound in this scenario? It would image between pair A in one spot.... and image between pair B in another spot... so the combined image would be less precisely anchored to a single spot than if it was one pair of speakers. Right?

batpig's "Denon-to-English Dictionary"
Setup Guide and FAQ
http://batpigworld.com/

Become a fan "batpigworld.com" on Facebook!
batpig is offline  
post #894 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 12:36 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,663
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2420 Post(s)
Liked: 1589
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
I would ask how could it NOT smear the object unless the speakers are perfectly positioned exactly as the renderer is assuming? If the phantom image isn't in precisely the same place in both cases, isn't that essentially "smearing" the pinpoint sound by definition?
Also to this point, phantom imaging only works if the listener is equidistant between the two speakers playing identical content. In this SWATMOS configuration, both the Wide speaker and the Special-Wide are in front of the listener at different distances. If the two processors duplicate the object sound to both speakers simultaneously, it won't image at the main listening position. I tend to agree with you that it would "smear."

Theoretically, at least. Whether this would be noticeable in actual practice is another matter, as you acknowleged.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #895 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 01:07 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
batpig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,304
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3706 Post(s)
Liked: 3577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Also to this point, phantom imaging only works if the listener is equidistant between the two speakers playing identical content. In this SWATMOS configuration, both the Wide speaker and the Special-Wide are in front of the listener at different distances. If the two processors duplicate the object sound to both speakers simultaneously, it won't image at the main listening position. I tend to agree with you that it would "smear."
I think the counterpoint is that, as others have asserted, it (the "route" of the object) may actually be more "stable" for off axis listeners, even if less "precise", with less hot spotting potential.
Marc Alexander likes this.

batpig's "Denon-to-English Dictionary"
Setup Guide and FAQ
http://batpigworld.com/

Become a fan "batpigworld.com" on Facebook!
batpig is offline  
post #896 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 01:15 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,663
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2420 Post(s)
Liked: 1589
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
I think the counterpoint is that, as others have asserted, it (the "route" of the object) may actually be more "stable" for off axis listeners, even if less "precise", with less hot spotting potential.
Realistically, the majority of Atmos soundtracks available on disc to date are big action movies that use Atmos to bombard listeners with blaring noise from every direction at once, making it impossible to pinpoint sounds anyway.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #897 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 01:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nalleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,449
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1201 Post(s)
Liked: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
I think the counterpoint is that, as others have asserted, it (the "route" of the object) may actually be more "stable" for off axis listeners, even if less "precise", with less hot spotting potential.
That's the main difference and reason i am doing this as i have a two seat MLP, and therefore sit off axis, not only the the left and right speakers pairs, but also regarding how it is calibrated(mic in dead center of speaker pairs).

Also the amount of sounds/activity coming from the front outer corners, where wides are,is more presice and pronounced pannings/ movements of sounds.

But as you say, good test material isn't easy to find, where you truly can test and "track" object pannings slowly. This applies to height material too, where the helicopter demo is probably the best to date.

Triple Atmos Receivers
Atmos 13.1.8/DTS:X 9.1.8/AURO 3D 12.1

My setup:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-wha...l#post41323201
Nalleh is online now  
post #898 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 05:46 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 24,990
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5082 Post(s)
Liked: 3553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
In this SWATMOS configuration, both the Wide speaker and the Special-Wide are in front of the listener at different distances.
Once you time align and level match them, they should appear the same distance away.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #899 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 11:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nalleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,449
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1201 Post(s)
Liked: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Once you time align and level match them, they should appear the same distance away.
Correct, and phantoming should work all around you, assuming your MLP is dead center(or rather where your mic was placed when calibrated).

Triple Atmos Receivers
Atmos 13.1.8/DTS:X 9.1.8/AURO 3D 12.1

My setup:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-wha...l#post41323201

Last edited by Nalleh; 04-21-2017 at 11:43 PM.
Nalleh is online now  
post #900 of 1050 Old 04-21-2017, 11:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nalleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,449
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1201 Post(s)
Liked: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
With all the talk about how Atmos maps sounds to the Wide channels differently depending on whether you've programmed a 5.1 base or 7.1 base, one point that's being overlooked or glossed over is that this only applies to Atmos. The Dolby Surround Upmixer doesn't support Wides at all, so both the Wide and "Special Wide" speakers will go completely unused during the majority of content watched.

What do DTS:X, Neural:X and Neo:X do?
That's true, and DSU is only 7.1 base layer in these layouts.

DTS:X/Neural:X only has one kind of wide, and it's extracted the same way as NEO:X : from fronts and side surrounds. So if both AVR's have DTS:X, you can have 9.1.4 (or 9.1.8).

Triple Atmos Receivers
Atmos 13.1.8/DTS:X 9.1.8/AURO 3D 12.1

My setup:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-wha...l#post41323201
Nalleh is online now  
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