or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › 11.x sound for CIH theaters discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

11.x sound for CIH theaters discussion - Page 2

post #31 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post


The first time I looked into the possibility of adding wide, I had thought of mounting them on the side wall between the screen and the side surrounds. I may look into this again soon and having heard the extended systems in that photo from post 1, they add more than they subtract, so a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audyssey 
One key finding from the research is that first side wall reflections play a great role in determining subjective impression. The most important direction of reflected sound was found to be ±60° relative to the front. Audyssey DSX provides a pair of Wide channels (LW and RW) at ±60° with appropriate frequency response and perceptual processing to match these requirements of human hearing

Seemes to me that sidewall mounting is actually where they are ment to be.
post #32 of 96
I wasn't going to do it initinally but im now looking at doing heights. Im interested to hear what it actually does for myself.
post #33 of 96

Sidewall at about 60° and angled toward the listening position is what Audyssey usually shows in their literature.  This generally puts the F/W speakers well in front of the center listening position - much more than the side surrounds, which are usually at 90° or slightly behind center as mine are.  So, the F/W's should not confuse themselves with the Side Surround mix.  I just upgraded to a 9.2 AVR and my HT is 20' wide (with 128" wide 2.35 screen) and 32' deep, but only 8' high.  I had pre-wired for 7.2, so the extra speakers require some construction work.  My L/R mains are at screen edge which leaves about 3.5' to the side walls.  Even with that room, the suggested 60° angle puts Wides at the side wall, though still well in front (I sit at about 13').  I already have hard wired rear surrounds, so I have to choose btwn wide/side or rears and either height or wide.  Right now, I have the 2 heights on tripods to test and am about to move them to the wide position, mostly to see if I agree with Audyssey's recommendation about Wide first, then Height, then back Surround last.  

 

I was really looking forward to trying the Blu Ray of Red Tails for this, but was disappointed to see that it is only a 5.1 mix despite all the talk of its use of 11.1.  I'm not sure what they were thinking when they did that - they sure didn't take us HT owners into account!  Now I'm trying to decide on the best Blu Ray for testing large sound fields that don't get lost in just big explosions, etc.  I have all Def Tech bipoles including large front towers, but they suggest not using bipoles for wide/heights.  So I went with 4 Pro Monitor 1000's for the presence channels.  I hope this is enough "in the family" to not introduce timbre matching issues.  As usual, the hardware tech is well ahead of the content (e.g. HDTV, 3D, 4K) which makes it more difficult, which also makes the lost opportunity of Red Tails disappointing.  Any recommendations for good movie audio choices for testing would be appreciated.

post #34 of 96

I forgot to mention that in my early test of the Height channel, one movie I tried was Real Steel which had a large outdoor scene in the junk yard with lots of movement and heavy rain.  Whether it was placebo effect to justify the expense or real, the rain really did sound like it was falling all across my ceiling and on my head.  I didn't have the extra 2 speakers yet to try adding the wide, so now that I do, more testing to come.

post #35 of 96
I currently have a 7.1 system. I'm considering upgrading my surround receiver to the new Denon AVR-3313, which has Dolby ProLogic IIz or Audyssey DSX for height channels. The problem is that the receiver only has 7.2 channels of amplification, which makes you choose between back surround or height speakers. If I wanted both, I'd need to add an external amp for the extra channels.

I have no experience with separates, and have no idea what to pair with this receiver. When I look at the prices of amps, they all seem to be aimed at the high-end crowd, and sell for exhorbitant prices and take up almost as much space as the receiver itself. Can anyone point me in the direction of something that's 1) reasonably priced and 2) won't take up a lot of room on my shelf?

(I realize that there are probably better forums on this site for this question, but I don't frequent them and don't know who to ask.)
post #36 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I currently have a 7.1 system. I'm considering upgrading my surround receiver to the new Denon AVR-3313, which has Dolby ProLogic IIz or Audyssey DSX for height channels. The problem is that the receiver only has 7.2 channels of amplification, which makes you choose between back surround or height speakers. If I wanted both, I'd need to add an external amp for the extra channels.
I have no experience with separates, and have no idea what to pair with this receiver. When I look at the prices of amps, they all seem to be aimed at the high-end crowd, and sell for exhorbitant prices and take up almost as much space as the receiver itself. Can anyone point me in the direction of something that's 1) reasonably priced and 2) won't take up a lot of room on my shelf?
(I realize that there are probably better forums on this site for this question, but I don't frequent them and don't know who to ask.)

I have an Outlaw 7125 that I got for a good price at the Outlaw B-stock store. I have a Denon 4311 and I use the Outlaw, that has 7 channels of amplification, to run 5 channels (Left Wide, Left, Center, Right, Right Wide). I let the Denon power the surrounds, surround backs, and height speakers. It's easy to use external amplification, nothing to it really. Alot of people on AVS use Emotiva amps - they're even cheaper. Don't go looking at 2-channel amps - they're nearly always overpriced. Look at 5 channel and 7 channel amps.

I wouldn't necessarily call the Outlaw amps small though. Small amps are usually D-class, but are more expensive. They do run cool and quiet though.
post #37 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I currently have a 7.1 system. I'm considering upgrading my surround receiver to the new Denon AVR-3313, which has Dolby ProLogic IIz or Audyssey DSX for height channels. The problem is that the receiver only has 7.2 channels of amplification, which makes you choose between back surround or height speakers. If I wanted both, I'd need to add an external amp for the extra channels.
I have no experience with separates, and have no idea what to pair with this receiver. When I look at the prices of amps, they all seem to be aimed at the high-end crowd, and sell for exhorbitant prices and take up almost as much space as the receiver itself. Can anyone point me in the direction of something that's 1) reasonably priced and 2) won't take up a lot of room on my shelf?
(I realize that there are probably better forums on this site for this question, but I don't frequent them and don't know who to ask.)

If im correct josh the 4311 will be the way to go. You won't lose the rear backs and you will be able to utilise the heights without the need of a power amp.
post #38 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint350 View Post

I have all Def Tech bipoles including large front towers, but they suggest not using bipoles for wide/heights.

Just curious why they suggest not using bipoles ( i guess the same is said about dipoles )? I asked Chris from audyssey still waiting for a reply to decide which speaker to buy. If i went dipoles/bipoles it will definitely bounce off the side wall.
post #39 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Just curious why they suggest not using bipoles ( i guess the same is said about dipoles )?

Bi-poles should not pose any problem as they are in-phase. If turned to fire along the side walls, they create a sum so still provide reasonable location whilst still delivering the reflected sound that makes surround work.
Dipoles only become troublesome when you don't which lobe is in-phase. This is partly why THX went to direct radiators for the Back Surrounds. It cut out most of the confusion about how to fix the phase errors that occur when using four dipoles as surrounds in a 7.1 system.
post #40 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Bi-poles should not pose any problem as they are in-phase. If turned to fire along the side walls, they create a sum so still provide reasonable location whilst still delivering the reflected sound that makes surround work.
Dipoles only become troublesome when you don't which lobe is in-phase. This is partly why THX went to direct radiators for the Back Surrounds. It cut out most of the confusion about how to fix the phase errors that occur when using four dipoles as surrounds in a 7.1 system.


Thanks Mark. How you been btw? Its been awhile. I think i will stick with direct radiators.
post #41 of 96
just received a message from Chris ( Audyssey) he recommends direct radiator speakers.
post #42 of 96

I did some further experimenting and finally tried the direct radiators as Wide instead of Height (re-calibrated with Audyssey XT32 first).  Despite my earlier enjoyment of the "rain on the roof" reality feel from the Heights, I came to agree with the Audyssey recommendation that (for me) Wide should be 1st priority, then Height, then Back Surround.  There was just such a greater sense of seamless and wide front stage with the Wides vs. the fun but less useful Heights for occasional overhead sound or panning.  Even when playing the very forgettable Red Tails which was mixed for overhead panning of aircraft in both setups, I preferred the Wide over the Height.  Of course, Red Tails was dumbed down to only 5.1 on the Blu Ray so maybe it wasn't such a great test subject.  I put on a couple of good 7.1 mixes I had and both of them sounded great on Wide and a bit less impressive on Height.  My personal feeling right now is that I may forego mounting the Heights and stay with Wides and Back Surround.  Possibly some of this is due to the large size of my room width/depth but with not-so-high ceiling - making the wide sound more enveloping than the effect the Heights had.  I'm guessing we're a long way off before there is any content truly mixed in 9.1, let alone 11.1, so I think I'll be happy with this setup for a while.  It certainly brings the wide to wide screen and makes my CIH setup that much more enjoyable.  It was also nice to find a hidden feature in my new 9.2 AVR that I wasn't aware of when I bought it - but it scales aspect ratio so it's now done at the final stage before going to the PJ vs. previously in the Oppo or by the PJ itself.

 

As for Josh's question, my personal opinion would be to upgrade to a 9.1 AVR vs. trying to make the Denon 3313 work with additional components.  Franin's suggestion of the 4311 is a good one though getting a bit long in the tooth.  Onkyo also has a couple of well reviewed 9.2 units including the similarly priced TX-NR1009 (I just bought their 3009, which is 9.2 145w for just a bit more). 

post #43 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

If im correct josh the 4311 will be the way to go. You won't lose the rear backs and you will be able to utilise the heights without the need of a power amp.

The 4311 is a couple of years old at this point. From what I understand, Denon does not plan a direct upgrade for that model this year.
post #44 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The 4311 is a couple of years old at this point. From what I understand, Denon does not plan a direct upgrade for that model this year.

It does what you require, you should then be able to pick one up at a good price ( didn't realise it was that old, doesnt mean its a bad unit) , it handles 3D, airplay able to work with iphone or android and Audyssey XT32( which most current units have ).

Just a thought there Josh smile.gif
post #45 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Bi-poles should not pose any problem as they are in-phase. If turned to fire along the side walls, they create a sum so still provide reasonable location whilst still delivering the reflected sound that makes surround work.
Dipoles only become troublesome when you don't which lobe is in-phase. This is partly why THX went to direct radiators for the Back Surrounds. It cut out most of the confusion about how to fix the phase errors that occur when using four dipoles as surrounds in a 7.1 system.


I believe there is a technique when utilizing (4) Dipoles for the Side AND Back Surrounds where you reverse the rear Back Surrounds speakers as this then supposedly keeps the opposing drivers from the side surrounds and the back surrounds on the Left and Right sides respectively from being in phase with each other?

Dipoles I believe are supposed to come labeled as to the proper Left/ Right mounting orientation and this reversing technique of the rear Dipolar surrounds when used with Dipolar Side Surrounds is supposed to keep the drivers of the Left and Right speakers in the proper (out of phase) relationship with each other and help with phasing issues.


...Glenn smile.gif
Edited by Glenn Baumann - 6/10/12 at 6:45am
post #46 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

It does what you require, you should then be able to pick one up at a good price ( didn't realise it was that old, doesnt mean its a bad unit) , it handles 3D, airplay able to work with iphone or android and Audyssey XT32( which most current units have ).
Just a thought there Josh smile.gif

A receiver is a piece of equipment that I don't replace very often. I like to try to future-proof as much as possible. Being able to pass 4k video will be a requirement for whatever I buy next (even if we may not see 4k video sources for a couple years). The 3313 can do that, the 4311 cannot.
post #47 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

A receiver is a piece of equipment that I don't replace very often. I like to try to future-proof as much as possible. Being able to pass 4k video will be a requirement for whatever I buy next (even if we may not see 4k video sources for a couple years). The 3313 can do that, the 4311 cannot.

Your right josh my apologies i forgot all about 4K. I was only going by the need of front heights and a cheaper option than going separates. redface.gif
post #48 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint350 View Post

Even when playing the very forgettable Red Tails which was mixed for overhead panning of aircraft in both setups, I preferred the Wide over the Height.  Of course, Red Tails was dumbed down to only 5.1 on the Blu Ray so maybe it wasn't such a great test subject.

AFAIK, we need a Auro-3D enabled processor to decode the Height info embedded in content such as the cinema version of Red Tails. Such a processor doesn't exist AFAIK: I mailed the company behind Auro-3D, but no answer to my Q when such a toy would be avalable for the public (me, myself and I in this case)... Hence there's no point at this time to bring out a Blu-ray with Auro-3D. But if such AVR/pre-pro would hit the market, I imagine the Red Tails with Auro-3D Blu-ray would be a question of weeks...wink.gif
post #49 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint350 View Post

I did some further experimenting and finally tried the direct radiators as Wide instead of Height (re-calibrated with Audyssey XT32 first).  Despite my earlier enjoyment of the "rain on the roof" reality feel from the Heights, I came to agree with the Audyssey recommendation that (for me) Wide should be 1st priority, then Height, then Back Surround.  
What really is it that makes Audyssey state that its in the order of 1,2 and 3 (wide, height then surround last) Its a really interesting subject. 70MM used to favour 5 channels behind the screen and just one mono channel on the walls, seems like we are going back to all the audio up front. I like the idea and want to try to get some WIDES in as I only have the highs.
post #50 of 96

Audyssey explains their reasoning/theory pretty well on their website about the priority of Wide-Height-Back.  It's also been discussed pretty well in the Audyssey thread of the Receivers (or Speakers, I forget which one) forum here.  As for Red Tails, the auro 3D may be encoded/limited as suggested - but, the current Dolby solution for decoding "height" info via their PLIIZ doesn't use that coding.  It uses a proprietary algorithm to extract height info from the surround channels and send them to the Height speakers.  My assumption was that 7.1 mixed content would lend itself to this method better than a 5.1 mix, which Red Tails is.  Red Tails could have been released with 7.1 for Blu Ray w/o the auro 3D, just like any other 7.1 Blu Ray and, hopefully, the height info could still decoded even if not optimally.  To go to all the trouble to mix the film so completely and then release it in the most vanilla 5.1 was simply a disappointment to me and many others.  Of course, so was the film itself.

post #51 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint350 View Post

Audyssey explains their reasoning/theory pretty well on their website about the priority of Wide-Height-Back.  It's also been discussed pretty well in the Audyssey thread of the Receivers (or Speakers, I forget which one) forum here.  As for Red Tails, the auro 3D may be encoded/limited as suggested - but, the current Dolby solution for decoding "height" info via their PLIIZ doesn't use that coding.  It uses a proprietary algorithm to extract height info from the surround channels and send them to the Height speakers.  My assumption was that 7.1 mixed content would lend itself to this method better than a 5.1 mix, which Red Tails is.  Red Tails could have been released with 7.1 for Blu Ray w/o the auro 3D, just like any other 7.1 Blu Ray and, hopefully, the height info could still decoded even if not optimally.  To go to all the trouble to mix the film so completely and then release it in the most vanilla 5.1 was simply a disappointment to me and many others.  Of course, so was the film itself.

I share your dissappointment, especially since the chauvinist in me wants this Belgian thing that Auro-3D is (Barco spin-off) to work.wink.gif
But let's be realistic: if a well known company like Audyssey (co-founded by no other than the man who's initials are in THX) IMO has a tough task in spreading the DSX technology to the wide public (which is not you and me, we are just audio nuts), how could Auro-3D break through? I am sceptic.

But I still want it!
post #52 of 96
Auro-3D will not come to the home, and is pretty much already dead as a theatrical experiment. The industry is currently moving towards object-based sound formats such as Dolby Atmos, because mixing a movie this way makes infinitely more sense than the current channel-based formats.

SRS has an object-based format called MDA (Multi-Directional Audio) that it's trying to push for home theater use. Considering that SRS was recently purchased by DTS, I think it has a good chance at succeeding. I posted a link to my article on this earlier in the thread:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/srs-labs-mda-audio/
post #53 of 96
I wonder how long before we see Dolby atmos in receivers/pre amps? And how many channels ?
post #54 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baumann View Post

I believe there is a technique when utilizing (4) Dipoles for the Side AND Back Surrounds where you reverse the rear Back Surrounds speakers as this then supposedly keeps the opposing drivers from the side surrounds and the back surrounds on the Left and Right sides respectively from being in phase with each other?

There is no need to reverse polarity when using bipoles as the lobes are in phase and therefore can produce a corner or half tone phantom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baumann View Post

Dipoles I believe are supposed to come labeled as to the proper Left/ Right mounting orientation and this reversing technique of the rear Dipolar surrounds when used with Dipolar Side Surrounds is supposed to keep the drivers of the Left and Right speakers in the proper (out of phase) relationship with each other and help with phasing issues.
...Glenn smile.gif

Dipoles do come labeled L and R but what happens when 4 are used is that you need to physically swap left for right on the back wall.

Hope this makes sense.

<+LS-< <+LBS-< >-RBS+> >-RS+>

Note the phase difference between the LS/LBS and RS/RBS. The only point the system is in phase is between the back surrounds.

Now simply swap the speakers, not their electrical connections and you get:

<+LS-< >-RBS+> <+LBS-< >-RS+>

Now you can see that there is phase correction between the LS and LBS (marked RBS to show it has physically been swapped) and RS and RBS.

Of course your feeds go to the proper locations. Don't be swapping those.

The whole Dipole confusion would have squashed if THX had just posted their diagram back in 1999 or 2000. It appears as a few frames on the Ultimate DVD Demo disc they release about 2003 but it shows exactly the physical swapping of back surround speakers and why it works.
post #55 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Thanks Mark. How you been btw? Its been awhile. I think i will stick with direct radiators.

I've been well thanks. I just other things to do and why I have been as active here for a while.
post #56 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I wonder how long before we see Dolby atmos in receivers/pre amps? And how many channels ?

When I talked to Dolby, they claimed that they're focused on developing Atmos as a theatrical format. However, I have no doubt that they're working on home theater applications behind the scenes that they're not ready to announce yet.

SRS is making a more aggressive push to integrate its "MDA" format into home theater equipment.

The idea behind either of these object-based formats is that they're not dependant on a specific number of channels. Atmos can support up to 64 discrete channels, but not all theaters will have that many speakers. The Atmos processor will map the soundtrack onto however many speakers the theater has, from basic stereo to 63.1. Same deal with MDA (though I don't remember specifically what the top limit for MDA was). The soundtrack isn't based on channels anymore. It's based on objects in a three-dimensional space that will be reproduced by whatever the nearest speaker happens to be.
Edited by Josh Z - 6/25/12 at 11:46am
post #57 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

When I talked to Dolby, they claimed that they're focused on developing Atmos as a theatrical format. However, I have no doubt that they're working on home theater applications behind the scenes that they're not ready to announce yet.
SRS is making a more aggressive push to integrate its "MDA" format into home theater equipment.
The idea behind either of these object-based formats is that they're not dependant on a specific number of channels. Atmos can support up to 64 discrete channels, but not all theaters will have that many speakers. The Atmos processor will map the soundtrack onto however many speakers the theater has, from basic stereo to 63.1. Same deal with MDA (though I don't remember specifically what the top limit for MDA was). The soundtrack isn't based on channels anymore. It's based on objects in a three-dimensional space that will be reproduced by whatever the nearest speaker happens to be.

Thanks Josh i started reading about Multi-Dimensional Audio on the SRS website looks very interesting. Regarding the channels " The finished MDA mix can be "printed" to any legacy channel format (i.e. 2, 5.1, 7.1, 11.2, etc.) without the necessity to re-mix the project. " - from the SRS site. It will work better for homes as most have 5.1 + I guess will see what happens in the next 2 - 5 years.
post #58 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

When I talked to Dolby, they claimed that they're focused on developing Atmos as a theatrical format. However, I have no doubt that they're working on home theater applications behind the scenes that they're not ready to announce yet.
SRS is making a more aggressive push to integrate its "MDA" format into home theater equipment.
The idea behind either of these object-based formats is that they're not dependant on a specific number of channels. Atmos can support up to 64 discrete channels, but not all theaters will have that many speakers. The Atmos processor will map the soundtrack onto however many speakers the theater has, from basic stereo to 63.1. Same deal with MDA (though I don't remember specifically what the top limit for MDA was). The soundtrack isn't based on channels anymore. It's based on objects in a three-dimensional space that will be reproduced by whatever the nearest speaker happens to be.

I don't pretend to understand how "object-based" sound steering works, but I would think the greater the number of speakers, the more pin-point accuracy the programming would have. I wonder if dipole speakers would be a benefit or detractor in an Atmos/MDA system. Their diffuse sound might not be as effective as direct radiators. I have an 11.2 system comprised entirely of direct radiators, hopefully this type of system would be ideal for Atmos/MDA.
post #59 of 96
I finally got round to installing a pair of R&L Wide’s last night and I really can’t believe the difference it has made. I had to delete my two rears to do so and have them connected to my Integra DHC 80.2.

I’m running 9.4, three fronts, two highs, two wides, two surrounds, two subs and two under floor Clarke transducers. I really can’t believe the improvement of just adding the wides and removing the rears, it’s an unbelievable improvement. The sound stage is enormous and makes my 140” scope screen feel twice the size. If you have been thinking of doing this, stop thinking and just do it!
post #60 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by willscam View Post

I don't pretend to understand how "object-based" sound steering works, but I would think the greater the number of speakers, the more pin-point accuracy the programming would have.

Right, but you won't need 64 speakers in a small room. That will be overkill. You'd have speakers crammed in next to each other.
Quote:
I wonder if dipole speakers would be a benefit or detractor in an Atmos/MDA system. Their diffuse sound might not be as effective as direct radiators. I have an 11.2 system comprised entirely of direct radiators, hopefully this type of system would be ideal for Atmos/MDA.

I believe Dolby recommends direct radiators.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › 11.x sound for CIH theaters discussion