S.E.O.S.R. MEGA BUILD - Page 59 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 97Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1741 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 07:35 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ChopShop1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 2,427
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post
amp specs can be tough.
s/n is frequently just mentioned as a zinger such as >102db
then consumers run to amp with highest number.
s/n is more complex because of how it is specified and how it is measured.
s/n scales pretty well with power, but not always and not identically for all amps.
therefore direct comparability is lost.
that said, we can take a guess.
if the spec says "a weighted", subtract about 10db from the spec to compare to an "unweighted" s/n.
if the spec is for "full power" then make sure you adjust down for the power because as the signal level is increased, it will move further away from the noise floor, which makes the signal to noise appear better.
for best comparability, adjust to 1w.
so if amp "A" has >102db s/n "a weighted" at full power of 600w, and
amp "B" has >96db s/n unweighted at 1 watt, which is better?


102db - 10db because it is a weighted gives 92db.
600 watts of power is 27.8db more than 1w, which gives 64db s/n at 1 watt unweighted, which sucks.


>96db unweighted at 1 watt is, well, >96db unweighted at 1 watt, which is spectacular.


happy hunting.
Fantastic post, thank you! I will certainly refer to it today as I research my amp choices more.
ChopShop1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1742 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 07:41 AM
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 29,681
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 608 Post(s)
Liked: 2729
Consider DTS-X too. The layout and info is still sparse but it's likely to be a bigger player than DOLBY just because DTS mixes more sound tracks these days.

That is another reason to wait on your gear selection until after CEDIA this year.
Mfusick is offline  
post #1743 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 07:46 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ChopShop1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 2,427
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post
Consider DTS-X too. The layout and info is still sparse but it's likely to be a bigger player than DOLBY just because DTS mixes more sound tracks these days.

That is another reason to wait on your gear selection until after CEDIA this year.
Waiting on selection isn't really an issue to me so much as far as the processing goes....amps won't likely make a difference, PJ I've purchased because it's the best option that will fit in my budget, confidently for quite some time. speakers are what they are.

As far as processing though, I agree in waiting. The issue that Shawn brought up is that the room must be designed with the goal in mind and if it's setup a certain way, speaker wise, that commits me to certain processing needs. Now, when the replies come to my last couple of questions, if splitting the signals will work fine, I'm all for waiting for a few thousand dollar unit that can do DTS-X too....aren't the 8802s coming with that enabled, or is it just upgradable??
ChopShop1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1744 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 09:19 AM
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 29,681
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 608 Post(s)
Liked: 2729
There is plenty of theaters running two sets of sides, some professionally designed, others professionally calibrated. Might be a good stand alone thread start topic... asking about such things in the dedicated build forum. I am sure a few guys might have some explanations of how they are doing it, and why. You might want to ask in your build thread too. This forum is fun, but it's 99% clueless about stuff like calibrating dual or triple side speakers. That's more a high end question, so either the dedicated theater forum or the high end forum would have a better answer. Most in this forum can't afford the processors, amps, multiple speakers, to even consider three rows of side speakers, or they simply don't have the space for it to even consider it. It's going to be hard to get really solid information about this topic here I think.

As for the processing- there is a lot more going on in a datasat or a Trinov than a normal AVR or pre/pro. I know the ATMOS and DTS-X can support additional overheads and rears in the signal processing and the technology but to my knowledge only the lower priced consumer grade models have is 4 over heads. I've seen a couple guys looking to run (6) but that usually just means splitting one of the pairs. I think @BrolicBeast was doing something like that when @Nyal Mellor was spec out his overheads. But I might be wrong- he might be going full tilt with a Trinov too.. .IDK.

The benefit of the Trinov is the mapping- I think you can map channels from on config to another. So for example if you want to run Auro3D or DTS-X but have a different speaker config, you can accomodate for that with a Trinov. Auro uses a top base layer, and a VOG (voice of god) channel overhead. It's pretty cool when I heard it, but the speaker config is not so practical for a lot of people. As I understood it from the Trinov guy when he explained it to me, is the unit has the capability to run a lot of different formats and match them to your own set up. I think you can literally take a 6.1 system, move the screen to the back wall from the front wall and remap the system and not move the speakers at all and get like the same sound in the opposite direction or something to that effect when he explained it to me. You certainly will get a lot of functionality with something like that. If it's worth the $$$ to you is only a question you can answer. I'm way too broke for that- But I'll live vicariously through you and cheer you on

Personally I just have a hard time finding any logic into buying a pre/pro now, when I know that next year models will have DTS-X and new advancements. You might want to save a couple bucks and hit up CEDIA this year and check stuff out, figure out what you want to get and get hands on with a few things.
Mfusick is offline  
post #1745 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 11:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
klipsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,363
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopShop1 View Post
The price delta between the two setups for me is in the neighborhood of $30k....I'm not really liking the idea of a $30k experiment
I personally am never a fan of being an initial adopter. I like new technology (what I do for a living), but I'll wait for the brand new different stuff to mature a bit before I splurge cash (whether its $300 or 30k). I personally think that with these new formats, any money spent on accommodating them in a consumer range is an experiment.

I guess I'd echo Seaton's comments since I think I now understand them better ... get everything running with a Marantz or one of the $1500-$2000 pre/pro receivers. This will allow you to handle Atmos, DTS-X, Aura3D and the like ... just split the pre-output of the channels that have multiple speakers to multiple amps.

When the technology matures or a better commercial understanding and adoption is consumed ... that may be the better time to worry about assigning each speaker as a separate channel for processing/equalizing/etc. ...

EDIT: I mention the $1500-2000 range since those are the current pre/pro prices that can handle ATMOS with 4 discrete overhead channels
Mfusick likes this.
klipsch is offline  
post #1746 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 11:18 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ChopShop1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 2,427
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by klipsch View Post
I personally am never a fan of being an initial adopter. I like new technology (what I do for a living), but I'll wait for the brand new different stuff to mature a bit before I splurge cash (whether its $300 or 30k). I personally think that with these new formats, any money spent on accommodating them in a consumer range is an experiment.

I guess I'd echo Seaton's comments since I think I now understand them better ... get everything running with a Marantz or one of the $1500-$2000 pre/pro receivers. This will allow you to handle Atmos, DTS-X, Aura3D and the like ... just split the pre-output of the channels that have multiple speakers to multiple amps.

When the technology matures or a better commercial understanding and adoption is consumed ... that may be the better time to worry about assigning each speaker as a separate channel for processing/equalizing/etc. ...

EDIT: I mention the $1500-2000 range since those are the current pre/pro prices that can handle ATMOS with 4 discrete overhead channels
How dare you think reasonably!!

In all seriousness, I think you guys are right about these things. For me, I can eliminate half of my cost and probably get optimal performance. If years down the road the tech matures to a point that it makes sense, upgrade. My problem is my limited knowledge on the details of how to best split the channels etc and any negative effects it may have, so I take everyone's word when they say the proper way to do it involves some crazy expensive piece of gear.
Mfusick likes this.
ChopShop1 is offline  
post #1747 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 11:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
klipsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,363
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 100
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbqJkjfABQ#t=14m0s

Some decent info starting around 14minutes of commercial theaters ... at least I think there was when I had this playing in the background while working on my own theater construction
Mfusick likes this.
klipsch is offline  
post #1748 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 11:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
klipsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,363
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopShop1 View Post
, so I take everyone's word when they say the proper way to do it involves some crazy expensive piece of gear.

I got a bridge to sell you

If you act now, it will only be 3 easy payments of $4,999.00

Offer expires in the next 30 minutes ... call now!
Mfusick and ChopShop1 like this.
klipsch is offline  
post #1749 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 11:30 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ChopShop1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 2,427
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by klipsch View Post
I got a bridge to sell you

If you act now, it will only be 3 easy payments of $4,999.00

Offer expires in the next 30 minutes ... call now!

Funny, but at the same time, why I always need a friend close by....I'm the king of "I can't miss this deal!!" Sorth of scary actually
ChopShop1 is offline  
post #1750 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 11:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Posts: 7,988
Mentioned: 228 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2301 Post(s)
Liked: 2230
Can you post a layout of the room proposed? Seating and distances please. And, is it important to you that each seat receives "good" sound, or would you prefer several seats receives "very good" sound and the rest receive "good enough" sound?
Mfusick likes this.
tuxedocivic is offline  
post #1751 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 11:56 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ChopShop1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 2,427
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post
Can you post a layout of the room proposed? Seating and distances please. And, is it important to you that each seat receives "good" sound, or would you prefer several seats receives "very good" sound and the rest receive "good enough" sound?
Will do Tux...I will wait for Shawn to forward it to me though because the exact layout I have, won't be the same as his final plan I'm sure. To answer your other question, I want the "monoey row " to have phenomenal sound and all other areas to have sound that the average person (who will be sitting there most oftern) will say sounds great, but one of us on here may say sounds "pretty good"

I think my hang up is the concept of obejct based sound...in theory, it's the ultimate as far as I can see. The atmosphere that obejct based sound can create by placing sound in the multi channel sound field based on interpretation of where it would be, in theory, I imagine to be breathtaking. I think this is why I keep getting caught up on the Trinnov, but in reality, something like the Marantz 8802 or anything else with Auro, DTS X and Atmos, should be able to accomplish the same thing right?
ChopShop1 is offline  
post #1752 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 12:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
klipsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,363
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopShop1 View Post
I think this is why I keep getting caught up on the Trinnov, but in reality, something like the Marantz 8802 or anything else with Auro, DTS X and Atmos, should be able to accomplish the same thing right?
From what I've read/seen/heard ... yes ... your options are just more limited with the current consumer ~2k options ... however, I think those limits will not be constraints with your space in the next couple/few years ... especially with the content that is starting to be released and the other formats that have not yet been released
Mfusick likes this.
klipsch is offline  
post #1753 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 01:32 PM
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 29,681
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 608 Post(s)
Liked: 2729
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopShop1 View Post
Will do Tux...I will wait for Shawn to forward it to me though because the exact layout I have, won't be the same as his final plan I'm sure. To answer your other question, I want the "monoey row " to have phenomenal sound and all other areas to have sound that the average person (who will be sitting there most oftern) will say sounds great, but one of us on here may say sounds "pretty good"

I think my hang up is the concept of obejct based sound...in theory, it's the ultimate as far as I can see. The atmosphere that obejct based sound can create by placing sound in the multi channel sound field based on interpretation of where it would be, in theory, I imagine to be breathtaking. I think this is why I keep getting caught up on the Trinnov, but in reality, something like the Marantz 8802 or anything else with Auro, DTS X and Atmos, should be able to accomplish the same thing right?
Honestly don't discount a really good 5.1 mix and execution.

Two of my favorite demos from CEDIA last year were the Wisdom Audio and the Quest/HAA listening room. Neither had ATMOS or 3D sound technology- one was 7.1 and the other was 5.1. But they had other great things going to them. Both were better than Dolby's own official ATMOS demo using TRIAD speakers.

I really liked the Auro 3D but that is a totally different tech than ATMOS, with a different layout. And while it was cool- it's less practical and I question the availability of content. DTS-X will be big I think- because it seems like DTS actually mixes a lot of movies and a lot of BR and movies being released in the last few years feature DTS and DTS-HD sound tracks so I would assume DTS-X would just be the next step in that. Dolby True is actually less from my estimation- but dolby is a huge player so I expect ATMOS to fully catch on, and ATMOS has already been used and up and running for more than a couple years in commercial cinema so it has a head start.

I don't know the full details about DTS-X yet as far as layout goes- but my thinking is that if you have your theater designed for a standardized layout (meaning the speakers are where they should be) you won't need much mapping or fancy processing to make it all work right. But I could see a situation where you had a 11.2 theater from a couple years ago with height speakers and you want to use that to give an ATMOS effect, but want to map the overheads to the the front heights- well then the Trinov is probably your best bet for something like that.

I'm with Klipsch and Seaton- get the theater up and running with a nice $2000 PRE/PRO or at least mentally commit to that now and save yourself the worry about it, with the back of your mind thinking being next generation or a year from now you might be upgrading. You might find you are happy and never get to it, or you might find you want to upgrade and you are really happy you waited for the next generation. If your concrete isn't poured yet I would not worry about getting anything this year, $30K is a lot of coin. I'd wait to spend that when you have a theater up and running and a really good idea of what you need and want.

But I get it-- it's fun to get silly and geek out on the gear.

I think a really good 5.1 or 7.1 experience is actually better than a mediocre ATMOS experience. I have heard both more than a couple times. BUT OF COARSE WE KNOW YOU WANT BOTH And you deserve it.
erwinfrombelgium likes this.
Mfusick is offline  
post #1754 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 02:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Posts: 7,988
Mentioned: 228 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2301 Post(s)
Liked: 2230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post
Honestly don't discount a really good 5.1 mix and execution.
Instead of 7.1.4 I'm going to invent 8.1. Low Left, Low Right, Low Back Left, Low Back Right, High Left, High Right, High Back Left, High Back Right. Basically all 8 corners of an interior rectangular room. In theory, this setup should be able to place an object audibly in a room anywhere, with fewer speakers. Even under your feet. I'm not actually serious, but I think something has been lost with all these new formats. Get back to the original concept of a stereo audio image. Two sources can psycho-acoustically put the sound anywhere between those two speakers.

In other words, I agree. I'll be a 5.1 user for a long long time because it works. Atmos and other overhead formats do add another dimension, but often with the expense of very complex setups that usually just don't work. The first time I heard a 6.1 setup was with Gladiator when it came out on DVD. I remember the salesman getting all hot and horny about it. The 6th channel was a real let down. I've been skeptical ever since. Why? Because you only need 4 speakers to pan the entire sound field. Why add more? The center channel does help "anchor" the center image better than a stereo pair of speaker can, but even that is sometimes omitted with success.
Jay1, Mfusick, LTD02 and 2 others like this.
tuxedocivic is offline  
post #1755 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 02:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erwinfrombelgium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Flanders, Belgium
Posts: 1,275
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 516 Post(s)
Liked: 269
You're wrong, Tux! We need more speakers!!!

tuxedocivic likes this.

Building a 9.1.6 HT: DIYSG Titan LX [LCR] • Cinema 10 Max [Surrounds] • Volt 10 altered and added passive radiators [Tops] • LLT 550 liter Mal-x 18" subs [2] • XPR-5 • Marantz MM8003 [2] • NU6000 • XMC-1 [RMC-1 with Dirac Unison wanted] • PT AT6000E • 130" Seymour Center XD • Oppo 103EU
erwinfrombelgium is offline  
post #1756 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 02:34 PM
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 29,681
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 608 Post(s)
Liked: 2729
Floor speakers. That is what is next. Chop make sure you accommodate for adding 24 channels of floor speakers in your design.
Mfusick is offline  
post #1757 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 03:18 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
LTD02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,249
Mentioned: 872 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2985 Post(s)
Liked: 3728
"I'll be a 5.1 user for a long long time because it works."


LOL...somebody had the ballz to say it.
Mfusick likes this.

Listen. It's All Good.
LTD02 is offline  
post #1758 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 03:21 PM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 21,509
Mentioned: 204 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5986 Post(s)
Liked: 5117
Scott Simonian is offline  
post #1759 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 03:22 PM
Senior Member
 
awedio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 203
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post
Instead of 7.1.4 I'm going to invent 8.1. Low Left, Low Right, Low Back Left, Low Back Right, High Left, High Right, High Back Left, High Back Right. Basically all 8 corners of an interior rectangular room. In theory, this setup should be able to place an object audibly in a room anywhere, with fewer speakers. Even under your feet. I'm not actually serious, but I think something has been lost with all these new formats. Get back to the original concept of a stereo audio image. Two sources can psycho-acoustically put the sound anywhere between those two speakers.

In other words, I agree. I'll be a 5.1 user for a long long time because it works. Atmos and other overhead formats do add another dimension, but often with the expense of very complex setups that usually just don't work. The first time I heard a 6.1 setup was with Gladiator when it came out on DVD. I remember the salesman getting all hot and horny about it. The 6th channel was a real let down. I've been skeptical ever since. Why? Because you only need 4 speakers to pan the entire sound field. Why add more? The center channel does help "anchor" the center image better than a stereo pair of speaker can, but even that is sometimes omitted with success.
Lest we forget, companies are in biz to make some $$

You need a way to sell more speakers, more receivers, more amps etc
awedio is offline  
post #1760 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 03:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
klipsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,363
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 100
You are all wrong ... Chop would never run less than a half dozen subs ... so a 5.6 or 7.6 or 7.4.6 at a minimum
Mfusick likes this.
klipsch is offline  
post #1761 of 1832 Old 03-24-2015, 05:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Posts: 7,988
Mentioned: 228 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2301 Post(s)
Liked: 2230
True, the .1 part doesn't work well. That's just the discrete channel. I certainly agree 6 subs is a worthy pursuit. But they can all be driven from .1
tuxedocivic is offline  
post #1762 of 1832 Old 03-25-2015, 10:34 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ChopShop1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 2,427
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Wow, haven't had my AVS fix in almost 24hrs

All good points above guys, thank you all for your thoughts. I tend to agree with most everything. I believe a well set up 5.1 is a better options than poorly donw 7.1 or beyond. I sort of feel like, after watching the link Klipsch provided (thank you btw, it was very infomative for me), that splitting the signal, rather than providing individual channels, fits the mold. The concern that I have is that while my room is big by average home theater standards, but small in the grand scheme, am I in some in between place where it's too big for one row of sides, but small enough that multiple will "muddy the waters". It would also suggest that the "wide" channels are pretty important for the transition between the front and side walls. I also feel like (I haven't heard yet over course) the over heads could really add to the ATMOSphere (no pun in the room. to further complicate things, with the new formats, now the intent is in fact for each speaker to get it's own discrete signal and sound placed appropriately. I think this is what keeps tripping me up, thinking that each should have it's own discrete signal
Mfusick likes this.
ChopShop1 is offline  
post #1763 of 1832 Old 03-25-2015, 10:50 AM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 21,509
Mentioned: 204 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5986 Post(s)
Liked: 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopShop1 View Post
Wow, haven't had my AVS fix in almost 24hrs

All good points above guys, thank you all for your thoughts. I tend to agree with most everything. I believe a well set up 5.1 is a better options than poorly donw 7.1 or beyond.
So then a well set up stereo system will sound better than a poorly set up 5.1 system.

Here is a tip: don't improperly set up your HT system.


7.1 is always better than 5.1 surround. If the intent is to fully immerse yourself in a 'bubble of sound' then you need front, side and rear wall imaging. Yes you can phantom image between speakers but there is a point where you can't or do it effectively. A lot of people with a 5.1 system put their rear surround way behind them and have their front speakers well in front. This is normal but to ask your left front and left surround to cover >120 degrees of angle separation is asking A LOT! Same thing applies for above you. Cover the front, side and rear with a solid overhead soundfield.

Anyway, I don't mean to gunk up your thread but I see this argument come up all the time. Unfortunately it is spoken from people who have heard a >5.1 system that was not set up properly. 7.1 is always better when done correctly and you should always do these things correctly.

Also, to using an array... this is totally not necessary in the home environment. But if you do plan on having more than one row then definitely set it up for discrete surrounds and not simply duplicate. You will get atrocious comb filtering. Right now there is support for 7.1.4 speakers but soon there will be 9.1.4. Prepare for this and have the "wides" ahead of the first row. Place your side surrounds to the side of the first row or slightly behind it and then place the rear surrounds right behind the 2nd row. Easy.
erwinfrombelgium likes this.

Last edited by Scott Simonian; 03-25-2015 at 10:54 AM.
Scott Simonian is offline  
post #1764 of 1832 Old 03-25-2015, 11:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
klipsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,363
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Fronts, wide, sides, rears, front overheads, rear overheads.

With three rows of seating, I would think the sides are all that you might want multiples of... could probably have two sides serve for the three rows...

Multiple overheads would get interesting...

What is the distance between rows? 6 feet each row?
Mfusick likes this.
klipsch is offline  
post #1765 of 1832 Old 03-25-2015, 11:06 AM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 21,509
Mentioned: 204 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5986 Post(s)
Liked: 5117
You could but you really won't need to with just two rows of seating.

If I were I would allow for separate delay for the sets.

If I were planning an elaborate system like this I would also prepare for at least three pairs of overhead speakers. Stereo front, middle and rear.
Mfusick likes this.
Scott Simonian is offline  
post #1766 of 1832 Old 03-25-2015, 11:07 AM
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 29,681
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 608 Post(s)
Liked: 2729
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopShop1 View Post
Wow, haven't had my AVS fix in almost 24hrs

All good points above guys, thank you all for your thoughts. I tend to agree with most everything. I believe a well set up 5.1 is a better options than poorly donw 7.1 or beyond. I sort of feel like, after watching the link Klipsch provided (thank you btw, it was very infomative for me), that splitting the signal, rather than providing individual channels, fits the mold. The concern that I have is that while my room is big by average home theater standards, but small in the grand scheme, am I in some in between place where it's too big for one row of sides, but small enough that multiple will "muddy the waters". It would also suggest that the "wide" channels are pretty important for the transition between the front and side walls. I also feel like (I haven't heard yet over course) the over heads could really add to the ATMOSphere (no pun in the room. to further complicate things, with the new formats, now the intent is in fact for each speaker to get it's own discrete signal and sound placed appropriately. I think this is what keeps tripping me up, thinking that each should have it's own discrete signal
I agree. You are making progress, I can see it Sometimes it does not feel like it because every answer leads you to ask 5 more questions but I think your dedication and effort will pay huge dividends when your monster theater is up and running.

On the scale thing, you theater will be larger than most but it's still very much small room acoustics. I agree there too.

On the 5.1 thing, it's complicated when you really peel back the layers. When you watch a movie that is originally made or mixed in 5.1 with an appropriate 5.1 or 6.1/7.1 system the results are quite awesome. And certainly the top and very well executed 5.1 and 7.1 systems can top a mediocre executed ATMOS or 11.2 system in terms of experience. NO DOUBT. But I think where the 5.1 vs 7.6.4 system comparison is most valid is on the most modern material and mixes.

Movies that were originally mixed and made for 5.1 won't show the benefits of a 3D sound technology layout because it's still channel based audio. You can not create new discrete channels, so you are stuck with the original. And it was mixed with those discrete channels in a mixing house with that set up- so moving away from that won't yield huge benefits. 5.1 movies (which is most) sound great on 5.1 systems. If you have a proper 5.1 system you'll get what the mixers intended when they made the movie sound track.

But channel based audio has it's limitations. You are stuck with speaker locations and sounds at those locations. As long as it was mixed that way, you should be ok, but you are at the mercy of the mix. With object based audio and 3D sound you can place discrete audio objects in 3D sound field. That's a big advantage that I don't think a lot of the 5.1 traditionalists realize fully. So if you do a comparision of a very modern 3D sound mixed movie on a 3D sound system like ATMOS and then run the same movie on 5.1 I think the difference would be a lot bigger and more easily distinguished. The part the worries me most with trying to remain a 5.1 traditionalist is that the speaker locations and how the speakers work with each other has evolved since the days 5.1. With 7.1 discrete and ATMOS/DTS-X there is more dependency on the discrete channels and if you don't have them, or they are in the wrong place you will get an odd effect. Example- I have experienced a couple movies in discrete 7.1 where there is a sound coming directly behind you, and this is clearly intended. What if you had only a 5.1 system with side speakers ? Then the sound is coming from the side, not the back. Little stuff like that... those are the problems. The problems will become bigger as more and more new sound tracks come out in 3D audio formats, and discrete 7.1 mixes. Luckily the technology is backwards compatible so 5.1 users won't be left out- but if you want it all you really want to upgrade and maintain the newest tech.

Have you been to an ATMOS theater? Anyone else heard Auro3D or the other 3D technologies?
I know Scott has.. but still a lot of guys surprisingly have not experienced the new formats. There is probably always going to be some difference in opinion from the ones that have and have not, my first reaction to the tech was "meh" it's ok. It seemed like all it was adding was some speakers overhead. That's not really a big deal. But there is a little more to the technology. Previously cinema sound designers had to mix indpendent sounds together into channels. There is a limit with what you can do with channels, and differences in layout or room acoustics can really effect your end results as compared to what the mixers did. Object based audio allows independent sounds to exist in 3D space, and get placed in 3D sound fields. So you can get one sound discretely one place and another sound at another place- not necessarily all mixed in a track. You can get independent sounds totally free of channel restrictions, and sound can be moved anywhere including move above you. I would imagine that on the newest and best mixes the 3D audio version will be superior to the 5.1 version.

It's a case where any movie made last year and earlier the 5.1 system can hold it's own; but what about all the movies that will be made next year and the year after ? I'm just thinking out loud. Sorry for the mini derailing. I was the one who originally brought up the idea not to discount a great 5.1 execution, but while that is important the point I was making certainly was not that 5.1 is enough anymore or that you don't need more. It was more about how a really good execution of something more simple could beat out something that was not as well executed and more complicated. You don't want to over-complicate things with too many rear, side, or overhead speakers if it comes with a cost or penalty on performance at the money seat. You might want to discuss or ask about this with Shawn. If additional side speakers or overheads might cloud the money seat experience ? I doubt it, but that is stuff to ask a professional about. I'd be more willing to sacrifice say the 3rd row performance, if it came with a trade off of a better money row experience. You won't have that third row filled all the time, and when you do it's not likely as critical viewing or listening.
erwinfrombelgium likes this.
Mfusick is offline  
post #1767 of 1832 Old 03-25-2015, 11:10 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ChopShop1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 2,427
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post
So then a well set up stereo system will sound better than a poorly set up 5.1 system.

Here is a tip: don't improperly set up your HT system.


7.1 is always better than 5.1 surround. If the intent is to fully immerse yourself in a 'bubble of sound' then you need front, side and rear wall imaging. Yes you can phantom image between speakers but there is a point where you can't or do it effectively. A lot of people with a 5.1 system put their rear surround way behind them and have their front speakers well in front. This is normal but to ask your left front and left surround to cover >120 degrees of angle separation is asking A LOT! Same thing applies for above you. Cover the front, side and rear with a solid overhead soundfield.

Anyway, I don't mean to gunk up your thread but I see this argument come up all the time. Unfortunately it is spoken from people who have heard a >5.1 system that was not set up properly. 7.1 is always better when done correctly and you should always do these things correctly.

Also, to using an array... this is totally not necessary in the home environment. But if you do plan on having more than one row then definitely set it up for discrete surrounds and not simply duplicate. You will get atrocious comb filtering. Right now there is support for 7.1.4 speakers but soon there will be 9.1.4. Prepare for this and have the "wides" ahead of the first row. Place your side surrounds to the side of the first row or slightly behind it and then place the rear surrounds right behind the 2nd row. Easy.
I don't disagree at all Scott...my point I think reflects yours..it's not to say to set up your HT improperly, but to set up the max properly. If the room dictates space enough and warrants 7.1 and that can be set up well, it's better than trying to squeeze more.

Your thoughts on multiple side are my very concern. I always feel like they need their own discrete signal or it will be a negative impact they have. I've not got the knowledge on the exact effects as someone like yourself, it's just my common sense telling me this...,though some folks still claim to split the signal, apply delay and be enjoying it very much
ChopShop1 is offline  
post #1768 of 1832 Old 03-25-2015, 11:13 AM
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 29,681
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 608 Post(s)
Liked: 2729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post
So then a well set up stereo system will sound better than a poorly set up 5.1 system.

Here is a tip: don't improperly set up your HT system.


7.1 is always better than 5.1 surround. If the intent is to fully immerse yourself in a 'bubble of sound' then you need front, side and rear wall imaging. Yes you can phantom image between speakers but there is a point where you can't or do it effectively. A lot of people with a 5.1 system put their rear surround way behind them and have their front speakers well in front. This is normal but to ask your left front and left surround to cover >120 degrees of angle separation is asking A LOT! Same thing applies for above you. Cover the front, side and rear with a solid overhead soundfield.

Anyway, I don't mean to gunk up your thread but I see this argument come up all the time. Unfortunately it is spoken from people who have heard a >5.1 system that was not set up properly. 7.1 is always better when done correctly and you should always do these things correctly.

Also, to using an array... this is totally not necessary in the home environment. But if you do plan on having more than one row then definitely set it up for discrete surrounds and not simply duplicate. You will get atrocious comb filtering. Right now there is support for 7.1.4 speakers but soon there will be 9.1.4. Prepare for this and have the "wides" ahead of the first row. Place your side surrounds to the side of the first row or slightly behind it and then place the rear surrounds right behind the 2nd row. Easy.
I was busy typing and got pulled away. I didn't see this post until just now. But you'll read some shared opinion in my above post.
Well said. I wanted to kind of clarify my stance on the 5.1 thing because I was the first to really say don't discount it- and you should not. But my opinion on that is mostly watching stuff that is intended for those systems. For example I have heard 5.1 Master and Commander a bunch of times on a lot of systems- but it's never sounded better to me than the Quest/HAA room that was fully treated with Starke speakers. That's the best I have ever heard it. And the 7.1 Pacific Rim demo on the Wisdom audio was indeed better than the same clip I saw on a couple other systems, including one that was with overheads. That 7.1 system was enough for that mix. But what I have not really heard and would like to hear is how a movie that is being mixed next year in state of the art DTSX or ATMOS once the engineers really have strong understanding and execution of this new tech will sound on an outdated 5.1 set up ??? It's cool to love 5.1.. I DO. But we should also not discount the new tech possibilities any more than the capability of an excellent execution of the old tech.
Mfusick is offline  
post #1769 of 1832 Old 03-25-2015, 11:19 AM
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 29,681
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 608 Post(s)
Liked: 2729
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopShop1 View Post
I don't disagree at all Scott...my point I think reflects yours..it's not to say to set up your HT improperly, but to set up the max properly. If the room dictates space enough and warrants 7.1 and that can be set up well, it's better than trying to squeeze more.

Your thoughts on multiple side are my very concern. I always feel like they need their own discrete signal or it will be a negative impact they have. I've not got the knowledge on the exact effects as someone like yourself, it's just my common sense telling me this...,though some folks still claim to split the signal, apply delay and be enjoying it very much
Well commercial movies have how many side speakers? More than 3.
It's doable. The extra sides are for extra coverage across more rows. Since your theater is larger, it possibly does make sense.
The problem you are having is you are trying to go a place where a lot of us, and few before you, have gone. Not a lot of people have the need for multiple sides, or the room. Figure each row takes up ~7feet? So that is 20 feet or so of coverage you need for the side speakers. I can see how an extra row of overheads and sides will help you. But the answers on the set up I think you'll need to get from Erksine group or some other professionals or enthusiasts that have more experience setting up multiple surrounds.

You are asking all the right questions and looking at all the right things so I have no doubt you'll find what you are looking for.
This theater you are planning is going to be over the top and epic.
Mfusick is offline  
post #1770 of 1832 Old 03-25-2015, 11:33 AM
pnw
Advanced Member
 
pnw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 538
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopShop1 View Post
some folks still claim to split the signal, apply delay and be enjoying it very much
As one of those folks, I experimented with duplicate speakers thinking HRTF might prevent comb filtering...but it didn't. Not sure it would be so audible with program material, but combing was very evident with pink noise. Delay plus a slight roll-off on the top end resulted in no noticeable combing.
pnw is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply DIY Speakers and Subs

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